AMBIO 2013, 42:188–200
DOI 10.1007/s13280-012-0374-2
Multifaceted Value Profiles of Forest Owner Categories in South
Sweden: The River Helge å Catchment as a Case Study
Gustav Richnau, Per Angelstam, Sviataslau Valasiuk, Lyudmyla Zahvoyska,
Robert Axelsson, Marine Elbakidze, Joshua Farley, Ingemar Jönsson,
Ihor Soloviy
Abstract Forest landscapes provide benefits from a wide
range of goods, function and intangible values. But what
are different forest owner categories’ profiles of economic
use and non-use values? This study focuses on the complex
forest ownership pattern of the River Helge å catchment
including the Kristianstad Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve in
southern Sweden. We made 89 telephone interviews with
informants representing the four main forest owner categories. Our mapping included consumptive and non-consumptive direct use values, indirect use values, and non-use
values such as natural and cultural heritage. While the
value profiles of non-industrial forest land owners and
municipalities included all value categories, the forest
companies focused on wood production, and the Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency on nature protection. We
discuss the challenges of communicating different forest
owners’ economic value profiles among stakeholders, the
need for a broader suite of forest management systems, and
fora for collaborative planning.
Keywords Economic sustainability
Kristianstad Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve
Forest management Landscape governance
INTRODUCTION
The success of implementing any policy decision aimed at
changing human behavioral patterns depends on our
knowledge of the drivers underlying the perceptions of a
landscape’s actors and stakeholders towards forest
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0374-2) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
123
ecosystems and their services. A key challenge is to incorporate multifaceted tangible and intangible landscape values
into governance and management processes (Szaro et al.
2005; Lindström et al. 2006; Sturtevant et al. 2007; Kumar
2010; Axelsson et al. 2013a). For example, there are significant gaps between the way we describe and monitor forest
landscapes in practice (e.g., focus on wood and biomass at
the stand scale) and what ought to be the case if based on the
current definition of policies on sustainable natural resource
use (e.g., also including non-timber forest products as well as
ecological, social, and cultural dimensions at multiple
scales) (Innes and Hoen 2005).
Contemporary mainstream economics is a discipline that
deals with decision-making when natural resources are
scarce. It applies an anthropocentric utilitarian approach
(Merlo and Croitoru 2005), where willingness to pay is
treated as equivalent to utility provided. The economic value
of a good is therefore determined by preferences weighted
by purchasing power. Consumers can express their choice
among different bundles of market goods and services in
monetary terms, and the resulting values can be incorporated into standard cost-benefit analyses when necessary
(e.g., when governments must make investment decisions)
(WCPA 1998). However, the problem with many landscape
goods and services is the lack of appropriate markets for
them, or noticeable distortions on the existing markets
(Barbier et al. 1997). In the case of landscape goods that
qualify as public goods, markets either fail to set a price or
else the equilibrium price is not optimal in the Pareto sense
(Samuelson 1954). In general, ecosystem goods (e.g., timber
and fish) can readily be converted into market goods. In
contrast, many of the services generated by intact ecosystems are public goods, which means that the very existence
of regular institutionalized markets for them is not feasible
and there is in principle no market price. The result is
Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en
AMBIO 2013, 42:188–200
189
permanent bias of decision-making mechanisms favoring
ecosystem conversion over conservation, regardless of
which option maximizes benefits to society as a whole
(Farley 2010).
Extending the scope of economics beyond marketed
goods, services and values relies on relevant instruments
and mechanisms. Much economic literature focuses on
theories of non-market valuation, and there exists a variety
of valuation techniques with various strengths, weaknesses,
and applicability (Krutilla 1967; Arrow et al. 1993;
Hausman 1993; Carson et al. 2001; Bateman and Willis
2002; Carson and Hanemann 2005). These methods can be
divided into two major groups, namely methods based on
revealed preferences and based on stated preferences,
respectively. The first group is based on preferences
revealed by economic agents in actually existing markets
while the second group relies on people’s preferences
registered in hypothetical choice situation rather than on
signals obtained from actual market transactions. In many
cases the use of stated preferences is the only approach
consistent with economic theory.
An extensive body of scientific literature on economic
valuation of environmental assets in general and of forest
ones in particular demonstrates success of environmental
economists in encompassing measurement of environmental values, but also methodological limitations of the different valuation techniques (Arrow et al. 1993; Bateman and
Willis 2002; Kant 2003) as well as of econometric models
traditionally applied for the monetary appraisal (Meadows
2008). Ecological economists, however, take a different
approach to valuation of natural resources and ecological
functions. It is based on the precautionary principle and
argues that the stock of natural resources and ecological
functions are irreplaceable since their destruction could be
irreversible, thus focusing on strong sustainability sensu
Neumayer (2010). Kant and Lee (2004) argued that a continuum of values is closer to the concept of ‘‘social states’’
(de Borda 1781) rather than to the concept of ‘‘market prices’’, especially in the context of non-use values. Therefore
social choice theory and techniques based on this theory
may be used to elicit and identify owners’ values, preferences, and attitudes associated with forest, forest values, and
forest management practices (Kearney and Kaplan 1997;
Nijnik and Mather 2008; Nijnik et al. 2009).
The wide range of benefits that forest and woodland
landscapes provide implies a major analytic and methodological challenge. As utility in general is considered a
source of economic value, forest landscapes provide people
with various sorts of utility which are heterogeneous in
their origin and features. Three main value components
correspond to the various types of utility, namely use value,
option value, and non-use value (Weisbrod 1964; Krutilla
1967). People may derive utility either from use (direct or
indirect) of the forest landscape or a particular component,
or from temporarily setting it aside for future use, or from
leaving it intact for different reasons. Since related management strategies may contradict each other, decisionmakers are forced to make trade-offs among different
values, thus optimizing preferences and deriving maximal
utility for individual stakeholders or society.
The Kristianstad Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve (KVBR)
in southernmost Sweden (Hahn et al. 2006; Olsson et al.
2007) was one of the model sites in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. KVBR is a semi-urban area with high
biological and cultural values located in the lower parts of
the River Helge å catchment. The primary focus is on the
wetlands area along the lowland part of Helge å river that
was designated a Ramsar wetland in 1975. KVBR provides
an attempt to create a collaborative governance system that
includes a wide range of stakeholders (Olsson et al. 2004,
2007; Hahn et al. 2006). However, several important
challenges require that a catchment approach is encouraged. For example, humic acid concentrations in the water
have increased during recent decades (Tuvendal and
Elmqvist 2011). Hence, as good quality water is an
important resource for people living in the catchment, and
as bird populations in the wetlands in the lower parts of the
catchment are declining (H. Cronert, and S.-E. Magnusson,
pers. comm.), it is vital to mitigate this negative trend.
A starting point to understand how the catchment is
influenced by forest landscape use is to map land owners
and actors and their use of different kinds of goods and
benefits including the full range of forest landscape values.
We used Merlo and Croitoru’s (2005) approach to classify
benefits in terms of forest goods, services, and values into
use and non-use values, but without applying their total
economic value approach to estimate market values, markets for substitute products and potential market values.
We rated the interviewees’ answers, and value profiles are
presented for each of four main forest owner categories.
Finally, we discuss the challenge of communicating different economic values among stakeholders, a broader suite
of forest management systems, and the need for fora for
collaboration and spatial planning.
METHODOLOGY
Helge å Catchment as a Case Study
This study focuses on the entire River Helge å catchment,
which covers 4725 km2. The river runs from the southernmost boreal forest in Sweden (Sjörs 1967), passing
temperate lowland temperate deciduous and Scots
Pine (Pinus sylvestris) sandy forests to the Baltic Sea.
While the average forest cover in the catchment is 64 %
Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en
123
190
AMBIO 2013, 42:188–200
(Electronic Supplementary Material, Table S1), there is a
clear gradient of decreasing forest land cover from
upstream north to the downstream south (Electronic Supplementary Material, Fig. S1). The outer border of all
municipalities located within the River Helge å catchment
including a 5-km buffer zone was used to delimit the total
study area (Electronic Supplementary Material, Fig. S2).
The study area thus covers 11 336 km2 and encompassed
the territory of 14 different municipalities in two historical
provinces (landskap in Swedish) once belonging to Denmark and Sweden, respectively, and three county administrative regions.
Mapping Land Owners
Ten groups of land owners were identified based on the
analyses of the coarse land ownership maps (Electronic
Supplementary Material, Table S2). The ownership landscape was dominated by non-industrial private forest
(NIPF) owners who were in possession of 88.6 % of the
land. The three other main forest owner categories were
Sveaskog Co. (3.3 %), municipalities (1.8 %), Church of
Sweden (1.6 %), and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (0.8 %). Forest owner groups owning less than
0.5 % of the land were considered to be of minor importance and were excluded from further investigation.
To identify the value profiles of the forest owner groups,
telephone interviews were conducted with a sample of interviewees representing the land owner categories. Of a total
number of 105 randomly chosen persons contacted by
telephone 89 persons were interviewed in 2007. Seventeen
NIPF owners were excluded for various reasons (e.g., recent
shifts in property ownership, not found, or unwilling to
participate). Thus the response rate of NIPF owners was
77 %. This sample consisted of 58 NIPF owners, 25 municipal representatives, 3 County Administration Board
(CAB) representatives, 1 executive of Sveaskog Co. management unit in southern Sweden, and 2 managers responsible for the forest management of the Church of Sweden.
The NIPF owners were between 35 and 83 years old, the
average age was 58. Of these, 14 were women (24 %) and
44 were men (76 %). NIPF owners and municipalities were
both divided into two groups based on the historical provincial units Skåne (downstream) and Småland (upstream).
Sveaskog Co. and the Church of Sweden were assigned to
the same group as both of them had similar objectives in
terms of a focus on wood production. To select NIPF interviewees all forest properties with a forest cover between
19 and 100 ha belonging to NIPF owners were identified.
This represents the average size of a forest property in
Southern Sweden (N.-G. Cato, pers. comm.). A total of 75
forest properties, evenly distributed between the Forest
Agency’s three districts (two in Skåne and one in Småland)
123
within the study area, were selected randomly and the
owners were asked to participate in a telephone interview.
For all 14 municipalities, the responsible officer for forest
management at the municipality was contacted. In most
cases, a second person responsible for environmental issues
was also contacted for supplementary comments about
nature conservation strategies and recreation. The stateowned land set aside for conservation and recreation is
owned by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
(SEPA). However, interviews were conducted with staff at
the three County Administration Boards (CAB) within the
study area (i.e., the counties of Skåne, Kronoberg and
Jönköping), who manage the protected areas and were thus
assumed to possess deeper knowledge about local conditions. The CABs’ main responsibility is to coordinate the
development of the county in line with goals set in national
policy, and is in most cases responsible for the operational
management of the state-owned land. In addition the
executive at Sveaskog Co. and two managers in charge of
the forest management at each of the Church of Sweden’s
two dioceses were interviewed.
All telephone interviews were semi-structured (Kvale
and Brinkman 2008) and based on four sustainability
themes: (1) economic focus, (2) social activities, (3) biodiversity and nature conservation, and (4) historical/cultural aspects. A semi-structured interview is a flexible
interview method that allows for new questions to be
brought up during the conversations depending on the
responses from the interviewees. An interview manual
framework was developed based on the total economic
value approach. The telephone interviews were recorded
digitally and summarized briefly afterwards, but were not
transcribed word by word.
Use and Non-use Values
The Total Economic Value (TEV) concept intends to cover
the full range of multiple values of forest ecosystems
through estimation of use and non-use (or existence) values
(Krutilla 1967; Jacobsson and Dragun 1996) (Table 1).
A coherent analytical framework is needed to ensure that
these benefits are considered systematically and comprehensively, but without double counting (Pak et al. 2010; de
Groot et al. 2010). For analytical reasons TEV of forest can
be decomposed into either more general components, or be
split up into more detailed ones. Merlo and Croitoru (2005)
employed an analytical framework based upon the TEV
concept. This straightforwardly classifies real and potential
benefits into direct and indirect use values, option values
and non-use values. Direct use values include (1) consumptive (e.g., wood and non-wood forest products)
and other provisioning services of forest ecosystems in
terms of Millennium Ecosystem Assessment classification
Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en
AMBIO 2013, 42:188–200
191
(MEA 2005) as well as (2) non-consumptive direct use
values in terms of landscape quality or recreation (cultural
forest ecosystem services). Indirect use values include
ecosystem services supplied by watersheds, such as water
purification and carbon sequestration, flood regulation, soil
formation, and other regulating and supporting forest
ecosystem services. To simplify the study and to avoid
dealing with uncertainty, option values were assigned to
belong to the direct use values and were not treated as an
individual value category. Non-use values are not linked to
the actual use of forests but rather to conservation interests
of the landscape. Two examples are (1) bequest values
arising from placing a value on the conservation of natural
or cultural elements of the landscape for the benefit of
future generations, and (2) existence values derived from
the knowledge of conserved ecosystems, habitats, or species. In practice the only difference between existence and
bequest values is whether or not the consumer enjoys the
existence of a good or service exclusively, or as a potential
source of utility for next generations as well.
The importance of various value variables were rated on
a three-graded scale ranging from 0 to 2, where the rank
numbers represent the interviewer’s perception of the
interviewee’s interest in a particular kind of forest use as
being unimportant (0), of lesser importance (1) and of
greater importance (2), respectively. The individual value
variables used in this survey were selected in an attempt to
encompass all kinds of values of the forest landscapes in
the study area, and to correspond as closely as possible to
the theoretical framework of Merlo and Croitoru (2005),
but without moving into economic valuation. The value
variables investigated were wood production, fuel wood,
berries, mushrooms, hunting, investment, recreation,
landscape quality, soil protection, water protection, inheritance, cultural elements, habitat conservation, and biodiversity. However, there are several additional value
variables mentioned as part of the TEV concept that have
not been considered in this survey (e.g., forest grazing,
carbon sequestration, educational, or scientific values). The
evaluation was made by the interviewer and was based first
of all on the stated opinions of interviewee, but also
checked for consistency based on his/her description of
how the forest was actually managed.
The value variables were grouped in different value
categories and the sums of the rank numbers of every value
category were calculated for each forest owner group. In
order to visualize the comparison between the different
owner groups, an index based on a ratio scale from 0 to
100 % was calculated as the sums of value categories
divided by the maximum possible score. The ratio index
value was never based on a total sum of less than 12. The
resulting value profiles of each of the four main user groups
are presented both as bar charts for all value variables, and
as radar diagrams following Bossel (2001).
Table 1 Use and non-use value variables recognized by stakeholders and grouped in different value categories and assigned to the four aspects
of SFM
Use values
Sustainable forest
management criteria
Direct use values
Non-use values
Consumptive
Wood products
Economic
Non-consumptive
Bequest values
Existence values
Non-wood products
Wood production Berries
Fuel wood
Indirect use
values
Landscape quality
Inheritance
Mushrooms
Hunting
Investment
Ecological
Wood production
Soil protection
Biodiversity
Habitat conservation
Water protection
Social
Cultural
Wood production Berries
Wood production
Recreation
Mushrooms
Landscape quality
Hunting
Cultural elements
Soil protection
Cultural elements
Habitat conservation
Biodiversity
Landscape quality
Inheritance
Cultural elements
Cultural elements
Habitat conservation
Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en
123
192
AMBIO 2013, 42:188–200
RESULTS
Indirect Use Values
Use and Non-use Values
With the exception of soil and water protection, few indirect values were identified by the interviewees. Some of the
interviewees expressed a wish to care for streams by
leaving buffer zones and others expressed an ambition to
minimize the soil damage during harvesting operations.
These values were clearly connected to the ecological
dimension of sustainable forest management, but also in
some way to the social dimension, for example, in terms of
a desire to avoid reducing the quality of important recreation areas.
Direct Use Values: Consumptive Values
Consumptive timber forest products were reported as one
of the major direct use values, which provided land
owners with an economic income from production of
timber, pulpwood, wood chips, or biomass. The interviewees also mentioned other values connected to forest
management. The opinion that silviculture is important to
create habitats for biodiversity was expressed among the
interviewees. Silvicultural practices such as planting and
pre-commercial thinning also served as a social purpose,
for example, as a recreational activity or as an emotional
enjoyment of creating something. Silviculture was also
perceived as an integrated activity of maintaining the
cultural landscape.
Non-wood products were recognized by interviewees as
values derived from forests. The non-wood values were
related to economic as well as social and cultural dimensions. One example was hunting, which was reported to
generate meat to the land owner or income in form of
leasing the right for hunting. Hunting also represented a
popular social event and part of the rural culture. A similar
type of value was associated with collecting berries and
mushrooms. While this did not generate any important
economic income, it was reported as an important recreational value. Other consumptive non-wood values had a
strict economical focus. Exploitation of forestland for
establishment of residential or industrial areas by municipalities was one example. Some land owners also saw
forest ownership as an economic investment, for example,
because of the expected increase in value of forest
properties.
Non-use Bequest Values
Several forest owners considered conservation of cultural
elements or particular forest habitats to be important. This
ambition included both a wish for future generations to be
able to experience these landscape components, and also in
a wish to conserve the cultural tradition. Inheritance was
another bequest value recognized by forest owners. This
value was also linked to the cultural and sense of place
contexts, but there was also an economic dimension to it,
i.e., a wish to contribute to the financial situation of interviewees’ heirs.
Non-use Existence Values
Interviewees also recognized the existence values of the
forest landscape, which were linked to the intrinsic values
of biodiversity conservation and specific forest and
woodland habitats.
Owner Groups’ Value Profiles
Non-industrial Private Owners
Direct Use Values: Non-consumptive Values
The non-consumptive direct use values included a wide
range of values such as landscape quality, recreation, cultural elements, and biodiversity. All these values were
connected to social aspects in some way. In addition, the
cultural elements and the landscape quality were part of the
inhabitants’ cultural identity and sense of place. Some land
owners also reflected upon the economic aspect of the
landscape quality in terms of increasing the attractiveness
and, consequently, the market value of the property by
improving the aesthetical qualities. On a regional level,
landscape quality often played an important role for the
municipalities, since it may improve the attractiveness of
the region and thus for immigration and thus improved
municipal economy.
123
The NIPF owner group was heterogeneous with a diverse
profile of use of their forest ownership. What mainly distinguished this owner group from the others is the strong
personal and emotional connection to the forest property.
While some forest owners explicitly stated that the purpose
of their forest ownership was to generate income, the
majority seemed to have a more complex approach where
the economic factor played a minor or complementary role.
The value profiles (Fig. 1a) point to important consumptive
wood and non-wood values as well as non-consumptive,
bequest, and existence values. The regulating ecosystem
services values soil and water protection were, however,
perceived as relatively unimportant. The most important
use values to non-industrial private owners were wood
production, recreation, and landscape quality (Fig. 2a).
Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en
AMBIO 2013, 42:188–200
193
Municipalities
The value profiles of the municipalities indicated high
importance for option, bequest, and existence values as well
as some direct use values, whereas indirect use values and
some direct use values seemed to be of lesser importance.
The direct use values were primarily connected to recreation,
timber production, and landscape quality. Most municipalities used forested land for production purposes with different
degrees of intensity. While some municipalities had determined a revenue target from forest management, other
municipalities seemed to have different priorities.
The municipalities’ value profiles indicate that all value
categories except the regulating ecosystem services values
were perceived as important (Fig. 1b). The use values
perceived as most important for the municipality owner
groups were wood production, recreation, investment,
landscape quality, cultural elements, biodiversity, and
habitat conservation (Fig. 2b). The importance of hunting,
mushrooms, and berries were perceived as less important,
and soil and water protection as fairly unimportant.
Forest Industry
The primary objective of the Church of Sweden’s forest
ownership was to earn money from forest management.
Sveaskog Co. shared this goal but had explicit other
important objectives as well. The value profile for these
Fig. 1 Radar diagrams showing the profiles of a NIPF owners in Skåne and Småland, b municipalities in Skåne and Småland, c Sveaskog and
the Church of Sweden, and d the land owned by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Index scores based on a scale from 0 to 100
calculated as the sums of value categories divided by the maximum possible score (number of interviewees times 2)
Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en
123
194
AMBIO 2013, 42:188–200
Fig. 2 Profiles of use of forest landscape goods, services and values among a NIPF owners in the historical provinces Skåne and Småland,
b municipalities in Skåne and Småland, c Sveaskog and the Church of Sweden, and d the land owned by the Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency
two owner types showed that existence values and bequest
values were ranked high while indirect use values were
rather low. In order to generate income, the main focus of
the forest management was production of biomass. The
largest part of the income was derived from timber and
pulpwood production. In addition, biomass residues from
timber harvesting are turned into wood chips that are sold
as bioenergy fuel. The leasing of hunting rights also generated some profit. Non-timber forest products were of no
direct interest for these two forest industrial owners. The
recreational values were of some importance to Sveaskog
Co., which recently has founded a subsidiary company
(Sveaskog Naturturism AB) that deals primarily with
wildlife tourism. Concerning the indirect use values the
interviewees pointed out that the necessary precautions and
considerations close to watercourses or regarding soil
protection are stipulated by the national legislation.
Investment in forest properties was of little importance but
all three interviewees agree that it may sometimes be
123
advantageous to trade a forest property for another to
improve management efficiency, for example, related to
logistics. The importance to conserve the cultural heritage
of the region (bequest values) was acknowledged by all
three interviewees. Once again, the requirements stipulated
by the legislation were being respected and the representatives of the Church of Sweden pointed out that they have
decided to indicate valuable cultural remains with signs in
the field. Conservation of biodiversity (existence values)
was claimed to be very important by all three interviewees.
All forests are certified according to the FSC system and
the Church of Sweden’s land was in addition certified
under the PEFC system. Conservation of biodiversity represented one of the core management objectives of Sveaskog Co., and for the Church of Sweden it is important to
appear as a responsible forest manager. Conservation of
habitats was first and foremost related to conservation of
biodiversity. All three interviewees stated that they have
set aside more land for nature conservation purposes
Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en
AMBIO 2013, 42:188–200
195
compared to what is necessary to fulfill the minimum
requirements of the forest and environmental policies and
the certification standards.
The value profiles indicate that the value categories of
importance were the consumptive wood, existence, and
bequest values (Fig. 1c). To Sveaskog Co. and the Church
of Sweden, the use categories perceived as most important
were wood production, habitat conservation, and cultural
elements (Fig. 2c). The importance of biodiversity was also
high. Soil and water protection, energy wood, investment,
and hunting received intermediate scores and the importance of the remaining value variables were low.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
The value profile of the SEPA was clearly different from
the other owner group profiles. The objective of forest
ownership by the SEPA is focused solely on conservation
interests. Existence and bequest values were therefore the
most important ones. As a consequence, indirect use values
(soil and water protection) were also highly ranked.
Another major objective was to promote and encourage
recreational activities. Occasionally, this objective could be
stronger than the focus on conservation of species. Besides
recreation, no other direct use values were recognized.
However, two of the county administrative boards also
acquired land to be used to compensate private land owners
when nature reserves were established on their land.
The value profile indicates that only existence and regulating ecosystem services values were highly important
(Fig. 1d). Bequest values and non-consumptive values
displayed intermediate scores, and the consumptive wood
and non-wood values were very low. The SEPA owner
group (Fig. 2d) rated the value variables recreation, cultural
elements, biodiversity, habitat conservation, as well as soil
and water protection to be most important. Investment was
of some importance while the remaining categories were of
no importance.
DISCUSSION
The Challenge of Economic Valuation
A wide range of international and national policies related
to the ecologically, economically, and socio-culturally
sustainable use of renewable natural resources have been
formulated globally since the appearance of the sustainability discourse during the late 1980s (Kennedy et al.
2001; Campbell and Sayer 2003; Innes and Hoen 2005;
Saastamoinen 2005). Three European examples are the
Pan-European forest policy process (MCPFE 1993), the
European Landscape Convention (ELC 2000), and the EC
Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000). Implementing
such ambitions requires that landscapes’ stakeholders and
actors have comprehensive information about what is
produced in the landscape and its consequences for other
stakeholders and values (Norgaard 2010). This transparency is also a prerequisite for effective collaboration
among different societal sectors and levels of governance
at multiple levels (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004; Adger
and Jordan 2009; Elbakidze et al. 2010). As Lee (1993)
pointed out, there is a need for both a compass that shows
the state and trends of sustainability as pronounced as
desirable in different policies, and a gyroscope in terms of
participation in governance processes.
The interviewees’ answers showed that there was a
broad range of use and non-use values in the River Helge å
catchment, and no difference between upstream and
downstream profiles. The direct use values were very
important for all groups, but the types of values varied. In
this aspect, the SEPA forest ownership had a clear focus
solely on conservation and recreational values. By contrast,
Sveaskog Co. and the Church of Sweden had a profile that
concentrated primarily on wood and biomass production
for the region’s forest industry and bioenergy consumption,
respectively, while the municipalities had a more diverse
value profile. These results are consistent with the mandates of these forest owner categories. The fact that both
existence and bequest values were still perceived as
important for Sveaskog Co. and the Church of Sweden
reflect these companies’ policy towards forestry. The NIPF
owner group showed the most diverse value profile,
including also non-consumptive use, indicating that many
private land owners see many values in their forests that go
beyond the production of wood. This has been observed
also in other studies (e.g., Stenseke 2006). It can be argued
that emotional values correspond to what Merlo and Croitoru (2005) refer to as sensibility values, identity values,
and aesthetical values, which are not quantifiable in monetary terms. At a more general level, the diverse profile
among forest owner categories is consistent with the high
importance associated to multiple benefits of forests as
pronounced in current policies (e.g., Boman et al. 2000;
Kindstrand et al. 2008).
Since it is difficult to identify true non-use values of
forest owners, categorization of biodiversity and intact
ecosystems as ‘non-use’ value is conditional. However, it is
clear that forest owners who concentrated on biodiversity
conservation and thus received significant ‘non-use value’,
provide a source of true non-use value for those stakeholders who derive positive utility from the very existence
of high level of forest biodiversity in the River Helge å
catchment.
Investigations concerning stakeholders’ perceptions of
forest ecosystem services, which are methodologically
Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en
123
196
AMBIO 2013, 42:188–200
similar to that presented in this study, have been conducted
for North-western Ontario (Kant and Lee 2004) and Western Ukraine (Zahvoyska 2008). These studies applied the
Conceptual Content Cognitive Mapping method (Kearney
and Kaplan 1997), a tool for non-market oriented stated
preference to identify stakeholders’ values associated with
forests, and non-parametric statistics to develop statistically significant sets of cognitive maps of stakeholders’
preferences associated with forests. For instance the suite
of forest values identified in the Ukrainian case study
consisted of nine dominant themes and 37 sub-themes.
Four stakeholder groups were investigated: Local population, Forest industry, Environmental non-governmental
organizations, and City population. The set of cognitive
maps of stakeholders’ preferences, regarding forest values,
indicated that Environmental, Recreational, and Economic
values were the most appreciated ones by respondents.
Tourist values and Health care received the smallest attention from the respondents. From the stakeholders perspective
the forest values universe shows that Local population verbalized the widest palette of values. Derived cognitive maps
prove statistically significant differences in forest values
profiles across stakeholders (Zahvoyska and Bas 2009).
Similarly, this study about the River Helge å catchment
supports the hypothesis by Boyd and Banzaf (2006) that
people are more familiar with ecosystem services which
affect their wellbeing in direct ways [like provisioning,
regulating and cultural services, i.e., the MEA (2005) classification] and are ignorant about supporting services like
primary productivity, biogeochemistry.
It is important to point out that the method of semistructured interviews used in this study does not demonstrate trade-offs between the different value components in
actual or hypothetical choice situation, and therefore cannot be used for estimation of the concerned values in
monetary terms explicitly. However, the simple ranking
approach can approximate forest-owners’ value profiles.
The quantitative visualization based on numerical analyses
of rank values represents a major simplification of the
reality. In future studies it could be advisable to let the
interviewees rate their own opinion themselves. What are
the subjective views of different forest owner categories,
and other stakeholders? What are the ideologies or cultures
among stakeholders? How do they match this with their
practices? Moreover, it is necessary to point out that economic value rather reflects the lower bound of the true
value of the full suite of forest benefits including environmental goods. Intrinsic, spiritual, patriotic and other
types of value that people use to assign to the forest are not
necessarily included into economic analyses since economic valuation techniques often fail to account for these
and similar components of value (Costanza et al. 1997).
123
Forest Management, Planning, Collaboration,
and Education
Mapping perceptions and values of different land owners
concerning ecosystem services represents an important
step towards developing adaptive landscape management
(Lindström et al. 2006; Tikkanen et al. 2006; Nordlund
and Westin 2011). The broad use profiles in this study
stresses the need for new forest management regimes
(Axelsson and Angelstam 2011), forest planning businesses that provide broader management advice (Uliczka
et al. 2004), improved communication and learning among
stakeholders (Axelsson et al. 2013b), and broadened content in forestry educations (Axelsson and Angelstam
2011).
The traditional industrial forest management system
based on clear-felling with tree retention is currently
contested by actors who advocate uneven-aged or cohort
management systems for both ecological and socio-cultural reasons (Axelsson et al. 2007; Siiskonen 2007;
Tahvonen 2009). This applies to urban forests, and forest
owners that own forest for other than monetary reasons
(Kindstrand et al. 2008). There is also increased interest
in viewing forest and woodland landscapes’ natural and
cultural capital as an infrastructure for tourism and recreation (Vail and Hultkrantz 2000).
While the large number of forest owners is a challenge
for landscape planning in terms of large spatial extents
(Sandström et al. 2011), the multifaceted profiles of forest
owners in this study provides opportunity for new planning
approaches with a focus on a broader range of landscape
values than wood.
The clear difference among the forest owner categories’
value profiles shown in this study is a challenge for collaboration. The emergence of ecosystem services derived
from waters, which are affected by the surrounding forests
(e.g., Tuvendal and Elmqvist 2011), is likely to reinforce
this. While multi-level learning takes time (Axelsson et al.
2013b), this is necessary to accommodate different interests. Empowering communities and municipalities is one
approach.
Higher education of professionals is a critically important way of supporting the implementation of sustainable
forest management policy. In line with the contemporary
forest industrial regime, forest management education in
Sweden is oriented towards the production of wood
(Bergqvist et al. 1989). However, new forest policies may
result both in large changes in forest management education (Hosny El-Lakany 2004) and inertia (Siiskonen 2010).
This stresses the need to equip students with interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary skills (Fry 2001; Hammer and
Söderqvist 2001; Axelsson 2010).
Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en
AMBIO 2013, 42:188–200
197
Governing Forest Landscape Values
The Kristianstad Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve (KVBR)
within the River Helge å catchment has been subject to
several studies describing the social and organizational
processes behind the development of landscape governance.
In particular, the role of agreed perceptions and visions,
stakeholder coordination and networks, institutional
arrangements, and individual leadership have been emphasized (Olsson et al. 2004, Hahn et al. 2006; Olsson 2007;
Schultz et al. 2007; Hahn 2011). While these studies have
provided important knowledge on some aspects of the sustainable development process, and the emergence of an
adaptive social–ecological system within KVBR, other
dimensions have received much less attention. In the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, KVBR was brought up
globally as a good local example of sustainable development
(MEA 2005). While research so far has concentrated on the
adaptive governance of the biosphere reserve no one has yet
done an integrated assessment of the areas’ different sustainability dimensions, i.e., assessed the outcome on the
ground of the adaptive governance process. For instance,
very few studies have been made on the functioning
and resilience of the major ecosystems within the area.
Also, most studies have not taken a landscape approach
(see Axelsson et al. 2011) at the catchment level but have
been restricted to more limited activities and areas within the
biosphere reserve, and have focused on the southernmost
part of the river catchment. An exception is a recent study by
Tuvendal and Elmqvist (2011) who analyzed the effects of
brownification of the River Helge å, originating in the forested upper parts of the catchment, on ecosystem services in
downstream areas, and how stakeholders responded to these
effects. Such catchment-level approaches are badly needed
and provide more ecological realism, since widely different
ecosystems within a catchment are often connected and
influence each other. We emphasize the need for studies that
assess the present status and development trends, the adaptive governance process and its outcomes on the ground,
including studies that take an integrated approach trying to
assess all dimensions of sustainability (see Lee 1993; Rauschmayer et al. 2009; Angelstam et al. 2013). This also
means that values and attitudes of stakeholders and actors in
different parts of the catchment must be understood. By
focusing on forest ecosystems and the services provided to
forest owners within the River Helge å catchment, our
analysis is a first step to understand how management and
governance of forest landscapes could match the forest
owner’s value profiles. We see this is as an important complement to previous studies on the opportunities for adaptive
governance emerging in the KVBR. Ideally, given the
upstream–downstream links in this catchment (Tuvendal
and Elmqvist 2011) the KVBR work should be extended
from the focus on the downstream part of the catchment
towards the development of a landscape approach for the
whole watershed.
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows that different forest owner categories
have different profiles of use and non-use forest values.
The attainment of the current policy visions of forest,
environmental, rural development, and others advocating
sustainability in landscapes with heterogeneous forest
owner composition, requires collaboration among stakeholders. The participants in this collaborative learning
process need to develop an understanding of current policies regarding landscapes, communicate their own goals,
values, and perceptions, and understand how this affects
other interests. Another key issue is to be aware of the
status and development trends of all sustainability dimensions (Andersson et al. 2012). Municipal comprehensive
planning, Biosphere Reserve (Price 2002), Model Forest
and EU Leader (Ray 2000) are examples of approaches
that aim at supporting informed multi-level governance
toward sustainability (Sayer and Maginnis 2005). However, land ownership rights are strong in Sweden (e.g.,
Sandström et al. 2011), which stresses the role of solutions
that are adapted to the contexts of different forest owner
categories.
Acknowledgments This paper was initiated at a workshop held in
Kristianstad in Spring 2008, and the subsequently designed BSc
examination project of Gustav Richnau supervised by Per Angelstam.
Sadly, Gustav died before this manuscript was completed. We honor
Gustav and his careful and meticulous approach to life and work. We
all enjoyed his wise input and company during 2007 in Belarus and in
Ukraine 2008. Valuable comments on the manuscript were provided
by Ebba Lisberg Jensen, Erik Ederlöf, Johan Törnblom, Sven-Erik
Magnusson, and Hans Cronert. Funding for the work was provided by
Marcus and Amalia Wallenbergs Minnesfond, Swedish Institute,
FORMAS and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to Per
Angelstam.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author(s) and the source are credited.
REFERENCES
Adger, W.N., and A. Jordan. 2009. Governing sustainability.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Andersson, K., P. Angelstam, R. Axelsson, M. Elbakidze, and J.
Törnblom. 2012. Connecting municipal and regional level planning: Analysis and visualization of sustainability indicators in
Bergslagen. Sweden. European Planning Studies. doi:10.1080/
09654313.2012.737991.
Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en
123
198
AMBIO 2013, 42:188–200
Angelstam, P., M. Elbakidze, R. Axelsson, M. Dixelius, and J.
Törnblom. 2013. Knowledge production and learning for sustainable landscapes: Seven steps using social-ecological systems as
laboratories. AMBIO. doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0367-1.
Arrow, K.J., R. Solow, P.R. Portney, E.E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H.
Schuman. 1993. Report on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Panel on Contingent Valuation.
Federal Register 58.
Axelsson, R. 2010. Integrative research and transdisciplinary knowledge production: A review of barriers and bridges. Journal of
Landscape Ecology 4: 14–40.
Axelsson, R., and P. Angelstam. 2011. Uneven-aged forest management in boreal Sweden: Local forestry stakeholders’ perceptions
of different sustainability dimensions. Forestry 84: 567–579.
Axelsson, R., P. Angelstam, and J. Svensson. 2007. Natural forest and
cultural woodland with continuous tree cover in Sweden: How
much remains and how is it managed? Scandinavian Journal of
Forest Research 22: 545–558.
Axelsson, R., P. Angelstam, M. Elbakidze, N. Stryamets, and K.-E.
Johansson. 2011. Sustainable development and sustainability:
Landscape approach as a practical interpretation of principles
and implementation concepts. Journal of Landscape Ecology 4:
5–30.
Axelsson, R., P. Angelstam, E. Degerman, S. Teitelbaum, K.
Andersson, M. Elbakidze, and M.K. Drotz. 2013a. Social and
cultural sustainability: Criteria, indicators, verifier variables for
measurement and maps for visualization to support planning.
AMBIO. doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0376-0.
Axelsson, R., P, Angelstam, L. Myhrman, M. Elbakidze, L. Svensson,
M. Ivarsson, S. Sädbom, T. Kullberg et al. 2013b. Evaluation of
multi-level social learning for sustainable landscapes: perspective of a development initiative in Bergslagen, Sweden. AMBIO.
doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0378-y.
Barbier, E.B., M.C. Acreman, and D. Knowler. 1997. Economic
valuation of wetlands: A guide for policy makers and planners.
Gland: Ramsar Convention Bureau.
Bateman, I.J., and K.G. Willis (eds.). 2002. Valuing environmental
preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation
method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bergqvist, G., A. Sugg, and B. Downie. 1989. Forestry education in
Sweden. Forestry Chronicle 65: 414–420.
Boman, M., B. Kriström, and L. Mattsson. 2000. Skogen och
miljöekonomin [The forest and the environmental economy].
Ekonomisk debatt 28: 159–168. (in Swedish).
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., M. Pimbert, M.T. Farvar, A. Kothari, and Y.
Renard. 2004. Sharing Power. Learning by doing in comanagement of natural resources throughout the world. Cenesta,
Tehran: IIED and IUCN/CEESP/CMWG.
Bossel, H. 2001. Assessing viability and sustainability: A systemsbased approach for deriving comprehensive indicator sets.
Conservation Ecology 5: 12.
Boyd, J., and S. Banzaf. 2006. The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Discussion paper 06-02. Resources for
the future, 1616 P St. NW Washington, DC 20036.
Campbell, B.M., and J.A. Sayer. 2003. Research to integrate
productivity enhancement, environmental protection and human
development. Integrated natural resource management: Linking
productivity, the environment and development. Wallingford:
CABI Publishing.
Carson, R.T., and M.W. Hanemann. 2005. Contingent valuation. In
Handbook of environmental economics, ed. K.G. Mäler, and J.R.
Vincent, 821–936. North Holland: Elsevier.
Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, and N.F. Meade. 2001. Contingent
valuation: Controversies and evidence. Environmental &
Resource Economics 19: 173–210.
123
Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farberk, M. Grasso, B. Hannon,
K. Limburg, S. Naeem, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s
ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.
de Borda, J.-C. 1781. Mathematical derivation of an election system.
Isis 44: 42–51 (English translation by A. de Grazia in 1953).
de Groot, R.S., R. Alkemade, L. Braat, L. Hein, and L. Willemen.
2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem
services and values in landscape planning, management and
decision making. Ecological Complexity 7: 260–272.
Elbakidze, M., P. Angelstam, C. Sandström, and R. Axelsson. 2010.
Multi-stakeholder collaboration in Russian and Swedish Model
Forest initiatives: Adaptive governance towards sustainable
forest management? Ecology and Society 15: 14.
ELC. 2000a. European Landscape Convention. European Treaty
Series No. 176. Florence: Council of Europe.
Farley, J. 2010. Conservation through the economics lens. Environmental Management 45: 26–38.
Fry, G. 2001. Multifunctional landscapes: Towards transdisciplinary
research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57: 159–168.
Hahn, T. 2011. Self-organized governance networks for ecosystem
management: Who is accountable? Ecology and Society 16: 18.
Hahn, T., P. Olsson, C. Folke, and K. Johansson. 2006. Trustbuilding, knowledge generation and organizational innovations:
The role of a bridging organization for adaptive co-management
of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human
Ecology 34: 573–592.
Hammer, M., and T. Söderqvist. 2001. Enhancing transdisciplinary
dialogue in curricula development. Ecological Economics 38:
1–5.
Hausman, J. 1993. Contingent valuation: A critical assessment.
Amsterdam: North Holland.
Hosny El-Lakany, M. 2004. Looking outward: Incorporating international forestry in higher forestry education and research.
Unasylva 216: 52–56.
Innes, J.L., and H.F. Hoen. 2005. The changing context of forestry. In
Forestry and environmental change: Socioeconomic and political dimensions, ed. J.L. Innes, G.M. Hickey, and H.F. Hoen,
1–14. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Jacobsson, K.M., and A. Dragun. 1996. Contingent valuation and
endangered species. Methodological and applications. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Kant, S. 2003. Extending the boundaries of forest economics. Forest
Policy and Economics 5: 39–56.
Kant, S., and S. Lee. 2004. A social choice approach to sustainable
forest management: An analysis of multiple forest values in
Northwestern Ontario. Forest Policy and Economics 6: 215–227.
Kearney, A., and R. Kaplan. 1997. Toward a methodology for the
measurement of knowledge structures of ordinary people. The
conceptual content cognitive map. Environment and Behavior
29: 579–671.
Kennedy, J.J., T.J. Ward, and P. Glueck. 2001. Evolving forestry and
rural development: Beliefs at midpoint and close of the 20th
century. Forest Policy and Economics 3: 81–95.
Kindstrand, C., J. Norman, M. Boman, and L. Mattsson. 2008.
Attitudes towards various forest functions: A comparison
between private forest owners and forest officers. Scandinavian
Journal of Forest Research 23: 133–136.
Krutilla, J.V. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. American Economic
Review 57: 777–786.
Kumar, P. 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity.
Ecological and economic foundations. London and Washington,
DC: Earthscan.
Kvale, S., and S. Brinkman. 2008. InterViews: Learning the craft of
qualitative research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.
Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and
politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en
AMBIO 2013, 42:188–200
199
Lindström, M., M. Johansson, J. Herrman, and O. Johnsson. 2006.
Attitudes towards the conservation of biodiversity—A case study
in Kristianstad municipality, Sweden. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management 49: 495–513.
MCPFE. 1993. General declaration and resolutions adopted. Proceedings of the Second Ministerial Conference on the Protection
of Forests in Europe, Helsinki, 16–17 June 1993, Helsinki,
Finland. Vienna: Liason Unit.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and
human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Meadows, D. 2008. Thinking in systems: A primer. Vermont: Chelsea
Green Publishing.
Merlo, M., and L. Croitoru. 2005. Concepts and methodology: A first
attempt towards quantification. In Valuing Mediterranean
forests. Towards total economic value, ed. M. Merlo, and L.
Croitoru, 17–36. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Neumayer, E. 2010. Weak versus strong sustainability. Exploring the
limits of two opposing paradigms. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Nijnik, M., and A. Mather. 2008. Analysing public preferences for
woodland development in rural landscapes in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Planning 86: 267–275.
Nijnik, M., L. Zahvoyska, A. Nijnik, and A. Ode. 2009. Public
evaluation of landscape content and change. Land Use Policy 26:
77–86.
Nordlund, A., and K. Westin. 2011. Forest values and forest
management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden.
Forests 2: 30–50.
Norgaard, R.B. 2010. Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor
to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69: 1219–1227.
Olsson, P. 2007. The role of vision in framing adaptive comanagement processes: Lessons from Kristianstads Vattenrike,
Southern Sweden. In Adaptive co-management: Collaboration,
learning, and multi-level governance, ed. D. Armitage, 268–285.
Vancouver: UBC Press.
Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T. Hahn. 2004. Social–ecological transformation for ecosystem management: The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden.
Ecology and Society 9: 2.
Olsson, P., C. Folke, V. Galaz, T. Hahn, and L. Schultz. 2007.
Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: Creating
and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecology
and Society 12: 28.
Pak, M., M.F. Türker, and A. Öztürk. 2010. Total economic value of
forest resources in Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural
Research 5: 1908–1916.
Price, M.F. 2002. The periodic review of biosphere reserves: a mechanism
to foster sites of excellence for conservation and sustainable
development. Environmental Science & Policy 5: 13–18.
Rauschmayer, F., A. Berghöfer, I. Omann, and D. Zikos. 2009.
Examining processes or/and outcomes? Evaluation concepts in
European governance of natural resources. Environmental Policy
and Governance 19: 159–173.
Ray, C. 2000. The EU LEADER programme: Rural development
laboratory. Sociologica Ruralis 40: 163–171.
Saastamoinen, O. 2005. Multiple ethics for multidimensional sustainability on forestry? Silva Carelica 49: 37–53.
Samuelson, P.A. 1954. The pure theory of public expenditure. Review
of Economics and Statistics 36: 387–389.
Sandström, C., A. Lindkvist, K. Öhman, and E.-M. Nordström. 2011.
Governing competing demands for forest resources in Sweden.
Forests 2: 218–242.
Sayer, J., and S. Maginnis. 2005. Forests in landscapes, ecosystem
approaches to sustainability. Oxford: Earthscan Publications.
Schultz, L., C. Folke, and P. Olsson. 2007. Enhancing ecosystem
management through social–ecological inventories: Lessons
from Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden. Environmental Conservation 34: 140–152.
Siiskonen, H. 2007. The conflict between traditional and scientific
forest management in 20th century Finland. Forest Ecology and
Management 249: 123–133.
Siiskonen, H. 2010. The conflict between traditional and formal
knowledge in Finnish and Swedish forest management in the
twentieth century. The International Forestry Review 12: 474.
Sjörs, H. 1967. Nordisk växtgeografi [Nordic plant geography].
Stockholm: Svenska bokförlaget (Bonnier) (in Swedish).
Stenseke, M. 2006. Biodiversity and the local context: Linking
seminatural grassland and their use to social aspects. Environmental Science & Policy 9: 350–359.
Sturtevant, B.R., A. Fall, D.D. Kneeshaw, N.P.P. Simon, M.J. Papaik,
K. Berninger, F. Doyon, D.G. Morgan, et al. 2007. A toolkit
modeling approach for sustainable forest management planning:
Achieving balance between science and local needs. Ecology
and Society 12: 7.
Szaro, R., P. Angelstam, and D. Sheil. 2005. Information needs for
ecosystem forestry. In Forests in landscapes. Ecosystem
approaches to sustainability, ed. J.A. Sayer, and S. Maginnis,
31–46. Oxford: Earthscan.
Tahvonen, O. 2009. Optimal choice between even- and uneven-aged
forestry. Natural resource modeling 22: 289–321.
Tikkanen, J., T. Isokääntä, J. Pykäläinen, and P. Leskinen. 2006.
Applying cognitive mapping approach to explore objectivestructures of forest owners in a Northern Finnish case area.
Forest Policy and Economics 9: 139–152.
Tuvendal, M., and T. Elmqvist. 2011. Ecosystem services linking
social and ecological systems: River brownification and the
response of downstream stakeholders. Ecology and Society 16:
21.
Uliczka, H., P. Angelstam, G. Jansson, and A. Bro. 2004. Nonindustrial private forest owners’ knowledge of and attitudes
towards nature conservation. Scandinavian Journal of Forest
Research 19: 1–15.
Vail, D., and L. Hultkrantz. 2000. Property rights and sustainable
nature tourism: Adaptation and mal-adaptation in Dalarna (Sweden) and Maine (USA). Ecological Economics 35: 223–242.
WCPA. 1998. Economic Values of Protected Areas: Guidelines for
Protected Area Managers. World Commission on Protected
Areas (WCPA) and the Economics Service Unit of IUCN. Gland
and Cambridge: IUCN.
Weisbrod, B.A. 1964. Collective-consumption services of individualconsumption goods. Quarterly Journal of Economics 78:
471–477.
WFD. 2000. Water Framework Directive. Directive 2000/60/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council, 23 October 2000,
Brussels, Belguim, 72 pp. Brussels: European Commission.
Zahvoyska, L. 2008. Analysis of stakeholders’ preferences regarding
urban parks. In The multifunctional role of forests—Policies,
methods and case studies, ed. L. Cesaro, P. Gatto, and D.
Pettenella, 359–365. Joensuu: EFI Proceedings.
Zahvoyska, L., and T. Bas. 2009. Deeper insight of stakeholders’
values and preferences regarding forest ecosystem services. In
Building insights of managerial economics and accounting
towards sustainable forest management: Proceedings of the
IUFRO unit 4.05.00 international symposium, ed. L. Zahvoyska,
H. Jöbstl, S. Kant, and L. Maksymiv. Lviv: UNFU Press.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Gustav Richnau PhD student, deceased.
Address: Landscape Management, Design and Construction, Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences, 230 53 Alnarp, Sweden.
Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en
123
200
AMBIO 2013, 42:188–200
Per Angelstam (&) is professor in forest and natural resource
management. He is interested in development and sustainability, and
focuses on empirical studies of social–ecological systems with different landscape histories and governance systems.
Address: Faculty of Forest Sciences, School for Forest Management,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 43, 730 91
Skinnskatteberg, Sweden.
e-mail: per.angelstam@slu.se
Marine Elbakidze is associate professor in geography. Her research
interests include landscape ecology, forest management, landscape
governance, and integrated spatial planning for sustainable development and sustainability.
Address: Faculty of Forest Sciences, School for Forest Management,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 43, 730 91
Skinnskatteberg, Sweden.
e-mail: marine.elbakidze@slu.se
Sviataslau Valasiuk is a post-graduate student. His research focuses
on evaluation of public goods in transboundary protected areas.
Address: Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, ul.
Długa 44/50, 00-241 Warszawa, Poland.
e-mail: svalasiuk@wne.uw.edu.pl
Joshua Farley is an ecological economist and Associate Professor in
Community Development & Applied Economics and Public
Administration.
Address: Department of Community Development and Applied
Economics, UVM College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Morrill
Hall, Burlington, VT 05405, USA.
e-mail: joshua.farley@uvm.edu
Lyudmyla Zahvoyska is Associate Professor. Her research interests
include ecological economics, environmental economics, cleaner
production, valuing the environment, sustainable investments and
resource use, quantitative methods in economy and management, and
adaptation of management concepts to economic fuzziness.
Address: Institute of Ecological Economics, Ukrainian National
Forestry University, 103 Gen. Chuprynky, Lviv 79057, Ukraine.
e-mail: zahvoyska@ukr.net
Robert Axelsson is a researcher with a PhD in forest management.
He is interested in research that supports the collaborative social
learning process of sustainable development. His aim is to learn how
to facilitate transdisciplinary research.
Address: Faculty of Forest Sciences, School for Forest Management,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 43, 739 21
Skinnskatteberg, Sweden.
e-mail: robert.axelsson@slu.se
123
Ingemar Jönsson is Associate Professor. His current research interests include human behavioral ecology, evolutionary psychology, and
sustainable behavior.
Address: School of Education and Environment, Kristianstad University, 291 88 Kristianstad, Sweden.
e-mail: ingemar.jonsson@hkr.se
Ihor Soloviy is Associate professor. His research interests include
forest policy, ecological economics, land use economics, sustainable
forest management, sustainable land use planning, education for
sustainable development, and environmental ethics.
Address: Institute of Ecological Economics, Ukrainian National
Forestry University, 103 Gen. Chuprynky, Lviv 79057, Ukraine.
e-mail: soloviy@yahoo.co.uk
Ó The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en