Non-industrial private forest owners' knowledqe of and attitudes towards nature conservation

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 274-288

  Uliczka, Helen ^a   Angelstam, Per ^a,b   Jansson, Gunnar ^a   Bro, Anders ^b  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Attitude; Biodiversity; Conservation; Non industrial private forest owners; Opinions; Policy implementation; Questionnaire; Sweden

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; FORESTRY; KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION; LAND USE;

LAND-HOLDINGS; PRIVATE FOREST OWNERS; PRO-ENVIROMENTAL ATTITUDE;

CONSERVATION;

EID: 3042784920     PISSN: 02827581     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02827580410029318     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Ahti, T., Hämet-Ahti, L. & Jalas, J. 1968. Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 5: 169-175.
2. Andersson, F. O., Feger, K. H., Huttl, R. F., Kräuchi, N., Mattsson, L., Sallnäs, O. & Sjöberg, K. 2000. Forest ecosystem research - priorities for Europe. For. Ecol. Manage. 132: 111-119.
3. Angelstam, P. 2003. Forest biodiversity management - the Swedish model. In Lindenmayer, D. B. & Franklin, J. F. (eds). Towards Forest Sustainability, pp. 143-166. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra, and Island Press, Washington, DC. ISBN 0-643-06832-5.
4. Anon. 1990. Rikare Skog. National Board of Forestry, Skogsstyrelsens förlag, Jönköping. ISBN 91-85748-87-0. (In Swedish.)
5. Anon. 1993. Swedish Forestry Act 1979. With complementary regulation from 1993; SFS 1979: 429; 1993: 553. (In Swedish.)
6. Anon. 1997. Framtidens skogsbruk. Rapport 4784. Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm. ISBN 91-620-4784-1. (In Swedish.)
7. Anon. 1999. Greener Forests. National Board of Forestry, Skogsvårdsorganisationens förlag, Jönköping. ISBN 91-88462-38-2.
8. Anon. 2000a. Skogsstatistisk årsbok 2000. Skogsvå rdsorganisationens förlag, Jönköping. ISBN 91-88462-52-8. (In Swedish)
9. Anon. 2000b. Svenska miljömål - delmål och åtgärdsstrategier, Regeringens proposition SOU 2000/01: 130. (In Swedish.)
10. Anon. 2003. Population by county and municipality on December 31, 2002 and population changes 2002. Statistics Sweden. http://www.scb.se/statistik/ BE0101/be0101-tab3beforandr02eng.asp
11. Ask, P. 2002. Biodiversity and deciduous forest in landscape management. Studies in southern Sweden. Dissertation Silvestria 248. Swed. Univ. of Agric. Sci., Alnarp.
12. Axelsson, A. L., Östlund, L. & Hellberg, E. 2002. Changes in mixed deciduous forests of boreal Sweden 1866-1999 based on interpretation of historical records. Landsc. Ecol. 17: 403-418.
13. Balsiger, J. 1998. Swedish forest policy in an international perspective. Meddelande 1998: 14, Skogsvårdsorganisationens förlag, Jönköping.
14. Bengston, D. N., Xu, G. & Fan, D. P. 2001. Attitudes toward ecosystem management in the United States, 1992-1998. Soc. Nat. Res. 14: 471-487.
15. Berg, A., Gärdenfors, U., Hallingbäck, T. & Norén, M. 2002. Habitat preferences of red-listed fungi and bryophytes in woodland key habitats in southern Sweden - analyses of data from a national survey. Biodivers. Conserv. 11: 1479-1503.
16. Brun, W. 2001. Predicting environment-friendly behaviour in adolescence. Nord. Psyk. 53: 303-324. (In Norwegian with English abstract.)
17. Cordell, H. K. & Tarrant, M. A. 2002. Changing demographics, values and attitudes. J. For. 100: 28-33.
18. de Bruijn, H. A. & Hufen, H. A. M. 1998. The traditional approach to policy instruments. In Peters, B. G. & van Nispen, F. K. M. (eds). Public Policy Instruments: Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration, pp. 11-32. Elgar, Cheltenham. ISBN 1-85898-744-X.
19. Egan, A., Gibson, D. & Whipkey, R. 2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of the forest stewardship program in West Virginia. J. For. 99: 31-36.
20. Esseen, P. A., Renhorn, K. E. & Petersson, R. B. 1996. Epiphytic lichen biomass in managed and old-growth boreal forests: effect of branch quality. Ecol. Appl. 6: 228-238.
21. Fries, C., Carlsson, M., Dahlin, B., Lämås, T. & Sallnäs, O. 1998. A review of conceptual landscape planning models for multiobjective forestry in Sweden. Can. J. For. Res. 28: 159-167.
22. Gärdenfors, U. (ed.) 2000. Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2000 (The 2000 Redlist of Swedish Species). Swedish Species Information Centre. ISBN 91-506-23-1.
23. Gibbons, M., Logines, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage, London. ISBN 08030977948.
24. Götmark, F, Söderlund, H. & Thorell, M. 2000. Buffer zones for forest reserves: opinions of land owners and conservation value of their forest around nature reserves in southern Sweden. Biodivers. Conserv. 9: 1377-1390.
25. Hunter, M. L. 1999. Biological diversity. In Hunter, M. L. (ed.). Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems, pp. 3-21. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-521-63104-1.
26. Innes, J. L. 1993. "New perspectives in forestry": a basis for a future forest management policy in Great Britain. Forestry 66: 395-421.
27. Kangas, J. & Niemelainen, P. 1996. Opinion of forest owners and the public on forests and their use in Finland. Scand. J. For. Res. 11: 269-280.
28. Kangas, J. & Store, R. 2002. Socioecological landscape planning: an approach to multi-functional forest management. Silva Fenn. 36: 867-871.
29. Kennedy, J. J., Thomas, J. W. & Glueck, P. 2001. Evolving forestry and rural development beliefs at midpoint and close of the 20th century. For. Pol. Econ. 3: 81-95.
30. Kräuchi, N., Brang, P. & Schönenberger, W. 2000. Forests of mountain regions: gaps in knowledge and research needs. For. Ecol. Manage. 132: 73-82.
31. Krosnick, J. A. 1990. Survey research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50: 537-567.
32. Kurttila, M., Pukkala, T. & Kangas, J. 2001. Composing landscape level forest plans for forest areas under multiple private ownership. Boreal Environ. Res. 6: 285-296.
33. Lämås, T. & Fries, C. 1995. Emergence of a biodiversity concept in Swedish forest policy. Water Air Soil Pollut. 82: 57-66.
34. Lexer, M. J. 2000. A multi-attribute utility model for silvicultural decision-making in secondary Norway spruce forests. Forstwissenschaftliches Centralblatt 119: 377-394. (In German with English summary.)
35. Lidestav, G. & Ekström, M. 2000. Introducing gender in studies on management behaviour among non-industrial private forest owners. Scand. J. For. Res. 15: 378-386.
36. Nitare, J. (ed.) 2000. Signalarter, indikatorer på skyddsvärd skog. Skogsvårdsorganisationens förlag, Jönköping. ISBN 91-88462-35-6. (In Swedish with English summary.)
37. Noss, R. F. 2001. Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a time of rapid climate change. Conserv. Biol. 15: 578-590.
38. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. & Gibbons, M. 2001. Re-thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity, Cambridge. ISBN 0745626084.
39. Östlund, L. 1993. Exploitation and structural changes in the north boreal forest 1800-1992. Dissertation Essay 4, Dept of For. Veg. Ecol., Swed. Univ. of Agric. Sci., Umeå.
40. Peterken, G. 1996. Natural Woodland: Ecology and Conservation in Northern Temperate Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-521-36792-1.
41. Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. J. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL. ISBN 0-226-67709-5.
42. Pregernig, M. 2001. Values of forestry professionals and their implications for the applicability of policy instruments. Scand. J. For. Res. 16: 278-288.
43. Robinson, V. 1993. Problem-Based methodology. Research for the Improvement of Practice. Pergamon Press, Oxford. ISBN 0-08-041925-9.
44. Swenson, J. & Angelstam, P. 1993. Habitat separation by sympatric forest grouse in Fennoscandia in relation to boreal forest succession. Can. J. Zool. 71: 1303-1310.
45. Tarrant, M. A. & Cordell, H. K. 1997. The effect of respondent characteristics on general attitude-behavior correspondence. Environ. Behav. 29: 618-637.
46. Tarrant, M. A. & Cordell, H. K. 2002. Amenity values of public and private forests: examining the value-attitude relationship. Environ. Manage. 30: 692-703.
47. Uliczka, H. 2003. Nature conservation efforts by forest owners - intentions and practice in a Swedish case study. Silva Fenn. 37: 459-475.
48. Uliczka, H. & Angelstam, P. 1999. Occurrence of epiphytic macrolichens in relation to tree species and tree age in managed boreal forest. Ecography 4: 395-404.
49. Uliczka, H., Angelstam, P. & Roberge, J.-M. 2004. Indicator species and biodiversity monitoring systems for non-industrial private forest owners - is there a communication problem? Ecol. Bull. 51: in press.
50. Vedung, E. 1998. Policy instruments: typologies and theories. In Bemelmans-Videc M.-L., Rist, R. C. & Vedung, E. (eds). Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation, pp. 21-58. Transactions Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ. ISBN 1-56000-338-3.
51. von Gadow, K., Pukkala, T. & Tomé, M. (eds) 2000. Sustainable Forest Management. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
52. Wilcove, D. S. 1989. Protecting biodiversity in multiple-use lands: lessons from the US Forest Service. Tree 4: 385-388.