Forestry and urban green space governance experiences rapid changes due to bottom up environmental pressure and top down changes of legislation. To deepen our understanding of crafting preferable environmental reactions towards environmental pressure, we introduced the perspective of environmental street-level bureaucrats (SLBs) and explored it using Oliver’s strategic response framework. Drawing from case studies on the governance of the moose and urban green space in Poland, we investigated the complex and mediating sphere of SLB “policy intentions” in environmental governance. We argue that SLBs can distance themselves from new expectations if these are perceived as “socially constructed” and potentially disturbing for SLBs’ professional routines. Such limited or moderated reactions can be a coping mechanism of SLBs trying to balance a complex landscape of various, even contradictory pressures. Our findings break the monolithic-type image of a ‘decision-maker’ into complex web of interrelations between administrative units and political structures. They also suggest a need of new forms of environmental (post-) bureaucracy to reinforce social trust and to deal with ambiguities of nature.
BéalV (2012)
Urban governance, sustainability and environmental movements: Post-democracy in French and British cities. European Urban and Regional Studies19(4): 404–419.
2.
BenedictMAMcMahonE (2006) Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities.
Washington, DC:
Island Press.
3.
BirchEL (2008) Growing Greener Cities: Urban Sustainability in the Twenty-First Century.
Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
4.
BlühdornI (2020)
The legitimation crisis of democracy: Emancipatory politics, the environmental state and the glass ceiling to socio-ecological transformation. Environmental Politics29(1): 38–57.
5.
BommertB (2010)
Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International Public Management Review 11(1): 15–33.
6.
CampbellLK (2014) Constructing New York city’s urban forest the politics and governance of the MillionTreesNYC campaign. In: SandbergLABardekjianAButtS (eds) Urban Forests, Trees and Greenspace. A Policy Perspective.
New York, NY:
Routledge, pp.242–260.
7.
CashoreBWAuldGNewsomD (2004) Governing through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority.
New Haven:
Yale University Press.
8.
CatneyPHenneberryJ (2012) (
Not) exercising discretion: Environmental planning and the politics of Blame-Avoidance. Planning Theory & Practice13(4): 549–568.
9.
ConnollyJJTSvendsenESFisherDR, et al. (2014)
Networked governance and the management of ecosystem services: The case of urban environmental stewardship in New York city. Ecosystem Services10: 187–194.
10.
ConradECassarLFChristieM, et al. (2011)
Hearing but not listening? A participatory assessment of public participation in planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy29(5): 761–782.
11.
CrookRAyeeJ (2006)
Urban service partnerships, ‘Street-Level bureaucrats’ and environmental sanitation in Kumasi and Accra, Ghana: Coping with organisational change in the public bureaucracy. Development Policy Review24(1): 51–73.
12.
Della PortaDAndrettaM (2002)
Social movements and public administration: Spontaneous citizens’ committees in Florence. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research26(2): 244–265.
13.
Environmental protection program for the Capital City of Warsaw for the years 2017–2020 with a perspective until 2023 (2017) The City of Warsaw.
14.
FinemanS (1998)
Street-level bureaucrats and the social construction of environmental control. Organization Studies19(6): 953–974.
15.
FischerF (2000) Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge.
Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
16.
FlickU (2011) An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 4th ed., repr. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
17.
GallettaA (2013) Mastering the Semi-Structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication. Qualitative Studies in Psychology.
New York:
New York University Press.
18.
GarotR (2004) “
You’re not a stone”: Emotional sensitivity in a bureaucratic setting. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography33(6): 735–766.
HallPA (1993)
Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics25(3): 275.
21.
HanniganJA (2014) Environmental Sociology. 3rd ed.
London:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
22.
HiedanpääJSaloMKotilainenJ (2015)
Teleodynamics and institutional change: The hardship of protecting the Amur tiger, big-leaf mahogany, and gray wolf. Journal for Nature Conservation26: 36–44.
23.
HochschildAR (2012) The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Updated with a New Preface.
Berkeley:
University of California Press.
24.
JohnsonPWoodGBrewsterC, et al. (2009)
The rise of Post-Bureaucracy: Theorists’ fancy or organizational praxis?International Sociology24(1): 37–61.
25.
JunttiMPotterC (2002)
Interpreting and reinterpreting agri-environmental policy: Communication, trust and knowledge in the implementation process. Sociologia Ruralis42(3): 215–232.
26.
KaufmanH (1986) The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative Behavior. Seventh Paperback Printing.
Washington:
Resources for Future.
27.
KonczalAA (2017) Antropologia lasu: Leśnicy a percepcja i kształtowanie wizerunków przyrody w polsce. NH = Nowa Humanistyka Tom XL.
Warszawa:
Instytut Badań Literackich PAN Wydawnictwo.
28.
KonijnendijkCCRicardRMKenneyA, et al. (2006)
Defining urban forestry – A comparative perspective of North America and Europe. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening4(3–4): 93–103.
29.
Kraus D and Krumm F (2013) Integrative Approaches as an Opportunity for the Conservation of Forest Biodiversity. European Forest Institute.
30.
LipskyM (2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. 30th anniversary expanded ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
31.
LovelockB (ed.) (2008) Tourism and the Consumption of Wildlife: Hunting, Shooting and Sport Fishing. Routledge studies in contemporary geographies of leisure, tourism, and mobility 9.
London:
Routledge.
MaierCAbramsJB (2018)
Navigating social forestry – A street-level perspective on national forest management in the US pacific northwest. Land Use Policy70: 432–441.
34.
MaierCWinkelG (2017)
Implementing nature conservation through integrated Forest management: a street-level bureaucracy perspective on the German public Forest sector. Forest Policy and Economics82: 14–29.
35.
NiedziałkowskiKBeunenR (2019)
The risky business of planning reform – The evolution of local spatial planning in Poland. Land Use Policy85: 11–20.
36.
NiedziałkowskiKKomarEPietrzyk-KaszyńskaA, et al. (2018)
Discourses on public participation in protected areas governance: Application of Q methodology in Poland. Ecological Economics145: 401–409.
37.
OliverC (1991)
Strategic responses to institutional processes. The Academy of Management Review16(1): 145–179.
38.
ParkerJCronaB (2012)
On being all things to all people: Boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Social Studies of Science42(2): 262–289.
39.
PetersGB (2002) The Politics of Bureaucracy.
London:
Routledge.
40.
PetersGB (2010) The Politics of Bureaucracy: An Introduction to Comparative Public Administration.
Abingdon:
Routledge.
41.
PickeringJPerssonÅÅ (2020)
Democratising planetary boundaries: Experts, social values and deliberative risk evaluation in earth system governance. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning22(1): 59–71.
42.
Putkowska-SmoterR, et al. (2020) Greening urban politics: Conflicts over tree felling in Warsaw. In: Smagacz-PoziemskaMGómezMVPereiraP (eds) Inequality and Uncertainty.
Singapore:
SpringerSingapore, pp.319–336.
43.
RaczyńskiJ, and and RatkiewiczM (2011)
Funkcjonowanie populacji łosia w polsce. Annals of Warsaw University of Life Sciences SGGW. Animal Science 50: 51–56.
44.
RileySJDeckerDJCarpenterLH, et al. (2002) The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973–2006) 30(2): 585–593.
45.
RosolMBéalVMössnerS (2017)
Greenest cities? The (post-)politics of new urban environmental regimes. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space49(8): 1710–1718.
46.
ScerriA (2009)
Paradoxes of increased individuation and public awareness of environmental issues. Environmental Politics18(4): 467–485.
47.
SénitC-A (2020)
Leaving no one behind? The influence of civil society participation on the sustainable development goals. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space38(4): 693–712.
48.
SeväM (2015) The Decisive Role of Street-Level Bureaucrats in Environmental Management.
Luleå:
Luleå University of Technology.
49.
SharmaSHenriquesI (2005)
Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian Forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal26(2): 159–180.
50.
StyhreA (2007) The Innovative Bureaucracy: Bureaucracy in an Age of Fluidity. Routledge studies in innovation, organization and technology 3. London: Routledge.
TahvilzadehNMontinSCullbergM (2017)
Functions of sustainability: Exploring what urban sustainability policy discourse “does” in the Gothenburg metropolitan area. Local Environment22(Suppl 1): 66–85.
53.
TrustyTCervenyLK (2012)
The role of discretion in recreation decision-making by resource professionals in the USDA Forest service. Journal of Environmental Management107: 114–123.
54.
van den HoveS (2006)
Between consensus and compromise: Acknowledging the negotiation dimension in participatory approaches. Land Use Policy23(1): 10–17.
55.
VedungE (2015)
Autonomy and street-level bureaucrats’ coping strategies. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy2015(2): 28643.
56.
WawrzyniakP (2018)
Łoś (alces alces) w polsce północno-wschodniej i skala konfliktów z działalnością człowieka. In: Zalewski D (ed) Straty i Szkody Wyrządzane Przez Dzikie Zwierzęta w Gospodarce Rolnej. Leśnej i Rybackiej, Olsztyn: Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie, pp. 59–65.
57.
Wilson J and Swyngedouw E (eds) (2015) The Post-Political and its Discontents: Space of Depoliticisation, Spectres of Radical Politics. Paperback Edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
58.
WinterS (2002) Explaining street-level bureaucratic behavior in social and regulatory policy. In: Conference paper: Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in Boston, 29 August–1 September 2002.
59.
YinRK (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd ed. Applied social research methods series v.
5.
Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
60.
ZaldMNMorrillCRaoH (2005) The impact of social movements on organizations: Environment and responses. In: DavisGFMcAdamD andScottWR (eds) Social Movements and Organization Theory. 1st ed.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp.253–279.
