How Can Sweden Deal with Forest Management and Municipal Planning in the System of Ongoing Land-Use and Multilevel Planning?

Open access


This article studies the relation between territorial and functional planning by investigating the Swedish local comprehensive planning system and the forest management. The former is locally based and the latter is functionally based or sector-orientated. By interviewing planners from the County Administrative Boards responsible for monitoring the national interests in the Swedish municipalities and forest managers from the Regional Forest Agency Administration, we found out that forest- and municipality related issues that coincide or interact with each other is normally considered in the collaborative planning process based on consultations and cooperation between the involved stakeholders. Weaknesses in the collaborative planning system consists of lack of coordination between the involved legal frameworks as well as lack of local planning resources and in some cases competences.

[1] Albrechts, L. (2013). Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective. Planning Theory 12(1), 46–63. DOI: 10.1177/1473095212452722.

[2] Ananda, J. (2004). Implementing participatory approaches in formulating regional forest policy. International Journal of Sustainable Development 7(4), 398–409. DOI: 10.1504/IJSD.2004.006415.

[3] Andersson, K., Angelstam, P., Elbakidze, M., Axelsson, R. & Degerman, E. (2013). Green infrastructures and intensive forestry: Need and opportunity for spatial planning in a Swedish rural–urban gradient. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 28(2), 143–165. DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2012.723740.

[4] Angelstam, P., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Laestadius, L., Lazdinis, M., Nordberg, M., Pătru-Stupariu, I. & Smith, M. (2011). Knowledge production and learning for sustainable forest management on the ground: Pan-European landscapes as a time machine. Forestry 84(5), 581–596. DOI: 10.1093/forestry/cpr048.

[5] Ambjörnsson Laszlo, E., Keskitalo, E. C. H., Karlsson, S. (2016). Forest discourses and the role of planning-related perspectives: the case of Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, Vol. 31. Issue 1, 111–118. DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2015.1070197.

[6] Baldersheim, H. & Ståhlberg, K. (2002). From guided democracy to multi-level governance: Trends in central-local relations in the Nordic countries. Local Government Studies 28(3), 74–90. DOI: 10.1080/714004149.

[7] Berge, B. & Adolfson, B. (2011). Effektiva planeringsprocesser i – strategier för ytstora kommuner med liten befolkning [Slutrapport pilotprojekt]. Umeå/Luleå: Länsstyrelserna I Norrbotten och Västerbotten.

[8] Bjärstig, T., Thellbro, C., Stjernström, O., Svensson, J., Sandström, C., Sandström, P. & Zachrisson, A. (2018). Between protocol and reality – Swedish municipal comprehensive planning. European Planning Studies, 26(1), 35–54. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1365819.

[9] Blücher, G. (2013). Planning Legislation in Sweden – a history of Power over Land-use. In Planning in Sweden (pp. 47–57). Stockholm: Swedish Society for Town and Country Planning.

[10] Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2), 77–101.DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

[11] Cullen, D., McGee, G. J., Gunton, T. I. & Day, J. C. (2010). Collaborative planning in complex stakeholder environments: An evaluation of a two-tiered collaborative planning model. Society and Natural Resources 23(4), 332–350. DOI 10.1080/08941920903002552.

[12] Cullotta, S. & Maetzke, F. (2009). Forest management planning at different geographic levels in Italy: hierarchy, current tools and ongoing development. International Forestry Review 11(4), 475–489. DOI: 10.1505/ifor.11.4.475.

[13] Cullotta, S., Bončina, A., Carvalho-Ribeiro, S. M., Chauvin, C., Farcy, C., Kurttila, M. & Maetzke, F. G. (2015). Forest planning across Europe: the spatial scale, tools, and inter-sectoral integration in land-use planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 58(8), 1384–1411. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2014.927754.

[14] Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P. & Axelsson, R. (2012). Stakeholder identification and analysis for adaptive governance in the Kovdozersky Model Forest, Russian Federation. The Forestry Chronicle 88(3), 298–305.

[15] Engström, C-J. & Cars, G. (2013). Planning in a New Reality – New Conditions, Demands, and Discourses. In Planning in Sweden (pp. 11–21). Stockholm: Swedish Society for Town and Country Planning.

[16] Eriksson, L., Nordlund, A. M., Olsson, O. & Westin, K. (2012a). Recreation in different forest settings: A scene preference study. Forests 3(4), 923–943. DOI: 10.3390/f3040923.

[17] Eriksson, L., Nordlund, A. M., Olsson, O. & Westin K. (2012b). Beliefs about urban fringe forests among urban residents in Sweden. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 11(3), 321–328. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2012.02.004.

[18] Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30, 441–473. DOI: 10.1146/

[19] Friedmann, J. & Weaver, C. (1979). Territory and Function – The Evolution of Regional Planning. London: Edward Arnold.

[20] Fries, C., Carlsson, M., Dahlin, B., Lämås, T. & Sallnäs, O. (1998). A review of conceptual landscape planning models for multiobjective forestry in Sweden. Canadian journal of forest research, 28(2), 159–167. DOI: 10.1139/x97-204.

[21] Galland, D. (2012a). Understanding the reorientations and roles of spatial planning: The case of national planning policy in Denmark. European Planning Studies 20(8), 1359–1392. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2012.680584.

[22] Galland, D. (2012b). Is regional planning dead or just coping? The transformation of a state sociospatial project into growth-oriented strategies. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 30(3), 536–552. DOI: 10.1068/c11150.

[23] Galland, D. & Hansen, C. J. (2012). The roles of planning in waterfront redevelopment: From plan-led and market-driven styles to hybrid planning? Planning Practice and Research 27(2), 203–225. DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2012.661669.

[24] Gardner, R., Ostrom, E. & Walker, J. M. (1990). The nature of common-pool resource problems. Rationality and Society 2(3), 335–358. DOI: 10.1177/1043463190002003005.

[25] Gislerud, O. & Neven, I., eds. (2002). National forest programmes in a European context. EFI proceedings No 44. Joensuu: European Forest Institute.

[26] Gunton, T. (2003). Natural Resources and Regional Development: An Assessment of Dependency and Comparative Advantage Paradigms. Economic Geography 79(1), 67–94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2003.tb00202.x.

[27] Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P., Counsell, D. & Vigar, G. (2009). The new spatial planning: Territorial management with soft spaces and fuzzy boundaries. London: Routledge.

[28] Innis, H. A. (1956). The fur trade in Canada, An Introduction to Canadian Economic History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

[29] 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.001.

[30] Johnson, G. (2013). Regional planning in Sweden. In Lundström, M. J., Fredriksson, C. & Witzell, J., eds., Planning in Sweden (pp. 97–109). Stockholm: Swedish Society for Town and Country Planning.

[31] Kangas, A., Saarinen, N., Saarikoski, H., Leskinen, L. A., Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J. (2010). Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics 12(3), 213–222. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.10.006.

[32] Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2004). A framework for multi-level stakeholder studies in response to global change. Local Environment 9(5), 425–435. DOI: 10.1080/1354983042000255333.

[33] Keskitalo, E. C. H., Baird, J., Ambjörnsson, E. L. & Plummer, R. (2014). Social network analysis of multi-level linkages: A Swedish case study on northern forest-based sectors. Ambio 43(6), 745–758. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-014-0492-0.

[34] Lawrence, A. (2009). Forestry in transition: Imperial legacy and negotiated expertise in Romania and Poland. Forest Policy and Economics 11(5–6), 429–436. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.02.003.

[35] Leskinen, L. (2004). Purposes and challenges of public participation in regional and local forestry in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics 6(6), 605–618. DOI: 10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00009-1.

[36] Mackintosh, W. A. (1964). The economic background of dominion-provincial relations. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

[37] Montiela, C. & Galiana, L. (2005). Forest policy and land planning policy in Spain: a regional approach. Forest Policy and Economics 7(2), 131–142. DOI: 10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00026-1.

[38] Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions. London: Duckworth.

[39] Nyström, J. & Tonell, L. (2012). Planeringens grunder – en översikt. 3rd ed. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

[40] Olesen, K. (2013). The neoliberalisation of strategic spatial planning. Planning Theory, 13(3), 288–303. DOI: 10.1177/1473095213499340.

[41] Saarikoski, H., Åkerman, M. & Primmer, E. (2012). The challenge of governance in regional forest planning: An analysis of participatory forest program processes in Finland. Society and Natural Resources 25(7), 667–682. DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2011.630061.

[42] Sandström, P., Sandström, C., Svensson, J., Jougda, L. & Baer, K. (2012). Participatory GIS to mitigate conflicts between reindeer husbandry and forestry in Vilhelmina Model Forest, Sweden. The Forestry Chronicle 88(3), 254–260. DOI: 10.5558/tfc2012-051.

[43] Stjernström, O., Karlsson, S. & Pettersson, Ö. (2013). Skogen och den kommunala planeringen. PLAN, 2013(1), 42–45.

[44] Stjernström, O., Ahas, R., Bergstén, S., Eggers, J., Hain, H., Karlsson, S., Keskiltalo E. C. H., Lämås, T., Pettersson, Ö., Sandström, P. & Öhman, K. (2017). Multi-level Planning and Conflicting Interests in the Forest Landscape, in Keskiltao, E. C. H. (ed.), Globalisation and Change in Forest Ownership and Forest Use. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

[45] Tikkanen, J. (2017). Participatory turn – and down-turn – in Finland’s regional forest programme process. Forest Policy and Economics (in press). DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.009.

[46] Tittler, R., Messier, C. & Burton, P. J. (2001). Hierarchical forest management planning and sustainable forest management in the boreal forest. The Forestry Chronicle 77(6), 998–1005. DOI: 10.5558/tfc77998-6.

[47] Weber, N. (2017). Participation or involvement? Development of forest strategies on national and sub-national level in Germany. Forest Policy and Economics (in press). DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.002.

[48] Zaremba, M. (2012). Skogen vi ärvde. Stockholm: Weyler förlag.

[49] Finlands skogscentral (2016). Österbottens skogsprogram 20162020. Finlands skogscentral.

[50] SFS 1998:808 Miljöbalk (Environemental Code).

[51] SFS 2010:900 Plan- och bygglag (Planning and Building Act).

[52] SFS 1979:429 Skogsvårdslag (Forestry Act).

[53] SOU 1971:75 Hushållning med mark och vatten.

[54] SOU 1979:54 Hushållning med mark och vatten.

[55] SOU 2012:81 Statens regionala förvaltning, förslag till en angelägen reform.

[56] Swedish Forest Agency (2012). Swedish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2012. Jönköping.

European Countryside

The Journal of Mendel University in Brno

Journal Information

CiteScore 2017: 0.78

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.265
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.607


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 86 86 31
PDF Downloads 37 37 12