The forest as a taskscape: seeing through the good forest owner’s eyes

References

• Beilin R. 2005. Photo-elicitation and the agricultural landscape: ‘seeing’ and ‘telling’ about farming, community and place. Vis Stud. 20:56–68. doi: 10.1080/14725860500064904
   Google Scholar
• Blennow K. 2008. Risk management in Swedish forestry – policy formation and fulfilment of goals. J Risk Res. 11:237–254. doi: 10.1080/13669870801939415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu P. 1998. Practical reason. Stanford (CA): SUP.
   Google Scholar
• Brady E. 2006. The aesthetics of agricultural landscapes and the relationship between humans and nature. Ethics Place Environ. 9:1–19. doi: 10.1080/13668790500518024
   Google Scholar
• Brinkmann S, Kvale S. 2015. InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 3rd ed. Los Angeles (CA): SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Brush R, Chenoweth RE, Barman T. 2000. Group differences in the enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plann. 47:39–45. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00073-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgess JJ, Clark J, Harrison CM. 2000. Knowledges in action: an actor network analysis of a wetland agri-environment scheme. Ecol Econ. 35:119–132. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00172-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton RJF. 2004. Seeing through the ‘good farmer’s’ eyes: towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of ‘productivist’ behaviour. Sociol Ruralis. 44:195–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00270.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton RJF. 2012. Understanding farmers’ aesthetic preference for tidy agricultural landscapes: a Bourdieusian perspective. Landsc Res. 37:51–71. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2011.559311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton RJF, Paragahawewa UH. 2011. Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental schemes. J Rural Stud. 27:95–104. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buzard J. 1993. The beaten track. Oxford: Clarendon.
   Google Scholar
• Daugstad K, Rønningen K, Skar B. 2006. Agriculture as an upholder of cultural heritage? Conceptualizations and value judgements – a Norwegian perspective in international context. J Rural Stud. 22:67–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egoz S, Bowring J, Perkins H. 2001. Tastes in tension: form, function, and meaning in New Zealand’s farmed landscapes. Landsc Urban Plann. 57:177–196. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00203-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson K. 2009. Knowledge transfer between preparedness and emergency response: a case study. Disaster Prev Manage. 18:162–169. doi: 10.1108/09653560910953234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gobo, G. 2004. Sampling, representativeness and generalizability. In: Seale C, Gobo G, Gubrium F, Silverman D, editors. Qualitative research practice. London: SAGE; p. 16–35.
   Google Scholar
• Guldåker N. 2009. Krishantering, hushåll och stormen Gudrun: Att analysera hushålls krishanteringsförmåga och sårbarheter. [Crisis management, households and Storm Gudrun: analyzing the crisis management abilities and vulnerabilities of households]. Lund: Institutionen för kulturgeografi och ekonomisk geografi, Lunds universitet.
   Google Scholar
• Hagerhall CM. 2001. Consensus in landscape preference judgements. J Environ Psychol. 21:83–92. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2000.0186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holt D. 1997. Distinction in America? Recovering Bourdieu’s theory of tastes from its critics. Poetics. 25:93–120. doi: 10.1016/S0304-422X(97)00010-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingold T. 2000. The perception of the environment: essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kaltenborn BP, Bjerke T. 2002. Associations between landscape preferences and place attachment: a study in Røros, Southern Norway. Landsc Res. 27:381–396. doi: 10.1080/0142639022000023943
   Google Scholar
• Karjalainen E, Komulainen M. 1998. Field afforestation preferences: a case study in northeastern Finland. Landsc Urban Plann. 43:79–90. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00076-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidskog R, Sjödin D. 2014. Why do forest owners fail to heed warnings? Conflicting risk evaluations made by the Swedish forest agency and forest owners. Scand J For Res. 29:275–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindkvist A, Mineur E, Nordlund A, Nordlund C, Olsson O, Sandström C, Westin K. 2009. av skog ur ett humanistiskt och samhällsvetenskapligt perspektiv [Conflict and consensus: intensive forestry from a humanities and social science perspective]. Faktaunderlag till MINT-utredningen. SLU.
   Google Scholar
• Linné T. 2011. Skogens framtid: En sociologisk undersökning av skogsägares uppfattningar [The future of the forest: a sociological survey of forest owners’ views]. Malmö: Bokbox.
   Google Scholar
• Lundgren LJ, Sundqvist G. 1996. Varifrån får miljövårdsbyråkraterna sin kunskap? [Where do the environmental protection bureacrats get their knowledge?]. In: LJ Lundgren, editor. Att veta och att göra: Om kunskap och handling inom miljövården. [Knowing and doing: On knowledge and action in environmental protection]. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverkets förlag; p. 129–172.
   Google Scholar
• Molander B. 1996. Människan och hennes orientering i världen [Mankind and their orientation in the world]. In: LJ Lundgren, editor. Att veta och att göra: Om kunskap och handling inom miljövården. [Knowing and doing: On knowledge and action in environmental protection]. Stockholm: Naturvårdsverkets förlag; p. 53–72.
   Google Scholar
• Nassauer, JI. 1997. Cultural sustainability: aligning aesthetics and ecology. In: Nassauer JI, editor. Placing nature: culture and landscape ecology. Washington, DC: Island Press; p. 67–83.
   Google Scholar
• Nohl W. 2001. Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception – preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics. Landsc Urban Plann. 54:223–237. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00138-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ode Å, Sundli Tveit M, Fry G. 2010. Advantages of using different data sources in assessment of landscape change and its effect on visual scale. Ecol Indic. 10:24–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.02.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogge E, Nevens F, Gulinck H. 2007. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc Urban Plann. 82:159–174. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott A. 2002. Assessing public perception of landscape: the LANDMAP experience. Landsc Res. 27:271–295. doi: 10.1080/01426390220149520
   Google Scholar
• Scott A, Carter C, Brown K, White V. 2009. ‘Seeing is not everything’: exploring the landscape experiences of different publics. Landsc Res. 34:397–424. doi: 10.1080/01426390903009289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellerberg A-M. 2011. Efter stormen: En sociologisk underrsökning av skogsägarfamiljer [After the storm: a sociological investigation of forest-owning families]. Malmö: Bokbox.
   Google Scholar
• Setten G. 2003. Farming the heritage: on the production and construction of a personal and practised landscape heritage. Norsk Geogr Tidskrift. 57:134–144. doi: 10.1080/00291950310002116
   Google Scholar
• Setten G. 2004. The habitus, the rule and the moral landscape. Cult Geogr. 11:389–415. doi: 10.1191/1474474004eu309oa
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Setten G. 2005. Farming the heritage: on the production and construction of a personal and practised landscape heritage. Int J Herit Stud. 11:67–79. doi: 10.1080/13527250500037054
   Google Scholar
• Svensson SA, Bohlin F, Bäcke J O, Hultåker O, Ingemarson F, Karlsson S, Malmhäll J. 2011. Ekonomiska och sociala konsekvenser i skogsbruket av stormen Gudrun [Economic and social consequences for forestry of Storm Gudrun]. Report No. 12. Jönköping: Swedish Forest Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Törnqvist T. 1995. Skogsrikets arvingar: En studie av skogsägarskapet inom privat, enskilt skogsbruk [The heirs of the forest: a study of forest-owning in private forestry]. Uppsala: Samhällsvetenskapliga forskningsinstitutet (SAMU).
   Google Scholar
• Urry J. 2000. Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vail D, Hultkrantz L. 2000. Property rights and sustainable nature tourism: adaptation and mal-adaptation in Dalarna (Sweden) and Maine (USA). Ecol Econ. 35:223–242. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00190-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Berg AE, Vlek CAJ, Coeterier JF. 1998. Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. Environ Psychol. 18:141–157. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1998.0080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wacquant L. 2008. Pierre Bourdieu. In: R. Stones, editor. Key sociological thinkers. London: Macmillan; p. 261–277.
   Google Scholar
• Wästerfors, D, Åkerström, M, Jacobsson, K. 2014. Reanalysis of qualitative data. In: Flick U, editor. The Sage international handbook of qualitative data analysis. London: SAGE; p. 467–480.
   Google Scholar
• Winkler J. 2005 Jun 22. The eye and the hand. Professional sensitivity and the idea of an aesthetics of work on the land. Contemp Aesthet. Available from: www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=289.
   Google Scholar