Place Perceptions and Controversies over Forest Management: Exploring a Swedish Example

Abstract

This article explores the role of place perceptions in controversies over forest management. A neo-Durkheimian approach to frame analysis is used to explore actors' perceptions of places, forests and policy. This is combined with an examination of actors' varying capacity to influence policy-making using an interpretive policy analysis framework. Empirically, the analysis investigates a controversy over natural resource management in Jokkmokk municipality, northern Sweden. The research draws upon qualitative data collected from a variety of state, economic and social actors. It shows how a systematic analysis of place-related frames can elucidate the policy-making process. It demonstrates how conflicting place meanings divide actors, their frames and interpretive communities. However, social organization and loyalties are also important in shaping actions. The analytical framework offers a sociologically based approach to exploring the role of place perceptions in natural resource politics. It facilitates in-depth understanding of policy-making and may thus contribute to strengthening efforts to manage conflicts and to develop equitable governance systems for natural resource management.

Theorising pathways to sustainability

“…The adoption of an arbitrary or an unlimited amount of frames by an individual is not socially viable. Conceptualising a Pathway as the action-oriented function of the frame, as elaborated above, may thus help reveal why some actors promote particular Pathways rather than others, why some readily shift frames and Pathways while others are less likely to change (see also Beland Lindahl 2008;Beland Lindahl et al 2013). …”

“…Frame analysis is one way to explore actors' beliefs, perceptions and appreciations alongside their policy implications (for a full overview, see Beland Lindahl 2008;Beland Lindahl et al 2013). Frames are defined in a variety of ways but common to most is an understanding that frames have two functions: they organise experience and they bias for action.…”

“…Shields (1991) introduces the term 'social spatialisation' to explain how the spatial is socially constructed and how this results in place perceptions, such as place images and place myths. Social spatialisation, as an overarching order of space, may thus be combined with Perri 6's conceptualisation of frames as products of social solidarities (see Beland Lindahl 2008;Beland Lindahl et al 2013; for a comprehensive review). In this view, place perceptions become understood as the particular parts of the frame that relates to spatial dimensions, for example images of landscapes, locales and their natural resources.…”

“…Central to addressing the issue of influence is an exploration of actors' interactions, for example how actors build coalitions with likeminded others and take actions that forward their frames and Pathways (see Beland Lindahl 2008;Beland Lindahl et al 2013). In the third step (Figure 1), it is explored how actors interact and what actions they take as a first move towards assessing why some frames and Pathways become dominating while others remain marginalised.…”

“…The first draws on the works of Leach et al (2010a), the so-called STEPS (Social, Technological, and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability) Pathways approach. The second element is taken from frame analysis (Schön & Rein 1994;Perri 6 2005;Beland Lindahl 2008;Beland Lindahl et al 2013). Both are combined into a research framework to support empirical research into societal efforts to implement sustainable development.…”