This article was downloaded by: [79.146.104.

154] On: 15 July 2013, At: 14:16 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sfor20

From the small woodland problem to ecosocial systems: the evolution of social research on smallscale forestry in Sweden and the USA
A. Paige Fischer , John Bliss , Fredrik Ingemarson , Gun Lidestav & Lars Lnnstedt
a b c a b c d c

Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, Oregon, USA Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA

Department of Forest Products, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 7060, Uppsala, SE-75652, Sweden
d

Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Ume, Sweden Published online: 28 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: A. Paige Fischer , John Bliss , Fredrik Ingemarson , Gun Lidestav & Lars Lnnstedt (2010) From the small woodland problem to ecosocial systems: the evolution of social research on small-scale forestry in Sweden and the USA, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 25:4, 390-398, DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2010.498386 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2010.498386

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 2010; 25: 390398

REVIEW ARTICLE

From the small woodland problem to ecosocial systems: the evolution of social research on small-scale forestry in Sweden and the USA

A. PAIGE FISCHER1, JOHN BLISS2, FREDRIK INGEMARSON3, GUN LIDESTAV4 & NNSTEDT3 LARS LO
Pacic Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, Oregon, USA, 2Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA, 3Department of Forest Products, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 7060, Uppsala, SE-75652, Sweden, and 4Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Umea , Sweden.
1

Downloaded by [79.146.104.154] at 14:16 15 July 2013

Abstract This review article deals with the evolution of academic small-scale forestry research in Sweden and the USA from its early focus on timber supply to present-day interest in stewardship objectives, characteristics and attitudes. Aiming at identifying fresh opportunities for research on small-scale forestry, it reflects on the questions that have dominated the literature over the past quarter of a century, the socioeconomic conditions under which those questions arose, and their influence on the evolution of the field. The goal was to explore key drivers for research over the past 25 years and identify emerging research themes, and by that provide insight into what developments may make the research enterprise more fruitful. With some exceptions, it is based on articles in refereed journals and to academic theses covering the time span 19852010. It reflects a reappraisal of the subject of the research and corresponding policies. Similar research tendencies are evident in both countries. Research historically focused on the practical problem of efficient production using a weak theoretical foundation. More recently, researchers have focused on understanding diverse motivations and roles that can be played. It is argued that the field of small-scale forestry research is ripe for new multidisciplinary approaches.

Keywords: diversication, forestry, management, multidisciplinary, non-industrial forest owners, objectives, policy.

Introduction Since World War II academic scholars have described, examined, modeled, lamented and pontificated over small-scale forests and their owners. Trends in research topics have reflected changing environmental, economic and social conditions, as well as funding sources and the priorities of academic institutions. Yet the importance of small-scale forests remains clear: this group of individuals, married couples, family estates and trusts, or other unincorporated entities owns 35% of all forestland in the USA and 50% in Sweden and may be growing as industry divests of its holdings (Butler, 2008; Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry, 2009) (Table I). In this review the aim was to identify fresh opportunities for research on small-scale forestry by reflecting on the questions that have

dominated the literature over the past quarter of a century, the socioeconomic conditions under which those questions arose and their influence on the evolution of the field. Rather than presenting a comprehensive literature review (see Egan, 1997, and Ha kansson & Persson, 1992, for this), the goal was to explore key drivers for research over the past 25 years and identify emerging research themes. In this way, we hope this review will provide insight into what developments may make the research enterprise more fruitful. Accordingly, rather than concluding with a wish-list of topical research priorities, we suggest ways in which the research process may be strengthened. The concept small-scale forest owners is used instead of non-industrial private forest (NIPF) owners because it defines this group by what they

Correspondence: L. Lo nnstedt, Department of Forest Products, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Box 7060, Uppsala, SE-75652, Sweden. E-mail: lars.lonnstedt@sprod.slu.se

(Received 5 May 2010; accepted 1 June 2010)

ISSN 0282-7581 print/ISSN 1651-1891 online # 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2010.498386

Small-scale forestry
Table I. Forest ownership in the USA and Sweden. USA Federal and state (%) Small-scale private (family) (%) Other private (%) Local (%) Total (%) Total growing stock (million m3 including bark) Total forest land (1000 ha)
a b a b

391

Sweden 17 50 31 1 100 3,155 27,528

42 35 21 1 100 35,118 303,089

Note: From Butler (2008); from Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry (2009).

Downloaded by [79.146.104.154] at 14:16 15 July 2013

are instead of what they are not Harrison et al. (2002). The paper is limited by considering only non-economic social science research (see Amacher et al., 2003, and Beach et al., 2005, for syntheses of econometric research in the USA) although these observations no doubt have relevance for other subsets of the field such as economics and forest management. Because a larger body of literature exists about small-scale forest owners in the USA than in Sweden, the review of US studies is less detailed. The historical context of small-scale forestry is explored in three stages. The social issues that drove research, and the research themes, methods and theories that resulted are described in each stage. The review closes by reflecting on what types of research appear to be emerging in the second decade of the new century, as well as the authors own ideas for opportunities. Societys demand for timber In the years following World War II, intensive forest management in the USA was driven by domestic demand for construction lumber. In the Swedish case the demand was to a large extent boosted by the reconstruction of postwar Europe and also by the Swedish export-orientated pulp and paper industry. Nearly all research in the field of small-scale forestry was framed by these industrial concerns. Indeed, the focus of researchers in the field was the small woodland problem. From the viewpoint of forestry professionals, small woodland owners were not producing timber and fiber at their maximum capacity to help meet public demand for wood and needed to be educated to adopt the intensive management practices of their industrial forestry neighbors. The normative perspective of this research frame is clearly reflected in the moniker which subsequently stuck for small woodland owners: nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners. Small-scale forest owners were thus identified by what they were not (industrial), and evaluated by what they lacked,

namely, the capacity or inclination to follow an industrial commodity production model (Skok & Gregerson, 1975; Towell, 1982). This industrial bias was reinforced by the structure of the institutions that undertook the NIPF research enterprise. The great bulk of research on non-industrial private forestry was undertaken at land grant universities in forestry (in the USA) or agriculture or forestry colleges (in the USA and Sweden), where boosting commodity production was a powerful research rationale. A later example of Swedish research from this period is Carle n (1990), who argued that pure economic factors in general determine the behavior of small-scale forest owners. Based on decision theory and by focusing on their goals, Lo nnstedt (1989) analyzed owners cutting decisions using survey data from interviews conducted by professional foresters. Using these results Lo nnstedt (1998) found that the likely cutting level was lower than assessments made by the government. Some researchers (e.g. Kingsley & Finley, 1975; Olson, 1979) began to question the assumption of NIPF owners timber orientation in the 1970s and called for better understanding of the diverse goals of NIPF owners. Worrell and Irland (1975) studied the apparent lack of NIPF capacity or inclination to follow the industrial commodity production model. However, forestry professionals in Sweden as well as in the USA mostly remained focused on timber production through the late 1980s (Bengston, 1994; Hugosson, 1999; Hugosson & Ingemarsson, 2004). Policy makers assumed that the citizenry in general and small-scale forest owners in particular were driven by the same traditional commodity-orientated values (Bliss, 2000). Owners were perceived by policy makers and assistance providers as small-scale versions of industrial forest owners, rational actors that could be motivated by policies designed to harness their economic self-interest (Westholm, 1992; Jones et al., 1995; Amacher et al., 2003). Consequently, monetary incentives were the policy tools that were most commonly used to encourage more intensive management to increase productivity (Cubbage, 1996). Incentives were also used to encourage owners to reforest and improve stands on their properties, often with commercial conifer species in plantations (Sampson & DeCoster, 1997; Best & Wayburn, 2001; Appelstrand, 2007), and sometimes in the USA at the expense of native hardwoods (Fischer & Bliss, 2006). Studies suggesting that the environmental attitudes and values of family forest owners were more closely aligned with those of the general public than with those of forest industry were met with skepticism from forestry professionals (Bliss, 2000).

392

A. P. Fischer et al. international fields of social forestry, agroforestry and forest-based rural development (e.g. William Birch at Yale, Don Field at Oregon State University and Louise Fortmann at the University of California at Berkeley). Moreover, in the late 1980s, qualitative research applications in the field of small-scale forestry began to appear in both Sweden and the USA (e.g. Westholm, 1988; Bliss & Martin, 1989; Haymond, 1990) which pointed to the cultural and demographic diversity of family forest owners. These studies documented how small-scale forest owners manage for diverse objectives, motivated by diverse attitudes and values about natural resource management (Westholm, 1992; Bourke & Luloff, 1994; To rnqvist, 1995). They debunked stereotypes that had emerged from the nineteenth century Germanic paradigm of simplified industrial wood production (Lee & Field, 2005) and instead presented forest owners as multidimensional social actors. It has now become well accepted in Sweden and the USA that small-scale forest owners manage for multiple goals, including to enjoy beauty and scenery, protect nature and biodiversity, maintain forest acreage as part of a farm or homestead, pass land to heirs and have privacy (Brunson et al., 1996; Butler, 2008; Campbell & Kittredge, 1996; Dutcher et al., 2004; Erickson et al., 2002; Fischer & Bliss, 2006, 2008; Jacobson, 2002; Westholm, 1992; To rnqvist, 1995; Lo nnstedt, 1998; Lidestav & Nordfjell, 2005; Hugosson & Ingemarson, 2004; Berlin et al, 2006). Income through timber production continues to be an important activity for small-scale forest owners (Johnson et al., 1997, 1999; Carle n, 1990; Lo nnstedt, 1998; Ingermarson, 2004), but few owners prioritize timber production over maintenance of forest amenities (Westholm, 1992; Jones et al., 1995; To rnqvist, 1995; Brunson et al., 1996; Lidestav & Nordfjell, 2005; Ingemarson et al., 2006; Butler, 2008). In general, market variables have been found to be less significant determinants of management than government programs, landowner demographics or the biophysical conditions of individual parcels (Beach et al., 2005). In the early 2000s several studies in Sweden examined forest owners and professional foresters attitudes about multiple use of the forest (e.g. Hugosson & Ingemarson, 2004; Ingemarson, 2004; Kindstrand et al., 2008). They found that owners motivations are increasingly multidimensional, e.g. utilities, amenities, conservation and economic efficiency. Still, the Swedish standard management plans are not consistent with the values of the owners but rather are characterized by the culture of the professional foresters. The professionals indicated a true capacity pertinently to express the views of the forest

This positivist paradigm for public policy and social science was also reflected in rationalist, quantitative research methods in both Sweden and the USA. Telephone or mail surveys dominated social research on family forest owners and were generally designed and conducted by forestry professionals with little or no social science training. Most surveys were remarkably similar in their aims and in the questions asked. In the USA some surveys varied only in the geographical region in which they were conducted. The USDA Forest Services Private Forest Owners of the United States series set the standard, with questions related to reasons for owning timberland, residence, length of ownership, parcel size, timber harvest history, reforestation and presence of a management plan (e.g. Birch, 1996). A similar set of standard parameters was applied by Swedish researchers, although the surveys usually were nationwide (e.g. Lo nnstedt, 1974; Drakenberg & Ho o k, 1975; Drakenberg et al., 1978; Sennblad, 1988). In both countries statistical methods were used to analyze large data sets from mail surveys to identify variables for predicting future behavior and to group landowners into types to target with policies and communication strategies. The approach of developing typologies became common in Sweden and the USA (e.g. Lo nnstedt, 1989; Carle n, 1990; Ingemarson et al., 2006). The unit of analysis in these studies was usually the individual household, reflecting a behavioralist theoretical frame that ignored wider social structures and systems (Ritzer, 2008). Some studies examined the internal relations within the household (e.g. gender order between husband and wife, sons and daughters). These quantitative social and econometric studies were used to determine outputs, prices and distribution in the forest sector as well as to predict the likelihood of management practices such as reforestation and harvesting (Alig et al., 1990; Amacher et al., 2003; Beach et al., 2005). Multidimensional forest owners During the 1970s and 1980s a rapid transformation in Sweden and the USA occurred in the socioeconomic conditions of rural areas. In many areas the resident population diminished while the population of seasonal, absentee and ex-urban owners grew. Communication technology and transportation infrastructure led to a resurgence of public interest in forest amenities and a renaissance among rural dwellers (Frey & Johnson, 1998). During the late 1980s sociological work in both the USA and Sweden began to gain traction in forestry, in part influenced by a new generation of social scientists bringing lessons home from the

Downloaded by [79.146.104.154] at 14:16 15 July 2013

Small-scale forestry owners, although the professionals regarded timber production as more important than did forest owners. Some studies have suggested that owners will engage in forestry practices regardless of incentives if the practice is consistent with their ownership objectives (Kluender et al., 1999; Kline et al., 2000; Ho rnfeldt & Ingemarson, 2006). Other studies have suggested that compensation and regulatory assurances are more instrumental than cost-sharing in shaping landowner management decisions (Langpap, 2006). Appelstrand (2007) concluded that central to the success of forest policy is the prospect for soft and smart regulation and collaborative structures with a great number of stakeholders involved, e.g. governance through public management and networks. Such studies raised questions about traditional technocratic forms of outreach, education and policy. For example, West et al. (1988) demonstrated that private owners in the USA learn and share knowledge through peer-to-peer communication. In Sweden, peer-to-peer communication by means of study circles (studiecirkel) has successfully been applied in forestry for decades. Beginning in the late 1980s it has been used by the forest owners associations and the Forest Agency in nationwide campaigns (e.g. Alla tiders skog, Rikare skog, Gro nare skog, Lo nsamt familjeskogsbruk). Recent research in Sweden and the USA also confirms the importance of local knowledge and social learning in family forestry. US research has shown that small-scale forest owners build and rely on their own local knowledge in management (Charnley et al., 2007). It has also shown that some owners distrust scientific knowledge and view it as tentative and impractical (Fischer & Bliss, 2006, 2009). In the USA many owners exhibit a tendency to be independent and skeptical of experts and traditional sources of forestry information (Rickenbach et al., 2005). Recent studies point out the limited appeal of traditional education and assistance strategies to owners that are not focused on long-term family legacy and financial investment goals (Rickenbach et al., 2005; Janota & Broussard, 2008). Instead, interpersonal communication, especially between trusted peers, is well recognized as an important channel of management advice for family forest owners (Rogers, 1983; West et al., 1988; Jacobson, 2002; Brook et al., 2003). The latter observation is valid also for Swedish forest owners, although the general level of confidence and trust in forestry professionals and their scientific and experiencedbased messages, transmitted face-to-face or through traditional media (magazines, radio, television) seems to be higher (To rnqvist, 1995; Kindstrand et al., 2008). In addition, knowledge-building through the

393

Internet seems to be gaining acceptance among forest owners (Hannerz et al., 2010). In the USA, owners in general have not exhibited strong tendencies toward collective action (Sample, 1994; Jacobson, 2002; Rickenbach & Reed, 2002; Kittredge, 2005; Rickenbach et al., 2005), while almost half of the small-scale forest properties in Sweden are associated with a forest owners association. According to Berlin et al. (2006), owners who participate in these associations more often live and work on their forest properties and earn greater portions of their incomes from forestry than those who are not associated. In the USA, much research has explored the independence of family forest owners, with multiple explanatory factors suggested, including concerns about privacy (Finley et al., 2006; Finley & Kittredge, 2006; Janota & Broussard, 2008), autonomy, property rights (Fischer & Bliss, 2009), wariness of regulatory and administrative burden (Bergmann & Bliss, 2004; Fischer & Bliss, 2006, 2009), a lack of institutions that facilitate cooperation (Wolf & Hufnagl-Eichiner, 2007) and a general lack of trust in government (e.g. Rickenbach & Reed, 2002; Bergmann & Bliss, 2004; Rickenbach et al., 2005). During the 1990s interest in qualitative research on small-scale forest owners as individuals grew in Sweden, e.g. Westholms (1988, 1992) studies, which pointed out that property rights give power to the owner. To understand better the values of the forest owners, and interrelationships between the individual and the institutional framework, To rnquist (1995, 1997) used qualitative data within a sociological frame, concluding that the forest property constitutes a space for socioeconomic actions and is a project that spans over generations (see also Lo nnstedt, 1997). Later studies about values and objectives using qualitative methods and different theories applied from social science have been carried out by Ingemarson (2004), Hugosson and Ingemarson (2004), Lidestav and Nordfjell (2005) and Appelstrand (2007). At the end of the 1990s, gender mainstreaming was brought up as an important issue. Influenced by feministic theory and Norwegian gender research in rural sociology, Lidestav (1998) supplemented the previous research by applying a gender perspective on forest ownership and inheritance practice, and its potential impact on management behavior (see also Lidestav & Ekstro m, 2000). From both Swedish and Norwegian studies it was concluded that in farm forestry there is a strong interdependency among property rights, inheritance, marriage, work and gender (Lidestav & Nordfjell, 2005; Follo, 2008).

Downloaded by [79.146.104.154] at 14:16 15 July 2013

394

A. P. Fischer et al. practices. Forestry researchers began to recognize the importance of the sociopolitical dimensions of forest management in the USA, particularly on public land. Public attention also began to expand beyond public lands to include private lands and how management affected public goods such as habitat and water quality. Similarly, family forests are home to many threatened species and habitats (Robles et al., 2008). Regulation was criticized for not encouraging landowners to make positive contributions to the environment beyond what is required to prevent environmental degradation (Ellefson, 2000; Best & Wayburn, 2001). Even ecologists asserted that regulation could lead to environmental harm (Holling & Meffe, 1996). Similarly, recognition of the new threats to forest ecosystems in the USA spawned new institutions such as watershed councils and other cross-boundary collaborative partnerships (Cortner et al., 1998; Rickenbach & Reed, 2002; Clark et al., 2005). The fields of econometrics and landscape ecology have prioritized landscape- and ecosystem-scale research on family forest owners; for example, evaluating the influence of adjacent owners on landowner behavior and integrating landowner-level data into spatial landscape models (Ask & Carlsson, 2000; Amacher et al., 2003). Several sociological studies have examined small-scale forest owners participation in ecosystem-scale, cross-boundary management (Brunson et al., 1996; Jacobson et al., 2000; Raedeke et al., 2001; Rickenbach et al., 2004; Bergmann & Bliss, 2004; Finley et al., 2006; Schulte et al., 2008). Most of these studies continue to use the individual landowner as the unit of analysis. Researchers in Sweden also began to address landscape planning, shedding light on new ways to gather data about small-scale forestry, contact owners about management and accommodate different attitudes toward nature conservation in policy. Ask and Carlsson (2000) introduced the ecological landscape planning concept to small-scale forestry in Sweden. Qualitative interviews were performed to set a framework to obtain ecological data about the forest owners considerations for set-asides. Based on qualitative interviews as well as ecological data, Ingemarson (2004) concluded that the implementation of the policy through the green management plan works, but the contact with the forest owner could be improved. Uliczka (2003), in contrast, showed that the stand structures retained in the set-asides were probably not enough to reach the biodiversity goal of the forestry Act. Recent Swedish research has shown the importance of considering different attitudes towards nature conservation during forest management planning (e.g. Uliczka et al., 2004; Go tmark, 2009).

Nature conservation and ecosocial systems During the last decades of the twentieth century globalization, mechanization of the timber sector and changing public values led to the decline of timber harvesting from public lands and the rural communities that were dependent on this supply. A new environmental paradigm that values forests for their intrinsic as well as instrumental values gained currency among the American and Scandinavian public (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Kardell, 2004). This paradigm challenged the longstanding dominant social paradigm of economic growth and control over nature. Natural resource and environmental professionals who ascribed to these views advocated ecosystem management over traditional forestry (Bengston, 1994; Lisberg Jensen, 2002). The forest industry concentrated in the USA and global south, timber supply from small-scale forest holdings elsewhere in the country was no longer an overriding concern (Egan, 1997). As a result, improving stand-level productivity and health no longer dominated the work of stewardship and extension foresters. Instead, new threats to forest ecosystems came into focus: habitat loss, water quality, invasive species, forest diseases, wildland fire, land-use development and, more recently, climate change became a concern. Addressing these concerns demanded strategies at the scale of watersheds, ecosystems and landscapes (Grumbine, 1994; Irland, 1994). The situation was similar in Sweden. During the 1990s the gap between a sustainable cutting level and actual cuttings widened, which facilitated more consideration of the environment. A new Forestry Act became valid in 1994. For the first time in Swedish forest policy, biodiversity and production objectives were given equal legal importance. Detailed regulations of operations were replaced by target-oriented rules that focused on owner responsibility. This approach encouraged owners to take responsibility, for example, through using green forest management plans and voluntarily setting areas aside for conservation (Appelstrand, 2007). A consequence of the Act was that annual levels of precommercial thinning (PCT) area fell considerably. Once again this became a concern to the authorities and the forest sector (Eriksson, 2004; Fa llman et al., 2005). Much small-scale research in Sweden has focused on examining these new forest and environmental policies and the associated attitudes that owners have towards set-aside areas for nature conservation. As the new environmental paradigm emerged in the USA social conflicts escalated around protection for endangered species and extensive management

Downloaded by [79.146.104.154] at 14:16 15 July 2013

Small-scale forestry Structural changes in institutions of higher education also contributed different perspectives to research on private forestry. In the USA colleges, schools and departments of forestry began to give way to schools of the environment, departments of natural resources and other multidisciplinary units. Programs emerged that were more interdisciplinary, less focused on timber production and more focused on ecological concerns. Graduates of these departments eventually became instructors and professors, replacing faculty that had long histories of collaboration, if not employment, with the forest industry. The shifts in these research institutions led to shifts in how research was done. The articles from the 1980s often used survey data that were statistically analyzed. The studies were mostly descriptive and applied with a weak theoretical base. In the early 2000s Uliczka et al. (2004) stressed the importance of focusing on the problems of the practitioners rather than developing theories. However, the field would develop in a positive direction if theories were matched with the needs of the sector. A trend shift occurred during the late 1980s in the USA and in the early 1990s in Sweden, when researchers with experiences from outside the forestry research area used qualitative studies and applied theories from social sciences (e.g. Bliss & Martin, 1989; Haymond, 1990; Westholm, 1992; To rnqvist, 1995). In Sweden external influences have also come from thesis work in human geography (Westholm, 1988, 1992), sociology (To rnqvist, 1995) and juridical sociology (Appelstrand, 2007). In summary, this paper reviews small-scale forestry research in two countries of vastly different sizes and with vastly different social, political and economic contexts and bodies of research. Yet similar themes can be identified in both countries. Most notable is that research in both countries historically focused on the practical problem of efficient production. Most of the research was undertaken by forest economists and based on neoclassical theories. More recently, the focus of the research has broadened to include environmental aspects and become more complex in examining the owner as an individual with unique goals living in a complex world. Research pointed to the need to understand the cultural and demographic diversity of family forest owners using rich, descriptive methods. Whereas early research focused on collecting quantitative data to analyze with statistical methods in order to represent and predict the behavior of populations of owners, more recent approaches employ more diverse methods*quantitative and qualitative*to understand the complex contexts in which owners make decisions and form meanings about forests and forestry. Future directions

395

Downloaded by [79.146.104.154] at 14:16 15 July 2013

The academic context within which research on small-scale forestry in both Sweden and the USA is being undertaken is far more diversified than it has been at any time in the past. In addition to the economists who dominated the field for most of its history, and the sociologists who have contributed for the past couple of decades, aspects of small-scale forestry are now regularly drawing the attention of anthropologists, geographers, political scientists, systems and spatial scientists, and others. Whereas all small-scale forestry literature was once found in a few forestry-oriented journals, today one can find related articles in a wide range of disciplinary and interdisciplinary journals. This diversity of disciplinary backgrounds is beginning to bring to bear on small-scale forestry issues a rich and diverse range of perspectives, biases, theoretical foundations and research approaches. The proliferation of disciplines conducting research on small-scale forestry is a much-needed development that should help to overcome some of the fields historical limitations. Still, many opportunities for enhancing and increasing the usefulness of the field exist. Some developments that the authors would like to see include: . Greater application of existing social theory. With the exception of economic studies, most research on small-scale forestry has suffered from an almost complete lack of theoretical foundation. . More interdisciplinary collaboration to benefit from the cross-pollination of diverse theoretical and methodological traditions. As the complexity of challenges facing society and the planet escalates, the limitations of individual disciplines become more apparent. . National long-term monitoring systems providing data for forest owner behavior analysis in order to evaluate the effects of introduced policies, large-scale campaigns or systems such as forest certification. . Innovative research designs for integrating biophysical with social dimensions in spatial designs can help to identify domains where social and ecological systems interact, and where social conditions present opportunities and constraints for addressing issues relating to environmental conditions. . More attention to small-scale forests and their owners as components of larger ecological and social systems. Although examination of individual forest owner behavior will continue to be necessary and productive, studies at the family,

396

A. P. Fischer et al.
Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (Eds.) (1998). Linking social and ecological systems. Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berlin, C., Lidestav, G. & Holm, S. (2006). Values placed on forest property benets by Swedish NIPF owners: Differences between members in forest owner associations and non-members . Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 5, 8396. Best, C. & Wayburn, L. A. (2001). Americas private forests: Status and stewardship. Covelo, CA: Island Press. Birch, T. W. (1996). Private forest landowners of the United States, 1994. Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service, NE Forest Experimental Station. Bliss, J. C. (2000). Public perceptions of clearcutting. Journal of Forestry, 98(12), 410. Bliss, J.C. & Martin, A. J. (1989). Identifying family forest management motivations with qualitative methods. Forest Science, 2, 601622. Bourke, L. & Luloff, A. E (1994). Attitudes toward the management of nonindustrial private forest land. Society and Natural Resources, 7, 445457. Brook, A., Zint, M. & Young, R.D. (2003). Landowners responses to an Endangered Species Act listing and implications for encouraging conservation. Conservation Biology, 17, 16381649. Brunson, M. W., Yarrow, D. T., Roberts, S. D, Guynn, D. C. & Kuhns, M. R. (1996). Non-industrial private forest owners and ecosystem management*Can they work together? Journal of Forestry, 94(6), 1421. Butler, B. J. (2008). Family forest owners of the United States (2006). Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Campbell, S. M. & Kittredge, D. B. (1996). Ecosystem-based management on multiple NIPF ownerships. Journal of Forestry, 94(2), 2429. Carle n, O. (1990). Private nonindustrial forest owners management behaviour: An economic analysis based on empirical data (Rep. No. 92, Dissertation 12). Umea : Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Charnley, S., Fischer, A. P. & Jones, E. T. (2007). Integrating traditional and local ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacic Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management, 246, 1428. Clark, B.T., Burkardt, N. & King, M.D. (2005). Watershed management and organizational dynamics: Nationwide ndings and regional variation. Environmental Management, 36, 297310. Cortner, H. J., Wallace, M. G., Burke, S. & Moote, M. A. (1998). Institutions matter: the need to address the institutional challenges of ecosystem management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 40, 159166. Cubbage, F. W. (1996). Public and private forest policies to increase forest area and timber growth: programs, accomplishments and efciency. In R. N. Sampson, & D. Hair (Eds.), Forest management opportunities for mitigating carbon emissions. Washington, DC: American Forests. Donohue, E.M. & Sturtevant, V.E. (2007). Social science constructs in ecosystem assessments: Revisiting community capacity and community resiliency. Society and Natural Resources, 20, 899912. Drakenberg, K. & Ho o k, L. (1975). Logging methods in private forestry (Res. Notes No. 93). Garpenberg: Department of Operational Efciency, Royal College of Forestry. (In Swedish with English summary.) Drakenberg, K., Linde n, E. & Sennblad, G. (1978). Survey of silviculture in private forestry (Rep. No. 122). Garpenberg:

Downloaded by [79.146.104.154] at 14:16 15 July 2013

community, neighborhood, watershed and global spatial scales will be required to understand the complex challenges of the future. . The role of small-scale forestry in socioecological resilience. Resilience is the capacity of a complex ecological or social system to cope with, adapt to and shape change by maintaining function (Holling, 2001). This capacity to adapt is partly related to the diversity of social institutions and networks, such as watershed councils and other cross-boundary collaborative partnerships, that can learn, store knowledge and experience, create flexibility in problem solving and balance power among interest groups (Berkes & Folke, 1998; Scheffer et al., 2000; Folke et al., 2002). Communities draw on a constellation of assets to adapt to change, ranging from physical assets such as infrastructure and natural resources to social assets such as leadership and collective action (Donohue & Sturtevant, 2007). Understanding the social structures and processes that affect family forest owners perceived vulnerabilities and adaptability to environmental problems beyond their property lines can inform models of cross-boundary co-operation. While the present authors have trouble conceptualizing, much less operationalizing, this recommendation, they suspect that future advances in the field will bring together social and biophysical scientists in research designed to explore the highly complicated interactions of human and non-human components of our world.

References
Alig, R.J., Lee, K.J. & Moulton, R. (1990). Likelihood of management on nonindustrial private forests: Evidence from research studies. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southeast Forest Experiment Station. Amacher, G.S., Conway, M.C. & Sullivan, J. (2003). Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: Is there anything left to study? Journal of Forest Economics, 9, 137164. Appelstrand, M. (2007). Environmental goals for forestry*Governing and voluntariness. Lund Studies in Sociology of Law 26. Lund: Lund University. (In Swedish with English summary.) Ask, P. & Carlsson, M. (2000). Nature conservation and timber production in areas with fragmented ownership patterns. Forest Policy and Economics, 1, 209223. Beach, R. H., Pattanayak, S. K., Yang, J. C., Murray, B. C. & Abt, R. C. (2005). Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: A review and synthesis. Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 261281. Bengston, D. N. (1994). Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources, 7, 515533. Bergmann, S. & Bliss, J.C. (2004). Foundations of crossboundary cooperation: Fire management at the public private interface. Society and Natural Resources, 17, 377393.

Small-scale forestry
Department of Operational Efciency, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. (In Swedish with English summary.) Dunlap, R. E. & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The New Environmental Paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 1019. Dutcher, D. D., Finley, J. C., Luloff, A. E. & Johnson, J. (2004). Landowner perceptions of protecting and establishing riparian forests: A qualitative analysis. Society and Natural Resources, 17, 329342. Egan, A. F. (1997). From timber to forests and people: A view of nonindustrial private forest research. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 14, 189193. Ellefson, P. V. (2000). Has Gifford Pinchots regulatory vision been realized? Journal of Forestry, 98(5), 1522. Erickson, D. L., Ryan, R. L. & De Young, R. (2002). Woodlots in the rural landscape: Landowner motivations and management attitudes in a Michigan (USA) case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, 101112. Eriksson, L. (2004). Development strategies for privately owned forestry in the mountainous region of Sweden. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 3(1), 115. Fa llman, K., Albrektson, A. & Karlsson, A. (2005). Private forest owners in Sweden and their attitude towards precommercial thinning. In K. Fa llman (Ed.), Aspects of precommercial thinning*Private forest owners attitudes and alternative practices. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae. Doctoral thesis No. 2005:90. Umea : Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Finley, A. O. & Kittredge, D. B. (2006). Thoreau, Muir, and Jane Doe: Different types of private forest owners need different kinds of forest management. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 23, 2734. Finley, A. O., Kittredge, J. D. B., Stevens, T. H., Schweik, C. M & &. Dennis, D. C. (2006). Interest in cross-boundary cooperation: Identication of distinct types of private forest owners. Forest Science, 52, 1022. Fischer, A.P. & Bliss, J.C. (2006). Mental and biophysical terrains of biodiversity: Conservation of oak woodland on family forests. Society and Natural Resources, 19, 635643. Fischer, A.P. & Bliss, J.C. (2008). Behavioral assumptions of conservation policy: Conserving oak habitat on family-forest land in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Conservation Biology, 22, 275283. Fischer, A.P. & Bliss, J.C. (2009). Framing conservation on private lands: Conserving oak in Oregons Willamette Valley. Society and Natural Resources, 22, 884900. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling C.S. & Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 31, 437440. Follo, G. (2008). Det norske familieskogbruket, dets kvinnlige og manlige skogeier, forvaltningsaktivitet*og metaforiske forbindelser [Norwegian family forestry, its female and male management activity*and metaphorical connections] Doktorsavhandlinger ved NTNU 2008:173. Trondheim: Norges teknisk-naturvitensakplige universitet (NTNU-trykk). (In Norwegian.) Frey, W. H. & Johnson. K. M. (1998). Concentrated immigration, restructuring, and the selective deconcentration of the US. population. In P. J. Boyle & K. H. Halfacree (Eds.), Migration into rural areas: Theories and issues. London: Wiley. Go tmark, F. (2009). Conicts in conservation: Woodland key habitats, authorities and private forest owners in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 24, 504514. Grumbine, R.E. (1994). What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology, 8, 2738.

