Nature conservation management in voluntary set-aside forests in Sweden: practices, incentives and barriers

References

• Andersson E, Andersson M, Blomquist S, Forsberg O, Lundh G. 2016. Nya och reviderade målbilder för god miljöhänsyn - Skogssektorns gemensamma målbilder för god miljöhänsyn vid skogsbruksåtgärder [New and revised goals for good environmental consideration – the forestry sector’s joint goals for good environmental consideration in forest management]. Report 2016:12. Jönköping, Sweden: The Swedish Forest Agency. 144pp. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Angelstam P, Kuuluvainen T. 2004. Boreal forest disturbance regimes, successional dynamics and landscape structures – a European perspective. Ecol Bull. 51:19.
   Google Scholar
• Attiwill PM. 1994. The disturbance of forest ecosystems: the ecological basis for conservative management. For Ecol Manag. 63(2):247–300. doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(94)90114-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aulén G. 2012. Naturvård i NS-bestånd [Nature conservation in nature conservation management stands]. Södra Forest Owners Association. p. 16. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Bengtsson J, Lundh G, Andersson E, Andersson M, Forsberg O. 2015. Miljöhänsyn vid skogliga åtgärder. [Environmental considerations in forest operations]. Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen. 40 pp. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 3:77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Brinkmann S. 2015. Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Brunberg T. 1997. Basic data for productivity norms for single-grip harvesters in thinning - Underlag för produktionsnorm för engreppsskördare i gallring. Uppsala, Sweden: Skogforsk. Announcement. 22 pp. Swedish, summary in English.
   Google Scholar
• Brunberg T. 2004. Productivity-norm data for forwarders. Uppsala, Sweden: Skogforsk. Announcement No. 3. 16 pp. Swedish, summary in English.
   Google Scholar
• Brunet J, Valtinat K, Mayr ML, Felton A, Lindbladh M, Bruun HH. 2011. Understory succession in post-agricultural oak forests: habitat fragmentation affects forest specialists and generalists differently. For Ecol Manag. 262(9):1863–1871. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiansen L, Eliasson L. 2018. Costs and revenues for measures in large-scale forestry 2017. The Swedish Forest Agency, Statistics Announcement No. JO 0307 SM 1801, 17 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Claesson S, Eriksson A. 2017. Avrapportering av regeringsuppdrag om frivilliga avsättningar [Report on the government assignment on voluntary set-asides]. Announcement 2017:4. Jönköping, Sweden: The Swedish Forest Agency. p. 68. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Drever CR, Peterson G, Messier C, Bergeron Y, Flannigan M. 2006. Can forest management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological resilience? Can J For Res. 36(9):2285–2299. doi: 10.1139/x06-132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eidmann HH. 1992. Impact of bark beetles on forests and forestry in Sweden. J Appl Entomol. 114:193–200. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.1992.tb01114.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson O, Cousins SAO, Bruun HH. 2002. Land-use history and fragmentation of traditionally managed grasslands in Scandinavia. J Veg Sci. 13(5):743–748. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2002.tb02102.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandsson E. 2013. The impact of industrial context on procurement, management and development of harvesting services: a comparison of two Swedish forest owners associations. Forests 4:1171–1198. doi: 10.3390/f4041171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandsson E, Fjeld D, Lidestav G. 2017. Measuring quality perception and satisfaction for wood harvesting services with a triad perspective. IJFE 28:18–33.
   Google Scholar
• FAO, Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. 2015. Global forest resources assessment 2015. Rome: FAO.
   Google Scholar
• FAOSTAT. 2017. FAOSTAT. [accessed 2017 September 19]. http://www.fao.org/faostat/.
   Google Scholar
• FSC. 2010. Swedish FSC Standard for forest certification including SLIMF indicators -FSC-STD-SWE-02-03-2010 Sweden natural, Plantations and SLIMF EN. Uppsala, Sweden: FSC Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Götmark F. 2013. Habitat management alternatives for conservation forests in the temperate zone: Review, synthesis, and implications. For Ecol Manag. 306(Supplement C):292–307. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Götmark F, Nilsson C. 1992. Criteria used for protection of natural areas in Sweden 1909–1986. Conserv Biol. 6:220–231. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.620220.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grönlund J. 2014. Checklista för åtgärder i NS-bestånd [check list for nature conservation management]. Holmen Skog. p. 6. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Grönlund Ö, Di Fulvio F, Bergström D, Djupström L, Eliasson L, Forsell N, Korosuo A. 2019. Mapping of voluntary Set-aside forests intended for nature conservation management in Sweden. Scand J For Res. 34(2):133–144. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2018.1555279
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grönlund Ö, Eliasson L. 2019. Birch shelterwood removal – harvester and forwarder time consumption, damage to understory spruce and net revenues. IJFE. 30(1):26–34.
   Google Scholar
• Gustafsson L, Baker SC, Bauhus J, Beese WJ, Brodie A, Kouki J, Lindenmayer DB, Lõhmus A, Pastur GM, Messier C, et al. 2012. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: A world perspective. BioScience. 62(7):633–645. doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmen Skog. 2017. Environmental work at Holmen Skog. [accessed 2017 October 13]. https://www.holmen.com/en/sustainability/concern-for-the-environment/environmental-activities-at-holmens-units/holmen-skog/.
   Google Scholar
• Hugosson M, Ingemarson F. 2004. Objectives and motivations of small-scale forest owners; theoretical modelling and qualitative assessment. Silva Fenn. 38:217–231. doi: 10.14214/sf.430
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter ML Jr. 2009. Fundamentals of conservation biology. 3rd. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen EL. 2003. Som man ropar i skogen: Modernitet, makt och mångfald i kampen om Njakafjäll och i den svenska skogsbruksdebatten 1970–2000. Lund, Sweden: Studies in Human Ecology, Lund University. Dissertation no 3. Swedish, summary in English.
   Google Scholar
• Johansson J. 2013. Constructing and contesting the legitimacy of private forest governance: the case of forest certification in Sweden. Umeå, Sweden: Department of Political Science, Umeå University. Dissertation 104.
   Google Scholar
• Keskitalo ECH, Liljenfeldt J. 2014. Implementation of forest certification in Sweden: an issue of organisation and communication. Scand J For Res. 29(5):473–484. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2014.919355
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuuluvainen T, Grenfell R. 2012. Natural disturbance emulation in boreal forest ecosystem management — theories, strategies, and a comparison with conventional even-aged management. Can J For Res. 42(7):1185–1203. doi: 10.1139/x2012-064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuuluvainen T, Tahvonen O, Aakala T. 2012. Even-aged and uneven-aged forest management in boreal fennoscandia: a review. AMBIO. 41(7):720–737. doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0289-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvale S. 1989. Issues of validity in qualitative research. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Lindbladh M, Axelsson AL, Hultberg T, Brunet J, Felton A. 2014. From broadleaves to spruce – the borealization of southern Sweden. Scand J For Res. 29(7):686–696. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2014.960893
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindenmayer D. 2006. Habitat fragmentation and landscape change an ecological and conservation synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF. 2002. Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Linder P, Östlund L. 1998. Structural changes in three mid-boreal Swedish forest landscapes, 1885-1996. Biol Conserv. 85:9–19. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00168-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles MB, Huberman AM. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed. London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Niemistö P, Korpunen H, Laurén A, Salomäki M, Uusitalo J. 2012. Impact and productivity of harvesting while retaining young understorey spruces in final cutting of downy birch (Betula pubescens). Silva Fenn. 46:81–97. doi: 10.14214/sf.67
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson P, Cory N, Stendahl J. 2017. Skogsdata 2017: aktuella uppgifter om de svenska skogarna från Riksskogstaxeringen. Tema: Skogsmarkens kolförråd. [Forest statistics 2017 official statistics of Sweden Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Umeå 2017]. Umeå, Sweden: Department of Forest Resource Management. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson SG, Franzén M, Pettersson LB. 2013. Land-use changes, farm management and the decline of butterflies associated with semi-natural grasslands in southern Sweden. Nat Conserv. 6:31–48. doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.6.5205
   Google Scholar
• Nitare J, Thomasson T, Liljewall E. 2014. Naturvårdande skötsel av skog och andra trädbärande marker. [Nature conservation management of forest and other woodlands]. Jönköping, Sweden: The Swedish Forest Agency. 76 pp. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Nurminen T, Korpunen H, Uusitalo J. 2006. Time consumption analysis of the mechanized cut-to-length harvesting system. Silva Fenn. 40:335–363. doi: 10.14214/sf.346
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nylund J-E. 2009. Forestry legislation in Sweden. Report No 14, 43 pp.Uppsala, Sweden: Department of Forest Products. University of Agricultural Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Patton MQ. 2005. Qualitative research. In: BS Everitt, DC Howell, editors. Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science. Hoboken: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• PEFC. 2012. Svensk PEFC Skogsstandard 2012-2017, PEFC SWE 002:3 [Swedish PEFC forest standard 2012-2017]. Swedish: Svenska PEFC.
   Google Scholar
• Pickett STA, White PS. 1985. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 472 pp.
   Google Scholar
• Pregernig M. 2001. Values of forestry professionals and their implications for the applicability of policy Instruments. Scand J For Res. 16(3):278–288. doi: 10.1080/02827580120186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Primmer E, Karppinen H. 2010. Professional judgment in non-industrial private forestry: forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conservation. For Policy Econ. 12(2):136–146. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T. 2009. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ. 68(5):1301–1315. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson OC. 2014. Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: a theoretical and practical guide. Qual Res Psychol. 11:25–41. doi: 10.1080/14780887.2013.801543
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth S, Tekie H, Hansen K. 2015. Ekonomiska stöd i skogsbruket - En förenklad styrmedelsanalys av Nokås och Ädellövsstödet [subsidies of forestry – a simplified regulatory systems analysis of the nature- and culture conservation subsidy and the noble tree subsidy]. Report C132. 73 pp. Stockholm, Sweden: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. Swedish, summary in English.
   Google Scholar
• Santaniello F, Line DB, Ranius T, Rudolphi J, Widenfalk O, Weslien J. 2016. Effects of partial cutting on logging productivity, economic returns and dead wood in boreal pine forest. For Ecol Manag. 365:152–158. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2016.01.033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, Burroughs H, Jinks C. 2018. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 52(4):1893–1907. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SCA Skog. 2017. Nature Conservation Strategy [accessed 2017 Oct]. https://www.sca.com/en/about-sca/our-forest/nature-conservation-strategy/.
   Google Scholar
• SFS, 1979:429. Swedish Forestry Act. [accessed 2018 September 21] https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/skogsvardslag-1979429_sfs-1979-429.
   Google Scholar
• SFS, 2010:1879. Statute on subsidies for certain forest operations. [accessed 2019 September 2] http://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=2010:1879.
   Google Scholar
• Skellefteå Kraft. 2013. Riktlinjer för Skellefteå Krafts skogar [Guide lines for management of Skellefteå Kraft’s forests]. Skellefteå Kraft. 11 pp. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Stanturf J, Palik B, Dumroese RK. 2014. Contemporary forest restoration: a review emphasizing function. For Ecol Manag. 331(1):292–323. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2014.07.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statistics Sweden. 2017. Skyddad natur 2016-12-31 - Protected nature 2016-12-31. Statistical Announcements MI 41 SM 1701. 60 pp. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Sveaskog. 2016. Sveaskog's Conservation Objectives. Fact sheet no. 4. Sveaskog. 2pp.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Steg på vägen – Fördjupad utvärdering av miljömålen 2012. [Steps on the way – Explicit evaluation of the environmental goals 2012]. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency report 6500. 541 pp. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• The Church of Sweden. n.d. Naturvård i NS-bestånd - Förslag på målbilder och åtgärder [Nature Conservation in stands aimed for Nature Conservation Management - Management Suggestions and Aims]. The Church of Sweden, the Härnösand Biscopy. 17 pp. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• The Swedish Forest Agency. 2019. Statistik om formellt skyddad skogsmark, frivilliga avsättningar, hänsynsytor samt improduktiv skogsmark. Redovisning av regeringsuppdrag [Statistics on formally protected forest land, voluntary set-asides, retained areas and un-productive forest land. Report commissioned by the Swedish government office]. Jönköping: The Swedish Forest Agency report 2019/18. 100 pp. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• Young JC, Marzano M, Quine CP, Ambrose-Oji B. 2018. Working with decision-makers for resilient forests: a case study from the UK. For Ecol Manag. 417:291–300. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2017.12.042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar