Intensive forestry in Sweden: stakeholders' evaluation of benefits and risk

REFERENCES

• AnderssonM, GongP. 2010. Risk preferences, risk perceptions and timber harvest decisions — an empirical study of nonindustrial private forest owners in Northern Sweden. For Policy Econ.12:330–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appelstrand M. 2007. Miljömålet i skogsbruket: styrning och frivillighet [The environmental goal of Swedish forestry: regulation and voluntariness]. Lund (Sweden): Lund Studies in Sociology of Law No. 26. Swedish.
   Google Scholar
• AppelstrandM. 2012. Developments in Swedish forest policy and administration – from a “policy of restriction” towards a “policy of cooperation”. Scand J For Res.27:186–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BaxterJ, EylesJ. 1999. The utility of in-depth interviews for studying the meaning of environmental risk. Prof Geogr.51:307–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BoströmM, KlintmanM. 2008. Eco-standards, product labelling and green consumerism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• BrymanA. 2008. Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• CallonM, BartheY, LascoumesP. 2009. Acting in an uncertain world. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• EderK. 1996. The social construction of nature: a sociology of ecological enlightenment. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2011. State of the world's forests. Rome: FAO.
   Google Scholar
• FischerF. 2003. Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Governmental Bill 2007/08, No. 108. En skogspolitik i takt med tiden [A forest policy in line with the times]. Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• GustafssonL, BakerSC, BauhusJ, BeeseWJ, BrodieA, KoukiJ, LindemayerDB, LohmusA, PasturGM, MessierC, et al., 2012. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. BioScience.62:633–645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• HajerM, WagenaarH. 2003. Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• HoodC, RothsteinH, BaldwinR. 2001. The government of risk: understanding risk regulation regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• JohanssonJ, LidestavG. 2011. Can voluntary standards regulate the forestry? Assessing the environmental impacts of forest certification in Sweden. For Policy Econ.13:191–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KrippendorffK, BockMA, editors. 2009. The content analysis reader. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• LidskogR. 2005. Siting conflicts – democratic perspectives and political implications. J Risk Res.8:187–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LidskogR, UgglaY, SonerydL. 2011. Making transboundary risks governable: reducing complexity, constructing identities and ascribing capabilities. Ambio.40:111–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LindkvistA, KardellÖ, NordlundC. 2010. Intensive forestry as progress or decay? An analysis of the debate about forest fertilization in Sweden 1960–2010. Forests. 2:112–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LundbergE. 2013. Does the government selection process promote or hinder pluralism? Exploring the characteristics of voluntary organizations invited to public consultations. J Civ Soc.9:58–77.
   Google Scholar
• LundqvistLJ. 1982. Consultative mechanisms in Sweden's environment protection policy. Environ Int.7:379–387.
   Google Scholar
• McDermottCL, CashoreB, KanowskiP. 2010. Introduction. In: McDermottCL, CashoreB, KanowskiP, editors. Global environmental forest policies: an international comparison. New York: Earthscan. p. 3–34.
   Google Scholar
• MINT. 2009. Möjligheter till intensivodling av skog. Slutrapport. [Possibilities for intensive forestry. Final report]. Stockholm (Sweden): Governmental Commission 2008, No. 1885. Swedish. Available from: from www.slu.se/mint 09.
   Google Scholar
• OlssonL, NordfeldtM, LarssonO, KendallJ. 2009. Sweden: when strong third sector historical roots meet EU policy processes. In: KendallJ, editor. Handbook on third sector policy in Europe and organised civil society. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 159–183.
   Google Scholar
• PowerM. 2007. Organized uncertainty: designing a world of risk management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• ReidWV, MooneyHA, CropperA, CapistranoD, CarpenterSR, ChopraK, DasguptaP, DietzT, Duraiappah AKAK, HassanR, et al. 2005. Millennium ecosystem assessment synthesis report. Washington (DC): Millennium Assessment and World Resources Institute.
   Google Scholar
• RistL, CampbellBM, FrostP. 2012. Adaptive management: where are we now?Environ Conserv.40:5–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SchönDA, ReinM. 1994. Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• StaupendahlK, MöhringB. 2011. Integrating natural risks into silvicultural decision models: a survival function approach. For Policy Econ.13:496–502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swedish Forestry Agency. 2012. Skogsstatistisk årsbok 2012 [Statistical yearbook of forestry 2012]. Jönköping (Sweden): Swedish Forest Agency. Swedish. Available from: www.skogsstyrelsen.se.
   Google Scholar
• TrädgårdhL. 2007. Democratic governance in the creation of social capital in Sweden: the discreet charm of governmental commissions. In: TrädgårdhL, editor. State and civil society in Northern Europe: the Swedish model reconsidered. New York: Berghahn Books. p. 254–270.
   Google Scholar
• Williams BK, Szaro RC, Shapiro CD. 2009. Adaptive management: the US department of the interior technical guide. Washington (DC): US Department of the Interior. Available from: http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/TechGuide.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• WynneB. 1996. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: LashS, SzerszynskyB, WynneB, editors. Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology. London: Sage. p. 44–83.
   Google Scholar
• WynneB. 2001. Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult.10:445–481.
   Google Scholar