Challenges and Solutions for Forest Biodiversity Conservation in Sweden: Assessment of Policy, Implementation Outputs, and Consequences
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methodology
2.1. Sweden as a Case Study
2.2. Framework for Evaluation of Policy, Implementation and Consequences
2.3. Policy Creation Process
2.4. Implementation Outputs
2.5. Consequences on the Ground
2.5.1. Ecological System: Protected Area Development
2.5.2. Ecological System: Habitat Network Functionality
2.5.3. Does Sweden Satisfy Its Forest Biodiversity Targets
2.5.4. Social System: Planning Processes
3. Results
3.1. Policy Creation Process
3.2. Implementation Outputs
3.2.1. Interpretation of Policy
3.2.2. Use of Evidence-Based Knowledge
Forest and Woodland Ecology
How Much Habitat Is Enough?
3.2.3. Education and Public Awareness of Stakeholders
3.2.4. Systematic Conservation Planning
The Emergence of Hierarchical Planning
Strategic Planning: Regional Gap Analysis
- Decline and lack of important habitats in the forest landscape, and several types of habitats are becoming increasingly fragmented.
- Unfavorable status or negative development for many forest-dwelling species. Many threatened and sensitive species are declining, and populations are becoming increasingly fragmented.
- Several of the forest ecosystem services have insufficient status.
- Cultural heritage remains are destroyed in the forest landscape due to forestry measures.
- Negative impact on watercourses of the forest landscape.
Tactical Spatial Planning
3.3. Consequences on the Ground
3.3.1. Ecological System: Protected Area Development
Productive Lowland Forests
The Mountain Forest—The EU’s Last Intact Forest Landscapes
3.3.2. Ecological System: Habitat Network Functionality
Spatial Differences
Temporal Trends
3.3.3. Does Sweden Reach Forest-Related Environmental Quality Objectives?
3.3.4. Social System: Operational Planning Processes
4. Discussion
4.1. Assessment of Trends in Policy, Implementation Outputs and Consequences
4.1.1. Overall Patterns since the 1990s
4.1.2. Policy about Forest Biodiversity Conservation Remains Intact
4.1.3. Implementation Outputs
4.1.4. Consequences in Ecological and Social Systems
Protected Areas and Levels of Ambition for Biodiversity Conservation
Habitat Network Functionality for Nature and People
Integration of Planning Processes
4.2. Challenges
4.2.1. Adding Conservation Efforts and Risks for Creative Book-Keeping
4.2.2. The Perspective of Industry or Individual Forest Owners?
4.2.3. Knowledge Production and Learning for Biodiversity Conservation
- Intensify the development of digital high-quality geographical data about high natural and cultural forest values.
- The Government ensures that there are sufficient financial means to compensate landowners for the creation of formal forest protection, and to provide forest management recommendations.
- Clarify and elucidate today’s contradictory political signals about how forests with high natural values should be managed; for example, is final felling of high conservation value forests allowed?
- The government ensures increased resources for relevant authorities to carry out more supervisory activities with the aim of achieving better legal compliance.
- The government develops a portfolio of measures to develop and promote clearcut-free forest management methods.
- The Forest Agency and the Environmental Protection Agency to propose financial instruments and measures aimed at making visible and incorporating conservation forests and forests with high natural values into the market economy in the same way as forests aimed at wood production.
- Specify how Sweden is to achieve the national environmental quality goals as well as international commitments for biological diversity.
- Systematically monitor biological diversity in entire forest landscapes.
4.2.4. Wicked Problems, Disciplinary Silos and Knowledge Resistance
4.3. Solutions—Different Philosophies for Forest Biodiversity Conservation
4.3.1. Integration—Segregation—Triad
Integration (“Land Sharing”)
Segregation (“Land Sparing”)
TRIAD
4.3.2. Adding Efforts of Forest Owner Categories
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- (2)
- (3)
- (4)
- (5)
- Support spatial planning and monitoring; combine multiple data sources to describe and measure natural forest and cultural woodland values. Note that forests that are less valuable from a wood production point of view due to low timber volumes (“green lies”) can indeed have a high degree of naturalness [462], and deliver many non-wood benefits [417,463].
- (6)
- Cope with wicked goal conflicts. For example, climate mitigation solutions that rely on forest bioenergy can be in conflict with carbon sequestration and storage in forests, and with climate adaption and the conservation of biological diversity [464]. Actions to manage climate change and conserve biodiversity must be integrated [465].
- (7)
- Although evidence-based dialogue processes for learning can be used to evaluate outcomes in real life, the decisions made depend on the worldviews, cultures, professional identities and power of different actors and stakeholders, as well as political and legal realities [255].
- (8)
- (9)
- (10)
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, P. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations; UNEP/Earthprint: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- IPBES. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES: Bonn, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- IPCC. Synthesis Report of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6); Longer Report IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; p. 85. [Google Scholar]
- Klintman, M. How Avoid Insight from Others; Manchester University Press: Manchester, UK, 2019; p. 256. [Google Scholar]
- Snyder, S. Asylum-Seeking, Migration and Church; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krastev, I. Is It Tomorrow Yet?: Paradoxes of the Pandemic; Penguin: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Baker, S. Sustainable Development; Routledge: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Angelstam, P.; Asplund, B.; Bastian, O.; Engelmark, O.; Fedoriak, M.; Grunewald, K.; Ibisch, P.L.; Lindvall, P.; Manton, M.; Nilsson, M.; et al. Tradition as asset or burden for transitions from forests as cropping systems to multifunctional forest landscapes: Sweden as a case study. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 505, 119895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagner, S. Skog i Förändring—Vägen Mot ett Rationellt och Hållbart Skogsbruk i Norrland 1940–1990; Kungliga Skogs och Lantbruksakademien: Stockholm, Sweden, 2005. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Wieslander, G. Skogsbristen i Sverige under 1600- och 1700-talen. Sver. Skogsvårdsförbunds Tidskr. 1936, 34, 593–633. [Google Scholar]
- Niklasson, M.; Granstrom, A. Numbers and sizes of fires: Long-term spatially explicit fire history in a Swedish boreal landscape. Ecology 2000, 81, 1484–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Axelsson, R.; Angelstam, P.; Svensson, J. Natural forest and cultural woodland with continuous tree cover in Sweden: How much remains and how is it managed? Scand. J. For. Res. 2007, 22, 545–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felton, A.; Löfroth, T.; Angelstam, P.; Gustafsson, L.; Hjältén, J.; Felton, A.M.; Simonsson, P.; Dahlberg, A.; Lindbladh, M.; Svensson, J.; et al. Keeping pace with forestry: Multi-scale conservation in a changing production forest matrix. AMBIO 2020, 49, 1050–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Angelstam, P.; Manton, M.; Pedersen, S.; Elbakidze, M. Disrupted trophic interactions affect recruitment of boreal deciduous and coniferous trees in northern Europe. Ecol. Appl. 2017, 27, 1108–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pennanen, J. Forest age distribution under mixed-severity fire regimes-a simulation-based analysis for middle boreal Fennoscandia. Silva Fenn. 2002, 36, 213–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burnett, C.; Fall, A.; Tomppo, E.; Kalliola, R. Monitoring Current Status of and Trends in Boreal Forest Land Use in Russian Karelia. Conserv. Ecol. 2003, 7, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberge, J.-M.; Angelstam, P. Indicator species among resident forest birds—A cross-regional evaluation in northern Europe. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 130, 134–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hottola, J.; Ovaskainen, O.; Hanski, I. A unified measure of the number, volume and diversity of dead trees and the response of fungal communities. J. Ecol. 2009, 97, 1320–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Manton, M.; Green, M.; Jonsson, B.-G.; Mikusiński, G.; Svensson, J.; Maria Sabatini, F. Sweden does not meet agreed national and international forest biodiversity targets: A call for adaptive landscape planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 202, 103838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kaźmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Björk, J.; Albin, M.; Grahn, P.; Jacobsson, H.; Ardö, J.; Wadbro, J.; Östergren, P.-O.; Skärbäck, E. Recreational values of the natural environment in relation to neighbourhood satisfaction, physical activity, obesity and wellbeing. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2008, 62, e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, E.O. Biodiversity; National Academy of Science Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Säve, P.A. Sista paret ut. Sven. Jägarförbundets Nya Tidskr. 1877, 15, 70–86. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Wramner, P.; Nygård, O. Från Naturskydd till Bevarande av Biologisk Mångfald; COMREC Studies in Environment and Development No. 2: Stockholm, Sweden, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Oldertz, C. Naturskydd och landskapsvård. In Sveriges Skogar under 100 år. Part II.; Arpi, G., Ed.; Kungliga Domänstyrelsen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1959; pp. 649–658. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Domänverket. Naturvård å Statens Skogar; Domänverket: Stockholm, Sweden, 1951. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Rosén, B. Naturvård. Skid- och Friluftsfrämjandet; Landby & Lundgrens Boktryckeri: Malmö, Sweden, 1953. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Jordbruksdepartementet. Kalhyggen. Ds Jo 1974:2; Jordbruksdepartementet: Stockholm, Sweden, 1974; p. 250. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Enander, K.-G. Framväxten av en Skoglig Miljöpolitik. In Särtryck ur Skogssbrukssätt och Skogspolitik 1950–2000; Rapporter 54; Institutionen för Skogsskötsel: Umeå, Sweden, 2003. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Lloyd, S. The Last of the Last: The Old-Growth Forests of Boreal Europe; Taiga Rescue Network: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Höjer, O. Swedish Nature Conservation 100 Years; Naturvårdverket: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Naturvårdsverket. Urskogar: Inventering av Urskogsartade Områden i Sverige. 1 Allmän del. SNV PM 1507; Naturvårdsverket, Ed.; Naturvårdsverket: Stockholm, Sweden, 1982. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Regeringens. Svenska Miljömål. Miljöpolitik för ett Hållbart Sverige: Proposition 1997/98:145; Riksdagen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1997. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Regeringens. Svenska Miljömål—Delmål och Åtgärdsstrategier: Proposition 2000/01:130; Riksdagen: Stockholm, Sweden, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- MCPFE. Resolution of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, 16–17 June 1993; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Finland: Helsinki, Finland, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Green Infrastructure (GI)—Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; European Commission on the Environment: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Naturvårdsverket. Förslag till Plan för att Skapa och Behålla en Grön Infrastruktur. Redovisning av ett Regeringsuppdrag. NV4042-10; Naturvårdsverket, Ed.; Naturvårdsverket: Stockholm, Sweden, 2011. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Regeringens. Regeringens Proposition 2008/09:214. Hållbart Skydd av Naturområden; Riksdagen: Stockholm, Sweden, 2008. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Hanski, I. Habitat Loss, the Dynamics of Biodiversity, and a Perspective on Conservation. AMBIO 2011, 40, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Andersson, K.; Axelsson, R.; Elbakidze, M.; Jonsson, B.G.; Roberge, J.-M. Protecting forest areas for biodiversity in Sweden 1991–2010: Policy implementation process and outcomes on the ground. Silva Fenn. 2011, 45, 1111–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Jonsson, B.-G.; Törnblom, J.; Andersson, K.; Axelsson, R.; Roberge, J.-M. Landskapsansats för Bevarande av Skoglig Biologisk Mångfald: En Uppföljning av 1997 års Regionala Bristanalys, och om Behovet av Samverkan Mellan Aktörer; Rapport 4; Skogsstyrelsen: Stockholm, Sweden, 2010. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Skogsstyrelsen. Levande Skogar Fördjupad Utvärdering 2023; Rapport 12; Skogsstyrelsen: Stockholm, Sweden, 2022. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Regeringens. Om en ny Skogspolitik, Proposition 1992/93:226; Riksdagen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1992. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Regeringens. En Svensk Strategi för Biologisk Mångfald och Ekosystemtjänster, Dated 2014-03-13; Regeringenskansliet: Stockholm, Sweden, 2014; p. 141. [Google Scholar]
- Bush, T. Biodiversity and Sectoral Responsibility in the Development of Swedish Forestry Policy, 1988–1993. Scand. J. Hist. 2010, 35, 471–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonsson, B.G.; Svensson, J.; Mikusiński, G.; Manton, M.; Angelstam, P. European Union’s Last Intact Forest Landscapes are at a Value Chain Crossroad between Multiple Use and Intensified Wood Production. Forests 2019, 10, 564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vucetich, J.A.; Nelson, M.P. Sustainability: Virtuous or Vulgar? BioScience 2010, 60, 539–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blicharska, M.; Angelstam, P.; Antonson, H.; Elbakidze, M.; Axelsson, R. Road, forestry and regional planners’ work for biodiversity conservation and public participation: A case study in Poland’s hotspot regions. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2011, 54, 1373–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksson, S.; Hammer, M. The challenge of combining timber production and biodiversity conservation for long-term ecosystem functioning—A case study of Swedish boreal forestry. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 237, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazdinis, M.; Angelstam, P.; Lazdinis, I. Maintenance of Forest Biodiversity in a Post-Soviet Governance Model: Perceptions by Local Actors in Lithuania. Environ. Manag. 2007, 40, 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandström, U.G.; Angelstam, P.; Khakee, A. Urban comprehensive planning—Identifying barriers for the maintenance of functional habitat networks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauschmayer, F.; Berghöfer, A.; Omann, I.; Zikos, D. Examining processes or/and outcomes? Evaluation concepts in European governance of natural resources. Environ. Policy Gov. 2009, 19, 159–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Manton, M. Effects of Forestry Intensification and Conservation on Green Infrastructures: A Spatio-Temporal Evaluation in Sweden. Land 2021, 10, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svensson, J.; Bubnicki, J.W.; Jonsson, B.G.; Andersson, J.; Mikusiński, G. Conservation significance of intact forest landscapes in the Scandinavian Mountains Green Belt. Landsc. Ecol. 2020, 35, 2113–2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svensson, J.; Andersson, J.; Sandström, P.; Mikusiński, G.; Jonsson, B.G. Landscape trajectory of natural boreal forest loss as an impediment to green infrastructure. Conserv. Biol. 2019, 33, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naturvårdsverket; Statistiska Centralbyrån. Protected Nature 2017-12-31; Statistiska Meddelanden MI 41 SM 1801; Naturvårdsverket: Stockholm, Sweden, 2018. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Currie-Alder, B. Unpacking participatory natural resource management: A conceptual framework to distinguish democratic governance from resource capture. Environments 2005, 33, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. Building Bridges between the State & the People: An Overview of Trends and Developments in Public Administration and Local Governance; United Nations Development Programmes: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Lammerts van Bueren, E.M.; Blom, E.M. Hierarchical Framework for the Formulation of Sustainable Forest Management Standards; Tropenbos Foundation Wageningen: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Angelstam, P.; Andersson, L. Estimates of the needs for forest reserves in Sweden. Scand. J. For. Res. 2001, 16, 38–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanha-Majamaa, I.; Jalonen, J. Green Tree Retention in Fennoscandian Forestry. Scand. J. For. Res. 2001, 16, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elbakidze, M.; Angelstam, P.; Yamelynets, T.; Dawson, L.; Gebrehiwot, M.; Stryamets, N.; Johansson, K.-E.; Garrido, P.; Naumov, V.; Manton, M. A bottom-up approach to map land covers as potential green infrastructure hubs for human well-being in rural settings: A case study from Sweden. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 168, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howlett, M.; Ramesh, M.; Perl, A. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
- Mayers, J.; Bass, S. Policy That Works for Forests and People: Real Prospects for Governance and Livelihoods; Earthscan: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Bridgman, P.; Davis, G. What Use is a Policy Cycle? Plenty, if the Aim is Clear. Aust. J. Public Adm. 2003, 62, 98–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.K.; Bütler, R.; Lazdinis, M.; Mikusiński, G.; Roberge, J.-M. Habitat thresholds for focal species at multiple scales and forest biodiversity conservation; dead wood as an example. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2003, 40, 473–482. [Google Scholar]
- Svensson, J.; Bubnicki, J.W.; Angelstam, P.; Mikusiński, G.; Jonsson, B.G. Spared, shared and lost—Routes for maintaining the Scandinavian Mountain foothill intact forest landscapes. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2022, 22, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svancara, L.K.; Brannon, R., Jr.; Scott, M.; Groves, C.R.; Noss, R.F.; Pressey, R.L. Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: A review of political targets and biological needs. BioScience 2005, 55, 989–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, J.; Heglund, P.; Morrison, M.; Haufler, J.; Raphael, M.; Wall, W.; Samson, F. Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Scale and Accuracy; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; p. 840. [Google Scholar]
- Hunter, M.L.; Schmiegelow, F. Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry: Principles of Managing Forests for Biological Diversity, 2nd ed.; Prentice Hall: New York, NY, USA, 2011; p. 259. [Google Scholar]
- Naturvårdsverket. Skyddad Natur 30 Juni 1991; Naturvårdsverket, Ed.; Naturvårdsverket: Solna, Sweden, 1992. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- SOU. Skydd av Skogsmark. Behov och Kostnader. Statens Offentliga Utredningar 1997:97; Huvudbetänkande; Miljövårdsberedningen, Ed.; Miljövårdsberedningen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1997. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- SOU. Skydd av Skogsmark. Behov och Kostnader. Statens Offentliga Utredningar 1997:98; Bilaga 4; Miljövårdsberedningen, Ed.; Miljövårdsberedningen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1997. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Manton, M.; Angelstam, P.; Mikusiński, G. Modelling habitat suitability for deciduous forest focal species—A sensitivity Analysis using different satellite Land cover data. Landsc. Ecol. 2005, 20, 827–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Roberge, J.M.; Lõhmus, A.; Bergmanis, M.; Brazaitis, G.; Dönz-Breuss, M.; Edenius, L.; Kosinski, Z.; Kurlavicius, P.; Lārmanis, V.; et al. Habitat modelling as a tool for landscape-scale conservation: A review of parameters for focal forest birds. Ecol. Bull. 2004, 51, 427–453. [Google Scholar]
- Lafortezza, R.; Corry, R.; Sanesi, G.; Brown, R. Quantitative approaches to landscape spatial planning: Clues from landscape ecology. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2005, 84, 12. [Google Scholar]
- Korpilahti, E.; Kuuluvainen, T. Disturbance dynamics in boreal forests: Defining the ecological basis of restoration and management of biodiversity. Silva Fenn. 2002, 36, 447. [Google Scholar]
- Angelstam, P.; Kuuluvainen, T. Boreal forest disturbance regimes, successional dynamics and landscape structures: A European perspective. Ecol. Bull. 2004, 51, 117–136. [Google Scholar]
- Margules, C.R.; Pressey, R.L. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 2000, 405, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Edman, T.; Angelstam, P.; Mikusiński, G.; Roberge, J.-M.; Sikora, A. Spatial planning for biodiversity conservation: Assessment of forest landscapes’ conservation value using umbrella species requirements in Poland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 102, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambeck, R.J. Focal Species: A Multi-Species Umbrella for Nature Conservation. Conserv. Biol. 1997, 11, 849–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberge, J.-M.; Angelstam, P. Usefulness of the Umbrella Species Concept as a Conservation Tool. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 18, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Store, R.; Jokimäki, J. A GIS-based multi-scale approach to habitat suitability modeling. Ecol. Model. 2003, 169, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P. Maintaining cultural and natural biodiversity in Europe’s economic centre and periphery. In The Conservation of Cultural Landscapes; Agnoletti, M., Ed.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2006; pp. 125–143. [Google Scholar]
- Kuuluvainen, T.; Angelstam, P.; Frelich, L.; Jõgiste, K.; Koivula, M.; Kubota, Y.; Lafleur, B.; MacDonald, E. Natural disturbance-based forest management: Moving beyond retention and continuous-cover forestry. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2021, 4, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muys, B.; Angelstam, P.; Bauhus, J.; Bouriaud, L.; Jactel, H.; Kraigher, H.; Müller, J.; Pettorelli, N.; Pötzelsberger; Primmer, E.; et al. Forest Biodiversity in Europe. From Science to Policy 13; European Forest Institute: Joensuu, Finland, 2022; p. 80. [Google Scholar]
- Shorohova, E.; Kneeshaw, D.; Kuuluvainen, T.; Gauthier, S. Variability and dynamics of old-growth forests in the circumboreal zone: Implications for conservation, restoration and management. Silva Fenn. 2011, 45, 785–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuuluvainen, T.; Aakala, T. Natural forest dynamics in boreal Fennoscandia: A review and classification. Silva Fenn. 2011, 45, 823–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sjöbeck, M. Farm Forests, Their Care and Use; Skånska Folkminnen: Sweden, 1927; pp. 36–62. [Google Scholar]
- Ihse, M. Swedish agricultural landscapes—Patterns and changes during the last 50 years, studied by aerial photos. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 31, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garrido, P.; Elbakidze, M.; Angelstam, P. Stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem services in Östergötland’s (Sweden) threatened oak wood-pasture landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 158, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reese, H.; Nilsson, M.; Pahlén, T.G.; Hagner, O.; Joyce, S.; Tingelöf, U.; Egberth, M.; Olsson, H. Countrywide Estimates of Forest Variables Using Satellite Data and Field Data from the National Forest Inventory. AMBIO J. Hum. Environ. 2003, 32, 542–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Engberg, A. Lantmatriet: Sweden, Produktspecifikation av Svenska CORINE Marktäckedata. 2002. Available online: www.lantmateriet.se/upload/filer/kartor/kartor/SCMDspec.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2023).
- Jonsson, B.; Angelstam, P.; Bubnicki, J.; Mikusinski, G.; Svensson, J. Bättre Sent än Aldrig—Indikatorer för Skogslandskapets Gröna Infrastruktur; RAPPORT 7063; Naturvårdsverket: Stockholm, Sweden, 2022. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Gustafsson, L.; Baker, S.C.; Bauhus, J.; Beese, W.J.; Brodie, A.; Kouki, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Lõhmus, A.; Pastur, G.M.; Messier, C.; et al. Retention Forestry to Maintain Multifunctional Forests: A World Perspective. BioScience 2012, 62, 633–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timonen, J.; Siitonen, J.; Gustafsson, L.; Kotiaho, J.S.; Stokland, J.N.; Sverdrup-Thygeson, A.; Mönkkönen, M. Woodland key habitats in northern Europe: Concepts, inventory and protection. Scand. J. For. Res. 2010, 25, 309–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elbakidze, M.; Angelstam, P.; Andersson, K.; Nordberg, M.; Pautov, Y. How does forest certification contribute to boreal biodiversity conservation? Standards and outcomes in Sweden and NW Russia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 262, 1983–1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Bergman, P. Assessing actual landscapes for the maintenance of forest biodiversity: A pilot study using forest management data. Ecol. Bull. 2004, 51, 413–425. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, J.-P.; Shim, Y.-J. Development of an Integrated Evaluation Method for National Protected Areas Based on Aichi Biodiversity Target 11. J. Korea Soc. Environ. Restor. Technol. 2018, 21, 83–94. [Google Scholar]
- Lundquist, L. Implementation Steering. An Actor-Structure Approach; Studentlitteratur: Lund, NV, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Sabatier, P.A. Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis. J. Public Policy 1986, 6, 21–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kvale, S. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Kvale, S.; Brinkman, S. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Glasser, B.; Strauss, A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research; Aldine Transaction: New Brunswick, NJ, USA; London, UK, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Alvesson, M.; Sköldberg, K. Tolkning och Reflektion: Vetenskapsfilosofi och Kvalitativ Metod; Studentlitteratur: Lund, Sweden, 1994. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Haraldsson, D. Skydda vår Natur! Svenska Naturskyddsföreningens Framväxt och Tidiga Utveckling; Bibliotheca Historica Lundensis 63; Lund University Press: Lund, Sweden, 1987. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Jamison, A.; Eyerman, R.; Cramer, J.; Læssøe, J. The Making of the New Environmental Consciousness: A Comparative Study of the Environmental Movements in Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands; Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, Scotland, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Schaar, C. Naturskyddsbegreppet i Sverige. Ursprung, Historik, och Innebörd; Universitet, M.V.I.L., Ed.; Lunds Universitet: Lund, Sweden, 1978; Volume 35. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Larsson, E. Sveriges Natur: Naturskyddsföreningens Årsbok: Årgång 64, Skogsbruk och Naturvård; Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1973. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Statens Naturvårdsverk. Skogsbruket och Naturvården; Allmänna Förlaget: Stockholm, Sweden, 1973. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Statens Naturvårdsverk. 1980-Talets Stora Miljöfrågor: Naturvårdsverkets Långsiktsbedömning: Ett Bakgrundsdokument. Meddelande SNV PM 1591; Naturvårdsverket: Solna, Sweden, 1982. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Statens Naturvårdsverk. Skogsbruket och Miljön: Handlingsprogram; Naturvårdsverket: Solna, Sweden, 1983. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen. Levande Skog: Naturvårdens Synpunkter på Skogsbruket; Svenska Naturskyddsföreningen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1987. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Ekelund, H.; Hamilton, G. Skogspolitisk Historia. Rapport 2001:8A.; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 2001. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Regeringens. Regeringens Proposition 1987/88:85. Miljöpolitiken Inför 1990-Talet; Riksdagen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1988. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Bennulf, M. Miljöopinionen i Sverige. Studier i Politik/Studies in Politics No. 30, Statsvetenskapliga Institutionen, Göteborgs Universitet; Dialogos AB: Lund, Sweden, 1994. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Bennulf, M.; Holmberg, S. The Green Breakthrough in Sweden. Scand. Political Stud. 1990, 13, 165–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SOU. Översyn av Naturvårdslagen m.m:38; Naturvårdslagsutredningen, Ed.; Allmänna Förlaget: Stockholm, Sweden, 1990. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Naturvårdsverket. Biotopskydd. Allmänna Råd 95:4; Naturvårdsverket: Stockholm, Sweden, 1995. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Ekelund, H. Skriftlig Dokumentation av Synpunkter Muntligt Framförda vid Sammanträde Angående PM 6 den 4 April 1989/Unpublished Memorandum Dated 10 April 1989; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Direktiv. Utvärdering och Översyn av Skogspolitiken: 47. Published in Attachment 1 to SOU 1992:76; 1990. Available online: https://lagen.nu/sou/1992:76 (accessed on 17 May 2023).
- Ericsson, K.-E. Skogspolitiken och de enskilda skogsägarna. In Skogspolitisk Historia. Rapport 2001:8A.; Ekelund, H., Hamilton, G., Eds.; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 2001. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Bondesson, L. Skogsstyrelsens utvärdering av skogspolitikens effekter—SUS 2001. In Skogsstyrelsens Meddelande 2002:1; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 2002. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Eckerberg, K. Tillämpning av Skogsvårdslagens 21§—Slutrapport Från Fältundersökning; Report 65; Institutionen för Skogsekonomi, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet: Umeå, Sweden, 1986. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Olsson, R. Levande Skog—Skogsbruket i Naturvårdsperspektiv; Venska Naturskyddsföreningen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1985. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Petersson, O. Swedish Government and Politics. Translation by Frank Perry of Svensk Politik; CE Fritzes AB: Stockholm, Sweden, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Lindbeck, A.; Molander, P.; Persson, T.; Petersson, O.; Sandmo, A.; Swedenborg, B.; Thygesen, N. Turning Sweden Around; The MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Direktiv. Tilläggsdirektiv till 1990 års Skogspolitiska Kommitté: 99. Issued 11-28-1991. Published in Attachment 1 to SOU 1992:76. 1991. Available online: https://lagen.nu/sou/1992:76 (accessed on 17 May 2023).
- Zackrisson, O.; Liljelund, L.-E.; Pettersson, B. Underlag för Specialanalys av Behovet av Nya Skogliga Reservat för att Vidmakthålla den Biologiska Mångfalden; Unpublished Analysis Dated 20 January 1992; Forestry Policy Review Committee: Stockholm, Sweden, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Bäckström, P.-O. Angående ett Miljömål för Skogspolitiken; Unpublished Memorandum: PM 33 dated 7 February 1992; Forestry Policy Review Committee: Stockholm, Sweden, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Bäckström, P.-O. Ytterligare Synpunkter på Miljömål för Skogspolitiken; Unpublished Memorandum: Dated 4 May 1992; Forestry Policy Review Committee: Stockholm, Sweden, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Skogsbruket. Så Kan vi Klara Miljömålet i Skogen—En Avsiktsförklaring; Unpublished Letter Dated 14 May 1992 Signed by Representatives from Major Swedish Forest Industries; Swedish Forest Industries Federation: Stockholm, Sweden, 1992. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- von Sydow, U. Hur Långt når Frivilligheten när det Gäller att Bevara Skogsekosystemens Mångfald? Unpublished Letter to Forestry Policy Review Committee, Dated 25 May 1992; Forestry Policy Review Committee: Unbyn, Sweden, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- SOU. Skogspolitiken Inför 2000-Talet. 1990 års Skogspolitiska Kommitté: 76; Allmänna Förlaget: Stockholm, Sweden, 1992. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Kortelainen, J. Old-growth forests as objects in complex spatialities. Area 2010, 42, 494–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora; Council of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Directive, 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23rd October 2000. Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Auld, G.; Gulbrandsen, L.H.; McDermott, C.L. Certification Schemes and the Impacts on Forests and Forestry. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2008, 33, 187–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noss, R.F. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conserv. Biol. 1990, 4, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regeringens. En Skogspolitik i Takt Med Tiden, 2007/08:108; Jordbruksdepartementet: Stockholm, Sweden, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Forest Europe. State of Europe’s Forests. In Proceedings of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Oslo, Norway, 14–16 June 2011; Liaison Unit: Oslo, Norway. [Google Scholar]
- European Landscape Convention. Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 176. European Landscape Convention and Reference Documents; Council of Europe: Florence, Italy, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the Conservation of Wild Birds; European Centre for Nature Conservation: Brussels, Belgium, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Regeringens. En God Livsmiljö: Proposition 1990/91:90; Riksdagen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Nilsson, C.; Götmark, F. Protected Areas in Sweden: Is Natural Variety Adequately Represented? Conserv. Biol. 1992, 6, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olson, D.M.; Dinerstein, E. The Global 200: A Representation Approach to Conserving the Earth’s Most Biologically Valuable Ecoregions. Conserv. Biol. 1998, 12, 502–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SOU. Skog Utan Gräns? Betänkande Från Gränsskogsutredningen. Statens Offentliga Utredningar 2009:30; SOU: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Convention on Biological Diversity. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets; Convention on Biological Diversity: Nagoya, Japan, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Regeringens. En Svensk Strategi för Biologisk Mångfald och Ekosystemtjänster; Proposition 141; Regeringskansliet: Stockholm, Sweden, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Beery, T.H.; Raymond, C.M.; Kyttä, M.; Olafsson, A.S.; Plieninger, T.; Sandberg, M.; Stenseke, M.; Tengö, M.; Jönsson, K.I. Fostering incidental experiences of nature through green infrastructure planning. AMBIO 2017, 46, 717–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Commission. The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 final. In Communication from the Commission; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing Nature Back into Our Lives; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. New EU Forest Strategy for 2030. In Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; p. 28. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Nature Restoration. Brussels, 22.6.2022, COM(2022) 304 Final 2022/0195 (COD); European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Gärdenfors, U. Rödlistade Arter i Sverige 2010—The 2010 Red List of Swedish Species; ArtDatabanken, SLU: Uppsala, Sweden, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Roberge, J.-M.; Mikusiński, G.; Svensson, S. The white-backed woodpecker: Umbrella species for forest conservation planning? Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17, 2479–2494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberge, J.-M.; Angelstam, P. Selecting species to be used as tools in the development of forest conservation targets. In Setting Conservation Targets for Managed Forest Landscapes; Villard, M.-A., Jonsson, B.-G., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; pp. 109–128. [Google Scholar]
- Roberge, J.-M.; Angelstam, P.; Villard, M.-A. Specialised woodpeckers and naturalness in hemiboreal forests—Deriving quantitative targets for conservation planning. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 997–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stighäll, K.; Roberge, J.-M.; Andersson, K.; Angelstam, P. Usefulness of biophysical proxy data for modelling habitat of an endangered forest species: The white-backed woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos. Scand. J. For. Res. 2011, 26, 576–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, J.M.; Davis, F.; Csuti, B.; Noss, R.; Butterfield, B.; Groves, C.; Anderson, H.; Caicco, S.; D′Erchia, F.; Edwards, T.C.; et al. Gap Analysis: A Geographic Approach to Protection of Biological Diversity. Wildl. Monogr. 1993, 3–41. [Google Scholar]
- Austin, M.P.; Margules, C.R. Assessing representativeness. In Wildlife Conservation Evaluation; Usher, M.B., Ed.; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1986; pp. 45–67. [Google Scholar]
- Nordic Council of Ministers. Representative Types of Nature in the Nordic Countries; Nordic Council of Ministers: Berlin, Germany; Arlöv, Sweden, 1983; p. 60 pp + map. [Google Scholar]
- Sporrong, U. Odlingslandskap och Landskapsbild. Studier till Kulturmiljöprogram för Sverige; Riksantikvarieämbetet: Stockholm, Sweden, 1996. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Kuuluvainen, T. Forest Management and Biodiversity Conservation Based on Natural Ecosystem Dynamics in Northern Europe: The Complexity Challenge. AMBIO J. Hum. Environ. 2009, 38, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Manton, M.; Yamelynets, T.; Fedoriak, M.; Albulescu, A.-C.; Bravo, F.; Cruz, F.; Jaroszewicz, B.; Kavtarishvili, M.; Muñoz-Rojas, J.; et al. Maintaining natural and traditional cultural green infrastructures across Europe: Learning from historic and current landscape transformations. Landsc. Ecol. 2021, 36, 637–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanski, I. Metapopulation Ecology; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Hanski, I. The shrinking world: Ecological consequences of habitat loss. In Excellence in Ecology; International Ecology Institute: Oldendorf, Germany, 2005; Volume 14. [Google Scholar]
- Hanski, I.; Ovaskainen, O. Extinction Debt at Extinction Threshold. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 16, 666–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Östlund, L.; Zackrisson, O.; Axelsson, A.-L. The history and transformation of a Scandinavian boreal forest landscape since the 19th century. Can. J. For. Res. 1997, 27, 1198–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ranius, T.; Kindvall, O. Extinction risk of wood-living model species in forest landscapes as related to forest history and conservation strategy. Landsc. Ecol. 2006, 21, 687–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hottola, J.; Siitonen, J. Significance of woodland key habitats for polypore diversity and red-listed species in boreal forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17, 2559–2577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fries, C.; Johansson, O.; Pettersson, B.; Simonsson, P. Silvicultural models to maintain and restore natural stand structures in Swedish boreal forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 1997, 94, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larsen, J.B.; Angelstam, P.; Bauhus, J.; Carvalho, J.F.; Diaci, J.; Dobrowolska, D.; Gazda, A.; Gustafsson, L.; Krumm, F.; Knoke, T. Closer-to-Nature Forest Management. From Science to Policy 12; EFI European Forest Institute: Barcelona, Spain, 2022; Volume 12. [Google Scholar]
- Angelstam, P. Maintaining and restoring biodiversity in European boreal forests by developing natural disturbance regimes. J. Veg. Sci. 1998, 9, 593–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zechmeister, H.G.; Tribsch, A.; Moser, D.; Peterseil, J.; Wrbka, T. Biodiversity ‘hot spots’ for bryophytes in landscapes dominated by agriculture in Austria. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 94, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EEA. Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010: Proposal for a First Set of Indicators to Monitor Progress in Europe; EEA Technical Report 11/2007; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Villard, M.-A.; Jonsson, B.-G. Setting Conservation Targets for Managed Forest Landscapes; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Paltto, H.; Nordén, B.; Götmark, F.; Franc, N. At which spatial and temporal scales does landscape context affect local density of Red Data Book and Indicator species? Biol. Conserv. 2006, 133, 442–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Udvardy, M.F.D. Notes on the Ecological Concepts of Habitat, Biotope and Niche. Ecology 1959, 40, 725–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Pedersen, S.; Manton, M.; Garrido, P.; Naumov, V.; Elbakidze, M. Green infrastructure maintenance is more than land cover: Large herbivores limit recruitment of key-stone tree species in Sweden. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 167, 368–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fahrig, L. How much habitat is enough? Biol. Conserv. 2001, 100, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003, 34, 487–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bender, D.J.; Contreras, T.A.; Fahrig, L. Habitat loss and population decline: A meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 1998, 79, 517–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrén, H. Habitat Fragmentation, the Random Sample Hypothesis and Critical Thresholds. Oikos 1999, 84, 306–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilsson, J. Critical Loads for Sulphur and Nitrogen. In Air Pollution and Ecosystems; Mathy, P., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1988; pp. 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansson, G.; Andrén, H. Habitat Composition and Bird Diversity in Managed Boreal Forests. Scand. J. For. Res. 2003, 18, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P. Habitat thresholds and effects of forest landscape change on the distribution and abundance of Black Grouse and Capercaillie. Ecol. Bull. 2004, 51, 173–187. [Google Scholar]
- Angelstam, P.; Boutin, S.; Schmiegelow, F.; Villard, M.-A.; Drapeau, P.; Host, G.; Innes, J.; Isachenko, G.; Kuuluvainen, T.; Mönkkönen, M.; et al. Targets for boreal forest biodiversity conservation: A rationale for macroecological research and adaptive management. Ecol. Bull. 2004, 51, 487–509. [Google Scholar]
- Brumelis, G.; Jonsson, B.G.; Kouki, J.; Kuuluvainen, T.; Shorohova, E. Forest naturalness in northern Europe: Perspectives on processes, structures and species diversity. Silva Fenn. 2011, 45, 807–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naumov, V.; Manton, M.; Elbakidze, M.; Rendenieks, Z.; Priednieks, J.; Uhlianets, S.; Yamelynets, T.; Zhivotov, A.; Angelstam, P. How to reconcile wood production and biodiversity conservation? The Pan-European boreal forest history gradient as an “experiment”. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 218, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, W.; Heikkilä, R.; Hanski, I. Estimating the consequences of habitat fragmentation on extinction risk in dynamic landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2002, 17, 699–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Löbel, S.; Snäll, T.; Rydin, H. Metapopulation processes in epiphytes inferred from patterns of regional distribution and local abundance in fragmented forest landscapes. J. Ecol. 2006, 94, 856–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Albulescu, A.-C.; Andrianambinina, O.D.F.; Aszalós, R.; Borovichev, E.; Cardona, W.C.; Dobrynin, D.; Fedoriak, M.; Firm, D.; Hunter, M.L.; et al. Frontiers of protected areas versus forest exploitation: Assessing habitat network functionality in 16 case study regions globally. AMBIO 2021, 50, 2286–2310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Angelstam, P.; Dönz-Breuss, M. Measuring forest biodiversity at the stand scale: An evaluation of indicators in European forest history gradients. Ecol. Bull. 2004, 51, 305–332. [Google Scholar]
- Müller, J.; Bütler, R. A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: A baseline for management recommendations in European forests. Eur. J. For. Res. 2010, 129, 981–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shorohova, E.; Tetioukhin, S. Natural disturbances and the amount of large trees, deciduous trees and coarse woody debris in the forests of Novgorod Region, Russia. Ecol. Bull. 2004, 51, 137–147. [Google Scholar]
- Aakala, T. Coarse woody debris in late-successional Picea abies forests in northern Europe: Variability in quantities and models of decay class dynamics. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 260, 770–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonsson, B.-G.; Kruys, N.; Ranius, T. Lessons from species ecology for dead wood management at a landscape scale. Silva Fenn. 2005, 38, 289–309. [Google Scholar]
- Mikusiński, G.; Angelstam, P.; Sporrong, U. Distribution of deciduous stands in villages located in coniferous forest landscapes in Sweden. AMBIO 2003, 32, 520–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyaschenko, J.; Strengbom, J.; Felton, A.; Aakala, T.; Staland, H.; Ranius, T. Increase in dead wood, large living trees and tree diversity, yet decrease in understory vegetation cover: The effect of three decades of biodiversity-oriented forest policy in Swedish forests. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 313, 114993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Penttilä, R.; Lindgren, M.; Miettinen, O.; Rita, H.; Hanski, I. Consequences of forest fragmentation for polyporous fungi at two spatial scales. Oikos 2006, 114, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linder, P.; Östlund, L. Structural changes in three mid-boreal Swedish forest landscapes, 1885–1996. Biol. Conserv. 1998, 85, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fridman, J.; Walheim, M. Amount, structure, and dynamics of dead wood on managed forestland in Sweden. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 131, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Mikusiński, G.; Fridman, J. Natural forest remnants and transport infrastructure: Does history matter for biodiversity conservation planning? Ecol. Bull. 2004, 51, 149–162. [Google Scholar]
- Larsson, A. Tillståndet i Skogen—Rödlistade Arter i ett Nordiskt Perspektiv; ArtDatabanken Rapporterar 9; ArtDatabanken SLU: Uppsala, Sweden, 2011. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Berglund, H.; Kuuluvainen, T. Representative boreal forest habitats in northern Europe, and a revised model for ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation. AMBIO 2021, 50, 1003–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Andersson, L. To what extent should the area of forest reserves increase to conserve biodiversity? In Kirjassa Skydd av Skogsmark. Behov och Kostnader. Bilagor, Bilaga 1997:98, 4, 75; SOU: Stockholm, Sweden, 1997; Volume 4, p. 71. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Convention on Biological Diversity. Kunming-Montreal Global biodiversity framework. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Kunming, China, 17 December 2022; CBD: Motreal, QC, Canada; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
- De Jong, J.; Larsson-Stern, M.; Liedholm, H. Grönare Skog; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 1999. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Persson, J. Rikare Skog: 90-Talets Kunskaper om Naturvård och Ekologi; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 1990. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Olsson, A.; Benner-Gårdö, M.; Flink, G. Kulturmiljövård i Skogen; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 1992. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Naturvårdsverket; Skogsstyrelsen. Kompletterande Metoder vid Skydd av Värdefull Natur. Redovisning av Regeringsuppdrag; Naturvårdsverket: Stockholm, Sweden, 2008. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Norén, M. Landskapsekologiska Kärnområden, LEKO. Redovisning av ett Projekt 1999–2003; Meddelande 2; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 2004. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Särkkä, M. Naturvärden att Hyra. En Granskning av den Finska Modellen för Skogsskydd; Naturskyddsföreningen: Stockholm, Sweden, 2008. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Miljödepartementet. Uppdrag till Naturvårdsverket, Skogsstyrelsen och Länsstyrelsen i Skåne län om att Påbörja ett Samverkansprogram Med Markägare Med Kompletterande Metoder för Skydd av Natur; Miljödepartementet: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Skogsstyrelsen. Kometprogrammet—Anvisningar för Genomförande i de fem Kometområdena. Skogstyrelsen, Naturvårdsverket, Länsstyrelsen i Skåne, Skogsstyrelsen; Undated “Skogens Pärlor”; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 2012. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Naturvårdsverket. Regionala landskapsstrategier—Ett rikt växt- och djurliv. In Naturvårdsverkets Rapport 5855; Naturvårdsverkets: Solna, Sweden, 2009. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Jonegård, S. Skogsstyrelsens Erfarenheter Kring Samarbetsnätverk i Landskapet: Rapport 9; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 2009. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Sundström, G. Målstyrningen Går åt Skogen-om Government och Governance i Svensk Skogspolitik: SCORE Rapportserie 2005:6; SCORE: Stockholm, Sweden, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Hysing, E.; Olsson, J. Sustainability through Good Advice? Assessing the Governance of Swedish Forest Biodiversity. Environ. Politics 2005, 14, 510–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uliczka, H.; Angelstam, P.; Jansson, G.; Bro, A. Non-industrial private forest owners’ knowledge of and attitudes towards nature conservation. Scand. J. For. Res. 2004, 19, 274–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nitare, J.; Norén, M. Nyckelbiotoper kartläggs i nytt projekt vid Skogsstyrelsen. Sven. Bot. Tidskr. 1992, 86, 219–226. [Google Scholar]
- Nitare, J. Projektplan, Nyckelbiotoper för Skogens Flora och Fauna; Skogsstyrelsen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1991. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, P.D.; Fahrig, L.; Henein, K.; Merriam, G. Connectivity Is a Vital Element of Landscape Structure. Oikos 1993, 68, 571–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, P.; Fahrig, L.; With, K. Landscape connectivity: A return to the basics. In Connectivity Conservation; Crooks, K., Sanjayan, M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006; pp. 29–43. [Google Scholar]
- Fries, C.; Carlsson, M.; Dahlin, B.; Lämås, T.; Sallnäs, O. A review of conceptual landscape planning models for multiobjective forestry in Sweden. Can. J. For. Res. 1998, 28, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundberg, B.; Silversides, C. Operational Efficiency in Forestry: Vol. 1: Analysis; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1988; Volume 29. [Google Scholar]
- Dudley, N.; Parish, J. Closing the gap. Creating ecologically representative protected area systems: A guide to conducting the gap assessments of protected area systems for the convention on biological diversity. In Technical Series No. 24; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Krever, V.; Stishov, M.; Onufrenya, I. National Protected Areas of the Russian Federation: GAP Analysis and Perspective Framework; WWF-Russia, and The Nature Conservancy, MAVA: Moscow, Russia, 2009; p. 80. [Google Scholar]
- Lõhmus, A.; Kohv, K.; Palo, A.; Viilma, K. Loss of Old-Growth, and the Minimum Need for Strictly Protected Forests in Estonia. Ecol. Bull. 2004, 51, 401–411. [Google Scholar]
- Liljelund, L.-E.; Pettersson, B.; Zackrisson, O. Skogsbruk och biologisk mångfald. Sven. Bot. Tidskr. 1992, 86, 227–232. [Google Scholar]
- Angelstam, P.; Yamelynets, T.; Elbakidze, M.; Prots, B.; Manton, M. Gap analysis as a basis for strategic spatial planning of green infrastructure: A case study in the Ukrainian Carpathians. Écoscience 2017, 24, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manton, M.; Makrickas, E.; Banaszuk, P.; Kołos, A.; Kamocki, A.; Grygoruk, M.; Stachowicz, M.; Jarašius, L.; Zableckis, N.; Sendžikaitė, J.; et al. Assessment and Spatial Planning for Peatland Conservation and Restoration: Europe’s Trans-Border Neman River Basin as a Case Study. Land 2021, 10, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, P.; Macdonald, S. The restoration imperative: Challenges objectives and approaches to restoring naturalness in forests. Silva Fenn. 2011, 45, 843–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindborg, R.; Eriksson, O. Historical landscape connectivity affects present plant species diversity. Ecology 2004, 85, 1840–1845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buse, J. “Ghosts of the past”: Flightless saproxylic weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) are relict species in ancient woodlands. J. Insect Conserv. 2012, 16, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rompré, G.; Boucher, Y.; Bélanger, L.; Côté, S.; Robinson, W. Conserving biodiversity in managed forest landscapes: The use of critical thresholds for habitat. For. Chron. 2010, 86, 589–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikusiński, G.; Angelstam, P. Occurrence of mammals and birds with different ecological characteristics in relation to forest cover in Europe: Do macroecological data make sense? Ecol. Bull. 2004, 51, 265–275. [Google Scholar]
- Skogsstyrelsen. Skogsstyrelsen Utvärdering av Skogspolitiken; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 2001. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Appelqvist, T. Naturvårdsbiologisk Forskning. Underlag för Områdesskydd i Skogslandskapet: Rapport 5452; Naturvårdsverket: Solna, Sweden, 2005. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Skogsstyrelsen. Fördjupad Utvärdering av Levande Skogar; Meddelande 4; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 2007. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Länsstyrelsen Östergötland. Levande Eklandskap i Östergötland—Regional Landskapsstrategi 2008–2015; Rapport 2007; Länsstyrelsen: Östergötland, Sweden, 2007. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Wennberg, S.; Höjer, O. Frekvensanalys av Skyddsvärd Natur. Rapport 5466; Naturvårdsverket: Solna, Sweden, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Naturvårdsverket; Skogsstyrelsen. Nationell Strategi för Formellt Skydd av Skog. (Beslut Naturvårdsverkets dnr 310-419-04, Skogsstyrelsens dnr 194/04-4.43); Naturvårdsverket & Skogsstyrelsen: Solna, Sweden, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Bergman, P.; Gustafsson, L. Ecoparks–Forest landscapes in Sweden with emphasis on biodiversity conservation and recreation. In How to Balance Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation—A View Across Europe; Krumm, F., Schuck, A., Rigling, A., Eds.; European Forest Institute, Swiss Federal Research Institute: Birmensdorf, Sweden, 2020; pp. 369–378. [Google Scholar]
- Regeringens. Förändrat Uppdrag för Sveaskog AB. Regeringens Proposition 2009/10:69; Riksdagen: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Skogsstyrelsen. Skogsvårdsorganisationens Utvärdering av Skogspolitiken. Meddelande 1:1998; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 1998; p. 103. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Skogsstyrelsen. Naturskydd och Miljöarbete. Meddelande 6:1998; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 1998. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Skogsstyrelsen. Skogsbrukets Frivilliga Avsättningar; Meddelande 3; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 2008. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- SCB. Formellt Skyddad Skogsmark, Frivilliga Avsättningar, Hänsynsytor Samt Improduktiv Skogsmark 2021; MI 41 2021A02; Statistics Sweden: Stockholm, Sweden, 2022. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Naturvårdsverket. Skogsreservat i Sverige; Rapport 4707; Naturvårdsverket: Stockholm, Sweden, 1997. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- SCB. Skyddad Natur 31 dec 2009. Sveriges Officiella Statistik; Statistiska Meddelanden MI 41 SM 1001; SCB: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Root, T.L.; Price, J.T.; Hall, K.R.; Schneider, S.H.; Rosenzweig, C.; Pounds, J.A. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 2003, 421, 57–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blicharska, M.; Angelstam, P.; Giessen, L.; Hilszczański, J.; Hermanowicz, E.; Holeksa, J.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Jaroszewicz, B.; Konczal, A.; Konieczny, A.; et al. Between biodiversity conservation and sustainable forest management—A multidisciplinary assessment of the emblematic Białowieża Forest case. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 248, 108614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manton, M.; Angelstam, P. Defining Benchmarks for Restoration of Green Infrastructure: A Case Study Combining the Historical Range of Variability of Habitat and Species’ Requirements. Sustainability 2018, 10, 326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aune, K.; Jonsson, B.-G.; Moen, J. Isolation and edge effects among woodland key habitats in Sweden: Making fragmentation into forest policy? Biol. Conserv. 2005, 124, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikusiński, G.; Edenius, L. Assessment of spatial functionality of old forest in Sweden as habitat for virtual species. Scand. J. For. Res. 2006, 21, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regeringens. Svenska Miljömål—Ett Gemensamt Uppdrag; Proposition 2004/05:150; Riksdagen: Stockholm, Sweden, 2004. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Miljömålsrådet. Miljömålrådets Uppföljning av Sveriges Miljömål; Miljömålsrådet: Stockholm, Sweden, 2007. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Statskontoret. Skyddet av Levande Skogar; Rapport 2007:14; Statskontoret: Stockholm, Sweden, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ihse, M.; Oostra, S. Regionala Landskapsstrategier—Ett Rikt Växt- och Djurliv. en Kunskapssammanställning—Fallstudier; Rapport 5855; Naturvårdverket: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Naturvårdsverket. Arbetssätt för Biologisk Mångfald och Andra Värden i ett Landskapsperspektiv; Rapport 6342; Naturvårdsverket: Stockholm, Sweden, 2010. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Sandström, C.; Hovik, S.; Falleth, E. Omstridd Natur: Trender & Utmaningar i Nordisk Naturförvaltning; Boréa: Umeå, Sweden, 2008. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Arts, B.; Leroy, P. Institutional Dynamics in Environmental Governance; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Elbakidze, M.; Ražauskaitė, R.; Manton, M.; Angelstam, P.; Mozgeris, G.; Brūmelis, G.; Brazaitis, G.; Vogt, P. The role of forest certification for biodiversity conservation: Lithuania as a case study. Eur. J. For. Res. 2016, 135, 361–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Roberge, J.-M.; Axelsson, R.; Elbakidze, M.; Bergman, K.-O.; Dahlberg, A.; Degerman, E.; Eggers, S.; Esseen, P.-A.; Hjältén, J.; et al. Evidence-Based Knowledge Versus Negotiated Indicators for Assessment of Ecological Sustainability: The Swedish Forest Stewardship Council Standard as a Case Study. AMBIO 2013, 42, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuuluvainen, T.; Lindberg, H.; Vanha-Majamaa, I.; Keto-Tokoi, P.; Punttila, P. Low-level retention forestry, certification, and biodiversity: Case Finland. Ecol. Process. 2019, 8, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vedung, E. Policy instruments: Typologies and theories. In Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation; Bemelmans-Videc, M.L., Rist, R.C., Vedung, E.O., Eds.; Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1998; Volume 5, pp. 21–58. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, A.P. Forest landscapes as social-ecological systems and implications for management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 177, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, K.; Stenius, T.; Holmgren, S. Swedish Forests in the Bioeconomy: Stories from the National Forest Program. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2020, 33, 896–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SFS. Svensk Författningssamling 429; Riksdagen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1979. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- SFS. Svensk Författningssamling 553; Riksdagen: Stockholm, Sweden, 1993. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- SFS. Svensk Författningssamling 921; Riksdagen: Stockholm, Sweden, 2010. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Ministry for Rural Affairs. The Forest Kingdom—With Values for the World; Action Plan; XGS Grafisk Service: Stockholm, Sweden, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Annerberg, R.; Ekelund, H. Skogsbrukets Sektorsansvar för Miljön; Unpublished Memorandum Dated 27 April 1992; Forestry Policy Review Committee: Stockholm, Sweden, 1992. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Ingebro, P.-A.; Norén, M. Nyckelbiotoper—Unika Skogsområden Med Höga Naturvärden; Updated; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden. (In Swedish)
- KSLA. The Swedish Forestry Model; The Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Rudqvist, L. Sveriges Sumpskogar: Resultat av Sumpskogsinventeringen 1990–1998; Skogsstyrelsens Meddelande 1999:3; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 1999. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Skogsstyrelsen. Nyckelbiotopsinventeringen 1993–1998: Slutrappor; Skogsstyrelsens Meddelande 1:1999; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 1999. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Skogsstyrelsen. Inventering av Nyckelbiotoper—Resultat till och Med 2003; Skogsstyrelsens Meddelande 4:2004; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 2004. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Miljöbalken. Environmental Code of 1998; Miljöbalken: Stockholm, Sweden, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Svenska PEFC. Kombinerat Tekniskt Dokument II Med Tillämpningskrav 1 April 2006—28 Februari 201; Svenska PEFC: Uppsala, Sweden, 2006. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Svenska PEFC. Extension of the PEFT Endorsement Validity of the Swedish Forest Certification Scheme; Svenska PEFC: Uppsala, Sweden, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Svenska FSC-rådet. Svensk Skogsbruksstandard Enligt FSC Med SLIMF-Indikatorer; V2-1 050510; Svenska FSC: Uppsala, Sweden, 2010. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Svenska FSC-rådet. Statistik och Fakta; Svenska FSC-rådet: Uppsala, Sweden, 2011; Available online: http://www.fsc-sverige.org/statistik-och-fakta (accessed on 31 July 2011). (In Swedish)
- Svenska PEFC. Statistik 100930, Kvartal 3 2010; Svenska PEFC: Uppsala, Sweden, 2010; Available online: http://www.pefc.se/ (accessed on 31 July 2011). (In Swedish)
- Appelstrand, M. Miljömålet i skogsbruket: Styrning och frivillighet. In Lund Studies in Sociology of Law, 26. Sociologiska Institutionen; Lunds Universitet: Lund, Sweden, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Isacsson, G. Miljöhänsyn Vid Föryngringsavverkning—Resultat Från Skogsstyrelsens Rikspolytaxinventering (R0/R1), Avverkningssäsongerna 1998/1999—2006/2007; Memorandum Dated 8 May 2010; Skogsstyrelsen: Hässleholm, Sweden, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Skogsstyrelsen. Skogs och Miljöpolitiska Mål—Brister, Orsaker och Förslag på Åtgärder; Skogsstyrelsens Meddelande 2; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 2011. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Baltscheffsky, S. Urskog mals till träflis; Svenska Dagbladet: Stockholm, Sweden, 2011. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Sahlin, M. Cutting the Edge—The Loss of Natural Forests in Sweden; Swedish Society for Nature Conservation: Stockholm, Sweden, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Karlsson, M.; Sahlin, M. Skogen Skövlas Utan Ansvar; Svenska Dagbladet: Stockholm, Sweden, 2010. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Baltscheffsky, S. Fler Förbud Mot Skogsavverkningar; Svenska Dagbladet: Stockholm, Sweden, 2011. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Bush, T. Biodiversity and sectoral responsibility in Swedish forestry policy 1988–1993. In Examensarbete Nr. 68, Institutionen för Sydsvensk Skogsvetenskap; Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet: Alnarp, Sweden, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Lindkvist, A.; Kardell, Ö.; Nordlund, C. Intensive Forestry as Progress or Decay? An Analysis of the Debate about Forest Fertilization in Sweden, 1960–2010. Forests 2011, 2, 112–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strengbom, J.; Dahlberg, A.; Larsson, A.; Lindelöw, Å.; Sandström, J.; Widenfalk, O.; Gustafsson, L. Introducing Intensively Managed Spruce Plantations in Swedish Forest Landscapes will Impair Biodiversity Decline. Forests 2011, 2, 610–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laudon, H.; Sponseller, R.A.; Lucas, R.W.; Futter, M.N.; Egnell, G.; Bishop, K.; Ågren, A.; Ring, E.; Högberg, P. Consequences of More Intensive Forestry for the Sustainable Management of Forest Soils and Waters. Forests 2011, 2, 243–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beland Lindahl, K.; Westholm, E. Food, Paper, Wood, or Energy? Global Trends and Future Swedish Forest Use. Forests 2011, 2, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandström, C.; Lindkvist, A.; Öhman, K.; Nordström, E.-M. Governing Competing Demands for Forest Resources in Sweden. Forests 2011, 2, 218–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huntington, S.P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order; Penguin Books India: New Delhi, India, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Wilhere, G.F. The How-Much-Is-Enough Myth. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22, 514–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borgström, S.T.; Elmqvist, T.; Angelstam, P.; Alfsen-Norodom, C. Scale Mismatches in Management of Urban Landscapes. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbour, M. Ecological Assessment of Aquatic Resources: Linking Science to Decision-Making; SETAC Press: Pensacola, FL, USA; Brussels, Belgium, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Mansourian, S. Governance and forest landscape restoration: A framework to support decision-making. J. Nat. Conserv. 2017, 37, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naturvårdsverket. Förslag till Strategi för Naturvårdande Förvaltning av Skogar och Andra Trädbärande Marker i Nationalparker, Naturreservat och Natura 2000-Områden, Remissversion 20100225; Naturvårdsverket: Stockholm, Sweden, 2010. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Bengtsson, J.; Angelstam, P.; Elmqvist, T.; Emanuelsson, U.; Folke, C.; Ihse, M.; Moberg, F.; Nyström, M. Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. AMBIO 2003, 32, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savilaakso, S.; Johansson, A.; Häkkilä, M.; Uusitalo, A.; Sandgren, T.; Mönkkönen, M.; Puttonen, P. What are the effects of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on boreal forest biodiversity in Fennoscandia and European Russia? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 2021, 10, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersson, K.; Angelstam, P.; Elbakidze, M.; Axelsson, R.; Degerman, E. Green infrastructures and intensive forestry: Need and opportunity for spatial planning in a Swedish rural–urban gradient. Scand. J. For. Res. 2013, 28, 143–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawson, L.; Elbakidze, M.; Angelstam, P.; Gordon, J. Governance and management dynamics of landscape restoration at multiple scales: Learning from successful environmental managers in Sweden. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 197, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tear, T.H.; Kareiva, P.; Angermeier, P.L.; Comer, P.; Czech, B.; Kautz, R.; Landon, L.; Mehlman, D.; Murphy, K.; Ruckelshaus, M.; et al. How Much Is Enough? The Recurrent Problem of Setting Measurable Objectives in Conservation. BioScience 2005, 55, 835–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lõhmus, A. Ecological Sustainability at the Forest Landscape Level: A Bird Assemblage Perspective. Land 2022, 11, 1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roche, P.K.; Campagne, C.S. From ecosystem integrity to ecosystem condition: A continuity of concepts supporting different aspects of ecosystem sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 29, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Degerman, E.; Sers, B.; Törnblom, J.; Angelstam, P. Large woody debris and Brown trout in small forest streams: Towards targets for assessment and management of riparian landscapes. Ecol. Bull. 2004, 51, 233–239. [Google Scholar]
- Trigal, C.; Degerman, E. Multiple factors and thresholds explaining fish species distributions in lowland streams. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2015, 4, 589–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manton, M.; Ruffner, C.; Kibirkštis, G.; Brazaitis, G.; Marozas, V.; Pukienė, R.; Makrickiene, E.; Angelstam, P. Fire Occurrence in Hemi-Boreal Forests: Exploring Natural and Cultural Scots Pine Fire Regimes Using Dendrochronology in Lithuania. Land 2022, 11, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyvärinen, E.; Kouki, J.; Martikainen, P. Fire and Green-Tree Retention in Conservation of Red-Listed and Rare Deadwood-Dependent Beetles in Finnish Boreal Forests. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20, 1710–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnstone, J.F.; Allen, C.D.; Franklin, J.F.; Frelich, L.E.; Harvey, B.J.; Higuera, P.E.; Mack, M.C.; Meentemeyer, R.K.; Metz, M.R.; Perry, G.L.; et al. Changing disturbance regimes, ecological memory, and forest resilience. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 14, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsson, R. Efter Johannesburg—Utmaningar för Forskarsamhället; Miljövårdsberedningen Rapport 2003:1; Riksdag: Stockholm, Sweden, 2003. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Berkes, F. Environmental governance for the anthropocene? Social-ecological systems, resilience, and collaborative learning. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S.R.; Alberti, M.; Folke, C.; Moran, E.; Pell, A.N.; Deadman, P.; Kratz, T.; Lubchenco, J.; et al. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 2007, 317, 1513–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsson, J.; Lidestav, G.; Bjärstig, T.; Svensson, J.; Nordström, E.-M. Opportunites for Integrated Landscape Planning: The Broker, the Arena, the Tool. Landsc. Online 2017, 55, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potapov, P.; Hansen, M.C.; Laestadius, L.; Turubanova, S.; Yaroshenko, A.; Thies, C.; Smith, W.; Zhuravleva, I.; Komarova, A.; Minnemeyer, S.; et al. The last frontiers of wilderness: Tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1600821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kettunen, M.; Terry, A.; Tucker, G.; Jones, A. Guidance on the Maintenance of Landscape Features of Major Importance for Wild Flora and Fauna—Guidance on the Implementation of Article 3 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and Article 10 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC); Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP): Brussels, Belgium, 2007; p. 114 pp. & Annexes. [Google Scholar]
- Baldwin, R.F.; Powell, R.B.; Kellert, S.R. Habitat as Architecture: Integrating Conservation Planning and Human Health. AMBIO 2011, 40, 322–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; d’Agre, R.; De Groot, R.S.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 385, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosyst. Ecol. New Synth. 2010, 1, 110–139. [Google Scholar]
- Sandifer, P.A.; Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Ward, B.P. Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skärbäck, E. Landscape Planning to Promote Well Being: Studies and Examples from Sweden. Environ. Pract. 2007, 9, 206–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annerstedt, M.; Währborg, P. Nature-assisted therapy: Systematic review of controlled and observational studies. Scand. J. Public Health 2011, 39, 371–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parmesan, C.; Skevington, S.; Guégan, J.-F.; Jutro, P.; Kellert, S.; Mazumder, A.; Roué, M.; Sharma, M. Biodiversity and human health: The decision-making process. In Biodiversity Change and Human Health: From Ecosystem Services to Spread of Disease; Sala, O., Meyerson, L., Parmesan, C., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; pp. 61–81. [Google Scholar]
- Rapport, D.; Daszak, P.; Froment, A.; Guégan, J.-F.; Lafferty, K.; Larigauderie, A.; Mazumder, A.; Winding, A. The impact of anthropogenic stress at global and regional scales on biodiversity and human health. In Biodiversity Change and Human Health: From Ecosystem Services to Spread of Disease; Sala, O., Meyerson, L., Parmesan, C., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; pp. 41–60. [Google Scholar]
- Norman, J. Living for the City—A New Agenda for Green Cities. Think Tank of the Year 2006/2007; Policy Exchange: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Knoops, K.T.B.; de Groot, L.C.P.G.M.; Kromhout, D.; Perrin, A.-E.; Moreiras-Varela, O.; Menotti, A.; van Staveren, W.A. Mediterranean Diet, Lifestyle Factors, and 10-Year Mortality in Elderly European Men and WomenThe HALE Project. JAMA 2004, 292, 1433–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.H.; Moon, J.H.; Kim, H.J.; Kong, M.H.; Oh, Y.H. Sedentary Lifestyle: Overview of Updated Evidence of Potential Health Risks. Korean J. Fam. Med. 2020, 41, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nesse, R.; Williams, G. Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine; Vintage Books: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Nilsson, K.; Sangster, M.; Gallis, C.; Hartig, T.; de Vries, S.; Seeland, K.; Schipperijn, J. Forests, Trees and Human Health; Springer: New York, NY, USA; Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany; London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- De Vries, S.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Natural environments—Healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environ. Plan. A 2003, 35, 1717–1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, R. Lifestyle and mental health. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Skärbäck, E. Urban forests as compensation measures for infrastructure development. Urban For. Urban Green. 2007, 6, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Jong, K.; Albin, M.; Skärbäck, E.; Grahn, P.; Wadbro, J.; Merlo, J.; Björk, J. Area-aggregated assessments of perceived environmental attributes may overcome single-source bias in studies of green environments and health: Results from a cross-sectional survey in southern Sweden. Environ. Health 2011, 10, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelstam, P.; Manton, M.; Stjernquist, I.; Gunnarsson, T.G.; Ottvall, R.; Rosenberg, M.; Thorup, O.; Wedholm, P.; Elts, J.; Gruberts, D. Barriers and bridges for sustaining functional habitat networks: A macroecological system analysis of wet grassland landscapes. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e8801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ottvall, R.; Edenius, L.; Elmberg, J.; Engström, H.; Green, M.; Holmqvist, N.; Lindström, Å.; Pärt, T.; Tjernberg, M. Population trends for Swedish breeding birds. Ornis Svec. 2009, 19, 117–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Axelsson, R.; Angelstam, P. Uneven-aged forest management in boreal Sweden: Local forestry stakeholders’ perceptions of different sustainability dimensions. For. Int. J. For. Res. 2011, 84, 567–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puettmann, K.J.; Wilson, S.M.; Baker, S.C.; Donoso, P.J.; Drössler, L.; Amente, G.; Harvey, B.D.; Knoke, T.; Lu, Y.; Nocentini, S.; et al. Silvicultural alternatives to conventional even-aged forest management—What limits global adoption? For. Ecosyst. 2015, 2, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersson, K. Geographic Information Systems as a Tool to Support Monitoring and Assessment of Landscape and Regional Sustainability. Ph.D. Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skinnskatteberg, Sweden, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Stjernquist, I.; Schlyter, P. Managing Forestry in a Sustainable Manner: The Importance of System Analysis. In Transformation Literacy: Pathways to Regenerative Civilizations; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 145–158. [Google Scholar]
- Aldea, J.; Bianchi, S.; Nilsson, U.; Hynynen, J.; Lee, D.; Holmström, E.; Huuskonen, S. Evaluation of growth models for mixed forests used in Swedish and Finnish decision support systems. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 529, 120721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moilainen, A.; Wilson, K.; Possingham, H. Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitive Methods and Computational Tools; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; p. 304. [Google Scholar]
- Khoshkar, S.; Hammer, M.; Borgström, S.; Balfors, B. Ways Forward for Advancing Ecosystem Services in Municipal Planning—Experiences from Stockholm County. Land 2020, 9, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hooimeijer, F.; Tummers, L. Integrating subsurface management into spatial planning in the Netherlands, Sweden and Flanders. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Urban Des. Plan. 2017, 170, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regeringens. En enklare Plan-och Bygglag; Proposition 2009/10:170; Riksdagen: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Elbakidze, M.; Angelstam, P.; Sandström, C.; Axelsson, R. Multi-stakeholder collaboration in Russian and Swedish model forest initiatives: Adaptive governance toward sustainable forest management? Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dudley, N.; Schlaepfer, R.; Jackson, W.; Jeanrenaud, J.-P.; Stolton, S. Forest Quality: Assessing Forests at a Landscape Scale; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Axelsson, R.; Angelstam, P.; Elbakidze, M.; Stryamets, N.; Johansson, K.-E. Sustainable development and sustainability: Landscape approach as a practical interpretation of principles and implementation concepts. J. Landsc. Ecol. 2011, 4, 5–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noss, R.F. A Regional Landscape Approach to Maintain Diversity. BioScience 1983, 33, 700–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batisse, M. The biosphere reserve: A tool for environmental conservation and management. Environ. Conserv. 1982, 9, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO. Biosphere Reserves: The Seville Strategy & the Statutory Framework of the World Network; UNESCO: Paris, Italy, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Besseau, P.; Dansou, K.; Johnson, F. The International Model Forest Network (IMFN): Elements of Success. For. Chron. 2002, 78, 648–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IMFN. Model Forest Development Guide; International Model Forest Network Secretariat: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2008; p. 34. [Google Scholar]
- Shaffer, M.; Stein, B. Safeguarding our precious heritage. In Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States; Stein, B., Kutner, L., Adams, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 301–321. [Google Scholar]
- Kirkpatrick, J.B. An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: An example from Tasmania. Biol. Conserv. 1983, 25, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pressey, R.L.; Humphries, C.J.; Margules, C.R.; Vane-Wright, R.I.; Williams, P.H. Beyond opportunism: Key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1993, 8, 124–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaston, K.J.; Pressey, R.L.; Margules, C.R. Persistence and vulnerability: Retaining biodiversity in the landscape and in protected areas. J. Biosci. 2002, 27, 361–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anon. Sverige klarar Nagoya-överenskommelsen. Norra Skogsmagasinet 2011, 4, 28. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Convention on Biological Diversity. Explanatory Guide on Target 11 of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity; Convention of Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Jönsson, M.T.; Jonsson, B.G. Assessing coarse woody debris in Swedish woodland key habitats: Implications for conservation and management. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 242, 363–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasinski, K.; Uliczka, H. De Trädbevuxna Impedimentens Betydelse Som Livsmiljöer för Växt-och Djurarter; Skogsstyrelsen: Jönköping, Sweden, 1998. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Cederberg, B.; Ehnström, B.; Gärdenfors, U.; Hallingbäck, T.; Ingelög, T.; Tjernberg, M. De Trädbärande Impedimentens Betydelse för Rödlistade Arter; ArtDatabanken Rapporterar 1; ArtDatabanken, SLU: Uppsala, Sweden, 1997. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Cederberg, B. Skogsbrukets Effekter på Rödlistade Arter; ArtDatabanken Rapporterar 4; ArtDatabanken, SLU: Uppsala, Sweden, 2001. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Angelstam, P.; Roberge, J.-M.; Dönz-Breuss, M.; Burfield, I.J.; Ståhl, G. Monitoring forest biodiversity: From the policy level to the management unit. Ecol. Bull. 2004, 51, 295–304. [Google Scholar]
- Lindenmayer, D.; Franklin, J.F. Conserving Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach; Island Press: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Gibbons, M. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies; Sage: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, B.; Devisscher, T.; Chabaneix, N.; Woroniecki, S.; Messier, C.; Seddon, N. The Role of Nature-Based Solutions in Supporting Social-Ecological Resilience for Climate Change Adaptation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2022, 47, 123–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seddon, N.; Smith, A.; Smith, P.; Key, I.; Chausson, A.; Girardin, C.; House, J.; Srivastava, S.; Turner, B. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2021, 27, 1518–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ludvig & Co. Skogsbarometern 2022; Ludvig & Co.: Stockholm, Sweden, 2022; p. 7. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Richnau, G.; Angelstam, P.; Valasiuk, S.; Zahvoyska, L.; Axelsson, R.; Elbakidze, M.; Farley, J.; Jönsson, I.; Soloviy, I. Multifaceted value profiles of forest owner categories in South Sweden: The River Helge å catchment as a case study. AMBIO 2013, 42, 188–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hafmar, G. Alternativa Skötselmetoder i Trakthyggesbrukets Tidsålder—Om Attityder i Jämtland för Alternativa Skötselmetoder och Dess Potentiella Framtid. Master’s Thesis, Dille Gård Yrkeshögskola, Krokom, Sweden, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Curtis, K.J. Creating the landscape, one stand at a time: The role of timber buyers in landscape-level planning in southern Sweden. In Master Thesis Series in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science; Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Guillén, L.A.; Wallin, I.; Brukas, V. Social capital in small-scale forestry: A local case study in Southern Sweden. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 53, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hertog, I.M.; Brogaard, S.; Krause, T. Barriers to expanding continuous cover forestry in Sweden for delivering multiple ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 53, 101392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniels, S.E.; Walker, G.B. Working through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach; Praeger: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Angelstam, P.; Fedoriak, M.; Cruz, F.; Muñoz-Rojas, J.; Yamelynets, T.; Manton, M.; Washbourne, C.-L.; Dobrynin, D.; Izakovicova, Z.; Jansson, N.; et al. Meeting places and social capital supporting rural landscape stewardship: A Pan-European horizon scanning. Ecol. Soc. 2021, 26, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svensson, L.; Nilsson, B. Partnership: As a Strategy for Social Innovation and Sustainable Change; Santérus Academic Press: Stockholm, Sweden, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Svensson, L.; Brulin, G.; Ellström, P.-E. Interactive research and ongoing evaluation as joint learning processes. In Sustainable Development in Organizations; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 346–362. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, K.N. Compass and Gyroscope; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Norton, B.G. Sustainability: A Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Keen, M.; Brown, V.; Dyball, R. Social Learning in Environmental Management: Towards a Sustainable Future; James & James/Earthscan: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Wals, A. Social Learning towards a Sustainable World; Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- World Forestry Congress. Forest Development: A Vital Balance, Findings and Strategic Actions. Findings and Strategic Actions. Available online: http://foris.fao.org/meetings/download/_2009/xiii_th_world_forestry_congress/misc_documents/wfc_declaration.pdf (accessed on 16 March 2023).
- Rockstrom, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, A.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, E.F.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 2009, 461, 472–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordberg, M.; Angelstam, P.; Elbakidze, M.; Axelsson, R. From logging frontier towards sustainable forest management: Experiences from boreal regions of North-West Russia and North Sweden. Scand. J. For. Res. 2013, 28, 797–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Himes, A.; Betts, M.; Messier, C.; Seymour, R. Perspectives: Thirty years of triad forestry, a critical clarification of theory and recommendations for implementation and testing. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 510, 120103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlyter, P.; Stjernquist, I.; Bäckstrand, K. Not seeing the forest for the trees? The environmental effectiveness of forest certification in Sweden. For. Policy Econ. 2009, 11, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poteete, A.R.; Janssen, M.A.; Ostrom, E. Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple Methods in Practice; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2010; p. 376. [Google Scholar]
- Doppelt, B. From Me to We: The Five Transformational Commitments Required to Rescue the Planet, Your Organization, and Your Life; Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Grundel, I.; Christenson, N.; Dahlström, M. Identifying interests and values in forest areas through collaborative processes and landscape resource analysis. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 142, 102801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nowotny, H. The place of people in our knowledge. Eur. Rev. 1999, 7, 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, D.J.; Gray, B. Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 1991, 27, 139–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emerson, K.; Nabatchi, T.; Balogh, S. An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2011, 22, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keskitalo, E.C.H.; Lundmark, L. The Controversy Over Protected Areas and Forest-Sector Employment in Norrbotten, Sweden: Forest Stakeholder Perceptions and Statistics. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2009, 23, 146–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultz, L.; Lundholm, C. Learning for resilience? Exploring learning opportunities in biosphere reserves. Environ. Educ. Res. 2010, 16, 645–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirtl, M.; Orenstein, D.E.; Wildenberg, M.; Peterseil, J.; Frenzel, M. Development of LTSER Platforms in LTER-Europe: Challenges and Experiences in Implementing Place-Based Long-Term Socio-ecological Research in Selected Regions. In Long Term Socio-Ecological Research: Studies in Society-Nature Interactions across Spatial and Temporal Scales; Singh, J.S., Haberl, H., Chertow, M., Mirtl, M., Schmid, M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 409–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haberl, H.; Winiwarter, V.; Andersson, K.; Ayres, R.U.; Boone, C.; Castillo, A.; Cunfer, G.; Fischer-Kowalski, M.; Freudenburg, W.R.; Furman, E.; et al. From LTER to LTSER Conceptualizing the Socioeconomic Dimension of Long-term Socioecological Research. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tress, B.; Tress, G.; Fry, G. Defining concepts and the process of knowledge production in integrative research. Landsc. Res. Landsc. Plan. Asp. Integr. Educ. Appl. 2005, 12, 13–26. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, A.; Fiero, J. Collaborative learning and the public’s stewardship of its forests. In The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the 21st Century; Gastil, J., Levine, P., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Hadorn, G.H.; Hoffmann-Riem, H.; Biber-Klemm, S.; Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W.; Joye, D.; Pohl, C.; Wiesmann, U.; Zemp, E. Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; Volume 10. [Google Scholar]
- Angelstam, P.; Elbakidze, M.; Axelsson, R.; Dixelius, M.; Tornblom, J. Knowledge production and learning for sustainable landscapes: Seven steps using social-ecological systems as laboratories. AMBIO 2013, 42, 116–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Skytt, T.; Englund, G.; Jonsson, B.-G. Climate mitigation forestry—Temporal trade-offs. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 114037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.-L.; Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C.; et al. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8349–8356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikolakis, W.; Innes, J.L. The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Sustainability in Forest Landscapes; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Rittel, H.W.J.; Webber, M.M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973, 4, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Österblom, H.; Blasiak, R. Credibility at stake in Sweden. Science 2022, 378, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chapron, G. Sweden threatens European biodiversity. Science 2022, 378, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irslinger, R. Scientist Letter on the Need for Climate Smart Forest Management; European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: Rottenburg, Germany, 2022; p. 35. [Google Scholar]
- van der Spoel, D. Open Letter to EU on Forestry, Letter ed.; European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Uppsala University: Uppsala, Sweden, 2023; p. 27. [Google Scholar]
- Eyvindson, K.; Repo, A.; Mönkkönen, M. Mitigating forest biodiversity and ecosystem service losses in the era of bio-based economy. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 92, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Messier, C.; Puettmann, K.; Chazdon, R.; Andersson, K.P.; Angers, V.A.; Brotons, L.; Filotas, E.; Tittler, R.; Parrott, L.; Levin, S.A. From Management to Stewardship: Viewing Forests As Complex Adaptive Systems in an Uncertain World. Conserv. Lett. 2015, 8, 368–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Betts, M.G.; Phalan, B.T.; Wolf, C.; Baker, S.C.; Messier, C.; Puettmann, K.J.; Green, R.; Harris, S.H.; Edwards, D.P.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; et al. Producing wood at least cost to biodiversity: Integrating Triad and sharing–sparing approaches to inform forest landscape management. Biol. Rev. 2021, 96, 1301–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seymour, R.S.; Hunter, M.L. New Forestry in Eastern Spruce-Fir Forests: Principles and Applications to Maine; College of Forest Resources, University of Maine: Orono, ME, USA, 1992; Volume 716. [Google Scholar]
- Bollmann, K.; Braunisch, V. To Integrate or to Segregate: Balancing Commodity Production and Biodiversity Conservation in European Forests; European Forest Institute: Freiburg, Germany, 2013; p. 18. [Google Scholar]
- Bollmann, K.; Kraus, D.; Paillet, Y.; Jonsson, B.; Gustafsson, L.; Mergner, U.; Krumm, F. A unifying framework for the conservation of biodiversity in multi-functional European forests. In How to Balance Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation—A View across Europe; Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL): Birmensdorf, Sweden, 2020; pp. 27–45. [Google Scholar]
- Fedrowitz, K.; Koricheva, J.; Baker, S.C.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Palik, B.; Rosenvald, R.; Beese, W.; Franklin, J.F.; Kouki, J.; Macdonald, E.; et al. REVIEW: Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51, 1669–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gustafsson, L.; Hannerz, M.; Koivula, M.; Shorohova, E.; Vanha-Majamaa, I.; Weslien, J. Research on retention forestry in Northern Europe. Ecol. Process. 2020, 9, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thorn, S.; Seibold, S.; Leverkus, A.B.; Michler, T.; Müller, J.; Noss, R.F.; Stork, N.; Vogel, S.; Lindenmayer, D.B. The living dead: Acknowledging life after tree death to stop forest degradation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 18, 505–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pulla, P.; Schuck, A.; Verkerk, P.J.; Lasserre, B.; Marchetti, M.; Green, T. Mapping the Distribution of Forest Ownership in Europe; Technical Report 88; European Forest Institute: Joensuu, Finland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Sabatini, F.M.; Burrascano, S.; Keeton, W.S.; Levers, C.; Lindner, M.; Pötzschner, F.; Verkerk, P.J.; Bauhus, J.; Buchwald, E.; Chaskovsky, O.; et al. Where are Europe’s last primary forests? Divers. Distrib. 2018, 24, 1426–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenvald, R.; Lõhmus, P.; Rannap, R.; Remm, L.; Rosenvald, K.; Runnel, K.; Lõhmus, A. Assessing long-term effectiveness of green-tree retention. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 448, 543–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonsson, B.G.; Ekström, M.; Esseen, P.-A.; Grafström, A.; Ståhl, G.; Westerlund, B. Dead wood availability in managed Swedish forests—Policy outcomes and implications for biodiversity. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 376, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagel, T.A.; Firm, D.; Pisek, R.; Mihelic, T.; Hladnik, D.; de Groot, M.; Rozenbergar, D. Evaluating the influence of integrative forest management on old-growth habitat structures in a temperate forest region. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 216, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Virkkala, R.; Leikola, N.; Kujala, H.; Kivinen, S.; Hurskainen, P.; Kuusela, S.; Valkama, J.; Heikkinen, R.K. Developing fine-grained nationwide predictions of valuable forests using biodiversity indicator bird species. Ecol. Appl. 2022, 32, e2505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenvald, R.; Lõhmus, A.; Kraut, A.; Remm, L. Bird communities in hemiboreal old-growth forests: The roles of food supply, stand structure, and site type. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 262, 1541–1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eggers, J.; Lundström, J.; Snäll, T.; Öhman, K. Balancing wood production and biodiversity in intensively managed boreal forest. Scand. J. For. Res. 2022, 37, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Côté, P.; Tittler, R.; Messier, C.; Kneeshaw, D.D.; Fall, A.; Fortin, M.-J. Comparing different forest zoning options for landscape-scale management of the boreal forest: Possible benefits of the TRIAD. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 418–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pohjanmies, T.; Eyvindson, K.; Triviño, M.; Mönkkönen, M. More is more? Forest management allocation at different spatial scales to mitigate conflicts between ecosystem services. Landsc. Ecol. 2017, 32, 2337–2349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bostedt, G.; de Jong, J.; Ekvall, H.; Hof, A.R.; Sjögren, J.; Zabel, A. An empirical model for forest landscape planning and its financial consequences for landowners. Scand. J. For. Res. 2021, 36, 626–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westholm, E.; Beland Lindahl, K.; Kraxner, F. The Future Use of Nordic Forests: A Global Perspective; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Aggestam, F.; Konczal, A.; Sotirov, M.; Wallin, I.; Paillet, Y.; Spinelli, R.; Lindner, M.; Derks, J.; Hanewinkel, M.; Winkel, G. Can nature conservation and wood production be reconciled in managed forests? A review of driving factors for integrated forest management in Europe. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 268, 110670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potterf, M.; Eyvindson, K.; Blattert, C.; Burgas, D.; Burner, R.; Stephan, J.G.; Mönkkönen, M. Interpreting wind damage risk–how multifunctional forest management impacts standing timber at risk of wind felling. Eur. J. For. Res. 2022, 141, 347–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eyvindson, K.; Duflot, R.; Triviño, M.; Blattert, C.; Potterf, M.; Mönkkönen, M. High boreal forest multifunctionality requires continuous cover forestry as a dominant management. Land Use Policy 2021, 100, 104918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SLU. Forest Statistics 2020; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU): Umeå, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Gardiner, B.A.; Quine, C.P. Management of forests to reduce the risk of abiotic damage—A review with particular reference to the effects of strong winds. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 135, 261–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamfeldt, L.; Snäll, T.; Bagchi, R.; Jonsson, M.; Gustafsson, L.; Kjellander, P.; Ruiz-Jaen, M.C.; Fröberg, M.; Stendahl, J.; Philipson, C.D.; et al. Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felton, A.; Nilsson, U.; Sonesson, J.; Felton, A.M.; Roberge, J.-M.; Ranius, T.; Ahlström, M.; Bergh, J.; Björkman, C.; Boberg, J.; et al. Replacing monocultures with mixed-species stands: Ecosystem service implications of two production forest alternatives in Sweden. AMBIO 2016, 45, 124–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sousa-Silva, R.; Verbist, B.; Lomba, Â.; Valent, P.; Suškevičs, M.; Picard, O.; Hoogstra-Klein, M.A.; Cosofret, V.-C.; Bouriaud, L.; Ponette, Q.; et al. Adapting forest management to climate change in Europe: Linking perceptions to adaptive responses. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 90, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gren, I.-M.; Aklilu, A.Z. Policy design for forest carbon sequestration: A review of the literature. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 70, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoltz, J.; Björk, J.; Grahn, P.; Mattisson, K.; Skärbäck, E. Klassificering av Utemmiljöer i Kristianstad för Hälsa och Välbefinnande; Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet: Uppsala, Sweden, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Marselle, M.R.; Lindley, S.J.; Cook, P.A.; Bonn, A. Biodiversity and Health in the Urban Environment. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2021, 8, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- So, H.W.; Lafortezza, R. Reviewing the impacts of eco-labelling of forest products on different dimensions of sustainability in Europe. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 145, 102851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abrams, J.; Elbakidze, M. Adaptive governance in forest management. In Handbook on Adaptive Governance; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2023; pp. 127–142. [Google Scholar]
- Barredo, J.I.; Brailescu, C.; Teller, A.; Sabatini, F.M.; Mauri, A.; Janouskova, K. Mapping and Assessment of Primary and Old-Growth Forests in Europe; Amt fur Veroffentlichungen der EU: Luxemburg, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Gustafsson, L.; Bauhus, J.; Asbeck, T.; Augustynczik, A.L.D.; Basile, M.; Frey, J.; Gutzat, F.; Hanewinkel, M.; Helbach, J.; Jonker, M.; et al. Retention as an integrated biodiversity conservation approach for continuous-cover forestry in Europe. AMBIO 2020, 49, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Häkkilä, M.; Johansson, A.; Sandgren, T.; Uusitalo, A.; Mönkkönen, M.; Puttonen, P.; Savilaakso, S. Are small protected habitat patches within boreal production forests effective in conserving species richness, abundance and community composition? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 2021, 10, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nilsson, M. Skydda lagom—En ESO-rapport om miljömålet Levande skogar. In Rapport till Expertgruppen för Studier i Offentlig Ekonomi 2018:4; Elanders Sverige AB: Stockholm, Sweden, 2018. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- SOU. Enklare Skatteregler för Enskilda Näringsidkare; 2000:50; Statens Offentliga Utredningar: Stockholm, Sweden, 2000. (In Swedish) [Google Scholar]
- Messier, C.; Puettmann, K.J.; Coates, K.D. Managing Forests as Complex Adaptive Systems: Building Resilience to the Challenge of Global Change; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Krumm, F.; Schuck, A.; Rigling, A. How to Balance Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation. A View across Europe; Birmensdorf; European Forest Institute (EFI): Barcelona, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Kraus, D.; Krumm, F. Integrative Approaches as an Opportunity for the Conservation of Forest Biodiversity; European Forest Institute: Joensuu, Finland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Lawton, J.; Brotherton, P.; Brown, V.; Elphic, C.; Fitter, A.; Forshaw, J.; Haddow, R.; Hilbourne, S.; Leafe, R.; Mace, G.; et al. Making Space for Nature: A Review of England’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network; DEFRA: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Isaac, N.J.B.; Brotherton, P.N.M.; Bullock, J.M.; Gregory, R.D.; Boehning-Gaese, K.; Connor, B.; Crick, H.Q.P.; Freckleton, R.P.; Gill, J.A.; Hails, R.S.; et al. Defining and delivering resilient ecological networks: Nature conservation in England. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 2537–2543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hothorn, T.; Müller, J. Large-scale reduction of ungulate browsing by managed sport hunting. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 260, 1416–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lie, M.H.; Josefsson, T.; Storaunet, K.O.; Ohlson, M. A refined view on the “Green lie”: Forest structure and composition succeeding early twentieth century selective logging in SE Norway. Scand. J. For. Res. 2012, 27, 270–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stachowicz, M.; Manton, M.; Abramchuk, M.; Banaszuk, P.; Jarašius, L.; Kamocki, A.; Povilaitis, A.; Samerkhanova, A.; Schäfer, A.; Sendžikaitė, J.; et al. To store or to drain—To lose or to gain? Rewetting drained peatlands as a measure for increasing water storage in the transboundary Neman River Basin. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 829, 154560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Repo, A.; Eyvindson, K.; Halme, P.; Mönkkönen, M. Forest bioenergy harvesting changes carbon balance and risks biodiversity in boreal forest landscapes. Can. J. For. Res. 2020, 50, 1184–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pörtner, H.-O.; Roberts, D.C.; Adams, H.; Adler, C.; Aldunce, P.; Ali, E.; Begum, R.A.; Betts, R.; Kerr, R.B.; Biesbroek, R. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Colfer, C. The Complex Forest: Communities, Uncertainty, and Adaptive Collaborative Management; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Owuor, J.; Giessen, L.; Prior, L.; Cilio, D.; Bal, T.; Bernasconi, A.; Burns, J.; Chen, X.; Goldsmith, A.; Jiacheng, Z. Trends in Forest-Related Employment and Tertiary Education: Insights from Selected Key Countries around the Globe; European Forest Institute: Bonn, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
Analytic Steps | Phases in Policy Cycle (Extended Version) | Type of Science | Includes the Following Sub-Steps | Key Sources for This Review | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Policy creation | Policy process | Social | Problem perception, agenda setting, decision-making | Bush [46] | |
2. Implementation | Policy implementation outputs | Social | Policy instruments and norms | Angelstam et al. [41] | |
3. Consequences | 3.1.a. Ecosystem; Stand level | Protected area development | Natural | Outcome consequences in terms of protected area | Angelstam et al. [20,41] |
3.1.b. Ecosystem; Landscape level | Habitat network functionality/Green Infrastructure | Natural | Outcome consequences in terms of green infrastructure functionality | Angelstam et al. [20,41,54,67], Jonsson et al. [47], Svensson et al. [68] | |
3.2. Social system | Operational planning processes | Social | Consequences in terms of spatial planning processes | Angelstam et al. [20,41,54,67], Eriksson and Hammer [50] | |
Assessment | Is policy leading to desired states and trends? | Integrative | Holistic evaluation of protected areas and matrix, and planning processes | (Comparison of step 3 with step 1 in the discussion) |
Variable | Description |
---|---|
A | The amount of a particular forest environment which species have adapted to in the region a |
B | Today’s amount |
B/A | Representation |
C | Performance target or norm based on knowledge about the proportion out of the area of a particular natural forest environment required for retaining a viable population |
A × C | Long- term target for the amount of a particular forest environment |
B–(A × C) | Gap (if the value is negative) |
Item | Description | Average Proportion and Regional Variation (in Brackets) of Productive Forests below the Mountain Forest Region in % of 218,800 km2 |
---|---|---|
I | Threshold rule of thumb based on empirical studies of species’ requirements (C in %; see Table 2) | ≈20 |
II | Forest environments without needs for forest protection (%) (PG *) | 10 (4–12) |
III | Long-term goal (%) with sub-components IV–XIII below | 10 (8–16) |
IV | Formally protected area 1997 (%) | 0.8 (0.4–1.6) |
V | Reduction of the need for forest protection due to functional nature considerations at the stand level (%) (PF/K *) | 0.9 (0.3–1.7) |
VI | Short-term goals defined by existing unprotected forests with high conservation value (%) (NS and NO *) | 3.2 (1.9–3.5) |
VII | Wooded grasslands in cultural landscape (%) | 0.8 (0–2.2) |
VIII | Restoration needs (%) (PF/K *) | ≈4 (3–11) |
(i.i) Formal; According to the Environmental Code | (i.ii) Formal; According to the Land Code | (ii) Voluntary Set-Asides | (iii) Nature Considerations (§ 30, Forestry Law) | (iv) Unproductive (Wood Production <1 m3ha−1yr−1) (§ 13a, Forestry Law) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aim | National park, nature reserve: Conserve and develop nature of high value for plants, animals and people | Biotope protection: Conserve terrestrial or aquatic habitat for threatened species | Conservation agreement: Conserve and develop qualities for biodiversity | A complement to formal protection | Consideration to biodiversity conservation in managed forest | Wood harvest not recommended |
Establishment | 1909 and 1964, respectively | 1998 | 1993 | 1995 | 1979 | 1979 |
Target size | Usually >20 ha | Usually <20 ha | Variable | >0.5 ha | <0.5 ha | >0.1 ha |
Duration | Permanent | Permanent | Variable | Unknown | Unknown | Permanent |
Decision by | Parliament, Government, County, Municipality | Forest Agency, Municipality | Agreement between the State or Municipality and owner | Landowner | Parliament, Government, Forest Agency | Parliament, Government |
Control | County | Forest Agency, Municipality | State | Forest certification | Forest Agency | Forest Agency |
Monitoring | Georeferenced GIS polygons | Georeferenced GIS polygons | Georeferenced GIS polygons | GIS data and questionnaires | Random field sampling | National Forest Inventory |
Analytic Steps | Sub-Categories | Items | Overall Comments | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 | ||||||
Policy | International | SFM | CBD Aichi | Paris climate | CBD 2022 | Stable evidence-based policy | |||
policy | |||||||||
EU | GI | climate + | nature | Increasing role of EU under the | |||||
policy | biodiv. | restorat. | “The Green Deal” | ||||||
National | Forest policy with | GI | Stable evidence-based policy | ||||||
environmental objective | policy | ||||||||
Voluntary | FSC | Stable negotiated policy | |||||||
Instruments | Carrot | Funding Protected Areas | Gradual increase of PAs, | ||||||
depending on politics | |||||||||
Stick | NA | ||||||||
Sermon | Gap analysis | Gap analysis | Sustained science-policy | ||||||
Conservation planning | GI plans | GI plans | interface | ||||||
Outcomes | Protected areas | Formal protection | Gradual increase of PAs, | ||||||
Voluntary set-asides | depending on politics | ||||||||
GI | Net loss | Forestry intensification | |||||||
over-rides effects of PAs | |||||||||
Collaboration | Abundant, but often not | ||||||||
evidence-based | |||||||||
Planning | Functional on public land and | ||||||||
Landscape planning | some industry; otherwise not | ||||||||
1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2020 |
Phase in the Evolution of Forest Policy | Approximate Time Period | Short Description |
---|---|---|
Phase 1.0 | Medieval to industrial revolution | Livelihoods based on multiple use of landscapes in traditional village systems |
Phase 2.0 | ca. 1830–1970s | Even-aged sustained yield forest management for industrial raw material in three steps: |
Phase 2.1 | Mid-1800s |
|
Phase 2.2 | 1850s to 1903 |
|
Phase 2.3 | 1903 and 1947 forest laws to 1970s |
|
Phase 3.0 | 1970s to 1990 and the proposed forest law, and to the 2020s | Emerging focus on nature conservation in the mid-1970s, which shaped the 1993 forest policy by introducing production and environmental objectives under the slogan “Living Forests” |
Phase 4.0 | 2020s– | Increased EU and international influence concerning climate, energy and nature restoration (EU’s Green Deal and Biodiversity Strategy as well as regulations of emissions and removals from the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF), Deforestation and RED3) |
Aspects of a Landscape | At Present | In the Short Term (Decades) | In the Long Term (Centuries) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ecological system | Forest | Even-aged clear-felling system dominates, 50–70 year rotations, monocultures | Apply forest management systems that store more carbon, longer rotations, more deciduous trees | Multiple methods, ”triad” approach through zoning of functions, resilient forest ecosystems |
Farmland | Focus on high production of few crops | Increase the use of permacultures, agroforestry and grasslands | Focus on maintaining and improving soils | |
Wetland | Landscapes with many ditches have reduced the capacity of retaining and storing water | Removing ditches, re-wetting to improve carbon storage; effects on biodiversity and trends for greenhouse gases | Re-create lost wetlands that can retain and store water | |
Social system | Ideology | View landscapes as predictable cropping systems | Transformation to a focus on handling uncertainties and risks | Ethics and moral focusing on the future, precautionary principle, reduced consumption |
Scales for planning and management | Forest stands, fields, individual landowners; fragmentation and polarization of actors and stakeholders | Improve collaborative learning with focus on functional habitat networks and ecological functions | Management for multiple ecosystem services in entire landscapes | |
Governance | One dominating sector for forestry and agriculture, respectively; sectors as silos | A diversity of value chains based on both material and immaterial values; risk analyses | Integrated governance and planning of landscapes and regions, trade-offs among ecosystem services |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Angelstam, P.; Bush, T.; Manton, M. Challenges and Solutions for Forest Biodiversity Conservation in Sweden: Assessment of Policy, Implementation Outputs, and Consequences. Land 2023, 12, 1098. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12051098
Angelstam P, Bush T, Manton M. Challenges and Solutions for Forest Biodiversity Conservation in Sweden: Assessment of Policy, Implementation Outputs, and Consequences. Land. 2023; 12(5):1098. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12051098
Chicago/Turabian StyleAngelstam, Per, Terrence Bush, and Michael Manton. 2023. "Challenges and Solutions for Forest Biodiversity Conservation in Sweden: Assessment of Policy, Implementation Outputs, and Consequences" Land 12, no. 5: 1098. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12051098