Inspired by structured decision making: a collaborative approach to the governance of multiple forest values

Abstract

Since the 2000s, consensus-oriented decision making has become increasingly common in the management of natural resources because of the recognition that collaborative processes may enhance the legitimacy of decision making and facilitate effective implementation. Previous research has identified a number of problems with the design and practical facilitation of collaborative processes. Structured decision making (SDM) has been developed as an alternative suitable for decision making characterized by complexity, stakeholder controversy, and scientific uncertainty. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and practical relevance of collaboration and dialogue inspired by SDM in the sphere of forest management. The methods used included analyses of meetings records and semistructured interviews with participating stakeholders and organizers of a collaborative process focused on improving the management of Swedish forests in the young forest phase. The results show that the SDM rationale of step-by-step teamwork, the involvement of experts, and guidance by an independent facilitator has a number of merits. These merits included the creation of genuine discussion with careful consideration of different interests and values, thus building trust among stakeholders and the Swedish Forest Agency. However, at the end of the process, some issues still remained unclear, including how the decision options would be made practically useful and accessible to forest owners. Furthermore, concerns were raised about the lack of novelty of the options. As a result, there was uncertainty about the extent to which the options would contribute to a more varied forest landscape given the multiple values involved. We conclude with some remarks on the potential future of engaging SDM in the forestry sector.

Governing agricultural innovation: A comprehensive framework to underpin sustainable transitions

“…It can help to enable dialogue between stakeholders with differing opinions, create awareness of the potential broader consequences of an innovation beyond the immediate self-interests of the innovator, and help to come closer to a balance between conflicting interests and perceptions of risk. However, it is not the goal to reach consensus on these questions or on final decisions because that would disregard that some values, viewpoints, and interests simply cannot be united (Johansson et al, 2018;Voss & Bornemann, 2011). These questions do therefore not prescribe certain specific decisions that should be made.…”

A heuristic for innovative invasive species management actions and strategies

“…This third attitude has two prominent merits. First, it can be value adding, in the sense that it can enrich actions and strategies by bringing in ideas and information that invasion experts might have initially lacked, and it can make decisions more likely to be understood and adhered to (Reed 2008, Johansson et al 2018. Second, the implementation of this attitude is facilitated by the generalized call for citizens' participation in societal and political decisions, which materializes in dedicated institutional settings, shared practices, well-trodden guidelines, and abundant conceptual resources and organizational tools to prevent, at least to some extent, possible drawbacks and manipulations of participatory mechanisms (Turnhout et al 2010(Turnhout et al , 2020.…”

Adapting participatory processes to fine‐tune conservation approaches in multiactor decision settings

“…However, most authors believe participatory processes should rather encourage contestation and dissent. The latter "agonistic" (Mouffe 2013) approach suggests that the role of conservationists in participatory settings should be to foster exchanges of arguments concerning values, facts, and uncertainties because they are valuable in themselves and are key to make decisions that will be understood and adhered to (Gregory et al 2012;Johansson et al 2018).…”