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

Abstract

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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13280-015-0745-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

Social Values of Forests and Production of New Goods and Services: The Views of Swedish Family Forest Owners

“…2; Bjärstig and Kvastegård 2016;Widman and Bjärstig 2017). As with the findings of other studies, the concept is most frequently associated with recreation and tourism (Sténs et al 2016). However, FFOs in this study also highlight simple things such as silence, the feeling of solitude and privacy, and cite these as important social values.…”

“…Health, wellbeing and a good living environment are also commonly associated with the social value of forests (cf. Bjärstig and Kvastegård 2016;Sténs et al 2016). One interesting theme emphasized by many FFOs, and which is uncommon in official policies and documents, is the importance of silence in the forest.…”

“…To date, the main political goal has been to enhance biodiversity alongside traditional production; social and aesthetical values have been less prioritized (Widman and Bjärstig 2017). One reason for this imbalance is that "the social values" of forests is a contested concept without an agreed upon definition (e.g., Bjärstig and Kvastegård 2016;Sténs et al 2016; see also Government decision 2014). The Swedish Forest Agency (SFA) currently defines the "social values of forests" as "the values created by people's experiences of forests" (SFA 2013: 6), and implicitly connects to the framework of cultural ecosystem services (De Groot et al 2010) by giving examples of values that incorporate good health and wellbeing, good living environment, outdoor recreation and tourism, aesthetical values, outdoor education and knowledge about forests and the environment, intellectual and spiritual inspiration, identity and cultural heritage.…”

Exploring the Role of Public–Private Partnerships in Forest Protection

“…They believed that environmentally valuable forests should be protected using mandatory regulation to counteract the trend of increasing biodiversity loss. However, their criticisms were not based exclusively on past experiences-they also expressed a general critique of the partnerships' bottom-up character [19]. Hence, they thus also expressed ideological motives for claiming that a nationwide partnership could not be effective.…”

“…It is also important for the government to avoid advocating for specific solutions and to show respect for the different viewpoints of the involved stakeholders [28,30]. processes may also be based in more profound values or ideologies and related critiques of top-down or bottom-up approaches [19]. Based on the extensive literature on public-private partnerships [20][21][22], it is also reasonable to assume that the capacity, in particular of the government to create the necessary conditions for the institutionalization of the partnering process, may affect the potential for turning the pilot project into a formal part of the Swedish forest policy.…”