umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
European private forest owner typologies: a review of methods and use
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: Forest Policy and Economics, ISSN 1389-9341, E-ISSN 1872-7050, Vol. 99, p. 21-31Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The increasing diversity of non-industrial private forest owners (PFOs) in Europe has been recognized by policy makers and the forestry sector at large. Typologies of these owners have been developed to provide an understanding of the diversity of owners' attitudes, values, beliefs, management objectives and behaviour. We analyzed PFO typologies from 28 European countries published from 1985 to 2015 in peer-reviewed journals and grey literature with respect to 1) research approaches and methods used; 2) typology objectives and problems addressed; 3) policy and management recommendations given. Using an on-line questionnaire we asked the first authors of the most relevant publications to retrospectively assess 4) the use of their typologies in education, science and forest policy. Most of the 66 publications reviewed share the common objective of providing a better understanding of forest ownership. Typologies were also developed to address roundwood mobilization, delivery of public goods, forest management approaches, involvement in PFO associations and entrepreneurship. The most common methodological approach was quantitative where owners were grouped by k-means clustering into 2 to 6 types and labelled with various names. Most frequently used labels were Multiobjective owners, Recreationists, Investors, Farmers, Indifferent owners, Conservationists, Multifunctional owners and Self-employed owners. Policy implications remain vague. The typologies had mostly been used in teaching and occasionally by politicians, civil servants or stake-holders. Only a half of the typologies had a follow-up study or was updated over time by the authors. After decades of classifying PFOs, it seems necessary to explore the link between typologies and forest owners' overt behaviour.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2019. Vol. 99, p. 21-31
Keywords [en]
Family forests, Landowners, Non-industrial, Policy instruments, Literature review, Classification
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary Forest Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-144600DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.09.010ISI: 000455990500003OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-144600DiVA, id: diva2:1180935
Available from: 2018-02-07 Created: 2018-02-07 Last updated: 2019-02-26Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Westin, Kerstin

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Westin, Kerstin
By organisation
Department of Geography and Economic History
In the same journal
Forest Policy and Economics
Social Sciences InterdisciplinaryForest Science

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 113 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf