Exploring Underpinnings of Forest Conflicts: A Study of Forest Values and Beliefs in the General Public and Among Private Forest Owners in Sweden

Society and Natural Resources

Volumn 25, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 1102-1117

  Eriksson, Louise ^a  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

cluster analysis; forest beliefs; forest conflicts; forest values; general public; private forest owners

Indexed keywords

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COGNITION; FORESTRY PRODUCTION; PRIVATE SECTOR; PROFITABILITY; PUBLIC SECTOR;

SWEDEN;

EID: 84866268717     PISSN: 08941920     EISSN: 15210723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2012.657749     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Beland Lindahl, K. 2008. Frame analysis, place perceptions and the politics of natural resource management. Exploring a forest policy controversy in Sweden. Doctoral thesis, Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae 2008:60, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
2. Belin, D. L., D. B. Kittredge, T. H. Stevens, D. C. Dennis, C. M. Schweik, and B. Morzuch. 2005. Assessing private forest owner attitudes toward ecosystem-based management. J. For. January/February: 28-35.
3. Berninger, K., D. Kneeshaw, and C. Messier. 2009. The role of cultural models in local perceptions of SFM-Differences and similarities of interest groups from three boreal regions. J. Environ. Manage. 90: 740-751.
4. Castro, A. P., and E. Nielsen, eds. 2003. Natural resource conflict management case studies: An analysis of power, participation and protected areas. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
5. Church, A., N. Ravenscroft, and G. Rogers. 2005. Woodland owners' attitudes to public access provision in south-east England. Information note. Edinburgh, UK: Forestry Commission.
6. Dhubháin, A. N., R. Cobanova, H. Karppinen, D. Mizaraite, E. Ritter, B. Slee, and S. Wall. 2007. The values and objectives of private forest owners and their influence on forestry behavior: The implication for entrepreneurship. Small-Scale For. 6: 347-357.
7. Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP Scale. J. Social Issues 56: 425-442.
8. Eagly, A. H., and S. Chaiken. 1993. The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
9. Eagly, A. H., and P. Kulesa. 1997. Attitudes, attitude structure, and resistance to change: Implication for persuasion on environmental issue. In Environment, ethics, and behavior. The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation, ed. M. H. Bazerman, D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel, and K. A. Wade-Benzoni, 122-153. San Francisco, CA: Lexington Press.
10. Fredman, P., S.-E. Karlsson, U. Romild, and K. Sandell. eds. 2008. Besöka naturen-hemma eller borta? Delresultat från en nationell enkät om friluftsliv och naturturism i Sverige [Visit nature-at home or away? Results from a nationwide questionnaire study of outdoor life and nature tourism in Sweden]. Forskningsprogrammet friluftsliv i förändring. Report number 3. http://www.friluftsforskning.se/download/18.45b270a9ed8e12780003064/Rapport+3+för+webb.pdf (accessed 9 January 2012).
11. Fulton, D. C., M. J. Manfredo, and J. Lipscomb. 1996. Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 1: 24-47.
12. Gritten, D. 2009. Facilitating resolution of forest conflicts through understanding the complexity of the relationship between forest industry and environmental groups. Doctoral thesis, Dissertationes Forestales 91. Faculty of Forest Sciences of the University of Joensuu, Joensuu.
13. Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham. 2006. Multivariate data analysis, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
14. Hellström, E. 2001. Conflict cultures-Qualitative comparative analysis of environmental conflicts in forestry. Silva Fennica Monographs, 2. http://metla.fi/silvafennica/abs/sma/sma002.htm (accessed 9 January 2012).
15. Ingemarson, F., A. Lindhagen, and L. Eriksson. 2006. A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scand. J. For. Res. 21: 249-259.
16. Kant, S., and S. Lee. 2004. A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: An analysis of multiple forest values in Northwestern Ontario. For. Policy Econ. 6: 215-227.
17. Kindstrand, C., J. Norman, M. Boman, and L. Mattson. 2008. Attitudes towards various forest functions: A comparisons between private forest owners and forest officers. Scand. J. For. Res. 23: 133-136.
18. Lantbrukets affärstidning (2010). Allemansrätten ifrågasatt av skogsägare [The right of public access questioned by forest owners]. http://www.atl.nu/skog/allemansratten-ifragasatt-av-skogsagare (accessed 9 January 2012).
19. Lantbrukets affärstidning (2011). LRF vill begränsa allemansrätten för bärplockare [The Federation of Swedish farmers (LRF) wants to restrict the right of public access for those picking berries]. http://www.atl.nu/lantbruk/lrf-vill-begransa-allemansratten-barplockare (accessed 9 January 2012).
20. Lidestav, G., and T. Nordfjell. 2005. A conceptual model for understanding social practices in family forestry. Small-Scale For. Econ. Manage. Policy 4: 391-408.
21. Manning, R., W. Valliere, and B. Minteer. 1999. Values, ethics, and attitudes toward national forest management: An empirical study. Society Nat. Resources 12: 421-436.
22. McFarlane, B. L., and P. C. Boxall. 2000. Factors influencing forest values and attitudes of two stakeholder groups: The case of the Foothills Model Forest, Alberta, Canada. Society Nat. Resources 13: 649-661.
23. McFarlane, B. L., and P. C. Boxall. 2003. The role of social psychological and social structural variables in environmental activism: An example of the forest sector. J. Environ. Psychol. 23: 79-87.
24. McFarlane, B. L., and L. M. Hunt. 2006. Environmental activism in the forest sector. Social psychological, social-cultural, and contextual effects. Environ. Behav. 38: 266-285.
25. Mola-Yudego, B., and D. Gritten. 2010. Determining forest conflict hotspots according to academic and environmental groups. For. Policy Econ. 12: 575-580.
26. Papageorgiou, K., K. Kassioumis, V. Blioumis, and A. T. H. Christodoulou. 2005. Linking quality of life and forest values in rural areas: an exploratory study of stakeholder perspectives in the rural community of Konitsa, Greece. Forestry 78: 485-499.
27. Rantala, T., and E. Primmer. 2003. Value positions based on forest policy stakeholders' rhetoric in Finland. Environ. Sci. Policy 6: 205-216.
28. Rohan, M. J. 2000. A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality Social Psychol. Rev. 4: 255-277.
29. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. The right of public access. http://www.naturvardsverket.se/en/In-English/Start/Enjoying-nature/The-right-of-public-access (accessed 9 January 2012).
30. Swedish Forest Agency. 2011a. Swedish statistical yearbook of forestry 2010. http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/en/AUTHORITY/Statistics/Statistical-Yearbook-/ (accessed 9 January 2012).
31. Swedish Forest Agency. 2011b. The forestry act. http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/en/forestry/The-Forestry-Act (accessed 9 January 2012).
32. Tarrant, M. A., and H. K. Cordell. 2002. Environmental assessment. Amenity values of public and private forests: Examining the value-attitude relationship. Environ. Manage. 30: 692-703.
33. Urquhart, J., P. Courtney, and B. Slee. 2010. Private ownership and public good provision in English woodlands. Small-Scale For. 9: 1-20.
34. Vaske, J. J., and M. P. Donnelly. 1999. A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society Nat. Resources 12: 523-537.
35. Vining, J. 1992. Environmental emotions and decisions. A comparison of the responses and expectations of forest managers, an environmental group, and the public. Environ. Behav. 24: 3-34.
36. Winter, C. 2005. Preferences and values for forests and wetlands: A comparison of farmers, environmentalists, and the general public in Australia. Society Nat. Resources 18: 541-555.