Forest condition and management in Swedish forest commons

Abstract

Forest commons are regarded as a means to support local development and sustainable forest conditions. To evaluate the development impact of Swedish forest commons, comparative surveys have been undertaken in three regions, and the differences in forest condition and management between categories of commons as well as their relation to other forest ownerships have been assessed. Regional differences between the by-laws, historical development and geographical conditions are apparent. It is concluded that two of three regions have an overly restrictive harvesting policy given the purpose of the forest commons and the official forest policy. The study results underline the importance of evaluation of the performance of forest management in relation to management objectives, to ownership alternatives and to the impact of local variations in preconditions.

Forests in common: Learning from diversity of community forest arrangements in Europe

“…In the Italian Alps, those forests owned by communities are of better quality than others. In Sweden, common forest land is often of poorer quality than private forest land, but of higher quality than state forest land in some regions (Holmgren et al 2004 ). In the broader landscape context, most of our cases were ‘important’ (1.6), had more than 75% forest cover (1.3) and were judged to be ‘moderately’ productive (1.2).…”

Yhteismetsät suomalaisessa yhteiskunta- ja metsäpolitiikassa 1880-luvulta 2020-luvulle

“…Suomen yhteismetsien tutkimuksessa paras ja lähin kansainvälinen vertailukohde on Ruotsi, missä ensimmäisten yhteismetsien perustaminen liittyi Suomen tavoin asutustoiminnan edistämiseen 1800-luvun jälkipuolella ja 1900-luvun alussa. Carlsonin (1995,1999) yhteismetsien lähihistoriaa politiikan tutkimuksen näkökulmasta tarkastelleet työt käynnistivät uuden kauden ruotsalaisessa alan tutkimuksessa, johon Holmgren (2004Holmgren ( , 2007Holmgren ( , 2009Holmgren ( , 2010 tutkijaverkostonsa kanssa toi metsätieteiden tutkimuksen ulottuvuuden.…”

Contrasting views on co-management of indigenous natural and cultural heritage – Case of Laponia World Heritage site, Sweden

“…Additionally, mechanisms for conflict resolution and sanctions for shareholders violating the rules are required. Other scholars have added to or modified this set of principles (Agrawal, 2002; Holmgren, 2009; Ostrom, 1990, 2009). It is also suggested that common pool regimes work best in areas with other commonalities between individuals (traditions, history, norms, etc.)…”

“…It is also suggested that common pool regimes work best in areas with other commonalities between individuals (traditions, history, norms, etc.) (Agrawal, 2002; Holmgren, 2009).…”

“…In the European polar regions, the theoretical approaches related to common pool resources and governance have been applied, particularly in relation to the Swedish Forest Commons (Carlsson, 2003; Holmgren, 2009). In Keskitalo (2019), a broader research program related to the European Arctic was presented where governance and common pool resources in the north or in Arctic Regions were examined.…”