Advertisement

Interactions Between Forest Owners and Their Forests

  • Gun Lidestav
  • Camilla Thellbro
  • Per Sandström
  • Torgny Lind
  • Einar Holm
  • Olof Olsson
  • Kerstin Westin
  • Heimo Karppinen
  • Andrej Ficko
Chapter

Abstract

More than half of the forest land in Europe is privately owned, and ownership structure is known to have implications for management, production of timber and other forest products and services that support the transformation towards a green economy. This chapter provides examples of how we can gain knowledge about the forest and forest owner/user relationship from a structural point of view. Sweden is taken as an example because of the accessibility of continuous data on forest conditions, ownership and demographic data. It is concluded that the pace of change in ownership structure and forest management behaviour is slow. Further, neither the ongoing migration, urbanisation, ageing population nor the increased proportion of women seems to reduce the willingness to manage and harvest.

References

  1. Berg Lejon, S., Holmgren, L., & Lidestav, G. (2011). A Swedish data base for forest owner analysis. Small-Scale Forestry, 10, 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brandl, H. (2002). The economic situation of family-farm enterprises in the southern black forest. Small-Scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 1(1), 13–24.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, J. (2008). Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, p. 72.Google Scholar
  4. Carlén, O. (1990). Private nonindustrial forest owners’ management behavior: An economic analysis based on empirical data. Rep. No. 92, Dissertation 12, Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.Google Scholar
  5. Department of Forest Resource Management. (2016). SLU forest map. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.Google Scholar
  6. Eggers, J., Lämås, T., Lind, T., & Öhman, K. (2014). Factors influencing the choice of management strategy among small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Forests, 5, 1695–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Enander, K.-G. (2003). Skogsbrukssätt och skogspolitik 1950–2000. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Silviculture. Report NO. 54. ISSN 0348-8969.Google Scholar
  8. 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 and Natural Resources, 25, 1102–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ficko, A. (2016). Options for considering private owner objectives in forest management planning—A case study for Slovenia. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana. http://www.digitalna-knjisnica.bf.uni-lj.si/gozdarstvo/dd_ficko_andrej.pdf
  10. Ficko, A., & Boncina, A. (2015). Forest owner willingness to pay for a forest property plan may reduce public expenditures for forest planning. European Journal of Forest Research, 134, 1043–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer, P. A., Bliss, J., Ingemarson, F., Lidestav, G., & Lönnstedt, L. (2010). From the small woodland problem to ecosocial systems: The evolution of social research on small-scale forestry in Sweden and the USA. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 25(4), 390–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FOREST EUROPE. (2015). State of Europe’s forests 2015.Google Scholar
  13. Fridman, J., Holm, S., Nilsson, M., Nilsson, P., Ringvall, A. H., & Ståhl, G. (2014). Adapting National Forest Inventories to changing requirements—The case of the Swedish National Forest Inventory at the turn of the 20th century. Silva Fennica, 48(3), 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hänninen, H., Karppinen, H., & Leppänen, J. (2011). Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2010 [Finnish forest owner 2010]. Metlan työraportteja/Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 208, p. 94.Google Scholar
  15. 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 Forestry, 15(4), 533–550. doi: 10.0007/s121842-016-9338x. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holmgren, E., Lidestav, G., & Kempe, G. (2004). Forest condition and management in Swedish forest commons. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 3(3), 453–468.Google Scholar
  17. Ingemarson, F. (2004). Small-scale forestry in Sweden: Owners’ objectives, silvicultural practices and management plans. Dissertation, Department of Forest Products and Markets, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae Silvestria, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  18. Ingemarson, F., Lindhagen, A., & Eriksson, L. (2006). A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 21, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Järveläinen, V.-P. (1978). Yksityismetsätalouden seuranta. Metsälöotokseen perustuvan tietojärjestelmän kokeilu. Summary: Monitoring the development of Finnish private forestry. A test of an information system based a sample of forest holdings. Folia Forestalia, 354, 31.Google Scholar
  20. Johansson, J., & Lidestav, G. (2011). Can voluntary standards regulate forestry?—Assessing the environmental impacts of forest certification in Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 13, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karppinen, H., & Berghäll, S. (2015). Forest owners’ stand improvement decisions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karppinen, H., Hänninen, H., & Ripatti, P. (2002). Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2000 [Finnish forest owners 2000]. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja, 852, 83.Google Scholar
  23. Krott, M. (2008). Forest government and forest governance within a Europe in change. EFI Proceedings No. 55, pp. 13–26.Google Scholar
  24. Kuuluvainen, J., Karppinen, H., Hänninen, H., & Uusivuori, J. (2014). Effects of gender and length of land tenure on timber supply in Finland. Journal of Forest Economics, 20(4), 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lidestav, G., & Berg Lejon, B. (2013). Harvesting and silvicultural activities in Swedish family forestry—Behavior changes from a gender perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 28(2), 136–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lidestav, G., & Berg Lejon, S. (2011). Forest certification as an instrument for improved forest management within small-scale forestry. Small-Scale Forestry, 10, 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lidestav, G., & Nordfjell, T. (2005). A conceptual model for understanding social practices in family forestry. Small-Scale Forest Economics Management and Policy, 4, 391–408.Google Scholar
  28. Lillesand, M. T., Kiefer, W. R., & Chipman, W. J. (2008). Remote sensing and image interpretation (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  29. Lundqvist, F. (2003). Skogsförryngring—åtgärder och synsätt bland privata skogsägare i Mellannorrland. Masters thesis, Inst f skogsskötsel, SLU. Examensarbeten 2004–2006, Umeå (in Swedish with English summary).Google Scholar
  30. Lönnstedt, L. (1974). En gruppering av de privata skogsägarna [Grouping of small-scale forest owners]. Skogshögskolan: Institutionen för skogsekonomi (in Swedish).Google Scholar
  31. Lönnstedt, L. (1989). Goals and cutting decisions of private small forest owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 4, 259–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ní Dhubháin, A., Cobanova, R., Karppinen, H., Misaraite, D., Ritter, E., Slee, B., & Wall, S. (2007). The values and objectives of private forest owners and their influence on forestry behaviour: The implications for entrepreneurship. Small-Scale Forestry, 6(4), 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nordlund, A., & Westin, K. (2011). Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests, 2, 30–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Olsson, O. (2014). Out of the wild: Studies on the forest as a recreational resource for urban residents. Department of Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, Sweden. GERUM kulturgeografi 2014, p. 1.Google Scholar
  35. Ovaskainen, V., & Kuuluvainen, J. (Ed.). (1994). Yksityismetsänomistuksen rakennemuutos ja metsien käyttö [Structural changes in private forestry and the utilisation of forests. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 484, p. 122, appendices.Google Scholar
  36. Reese, H., Nilsson, M., Granqvist Pahlén, T., Hagner, O., Joyce, S., Tingelöf, U., et al. (2003). Countrywide estimates of forest variables using satellite data and field data from the national forest inventory. AMBIO, 32(8), 542–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sennblad, G. (1988). Survey of logging and silviculture in non-industrial private forestry in Sweden 1984. Part 2. Private forest owners and their holdings in Sweden 1984. Dept. of Operational Efficiency, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Garpenberg. Report 1976. p. 35. ISBN 91-575-3479-5.Google Scholar
  38. SFS. (2010). Planning and building Act 2010:900.Google Scholar
  39. Skogsdata. (2015). Dept. Forest Resources Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.Google Scholar
  40. SLU Forest Map. (2016). Dept. of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.Google Scholar
  41. Svensson, J., Sandström, P., Sandström, C., Jougda, L., & Baer, K. (2012). Sustainable landscape management in the Vilhelmina Model Forest, Sweden. Forestry Chronicle, 88(3), 291–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swedish Forest Agency. (2014). Statistical yearbook of forestry 2014. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsens förlag.Google Scholar
  43. Swedish Forest Agency. (2016a). Skogsdataportalen. Retrieved February 2, 2016, from http://skogsdataportalen.skogsstyrelsen.se/Skogsdataportalen/
  44. Swedish Forest Agency. (2016b). Forest holdings and forest owners in Vilhelmina municipality. Retrieved January 22, 2016.Google Scholar
  45. Swedish National Land Survey. (2016a). Economic map; property borders. Digital layer. Retrieved January 22, 2016.Google Scholar
  46. Swedish National Land Survey (2016b). Road map; forest cover. Digital layer. Retrieved March 10, 2016.Google Scholar
  47. Tomppo, E., Gschwantner, T., Lawrence, M., & McRoberts, R. E. (Eds.). (2010). National forest inventories—Pathways for common reporting (1st ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Törnqvist, T. (1995). Skogsrikets arvingar: En sociologisk studie av skogsägarskapet inom privat, enskilt skogsbruk (Inheritors of the Woodlands. A Sociological Study of Private, Non-Industrial Forest Ownership), PhD dissertation, Department of Forestry-Industry-Market Studies, Report 41, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala (in Swedish with English summary).Google Scholar
  49. Whiteman, A., Wickramasinghe, L., & Piña, L. (2015). Global trends in forest ownership, public income and expenditure on forestry and forestry employment. Forest Ecology and Management, 352, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gun Lidestav
    • 1
  • Camilla Thellbro
    • 1
  • Per Sandström
    • 1
  • Torgny Lind
    • 1
  • Einar Holm
    • 2
  • Olof Olsson
    • 2
  • Kerstin Westin
    • 2
  • Heimo Karppinen
    • 3
  • Andrej Ficko
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Forest Resource ManagementSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Economic HistoryUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  4. 4.Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest ResourcesUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations