Knowledge Production and Learning for Sustainable Forest Landscapes: The European Continent’s West and East as a Laboratory

Complete text of the article:

Download article (pdf, 1.3MB )

UDС

[630*1+502](4)

DOI:

10.17238/issn0536-1036.2019.1.9

Abstract

OECD: 04.01.KA:01.06.GU
To support human wellbeing, green (or ecological) infrastructure policy stresses the need to sustain functional networks of representative terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems for the sustainable provision of multiple ecosystem services. Implementing this means that the complexity of interactions between social and ecological systems at multiple spatial scales and levels of governance needs to be understood. Place-based knowledge production and learning through integration of different research disciplines in collaboration with actors and stakeholders (i.e. transdisciplinary research) is a key feature to achieve this goal. Using a suite of local landscapes and regions on the European continent’s West and East as a laboratory, we developed and applied a step-wise approach to produce knowledge and encourage learning towards functional green infrastructures. Our diagnoses of forest landscapes show that the functionality for wood production and biodiversity conservation was inversely related in the gradient fr om long to short forest management histories. In Europe’s West there is a need for increased quantity of, and more functional, protected areas; diversification of management methods; and landscape restoration. In NW Russia there are opportunities to intensify forest management, and to continue the land-sparing approach with zoning for different functions, thus reducing biodiversity loss. Examples of diagnoses of social systems included the evaluation of comprehensive planning in Sweden, outcomes for biodiversity conservation of forest certification in Lithuania, and learning from environmental managers. We conclude that the main challenge for securing functional green infrastructure is poor cross-sectoral integration. Treatment of social-ecological systems requires knowledge-based collaboration and learning. The diversity of landscape histories and governance legacies on the European continent’s West and East, including Russia, offers grand opportunities for both knowledge production about performance targets for green infrastructure functionality, as well as learning to adapt governance and management to regional contexts. Integrating project funding for both researchers and stakeholder collaboration is a necessary strategy to fill the transdisciplinary research agenda. However, formal and informal disciplinary and administrative barriers can lim it team building despite self-reflection and experience.

Authors

Per Angelstam^1,2, PhD, Professor
Michael Manton², PhD, Researcher
Olga Khaulyak³, MSc, Analyst
Vladimir Naumov⁴, PhD, Analyst
Simen Pedersen⁵, PhD, Associate Professor
Natalie Stryamets⁶, PhD, Researcher
Johan Törnblom¹, PhD, Researcher
Sviataslau Valasiuk⁷, PhD, Researcher
Taras Yamelynets⁸, PhD, Associate Professor

Affiliation

¹School for Forest Management, Faculty of Forest Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 43, Skinnskatteberg, SE-739 21, Sweden; e-mail: per.angelstam@slu.se, johan.tornblom@slu.se
²Institute of Forest Biology and Silviculture, Faculty of Forest Science and Ecology, Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Studentu, 13, Akademija, Kauno, LT-53362, Lithuania; e-mail: per.angelstam@slu.se, michael.manton@asu.lt
³Agency for Development and Cooperation, Chornovola Avenue, 63, Office 706, Lviv, 79000, Ukraine; e-mail: okhaulyak@gmail.com
⁴Metria AB, Gävle, SE-801 23, Sweden; e-mail: vladimir.v.naumov@gmail.com
⁵Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Applied Ecology, Agricultural Sciences and Biotechnology, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Campus Evenstad, Koppang, N-2480, Norway; e-mail: simen.pedersen@inn.no
⁶Foscari University of Venice, Via Torrino 155, Venice, Italy; e-mail: natastr@gmail.com
⁷University of Warsaw, Długa str., 44/50, Warszawa, 00-241, Poland; e-mail: svalasiuk@wne.uw.edu.pl
⁸Ivan Franko National University, Faculty of Geography, Doroshenko str., 41, Lviv, 79000, Ukraine; e-mail: taras.yamelynets@gmail.com

Keywords

biodiversity, bio-economy, collaboration, ecosystem services, environmental history, gap analysis, governance, green infrastructure, habitat modelling, intensification, landscape approach, planning, stakeholder mapping, transdisciplinary, rural developmen

For citation

Angelstam P., Manton M., Khaulyak O., Naumov V., Pedersen S., Stryamets N., Törnblom J., Valasiuk S., Yamelynets T. Knowledge Production and Learning for Sustainable Forest Landscapes: The European Continent’s West and East as a Laboratory. Lesnoy Zhurnal [Forestry Journal], 2019, no. 1, pp. 9–31. DOI: 10.17238/issn0536-1036.2019.1.9

References

1. Angelstam P., Andersson L. Estimates of the Needs for Forest Reserves in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research Supplement, 2001, vol. 16, iss. sup003, pp. 38–51. DOI: 10.1080/028275801300090582
2. Angelstam P., Andersson K., Annerstedt M., Axelsson R., Elbakidze M., Garrido P., Grahn P., Jönsson K.I., Pedersen S., Schlyter P., Skärbäck E., Smith M., Stjernquist I. Solving Problems in Social-Ecological Systems: Definition, Practice and Barriers of Transdisciplinary Research. AMBIO, 2013, vol. 42(2), pp. 254–265. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-012-0372-4
3. Angelstam P., Andersson K., Axelsson R., Elbakidze M., Jonsson B.G., Roberge J.-M. Protecting Forest Areas for Biodiversity in Sweden 1991–2010: Policy Implementa-tion Process and Outcomes on the Ground. Silva Fennica, 2011, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1111–1133. DOI: 10.14214/sf.90
4. Angelstam P., Axelsson R., Elbakidze M., Laestadius L., Lazdinis M., Nordberg M., Pătru-Stupariu I., Smith M. Knowledge Production and Learning for Sustainable Forest Management: European Regions as a Time Machine. Forestry, 2011, vol. 84, iss. 5, pp. 581–596. DOI: 10.1093/forestry/cpr048
5. Angelstam P., Elbakidze M. Forest Landscape Stewardship for Functional Green Infrastructures in Europe’s West and East: Diagnosing and Treating Social-Ecological Sys-tems. The Science and Practice of Landscape Stewardship. Ed. by Bieling C., Plieninger T. Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 124–144.
6. Angelstam P., Elbakidze M., Axelsson R. Special issue: Knowledge Production and Learning for Sustainable Landscapes: Europe’s East and West as a Laboratory. AMBIO, 2013, vol. 43, iss. 2, pp. 111–265. Available at: http://link.springer.com/journal/13280/42/2/page/1 (accessed 10.03.2013). DOI: 10.1007/s13280-012-0371-5
7. Angelstam P., Elbakidze M., Axelsson R., Lopatin E., Sandström C., Törnblom J., Dixelius M., Gorchakov V., Kovriga L. Learning for Sustainable Forest Management: Europe’s East and West as a Landscape Laboratory. Forest Facts, 2007, vol. 1. 4 p. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37808719_Learning_for_sustainable_forest_management (accessed 21.05.2014).
8. Angelstam P., Elbakidze M., Lawrence A., Manton M., Melecis V., Pereira A. Barriers and Bridges for Landscape Stewardship and Knowledge Production to Sustain Functional Green Infrastructures. Ecosystem Services from Forest Landscapes: Broadscale Considerations. Ed. by Pereira A., Peterson U., Pastur G., Iverson L. Springer, 2018, pp. 127–167.
9. Angelstam P., Elbakidze M., Manton M., Törnblom J. Knowledge Production and Learning for Functional Green Infrastructure – Multiple Landscapes as a Research Platform. Forest Facts, 2017, no. 5. 4 p.
10. Angelstam P., Grodzynskyi M., Andersson K., Axelsson R., Elbakidze M., Khoroshev A., Kruhlov I., Naumov V. Measurement, Collaborative Learning and Research for Sustainable Use of Ecosystem Services: Landscape Concepts and Europe as Laboratory. AMBIO, 2013, vol. 42, iss. 2, pp. 129–145. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-012-0368-0
11. Angelstam P., Khaulyak O., Yamelynets T., Mozgeris G., Naumov V., Chmielewski T.J., Elbakidze M., Manton M., Prots B., Valasiuk S., Green Infrastructure at the European Union’s Eastern Border: Effects of Road Infrastructure Development and Forest Habitat Loss. Journal of Environmental Management, 2017, vol. 193, pp. 300–311. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.02.017
12. Angelstam P., Lundin H. Visitor-Friendly or Bioeconomy? Place-Based Collabo-rative Learning towards Multiple Forest Use in Swedish Bergslagen. International Model Forest Network. 2017. Available at: http://imfn.net/visitor-friendly-or-bioeconomy-place-based-collaborative-learning-towards-multiple-f... (accessed 15.10.2018).
13. Angelstam P., Naumov V., Elbakidze M. Transitioning from Soviet Wood Min-ing to Sustainable Forest Management by Intensification: Are Tree Growth Rates Different in Northwest Russia and Sweden? Forestry, 2017, vol. 90, iss. 2, pp. 292–303. DOI: 10.1093/forestry/cpw055
14. Angelstam P., Naumov V., Elbakidze M., Manton M., Priednieks J., Rendenieks Z. Wood Production and Biodiversity Conservation Are Rival Forestry Objectives in Europe’s Baltic Sea Region. Ecosphere, 2018, vol. 9(3), pp. 1–26, article e02119.
15. Angelstam P., Törnblom J., Degerman E., Axelsson R., Elbakidze M. Demonstration Sites for River and Catchment Restoration in Bergslagen. Euroscapes Report, 2015, vol. 3.
16. Angelstam P., Yamelynets T, Elbakidze M., Prots B., Manton M. Gap Analysis as a Basis for Strategic Spatial Planning of Green Infrastructure: A Case Study in the Ukrainian Carpathians. Écoscience, 2017, vol. 24, iss. 1–2, pp. 41–58. DOI: 10.1080/11956860.2017.1359771
17. Arts B. Assessing Forest Governance from a ‘Triple G’ Perspective: Government, Governance, Governmentality. Forest Policy and Economics, 2014, vol. 49, pp. 17–22. DOI: 0.1016/j.forpol.2014.05.008
18. Atlas of High Conservation Value Areas, and Analysis of Gaps and Representativeness of the Protected Area Network in Northwest Russia: Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Lenin-grad and Murmarsk Regions, Republic of Karelia, and City of St. Petersburg. Ed. by Kobyakov K. Jakovlev J. Helsinki, Edita Prima Oy, 2013. 517 p.
19. Axelsson R., Angelstam P., Degerman E., Teitelbaum S., Andersson K., Elbakidze M., Drotz M.K. Social and Cultural Sustainability: Criteria, Indicators and Verifi-er Variables for Measurement and Maps for Visualization to Support Planning. AMBIO, 2013, vol. 42, iss. 2, pp. 215–228.
20. Axelsson R., Angelstam P., Elbakidze M., Stryamets N., Johansson K.-E. Sustainable Development and Sustainability: Landscape Approach as a Practical Interpretation of Principles and Implementation Concepts. Journal of Landscape Ecology, 2011, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 5–30.
21. Axelsson R., Angelstam P., Myhrman L., Sädbom S., Ivarsson M., Elbakidze M., Andersson K., Cupa P., Diry C., Doyon F., Drotz M.K., Hjorth A., Hermansson J.O., Kullberg T., Lickers F.H., McTaggart J., Olsson A., Pautov Yu., Svensson L., Törnblom J. Evaluation of Multi-Level Social Learning for Sustainable Landscapes: Perspective of a Development Initiative in Bergslagen, Sweden. AMBIO, 2013, vol. 42, iss. 2, pp. 241–253. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-012-0378-y
22. Batisse M. The Biosphere Reserve: A Tool for Environmental Conservation and Management. Environmental Conservation, 1982, vol. 9, iss. 2, pp. 101–111. DOI: 10.1017/S0376892900019937
23. Bengston D.N. Horizon Scanning for Environmental Foresight: A Review of Issues and Approaches. General Technical Report (GTR). NRS-121. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 2013. 20 p. DOI: 10.2737/NRS-GTR-121
24. Blicharska M., Angelstam P., Antonson H., Elbakidze M., Axelsson R. Road, Forestry and Regional Planners’ Work for Biodiversity Conservation and Public Participation: A Case Study in Poland’s Hotspots Regions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2011, vol. 54, iss. 10, pp. 1373–1395. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2011.575297
25. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Green Infrastructure (GI) – Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. Brussels, European Commis-sion, 2013, COM(2013) 249 final. 2013. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52013DC0249 (accessed 11.02.2018).
26. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Aarhus, 1998. Available at: http://www.unece. org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf (accessed 11.02.2018).
27. Dawson L., Elbakidze M., Angelstam P., Gordon J. Governance and Management Dynamics of Landscape Restoration at Multiple Scales: Learning from Successful Environmental Managers in Sweden. Journal of Environmental Management, 2017, vol. 197, pp. 24–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.019
28. Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on Public Access to Environmental Information and Repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union, 2003. 7 p. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32003L0004 (accessed 11.02.2018).
29. Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 Establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE). Official Journal of the European Union, 2007. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32007L0002 (accessed 11.02.2018).
30. Duckett D., Feliciano D., Martin-Ortega J., Munoz-Rojas J. Tackling Wicked Environmental Problems: The Discourse and Its Influence on Praxis in Scotland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2016, vol. 154, pp. 44–56.
31. Durham E., Baker H., Smith, M., Moore E., Morgan V. The BiodivERsA Stakeholder Engagement Handbook. Paris, BiodivERsA, 2014. 108 p.
32. Edman T., Angelstam P., Mikusiński G., Roberge J.-M., Sikora A. Spatial Planning for Biodiversity Conservation: Assessment of Forest Landscapes’ Conservation Value Using Umbrella Species Requirements in Poland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2011, vol. 102, iss. 1, pp. 16–23.
33. Edwards P., Kleinschmit D. Towards a European Forest Policy – Conflicting Courses. Forest Policy and Economics, 2013, vol. 33, iss. C, pp. 87–93.
34. Elbakidze M., Angelstam P., Andersson K., Nordberg M., Pautov Y. How Does Forest Certification Contribute to Boreal Biodiversity Conservation? Standards and Outcomes in Sweden and NW Russia? Forest Ecology and Management, 2011, vol. 262, no. 11, pp. 1983–1995. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2011.08.040
35. Elbakidze M., Angelstam P., Dawson L., Shushkova A., Naumov V., Rendenieks Z., Liepa L., Trasūne L., Ustsin U., Yurhenson N., Uhlianets S., Manton M., Irbe A., Yermokhin M., Grebenzshikova A., Zhivotov A., Nestsiarenka M. Towards Functional Green Infrastructure in the Baltic Sea Region: Knowledge Production and Learning across Borders. Ecosystem Services from Forest Landscapes: Broadscale Considerations. Ed. by Pereira A., Peterson U., Pastur G., Iverson L. Springer, 2018, pp. 57–87.
36. Elbakidze M., Angelstam P., Sandström C., Axelsson R. Multi-Stakeholder Col-laboration in Russian and Swedish Model Forest Initiatives: Adaptive Governance towards Sustainable Forest Management? Ecology and Society, 2010, vol. 15(2). 14 p.
37. Elbakidze M., Angelstam P., Yamelynets T., Dawson L., Gebrehiwot M., Stryamets N., Johansson K.E., Garrido P., Naumov V., Manton M. A Bottom-Up Approach to Map Land Covers as Potential Green Infrastructure Hubs for Human Well-Being in Rural Settings: A Case Study from Sweden. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2017, vol. 168, pp. 72–83. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.031
38. Elbakidze M., Dawson L., Andersson K., Axelsson R., Angelstam P., Stjernquist I., Teitelbaum S., Schlyter P., Thellbro C. Is Spatial Planning a Collaborative Learning Process? A Case Study from a Rural-Urban Gradient in Sweden. Land Use Policy, 2015, vol. 48, pp. 270–285. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.001
39. Elbakidze M., Ražauskaite R., Manton M. Angelstam P., Mozgeris G., Brūmelis G., Brazaitis G., Vogt P. The Role of Forest Certification for Biodiversity Conservation: Lithuania as a Case Study. European Journal of Forest Research, 2016, vol. 135, iss. 2, pp. 361–376. DOI: 10.1007/s10342-016-0940-4
40. Ericsson G., Heberlein T.A. Attitudes of Hunters, Locals, and the General Public in Sweden Now that the Wolves Are Back. Biological Conservation, 2003, vol. 111, pp. 149–159.
41. Flyvbjerg B. Making Social Science Matter. Social Science and Policy Challenges Democracy, Values and Capacities. Ed. by Papanagnou G. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 2001, ch. 1, pp. 25–56.
42. Flyvbjerg B. Case Study. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Ed. by Denzin N.K., Lincoln Y. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 2011, ch. 17, pp. 301–316.
43. Freudenberger D., Brooker L. Development of the Focal Species Approach for Biodiversity Conservation in the Temperate Agricultural Zones of Australia. Biodiversity & Conservation, 2004, vol. 13, iss. 1, pp. 253–274.
44. Fries C., Johansson O., Pettersson B., Simonsson P. Silvicultural Models to Maintain and Restore Natural Stand Structures in Swedish Boreal Forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 1997, vol. 94, iss. 1–3, pp. 89–103. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00003-0
45. Haberl H., Winiwarter V., Andersson K., Ayres R.U., Boone C., Castillo A., Cunfer G., Fischer-Kowalski M., Freudenburg W.R., Furman E., Kaufmann R., Krausmann F., Langthaler E., Lotze-Campen H., Mirtl M., Redman Ch., Reenberg A., Wardell A., Warr B., Zechmeister H. From LTER to LTSER: Conceptualizing the Socioeconomic Dimension of Long-Term Socioecological Research. Ecology and Society, 2006, vol. 11, no. 2. 13 p.
46. Hackett R. From Government to Governance? Forest Certification and Crisis Displacement in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Rural Studies, 2013, vol. 30, pp. 120–129.
47. Henry L.A., Tysiachniouk M. The Uneven Response to Global Environmental Governance: Russia’s Contentious Politics of Forest Certification. Forest Policy and Economics, 2018, vol. 90, pp. 97–105. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.014
48. Humphrey J., Ray D., Brown T., Stone D., Watts K., Anderson R. Using Focal Species Modelling to Evaluate the Impact of Land Use Change on Forest and Other Habitat Networks in Western Oceanic Landscapes. Forestry, 2009, vol. 82, iss. 2, pp. 119–134. DOI: 10.1093/forestry/cpn042
49. Jacobsen K.S., Linnell J.D.C. Perceptions of Environmental Justice and the Conflict Surrounding Large Carnivore Management in Norway – Implications for Conflict Management. Biological Conservation, 2016, vol. 203, pp. 197–206. DOI: 10.1016/ j.biocon.2016.08.041
50. Karlsson J., Sjöström M. Direct Use Values and Passive Use Values: Implications for Conservation of Large Carnivores. Biodiversity and Conservation, 2008, vol. 17(4), pp. 883–891. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-008-9334-3
51. Keane R.E., Hessburg P.F., Landres P.B., Swanson F.J. The Use of Historical Range and Variability (HRV) in Landscape Management. Forest Ecology and Management, 2009, vol. 258, pp. 1025–1037. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.05.035
52. Kojola I., Kuittinen J. Wolf Attacks on Dogs in Finland. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2002, vol. 30(2), pp. 498–501.
53. Lee K.N. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington, DC, Island Press, 1993. 290 p.
54. Liberg O., Aronson A., Brainerd S.M., Karlsson J., Pedersen H.C., Sand H., Wabakken P. Integrating Research into Management of a Recolonizing Wolf Population – The Scandinavian Model. The World of Wolves: New Perspectives on Ecology, Behaviour and Policy. Ed. by Musiani M., Boitani L., Paquet P. Calgary, University of Calgary Press, 2010. 352 p.
55. Lundquist L. Implementation Steering: An Actor-Structure Approach. Lund, Stu-dentlitteratur, 1987. 227 p.
56. Manton M., Angelstam P. Defining Benchmarks for Restoration of Green Infrastructure: A Case Study Combining the Historical Range of Variability of Habitat and Species’ Requirements. Sustainability, 2018, vol. 10, pp. 1–17. DOI: 10.3390/su10020326
57. Manton M.G., Angelstam P., Mikusiński G. Modelling Habitat Suitability for Deciduous Forest Focal Species – A Sensitivity Analysis Using Different Satellite Land Cover Data. Landscape Ecology, 2005, vol. 20, iss. 7, pp. 827–839.
58. Manton M., Angelstam P., Milberg P., Elbakidze M. Wet Grasslands as a Green Infrastructure for Ecological Sustainability: Wader Conservation in Southern Sweden as a Case Study. Sustainability, 2016, vol. 8, iss. 4, 20 p. DOI: 10.3390/su8040340
59. Model Forest Development Guide. Ottawa, Canada, International Model Forest Network Secretariat, 2008. 34 p.
60. Multi-Functionality and Sustainability in the European Union’s Forests. EASAC policy report 32. 2017. 51 p.
61. Naumov V., Angelstam P., Elbakidze M. Barriers and Bridges for Intensified Wood Production in Russia: Insights from the Environmental History of a Logging Frontier. Forest Policy and Economics, 2016, vol. 66, iss. C, pp. 1–10.
62. Naumov V., Angelstam P., Elbakidze M. Satisfying Rival Forestry Objectives in the Komi Republic: Effects of Russian Zoning Policy Change on Wood Production and Riparian Forest Conservation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2017, vol. 47(10), pp. 1339–1349. DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2016-0516
63. Naumov V., Manton M., Elbakidze M., Rendenieks Z., Priedniek J., Uglyanets S., Yamelynets T., Zhivotov A., Angelstam P. How to Reconcile Wood Production and Biodiversity Conservation? The Pan-European Boreal Forest History Gradient as an “Experiment”. Journal of Environmental Management, 2018, vol. 218, pp. 1–13.
64. Nordberg M., Angelstam P., Elbakidze M., Axelsson R. From Logging Frontier towards Sustainable Forest Management: Experiences from Boreal Regions of North-West Russia and North Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 2013, vol. 28, iss. 8, pp. 797–810. DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2013.838993
65. Pohjanmies T. Trade-offs among Intensive Forestry, Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity in Boreal Forests. Academic Dissertation no. 342. University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, 2018. 121 p.
66. Pülzl H., Kleinschmit D., Arts B. Bioeconomy – An Emerging Meta-Discourse Affecting Forest Discourses? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 2014, vol. 29, iss. 4, pp. 386–393. DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2014.920044
67. Rauschmayer F., Berghöfer A., Omann I., Zikos D. Examining Processes or/and Outcomes? Evaluation Concepts in European Governance of Natural Resources. Environmental Policy and Governance, 2009, vol. 19, iss. 3, pp. 159–173. DOI: 10.1002/eet.506
68. Roberge J.-M., Angelstam P. Indicator Species among Resident Forest Birds – A Cross-Regional Evaluation in Northern Europe. Biological Conservation, 2006, vol. 130, iss. 1, pp. 134–147.
69. Sayer J., Margules C., Boedhihartono A.K., Dale A., Sunderland T., Supriatna J., Saryanthi R. Landscape Approaches: What are the Pre-Conditions for Success? Sustainability Science, 2015, vol. 10(2), pp. 345–355. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-014-0281-5
70. Sayer J., Sunderland T., Ghazoul J., Pfund J.L., Sheil D., Meijaard E., Venter M., Boedhihartono A.K., Day M., Garcia C., van Oosten C., Buck L.E. Ten Principles for a Landscape Approach to Reconciling Agriculture, Conservation, and Other Competing Land Uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013, vol. 110, iss. 21, pp. 8349–8356. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1210595110
71. Scott J.M., Davis F., Csuti B., Noss R., Butterfield B., Groves C., Anderson H., Caicco S., D’Erchia F., Edwards T.C.Jr., Ulliman J., Wright R.G. Gap Analysis: A Geographic Approach to Protection of Biological Diversity. Wildlife Monographs, 1993, no. 123, pp. 3–41.
72. Shackleton P., Angelstam P. van der Waal B., Elbakidze M. Progress Made in Managing and Valuing Ecosystem Services: A Horizon Scan of Gaps in Research, Management and Governance in South Africa. Ecosystem Services, 2017, vol. 27, pp. 232–241.
73. Singh S.J., Haberl H., Chertow M., Mirtl M., Schmid M. Introduction. Long Term Socio-Ecological Research. Ed. by Singh S.J., Haberl H., Chertow M., Mirtl M., Schmid M. Springer Netherlands, 2013, pp. 1–26.
74. Skogen K., Krange O. A Wolf at the Gate: The Anti-Carnivore Alliance and the Symbolic Construction of Community. Sociologia Ruralis, 2003, vol. 43, iss. 3, pp. 309–325. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9523.00247
75. Stighäll K., Roberge J.-M., Andersson K., Angelstam P. Usefulness of Biophysical Proxy Data for Modelling Habitat of an Endangered Forest Species: The White-Backed Woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotos. Scandinavian Journal of Forestry, 2011, vol. 26, iss. 6, pp. 576–585. DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2011.599813
76. Stryamets N. Use and Governance of Non-Wood Forest Products in Transition and Market Economies: Case Studies from Sweden, Ukraine and the Russian Federation. D.Sc. The-sis 2016:08. Skinnskatteberg, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2016. 101 p.
77. Stryamets N., Elbakidze M., Ceuterick M., Angelstam P., Axelsson P. From Economic Survival to Recreation: Contemporary Uses of Wild Food and Medicine in Rural Sweden, Ukraine and NW Russia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2015, vol. 11, pp. 1–18. DOI: 10.1186/s13002-015-0036-0
78. Sutherland W.J., Woodroof H.J. The Need for Environmental Horizon Scanning. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2009, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 523–527.
79. Svancara L.K., Brannon R.J., Scott M., Groves C.R., Noss R.F., Pressey R.L. Policy-Driven Versus Evidence-Based Conservation: A Review of Political Targets and Biological Needs. BioScience, 2005, vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 989–995.
80. Törnblom J. A Landscape Approach towards Ecological Integrity of Catchments and Streams. D.Sc. Thesis. Uppsala, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2008. 70 p.
81. Törnblom J., Angelstam P., Degerman E., Henrikson L., Edman T., Temnerud J. Catchment Land Cover as a Proxy for Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Structure in Carpathian Mountain Streams. Hydrobiologica, 2011, vol. 673 (1), pp. 153–168. DOI: 10.1007/s10750-011-0769-2
82. Törnblom J., Angelstam P., Degerman E., Tamario C. Prioritizing Dam Removal and Stream Restoration Using Critical Habitat Patch Threshold for Brown Trout (Salmo trutta L.): A Catchment Case Study from Sweden. Écoscience, 2017, vol. 24, iss. 3–4, pp. 157–166. DOI: 10.1080/11956860.2017.1386523
83. Törnblom J., Degerman E., Angelstam P. Forest Proportion as Indicator of Ecological Integrity in Streams Using Plecoptera as a Proxy. Ecological Indicators, 2011, vol. 11, iss. 5, pp. 1366–1374. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.02.011
84. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. United Nations, 2015. 41 p.
85. Triviño M., Juutinen A., Mazziotta A., Miettinen K., Podkopaev D., Reunanen P., Mönkkönen M. Managing a Boreal Forest Landscape for Providing Timber, Storing and Sequestering Carbon. Ecosystem Services, 2015, vol. 14, pp. 179–189. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.003
86. Valasiuk S., Czajkowski M., Giergiczny M., Żylicz T., Veisten K., Elbakidze M., Angelstam P. Are Bilateral Conservation Policies for the Białowieża Forest Unattainable? Analyses of Stated Preferences of Polish and Belarusian Public. Journal of Forest Econom-ics, 2017, vol. 27, pp. 70–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2017.03.001
87. Valasiuk S., Czajkowski M., Giergiczny M., Żylicz T., Veisten K., Mata I.L., Halse A.H., Elbakidze M., Angelstam P. Is Forest Landscape Restoration Socially Desirable? A Discrete Choice Experiment Applied to the Scandinavian Transboundary Fulufjället National Park Area. Restoration Ecology, 2018, vol. 26, iss. 2, pp. 370–380. DOI: 10.1111/rec.12563
88. Wabakken P., Sand H., Liberg O., Bjärvall A. The Recovery, Distribution, and Population Dynamics of Wolves on the Scandinavian Peninsula, 1978–1998. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 2001, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 710–725.
89. Wissmar R.C. Historical Perspectives. Ch. 5. Watershed Restoration: Principles and Practices. Ed. by Williams J.E., Wood C.A., Dombeck M.P. Bethesda, MD, American Fisheries Society, 1997, pp. 66–79.
90. Worster D. Doing Environmental History. Major problems in American Envi-ronmental History. Ed. by Merchant C. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2005, pp. 2–9.

Received on February 11, 2018