Advertisement

Multi-level Planning and Conflicting Interests in the Forest Landscape

  • Olof Stjernström
  • Rein Ahas
  • Sabina Bergstén
  • Jeannette Eggers
  • Hando Hain
  • Svante Karlsson
  • E. Carina H. Keskitalo
  • Tomas Lämås
  • Örjan Pettersson
  • Per Sandström
  • Karin Öhman
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter describes and analyses overlapping planning structures and multi-level planning issues and how they affect current land use and management in the forest landscape. Forest land use in Sweden is based on a large proportion of privately owned forests with the primary purpose of producing timber for the forest industries. Nevertheless, the forests are also characterised by multiple uses and many stakeholders (economic as well as ecological and social) who express themselves and relate to forest management. In this chapter, we present a number of methods, both traditional and more recent, for managing multiple use of the forest landscape. These range from physical planning and the Swedish Right of Public Access to Natura 2000, forest certification, reindeer-husbandry plans, and scenario techniques.

References

  1. Allard, C. (2006). Two sides of the coin-rights and duties: The interface between environmental law and Saami law based on a comparison with Aoteoaroa/New Zealand and Canada. Luleå: Luleå Tekniska Universitet.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, K., Angelstam, P., Elbakidze, M., Axelsson, R., & Degerman, E. (2013). Green infrastructures and intensive forestry: Need and opportunity for spatial planning in a Swedish rural-urban gradient. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 28(2), 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergstén, S., Stjernström, O., & Pettersson, Ö. (forthcoming). Private forest owners’ relationships to public use and planning in the context of property rights and their sense of ownership and place.Google Scholar
  4. Bengtsson, B. (2004). Allemansrätten vad säger lagen? Naturvårdsverket.Google Scholar
  5. Berge, B., & Adolfson, B. (2011). Effektiva planeringsprocesser i—strategier för ytstora kommuner med liten befolkning. Slutrapport. Länsstyrelserna i Norrbotten och Västerbotten.Google Scholar
  6. Biber, P., Borges, J. G., Moshammer, R., Barreiro, S., Botequim, B., Brodrechtová, Y., et al. (2015). How sensitive are ecosystem services in European forest landscapes to silvicultural treatment? Forests, 6, 1666–1695. doi: 10.3390/f6051666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blücher, G. (2013). Planning legislation in Sweden—A history of power over land-use. In Planning in Sweden (pp. 47–57). Stockholm: Swedish Society for Town and Country Planning.Google Scholar
  8. Brukas, V., & Sallnäs, O. (2012). Forest management plan as a policy instrument: Carrot, stick or sermon? Land Use Policy, 29(3), 605–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brundtland, G., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., Chidzero, B., Fadika, L., et al. (1987). Our common future (‘\brundtland report\’).Google Scholar
  10. Claesson, S., Duvemo, K., Anders Lundström, & Wikberg, P.-E. (2015). Skogliga konsekvensanalyser 2015—SKA15 (Forest impact analysis). In Swedish (No. 10). Skogsstyrelsen and SLU, Jönköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
  11. Eggers, J., Holmström, H., Lämås, T., Lind, T., & Öhman, K. (2015). Accounting for a diverse forest ownership structure in projections of forest sustainability indicators. Forests, 6, 4001–4033. doi: 10.3390/f6114001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eggers, J., Lindner, M., Zudin, S., Zaehle, S., & Liski, J. (2008). Impact of changing wood demand, climate and land use on European forest resources and carbon stocks during the 21st century. Global Change Biology, 14, 2288–2303. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01653.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eriksson, L. (2008). Treatment decisions in privately owned forestry, SLU, Dept of Forest products. Report no 11. 90 pp. (In Swedish with English summary).Google Scholar
  14. Eriksson, L., Nordlund, A. M., Olsson, O., & Westin, K. (2012). Beliefs about urban fringe forests among urban residents in Sweden. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 11(2012), 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Esseen, P. A., Ehnström, B., Ericson, L., & Sjöberg, K. (1997). Boreal forests. Ecological Bulletins, 46, 16–47.Google Scholar
  16. Evans, D. (2012). Building the European Union’s Natura 2000 network. Nature Conservation, 1, 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Field, B. C. (2001). Natural resource economics: An introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Frank, S., Fürst, C., & Pietzsch, F. (2015). Cross-Sectoral resource management: How forest management alternatives affect the provision of biomass and other ecosystem services. Forests, 6, 533–560. doi: 10.3390/f6030533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. FSC. (2013). Forest Stewardship Council. Svensk skogsbruksstandard enligt FSC med SLIMF-indikatorer. Swedish forest management standard according to FSC with SLIMF-indicators. Retrieved from http://www.fsc-sverige.org
  20. Hägerstrand, T. (1984). The landscape as overlapping neighbourhoods. Carl Saur memorial lecture. In G. Carlestam & B. Sollbe (Eds.), Om tidens vidd och tingens ordning. Texter av Torsten Hägerstrand. Byggforskningsrådet 1991.Google Scholar
  21. Hahn, T. (2000). Property rights, ethics, and conflict resolution: Foundations of the Sami economy in Sweden. Uppsala: Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences).Google Scholar
  22. Hain, H., & Ahas, R. (2008). Can forest certification improve forest management? Case study of FSC certified Estonian state forest management center. International Forest Review, 9(3), 759–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hemberg, L. (2001). Skogsbruk och rennäring. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen.Google Scholar
  24. Hengeveld, G. M., Didion, M., Clerkx, S., Elkin, C., Nabuurs, G.-J., & Schelhaas, M.-J. (2014). The landscape-level effect of individual-owner adaptation to climate change in Dutch forests. Regional Environmental Change, 1–15. doi: 10.1007/s10113-014-0718-5.
  25. Horstkotte, T., Lind, T., & Moen, J. (2015). Quantifying the implications of different land users’ priorities in the management of Boreal multiple-use forests. Environmental Management, 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0643-5.
  26. Johansson, J. (2013). Constructing and contesting the legitimacy of private forest governance: The case of forest certification in Sweden. Umea: Umea University.Google Scholar
  27. Johansson, J., & Lidestav, G. (2011). Can voluntary standards regulate forestry?—Assessing the environmental impacts of forest certification in Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(3), 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jonsson, R. (2011). Trends and possible future developments in global forest-product markets—Implications for the Swedish forest sector. Forests, 2, 147–167. doi: 10.3390/f2010147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jougda, L., Näsholm, B., Sandström, P., & Sjöström, Å. (2011). Upprättade renbruksplaner 2005–2010 Renbruksplan: Ett planeringsverktyg för samebyar. (Rapport Skogstyrelsen, 6:2011). Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen.Google Scholar
  30. Kaimovitz, D., Vallejos, C., Pacheco, P. B., & Lopez, R. (1998). Municipal governments and forest management in lowland Bolivia. Journal of Environment & Development, 7(1), 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kalonga, S. K., Midtgaard, F., & Eid, T. (2015). Does forest certification enhance forest structure? Empirical evidence from certified community-based forest management in Kilwa District, Tanzania. International Forest Review, 17(2), 182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kangas, J., & Kangas, A. (2005). Multiple criteria decision support in forest management—The approach, methods applied, and experiences gained. Forest Ecology and Management, 207(1–2), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keskitalo, E. C. H., & Liljenfeldt, J. (2014). Implementation of forest certification in Sweden: An issue of organisation and communication. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(5), 473–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keskitalo, E. C. H., & Pettersson, M. (2012). Implementing multi-level governance? The legal basis and implementation of the EU water framework Directive for forestry in Sweden. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(2), 90–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koch, N. E., & Kennedy, J. J. (1991). Multiple-use forestry for social values. Ambio, 20(7), 330–333.Google Scholar
  36. Korosuo, A., Sandström, P., Öhman, K., & Eriksson, L. O. (2014). Impacts of different forest management scenarios on forestry and reindeer husbandry. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29, 234–251. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2013.865782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Lundmark, T., Bergh, J., Nordin, A., Fahlvik, N., & Poudel, B. C. (2016). Comparison of carbon balances between continuous-cover and clear-cut forestry in Sweden. Ambio, 45, 203–213. doi: 10.1007/s13280-015-0756-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lundmark, L., & Stjernström, O. (2009). Environmental protection: An instrument for regional development? National ambitions versus local realities in the case of tourism Scandinavian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality, 9(4), 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., & O’Neill, J. (1998). Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 26(1998), 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McPherson, G., Simpson, J. R., Peper, P. J., Maco, S. E., & Xiao, Q. (2005). Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US cities. Journal of Forestry, 103(8), 411–416.Google Scholar
  42. Mermet, L., & Farcy, C. (2011, June). Contexts and concepts of forest planning in a diverse and contradictory world. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(5), 361–365. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miteva, D. A., Loucks, C. J., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2015). Social and environmental impacts of forest management certification in Indonesia. PLoS One, 10(7), e0129675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nordström, E.-M., Dolling, A., Skärbäck, E., Stoltz, J., Grahn, P., & Lundell, Y. (2015). Forests for wood production and stress recovery: Trade-offs in long-term forest management planning. European Journal of Forest Research, 134, 755–767. doi: 10.1007/s10342-015-0887-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nordström, E.-M., Eriksson, O., & Öhman, K. (2010). Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in Northern Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(8), 562–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nordström E.-M., Holmström, H., & Öhman, K. (2013). Evaluating continuous cover forestry based on the forest owner’s objectives by combining scenario analysis and multiple criteria decision analysis. Silva Fennica, 47(4), article ID 1046. doi:10.14214/sf.1046.Google Scholar
  47. Olsson, O. (2013). Changed availability of urban fringe forests in Sweden in 2000–2010. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 28(4), 386–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Olsson, O. (2014). Out in the wild—Studies on the forest as a recreational resource for urban residents. Umeå: Department of Geography and Economic History, Umeå University.Google Scholar
  49. Overdevest, C., & Rickenbach, M. G. (2006). Forest certification and institutional governance: An empirical study of Forest Stewardship Council certificate holders in the United States. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(1), 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pussinen, A., Nabuurs, G. J., Wieggers, H. J. J., Reinds, G. J., Wamelink, G. W. W., Kros, J., et al. (2009). Modelling long-term impacts of environmental change on mid- and high-latitude European forests and options for adaptive forest management. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 1806–1813. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.04.007.
  51. Radetzki, M. (1991). Den gröna myten. Ekonomisk tillväxt och miljöns kvalitet. SNS-förlag.Google Scholar
  52. Regeringsformen Kungörelse. (1974). om beslutad ny regeringsform, p. 152.Google Scholar
  53. Roberge, J.-M., Lämås, T., Lundmark, T., Ranius, T., Felton, A., & Nordin, A. (2015). Relative contributions of set-asides and tree retention to the long-term availability of key forest biodiversity structures at the landscape scale. Journal of Environmental Management, 154, 284–292. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman. 2015.02.040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rusli, M., & Nabilah, H. S. (2009). Impacts of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification on natural and plantation forests. The Malaysian Forester, 72(2), 49–57.Google Scholar
  55. Sandström, P. (2015). A toolbox for co-production of knowledge and improved land use dialogues. Doctoral thesis, Sveriges lantbruksuniv., Acta Universitatis agriculturae, Umeå.Google Scholar
  56. Sandström, C., Lindkvist, A., Öhman, K., & Nordström, E.-M. (2011). Governing competing demands for forest resources in Sweden. Forests, 2, 218–242. doi: 10.3390/f2010218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sandström, P., Pahlen, T. G., Edenius, L., Tommervik, H., Hagner, O., Hemberg, L., et al. (2003). Conflict resolution by participatory management: Remote sensing and GIS as tools for communicating land-use needs for reindeer herding in Northern Sweden. Ambio, 32(8), 557–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sandström, C., & Widmark, C. (2007). Stakeholders’ perceptions of consultations as tools for co-management—A case study of the forestry and reindeer herding sectors in Northern Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 10(1), 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. SFA. (2001). Swedish Forest Agency. Utvärdering av samråden 1998 Skogsbruk—rennäring. Meddelande 2001:6.Google Scholar
  60. SFS. (1979). 429 Skogsvårdslag (Forest Act).Google Scholar
  61. SFS. (1998). 808 Miljöbalk (Environmental Code).Google Scholar
  62. Stjernström, O., Bergstén, S., & Pettersson, Ö. (forthcoming-a). “It’s good that the forest is made use of”. Private forest owners’ perceptions of public interests and land use planning in relation to their holdings.Google Scholar
  63. Stjernström, O., Karlsson, S., & Pettersson, Ö. (2013). Skogen och den kommunala planeringen PLAN n 1.Google Scholar
  64. Stjernström, O., Karlsson, S., & Pettersson, Ö. (forthcoming). Everything takes place—Spatial planning and forest regimes at the local level in Sweden.Google Scholar
  65. Subramanian, N., Bergh, J., Johansson, U., Nilsson, U., & Sallnäs, O. (2015). Adaptation of forest management regimes in Southern Sweden to increased risks associated with climate change. Forests, 7, 8. doi: 10.3390/f7010008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Swedish Forest Agency. (2017). Natura 2000. Retrieved from http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/Myndigheten/Skog-och-miljo/Skyddad-skog/Natura-2000/
  67. Thune Hedström, R., & Lundström, M. J. (2013). Swedish land-use planning legislation. In Planning in Sweden (pp. 69–82). Stockholm: Swedish Society for Town and Country Planning.Google Scholar
  68. Triviño, M., Juutinen, A., Mazziotta, A., Miettinen, K., Podkopaev, D., Reunanen, P., et al. (2015). Managing a boreal forest landscape for providing timber, storing and sequestering carbon. Ecosystem Services. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.003.
  69. Verkerk, P. J., Anttila, P., Eggers, J., Lindner, M., & Asikainen, A. (2011). The realisable potential supply of woody biomass from forests in the European Union. Forest Ecology and Management, 261, 2007–2015. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.02.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Verkerk, P. J., Mavsar, R., Giergiczny, M., Lindner, M., Edwards, D., & Schelhaas, M. J. (2014). Assessing impacts of intensified biomass production and biodiversity protection on ecosystem services provided by European forests. Ecosystem Services, 9, 155–165. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Westfahl Backlund, M. (2008). Implementation of the European network: Natura 2000: Determined according to overarching EU directives or through compromising ecological aspects?Google Scholar
  72. Wikström, P., Edenius, L., Elfving, B., Eriksson, L. O., Lämås, T., Sonesson, J., et al. (2011). The Heureka forestry decision support system: An overview. Mathematical and Computational Forestry & Natural-Resource Sciences (MCFNS), 3(2), 87–95.Google Scholar
  73. Zanchi, G., Belyazid, S., Akselsson, C., & Yu, L. (2014). Modelling the effects of management intensification on multiple forest services: A Swedish case study. Ecological Modelling, 284, 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zaremba, M. (2012). Skogen vi ärvde. Stockholm: Weyler förlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olof Stjernström
    • 1
  • Rein Ahas
    • 2
  • Sabina Bergstén
    • 1
  • Jeannette Eggers
    • 3
  • Hando Hain
    • 4
  • Svante Karlsson
    • 1
  • E. Carina H. Keskitalo
    • 1
  • Tomas Lämås
    • 3
  • Örjan Pettersson
    • 1
  • Per Sandström
    • 3
  • Karin Öhman
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Economic HistoryUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia
  3. 3.Department of Forest Resource Management; Division of Forest PlanningSwedish University of Agricultural sciencesUmeåSweden
  4. 4.NEPConTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations