Advertisement

Introduction

  • E. Carina H. Keskitalo
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter describes the multiple trends that have impacted European small-scale/private forest owners, and outlines the necessity to pay regard to forest within the context of rural literature. The chapter also outlines the European, and particularly the Swedish, case focus of the book: while comparatively little focus has so far been placed on forest in rural studies, it constitutes a case with relatively well-developed data that enable us to say something about the role of forest in relation to broader rural development. However, this also makes it crucial to contextualise this case in comparison with other examples throughout Europe, to illustrate the great variation in what forest ownership, forest use and the new forest owner may mean in different cases.

References

  1. DN. (2015, June 15). DN Debatt: “Rekordsnabb urbanisering av Sverige är en myt” [Debate: “Record-breaking urbanisation of Sweden is a myth”]. Retrieved March 29, 2017, from http://www.dn.se/debatt/rekordsnabb-urbanisering-av-sverige-ar-en-myt/
  2. Domínguez, G., & Shannon, M. (2011). A wish, a fear and a complaint: Understanding the (dis) engagement of forest owners in forest management. European Journal of Forest Research, 130(3), 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Elands, B. H. M., & Praestholm, S. (2008). Landowners’ perspectives on the rural future and the role of forests across Europe. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Findlay, A., & Sparks, L. (2008). Weaving new retail and consumer landscapes in the Scottish Borders. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Follo, G. (2011). Factors influencing Norwegian small-scale private forest owners’ ability to meet the political goals. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 26(4), 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Follo, G., Forbord, M., Almås, R., Blekesaune, A., & Rye, J. F. (2006). Den nye skogeieren. Hvordan øke hogsten i Trøndelag. Rapport 1/06, Norsk senter for bygdeforskning, Trondheim.Google Scholar
  7. Harrison, S., Herbohn, J., & Niskanen, A. (2002). Non-industrial, smallholder, small-scale and family forestry: What’s in a name? Small-Scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 1(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  8. Hogl, K., Pregernig, M., & Weiss, G. (2005). What is new about new forest owners? A typology of private forest ownership in Austria. Small-Scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 4(3), 325–342.Google Scholar
  9. Horlings, L. G., & Marsden, T. K. (2014). Exploring the ‘New Rural Paradigm’ in Europe: Eco-economic strategies as a counterforce to the global competitiveness agenda. European Urban and Regional Studies, 21(1), 4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Howley, P. (2013). Examining farm forest owners’ forest management in Ireland: The role of economic, lifestyle and multifunctional ownership objectives. Journal of Environmental Management, 123, 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hujala, T., Kurttila, M., & Karppinen, H. (2013). Customer segments among family forest owners: Combining ownership objectives and decision-making styles. Small-Scale Forestry, 12(3), 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johansson, J. (2013). Constructing and contesting the legitimacy of private forest governance: The case of forest certification in Sweden. Academic Dissertation, Umeå University, Department of Political Science, Umeå.Google Scholar
  13. Karppinen, H. (2012). New forest owners and owners-to-be: Apples and oranges? Small-Scale Forestry, 11(1), 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2008). Climate change and globalization in the arctic: An integrated approach to vulnerability assessment. London: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
  15. Keskitalo, E. C. H., & Southcott, C. (2015). Globalisation. In J. Nymand Larsen & G. Fondahl (Eds.), Arctic human development report. Regional processes and global linkages. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
  16. Lähdesmäki, M., & Matilainen, A. (2014). Born to be a forest owner? An empirical study of the aspects of psychological ownership in the context of inherited forests in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(2), 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lönnstedt, L. (2014). Swedish forest owners’ associations: Establishment and development after the 1970s. Small-Scale Forestry, 13(2), 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mattila, O., & Roos, A. (2014). Service logics of providers in the forestry services sector: Evidence from Finland and Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 43, 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mehmood, S., & Zhang, D. (2001). Forest parcelization in the United States. A study of contributing factors. Journal of Forestry, 99(4), 30–34.Google Scholar
  20. Meijering, L., van Hoven, B., & Huigen, P. (2007). Constructing ruralities: The case of the Hobbitstee, Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 23, 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Milbourne, P. (2007). Re-populating rural studies: Migrations, movements and mobilities. Journal of Rural Studies, 23, 381–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Müller, D. K. (2002). Reinventing the countryside: German second-home owners in Southern Sweden. Current Issues in Tourism, 5(5), 426–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nordlund, A., & Westin, K. (2010). Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests, 2(1), 30–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ravera, F., Scheidel, A., dell’Angelo, J., Gamboa, G., Serrano, T., Mingorría, S., et al. (2014). Pathways of rural change: An integrated assessment of metabolic patterns in emerging ruralities. Environment, Development, and Sustainability, 16, 811–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rodríguez-Vicente, V., & Marey-Pérez, M. F. (2009). Land-use and land-base patterns in non-industrial private forests: Factors affecting forest management in Northern Spain. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(7), 475–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rye, J. F., & Gunnerud Berg, N. (2011). The second home phenomenon and Norwegian rurality. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift [Norwegian Journal of Geography], 65(3), 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Swedish Forest Agency. (2013a). Virkets användning och ekonomiska betydelse. Jönköping: Swedish Forest Agency. http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/Upptack-skogen/Skog-i-Sverige/Fakta-om-skogen/Virket-fran-skogen/
  28. Swedish Forest Agency. (2013b). Utrikeshandel. Jönköping: Swedish Forest Agency. http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/expimp
  29. Toivonen, R., Järvinen, E., Lindroos, K., Rämö, A. K., & Ripatti, P. (2005). The challenge of information service development for private forest owners: The Estonia and Finland cases. Small-Scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 4(4), 451–469.Google Scholar
  30. Wiersum, K. F., & Elands, B. H. M. (Eds.). (2002). The changing role of forestry in Europe: Perspectives for rural development. Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Proceedings 2002. Wageningen University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  31. Ziegenspeck, S., Härdter, U., & Schraml, U. (2004). Lifestyles of private forest owners as an indication of social change. Forest Policy and Economics, 6(5), 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Carina H. Keskitalo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Economic HistoryUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations