Strong ties between forest owners and their land does not automatically translate into greater efforts to promote biodiversity. The current system of voluntary protection also risks overlooking the most valuable natural areas, according to a new doctoral thesis from Lund University.
The study is based on interviews with 23 forest owners in southern Sweden. Many express a clear and emotional connection to their forests, often rooted in memories, family ties and identity. Forests are frequently valued for recreation and local cohesion. A majority express strong care for nature and possess good knowledge of it.
Despite this, no obvious link emerges between forest owners' emotional relationship with their forests and how the land is actually managed to support biodiversity, for example, in terms of forestry methods used or whether production is certified.
"It is often assumed that if forest owners care about their forests, this will automatically lead to more biodiversity. Our study shows that this is not the case," says Hanna Ekström Pigot, researcher in environmental science at Lund University.
Finance and barriers shape decisions
The interviews reveal that many forest owners see themselves as stewards in a chain of generations. The ambition to care for the forest for future generations can, however, lead to different priorities: increasing production or implementing measures for biodiversity.
"Social values have long been missing from research and from policy design. Forests are shaped by human and social factors, not just economic factors," says Hanna Ekström Pigot.
Even among forest owners who actively want to promote biodiversity, several factors prevent them from acting in line with their values, such as dependence on income, administrative barriers and, in some cases, lack of knowledge.
"Several respondents want to make a living from their forests and maintain a stable income, while also managing them in an environmentally friendly way. But many feel that it is not possible to both achieve economic returns and do what is best for biodiversity. Stronger financial incentives could increase the willingness to set aside forest land," says Hanna Ekström Pigot.
How compensation is designed also matters. Today, payments are often made as a one-off sum, but some forest owners instead call for more continuous income streams.
More land is not always better
The researchers also examined the effects of different policy models aimed at increasing biodiversity through forest protection. Finland's METSO compensation scheme, based on voluntary forest set-asides, is similar to the Swedish system. By comparing different policy design scenarios, the study shows that the greatest biodiversity gains are achieved when the right areas are prioritised.
"If we focus only on protecting a certain number of hectares, we risk achieving worse outcomes at a higher cost. Policy instruments must instead encourage the protection of areas with high ecological quality and connectivity, that is, where valuable habitats are linked to one another," says Hanna Ekström Pigot.
The findings are particularly relevant given global targets to protect a certain share of land, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity's goal of safeguarding 30 percent of the world's land and oceans. According to the study, a narrow focus on area-based targets risks missing habitats that are especially important for biodiversity.
The results show that policy design must include mechanisms that consider which forests are protected in order to create favourable conditions for biodiversity at the landscape level.
"This could, for example, involve higher compensation for particularly valuable areas. Policies can become more effective through a better understanding of the interaction between forest owners' goals and values, policy instruments and local conditions in the forest landscape," Hanna Ekström Pigot concludes.
Policy recommendations from the researchers:
- Area-based conservation targets should be complemented with criteria ensuring ecological quality and connectivity to effectively protect biodiversity
- Within voluntary set-aside schemes, spatial prioritisation can help strengthen both ecological quality and connectivity
- Greater attention to forest owners' relationships with their forests can improve understanding of local barriers and opportunities, enabling more effective policy design
