A struggling collaborative process – revisiting the woodland key habitat concept in Swedish forests

References

• Allen W, Bosch O, Kilvington M, Harley D, Brown I. 2009. Monitoring and adaptive management: resolving social and organizational issues to improve information sharing in natural resource management. Nat Resour Forum. 25(3):225–233. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-8947.2001.tb00764.x
   Google Scholar
• Appelstrand M. 2012. Developments in Swedish forest policy and administration–from a “policy of restriction” toward a “policy of cooperation”. Scand J Forest Res. 27(2):186–199. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2011.635069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergseng E, Vatn A. 2009. Why protection of biodiversity creates conflict–some evidence from the Nordic countries. J Forest Econ. 15(3):147–165. doi: 10.1016/j.jfe.2008.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjärstig T. 2017. Does collaboration lead to sustainability? a study of public–private partnerships in the Swedish mountains. Sustainability. 9(10):1685–1707. doi: 10.3390/su9101685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borg R, Paloniemi R. 2012. Deliberation in cooperative networks for forest conservation. J Integr Environ Sci. 9(3):151–166. doi: 10.1080/1943815X.2012.709869
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DN. 2017. DN Debatt, “Vi pausar inventeringen av nyckelbiotoper i nordväst” (in Swedish). https://www.dn.se/debatt/vi-pausar-inventeringen-av-nyckelbiotoper-i-nordvast/.
   Google Scholar
• Elo S, Kääriäinen M, Kanste O, Pölkki T, Utriainen K, Kyngäs H. 2014. Qualitative content analysis: a focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open. 4(1):1–10. doi: 10.1177/2158244014522633
   Google Scholar
• Emerson K, Nabatchi T. 2015. Collaborative governance regimes. Washington (DC): Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ericsson TS, Berglund H, Östlund L. 2005. History and forest biodiversity of woodland key habitats in south boreal Sweden. Biol Conserv. 122(2):289–303. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.07.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Götmark F. 2009. Conflicts in conservation: woodland key habitats, authorities and private forest owners in Sweden. Scand J Forest Res. 24(6):504–514. doi: 10.1080/02827580903363545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson L, De Jong J, Noréng M. 1999. Evaluation of Swedish woodland key habitats using red-listed bryophytes and lichens. Biodivers Conserv. 8(8):1101–1114. doi: 10.1023/A:1008934526658
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson L, Hannerz M. 2018. 20 års forskning om nyckelbiotoper–här är resultaten (in Swedish). Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Jacob SA, Furgerson SP. 2012. Writing interview protocols and conducting interviews: tips for students new to the field of qualitative research. Qual Rep. 17(42):1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Johansson J. 2018. Collaborative governance for sustainable forestry in the emerging bio-based economy in Europe. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 32:9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson J. 2016. Participation and deliberation in Swedish forest governance: the process of initiating a national forest Program. Forest Pol Econ. 70:137–146. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinschmit D, Pülzl H, Secco L, Sergent A, Wallin I. 2018. Orchestration in political processes: involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making. Forest Pol Econ. 89:4–15. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.12.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lifvergren-Kaya M. 2003. Avverkning av nyckelbiotoper – en studie av den teoretiska begreppsdefinitionen och den praktiska hanteringen av nyckelbiotoper (Master’s thesis; in Swedish). Linköping, Sweden: Linköpings universitet.
   Google Scholar
• Lindstad BH. 2018. ‘What’s in it for me?’— contrasting environmental organisations and forest owner participation as policies evolve. Forest Pol Econ. 89:80–86. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundquist L. 1987. Implementation steering: an actor-structure approach. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur AB.
   Google Scholar
• Lundquist L. 1992. Förvaltning, stat och samhälle (In Swedish). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur AB.
   Google Scholar
• Mårald E, Sandström C, Rist L, Rosvall O, Samuelsson L, Idenfors A. 2015. Exploring the use of a dialogue process to tackle a complex and controversial issue in forest management. Scand J Forest Res. 30(8):749–756. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2015.1065343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mežaka A, Brūmelis G, Piterāns A. 2012. Tree and stand-scale factors affecting richness and composition of epiphytic bryophytes and lichens in deciduous woodland key habitats. Biodivers Conserv. 21(12):3221–3241. doi: 10.1007/s10531-012-0361-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nitare J, Norén M. 1992. Woodland key-habitats of rare and endangered species will be mapped in a new project of the Swedish National Board of Forestry. Sven Bot Tidskr. 86:219–226. (In Swedish).
   Google Scholar
• Norén M. 1999. Nyckelbiotopsinventeringen 1993–1998. Slutrapport [The Woodland key-habitat inventory in Sweden 1993–1998. Concluding Report]. Jönköping, Sweden: Swedish National Board of Forestry.
   Google Scholar
• Primmer E, Karppinen H. 2010. Professional judgment in non-industrial private forestry: forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conservation. Forest Pol Econ. 12:136–146. 42. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Primmer E, Paloniemi R, Similä J, Tainio A. 2014. Forest owner perceptions of institutions and voluntary contracting for biodiversity conservation: not crowding out but staying out. Ecol Econ. 103:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberge J-M. 2018. Vetenskapligt kunskapsunderlag för nyckelbiotopsinventeringen i nordvästra Sverige (in Swedish). Report 2018/11. Jönköping, Sweden: Skogsstyrelsen. https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/globalassets/om-oss/publikationer/2018/rapport-2018-11-vetenskapligt-kunskapsunderlag-for-nyckelbiotopsinventeringen-i-nordvastra-sverige.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Saarikoski H, Åkerman M, Primmer E. 2012. The challenge of governance in regional forest planning: an analysis of participatory forest program processes in Finland. Soc Nat Resour. 25(7):667–682. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2011.630061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarkki S, Heikkinen HI. 2015. Why do environmentalists not consider compromises as legitimate?: combining value-and process-based explanations from Finnish forest controversies. Forest Pol Econ. 50:110–117. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SEPA & SFA. 2017. Värdefulla skogar – Redovisning av regeringsuppdrag (in Swedish). Skrivelse 2017-01-31. Naturvårdsverket diarienummer NV-00110-16. Skogsstyrelsen diarienummer 2016/479. Jönköping, Sweden: Skogsstyrelsen.
   Google Scholar
• SFA. 2016. Nulägesbeskrivning om nyckelbiotoper (in Swedish). Report 7/2016. Jönköping, Sweden: Skogsstyrelsen.
   Google Scholar
• SFA. 2017a. Rutin – arbete med nyckelbiotoper (in Swdish). Protocol H 46/2017. Jönköping, Sweden: Skogsstyrelsen.
   Google Scholar
• SFA. 2017b. Projektplan Samverkansprocess nyckelbiotoper Dnr 2016/3052 (In Swedish). Jönköping, Sweden: Skogsstyrelsen.
   Google Scholar
• SFA. 2018. Nulägesbeskrivning av nordvästra Sverige (in Swedish). Report 10/2018. Jönköping, Sweden: Skogsstyrelsen.
   Google Scholar
• Similä J, Polonen I, Fredrikson J, Primmer E, Horne P. 2014. Biodiversity protection in private forests: an analysis of compliance. J Environ Law. 26:83–103. doi: 10.1093/jel/eqt029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sveriges Natur. 2018. Nyckelbiotoper hotas efter valet (in Swedish). [accessed 2018 September 4]. http://www.sverigesnatur.org/aktuellt/nyckelbiotoper-hotas-efter-valet/.
   Google Scholar
• The Swedish FSC Council. 2000. Svensk FSC-standard för certifiering av skogsbruk (in Swedish). Uppsala, Sweden: FSC Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Timonen J, Gustafsson L, Kotiaho J, Mönkkönen M. 2011. Hotspots in cold climate: conservation value of woodland key habitats in boreal forests. Biol Conserv. 144:2061–2067. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timonen J, Siitonen J, Gustafsson L, Kotiaho JS, Stokland JN, Sverdrup-Thygeson A, Mönkkönen M. 2010. Woodland key habitats in northern Europe: concepts, inventory and protection. Scand J Forest Res. 25(4):309–324. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2010.497160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vedung E. 2016. Implementering i politik och förvaltning (in Swedish). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Yaffee LS. 2011. Collaborative strategies for managing animal migrations: insights from ecosystem-based management. Environ Law. 41(2):656–679.
   Google Scholar
• Ylisirniö AL, Mönkkönen M, Hallikainen V, Ranta-Maunus T, Kouki J. 2016. Woodland key habitats in preserving polypore diversity in boreal forests: effects of patch size, stand structure and microclimate. For Ecol Manag. 373:138–148. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2016.04.042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar