Green infrastructures and intensive forestry: Need and opportunity for spatial planning in a Swedish rural-urban gradient

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 143-165

  Andersson, Kjell ^a   Angelstam, Per ^a   Elbakidze, Marine ^a   Axelsson, Robert ^a   Degerman, Erik ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Collaboration; ecosystem services; landscape approach; municipality; physical planning; sociotopes; sustainable forest management

Indexed keywords

COLLABORATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; LANDSCAPE APPROACH; MUNICIPALITY; SOCIOTOPES; SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT;

ECOLOGY; INDUSTRY; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; POPULATION STATISTICS; TAXATION; TIMBER;

FORESTRY;

BIOLOGICAL POPULATIONS; ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEMS; PLANNING; STATISTICS; SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT; SWEDEN; TAXES;

EID: 84872572586     PISSN: 02827581     EISSN: 16511891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2012.723740     Document Type: Article

References (171)

1. af Geijerstam, J. & Nisser, M. 2011. Swedish mining and metalworking-past and present. National Atlas of Sweden. Stockholm: Norstedts Förlagsgrupp AB.
2. Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A. and Hardin, R. 2008. Changing governance of the world's forests. Science, 320(5882): 1460-1462. doi:10.1126/science.1155369
3. Åkerskog, A. 2009. Implementeringar av miljöbedömningar i Sverige: från EG-direktiv till kommunal översiktlig planering [Implementations of Environmental Assessment in Sweden: from EU directives to municipal comprehensive planning]. Doctoral dissertation No. 2009:2, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
4. Albrechts, L., Alden, J. & Da Rosa Pires, A. 2001. The changing institutional landscape of planning, 275. Aldershot: Ashgate.
5. Andersson, M. 2001. GI i Sverige (2000). Redovisning och analys av ULI: s enkät avseende användandet av geografisk information [GI in Sweden (2000). Reporting and analysis of ULI: s questionnaire regarding the use of geographic information]. Report 2001:3. Stockholm: ULI [The Swedish Development Council for Land Information]. (In Swedish).
6. Andersson, K. 2011. Geographic Information Systems as a tool to support monitoring and assessment of landscape and regional sustainability. Doctoral thesis, School for Forest Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skinnskatteberg.
7. André, P. 2010. Nationell skoglig databas. Förstudie om heltäckande information till skogsägare [National Forest database. Preliminary study on comprehensive information to forest owners]. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen [Board of Forestry]. (In Swedish).
8. Angelstam, P. 2003. "Forest biodiversity management-the Swedish model". In Towards forest sustainability, Edited by: Lindenmayer, D. B. and Franklin, J. F. 143-166. Canberra: CSIRO Publishing and Washington, DC: Island Press.
9. Angelstam, P. 2004. Habitat thresholds and effects of forest landscape change on the distribution and abundance of black grouse and capercaillie. Ecological Bulletins, 51: 173-187.
10. Angelstam, P. and Andersson, L. 2001. Estimates of the needs for forest reserves in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research Supplement, 3: 38-51. doi:10.1080/028275801300090582
11. Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Jonsson, B.-G. and Roberge, J.-M. 2011a. Protecting forest areas for biodiversity in Sweden 1991-2010: The policy implementation process and outcomes on the ground. Silva Fennica, 45(5): 1111-1133.
12. Angelstam, P., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Laestadius, L., Lazdinis, M.Nordberg, M. 2011b. Knowledge production and learning for sustainable forest management: European regions as a time machine. Forestry, 84(5): 581-596. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpr048
13. Angelstam, P. and Bergman, P. 2004. Assessing actual landscapes for the maintenance of forest biodiversity-a pilot study using forest management data. Ecological Bulletins, 51: 413-425.
14. Angelstam, P., Jonsson, B.-G., Törnblom, J., Andersson, K., Axelsson, R. & Roberge, J.-M. 2010. Landskapsansats för bevarande av skoglig biologisk mångfald-en uppföljning av 1997 års regionala bristanalys, och om behovet av samverkan mellan aktörer [Landscape approach for the conservation of forest biodiversity-a follow-up to the 1997 regional gap analysis, and the need for collaboration between actors]. Report 4. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen [Board of Forestry]. (In Swedish).
15. Angelstam, P. and Kuuluvainen, T. 2004. Boreal forest disturbance regimes, successional dynamics and landscape structures-a European perspective. Ecological Bulletins, 51: 117-136.
16. Angelstam, P., Mikusiński, G., Eriksson, J. A., Jaxgård, P., Kellner, O., Koffman, A. et al. 2003. Gap analysis and planning of habitat networks for the maintenance of boreal forest biodiversity in Sweden-a technical report from the RESE case study in the counties Dalarna and Gävleborg. Reports 26 and 12. Dalarna and Gävleborg: Department of Natural Sciences, University in Örebro and Department of Conservation Biology, Forest Faculty, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Länsstyrelserna i Dalarna och Gävleborg.
17. Angelstam, P. and Pettersson, B. 1997. Principles of present Swedish forest biodiversity management. Ecological Bulletins, 46: 191-203.
18. Angelstam, P., Roberge, J.-M., Lõhmus, A., Bergmanis, M., Brazaitis, G.Dönz-Breuss, M. 2004. Habitat modelling as a tool for landscape-scale conservation-a review of parameters for focal forest birds. Ecological Bulletins, 51: 427-453.
19. Anonymous 1971. Hushållning med mark och vatten. Statens Offentliga Utredningar 75 [Management of land and water. National Public Inquiries 75]. Civildepartementet. Lund: CWK Gleerups Bokförlag. (In Swedish).
20. Anonymous 2004. Sverige 1000plus. Databasspecifikation [Sweden 1000plus. Database Specification]. Stockholm: Kartcentrum. (In Swedish).
21. Arpi, G. 1959. Sveriges skogar under 100 år [Sweden's forests during 100 years]. Stockholm: Domänverket. (In Swedish).
22. Aune, K., Jonsson, B.-J. and Moen, J. 2005. Isolation and edge effects among woodland key habitats in Sweden: Is forest policy promoting fragmentation?. Biological Conservation, 124: 89-95. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.015
23. Axelsson, R. 2010. Integrative research and transdisciplinary knowledge production: A review of barriers and bridges. Journal of Landscape Ecology, 4(2): 14-40. doi:10.2478/v10285-012-0025-0
24. Axelsson, R. & Angelstam, P. 2006. Biosphere reserve and model forest: A study of two concepts for integrated natural resource management. Science for Sustainable Development-Starting Points and Critical Reflections, Proceedings from the 1st VHU Conference on Science for Sustainable Development, April 12-14, 31-39, Västerås.
25. Axelsson, R., Angelstam, P. & Elbakidze, M. 2008. Landscape approaches to sustainability. In: B. Frostell, Å. Danielsson, L. Hagberg, B.-O. Linnér, & E. Lisberg Jensen, Science for sustainability: The social challenge with emphasis on the conditions for change, 169-177. Proceedings from the 2nd VHU Conference on Science for Sustainable Development, Linköping, Föreningen Vetenskap för Hållbar Utveckling (VHU) [The Association Science for Sustainable Development].
26. Axelsson, R., Angelstam, P., Elbakidze, M., Stryamets, N. and Johansson, K.-E. 2011. Landscape approach for sustainable development and sustainability: A practical interpretation. Journal of Landscape Ecology, 4(3): 5-30. doi:10.2478/v10285-012-0040-1
27. Axelsson, R., Angelstam, P. and Svensson, J. 2007. Natural forest and cultural woodland with continuous tree cover in Sweden: How much remains and how is it managed?. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 22: 545-558. doi:10.1080/02827580701806661
28. Baker, S. 2006. Sustainable development, 245London and New York: Routledge.
29. Baskent, E. Z. and Keles, S. 2005. Spatial forest planning: A review. Ecological Modelling, 188: 145-173. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.01.059
30. Berg, M. 2010. Handledning, Skydda tätortsnära skogar. Del 1: Fakta om tätortsnära skog [Guide, Protect urban forests. Part 1: Facts about the urban forest]. Stockholm: Naturskyddsföreningen [Nature Conservation]. (In Swedish).
31. Berg, Å., Ehnström, B., Gustafsson, L., Hallingbäck, T., Jonsell, M. and Weslien, J. 1994. Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests: Distribution and habitat associations. Conservation Biology, 8: 718-731. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08030718.x
32. Beugelsdijk, S., de Groot, H. and Schaik, A. 2004. Trust and economic growth: A robustness analysis. Oxford Economic Papers, 56: 118-134. doi:10.1093/oep/56.1.118
33. Björk, J., Albin, M., Grahn, P., Jacobsson, H., Ardö, J., Wadbro, J. et al. 2008. Recreational values of the natural environment in relation to neighbourhood satisfaction, physical activity, obesity and wellbeing. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62 4, 1-7.
34. Blicharska, M., Angelstam, P., Antonson, H., Elbakidze, M. and Axelsson, R. 2011. Road, forestry and regional planners' work for biodiversity conservation and public participation: A case study in Poland's hotspots regions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(10): 1373-1395. doi:10.1080/09640568.2011.575297
35. Boverket 2007. Landskapets upplevelsevärden-vilka är de och var finns de? [Landscape recreational value-what are they and where are they?]. Karlskrona: Boverket [Building and Planning].
36. Bridgewater, P. B. 2002. Biosphere reserves: Special places for people and nature. Environmental Science & Policy, 5(1): 9-12. doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(02)00018-7
37. Brännlund, R., Carlén, O., Lundgren, T. & Marklund, P.-O. 2009. En samhällsekonomisk bedömning av intensivodling av skog. Faktaunderlag till MINT-utredningen [A cost-benefit analysis of intensive cultivation of the forest. Background information to the MINT study]. Umeå: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. (In Swedish).
38. Bush, T. 2010. Biodiversity and sectoral responsibility in the development of Swedish forestry policy, 1988-1993. Scandinavian Journal of History, 35(4): 471-498. doi:10.1080/03468755.2010.528249
39. Bütler, R., Angelstam, P., Ekelund, P. and Schlaepfer, R. 2004a. Dead wood threshold values for the three-toed woodpecker in boreal and sub-Alpine forest. Biological Conservation, 119: 305-318. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2003.11.014
40. Bütler, R., Angelstam, P. and Schlaepfer, R. 2004b. Quantitative snag targets for the three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus. Ecological Bulletins, 51: 219-232.
41. Carlgren, A. & Burman, R. 2009. Uppdrag till Naturvårdsverket, Skogsstyrelsen och Länsstyrelsen i Skåne län om att påbörja ett samverkansprogram med markägare med kompletterande metoder för skydd av natur [Mission to the Environmental Protection Agency, National Board of Forestry and the County Administration in Skåne County to begin a collaborative program with landowners about additional methods for nature protection]. Regeringsbeslut 3, M2009/2575/Na, M2009/3848/Na. Stockholm. (In Swedish).
42. Carlgren, A. & Löfroth, M. 2010. Uppdrag om förstudie om uppbyggandet av grön infrastruktur och framtagande av indikatorer för gynnsam bevarandestatus [Mission on preliminary study of the construction of green infrastructure and development of indicators of favourable conservation status. Government decision]. Regeringsbeslut M2010/3407Na, Stockholm. (In Swedish).
43. Chen, Y.-T., Zheng, C. and Chang, V.-T. 2011. 3-Level MCGP: An efficient algorithm for MCGP in solving multi-forest management problems. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 26(5): 457-465. doi:10.1080/02827581.2011.578584
44. Cohen, J. E. 2003. Human population: The next half century. Science, 302: 1172-1175. doi:10.1126/science.1088665
45. Costanza, R. and Greer, J. 1995. "The Chesapeake Bay and its watershed: A model for sustainable ecosystem management". In Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions, Edited by: Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C. S. and Light, S. S. 169-213. New York: Columbia University Press.
46. Daniels, S. E. and Walker, G. B. 2001. Working through environmental conflict-the collaborative learning approach, Westport and London: Praeger.
47. Diaz-Balteiro, L., Gonzalez-Pachon, J. and Romero, C. 2009. Forest management with multiple criteria and multiple stakeholders: An application to two public forests in Spain. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 24(1): 87-93. doi:10.1080/02827580802687440
48. Dudley, N., Schlaepfer, R., Jackson, W., Jeanrenaud, J.-P. & Stolton, S. 2006. Forest quality. Assessing forests at a landscape scale, London: Earthscan.
49. Edman, T., Angelstam, P., Mikusinski, G., Roberge, J.-M. and Sikora, A. 2011. Spatial planning for biodiversity conservation: Assessment of forest landscapes' conservation value using umbrella species requirements in Poland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 102: 16-23. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.03.004
50. Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P. & Axelsson, R. 2012. Stakeholder identification and analysis for adaptive governance in the Kovdozersky Model Forest, Russian Federation. The Forestry Chronicle, 88 3, 298-305.
51. Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., Sandström, C. & Axelsson, R. 2010. Multi-stakeholder collaboration in Russian and Swedish Model Forest initiatives: Adaptive governance towards sustainable forest management? Ecology and Society, 15 2, art. 14.
52. Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., Sandström, C., Stryamets, N., Crow, S., Axelsson, R. et al. (in press). Biosphere reserve for conservation and development in Ukraine? Legal recognition and a case study of establishment. Environmental Conservation.
53. Elith, J., Graham, C. H., Anderson, R. P., Dudik, M., Ferrier, S.Guisan, A. 2006. Novel methods improve prediction of species' distributions from occurrence data. Ecography, 29: 129-151. doi:10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x
54. Engberg, A. 2002. Produktspecifikation av Svenska CORINE marktäckedata [Specification of the Swedish CORINE land cover data] (In Swedish). Retrieved November 1, 2010, fromwww.lantmateriet.se/upload/filer/kartor/kartor/SCMDspec.pdf
55. Eriksson, M. 2006. Kvalitetsdeklaration för karta "Tätorter" [Quality specification for the map "Urban areas"]. Stockholm: Statistic Sweden. (In Swedish).
56. Eriksson, S. and Hammer, M. 2006. The challenge of combining timber production and biodiversity conservation for long-term ecosystem functioning. A case study of Swedish boreal forestry. Forest Ecology and Management, 237(1-3): 208-217. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.046
57. Erixon, S. 1960. Swedish Villages without systematic settlement. A comparative historic study, 266Stockholm: Nordiska museet.
58. Etour 2006. Outdoor recreation in change. Landscapes, experiences, planning and development. Östersund: European Tourism Research Institute, Mid-Sweden University.
59. European Commission 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, L327/11 72.
60. European Commission 2005 Council Regulation No. 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Official Journal of the European Union, L277, 1-40.
61. European Commission 2007. Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE). Strasbourg, Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union, L108, 1-14.
62. European Commission 2009a. Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L140, 16-62.
63. European Commission 2009b. Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of wild birds. Official Journal of the European Union, L20, 7-25.
64. European Commission 2010a. Green infrastructure, Brussels: Publications Office.
65. European Commission 2010b. Green paper on forest protection and information in the EU: Preparing forests for climate change. European Commission communication, 163, 1-22.
66. European Economic Community 1992 Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora Official Journal of the European Union, L 206, 7-50.
67. Ferrier, S. 2002. Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: Where to from here?. Systematic Biology, 51: 331-363. doi:10.1080/10635150252899806
68. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30: 441-73. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
69. Forest Europe 2011. State of Europe's forests. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, June 14-16, Oslo, Liaison Unit.
70. Fries, C., Carlsson, M., Dahlin, B., Lämås, T. and Sallnäs, O. 1998. A review of conceptual landscape planning models for multiobjective forestry in Sweden. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 28: 159-176. doi:10.1139/x97-204
71. Frykman, J. & Hansen, K. 2009. I ohälsans tid [In the poor health time]. Stockholm: Carlsson förlag. (In Swedish).
72. FTP 2005. Innovative and sustainable use of forest resources, a technology platform initiative by the European forest-based sector, Brussels: Directorate-General for Research, European Commission.
73. Gontier, M. 2008. Spatial prediction tools for biodiversity in environmental assessment. Doctoral thesis, Environmental Management and Assessment Research Group, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
74. Guisan, A. and Zimmermann, N. E. 2000. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecological Modelling, 135: 147-186. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00354-9
75. Gustafsson, L., Baker, S. C., Bauhus, J., Beese, W. J., Brodie, A., Kouki, J. et al. 2012. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: A world perspective. BioScience, 62, 633-645.
76. Gustafsson, L., Dahlberg, A., Green, M., Henningsson, S., Hägerhäll, C., Larsson, A. et al. 2009. Konsekvenser för kulturarv, friluftsliv, landskapsbild och biologisk mångfald. Faktaunderlag till MINT-utredningen [Impact on cultural heritage, recreation, landscape and biodiversity. Background information to the MINT study]. Umeå: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. (In Swedish).
77. Haberl, H., Winiwarter, V., Andersson, K., Ayres, R., Boone, C.Castillo, A. 2006. From LTER to LTSER: Conceptualizing the socio-economic dimension of long-term socio-ecological research. Ecology and Society, 11(2): 13
78. Hagner, S. 2005. Skog i förändring-vägen mot ett rationellt och hållbart skogsbruk i Norrland 1940-1990 [Forests in transition-towards a rational and sustainable management of forests in northern Sweden 1940-1990]. Stockholm: Kungliga skogs och lantbruksakademien. (In Swedish).
79. Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T. & Ryan, P. D. 2007. PAST-Palaeontological statistics, version 1.65. Retrieved February 10, 2008, fromhttp://folk.uio.no/ohammer/past
80. Heckscher, E. 1935-1949. Sveriges ekonomiska historia från Gustav Vasa [Sweden's economic history from Gustav Vasa]. Stockholm: Albert Bonniers förlag. (In Swedish).
81. Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C. et al. 2008. Handbook of transdisciplinary research, 448. Berlin: Springer.
82. Hess, G. R. and King, T. J. 2002. Planning open spaces for wildlife. I. Selecting focal species using a Delphi survey approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58: 25-40. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00230-4
83. Hysing, E. 2009. From government to governance? A comparison of environmental governing in Swedish forestry and transport. Governance, 22(4): 647-672. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01457.x
84. Hörnsten, L. 2000. Forest recreation in Sweden-implications for society and forestry. Doctoral dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
85. IMFN 2008. Model forest development guide. Ottawa: International Model Forest Network Secretariat, Natural Resources Canada-Canadian Forest Service.
86. Ihse, M. 1995. Swedish agricultural landscapes patterns and changes during the last 50 years, studied by aerial photos. Landscape and Urban Planning, 31: 21-37. doi:10.1016/0169-2046(94)01033-5
87. Innes, J. L., Gordin, M. H. & Hoen, H. F. 2006. Forestry and Environmental Change: Socioeconomic and political dimensions. Report No. 5 of the IUFRO Task Force on environmental change, 265, Columbia: Faculty of Forestry, University of British.
88. Jansson, G. and Angelstam, P. 1999. Threshold levels of habitat composition for the presence of the long-tailed tit (Aegithalos caudatus) in a boreal landscape. Landscape Ecology, 14: 283-290. doi:10.1023/A:1008085902053
89. Jonsson, B., Jacobsson, J. and Kallur, H. 1993. The forest management planning package. Theory and application. Studia Forestalia Suecica, 189: 56
90. Kettunen, M., Terry, A., Tucker, G. & Jones, A. 2007. Guidance on the maintenance of landscape features of major importance for wild flora and fauna, 114 & Annexes. Brussels: IEEP.
91. Knack, S. and Keefer, P. 1997. Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4): 1251-1288. doi:10.1162/003355300555475
92. Lambeck, R. J. 1997. Focal species: A multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology, 11(4): 849-856. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96319.x
93. Larsson, S., Lundmark, T. & Ståhl, G. 2009. Möjligheter till intensivodling av skog. Slutrapport från regeringsuppdrag [Opportunities for intensive forestry. Final report from the governmental commission] Jo 2008/1885. (In Swedish).
94. Lazdinis, M., Angelstam, P. and Lazdinis, I. 2007. Maintenance of forest biodiversity in a Post-Soviet governance model: Perceptions by local actors in Lithuania. Environmental Management, 40: 20-33. doi:10.1007/s00267-005-0387-8
95. Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment, Washington, DC: Island Press.
96. Leitao, A. B. and Ahern, J. 2002. Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59: 65-93. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00005-1
97. Lindhagen, A. 1996a. An approach to clarifying public preference about silvicultural systems: A case study concerning group selection and clear-cutting. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 11: 375-387. doi:10.1080/02827589609382950
98. Lindhagen, A. 1996b. Forest recreation in Sweden. Four case studies using quantitative methods. Doctoral dissertation, Report 64, Department of forest landscape management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
99. Lindhagen, A. and Hörnsten, L. 2000. Forest recreation in 1977 and 1997 in Sweden: Changes in public preferences and behaviour. Forestry, 73(2): 143-153. doi:10.1093/forestry/73.2.143
100. MacLean, D. A., Seymour, R. S., Montigny, M. K. and Messier, C. 2009. "Allocation of conservation efforts over the landscape: The TRIAD approach". In Setting conservation targets for managed forest landscapes, Edited by: Villard, M.-A. and Jonsson, B. G. 283-303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
101. Magis, K. & Shinn, G. 2009. Emergent principles of social sustainability. In: J. Dillard, V. Dujon & M. C. King, Understanding the social dimensions of sustainability, 2, 15-44, New York: Routledge.
102. Manton, M. G., Angelstam, P. and Mikusiński, G. 2005. Modelling habitat suitability for deciduous forest focal species-a sensitivity analysis using different satellite land cover data. Landscape Ecology, 20: 827-839. doi:10.1007/s10980-005-3703-z
103. MCPFE 1993. The Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Forests in Europe, June 16-17, Helsingfors, Helsinki Resolution H1:D, General Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Forests in Europe.
104. MCPFE 2007. Fifth ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe, conference proceedings November 5-7, Warsaw, Poland.
105. Mercer, C. 2002. Towards cultural citizenship: Tools for cultural policy and development, Stockholm and Hedemora: The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation & Gidlunds förlag.
106. Mikusiński, G. and Angelstam, P. 1999. "Man and deciduous trees in boreal landscape". In Nature and culture in landscape ecology. Experience for the 3rd Millennium, Edited by: Kovar, P. 220-224. Prague: The Karolinum Press.
107. Mikusiński, G., Angelstam, P. and Sporrong, U. 2003. Distribution of deciduous stands in villages located in coniferous forest landscapes in Sweden. Ambio, 33(8): 520-526.
108. Mikusiński, G., Pressey, R. L., Edenius, L., Kujala, H., Moilanen, A.Niemelä, J. 2007. Conservation planning in forest landscapes of Fennoscandia and an approach to the challenge of Countdown 2010. Conservation Biology, 21: 1445-1454. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00833.x
109. Miljödepartementet 2010. Uppdrag om förstudie om uppbyggande av en grön infrastruktur och framtagande av indikatorer för gynnsam bevarandestatus [Mandate of feasibility study on building a green infrastructure and the development of indicators for favourable status]. Regeringsbeslut [Government Decision] 2010-08-19 No. M2010/3407Na. (In Swedish).
110. Montigny, M. K. & MacLean, D. A. 2002. TRIAD approach to forest management: Land use Zoning in Northern New Brunswick. Conference Proceedings: Eastern CANUSA Forest Science Conference, October 19-20, University of Maine, Orono, Maine.
111. National Land Survey 1998. Allmän beskrivning: GSD-Blå kartan [General description: GSD-blue map]. Stockholm: National Land Survey. (In Swedish).
112. Naturvårdsverket 2005. Ljudkvalitet i naturoch kulturmiljöer. Utvärdering och utveckling av mått, mätetal och inventeringsmetod [Sound quality of the natural and cultural environments. Evaluation and development of measurement, metrics and inventory method]. Report 5440. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket [Environmental Protection Agency]. (In Swedish).
113. Nilsson, K. 2001. Planering för hållbar utveckling, Dilemman för kommunala översiktsplanerare [Planning for sustainable development, Dilemmas for municipal overview planners]. Stockholm: Department for Infrastructure and Planning, Royal Institute of Technology. (In Swedish).
114. Nordh, H., Grahn, P. and Währborg, P. 2009. Meaningful activities in the forest, a way back from exhaustion and long-term sick leave. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8: 207-219. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.02.005
115. Nordic Council of Ministers 1983. Representative types of nature in the Nordic countries. Nordic Council of Ministers, 60 pp + map, Arlöv: Berlings.
116. Norén, M. 2002. Landskapsekologiska kärnområden-LEKO [Landscape Ecology core areas-LEKO], Meddelande 2 [Communication 2]. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen [Swedish Forest Agency].
117. Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, 4: 355-364. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x
118. NRA 2006. En nationell strategisk forskningsagenda för det skogsbaserade näringen i Sverige [A national strategic research agenda (NRA) for the forest-based industry in Sweden]. Stockholm: NRA-Council. (In Swedish).
119. Opdam, P., Steingröver, E. and van Rooij, S. 2006. Ecological networks: A spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(3-4): 322-332. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.015
120. Ottosson, P. & Samuelsson, L. 2005. Geografisk information i Sverige 2003. Redovisning och analys av ULI: s enkät avseende användandet av geografisk information [Geographic information in Sweden in 2003. Reporting and analysis of ULI: s questionnaire regarding the use of geographic information]. Report 2005:1. Stockholm: ULI [The Swedish Development Council for Land Information]. (In Swedish).
121. Pakkala, T., Pellikka, J. and Lindén, H. 2003. Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus-a good candidate for an umbrella species in taiga forests. Wildlife Biology, 9: 309-316.
122. Pappila, P. and Pölönen, I. 2012. Reconsidering the role of public participation in the Finnish forest planning system. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 27(2): 177-185. doi:10.1080/02827581.2011.635084
123. PBL 1987. Plan-och bygglag [Planning and Building Act] (1987:10).
124. Pretty, J. and Ward, H. 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29(2): 209-227. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00098-X
125. Proposition (2007/08:108). En skogspolitik i takt med tiden [A forest policy in line with the time]. Government Proposal 108. (In Swedish).
126. Proposition (2009/10:238). Framtidens friluftsliv [Future recreation]. Regeringens proposition [Government Proposal] 238. (In Swedish).
127. Prugh, L. R., Hodges, K. E., Sinclair, A. R. E. and Brashares, J. S. 2008. Effect of habitat area and isolation on fragmented animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105: 20770-20775. doi:10.1073/pnas.0806080105
128. Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse of and revival of American community, New York: Simon and Schüsler.
129. Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R. Y. 1993. Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy, New Jersey, NJ: Princeton University Press.
130. Ranius, T. and Roberge, J.-M. 2011. Effects of intensified forestry on the landscape-scale extinction risk of dead wood dependent species. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(13): 2867-2882. doi:10.1007/s10531-011-0143-8
131. Ray, C. 2002. The EU LEADER programme: Rural development laboratory. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(2): 163-171. doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00138
132. Reese, H., Nilsson, M., Pahlén, T. G., Hagner, O., Joyce, S.Tingelöf, U. 2003. Countrywide estimates of forest variables using satellite data and field data from the national forest inventory. Ambio, 32(8): 542-548.
133. RiR 2010. Sveaskog AB och dess uppdrag [Sveaskog CO and their mission]. Stockholm: Riksrevisionen.
134. Roberge, J.-M. and Angelstam, P. 2004. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conservation Biology, 18(1): 76-85. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x
135. Roberge, J.-M. and Angelstam, P. 2006. Indicator species among resident forest birds-a cross-regional evaluation in northern Europe. Biological Conservation, 130: 134-147. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.12.008
136. Rydberg, D. and Falk, J. 2000. Urban forestry in Sweden from a silvicultural perspective: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 47: 1-18. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00068-7
137. Sandström, C., Hovik, S. & Falleth, E. I. 2008. Omstridd natur: trender & utmaningar i nordisk naturförvaltning [Controversial nature: Trends & challenges in Nordic nature management]. Umeå, Sweden: Boréa. (In Swedish).
138. Sandström, U. G., Khakee, A. and Angelstam, P. 2006. Urban comprehensive planning-identifying barriers for the maintenance of functional habitat networks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75: 43-57. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.11.016
139. Sandström, C., Lindkvist, A., Öhman, K. and Nordström, E.-M. 2011. Governing competing demands for forest resources in Sweden. Forests, 2: 218-242. doi:10.3390/f2010218
140. SCA 2010. SCA Annual report 2010, 1-104, Stockholm: Svenska Celluosa Aktiebolaget SCA (PUBL).
141. Scott, J. M., Heglund, P. J., Morrison, M. L., Haufler, J. B., Raphael, M. G., Wall, W. A. et al. 2002. Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy. Washington, DC: Island Press.
142. Selander, S. 1957. Det levande landskapet i Sverige [The living landscape in Sweden], Stockholm: Albert Bonniers Förlag.
143. Selinge, K.-G. 1994. Kulturminnen och kulturmiljövård [Cultural heritage and cultural care], Höganäs: Bokförlaget Bra Böcker.
144. Seymour, R. S. & Hunter M. L. Jr. 1992. New forestry in Eastern spruce-fir forests: Principles and applications in Maine, 36. Orono, Maine: Maine Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication 716.
145. Siiskonen, H. 2007. The conflict between traditional and scientific forest management in 20th century Finland. Forest Ecology and Management, 249: 123-133. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.018
146. Singer, B. 2007. How useful is the landscape approach? In: M. Patry & S. Ripley, World heritage forests. Leveraging conservation and the landscape level, 49-55. Proceedings of the 2nd World Heritage forests meeting, March 9-11, 2005, Nancy, France. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
147. SKL 2009. Läget i landet-en enkätundersökning om klimatanpassning i den fysiska planeringen [The situation in the country-a survey on climate adaptation into regional planning]. Stockholm: Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting [Swedish Municipalities and Regions]. (In Swedish).
148. Skogsstyrelsen 2010. Skogsstatistisk årsbok, Sveriges officiella statistik [Statistical Yearbook of Forestry, Sweden's Official Statistics]. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen [Swedish Forest Agency]. (In Swedish).
149. SKSFS 1993: (2). Skogsstyrelsens föreskrifter och allmänna råd till skogsvårdslagen [Forest Agency's regulations and general advice to the Forestry Act] (1979:429). (In Swedish).
150. Skärbäck, E. 2007. "Planning for healthful landscape values". In Multifunctional land use-meeting future demands for landscape goods and services, Edited by: Mender, U., Wiggering, H. and Helming, K. 305-326. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
151. Skärbäck, E., Wadbro, J. & Grahn, P. 2009. GIS-analys på regional nivå av rekreationsresurser. Svensk Geografisk Årsbok, 85, 67-96. (In Swedish).
152. SOU 1997. Skydd av skogsmark. Behov och kostnader. Huvudbetänkande av miljövårdsberedning 1997:97. (In Swedish).
153. Stighäll, K., Roberge, J.-M., Andersson, K. and Angelstam, P. 2011. Usefulness of biophysical proxy data for modelling habitat of a threatened forest species: The white-backed woodpecker. Scandinavian Journal of Forestry, 26(6): 576-585. doi:10.1080/02827581.2011.599813
154. Stora Enso 2010. Rethink, Stora Enso 2010, Helsingfors: Libris Oy.
155. Store, R. and Jokimäki, J. 2003. A GIS-based multi-scale approach to habitat suitability modelling. Ecological Modeling, 169: 1-15. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00203-5
156. Ståhle, A. 2006. Sociotope mapping: Exploring public open space and its multiple use values in urban and landscape planning practice. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 19(4): 59-71.
157. Söderström, B. 2009. Effects of different levels of green- and dead-tree retention on hemi-boreal forest bird communities in Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management, 257: 215-222. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.08.030
158. Sundström, G. 2005. Målstyrningen drar åt skogen. Om government och governance i svensk skogspolitik [Management by objectives goes to the forest. About government and governance in Swedish forest policy] SCORE Report 2005:6. Stockholm: SCORE.
159. Swedish National Heritage Board. 2005. Kartläggning av uppföljningssystem och indikatorer för kultur och kulturarv i regionalt utvecklingsarbete [Identification of monitoring systems and indicators for culture and heritage in regional development]. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet, Statens kulturråd, Svenska Filminstitutet, Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting.
160. Tahvonen, O. 2009. Optimal choice between even- and uneven-aged forestry. Natural Resource Modeling, 22: 289-321. doi:10.1111/j.1939-7445.2008.00037.x
161. TEEB 2009. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers-summary: Responding to the value of nature 2009. Wesseling, Germany: Welzel + Hardt.
162. ULI 2008. Lägesbild GI Sverige. Vart är användandet av geografisk information och GIS i Sverige på väg? Resultat från delundersökningen Offentliga sektorn [Situation assessment GI Sweden. Where is the use of geographic information and GIS in Sweden on the way? Results from part of the investigation public sector]. Stockholm: ULI [Education Council for Geographic Information]. (In Swedish).
163. UNECE 1998. Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (Aarhus Convention). Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
164. Uslaner, E. 1999. "Democracy and social capital". In Democracy and trust, Edited by: Warren, M. E. 121-150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
165. Ward, J. H. 1963. Hierarchical Grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of American Statistical Association, 58(301): 236-244. doi:10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845
166. Warren, M. E. 1999. Democracy and trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
167. Westin, L. 2007. Infrastrukturinvesteringar och hållbar regional tillväxt, Umeå: CERUM, Centre for Regional Science.
168. Westin, L. 2011. Hållbar regional utveckling i Västerbotten. En sammanfattning av resultat från ACANALYS [Sustainable regional development in Västerbotten. A summary of results from ACANALYS]. Umeå: Centrum för regionalvetenskap. Umeå universitet. (In Swedish).
169. Vierikko, K., Vehkamäki, S., Niemelä, J., Pellikka, J. and Lindén, H. 2008. Meeting the ecological, social and economic needs of sustainable forest management at a regional scale. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23(5): 431-444. doi:10.1080/02827580802284693
170. Wondollek, J. and Yaffee, S. L. 2000. Making collaboration work. Lessons from innovation in natural resource management, Washington, DC: Island Press and California: Covelo.
171. Zak, P. and Knack, S. 2001. Trust and growth. Economic Journal, 111: 295-321. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00609