Chapter 13

Focus Groups as a Tool for Conducting

Participatory Research: A Case Study
of Small-Scale Forest Management
in Slovenia

Peter Kumer and Mimi Urbanc

Abstract Focus group discussion is a participatory research method that has been
effectively utilized in numerous social science disciplines either as a standalone
method or more often alongside other methods. The research presented in this chapter
used focus groups as the final tool in an extensive study of small-scale forest owners’
management practices, examining driving and hindering factors. This issue stems
from dispersed and fragmented private ownership with many owners, 89% of whose
properties are smaller than 5 ha and are divided into three plots on average. This has
posed a considerable challenge to Slovenia’s forestry sector. Focus groups sought to
obtain stakeholders’ reflections on findings from previous research as well as new
insights. To this end, nine focus groups scattered around the country were conducted
at the local level following the same format. The National Forestry Service’s district
foresters contributed greatly to recruiting participants and carrying out the discus-
sions. Important outcomes were owners’ perspectives on detached owners and their
lack of management, as well as new topics that were not identified in previous stages.
Despite some limitations—in our case, the inability to attract detached owners and
overcome some power-related tensions between owners and the district forester—
the focus groups proved to be not only efficient and informative for researchers, but
above all supportive of state forest policy being implemented at the local level and
greater stakeholder participation in it.

Keywords Forest management · Action research · Research triangulation ·

Stakeholder participation · Hierarchical spatial organization

P. Kumer (B) · M. Urbanc

Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical
Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: peter.kumer@zrc-sazu.si
M. Urbanc
e-mail: mimi.urbanc@zrc-sazu.si

© The Author(s) 2020 207

J. Nared and D. Bole (eds.), Participatory Research and Planning in Practice,
The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7_13
208 P. Kumer and M. Urbanc

13.1 Introduction

The focus group is a qualitative method of data collection that has been widely used
in the social sciences for several decades (Parker and Jonathan 2006). Its origins go
back to Columbia University in the late 1940s. The first topics studied were attitudes
toward radio soap operas and responses to the government’s own wartime radio pro-
paganda programs (Bloor et al. 2001). From a prevailing data collection method in
both public and private organizations, it has become a valuable research method in
recent decades. Focus groups are commonly used to explore and construct knowl-
edge about a particular phenomenon in small groups (Kitzinger 1995; Liamputtong
2011; Krueger and Casey 2015) or to aid interpretation, critical appraisal, or feed-
back for survey findings (Bloor et al. 2001). For a researcher, focus groups offer
invaluable breadth of learning, and the participants’ thoughts complement the origi-
nality of researcher’s own thinking (Bloor et al. 2001). Moreover, participants have
the capacity to identify various (hidden) dimensions of a topic (Longhurst 2010).
Because the method is very resourceful and adaptive, and it perfectly complements
other research methods such as surveys, questionnaires, and individual interviews
(Longhurst 2010). In addition, its time efficiency and low cost have promoted its
widespread adoption.
A further reason for the wide use of the focus group method is its inherent par-
ticipatory nature based on group processes (Chiu 2003), making it an excellent par-
ticipatory approach. This is additionally strengthened by the fact that focus groups
normally address average people, who are assumed to be “ingenuous participants”
(Farinosi et al. 2019). Accordingly, the focus group is one of the most dynamic
research methods (Farinosi et al. 2019); its group dynamics help researchers to obtain
richer and more detailed data (Lune and Berg 2017), making it stand out from other
qualitative research methods. Whereas the scholarly benefits of the researcher–par-
ticipant relationship have been clearly identified, participant benefits have received
less attention. However, we believe there are some. The most tangible is in planning
procedures by incorporating peoples’ needs and expectations. When a focus group
discussion is driven by pure curiosity, participants’ benefits are confined to new
insights and a wider perspective on the issues shared within a group more generally
such as empowerment, inclusion, and community building.
The basic element of this method is the participatory aspect, which stimulates
dynamic discussion among participants guided by a moderator in such a way that all
group members are engaged and active. The discussion is normally semi-structured
because the topics are well defined prior to carrying out a focus group (Miller and
Scoptur 2016). Usually, a focus group cycle consists of two to ten discussions, but
the number varies and depends on the research goals, number of topics, and time
and budget availability. The number of participants for each individual focus group
discussion varies from an optimal six to eight, to real-life practical modifications
ranging from three to fourteen participants. The group size reflects the characteristics
of participants as well as the topics being discussed (Bloor et al. 2001).
13 Focus Groups as a Tool for Conducting … 209

Although the focus group method is primarily used in the social sciences, its
usability nevertheless applies to other disciplines if the research necessitates a human
or social aspect. The method has, therefore, also gained popularity in natural resource
management. Not only are natural resources generally very complex, but they also
touch upon various sectoral policies, which makes them challenging to manage.
Forests and their future development are no exception, especially in connection with
climate change discourse and accessibility and social equity concerns, among other
things.
The usefulness of focus groups in forest management practices and options is
widely addressed in the literature. Attention is given to the following aspects: how the
management process is developed and steered (Corral and Hernandez 2017), what is
considered or neglected in forest management (Mountjoy et al. 2014; Heltorp et al.
2018), whether and how stakeholders are included (Wilkes-Allemann et al. 2015;
Awung and Marchant 2018; Ward et al. 2018), what stakeholders’ expectations and
values are (Bernués et al. 2014; Andrejczyk et al. 2016; Ordóñez et al. 2017; Takala
et al. 2017a, b; Soto et al. 2018; Sutherland et al. 2018), which forest interventions are
socially acceptable (Miller et al. 2014; Vaidya and Mayer 2016; Kelly et al. 2016),
and what the benefits are for people involved in the management process (Egunyu
et al. 2016).
Encouraged by the popularity of qualitative research methods for understanding
the link between forests and society, and following the latest trends in forest manage-
ment research (i.e., analytical approaches and methods; Leipold 2014), we used the
focus group method to explore the characteristics of small-scale forest management
in Slovenia. The purpose of conducting focus groups was to assemble diverse stake-
holders that were engaged in forest management and to use moderated discussion to
collect their often opposing views of and opinions about selected topics (Nyumba
et al. 2018). Therefore, this chapter shows how the focus group method was used in
the final phase for studying the management of pocket-sized private forest properties
as an efficient complement to other methods. Specifically, focus groups were used
to obtain stakeholders’ reflections on findings from previous research stages as well
as new insights.

13.2 Background

Slovenia is one of the most forested countries in Europe, and forests hold a promi-
nent role in Slovenians’ mindset based on the wide variety of services they provide:
from economic and environmental to recreational and social. Most of the country’s
forests (76% of 1.2 million ha) are owned by approximately half a million private
forest owners (PFOs), which is a large group within a country of only two million
(Medved et al. 2010; Kumer and Potočnik Slavič 2016). Given the high number of
forest owners in comparison to the total population, it is not surprising that private
forest properties are small (89% of them are smaller than 5 ha). Moreover, private for-
est properties are also considerably fragmented with one owner having three parcels
210 P. Kumer and M. Urbanc

on average (Fig. 13.1). The small sizes of forest properties and their parcelization
and fragmentation is a result of socioeconomic changes that occurred in the decades
after the Second World War. The owners have started to migrate from rural areas
to towns, and they lost interest in their forest property. The changes occurred when
planned inheritance practices (e.g., by favoring one heir among the children) changed
into unplanned practices. Inherited forest properties were divided among children,
spouses, and siblings, each receiving an equal but small share. The same thing hap-
pened with restitution (denationalization), in which properties were assigned to all
of the legal heirs of a single owner that lost land nationalized after the Second World
War (Kumer 2019). On top of that, traditional inheritance practices in the past were
different among regions. For example, due to Hungarian inheritance law (and despite
planned inheritance), the land was broken up into small parcels in the eastern part
of the country long before the aforementioned social changes. This has led to a sit-
uation in which forest properties in eastern Slovenia are even more fragmented than
elsewhere. In addition to all of these forest-related aspects and challenges, there is
another one worth mentioning: Slovenian law requires forests to be publicly accessi-
ble, permitting not only walking and relaxation, but also collecting berries, nuts, and
mushrooms for personal consumption. This fact that Slovenians are very proud of
can conversely lead to conflicts between land owners and users (Kumer et al. 2018).

Average size of private forest property (ha) Authors: Rok Pisek, Peter Kumer
Cartographer: Peter Kumer
less than 0.5 1.0 to 1.5 3.0 to 5.0 © Anton Melik Geographical Institute
ZRC SAZU
0.5 to 1 1.5 to 3.0 more than 5.0 Layer source: SURS

Fig. 13.1 Map showing the ownership fragmentation of forest land

13 Focus Groups as a Tool for Conducting … 211

In Slovenia, forest-related challenges have only been subject to quantitative

research, and they have predominantly been discussed within the context of
production-oriented forestry policy, which has aimed to engage owners in manage-
ment of their economically underutilized forests. To our knowledge, no qualitative
research has been conducted on the attitudes of forest owners, their socioeconomic
background, and their understanding of forest values beyond mere timber produc-
tion. Therefore, focus groups to complement prior surveys, interviews (Kumer and
Potočnik Slavič 2016), owner type analysis (Kumer and Štrumbelj 2017), and multi-
criteria decision analysis (Kumer and Pezdevšek Malovrh 2018) appeared to be an
ideal method to bridge this research gap. The focus groups are an ideal tool when
trying to access local knowledge and also detailed and hidden information (i.e.,
interpersonal interactions and nonverbal communication).
In order to approach forestry stakeholders in an effective and communicative man-
ner, we worked closely with the Slovenian Forest Service. This public institution,
whose task it to outline and steer forest management planning in all forests, irrespec-
tive of ownership, is hierarchically organized with a central unit in Ljubljana and 396
forest districts around the country. District foresters are forestry experts that transmit
national forest-related policy to the local level. They provide education and train-
ing for forest owners, cooperate with rural communities, and foster awareness about
forests and nature preservation. Due to their embeddedness in the local situation,
they were our key figures for approaching forest owners.

13.3 Implementing the Method

13.3.1 Designing the Focus Groups

The essential part of the preparatory phase was developing an implementation guide,
as suggested by Crabtree and Miller (1999). Building on the research question, a list of
semi-structured questions was prepared based on prior research steps; specifically, on
the results of a mixed-mode survey, in-depth interviews, and multi-criteria research
analysis for evaluating stakeholders’ perceptions.
The questions included in the guide covered the following topics: agricultural
affiliation, inheritance practices, gender differences in management, interpersonal
relations with co-owners and neighbors, managerial practices, distant management,
taxes, and future forestry regulation.
In order for the process to run smoothly and to help the moderator to conduct the
discussion efficiently, a series of questions and a strict timeline were outlined. The
general outline for the entire cycle was set between March and June 2016. The entire
time span allowed flexibility in carrying out individual focus groups.
The focus groups required technical equipment for audio and video recording.
Video recording was needed for analysis of interpersonal interactions and nonverbal
communication.
212 P. Kumer and M. Urbanc

13.3.2 Selecting and Recruiting Participants

The quality of the data collected was greatly dependent on the participants, and so
the group composition was of high importance. We paid particular attention to par-
ticipants’ heterogeneity and diversity (Table 13.1), which were both acknowledged
in the literature (Bole et al. 2017). The internal variety also considered gender and
age balance. The common denominator of our stakeholder groups is embeddedness
in forest management at the local level. More specifically, partakers were individual
small-scale private forest owners (SPFO), members of PFO associations, and mem-
bers of machinery circles. A top-down legal and decision-making perspective was
added by including district foresters, other employees of the public forestry service,
and representatives of Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry.
The group composition created a challenge, which is referred to as “power impo-
sition” (Cooke and Kothari 2001). Numerous SPFOs considered themselves less
knowledgeable about forestry than the forestry sector professionals and employ-
ees. To overcome SPFOs’ self-perceived inferior position and subsequent imped-
iment, we emphasized that our goal was only to collect personal attitudes, expe-
riences, and reflections. This proved to be effective and encouraging enough
for SPFOs to take part.
The success of the recruitment process, however, depended greatly on the local
district forester and his or her credibility, moral authority within the forest owners’
community, and other stakeholder communities. It was the district forester, therefore,
that functioned as a communication channel. We also reached nonowners through
academic contacts, e-mail, and phone invitations. In addition, attendants were further
encouraged by simple incentives. These included practical gifts, such as recyclable
shopping bags, notebooks, and umbrellas. Professionals were provided with confir-
mation of their participation, allowing them to integrate attendance into their daily
work and have travel costs reimbursed.

13.3.3 Location, Date, and Size

Given the general forest ownership and forest property situation in Slovenia and
regionally specific inheritance practices, we paid special attention to the locations of
focus groups. Nine focus groups were spatially dispersed and conducted in selected
local units of the Slovenian Forestry Service. Nationwide coverage was in line with
one of the aims of the research: to obtain a geographical aspect, including under-
standing regional differences.
The first group—a pilot or preparatory focus group for testing the questions’
clarity—was carried out in downtown Ljubljana. The venue was a modern, state of the
art focus group facility, which offered a quiet, private, and comfortable environment
for participants and an observation cabin with a one-way mirror and audio, visual, and
other technical support for the moderator and his supervisors. Despite this excellent
13 Focus Groups as a Tool for Conducting … 213

Table 13.1 Date, location, and participants at focus groups

Date Location Number of Type of Age Gender ratio
participants participants (F/M)
24 March 2016 Ljubljana 6 SPFO (2), Around 40 2/4
public forestry
service,
Chamber of
Agriculture
and Forestry,
PFO
association,
district forester
12 April 2016 Bohinj 7 SPFO (3), 42–60 0/7
machinery
circles, large
property
owner, sawmill
owner, district
forester
13 April 2016 Bukovica 8 SPFO (7), 43–78 1/7
pri district forester
Vodicah
18 April 2016 Počakovo 8 SPFO (6), 20–66 2/6
district
forester, local
development
agency
20 April 2016 Velesovo 7 SPFO (6), 42–78 3/3
district forester
17 May 2016 Tišina 13 SPFO (7), 40–65 2/11
district forester
(4), public
forestry
service, PFO
association
1 June 2016 Kozina 8 SPFO (4), 52–76 0/8
district forester
(2), public
forestry
service,
agrarian
community
(continued)
214 P. Kumer and M. Urbanc

Table 13.1 (continued)

Date Location Number of Type of Age Gender ratio
participants participants (F/M)
14 June 2016 Velike 8 SPFO (4), 51–76 0/8
Lašče large property
owner,
Chamber of
Agriculture
and Forestry,
district
forester, public
forestry
service
28 June 2016 Nazarje 7 SPFO (4), 47–69 2/5
district forester
(2), public
forestry
service

technical arrangement, its distance from forest owners’ home locations dissuaded us
from using this venue for follow-up focus groups.
Based on practical and logistical reasons, the locations for the main part of the
focus groups were selected close to participants. Consequently, we had to adapt to the
availabilities and capacities of the local facilities. These focus groups, therefore, did
not necessarily meet the technical standards of the first one. The chosen venues were
different: from local inns to the local branch office of the Slovenian Forestry Service.
The local branch offices proved to be a comfortable place to meet and discuss matters
due to the participants’ familiarity with them. Organizing a group at the local level
substantially reduced the overall cost: the participants traveled shorter distances on
average.

13.3.4 The Moderator, Key Person, and Group Dynamics

The role of a moderator is to introduce the aim of the focus group and to guide the
conversation. Introducing the aim is done with a broad, open-ended question in order
to define the scope of the discussion and pitch the topic. In our case, the introduc-
tory question was “What does a forest mean to you?” For guiding the subsequent
conversation, a moderator should only use the guide to negotiate the group and to
create a structured way of collecting responses. However, the discussion might raise
unpredictable and unexpected thoughts, and a moderator should, therefore, remain
open-minded and receptive, and be able to react appropriately. A moderator can use
probes to prompt participants to explain further.
Negotiating between allowing a natural flow of the interaction among participants
on the one hand and a focus group guide with a timeline on the other is a considerable
13 Focus Groups as a Tool for Conducting … 215

Fig. 13.2 Snapshot from a focus group in Velesovo. Photograph Peter Kumer

challenge. The group structure plays a role in this respect. Well-structured groups
tend to answer a research question in a straightforward way, whereas less structured
ones help reveal the perspectives of the group participants and may assist in the dis-
covery of new ideas and insights (Morgan 1988). In our case, the moderator fostered
spontaneous and free-flowing conversation, thereby allowing relatively unstructured
discussions (Fig. 13.2).
The role of district foresters was an important one not only in the recruiting pro-
cess, but also in the implementation phase, but in the latter case, their inactivity
was appreciated. They understood that their viewpoints could influence the partic-
ipants’ train of thoughts. Therefore, they refrained from talking, especially from
giving informed opinions; however, they helped the moderator to put the attendees’
personal attitudes and experiences into a policy context and they brought in the
absentee owners’ perspectives.

13.3.5 Analysis

We transcribed audio recordings in their entirety and then performed a computer-

assisted grounded theory analysis. The theoretical background was based on Friese’s
(2016) adaptation of a constructivist approach to grounded theory (Charmaz 2006),
which foregrounds researchers’ interpretations and their “immersion” in the data in
a way that embeds the narrative of the participants in the final research findings.
The ATLAS.ti program was used in the coding process, which is the core of the
analytical stage. It included theoretical sampling; initial, focused, and axial coding;
and building the category system. The focus groups were analyzed after each session.
216 P. Kumer and M. Urbanc

13.4 Results

The focus group discussion provided down to earth interpretation of and reflec-
tion on findings from previous research stages as well as completely new
and unexpected standpoints. By bringing in their personal and family experi-
ences, participants enhanced the grass roots aspect of small-scale forest prop-
erty management. To a researcher, they provided an in-depth understanding of
small-scale forest ownership.
First, the discussion on cluster analysis results yielded two SPFO types—those that
are engaged and those that are detached (Kumer and Štrumbelj 2017)—and it revealed
other potential owner types in Slovenia. In addition, the notion of detached (absentee)
SPFOs that live away from their properties and are not engaged in management
gave rise to a broad and lively discussion mostly focusing on the reasons for their
disengagement. Among these, the participants singled out past migrations, especially
from rural to urban areas or from Slovenia abroad (mostly to western European
countries or overseas), changes of permanent residence, and co-ownership, which
hinders efficient management.
On the other hand, the important focus group outcomes were emerging topics
that appeared relevant for the research but were not identified in the previous stages.
One such example is the climate of mistrust among forest owners, which negatively
affects their willingness to cooperate. A second circumstance was the landowner
versus visitor conflict, which is especially evident near urban centers. Unlimited
access to forests as a popular recreational space and a resource of non-wood forest
products (such as mushrooms, nuts, herbs, etc.) can result in a collision of different
(and often conflicting) ideas among diverse user groups about how to use the forest.
This challenge is more severe due to inadequate consideration and a subsequent lack
of appropriate monitoring and governance measures.
The participants also benefited from the focus groups by hearing the viewpoints of
various stakeholders, and they were informed about the findings of previous research
phases, which helped them to learn more about the topic. They could see a complex
picture of different interests in the forest.

13.5 Reflection on the Method Used

In our broader research, in which we examined the managerial issues of small-

scale forest properties, the focus groups were a final but valuable data resource and
interpretation vehicle at the same time. They were therefore planned to be conducted
during the last phase in order to allow the juxtaposition of results from previous
research phases and ex post reflection on them. Surprisingly, new topics emerged.
Taking all of this into account, focus groups proved to ideally complement than other
methods, especially for issues in which the human aspect is of major relevance. Our
13 Focus Groups as a Tool for Conducting … 217

case is closely in line with extensive literature addressing the usefulness of focus
groups.
Although the entire endeavor was started and carried out exclusively for research
purposes, the process and its activities were also advantageous for stakeholders, espe-
cially for district foresters. By participating in the process, they were able to realize
some of their general tasks: training and educating owners, disseminating information
on forest management, and raising forest-related issues among the public. Moreover,
they were given the opportunity to obtain structured and evidence-based insight into
current forestry policy from the perspective of owners and other stakeholders.
Nonetheless, some limitations were obvious. A critical limitation is connected
with the selection of focus group participants. Despite the valuable assistance of dis-
trict foresters in recruiting local forest owners and forestry-related stakeholders, the
pool of participants did not represent the entire owner population. Detached owners
were missing for the most part; absenteeism is inherent in their modus operandi in
forest-related issues. This gap was partially filled by district foresters, who func-
tioned as a proxy for absentee owners, whose perspective was thereby indirectly
considered.
Even though the district foresters were crucial in the process, they were unable to
mitigate the uneasiness of participants that were not entirely comfortable in express-
ing their views openly. District foresters were perceived as officials that supervise
activities in private forests. Upon reflection, excluding foresters from the discussion
would probably help overcome this gap.
Not only top-down power pressure emerged, but also a powerless feeling in the
professional community in charge of implementing state policy at the local level,
which revealed certain power relations within the forestry sector. Some foresters
refused to participate because they thought their influence on owners was insignifi-
cant or that all owners in their district were inactive. It is somewhat surprising that
intangible power and the informal position of foresters emerged as a decisive factor
for (dis)engaged private small-scale forest management.
Organizing focus groups at the local level proved to be successful due to the
familiar environment and participants. There was no need for an icebreaker to start
the discussion. The district foresters functioned as a communication channel between
the focus group moderator and participants. They often summarized the conversation
and put it into the context of modern forestry challenges. Giving priority to local
venues with basic technical equipment over a centrally located specialized focus
group facility proved fortuitous in many respects.
Moreover, integrating the focus group into the research was generally economi-
cally and academically justified, providing abundant knowledge and information for
modest financial input. However, the rich material obtained required substantial staff
effort for subsequent qualitative analyzes. Focus groups made it possible for new top-
ics to surface (new, subtle topics were identified) and discussions of aspects beyond
the topics planned. These aspects were relevant to our research focus. For exam-
ple, topics such as trust, cooperation, cultural influence, tradition, and globalized
individualism proved to be an important managerial factor.
218 P. Kumer and M. Urbanc

Management of a resource as important as a forest definitely cannot be devoid

of public participation, especially management of private forests and particularly in
countries with short democratic tradition. Focus groups are a vehicle for extending
public participation. They should be further developed by the Slovenian Forestry
Service and considered as a format for regular meetings at the local level to promote
cooperation and information transfer, thereby positively influencing forest manage-
ment.
The following conclusions can be drawn from this study. The method would be less
appropriate if the topics discussed were personal and the participants did not know
one another. Focus groups are also inappropriate if the problem is individualized
and does not require previous interactions. This is not the case in forest management
because it typically requires aspects of various stakeholders.
Focus groups are appropriate for identifying unknown or suspected and sub-
tle issues as well as for stakeholders’ reflection on aspects already identified and
research findings. Inclusion of a spatially well-organized hierarchical institution (e.g.,
the Slovenian Forestry Service) into the research can raise certain power-relation
tensions, yet the advantages considerably surpass possible disadvantages, not only
by providing communication channels, but also by including experts’ opinions and
informed experience. Because the issues related to forest management are uniform
across the country, the spatial dispersion of focus groups helped us with generaliza-
tion. Focus groups perfectly connect research, public service, and individual social
groups.

Acknowledgements The authors thank the Slovenian Research Agency for funding the core pro-
gram Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101) and the junior researchers postgraduate research program.
Both funds provided support for publishing these findings.

References

Andrejczyk K, Butler BJ, Tyrrell ML, Langer J (2016) Hansel and Gretel walk in the forest, landown-
ers walk in the woods: A qualitative examination of the language used by family forest owners.
J Forest 114(1):52–57. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-151
Awung NS, Marchant R (2018) Quantifying local community voices in the decision-making process:
insights from the mount cameroon national park REDD + project. Environ Sociol 4(2):235–252.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2017.1363144
Bernués A, Rodríguez-Ortega T, Ripoll-Bosch RBC, Alfnes FD (2014) Socio-cultural and economic
valuation of ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean mountain agroecosystems. PLoS
ONE 9(7):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102479
Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K (eds) (2001) Focus groups in social research. Sage,
Thousand Oaks
Bole D, Šmid Hribar MŠ, Pipan P (2017) Participatory research in community development: a
case study of creating cultural tourism products. AUC Geogr 52(2):164–175. https://doi.org/10.
14712/23361980.2017.13
Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis.
Sage, London
13 Focus Groups as a Tool for Conducting … 219

Chiu LF (2003) Transformational potential of focus group practice in participatory action research.
Action Res 1(2):165–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503030012006
Cooke B, Kothari U (eds) (2001) Participation: The new tyranny?. Zed Books, London
Corral S, Hernandez Y (2017) Social sensitivity analyses applied to environmental assessment
presses. Ecol Econ 141:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.022
Crabtree BF, Miller WL (eds) (1999) Doing qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Egunyu F, Reed MG, Sinclair JA (2016) Learning through new approaches to forest governance:
evidence from Harrop-Procter community forest Canada. Environ Manag 57(4):784–797. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0652-4
Farinosi M, Fortunati L, O’Sullivan J, Pagani L (2019) Enhancing classical methodological tools
to foster participatory dimensions in local urban planning. Cities 88:235–242. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cities.2018.11.003
Friese S (2016) CAQDAS and grounded theory analysis. MMG Working Paper, Göttingen
Heltorp KMA, Kangas A, Hoen HF (2018) Do forest decision-makers in southeastern Norway adapt
forest management to climate change? Scand J For Res 33(3):278–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02827581.2017.1362463
Kelly MC, Germain RH, Mack SA (2016) Forest conservation programs and the landowners who
prefer them: Profiling family forest owners in the New York City watershed. Land Use Policy
50:17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.026
Kitzinger J (1995) Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ 311:299–302
Krueger R, Casey MA (2015) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage, Thousand
Oaks
Kumer P (2019) Lastniki gozdov v Sloveniji. Založba ZRC, Ljubljana
Kumer P, Pezdevšek Malovrh Š (2018) Factors hindering forest management among engaged
and detached private forest owners: Slovenian stakeholders’ perceptions. Small-Scale Forestry
18(1):105–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-018-9409-2
Kumer P, Potočnik Slavič I (2016) Heterogeneous small-scale forest ownership: Complexity of
management and conflicts of interest. Belgeo 4:1–21
Kumer P, Štrumbelj E (2017) Clustering-based typology and analysis of private small-scale forest
owners in Slovenia. For Policy Econ 80:116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.014
Kumer P, Šmid Hribar M, Smrekar A (2018) Gozd kot prostor številnih interesov in priložnosti. In:
Flajšman K et al (eds) Trajnostna rekreacija in turizem v gozdu: zbornik zaključne konference CRP
projekta “Priprava strokovnih izhodišč za turistično in rekreacijsko rabo gozdov,” 11 September
2018, Ljubljana. Založba Silva Slovenica, Ljubljana, p 23
Leipold S (2014) Creating forests with words: a review of forest-related discourse studies. For
Policy Econ 40:12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.005
Liamputtong P (2011) Focus group methodology: principles and practice. Sage, London
Longhurst R (2010) Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In: Clifford N et al (eds) Key
methods in geography. Sage, London, pp 117–132
Lune H, Berg BL (2017) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson Education,
Essex
Medved M, Matijašić D, Pisek R (2010) Private property conditions of Slovenian forests. Prelimi-
nary results from 2010. In: Medved (ed) IUFRO conference proceedings small-scale forestry in a
changing world: Opportunities and challenges and the role of extension and technology transfer.
Slovenian Forestry Institute, Ljubljana, p 879
Miller P, Scoptur P (2016) Focus groups: hitting the bull’s-eye. Association for Justice, Washington
DC
Miller KA, Snyder SA, Kilgore MA, Davenport MA (2014) Family forest landowners’ interest in
forest carbon offset programs: focus group findings from the lake states, USA. Environ Manage
54(6):1399–1411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0352-5
Morgan DL (1988) Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Mountjoy NJ, Seekamp E, Davenport MA, Whiles MR (2014) Identifying capacity indicators for
community-based natural resource management initiatives: focus group results from conservation
220 P. Kumer and M. Urbanc

practitioners across Illinois. J Environ Planning Manage 57(3):329–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/

09640568.2012.743880
Nyumba T, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, Mukherjee N (2018) The use of focus group discussion method-
ology: insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol Evol 9(1):20–32.
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860
Ordóñez C, Beckley T, Duinker PN, Sinclair AJ (2017) Public values associated with urban forests:
synthesis of findings and lessons learned from emerging methods and cross-cultural case studies.
Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 25:74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.002
Parker A, Jonathan T (2006) Focus group method and methodology: current practice and recent
debate. Int J Res & Method Educ 29(1):23–37
Soto JR, Escobedo FJ, Khachatryan H, Adams DC (2018) Consumer demand for urban forest
ecosystem services and disservices: examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-
worst scaling. Ecosyst Serv 29:31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.009
Sutherland WJ, Dicks LV, Everard M, Geneletti D (2018) Qualitative methods for ecologists and
conservation scientists. Methods Ecol Evol 9(1):7–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12956
Takala T, Hujala T, Tanskanen M, Tikkanen J (2017a) Forest owners’ discourses of forests: Ideolog-
ical origins of ownership objectives. J Rural Stud 51(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.
2017.01.014
Takala T, Hujala T, Tanskanen M, Tikkanen J (2017b) The order of forest owners’ discourses:
Hegemonic and marginalised truths about the forest and forest ownership. J Rural Stud 55:33–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.009
Vaidya A, Mayer AL (2016) Use of a participatory approach to develop a regional assessment
tool for bioenergy production. Biomass Bioenerg 94(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.
2016.08.001
Ward C, Holmes G, Stringer L (2018) Perceived barriers to and drivers of community participation
in protected-area governance. Conserv Biol 32(2):437–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13000
Wilkes-Allemann J, Pütz M, Hirschi C (2015) Governance of forest recreation in urban areas:
Analysing the role of stakeholders and institutions using the institutional analysis and development
framework. Environ Policy Governance 25(2):139–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1668

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Index of Places

A D
Adriatic Sea, 56 Delta del Ebro, 61
Africa, 52, 134, 137 Drežniške Ravne, 149, 151, 159, 160, 162, 164
Albania, 56 Dublin, 129
Algeria, 51, 56, 57, 63, 64
Algiers, 63 E
Alps, 122 Eastern Europe, 31, 34, 35, 46, 52
Aopo, 138 Ebro, 61, 63
Asau, 139 Elba Islands, 58
Els Ports Massif, 61
B Empurias, 171
Baix Ebre, 61 Estonia, 114
Barcelona, 7, 8, 13, 15, 19, 97, 101, 103 Europe, 6, 28, 52, 58, 107, 134, 169, 170, 182,
Bejaïa, 63 209
Blagoevgrad, 34–38, 40–43, 45–47 European Union, 35, 48, 114, 173, 186
Bohinj, 213
Borjana, 152 F
Bovec, 151, 152, 154 Fiji, 135
Breginj, 149, 150, 152–154, 158, 159, 162, 163 Finland, 15
Budapest, 15, 19, 36, 75, 77, 80–86 France, 56, 173
Bukovica pri Vodicah, 213 Friuli–Venezia Giulia, 152, 154, 156
Bukovje, 193–195, 199, 200
Bulgaria, 34, 36, 37 G
Germany, 6
C Gorenjska Region, 127
Can Batlló, 97, 102 Goriška Region, 127
Carinthia, 198 Gothenburg, 15, 17, 19, 203
Central Europe, 77, 188 Gouraya, 51, 57, 63–69
Čezsoča, 149, 160–162 Greece, 56, 109, 110
Črni Vrh, 116 Grosseto, 58, 60
Cetinje, 109–111, 117
Croatia, 56, 171 H
Cyprus, 56 Hawaii, 136
Czech Republic, 34, 44 Hegyvidék, 81, 82, 85, 86

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 221

J. Nared and D. Bole (eds.), Participatory Research and Planning in Practice,
The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7
222 Index of Places

Helsinki, 15, 17, 19 P

Heraklion, 109, 110, 117 Pacific, 135
Holmec, 191, 196, 198–200 Papua New Guinea, 135
Hungary, 15, 34, 36, 77, 80 Pluska, 191–193, 195, 200
Hunziger, 98 Počakovo, 213
Poland, 77, 80
I Ponikve, 191–193, 195, 200
Idrija, 114, 152, 203 Portis, 149, 150, 156, 157, 162, 163
Italy, 15, 51, 56–58, 122, 127, 147, 148, 150, Porto, 15, 19
152, 154, 162, 163, 165 Portugal, 15
Poutasi Falealili, 139
J Prague, 34–44, 46, 47
Jordan, 56
R
K Resia, 150, 152, 158, 162
Karst, 122 Rio de Janeiro, 173
Kobarid, 123, 151, 152, 154 Romania, 34, 36
Kozina, 35, 37, 213 Rome, 15, 18, 19, 152
Krakow, 75, 77, 80, 82, 83, 85
Krn Mountains, 148 S
Saaremma Island, 114
L Safaatoa, 138
Lima, 53 Salailua, 139
Livorno, 58, 60 Salani, 138
Ljubljana, 15, 19, 158, 211–213 Salelologa, 139
Ljubljana Basin, 169 Samoa, 133, 135–141
Ljubljansko barje, 169, 170, 175–179, 182 Sapapalii, 138
Lomma, 6–8 Savaia, 138–141
Savaii, 136, 138, 139
M Savinja-Šalek region, 198
Małopolska Region, 80 Sierra de Cardo, 61
Maribor, 75, 77, 79, 80, 82–85 Siufaga, 138–141
Marocco, 64 Slovenia, 15, 18, 28, 34, 36, 48, 56, 77, 79, 80,
Mediterranean, 51, 52, 56–58, 63, 65–67, 69, 114, 116, 117, 122, 127, 147, 148,
170–172 151–154, 164, 165, 169, 186–193, 196,
Montenegro, 56, 109, 110 199, 201–203, 207, 209–212, 216, 218
Montsià, 61 Slovenj Gradec, 198
Morocco, 56 Soča, 127, 147, 149, 151, 152, 164
Munich, 6–8 South East Europe, 107–110, 115
Spain, 7, 15, 51, 56, 57, 61, 97, 101, 171
N Sweden, 6, 7, 15, 203
Narona, 171 Switzerland, 98, 203
Nazarje, 214 Székesfehérvár, 34–38, 40–43, 46, 47
Netherlands, 7
New Zealand, 136, 137 T
Norway, 15, 203 Tagliamento River, 156
Nova Gorica, 152 Tanger, 68
Nuu, 139 Terra Alta, 61
Terres de l’Ebre Delta, 51
O Tišina, 213
Oseacco, 149, 150, 158, 162, 163 Tolmin, 152, 154, 158
Oslo, 15, 17, 19, 203 Tonga, 135
Otiški Vrh, 191, 196, 198–200 Trebnje, 192–195, 199, 200
Index of Places 223

Tunis, 171 Velike Lašče, 214

Tunisia, 56 Venice, 158, 171
Turkey, 56 Venzone, 148–150, 154–156, 162, 163
Tuscan Islands, 51, 57–59, 67 Vienna, 100, 102, 103
Tyrol, 203 Vorarlberg, 203

U W
Udine, 123, 127 Wilaya, 63
Upolu, 136, 138, 139 Witkowice, 80, 82
Upolu in Aleisa, 139
Utrecht, 7, 8 Y
Yugoslavia, 150, 152, 163, 186, 188
V
Vaslui, 34–38, 40–43, 45, 46 Z
Velenje, 34–47, 198 Zurich, 98, 103
Velesovo, 213, 215
Subject Index

A Community, 1–5, 24, 32, 38–40, 51, 52, 54, 58,

Action plan, 6, 53, 68, 69, 80, 142
Agriculture, 34, 37, 38, 48, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67,
133–139, 171, 186, 212–214
Arnstein, 2, 3, 9, 13, 23, 33, 100, 121,
147–149, 154, 156, 158–160, 162–164,
189
Awareness rising, 64
B 83, 149, 158, 170, 189, 196, 197, 202
Biodiversity, 53, 55–57, 61, 64, 67, 68, 76,
169, 170
Biosphere reserves, 51–53, 57–59, 61–65, 67,
68
Bottom-up (approach), 1, 34, 46, 51, 54, 66,
69, 76, 84, 87, 93, 108, 114, 141, 147,
155, 162, 163, 165
C Decision-making, 2–7, 9, 14, 17, 31, 32, 34,
Citizen initiatives, 38
Citizens’ engagement, 2, 6, 32, 33, 40
City, 1, 2, 4–9, 15, 31, 34, 36–41, 43, 46, 63,
75, 76, 82, 83, 97, 98, 100, 102, 104,
109, 114, 150, 154, 163, 171
Civil society, 6–8, 19, 31, 32, 45–48, 75, 76,
79, 101, 170, 172, 174–180, 182, 203
Climate change, 1–3, 5–9, 19, 52, 53, 55, 58,
63, 66, 134, 209
Co-creation, 1, 2, 124, 127, 128, 133
Co-learning, 142
Collaborative inventory, 121, 122, 127, 128
Communication, 8, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 31, 32,
38, 39, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 78, 85, 91,
115, 124, 126, 134, 135, 138, 142, 177,
182, 203, 211, 212, 217, 218
60, 63, 64, 66–69, 75–87, 91–104,
108–109, 111, 112, 114–117, 121–124,
127, 128, 134, 139, 141, 142, 152, 158,
162, 172, 174, 175, 190, 191, 195–197,
199, 200, 202, 208, 211–213, 217
Conservation, 51–56, 65, 66, 69, 80, 114–117,
133, 137, 171, 172
Consultation, 2, 19, 32, 40–42, 45, 56, 60, 80,
Co-production, 1–4, 6–9, 94
Cultural heritage, 68, 80, 107–110, 112–116,
121–123, 125, 127, 148, 150, 152, 154,
155, 159, 162, 163, 165, 169, 171, 174,
186
Culture, 5, 107–109, 109, 115, 123
D
38, 45–47, 52–54, 56, 65, 66, 75, 76, 78,
79, 81, 94, 97, 98, 100, 102, 104, 139,
141, 148, 149, 156, 162, 172–174,
185–187, 189–193, 195, 196, 199–203,
212
Decision maker, 3, 20, 23, 25, 27, 32, 44, 100,
115, 169, 172, 174
Deliberation, 6, 8, 9, 84, 201
Democracy, 1, 14, 23, 32, 33, 47, 54, 75, 78,
87, 95, 99, 176, 187, 188, 202
Demographic, 35, 36, 46
E
Earthquake, 147–165
Economic development, 14, 34, 35, 52, 54, 63,
108, 109, 152, 173, 186–188, 195

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 225

J. Nared and D. Bole (eds.), Participatory Research and Planning in Practice,
The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7
226 Subject Index

