Gender Perspectives on Forest Services in the Rise of a Bioeconomy Discourse

  • Gun LidestavEmail author
  • Maria Johansson
  • Emily S. Huff
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 24)


Building on the claim that gender matters, this chapter problematizes the possibilities and constraints that the rising bioeconomy discourse offers regarding the gendered practices of forestry. While (pre)industrial forestry centred around a goods-dominant logic (“the pile of timber”), contemporary forestry is in some ways incorporating a more service-dominant logic (“the pile of timber plus something else”). The gendered practice of forestry, however, still draws on notions of masculinity rooted in the physically demanding manual harvesting work, in tandem with technical know-how and the overall industry is struggling with gender equality issues. The emergence of the bioeconomy as a new meta-discourse in forestry, where the industry is aiming to articulate itself as sustainable, modern and competitive, may challange the almost all male structures of forestry so that the future of forestry is more diverse. We conclude that the bioeconomy is unlikely to solely challenge the gendered practices of forestry because of its inherent neoliberal gender blindness, but with awareness of gender and power, this new discourse may at least offer an opening for problematizing taken-for-granted practices and values which in turn have the potential to shape the forestry of tomorrow in a more inclusive and diverse way.


Bioeconomy Discourse Forest owners Gender Service-dominant logic 


  1. Ager, B. (2014). Skogsarbetets humanisering och rationalisering från 1900 och framåt [The humanization and rationalization in forestry from 1900 and onwards] Luleå: Luleå tekniska universitet.Google Scholar
  2. Aggestam, F., Pülzl, H., Sotirov, M., & Winkel, G. (2017). The EU policy framework. In G. Winkel (Ed.), Towards a sustainable European forest based bioeconomyassessment and the way forward. What science can tell us 8. European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Andersson, E., & Lidestav, G. (2016). Creating alternative spaces and articulating needs: Challenging gendered notions of forestry and forest ownership through women’s networks. Forest Policy and Economics, 67, 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson, E., Johansson, M., Lidestav, G., & Lindberg, M. (2018). Constituting gender and gender equality through policy: The political of gender mainstreaming in the Swedish forest industry. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 37(8), 763–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Appelstrand, M., & Lidestav, G. (2015). Women entrepreneurship—a shortcut to a more competitive and equal forestry sector? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 30(3), 226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arts, B. J. M., Appelstrand, M., Kleinschmit, D., Pülzl, H., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Eba’a Atyi, R., & Yasm, Y. (2010). Discourses, actors and instruments in international forest governance In J. Rayner, A. Buck, & P. Katila (Eds.), Embracing Complexity: Meeting the Challenges of International Forest Governance (pp. 57–74). A Global Assessment Report, International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO World Series 28). Vienna: IUFRO.Google Scholar
  7. Brandth, B., & Haugen, M. S. (2000). From lumberjack to business manager: masculinity in the Norwegian forestry press. Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandth, B., & Haugen, M. S. (2005). Doing rural masculinity—From logging to outfield tourism. Journal of Gender Studies, 14, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butler, B. J., Hewes, J. H., Dickinson, B. J., Andrejczyk, K., Butler, S. M., & Markowski-Lindsay, M. (2016). Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2013: Findings from the USDA Forest Service’s National Woodland Owner Survey. Journal of Forestry, 114(6), 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butler, S., Huff, E. S., Snyder, S., Butler, B. J., & Tyrrell, M. (2017). The role of gender in management behaviors on family forest land in the U.S. Journal of Forestry, 116(1), 32–40.Google Scholar
  11. Connell, R. (2009). Gender. in world perspective (2nd ed.). Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Coutinho-Sledge, P. (2015). Feminized forestry: The promises and pitfalls of change in a masculine organization. Gender, Work & Organization, 22(4), 375–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. European Union. (2017). Review of the 2012 European Bioeconomy Strategy. Directorate-General for Research and innovation (European Commission).Google Scholar
  14. Fenstermaker, S., & West, C. (Eds.). (2002). Doing gender, doing difference: Inequality, power, and institutional change. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Fiebranz, R. (2010). Lagårdar och lönearbete: modernisering och skillnadsskapande i norrländsk skogsbygd vid 1900-talets mitt. [Farms and wages: modernization and differencing in the northernmost forest area in the middle of the 20th century.] Scandia, 76(1), 100–128.Google Scholar
  16. Flygare, I. (1999). Generation och kontinuitet: familjejordbruket i två svenska slättbygder under 1900-talet. [Generations and continuity: the family farm in two Swedish settlements in the 20th century] Dissertation. Uppsala: Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet.Google Scholar
  17. Follo, G. (2008). Det norske familieskogbruket, dets kvinnelige og mannlige skogeiere, forvaltningsaktivitetog metaforiske forbindelser. [The Norwegian Family Forestry, its female and male forest owners, administrative activity - and metaphorical relations.] Dissertation. Trondheim, Norge: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  18. Follo, G., Lidestav, G., Ludvig, A., Vilkriste, L., Hujala, T., Karppinen, H., et al. (2017). Gender in European forest ownership and management: reflections on women as “New forest owners”. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 32(2), 174–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. FORMAS. (2012). Swedish Research and Innovation Strategy for a Bio-based Economy. ISBN 978-91-540-6068-2.Google Scholar
  20. Golden, J. S., Handfield, R. B., Daystar, J., & McConnell, T. E. (2015). An economic impact analysis of the US biobased products industry: A report to the congress of the United States of America. Industrial Biotechnology, 11(4), 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gunnarsson, E., Andersson, S., Vänje Rosell, A., Lehto, A., & Salminen-Karlsson, M. (Eds.). (2003). Where have all the structures gone? Doing gender in organizations. Examples from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Stockholm: Centrum för kvinnoforskning vid Stockholms universitet.Google Scholar
  22. Hansen, E., Conroy, K., Toppinen, A., Bull, L., Kutnar, A., & Panwar, R. (2016). Does gender diversity in forest sector companies matter? Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 46, 1255–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hirdman, Y. (1988). Genussystemet: teoretiska funderingar kring kvinnors sociala underordning. [The gender system: Theoretical thinking about women’s social subordination] Uppsala: Maktutredningen.Google Scholar
  24. Hirdman, Y. (2001). Genus: om det stabilas föränderliga former. [Gender: On the changing forms of the stable.] Malmö: Liber.Google Scholar
  25. Hodge, D., Brukas, V., & Giurca, A. (2017). Forests in a bioeconomy: bridge, boundary or divide? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 32(7), 582–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holmgren, S., & Arora-Jonsson, S. (2015). The Forest Kingdom—with what values for the world? Climate change and gender equality in a contested forest policy context. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 30(3), 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huff, E. S. (2017). A national perspective on women on woodland (WOW) networks. Journal of Extension, 55(2), 2RIB6.Google Scholar
  28. Hugosson, M. (1999). Constructing cultural patterns from actor’s views on industrial forestry in Sweden: An interpretive study based on assessments of conceptualizations and definitions in organizational culture theory. Dissertation. Uppsala: Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet.Google Scholar
  29. Häggqvist, P., Berg Lejon, S., & Lidestav, G. (2014). Look at what they do—a revised approach to communication strategy towards private forest owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(7), 697–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Högvall-Nordin, M. (2006). “Dom brukar jämföra det med en stridspilot”: föreställningar om arbetsmiljö och risker i skogsmaskinarbete: en studie i organisationskommunikation. [“They usually compare it with being a combat pilot”: coneptualisations about working environment and risks in forestry work: a study in organizational communication.] Doctoral thesis. Umeå: Umeå universitet.Google Scholar
  31. Johansson, E. (1994). Skogarnas fria söner: maskulinitet och modernitet i norrländskt skogsarbete. [The free sons of the forests: masculinity and modernity in forestry work in the north of Sweden] Dissertation. Lund: Lunds Universitet.Google Scholar
  32. Johansson, M., & Ringblom, L. (2017). The business case of gender equality in swedish forestry and mining—Restricting or enabling organizational change. Gender, Work & Organization, 24(6), 628–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kendra, A., & Hull, R. B. (2005). Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. Forest Science, 51(2), 142–154.Google Scholar
  34. Kennedy, J. J. (1991). Integrating gender diverse and interdisciplinary professionals into traditional US Department of Agriculture-Forest Service culture. Society & Natural Resources, 4(2), 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kern, C. C., Kenefic, L. S., & Stout, S. L. (2015). Bridging the gender gap: The demographics of scientists in the USDA Forest Service and academia. BioScience, 65(12), 1165–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lidestav, G., & Sjölander, A. E. (2007). Gender and forestry: A critical discourse analysis of forestry professions in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 22, 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lidestav, G., & Wästerlund, D. (1999). Skogsutbildade kvinnors och mäns villkor i arbetslivet: resultat från en enkätundersökning. [Forest-educated women’s and men’s conditions in working life: results from a survey.] Garpenberg: Institutionen för skogsteknik, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet.Google Scholar
  38. Lidestav, G., Andersson, E., Berg Lejon, S., & Johansson, K. (2011). Jämställt arbetsliv i skogssektornunderlag för åtgärder. [Equal working life in the forest sector—basis for action] Umeå: Institutionen för skoglig resurshushållning, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet.Google Scholar
  39. Lidestav, G., & Nordfjell, T. (2005). A conceptual model for understanding social practices in family forestry. Small-scale Forestry, 4, 391–408.Google Scholar
  40. Lidestav, G. (2010). In competition with a brother: Women’s inheritance positions in contemporary Swedish family forestry. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 25(9), 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Majumdar, I., Campbell, K. A., Maure, J., Saleem, I., Halasz, J., & Mutton, J. (2017). Forest bioeconomy in Ontario—A policy discussion. The Forestry Chronicle, 93(1), 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nordlund, A., & Westin, K. (2011). Forest values and forest management attitudes among private. Forest Owners in Sweden. Forests, 2(1), 30–50.Google Scholar
  43. Pelli, P., Haapala, A., & Pykäläinen, J. (2017). Services in the forest-based bioeconomy—analysis of European strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 32(7), 559–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Persson, B. (2011). Konflikter och ömsesidigt beroende: skogsbygden och skogsarbetets organisering. [Conflicts and mutual dependence: woodlands and forestry organization] In: H. Antonson & U. Jansson (Eds.), Jordbruk och skogsbruk i Sverige sedan år 1900: studier av de areella näringarnas geografi och historia. [Agriculture and forestry in Sweden since 1900: studies of geography and history] Stockholm: Kungl. Skogs- och lantbruksakademienGoogle Scholar
  45. Pike, R. E. (1999). Tall trees, tough men. WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  46. Pülzl, H., Kleinschmidt, D., & Arts, B. (2014). Bioeconomy—an emerging meta-discourse affecting forest discourses? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(4), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ronzon, et al. (2016). Bioeconomy Report 2016. JRC Scientific and Policy Report. EUR 28468 EN.Google Scholar
  48. Rådberg, J., & Svensson, J. (2009). Svensk skogsindustris framtida konkurrensfördelar: Ett medarbetarperspektiv. [Future competitive advantages of the Swedish forest industry: An Employee perspective] Ultuna: Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet.Google Scholar
  49. Stockholm Environment Institute (2016). Den svenska bioekonomin: definitioner, nulägesanalys och möjliga framtider [The Swedish bioeconomy: definitions, satuts and visions.]Google Scholar
  50. Swegov. (2004). Det går långsamt fram: jämställdheten inom jord- och skogsbrukssektorn. [Moving forward slowly: gender equality in agricultural and forestry sector.] Ministry series 2004: 39. Stockholm: Ministry of Agriculture, Government Offices of Sweden.Google Scholar
  51. Swegov. (2011). Konkurrenskraft kräver jämställdhet: jämställdhetsstrategi för skogsbrukssektorn. [Competitiveness requires gender equality: gender equality strategy for the forestry sector.] Stockholm, Ministry of Rural Affairs, Government Offices of Sweden.Google Scholar
  52. Swegov. (2018). Strategi för Sveriges nationella skogsprogram. [Strategy for Sweden’s national forest program]. Government Offices of Sweden.Google Scholar
  53. Tillväxtanalys. (2015). Bioekonomiett växande begrepp internationellt. [Bioeconomy—a growing concept internationally.]Google Scholar
  54. Umaerus, P., Lidestav, G., Eriksson, L. O., & Högvall-Nordin, M. (2013). Gendered business activities in family farm forestry: From round wood delivery to health service. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 28(6), 596–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Umaerus, P., & Häggqvist, P. (2010). Sense or sensibility—Male and Female Private Forest Owners in Swedish Forestry Press. In M. Medved (Ed.), Small Scale Forestry in a Changing World: Opportunities and Challenges and the Role of Extension and Technology Transfer. Proceedings of IUFRO conference, 06–12 June 2010, Bled, Slovenia. Ljubljana: Slovenian Forest Institute & Slovenia Forest Service.Google Scholar
  56. Vainio, A., & Paloniemi, R. (2013). Adapting to the gender order: Voluntary conservation by forest owners in Finland. Land Use Policy, 35, 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Winkel, G. (Ed.) (2017). Towards a sustainable European forest-based bioeconomy—assessment and the way forward. What Science Can Tell Us 8. European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
  60. Wolfslehner B., Linser S., Pülzl H., Bastrup-Birk A., Camia A., & Marchetti M. (2016). Forest bioeconomy—a new scope for sustainability indicators. From Science to Policy 4. European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
  61. 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

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Luleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden
  3. 3.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations