sh.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 3 of 3
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent 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
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Beland Lindahl, Karin
    et al.
    Luleå tekniska universitet.
    Sténs, Anna
    Umeå universitet.
    Sandström, Camilla
    Umeå universitet.
    Johansson, Johanna
    Umeå universitet.
    Lidskog, Rolf
    Örebro universitet.
    Ranius, Thomas
    Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet.
    Roberge, Jean-Michel
    Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet.
    The Swedish forestry model: More of everything?2017In: Forest Policy and Economics, ISSN 1389-9341, E-ISSN 1872-7050, Vol. 77, p. 44-55Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    “The Swedish forestry model” refers to the forest regime that evolved following the 1993 revision of the Swedish Forestry Act. It is key to Swedish forest politics and used to capture the essence of a sustainable way of managing forests. However, the ideas, institutions and practices comprising the model have not been comprehensively analyzed previously. Addressing this knowledge gap, we use frame analysis and a Pathways approach to investigate the underlying governance model, focusing on the way policy problems are addressed, goals, implementation procedures, outcomes and the resulting pathways to sustainability. We suggest that the institutionally embedded response to pressing sustainability challenges and increasing demands is expansion, inclusion and integration: more of everything. The more-of-everything pathway is influenced by ideas of ecological modernization and the optimistic view that existing resources can be increased. Our findings suggest that in effect it prioritizes the economic dimension of sustainability. While broadening out policy formulation it closes down the range of alternative outputs, a shortcoming that hampers its capacity to respond to current sustainability challenges. Consequently, there is a need for a broad public debate regarding not only the role of forests in future society, but also the operationalization of sustainable development.

  • 2.
    Mårald, Erland
    et al.
    Umeå universitet.
    Sandström, Camilla
    Umeå universitet.
    Nordin, Annika
    Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, SLU.
    Rist, Lucy
    Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, SLU.
    Sténs, Anna
    Umeå universitet.
    Beland Lindahl, Karin
    Luleå tekniska universitet.
    Carlsson-Kanyama, Annika
    Kungl. Tekniska Högskolan, KTH.
    Johansson, Johanna
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science. Umeå universitet.
    Keskitalo, E. Carina H.
    Umeå universitet.
    Laudon, Hjalmar
    Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, SLU.
    Lidskog, Rolf
    Örebro universitet.
    Lämås, Tomas
    Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, SLU.
    Lundmark, Tomas
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU).
    Nilsson, Urban
    Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, SLU.
    Nordström, Eva-Maria
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
    Roberge, Jean-Michel
    Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, SLU.
    Sonesson, Johan
    Skogforsk.
    Forest governance and management across time: developing a new forest social contract2017Book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The influence of the past, and of the future on current-time tradeoffs in the forest arena are particularly relevant given the long-term successions in forest landscapes and the hundred years’ rotations in forestry. Historically established path dependencies and conflicts determine our present situation and delimit what is possible to achieve. Similarly, future trends and desires have a large influence on decision making. Nevertheless, decisions about forest governance and management are always made in the present – in the present-time appraisal of the developed situation, future alternatives and in negotiation between different perspectives, interests, and actors.

    This book explores historic and future outlooks as well as current tradeoffs and methods in forest governance and management. It emphasizes the generality and complexity with empirical data from Sweden and internationally. It first investigates, from a historical perspective, how previous forest policies and discourses have influenced current forest governance and management. Second, it considers methods to explore alternative forest futures and how the results from such investigations may influence the present. Third, it examines current methods of balancing tradeoffs in decision-making among ecosystem services. Based on the findings the authors develop an integrated approach – Reflexive Forestry – to support exchange of knowledge and understandings to enable capacity building and the establishment of common ground. Such societal agreements, or what the authors elaborate as forest social contracts, are sets of relational commitment between involved actors that may generate mutual action and a common directionality to meet contemporary challenges.

  • 3.
    Sténs, Anna
    et al.
    Umeå University.
    Roberge, Jean-Michel
    Swedish Forest Agency, Umeå; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.
    Löfmarck, Erik
    Örebro University.
    Beland-Lindahl, Karin
    Luleå University of Technology.
    Felton, Adam
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp.
    Widmark, Camilla
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp.
    Rist, Lucy
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.
    Johansson, Johanna
    Södertörn University, School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Environmental Science.
    Nordin, Annika
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.
    Nilsson, Urban
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp.
    Laudon, Hjalmar
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.
    Ranius, Thomas
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
    From ecological knowledge to conservation policy: a case study on green tree retention and continuous cover forestry in Sweden2019In: Biodiversity and Conservation, ISSN 0960-3115, E-ISSN 1572-9710, Vol. 28, no 13, p. 3547-3574Article in journal (Refereed)
    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.

1 - 3 of 3
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent 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