Department of Thematic Studies

Environmental Change

Perspectives on sustainable
forest management by
stakeholders in Östergötland

Katharina Charlotte Heimes

MSc Thesis (30 ECTS credits)

Science for Sustainable development

Linköpings universitet, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden

Upphovsrätt
Detta dokument hålls tillgängligt på Internet – eller dess framtida ersättare – under 25 år från
publiceringsdatum under förutsättning att inga extraordinära omständigheter uppstår.
Tillgång till dokumentet innebär tillstånd för var och en att läsa, ladda ner, skriva ut enstaka
kopior för enskilt bruk och att använda det oförändrat för ickekommersiell forskning och för
undervisning. Överföring av upphovsrätten vid en senare tidpunkt kan inte upphäva detta
tillstånd. All annan användning av dokumentet kräver upphovsmannens medgivande. För att
garantera äktheten, säkerheten och tillgängligheten finns lösningar av teknisk och administrativ
art.
Upphovsmannens ideella rätt innefattar rätt att bli nämnd som upphovsman i den omfattning
som god sed kräver vid användning av dokumentet på ovan beskrivna sätt samt skydd mot att
dokumentet ändras eller presenteras i sådan form eller i sådant sammanhang som är kränkande
för upphovsmannens litterära eller konstnärliga anseende eller egenart.
För ytterligare information om Linköping University Electronic Press se förlagets hemsida
https://ep.liu.se/ .

Copyright
The publishers will keep this document online on the Internet –or its possible replacement –for
a period of 25 years starting from the date of publication barring exceptional circumstances.
The online availability of the document implies a permanent permission for anyone to read,
download, or print out single copies for his/her own use and to use it unchanged for non-
commercial research and educational purpose. Subsequent transfers of copyright cannot revoke
this permission. All other uses of the document are conditional upon the consent of the
copyright owner. The publisher has taken technical and administrative measures to assure
authenticity, security, and accessibility.
According to intellectual property law, the author has the right to be mentioned when his/her
work is accessed as described above and to be protected against infringement.
For additional information about the Linköping University Electronic Press and its procedures
for publication and assurance of document integrity, please refer to its www home page:
https://ep.liu.se/.

©2021 Katharina Charlotte Heimes

ii
iii
Table of contents
1 Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 1
2 List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 1
3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
3.1 Research aim and research questions ............................................................................... 3
4 Background ............................................................................................................................. 4
4.1 Forestry governance and forest management in Sweden ................................................. 4
4.2 Case study background ..................................................................................................... 5
4.3 Values and conflict of interest in Swedish forest management ........................................ 5
4.4 The National Forest Program ........................................................................................... 7
5 Analytical framework and methods ........................................................................................ 7
5.1 Thematization ................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Stakeholder selection ........................................................................................................ 8
5.3 Semi-structured interviews ............................................................................................... 9
5.4 Analytical framework ..................................................................................................... 10
5.4.1 Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) .................. 10
5.4.2 Trade-offs and synergies .......................................................................................... 11
5.5 Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 11
5.6 Reliability and validity ................................................................................................... 12
6 Results ................................................................................................................................... 12
6.1 Ecosystem services ......................................................................................................... 12
6.1.1 Provisioning services ............................................................................................... 13
6.1.2 Regulating and maintenance services ...................................................................... 17
6.1.3 Cultural services....................................................................................................... 20
6.2 Challenges and opportunities for sustainable forest management .................................. 21
6.2.1 Balancing environmental and production goals ....................................................... 21
6.2.2 Trade-offs and synergies .......................................................................................... 22
6.2.3 Conflicts of interest .................................................................................................. 23
7 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 24
7.1 Perspectives on forest ecosystem services ...................................................................... 24
7.2 Pathways to sustainable forest management................................................................... 26
7.2.1 Building forest resilience ......................................................................................... 26
7.2.2 Nature conservation and economic benefits ............................................................ 27
7.2.3 Market demand and prioritization of forest products............................................... 29
7.2.4 Resolving conflicts of interest and missing consensus ............................................ 30

iv
 7.3 Scientific value and implications .................................................................................... 31
8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 31
9 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. 33
10 References ........................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 43

v
List of figures
Figure 1 Potential for continuous cover forestry and mixed forests based on identified values
and challenges .......................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 2 Potential of landowner compensation, increase in nature reserves, and nature tourism
based on identified values and challenges ................................................................................ 29
Figure 3 Potential for prioritization of long-lived products based on identified values and
challenges ................................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 4 Importance of resuming dialogue and establishing improved communication based
on identified values and challenges .......................................................................................... 31

List of tables
Table 1 Stakeholder selection..................................................................................................... 9
Table 2 CICES framework ....................................................................................................... 11
Table 3 ES, categorized by CICES categories (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2018; Hansen &
Malmaeus, 2016) and the number of respondents who referenced each ES ............................ 13

vi
1 Abstract
The emerging bioeconomy in Europe requires the intensification of forestry to meet the market
demand for biomass. The policy conflict between increasing production and halting
biodiversity loss has fueled debates in Sweden on sustainable forest use and management in
recent years. While one side calls for increased production, the other side argues that this
strategy jeopardizes environmental goals regarding biodiversity and counteracts sustainable
forest management. In this study, a socio-cultural valuation approach was applied to examine
perspectives of stakeholders representing environmental and production interests in
Östergötland, southern Sweden on forest ecosystem services and sustainable forest
management. Based on the values and challenges described by the stakeholders, this study
aimed to identify pathways towards sustainable forest management. The results showed a
divergence of views on whether intensification compromises environmental goals. While some
stakeholders placed a high value on carbon substitution and emphasized the opportunities for
sustainable development, other stakeholders were critical of the framing of intensification as
sustainable. Despite the disagreements, opportunities were identified that could promote SFM.
Possible ways forward include strengthening the resilience of production forests by increasingly
adopting continuous cover forestry and mixed forests, redistributing production toward more
long-lived forest products, and increasing the share of nature reserves. In addition,
compensation funding and education might be viable ways to address conflicts arising from
landowner conservation actions. To address conflicting perspectives the results point towards
the need to resume dialogue and enable improved communication.
Keywords: Socio-cultural valuation, sustainable forest management, biodiversity conservation,
bioeconomy, ecosystem services, forest intensification

2 List of abbreviations
CICES Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services
ENGO Environmental non-governmental organization
ES Ecosystem service/s
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
GHG Greenhouse gas
NFP National Forest Program
NIPF Non-industrial private forest owners
PEFC Programme for the Endorsement of Forest
RQ Research question
SDG Sustainable development goal
SFA Swedish Forest Agency
SFM Sustainable forest management
WKH Woodland key habitat

3 Introduction
The phasing out of fossil fuels and reaching carbon neutrality creates a dilemma for Sweden.
While replacing fossil fuel products and energy with forest biomass seems like a promising way
for climate mitigation and energy security, voices get loud that this strategy jeopardizes
environmental goals and has negative implications for biodiversity and the sustainable use of

1
the resource forest (Bryngemark, 2020; Eriksson & Klapwijk, 2019; Johansson & Ranius,
2019).

Both climate mitigation, energy security, and halting biodiversity loss are central to the
sustainable development goals of the 2030 Agenda (SDG 13, SDG 7, SDG 15) (UN General
Assembly, 2015). However, the realization of all goals has been argued to be challenging, as
the different policy objectives conflict with each other (Bennich et al., 2021; Brand et al., 2021).
These conflicting goals, which are present in international policies, are exemplified in the case
of Swedish forestry.

Sweden aims to be fossil-free by 2045 and to this purpose a bio-based economy is to be

established. In the bio-based economy, also called bioeconomy forests have a key role to play
(Anon, 2018). Forest biomass shall act as a substitute for fossil products and energy, while also
sequestering carbon in forest stands (Eriksson & Klapwijk, 2019; Johansson & Ranius, 2019;
Triviño et al., 2017). To make this possible an increase in biomass production is planned (Anon,
2018; Johansson & Ranius, 2019). For this purpose, the National Forest Program (NFP) was
initiated, in which ‘sustainable forest growth’ is promoted (Anon, 2018). The plan is to intensify
forest management, taking into account the three dimensions of sustainability: economic,
ecological, and social. Equal consideration of production and environmental goals, which are
central to Swedish forest policy (SFS 1993:553, n.d.) shall also form the basis for the
bioeconomy. The NFP strategy highlights the importance of several different ecosystem
services (ES) provided by forests, including traditional products such as wood, pulp, and paper,
new products such as bioplastics and textiles, and energy substitution through biofuels and
bioenergy. At the same time, forest biodiversity should be conserved, water supplies secured
and forests used for tourism and recreation (Anon, 2018).

However, the NFP strategy has been criticized for not addressing the question of whether the
forest as a resource is sufficient to fulfill all these demands (Fischer et al., 2020). A further
intensification in forest management might have negative implications for biodiversity and
other ES (Eriksson & Klapwijk, 2019), and biodiversity in Sweden is threatened with 2000
forest-related species being red-listed (Sandström et al., 2015). On top of that Sweden is already
characterized by intense forestry (Lodin & Brukas, 2021) where even-aged forest management
and clear-felling methods are largely applied (Felton et al., 2020a; Kuuluvainen et al., 2012).

The discourse on intensifying forestry for sustainable development has fueled conflicts among
stakeholders in Swedish forestry (Eriksson & Klapwijk, 2019). The debate about intensive
forestry in Sweden has existed for some time, but the intensification has more recently been
justified by climate change mitigation. One of the main issues in the debate is how to intensify
forestry without negatively affecting other ES such as biodiversity, water quality, and
recreational values and thereby hindering the achievement of environmental goals
(Bryngemark, 2020; Lindkvist et al., 2012). Proponents of the bioeconomy see opportunities
for fossil fuel replacement leading to energy security, climate protection, and economic
benefits. They consider that Swedish forestry takes biodiversity into account enough. Those
who are critical argue with negative implications for biodiversity and that the climate positive
effects of bioenergy are exaggerated (Eriksson & Klapwijk, 2019; Lidskog et al., 2013). Hence,
opinions differ on whether further intensification of forestry can still be sustainable (Johansson
& Ranius, 2019). It is suggested that at its core the conflict is about how different goals should
be weighted and prioritized and that the conflict can be described as more carbon substitution
versus more forest conservation (Bryngemark, 2020; Eriksson & Klapwijk, 2019; Lidskog et
al., 2013).

2
Sweden is committed to the sustainable management of forests through international
conventions such as the EU Forestry Strategy (European Commission, 2021), the Montreal
Process, and the Convention of Biological Diversity (UNEP, 2010), and through the national
environmental quality objectives (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2020).
Sustainable forest management (SFM) is defined as a “dynamic and evolving concept, which
aims to maintain and enhance the economic, social and environmental values of all types of
forests, for the benefit of present and future generations” (FAO, 2020).
3.1 Research aim and research questions
As forest ecosystems are very complex, the result of ecological processes and conditions in a
changing climate and the provision of final ecosystem services is uncertain (Fischer, 2018).
This makes continuous assessments of trade-offs necessary (McShane et al., 2011). Forests are
both private and public resources and the many demands placed on forests create a difficult
environment of conflict among stakeholders. As the discussion becomes increasingly polarized
(Jakobsson et al., 2021), it is necessary to assess the perceptions of different stakeholder groups
on ES and the role of forests in the bioeconomy. Examining stakeholder perspectives helps
understand the conflict of interest and determine why certain management strategies face
resistance. Such insights might unfold pathways for SFM, and address the disagreements that
are currently impacting forest planning (Eriksson & Klapwijk, 2019; Klapwijk et al., 2018).

This study focuses on a regional level and examines the perceptions of stakeholders in
Östergötland. Östergötland was chosen as a case study as 63,1% of the region consists of
forestland (Statistics Sweden, 2019, p. 42), and forestry has historically been an important
sector in the region with Norrköping being Sweden’s largest forest industry municipality both
in terms of turnover and number of employees (Heldmark, n.d.). At the same time, the
hardwood forests of the region are an important habitat for species (Götmark, 2009). In
ecosystem service management, spatial scales are important because ES generated at one
ecological level may benefit stakeholders at other levels (Hein et al., 2006). For instance, while
carbon substitution provides benefits at a national scale for reaching an emission-free Sweden
by 2045 (Miljömålsberedningen, 2016), it can result in negative implications for biodiversity
at a regional scale (Söderberg & Eckerberg, 2013). In contrast to northern Sweden where forest
land is predominately in the hand of large-scale industrial actors, non-industrial private (NIPF)
owners are the biggest ownership group in southern Sweden owning a total of 78% of the
productive forest land (Christiansen, 2018). This makes a difference in attitudes, forest values,
and forest conflicts between northern and southern Sweden (Götmark, 2009; Jakobsson et al.,
2021; Lindkvist et al., 2012). As Swedish forestry governance is deregulated (Löfmarck et al.,
2017) and the market is dominated by large industrial players who have a strong interest in
increasing production (Lodin et al., 2017; Sandström et al., 2016), bringing in different voices
is important to get a full picture of the perspectives on intensification.

This study aims to explore pathways to sustainable forest management by examining the
perspectives of stakeholders in Östergötland on the conservation of forest biodiversity and the
intensification of forestry for the bioeconomy. The following research questions are addressed:

i) What values do stakeholders ascribe to forest ecosystem services?

ii) What challenges and opportunities do stakeholders outline for sustainable forest
management in Östergötland?
iii) How can these insights reveal pathways for sustainable forest management?

3
These research questions will be examined in the context of the evolving bioeconomy and
proposed actions under the National Forest Program (NFP). A particular focus is given to
production and conservation goals. This study applies an ecosystem service valuation approach
as it allows to examine the values that stakeholder groups ascribe to ES and highlight trade-offs
that stakeholders are concerned with. As such it can identify conflicting views, and help to build
dialogue between interest groups (Leary et al., 2021).
The structure of the study is as follows: Chapter 4 provides background information about
forestry governance and forest management in Sweden, the case study background, and the
NFP. This chapter also provides an overview of current research on values that stakeholders
ascribe to and conflicts of interest in forestry. In chapter 5 the applied methods and the
framework of analysis are introduced, and the results of the analysis are displayed in chapter 6.
Chapter 7 continues with a discussion where results are embedded in previous research and the
academic implications of the study are evaluated, subsequently concluding with the main
findings in chapter 8.

4 Background
4.1 Forestry governance and forest management in Sweden
According to the 1993 Swedish Forestry Act, production and environmental aspects should be
given equal consideration (Skogsvårdslag, SFS 1993:553). This, in combination with other
legislation and governance mechanisms such as the Environmental Code (Ministry of the
Environment, 2000), has led to the ‘Swedish Model’ of forest management, which is a multi-
level model for biodiversity conservation in forests (Simonsson, 2016). The Swedish Model is
characterized by retention forestry in production forests, voluntary set-asides, and formally
protected areas. Retention forestry means that when conducting silvicultural measures such as
final felling small patches ranging from an individual tree to areas of 0.5 to 1 ha are protected.
This enables the protection of buffer zones close to water or wetlands for instance. The
responsibility and costs for that lie with the forest owner (Simonsson, 2016). If the forest land
is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council system (FSC) or the Program for the
Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), it is required that 5% of the certified area needs
to be voluntarily set aside for nature conservation (FSC, 2010; PEFC, n.d.). In Sweden, around
66% of forest land is certified (Swedish Forest Agency, 2021). Besides that, some forest patches
in privately owned forests that have a high value for biodiversity and red-listed species are
conserved to benefit biodiversity (0.5-20 ha). These are known as woodland key habitats
(WKH) (Götmark, 2009; Simonsson, 2016). For WKHs both the government and the landowner
share the responsibility with the bigger share lying with the forest owner (Simonsson, 2016). In
Sweden, the governing principle of forest management is known as ‘freedom with
responsibility’ meaning that forest owners have a high level of freedom in decision-making, but
have the responsibility of balancing production, environmental and social values (Löfmarck et
al., 2017). On the large scale, there are nature reserves and national parks to generate the
protection of areas with high natural values, for which the government is responsible
(Simonsson, 2016). According to the Biological Convention which has been signed by Sweden
the share of protected areas should amount to 17% by 2020 and should be effectively managed,
ecologically representative, and form well-connected systems (UNEP, 2010). Yet, research
suggests that Sweden has failed to reach these targets due to a lack of connectivity and
ecoregional representativeness, as most of the formally protected areas are located in the
northern part of Sweden and consist of unproductive forest areas (Angelstam et al., 2020, p.
11).

4
Rotation forestry1, which consists of clear-felling approaches is largely applied in Swedish
production forests (Eyvindson et al., 2021). In production forests almost exclusively Norway
spruce (Picea abies), and Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) are cultivated accounting for 80% of the
standing volume in Sweden. Those are predominantly cultivated in the form of even-aged,
monocultural stands (SLU, 2018). Positive aspects of rotation forestry include cost-efficiency
and great biomass outtake, while it has negative impacts on biodiversity (Felton et al., 2020a),
and non-timber ES (Eyvindson et al., 2021) such as the provision of fresh water (Pohjanmies et
al., 2017), forest resilience and cultural ES (Felton et al., 2020a). Because of these negative
implications, earlier studies have been looking into more close-to-nature management
approaches such as continuous cover forestry, where the forest canopy is maintained
continuously, and that excludes clear-felling (Eyvindson et al., 2021).
4.2 Case study background
Östergötland County is located in the south of Sweden (58°Nm 15°E), covers an area of about
120 x 150 km (Garrido et al., 2017) and is placed in the hemi-boreal ecoregion (Angelstam et
al., 2020). 63,1% of the total area consists of forest land, of which about 91% is productive
forest (Statistics Sweden, 2019). The pulp and paper industry in Norrköping, dating back to the
16th century still contributes to the economy in the county substantially (Heldmark, n.d.). The
share of legally protected forest in Östergötland amounts to around 2%. In addition, there are
voluntary set-asides protected by the certification. Added together, the forest set aside for nature
conservation accounts for 4 to 5% (Heldmark, n.d.). The Coniferous trees Scots pine and
Norway spruce account for 81% of standing volume in Östergötland. In contrast, the share of
broadleaved tree species is 15%, and oak trees are 2% of the total standing volume (Garrido et
al., 2017). Southern hardwood forests are an important habitat for many threatened and
endangered species (Götmark, 2009) and Östergötland's forests provide a habitat for some
30,000 species, many of which are in decline (Heldmark, n.d.).
In southern Sweden (Götaland), non-industrial private forest owners (NIPF) are by far the
biggest owner group owning about 78% of forestland (Christiansen, 2018; Götmark, 2009). In
Östergötland there are 10,000 NIPF owners which own about 60% of forestland (Heldmark,
n.d.). Most of them are small-scale farmers that have an additional income next to forestry
(Garrido et al., 2017). Like in the rest of Sweden, the number of medium-sized sawmills has
decreased in the study area (Heldmark, n.d.).
4.3 Values and conflict of interest in Swedish forest management
The Swedish forestry sector is characterized by a variety of stakeholders with different interests,
and several studies confirm that stakeholder groups value forest ES in Sweden differently
(Jakobsson et al., 2021; Kindstrand et al., 2008; Lindkvist et al., 2012; Lodin & Brukas, 2021;
Nordén et al., 2017; Sandström et al., 2016).
Studies showed that the Swedish forest industry and its representatives, such as the Swedish
Forest Industries Federation, as well as timber buyers and bioenergy companies, value
silvicultural goals (Lodin & Brukas, 2021; Sandström et al., 2016). These include increasing
production and making economic value of forest resources. Consequently, they are likely to
prioritize these targets over biodiversity (Sandström et al., 2016). Forest officials, consisting
of both state-employed forest consultants and officials working for industry, are in contact with
and consult forest owners (Kindstrand et al., 2008). Several studies have shown that forest

1
Rotation forestry is applied in form of retention forestry in Sweden
5
officials promote production rather than biodiversity production (Lodin & Brukas, 2021;
Nordén et al., 2017; Sandström et al., 2016).
The results of the studies by Nordén et al. (2017) and Sandström et al. (2016) suggest that
production targets are also evaluated higher than other targets by forest owners. Nevertheless,
Keskitalo and Liljenfeldt (2014) in their case study on problems and opportunities in the
implementation of certification requirements in Sweden, argue that a distinction should be made
between large-scale forest owners and private non-industrial forest owners. They concluded
that forest owners often give operations in the hand of wood buyers and forest owner
organizations, but that there is an inequality in knowledge between NIPF owners and
representatives of the forest sector. This is in line with Kindstrand et al. (2008) who compared
the attitudes of forest owners and forest officials and found that timber production was
considered more important by forest officials than by forest owners, while biodiversity and
recreational functions were valued more by forest owners. Also, the study by Lindkvist et al.
(2012) on perceptions of stakeholder groups on intensive forestry concluded that it should not
be taken for granted that NIPF owners are in favor of intensive forestry. This is supported by
the study by Mattila and Roos (2014) that suggested that forest owners can be divided into
traditional forest owners and ones that have different value creation logic. The study by Mattila
and Roos (2014) shows that NIPF owners can be divided into the traditional forest owner that
is likely to be part of forest organizations, and NIPF owners that are not part of any organization,
are alienated from their forests or are not financially dependent on making economic use of it.
Studies have shown that the ownership structure of NIPF owners is changing due to
demographic change and urbanization, and the number of forest owners living far from their
property and being independent of forest revenue is increasing. Besides that, the share of female
owners is rising (Nordlund & Westin, 2011). Nordlund and Westin (2011) compared different
NIPF owners and found that resident owners ascribe higher values towards production and
economic value than non-resident forest owners. Additionally, a difference was found between
male and female forest owners with female owners showing stronger ecological and
recreational forest values (Nordlund & Westin, 2011). The study by Lodin and Brukas (2021)
investigated the reasons for deviations in silvicultural management of NIPF owners in
Kronoberg County and found that those included fear of browsing damages, lack of knowledge
of pre-thinning, emotional ties to forests, and low need for income from forestry.
Environmental Organizations (ENGOs) on the other hand such as the Swedish Society for
Nature Conservation promote conservation measures (Eriksson & Klapwijk, 2019; Sandström
et al., 2016). The study by Sandström et al. (2016) has shown that their interest lies in the
indirect use of forests and that they see ecological values and functioning ecosystems as the
basis for the provision of other ES, and thus for sustainable forestry. The study noted that this
is contrary to the industry's view of economic yields as the basis for sustainable forestry
(Sandström et al., 2016).
Other stakeholder groups include indigenous Sami organizations, recreational and tourism
groups, as well as citizens (Eriksson & Klapwijk, 2019; Hemström, Mahapatra, & Gustavsson,
2014; Nordén et al., 2017; Sandström et al., 2016). They represent other perspectives on
forestry, but since they are not the focus of this study, their valuations are only discussed briefly
here. Sami organizations have an interest in preserving intact forest ecosystems that enables
their cultural tradition of reindeer herding in the forest. Recreation and tourism groups are
interested in managing the forest to meet the needs of tourism and recreational activities
(Sandström et al., 2016), while citizens were found to be a dynamic group with different
attitudes (Eriksson & Klapwijk, 2019; Hemström et al., 2014; Nordén et al., 2017).

6
The clash of different interests, views, and attitudes leads to disagreements, tensions, and
conflicts concerning the use and management of forests (Götmark, 2009; Jakobsson et al., 2021;
Lindkvist et al., 2012; Sandström et al., 2016; Simonsson, 2016). Sweden looks back to a long
history of conflicts around forestry with today’s conflicts being centered around political and
cultural dimensions of forestry issues (Jakobsson et al., 2021). These involve, first, conflicts
due to the unequal distribution of economic and political power over the use of forests, tensions
between private and public goods and property rights, and conflicts arising from societal
perceptions and discourses about the function of forests (Eckerberg & Sandström, 2013).
Lately, the debate about the role of forests in the bioeconomy has dominated the discourse on
forestry. As a result, stakeholders representing forestry interests tend to be in favor of
intensification, and stakeholders representing environmental and recreational interests, as well
as the general public, tend to be critical or be averse to it (Eriksson & Klapwijk, 2019; Lindkvist
et al., 2012).
In addition, there are conflicts over private property rights, which have been characteristic of
southern Sweden for some time, as forests are predominantly owned by NIPF owners
(Götmark, 2009; Kindstrand et al., 2008). The declaration of the land of forest owners as a
woodland key habitat (WKH) for nature conservation and the loss of this area for forestry, has
caused conflicts (Götmark, 2009; Jakobsson et al., 2021). Götmark (2009) found that points of
conflict include financial aspects such as the compensation of landowners and limitation of
freedom of land management. As the number of stakeholders participating in the social debate
about forestry and decision-making has increased, Jakobsson et al. (2021) claim that there is a
shift away from forest landowner concerns to a popularized, activist-led public debate that
becomes increasingly polarized.
4.4 The National Forest Program
The National Forest Program was initiated to achieve agreement among the conflicting interest
groups and to establish long-term cooperation in the bioeconomy (Johansson, 2016). A central
goal of the NFP was to facilitate dialogue, consensus, and collaboration among stakeholders in
the evolving bio-based economy in which the natural resource forest gets a special focus and
role for reaching a fossil-free Sweden and net-negative emissions by 2045 (Anon, 2018;
Fischer, Stenius, & Holmgren, 2020; Johansson, 2016; SOU, 2016). In the NFP the importance
of ‘sustainable forest growth’ (Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation, 2018) is raised, and
measures are proposed for increasing biomass outtake without harming the environment. These
measures include inter alia better rejuvenation, existing and protective ditches, fertilization, the
use of foreign tree species and processed plant material, as well as the increased extraction of
branches and tops. The NFP stresses that growth shall be reached within the framework of the
equal goals of forest policy including the national environmental goals and the three dimensions
of sustainability (Anon, 2018). While national forest programs generally are tools for achieving
SFM, some scientists argue that in the case of Sweden it was used to create consensus,
legitimize an increased biomass outtake for a bio-based economy (Fischer et al., 2020), and
failed to be inclusive as it marginalized different values and interests (Fischer et al., 2020;
Johansson, 2016).

5 Analytical framework and methods

5.1 Thematization
This study aims to gather in-depth knowledge about stakeholders' perspectives. Therefore, a
qualitative research design is appropriate. The position of stakeholder groups, in general, is not

7
examined, but rather the perceptions of individuals to gain a deeper understanding of different
perspectives (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Examining different perspectives on the bioeconomy
and bringing in voices of stakeholders that did not participate in NFP process is essential
(Johansson, 2016).
Primary data was collected by conducting interviews with relevant actors. As several studies
have revealed that the opinions about Swedish forest management are quite polarized, and the
debate is conflict-laden (Jakobsson et al., 2021; Simonsson, 2016), one-to-one interviews were
preferable for this study. This ensured that stakeholders were provided with a neutral setting to
explain their perspectives in detail.
All seven stages of an interview inquiry according to Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) including
thematizing, planning, interviewing, transcribing, analyzing, verifying, and reporting was
conducted. For this study, the semi-structured interview was applied. In semi-structured
interviews, themes are pre-identified and ensure that the central questions are asked. At the
same time, the structure allows a certain level of flexibility (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). For
this study, expert interviews, a sub-form of the semi-structured interview (Misoch, 2015) were
conducted. The expert interview defines itself by the object of interest: the expert. Experts can
be understood as persons who have specific practical or experiential knowledge about a certain
problem area and that influence the action of others (Bogner et al., 2014, p. 13). The choice for
the expert interview was made because not the language and expressions of the interviewees
were of interest, but the content itself.
5.2 Stakeholder selection
Stakeholder selection was based on stakeholder mapping (Reed et al., 2009). As the aim of this
study was to get both the perspectives of experts representing production interests and those
representing conservation interests, stakeholders that are known to hold these values were
selected. The stakeholders were grouped into the two subgroups accordingly. For the
identification of stakeholders, typical case sampling based on literature review and snowball
sampling was applied.
For the production side, interviews were conducted with representatives of the forest industry.
These included interviews with a forestry company in Östergötland, as well as with the Swedish
Forest Agency. Because of the ownership structure in Östergötland being dominated by NIPF
owners (Heldmark, n.d.), getting the perspective of NIPF owners was essential. As the interests
of NIPF are represented on the market by forest associations in which about 50% of all NIPF
owners are members (Mattila & Roos, 2014), the perspective of a landowner organization was
included. Two landowner organizations that are present in Östergötland were contacted, on
which one agreed to be interviewed. As forest associations are generally production-oriented,
and earlier studies have found that they do not represent the values of all NIPF owners (Mattila
& Roos, 2014; Nordlund & Westin, 2011), one NIPF owner who is also engaged in politics was
interviewed to get a nuanced insight into the situation. Also, a municipality in Östergötland was
included in the study as municipalities are public landowners that incorporate increasingly the
ecosystem framework in planning documents (Nordin et al., 2017). In addition, the county
administrative board ‘Länsstyrelsen’ was contacted as it has the task for the implementation of
national goals while taking regional interests into account, but due to time constraints
representatives were unable to participate in the study. Since the production of bioenergy is
emphasized in the transition to a bio-based economy, a scientist in this field of knowledge was
also interviewed.
The representatives of environmental interests in the Swedish forestry sector who were
interviewed included an ENGO, as they have a long history of strong advocacy for

8
environmental interests. In addition, a researcher of conservation biology was included in the
study to get expertise in this field, and an independent forest management consultant was
interviewed. The respondents defined as interest group representatives were chosen based on
their role in their respective organizations.
In total nine interviews (Table 1) were conducted from March 2021 to May 2021 that lasted
from 35 to 50 minutes. The interview participants were contacted via email. In the initial email
the purpose of the study, the reason for the request, and the duration of the interview were
clarified, and respondents were informed that participation is voluntary (appendix 1). Before
the interview, participants were sent a consent form for personal data processing which
contained detailed information about personal data collection, storage, and the explication of
the right of withdrawal from the study.
Table 1 Stakeholder selection

Key interest Stakeholder type ID

Production interest Forest company 1
Consultant (SFA) 2
Private forest owner 3
Landowner organization 4
Academic 5
Production, and environmental interest Public forest owner (municipality) 6
Environmental interests ENGO 7
Academic 8
Independent forest management 9
consultant
5.3 Semi-structured interviews
The interview guide, the central element for structuring and conducting semi-structured
interviews (Misoch, 2015) consisted of two topic blocks, both consisting of main questions and
sub-questions (appendix 2). The first section included questions for research question 1 (RQ1)
relating to the perspectives of stakeholders on forest ES. For RQ1, questions were developed
based on the CICES framework, and following the manual of a similar study by Garrido et al.
(2017) about stakeholder perceptions on ES in Östergötland. The second section included
questions for RQ 2 and 3, seeking to identify challenges and opportunities for sustainable
forestry management in Östergötland. The questions were defined concerning the established
goals in the NFP focus area 1 ‘sustainable forest management with greater climate benefits’
(Anon, 2018) and tailored to the ecosystem service framework. They asked about trends in the
supply of ES, trade-offs, opportunities, and multifunctionality. The main questions served as
discussion stimuli for the respective topic section and were supplemented by various follow-up
questions (Bogner et al., 2014). Narrative-generating questions were used to explore the subject
areas.
Due to the request of several participants, the interview guide was sent in advance by e-mail.
This decision was made to comfort interview participants as interviews were not conducted in
their native language and to build trust. A disadvantage of this, however, is that interviewees
were able to partially prepare their answers beforehand (Bogner et al., 2014). Nevertheless,
only the main questions were sent which were open and general, but not the sub-questions to
generate certain flexibility and not to steer the conversation in a direction.

9
Since conducting expert interviews requires the interviewer to be prepared in terms of subject
matter (Misoch, 2015), relevant literature was reviewed beforehand and a test interview was
done with an expert in the field. The interviews included the four structural components of
semi-structured interviews, consisting of a short information phase, a warm-up phase, the main
phase where relevant topics were covered, and a de-briefing phase where the interviewee was
asked to name previously unmentioned, relevant topics (Misoch, 2015).
The interviews were conducted using the digital platform Microsoft Teams or Zoom to allow a
safe meeting environment in alignment with the regulations of the Swedish public health
authority on COVID-19. The audio recording function of the program was used to record the
interviews for further processing. All interviews were fully transcribed in a written style. Pauses
and emotional expressions were excluded as linguistic expressions were not of interest for the
analysis. For protecting the confidentiality of the interviewees, recordings were stored securely.
5.4 Analytical framework
For the analysis of the interviews, the ecosystem service (ES) framework was applied, which is
widely used for landscape planning and management in Sweden (Hansen & Malmaeus, 2016;
Nordin et al., 2017). The purpose of the ES concept is threefold. First, it helps to demonstrate
benefits that people derive from ecosystems, making hidden and thus unappreciated ES visible.
Second, it was developed to increase awareness of the dependency of humans on ecosystems
and biodiversity. And ultimately, it allows the evaluation of ES to make better trade-off
decisions through public policy processes (Wilkinson et al., 2013).
Humans derive a range of different ES from forests including inter alia materials and energy,
climate-, pest-, erosion- and water regulation, maintenance of soil, and genetical diversity
(Pohjanmies et al., 2017). While biophysical assessments and economic valuation approaches
are dominant in ES research (de Groot, Alkemade, Braat, Hein, & Willemen, 2010 and Garrido,
2016), socio-cultural valuation methods, examining the values that stakeholder groups ascribe
to ecosystems are less common. However, assessing the perspectives of stakeholders on ES and
including different voices are essential for a successful implementation of land management
strategies (Ban et al., 2013; Mascia et al., 2003). As ecosystem provision by forests in the
bioeconomy is characterized by conflicting views (Jakobsson et al., 2021) a socio-cultural
valuation might help identify these conflicting views (Leary et al., 2021). Socio-cultural values
in that sense are defined as “the importance people, as individuals or as a group, assign to
(bundles of) ESs” (Scholte et al., 2015).
5.4.1 Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES)
The Millennium Assessment report describes four different categories of ES, which are
provisioning services, regulating services, supporting services, and cultural ecosystem services
(de Groot et al., 2010). However, due to problems in implementation and issues arising
regarding double counting of ES, recent research has aimed to develop a revised and
standardized version of the ES framework (Fu et al., 2011; Hansen & Malmaeus, 2016). As a
result, the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) (Haines-
Young & Potschin, 2018) has been developed which is applied in this study (Table 2). The
CICES framework incorporates only three categories of ES instead of the original four
categories: provisioning services, regulating and maintenance services, and cultural services
(Haines-Young & Potschin, 2018). Excluding the category of supporting services, it was made
sure the individual ES are not overlapping (Hansen & Malmaeus, 2016). In CICES, ecosystem
services are defined as “contributions that ecosystems make to human well-being, and distinct
from goods and benefits that people subsequently derive from them.” (Haines-Young &
Potschin, 2018, p.iii). Thus, both the benefits that people derive from different ES and the

10
ecosystem attributes and behaviors that support them (e.g. biodiversity) are integrated (Potschin
& Haines-Young, 2016). This is visualized in the cascade model which forms the conceptual
framework of CICES (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2018). The cascade model describes the
delivery of ES as a process. The origin is the interactions between living organisms and their
environment, which lead to ecosystem structures and functions. The end products of this
process are the benefits and values that humans receive (Pohjanmies et al., 2017, p. 745).
Table 2 CICES framework
Category Divison
Provisioning services Nutrition
Materials
Energy

Regulating and maintenance services Mediation of flows

Maintenance of physical, chemical and
biological conditions

Cultural services Physical and intellectual interaction with

biota, ecosystems and landscapes
Source: Haines-Young & Potschin, 2018; Hansen & Malmaeus, 2016
5.4.2 Trade-offs and synergies
Forests can be understood as social-ecological systems, as ecosystems are modified by humans
to increase the generation of certain services (Bennett et al., 2009, p. 1396). Hence, when land
use and land management are changed, individual services provided by an ecosystem are
affected (de Groot et al., 2010). A prominent example is an application of management practices
to enhance provisioning services which on the one hand increases a particular ES (e.g., timber
provision) but also affects other ES (e.g., biodiversity) either positively or negatively. Thus, it
may lead to a synergy where multiple ES respond positively to the change, or it may lead to
trade-offs where the increase in one service negatively affects the provision of another service
(Bennett et al., 2009; de Groot et al., 2010). In addition, a driver can affect two different
ecosystem services which in turn can affect a third different ecosystem service. These two
mechanisms, the interaction among ES, and the response of multiple ES can be used to describe
the relationship among ES (Bennett et al., 2009).
5.5 Analysis
For analyzing the interview material, qualitative content analysis was applied as it allows to
find patterns in transcriptions of the interview material (Boreus & Bergström, 2017). NVivo
v.12 Plus software was used to code and analyze the transcripts. The analysis involved a mix
of inductive and deductive approaches. Firstly, the CICES framework was applied, and the
material was deductively coded into categories. Using the CICES framework assured
consistency in coding. The categorization of ES used in this study was adopted by the work of
Hansen and Malmaeus (2016) that identified forest ecosystems services in Swedish forests and
categorized them according to the CICES framework. The ecosystem service ‘timber and
pulpwood’ were further divided into subcategories, as the respondents of this study discussed
individual products derived from pulpwood extensively. In addition, the ES ‘clean air’
(provisioning services), pest regulation (regulating and maintenance service), and ‘heritage’
(cultural services) were retrospectively included in the framework. Even though they do not
appear in the framework by Hansen and Malmaeus (2016), they were emphasized by

11
respondents of the study and are integrated into other ecosystem service assessments such as
the Ecosystem Service Coding Protocol (Wilkinson et al., 2013). Applying the CICES
framework allowed us to compare different arguments of stakeholders regarding the importance
of ES. In addition, an inductive-deductive approach was applied for identifying challenges and
opportunities that stakeholders perceive. Trade-offs were worked out following Bennett et al.,
(2009), but the category system itself was developed from the data.
5.6 Reliability and validity
To ensure validity in qualitative research, and to minimize bias several measures were taken.
First of all, validity was addressed in the research design as proposed by Roulston (2010). The
choice of the methods in each step from design to analysis was justified, as can be read in the
previous sections. After applying firstly the Ecosystem Service Coding Protocol (Wilkinson et
al., 2013), problems regarding double-counting, and inconclusiveness about where to
categorize the results were addressed by using the CICES framework instead. In the CICES
framework, these issues do not arise (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2018) and ES that Swedish
forests provide have already been predefined by Hansen and Malmaeus (2016).

To minimize respondent bias, a neo-positivist conception of the interview was applied, where
the interviewer has a neutral approach and personal perspectives are not expressed to the
interviewee (Roulston, 2010). From this starting point, it is possible to ask what ES people
value and what opportunities and challenges they see for sustainable development. Regarding
the questions, it was essential to formulate open and non-leading questions to minimize the
influence. Criticism of this approach includes that the researcher’s subjectivity in formulating
the questions might bias the data. To counteract, open questions were asked, and questions were
posed from general to specific (Roulston, 2010).

To avoid assumptions, follow-up questions were posed, when a statement was unclear. This
way it was made sure that respondent and interviewee understood each other (Kvale &
Brinkmann, 2009). To further counteract the risk of assumptions, relevant scientific literature
was reviewed both before and after the interviews. Study limitations are discussed in chapter
7.4. for ensuring transparency of the research. Also, the interview guide is included as an
appendix for providing transparency of the research process (Roulston, 2010). The issue of
reliability in the research process is more pressing for socio-linguistic research. Nevertheless,
it was addressed by making a conscious choice on how to transcribe the interviews (Kvale &
Brinkmann, 2009). For the research design, a written style was more appropriate.

6 Results
6.1 Ecosystem services

All three dimensions of the CICES framework including provisioning, regulating and
maintenance services and cultural services were discussed by stakeholders of this study. The
most discussed categories were provisioning and regulating and maintenance services. The least
discussed category was cultural ecosystem services. Across all interviews, respondents
referenced a total of 29 different ES provided by forests. Table 3 shows the individual ES
provided by forests that were referenced by respondents.

12
Table 3 ES, categorized by CICES categories (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2018; Hansen
& Malmaeus, 2016) and the number of respondents who referenced each ES
Number
Category Divison Ecosystem service
(n=9)
Provisioning services Nutrition Berries 4
Mushrooms 4
Game 4
Reindeer and fodder 1
Fresh water 4
Materials Timber 6
Pulp
Paper 5
Textiles 3
Bioplastics 7
Paperboard 3
Bio-based electronics 3
Genetic resources 7
Decorative Materials 0
Energy Firewood 0
Biofuel 8
Bioenergy 6
Other Clean air 2

Regulating and Mediation of flows Prevention of erosion 2

maintenance services Prevention of storm damage 3
Prevention of floods 2
Prevention of fires 1
Prevention of pests 6
Maintenance of Habitats 9
physical, Pollination 0
chemical, and Soil quality 1
biological
conditions Climate regulation and 6
carbon sequestration
Biogeochemical cycling 5

Cultural services Physical and Recreation and training 7

intellectual Tourism 3
interaction with Mental and physical health 3
biota, ecosystems, Environment and aesthetics 3
and landscapes Knowledge and information 3
Heritage 1
6.1.1 Provisioning services
For provisioning services, both traditional forest products, such as timber (6/9), paper (5/9), and
paperboard (3/9), as well as innovative forest products including bio-based electronics such as
batteries (3/9) and LCD screens (1/9), textiles (3/9), and bioplastics (7/9) were mentioned by

13
stakeholders. In addition, energy - bioenergy (6/9) and biofuels (5/9) and the importance of
genetic resources (7/9) were discussed.
The value of the forest for substituting materials and energy was discussed. Bioplastics were
mentioned as products and bioenergy and biofuel as forms of energy that can be made of the
resource forest and can replace fossil fuels. The importance each respondent gave to these
products varied. Some stakeholders placed a high value on substitution (Interview 2, 4, 5, 6, 9)
while other respondents were more critical towards this development (Interview 3, 7, 8).
The stakeholders that put a high value on substitution emphasized the need for taking advantage
of biomass for phasing out fossil fuels. As the representative from the municipality explained:
“We need forest products in the future, to use those instead of fossil products” (Interview 6).
Opportunities connected to sustainable development were emphasized, relating to the
renewability of the resource, the net-negative emissions, and the potential of tackling plastic
pollution. Carbon substitution was perceived as a solution for climate mitigation. The
representative from the landowner organization stated: “We replace the black carbon with the
green carbon. (…), we are a part of it. That makes us proud, as forest owners also to be a part
of this climate solution” (Interview 4). In addition, the researcher in bioenergy highlighted the
potential of making use of residues from clear-felling and clearing and turning it into biogas
(Interview 5). The possibility of replacing plastics with bioplastics made out of cellulose
nanofiber was also pointed out. In this context, the potential for addressing the global issue of
plastic pollution was highlighted.
The respondents that ascribed a high value to carbon and material substitution were generally
optimistic that increasing production without jeopardizing environmental goals is possible if
done responsibly. For example, the independent forest management consultant pointed out that
the application of fertilizer on productive forest stands to ensure faster growth, would not make
a big difference for biodiversity, as these stands are of little use for biodiversity (Interview 9).
The municipality respondent also regarded it generally as possible to find areas where
production does not conflict with nature conservation, and where the focus could be on
increased production. The respondent emphasized that the prioritization of certain goals in
certain areas would be necessary (Interview 6). The forestry consultant stated that it is necessary
to link environmental and production goals and that it would then be possible to achieve both
forest growth and biodiversity conservation. (Interview 2).
Nevertheless, increasing production without harming the environment was seen as a challenge
by these respondents (Interview 2, 6). It was also mentioned that there are many demands
expressed to the forest, and that forest biomass is not sufficient to replace all fossil fuel products
(Interview 2, 5, 6). In this context, the notion of the role of the forest as “the savior for
everything” (Interview 2) was highlighted. The forestry consultant stated that many
stakeholders claim climate-positive effects from very different perspectives. As a result, it was
highlighted that the smartest ways need to be found to use forest biomass. For reaching this the
researcher in bioenergy mentioned that life cycle assessments need to be conducted to assess
the sustainability of products (Interview 5).
In contrast, stakeholders who were critical of carbon and material substitution saw the creation
of an image of production intensification for sustainability and climate protection as a problem.
It was mentioned that carbon substitution is used as an excuse to intensify production. The
ENGO respondent pointed out: “I think the industry is lobbying very intensely and they claim
that increased forestry will save the climate by binding carbon in the tree, in the wood, that

14
then will replace fossil fuel. But then they have cut down the old, big forest and they have
drained the ground. So, the ground carbon has left to the atmosphere” (Interview 7). The
stakeholders who were critically regarded an increase in production as not sustainable and
described a trade-off between the increase in production and environmental goals (Interview 3,
7, 8). The negative state of biodiversity in Sweden was highlighted by the researcher in
conservation biology and the ENGO respondent. Concerns were expressed regarding the high
number of red-listed forest species that are connected to factors defining old-growth forests
such as dead wood and dead standing logs and the ongoing logging in Sweden’s last remaining
old-growth forests. It was also pointed out that Sweden already has intensive forestry at the
current stage. The NIPF owner raised the need to acknowledge that there is a trade-off between
increasing production and nature conservation (Interview 3).
The effectiveness of production-increasing measures for climate mitigation was also contested
(Interview 3, 7, 8). The short period for reaching climate targets set in the Paris Agreement to
stay below 1.5-2 degrees was highlighted by the researcher in conservation biology and
explained:” (…) you can say that it (bioenergy) seems to be good for the climate if you look 100
years ahead. Then these emissions from the clear cuts and cutting and everything, and then the
re-growth of other forests will be higher. But we have, I think it's six years now (…) the carbon
budget is six years. So, the best thing for the climate right now would be to just let the forest
grow more. So, it's how you look upon the timespan” (Interview 8). Both the interviewed
researcher as well as the ENGO respondent mentioned that bioenergy can have its share, but
that production goals should not hamper environmental goals both related to biodiversity and
climate mitigation (Interview 7, 8). Also, the NIPF owner had a critical position regarding
bioenergy because of its short life cycle and the negative impact of the removal of biomass from
clearings for soil quality and future forest growth. The reuse of ash from heating plants was
considered problematic because of the heavy metal content. Nevertheless, turning rest products
from pulpwood production into biofuels was appreciated (Interview 3).
In addition, the respondents who were skeptical about carbon substitution emphasized that the
real problem that needs to be addressed is high energy consumption. They doubted that carbon
substitution will solve the problems and highlighted that there is enough biomass to replace the
same amount of energy with bioenergy (Interview 7, 8). Besides that, the market supply in
Sweden was questioned and the importance of a shift in focus towards quality rather than
quantity from the industry was emphasized. As the NIPF owner and the researcher in
conservation biology highlighted 80% of the production in Sweden consists of pulpwood and
paper, products with a short life cycle (Interview 3, 8). In this matter, respondents saw an issue
regarding greenhouse gas emissions, being back in circulation only a few years after
manufacturing. The short life cycle was also the reason the respondents were critical towards
the substitution of plastics by bioplastics. The ENGO respondent stated that it would be good
to replace plastics, but that reducing the total amount of packaging should be the overarching
aim (Interview 8). The NIPF owner highlighted the short life cycle of bioplastics and explained
“(…) the difference between boiling and burning forest products is not so big as it's made
sometimes. And both these forms, I think we should try to avoid as long as possible” (Interview
3).
However, the critical stakeholders agreed that wood as a building material would provide a
carbon substitution benefit (Interview 3, 7, 8). In this context, the longevity of the product and
the net-minus carbon emissions were highlighted. Especially the production of high-quality
timber such as hardwood was considered desirable by the representative of the ENGO. Using
hardwood was mentioned to have the positive side-effect of making production forests more
diverse and contributing to older forest stands as hardwood trees get cut after a longer period
15
than coniferous trees (Interview 8). Several respondents (Interview 3, 6, 7, 8) emphasized that
a bigger share of forest products should be used for construction and that the focus of the
industry should shift to products with a longer life cycle. As the interviewed NIPF owner put
it: “(…) with climate change, (…) that is perhaps the most important ecosystem service we do
provide. But forestry could do better. Let's say that we could just increase this level (long-lived
products) from 20% up to 40% would be a revolution” (Interview 3). To make this happen, it
was mentioned that the market demand would need to change, as the industry today demands a
high share of pulpwood and paper. Additionally, it was highlighted that the price for high-
quality timber would need to increase to be economically attractive for forest owners (Interview
6).
On the other hand, the production of paper and paperboard was strongly contested by some
respondents (Interview 3, 5, 7, 8). Stakeholders noted a change in product demand towards
increasing demand for paperboard and decreasing demand for paper. This development was
explained to be related to the decreasing demand for newspapers and books and increased
demand for card boxes due to the practice of ordering products online (Interview 3, 5). The
interviewed researcher in bioenergy commented on the challenge of waste handling of paper
and paperboard. As the respondent stated: “And the challenge for keeping that (paper
manufacturing) sustainable is that you are adding many chemicals, and it’s a bit challenging
to take care of all the residues that come out because they’re not so nice” (Interview 5). In line
with this, the NIPF owner noted that the aim should be reducing the consumption of paper and
paperboard due to missing climate benefits and short life cycles (Interview 3).
Arguments from the environmental perspective included the need to preserve the genetic
diversity of forest species (interview 7, 8, 9). The ENGO respondent raised the importance of
genetic diversity for evolution. It was also explained that the functioning of living organisms
has not been understood in every detail yet and that genetically modified strains are not well
integrated into ecological systems resulting in vulnerability to pests, hazards, droughts, and
temperature changes. In addition, the respondent highlighted that species have their right to
existence and stated: “I mean nature and all living organisms have their own right to live and
thrive. (…) Of course, we also like to be in nature and humans need nature and biological
diversity for our own survival. But they have their rights. So, we must leave this extreme
anthropocentrism and pay respect to every living species and organism (Interview 7). On the
other hand, the independent forest management consultant described an internal conflict
between the desire to maintain the forest as a functioning ecosystem and the understanding that
the economic outcome of forestry is necessary and argued that a balance must be found
(Interview 9).
Economic aspects were a topic very discussed regarding provisioning services. The importance
for forest owners to be able to secure an income from forests was highlighted by several
stakeholders (Interview 3, 4, 6, 9). In line with this, respondents representing environmental
interests argued that forest owners should be compensated for nature conservation measures
taken on their land (Interview 7, 8). Both the landowner organization respondent and the NIPF
owner stressed that economic dependency affects forest management and is a precondition for
choices. It was explained: „Some of them (forest owners) absolutely need all the income from
forestry and agriculture and some have other kinds of professions in other businesses. That
makes it different what goals they have in forestry” (Interview 4). The municipality respondent
noted that the objectives of the industry and NIPF owners are different from the municipality,
being a public institution and aiming to create a pleasant environment for the public. Therefore,
it was noted that most of the forest stands in the respondent’s municipality are classified for
recreation and biodiversity (Interview 6). In contrast, for forest owners engaged both in

16
agriculture and forestry, the forest was mentioned to be an important part of the financial base,
either to get an income from harvesting or as financial security (Interview 4). While the price
of forestland itself was stated to be quite high, the outcome from forest management itself was
found to be not very profitable for NIPF owners (Interview 3). The independent forest
management consultant reported difficulties for small farmers to make a living from forestry
and agriculture because of the trend toward large production areas. This was expressed to have
negative consequences for biodiversity due to the importance of marginal areas for species
(Interview 9). The landowner organization respondent also highlighted the importance of
landowners engaging both in agriculture and forestry for sustainability. From the point of view
of the landowner organization, it was claimed to be important to have few regulations in forestry
to be able to make investments in agriculture. The reasons given were the influence of the
fluctuations of the market on the farmer, e.g., the rise and fall of the price of milk and years
with poor harvests, which were explained to be financially difficult for farmers and in which
farmers need the forest to save their farm (Interview 4).
However, it was also mentioned that ownership is changing towards an increasing number of
owners not deriving their daily income from forestry. It was highlighted that there is an
increasing number of non-residents NIPF owners that have inherited the land. This was
mentioned to have an impact on changes in forest management. It was stated that the new
generation is increasingly in favor of different management practices such as continuous cover
forestry and mixed forests. Besides that, the NIPF owner explained that there is also a big group
of elderly forest owners that use the forest as financial security for retirement (Interview 3).
A large difference was noted between NIPF owners and industrial companies. In this regard,
the landowner organization respondent highlighted the development of efficiency in forestry,
including the development of plant material and harvesting methods. Positive as well as
negative effects of efficiency were noted by this respondent. No major negative implications of
efficiency in the case of NIPF owners were associated but it was concluded that the public does
not understand the reasons behind big clear-cuts, and it was explained: “But if you see the
companies, they also often have to be efficient to make harvesting in one geographic part at a
time. (…) The machine park is placed there for efficiency” (Interview 4).
Regarding other provisioning services provided by the forest, food was mentioned, including
berries (4/9), mushrooms (4/9), and game (4/9), and water (4/9). Respondents highlighted that
a common activity of Swedish citizens is to pick and eat mushrooms, and berries and to engage
in hunting (Interview 1, 4, 7, 8). However, more the recreational aspects of these activities were
highlighted than the nutritional value of the food itself. Some respondents recognized the value
of forests for providing fresh water (4/9) (Interview 1, 2, 6, 7). The forestry consultant stressed
the importance of saving streams when clearing forests. The municipality respondent
highlighted that freshwater is an ES that Swedish landowners do not get paid for currently and
that this affects the valuation of the ES. It was explained: “If ecosystem services that we now
get for free that we realize that we have to pay for them (…) (it) also makes people understand
that forest provides more than just timber and biofuel” (Interview 6). Besides water also the
provision of clean air by forests was raised by two respondents. Here, it also was recognized
that there is no market value (Interview 6).
6.1.2 Regulating and maintenance services
For regulating and maintenance services the value of forests for the prevention of erosion (2/9),
prevention of storm damage (3/9), prevention of floods (2/9), the prevention of fires (3/9), and
the prevention of pests (6/9) were emphasized.

17
One aspect, both stakeholders representing production interests and those representing
environmental interests agreed on was the importance of strengthening resilience in production
forests (Interview 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9). The importance of resilient ecosystems was particularly
highlighted in the face of climate change impact projections. As both hot, dry periods and
storms are predicted for Östergötland the necessity of proactive planning for forest management
was stressed.
It was mentioned that especially the hot, and dry summer in 2018 made that evident. The
tremendous increase in the population size of spruce bark beetles was identified as a trigger for
rethinking in forest management (Interview 3, 6). As the municipality respondent highlighted:
“(…) since 2018, when we had this super warm summer, the population of spruce bark beetle
exploded and continued on a very, very high level. So, since that (for) the whole forestry branch
that was the main issue (…) to handle the spruce bark beetle” (Interview 6). While most
stakeholders associated the increase in pest species with climate change (Interview 3, 4, 6, 8,
9), additional reasons were given such as the cultivation of spruce in the wrong locations
(Interview 9), and the cultivation of monocultures, in general (Interview 2, 3, 6, 8). The NIPF
owner mentioned having replaced most spruce stands with birch and pine decades ago and to
have few problems with pest species on the remaining spruce stands in contrary to other forest
owners in Östergötland. The respondent explained: “And when I speak to my friends now, other
forest owners and I ask them: ‘How are you doing with your spruce forest? And they say:’ Well,
I don't have any left’” (Interview 3). The NIPF owner noted a growing interest in the cultivation
of different tree species by other forest owners in Östergötland and a shift away from the
cultivation of spruce to mainly pine, but also deciduous species such as birch, alder, and oak. It
was further stated: “So, when I rather early turned away from it and started with more birch
and more pine, it was laughed at, and it was a lot of strong reaction (…) But today it’s the
opposite. They (other forest owners) come here, they want to see and still, people are critical”
(Interview 3).
To increase resilience, most respondents (Interview 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9) emphasized the need to
change forest management practices and increase the use of deciduous trees in production
forests. Mixed forests were described as more resistant to forest fires, storms, and pests, and to
have a positive impact on biodiversity. Also, the urgency to change management practices now
was highlighted due to the long growing cycle of trees. The ENGO respondent regarded the
change as too slow. The landowner organization respondent emphasized that resilient
ecosystems are the basis of future forestry revenues. It was stated: “That is a very, very big
issue and there is a lot of interest from our members how to be guided. What should we do now
to make sure that we can grow forest even in the future and have an income and even have a
value?” (Interview 4).
The function of forests for the prevention of erosion and prevention of floods were mentioned
to be important by stakeholders but were not further discussed. Furthermore, the ES habitats
(9/9), soil quality (2/9), climate regulation and carbon sequestration (6/9), and biogeochemical
cycling (4/9) were discussed.
Stakeholders concerned with conservation issues (Interview 7, 8, 9) emphasized the link
between species loss and decline in old forests, as well as factors that define an old forest, such
as a high volume of dead wood, dead standing logs, and old trees. The ENGO respondent and
the researcher in conservation biology raised the ongoing logging in Sweden’s remaining old-
growth forests (Interview 7, 8). The problem of the increased market demand for forest biomass
was illustrated with this issue. The ENGO respondent expressed concerns that the increased
demand for forest biomass, combined with the framing of these measures as sustainable, leads
to a justification of logging in areas that are important for biodiversity (Interview 7). The

18
forestry company respondent perceived both positive and negative developments concerning
biodiversity. The interviewee also argued that the increased demand for forest material leads to
the clearing of areas that were previously untouched by forestry and that forestry today is more
intensive as forest stands grow faster due to forest fertilization which additionally has negative
implications on biodiversity. On the other hand, however, the respondent emphasized that more
attention is paid to the needs of biodiversity at individual sites (Interview 1). Both the ENGO
respondent, the interviewee of the forestry company, and the researcher in conservation biology
emphasized the need to preserve Sweden’s last old-growth forests (Interview 1, 7, 8). The
researcher in conservation biology pointed out that one major issue is limited funds for
conservation (Interview 8).
Stakeholders representing environmental interests (Interview 7, 8, 9) articulated that 20% of
productive forest land should be set aside for nature conservation. Both the researcher in
conservation biology and the independent forest management consultant explained that
productive forestland 2 is especially needed because not many species rely on unproductive
slow-growing forestland (Interview 8, 9). The independent forest management consultant
highlighted that most species could be saved in this way, but that it would still be necessary to
manage these areas (Interview 9). Consequently, the share of legally protected in Östergötland
was considered insufficient, as it was highlighted to account for only about 2% (Interview
7,8,9).
Several respondents representing production interests agreed that more land would need to be
set aside for nature conservation but did not give any specific number (Interview 1, 2, 3, 6). The
municipality respondent pointed out that experts claim that a certain percentage of the forest
should be protected and that the goals have not yet been achieved (Interview 6). The NIPF
owner stated, not daring to give numbers because of the conflict between stakeholders around
this issue. It was explained “So if you say for instance, that we should perhaps preserve 20%
totally in Sweden, and leave 80% to production with some kind of consideration for nature.
Then you know, the production people will be mad, totally mad. Because they say that's too
much. And the preservationist will say that it's not enough. That you need 20 some between 25
and 30%” (Interview 3). On the other hand, the public forest consultant explained that the idea
is to increase the share of legally protected areas, but that the question remains open by what
percentage it should be increased. The reason given was the different counting systems in
Sweden and the European Union (Interview 2). Also, the respondent from the landowner
organization referred to the different counting systems. In addition, it was emphasized that the
certifications schemes PEFC and FSC demand that around 5% be set aside from clear-cutting,
but that more is set aside from production by most forest owners. The interviewee stated: “So
I think we have to start over and say: ‘What is what we shall measure?’ (…) Because we do a
lot more adjustments than we get credit for” (Interview 4). The respondent also emphasized
that efficiency must be considered and that conservation measures are not always the answer to
what should be done. Furthermore, it was stressed that the conserved land must be taken care
of and that taking care of the land is more important than conserving it. The respondent also
highlighted that the members of the landowner organization need more knowledge about
species so that they understand the rationale for certain measures (Interview 4)
On the other hand, the ENGO respondent and the NIPF owner saw a problem with not publicly
showing voluntary set-asides and that certification schemes accept it to be secret (Interview 3,
8). The two respondents disagreed with keeping voluntary set-asides as business secrets because
of the loss of credibility. As the ENGO respondent explained: “40% don’t show. (…) So, it’s

2
Productive forest land is defined as land with an average production of more than 1 m3 wood per hectare and
year (Götmark, 2009, p. 505)

19
not truthfully. And some of those who have shown their forest, it’s not of high natural values”
(Interview 7).
Besides that, maintaining good soil quality was emphasized by the interviewed NIPF owner,
and was considered as the base for provisioning services. Consequently, the importance of
leaving biomass such as branches and tops from clear-cuts for planting new seedlings was
stressed (Interview 3). The contribution of biomass for balanced biogeochemical cycles and
forest resilience was also highlighted by the forest company respondent, and it was mentioned
that the understanding of not removing all leaves has increased (Interview 1). The independent
forest management consultant highlighted that the lack of biomass-dead wood is one of the
biggest problems in forestry and that even in production forests more dead wood is needed
(Interview 9).
Last, but not least respondents highlighted the importance of forests to regulate the climate by
sequestering carbon in stands. This function was seen as essential for climate mitigation
(Interview 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8). Some respondents placed a higher value on retaining forest as carbon
sinks than on carbon substitution (Interview 7, 8). The researcher in conservation biology
highlighted that retaining forests as carbon sinks provides the immediate climate action needed
for reaching targets set in the Paris Agreement (Interview 7). Furthermore, both the
conservation biology researcher and the ENGO interviewee stressed that carbon sequestration
and biodiversity conservation are in a synergetic relationship and that a win-win for both is
possible (Interview 7, 8). The public forest consultant on the other hand regarded carbon
sequestration and carbon substitution as equally important (Interview 2).
6.1.3 Cultural services
The cultural value of forests was also discussed by respondents. Cultural services that were
named included recreation and training (7/9), tourism (3/9), mental and physical health (3/9),
environment and aesthetics (3/9), knowledge and information (3/9), and heritage (1/9).
Stakeholders noted that the forest as a recreational area is highly valued by society in
Östergötland and Sweden (Interview 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9). This includes nature experiences such
as picking berries and mushrooms, hiking, and hunting. The conservation biology researcher
acknowledged the role of biodiversity as the foundation of cultural ecosystems, which
encompass recreational and tourism activities such as picking berries or experiencing an old-
growth forest rich in wildlife (Interview 8). A synergetic relationship between biodiversity and
recreation was also highlighted by the municipality respondent (Interview 6). Besides
recreation, the positive impact of forests on the mental and physical well-being of people was
stressed (Interview 1, 7, 8). The independent forest management consultant and the ENGO
respondent also explained that especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, the forest was
increasingly used by society. The NIPF owner commented on the aesthetics of forests and found
the cultivation of mixed forests aesthetic (Interview 3).
Regarding tourism in Östergötland, great opportunities for economic benefits were seen
(Interview 2, 6, 8). The conservation biology researcher noted that there are already ecotourism
companies in Östergötland, which make higher profits with tourism than with forestry. It was
also highlighted that there is a synergy between ecotourism and biodiversity conservation
(Interview 8). Also, the public forest consultant and the municipality respondent agreed that
tourism is an opportunity for NIPF owners to get an income from the forest, apart from forestry
(Interview 2, 6). As it was explained: “I see possibilities especially there where the forest is not
only used for timber and biofuel production. I think there is huge potential. I mean (…)
especially in tourism Sweden and Östergötland are highly appreciated by tourists. (…) And
people come to Sweden because they are interested in nature” (Interview 6).

20
On the other hand, the landowner organization respondent pointed out that nature recreation
might be in trade-off with increasing production of forest biomass for the bioeconomy. It was
highlighted that forest land as a recreational area is highly valued, that NIPF owners are
increasingly independent of forests as a source of income, and that the ongoing polarization in
the forest debate makes it increasingly unattractive for owners to pursue forestry Therefore, it
was noted that it could become a problem to obtain sufficient forest raw material in the future
and that the public should be educated about the necessity of forestry (Interview 4).
The forest as a resource for education and research was also mentioned as important, but not
further discussed. In addition, the NIPF owner acknowledged the spiritual values of the forest
in the sense of seeing traces of ancestors because of the long lifecycles of forests and confirmed
that forestry is not only about the individual but also about the community (Interview 3). Both
the NIPF owner and the landowner organization respondent also highlighted that forestry is a
way of life and that owners feel pride in it (Interview 3, 4). The landowner organization also
highlighted the necessity of having respect for forest owners (Interview 4).
6.2 Challenges and opportunities for sustainable forest management
This section describes the results of the analysis of challenges and opportunities that
stakeholders highlighted for sustainable forest management. Topics that were raised included a
disagreement regarding whether environmental and production goals are addressed equally,
trade-offs and synergies that respondents emphasized, and the conflict between stakeholder
groups.
6.2.1 Balancing environmental and production goals
As several stakeholders pointed out, the Swedish forestry act states that both environmental and
production goals should be given equal priority. But there were differing opinions among the
stakeholders as to whether environmental and production goals are equally taken into account
currently. Some interviewees expressed that both goals are given equal consideration (Interview
2, 4), while others argued that production goals are weighted more heavily (Interview 1, 7, 8).
The forest consultant stated that the two goals should not be seen as conflicting goals, but as a
unity. The respondent explained that so far, the goals have been considered as a balance, but
now they are seen as a ‘vow that is together and that makes it stronger’ (Interview 2). This
referred to the point that environmental aspects should be integrated into the production forests,
e.g., in the form of mixed forests (Interview 2). The landowner organization respondent noted
that the two objectives are equally addressed (Interview 4). In contrast, the researcher in
conservation biology stressed that goals are only addressed equally on the paper, but not in
reality (Interview 8). The ENGO interviewee agreed and highlighted that production targets are
addressed by far more than environmental goals (Interview 7). The forest company respondent
also stated that production goals are addressed more than environmental goals, especially
regarding biodiversity. Furthermore, the interviewee regarded that the only way to address both
goals equally would be to reduce consumption by society (Interview 1).
Although there were differing opinions on whether the two goals were treated equally, most
stakeholders argued that it is possible in principle to combine the goals. Likewise, all stressed
the importance of sustainable forestry. The greatest disagreement among stakeholders was on
the extent to which intensive forest management would allow the objectives to be treated
equally. In this context also different perspectives on the outcome of the Swedish forestry act
of 1993 became visible. On the positive side, respondents noted that it marked a change in
forestry and put biodiversity more on the agenda. The researcher in conservation biology and
the respondent of the landowner organization highlighted the retention areas, the woodland key

21
habitat concept, and courses for landowners have had positive impacts on biodiversity and
nature conservation (Interview 4, 8). The landowner organization respondent regarded a merely
positive development for biodiversity in Östergötland due to the shift away from mining that
dominated the economy of the area around 100 years ago (Interview 4 ). The researcher in
conservation biology, however, noted a stagnation of nature conservation after some time and
highlighted that with the concept of carbon substitution the situation has changed towards an
increased focus on production (Interview 8). The interviewed NIPF owner was critical towards
the success of the Swedish forestry act, pointing out that there is no clarity on what addressing
environmental and production goals equally implies for forest management in practice, and
which percentage share should be set aside for nature conservation. The respondent highlighted
the disappointment and frustration soon after the establishment of the act and the resulting
conflicts over interpretation and expectations of the law. It was stressed that clarity is needed
on what proportion of the land should be protected for nature conservation and that a new law
is needed (Interview 3).
6.2.2 Trade-offs and synergies
Regarding the planned intensification of forestry, several trade-offs of measures to increase
forest growth were described. The greatest opposition from conservationists was directed
against the introduction of foreign tree species. Concerns were expressed about an invasion, the
loss of native tree species, and the risk of pathogens and pest outbreaks. As an example of a
development that has been related to foreign tree species, the abandonment of Swedish
deciduous trees such as the linden tree and aspen tree was mentioned. Respondents furthermore
noted that the coniferous species of pine and spruce that are cultivated today are native trees
and thus have species that can coexist with these trees. In contrast, it was stated that foreign
tree species such as lodgepole pine have no biological diversity that is dependent on it and that
its cultivation is thus not beneficial for biodiversity (Interview 8, 9).
For the removal of biomass from clearings (branches and tops) to process them into biofuels,
trade-offs for soil quality and future forest growth were expressed (Interview 3). In contrast, for
climate mitigation, this measure was seen as beneficial as it was argued that the carbon stored
in these materials will be released into the atmosphere within 10 to 15 years anyway (Interview
8). In respect of biodiversity, one interviewee argued that it was possible to remove some of the
biomass (Interview 7) and another interviewee did not see any trade-offs (Interview 8).
Trade-offs of clear-felling methods were described for biodiversity and climate mitigation due
to the carbon leakage of clear-cuts (Interview 8). In contrast, opportunities were expressed for
an increased application of continuous cover forestry instead of retention forestry (Interview 1,
6, 7, 8). Positive effects of continuous cover forestry that were named included the increased
hydration of forests due to the consistent forest canopy and the positive impacts on biodiversity
having trees of different ages (Interview 7, 8). But it was also highlighted that continuous cover
forestry does not solve problems regarding the lack of dead wood and old trees (Interview 9).
Challenges were seen for missing knowledge on application by landowners and to make
continuous cover forestry economically beneficial. For this reason, education for landowners
by the SFA on the implementation of continuous cover forestry was requested (Interview 8).
Regarding the application other concerns that were raised included that only a few forest
species, such as spruce grow under a canopy (Interview 3), and the difficulties of applying
continuous cover forestry on large areas (Interview 6). Consequently, the interviewed NIPF
owner stated to continue using clearcutting methods that follow the landscape (Interview 3),
and the municipality respondent highlighted that a combination of continuous cover forestry
and retention forestry might be beneficial in Sweden (Interview 6). The independent forest
management consultant argued that the forest industry and forest owners should decide which

22
model they would like to work with (Interview 9) and the landowner organization respondent
was satisfied with the Swedish model of forestry (Interview 4).
Trade-offs of the application of fertilization in production forests were described for
biodiversity as some species rely on slow-growing wood (Interview 1). However, another
respondent did not see a big trade-off in this measure as it was argued that highly productive
stands are of little benefit to biodiversity (Interview 7).
On the other hand, the trade-off between nature conservation and the economy was explained,
as conservation does not generate income (Interview 4, 6, 7, 8, 9). The reluctance to bear the
missing income was commented on (Interview 9), and it was stressed that conflicts especially
arise when land is to be conserved and landowners do not have the economic means to do so
(Interview 4). But also, underlying values and attitudes of forest owners that favor industrial
logging were explained to be reasons for dissatisfaction with conservation measures forest
owners have to take (Interview 9). A further problem that was raised was the missing funding
for nature reserves and the necessity for compensating landowners was highlighted when land
is declared WKH (Interview 6, 7, 8). The researcher in conservation biology explained:”
Because let's say you have a bank account, and someone wants to grab (…) half of the money
you have on your bank account, and you get nothing. So, but if someone (says) ‘I take this
amount of money, but I give you back the equal amount of money “(Interview 8). The
government was named as an entity responsible for deciding on funding and the costs were
acknowledged to be carried by society (Interview 8). For making forest owners comfortable
with nature conservation, the importance of knowledge building on biodiversity and
conservation measures was also emphasized (Interview 4).
6.2.3 Conflicts of interest
Several stakeholders representing production interests saw the conflict of interest between the
production side and the conservation side as a challenge for forest management in Östergötland
and Sweden (Interview 2, 3, 4, 6). The difficulty of making both sides happy was pointed out
by the municipality respondent because of opposing views if enough is done for nature
conservation. It was emphasized that the discussion around conservation and production goals
has grown substantially and that the question is both difficult to resolve and emotional
(Interview 6). Stakeholders noted a polarization of the discussion (Interview 3, 4), and attributes
such as “harsh” (Interview 2) were used to describe the character of the debate. The NIPF
owner called attention to the importance of trying to understand the opposing perspective as
both sides undermine each other’s arguments. This was thought to lead to extremism and chaos.
The respondent stated: „They are rude. They are exaggerating and picturing the opposing side
in a way that is not serious from both sides. Both sides are trying to make the other side evil.
(…) We need the nuances. We need to talk to each other again” (Interview 3). The point was
also raised that it is expected of politicians to make a law for having clarity on counting, but
that the political and cultural system in Sweden is built on consensus, trust, and the fact of
having a good dialogue. To address opposing views, the interviewee argued it is important to
reestablish dialogue and establish improved communication (Interview 3). The need for
dialogue was agreed on by the landowner organization respondent. From the point of view of
the landowner organization, the involvement of the public in the debate was seen as
problematic, as a lack of respect for forest owners was noted, and their freedom to pursue
different goals with their forest stands was questioned. The interviewee explained: “When the
public takes it for granted that it should be everyone's forest - that’s a conflict” (Interview 4).
On the other hand, stakeholders representing environmental interests saw the public forest
debate as a chance for nature conservation (Interview 7, 8). The researcher in conservation

23
biology stressed that researchers have been unheard of for a long time and that the association
of ENGOs, nature photographers, and researchers have led to a critical mass of people interested
in the issues, reacting indignantly, and trying to push against unsustainable practices in forest
management. It was explained: “I haven't had this much hope for 10 years, I think, that things
are going to change. I had almost given up. But now it's not only researchers it’s people that
post pictures of the clear-cuts around their houses, and they're upset” (Interview 8).
Greenwashing was named as a problem, referring to the forest industry's marketing campaigns
that justify cutting down forests for climate mitigation (Interview 7, 8). Additionally, the ENGO
respondent saw a problem in lobbying from industry and politics up to the European Parliament.
This referred to the lobbying of the forest industry to intensify forestry and the involvement of
the industry and the prime minister in stopping the European commission to classify Swedish
forestry as unsustainable. Because of the influence of forest consultants on forest owners who
are encouraged to pursue silvicultural goals with their forest stands, the interviewee emphasized
the need for independent forest consultants (Interview 7).

7 Discussion
7.1 Perspectives on forest ecosystem services
This study has shown that different perspectives were expressed about forest ecosystem
services. Provisioning, regulating, and maintaining services were discussed in more detail than
cultural services, which is most likely related to the selection of stakeholders, as stakeholders
representing environmental and production interests were selected. The values stakeholders of
this study ascribe to forest ES can be summarized as follows: economic benefits, carbon
substitution and sequestration benefits for climate change mitigation, forest resilience,
provision of habitat for maintaining genetic diversity and forest resilience, and recreational
value.

The study showed that there is consensus on the importance of certain ES, but also
disagreement. While stakeholders agreed on the importance of building resilient forest
ecosystems, there were different views on carbon substitution and the linked intensification of
forestry. Some stakeholders saw the replacement of fossil fuels by biomass as an opportunity
for sustainable development, both as a renewable resource and as a substitute for harmful
products such as plastics. In contrast, other stakeholders were critical towards the framing of
energy and material substitution by forest biomass as sustainable. Carbon substitution was not
perceived as a solution to the energy and climate crisis by these stakeholders, as high energy
consumption was seen as the main problem. In addition, the high market share of products with
short life cycles was pointed out. Regarding the growing pressure on forest resources due to
increased market demand, some stakeholders were optimistic that if priorities are set and
environmental and production goals are combined, a win-win for environment and production
is possible, while others saw dire consequences for the conservation of biodiversity.
Accordingly, perspectives if further intensification of forestry is sustainable varied among
respondents, with some describing a trade-off between increasing production and biodiversity,
and others considering that intensification of forestry is possible without harming the
environment. The two diverging positions of stakeholders regarding intensive forestry can also
be found in the study by Lidskog et al. (2013) who conducted a frame analysis to evaluate the
positions of Swedish stakeholders towards intensive forestry. As in this study, Lidskog et al.
(2013) noted that proponents of intensifying forestry believe that harmful environmental
impacts can be mitigated and emphasize the positive effects on climate mitigation; opponents
of intensification stress the negative environmental impacts and do not believe that adaptive
management can manage the risks arising from intensive forestry.
24
According to Lidskog et al. (2013), the opposing positions can be explained by different frames.
It is argued that stakeholder groups assess and weigh the positive and negative aspects of
intensification differently. The proponents of intensification see the increase in production as
an environmental goal in itself, as they frame intensive forestry primarily in terms of climate
mitigation, while the critics claim that the loss of biodiversity should be given the same priority
as climate protection (Lidskog et al., 2013). While different frames could also be the reasons
for the different perceptions present in this study the applied framework does not facilitate this
level of analysis. Nevertheless, the opponents of intensive forestry in this study argued that
climate mitigation and energy security should not take priority over halting biodiversity loss.
This supports the findings by Lidskog et al. (2013) that argues that at its core, the conflict is
mainly about how different environmental goals such as halting biodiversity loss and mitigating
climate change should be balanced. Eriksson and Klapwijk (2019) argue that the two different
positions of stakeholders can be referred to as ‘increase in production and carbon substitution’
or ‘biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration’. In line with this, the findings of this
study indicate that stakeholders that were critical towards the bioeconomy favored retaining
forests as carbon sinks, because of immediate climate action and benefits for biodiversity.
In Swedish forestry governance, opposing objectives are pursued, namely increasing
production on the one hand, and environmental objectives laid down in international
agreements (Aichi targets) and national laws (Environmental quality objectives) on the other,
which leads to a political conflict (Beland Lindahl et al., 2017; Bryngemark, 2020; Söderberg
& Eckerberg, 2013). The implementation of both creates a dilemma as the trade-off between
both goals is substantial (Bryngemark, 2020; Bennich et al., 2021). Respondents highlighted
trade-offs of production-increasing measures for biodiversity, habitat provision, for the
prevention of pest species, soil quality, and climate mitigation. Scientific research confirms that
intensification of forest production can have negative effects on the provision of other ES
including habitat provisions, genetic diversity, climate sequestration, and regulating services
such as the prevention of pests and pathogens erosion control, and soil quality (Felton et al.,
2013). As such this study and the debate about forest resources in Sweden represents an
example of conflicting goals between biodiversity conservation, climate mitigation and energy
security which are central to sustainable development (Bennich et al., 2021).
This study also revealed that respondents had different perspectives if environmental and
production goals are balanced currently with some stakeholders regarding it being given equal
consideration, and others arguing that production goals are prioritized. Research indicates that
conservation goals are not addressed sufficiently yet for ensuring sustainable forestry
(Angelstam et al., 2020; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2019), which supports the
statements of some respondents. The lack of legal clarity and the interpretation problem of the
Swedish Forest Act, which were highlighted by one of the interviewees in this study, are also
described by Ambjörnsson et al. (2016) as a driver of conflict. Some respondents expressed
concerns that the discourse of the bioeconomy privileges further the economic dimension of
sustainability. In line with this, both the Swedish model of forestry and the NFP have been
criticized for taking an eco-modernist view and assuming that economic growth can be in line
with environmental protection (Beland Lindahl et al., 2017; Fischer et al., 2020). According to
earlier research, however, this gives priority to the economic dimension of sustainability
(Beland Lindahl et al., 2017; Fischer et al., 2020; Kröger & Raitio, 2017). Respondents
highlighted the number of demands placed on the forest, which are partly conflicting: on the
one hand, forest stands needs to grow faster to sequester more carbon and more energy and
materials are to be substituted by biomass, on the other hand, forest resilience shall be increased
and at the same time biodiversity shall be preserved. The win-win scenario of increased
production, climate protection, and conservation of forest biodiversity presented in the

25
bioeconomy discourse was criticized by some respondents, who pointed out the need to
acknowledge trade-offs. This is in line with McShane et al. (2011) who raised the importance
of enabling an honest assessment and debate about trade-offs and hard choices when it comes
to ES management.
Also, the role of the ES framework should be considered critically in this context. The ES
concept has gained importance as a management tool and is widely applied in policy papers in
Sweden (Nordin et al., 2017). Since the ES concept is increasingly applied as a management
tool, Abson et al. (2014) argue that there is a need to carefully consider the role of normative
knowledge, which refers to the judgment of how a system should be. The ES framework
identifies the importance humans attach to the final ES and that contribute to human well-being
(McShane et al., 2011) and forest ecosystems are managed to enhance final ecosystem services
(Bennett et al., 2009). However, an understanding of social and ecological system functioning,
including social-ecological interactions is not taken into account in the ES approach (Abson et
al., 2014). Those voices critical of the bioeconomy were concerned that the increasing demand
for biomass, the predominance of industrial actors, and weak forest governance would lead to
market mechanisms that focus exclusively on production, resulting in, for example, Sweden's
last old-growth forests being cut down.
7.2 Pathways to sustainable forest management
Based on the values that stakeholders of this study ascribe to forest ES, and the challenges and
opportunities that they perceive for SFM, this chapter explores pathways that could eventually
drive SFM in Östergötland.
7.2.1 Building forest resilience
The results of this study point towards the importance of resilient forest ecosystems.
Respondents valued the resilience of forest ecosystems for preventing storm damage, fires, and
pests and highlighted the necessity for climate adaptation. This shows that the respondents are
concerned about the severe implications and challenges of climate change for forest
management in Sweden. Problems with storm damages and pests species are likely to increase
with ongoing climate change and monocultural stands are expected to be greatly affected (Öhrn
et al., 2021; Vulturius et al., 2020). The vulnerability of monocultural stands was emphasized
by respondents, and the importance of proactive forest planning to avoid future financial losses
was stressed.
Respondents saw especially great challenges in handling the outbreak of the spruce bark beetle
following the dry and hot summer in 2018, which had killed about 4 million m3 Norway spruce
in Sweden (Wulff & Roberge, 2020). The development of the spruce bark beetle outbreak was
emphasized to have had a great influence on forest management and to have resulted in a higher
valuation of forest resilience. However, earlier studies suggest that business-as-usual is
persistent in southern Sweden (Andersson & Keskitalo, 2019; Felton et al., 2020b; Lodin et al.,
2017). On regeneration areas in southern Sweden, Norway spruce mainly replaces pine stands
due to the high browsing damage on pine (Lodin et al., 2017). While this development which
affects negatively forest resilience and opposes climate adaptation was noted to have slowed
down in recent years, it has not stopped (Felton, et al., 2020b).
For strengthening resilience stakeholders emphasized the cultivation of mixed forests. This
measure has also been suggested by research in climate adaptation. Diverse forests were shown
to have positive effects on water quality, recreational values, the prevention of pest and
pathogens damages, and genetic diversity, compared to monocultural stands (de Groot et al.,
2019; Felton et al., 2016; Hansen & Malmaeus, 2016). In this sense, biodiversity in the form of

26
mixed forests was highlighted and valued by respondents as a fundamental factor in regulating
ecosystem processes (Mace et al., 2012). Biodiversity promotes the functionality of ecosystems
by a variety of processes including decomposition and nutrient cycling. As such, it supports a
wide range of ES and makes other ES such as food production, pest control, or carbon
sequestration possible in the first place (Cardinale et al., 2012). In line with respondents and
Eggers et al. (2020) and Felton et al. (2020a), the results of this study, therefore, suggest that
integrating environmental aspects into production forests promotes forest resilience and could
therefore be a way forward to SFM. Next to the cultivation of mixed forests, respondents
highlighted that building forest resilience in production forests could also include the
implementation of continuous cover forestry. In line with this earlier studies have shown
continuous cover forestry to be beneficial for cultural ES, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity
(Eyvindson et al., 2021; Peura et al., 2018; Pukkala et al., 2011).

The positive aspect of mixed forests and continuous cover forestry is that they enhance
multifunctionality in forests while still enabling forest production, and being thus cost-efficient
(Eyvindson et al., 2021; Nordlund & Westin, 2011). Since the results of this study indicated
that owning forest needs to be economically beneficial, and earlier studies have shown that
there is an ownership group that values both production and conservation (Nordlund & Westin,
2011) continuous cover forestry and the cultivation of mixed forests might be interesting
alternatives to even-aged monocultural stands. However, respondents saw challenges regarding
economic benefits and the missing knowledge among landowners of applying continuous cover
forestry, these challenges deserve attention. Regarding the missing knowledge on the
application of continuous cover forestry the results of this study point towards educational
measures to make a successful implementation possible. Also, Eyvindson et al. (2021) noted
that there is a need to encourage and make private landowners familiar with the application of
continuous cover forestry. While clear-felling forestry has been the predominant management
method for several decades (Simonsson, 2016), and its application is thus well-known, lack of
familiarity might prevent forest owners from applying continuous cover forestry (Isoaho et al.,
2019). Figure 1 visualizes the link of the discussed values, challenges, and opportunities.

Values Challenges Opportunities

Figure 1 Potential for continuous cover forestry and mixed forests based on identified
values and challenges
7.2.2 Nature conservation and economic benefits
A topic that was very discussed was nature conservation. The value of genetic diversity was
highlighted, and concerns were raised regarding the loss of biodiversity. Regarding habitats,
interviews revealed that integrating biodiversity in production forests does not replace long-
term protected areas as these are essential for the conservation of species dependent on factors
defining old-growth forests, which is in line with earlier studies (Angelstam et al., 2020; Peura
et al., 2018). According to Angelstam et al. (2020), in Sweden, effective biodiversity
conservation is hindered due to poor ecoregional representation of protected areas in the
southern parts of Sweden. This supports the claim by some respondents who regard that an
increase in long-term protected areas in Östergötland is needed, which currently account for

27
about 2% (Heldmark, n.d.). Challenges that were pointed out included different perspectives on
how much the percentage should increase and the different counting schemes in European
countries which results in officially higher shares of protected areas in some countries. As a
result, in the NFP it was declared that 31% of the total forest land is exempted from forest
production and is thus beneficial for other forest ES (Anon, 2018) including areas of variable
retention and unproductive forest land (Angelstam et al., 2020), while the results of the
assessment by the SFA concluded that 13% of the forest area is protected for the benefit of
environmental objectives (Swedish Forest Agency, 2019). The result of this study suggests that
a pathway to SFM includes an increase in protected areas, but that currently, the missing
consensus on accounting schemes hinders nature conservation. A new law was also demanded
by the stakeholders, specifying what percentage of the land should be set aside for nature
conservation.

In addition, the findings of this study suggest that the cost of nature conservation is a major
challenge. As emphasized by the interviewees, conservation causes conflicts because setting
aside land for conservation involves costs and means a loss of economic income for NIPF
owners, which is in line with findings by Götmark (2009) and Jakobsson et al. (2021).
Interviewees mentioned forest owners' dissatisfaction with set-asides, especially if they depend
on forestry revenues. The results of this study indicate that income dependence has the greatest
impact on management strategy which is in line with findings of the study by Eggers et al.
(2014). The interviews revealed that income from forestry remains essential for farmers who
rely on agriculture and forestry for their livelihood, even though respondents highlighted that
the ownership structure is generally changing towards an increasing number of owners
independent of the income by forestry, which is supported by earlier studies (Andersson &
Keskitalo, 2016; Mattila & Roos, 2014; Nordlund & Westin, 2011).

The missing compensation of landowners highlighted by respondents was also pointed out by
Götmark (2009) as a reason for conflict in southern Sweden. Jakobsson et al., (2021) found that
some forest owners in southern Sweden even conduct forest management in such a way as to
not increase environmental values of forest stands for avoiding the areas being declared as
WKH in the future, which counteracts SFM. Hence, the proposed measures by respondents to
enable funding mechanisms to compensate landowners for conservation efforts might be a
promising way to address this conflict and support SFM.

Besides that, the point was raised that funding for landowners could not only include setting
aside land for biodiversity, but also for other ES such as retaining forests as carbon sinks, or for
water provision, which will become an increasingly scarce resource with ongoing climate
change (Hansen & Malmaeus, 2016). As this study indicates that economic benefits are
important, giving a market value to those ES, might eventually result in a higher valuation, as
research has shown that ES without a clear market value gets underprovided as the management
of forests often aims at maximizing profits (Obeng & Aguilar, 2018). In addition, interviewees
noted that there is a need to increase knowledge among landowners on the reasons behind
biodiversity conservation. Hence, educational measures would be beneficial for a successful
outcome of conservation measures.

Interviewees valued forest products high that not only generate income but also enable other
environmental benefits at the same time. For this reason, a high value was also placed on
tourism. It was argued that nature-based tourism can eventually drive nature conservation in
Östergötland while generating revenue. Earlier case studies confirm that nature-based tourism
can have synergetic relation with nature conservation (Boley & Green, 2016; Wardle et al.,

28
2018), and tourism is a growing sector in Östergötland (Bi Syd, 2019). The above-discussed
values, challenges, and opportunities are shown in figure 2.

Values Challenges Opportunities

Figure 2 Potential of landowner compensation, increase in nature reserves, and nature

tourism based on identified values and challenges
7.2.3 Market demand and prioritization of forest products
The results of this study show that great emphasis was placed on the climate-regulating function
of forests. Both carbon substitution and carbon sequestration in the stand were stressed, which
can be considered as two opposing ways of using forests to mitigate climate change (Makkonen
et al., 2015). As discussed before, opinions differed on carbon substitution. However, consensus
could be found for products with long life cycles, such as wood as a building material. The
critical perspective of some respondents towards products with short life cycles can be linked
to the fact that long-term climate change benefits depend on the use of forest biomass (Hansen
& Malmaeus, 2016). As mentioned by respondents, the building material stores carbon in the
long-term. In contrast, products made out of pulpwood such as bio-plastics have short-term
carbon storage and are released into the atmosphere after a short period (Hansen & Malmaeus,
2016). This argument was also raised for bioenergy. While bioenergy provides climate benefits
because of the saved emissions by fossil fuels in the long-term, it results in initially high net
emissions of GHG for several decades (Birdsey et al., 2018). The importance of the timespan
looked at, which was raised by one respondent seems crucial in this context.

The results of this study highlight that there is a limit to the provision of forest products.
Respondents highlighted that the competing demands on the forest for ecosystem service
provision make prioritization necessary. However, this prioritization was mentioned to be
difficult because several products provide certain benefits which could be seen in this study.
Bioplastics for example put stakeholders in a quandary. Even though it replaces plastics and
addresses plastic pollution, it is a product with a short life cycle that generates GHG and
competes with other uses of the forest. The substitution of paper and newspaper production by
packaging grades (Nordström et al., 2021), was seen by respondents as a development that is
opposing the sustainable use of forest resources. Stakeholders called for priority to be given
within production to products that contribute to sustainable development. According to the
respondents, this includes putting emphasis on the production of timber and less on pulpwood
and paper. The need for prioritization within forest products on long-lived materials and
products was also highlighted in a recent report by the European Commission (European
Commission, 2021, pp. 4–5). Hence, the suggestions of respondents to concentrate on wood
products align with this report, as well as other sources that emphasize climate benefits of
substitution of building material (Börjesson & Gustavsson, 2000; Sathre & O’Connor, 2010).
This study, therefore, outlines a possible way forward to concentrate production on those forest
products that bring the greatest climate benefits and conduct life cycle assessments for assessing
the benefits of products for sustainable development.

29
One challenge highlighted by respondents consists in that the Swedish market demands a high
share of pulpwood and paper. This trend is expected to increase. While also sawmill production
is likely to increase in Sweden, the rise is expected to be lower than pulpwood production
(Nordström et al., 2021). Additionally, an increase in market demand for bioenergy can be
expected (Johansson & Ranius, 2019). This indicates that a shift in supply would be necessary,
which the European Commission (2021) proposes to achieve through market incentives. The
above-discussed values, challenges, and opportunities are displayed in figure 3.

Values Challenges Opportunities

Figure 3 Potential for prioritization of long-lived products based on identified values

and challenges
7.2.4 Resolving conflicts of interest and missing consensus
The findings of this study highlight that conflicts in forest management and policy pose
challenges for SFM, especially since the forest debate is polarized and there are missing
agreements on essential points. Conflicts in Swedish forestry are stalled (Jakobsson et al.,
2021), and have intensified with evolving concept of bioeconomy and the debate about the
optimal use of forests (Bryngemark, 2020; Söderberg & Eckerberg, 2013).
The NFP puts equal goals as the basis for sustainable growth in the bioeconomy (Anon, 2018).
As respondents and stakeholder groups in Sweden at large are in disagreement on whether the
goals are addressed equally or not, as well as on if proposed measures for sustainable forest
growth compromise environmental goals (Eriksson & Klapwijk, 2019), there is missing
consensus on proposed measures. Respondents interpreted missing consensus as a challenge
for forest management as it is an important keystone of Swedish policymaking (Fischer et al.,
2020). However, the concept of consensus itself has been questioned by Beland Lindahl et al.
(2017), Fischer et al. (2020), and Johansson (2016) who argue that in the case of Swedish
forestry policy making it has recently led to the exclusion of perspectives that are not
compatible with a focus on increased forest production. Zachrisson and Beland Lindahl (2013)
suggest that clinging to the concept of consensus might even be a barrier to conflict resolution.
On the other hand, in line with Zachrisson and Beland Lindahl (2013) and Eckerberg and
Sandström (2013), respondents pointed out that conflict has the potential to be a driver for
change. Therefore, the debate can also be seen as an opportunity for nature conservation as it
allows concerns that have not been considered so far to be put more on the agenda. For this
reason, the results of this study indicate that the debate itself can be conducive for discussing
different perspectives and could lead to greater integration of environmental considerations into
forest management. However, the polarization of the conflict itself hinders constructive
discussion. This study has shown that conflicting perspectives are mainly centered on how
different goals are balanced, and if a further intensification jeopardizes environmental goals.
Lidskog et al. (2013) highlight the importance to increase awareness of different points of view
based on different values and frames for constructive discussions. Respondents of this study
also highlighted the need to increase dialogue, establish improved communication, and
acknowledge opposing views. The study by Jakobsson et al. (2021) found similar proposals by

30
forest owners for conflict resolution. Zachrisson and Beland Lindahl (2013) noted that
collaboration is essential for conflict resolution and Young et al. (2016) suggest that for
implementing policies successfully trust and dialogue are essential. Even though it was
acknowledged that mutual trust is currently missing, stakeholders of this study were generally
positive that improved communication and collaboration are possible in Östergötland. The
above-discussed values, challenges, and opportunities are visualized in figure 4 .

Values Challenges Opportunities

Figure 4 Importance of resuming dialogue and establishing improved communication

based on identified values and challenges
7.3 Scientific value and implications
The study joins the body of research on stakeholder perspectives on sustainable forest
management in Sweden. Distinct from other research, in this study, stakeholder perspectives
on Swedish forestry were examined from the analytical angle of the ecosystem services
framework.
The framework enabled a comparison of stakeholders' perspectives on forest ecosystem
services and revealed consensus and opposing positions. In this way, hidden opportunities could
be found, revealing measures on which stakeholders agree and which could therefore present
pathways for SFM. These measures include, for example, strengthening the resilience of
production forests. On the other hand, very different perspectives on carbon substitution and
the associated intensification of forestry became evident. The results of this study mainly align
with the findings of studies conducted by earlier studies in southern Sweden. Although this
study made opposing perspectives on sustainable forestry visible, other studies applying a
different methodological approach might provide greater insights into the underlying belief
structures that lead to different perspectives.
What stood out was that there was among all interviewed stakeholders a great willingness for
combining environmental and production goals and strengthening the resilience of production
forests. As the importance of forest resilience among stakeholders was not found in that way in
other studies (Andersson & Keskitalo, 2016; Sandström et al., 2013), further research might
look into if it was only the perception of stakeholders in this study, or if the financial damages
following the spruce bark beetle outbreak exceed the fear of browsing damages and had
implications on the attitudes of forest owners towards climate adaptation and provoked changes
in forest management in southern Sweden.

8 Conclusion
This study aimed to explore pathways to sustainable forest management. This was done by
examining the perspectives of stakeholders in Östergötland on the conservation of forest
biodiversity and the intensification of forestry for the bioeconomy.

31
The results of the study indicate that all stakeholders consider SFM important, but that there
are conflicting views on whether further intensification jeopardizes environmental goals. Some
stakeholders linked sustainability with material and energy substitution, while other
stakeholders regarded further intensification as not sustainable. In line with previous research,
the results of this study suggest that the conflict currently impacting Swedish forest planning is
related to the question of how environmental and production goals should be balanced and what
impact the increased demand for biomass in a deregulated Swedish forestry sector has on the
forest ecosystem and the biodiversity it hosts.

Despite the disagreements, consensus was also found, and opportunities were identified that
could promote SFM. Recognizing that forests can only provide a limited number of products
sustainably, and given the diverse demand for forest products, the results of this study point
towards that redistribution of production toward more quality rather than quantity would be
beneficial, which involves a higher proportion of long-lived forest products. There was a
common understanding that building forest resilience in the face of climate change is essential,
as well as that it should be possible for forest owners to make an income with their property.
Departing from that it is suggested that environmental and production goals should be linked,
which includes integrating biodiversity into the production matrix by increasingly adopting
continuous cover forestry and cultivating mixed forests. For the conservation of biodiversity,
this study proposes additionally increasing the share of long-term protected areas. To address
the conflict of conservation measures on private property the possibility of enabling funding to
compensate landowners was discussed, and the necessity of educational measures was
highlighted. Regarding the conflicts of interest, the polarization of the debate, and the different
perspectives of SFM, this study emphasizes that a resumption of dialogue, recognition of
different frames, and improved communication are urgently needed.

32
9 Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the people who have supported this thesis. First, the participants who have
taken their time despite their busy schedules and who have contributed with their insight
knowledge on the many challenges of sustainable forestry.
Second, I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisor Tina Simone Neset, who guided me
through the thesis process and always helped me with her constructive feedback to structure,
define and improve the thesis. Thank you for your time, and good conversations.
Next, I would like to thank David Ek who supported this thesis with his comprehensive
knowledge of Swedish forestry and stakeholders in Östergötland, and who agreed to do the test
interview, as well as proofread this thesis.
Lastly, I would like to mention my friends and my partner who accompanied me through all the
highs and lows of writing a thesis, and for making the breaks between the writing enjoyable.

33
10 References
Abson, D. J., von Wehrden, H., Baumgärtner, S., Fischer, J., Hanspach, J., Härdtle, W.,
Heinrichs, H., Klein, A. M., Lang, D. J., Martens, P., & Walmsley, D. (2014). Ecosystem
services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 103, 29–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012
Andersson, E., & Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2019). Service logics and strategies of Swedish forestry
in the structural shifts of forest ownership: challenging the “old” and shaping the “new.”
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 34(6), 508–520.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2019.1604990
Andersson, L. F., & Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2016). Insurance models and climate risk
assessments in a historical context. Financial History Review, 23(2), 219–243.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S096856501600010X
Angelstam, P., Manton, M., Green, M., Jonsson, B., Mikusiński, G., Svensson, J., & Maria, F.
(2020). Landscape and Urban Planning Sweden does not meet agreed national and
international forest biodiversity targets: A call for adaptive landscape planning.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 202(103838).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103838
Anon. (2018). Strategi för Sveriges nationella skogsprogram. [Strategy for Sweden’s national
forest program]. In Swedish. Näringsdepartementet, N2018.15 B.
https://www.regeringen.se/49bad6/contentassets/34817820fe074cb9aeff084815bd3a9f/2
0180524_hela.pdf
Ban, N. C., Mills, M., Tam, J., Hicks, C. C., Klain, S., Stoeckl, N., Bottrill, M. C., Levine, J.,
Pressey, R. L., Satterfield, T., & Chan, K. M. A. (2013). A social-ecological approach to
conservation planning: Embedding social considerations. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 11(4), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1890/110205
Beland Lindahl, K., Sténs, A., Sandström, C., Johansson, J., Lidskog, R., Ranius, T., &
Roberge, J.-M. (2017). Forest Policy and Economics The Swedish forestry model : More
of everything? Forest Policy and Economics, 77, 44–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.10.012
Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D., & Gordon, L. J. (2009). Understanding relationships among
multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12, 1394–1404.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x
Bennich, T., Belyazid, S., Stjernquist, I., Diemer, A., Seifollahi-Aghmiuni, S., & Kalantari, Z.
(2021). The bio-based economy, 2030 Agenda, and strong sustainability – A regional-
scale assessment of sustainability goal interactions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 283,
125174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125174
Bi Syd. (2019). Inkvarteringsstatistik för Östergötlands län Jan-jun 2019 [Accommodation
statistics for Östergötland County Jan-June 2019]. Visit Östergötland.
https://www.visitostergotland.se/media/3661/ostergotlands-lan-q2-2019.pdf
Birdsey, R., Duffy, P., Smyth, C., Kurz, W. A., Dugan, A. J., & Houghton, R. (2018).
Climate, economic, and environmental impacts of producing wood for bioenergy.
Environmental Research Letters, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aab9d5
Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2014). Interviews mit Experten: Eine praxisorientierte

34
 Einführung. Springer VS.
Boley, B. B., & Green, G. T. (2016). Ecotourism and natural resource conservation: the
‘potential’ for a sustainable symbiotic relationship. Journal of Ecotourism, 15(1), 36–50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2015.1094080
Boreus, K., & Bergström, G. (2017). Analyzing Text and Discourse: Eight Approaches for the
Social Sciences (1st ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Börjesson, P., & Gustavsson, L. (2000). Greenhouse gas balances in building construction:
Wood versus concrete from life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives. Energy Policy,
28(9), 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00049-5
Brand, A., Furness, M., & Keijzer, N. (2021). Promoting policy coherence within the 2030
agenda framework: Externalities, trade-offs and politics. Politics and Governance, 9(1),
108–118. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v9i1.3608
Bryngemark, E. (2020). Bioenergy versus forest conservation: a partial equilibrium analysis
of the Swedish forest raw materials market. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,
35(7), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2020.1808696
Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani,
A., MacE, G. M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D. A., Kinzig, A. P., Daily, G. C., Loreau, M.,
Grace, J. B., Larigauderie, A., Srivastava, D. S., & Naeem, S. (2012). Biodiversity loss
and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 59–67.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148
Christiansen, L. (2018). Strukturstatistik Statistik om skogsägande 2017. [Structural statistics
Forest ownership statistics 2017]. In Swedish. (Report 2018/12). Skogsstyrelsen.
https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/globalassets/om-oss/rapporter/rapporter-2018/rapport-
2018-12-strukturstatistik-statistik-om-skogsagande-2017.pdf
de Groot, M., Diaci, J., & Ogris, N. (2019). Forest management history is an important factor
in bark beetle outbreaks: Lessons for the future. Forest Ecology and Management, 433,
467–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.11.025
de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in
integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,
management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260–272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
Eckerberg, K., & Sandström, C. (2013). Forest conflicts: A growing research field. Forest
Policy and Economics, 33(3), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.05.001
Eggers, J., Lämås, T., Lind, T., & Öhman, K. (2014). Factors Influencing the Choice of
Management Strategy among Small-Scale Private Forest Owners in Sweden. Forests, 5,
1695–1716. https://doi.org/10.3390/f5071695
Eriksson, L., & Klapwijk, M. J. (2019). Attitudes towards biodiversity conservation and
carbon substitution in forestry: A study of stakeholders in Sweden. Forestry, 92(2), 219–
229. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpz003
European Commission. (2021). Communication from the commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the
committee of the regions: New EU Forest Strategy for 2030 COM(2021) 572 final.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/communication-new-eu-forest-strategy-

35
 2030_with-annex_en.pdf
Eyvindson, K., Duflot, R., Triviño, M., Blattert, C., Potterf, M., & Mönkkönen, M. (2021).
High boreal forest multifunctionality requires continuous cover forestry as a dominant
management. Land Use Policy, 100(104918).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104918
FAO. (2020). Sustainable forest management. http://www.fao.org/forestry/sfm/en/
Felton, A., Boberg, J., Björkman, C., & Widenfalk, O. (2013). Identifying and managing the
ecological risks of using introduced tree species in Sweden’s production forestry. Forest
Ecology and Management, 307, 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.059
Felton, A., Löfroth, T., Angelstam, P., Gustafsson, L., Hjältén, J., Felton, A. M., Simonsson,
P., Dahlberg, A., Lindbladh, M., Svensson, J., Nilsson, U., Lodin, I., Hedwall, P. O.,
Sténs, A., Lämås, T., Brunet, J., Kalén, C., Kriström, B., Gemmel, P., & Ranius, T.
(2020a). Keeping pace with forestry: Multi-scale conservation in a changing production
forest matrix. Ambio, 49(5), 1050–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01248-0
Felton, A., Nilsson, U., Sonesson, J., Felton, A. M., Roberge, J. M., Ranius, T., Ahlström, M.,
Bergh, J., Björkman, C., Boberg, J., Drössler, L., Fahlvik, N., Gong, P., Holmström, E.,
Keskitalo, E. C. H., Klapwijk, M. J., Laudon, H., Lundmark, T., Niklasson, M., …
Wallertz, K. (2016). Replacing monocultures with mixed-species stands: Ecosystem
service implications of two production forest alternatives in Sweden. Ambio, 45((Suppl.
2)), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0749-2
Felton, A., Petersson, L., Nilsson, O., Witzell, J., Cleary, M., Felton, A. M., Björkman, C.,
Sang, Å. O., Jonsell, M., Holmström, E., Nilsson, U., Rönnberg, J., Kalén, C., &
Lindbladh, M. (2020b). The tree species matters: Biodiversity and ecosystem service
implications of replacing Scots pine production stands with Norway spruce. Ambio,
49(5), 1035–1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01259-x
Fischer, A. P. (2018). Forest landscapes as social-ecological systems and implications for
management. Landscape and Urban Planning, 177, 138–147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.001
Fischer, K., Stenius, T., & Holmgren, S. (2020). Swedish Forests in the Bioeconomy: Stories
from the National Forest Program. Society & Natural Resources, 33(7), 896–913.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1725202
FSC. (2010). Swedish FSC Standard for Forest Certification including SLIMF indicators.
(FSC-STD-SWE-02-04-2010 Sweden Natural, Plantations and SLIMF EN). Forest
Stewardship Council FSC Sweden. https://se.fsc.org/preview.fsc-forest-management-
standard-for-sweden.a-772.pdf
Fu, B.-J., Su, C.-H., Wei, Y.-P., Willett, I. R., Lü, Y.-H., & Liu, G.-H. (2011). Double
counting in ecosystem services valuation: Causes and countermeasures. Ecological
Research, 26, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-010-0766-3
Garrido, P., Elbakidze, M., & Angelstam, P. (2017). Stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem
services in Östergötland’s (Sweden) threatened oak wood-pasture landscapes. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 158, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.08.018
Götmark, F. (2009). Conflicts in conservation: Woodland key habitats, authorities and private
forest owners in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 24(6).

36
 https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580903363545
Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2018). Common International Clasification of Ecosystem
Services (CICES) V5. 1. and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Fabis
Consulting Ltd. https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-
01012018.pdf
Hansen, K., & Malmaeus, M. (2016). Ecosystem services in Swedish forests. Scandinavian
Journal of Forest Research, 31(6), 626–640.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2016.1164888
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S., & van Ierland, E. C. (2006). Spatial scales,
stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 209–
228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005
Heldmark, T. (n.d.). Östergötlands Gröna Hjärta– samtal om skogen och dess värden.
[Östergötland’s Green Heart - a conversation about the forest and its values]. In
Swedish. Länsstyrelsen Östergötland. https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/ostergotland/natur-
och-landsbygd/skogen-i-ostergotland.html
Hemström, K., Mahapatra, K., & Gustavsson, L. (2014). Public Perceptions and Acceptance
of Intensive Forestry in Sweden. Ambio, 43, 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-
013-0411-9
Isoaho, K., Burgas, D., Janasik, N., Mönkkönen, M., Peura, M., & Hukkinen, J. I. (2019).
Changing forest stakeholders’ perception of ecosystem services with linguistic nudging.
Ecosystem Services, 40(101028). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101028
Jakobsson, R., Olofsson, E., & Ambrose-Oji, B. (2021). Stakeholder perceptions,
management and impacts of forestry conflicts in southern Sweden. Scandinavian Journal
of Forest Research, 36(1), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2020.1854341
Johansson, J. (2016). Participation and deliberation in Swedish forest governance: The
process of initiating a National Forest Program. Forest Policy and Economics, 70, 137–
146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.001
Johansson, J., & Ranius, T. (2019). Biomass outtake and bioenergy development in Sweden:
the role of policy and economic presumptions. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,
34(8), 771–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2019.1691645
Keskitalo, E. C. H., & Liljenfeldt, J. (2014). Implementation of forest certification in Sweden:
an issue of organisation and communication. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,
29(5), 473–484. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.919355
Kindstrand, C., Norman, J., Boman, M., & Mattsson, L. (2008). Attitudes towards various
forest functions: A comparison between private forest owners and forest officers.
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23, 133–137.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580801944842
Klapwijk, M. J., Boberg, J., Bergh, J., Bishop, K., Björkman, C., Ellison, D., Felton, A.,
Lidskog, R., Lundmark, T., Keskitalo, E. C. H., Sonesson, J., Nordin, A., Nordström, E.
M., Stenlid, J., & Mårald, E. (2018). Capturing complexity: Forests, decision-making
and climate change mitigation action. Global Environmental Change, 52, 238–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.012
Kröger, M., & Raitio, K. (2017). Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to

37
 sustainability? Forest Policy and Economics, 77, 6–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.003
Kuuluvainen, T., Tahvonen, O., & Aakala, T. (2012). Even-Aged and Uneven-Aged Forest
Management in Boreal Fennoscandia: A Review. Ambio, 41, 720–737.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0289-y
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research
interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Leary, J., Grimm, K., Aslan, C., Mark, M., Frey, S., & Bath-Rosenfeld, R. (2021).
Landowners’ Socio-Cultural Valuation of Ecosystem Services Provided by Trees in
Costa Rican Agricultural Landscapes. Environmental Management, 67(5), 974–987.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01442-5
Lidskog, R., Sundqvist, G., Kall, A. S., Sandin, P., & Larsson, S. (2013). Intensive forestry in
Sweden: stakeholders’ evaluation of benefits and risk. Journal of Integrative
Environmental Sciences, 10(3–4), 145–160.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2013.841261
Lindkvist, A., Mineur, E., Nordlund, A., Nordlund, C., Olsson, O., Sandström, C., Westin, K.,
& Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2012). Attitudes on intensive forestry. An investigation into
perceptions of increased production requirements in Swedish forestry. Scandinavian
Journal of Forest Research, 27, 438–449.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2011.645867
Lodin, I., & Brukas, V. (2021). Land Use Policy Ideal vs real forest management: Challenges
in promoting production-oriented silvicultural ideals among small-scale forest owners in
southern Sweden. Land Use Policy, 100(104931).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104931
Lodin, I., Brukas, V., & Wallin, I. (2017). Spruce or not? Contextual and attitudinal drivers
behind the choice of tree species in southern Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 83,
191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.11.010
Löfmarck, E., Uggla, Y., & Lidskog, R. (2017). Freedom with what? Interpretations of
“responsibility” in Swedish forestry practice. Forest Policy and Economics, 75, 34–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.004
Mace, G. M., Norris, K., & Fitter, A. H. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A
multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 27(1), 19–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006
Makkonen, M., Huttunen, S., Primmer, E., Repo, A., & Hildén, M. (2015). Policy coherence
in climate change mitigation: An ecosystem service approach to forests as carbon sinks
and bioenergy sources. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 153–162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.003
Mascia, M. B., Brosius, J. P., Dobson, T. A., Forbes, B. C., Horowitz, L., McKean, M. A., &
Turner, N. J. (2003). Conservation and the social sciences. Conservation Biology, 17(3),
649–650. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01738.x
Mattila, O., & Roos, A. (2014). Service logics of providers in the forestry services sector:
Evidence from Finland and Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 43, 10–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.03.003

38
McShane, T. O., Hirsch, P. D., Trung, T. C., Songorwa, A. N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B.,
Mutekanga, D., Thang, H. Van, Dammert, J. L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M.,
Brosius, P. J., Coppolillo, P., & O’Connor, S. (2011). Hard choices: Making trade-offs
between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144,
966–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038
Miljömålsberedningen. (2016). En klimat- och luftvårdsstrategi för Sverige. [A climate and
air protection strategy for Sweden]. In Swedish (SOU 2016:47). Ministry of the
Environment.
https://www.regeringen.se/4ac39c/contentassets/7b9a0bfee54c4e5e815a6a9bf8be9c6d/e
n-klimat--och-luftvardsstrategi-for-sverige---delbetankande-av-
miljomalsberedningen.pdf
Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation. (2018). Sweden’s National Forest Programme [Fact
sheet]. Government Offices of Sweden.
https://www.government.se/4a741f/contentassets/859bb18d50494ec9b5b988a28ef99ae8/
fact-sheet-swedens-national-forest-programme.pdf
Ministry of the Environment. (2000). Swedish Environmental Code (Ds 2000:61).
Government Offices of Sweden. https://riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-
lagar/dokument/departementsserien/ds-2000-61-_GOB461
Misoch, S. (2015). Qualitative interviews. Walter De Gruyter GmbH.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110354614
Nordén, A., Coria, J., Jönsson, A. M., Lagergren, F., & Lehsten, V. (2017). Divergence in
stakeholders ’ preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes
preferences in Sweden. Ecological Economics, 132, 179–195.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.032
Nordin, A. C., Hanson, H. I., & Olsson, J. A. (2017). Integration of the ecosystem services
concept in planning documents from six municipalities in southwestern Sweden. Ecology
and Society, 22(3). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09420-220326
Nordlund, A., & Westin, K. (2011). Forest Values and Forest Management Attitudes among
Private Forest Owners in Sweden. Forests, 2, 30–50. https://doi.org/10.3390/f2010030
Nordström, P.-O., Pastila, S., Pihlajamäki, P., & Ojanen, E. (2021). Marknaden för
skogsråvara och skogsnäringens utveckling fram till 2035. [The market for forest raw
materials and the development of the forest sector up to 2035]. In Swedish. (Report 202).
Swedish Forest Agency. https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/globalassets/om-
oss/rapporter/rapporter-2021/rapport-2021-3-marknaden-for-skogsravara-och-
skogsnaringens-utveckling-fram-till-2035.pdf
Obeng, E. A., & Aguilar, F. X. (2018). Value orientation and payment for ecosystem services:
Perceived detrimental consequences lead to willingness-to-pay for ecosystem services.
Journal of Environmental Management, 206, 458–471.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.059
Öhrn, P., Berlin, M., Elfstrand, M., Krokene, P., & Jönsson, A. M. (2021). Seasonal variation
in Norway spruce response to inoculation with bark beetle-associated bluestain fungi one
year after a severe drought. Forest Ecology and Management, 496(119443).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119443
PEFC. (n.d.). Swedish PEFC Forest standard. (PEFC SWE 002:4). Programme for the

39
 Endorsement of Forest Certification. https://cdn.pefc.org/pefc.org/media/2019-
04/15e0b66c-b838-48db-b221-e597b3eaadc9/ed69166f-019a-5cae-b6d9-
f65a0a53a152.pdf
Peura, M., Burgas, D., Eyvindson, K., Repo, A., & Mönkkönen, M. (2018). Continuous cover
forestry is a cost-efficient tool to increase multifunctionality of boreal production forests
in Fennoscandia. Biological Conservation, 217, 104–112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.10.018
Pohjanmies, T., Triviño, M., Le Tortorec, E., Mazziotta, A., Snäll, T., & Mönkkönen, M.
(2017). Impacts of forestry on boreal forests: An ecosystem services perspective. Ambio,
46(7), 743–755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-0919-5
Potschin, M., & Haines-Young, R. (2016). Defining and measuring ecosystem services. In
Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services (Routlede H, pp. 25–44). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315775302-4
Pukkala, T., Lähde, E., Laiho, O., Salo, K., & Hotanen, J. P. (2011). A multifunctional
comparison of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management in a boreal region.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 41(4), 851–862. https://doi.org/10.1139/x11-009
Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn,
C. H., & Stringer, L. C. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis
methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management,
90(5), 1933–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001
Roulston, K. (2010). Considering quality in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research,
10(2), 199–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109356739
Sandström, C., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Beland Lindahl, K., Mossberg Sonnek, K., Mossing,
A., Nording, A., Nordström, E.-M., & Räty, R. (2016). Understanding consistencies and
gaps between desired forest futures: An analysis of visions from stakeholder groups in
Sweden. Ambio, 45(2), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0746-5
Sandström, C., Di Gasper, S. W., & Öhman, K. (2013). Conflict resolution through
ecosystem-based management: The case of Swedish moose management. International
Journal of the Commons, 7(2), 549–570. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.349
Sandström, J., Bjelke, U., Carlberg, T., & Sundberg, S. (2015). Tillstand och trender för arter
och deras livsmiljöer: rödlistade arter i Sverige 2015 [Status and trends for species and
their habitats: Red-listed species in Sweden 2015]. In Swedish. (Report 17)
ArtDatabanken SLU. https://www.artdatabanken.se/globalassets/ew/subw/artd/2.-var-
verksamhet/publikationer/21.-tillstand-och-trender/rapport_tillstand_och_trender.pdf
Sathre, R., & O’Connor, J. (2010). Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of
wood product substitution. Environmental Science and Policy, 13(2), 104–114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.12.005
Scholte, S. S. K., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Integrating socio-cultural
perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods.
Ecological Economics, 114, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007
SFS 1993:553. (n.d.). Skogsvårdslag [Forestry Act]. In Swedish. Ministry of Economic
Affairs RSL. https://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=1979:429
Simonsson, P. (2016). Conservation Measures in Swedish Forests: The debate,

40
 implementation and outcomes [Doctoral dissertation, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences. SLU publication database]. https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/13773/
SLU. (2018). Skogsdata 2018: Aktuella uppgifter om de svenska skogarna fran
Riksskogstaxeringen. statistik, S.o. (Ed.) [Forest data 2018: current data on Swedish
forests from the Swedish National Forest Inventory]. In Swedish. Official Statistics of
Sweden. Department of Forest Resource Management, Sveriges Lantsbuksuniversitet.
https://www.slu.se/globalassets/ew/org/centrb/rt/dokument/skogsdata/skogsdata_2017.pd
f
Söderberg, C., & Eckerberg, K. (2013). Rising policy conflicts in Europe over bioenergy and
forestry. Forest Policy and Economics, 33, 112–119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.015
Statistics Sweden, R. and E. D. (2019). Markanvändningen i Sverige [Land use in Sweden].
seventh ed. https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-
area/environment/land-use/land-use-in-sweden/pong/publications/land-use-in-sweden2/
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Miljömålen: Årlig uppföljning av
Sveriges nationella miljömål 2019 - Med fokus på statliga insatser. [Environmental
Goals: Yearly report on Sweden’s national environmental objectives 2019 - Focus on
government efforts]. In Swedish. (Report 68). Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency. https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-
6890-5.pdf?pid=24788
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. (2020). Miljömålen - Årlig uppföljning av
Sveriges nationella miljömål 2020 - Med fokus pa statliga insatser. [Environmental
Goals: Yearly report on Sweden’s national environmental objectives 2020 - Focus on
government efforts]. In Swedish. (Report 69). Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency. https://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publ-filer/6900/978-91-620-6919-
3.pdf?pid=26466
Swedish Forest Agency. (2019). Statistik om formellt skyddad skogsmark, frivilliga
avsättningar, hänsynsytor samt improduktiv skogsmark. [Statistics on formally protected
forest land, voluntary set-asides, areas under consideration and unproductive forest land].
In Swedish. (Report 18, DNR 2018/4). Swedish Forest Agency.
https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/globalassets/om-oss/rapporter/rapporter-2019/rapport-
2019-18-statistik-om-formellt-skyddad-skogsmark-frivilliga-avsattningar-hansynsytor-
improduktiv-skogsmark.pdf
Swedish Forest Agency. (2021). Frivilliga avsättningar och certifierad areal 2020 -
Voluntary set-asides and area under forest management certification schemes 2020.
(JO1404 SM2021), Länsstyrelsen.
https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/globalassets/statistik/statistiska-meddelanden/jo1404-
statistiska-meddelanden-frivilliga-avsattningar-och-certifierad-areal-2020.pdf
Triviño, M., Pohjanmies, T., Mazziotta, A., Juutinen, A., Podkopaev, D., Le Tortorec, E., &
Mönkkönen, M. (2017). Optimizing management to enhance multifunctionality in a
boreal forest landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54(1), 61–70.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12790
UN General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, 21 Oktober 2015. A/RES/70/1, 1–35. https://doi.org/15-16301

41
UNEP. (2010). The Strategic Plan for Biodiveristy 2011-2020 and the Aichi Targets.
Convention on Biological Diversity – Conference of the parties to the convention on
biological diversity: tenth meeting, Nagoya, Japan, 18-29 October 2010, Agenda item
4.4 (UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2). United Nations Environment Programme.
https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf
Vulturius, G., André, K., Gerger Swartling, Å., Brown, C., & Rounsevell, M. (2020).
Successes and shortcomings of climate change communication: insights from a
longitudinal analysis of Swedish Forest owners. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 63(7), 1177–1195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1646228
Wardle, C., Buckley, R., Shakeela, A., & Castley, J. G. (2018). Ecotourism’ s contributions to
conservation: analysing patterns in published studies. Journal of Ecotourism, 1–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2018.1424173
Wilkinson, C., Saarne, T., Peterson, G. D., & Colding, J. (2013). Strategic Spatial Planning
and the Ecosystem Services Concept - an Historical Exploration. Ecology and Society,
18(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05368-180137
Wulff, S., & Roberge, C. (2020). Nationell Riktad Skogsskadeinventering (NRS) -
Inventering av granbarkborreangrepp i Götaland och Svealand 2020 [Inventory of spruce
bark beetle infestation in Götaland and Svealand 2020]. In Swedish. Department of
Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/21827/1/wulff_s_et_al_210201.pdf
Young, J. C., Searle, K., Butler, A., Simmons, P., Watt, A. D., & Jordan, A. (2016). The role
of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biological Conservation, 195, 196–
202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.030
Zachrisson, A., & Beland Lindahl, K. (2013). Conflict resolution through collaboration:
Preconditions and limitations in forest and nature conservation controversies. Forest
Policy and Economics, 33, 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.008

42
Appendix
Appendix 1 Cover letter
Dear xy,
I hope this email finds you well. I write to kindly ask you to consider participating in a
research interview on forestry in Östergötland. I am a student at the Master program ‘Science
for sustainable development’ at the department of thematic studies – Environmental Change
at Linköping University.
In my master thesis, I focus on perceptions of stakeholders in Östergötland on forest
ecosystem services and the role of the forest in the future. This study looks at regional issues
in Östergötland concerning conservation and production targets and seeks to identify drivers
and barriers for sustainable forestry in Sweden.
I am writing to you as xyz (job position of the interview partner) because I believe your
experience and knowledge about the challenges of forestry in Östergötland could provide
valuable insights for my thesis. I would be grateful if you would consider participating in my
study to share your expertise in the field. Be reassured that all data and personal information
is handled confidentially, and no names will be included in the thesis report.
Preferably, the interviews should take place between March 24th and April 23rd, using the
digital platform Microsoft Office Teams or Zoom. The interviews are expected to take
between 30–45 minutes and will be conducted in English. In case this timeframe is not
convenient for you, I am happy to consider other dates more suitable to your schedule.
I hope to hear from you soon. Please do not hesitate to contact me in case you have any
queries or would wish for further information.
Kinds Regards,
Katharina Heimes

Appendix 2 Interview guide

A. Introduction and background information about interviewee:
• Could you tell me about yourself?
• How long have you been living in Östergötland?
• How long have you been working in forestry?
B. Ecosystem services and land cover: at present
• How do you work with the forest?
• What services/benefits doe/does you/your organization/company obtain from the
forest?
• What services/benefits of the forest are the most important for you/your organization?
• Which ones are you concerned with in your work?
• Does the forest contain any value important for you?
• If you would be asked to rank benefits of the ecosystem forest from the most
important to least important for you, how would you rank it?
C. Opportunities and challenges to sustainable forest management

43
 • What do you consider as the major changes in forestry in this region, both positive and
negative over the past decades?
o Changes regarding production?
o Changes regarding conservation of biodiversity?
o Changes regarding climate change?
o Change in the role of the forest? Did certain ES became more
important/valued?
• Which challenges do you foresee for sustainable forest management in Östergötland
(and in Sweden)?
o Do you see challenges regarding climate change? if yes: which?
o Do you see challenges for reaching national and international conservation
targets (Living forests/Aichi Targets)? if yes: which?
o Do you see challenges related to the bioeconomy? if yes: which?
• Which opportunities do you foresee for forestry in Östergötland (and in Sweden)?
o How do you envision the future? (Best possible image of development of
forestry in Östergötland)
o Which measures do you see as necessary for reaching this future?
▪ What type of forestry model would be needed for reaching this future?
(e.g., Swedish model, intensification, continuous forestry, etc.)
▪ Which technical measures (production-increasing measures) would be
needed (fertilization, foreign tree species, processed plant material)?
▪ Which monetary measures would be needed; and who should pay for
it?
▪ Which political measures would be needed?
• Do you see any conflicting goals (målkonflikter)?
o Do you think environmental goals and production goals are addressed equally
at the moment?
o Do you see any trade-off between conservation targets and increasing
production?
o How do you think conflicting goals should be addressed and resolved?
o Who do you think should have a leading role in resolving these issues?
D: Closing/Debriefing
Is there anything else you would like to bring up, or ask about, before we finish the interview?
Thank you for your time…

44