Social Values of Forests and Production of New Goods and Services: The Views of Swedish Family Forest Owners
Tóm tắt
Forests are considered crucial assets for sustainable rural development, and contemporary forestry is an industry where production, environmental and social goals can—and should—be handled simultaneously. Swedish family forest owners (FFOs) are expected to both manage and conserve their forests for the benefit of the whole country, but there are contradictions between development and conservation and between traditional and alternative forms of utilization representing dilemmas in rural areas. Tensions between urban and rural areas, between demands on what to produce and protect, are often linked to the FFOs’ views on opportunities for forest management. The aim of this study is to identify and analyse the extent to which FFOs perceive that social values have the ability to generate “new” goods and services as a supplement or alternative to traditional forestry, and to suggest how the forests might be managed to render high social values. Fifty-seven interviews were conducted with FFOs (both resident and non-resident). The results indicate that regardless of where they reside, FFOs have a multifunctional view of their forests and forest management, that the social values attached to forests can play an important role in development of local recreation- and forest-based tourism activities, and in this respect they can enhance sustainable rural development. It is, however, not obvious who might start and develop these businesses, since there seems to be a lack of interest among the FFOs themselves.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Almstedt Å, Brouder P, Karlsson S, Lundmark L (2014) Beyond post-productivism: from rural policy discourse to rural diversity. Eur Countrys 4:297–306
Alsos GA, Carter S (2006) Multiple business ownership in the Norwegian farm sector: resource transfer and performance consequences. J Rural Stud 22(3):313–322
Annerstedt M, Norman J, Boman M, Mattsson L, Grahn P, Währborg P (2010) Finding stress relief in a forest. Ecol Bull 53:33–42
Appelstrand M (2009) Bridging entrepreneurial innovation and public environmental values in small-scale forestry with the New Public Service model of public administration. In: McGill D (ed) Seeing the forest beyond the trees: new possibilities and expectations for products and services from small-scale forestry. Peer reviewed proceedings, IUFRO, 3. University of West Virginia, Morgantown
Appelstrand M, Lidestav G (2015) Women entrepreneurship: a shortcut to a more competitive and equal forestry sector? Scand J For Res 30(3):226–234
Baxter J, Eyles J (1997) Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: establishing ‘rigour’ in interview analysis. Trans Inst Br Geogr 22(4):505–525
Beland Lindahl K, Sténs A, Sandström C, Johansson J, Lidskog R, Ranius T, Roberge JM (2017) The Swedish forestry model: More of everything? For Policy Econ 77:44–55
Berlin C, Lidestav G, Holm S (2006) Values placed on forest property benefits by Swedish NIPF owners; differences between members in forest owner associations and non-members. Small Scale For Econ Manag Policy 5(1):83–96
Bjärstig T, Kvastegård E (2016) Forest social values in a Swedish rural context: the private forest owners’ perspective. For Policy Econ 65:17–24
Brandt J, Vejre H (2004) Multifunctional landscapes volume 1: theories, values and history. WIT Press, Southampton
Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, Hatton Macdonald D (2010) Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and how? Landsc Urban Plan 97(2):111–122
De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272
EEA (2016) Report No 14/2016, Quiet areas in Europe—The environment unaffected by noise pollution. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/quiet-areas-in-europe Accessed 29 Aug 2017
Eggers J et al (2014) Factors influencing the choice of management strategy among small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Forests 5:1695–1716
Elands BHM, Praestholm S (2008) Landowners’ perspectives on the rural future and the role of forests across Europe. J Rural Stud 24(1):72–85
Elands BHM, Wiersum KF (2001) Forestry and rural development in Europe: an exploration of socio-political discourses. For Policy Econ 3(1–2):5–16
Eriksson M (2017) Changing attitudes to Swedish wolf policy. Wolf return, rural areas, and political alienation. Dissertation, Department of Political Science, Umeå University
Eriksson L, Nordlund A, Westin K (2013) The general public´s support for forest policy in Sweden: a value belief approach. J Environ Plan Man 56(6):850–867
Felton A, Gustafsson L, Roberge J-M, Ranius T, Hjältén J, Rudolphi J, Felton A (2016) How climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies can threaten or enhance the biodiversity of production forests: insights from Sweden. Biol Conserv 194:11–20
Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68(3):643–653
Fredman P, Wall-Renius S, Grundén A (2012) The nature of nature in nature-based tourism. Scand J Hosp Tour 12(4):289–309
Giddings B, Hopwood B, O’Brien G (2002) Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustain Dev 10(4):187–196
Glück P, Weiss G (1996) Forestry in the context of rural development: future research needs. In: EFI proceedings No 15, European Forest Institute, Joensuu
Government decision (2014) Regeringsbeslut M2014/593/Nm. Etappmål för biologisk mångfald och ekosystemtjänster. www.regeringen.se/rapporter/2014/04/m2014.06/. Accessed 29 Nov 2016
Government Prop. 1992/93: 226 Regeringens proposition 1992/93: 226 om en ny skogspolitik. http://data.riksdagen.se/dokument/GG03226. Accessed 30 Nov 2016
Government Skr. 2008/09: 167 Regeringens skrivelse 2008/09: 167 En strategi för att stärka utvecklingskraften i Sveriges landsbygder. http://www.regeringen.se/49bba4/contentassets/c3a8ac33d6524c589b71539acc5849b3/en-strategi-for-att-starka-utvecklingskraften-i-sveriges-landsbygder-skrivelse-200809167. Accessed 4 Oct 2017
Haaland C, Fry G, Peterson A (2011) Designing farmland for multifunctionality. Landsc Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2010.536202
Hannerz M, Lindhagen A, Forsberg O, Fries C, Rydberg D (2016) Skogsskötsel för friluftsliv och rekreation, Skogsskötselserien nr 15 http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/globalassets/mer-om-skog/skogsskotselserien/skogsskotselserien-15-skogsskotsel-for-friluftsliv-och-rekreation.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2017
Haugen K, Karlsson S, Westin K (2016) New forest owners: change and continuity in the characteristics of Swedish non-industrial private forest owners (NIPF Owners) 1990–2010. Small Scale For 1–18
Holmgren L, Lidestav G, Nyquist S (2005) Taxation and investment implications of non-industrial private forestry within a boreal Swedish municipality. Small Scale For Econ Manag Policy 4(1):35–51
Hugosson M, Ingemarsson F (2004) Objectives and motivations of small-scale forest owners: theoretical modelling and qualitative assessment. Silva Fenn 38:217–231
Ingemarsson F et al (2006) A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scand J For Res 21:249–259
Kronholm T (2016) How are Swedish forest owners’ associations adapting to needs of current and future members and their organizations? Small Scale For 15:413–532
Kvale S (1996) Interviews—an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Lidestav G, Ekström M (2000) Introducing gender in studies on management behaviour among non-industrial private forest owners. Scand J For Res 15:378–386
Lindgren U, Pettersson Ö, Jansson B, Nilsagård H (2000) Skogsbruket i den lokala ekonomin. Rapport 4. Skogsstyrelsens förlag, Jönköping
Lundell Y, Dolling A (2010) Kan skogsmiljöer användas vid rehabilitering av människor med utmattningssyndrom?. SLU, Fakta Skog nr, p 13
MacFarlane R (2007) Multi-functional landscapes: conceptual and planning issues for the countyside. In: Benson JF, Roe MH (eds) Landscape and sustainability, 2nd edn. Routledge, London
Munday M, Roberts A (2001) The role of the forestry industry transactions in the rural economy. J Rural Stud 17(3):333–346
National Forest Programme (2016) Tillväxt, mångbruk, värdeskapande av skogen som resurs. Underlagsrapport från arbetsgrupp 1 inom nationellt skogsprogram. http://www.regeringen.se/rapporter/2016/09/underlagsrapporter-till-arbetet-med-det-nationella-skogsprogrammet/. Accessed 3 Oct 2017
Nordanstig G (2004) Skogens sociala värden: hur kan skogens sociala värden tas tillvara bättre för att främja hållbar utveckling? Vad kan skogsvårdsorganisationen bidra med?. Skogsstyrelsen, Jönköping
Nordlund A, Westin K (2011) Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests 2(1):30–50
Robinson J (2004) Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 48(4):369–384
Rodriguez-Pose A (2013) Do institutions matter for regional development? Reg Stud 47(7):1034–1047
Sahlin E (2014) Utvärdering av Gröna Rehabs verksamhetsdel rehabilitering för långtidssjukskrivna med stressrelaterad psykisk ohälsa. Västra Götalandsregionen, ISM-häfte, p 6
Scott J (1998) Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press, New Haven
SEPA (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) (2011) Right of Public Access: a unique opportunity. http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Om-Naturvardsverket/Publikationer/ISBN/8500/978-91-620-8522-3/. Accessed 3 Oct 2017
SFA (Swedish Forest Agency) (2013) Meddelande 9: 2013, Skogens sociala värden – en kunskapssammanställning
Slee B (2007) Social indicators of multifunctional rural land use: the case of forestry in the UK. Agr Ecosyst Environ 120(1):31–40
Slee B, Roberts D, Evans E (2004) Forestry in the rural economy: a new approach to assessing the impacts of forestry on rural development. Forestry 77(5):441–453
SOS (Sveriges Officiella Statistik) (2014) Forest land divided into land use classes according to the Swedish Forestry Act. http://www.slu.se/en/Collaborative-Centres-and-Projects/the-swedish-national-forest-inventory/forest-statistics/forest-statistics/skogsmark/. Accessed 10 Oct 2017
SOS (Sveriges Officiella Statistik) (2016) Population density per sq. km, population and land area by region and sex. Year 1991–2016. http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__BE__BE0101__BE0101C/BefArealTathetKon/?rxid=23a99503-0524-46f7-80c4-62ab2a95be04. Accessed 10 Oct 2017
SOU 2006: 81 (2004) Mervärdesskog Del 1 Förslag och ställningstaganden. Slutbetänkande av Skogsutredningen. SOU 2006:81. http://www.regeringen.se/rattsdokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2006/10/sou-200681/. Accessed 16 Sept 2017
SOU 2013: 68. Synliggöra värdet av ekosystemtjänster - Åtgärder för välfärd genom biologisk mångfald och ekosystemtjänster
Sténs A, Sandström C (2014a) Allemansrätten in Sweden: a resistant custom. Landscapes 15(2):106–118
Sténs A, Sandström C (2014b) Allemansrätten: hinder eller möjlighet för entreprenörskap? In: Lundqvist, Johnson (eds) Allemansrätten Skogens sociala värden: forskningen visar vägen. SLU, Alnarp, pp 53–61
Sténs A, Bjärstig T, Sandström C, Nordström E-M, Fries C, Johansson J (2016) In the eye of the stakeholder: the challenges of governing social forest values. Ambio 45(2):87–99
Umaerus P, Lidestav G, Högvall-Nordin M (2011) Business activities in family farm forestry in a rural development context No 330. http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8676/1/Umaerus_P_etal_120329.pdf Accessed 11 Oct 2017
Umaerus P et al (2013) Gendered business activities in family farm forestry: from round wood delivery to health service. Scand J For Res 28:596–607
Von Essen E (2016) In the gap between legality and legitimacy: Illegal hunting in Sweden as a crime of dissent. Dissertation, institutionen för stad och land, SLU i Uppsala
Widman U, Bjärstig T (2017) Protecting forests’ social values through partnerships. Scand J For Res 32(7):645–656
Wiersum KF, Elands BH, Hoogstra MA (2005) Small-scale forest ownership across Europe: characteristics and future potential. Small Scale For Econ Manag Policy 4(1):1–19
Wilson G (2010) Multifunctional ‘quality’ and rural community resilience. Trans Br Geogr 35(3):364–381