Empowerment, 14, 77, 79, 92, 93, 107, 114, Marine protected areas, 51, 52, 54–56
116, 128, 174, 208 Method, 8, 13, 15, 16, 18–24, 26, 27, 32, 33,
Expert knowledge, 5, 25, 44 40, 43, 46, 47, 57, 68, 77–81, 84, 87,
110, 116, 128, 139, 140, 148, 174, 185,
F 190, 192, 207–209, 211, 216, 218
Face-to-face (meeting), 7, 8, 19, 39–44, 46, 47, Metropolitan region, 13–20, 23, 26, 27, 34
80 Municipality, 6–8, 14, 18, 31, 34–48, 58, 60,
Facilitation, 4, 9, 20, 44, 45, 53, 69, 77, 83, 84, 61, 63, 67, 75, 77, 79–82, 84–86, 123,
86, 93, 109, 129, 139, 142, 173, 176, 127, 150–152, 154–156, 158, 159, 162,
200 163, 165, 179, 187–189, 193–196,
Facilitator, 1, 13, 18, 23, 26, 27, 77, 111, 128 199–201, 203
Focus group, 21, 138, 139, 207–209, 211–218
Forest management, 209, 211, 212, 217, 218 N
Natural disaster, 141, 148
G Neighbourhood planning, 34, 39–42
Governance, 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 14, 19, 23, 25, 31,
32, 34, 38, 39, 46–48, 51–58, 61, P
65–68, 75, 78–80, 84, 93, 94, 101, 115, Participation, 1–3, 8, 9, 13–15, 17–21, 23–27,
121, 169, 170, 172–174, 176, 177, 31–35, 38–44, 46–48, 52, 54, 56, 58,
181–183, 216 60, 62, 65–68, 75–82, 84–87, 91–93,
95–104, 108, 117, 121–124, 127–129,
H 147–149, 154, 158, 160, 162–165, 169,
Heritage, 51, 52, 55, 57, 63, 67, 108, 109, 170, 172–174, 176, 183, 185–187,
111–117, 121, 122, 126–130, 155, 158, 189–192, 200–203, 207, 212, 218
162–164 Participatory action research, 1, 45, 133
Housing cooperative, 91, 92, 94–104 Participatory democracy, 32, 75, 78, 87, 99
Participatory governance, 1, 8, 46–48, 61, 65,
I 67, 68, 78, 84
Inclusive, 2–4, 7, 9, 14, 24, 52, 76, 79, 92, 98, Participatory planning, 4, 6–8, 13–15, 17–19,
121, 173, 177, 185, 202, 203 22, 24, 27, 31–35, 43–46, 48, 86, 107,
Infrastructure, 9, 14, 15, 18, 24, 39, 66, 80, 82, 108, 116, 117, 135, 187, 201
102, 134, 152, 185–190, 193–203 Participatory process, 1, 3, 14, 17–27, 33, 43,
Institutional, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 27, 44, 53, 57, 60, 62, 65–67, 84, 94, 104,
32–34, 38, 48, 65, 92, 93, 95, 112, 124, 108, 109, 111, 113, 129, 142, 169, 170,
128, 129, 142, 172, 176, 185, 187 173, 174, 179, 203
Participatory research, 26, 107–110, 112, 117,
K 135, 138, 139, 141, 207
Knowledge transfer, 3, 96 Partnership, 2, 3, 6, 32, 40, 54, 68, 69, 101,
104, 112, 114, 124, 149, 159, 164, 165
L Policy, 1–4, 6, 7, 9, 13, 23, 25, 31, 32, 45, 46,
Learning process, 14, 23, 176 53, 54, 56, 60, 61, 64, 66, 76, 78, 84, 91,
Living lab, 40–43, 80 93–96, 101, 109, 111, 112, 117, 121,
Local development, 34, 45, 52, 54, 57, 84, 107, 127, 133, 139, 142, 148, 172, 174, 175,
108, 116, 213 185, 186, 203, 207, 209, 211, 215, 217
Local level, 4, 13, 26, 27, 35, 46, 53, 54, 57, Policymaker, 111, 142, 143, 174
66, 69, 70, 114–117, 176, 200, 201, Post-socialist, 31, 33, 34, 46, 47, 76, 85, 107
207, 211, 212, 214, 217, 218 Power dynamic, 1, 2, 6, 7, 9
Protected area, 51, 52, 54–58, 61, 63, 64,
M 67–69, 172
Management plan, 6, 57, 60–69, 211 Public participation, 15, 18, 40, 123, 124, 147,
Management system, 45, 51–55, 57, 66, 67 148, 165, 173, 218
Marginalized group, 34, 40, 42, 43, 46–48, 78
Subject Index 227

R Sustainable development, 14, 53, 57, 63, 64,

Ramsar, 170, 172 66, 68, 75, 96, 98, 108, 109, 112, 116,
Recovery, 147–156, 158, 160, 162–165 134, 170
Regional development, 81, 87, 107–109, 186
Regional level, 13, 19, 35, 80, 96, 176, 202, T
203 Tokenism, 147, 149, 189
Representation, 2, 6, 33, 117, 182 Town, 31, 34, 36, 109, 155, 210
Resilience, 1, 2, 4–6, 9 Transdisciplinary, 116
River contract, 170, 172, 173 Transport, 13–20, 23–26, 55, 171, 185, 186,
190, 194, 202
S
Social capital, 23, 25, 79, 82, 91–94, 100, 104, U
108, 115 UNESCO, 51–54, 56, 57, 68, 69, 111
Social cohesion, 9, 92, 94, 115, 116, 186 Urban greens, 34, 40–42, 75–79, 84, 87
Social media, 18, 40–43, 45 Urban planning, 2, 4, 5, 9, 75, 77, 78, 121
Stakeholder, 3, 4, 6–8, 13, 17–27, 32, 40–42, Urban resilience, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9
45, 51–55, 57, 65–67, 69, 77–81, Urban spaces, 1
84–86, 92, 93, 108, 109, 115, 116, 121,
127, 129, 133, 135, 142, 149, 162, 169, W
170, 172–183, 185–187, 189–193, Web platform, 40–42
196–203, 207, 209, 211, 212, 216–218 Wetland, 55, 63, 169–183
Stakeholder analysis, 3, 4, 15, 17, 18, 169, 170, Workshop, 7, 8, 13, 15–17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26,
172, 174, 177 28, 40–46, 60, 80, 81, 84–86, 97, 111,
Stakeholder mapping, 174, 176, 178, 180–183 116, 117, 124, 126, 127, 179, 181, 182,
Strategic planning, 14, 19, 34, 40–43, 46, 47, 197
112 World heritage site, 51, 52
Sustainability, 1, 2, 60, 68, 75, 76, 79, 81, 86,
87, 98, 99, 112, 129, 134, 137, 139, 141,
142