Abstract
Governing biodiversity conservation on a scattered landscape with varying physical and ownership characteristics can be a difficult challenge. Private forest owners are becoming increasingly important stakeholders, as there has been a general shift towards more participatory arrangements. With the diversity of private forest owners, it is important to understand how they relate to the idea of being, to some extent, responsible providing such public goods. We therefore used a theoretical typology of responsibility to quantify this otherwise vague concept in order to see how forest owners relate to the different biodiversity governance arrangements. Using questionnaire survey data with the core consisting of 38 different forest-environmental statements and factor analysis, we found four empirical factors that described different attitudes towards conservation. While these factors do not fit the theoretical typology one on one it is nevertheless an appropriate way of looking the preferences of governance arrangements in-depth. While developed further and used on a broader scale, this approach would be useful as further knowledge about forest owners’ stances on responsibility regarding biodiversity protection would be beneficial in designing and implementing environmental policies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theor 18(4):543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Arts B (2012) Forests policy analysis and theory use: overview and trends. For Policy Econ 16:7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.12.003
Arts B, Behagel J, van Bommel S, de Koning J, Turnhout E (2013) Prelude to practice: introducing a practice based approach to forest and nature governance. In: Arts B, Behagel J, van Bommel S, de Koning J, Turnhout E (eds) Forest and nature governance: a practice based approach. Springer, New York, pp 3–21
Bartczak A, Metelska-Szaniawska K (2015) Should we pay, and to whom, for biodiversity enhancement in private forests? An empirical study of attitudes towards payments for forest ecosystem services in Poland. Land Use Policy 48:261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.027
Bazin D, Ballet J, Touahri D (2004) Environmental responsibility versus taxation. Ecol Econ 49(2):129–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.03.015
Beavers AS, Lounsbury JW, Richards JK, Huck SW, Skolits GJ, Esquivel SL (2013) Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Pract Assess Res Eval 18(6):1–13
Biermann F, Gupta A (2011) Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: a research framework. Ecol Econ 70(11):1856–1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.008
Bouma J, Ansink E (2013) The role of legitimacy perceptions in self-restricted resource use: a framed field experiment. For Policy Econ 37:84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.006
Bovens M (2007) Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework. Eur Law J 13(4):447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
Edwards P, Kleinschmit D (2013) Towards a European forest policy—conflicting courses. For Policy Econ 33:87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.002
Estonian Environmental Agency (2017) Eesti metsavarud 2016. aastal riikliku metsainventeerimise alusel. Keskkonnaagentuur. http://www.keskkonnaagentuur.ee/sites/default/files/smi2016_tulemused.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2017
Ficko A, Lidestav G, Ní Dhubháin Á, Karppinen H, Zivojinovic I, Westin K (2017) European private forest owner typologies: a review of methods and use. For Policy Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.09.010
Horne P (2006) Forest owners’ acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation—a choice experiment based approach. Silva Fenn 40(1):169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.005
Jenota JJ, Broussard SR (2008) Examining private forest policy preferences. For Policy Econ 10:89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2007.06.001
Johansson J (2012) Challenges to the legitimacy of private forest governance—the development of forest certification in Sweden. Environ Policy Gov 22(6):424–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1591
Johansson J (2016) Participation and deliberation in Swedish forest governance: the process of initiating a National Forest Program. For Policy Econ 70:137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.001
Kamal S, Grodzińska-Jurczak M, Brown G (2015) Conservation on private land: a review of global strategies with a proposed classification system. J Environ Plan Manag 58(4):576–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.875463
Korjus H, Laarmann D, Kangur A, Paluots T, Põllumäe P (2016) Habitat quality assessment of herb-rich spruce forests in Estonia. J Eng Sci Technol Rev 9(2):12–17
Krause T, Nielsen TD (2014) The legitimacy of incentive-based conservation and a critical account of social safeguards. Environ Sci Policy 41:44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.04.015
Lazdinis M, Angelstam P, Lazdinis I (2007) Maintenance of forest biodiversity in a post-soviet governance model: perceptions by local actors in Lithuania. Environ Manag 40:20–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0387-8
Löfmarck E, Uggla Y, Lidskog R (2017) Freedom with what? Interpretations of “responsibility” in Swedish forestry practice. For Policy Econ 75:34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.004
Lönnstedt L (2012) Small scale forest owners’ responsibilities: results from a Swedish case study. Small Scale For 11(3):407–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-011-9187-6
Ministry of Environment (2017) Eesti erametsaomandi struktuur ja kasutamine 2015. aastal [The structure and use of Estonian private forest ownership in 2015]. Tartu (in Estonian)
Nielsen ASE, Jacobsen JB, Strange N (2018) Landowner participation in forest conservation programs: a revealed approach using register, spatial and contract data. J For Econ 30:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2017.10.003
North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Olive A, McCune JL (2017) Wonder, ignorance, and resistance: landowners and the stewardship of endangered species. J Rural Stud 49:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.11.014
Paavola J (2004) Protected areas governance and justice: theory and the European Union’s Habitats Directive. Environ Sci 1(1):59–77. https://doi.org/10.1076/evms.1.1.59.23763
Pellizzoni L (2004) Responsibility and environmental governance. Environ Politics 13(3):541–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000229034
Polomé P (2016) Private forest owners motivations for adopting biodiversity-related protection programs. J Environ Manag 183:212–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.097
Primmer E, Paloniemi R, Similä J, Tainio A (2014) Forest owner perceptions of institutions and voluntary contracting for biodiversity conservation: not crowding out but staying out. Ecol Econ 103:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.008
R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014
Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90(5):1933–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001
Schaaf K, Broussard S (2006) Private forest policy tools: a national survey exploring the American public’s perceptions and support. For Policy Econ 9(4):316–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.10.001
Schouten G, Glasbergen P (2011) Creating legitimacy in global private governance: the case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Ecol Econ 70(11):1891–1899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.012
Suškevičs M (2012) Legitimacy analysis of multi-level governance of biodiversity: evidence from 11 case studies across the EU. Environ Policy Gov 22(4):217–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1588
Suškevičs M (2019) Legitimate planning processes or informed decisions? Exploring public officials’ rationales for participation in regional green infrastructure planning in Estonia. Environ Policy Gov 10:10. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1836
Suškevičs M, Külvik M (2011) The role of information, knowledge and acceptance during landowner participation in the Natura 2000 designations: The cases of Otepää and Kõnnumaa. In: Jones M, Stenseke M (eds) The European landscape convention: challenges of participation. Springer, New York, pp 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9932-7_14
Timonen J, Siitonen J, Gustafsson L, Kotiaho JS, Stokland JN, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Mönkkönen M (2010) Woodland key habitats in northern Europe: concepts, inventory and protection. Scand J For Res 25(4):309–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2010.497160
Urquhart J, Courtney P, Slee B (2010) Private ownership and public good provision in English Woodlands. Small Scale For 9(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-009-9098-y
Vatn A (2018) Environmental governance: from public to private? Ecol Econ 148:170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.01.010
Wallington TJ, Lawrence G (2008) Making democracy matter: responsibility and effective environmental governance in regional Australia. J Rural Stud 24(3):277–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.11.003
Widman U (2015) Shared responsibility for forest protection? For Policy Econ 50:220–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.10.003
Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Econ 65(4):834–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.010
Young OR (1994) International governance: protecting the environment in stateless society. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the institutional research funding (IUT21-4) of the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research and by the research project no. 8-10/268 of the Estonian University of Life Sciences (“Forest policy and governance of private forests in the context of sustainable forest management”).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Põllumäe, P., Lilleleht, A. Measuring Forest Owners’ Environmental Responsibility: Quantifying a Theoretical Approach Based on a Case Study from South-Eastern Estonia. Small-scale Forestry 18, 335–351 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-019-09419-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-019-09419-3