Social Values of Forests and Production of New Goods and Services: The Views of Swedish Family Forest Owners

被引:0
作者
Therese Bjärstig
Anna Sténs
机构
[1] Umeå University,Department of Political Science
[2] Umeå University,Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies
来源
Small-scale Forestry | 2018年 / 17卷
关键词
Social values; Multifunctionality; Family forest owners (FFOs); Rural development; Sweden;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Forests are considered crucial assets for sustainable rural development, and contemporary forestry is an industry where production, environmental and social goals can—and should—be handled simultaneously. Swedish family forest owners (FFOs) are expected to both manage and conserve their forests for the benefit of the whole country, but there are contradictions between development and conservation and between traditional and alternative forms of utilization representing dilemmas in rural areas. Tensions between urban and rural areas, between demands on what to produce and protect, are often linked to the FFOs’ views on opportunities for forest management. The aim of this study is to identify and analyse the extent to which FFOs perceive that social values have the ability to generate “new” goods and services as a supplement or alternative to traditional forestry, and to suggest how the forests might be managed to render high social values. Fifty-seven interviews were conducted with FFOs (both resident and non-resident). The results indicate that regardless of where they reside, FFOs have a multifunctional view of their forests and forest management, that the social values attached to forests can play an important role in development of local recreation- and forest-based tourism activities, and in this respect they can enhance sustainable rural development. It is, however, not obvious who might start and develop these businesses, since there seems to be a lack of interest among the FFOs themselves.
引用
收藏
页码:125 / 146
页数:21
相关论文
共 98 条
[1]  
Almstedt Å(2014)Beyond post-productivism: from rural policy discourse to rural diversity Eur Countrys 4 297-306
[2]  
Brouder P(2006)Multiple business ownership in the Norwegian farm sector: resource transfer and performance consequences J Rural Stud 22 313-322
[3]  
Karlsson S(2010)Finding stress relief in a forest Ecol Bull 53 33-42
[4]  
Lundmark L(2015)Women entrepreneurship: a shortcut to a more competitive and equal forestry sector? Scand J For Res 30 226-234
[5]  
Alsos GA(1997)Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: establishing ‘rigour’ in interview analysis Trans Inst Br Geogr 22 505-525
[6]  
Carter S(2017)The Swedish forestry model: More of everything? For Policy Econ 77 44-55
[7]  
Annerstedt M(2006)Values placed on forest property benefits by Swedish NIPF owners; differences between members in forest owner associations and non-members Small Scale For Econ Manag Policy 5 83-96
[8]  
Norman J(2016)Forest social values in a Swedish rural context: the private forest owners’ perspective For Policy Econ 65 17-24
[9]  
Boman M(2010)Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and how? Landsc Urban Plan 97 111-122
[10]  
Mattsson L(2010)Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making Ecol Complex 7 260-272