TY - JOUR
T1 - Power analysis as a tool to analyse trade-offs between ecosystem services in forest management
T2 - A case study from nine European countries
AU - Juerges, Nataly
AU - Arts, Bas
AU - Masiero, Mauro
AU - Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke
AU - Borges, José G.
AU - Brodrechtova, Yvonne
AU - Brukas, Vilis
AU - Canadas, Maria João
AU - Carvalho, Pedro Ochôa
AU - Corradini, Giulia
AU - Corrigan, Edwin
AU - Felton, Adam
AU - Karahalil, Uzay
AU - Karakoc, Uğur
AU - Krott, Max
AU - van Laar, Jim
AU - Lodin, Isak
AU - Lundholm, Anders
AU - Makrickienė, Ekaterina
AU - Marques, Marlene
AU - Mendes, Américo
AU - Mozgeris, Gintautas
AU - Novais, Ana
AU - Pettenella, Davide
AU - Pivoriūnas, Nerijus
AU - Sarı, Burak
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Forests are of major importance to people, providing fundamental ecosystem services (ESs). Increasing the supply of an ES might negatively affect the supply of another ES. For example, increasing game densities might reduce timber production. Such trade-offs among ESs may lead to conflicts between actors interested in prioritizing different ESs. This study describes which actors dominated conflicts about ES trade-offs, and which power strategies they used to do so. Forest management practices and resulting trade-offs between ESs differ widely among the studied countries: Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey. We triangulated 220 qualitative interviews, literature review, document analysis, and participatory observations. We mapped the interests of actors in ESs and identified conflicts between interests. We tested three hypotheses about which actors were more or less powerful, enabling them to be winners and losers in ES conflicts. Cultural and regulating and maintenance ESs played an important role in conflicts about forest ES trade-offs. We identified the power relations of actors with different interests in ES. Local interests often dominated national interests. Actors interested in provisioning ESs had strong power resources but because of specific bio-geophysical, political or economic conditions, actors with interest in regulating and maintenance ES or cultural ESs can have equal or stronger power resources. The study highlights the relevance of including power analysis in ES research.
AB - Forests are of major importance to people, providing fundamental ecosystem services (ESs). Increasing the supply of an ES might negatively affect the supply of another ES. For example, increasing game densities might reduce timber production. Such trade-offs among ESs may lead to conflicts between actors interested in prioritizing different ESs. This study describes which actors dominated conflicts about ES trade-offs, and which power strategies they used to do so. Forest management practices and resulting trade-offs between ESs differ widely among the studied countries: Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Turkey. We triangulated 220 qualitative interviews, literature review, document analysis, and participatory observations. We mapped the interests of actors in ESs and identified conflicts between interests. We tested three hypotheses about which actors were more or less powerful, enabling them to be winners and losers in ES conflicts. Cultural and regulating and maintenance ESs played an important role in conflicts about forest ES trade-offs. We identified the power relations of actors with different interests in ES. Local interests often dominated national interests. Actors interested in provisioning ESs had strong power resources but because of specific bio-geophysical, political or economic conditions, actors with interest in regulating and maintenance ES or cultural ESs can have equal or stronger power resources. The study highlights the relevance of including power analysis in ES research.
KW - Conflict
KW - Ecosystem service
KW - Europe
KW - Forest management
KW - Policy analysis
KW - Power
KW - Trade-off
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101290
DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101290
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85105249732
SN - 2212-0416
VL - 49
JO - Ecosystem Services
JF - Ecosystem Services
M1 - 101290
ER -