Why do environmentalists not consider compromises as legitimate?. Combining value- and process-based explanations from Finnish forest controversies

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 50, Issue , 2015, Pages 110-117

  Sarkki, Simo ^a   Heikkinen, Hannu I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OULU   (Finland)

Author keywords

Compromise; Environmental Non Governmental Organisations; Forest politics; Governance; Legitimacy; Participatory processes

Indexed keywords

COMPROMISE; FOREST POLITICS; GOVERNANCE; LEGITIMACY; NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS; PARTICIPATORY PROCESS;

EID: 84919488500     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Barabas J. How deliberation affects policy opinions. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 2004, 98:687-701.
2. Beder S. Activism versus negotiation: strategies for the environment movement. Soc. Altern. 1991, 10:53-56.
3. Beierle T.C., Cayford J. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions 2002, RFF Press, Washington.
4. Berglund E. Facts, beliefs and biases: perspectives on forest conservation in Finland. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2001, 44:833-849.
5. Bührs T., Bartlett R.V. Environmental Policy in New Zealand. The Politics of Clean and Green 1993, Oxford University Press.
6. Chilvers J. Deliberating competence: theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2008, 33:421-451.
7. Daniels S., Walker G. Working Through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach 2001, Praeger, Westport, CT.
8. Eckerberg K., Sandström C. Forest conflicts: a growing research field. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 33:3-7.
9. Eilperin J. Environmentalists Take Hard Line with Obama on Keystone XL 2013, The Washington Post, Post Politics, (24 September, At: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/09/24/environmentalists-warn-obama-against-keystone-xl-even-if-canada-compromises-on-climate/, Accessed 30 October 2013).
10. FANC Lausunto Pohjanmaan luonnonvarasuunnitelmasta 12.4.2007 At:, (12 April, Accessed 24 February 2010). http://www.sll.fi/pohjois-pohjanmaa/kannanotot/lausunto12huhti07.
11. Finnish Nature League Alue-ekologinen suunnittelu ei ratkaise valtionmaiden luonnonsuojeluongelmia (23 May, Accessed 22 February 2010). http://arkisto.sll.fi/tiedotus/2001/Alue-EkolValtionmailla.html.
12. Finnish Nature League.Alue-ekologinen suunnittelu Alue-ekologinen suunnittelu ei ole vaihtoehto vanhojen metsien suojelulle: Metsiä ei voi suojella hakkaamalla (Accessed 22 February 2010). http://luontoliitto.fi/metsa/vanha/aes/index.html.
13. Gray B. Framing of environmental disputes. Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts. Concepts and Cases 2003, 11-34. Island Press, Washington. J.R. Lewicki, B. Gray, M. Elliot (Eds.).
14. Metsätalouden ympäristöopas 2004, Edita Prima Oy, Metsähallitus. P. Heinonen, H. Karjalainen, M. Kaukonen, P. Kuokkanen (Eds.).
15. Hellström E. Conflict Cultures - Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Environmental Conflicts in Forestry. Academic Dissertation 2001, University of Helsinki, Department of Economics and Management, Environmental economics, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry and European Forest Institute and Finnish Forest Research Institute.
16. Hsieh H.-F., Shannon S.E. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005, 15:1277-1288.
17. Jokinen H. Keskustelu Metsähallituksen, Suomen luonnonsuojeluliiton ja WWF:n kesken Pohjois-Suomen vanhojen metsien suojelukysymyksistä, tilannekatsaus. Metsäneuvoston kokous, 8 March 2005. Attachment 2005, 9.
18. Karvonen L., Eisto K., Korhonen K.-M., Minkkinen I. Alue-ekologinen suunnittelu Metsähallituksessa. Yhteenveto raportti vuosilta 1996-2000. Metsähallituksen metsätalouden julkaisuja 2001, 40.
19. Kaukonen M., Kehänen A., Hamunen P., Korteniemi P., Jäntti R. Konkaan alue-ekologinen suunnitelma 2000, Metsähallitus, Vantaa.
20. Kaukonen M., Juntunen A., Laitinen E., Heikkilä U. Liperinsuon ympäristöarvometsän hoito- ja käyttösuunnitelma 2007, Metsähallitus, Vantaa.
21. Kaukonen M., Härkönen V., Rajasärkkä A. Itämäen ympäristöarvometsän hoito- ja käyttösuunnitelma 2007, Metsähallitus.
22. Kyllönen S., Colpaert A., Heikkinen H., Jokinen M., Kumpula J., Marttunen M., Muje K., Raitio K. Conflict management as a means to the sustainable use of natural resources. Silva Fennica 2006, 40(4):687-728.
23. Lachapelle P.R., McCool S.F., Patterson M.E. Barriers to effective natural resource planning in a "messy" world. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2003, 16:473-490.
24. Louhisalmi K., Kaukonen M., Lehtonen H., Parikka M., Karjalainen J., Siira J., Kemppainen M., Keränen M., Virnes P. Pohjanmaan luonnonvarasuunnitelma, kausi 2007-2016. Metsähallituksen metsätalouden julkaisuja 2007, 59.
25. Mascarenhas M., Scarce R. "The intention was good": legitimacy, consensus-based decision making, and the case of forest planning in British Columbia, Canada. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2004, 17:17-38.
26. Metsähallitus Multiple-use Forests of Metsähallitus At:, (Accessed 4 November 2013). http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/Forestry/Multipleuseforests/Sivut/default.aspx.
27. Policy Analysis Methods 1999, New Science Publishers. S.S. Nagel (Ed.).
28. Picow M. COP 15 Outcome: A Weak Climate Change Agreement, Disappointed Environmentalists, and "Oil Business As Usual" in the Middle East. Green Prophet: Sustainable News for the Middle East At:, (20 December, Accessed 30 October 2013). http://www.greenprophet.com/2009/12/copenhagen-middle-east-2/.
29. Raitio K. You Can't Please Everyone - Conflict Management Practices, Frames and Institutions in Finnish State Forests 2008, (PhD dissertation), University of Joensuu, Finland, (Available at http://joypub.joensuu.fi/publications/dissertations/raitio_conflict/raitio.pdf, Accessed 5 February 2009).
30. Raitio K. New institutional approach to collaborative forest planning on public land: methods for analysis and lessons for policy. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:309-316.
31. Raitio K. Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis - the case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 33:97-103.
32. Rantala T., Primmer E. Value positions based on forest policy stakeholder's rhetoric in Finland. Environ. Sci. Policy 2003, 6:205-216.
33. Ravikumar A., Andersson K., Larson A.M. Decentralization and forest-related conflicts in Latin America. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 33:80-86.
34. Reed M.S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141:2417-2431.
35. Rowe G., Frewer L. Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2004, 29:512-557.
36. Rytteri T. Metsän haltija. Metsähallituksen yhteiskunnallinen vastuu vuosina 1859-2005 2006, Suomen Tiedeseura, Helsinki.
37. Sandström C., Eckerberg C., Raitio K. Studying conflicts, proposing solutions - towards multi-level approaches to the analyses of forest conflicts. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 33:123-127.
38. Sarkki S. The Site Strikes Back: Multi-level Forest Governance and Participation in Northern Finland 2011, 1-111. (PhD thesis), Universitatis Ouluensis.
39. Sarkki S., Heikkinen H.I. Social movements' pressure strategies during forest disputes in Finland. J. Nat. Resour. Policy Res. 2010, 2:281-296.
40. Sarkki S., Karjalainen T.P. Science and issue advocacy in a forest debate in Finland. Polar J. 2012, 2:125-138.
41. Sarkki S., Rönkä A.R. Neoliberalizations in Finnish forestry. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 15:152-159.
42. Schön D., Rein M. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies 1994, Basic Books, New York.
43. Stirling A. "Opening up" and "closing down": power, participation and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2008, 33:262-294.
44. van de Kerkhof M. Making a difference: on the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues. Policy Sci. 2006, 39:279-299.
45. van den Hove S. Between consensus and compromise: acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy 2006, 23:10-17.
46. Wallenius P. Osallistava strateginen suunnittelu julkisten luonnonvarojen hoidossa. Metsähallituksen metsätalouden julkaisuja 2001, Vantaa, Metsähallitus.
47. Wapner P. Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics 1996, State University of New York Press, New York.
48. Webler T. Right discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation 1995, 35-86. Kluwer, Dordrecht. O. Renn, T. Webler, P. Wiedemann (Eds.).
49. Webler T., Tuler S., Krueger R. What is a good public participation process?: Five perspectives from the public. Environ. Manag. 2001, 27:435-450.
50. Wilson D.C. The Paradoxes of Transparency: Science and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management in Europe 2009, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
51. WWF Pohjois-Suomen suojeluneuvotteluja olisi pitänyt jatkaa sovitulla tavalla At:, (17 June, Accessed 23 November 2009). http://www.wwf.fi/tiedotus/tiedotteet/tiedotteet_2005/pohjois_suomen_suojeluneuvotteluja.html.
52. Zachrisson A., Lindahl K.B. Conflict resolution through collaboration: preconditions and limitations in forest and nature conservation controversies. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 33:39-46.
53. Zahrnt V. Should Environmentalists Adopt a Principled Position on CAP Reform or Compromise? CAP 2020 At:, (2 April, Accessed 30 October 2013). http://www.cap2020.ieep.eu/2009/4/2/should-environmentalists-adopt-a-principled-position-on-cap-reform-or-compromise.