2019
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-28999-7_15
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gender Perspectives on Forest Services in the Rise of a Bioeconomy Discourse

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This constitutes a paradox between problem and solution: women are expected to contribute to the forest industry's growth and profitability, while being at the same time perceived as lacking the interest and legitimacy to be considered for forest work. These findings corroborate previous studies which have demonstrated that forest policy leans towards objectives of productive forestry at the expense of other forest uses (Andersson and Lidestav, 2015;Lidestav et al, 2019), in which gender equality is instrumentalized (Holmgren and Arora-Jonsson, 2015). This focus is to be expected, as "the selection and definition of problems always bear the social fingerprints of the dominant group in a culture" (Harding, 1986, p. 22).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This constitutes a paradox between problem and solution: women are expected to contribute to the forest industry's growth and profitability, while being at the same time perceived as lacking the interest and legitimacy to be considered for forest work. These findings corroborate previous studies which have demonstrated that forest policy leans towards objectives of productive forestry at the expense of other forest uses (Andersson and Lidestav, 2015;Lidestav et al, 2019), in which gender equality is instrumentalized (Holmgren and Arora-Jonsson, 2015). This focus is to be expected, as "the selection and definition of problems always bear the social fingerprints of the dominant group in a culture" (Harding, 1986, p. 22).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The debate regarding the bioeconomy is one such discussion but is too often based on a blinkered view of what the forest can "produce", equating the entire forest sector with the forest industry (Holmgren et al, 2022). This ignores the interests of other groups such as men who are "not compliant with the stereotypical masculine ideal in forestry" (Lidestav et al, 2019), as well as the Sápmi people or newcomers to Sweden. Allowing more diverse groups of people to enter the forest sector would require allowing the possibility of other forest uses to emerge, for e.g., non-wood forest products or forest protection services (Baublyte et al, 2019), opening new opportunities and ideas in the changing rural landscapes of Sweden.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Together, all of these interactions form what we see as gender norms in society. Because forestry is understood as a masculine field (e.g., Andersson et al 2018;Johansson et al 2019a;2019b;Lidestav et al 2019;Bergsten et al 2020;Laszlo Ambjörnsson 2020;Laszlo Ambjörnsson 2021), it is important to understand how gender norms could impact the behaviour of women forest owners. The gendered nature of forestry is discussed in the all articles comprising the current thesis.…”
Section: Meaning Category Article Imentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another explaining factor of the gender differences in forestry could be the gendered norms in forestry. Forestry has been found to be dominated by masculine norms, leaving femininity marginalised (e.g., Lidestav and Ekström 2000;Reed 2003;Arora-Jonsson 2005;Brandth and Haugen 2005;Lidestav and Egan Sjölander 2007;Lidestav 2010;Lidestav and Berg Lejon 2013;Andersson and Lidestav 2016;Lidestav et al 2017;Andersson et al 2018;Johansson et al 2019a;Johansson et al 2019b;Lidestav et al 2019;Laszlo Ambjörnsson 2020;Bergsten et al 2020;Laszlo Ambjörnsson 2021). This makes gender aspects an interesting viewpoint to study.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%