Suchergebnisse

Forests are under increasing pressure with increasing risk of conflicts between stakeholder groups with different interests in sustainable forest management (SFM). This study investigated the different dimensions of conflict as perceived by private forest owners and other stakeholders, and the likely impact of these pressures on SFM in a southern Swedish context. Data were collected through a mixed methods approach using qualitative in-depth individual semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and a quantitative survey (n = 6–161), with questions on present and past conflicts, actors, drivers, acting, management and solutions. Stakeholders felt that in the past the conflicts were more about technical dimensions of forestry practice, and today more about the political and cultural dimensions of forestry issues. The most frequently mentioned reason for forest conflict was forest protection, especially woodland key habitats. In all conflicts, forest owners emphasised the importance of knowledge, responsibility and emotions. Other stakeholders did too, but with emotions less emphasised. In managing conflict, meetings, adaptation and education were stressed by stakeholders. Dialogue arenas on different levels are needed for all stakeholders. Governing bodies also need to realise the implication different approaches and strategies have on forest owners management.

Improving resilience in forests relies on an understanding of the values, knowledge and practices associated with forests. In this paper, based on a case study from the UK, we present qualitative data on how the concept of resilience is understood by decision-makers, the effectiveness of existing policy tools to promote resilient forests and the current boundaries and social acceptability of different management options. Our research reveals that the articulation of actual, possible and needed policy responses reflects the challenge that resilience is a multifaceted concept with an array of potential implications, connected with a diverse set of forest ecosystems. Our research suggests that the collaborative development and promotion of an overarching vision for resilience, which recognises the needs and contexts of different owners and managers in the sector, might begin to overcome the current challenge of fragmented policy and lack of policy tools. This will necessarily involve discussion and coordination across different areas of government and involve those agencies and organisations responsible for the science behind resilience approaches and applications. In particular, there is a need to contextualise and communicate resilience in line with stakeholder needs, and to articulate the uncertainty associated with resilience measures in a range of situations so public agencies, forest owners and managers can make informed choices.