Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Stakeholder analysis in the biomass energy development based on the experts’ opinions: the example of Triglav National Park in Slovenia Cover

Stakeholder analysis in the biomass energy development based on the experts’ opinions: the example of Triglav National Park in Slovenia

Folia Forestalia Polonica
Volume 57 (2015): Issue 3 (September 2015)
By: ,  ,  ,  ,  ,   and    
Open Access
|Dec 2015
References

References

  1. Bavelas A. 1950. Communication patterns in task oriented groups., 22, 271–282.
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. Beurskens L.W.M., Hekkenberg M, Vethman P. 2011. Renewable energy projections as published in the national renewable energy action plans of the European Member states. ECN and EEA.
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. Blennow K., Persson E., Lindner M., Pacheco Faias S., Hanewinkel M. 2014. Forest owner motivations and attitudes towards supplying biomass for energy in Europe., 67, 223–230.
    Search in Google Scholar
  4. Bodin Ö., Crona B.I. 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference?, 19, 366–374.
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. Borgatti S.P., Everett M.G., Freeman L.C. 2002. UCINET for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. Bourgoin J. 2012. Sharpening the understanding of socio-ecological landscapes in participatory land-use planning. A case study in Lao PDR., 34, 99–110.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Brass D.J. 1984. Being in the right place: a structural analysis of individual influence in an organization., 29, 518–539.
    Search in Google Scholar
  8. Cantiani M.G. 2012. Forest planning and public participation: a possible methodological approach., 5, 72–82.
    Search in Google Scholar
  9. Carnol M., Baeten L., Branquart E., Gregoire J.-C., Heughebaert A., Muys B., Ponette Q., Verheyen K. 2014. Ecosystem services of mixed species forest stands and monocultures: comparing practitioners’ and scientists’ perceptions with formal scientific knowledge., 87 (5), 639–653.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  10. Čiegis R., Gineitiene D. 2008. Participatory aspects of strategic sustainable development planning in local communities: experience of Lithuania., 14 (2), 107–117.
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. Craig G. 2007. Community capacity-building: something old, something new?, 27, 335–359.
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. Driscoll C., Starik M. 2004. The primordial stake-holder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment., 49, 55–73.
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. Dwivedi P., Alavalapati J.R.R. 2009. Stakeholders’ perceptions on forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US., 37, 1999–2007.
    Search in Google Scholar
  14. Evan W.M., Freeman R.E. 1988. A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In: Ethical Theory and Business (eds.: T. Beauchamp, N. Bowie), Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
    Search in Google Scholar
  15. Everett M., Borgatti S.P. 2005. Ego network betweenness., 27, 31–38.
    Search in Google Scholar
  16. Ernstson H., Sörlin S., Elmqvist T. 2008. Social movements and ecosystem services – the role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green areas in Stockholm., 13 (2), 39.
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. Etzioni A. 1964. Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. Freeman L.C. 1979. Centrality in social networks: I. Conceptual clarification., 1, 215–239.
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. Granovetter M. 1973. The strength of weak ties., 6, 1360–1380.
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. Gregory R., Wellman R. 2001. Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study., 39 (1), 37–52.
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. Grimble R., Chan M.K. 1995. Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing countries., 19 (2), 113–124.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. Grimble R., Wellard K. 1997. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities., 55 (2), 173–193.
    Search in Google Scholar
  23. Hahn T., Olsson P., Folke C., Johansson K. 2006. Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden., 34, 573–592.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  24. Hamersley Chambers F., Beckley T. 2003. Public involvement in sustainable boreal forest management. In: Towards sustainable management of the boreal forest (ed.: P.J. Burton), National Research Council of Canada NRC Research Press, Ottawa, 113–154.
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. Higgs G., Berry R., Kidner D., Langford M. 2008. Using IT approaches to promote public participation in renewable energy planning: Prospects and challenges., 25 (4), 596–607.
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. Kangas A., Laukkanen S., J. Kangas J. 2006. Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management – a review., 9, 77–92.
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. Keltner D., Gruenfeld D.H., Anderson C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition., 110, 265–284.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Korhonen K., Hujala T., Kurttila M. 2013. Diffusion of voluntary protection among family forest owners: decision process and success factors., 26, 82–90.
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. Krackhardt D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape: structure, cognition, and power in organizations., 35, 342–369.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. Kraxner F., Yang J., Yamagata Y. 2009. Attitudes towards forest, biomass and certification – a case study approach to integrate public opinion in Japan., 100, 4058–4061.
    Search in Google Scholar
  31. Leavitt H.J. 1951. Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance., 46, 38–50.
    Search in Google Scholar
  32. Lisec A., Drobne S. 2009. The influence of protected natural and cultural heritage on land management/market: the case of Slovenian natural protected areas., 20, 41–48.
    Search in Google Scholar
  33. Lupo Stanghellini P.S. 2010. Stakeholder involvement in water management: the role of the stakeholder analysis within participatory processes., 12, 675–694.
    Search in Google Scholar
  34. Marsden P.V. 2002. Egocentric and sociocentric measures of network centrality., 24, 407–422.
    Search in Google Scholar
  35. Miron D., Preda M. 2009. Stakeholder Analysis of the Romanian Energy Sector., 10 (5), 877–892.
    Search in Google Scholar
  36. Mitchell R., Agle B., Wood D. 1997. Towards a theory of stakeholder identification: defining the principle of who and what really counts., 22 (4), 853–886.
    Search in Google Scholar
  37. Mizruchi M.S., Potts B.P. 1998. Centrality and power revisited: actor success in group decision making., 20, 353–387.
    Search in Google Scholar
  38. Newman M.E.J. 2005. A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks., 27, 39–54.
    Search in Google Scholar
  39. Neal J.W. 2009. Network ties and mean lies: A relational approach to relational aggression., 37 (6), 737–753.
    Search in Google Scholar
  40. Nichiforel R. 2011. Stakeholder analysis of the Romanian forest sector., 11 (1), 114–125.
    Search in Google Scholar
  41. ODA. 1995. Guidance note on how to do stakeholder analysis of aid projects and programmes. Overseas Development Administration, London, UK.
    Search in Google Scholar
  42. Paletto A., Ferretti F., De Meo I. 2012. The Role of Social Networks in Forest Landscape Planning., 15, 132–139.
    Search in Google Scholar
  43. Paletto A., Balest J., De Meo I., Giacovelli G., Grilli G. 2014a. Perceived influence and real power of stake-holders in forest management: a case study in Italy. In: Proceedings “Adaptation in forest management under changing framework conditions”, 19-23May 2014 (eds.: E. Schiberna, M. Stark), Foundation for Sustainable Forest Management, Sopron, 163–175.
    Search in Google Scholar
  44. Paletto A., Giacovelli G., Grilli G., Balest J., De Meo I. 2014b. Stakeholders’ preferences and the assessment of forest ecosystem services: a comparative analysis in Italy., 60, 472–483.
    Search in Google Scholar
  45. Paletto A., Hamunen K., De Meo I. 2015. The social network analysis to support the stakeholder analysis in participatory forest planning., 28 (1), 1108–1125.
    Search in Google Scholar
  46. Pirlogea C., Cicea C. 2012. Econometric perspective of the energy consumption and economic growth relation in European Union., 16 (8), 5718–5726.
    Search in Google Scholar
  47. Prell C., Hubacek K., Reed M. 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management., 22, 501–518.
    Search in Google Scholar
  48. Pristov J., Pristov N., Zupančič B. 1998. Klima v Triglavskem narodnem parku. Razprave in raziskave 8, Triglavski narodni park, Bled.
    Search in Google Scholar
  49. Proscovia Mutekanga F., Kessler A., Leber K., Visser S. 2013. The use of stakeholder analysis in integrated watershed management., 33 (2), 122–131.
    Search in Google Scholar
  50. Reed M.S., Graves A., Dandy N., Posthumus H., Hubacek K., Morris J., Prell C., Quinn C.H., Stringer L.C. 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management., 90, 1933–1949.
    Search in Google Scholar
  51. Rinaldi F., Jonsson R., Sallnäs O., Trubins R. 2015. Behavioral modelling in a Decision Support System., 6, 311–327.
    Search in Google Scholar
  52. SFS. 2012. National forest inventory data. Ljubljana, Slovenian Forest Service.
    Search in Google Scholar
  53. Simpson J.A., Farrell A.K., Oriña M.M., Rothman A.J. 2014. Power and social influence in relationships. In: APA handbook of personality and social psychology (eds.: M. Mikulincer, P.R. Shaver), American Psychological Association, Washington, 393–420.
    Search in Google Scholar
  54. Stubelj Ars M. 2013. Evaluation of hikers’ pro-environmental behavior in Triglav National Park, Slovenia., 5 (1), 35–42.
    Search in Google Scholar
  55. Svadlenak-Gomez K., Badura M., Kraxner F., Fuss S., Vettorato D., Walzer C. 2014. Valuing Alpine ecosystems: the recharge.green project will help decision-makers to reconcile renewable energy production and biodiversity conservation in the Alps., 5 (1), 59–62.
    Search in Google Scholar
  56. Turner J.C. 2005. Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory., 35 (1), 1–22.
    Search in Google Scholar
  57. Walz A., Lardelli C., Behrendt H., Grêt-Regamey A., Lundström C., Kytzia S., Bebi P. 2007. Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling., 81 (1/2), 114–131.
    Search in Google Scholar
  58. Wasserman S., Faust K. 1994. Social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ffp-2015-0017 | Journal eISSN: 2199-5907 | Journal ISSN: 0071-6677
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 173 - 186
Submitted on: Nov 14, 2014
Accepted on: Aug 12, 2015
Published on: Dec 22, 2015
Published by: Forest Research Institute
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
renewable energy,
biomass supply,
stakeholder analysis,
social network analysis,
land management and development
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Plant science

© 2015 Gianluca Grilli, Giulia Garegnani, Aleš Poljanec, Andrej Ficko, Daniele Vettorato, Isabella De Meo, Alessandro Paletto, published by Forest Research Institute
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 57 (2015): Issue 3 (September 2015)
Previous article
Next article