Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Globalisation and Change in Forest Ownership and Forest Use

Abstract

This chapter describes the multiple trends that have impacted European small-scale/private forest owners, and outlines the necessity to pay regard to forest within the context of rural literature. The chapter also outlines the European, and particularly the Swedish, case focus of the book: while comparatively little focus has so far been placed on forest in rural studies, it constitutes a case with relatively well-developed data that enable us to say something about the role of forest in relation to broader rural development. However, this also makes it crucial to contextualise this case in comparison with other examples throughout Europe, to illustrate the great variation in what forest ownership, forest use and the new forest owner may mean in different cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Milbourne (2007: 384), for example, notes that “very little critical attention has been given to processes of international migration impacting on rural areas” ”either to “movements of low-income migrants from other countries to work in low-wage sectors of the rural economy” or to lifestyle based migration, for instance “people purchasing properties—as permanent residences and second homes”.

  2. 2.

    For example, Hogl presents “seven types of forest owners [who] form a kind of a sequence from owners who have a strong agricultural background to those who have no agricultural background at all. Types 1 and 2 are characterised by full-time and part-time farmers who represent the traditional image of agricultural forest owners. Types 3 and 4 also have a rather strong agricultural background, but are less actively involved in the agricultural and forestry sectors. These four groups constitute about two thirds of Austrian forest owners and could be named, in a broad sense, ‘traditional forest owners’. The remaining third of the forest owners who form three more clusters (types 5 to 7) have almost no direct connection to agriculture and forestry ; for them working in, and deriving income from, agriculture and forestry is of little importance. These groups of forest owners could—from this perspective—be summarised under the term ‘new forest owners’” (Hogl et al. 2005: 336).

  3. 3.

    Our aim is thus not to develop a typology or detailed definition of changing forest owners per se, although it has been noted that the specific typologies used often vary between authors and are seldom used in relation to other parallel typologies (Hujala et al. 2013).

  4. 4.

    In this, the book draws on the Swedish PLURAL project (www.slu.se/plural), the EFINORD-SNS Forest in Urban and Rural Studies Network, and the European Union Cost-Action FACESMAP (facesmap.boku.ac.at/), all of which focus on the changing role of forest and forest ownership.

  5. 5.

    For a discussion on the level of urbanisation in Sweden, see also DN (2015).

References

  • DN. (2015, June 15). DN Debatt: “Rekordsnabb urbanisering av Sverige är en myt” [Debate: “Record-breaking urbanisation of Sweden is a myth”]. Retrieved March 29, 2017, from http://www.dn.se/debatt/rekordsnabb-urbanisering-av-sverige-ar-en-myt/

  • Domínguez, G., & Shannon, M. (2011). A wish, a fear and a complaint: Understanding the (dis) engagement of forest owners in forest management. European Journal of Forest Research, 130(3), 435–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elands, B. H. M., & Praestholm, S. (2008). Landowners’ perspectives on the rural future and the role of forests across Europe. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 72–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Findlay, A., & Sparks, L. (2008). Weaving new retail and consumer landscapes in the Scottish Borders. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 86–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Horlings, L. G., & Marsden, T. K. (2014). Exploring the ‘New Rural Paradigm’ in Europe: Eco-economic strategies as a counterforce to the global competitiveness agenda. European Urban and Regional Studies, 21(1), 4–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, J. (2013). Constructing and contesting the legitimacy of private forest governance: The case of forest certification in Sweden. Academic Dissertation, Umeå University, Department of Political Science, Umeå.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karppinen, H. (2012). New forest owners and owners-to-be: Apples and oranges? Small-Scale Forestry, 11(1), 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2008). Climate change and globalization in the arctic: An integrated approach to vulnerability assessment. London: Earthscan Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keskitalo, E. C. H., & Southcott, C. (2015). Globalisation. In J. Nymand Larsen & G. Fondahl (Eds.), Arctic human development report. Regional processes and global linkages. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lönnstedt, L. (2014). Swedish forest owners’ associations: Establishment and development after the 1970s. Small-Scale Forestry, 13(2), 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehmood, S., & Zhang, D. (2001). Forest parcelization in the United States. A study of contributing factors. Journal of Forestry, 99(4), 30–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijering, L., van Hoven, B., & Huigen, P. (2007). Constructing ruralities: The case of the Hobbitstee, Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 23, 357–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milbourne, P. (2007). Re-populating rural studies: Migrations, movements and mobilities. Journal of Rural Studies, 23, 381–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, D. K. (2002). Reinventing the countryside: German second-home owners in Southern Sweden. Current Issues in Tourism, 5(5), 426–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordlund, A., & Westin, K. (2010). Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests, 2(1), 30–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravera, F., Scheidel, A., dell’Angelo, J., Gamboa, G., Serrano, T., Mingorría, S., et al. (2014). Pathways of rural change: An integrated assessment of metabolic patterns in emerging ruralities. Environment, Development, and Sustainability, 16, 811–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Vicente, V., & Marey-Pérez, M. F. (2009). Land-use and land-base patterns in non-industrial private forests: Factors affecting forest management in Northern Spain. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(7), 475–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Forest Agency. (2013a). Virkets användning och ekonomiska betydelse. Jönköping: Swedish Forest Agency. http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/Upptack-skogen/Skog-i-Sverige/Fakta-om-skogen/Virket-fran-skogen/

  • Swedish Forest Agency. (2013b). Utrikeshandel. Jönköping: Swedish Forest Agency. http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/expimp

  • 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 

  • Wiersum, K. F., & Elands, B. H. M. (Eds.). (2002). The changing role of forestry in Europe: Perspectives for rural development. Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Proceedings 2002. Wageningen University, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    E. Carina H. Keskitalo

Authors
  1. E. Carina H. Keskitalo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    E. Carina H. Keskitalo

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Keskitalo, E.C.H. (2017). Introduction. In: Keskitalo, E. (eds) Globalisation and Change in Forest Ownership and Forest Use. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57116-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57116-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-57115-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-57116-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation