Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of integrative nature conservation in forest policy in Europe: a qualitative pilot study of institutional determinants

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this pilot study, we examine the relationship between the organisation of property rights and the economic importance of forestry on the one hand and the degree to which integrative nature conservation is formally implemented in forest policy on the other hand. Further, we are interested in whether political institutions moderate this relationship. We first offer a conceptualization of integrative nature conservation in forests and how to measure its implementation in law, ordinances and private agreements for a sample of European national and sub-national jurisdictions (Austria, Croatia, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Flanders, Baden-Württemberg and Piedmont). We subsequently try to assess the implementation of these rules and to relate them both to the structural characteristics of forestry and to an appraisal of pluralism in forest policy. Our qualitative analysis reveals that among the jurisdictions with a more centralized and corporatist forest policy, integrative nature conservation in forests tend to be less formally implemented the more corporatism dominates decision-making. It also confirms the expectation that among the more consensual jurisdictions with a strong forestry sector, rules tend to be less formally implemented. Further, the suspicion prevails that in the latter case, such rules are either complemented with exceptions for private forests or higher compensation. A more in-depth comparative examination is needed to further corroborate these findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We are aware that „close-to-nature“silviculture can be ill-defined and has been criticized for failing to emulate large-scale disturbances and therefore biodiversity associated to open landscapes (Puettmann et al. 2009).

  2. Participatory policy making is becoming more common in France, though. The "Grenelle de l’Environnement" that had been negotiated in 2008 under Sarkozy’s presidency (2007–2012) had already brought together environmentalists and the forestry sector and resulted in the integration of biodiversity goals in management plans for pubic forest as well as corresponding committments by the owners of private forests. A participatory process is currently also applied to improve the reporting on Sustainable Forest Management indicators.

  3. Italy has a strong tradition of limitations to the use of forests for public services (particularly regarding erosion control and landscape values, implemented by national laws, such as the Serpieri Forest Law of 1923 or the Glasso Law on Nature and Landscape of 1986) and this may also be a reason for the existence of a larger set of rules. While the Regional Forest Law of Piedmont does indeed list many mandatory limitations, they usually imply insufficient thresholds to really guarantee the conservation of biodiversity, and they have thus been strongly criticized by forest and environmental scientists alike.

  4. Clearly, these reforms are to some extent motivated by the planned accession of Croatia to the European Union, which has provided an extra momentum (Börzel and Buzogany 2010). A more comprehensive analysis would have to look also into the implementation of these rules, because it has been found that in transition countries, a high level of formal pre-accession compliance is usually followed by low level of practical compliance after the accession to the EU (Jacoby 1999, McDermott et al. 2010: 349).

Country reports of the INTEGRATE I project

  • Angst M (2012) Integration of nature protection in swiss forest POLICY. INTEGRATE country report. EFICENT-OEF, Freiburg

  • Van der Maaten-Theunissen M, Schuck A (2013) Integration of nature protection in forest policy in the Netherlands. INTEGRATE country report. EFICENT-OEF, Freiburg

  • Vandekerkhove K (2013) Integration of nature protection in forest policy in Flanders (Belgium). INTEGRATE country report. EFICENT-OEF, Freiburg

  • Lier M, Parviainen J (2013) Integration of nature protection in forest policy in Finland. INTEGRATE country report. EFICENT-OEF, Freiburg

  • Lovrić M, Lovrić N (2013) Integration of nature protection in Croatian forest policy. INTEGRATE country report for Croatia. European Forest Institute, EFICEEC – EFISEE Regional Office

  • Spielmann M, Bücking W, Quadt V, Krumm F (2013) Integration of nature protection in forest policy in Baden–Württemberg (Germany). INTEGRATE Country Report. EFICENT-OEF, Freiburg

  • Tissot W, Kohler Y (2013) Integration of nature protection in forest policy in France. INTEGRATE Country Report. EFICENT-OEF, Freiburg

  • Quadt V, van der Maaten-Theunissen M, Frank G. (2013) Integration of nature protection in Austrian forest policy. INTEGRATE country report for Austria. EFICENT-OEF, Freiburg

References

  • Bollmann K, Braunisch V (2013) To integrate or to segregate: balancing commodity production and biodiversity conservation in European forests. In: Kraus D, Krumm F (eds) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity, chapter 1.1, pp 18–31

  • Börzel TA, Buzogany A (2010) Environmental organisations and the Europanisation of public policy in Central and Eastern Europe: the case of biodiversity governance. Environ Polit 19(5):708–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  •  Bosschap (2012) Gedragscode Bosbeheer 2010–2015. http://www.bosschap.nl/cmsAdmin/uploads/gedragscode-bosbeheer-2010-2015.pdf. Accessed Mar 2014

  • Brändli UB (ed) (2010) Schweizerisches Landesforstinventar. Ergebnisse der dritten Erhebung 2004–2006, Birmensdorf: Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft WSL

  • Busink RL (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Netherlands, Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva

  • Buttoud G, Kouplevatskaya-Buttoud I, Slee B, Weiss G (2011) Barriers to institutional learning and innovations in the forest sector in Europe: markets, policies and stakeholders. For Policy Econ 13(2):124–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttoud G (2004) France: A forests strategy with no programme? In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 101–111

  • Carbone F, Venzi L (2004) Italy: The evolution of a 1980s national forest policy. In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 159–175

  • Chaudron A (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: France, Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva

  • Colletti L (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Italy, Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva

  • Cullotta S, Maetzke F (2008) La Pianificazione Forestale ai diversi Livelli in Italia. Italia Forestale e Montana 1:29–47

  • Dürr C (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Switzerland, Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva

  • Elsasser P, Pretzsch J (2004) Germany: A socio-political dialogue to promote sustainable forest management. In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 113–126

  • Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry (2013). Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla). http://www.metla.fi/metinfo/tilasto/julkaisut/vsk/2013/index.html Accessed Mar 2014

  • Flash Eurobarometer 379 (2013) Attitudes towards Biodiversity. Report. European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment and Directorate-General for Communication

  • Forest Europe and UNECE/FAO (2011a) Forest Types. In: Forest Europe and UNECE/FAO (eds) The State of Europe’s Forests. Status and trends in sustainable forest management in Europe, Geneva, http://www.unece.org/forests/fr/outputs/soef2011.html. Accessed Mar 2014

  • Forest Europe and UNECE/FAO (2011b) Pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management. In: Forest Europe and UNECE/FAO (eds) The State of Europe’s forests. status and trends in sustainable forest management in Europe, Geneva, http://www.unece.org/forests/fr/outputs/soef2011.html. Accessed Mar 2014

  • Foster BC, Wang D, Keeton WS, Ashton MS (2010) Implementing sustainable forest management using six concepts in an adaptive management framework. J Sustain For 29(1):79–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FRA (2010) Country report Italy. Global forest resources assessment 2010, Nr. 101. Forestry department, food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome

  • Frank G, Parviainen J, Latham J, Vandekerkhove K, Schuck A, Little D (2007) Main results, conclusions and recommendations. In: Frank Georg et al (eds) Protected forest areas in Europe—analysis and harmonisation (PROFOR): results, conclusions and recommendations. Federal research and training centre for forests. Natural Hazards and Landscape, Vienna, pp 149–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Glück P, Avibegovic M, Cabaravdic A, Nonic D, Petrovic N, Posavec S, Stojanovska M (2011) Private forest owners in the Western Balkans—Ready for the formation of interest associations, research report 25, European Forest Institute

  • Gregurović (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Croatia

  • Gulbrandsen LH (2008) The role of science in environmental governance: competing knowledge producers in Swedish and Norwegian forestry. Glob Environ Polit 8(2):99–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn WA, Knoke T (2010) Sustainable development and sustainable forestry: analogies, differences, and the role of flexibility. Eur J For Res 129(5):787–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hänninen H, Ollonqvist P, Saastamoinen O (2004) Finland: sustainable welfare via forest diversity. In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 87–99

  • Hogl K (2000) The Austrian domestic forest policy community in change? Impacts of the globalisation and Europeanisation of forest politics. For Policy Econ 1:3–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogl K, Nordbeck R, Kvarda E (2009) When international impulses hit home: the role of domestic policy subsystem configurations in explaining different types of sustainability strategies. For Policy Econ 11:357–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holvoet B, Muys B (2004) Sustainable forest management worldwide: a comparative assessment of standards. Int For Rev 6(2):99–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby W (1999) Priest and penitent: the European Union as a force in the domestic politics of Eastern Europe. East Eur Const Rev 8(1–2):62–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan A, Lenschow A (2010) Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review. Environ Policy Gov 20:147–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konisky DM, Wood ND (2012) Measuring state environmental policy. Rev Policy Res 29(4):544–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus D, Krumm F (2013) Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity. European Forest Institute, Freiburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent C (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Belgium. Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva

  • Lijphart A (1999) Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Lust N, Nachtergale L, Serbruyns I (2001) Long term plan forestry and action plan forestry in flanders. Silva Gandav 66:89–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Lust N, Serbruyns I, Van Gossum P (2004) Flanders: a free-standing regional forest programme in Belgium. In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 319–329

  • MAAPRAT-IFN—Indicateurs de gestion durable des forêts françaises métropolitaines. 2011

  • Maes WH, Fontaine M, Rongé K, Hermy M, Muys B (2011) A quantitative indicator framework for stand level evaluation and monitoring of environmentally sustainable forest management. Ecol Ind 11(2):468–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott CL, Noah E, Cashore B (2008) Differences that `Matter’? A framework for comparing environmental certification standards and government policies. J Environ Plan Policy Manage 10(1):47–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott CL, Cashore B, Kanowski P (2010) Global environmental forest policies, London/New York: Earthscan

  • Parviainen J, Frank G (2003) Protected forests in Europe approaches—harmonising the definitions for international comparison and forest policy making. In: Parviainen, J (ed) Special issue: maintaining forest biodiversity. J Environ Manag 67(1): 27–36

  • Poloni-Staudinger LM (2008) Are consensus democracies more environmentally effective? Environ Polit 17(3):410–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posavec S, Šasěk M, Beljan K (2011) The structure and potential of small scale forests in the North-West of Croatia. In: FVA (ed.), Small scale forestry in a changing world, Freiburg, Germany, pp. 107–112, Fakultät für Forst- und Umweltwissenschaften der Universität Freiburg Forstliche Versuchs- und Forschungsanstalt Baden–Württemberg

  • Pouta E (2005) Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland. For Policy Econ 7(4):539–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prem J (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Austria. Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva

  • Primmer E (2011) Policy, project and operational networks: channels and conduits for learning in forest biodiversity conservation. For Policy Econ 13(2):132–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puettmann KJ, Coates KD, Messier Ch (2009) A critique of silviculture: managing for complexity. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulla P, Schuck A, Verkerk PJ, Lasserre B, Marchetti M, Green T (2013) Mapping the distribution of forest ownership in Europe. Technical Report 88, European Forest Institute

  • Rands MRW, Adams WM, Bennun L, Butchart SHM, Clements A, Coomes D, Entwistle A, Hodge I, Kapos V, Scharlemann JPW, Sutherland WJ, Vira B (2010) Biodiversity Conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science 329:1298–1303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rantala T (2008) Discourse on legitimacy of forest and nature conservation policy in Finnish print media: framework for analysis and revised principles of democratic legitimacy. In: Böcher M, Giessen L, Kleinschmit D (eds) Environmental and forest governance. The role of governance and expertise. Proceedings of the international conference. Universitätsverlag Göttingen Göttingen, pp 41–68

  • Rayner J, Howlett M (2007) The national forest strategy in comparative perspective. For Chron 83(5):651–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saarikoski H, Akerman M, Primmer E (2012) The challenge of governance in regional forest planning: an analysis of participatory forest program processes in Finland. Soc Nat Resour 25(7):667–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sgobbi A (2010) Environmental policy integration and the nation state: what can we learn from current practices? In: Goria A, Sgobbi A, von Homeyer I (eds) Governance for the environment. A comparative analysis of environmental policy integration. The fondazione eni enrico mattei (FEEM) series on economics, the environment and sustainable development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, Northhampton, MA, pp 9–41

  • Schanz H, Ottitsch A (2004) Netherlands: Forest policy paragon or NFP failure? In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 193–206

  • Schanz H (2002) National forest programmes as discursive institutions. For Policy Econ 4(4):269–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz F (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Germany. Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva

  • Secco L, Da Re R, Gatto P, Tassa DT (2011a) How to measure governance in forestry: key dimensions and indicators from emerging economic mechanisms. Allg For und Jagdztg 182(5–6):69–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Secco L, Pettenella D, Gatto P (2011b) Forestry governance and collective learning process in Italy: likelihood or utopia? For Policy Econ 13(2):104–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serbruyns I, Luyssaert S (2006) Acceptance of sticks, carrots and sermons as policy instruments for directing private forest management. For Policy Econ 9(3):285–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNECE-FAO (2000) Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. Geneva timber and forest study papers 17, United Nations economic commission for Europe, food and agriculture organization of the United Nations

  • UNECE/FAO, MCPFE and CEPF (2007) Private forest ownership in Europe. Enquiry issued by the United Nations economic commission for europe (UNECE), the food and agricultural organization of the United Nations (FAO), the ministerial conference on the protection of forest s in Europe (MCPFE) and the confederation of European forest owners (CEPF). http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/country-info/PFO/UNECE_Enquiry_Private_Forest_Ownership_Handout.pdf. Accessed Mar 2014

  • Van Gossum P, De Maeyer W (2006) Performance of forest groups in achieving multifunctional forestry in Flanders. Small-Scale For Econ Manag Policy 5(1):19–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Herzele A, Van Gossum P (2009) Owner-specific factors associated with conversion activity in secondary pine plantations. For Policy Econ 11:230–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Herzele A, Aarts N (2013) “My forest, my kingdom”—Self-referentiality as a strategy in the case of small forest owners coping with government regulations. Policy Sci 46(1):63–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandekerkhove K, De Keersmaeker L, Walleyn R, Köhler F, Crevecoeur L, Govaere L, Thomaes A, Verheyen K (2011) Reappearance of old-growth elements in lowland woodlands in northern Belgium: do the associated species follow? Silva Fenn 45(5):909–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenman S, Liefferink D, Arts B (2009) A short history of Dutch forest policy: the ‘de-institutionalisation’ of a policy arrangement. For Policy Econ 11(3):202–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veltheim T (2010) Reporting on the pan-European qualitative indicators for sustainable forest management and national implementation commitments of the ministerial conference on protection of forests in Europe: Finland. Tech. rep., UN economic commission for Europe, food and agricultural organization, ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, Geneva

  • Venzi L (2008) Outlines of forest policy in Italy: Past experienes and recent developments. In: Cesaro L, Gatto P, Pettenella. D (eds) The multifunctional role of forests—policies, methods and case studies. EFI Proceedings 55, European Forest Institute, Joensuu, pp 39–45

  • Voitleithner J (2004) Austria: In the initial stage of a forest dialogue. In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 63–73

  • Von Arb C, Zimmermann W (2004) Federalism. A characteristic element of swiss forest policy. Institute for human-environment systems department of environmental sciences. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ETH Zurich

  • Vuletić D, Ištok I, Paladinić E (2008) The national forestry policy and strategy—Process or static document? 10th international symposium on legal aspects of European forest sustainable development, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, May 7–9

  • Weiland S (2010) Sustainability transitions in transition countries: forest policy reforms in South-eastern Europe. Environ Policy Gov 20(6):397–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiland S (2012) Reflexive governance: a way forward? In: Hogl K, Kvarda E, Nordbeck R, Pregernig M (eds) Environmental Governance. The challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 178–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss G (1998) Evaluation of mountain forest policy in Austria. Publication series of the institute of forest sector policy and economics 35, Institute of forest sector policy and economics, Vienna, pp 107–136

  • Weiss G (2004) The political practice of mountain forest restoration—comparing restoration concepts in four European countries. For Ecol Manag 195(1–2):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkel G, Sotirov M (2011) An obituary for national forest programmes? Analyzing and learning from the strategic use of “new modes of governance” in Germany and Bulgaria. For Policy Econ 13(2):143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkel G, Sotirov M (2014) Whose integration is this? European forest policy between the gospel of coordination, institutional competition, and a new spirit of integration. Environ Plan C 32, doi:10.1068/c1356j

  • Zimmermann W, Zingerli C (2004) Optimising sustainable forest management. In: David Humphreys (ed) Forests for the future. National forest programmes in Europe. Country and regional reports from COST Action E19, pp 277–293

  • Zingerli C, Bisang K, Zimmermann W (2004) Nationale forstpolitische Programme: kontext, Anforderungen und das Beispiel “Waldprogramm Schweiz”, Forstwissenschaftliche Beiträge 32. ETHZ, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

France We are grateful to C. Biache (ONF, France), M. Gosselin (Irstea, France), S. Groualle (MAAF, France), P. Beaudesson (CNPF, France) for helping us filling the assessment tables and subsequent informative discussions on integration at a national level. Switzerland We are grateful to Kurt Bollmann (WSL) and Anton Bürgi (WSL) for giving valuable information about the organisation of nature conservation in Swiss forests.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903, Birmensdorf, Switzerland

    Tobias Schulz

  2. EFI Central European Regional Office EFICENT, Wonnhalde 4, 79100, Freiburg, Germany

    Frank Krumm & Daniel Kraus

  3. Previously Forest Research Institute of Baden-Württemberg, Saalenbergstrasse 7, 79294, Sölden, Austria

    Winfried Bücking

  4. Federal Research and Training Centre for Forests, Natural Hazards and Landscape, Hauptstrasse 7, 1140, Vienna, Austria

    Georg Frank

  5. The Finnish Forest Research Institute, Yliopistokatu 6, PO Box 68, 80101, Joensuu, Finland

    Markus Lier & Jari Parviainen

  6. European Forest Institute, Yliopistokatu 6, PO Box 68, 80101, Joensuu, Finland

    Marko Lovrić

  7. Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology, University of Greifswald, Soldmannstrasse 15, 17487, Greifswald, Germany

    Marieke van der Maaten-Theunissen

  8. Irstea, UR EFNO, Domaine des Barres, 45290, Nogent-Sur-Vernisson, France

    Yoan Paillet

  9. Università degi Studi di Torino, DISAFA, Via da Vinci 44, 10095, Grugliasco, Italy

    Giorgio Vacchiano

  10. INBO, Research Institute for Nature and Forests, Kliniekstraat 25, Brussels, Belgium

    Kris Vandekerkhove

Authors
  1. Tobias Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank Krumm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Winfried Bücking
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Georg Frank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel Kraus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Markus Lier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marko Lovrić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marieke van der Maaten-Theunissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yoan Paillet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jari Parviainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Giorgio Vacchiano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Kris Vandekerkhove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Schulz.

Additional information

Communicated by Georg Winkel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schulz, T., Krumm, F., Bücking, W. et al. Comparison of integrative nature conservation in forest policy in Europe: a qualitative pilot study of institutional determinants. Biodivers Conserv 23, 3425–3450 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0817-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0817-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation