Factors Influencing the Choice of Management Strategy among Small-Scale Private Forest Owners in Sweden
Tóm tắt
Half of the productive forest area in Sweden is owned by small-scale private forest owners. However, there is a lack of comprehensive information that would allow categorizing small-scale private forest owners according to their management strategy. In this study, we surveyed small-scale private forest owners in Sweden to determine the proportions who applied various management strategies. We analyzed the results using chi-square tests to identify the most relevant factors affecting the management strategy choices of individual forest owners. We found that “soft” factors, such as the importance of income from the forest, membership in a forest owners’ association, certification and an interest in and knowledge of forestry issues, had a stronger impact on the choice of management strategy than most “hard” factors related to the owner or the property, such as gender and distance between the owner’s residence and the property. However, property size was the most important factor and was associated with the importance of income derived from the forest and several other soft factors.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Fischer, 2010, From the small woodland problem to ecosocial systems: The evolution of social research on small-scale forestry in Sweden and the USA, Scand. J. For. Res., 25, 390, 10.1080/02827581.2010.498386
Hugosson, 2004, Objectives and motivations of small-scale forest owners; theoretical modelling and qualitative assessment, Silva Fenn., 38, 217, 10.14214/sf.430
Ingemarson, 2006, A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden, Scand. J. For. Res., 21, 249, 10.1080/02827580600662256
Appelstrand, M. (2007). Miljömålet i Skogsbruket: Styrning Och Frivillighet, Lund Studies in Sociology of Law 26, Sociologiska Institutionen, Lunds Universitet.
Umaerus, 2013, Gendered business activities in family farm forestry: From round wood delivery to health service, Scand. J. For. Res., 28, 596, 10.1080/02827581.2013.793385
Andersson, 2010, Non-industrial private forest owners’ financial risk taking: Does gender matter?, Scand. J. For. Res., 25, 6, 10.1080/02827581.2010.506767
Nordlund, 2010, Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden, Forests, 2, 30, 10.3390/f2010030
Favada, 2009, Effects of Timber Prices, Ownership Objectives, and Owner Characteristics on Timber Supply, For. Sci., 55, 512
Hujala, 2013, Customer segments among family forest owners: Combining ownership objectives and decision-making styles, Small-Scale For., 12, 335, 10.1007/s11842-012-9215-1
Boon, 2004, An empirically based typology of private forest owners in Denmark: Improving communication between authorities and owners, Scand. J. For. Res., 19, 45, 10.1080/14004080410034056
Karppinen, 1998, Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland, Silva Fenn., 32, 43, 10.14214/sf.699
Wiersum, 2005, Small-scale forest ownership across Europe: Characteristics and future potential, Small-Scale For. Econ. Manag. Policy, 4, 1, 10.1007/s11842-005-0001-1
Kline, 2000, Fostering the production of nontimber services among forest owners with heterogeneous objectives, For. Sci., 46, 302
Mizaraite, 2005, The formation of small-scale forestry in countries with economies in transition: Observations from Lithuania, Small-Scale For. Econ. Manag. Policy, 4, 437, 10.1007/s11842-005-0027-4
Mattila, 2014, Changing objectives of non-industrial private forest ownership: A confirmatory approach to measurement model testing, Can. J. For. Res., 44, 290, 10.1139/cjfr-2013-0211
Novais, 2010, Understanding the management logic of private forest owners: A new approach, For. Policy Econ., 12, 173, 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.010
Cobanova, 2007, The values and objectives of private forest owners and their influence on forestry behaviour: The implications for entrepreneurship, Small-Scale For., 6, 347, 10.1007/s11842-007-9030-2
Hatcher, 2013, The size of forest holding/parcelization problem in forestry: A literature review, Resources, 2, 39, 10.3390/resources2020039
Eriksson, L. (2008). Åtgärdsbeslut i Privatskogsbruket (Treatment Decisions in Privately Owned Forestry), SLU, Department of Forest Products. (In Swedish).
Lidestav, 2000, Introducing gender in studies on management behaviour among non-industrial private forest owners, Scand. J. For. Res., 15, 378, 10.1080/028275800448011
Lidestav, 2013, Harvesting and silvicultural activities in Swedish family forestry-Behavior changes from a gender perspective, Scand. J. For. Res., 28, 136, 10.1080/02827581.2012.701324
Gustafsson, K., and Hägg, S. (2004). Skogliga Konsekvensanalyser 2003 SKA 03, Skogsstyrelsen.
SLU, and Skogsstyrelsen (2008). Skogliga konsekvensanalyser 2008—SKA_VB 08, Skogsstyrelsen.
A non-response analysis was done by Statistics Sweden, including the background variables sex, age, income, country of origin, citizenship, marital status, residence (same or different municipality compared to forest property) and type of residential place/municipality (such as big city, suburban area, medium big cities, goods-producing municipality, rural areas, and others).
Words in brackets were not present in the questionnaire, but are used to identify the strategies.
Andersson, E. (2012). Forest Management Strategies Developed for Private Forest Owners Members in Forest Owner Assiociation Norrskog, Institutionen för Skoglig Resurshushållning, SLU. (In Swedish with English Summary).
Duncker, 2012, Classification of forest management approaches: A new conceptual framework and its applicability to European forestry, Ecol. Soc., 17, 51, 10.5751/ES-05262-170451
Wilhelmsson, E. (2011). Enskilda Skogsägarnas Målformulering, SLU, Department of Forest Resource Management. (In Swedish).
Ingemarson, F. (2004). Small-Scale Forestry in Sweden—Owners’ Objectives, Silvicultural Practices and Management Plans, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
In contrast to some other forest owner studies, the label Passive in our study refers to owners who stated that they manage their forest according to strategy 1, which is a strategy that allows for low intensive forest management operations.
SLU (2013). Forest Statistics 2013, Institutionen för Skoglig Resurshushållning, SLU.
Swedish Forest Agency (2013). Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2013, Skogsstyrelsen.
Bernes, C. (2011). Biodiversity in Sweden, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
Straka, 1984, Size of forest holding and investment behavior of nonindustrial private owners, J. For., 82, 495
Suuriniemi, 2012, Factors affecting enlargement of family forest holdings, Silva Fenn., 46, 253, 10.14214/sf.58
Lidestav, 2005, A conceptual model for understanding social practices in family forestry, Small-Scale For., 4, 391, 10.1007/s11842-005-0024-7
Kindstrand, 2008, Attitudes towards various forest functions: A comparison between private forest owners and forest officers, Scand. J. For. Res., 23, 133, 10.1080/02827580801944842