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/s10531-019-01836-2
Keyword: 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 uptake
Publication year: 2019
Relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):
SDG 15 Life on landSDG 16 Peace, justice and strong institutionsSDG 2 Zero hunger
The SDG label(s) above have been assigned by OSDG.ai

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.

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