From ecological knowledge to conservation policy
a case study on green tree retention and continuous-cover forestry in Sweden
Document identifier: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-76537
Access full text here:
10.1007/s10531-019-01836-2Keyword: Social Sciences,
Political Science,
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies),
Samhällsvetenskap,
Statsvetenskap,
Statsvetenskap (exklusive studier av offentlig förvaltning och globaliseringsstudier),
Environmental history,
Environmental policy,
Forest biodiversity,
Biodiversity conservation,
Policy uptakePublication year: 2019Relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):
The SDG label(s) above have been assigned by OSDG.aiAbstract: The extent to which scientific knowledge translates into practice is a pervasive question. We analysed to what extent and how ecological scientists gave input to policy for two approaches advocated for promoting forest biodiversity in production forests in Sweden: green-tree retention (GTR) and continuous-cover forestry (CCF). GTR was introduced into forest policy in the 1970s and became widely implemented in the 1990s. Ecological scientists took part in the policy process by providing expert opinions, educational activities and as lobbyists, long before research confirming the positive effects of GTR on biodiversity was produced. In contrast, CCF was essentially banned in forest legislation in 1979. In the 1990s, policy implicitly opened up for CCF implementation, but CCF still remains largely a rare silvicultural outlier. Scientific publications addressing CCF appeared earlier than GTR studies, but with less focus on the effects on biodiversity. Ecological scientists promoted CCF in certain areas, but knowledge from other disciplines and other socio-political factors appear to have been more important than ecological arguments in the case of CCF. The wide uptake of GTR was enhanced by its consistency with the silvicultural knowledge and normative values that forest managers had adopted for almost a century, whereas CCF challenged those ideas. Public pressure and institutional requirements were also key to GTR implementation but were not in place for CCF. Thus, scientific ecological knowledge may play an important role for policy uptake and development, but knowledge from other research disciplines and socio-political factors are also important.
Authors
Anna Sténs
Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
Other publications
>>
Jean-Michel Roberge
Forest Unit, Swedish Forest Agency, Umeå, Sweden. Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden
Other publications
>>
Erik Löfmarck
Environmental Sociology Section, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
Other publications
>>
Karin Beland Lindahl
Luleå tekniska universitet; Samhällsvetenskap
Other publications
>>
Adam Felton
Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden
Other publications
>>
Camilla Widmark
Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden
Other publications
>>
Lucy Rist
Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden
Other publications
>>
Johanna Johansson
School of Natural Sciences, Technology and Environmental Studies, Södertörn University, Huddinge, Sweden
Other publications
>>
Annika Nordin
Department of Forest Genetics and Plant Physiology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden
Other publications
>>
Urban Nilsson
Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden
Other publications
>>
Hjalmar Laudon
Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden
Other publications
>>
Thomas Ranius
Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
Other publications
>>
Record metadata
Click to view metadata
header:
identifier: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-76537
datestamp: 2021-04-19T12:50:46Z
setSpec: SwePub-ltu
metadata:
mods:
@attributes:
version: 3.7
recordInfo:
recordContentSource: ltu
recordCreationDate: 2019-10-28
identifier:
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-76537
10.1007/s10531-019-01836-2
2-s2.0-85071476014
titleInfo:
@attributes:
lang: eng
title: From ecological knowledge to conservation policy
subTitle: a case study on green tree retention and continuous-cover forestry in Sweden
abstract: The extent to which scientific knowledge translates into practice is a pervasive question. We analysed to what extent and how ecological scientists gave input to policy for two approaches advocated for promoting forest biodiversity in production forests in Sweden: green-tree retention (GTR) and continuous-cover forestry (CCF). GTR was introduced into forest policy in the 1970s and became widely implemented in the 1990s. Ecological scientists took part in the policy process by providing expert opinions educational activities and as lobbyists long before research confirming the positive effects of GTR on biodiversity was produced. In contrast CCF was essentially banned in forest legislation in 1979. In the 1990s policy implicitly opened up for CCF implementation but CCF still remains largely a rare silvicultural outlier. Scientific publications addressing CCF appeared earlier than GTR studies but with less focus on the effects on biodiversity. Ecological scientists promoted CCF in certain areas but knowledge from other disciplines and other socio-political factors appear to have been more important than ecological arguments in the case of CCF. The wide uptake of GTR was enhanced by its consistency with the silvicultural knowledge and normative values that forest managers had adopted for almost a century whereas CCF challenged those ideas. Public pressure and institutional requirements were also key to GTR implementation but were not in place for CCF. Thus scientific ecological knowledge may play an important role for policy uptake and development but knowledge from other research disciplines and socio-political factors are also important.
subject:
@attributes:
lang: eng
authority: uka.se
topic:
Social Sciences
Political Science
Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
@attributes:
lang: swe
authority: uka.se
topic:
Samhällsvetenskap
Statsvetenskap
Statsvetenskap (exklusive studier av offentlig förvaltning och globaliseringsstudier)
@attributes:
lang: eng
topic: Environmental history
@attributes:
lang: eng
topic: Environmental policy
@attributes:
lang: eng
topic: Forest biodiversity
@attributes:
lang: eng
topic: Biodiversity conservation
@attributes:
lang: eng
topic: Policy uptake
@attributes:
lang: eng
authority: ltu
topic: Political Science
genre: Research subject
@attributes:
lang: swe
authority: ltu
topic: Statsvetenskap
genre: Research subject
language:
languageTerm: eng
genre:
publication/journal-article
ref
note:
Published
12
Validerad;2019;Nivå 2;2019-10-28 (johcin)
name:
@attributes:
type: personal
namePart:
Sténs
Anna
role:
roleTerm: aut
affiliation: Department of Historical Philosophical and Religious Studies Umeå University Umeå Sweden
@attributes:
type: personal
namePart:
Roberge
Jean-Michel
role:
roleTerm: aut
affiliation: Forest Unit Swedish Forest Agency Umeå Sweden. Department of Wildlife Fish and Environmental Studies Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Umeå Sweden
@attributes:
type: personal
namePart:
Löfmarck
Erik
role:
roleTerm: aut
affiliation: Environmental Sociology Section Örebro University Örebro Sweden
@attributes:
type: personal
authority: ltu
namePart:
Lindahl
Karin Beland
role:
roleTerm: aut
affiliation:
Luleå tekniska universitet
Samhällsvetenskap
nameIdentifier:
karbel
0000-0001-6145-2252
@attributes:
type: personal
namePart:
Felton
Adam
role:
roleTerm: aut
affiliation: Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Alnarp Sweden
@attributes:
type: personal
namePart:
Widmark
Camilla
role:
roleTerm: aut
affiliation: Department of Forest Economics Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Umeå Sweden
@attributes:
type: personal
namePart:
Rist
Lucy
role:
roleTerm: aut
affiliation: Department of Forest Ecology and Management Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Umeå Sweden
@attributes:
type: personal
namePart:
Johansson
Johanna
role:
roleTerm: aut
affiliation: School of Natural Sciences Technology and Environmental Studies Södertörn University Huddinge Sweden
@attributes:
type: personal
namePart:
Nordin
Annika
role:
roleTerm: aut
affiliation: Department of Forest Genetics and Plant Physiology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Umeå Sweden
@attributes:
type: personal
namePart:
Nilsson
Urban
role:
roleTerm: aut
affiliation: Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Alnarp Sweden
@attributes:
type: personal
namePart:
Laudon
Hjalmar
role:
roleTerm: aut
affiliation: Department of Forest Ecology and Management Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Umeå Sweden
@attributes:
type: personal
namePart:
Ranius
Thomas
role:
roleTerm: aut
affiliation: Department of Ecology Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala Sweden
originInfo:
dateIssued: 2019
publisher: Springer
relatedItem:
@attributes:
type: host
titleInfo:
title: Biodiversity and Conservation
identifier:
0960-3115
1572-9710
part:
detail:
@attributes:
type: volume
number: 28
@attributes:
type: issue
number: 13
extent:
start: 3547
end: 3574
physicalDescription:
form: print
typeOfResource: text