Forest-sector concerns in the Baltic States: Implications for an expanded European Union

Society and Natural Resources

Volumn 18, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 839-848

  Lazdinis, Marius ^a   Carver, Andrew ^b   Schmithüsen, Franz ^c   Tõnisson, Kristjan ^d   Vilkriste, Lelde ^e  

^a MYKOLAS ROMERIS UNIVERSITY   (Lithuania)

^b SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^d NEPCon   (Estonia)

^e LATVIAN STATE FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE SILAVA   (Latvia)

Author keywords

Baltic States; European Union; Forest management; Forest policy; Stakeholders

Indexed keywords

EUROPEAN UNION; FOREST RESOURCE; FORESTRY POLICY; STAKEHOLDER;

BALTIC STATES; EASTERN HEMISPHERE; EURASIA; EUROPE; NORTHERN EUROPE; WORLD;

EID: 27144453331     PISSN: 08941920     EISSN: 15210723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08941920500205517     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Carlsson, L. 1996. Nonhierarchical implementation analysis: An alternative to the methodological mismatch in policy analysis. J. Theor. Polit. 8(4):527-546.
2. Carlsson, L. and M. Lazdinis. 2004. Institutional frameworks for sustainability? A comparative analysis of the forest sectors of Russia and the Baltic States. Ambio 33(6):366-370.
3. Centre of Forest Economics. 2002. Lithuanian statistical yearbook of forestry. Vilnius, Lithuania: UAB "ARX Baltica."
4. Council of the European Union. 1998. Council resolution on a forestry strategy for the European Union. Off. J. Eur. Union C56:26.2.1999:1.
5. De Bruijn, H. A. and H. A. M. Hufen. 1998. The traditional approach to policy instruments. In Public policy instruments: Evaluating the tools of public administration, ed. B. G. Peters, 11-32. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
6. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2003. State of the world's forests 2003. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
7. INDUFOR. 2003. Forestry in accession countries. Final draft of report submitted to DG Environment, European Commission. Prepared by Indufor Oy and European Forest Institute (EFI), March 21, Helsinki.
8. Lazdinis, M. 2002. Facilitating sustainable forest development: Comparative analysis of postsoviet forest politics in the Baltic states. Dissertation, Geography Department, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
9. Lazdinis, M., A. Carver, L. Carlsson, K. Tõnisson, and L. Vilkriste. 2004. Forest policy networks in changing political systems: Case study of the Baltic States. J. Baltic Stud. 35(4):402-419.
10. Mayers, J. and S. Bass. 1998. The role of policy and institutions. In Tropical rain forest: A wider perspective, ed. F. B. Goldsmith, 269-302. New York: Chapman & Hall.
11. Merlo, M. and M. Paveri. 1997. Formation and implementation of forest policies: A focus on the policy tools mix. In Policies, institutions and means for sustainable forestry development, Proceedings of XI World Forestry Congress, vol. 56. 233-254. FAO, Antalya, Turkey.
12. Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Muiste, P., P. Kaimre, and M. Teder. 2001. Priorities of forest industry in Estonia. Baltic Timber J. 1(4):12-14.
14. Patton, M. Q. 1987. How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15. Schmithüsen, F., G. Iselin, and P. Herbst, eds. 2002. Forest law and environmental legislation: Contributions of the IUFRO research group 6.13, vol. 27. Zurich, Switzerland: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
16. UN-ECE/FAO. 2000. Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New Zealand (industrialized temperatelboreal countries). New York: United Nations.
17. Whiting, K. 2000. Revised principles and guidelines for national forest programmes (draft for discussion). Rome: Forest Programmes Coordination and Information Unit, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
18. Wood Processing Technology Centre. 2000. Wood processing industry in Latvia. Baltic Timber J. March:4-7.
19. Yin, R. K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.