Advertisement

AMBIO

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 196–206 | Cite as

Public Perceptions and Acceptance of Intensive Forestry in Sweden

  • Kerstin Hemström
  • Krushna Mahapatra
  • Leif Gustavsson
Report

Abstract

The use of intensive forestry on part of the forested area in Sweden increases the production of forest biomass and enables an increased use of such biomass to mitigate climate change. However, with increasing conflicting interests in forests and forestry, the success of such a strategy depends on the public acceptance. In this paper, the results of a mail survey show that although a majority of the general public in Sweden supports measures to increase forest growth, they oppose the use of intensive forestry practices such as the cultivation of exotic tree species, clones, and forest fertilization. The acceptance of such practices is mainly influenced by the perceptions of their environmental consequences. Public acceptance was highest for forest fertilization, whereas clone cultivation was the least accepted practice.

Keywords

Intensive forestry Acceptance Perceptions General public Sweden 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The financial support of the European Union, the county administrative board of Jämtland, Sveaskog, SCA Forest Products, Norrskog, and Jämtkraft is acknowledged.

References

  1. Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Beland Lindahl, K., and E. Westholm. 2011. Food, paper, wood or energy? Global trends and future Swedish forest use. Forests 2: 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beland Lindahl, K., and E. Westholm. 2012. Future forests: Perceptions and strategies of key actors. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 27: 154–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishir, J., and J.H. Roberds. 1999. On numbers of clones needed for managing risks in clonal forestry. Forest Genetics 6: 149–155.Google Scholar
  5. Carnus, J.-M., J. Parrotta, E.G. Brockerhoff, M. Arbez, H. Jacte, A. Kremer, D. Lamb, K. O’Hara, et al. 2003. Planted forests and biodiversity. Paper presented at the UNFF International experts meeting on the role of planted forests in sustainable forest management, New Zeeland, 24–30 March, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. Clement, J.M., and A.S. Cheng. 2011. Using analyses of public value orientations, attitudes and preferences to inform national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming. Applied Geography 31: 393–400. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colombo, S.J., J. Chen, M.T. Ter-Mikaelian, J. McKechnie, P.C. Elkie, H.L. MacLean, and L.S. Heath. 2012. Forest protection and forest harvest as strategies for ecological sustainability and climate change mitigation. Forest Ecology and Management 281: 140–151. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.06.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dillman, D.A., J.D. Smyth, and L.M. Christian. 2009. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method, 3rd ed. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. ECORYS. 2009. Shaping forest communication in the European Union: public perceptions of forests and forestry. ECORYS Research and Consulting, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 127 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Elands, B.H.M., T.N. O’Leary, H.W.J. Boerwinkel, and K. Freerk Wiersum. 2004. Forests as a mirror of rural conditions; local views on the role of forests across Europe. Forest Policy and Economics 6: 469–482. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2004.01.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engelmark, O., K. Sjöberg, B. Andersson, O. Rosvall, G.I. Ågren, W.L. Baker, P. Barklund, C. Björkman, et al. 2001. Ecological effects and management aspects of an exotic tree species: The case of lodgepole pine in Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 141: 3–13. doi: 10.1016/s0378-1127(00)00498-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eriksson, L. 2012. Exploring underpinnings of forest conflicts: A study of forest values and beliefs in the general public and among private forest owners in Sweden. Society & Natural Resources 25: 1102–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ford, R.M., K.J.H. Williams, I.D. Bishop, and T. Webb. 2009. A value basis for the social acceptability of clearfelling in Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 90: 196–206. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grayston, S.J. 2007. Effects of forest fertilization on soil C sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse-gas budget of soils under changing climate and landuse (Burnout). In Proceedings of the European science foundation COST Action 639 Workshop, Vienna, Austria, April 2007. Federal research and training centre for forests, natural hazards and landscape (BWF), Vienna, Austria, ed. R. Jandl and M. Olsson, Vol. 110, 33–38.Google Scholar
  15. Gundersen, V.S., and L.H. Frivold. 2008. Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7: 241–258. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gustafsson, L., A. Dahlberg, M. Green, S. Henningsson, C. Hägerhäll, A. Larsson, Å. Lindelöw, A. Lindhagen, et al. 2009. Consequences for cultural heritage, outdoor life, landscape scenery and biodiversity. Basic data for the MINT report. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden, 208 pp. (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  17. Kardell, L., and P. Wallsten. 1989. Some group’s attitudes to Pinus contorta. Section of Environmental Forestry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 55 pp. (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  18. Larsson, S., T. Lundmark, and G. Ståhl. 2009. Possibilities for intensive forestry: Final report on government commission Jo 2008/1885. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden, 136 pp. (in Swedish, English summary).Google Scholar
  19. Lindkvist, A., Ö. Kardell, and C. Nordlund. 2011. Intensive forestry as progress or decay? An analysis of the debate about forest fertilization in Sweden, 1960–2010. Forests 2: 112–146. doi: 10.3390/f2010112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindkvist, A., E. Mineur, A. Nordlund, C. Nordlund, O. Olsson, C. Sandström, K. Westin, and E.C.H. Keskitalo. 2012. Attitudes on intensive forestry. An investigation into perceptions of increased production requirements in Swedish forestry. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 27: 438–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manning, R., W. Valliere, and B. Minteer. 1999. Values, ethics and attitudes toward national forest management: an empirical study. Society & Natural Resources 12: 421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McFarlane, B.L., and L.M. Hunt. 2006. Environmental activism in the forest sector: Social psychological, social–cultural, and contextual effects. Environment and Behavior 38: 266–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pallant, J. 2010. SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using the SPSS program, 4th ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Pappila, M., and I. Pölönen. 2012. Reconsidering the role of public participation in the Finnish forest planning system. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 27: 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ribe, R.G. 2006. Perceptions of forestry alternatives in the US Pacific Northwest: information effects and acceptability distribution analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26: 100–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sandström, C., A. Lindkvist, K. Öhman, and E.-M. Nordström. 2011. Governing competing demands for forest resources in Sweden. Forests 2: 218–242. doi: 10.3390/f2010218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schreiber, J.B., A. Nora, F.K. Stage, E.A. Barlow, and J. King. 2006. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research 99: 323–337. doi: 10.2307/27548147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sheppard, S.R.J. 2005. Landscape visualisation and climate change: The potential for influencing perceptions and behaviour. Environmental Science & Policy 8: 637–654. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2005.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simonsen, R., O. Rosvall, P. Gong, and S. Wibe. 2010. Profitability of measures to increase forest growth. Forest Policy and Economics 12: 473–482. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Statistics Sweden. 2011. Statistics on the distribution of the Swedish population. Retrieved March 18, 2011, from www.scb.se.
  32. Stern, P.C. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56: 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Swedish Forest Agency. 2010. Swedish statistical yearbook of forestry 2010. Official Statistics of Sweden, NRS Tryckeri AB, Huskvarna: Swedish Forest Agency.Google Scholar
  34. Tabachnick, B.G., and L.S. Fidell. 2006. Using multivariate statistics, 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  35. Vaske, J.J., and M.P. Donnelly. 1999. A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society & Natural Resources 12: 523–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kerstin Hemström
    • 1
  • Krushna Mahapatra
    • 1
  • Leif Gustavsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Linnaeus UniversityVäxjöSweden

Personalised recommendations