Unveiling the Centrality of Knowledge in Stakeholder Involvement Strategies Regarding Public Forest Management
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Knowledge: Definitions and Perspectives
2.2. Stakeholders’ Involvement in Forest Management
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Case Study—Matas Do Litoral
3.2. Stakeholder Identification
3.3. Data Collection and Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Stakeholders’ Profiles
4.2. Interest and Influence on Public Forest Management Policies
4.3. Knowledge about and Involvement in Public Forest Management Policies
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Astorga-Vargas, M.A.; Flores-Rios, B.L.; Licea-Sandoval, G.; Gonzalez-Navarro, F.F. Explicit and tacit knowledge conversion effects, in software engineering undergraduate students. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2017, 15, 336–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Molen, F. How knowledge enables governance: The coproduction of environmental governance capacity. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 87, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Nahyan, M.T.; Sohal, A.; Hawas, Y.; Fildes, B. Communication, coordination, decision-making and knowledge-sharing: A case study in construction management. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 23, 1764–1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumaran, D.; Summerfield, J.J.; Hassabis, D.; Maguire, E.A. Tracking the Emergence of Conceptual Knowledge during Human Decision Making. Neuron 2009, 63, 889–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- KMach, K.J.; Lemos, M.C.; Meadow, A.M.; Wyborn, C.; Klenk, N.; Arnott, J.C.; Ardoin, N.M.; Fieseler, C.; Moss, R.H.; Nichols, L.; et al. Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 42, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Côte, M.-A.; Bouthillier, L. Assessing the effect of public involvement processes in forest management in Quebec. For. Policy Econ. 2002, 4, 213–225. [Google Scholar]
- Poudyal, B.H.; Maraseni, T.; Cockfield, G. Scientific forest management practice in Nepal: Critical reflections from stakeholders’ perspectives. Forests 2020, 11, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vacik, H.; Torresan, C.; Hujala, T.; Khadka, C.; Reynolds, K. The role of knowledge management tools in supporting sustainable forest management. For. Syst. 2013, 22, 442–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krott, M.; Bader, A.; Schusser, C.; Devkota, R.; Maryudi, A.; Giessen, L.; Aurenhammer, H. Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 49, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahmani, T.A.; Nurrochmat, D.R.; Park, M.S.; Boer, R.; Ekayani, M.; Satria, A. Reconciling Conflict of Interest in the Management of Forest Restoration Ecosystem: A Strategy to Incorporate Different Interests of Stakeholders in the Utilization of the Harapan Rainforest, Jambi, Indonesia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raum, S. A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 170–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S.; Graves, A.; Dandy, N.; Posthumus, H.; Hubacek, K.; Morris, J.; Prell, C.; Quinn, C.H.; Stringer, L.C. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1933–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryson, J.M. What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder Identificatixon and analysis techniques. Public Manag. Rev. 2004, 6, 21–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahzad, M.; Qu, Y.; Zafar, A.U.; Ding, X.; Rehman, S.U. Translating stakeholders’ pressure into environmental practices—The mediating role of knowledge management. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 124163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillipson, J.; Lowe, P.; Proctor, A.; Ruto, E. Stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange in environmental research. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 95, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keown, K.; Van Eerd, D.; Irvin, E. Stakeholder Engagement Opportunities in Systematic Reviews: Knowledge Transfer for Policy and Practice. J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 2008, 28, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valente, S.; Coelho, C.; Ribeiro, C.; Liniger, H.; Schwilch, G.; Figueiredo, E.; Bachmann, F. How much management is enough? Stakeholder views on forest management in fire-prone areas in central Portugal. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 53, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandes, M.E.; Oliveira, M.; Fidalgo, B.; Torres, F.; Gonçalves, H.; Carvalho, P.O.; Valente, S.; Colaço, C.; Marchante, E.; Marchante, H.; et al. Programa de Recuperação Das Matas Litorais: Participação Pública e Sensibilização; Politécnico de Leiria: Leiria, Portugal, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Raju, P.S.; Lonial, S.C.; Mangold, W.G. Differential effects of subjective knowledge, objective knowledge, and usage experience on decision making: An exploratory investigation. J. Consum. Psychol. 1995, 4, 153–180. [Google Scholar]
- Ellis, S.C. Meaningful Consideration? A Review of Traditional Knowledge in Environmental Decision Making. Arctic 2005, 58, 66–77. [Google Scholar]
- Ellis, D.; Thompson, F. The effect of wine knowledge type on variety seeking behavior in wine purchasing. J. Wine Res. 2018, 29, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flynn, L.R.; Goldsmith, R.E. A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge. J. Bus. Res. 1999, 46, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frøst, M.B.; Noble, A.C. Preliminary Study of the Effect of Knowledge and Sensory Expertise on Liking for Red Wines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2002, 53, 275–284. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, J.J.; Ahn, S.Y.; Serido, J.; Shim, S. Earlier financial literacy and later financial behaviour of college students. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 38, 593–601. [Google Scholar]
- Hau, L.N.; Evangelista, F. Acquiring tacit and explicit marketing knowledge from foreign partners in IJVs. J. Bus. Res. 2007, 60, 1152–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nonaka, I.; Lewin, A.Y. A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organ. Sci. 1994, 5, 14–37. [Google Scholar]
- Ode, E.; Ayavoo, R. The mediating role of knowledge application in the relationship between knowledge management practices and firm innovation. J. Innov. Knowl. 2020, 5, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, J. Impact of total quality management on corporate sustainability through the mediating effect of knowledge management. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolisani, E.; Bratianu, C. The Elusive Definition of Knowledge. In Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; Volume 4, pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Attia, A.; Salama, I. Knowledge management capability and supply chain management practices in the Saudi food industry. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2018, 24, 459–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, F.; Li, M.; Clarke, S. Knowledge, management, and knowledge management in business operations. J. Knowl. Manag. 2008, 12, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiig, K.M. Knowledge Management: An Introduction and Perspective. J. Knowl. Manag. 1997, 1, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicolas, R. Knowledge management impacts on decision making process. J. Knowl. Manag. 2004, 8, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvesson, M.; Kärreman, D. Odd Couple: Making Sense of the Curious Concept of Knowledge Management. J. Manag. Stud. 2001, 38, 995–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, B.; Iyer, L.S.; Aronson, J.E. Knowledge management: Practices and challenges. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2000, 100, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armitage, D.; De Loë, R.C.; Morris, M.; Edwards, T.W.; Gerlak, A.K.; Hall, R.I.; Huitema, D.; Ison, R.; Livingstone, D.; MacDonald, G.; et al. Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance. Ambio 2015, 44, 353–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Runhaar, H.A.C.; van der Windt, H.J.; van Tatenhove, J.P.M. Productive science-policy interactions for sustainable coastal management: Conclusions from the Wadden Sea area. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 55, 467–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birkenholtz, T. Contesting expertise: The politics of environmental knowledge in northern Indian groundwater practices. Geoforum 2008, 39, 466–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Enst, W.I.; Runhaar, H.A.C.; Driessen, P.P.J. Boundary organisations and their strategies: Three cases in the Wadden Sea. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 55, 416–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortwin, R. Stakeholder and Public Involvement in Risk Governance. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2015, 6, 8–20. [Google Scholar]
- Juerges, N.; Arts, B.; Masiero, M.; Hoogstra-Klein, M.; Borges, J.G.; Brodrechtova, Y.; Brukas, V.; Canadas, M.J.; Carvalho, P.O.; Corradini, G.; et al. Power analysis as a tool to analyse trade-offs between ecosystem services in forest management: A case study from nine European countries. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 49, 101290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edelenbos, J.; van Buuren, A.; van Schie, N. Co-producing knowledge: Joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feinstein, N.W. The Paradox of Public Knowledge in Environmental Sociology. In The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020; pp. 362–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siry, J.P.; Cubbage, F.W.; Ahmed, M.R. Sustainable forest management: Global trends and opportunities. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 551–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marta-Costa, A.; Torres-Manso, F.; Pinto, R.; Tibério, L.; Carneiro, I. Stakeholders’ perception of forest management: A Portuguese mountain case study. For. Syst. 2016, 25, e052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciccarino, I.D.; Fernandes, M.E. A bibliometric review of stakeholders’ participation in sustainable forest management. Can. J. For. Res. 2023, 54, 252–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gyan, C.; Baffoe, M. “I Feel Like I Don’t Exist in This Community”: Stakeholders’ Thought on Their Noninvolvement in Community Development Initiatives in Kenyase. Public Policy Adm. Res. 2014, 4, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Franklin, A.L. Involving Stakeholders in Organizational Processes. Int. J. Public Adm. 2001, 24, 385–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chi, C.S.; Xu, J.; Xue, L. Public participation in environmental impact assessment for public projects: A case of non-participation. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013, 57, 1422–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Basic Books; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Grimble, R.; Chan, M.K. Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing countries: Some practical guidelines for making management more participatory and effective. Nat. Resour. Forum 1995, 19, 113–124. [Google Scholar]
- Brugha, R.; Varavasovszky, Z. Stakeholder analysis: A review. Healthy Policy Plan. 2000, 15, 239–246. [Google Scholar]
- Freitas, F.; Mendes, J.M. Disaster, reconstruction, and data for social good: The case of wildfires in Portugal. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 2018, 10, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figueiredo, E.; Ribeiro, C.; Ferreira, C.; Fernandes, E. Quem colabora na gestão das Matas do Litoral? Uma análise exploratória da rede de agentes. Silva Lusit. 2022, 30, 57–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figueiredo, E.; Ribeiro, C.; Fernandes, M.E. “Not Even Hell Must Look like This”—Print Media Narratives about the October 2017 Wildfires in Portuguese Public-Managed Forests. Fire 2024, 7, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comissão Técnica Independente, C.; Guerreiro, J.; Fonseca, C.; Salgueiro, A.; Fernandes, P.; Lopez Iglésias, E.; de Neufville, R.; Mateus, F.; Castellnou Ribau, M.; Sande Silva, J.; et al. Avaliação dos Incêndios Ocorridos Entre 14 e 16 de Outubro de 2017 em Portugal Continental–Relatório Final; Assembleia da República: Lisboa, Portugal, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Boiral, O.; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. Managing Biodiversity Through Stakeholder Involvement: Why, Who, and for What Initiatives? J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 403–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, C.; Leydesdorff, L.; Schophaus, M. Science shops in Europe: The public as stakeholder. Sci. Public Policy 2004, 31, 199–211. [Google Scholar]
- Rowley, T.I.; Moldoveanu, M. When Will Stakeholder Groups Act? An Interest- and Identity-Based Model of Stakeholder Group Mobilization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2003, 28, 204–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Relative Frequency | ||
---|---|---|
Respondents’ profile (N = 174) | Gender | |
Women | 22.3% | |
Men | 77.7% | |
Age | ||
≥4 years old | 13.1% | |
35 to 54 years old | 57.7% | |
≤55 years old | 29.2% | |
Education level | ||
Up to 9 years | 17.7% | |
10–12 years | 20.6% | |
Higher education | 61.7% | |
Job positions | ||
Executive positions | 59.4% | |
Administrative positions | 28.0% | |
Operational position | 6.3% | |
Others | 6.3% | |
Stakeholders‘ profiles 2 | Business size 1 (N = 152) | |
Micro business | 43.1% | |
Small business | 28.8% | |
Medium-sized business | 15.7% | |
Large business | 12.4% | |
Stakeholder type (N = 174) | ||
Governmental organizations (GOs) | 27.0% | |
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) | 42.0% | |
Private firms | 31.0% | |
Scope of action (N = 146) | ||
International | 15.7% | |
National | 42.9% | |
Regional | 22.4% | |
Inter-municipal | 5.4% | |
Local | 13.6% | |
Domain of action (N = 152) | ||
Practices for biodiversity management | 58.3% | |
Sociopolitical actions | 20.0% | |
Research and conservation | 21.7% |
Knowledge | |||
---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | X2 Test p-Value | |
Involvement | |||
Yes | 26.5% | 6.6% | 0.000 *** |
No | 73.5% | 93.4% |
Type of Initiatives | Forms of Participation Relative Frequency * | ||
---|---|---|---|
Promote | Collaborate | Don’t Know/ Do Not Participate | |
Practices for biodiversity | |||
Definition of management strategies | 16% | 52% | 32% |
Definition of measures and interventions for the Matas do Litoral | 16% | 28% | 56% |
Forestry certification | 0% | 12% | 88% |
Implementation of forestry operations | 28% | 52% | 20% |
Sociopolitical actions | |||
Awareness-raising and citizenship actions | 44% | 28% | 28% |
Surveillance and enforcement actions | 16% | 40% | 44% |
Research and conservation | |||
Actions to protect and conserve nature and biodiversity | 24% | 56% | 20% |
Actions for the recovery of burnt areas | 24% | 52% | 24% |
Provision of services in the area of tourism and recreation | 12% | 32% | 56% |
Actions to fight fires and defend forest areas | 12% | 52% | 36% |
Research | 4% | 32% | 64% |
Others | |||
Exploitation of wood products | 12% | 8% | 50% |
Exploitation of non-wood products | 8% | 4% | 88% |
Hunting and fishing activities | 0% | 28% | 72% |
Knowledge | Involvement | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | χ2 Test p-Value | Yes | No | χ2 Test p-Value | |
Stakeholders’ interest | ||||||
Low | 5.9% | 32.7% | 0.000 *** | 8.0% | 24.7% | 0.173 |
Moderate | 14.7% | 9.3% | 12.0% | 11.3% | ||
High | 79.4% | 57.9% | 80.0% | 64.0% | ||
Stakeholders’ influence | ||||||
Low | 61.8% | 83.2% | 0.006 ** | 36.0% | 81.3% | 0.000 *** |
Moderate | 20.6% | 9.3% | 16.0% | 13.3% | ||
High | 17.6% | 7.5% | 48.0% | 5.3% | ||
Stakeholder type | ||||||
Governmental organizations (GOs) | 41.2% | 18.0% | 0.007 ** | 40.0% | 24.7% | 0.365 |
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) | 33.8% | 46.5% | 40.0% | 42.0% | ||
Private firms | 25.0% | 35.5% | 20.0% | 33.4% | ||
Business size | ||||||
Micro business | 37.5% | 47.7% | 0.390 | 27.3% | 46.2% | 0.106 * |
Small business | 32.8% | 26.1% | 40.9% | 26.9% | ||
Medium-sized business | 14.1% | 17.0% | 9.1% | 16.9% | ||
Large business | 15.6% | 9.1% | 22.7% | 10.0% | ||
Scope of action | ||||||
International | 17.5% | 13.5% | 0.077 * | 8.7% | 16.3% | 0.410 |
National | 38.6% | 46.1% | 39.1% | 43.9% | ||
Regional | 15.8% | 27.0% | 21.7% | 22.8% | ||
Inter-municipal | 5.3% | 5.6% | 4.3% | 5.7% | ||
Local | 22.8% | 7.9% | 26.1% | 11.4% | ||
Domain of action | ||||||
Practices for biodiversity management | 52.9% | 62.3% | 0.066 * | 44.0% | 61.1% | 0.153 |
Sociopolitical actions | 16.2% | 21.7% | 20.0% | 19.5% | ||
Research and conservation | 30.9% | 16.0% | 36.0% | 16.5% |
Agreement Mean Score | Kruskal-Wallis Test p-Values | |
---|---|---|
Stakeholders’ interest | ||
Low | 3 | 0.312 |
Moderate | 3 | |
High | 3 | |
Stakeholders’ influence | ||
Low | 3 | 0.004 ** |
Moderate | 3 | |
High | 4 | |
Stakeholder type | ||
Governmental organizations (GOs) | 3 | 0.025 ** |
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) | 2 | |
Private firms | 3 | |
Business size | ||
Micro business | 3 | 0.046 ** |
Small business | 3 | |
Medium-sized business | 3 | |
Large business | 4 | |
Scope of action | ||
International | 3 | 0.552 |
National | 3 | |
Regional | 3 | |
Inter-municipal | 4 | |
Local | 2 | |
Domain of action | ||
Practices for biodiversity management | 3 | 0.418 |
Sociopolitical actions | 3 | |
Research and conservation | 3 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ferreira, C.; Fernandes, M.E.; Figueiredo, E. Unveiling the Centrality of Knowledge in Stakeholder Involvement Strategies Regarding Public Forest Management. Forests 2024, 15, 1471. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15081471
Ferreira C, Fernandes ME, Figueiredo E. Unveiling the Centrality of Knowledge in Stakeholder Involvement Strategies Regarding Public Forest Management. Forests. 2024; 15(8):1471. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15081471
Chicago/Turabian StyleFerreira, Carla, Maria Eduarda Fernandes, and Elisabete Figueiredo. 2024. "Unveiling the Centrality of Knowledge in Stakeholder Involvement Strategies Regarding Public Forest Management" Forests 15, no. 8: 1471. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15081471