Shareholder perceptions of individual and common benefits in Swedish forest commons

Abstract

Abstract:In the period 1861-1918, thirty-three commons were established in Northern Sweden. This was linked to the finalisation of the Great Redistribution of Forest Holdings in Dalarna and the delimitation process in Västerbotten and Norrbotten. They were intended to serve as an instrument for improved and sustained forest production, the viability of farmers and the liveability of the rural communities in the areas where they were established. The aim of this paper is to describe the results of a study examining how three of these forest commons, one from each region, have benefitted the local shareholders and their community. The perceptions among forest common shareholders were assessed using a questionnaire. The study also assessed economic impact on shareholders in terms of extent and use of the dividend from each of the commons for the period 1958-2007, highlighting the extent of the economic support to individual shareholders and to the local community. Results reveal large differences between the three cases; there was a positive correlation between the extent of the economic support and contentment among the shareholders. Shareholder perceptions of individual and common benefits in Swedish 165Keywords: Community-based resource management, forest policy, resource governance Acknowledgement: We gratefully acknowledge the Brattås Foundation for their financial support for this study.

Research trends: Forest ownership in multiple perspectives

“…There is a long and rich tradition of communities owning, managing and using forests in Europe, and work in FACESMAP showed the enormous potential to understand this diversity of arrangements as a forest governance laboratory (Lawrence et al, 2016a). Case studies include medieval and earlier models, and their survival or loss (Gatto and Bogataj, 2015); the effects of socialism and postsocialism (Bogataj and Krč, 2014;Gatto and Bogataj, 2015;Premrl et al, 2015); community forestry as social innovation following land reform (Ambrose-Oji et al, 2015; Hoffman, 2013) as well as social and environmental impacts (Carlsson, 1999;Lawrence and Ambrose-Oji, 2015;Lidestav et al, 2013;Sandstrom et al, 2016). This fertile domain needs more attention; a recent review of 40 years of community forestry around the world noted only in passing that Europe has been little studied (Gilmour, 2016).…”

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

“…There is a long and rich tradition of communities owning, managing and using forests in Europe (Jeanrenaud 2001 ; Pemán and De Moor 2013 ). Research has illustrated the survival or loss of mediaeval commons (Gatto and Bogataj 2015 ), effects of socialism and post-socialism (Bogataj and Krč 2014 ; Premrl et al 2015 ), social innovation (Ambrose-Oji et al 2015 ), recent policy programmes (Lawrence and Ambrose-Oji 2015 ), new groups forming in response to on-going land reform (Hoffman 2013 ) and effects on forest management and social equity (Lidestav et al 2013 ). However, the overall diversity of European community forest arrangements has featured little in international community forestry literature (Gilmour 2016 ).…”