In the eye of the stakeholder: The challenges of governing social forest values

This study examines which kinds of social benefits derived from forests are emphasised by Swedish stakeholders and what governance modes and management tools they accept. Our study shows that there exists a great variety among stakeholders' perceptions of forests' social values, where tour...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ambio 2016-02, Vol.45 (Suppl 2), p.S87-S99
Main Authors: Sténs, Anna, Bjärstig, Therese, Nordström, Eva-Maria, Sandström, Camilla, Fries, Clas, Johansson, Johanna
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aesthetics
Atmospheric Sciences
bioenergy
biomass
cultural ecosystem services
Cultural heritage
Cultural values
Decision making
Earth and Environmental Science
Ecology
Ecosystems
Environment
Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology
Environmental Management
Environmental Policy
Forest management
Forest Science
Forestry
Forestry - methods
Forests
governance
historia
History
issues and policy
landscapes
legal instruments
Management tools
multiple use forestry
Outdoor activities
Ownership
Physical Geography
planning
political science
Public Opinion
Recreation
Skogsvetenskap
social benefit
Social Perception
Social Values
stakeholder analysis
Stakeholders
statskunskap
Sustainable development
Sustainable use
Sweden
Tourism
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study examines which kinds of social benefits derived from forests are emphasised by Swedish stakeholders and what governance modes and management tools they accept. Our study shows that there exists a great variety among stakeholders' perceptions of forests' social values, where tourism and recreation is the most common reference. There are also differences in preferred governance modes and management where biomass and bioenergy sectors advocate business as usual (i.e. framework regulations and voluntarism) and other stakeholders demand rigid tools (i.e. coercion and targeting) and improved landscape planning. This divide will have implications for future policy orientations and require deliberative policy processes and improved dialogue among stakeholders and authorities. We suggest that there is a potential for these improvements, since actors from almost all stakeholder groups support local influence on governance and management, acknowledged and maintained either by the authorities, i.e. targeting, or by the stakeholders themselves, i.e. voluntarism.
ISSN:0044-7447
1654-7209
1654-7209
DOI:10.1007/s13280-015-0745-6