397

Ha kansson, M. & Persson, O. (eds). 1992. Privatskogsbruk fo r Framtid. Fem a rs Forskning I Sammandrag. [Non-industrial private forestry for the future. Five years of research in summary] Tryckerifo rlaget, Solna. ISBN 91-971201-7-0. Hannerz, M., Boje, L. & Lo f, M. (2010). The role of internet in knowledge-building among private forest owners in Sweden. Ecological Bulletins, 53 (in press). Harrison, S., Herbohn, J. & Niskanen, A. (2002). Non-industrial, smallholder, small-scale and family forestry: Whats in a name? Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 1, 111. Haymond, J. L. (1990). Wildlife attitudes of early adopters who own forestland. Society and Natural Resources, 3, 1118. Holling, C.S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390405. Holling, C. S. & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 10, 327328. Ho rnfeldt, R. & Ingemarson, F. (2006). Evaluation of silvicultural practices from a multipurpose perspective. Baltic Forestry, 12, 8293. Hugosson, M. (1999). Constructing cultural patterns from actors views on industrial forestry in Sweden. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae Silvestria, 113, Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Hugosson, M. & Ingemarson, F. (2004). Objectives and motivations of small-scale forest owners: Theoretical modelling and qualitative assessment. Silva Fennica, 38, 217231. Ingemarson, F. (2004). Small-scale forestry in Sweden*Owners objectives, silvicultural practices and management plans. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae Silvestria, 318. Uppsala: Department of Forest Products and Markets, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Ingemarson, F., Lindhagen, A. & Eriksson, L. (2006). A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 21, 249259. Irland, L. C. (1994). Getting there from here*Implementing ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry, 92(8), 1217. Jacobson, M. G. (2002). Ecosystem management in the southeast United States: Interest of forest landowners in joint management across ownerships. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 1, 7192. Jacobson, M., Abt, R. & Carter, D. R. (2000). Attitudes toward joint forest planning among private landowners. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 11, 95111. Janota, J. J. & Broussard, S. R. (2008). Examining private forest policy preferences. Forest Policy and Economics, 10, 8997. Johnson, R. L., Alig, R., Kline, J., Moulton, R. & Rickenbach, M. (1999). Management of non-industrial private forest lands: Survey results from western Oregon and Washington owners (Res. Contribution No. 28). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Johnson, R. L., Alig, R. J., Moore, E. & Moulton, R. J. (1997). NIPF landowners view of regulation. Journal of Forestry, 95(1), 2328. Jones, S. B., Luloff, A. E. & Finley, J. C. (1995). Another look at family forests: Facing our myths. Journal of Forestry, 93(9), 4144. Kardell, L. (2004). Svenskarna och skogen: del 2: Fra n baggbo leri till naturva rd [The Swedes and the forest: Part 2: from baggbo leri to nature]. Jo nko ping: Skogsstyrelsens. Kingsley, N. P. & Finley, J. C. (1975). The forest-land owners of Delaware. USDA Forest Service Research Bulletin, NE-38. Kindstrand, C., Norman, J., Boman, M. & Mattsson, L. (2008). Attitudes towards various forest functions: A comparison between private forest owners and forest ofcers. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23, 133136.

Downloaded by [79.146.104.154] at 14:16 15 July 2013

398

A. P. Fischer et al.
support at-risk species in the conterminous United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6, 301307. Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press. Sample, V. A. (1994). Building partnerships for ecosystem management on mixed ownership landscapes. Journal of Forestry, 92, 4144. Sampson, N. R. & DeCoster, L. A. (1997). Public programs for private forestry: A reader on programs and options. Washington, DC: American Forests. Scheffer, M., Brock, W. & Westley, F. (2000). Socioeconomic mechanisms preventing optimum use of ecosystem services: An interdisciplinary theoretical analysis. Ecosystems, 3, 451 471. Schulte, L. A., Rickenbach, M. & Merrick, L. C. (2008). Ecological and economic benets of cross-boundary coordination among private forest landowners. Landscape Ecology, 23, 481496. Sennblad, G. (1988). Survey of logging and silviculture in nonindustrial private forestry in Sweden 1984 (Rep. No. 175). Garpenberg: Department of Operational Efciency, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. (In Swedish with English summary.) Skok, R. & Gregerson, H. (1975). Motivating private forestry: An overview. Journal of Forestry, 73, 202205. Streyffert, T. (1963). Price trends in forest products and stumpage: a case study in Sweden. Hill Family Foundation Forestry Series. Corvallis, OR: School of Forestry, Oregon State University. Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry (2009). Ofcial Statistics of Sweden. Jo nko ping: Swedish Forest Agency. To rnqvist, T. (1995). Skogsrikets arvingar: En sociologisk studie av skogsa garskapet inom privat, enskilt skogsbruk [Inheritors of the woodlands: A sociological study of the ownership in private forestry] (Rep. No. 41). Uppsala: Department of ForestIndustry-Market Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. To rnqvist, T. (1997). The socio-economic structure of small-scale forest ownership in Sweden. Commonwealth Forestry Review, 76, 3742. Towell, W. E. (1982). Managing private nonindustrial forest lands: A perennial issue. Journal of Forest History, 26, 192 197. Uliczka, H. (2003). Nature conservation efforts by forest owners*Intentions and practice in a Swedish case study. Silva Fennica, 37, 459475. Uliczka, H., Angelstam, P., Jansson, G. & Bro, A. (2004). Nonindustrial private forest owners knowledge of and attitudes towards nature conservation. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19, 274288. West, P. C., Fly, J. M. & Blahna, D. J. (1988). The communication and diffusion of NIPF management strategies. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 5, 265270. Westholm, E. (1988). Mark och ma nniskor i Gagnefs socken. Om marka gandets betydelse i en a gosplittrad bygd (DFR-Rapport 1988:3). Dalarnas: Forskningsra d. Westholm, E. (1992). Mark, ma nniskor och moderna skiftesreformer i Dalarna [Modern land reforms in Dalarna, Sweden] (Geograska Regionstudier 25). Uppsala: Department of Social and Economic Geography, Uppsala University. Wolf, S. A. & Hufnagl-Eichiner, S. (2007). External resources and development of forest landowner collaboratives. Society & Natural Resources, 20, 675688. Worrell, A. C. & Irland, L. C. (1975). Alternative means of motivating investment in private forestry. Journal of Forestry, 73, 206209.

Kittredge, D. B. (2005). The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: International examples and potential application in the United States. Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 671688. Kline, J. D., Alig, R. J & Johnson, R. L. (2000). Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat. Ecological Economics, 33, 2943. Kluender, R. A., Walkingstick, T. L. & Pickett, J. C. (1999). The use of forestry incentives by nonindustrial forest landowner groups: Is it time for a reassessment of where we spend our tax dollars? Natural Resources Journal, 39, 799818. Langpap, C. (2006). Conservation of endangered species: Can incentives work for private landowners? Ecological Economics, 57, 558572. Lee, R. G. & Field, D. R. (Eds.) (2005). Communities and forests: Where people meet the land. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. Lidestav, G. (1998). Women as non-industrial private forest landowners in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 13, 6673. Lidestav, G & Ekstro m, M. (2000). Introducing gender in studies on management behaviour among NIPF owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 15, 378386. Lidestav, G. & Nordfjell, T. (2005). A conceptual model for understanding the social practices in family forestry. Smallscale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 4, 391408. Lisberg Jensen, E. (2002). Som man ropar i skogen: Modernitet, makt och ma ngfald i kampen om Njakafja ll och i den svenska skogsbruksdebatten 19702000 [As the question so the answer: Modernity, power and multiplicity in the struggle of Njakafja ll and in the Swedish forestry debate 19702000]. Lund: Human Ecology Division, Lund University. Lo nnstedt, L. (1974). En gruppering av de private skogsa garna [Grouping of small-scale forest owners]. Skogsho gskolan: Institutionen fo r skogsekonomi. (In Swedish.) Lo nnstedt, L. (1989). Goals and cutting decisions of private small forest owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 4, 259265. Lo nnstedt, L. (1997). Non-industrial private forest owners decision process: A qualitative study about goals, time perspective, opportunities and alternatives. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 12, 302310. Lo nnstedt, L (1998). Calculating non-industrial private forest owners cuttings. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 13, 215223. Olson, D. D. (1979). Realities of nonindustrial private forest ownership in northern Michigan. Journal of Forestry, 77(1), 1718. Raedeke, A. H., Nilon, C. H. & Rikoon, J. S. (2001). Factors affecting landowner participation in ecosystem management: A case study in south-central Missouri. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 29, 195206. Rickenbach, M. G., Bliss, J. C. & Reed, A. S. (2004). Collaboratives, cooperation, and private forest ownership: Implications for voluntary protection of biological diversity. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 3, 6983. Rickenbach, M.G. & Reed, A.S. (2002). Cross-boundary cooperation in a watershed context: The sentiments of private forest landowners. Environmental Management, 30, 584594. Rickenbach, M., Zeuli, K. & Sturgess-Cleek, E. (2005). Despite failure: The emergence of new forest owners in private forest policy in Wisconsin, USA. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 20, 503513. Ritzer, G. (2008). Sociological theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Robles, M. D., Flather, C. H., Stein, S. M, Nelson, M. D. & Cutko, A. (2008). The geography of private forests that

Downloaded by [79.146.104.154] at 14:16 15 July 2013