Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is There a New European Forest Owner? The Institutional Context

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

Abstract

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The State of Europe’s Forests 2015 report was compiled using information relating to the pan-European Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management endorsed at the fourth Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe in 2003. Most of the information was provided by the national correspondents (NCs) through two questionnaires. For further details, see the full report FOREST EUROPE, 2015 : State of Europe’s Forests 2015.

  2. 2.

    While forestry has not been available to the local small-scale landowner, forest use may be another case. In many areas, a broader or multi-use of forest has also historically—including during the Soviet time—been pronounced, for example, in terms of berry and mushroom picking and other forest uses. These situations are widespread not least in Russia, which remains a case distinct from these examples, as forest is still owned by the state and mainly leased to industry; however, this is something that has meant that local communities using local forests, for example, for firewood, have sometimes turned to certification norms to support local forest use (Torniainen et al. 2006; Keskitalo et al. 2009). However, policies underpinning forest use may have varied greatly, and do so under current privatisation measures as well, which may also result in considerations with regard to broader public access to forest.

  3. 3.

    The restitution process has in some cases thus also meant that “[m]any forest owners are urban citizens who obtained their forest as a result of expropriated land being returned in the land reform process. Often these owners live far away from their holdings and have no connection to rural areas . Urban forest owners often perceive the forest only as a source of income and lack the interest and knowledge about forestry processes. The result is poor regeneration and maintenance” (Urbel-Piirsalu and Bäcklund 2009: 107).

  4. 4.

    In Norway , the change from agricultural to forest owners seems to have been somewhat more marked, with a higher number of forest owners previously having cultivated land (thus making Norway potentially similar in some respects to a more Central or Southern Europe understanding of private forest owners, as discussed below) (Follo 2011, compare with Toivonen et al. 2005); however, a forest owner tradition is well established (e.g. Follo et al. 2006).

  5. 5.

    Austria , Germany , Slovenia , Croatia Greece Spain, Czech Republic, Hungary, Sweden, Denmark, Latvia Switzerland, Estonia Lithuania, Norway , Finland , Luxembourg, France , Portugal.

  6. 6.

    Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia.

  7. 7.

    Soares notes that the forest management problems related to “[s]mall ownership and landowners’ absenteeism” (Soares 2013: 157–158) could potentially be supported through such cooperation; however, it has also been noted that there has been social resistance to some cooperation development approaches (Forest Intervention Areas) in Portugal, for instance related to financial constraints (Soares 2013: 158).

  8. 8.

    As in most other areas concerning forests, there are extensive variations in the recognition of multiple use or multiple priorities for forest. Gadaud and Rambonilaza note: “In the countries of southern Europe, such as France , where this legislation is based on Roman law, priority is given to the right of ownership to land, whereas the northern European countries acknowledge also the right to exploit the natural resources. In Germany , Norway and Finland, forest legislation authorizes access to private forests for walkers. In contrast, in Holland and France , access to private property is prohibited. In the case of France , even though the law recognizes a right of way for other users, it stipulates that landowners have an exclusive right on non-timber forest products and services” (Gadaud and Rambonilaza 2010: 298; see also Lankia et al. 2014).

  9. 9.

    Important differences affecting forest ownership and management are also present in taxation systems: for example, Swedish forest landownership is not taxed, as opposed to forest properties in Estonia (Urbel-Piirsalu and Bäcklund 2009; see also an example in Chap. 6, this volume).

References

  • Abrudan, I. V. (2012). A decade of non-state administration of forests in Romania: Achievements and challenges. International Forestry Review, 14(3), 275–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agency for Restitution. (2016). Agency for Restitution—Register (Agencija za restituciju—Evidencija). Retrieved from July 1, 2016, from http://www.restitucija.gov.rs/evidencija.php

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Arb, C., & Zimmermann, W. (2004). Federalism. A characteristic element of Swiss forest policy. Zurich: ETH. Retrieved November 5, 2015, from http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/interlaken/swiss_forest_federalism.pdf

  • Arts, B., & Buizer, M. (2009). Forests, discourses, institutions: A discursive-institutional analysis of global forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 340–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • Bengston, D. N. (1994). Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources, 7, 515–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruickshank, J. A. (2009). A play for rurality—Modernization versus local autonomy. Journal of Rural Studies, 25(2009), 98–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djurfeldt, G. (1996). Defining and operationalizing family farming from a sociological perspective. Sociologia Ruralis, 36(3), 340–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    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. (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 

  • 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 

  • Forest Europe. (2015). State of Europe’s Forests 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannakourou, G. (2005). Transforming spatial planning policy in Mediterranean countries: Europeanization and domestic change. European Planning Studies, 13(2), 319–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Glete, J. (1987). Ägande och industriell omvandling [Ownership and industrial development]. Stockholm, Sweden: Kristianstads Boktryckeri AB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glück, P. (2000). Theoretical perspectives for enhancing biological diversity in forest ecosystems in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics, 1(3), 195–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gummesson, O. (1993). Utan kamp ingen seger—om Gösta Edström och Södra Skogsägarna. Laholm, Sweden: Trydells Tryckeri AB.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • Hartman, M. S. (2004). The household and the making of history. A subversive view of the western. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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 

  • Holmgren, E., Keskitalo, E. C. H., & Lidestav, G. (2010). Swedish forest commons—A matter of governance? Forest Policy and Economics, 12(6), 423–431.

    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 

  • Humphreys, D. (2006). Logjam: Deforestation and the crisis of global governance. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janse, G., & Ottitsch, A. (2005). Factors influencing the role of non-wood forest products and services. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(3), 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art1/

  • 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 

  • Kühne, O. (2012). Urban nature between modern and postmodern aesthetics: Reflections based on the social constructivist approach. Quaestiones Geographicae, 31(2), 61–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvarda, M. E. (2004). ‘Non-agricultural forest owners’ in Austria—A new type of forest ownership. Forest Policy and Economics, 6(5), 459–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 https://sylva.org.uk/forestryhorizons/documents/Private_Woods_in_Crisis_2005.pdf

  • Nilsson, S. (2005). Experiences of policy reforms of the forest sector in transition and other countries. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(6), 831–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Pülzl, H., Kleinschmidt, D., & Arts, B. (2014). Bioeconomy—An emerging meta-discourse affecting forest discourses? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29, 386–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Põllumäe, P., Korjus, H., & Paluots, T. (2014b). Management motives of Estonian private forest owners. Forest Policy and Economics, 42, 8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1996). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy, 9(1), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rye, J. F. (2011). Conflicts and contestations. Rural populations’ perspectives on the second homes phenomenon. Journal of Rural Studies, 27, 263–274.

    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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbel-Piirsalu, E., & Bäcklund, A. K. (2009). Exploring the sustainability of estonian forestry: The socioeconomic drivers. Ambio, 38(2), 101–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiland, S. (2010). Sustainability transitions in transition countries: Forest policy reforms in south-eastern Europe. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20, 397–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wightman, A. (2012). Forest ownership in Scotland. A scoping study. Forest Policy Group. Retrieved November 5, 2015, from http://www.forestpolicygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Forest-Ownership-In-Scotland-Feb-2012.pdf

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    E. Carina H. Keskitalo

  2. Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden

    Gun Lidestav

  3. Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Heimo Karppinen

  4. European Forest Institute Central East European Regional Office EFICEEC, c/o University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Vienna, Austria

    Ivana Živojinović

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

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gun Lidestav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heimo Karppinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ivana Živojinović
    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., Lidestav, G., Karppinen, H., Živojinović, I. (2017). Is There a New European Forest Owner? The Institutional Context. 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_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57116-8_2

  • 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