Conventional and New Ways of Governing Forest Threats: A Study of Stakeholder Coherence in Sweden

Louise Eriksson

doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0951-z

Abstract

Based on a framework for analyzing stakeholder coherence horizontally and vertically, the present study examined the governance of forest threats in Sweden. Opinions of forest risk governance in stakeholder groups with and without a connection to private forestry were compared (n = 2496) and the opinions were analyzed in relation to current governance practices. More specifically, forest threat appraisals, trust in the Swedish Forest Agency (SFA), and the acceptability of forest risk policy measures directed at private forest owners were assessed. Results revealed an overall coherence between different stakeholders in this context. However, the groups differed in, for example, the acceptability of the hypothetical regulative measure aiming to reduce damages threatening the forest long-term (e.g., climate change). Furthermore, an extensive use of advice for a fee may challenge particularly the internal, but also the external, legitimacy of forest risk governance. The forest owner stakeholder group showed lower threat appraisals when evaluating threat to one’s own forest rather than to the Swedish forest, except regarding browsing by animals. Regulations were not disapproved of in any of the stakeholder groups, although the forest owner group generally displayed higher acceptability of encouraging measures compared to the general public. Trust in the SFA was furthermore confirmed as an important driver of policy acceptability, and higher threat appraisals of novel threats, such as climate change and fire, resulted in a higher acceptability of measures less central or new in this context. The value of analyzing stakeholder coherence for natural resource management and governance is discussed.

Highlights

Forests provide various ecosystem services, including provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005)
Larger differences were found between the samples from the two studies
In contrast to studies from the US, where acceptability has been found to be higher for encouraging than regulative measures (Poudyal et al 2015; Schaaf and Broussard 2006), the stakeholder groups in the present study were positive toward using different types of measures as part of forest risk governance, reflecting a broad readiness among different stakeholder groups for forest risk governance, despite a moderate or low concern regarding forest threats

Summary

Introduction

Forests provide various ecosystem services, including provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Even though some level of disturbance is desirable in a forest context, global climate change is expected to lead to an increase in damages, and new management strategies may be needed to avoid extensive damage (Fuhrer et al 2006; Lindner et al 2014; Seidl et al 2014). The implementation of active forest risk management varies, and has even been portrayed as inadequate in many contexts (Blennow 2008; Flint et al 2012; Lidskog and Sjödin 2014; Valente et al 2015). Private forest policy measures may include, for example, regulations as well as informational and economic measures (Janota and Broussard 2008). With an increase in damages associated with a changing climate, forest risk governance may need to be intensified using additional and possibly stricter policies

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion