In theory, sustainable forest management (SFM) puts public participation
at the epicenter of the decision-making process. However, in reality, the
situation is different. The growing importance of public participation seems
essential for the implementation of sustainable forest management. The aim of
this study is to assess the implementation of a theoretical concept closely
related to SFM, integrated land and resource management (ILRM). This Canadian
concept aims to integrate many forest functions using participatory tools.
Using semi-structured interviews with experts, we clarify our theoretical
concept and adapt it to reality. Our results show that better communication
between stakeholders is necessary. It is also important to increase the
flexibility of the timber harvest system and adapted forest zoning should be
considered. A new concept, the forest culture, seems to be a key element that
needs to be considered upstream of forest management. A newdefinitionof ILRM
is proposedin order to betterreach social values.
References
[1]
ITTO (1998) Manual for the Application of Criteria & Indicators for Sustainable Mgmt of Natural Tropical Forests.
[2]
Nelson, R.H. (2013) Multiple-Use Forest Management versus Ecosystem Forest Management: A Religious Question? Forest Policy and Economics, 35, 9-20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.06.003
[3]
Muir, J. (1901) Our National Parks. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.53718
[4]
Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., Brukas, V. and Wallin, I. (2017) Multiple-Use Forestry as a Boundary Object: From a Shared Ideal to Multiple Realities. Land Use Policy, 69, 247-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.029
[5]
Trivino, M., Juutinen, A., Mazziotta, A. and Miettinen, K. (2015) Managing a Boreal Forest Landscape for Providing Timber, Storing and Sequestering Carbon. Ecosystem Services, 14, 179-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.003
[6]
Trivino, M., Pohjanmies, T., Mazziotta, A., Juutinen, A., Podkopaev, D., Le Tortorec, E. and Monkkonen, M. (2017) Optimizing Management to Enhance Multifunctionality in a Boreal Forest Landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 61-70.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12790
[7]
Safeeq, M., Grant, G.E., Lewis, S.L. and Hayes, S.K. (2020) Disentangling Effects of Forest Harvest on Long-Term Hydrologic and Sediment Dynamics, Western Cascades, Oregon. Journal of Hydrology, 580, Article ID: 124259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124259
[8]
Scott, J.C. (1998) Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University, New Heaven, Vol. 33.
[9]
Juutinen, A. (2008) Old-Growth Boreal Forests: Worth Protecting for Biodiversity? Journal of Forest Economics, 14, 242-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2007.10.003
[10]
Bjarstig, T. and Sténs, A. (2018) Social Values of Forests and Production of New Goods and Services: The Views of Swedish Family Forest Owners. Small-Scale Forestry, 17, 125-146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-017-9379-9
[11]
Grober, U. (2007) Deep Roots: A Conceptual History of “Sustainable Development” (Nachhaltigkeit). WZB Discuss. Pap. P 2007-0022007, 1-30.
[12]
Behan, R.W. (1978) Political Popularity and Conceptual Nonsense: The Strange Case of Sustained Yield Forestry. Environmental Law, 8, 309-342.
[13]
Borrass, L., Kleinschmit, D. and Winkel, G. (2017) The “German Model” of Integrative Multifunctional Forest Management—Analysing the Emergence and Political Evolution of a Forest Management Concept. Forest Policy and Economics, 77, 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.028
[14]
Ruppert-Winkel, C. and Winkel, G. (2011) Hidden in the Woods? Meaning, Determining, and Practicing of “Common Welfare” in the Case of the German Public Forests. European Journal of Forest Research, 130, 421-434.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-009-0335-x
[15]
Haaland, C., Fry, G. and Peterson, A. (2011) Designing Farmland for Multifunctionality. Landscape Research, 36, 41-62.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2010.536202
[16]
Rossing, W.A.H., Zander, P., Josien, E., Groot, J.C.J., Meyer, B.C. and Knierim, A. (2007) Integrative Modelling Approaches for Analysis of Impact of Multifunctional Agriculture: A Review for France, Germany and the Netherlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 120, 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.031
[17]
Romstad, E., Vatn, A., Rorstad, P.K. and Soyland, V. (2000) Multifunctional Agriculture Implications for Policy Design.
[18]
Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M.A., Costanza, R., Elmqvist, T., Flint, C.G., Gobster, P.H., et al. (2012) Contributions of Cultural Services to the Ecosystem Services Agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 8812-8819.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109
[19]
Hirons, M., Comberti, C. and Dunford, R. (2016) Valuing Cultural Ecosystem Services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 545-574.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085831
[20]
Hernández-Morcillo, M., Plieninger, T. and Bieling, C. (2013) An Empirical Review of Cultural Ecosystem Service Indicators. Ecological Indicators, 29, 434-444.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013
[21]
Angarita-Baéz, J.A., Pérez-Minana, E., Beltrán Vargas, J.E., Ruiz Agudelo, C.A., Paez Ortiz, A., Palacios, E. and Willcock, S. (2017) Assessing and Mapping Cultural Ecosystem Services at Community Level in the Colombian Amazon. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 13, 280-296.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1345981
[22]
Gomez-Limon, J.A., Vera-Toscano, E. and Rico-Gonzalez, M. (2012) Measuring Individual Preferences for Rural Multifunctionality: The Importance of Demographic and Residential Heterogeneity. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63, 1-24.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2011.00325.x
[23]
Brandt, J. and Vejre, H. (2004) Multifunctional Landscapes. WIT Press, Southampton, Boston.
[24]
Zhang, Y. (2005) Multiple-Use Forestry vs. Forestland-Use Specialization Revisited. Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 143-156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00028-5
[25]
Winkel, G. (2014) When the Pendulum Doesn’t Find Its Center: Environmental Narratives, Strategies, and Forest Policy Change in the US Pacific Northwest. Global Environmental Change, 27, 84-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.009
[26]
Glück, P. (1987) Social Values in Forestry. Ambio, 16, 158-160.
[27]
Beckley, T.M., Parkins, J.R. and Sheppard, S.R.J. (2005) Public Participation in Sustainable Forest Management: A Reference Guide. Edmonton, Alberta.
[28]
Steelman, T.A. and Ascher, W. (1997) Public Involvement Methods in Natural Resource Policy Making: Advantages, Disadvantages and Trade-Offs. Political Science, 30, 71-90. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1931047
[29]
éditeur officiel du Québec Sustainable Forest Development Act.
http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/A-18.1/20100401
[30]
Desrosiers, R., Lefebvre, S., Munoz, P. and Paquet, J. (2010) Guide sur la gestion intégrée des ressources et du territoire: Son application dans l’élaboration des plans d’aménagement forestier intégré.
[31]
(1997) Ministère des Ressources naturelles Planifier la gestion intégrée des ressources et du milieu forestier—Une démarche; Québec, Canada.
[32]
Tardif, J., Bissonnette, J.F. and Dupras, J. (2017) La participation publique dans la gestion des forêts du Québec: Réorganisation de la concertation régionale dans un contexte institutionnel en transition. Forestry Chronicle, 93, 58-70.
https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc2017-011
[33]
Martineau-Delisle, C. and Nadeau, S. (2010) Assessing the Effects of Public Participation Processes from the Point of View of Participants: Significance, Achievements, and Challenges. Forestry Chronicle, 86, 753-765.
https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc86753-6
[34]
Bouthillier, L. and Roberge, A. (2007) Les intentions des programmes de participation du public appliqués par l’industrie forestière: état de la situation au Québec. Forestry Chronicle, 83, 810-817. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc83810-6
[35]
Chiasson, G. and Leclerc, é. (2013) La gouvernance locale des forêts publiques québécoises. Les Presse, Québec.
[36]
Charmaz, K. and Belgrave, L.L. (2015) Grounded Theory. In: The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Hoboken, 1-6.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosg070.pub2
[37]
Guillemette, F. (2006) L’approche de la Grounded Theory; pour innover? Recherches Qualitatives, 26, 32-50.
[38]
(2018) Institut de la statistique du Québec Le bilan démographique du Québec; Québec.
[39]
(2019) MFFP Ressources et industries forestières du Québec, portrait statistique 2018; Québec.
[40]
Ministère du Tourisme Le tourisme en bref au Québec en 2017.
http://www.tourisme.gouv.qc.ca/intelligence-affaires/tourisme-bref-2017.html#titre6
[41]
Saldana, J. (2010) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researches. SAGE, Los Angeles.
[42]
Vincent, S.G. and Shriver, T.E. (2009) Framing Contests in Environmental Decision-Making: A Case Study of the Tar Creek (Oklahoma) Superfund Site. American Journal of Environmental Sciences, 5, 164-178.
https://doi.org/10.3844/ajessp.2009.164.178
[43]
Lidskog, R., Sundqvist, G., Kall, A.S., Sandin, P. and Larsson, S. (2013) Intensive Forestry in Sweden: Stakeholders’ Evaluation of Benefits and Risk. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 10, 145-160.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2013.841261
[44]
Idrissou, L., van Paassen, A., Aarts, N. and Leeuwis, C. (2011) From Cohesion to Conflict in Participatory Forest Management: The Case of Ouémé Supérieur and N’Dali (OSN) Forests in Benin. Forest Policy and Economics, 13, 525-534.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.06.001
[45]
Ribe, R.G. (2006) Perceptions of Forestry Alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: Information Effects and Acceptability Distribution Analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 100-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.05.004
[46]
Wyatt, S., Rousseau, M.H., Nadeau, S., Thiffault, N. and Guay, L. (2011) Social Concerns, Risk and the Acceptability of Forest Vegetation Management Alternatives: Insights for Managers. Forestry Chronicle, 87, 274-289.
https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc2011-014
[47]
Nilausen, C., Gélinas, N. and Bull, G. (2016) Perceived Acceptability of Implementing Marker-Assisted Selection in the Forests of British Columbia. Forests, 7, 286.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f7110286
[48]
Western, J.M., Cheng, A.S., Anderson, N.M. and Motley, P. (2017) Examining the Social Acceptability of Forest Biomass Harvesting and Utilization from Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration: A Case Study from Western Colorado, USA. Journal of Forestry, 115, 530-539. https://doi.org/10.5849/JOF-2016-086
[49]
MFFP (2015) Stratégie d’aménagement durable des forêts. Québec.
[50]
Kangas, A., Saarinen, N., Saarikoski, H., Leskinen, L.A., Hujala, T. and Tikkanen, J. (2010) Stakeholder Perspectives about Proper Participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics, 12, 213-222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.10.006
[51]
Batavia, C. and Nelson, M.P. (2016) Conceptual Ambiguities and Practical Challenges of Ecological Forestry: A Critical Review. Journal of Forestry, 114, 572-581.
https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-103
[52]
Kant, S., Wang, S., Deegen, P., Hostettler, M., von Detten, R., Howard, T., Laband, D., Montgomery, C., Robert, N., Sekot, W., et al. (2013) New Frontiers of Forest Economics. Forest Policy and Economics, 35, 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.06.002
[53]
Horstkotte, T., Lind, T. and Moen, J. (2016) Quantifying the Implications of Different Land Users’ Priorities in the Management of Boreal Multiple-Use Forests. Environmental Management, 57, 770-783.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0643-5
[54]
Kant, S. (2009) Recent Global Trends in Forest Tenures. Forestry Chronicle, 85, 849-858. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc85849-6
