![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
Abstract
Drawing on a hierarchical cognitive structure, the aim of this study was to compare forest values and beliefs in the general public and among forest owners in Sweden. Based on questionnaire data (n = 1,805), intergroup differences were identified on different cognitive levels. For example, while the forest owners emphasized production values more than the general public, the difference was smaller regarding more specific beliefs concerning profitability in forestry. In contrast, the general public emphasized recreation more than the forest owners, although the divide was mainly evident for certain recreation activities. While results demonstrated overlapping beliefs concerning owners’ right to decide over their forest, larger differences were found regarding the rights of other actors (e.g., the general public). Furthermore, a cluster analysis based on forest values and forest-specific beliefs demonstrated heterogeneous groups cutting across the original group dichotomy. The implications for understanding underpinnings of forest conflicts are discussed.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by Future Forests, a multidisciplinary research program, and its sponsors: the Strategic Foundation for Environmental Research (Mistra), the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Umeå University, the Forestry Research Institute of Sweden (Skogforsk), and the forestry industry in Sweden. The author is grateful for comments by Annika Nordlund, Olof Olsson, and Kerstin Westin, Umeå University, and three anonymous reviewers on previous versions of the article.
Notes
Note. a Scale 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). b Scale 1 to 7 (1 = not at all important, 7 = very important). c Scale 1 to 7 (1 = little consideration, 7 = much consideration). d Scale 1 to 7 (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). e Scale 0 to 7 (0 = not at all, 1 = to a very little extent, 7 = to a very large extent). NEP, New Ecological Paradigm.
Note. a Scale 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). b Scale 1 to 7 (1 = not at all important, 7 = very important). c Scale 1 to 7 (1 = little consideration, 7 = much consideration). d Scale 1 to 7 (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). e Scale 0 to 7 (0 = not at all, 1 = to a very little extent, 7 = to a very large extent). FO = forest owners, GP = the general public. NEP, New Ecological Paradigm. The gray shaded section contains variables used in the cluster analysis. In relation to the continuous variables, means having the same subscripts are not significantly different at p < .05 according to pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni correction.
Of the remaining half of the forest, 14% is owned by state owned companies, 25% by private owned companies, 6% by other private owners, 3% by the state, and 1% by other public owners (Swedish Forest Agency Citation2011a).
Although private forest owners are part of the general public, the present study distinguishes between people in the general public not owning forest and private forest owners to highlight their different interests.
The Agriculture Business Magazine (the author's translation).The magazine is published by a subsidiary to the Federation of Swedish farmers (LRF), an interest and business organization for the green industry in Sweden.
The forest owners had the possibility to answer “don't know” in relation to the questions concerning forest values. These forest owners were subsequently excluded from the analyses. Notably, though, only between zero and five owners answered “don't know” to any of the included forest values.
Full results of the ANCOVAs are available from the author upon request.
Since the All important cluster could be a result of a response tendency (i.e., the response scales were used in a similar manner for all questions), a cluster analysis including variables controlling for response tendency was carried out. Results demonstrate that five clusters were similar to those identified in the main analysis, while the All important cluster disappeared. However, since it is entirely possible that members of the All important cluster perceived all examined aspects to be important, this cluster is retained when reporting the results.
More specifically, regarding production values, Production only differs from All important and Production multiple, regarding recreation values, Ecology and Average do not differ, and regarding profitability beliefs, Ecology and outdoor life differs from Average.