IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v75y2017icp34-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Freedom with what? Interpretations of “responsibility” in Swedish forestry practice

Author

Listed:
  • Löfmarck, Erik
  • Uggla, Ylva
  • Lidskog, Rolf

Abstract

Responsibility is a key aspect of all regulation, and forest regulation is no exception. How should responsibility be understood and used in a time characterized by complexity and uncertainty? This paper develops a typology that distinguishes six notions of responsibility and then employs it in analyzing interpretations of responsibility in Swedish forestry practice. The Swedish forest management system is a deregulated system structured by the governing principle of “freedom with responsibility.” By investigating how responsibility is understood and enacted by forest consultants and forest owners, we demonstrate the practical fluidity of the responsibility concept. We emphasize the need for an understanding of responsibility that fosters sensitivity and adaptiveness to external issues and actors in the face of uncertainty, and identify obstacles in current forestry policy and practice to enacting such an understanding.

Suggested Citation

  • Löfmarck, Erik & Uggla, Ylva & Lidskog, Rolf, 2017. "Freedom with what? Interpretations of “responsibility” in Swedish forestry practice," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 34-40.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:75:y:2017:i:c:p:34-40
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116304567
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Põllumäe, Priit & Korjus, Henn & Paluots, Teele, 2014. "Management motives of Estonian private forest owners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 8-14.
    2. Johansson, Johanna, 2016. "Participation and deliberation in Swedish forest governance: The process of initiating a National Forest Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 137-146.
    3. Dupuits, Emilie, 2015. "Transnational self-help networks and community forestry: A theoretical framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 5-11.
    4. Hood, Christopher & Rothstein, Henry & Baldwin, Robert, 2004. "The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199270019.
    5. Bergquist, Ann-Kristin & Keskitalo, E. Carina H., 2016. "Regulation versus deregulation. Policy divergence between Swedish forestry and the Swedish pulp and paper industry after the 1990s," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 10-17.
    6. Uggla, Ylva & Forsberg, Maria & Larsson, Stig, 2016. "Dissimilar framings of forest biodiversity preservation: Uncertainty and legal ambiguity as contributing factors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 36-42.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Danley, Brian & Bjärstig, Therese & Sandström, Camilla, 2021. "At the limit of volunteerism? Swedish family forest owners and two policy strategies to increase forest biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    2. Lawrence, Anna & Deuffic, Philippe & Hujala, Teppo & Nichiforel, Liviu & Feliciano, Diana & Jodlowski, Krzysztof & Lind, Torgny & Marchal, Didier & Talkkari, Ari & Teder, Meelis & Vilkriste, Lelde & W, 2020. "Extension, advice and knowledge systems for private forestry: Understanding diversity and change across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Mancheva, Irina, 2018. "Which factors spur forest owners' collaboration over forest waters?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 54-63.
    4. Nichiforel, Liviu & Keary, Kevin & Deuffic, Philippe & Weiss, Gerhard & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Winkel, Georg & Avdibegović, Mersudin & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Feliciano, Diana & Gatto, Paola & Gorriz Mi, 2018. "How private are Europe’s private forests? A comparative property rights analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 535-552.
    5. Curtis, Keeli & Guillén, Luis Andrés & Brukas, Vilis, 2023. "Creating the landscape, one stand at a time: The dual roles of timber buyers in the nested domains of Swedish forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    6. Bostedt, Göran & Zabel, Astrid & Ekvall, Hans, 2019. "Planning on a wider scale – Swedish forest owners' preferences for landscape policy attributes," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 170-181.
    7. Lidskog, Rolf & Bishop, Kevin & Eklöf, Karin & Ring, Eva & Åkerblom, Staffan & Sandström, Camilla, 2018. "From wicked problem to governable entity? The effects of forestry on mercury in aquatic ecosystems," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 90-96.
    8. Nichiforel, Liviu & Duduman, Gabriel & Scriban, Ramona Elena & Popa, Bogdan & Barnoaiea, Ionut & Drăgoi, Marian, 2021. "Forest ecosystem services in Romania: Orchestrating regulatory and voluntary planning documents," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    9. Nenad Šimunović & Franziska Hesser & Tobias Stern, 2018. "Frame Analysis of ENGO Conceptualization of Sustainable Forest Management: Environmental Justice and Neoliberalism at the Core of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-22, September.
    10. Degnet, Mohammed B. & Hansson, Helena & Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke A. & Roos, Anders, 2022. "The role of personal values and personality traits in environmental concern of non-industrial private forest owners in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    11. Rolf Lidskog & Daniel Sjödin, 2018. "Unintended Consequences and Risk(y) Thinking: The Shaping of Consequences and Responsibilities in Relation to Environmental Disasters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Julien Etienne, 2015. "Different ways of blowing the whistle: Explaining variations in decentralized enforcement in the UK and France," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 309-324, December.
    2. Põllumäe, Priit & Lilleleht, Ando & Korjus, Henn, 2016. "Institutional barriers in forest owners' cooperation: The case of Estonia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-16.
    3. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    4. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Shkaruba, Anton, 2018. "Governance and legitimacy of the Forest Stewardship Council certification in the national contexts – A comparative study of Belarus and Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 180-188.
    5. Jeroen van der Heijden & Jitske de Jong, 2009. "Towards a Better Understanding of Building Regulation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(6), pages 1038-1052, December.
    6. Fabra-Crespo, M. & Rojas-Briales, E., 2015. "Comparative analysis on the communication strategies of the forest owners' associations in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 20-30.
    7. Roudgarmi, Pezhman & Mahdiraji, Mohammad Taghi Amoozadeh, 2020. "Current Challenges of Laws for Preservation of Forest and Rangeland, Iran," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Nghiem, Nhung, 2016. "Optimal forest rotation for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation by farm income levels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 185-194.
    9. Anaïs Valiquette L’Heureux, 2022. "The Case Study of Los Angeles City & County Fraud, Embezzlement and Corruption Safeguards during times of pandemic," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 593-610, September.
    10. Peter J. May, 2007. "Regulatory regimes and accountability," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 8-26, March.
    11. Julia Black & Robert Baldwin, 2012. "When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 2-22, March.
    12. Mathias Ericson, 2018. "“Sweden Has Been Naïve”: Nationalism, Protectionism and Securitisation in Response to the Refugee Crisis of 2015," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 95-102.
    13. Demortain, David, 2008. "Institutional polymorphism: the designing of the European Food Safety Authority with regard to the European Medicines Agency," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 36534, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Govender, Urishanie & van Eck, Gary & Genc, Bekir, 2022. "An integrated 4Cs safety framework for the diamond industry of Southern Africa," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    15. Rudolf URBAN, & Roman URBAN, & Lukáš ŠTĚPà NEK, 2016. "A New Approach To Risk Assessment Based On The Semantic Value Of Expressions," EcoForum, "Stefan cel Mare" University of Suceava, Romania, Faculty of Economics and Public Administration - Economy, Business Administration and Tourism Department., vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, January.
    16. Nicola Glover-Thomas, 2018. "Decision-Making Behaviour under the Mental Health Act 1983 and Its Impact on Mental Health Tribunals: An English Perspective," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-23, March.
    17. François Dedieu, 2022. "Organized denial at work: The difficult search for consistencies in French pesticide regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 951-973, July.
    18. Kilcline, Kevin & Dhubháin, Áine Ní & Heanue, Kevin & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary, 2021. "Addressing the challenge of wood mobilisation through a systemic innovation lens: The Irish forest sector innovation system," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    19. Frédérique Six, 2013. "Trust in Regulatory Relations," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 163-185, February.
    20. Matus, Kira & Veale, Michael, 2022. "Certification Systems for Machine Learning: Lessons from Sustainability," SocArXiv pm3wy_v1, Center for Open Science.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:75:y:2017:i:c:p:34-40. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.