[Bavelas A. 1950. Communication patterns in task oriented groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 271–282.]Search in Google Scholar
[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
[Blennow K., Persson E., Lindner M., Pacheco Faias S., Hanewinkel M. 2014. Forest owner motivations and attitudes towards supplying biomass for energy in Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy, 67, 223–230.]Search in Google Scholar
[Bodin Ö., Crona B.I. 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change, 19, 366–374.]Search in Google Scholar
[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
[Bourgoin J. 2012. Sharpening the understanding of socio-ecological landscapes in participatory land-use planning. A case study in Lao PDR. Applied Geography, 34, 99–110.]Search in Google Scholar
[Brass D.J. 1984. Being in the right place: a structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518–539.]Search in Google Scholar
[Cantiani M.G. 2012. Forest planning and public participation: a possible methodological approach. iForest, 5, 72–82.]Search in Google Scholar
[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. Forestry, 87 (5), 639–653.10.1093/forestry/cpu024]Search in Google Scholar
[Čiegis R., Gineitiene D. 2008. Participatory aspects of strategic sustainable development planning in local communities: experience of Lithuania. Ukio Technologinis ir Ekonominis Vystymas, 14 (2), 107–117.]Search in Google Scholar
[Craig G. 2007. Community capacity-building: something old, something new? Critical Social Policy, 27, 335–359.]Search in Google Scholar
[Driscoll C., Starik M. 2004. The primordial stake-holder: advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 55–73.]Search in Google Scholar
[Dwivedi P., Alavalapati J.R.R. 2009. Stakeholders’ perceptions on forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US. Energy Policy, 37, 1999–2007.]Search in Google Scholar
[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
[Everett M., Borgatti S.P. 2005. Ego network betweenness. Social networks, 27, 31–38.]Search in Google Scholar
[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. Ecology and Society, 13 (2), 39.]Search in Google Scholar
[Etzioni A. 1964. Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.]Search in Google Scholar
[Freeman L.C. 1979. Centrality in social networks: I. Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.]Search in Google Scholar
[Granovetter M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1360–1380.]Search in Google Scholar
[Gregory R., Wellman R. 2001. Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study. Ecological Economics, 39 (1), 37–52.]Search in Google Scholar
[Grimble R., Chan M.K. 1995. Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing countries. Natural Resources Forum, 19 (2), 113–124.]Search in Google Scholar
[Grimble R., Wellard K. 1997. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems, 55 (2), 173–193.]Search in Google Scholar
[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. Human Ecology, 34, 573–592.10.1007/s10745-006-9035-z]Search in Google Scholar
[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
[Higgs G., Berry R., Kidner D., Langford M. 2008. Using IT approaches to promote public participation in renewable energy planning: Prospects and challenges. Land Use Policy, 25 (4), 596–607.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kangas A., Laukkanen S., J. Kangas J. 2006. Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management – a review. Forest Policy and Economics, 9, 77–92.]Search in Google Scholar
[Keltner D., Gruenfeld D.H., Anderson C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.]Search in Google Scholar
[Korhonen K., Hujala T., Kurttila M. 2013. Diffusion of voluntary protection among family forest owners: decision process and success factors. Forest Policy and Economics, 26, 82–90.]Search in Google Scholar
[Krackhardt D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape: structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 342–369.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kraxner F., Yang J., Yamagata Y. 2009. Attitudes towards forest, biomass and certification – a case study approach to integrate public opinion in Japan. Bioresource Technology, 100, 4058–4061.]Search in Google Scholar
[Leavitt H.J. 1951. Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 38–50.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lisec A., Drobne S. 2009. The influence of protected natural and cultural heritage on land management/market: the case of Slovenian natural protected areas. Spatium, 20, 41–48.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lupo Stanghellini P.S. 2010. Stakeholder involvement in water management: the role of the stakeholder analysis within participatory processes. Water Policy, 12, 675–694.]Search in Google Scholar
[Marsden P.V. 2002. Egocentric and sociocentric measures of network centrality. Social Networks, 24, 407–422.]Search in Google Scholar
[Miron D., Preda M. 2009. Stakeholder Analysis of the Romanian Energy Sector. Review of International Comparative Management, 10 (5), 877–892.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mitchell R., Agle B., Wood D. 1997. Towards a theory of stakeholder identification: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), 853–886.]Search in Google Scholar
[Mizruchi M.S., Potts B.P. 1998. Centrality and power revisited: actor success in group decision making. Social Networks, 20, 353–387.]Search in Google Scholar
[Newman M.E.J. 2005. A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Social Networks, 27, 39–54.]Search in Google Scholar
[Neal J.W. 2009. Network ties and mean lies: A relational approach to relational aggression. Journal of community psychology, 37 (6), 737–753.]Search in Google Scholar
[Nichiforel R. 2011. Stakeholder analysis of the Romanian forest sector. The USV Annals of Economics and Public Administration, 11 (1), 114–125.]Search in Google Scholar
[ODA. 1995. Guidance note on how to do stakeholder analysis of aid projects and programmes. Overseas Development Administration, London, UK.]Search in Google Scholar
[Paletto A., Ferretti F., De Meo I. 2012. The Role of Social Networks in Forest Landscape Planning. Forest Policy and Economics, 15, 132–139.]Search in Google Scholar
[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”, 19th-23th May 2014 (eds.: E. Schiberna, M. Stark), Foundation for Sustainable Forest Management, Sopron, 163–175.]Search in Google Scholar
[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. Journal of Forest Science, 60, 472–483.]Search in Google Scholar
[Paletto A., Hamunen K., De Meo I. 2015. The social network analysis to support the stakeholder analysis in participatory forest planning. Society and Natural Resources, 28 (1), 1108–1125.]Search in Google Scholar
[Pirlogea C., Cicea C. 2012. Econometric perspective of the energy consumption and economic growth relation in European Union. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16 (8), 5718–5726.]Search in Google Scholar
[Prell C., Hubacek K., Reed M. 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 22, 501–518.]Search in Google Scholar
[Pristov J., Pristov N., Zupančič B. 1998. Klima v Triglavskem narodnem parku. Razprave in raziskave 8, Triglavski narodni park, Bled.]Search in Google Scholar
[Proscovia Mutekanga F., Kessler A., Leber K., Visser S. 2013. The use of stakeholder analysis in integrated watershed management. Mountain Research and Development, 33 (2), 122–131.]Search in Google Scholar
[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. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1933–1949.]Search in Google Scholar
[Rinaldi F., Jonsson R., Sallnäs O., Trubins R. 2015. Behavioral modelling in a Decision Support System. Forests, 6, 311–327.]Search in Google Scholar
[SFS. 2012. National forest inventory data. Ljubljana, Slovenian Forest Service.]Search in Google Scholar
[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
[Stubelj Ars M. 2013. Evaluation of hikers’ pro-environmental behavior in Triglav National Park, Slovenia. eco.mont – Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research and Management, 5 (1), 35–42.]Search in Google Scholar
[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. eco.mont – Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research and Management, 5 (1), 59–62.]Search in Google Scholar
[Turner J.C. 2005. Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35 (1), 1–22.]Search in Google Scholar
[Walz A., Lardelli C., Behrendt H., Grêt-Regamey A., Lundström C., Kytzia S., Bebi P. 2007. Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81 (1/2), 114–131.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wasserman S., Faust K. 1994. Social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511815478]Search in Google Scholar
