Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“My forest, my kingdom”—Self-referentiality as a strategy in the case of small forest owners coping with government regulations

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social research that informs the implementation of natural resource policies is frequently driven by the logic of the policy system itself. A prevailing concern with achieving policy outcomes can lead, however, to lack of attention to equally important aspects, for example the challenges the policy instruments present to those they are targeting and the consequences this might have for government–citizen relationships. To help guide research into these issues we have developed a situational–interactional approach to interpretive policy analysis that seeks to examine the processes involved when people collectively make sense of government instruments. The theoretical basis is provided to a large extent by Luhmann’s theory of self-referential social systems. In addition, we operationalise the concepts of interactional framing and resemiotisation to capture the active work of the citizens in sense-making processes. We then apply our situational–interactional analysis to small-scale forest ownership in Flanders. Analysis of data from focus groups with forest owners reveals how interactions build on each other in the co-development of particular strategies to cope with government intervention. Finally, we discuss two future directions for research. First, the forest owners find themselves in an inescapable relationship with the government, and feel their autonomy is threatened. Government intervention, therefore, will almost necessarily lead to resistance. Second, forest groups enhance compatibility between the government system and the forest owners, but rather than narrowing the gap between the two worlds they tend to emphasise it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Examples are given by Drake and Donohue (1996), Dewulf et al. (2004).

  2. Luisi (2003), for a review on autopoiesis.

  3. Another clear example is the production of sketches and maps for purposes of planning decision making (Iedema 2001; Van Herzele and van Woerkum 2011).

  4. Incentives offered by the government (subsidies for reforestation, forest management plans, etc.) have had limited success, although they generally cover more than the costs and the loss of revenue (Serbruyns and Luyssaert 2006; Verheyen et al. 2006).

  5. These concern, in particular, the 1990 Forest Decree, and the Sustainable Forest Management Criteria stipulated by the Flemish government in 2003. Additional information on forest groups is given by Van Gossum and De Maeyer (2006).

  6. Belgian Science Policy: Feasibility of forest conversion: ecological, social and economic aspects, Scientific Support Plan for a Sustainable Development Policy (SPSD II), Part 4: Mixed actions (MA/O4).

  7. Out of the 276 respondents, 74 % were male, 25 % were older than 75 years, 52 % were retired, 43 % had completed higher levels of education (bachelor or master degree), 28 % inherited the property; 18 % had a residence on the property, 33 % lived at a distance of less than 5 km and 30 % between 5 and 20 km.

  8. This typology is much in line with findings elsewhere (Van Herzele and Van Gossum 2008).

  9. We note that the participants were not acquainted with each other.

  10. Full analyses of forest and owner relationships are given by Bliss and Martin (1989), Rickenbach and Reed (2002), and Van Herzele and Van Gossum (2008).

References

  • Aarts, N., & van Woerkum, C. (2006). Frame construction in interaction. In N. Gould (Ed.), Multi-organisational partnerships, alliances and networks (pp. 229–237). Pontypridd: University of Glamorgan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1972). Steps toward an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, S. A., & Bliss, J. C. (2004). Foundations of cross-boundary cooperation: Resource management at the public-private interface. Society and Natural Resources, 17, 377–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliss, J. C., & Martin, A. J. (1989). Identifying NIPF management motivations with qualitative methods. Forest Science, 35(2), 601–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brans, M., & Rossbach, S. (1997). The autopoiesis of administrative systems: Niklas Luhmann on public administration and policy. Public Administration, 75, 417–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buizer, M., & Van Herzele, A. (2012). Combining deliberative governance theory and discourse analysis to understand the deliberative incompleteness of centrally formulated plans. Forest Policy and Economics, 16, 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cvetkovich, G., & Winter, P. L. (2003). Trust and social representations of the management of threatened and endangered species. Environment and Behavior, 35(2), 286–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewulf, A., Craps, M., & Dercon, G. (2004). How issues get framed when different communities meet: A multi-level analysis of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewulf, A., Gray, B., Putnam, L., Lewicki, R., Aarts, N., Bouwen, R., et al. (2009). Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A meta-paradigmatic perspective. Human Relations, 62(2), 155–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, L. D., & Donohue, W. A. (1996). Communicative framing theory in conflict resolution. Communication Research, 23, 297–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felstiner, W., Abel, W., & Sarat, A. (1980). The emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming and claiming. Law and Society Review, 15, 630–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy—Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. D. (1999). Organizational change as shifting conversations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(6), 480–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & McNamara, R. T. (2002). Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14(2), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper Colophon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hook, D. (2001). Discourse, knowledge, materiality, history: Foucault and discourse analysis. Theory & Psychology, 11(4), 521–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iedema, R. (1999). Formalizing organizational meaning. Discourse & Society, 10(1), 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iedema, R. (2001). Resemiotization. Semiotica, 137, 23–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2001). State theory, regulation, and autopoiesis: debates and controversies. Capital & Class, 25(3), 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on self-reference. New York: Colombia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luisi, P. L. (2003). Autopoiesis: A review and appraisal. Naturwissenschaften, 90, 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Boston: Reidel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puchta, C., & Potter, J. (2004). Focus group practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 410–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickenbach, M. G., & Reed, A. S. (2002). Cross-boundary cooperation in a watershed context: The sentiments of private forest landowners. Environmental Management, 30(4), 584–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics, 52, 510–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serbruyns, I., & Luyssaert, S. (2006). Acceptance of sticks, carrots and sermons as policy instruments for directing private forest management. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(3), 285–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siebert, R., Toogood, M., & Knierim, A. (2006). Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis, 46(4), 318–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teubner, G. (1989). How the law thinks: Toward a constructivist epistemology of law. Law & Society Review, 23(5), 727–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teubner, G. (2009). Self-subversive justice: Contingency or transcendence formula of law? The Modern Law Review, 72(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gossum, P., & De Maeyer, W. (2006). Performance of forest groups in achieving multifunctional forestry in Flanders. Small-Scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 5(1), 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Herzele, A., Dendoncker, N., & Acosta-Michlik, L. (2011). Mobilisation capacity for agri-environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1023–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Herzele, A., & Van Gossum, P. (2008). Typology building for owner-specific policies and communications to advance forest conversion in small pine plantations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87, 201–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Herzele, A., & Van Gossum, P. (2009). Owner-specific factors associated with conversion activity in secondary pine plantations. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(4), 230–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Herzele, A., & van Woerkum, C. (2011). On the argumentative work of map-based visualisation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 396–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verheyen, K., Lust, N., Carnol, M., Hens, L., & Bouma, J. J. (2006). Feasibility of forest conversion: Ecological, social and economic aspects (FEFOCON). Final Report MA/04, Belgian Science Policy, Brussels.

  • Wagemans, M. (2002). Institutional conditions for transformations. A plea for policy making from the perspective of constructivism. In C. Leeuwis & R. Pyburn (Eds.), Wheel barrows full of frogs—Social learning in rural resource management (pp. 245–255). Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

  • Walsh, K. C. (2004). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanow, D. (1993). The communication of policy meanings—Implementation as interpretation and text. Policy Sciences, 26(1), 41–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Qualitative research methods series 47. London: Sage Publications.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25, 1070, Brussels, Belgium

    Ann Van Herzele

  2. Communication Science, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Noelle Aarts

Authors
  1. Ann Van Herzele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noelle Aarts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ann Van Herzele.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Herzele, A., Aarts, N. “My forest, my kingdom”—Self-referentiality as a strategy in the case of small forest owners coping with government regulations. Policy Sci 46, 63–81 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9157-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9157-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation