sh.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • harvard-anglia-ruskin-university
  • apa-old-doi-prefix.csl
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
From ecological knowledge to conservation policy: a case study on green tree retention and continuous cover forestry in Sweden
Umeå University.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2739-0497
Swedish Forest Agency, Umeå; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.
Örebro University.
Luleå University of Technology.
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: Biodiversity and Conservation, ISSN 0960-3115, E-ISSN 1572-9710, Vol. 28, no 13, p. 3547-3574Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The extent to which scientific knowledge translates into practice is a pervasive question. We analysed to what extent and how ecological scientists gave input to policy for two approaches advocated for promoting forest biodiversity in production forests in Sweden: green-tree retention (GTR) and continuous-cover forestry (CCF). GTR was introduced into forest policy in the 1970s and became widely implemented in the 1990s. Ecological scientists took part in the policy process by providing expert opinions, educational activities and as lobbyists, long before research confirming the positive effects of GTR on biodiversity was produced. In contrast, CCF was essentially banned in forest legislation in 1979. In the 1990s, policy implicitly opened up for CCF implementation, but CCF still remains largely a rare silvicultural outlier. Scientific publications addressing CCF appeared earlier than GTR studies, but with less focus on the effects on biodiversity. Ecological scientists promoted CCF in certain areas, but knowledge from other disciplines and other socio-political factors appear to have been more important than ecological arguments in the case of CCF. The wide uptake of GTR was enhanced by its consistency with the silvicultural knowledge and normative values that forest managers had adopted for almost a century, whereas CCF challenged those ideas. Public pressure and institutional requirements were also key to GTR implementation but were not in place for CCF. Thus, scientific ecological knowledge may play an important role for policy uptake and development, but knowledge from other research disciplines and socio-political factors are also important.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2019. Vol. 28, no 13, p. 3547-3574
Keywords [en]
Environmental history, Environmental policy, Forest biodiversity, Biodiversity conservation, Policy uptake
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:sh:diva-38902DOI: 10.1007/s10531-019-01836-2ISI: 000488929900009OAI: oai:DiVA.org:sh-38902DiVA, id: diva2:1348399
Projects
Future Forests
Funder
Mistra - The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental ResearchAvailable from: 2019-09-04 Created: 2019-09-04 Last updated: 2019-10-31Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Johansson, Johanna

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Sténs, AnnaJohansson, Johanna
By organisation
Environmental Science
In the same journal
Biodiversity and Conservation
Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 26 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • harvard-anglia-ruskin-university
  • apa-old-doi-prefix.csl
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf