Is There a New European Forest Owner? The Institutional Context

  • E. Carina H. Keskitalo
  • Gun Lidestav
  • Heimo Karppinen
  • Ivana Živojinović


This chapter describes how the forest owner can be seen as differently constructed in different European countries depending on, amongst other things, whether it has been necessary to re-create the forest owner and forest ownership tradition following restitution, forest or agricultural traditions, and the historical role of the small-scale forest owner. Patterns of international and national policy change, the role of supporting infrastructure such as forest owner organisations, and patterns of inheritance have also been important in constructing the forest owner. In that, the chapter contextualises and clarifies much of the case focus in other chapters—it also clarifies how different forest systems, forest owner structures, and thereby potentially also the role of forest in rural development and rural studies may vary in different countries.


  1. Abrudan, I. V. (2012). A decade of non-state administration of forests in Romania: Achievements and challenges. International Forestry Review, 14(3), 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agency for Restitution. (2016). Agency for Restitution—Register (Agencija za restituciju—Evidencija). Retrieved from July 1, 2016, from
  3. Ambjörnsson, E. L., Keskitalo, E. C. H., & Karlsson, S. (2016). Forest discourses and the role of planning-related perspectives: The case of Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 31(1), 111–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Aragón, J. M., Riera, P., Giergiczny, M., & Colinas, C. (2011). Value of wild mushroom picking as an environmental service. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(6), 419–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Von Arb, C., & Zimmermann, W. (2004). Federalism. A characteristic element of Swiss forest policy. Zurich: ETH. Retrieved November 5, 2015, from
  6. Arts, B., & Buizer, M. (2009). Forests, discourses, institutions: A discursive-institutional analysis of global forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 340–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Avdibegović, M., Nonić, D., Posavec, S., Petrović, N., Marić, B., Milijić, V., et al. (2010). Policy options for private forest owners in Western Balkans: A qualitative study. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca, 38(1), 257–261. doi: 10.15835/nbha3814691
  8. Avdibegović, M., & Pezdevšek Malovrh, Š. (2015). Sources of information for private forest owners—Comparative analysis between Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In Živojinović, I., Lidestav, G., Feliciano, D., Hujala, T., Lawrence, A., & Weiss, G. (Eds.), Concepts, methods and findings in forest ownership research in Europe. Mid-term Proceedings of the COST Action FP1201 Forest Land Ownership Changes in Europe: Significance for Management and Policy FACESMAP. EFICEEC-EFISEE Research Report. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Vienna, Austria. p. 120. [Online publication].Google Scholar
  9. Bengston, D. N. (1994). Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources, 7, 515–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berlin, C., Lidestav, G., & Holm, S. (2006). Values placed on forest property benefits by Swedish NIPF owners: Differences between members in a forest owner association and non-members. Small-Scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 5(1), 83–96.Google Scholar
  11. Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2000). Globalization. Four paths of internationalization and domestic policy change: The case of ecoforestry in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 33(1), 67–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bouriaud, L., & Schmithusen, F. (2005). Allocation of property rights on forests through ownership reform and forest policies in central and Eastern European Countries. Swiss Forestry Journal, 156(8), 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cruickshank, J. A. (2009). A play for rurality—Modernization versus local autonomy. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(2009), 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Djurfeldt, G. (1996). Defining and operationalizing family farming from a sociological perspective. Sociologia Ruralis, 36(3), 340–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duesberg, S., O’Connor, D., & Dhubháin, Á. N. (2013). To plant or not to plant—Irish farmers’ goals and values with regard to afforestation. Land Use Policy, 32, 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2013). Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. A new EU Forest Strategy: For forests and the forest-based sector. Brussels 20.9.2013. COM(2013) 659 final.Google Scholar
  17. FAO. (2012). Review of forest owners’ organizations in selected Eastern European countries, by G. Weiss, I. Guduriü, & B. Wolfslehner. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper No. 30, Rome.Google Scholar
  18. Feliciano, D., & Mendes, A. C. (2011). Forest owners’ organizations in north and central Portugal–assessment of success. SEEFOR-South-East European Forestry, 2, 1–12.Google Scholar
  19. Findlay, A., & Sparks, L. (2008). Weaving new retail and consumer landscapes in the Scottish Borders. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer, A. P., 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
  21. 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
  22. Follo, G. (2015). Norway. Forest ownership. In I. Živojinović, G. Weiss, G. Lidestav, D. Feliciano, T. Hujala, Z. Dobšinská, A. Lawrence, E. Nybakk, S. Quiroga, & U. Schraml (Eds.), Forest land ownership change in Europe. COST Action FP1201 FACESMAP Country Reports, Joint Volume. EFICEEC-EFISEE Research Report. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Vienna, Austria. p. 693. [Online publication].Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Forest Europe. (2015). State of Europe’s Forests 2015.Google Scholar
  25. Gadaud, J., & Rambonilaza, M. (2010). Amenity values and payment schemes for free recreation services from non-industrial private forest properties: A French case study. Journal of Forest Economics, 16(4), 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Giannakourou, G. (2005). Transforming spatial planning policy in Mediterranean countries: Europeanization and domestic change. European Planning Studies, 13(2), 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glavonjić, P., Nonić, D., Ranković, N., Milijić, V., & Jankov D. (2011). Analysis of legislative and institutional framework of the restitution process in forestry of Serbia and the countries of Southeastern Europe. First Serbian forestry congress: Future with forests. Belgrade: University of Belgrade, Faculty of Forestry.Google Scholar
  28. Glete, J. (1987). Ägande och industriell omvandling [Ownership and industrial development]. Stockholm, Sweden: Kristianstads Boktryckeri AB.Google Scholar
  29. Glück, P. (2000). Theoretical perspectives for enhancing biological diversity in forest ecosystems in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics, 1(3), 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glück, P., Avdibegović, M., Čabaravdić, A., Nonić, D., Petrović, N., Posavec, S., et al. (2010). The preconditions for the formation of private forest owners’ interest associations in the Western Balkan Region. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(4), 250–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gómez-Vázquez, I., Álvarez-Álvarez, P., & Marey-Pérez, M. F. (2009). Conflicts as enhancers or barriers to the management of privately owned common land: A method to analyze the role of conflicts on a regional basis. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(8), 617–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gummesson, O. (1993). Utan kamp ingen seger—om Gösta Edström och Södra Skogsägarna. Laholm, Sweden: Trydells Tryckeri AB.Google Scholar
  33. Hajnal, J. (1965). European marriage pattern in historical perspective. In D. V. Glass & D. E. C. Eversley (Eds.), Population in history. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  34. Halder, P., Paladinić, E., Stevanov, M., Orlović, S., Hokkanen, T. J., & Pelkonen, P. (2014). Energy wood production from private forests–nonindustrial private forest owners’ perceptions and attitudes in Croatia and Serbia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 35, 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hanley, N., Ready, R., Colombo, S., Watson, F., Stewart, M., & Bergmann, E. A. (2009). The impacts of knowledge of the past on preferences for future landscape change. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(3), 1404–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harrinkari, T., Katila, P., & Karppinen, H. (2016). International influences in the revision of Finnish forest act. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 32(1), 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Hartman, M. S. (2004). The household and the making of history. A subversive view of the western. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hill, B. (1993). The “myth” of the family farm. Defining the family farm and assessing its importance in the European community. Journal of Rural Studies, 9(4), 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Holmes, S. (1993). A forum on restitution: Essays on the efficiency and justice of returning property to its former owners. East European Constitutional Review, 34 (The Europeanization of Property Restitution Problems in South-Eastern Europe).Google Scholar
  42. Holmgren, E., Keskitalo, E. C. H., & Lidestav, G. (2010). Swedish forest commons—A matter of governance? Forest Policy and Economics, 12(6), 423–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. Humphreys, D. (2006). Logjam: Deforestation and the crisis of global governance. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  46. Janse, G., & Ottitsch, A. (2005). Factors influencing the role of non-wood forest products and services. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(3), 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Karppinen, H., Horne, P., Hujala, T., Jeppänen, J., Matilainen, A., & Talkkari, A. (2015). Finland. Forest management associations. In I. Živojinović, G. Weiss, G. Lidestav, D. Feliciano, T. Hujala, Z. Dobšinská, A. Lawrence, E. Nybakk, S. Quiroga, & U. Schraml (Eds.), Forest land ownership change in Europe. COST Action FP1201 FACESMAP Country Reports, Joint Volume. EFICEEC-EFISEE Research Report. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Vienna, Austria. p. 693. [Online publication].Google Scholar
  48. Keskitalo, E. C. H., Lidestav, G., Lindgren, J. Understanding place attachment amongst “new” forest owners: The case of Sveaskog forest purchasers in northern Sweden (in prep).Google Scholar
  49. Keskitalo, E. C. H., & Pettersson, M. (2016). Can adaptation to climate change at all be mainstreamed in complex multi-level governance systems? A case study of forest-relevant policies at the EU and Swedish levels. In W. Leal Filho, K. Adamson, R. M. Dunk, U. M. Azeiteiro, S. Illingworth, & F. Alves (Eds.), Implementing climate change adaptation in cities and communities. Integrating strategies and educational approaches (pp. 53–74). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Keskitalo, E. C. H., Sandström, C., Tysiachniouk, M., & Johansson, J. (2009). Local consequences of applying international norms: Differences in the application of forest certification in northern Sweden, northern Finland, and northwest Russia. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 1. [online]
  51. Kronholm, T. (2015). Forest owner associations in a changing society. Doctoral Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae, 2015, p. 102.Google Scholar
  52. Kühne, O. (2012). Urban nature between modern and postmodern aesthetics: Reflections based on the social constructivist approach. Quaestiones Geographicae, 31(2), 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kvarda, M. E. (2004). ‘Non-agricultural forest owners’ in Austria—A new type of forest ownership. Forest Policy and Economics, 6(5), 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lankia, T., Neuvonen, M., Pouta, E., & Sievänen, T. (2014). Willingness to contribute to the management of recreational quality on private lands in Finland. Journal of Forest Economics, 20, 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lawrence, A., & Dandy, N. (2014). Private landowners’ approaches to planting and managing forests in the UK: What’s the evidence? Land Use Policy, 36, 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lidestav, G., Arvidsson, A.-M. (2012). Member, owner, customer, supplier?—The question of perspective on membership and ownership in a private forest owner cooperative. In C. Okia (Ed.), Global perspectives on sustainable forest management (pp. 75–94). INTECH, Forestry/Book 2. doi: 10.5772/34115.
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. Lönnstedt, L. (2014). Swedish forest owners’ associations: Establishment and development after the 1970s. Small-Scale Forestry, 13(2), 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Matilainen, A., Koch, M., Živojinović, I., Didolot, F., Lähdesmäki, M., Lidestav, G., et al. (2016). Construction of forest ownership in different forest owning cultures in Europe. FACESMAP COST Action report.Google Scholar
  61. Mantescu, L. (2009, March 3–9). When globalization meets postsocialism—community-based institutions for managing forest commons and the internationalization of timber market in Romania. Paper presented at a Seminar at the Faculty of Economics, University of Navarra, Iruñea-Pamplona.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. la Mela, M. (2014). Property rights in conflict: Wild berry-picking and the Nordic tradition of allemansrätt. Scandinavian Economic History Review, 62(3), 266–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moreira, F., Viedma, O., Arianoutsou, M., Curt, T., Koutsias, N., Rigolot, E., et al. (2011). Landscape–wildfire interactions in southern Europe: Implications for landscape management. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10), 2389–2402.Google Scholar
  65. Nicholls, D., & Young, M. (2005). Private woods in crisis? A report on a survey of private woodland estates in England and Wales. Report. University of Cambridge Department of Land Economy and Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge. Retrieved November 5, 2015, from
  66. Nilsson, S. (2005). Experiences of policy reforms of the forest sector in transition and other countries. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(6), 831–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nonić, D., Bliss, J. C., Milijic, V., Petrovic, N., Avdibegović, M., & Mataruga, M. (2011). Challenges of organizing private forest owners in Serbia. Small-Scale forestry, 10(4), 435–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nonić, D., Petrović, N., Medarević, M., Glavonjić, P., Nedeljković, J., Stevanov, M., et al. (2015). Forest land ownership change in Serbia. COST Action FACESMAP Country Reports. European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
  69. Nordlund, A., & Westin, K. (2010). Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests, 2(1), 30–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nybakk, E., & Talbot, B. (2015). Norway. Forest management approaches for new forest owner types. In I. Živojinović, G. Weiss, G. Lidestav, D. Feliciano, T. Hujala, Z. Dobšinská, A. Lawrence, E. Nybakk, S. Quiroga, & U. Schraml (Eds.), Forest land ownership change in Europe. COST action FP1201 FACESMAP Country Reports, Joint Volume. EFICEEC-EFISEE Research Report. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Vienna, Austria. p 693. [Online publication].Google Scholar
  71. Ojala, J., & Mäkelä, M. (2013). Uusi metsälaki lisää metsänomistajien valinnanmahdollisuuksia ja vastaa toimintaympäristön muutoksiin [The revised forest act increases forest owners’ freedom of choice and answers to changes in the operational environment]. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja, 1, 71–73.Google Scholar
  72. PROFOR. (2005). Forest institutions in transition: Experiences and lessons from Eastern Europe. Europe and Central Asia region ECSSD. PROFOR Book 4. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  73. Pülzl, H., & Hogl K. (2013). Forest governance in Europe. In H. Pülzl, K. Hogl, D. Kleinschmit, D. Wydra, B. Arts, P. Mayer, M. Palahí, G. Winkel, G., & B. Wolfslehner (Eds.), European forest governance: Issues at stake and the way forward What Science Can Tell Us 2 (pp. 11–17). Joensuu: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
  74. Pülzl, H., Kleinschmidt, D., & Arts, B. (2014). Bioeconomy—An emerging meta-discourse affecting forest discourses? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29, 386–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Põllumäe, P., Korjus, H., Kaimre, P., & Vahter, T. (2014a). Motives and incentives for joining forest owner associations in Estonia. Small-Scale Forestry, 13(1), 19–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Põllumäe, P., Korjus, H., & Paluots, T. (2014b). Management motives of Estonian private forest owners. Forest Policy and Economics, 42, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1996). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy, 9(1), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rokai, M. (2015). Restitution and denationalization of property in Serbia, as part of transition and democratization of the state: A legal and historical approach. RSP No. 46, pp. 52–62.Google Scholar
  79. Rye, J. F. (2011). Conflicts and contestations. Rural populations’ perspectives on the second homes phenomenon. Journal of Rural Studies, 27, 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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
  81. Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  82. Sandell, K., & Fredman, P. (2010). The right of public access–opportunity or obstacle for nature tourism in Sweden? Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(3), 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sarvašová, Z., Živojinović, I., Weiss, G., Dobšinská, Z., Drăgoi, M., János Gál, J., et al. (2015). Forest owner associations in the Central and Eastern European Region. Small-Scale Forestry, 14(2), 217–232.Google Scholar
  84. Samils, N., Olivera, A., Danell, E., Alexander, S. J., Fischer, C., & Colinas, C. (2008). The socioeconomic impact of truffle cultivation in rural Spain. Econ Bot, 62(3), 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schraml, U. (2005). Between legitimacy and efficiency: The development of forestry associations in Germany. Small-Scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 4(3), 251–267.Google Scholar
  86. Schulz, T., Krumm, F., Bücking, W., Frank, G., Kraus, D., Lier, M., et al. (2014). Comparison of integrative nature conservation in forest policy in Europe: A qualitative pilot study of institutional determinants. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23(14), 3425–3450.Google Scholar
  87. Soares, J. (2013). Forest intervention areas (ZIF): A new approach for non-industrial private forest management in Portugal. Silva Lusitana, 21(2), 137–161.Google Scholar
  88. Stjernström, O., Karlsson, S. & Pettersson, P., et al. (2013). Skogen och den kommunala planeringen [The forest and the municipal comprehensive planning] PLAN, Nr. 1.Google Scholar
  89. Stojanovic, B., Lipovac, M., & Lakic, B. (2012). Protection of property rights: The issue of restitution. In A. Rabrenovic & J. Ceranic (Eds.), Alignment of the Serbian law with acquis communautaire: Priorities, problems, perspectives. Beograd: Institut za uporedno pravo.Google Scholar
  90. Susi-cee. (2011). Innovation and sustainability in forestry in central and eastern Europe: Challenges and perspectives (SUSI-CEE)’. Final Report. Central-East European Regional Office (EFICEEC), Vienna.Google Scholar
  91. 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
  92. Torniainen, T. J., Saastamoinen, O. J., & Petrov, A. P. (2006). Russian forest policy in the turmoil of the changing balance of power. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(4), 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Urbel-Piirsalu, E., & Bäcklund, A. K. (2009). Exploring the sustainability of estonian forestry: The socioeconomic drivers. Ambio, 38(2), 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Urquhart, J., & Courtney, P. (2011). Seeing the owner behind the trees: A typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(7), 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Weiland, S. (2010). Sustainability transitions in transition countries: Forest policy reforms in south-eastern Europe. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20, 397–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wightman, A. (2012). Forest ownership in Scotland. A scoping study. Forest Policy Group. Retrieved November 5, 2015, from
  97. Winkel, G., Aggestam, F., Sotirov, M., & Weiss, G. (2013). Forest policy in the European union. In H. Pülzl, K. Hogl, D. Kleinschmit, D. Wydra, B. Arts, P. Mayer, M. Palahi, G. Winkel, & B. Wolfslehner (Eds.), European forest governance: Issues at stake and the way forward (pp. 52–63). EFI Series: What Science Can Tell Us No. 2.Google Scholar
  98. 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
  99. Živojinović, I., Weiss, G., Lidestav, G., Feliciano, D., Hujala, T., Dobšinská, Z., et al. (2015). Forest land ownership change in Europe. COST Action FP1201 FACESMAP Country Reports. Joint Volume. EFICEEC-EFISEE Research Report. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Vienna. Austria. p. 693. [Online publication].Google Scholar
  100. Wong, J., Lawrence, A., Urquhart, J., Feliciano, D., Slee, B. (2015) Forest Land Ownership Change in United Kingdom. COST Action FP1201 FACESMAP Country Report, European Forest Institute Central-East and South-East European Regional Office, Vienna. 72 pages. [Online publication]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Carina H. Keskitalo
    • 1
  • Gun Lidestav
    • 2
  • Heimo Karppinen
    • 3
  • Ivana Živojinović
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Economic HistoryUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Forest Resource ManagementSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  4. 4.European Forest Institute Central East European Regional Office EFICEECc/o University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU)ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations