Multiple-use forestry as a boundary object: From a shared ideal to multiple realities

Today, multiple-use (or multifunctional) forestry is one of the main concepts guiding European forestry. While there is wide acceptance of the overall concept, here is a lack of coherence in definitions, policies and practices. Such outcomes indicate that multiple-use forestry (MUF) may contain the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Land use policy 2017-12, Vol.69, p.247-258
Main Authors: Hoogstra-Klein, M.A., Brukas, V., Wallin, I.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bos- en Natuurbeleid
Concept formation
Definitions
Environmental management
Forest and Nature Conservation Policy
Forest functions
Forest management
Forest policy
Forest Science
Forestry
Instrumentation
Land use
Leerstoelgroep Bos- en natuurbeleid
Literature reviews
Lithuania
Profession
Property
Skogsvetenskap
Studies
Sweden
the Netherlands
WASS
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:Today, multiple-use (or multifunctional) forestry is one of the main concepts guiding European forestry. While there is wide acceptance of the overall concept, here is a lack of coherence in definitions, policies and practices. Such outcomes indicate that multiple-use forestry (MUF) may contain the essential properties of a “boundary object”, i.e. something that is robust enough to conceptually unite different interests, but at the same time is flexible enough to encompass different practices in line with local needs and conditions. This study sets out to explore the conceptualization and implementation of MUF as a boundary object, examining the overall trends at an international level, and scrutinising the national specifics in three case countries: Lithuania, the Netherlands and Sweden. The review of international literature finds no consensus on what MUF is, beyond combining two or more forest functions or uses. The case countries show widely different approaches to conceptualizing and implementing MUF, not least in terms of spatial scales for integrating or segregating various functions. The analysis indicates that we should not expect instrumentation of MUF toward uniform guidelines to shape forestry practices throughout Europe. Rather it will continue to serve the profession as a boundary object that serves as a mediating concept between various interests while being inclusive of a wide set of forestry practices.
ISSN:0264-8377
1873-5754
1873-5754
DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.029