Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2001, volume 19, pages 249 ^ 268

DOI:10.1068/c9914j

Forests of consumption: postproductivism, postmaterialism,

and the postindustrial forest

A S Mather
Department of Geography, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 4LE, Scotland;
e-mail: a.mather@abdn.ac.uk
Received 28 October 1999; in revised form 19 May 2000

Abstract. Symptoms of postproductivism are more clearly developed in forestry than in agriculture,
but they have attracted less attention. The `postindustrial' forest, in which the emphasis placed on
timber production is reduced relative to that placed on environmental services (such as biodiversity
and recreation), epitomises the character of postproductive forestry. In many parts of the industri-
alised world, forests have essentially become places of consumption (of amenity, recreation, and
wildlife observation) by a largely urban population, rather than places of production (of timber) for
a largely urban population. Changing forestry and forest policy in Britain, mainland Europe, and North
America are reviewed in the light of a trend towards postproductivism, and some of the causal factors
underlying this trend are explored.

Introduction
Over the last ten to fifteen years, trends in agriculture and agricultural policy in the
developed world have been characterised as postproductivist. In comparison, the forest
sector has attracted much less attention, although forest policy has arguably been on a
much more postproductivist trajectory than agricultural policy. Examination of forest
trendsöin Britain and elsewhereöpoints to the conclusion that postproductivism has
roots that go far deeper than the surpluses and overproduction that are sometimes
associated with a postproductivist shift in agriculture. To some extent, the forest sector
reflects the wider change that has been identified as having taken place in the country-
sideöin many areas production has given way to consumption (for example, Marsden
et al, 1993; Munton, 1995). In other words, there has been a partial shift of the role of
the forest from a place of production (of timber, largely destined for urban markets)
towards a place of consumption of recreation and environment by a largely urban
population. My aim in this paper is to review the evidence for the assertion that
postproductivist trends have been operating in forestry in the developed world, and
to consider the nature of the drivers of these trends.

Postproductivism
`Productivism' has been defined as ``a commitment to an intensive, industrially driven
and expansionist agriculture with state support based primarily on output and
increased productivity'' (Lowe et al, 1993, page 206). In contrast, postproductivism is
characterised, according to Ilbery and Bowler (1998, page 70), by ``a reduced output of
food, a progressive withdrawal of state subsidies, the production of food within an
increasingly competitive international market, and the growing environmental regula-
tion of agriculture''. The extent to which food output has actually been reduced could
be questioned, but it would probably be agreed that in agricultural policy there has
been a reduced emphasis on food production. Also, the rhetoric on the withdrawal of
state subsidies has been greater than the reality, but again it would probably be agreed
that events such as the passing of the (British) Agriculture Act of 1986 symbolised the
ending of the productivist era, just as the Agriculture Act of 1947 could be seen as its
250 A S Mather

beginning. In the 1986 Act, the primacy of the food-production objective was partly
reduced in favour of those of a recreational and environmental nature.
The (alleged) postproductivist transition in agriculture in developed market econo-
mies began in the second half of the 1980s. In it, the aim of curbing farm output was
combined with the integration of agriculture with broader economic and environmen-
tal objectives in rural areas (for example, Bowler and Ilbery, 1993; 1999; Shucksmith,
1993). It implies some diversification of objectives and movement from `monofunction-
ality', in which food production is paramount, to `multifunctionality'. As Ilbery and
Bowler (1998) emphasise, however, productivism in agriculture has not wholly given
way to postproductivism. Intensive high-input, high-output farming persists in many
areas, and especially in areas of prime agricultural land (such as much of eastern
England), while lower-input, lower-output systems, with less emphasis on food produc-
tion and more on the provision of environmental services, develop in other areas such
as the uplands. Recently, Morris and Evans (1999) have gone further by questioning
whether the increase in the scale, number, and variety of nonfood productive activities
engaged in by farmers is sufficient to represent a real transition, but they observe that a
debate about the `postproductivist myth' has yet to develop.
Paradoxically, the postproductivist transition may be clearer but less acknowledged
in forestry than in agriculture. Some of the characteristics of the agricultural post-
productivist transition, as identified by Ilbery and Bowler (1998), are not present in the
forestry sector. For example, it is difficult to discern a reduction in state subsidies,
though it is true that there has been a retreat of the state in terms of forest ownership
(equally, however, the alleged reduction in state subsidies to agriculture could be
questioned). On the other hand, environmental regulation has strengthened in forestry,
as has the emphasis on forest functions other than timber production. Perhaps a useful
distinction can be made between primary and secondary characteristics of postproduc-
tivism, with the degree of emphasis on material production being a primary one and
some of the others listed by Ilbery and Bowler being secondary features. If so, the
postproductivist transition in forestry has arguably been much clearer than that in
agriculture.
In forestry, it can be characterised in simple terms by a reduction in emphasis on
timber production relative to the provision of environmental goods and services. It also
extends to the environmental relations of the forest and forestry management practices,
and to the regulation thereof. This discounting of timber production has been more
pronounced in some settings than in others. For example, it is more apparent in
periurban areas and in some remote areas of prime scenic and wildlife importance
than in some intermediate areas, but at the same time some of its symptoms are
unmistakable even in the intermediate areas. Arguably, the concept of postproductivism
is simpler in forestry than in agriculture, as it may be linked directly to the relative
emphasis placed on timber production. It can also be argued that it has become
established more abruptly and more rapidly than in agriculture. If this is so, the
question arises as to why the forest sector has largely been ignored by commentators
on trends in agricultural and rural policy [although it has to some extent been addressed
in other nonagricultural areas by authors such as Reed and Gill (1997)]. The answer to
this question is unclear, although it may be because the viewpoints of several of the
commentators have probably been based in lowland Britain where productivist forestry
has never (at least in the last half century) been extensively established.
Commentators on postproductivist trends in agriculture have not been slow to
theorise. Nevertheless, they have been less ready to explain these trends, at least in
fundamental terms that transcend apparently obvious factors such as agricultural over-
production. As in the case of land use and land cover, the `drivers' of postproductivist
Postproductivism, postmaterialism, and the postindustrial forest 251

trends can be subdivided into those of a proximate or immediate nature on the one
hand, and those that are more fundamental or underlying on the other. Perhaps an
examination of the trends operating in the forestry sector can, by diverting attention
away from proximate factors such as grain mountains and EU budgetary problems,
point to some of the more basic causes or controlling factors.
After a brief historical review of timber productivism in forests, I will analyse
trends in forest policy in Britain, other parts of Europe, and North America in relation
to postproductivism. These geographical areas have very different histories and tradi-
tions of forests and forestry, but several common features can be identified. Several of
these commonalities accord with the characteristics of agricultural postproductivism as
identified by, for example, Lowe et al (1993). Having presented evidence for the
existence of postproductive trends in forestry, I will then proceed to consider their
possible drivers. In other words, the trends will be outlined and then a preliminary
attempt to explain them will be made.

Productivism in forestry: industrial and postindustrial forests

In much of the developed world, successive paradigms of forest use and management
have operated over the last few hundred years. In much of mainland Europe, for
example, the traditional use of the forest for grazing and for the collection of fodder,
fuelwood, and products such as nuts and mushrooms, as well as for construction
timber, prevailed until around the end of the 18th century. Thereafter, this `preindus-
trial' forest [or ``agricultural forest of sustenance'', to use the phrase of Ernst (1998,
page 86)] gave way to an `industrial' one (or, in Ernst's words, ``timber-production
forest''). This trend was accompanied by the emergence of the science of forestry,
notably in Germany in the second half of the 18th century, and its subsequent diffusion
to other parts of the world (for example, McManus, 1999). Management became
increasingly focused on timber production, and the forest became increasingly demar-
cated from agricultural land. Multifunctionality gave way to monofunctionality. Sharp,
linear boundaries and monocultural, even-aged forests epitomised the new era of
`rational' forestry, and translated the abstraction of the `standard tree', on which the
notion of sustained yield of timber was based, into reality. In the words of Lowood
(1990, pages 340 ^ 341), ``The German forest became an archetype for imposing on
disorderly nature the neatly arranged constructs of science''. This model, with its
echoes of positivism and modernism (McQuillan, 1993), has characterised much of
the forestry practised in the industrialised world until recently.
This shift was usually accompanied by a change from de facto communal manage-
ment and control to private control, and was sometimes bitterly resisted by the
dispossessed traditional forest users. Under the industrial forest paradigm, so-called
`minor forest products' were largely discounted, and primacy (or exclusiveness) was
afforded to timber production. More recently, there have been clear signs of a shift
away from timber primacy, with greater attention being focused on the provision of
environmental services and a greater degree of regulation imposed on forest manage-
ment (Mather, 1991). This shift towards the postindustrial forest paradigm in effect is
the manifestation in forestry of postproductivist trends. It represents more than simply
a shift towards multiple-use forestry, though it may incorporate that shift, and includes
changes in the means of forestry (that is, how it is to be practised) as well as its ends. It
also represents change in who decides both means and ends; the traditional sovereignty
of the forestry administration and its `scientific' foresters is challenged.
Some reaction against scientific forestry had developed in Germany by the end of
the 19th century (Lowood, 1990), but a swing away from its hegemony and from the
primacy of timber production was not to become apparent until the second half of
252 A S Mather

the 20th century. It emerged first in the `multiple use' concept. This concept is older, by
some decades, than that of the postindustrial forest, having been debated in the United
States in the 1940s (Dana, 1943; McArdle, 1942) and propounded in mainland Europe
by Dieterich (1953). One US interpretation of `multiple use' related more to patterned
specialisation than to true multifunctionalityöfor example, McArdle's understanding
of the term was that ``For each individual area, he [sic; the forester] has essentially
single use, but for the area as a whole he has multiple use'' (1942, page 196). Although
officially espoused by the US Forest Service in 1960 (in the Multiple Use öSustained
Yield Act), the concept was criticised as both vague and capable of manipulation by
forest administrations, and a `top-down' approach to forest policy and management
was maintained. Nevertheless, the Fifth World Forestry Congress was held in Seattle in
1960 under the theme of `multiple use of forest lands', and may have helped to spread
the concept around the developed world.
What has been said of Scandinavian forests, in particular, has more general
resonance in the developed world:
``When modern methods of forest management in the 19th century began to change
the forest picture of Scandinavia, man's role in the forest changed as well. From
being a natural and indispensable part of most people's lives, the forest became a
source and producer of raw material for the forest industry and it gradually became
a field of action for specialists. But, like in other industrialized regions of the
world, increasing urbanization created a need for renewed contact with nature.
This has in many areas submitted the forests to such a strong pressure that new
ideas had to be developed, and foresters had to revise many of their views on
traditional forest management'' (FritzbÖger and SÖndergaard, 1995, pages 36 ^ 37).
Some of the characteristics of the postindustrial forest are summarised in table 1. As
the table suggests, contrasts with the industrial forest exist across a wide spectrum
ranging from underlying values to management styles and forest composition and
location.
Table 1. Characteristics of the industrial and postindustrial forest.

Industrial forest Postindustrial forest

Management objective Timber production Environmental services

Monofunctional Multifunctional
Typical composition Even-aged/conifers Mixed age and species (especially
broadleaves)
Typical location Peripheral/remote/upland Periurban/lowland
Values Instrumental Intrinsic
Ethos Rational Emotional
Management style Authoritarian Consultative
Management approach Mechanistic/reductionist Organic/holistic
Note: Distinctive emphases and features are listed; it is not implied that (for example) timber
production is wholly irrelevant in the postindustrial forest.

Postproductivist trends in forestry

Britain
British forest policy was instigated by productivist concerns, and was dominated by
them until the 1980s. In the early part of the 20th century, the country was almost
completely dependent on imports for its supplies of pitprops and other industrial
timber, and shortages during the crisis years of World War 1 led to the setting up of
a state forest service (the Forestry Commission) and major state intervention in forestry.
Postproductivism, postmaterialism, and the postindustrial forest 253

Although issues such as the provision of employment were subsidiary elements in forest
policy from the outset, the primary concern was to build up a strategic reserve of
timber. This concern was reinforced by further experience of timber shortage during
World War 2, and after the war, forest expansion geared to timber production was
pursued with renewed vigour. It persisted in the era of nuclear warfare, when it might
have seemed that a strategic reserve would have been irrelevant. By 1980, when the
completion of the ambitious postwar programme of expansion geared to the building of
a strategic reserve was within sight, further expansion linked to timber production was
still the primary objective in the policy statement issued by the new Conservative
government, albeit now justified by import saving and insurance against worldwide
shortages. Until the 1980s, no serious policy challenge existed to the primacy of timber
production. In both the state and the private sectors, forest expansion and the intensi-
fication of management for purposes of timber production continued. The name of the
private sector forest owners' organisation öTimber Growers UK (TGUK)öaccurately
reflected the assumption that the purpose of forests was to produce timber. To be sure,
other objectives were mentioned from time to time, including environmental objectives
from the 1970s, but there was no doubt about their subsidiary status. Some milestones in
the passage to postproductivism are listed in table 2.
The first major challenge to the primacy of timber production came in the early
1980s, notably in the issue of the fate of broadleaved woodlands, and in particular their
coniferisation in the interests of productivism. Broadleaved woodlands had been an
issue raised during the House of Lords Select Committee's deliberations, and the
Committee made a plea that ``the objectives of British forestry policy should not be
Table 2. Milestones on the path towards the postindustrial forest in Britain.

1980 House of Lords Select Committee on scientific aspects of forestryÐairing of

broadleaves issue, and call for broader objectives
1981 Wildlife and Countryside ActÐ`reasonable balance' between forestry and environmental
interests
1982 Loughborough Conference `Broadleaves in Britain'
1985 Broadleaves Policy
Broadleaved Woodland Planting GrantÐtimber production did not have to be
primary objective
Timber Growers' Forestry and Woodland Code
Beginning of Forestry Commission Guidelines
1986 ± 88 Flow Country episode; RSPB, NCC, and CCS publications
1987 Countryside Commission's Forestry in the Countryside `Towards multi-purpose forestry'
Farm Woodland Scheme introduced
1988 Removal of tax advantages attaching to afforestation
Replacement of Forestry Grant Scheme by Woodland Grant Scheme
1990 Indicative Forestry StrategiesÐScottish Office Circular
House of Commons Agriculture Committee
1992 Rio conferenceÐConvention on Sustainable Development
Forest Principles
Restructuring of Forestry Commission
Introduction of management grants under Woodland Grant Scheme
1993 Helsinki Ministerial Conference
House of Commons Environment Committee
1994 Sustainable Forestry: the UK Programme (Department of the Environment)
1996 UK Forestry Accord
1997 Forestry Commission's `Survey of public opinion on forestry' (and again in 1999)
1998 UK Forestry Standard
Lisbon Ministerial Conference
1999 Consultation papersÐEngland forest policy, Forests for Scotland
254 A S Mather

confined exclusively to the production of timber'' (House of Lords Select Committee,

1980, page 48). Then a major conference on the broadleaves issue was held in 1982
(table 2). A Broadleaved Woodland Grant Scheme (BWGS) was introduced in 1985. Up
until then, the primary objective in planting grants had been timber production; under
BWGS, timber production had to be one objective, but it no longer had to be the
primary one. This was an important milestone both practically and symbolically.
Under the productivist paradigm, native woodland (in the form both of broadleaved
species and of Caledonian pine) was usually regarded as `scrub' of little timber value;
now it was increasingly revered as `ancient woodland' and cherished for environmental
reasons.
During the mid-1980s, pressure was mounting against the prevailing productivist
paradigm, not just in relation to broadleaves and ancient woodland but also more
widely in respect of its perceived environmental impact. At the beginning of the
decade, the issue was overshadowed by the concern about the impact of agriculture
(for example, in the debates leading to the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981). By
mid-decade, however, the continuing afforestation of open moorland and heathland in
the uplands was attracting increasing attention. Public sector bodies, interest groups,
and individuals all contributed to the intensifying critique (for example, CCS, 1986;
Lean and Rosie, 1988; NCC 1986; Tompkins, 1986). Expressions of concern combined,
in varying proportions, outrage at the environmental effects of planting and at
the structure of planting incentives. These last included income-tax relief as well as
planting grants; high-income individuals could offset their taxable income against
expenditure in establishing forests. Several forest-management companies provided
easy means whereby such individuals could invest in forestry. A number of well-
publicised cases culminated in the celebrated cause of the Flow Country in the far
north of Scotland (for example, NCC, 1987; 1988; RSPB, 1986) where, it was alleged,
the effect was subsidised damage of a unique ecosystem. This episode marked another
milestoneötax relief on forestry expenditure was removed in the Budget of 1988, and
thereafter annual planting rates declined to half of their previous level.
The particular episode of the Flow Country was superimposed on a policy land-
scape that was gradually changing, and had the effect of reinforcing and speeding
change. Some ten years after the plea from the House of Lords Select Committee, a
similar call was made from the House of Commons Agriculture Committee (1990).
Three years later, the House of Commons Environment Committee was able to refer to
``the change in emphasis, away from forests created purely for wood production,
together with changing public aspirations for forestry, have developed at a faster rate
than the institutional and administrative structures responsible for forest policies and
practices'' (1993, page ix).
During the mid-1980s, the forest industry began to take steps towards self-regulation,
perhaps in an effort to avert more stringent measures such as the application of planning
controls. A code of practice was drawn up by TGUK in 1985, and thereafter a series of
guidelines, on issues such as `Forests and water' were drawn up by the Forestry
Commission for use both on its own land and on private sector operations that it grant-
aided. This trend culminated in 1998 with the publication of the UK Forestry Standard
(Forestry Authority and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, 1998).
The confrontation between forestry and nature-conservation interests in the Flow
Country had highlighted the inadequacy of the existing structures of adjudication and
allocation of land, and contributed to the acceptance of `indicative forestry strategies'
(IFS) that were then being developed in the Strathclyde Region (Strathclyde Regional
Council, 1988). Under these, land was divided, in relation to afforestation, into `pre-
ferred', `potential', and `unsuitable' areas. The eventual result was that the concept of
Postproductivism, postmaterialism, and the postindustrial forest 255

IFS was formally accepted by central government and commended to local planning
authorities for incorporation into their structure plans (Scottish Development Depart-
ment, 1990). As a consequence, public consultation became possible öa small but
significant step towards the democratisation of forestry. Further steps have been taken
in this direction during the 1990s. Applications for planting grants, which as little as
ten years ago were regarded as completely confidential, are now recorded in a public
register and are posted on the Forestry Commission website (http://www.forestry.gov.uk).
As the previous corporatist relationships between the Forestry Commission, TGUK,
the forestry-management companies, and the forest industry have weakened, there has
been some democratisation and much more openness. One significant symbol is the
extent of consultation now undertaken by the Forestry Commission, for example in the
surveys of public opinion carried out in 1997 and 1999, the results of which are also
posted on the Forestry Commission website (Forestry Commission, 1997a; 1999a). This
trend itself can be regarded as thoroughly postproductivist in character. As table 3
illustrates, when it comes to further afforestation, public opinion in Britain favours
environmental reasons over material reasons. It could be argued that public opinion
would be expected to favour public benefits over timber production, from which only
private benefits might be expected. Nevertheless, the prospects for the survival of the
agency are likely to be enhanced by its responding to this opinion, rather than in
persisting with a productivist agenda. Whether this surveying of opinion is interpreted
as a sign of voluntary openness or, more cynically, as a means of agency survival in an
era when it might be under threat is irrelevant; the fact is that more channels for
communication now exist, and so do conditions for some democratic influence.

Table 3. ``In Britain, government grants are given to support forestry... which of the following
reasons are good reasons to support forestry with public money?'' [source: Forestry Commission
(1999a) Survey of Public Opinion on Forestry 1999].

Percentage of respondents

To provide good places for wildlife to live 66

To help prevent the greenhouse effect 57
To improve the countryside landscape 55
To bring jobs to rural areas 52
To make the air healthier 50
To provide good places to visit 49
To create pleasant settings for developments around towns 37
To restore former industrial land 34
So that Britain needs less wood, pulp, and paper from abroad 29
To provide timber for sawmills and wood processing 21
To provide wood as a renewable fuel for power stations 20
Note: n ˆ 1970, 130 sample points.

These postindustrial trends have been accompanied both by a restructuring of the

Forestry Commission (Forestry Commission, 1992; Mather, 1996) and by a replace-
ment of the previously largely uniform and monolithic policy that applied at the level
of Great Britain (the Forestry Commission did not operate in Northern Ireland) by
policies that are geared to the `country' level (that is, Scotland, England, and Wales)
and to smaller spatial scales. In 1993, the House of Commons Environment Committee
had urged that separate policies be devised for the constituent countries of the United
Kingdom, and its chairman then expressed disappointment at the government's failure
at the time to adopt the recommendation (Jones, 1994). By the end of the decade,
256 A S Mather

however, the trend in that direction had become clear with the publication of consultation
papers on policies for England and for Scotland (Forestry Commission 1999b; 1999c).
These trends chime with those suggested as characteristics of agricultural postproduc-
tivism (for example, Lowe et al, 1993; Marsden, 1995). In other words there has been
a shift from a ``strong national strategy/weak local framework to a weak national
strategy/strong local framework'' (Marsden, 199, page 294). If anything, this shift has
been more prominent in relation to forestry than to agriculture; for example, local
planning authorities now play a much stronger role in forestry than they did a decade
ago. Indeed, the last fifteen years in the forest sector could be characterised as a period
of progressively increasing regulation, rather than one of deregulation followed by
reregulation.
During the 1990s, domestic forestry policy in Britain became increasingly subjected
to supranational influences. Although EU policy influences in forestry have been
limited, a series of pan-European ministerial conferences have taken place, notably at
Helsinki in 1993 and Lisbon in 1998 (MCPFE, 1993; 1998), and have resulted in British
commitments to pan-European agreements. These agreements obviously also have
implications for mainland European countries and could equally be discussed in the
next subsection of this paper. For convenience, they are outlined here, in order to
demonstrate the nature of supranational influence on national policy
At Helsinki, European forestry ministers committed their countries to ``the stewardship
and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity,
productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfil, now and in the
future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national and global
levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems'' (Resolution H1, http://
www.mmm.fi/english/forestry/policy/minkonf/resoh1.htm). Following Helsinki, a Sustainable
Forestry programme was launched by the UK government in 1994. The two primary
policy objectives were the sustainable management of existing woodlands, and continued
expansion in order to secure a variety of social and environmental benefits. In practice,
sustainable forestry and multipurpose or multifunctional forestry became almost
synonymous. Specific objectives relating to biodiversity included the maintenance and
appropriate enhancement of biodiversity in all woodlands, the protection and expansion
of ancient and seminatural woodlands, the creation of new native woodlands, and the
planting of native trees and of broadleaved woodlands more generally.
At the Lisbon conference, community involvement was a prominent issue. Resolu-
tion L1, entitled ``People, forests and forestryöenhancement of socio-economic aspects
of sustainable forest management'', stated that ``The interaction between forestry and
society in general should be promoted through partnerships, and be strengthened by
raising general awareness of the concept of sustainable forest management and the role
of forests and forestry in sustainable development. Therefore an adequate level of
participation, education, public relations and transparency in forestry is needed.'' In
Britain, forestry has traditionally been a top-down activity with little participation or
transparency, and one in which local people have played little part other than to supply
small amounts of labour. Indeed, only a few years ago Scotland was described as the
``last bastion of colonial forestry'' (Inglis and Guy, 1996). Although the changes that
have occurred in recent years should not be exaggerated, they have clearly been in the
direction of increasing community involvement. In a few localities, local communities
are now directly involved in the management of state forests.
Of more direct and immediate impact on the landscape are measures related to
initiatives on biodiversity. In areas such as Glen Affric and parts of the Cairngorms,
dramatic changes have occurred. The removal, through felling to waste, of exotic
species planted as recently as fifteen to twenty years ago is a powerful symbol of the
Postproductivism, postmaterialism, and the postindustrial forest 257

dramatic changes that have occurred during this period, and of the new values being
placed on native species, and on Caledonian pinewoods in particular.
Perhaps few of the developments of the last fifteen years are more symptomatic of
the postindustrial shift than the policies relating to community forests in general and
to the (English) National Forest in particular. Perhaps significantly, the initial impetus
came from the Countryside Commission (1987) rather than from the Forestry Com-
mission. In essence, a new concept of forest is being established in the National Forest,
in community forests such as the Great Northern Forest and in the Central Scotland
Forest project. In this new concept, the location, composition, and purpose are quite
different from those of the productivist era. The location is typically periurban, rather
than in the more remote uplands. In composition, instead of establishing continuous
stands of commercial, coniferous forest, the aim is to plant around 30% of a given area
with mainly broadleaved species, creating a landscape of open woodland rather than
that typical of the industrial forest paradigm. Timber production is not the primary
objective; instead, concerns about landscape, environment, and recreation are para-
mount. The role of the forest as a restorative, if not redemptive, agent in old industrial
landscapes (as with the National Forest and the England Forest Policy, for example)
epitomises a transformed social construction of the forest. This is true even though the
areas actually planted as yet are small öaround 300 ha in the National Forest and
3500 ha in the twelve community forests in Englandöand indeed are dwarfed by some
native woodland schemes in the Scottish Highlands (three on one estate in 1998
amounted to over 8000 ha) [see Cloke et al, 1996; Forestry Commission Public Register
(on the Forestry Commission website)].
These community forests are typically created under partnership agreements involv-
ing both public and private sectors, and agency involvement is not restricted to the
Forestry Commission. Emphasis is placed on public participation and consultation. In
other words, the policy, the landscape, and the politico-democratic climate are all of a
postproductivist character.
Locational elements are, of course, of primary significance in the community
forests. Another characteristic feature of the postproductivist trends is the spatial
refinement of policies. Whereas, under the productivist regime, planting land was
usually acquired by the Forestry Commission wherever it could be obtained and
planting grants offered to the private sector were largely uniform across the country,
in its postproductivist successor there is less uniformity. Locational supplements are
offered on planting grants in certain areas, and `challenge funds' have been provided to
encourage planting in particular areas. Homogeneity has given way to diversity in the
spatial pattern of incentives. Here again, one of the characteristics of the postproduc-
tive era in agriculture, as identified by Lowe et al (1993), is displayed, though it is as yet
perhaps more apparent in the realm of policy than in terms of landscape; some
features of the postindustrial forest are ubiquitous, even if they are more clearly evident
in some parts of the country (such as the periurban fringe and in prime landscapes
such as the Cairngorms) than in other areas.
Another feature is the weakening of sectoralism, and increasing integration with
agriculture and nature conservation. This integration is perhaps most clearly mani-
fested in the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme. Under it and its predecessor, sizeable
areas have been planted on farmland, with farmers receiving annual payments as well
as initial establishment grants. The scale and extent of this kind of development would
have been almost unimaginable fifteen years ago, when relationships between agricul-
ture and forestry were seen more in terms of antagonism than of integration. The
signing of the UK Forestry Accord by Wildlife and Countryside Link (the umbrella
organisation of environmental and recreational groups) and the Forestry Industry
258 A S Mather

Council of Great Britain also had symbolic importanceöone of its aims was to help to
give effect to the Rio Forest Principles and the Helsinki Guidelines, and it committed
the signatories to seek ``to establish a consensus about future values and directions for
UK forestry'' (Forestry Commission, 1997b, page 10).
One of the most apposite indicators of this change is the trend in the relative
proportions of coniferous and broadleaved planting (figure 1). Prior to about 1980,
almost all new planting was coniferous, reflecting the essentially industrial construc-
tion of the forest and the primacy of timber production within it. Now broadleaves
account for more than half of the annual area of new planting.
50

40
broadleaved total
Hectares (thousands)

30

20

10

0
1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995
Year
Figure 1. Annual rates of new forest planting in Great Britain (state and private sectors) 1971 ^ 98
(source: compiled from data in Forestry Commission Annual Reports).

The degree of postproductivism in forestry within Britain varies spatially, as was

previously suggested and as is characteristic also of agriculture. In periurban zones and
in prime environmental areas (such as the Cairngorms), postproductivist characteristics
of forestry and especially of afforestation, are more strongly developed than in the middle
ground (for example in southwest Scotland). In this respect, there is a parallel with
agriculture. On the other hand, however, postproductive characteristics are not absent in
the middle ground areas, especially in terms of environmental regulation (see, for
example, Forestry Authority and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, 1998).
Mainland Europe
In relation to both agriculture and forestry, Britain might be argued to be unique. The
exigencies of two world wars, and especially of World War 2, could be argued to have
set the country on a course that was more determinedly productivist than that followed
in other developed countries. Further, it might be argued that recent postproductivism
is a reaction to intense productivism produced by wartime experiences.
Such arguments, however, are difficult to sustain. In other developed countries in
Central and Northern Europe and North America, similar trends have been apparent.
They also appear to have emerged earlier in some other areas (such as Central Europe)
than in Britain. Changes have taken place in forest values and attitudes towards forests,
and also in attitudes towards forest policy and management. Nonmaterial `social' values
(including scenic and symbolic values) (for example, Koch and Kennedy, 1991; Reunala,
1984) were in the ascendancy relative to material values. These changes were epitomised,
first, by increasing demands for forest recreation, and, second, by a trend towards
Postproductivism, postmaterialism, and the postindustrial forest 259

democratisation and away from the traditional acceptance of the sovereignty of forest
administrations. In turn the forest administrations acknowledged the changing climate
in the same way as did their counterpart in Britain and began to commission or
undertake socioeconomic research alongside or instead of traditional silvicultural
(productivist) research. Research agendas simply reflect prevailing concerns: they are
mirrored by changes in policy and legislation, such as the passing of a new Forest Act in
Austria in 1975 (GlÏck, 1987). It marked the end of an era by terminating the principle of
timber primacy enshrined in an earlier Forest Act in 1852.
Portents of such trends become visible from the late 1950s, from surveys and from
research published in forestry journals. For example, extensive surveys of forest recre-
ation were carried out by Fischer (1965) in Switzerland and Hornsmann (1967) in West
Germany. Perceptual and attitudinal surveys also became more common: examples
include the work of Hanstein (1967) and Hockenjoss (1968) in Germany. Content analysis
of this research is used by SchmithÏsen et al (1997, page 1) to chart trends towards what
was in effect the postindustrial forest. They summarise the trends as follows:
``In Europe, the end of the 50's was characterised by a progressive change in the
social demands on forested areas. This period of industrial expansion gave a new
definition to the way forests were perceived, investing them with an increasing role
in the regeneration of people's (physical and psychological) wellbeing. Conse-
quently, the forest environment was utilized by a growing number of visitors for
recreation purposes, who identified these areas as public space. The economic
growth of the 60's (resulting in greater purchasing power and reduced working
hours) and the advent of environmental issues, accentuated the phenomenon of
leisure time spent in forests and favoured the development of ecological movements.
Throughout these transformations the forest services were forced to reconsider
their social authority and their duty to the public. The enquiries concerning the
attitudes of those using the forest for recreation purposes; the perception of forest
work or people's inclination to pay for certain social functions and provisions of
forests therefore promoted an understanding of people's aspirations towards forests
which was just as democratic as it was popular.''
In other words, there were two dimensions to these changes. One related to the purpose
of the forest (and to its relative roles as a tree farm or recreational environment), whereas
the other was geared to its management, and to the extent to which the authoritarian or
autocratic style associated with forest administrations in the past, when the emphasis was
on timber production, would survive or be amended. These issues, in turn, were related to
wider socioeconomic and political changes; an increasingly affluent society sought
physical and mental recreation in the forest, and not just timber from the forest. At
the same time, this affluent society was no longer prepared to leave forest administrations
with the task of defining the ends of forestry as well as the means of achieving them.
In effect, the forest was increasingly regarded as a common-property resource. In
Switzerland, for example, almost the whole population (96% in summer and 87% in
winter) visit forests for recreation, and the economic value of recreation far exceeds that
of timber production in the forests near urban centres. Nevertheless, the notion of
payment for forest recreation is rejected by 78% of the Swiss population (SAEFL, 1999).
Similar trends have operated in Scandinavia. Industrial forestry was developed after
World War 2, involving heavy inputs of technical skills and intensive management geared
to timber production (Komulainen, 1995). Within the next twenty years, the manifes-
tations of such management, such as extensive clearcuts, ploughing, and drainage, began
to attract opposition. For example, clear fellings and the construction of new forest roads
conflicted with nature conservation and the aesthetic values of forests, and began to give
rise to public debates. The use of Sitka spruce and even Norway spruce began to be
260 A S Mather

criticised in western Norway and southern Sweden, especially in areas where the native
species were broadleaved. One result was that a law to protect broadleaved forest was
passed in Sweden in 1986 öa clear parallel to developments in Britain. In the following
year in Denmark, a symbolically significant merger of the formerly separate forestry and
environmental protection bodies took place (Eckerberg, 1995). Indeed by the 1990s, ``all
the Nordic countries have started to look for new ways to manage forests more in
harmony with nature and concern for interests other than timber production is increas-
ing'' (Hyto«nen and Blo«ndal, 1995, page 91). Perhaps the industrial to postindustrial
sequence was most clearly evident in the case of Finland, where a major postwar drive
towards intensification of forest management was stimulated by a perceived need to
expand timber production, on which much of the national economy depended. Reaction
against the effects of forest drainage and other management actions soon followed,
giving rise to major conflicts between environmentalists and the forest industry (for
example, Hellstro«m, 1999; Hellstro«m and Reunala, 1995; Lehtinen, 1991; Parviainen,
1994; Saastamoinen, 1995). Overall, changes in forest management in Scandinavia
amounted to more than a simple `greening' of forest management, and to more than
a simple embracing of multiple-use forestry. Although both of these trends were present,
the underlying trends that accompanied them were more fundamental. In the words of
FritzbÖger and SÖndergaard (1995, page 37), ``the forests of Scandinavia have again
become common `property' due to improved means of access, and above all due to a
more affluent society''. It would be an exaggeration to say that the forests of Britain have
become common property, but the growth of regulation is a clear indication of a trend in
that direction. In effect, it reflects a desire to ensure that forests are managed in ways that
benefit society in general, and not only the legal owners.
North America
Similar trends can be identified in North America, even if they differ in detail. It has
recently been stated, for instance, that forestry in North America is at a crossroads
(Tollefson, 1998), and that forestry is undergoing the most profound change since its
establishment a century ago (Sample et al, 1993). According to McQuillan (1993,
page 191), the advent of `new forestry' represents a ``traumatic shift in the philosophy
of national forestry praxis''.
The emphasis has been swinging away from timber production and towards the
management of forest ecosystems, both for their intrinsic value and to provide a range
of services. Various terms have been used to describe the changed emphasis, including
new forestry, holistic forestry, kinder and gentler forestry, sustainable forestry, multi-
value forest management, multiresource forest management, and forest ecosystem
management (for example, Behan, 1990; Bengston, 1994; Franklin, 1989). Perhaps the
most widely accepted term is forest ecosystem management, which is a rather nebulous
and ill-defined notion (Grumbine, 1994; More, 1996) but which was formally espoused
by the US Forest Service in 1992 (see, for example, Brown and Harris, 1992). Indeed the
swing towards it has been so pronounced as to be interpreted as a paradigm shift (for
example, Clark et al, 1999). With changes in the forestry educational system and in the
disciplinary composition of employment in forestry (see, for example, Brown and Harris,
1998; Jones et al, 1995), such a shift is likely to be long term as well as substantial.
To be sure, the North American shift has a different character from that in Europe.
It is epitomised by the celebrated case of the northern spotted owl and the protection
of its habitat against logging. Large areas of federal old-growth forests were withdrawn
from logging in the early 1990s (for instance, Dietrich, 1992; Watson and Muraoka
1992; Yaffee, 1994), and logging in the national forests of the Pacific North West fell
from 5.2 billion board feet in 1989 to 2.1 billion in 1992 (Hirt, 1994). In North America,
Postproductivism, postmaterialism, and the postindustrial forest 261

this shift, or postproductivist transition, is also linked more to native forests (and in
particular to old-growth forests) than to plantations. It is opposed by traditional forest-
industry representatives, who, in throwbacks to McArdle's (1942) interpretation of
multiple use, continue to argue for intensive management and single-use zoning, rather
than multiple-objective management (see, for example, Binkley, 1999; Vincent and
Binkley, 1993). On the other hand, increasing regulation of forestry practices is also
being imposed on private owners (for example, Ellefson et al, 1997), as in Europe.
This is a clear example of how the balance has tended towards promoting public
(environmental) goals at the expense of private rights at the same time as a change
in rural emphasis has occurred between production and consumption (Munton, 1995).
The essential nature of the trends, therefore, resembles those of the European shift öthe
emphasis on timber production is being reduced relative to the provision of services,
and the autonomy or sovereignty of forestry professionals in setting the goals for
forest management has been under attack. In other words, postproductivism and
democratisation have emerged as characteristics.
Overview
In short, there is evidence of postproductivism in the forest in the very different
settings of Britain, Central Europe, Scandinavia, and North America. A common
feature is the reduced emphasis on timber production relative to management for
environmental and recreational goals. There has been a shift in emphasis from the
production of goods to the provision of services, as well as a `greening' of forest
management. Accompanying this shift has been a reduction in the degree to which
the forest industry and forestry professionals have been the dominant voices in the
formulation of forest policy, and a corresponding increase in the influence of environ-
mental and recreational interest groups. Surpluses have not been implicated as causes
of these swings, as they have in agriculture, but they have arguably developed as effects
of them. Annual timber removals in much of Europe and in parts of North America
are now well below annual increments. In other words, more timber is available than is
being harvested. This pattern prevails over much of Europe (for example, Kuusela,
1994). In Switzerland, for example, the annual increment in recent years was 26%
higher than the amount harvested in public forests, and 62% higher in private forests
(SAEFL, 1999). In Europe as a whole, the net annual wood increment in forests that
are available for wood supply has in recent years been 50% higher than fellings (Peck
and Ottitsch, 2000).
At least part of the reason for this state of affairs, which is the converse of that at
the beginning of the era of industrial forestry, is simply that forest owners value their
properties for reasons other than the production of timber and the revenue it might
offer. In Pennsylvania, for example, only 1% of nonindustrial private forest owners
manage their forests primarily for timber production (Birch and Dennis, 1980).

Why postproductivism?
The emergence of postproductivism, in forestry and more generally, is easier to
describe than to explain. In forestry, it can be evidenced by changing policy and
legislation, and can be charted by various indicators or proxies such as the proportion
of broadleaved planting in Britain.
Explanation of postproductivism, in forestry or in agriculture, is another matter.
Few attempts have been made to explain agricultural postproductivism in terms of
fundamental factors, and because forest postproductivism has as yet attracted little
attention even in descriptive terms it is not surprising that convincing attempts at
explanation are still awaited. What is clear from this brief review of trends in forestry
262 A S Mather

is that postproductivism is not simply a response to overproduction (as is implied in

some agricultural work), but is the result of more deep-seated and fundamental factors.
These may include the degree of affluence and the amount of leisure time that now
characterise societies in developed economies, and which for many people make forest
recreation possible. Such socioeconomic trends, however, would appear to be passive
or permissive rather than active or causal; they do not in themselves cause additional
forest recreation, for example. Similarly, political and institutional factors may be
contributory. Forest-service agencies in many developed countries have come under
pressure from environmentalist groups. In some cases the very survival of agencies
(such as the Forestry Commission in Britain) has largely depended on finding a new
role, for example after the effective completion of the postwar planting programme in
the 1980s. Such factors, however, are proximate or intermediary and beg questions
about their underlying or fundamental causes.
At a more fundamental level, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that changing
policies are linked to cultural changes, even if the relationship is mediated through
power relations which themselves change through time. Implicit in almost all the
examples quoted earlier in this paper is the notion of changing societal values, away
from timber production and towards services provided by and often consumed in the
forest. Indeed, McQuillan (1993, page 195) concludes that the `new forestry' reflects
``first and foremost a radical shift in values''. It has been suggested that agricultural
and rural societies may be more focused on material production, and urban societies
on the more nonmaterial qualities or services provided by the forest (for example,
Kennedy, 1985). Indeed, urban interests are said to have been the drivers of the shift
from rural production to consumption (Munton, 1995). Explanation couched simply in
terms of the growth of urban populations, however, is inadequateöin countries such
as Britain and Germany the shift towards the postindustrial forest lagged (in time) far
behind urbanisation. The populations of these countries were strongly urbanised for up
to a century before characteristics of the postindustrial forest began to emerge. This is
not to say that urbanisation is irrelevant. In some countries (such as Finland), many
farm-forest holdings have been inherited from their farm-forester parents by persons
who had migrated to the cities, and who now value them for their recreational qualities
rather than their ability to produce timber. The social construction of the forest as the
antithesis of the urban as well as the epitome of the natural may well be a significant
contributory factor to the shift towards postproductivism, even if it does not alone
represent a convincing explanation. And, of course, changing attitudes to the forest are
closely related to changing attitudes to forest management and policy (SchmithÏsen
and Kazemi, 1995).
The advent of postmaterialism (Inglehart, 1971; 1990) would also seem to be a
candidate causal factor, or at the very least a correlate of postproductivism in the
forest. In the original formulation, Inglehart suggested that values in advanced indus-
trial societies would shift from `materialist' concerns about economic and physical
security towards a greater emphasis on freedom, self-expression, and quality of life,
or `postmaterialist' values. In other words, when basic material needs are satisfied,
attention turns to other issues and other values. Whether affluence alone is the driver
of the trend towards postmaterialism is debatable öit has been suggested, for example,
that high unemployment can contribute to postmaterialism (Clarke and Dutt, 1991).
Perhaps different variables affect short-term and long-term trends in this direction, but
Inglehart's (1971) socialisation hypothesis, whereby an individual's basic values reflect
the conditions experienced during preadult years, is plausible. By the 1970s, the
proportion of citizens in developed countries who had experienced the privations of
the 1930s and wartime shortages of food and timber years was rapidly diminishing.
Postproductivism, postmaterialism, and the postindustrial forest 263

Surveys in many developed countries suggest that there has been a trend towards
postmaterialism (Abramson and Inglehart, 1995), even if the causes, mechanisms, and,
in particular, generational effects, are disputed. The views of Inglehart and his asso-
ciates have been the subject of fundamental questioning, both on the linking of the
growth of environmentalism to value change and on tautological grounds (that is, in
the relationship between environmentalism and postmaterialism) (for instance, Lowe
and RÏdig, 1986). Strictly speaking, however, the objections of Lowe and RÏdig were
geared to environmental concerns rather than environmental consumption, although
of course these categories are not unrelated.
A resonance clearly exists between postmaterialism and the character of the post-
industrial forest, especially in respect of the discounting of timber production relative to
nonmaterial services. Postmaterialism has been linked to the emergence and growth of
environmental movements in Europe (for example, Bennulf and Holmberg, 1990;
Rohrschneider, 1990), although it is clear that the passage to the postindustrial forest
involves more than a simple `greening'of forest management. And correlated with the rise
of postmaterialism, according to Abramson and Inglehart (1995), is a trend towards
democratisation. Such a trend is, of course, implicit in the emergence of the post-
industrial forest; this emergence has resulted from an insistence on the part of interest
groups representing substantial parts of the population that they should have an influence
on forest policy and management. In other words, the crumbling of the sovereignty of
traditional forest administrations, in which professional foresters in effect dictated the
ends of management as well as the means, may be one consequence of postmaterialism.
The change in values is epitomised in the changing perceptions of native and
intensively managed woodlands. In the paradigm that prevailed through most of the
20th century, ancient woodland in Britain was often dismissively regarded as `scrub' of
little value (in relation to timber production and the paradigm of the industrial forest),
compared with plantations of exotic conifers, just as old-growth forests in North
America were viewed in comparison with their managed and regularised counterparts.
Today, many ancient woodlands and old-growth forests are protected and generally
revered, while the `regimented rows of conifers' are disparaged. Order, simplicity, and
regulation have been challenged in the scale of values by perceived naturalness, diver-
sity, and complexity. The ``remarkable congruence of the language of postmodernism
with the language of new forestry'' has led McQuillan (1993, page 194) to suggest that
new forestry, or the postindustrial forest, is a postmodern phenomenon, in the same
way that more traditional forestry reflected modernism. If this view is correct, and if it
is accepted that new forestry is one expression of postproductivism, the implication is
that postproductivism is simply to postmodernism as productivism is (or was) to
modernism. In other words, a full explanation of the trend towards postproductivism
would require a full explanation of the trend to postmodernism.

Discussion and conclusion

The postproductivist transition in agriculture is characterised by a variety of factors, as
has been indicated. The fact that different drivers may underlie these different factors
may help to explain why so few attempts have been made to answer the big question
of why the transition has occurred (if indeed it has done so). In forestry, however,
I contend that postproductive characteristics are more easily defined (for example, in
relation to the primacy of timber production), that they are more evident, and that they
have emerged more abruptly. If this contention is correct, then it may be less difficult to
identify the drivers of postproductivism in forestry than it is in the case of agriculture.
Postproductive characteristics are apparent both in the forest itself, and in forest
policies and the political-administrative context in which they are situated. In essence,
264 A S Mather

there has been a clear shift in the relative emphasis placed on timber production and
on service functions, and there has been a degree of democratisation in the formulation
of forest policies. Monolithic central or national government policies and sectoralism
have weakened, in relation both to local influence and to supragovernmental influen-
ces. Ernst (1998), using the terminology of Merchant (1987; 1989), regarded the tran-
sition from what is described here as the preindustrial to the industrial forest as an
``ecological revolution''. Merchant regarded ecological revolutions as ``major transfor-
mations in human relations with non-human nature'', and certainly the replacement of
the `agricultural forest of sustenance' by the `timber-production forest' caused a major
upheaval in the lifestyle and economy of the users of the first of these, and had major
implications for landscape and ecology. Whether we are experiencing change that is
sufficiently dramatic for the current shift from the industrial to the postindustrial forest
to be described as an ecological revolution remains to be seen, but prima facie it is an
event of similar magnitude and significance to the previous one.
Merchant (1989) suggests that human production, reproduction, and consciousness
(including worldviews) are the determinants of the human relationship with nonhuman
nature, and, if this is so, then it would follow that changes in these factors are the
determinants of ecological revolutions. In other words, the drivers of these trends
towards the postindustrial forest are likely to lie in cultural change, in turn related at
least in part to the level of economic development. The trends themselves reflect the
shift in the wider economy from manufacturing industry to services, but it is important
to emphasise that more is involved than simply the role of the forest (and of timber
supply) in the modern economy. A change in worldview and in the social construction
of the forest is also involved.
If the view is taken that the postindustrial forest is preferable to the industrial one
on environmental and sociopolitical grounds, then economic development can be seen
as beneficial rather than detrimental. A note of caution is, however, necessary. Just as
the postindustrial forest is emerging in the developed market economies, the industrial
forest paradigm is becoming increasingly widely established in other parts of the world.
Social and environmental benefits in the developed market economies, therefore, may
be offset by the disbenefits of intensive single-species plantations in the South and by
logging practices in parts of the world where regulation is loose (Rosencrantz and
Scott, 1992; Sedjo, 1994; Shvidenko and Nilsson, 1994). Even the protection of the
northern spotted owl may have had its downside, as logging has moved to less regu-
lated parts of the world where the environmental costs may be considerable. In an ideal
world, the Forest Principle that
``Forest resources and forest lands should be sustainably managed to meet the social,
economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations.
These needs are for forest products and services, such as wood and wood products,
water, food, fodder, medicine, fuel, shelter, employment, recreation, habitats for
wildlife, landscape diversity, carbon sinks and reservoirs, and for other forest
products'' (United Nations, 1993, page 481)
would be adopted worldwide, and the global forest would be a postindustrial forest.
There is little likelihood that this will happen in the foreseeable future, if two con-
versations experienced by the present writer are representative. In one, at a forest-
products conference in Oregon in 1993, a Chilean was overheard to invite an American
forest industrialist to his country: ``there is no nonsense about spotted owls to bother
you here''. In the other, at a forestry conference in Switzerland in 1999, a Scandinavian
consultant, involved in establishing industrial plantations in the South, indicated that
he had never heard of the Forest Principle quoted above. Postproductivism may be
Postproductivism, postmaterialism, and the postindustrial forest 265

welcomed by many in the North: perhaps they should be concerned that it is being
matched by increasing productivism in the South.
Perhaps the advent of postproductivism in the forests in the South, and with it the
advent of multifunctionality of the forest in areas where there is currently monofunc-
tionality geared to timber production, is simply a matter of time. It may also be so for
productivism more generally. In the context of agriculture, monofunctionality has
recently been described as ``a temporary aberration of 20th century rationality'' (van
den Berg, 1999). Perhaps ultimately the shift from productivism to postproductivism
cannot be decoupled from the drift from modernism to postmodernism. Perhaps
there is a `push' from a reaction against management based on scientific rationalism,
as well as a `pull' in the form of the changing postmaterial values and demands for
environmental services.
References
Abramson P R, Inglehart R, 1995 Value Change in Global Perspective (University of Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor, MI)
Agriculture Act, 1986 Public General Actsö Elizabeth II chapter 49 (HMSO, London)
Behan R W, 1990, ``Multiresource forest management: a paradigmatic challenge to professional
forestry'' Journal of Forestry 88 12 ^ 18
Bengtson D N, 1994, ``Changing forest values and ecosystem management'' Society and Natural
Resources 7 515 ^ 534
Bennulf M, Holmberg S, 1990, ``The Green breakthrough in Sweden'' Scandinavian Political Studies
13 165 ^ 184
Binkley C S, 1999, ``Ecosystem management and plantation forestry: new directions in British
Columbia'' New Forests 18 75 ^ 88
Birch T W, Dennis D F, 1980, ``The forest landowners of Pennsylvania'', US Department of
Agriculture Forest Research Bulletin NE ^ 66
Bowler I R, Ilbery B W, 1993, ``Sustainable agriculture in the food supply system'', in Geographical
Perspectives on the Social and Economic Restructuring of Rural Areas Ed. M D Nellis (Kansas
State University, Manhattan, KS) pp 4 ^ 13
Bowler I R, Ilbery, B W, 1999, ``Agricultural land-use and landscape change under the
postproductivist transition: examples from the United Kingdom'', in Land Use Changes and
Their Environmental Impact in Rural Areas in Europe Eds R Kro«nert, J Baudry, I R Bowler,
A Reenberg (Parthenon Publishing Group, Carnforth, Lancs) pp 121 ^ 139
Brown G, Harris C, 1992, ``The Forest Service: toward the new resource management paradigm?''
Society and Natural Resources 5 231 ^ 245
Brown G, Harris C, 1998, ``Professional foresters and the land ethic revisited'' Journal of Forestry
96 4 ^ 12
CCS, 1986, ``Forestry in Scotland: a policy paper'', Countryside Commission for Scotland, Perth
Clark R N, Stankey G H, Kruger, L E, 1999, ``From new perspectives to ecosystem management:
a social science perspective on forest management'', in Ecosystem Management: Adaptive
Strategies for Natural Resources Organisations in the 21st Century Eds J Aley, W R Burch,
B Conover, D Field (Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA) pp 73 ^ 84
Clarke H D, Dutt N, 1991, ``Measuring value change in Western industrialized societies: the
impact of unemployment'' American Political Science Review 85 905 ^ 920
Cloke P, Milbourne P, Thomas C, 1996, ``From wasteland to wonderland: opencast mining,
regeneration and the English National Forest'' Geoforum 27 159 ^ 174
Countryside Commission, 1987 Forestry in the Countryside Countryside Commission, John
Dower House, Crescent Place, Cheltenham, Glos GL50 3RA
Dana S T, 1943, ``Multiple use, biology and economics'' Journal of Forestry 4 625 ^ 626
Department of the Environment, 1994, ``Sustainable forestry: the UK programme'', Cm 2429
(HMSO, London)
Dieterich V, 1953 Forstwirtschaftspolitik: eine EinfÏhrung [Forest policy: an introduction]
(Parey, Hamburg)
Dietrich W, 1992 The Final Forest: Battle for the Last Great Trees of the Pacific Northwest
(Penguin, New York)
Eckerberg K, 1995, ``Multiple-use forestry administration, legislation and interest groups'', in
Multiple-use Forestry in the Nordic Countries Ed. M Hyto«nen, METLA Finnish Forest
Research Institute, Helsinki, pp 357 ^ 390
266 A S Mather

Ellefson P V, Cheng A S, Moulton R J, 1997, ``Regulatory programs and private forestry: state
government actions to direct the use and management of forest ecosystems'' Society and
Natural Resources 10 195 ^ 209
Ernst C, 1998, ``An ecological revolution? The Schlagwaldwirtschaft in western Germany in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries'', in European Woods and Forests: Studies in Cultural
History Ed. C Watkins (CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon) pp 83 ^ 92
Fischer F, 1965, ``Der Uëetliberg als Erholungsgebiet'' [The Uëetliberg as a recreational area]
Schweizerische Zeitschrift fÏr Forstwesen 116 487 ^ 499
Forestry Authority and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, 1998, ``The UK Forestry
Standard: the Government's approach to sustainable forestry'', Forestry Commission,
231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT
Forestry Commission, 1988, ``Woodland Grant Scheme'', Forestry Commission, 231 Corstorphine
Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT
Forestry Commission, 1992 The Forestry Commission of Great Britain Forestry Commission,
231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT
Forestry Commission, 1997a Public Opinion of Forestry, 1997, Survey Forestry Commission,
231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT
Forestry Commission, 1997b, ``Annual report and accounts 1996 ^ 97'' House of Commons
papers 1997 ^ 98, 250 (The Stationery Office, London)
Forestry Commission, 1999a Public Opinion of Forestry, 1999, Survey Forestry Commission,
231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT
Forestry Commission, 1999b England Forest Strategy: A New Focus for England's Woodlands:
Strategic Priorities and Programmes Forestry Commission, Great Eastern House, Tenison
Road, Cambridge CB1 2DU
Forestry Commission, 1999c Forests for Scotland: Consultation Towards a Scottish Forestry
Strategy Forestry Commission, 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT
Franklin J, 1989, ``Towards a new forestry'' American Forestry 95 37 ^ 44
FritzbÖger B, SÖndergaard P, 1995, ``A short history of forest uses'', in Multiple-use Forestry in
the Nordic Countries Ed. M Hyto«nen, METLA Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki,
pp 11 ^ 42
GlÏck P, 1987, ``Social values in forestry'' Ambio 16 158 ^ 160
Grumbine M, 1994, ``What is ecosystem management?'' Conservation Biology 8 27 ^ 38
Hanstein U, 1967, ``Ûber die Gewohnheiten, Ansichten und WÏnsche der Waldbesucher''[On the
habits, opinions, and wishes of forest visitors] Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift 22 465 ^ 467
Hellstro«m E, 1999, ``Environmental forestry conflicts in Europe and the United States'', in World
Forests, Society and Environment Eds M Palo, J Uusivuori (Kluwer, Dordrecht)
pp 277 ^ 284
Hellstro«m E, Reunala A, 1995, ``Forest conflicts from the 1950s to 1983: a review of a comparative
study between USA, Germany, France, Sweden, Finland and Norway'', EFI Research Report 3,
European Forest Institute, Torikatu 34, FIN ^ 80100, Joensuu
Hirt P W, 1994 A Conspiracy of Optimism: Management of the National Forests Since World
War Two (University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE)
Hockenjoss W, 1968, ``Meinungsforschung im WaldöÛber die Kompetenz der Laien in
forstwirtschaftlichen Fragen'' [Public opinion on the role of laymen in questions of forest
policy] Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift 23 12 ^ 14
Hornsmann E, 1967, ``Wie MÏnchner BÏrger sich ihren Wald wÏnschen'' [Forest wishes of Munich
citizens] Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift 22 598 - 599
House of Commons Agriculture Committee, 1990, ``Land use and forestry'', House of Commons
papers 1989 ^ 90, 16 (HMSO, London)
House of Commons Environment Committee, 1993, ``Forestry and the environment'', House of
Commons papers 1992 ^ 93, 257 (HMSO, London)
House of Lords Select Committee, 1980, ``Scientific aspects of forestry'', House of Lords papers
1979 ^ 80, 381 (HMSO, London)
Hyto«nen M, Blo«ndal S, 1995, ``Timber production and the forest industry'', in Multiple-use
Forestry in the Nordic Countries Ed. M Hyto«nen, METLA Finnish Forest Research Institute,
Helsinki, pp 81 ^ 116
Ilbery B, Bowler I, 1998, ``From agricultural productivism to postproductivism'', in The Geography
of Rural Change Ed. B Ilbery (Longman, Harlow, Essex) pp 57 ^ 84
Inglehart R, 1971, ``The silent revolution in Europe: intergenerational change in post-industrial
societies'' American Political Science Review 65 991 - 1017
Postproductivism, postmaterialism, and the postindustrial forest 267

Inglehart R, 1990 Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society (Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ)
Inglis A, Guy S, 1996, ``Rural development forestry in Scotland: the struggle to bring
international principles to the last bastion of British colonial forestry'', ODI Rural
Development Forestry Network Papers 20b, Overseas Development Institute,
111 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7JD
Jones J R, Martin, R, Bartlett, E T, 1995, ``Ecosystem management: the United States Forest
Service's response to social conflict'' Society and Natural Resources 8 161 ^ 168
Jones R, 1994, ``National forestry strategy required'' Land Use Policy 11 124 ^ 127
Kennedy J J, 1985, ``Conceiving forest management as providing for current and future social
value'' Forest Ecology and Management 13 121 ^ 134
Koch N, Kennedy J J, 1991, ``Multiple-use forestry for social values'' Ambio 20 330 ^ 333
Komulainen M, 1995, ``Landscape management in forestry'', in Multiple-use Forestry in the
Nordic Countries Ed. M Hyto«nen, METLA Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki,
pp 295 ^ 320
Kuusela K, 1994 Forest Resources in Europe (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Lean G, Rosie G, 1988, ``Forests of money'' Observer Magazine 14 February, pp 34 ^ 44
Lehtinen A A, 1991, ``Northern natures: a study of the forest question emerging with the timber-
line conflict in Finland'' Fennia 169 57 ^ 69
Lowe P D, RÏdig W, 1986, ``Political ecology and the social sciencesöthe state of the art''
British Journal of Political Science 16 513 ^ 550
Lowe P, Murdoch J, Marsden T, Munton R, Flynn A, 1993, ``Regulating the new rural spaces:
the uneven development of land'' Journal of Rural Studies 9 205 ^ 222
Lowood H E, 1990, ``The calculating forester: quantification, cameral science and the emergence
of scientific forestry in management in Germany'', in The Quantifying Spirit in the 18th
Century Eds T Fra«ngsmyr, J L Heilbron, R E Rider (University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA) pp 315 ^ 342
McArdle R E, 1942, ``What is forestry?'' Journal of Forestry 40 193 ^ 196
McManus P, 1999, ``Histories of forestry: ideas, networks and silences'' Environment and History
5 185 ^ 208
McQuillan A G, 1993, ``Cabbages and kings: the ethics and aesthetics of new forestry''
Environmental Values 2 191 ^ 221
Marsden T, 1995, ``Beyond agriculture? Regulating the new rural spaces'' Journal of Rural
Studies 11 285 ^ 296
Marsden T, Murdoch J, Lowe P, Munton R, Flynn A, 1993 Constructing the Countryside (UCL
Press, London)
Mather A S, 1991, ``Pressures on British forest policy: prologue to the postindustrial forest?''
Area 23 245 ^ 253
Mather A S, 1996, ``Rural land use in Britain: agency restructuring and policy adaptation'', in
Changing Rural Policy in Britain: Planning, Administration, Agriculture and the Environment
Eds N Curry, S Owen (Countryside and Community Press, Cheltenham) pp 87 ^ 106
MCPFE, 1993, Declaration and ResolutionsöHelsinki, Ministerial Conference on the
Protection of Forests in Europe, Liason Unit Vienna, Maxergasse 2, A-1030, Vienna
MCPFE, 1998, Declaration and ResolutionsöLisbon, Ministerial Conference on the Protection
of Forests in Europe, Liason Unit Vienna, Maxergasse 2, A-1030, Vienna
Merchant C, 1987, ``The theoretical structure of ecological revolutions'' Environmental Review 11
265 ^ 274
Merchant C, 1989 Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender and Science in New England
(University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC)
More T , 1996, ``Forestry's fuzzy concepts: an examination of ecosystem management'' Journal of
Forestry 94 19 ^ 23
Morris C, Evans N J, 1999, ``Research on the geography of agricultural change: redundant or
revitalized?'' Area 31 349 ^ 358
Multiple Use ^ Sustained Yield Act 1960 (US Government, Washington, DC)
Munton R, 1995, ``Regulating rural change: property rights, economy and environmentöa case
study from Cumbria, UK'' Journal of Rural Studies 11 269 ^ 294
NCC, 1986 Nature Conservation and Afforestation in Britain Nature Conservancy Council,
Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1UA
NCC, 1987 Birds, Bogs and Forestry Nature Conservancy Council, Northminster House,
Peterborough PE1 1UA
268 A S Mather

NCC, 1988 The Flow Country; the Peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland Nature Conservancy
Council, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1UA
Parviainen J, 1994, ``Finnish silviculture: managing for timber production and conservation''
Journal of Forestry 92 33 ^ 36
Peck T, Ottitsch A, 2000 ``The European forest as a source of industrial raw materials'' Land
Use Policy 17 209 ^ 220
Reed M G, Gill A M, 1997, ``Tourism, recreational, and amenity values in land allocation: an
analysis of institutional arrangements in the postproductivist era'' Environment and
Planning A 29 2019 - 2040
Reunala A, 1984, ``Forest as symbolic environment'' Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Fenniae
12 81 ^ 85
Rohrschneider R, 1990, ``The roots of public opinion toward new social movements: an
empirical test of competing explanations'' American Journal of Political Science 34 1 ^ 30
Rosencrantz A, Scott A, 1992, ``Siberia's threatened forests'' Nature (London) 355 293 ^ 294
RSPB, 1986, ``Forestry in the flow country: the threat to birds'', Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy, Beds SG19 2TN
Saastamoinen O, 1995, ``New forest policy: the rise of environmental and the fall of social
consciousness'' Finnish Journal of Rural Research and Policy (English Supplement) 3 125 ^ 137
SAEFL, 1999 The Swiss Forestö Taking Stock: Interpretation of the Second National Forest
Inventory in Terms of Forest Policy Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape,
Berne
Sample V, Johnson N, Aplet G, Olson J, 1993, ``Introduction: defining sustainable forestry'', in
Defining Sustainable Forestry Eds V Sample, N Johnson, G Aplet, J Olson (Island Press,
Washington, DC) pp 3 ^ 9
SchmithÏsen F, Kazemi Y, 1995, ``Analyse des rapports entre les attitudes des gens envers la foreªt
et leurs attitudes envers la gestion forestie©re'' [Analysis of the relationship between attitudes
to the forest and attitudes to forest management] Schweizerische Zeitschrift fÏr Forstwesen
146 247 ^ 264
Schmithu«sen F, Kazemi Y, Seeland K, 1997, ``Perceptions and attitudes of the population
towards forests and their social benefits'', IUFRO Occasional Paper 7, International Union
of Forestry Research Organisations, Vienna
Scottish Development Department, 1990, ``Indicative forestry strategies'', SDD Circular 13/1990,
Scottish Development Department, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ
Sedjo R A, 1994, ``The global environmental effects of local logging cutbacks'' Resources 117 2 ^ 5
Shucksmith M, 1993, ``Farm household behaviour and the transition to postproductivism''
Journal of Agricultural Economics 44 466 ^ 478
Shvidenko A, Nilsson S, 1994, ``What do we know about the Siberian forests?'' Ambio 23 396 ^ 404
Strathclyde Regional Council, 1988, ``Structure Plan Update, 1988''; copies available in the
National Library of Scotland, George IV Bridge, Edinburgh EH1 1EW
TGUK, 1985 The Forestry and Woodland Code Timber Growers UK, Agriculture House,
Knightsbridge, London SW1X 7NJ
Tollefson C, 1998, ``Introduction'', in Wealth of Forests: Markets, Regulation and Sustainable
Forestry Ed. C Tollefson (UBC Press, Vancouver) pp 3 ^ 16
Tompkins S, 1986 The Theft of the Hills: Afforestation in Scotland Ramblers' Association,
Camelford House, 87 ^ 90 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TW
United Nations, 1993 Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,
Rio de Janeiro, 3 ^ 14 June 1992. Volume 1: Resolutions Adopted by the Conference (United
Nations, New York)
van den Berg L M, 1999, ``Negotiated multifunctionality of agriculture: experiences from a
FAO-initiated scoping project'', paper presented at International Geographical Union
Sustainability of Rural Systems Conference, Kelowna, Canada; copy available from the
author, DLO Winard Staring Centre, Wageningen
Vincent J R, Binkley C S, 1993, ``Efficient multiple-use forestry may require land-use specialization''
Land Economics 69 370 ^ 376
Watson R B, Muraoka D D, 1992, ``The northern spotted owl controversy'' Society and Natural
Resources 5 85 ^ 90
Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981 Public General Acts ö Elizabeth II chapter 69 (HMSO, London)
Yaffee S L, 1994 The Wisdom of the Spotted Owl (Island Press, Washington, DC)

ß 2001 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain