Elsevier

Forest Policy and Economics

Volume 12, Issue 2, February 2010, Pages 136-146
Forest Policy and Economics

Professional judgment in non-industrial private forestry: Forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conservation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.007Get rights and content

Abstract

The integration of conservation into management of non-industrial private forests rests with professional foresters. This paper empirically examines the intentions of foresters to conserve habitats beyond what is the minimum legally defined requirement when planning forestry operations: either by delineating particular habitats defined in the Finnish Forest Act completely outside the operation, despite this not being the obligation, or by delineating other valuable habitats that are not defined in the law. This type of voluntary exceeding of minimum conservation requirements is dependent on professional judgment, which is the focus of this article. The analysis applies the theory of planned behaviour, according to which intentions to behave in a particular fashion are influenced by attitudes, subjective norm, and perceived control over the behaviour. The investigation pays attention to behavioural and normative beliefs as well as other contextual factors influencing habitat delineation practice. The data consist of 311 survey responses (response rate 58%) of Finnish foresters planning forestry operations in non-industrial private forests, employed by public, private and associational organisations. The model is rather powerful in explaining intentions to exceed the minimum requirements. We find social norms to have a strong influence on delineation intentions. This effect is stronger in the case of delineation of other valuable habitats than in the more standardised delineation of legally defined habitats where the foresters have broader experience and consider themselves more autonomous. Normative beliefs relative to other foresters' expectations dominate the general subjective norm, signalling a primacy of a professional norm and the importance of peer networks. Also the general attitude has a strong influence on intentions, whereas the effect of perception of control is low. Past behaviour predicts intentions, which implies tradition and habit to have an important role in defining the way biodiversity conservation is integrated into forest management. In other words, abrupt changes are unlikely to occur in an institutionalized practice. Our analysis contributes to the understanding of policy implementation as well as governance of multiple functions of forests more generally.

Introduction

Professional foresters serving non-industrial private forest owners, like the entire forest sector, are facing a growing demand to integrate green principles into commercial forestry. Biodiversity conservation in particular poses a globally and locally important integration challenge for commercial forestry (Chapin et al., 2000, Lindenmayer et al., 2006, Auvinen et al., 2007). A suite of operationalisations for integrating biodiversity conservation and forest management have been defined under the rubrics of multiple use, integrated resource management and sustainable forest management. More recently multifunctional management, ecosystem management and adaptive management have been the labels for integration. Despite these operationalisations, the challenge of integration remains ambiguous and it is unclear how this ambiguity is dealt with on the ground. By examining factors that influence professional foresters' habitat delineation in non-industrial private forests, this article analyses how biodiversity conservation is integrated into forest management. The analyses explain voluntary exceeding of minimum legal delineation requirements, drawing on the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1988).

The ambiguity of the challenge places the responsibility of integration of forests' multiple functions on professionals in the sector (Eckerberg, 1986, Farrell et al., 2000, Kennedy et al., 2001, Pregernig, 2002). Ultimately, interpretation of requirements is with those foresters who make operational decisions in the field. This individual level interpretation of goals and professional autonomy has long been recognised as a characteristic of complex hierarchical organisations where the professionals operate between broad policy and a dispersed clientele (Lipsky, 1980, Simon, 1997). This has been found to be the case in forestry organisations in particular (Kaufman, 1960, Twight and Lyden, 1988). However, the significance of foresters' professional judgment in moulding the practice of sustainable forest management, particularly in current-day non-industrial private forests, has been underrated.

Dominantly, new challenges to forestry, including biodiversity conservation, have been considered in analyses of beliefs and behaviour of land owners (Uliczka et al., 2004, Fischer and Bliss, 2006, Serbruyns and Luyssaert, 2006, Boon and Meilby, 2007, Raymond and Olive, 2008). However, conceptions and attitudes of land owners have been found to differ from those of forestry professionals (Selby et al., 2007, Kindstrand et al., 2008). As land owners are dependent on professional advice when making decisions (Hujala et al., 2007), it is the forestry professionals serving them, who merit attention.

The scarce studies of the professional forestry administration between policy and land owners point to important characteristics that shape policy implementation, and also adaptation to new challenges. Already close to half a century ago, Kaufman (1960) has shown forestry administration to implement policy in a uniform fashion despite locally specific contexts and professional autonomy of foresters. Although this is a general impression of the sector (Twight and Lyden, 1988, Koontz and Bondine, 2008, Kindstrand et al., 2008), Pregernig (2001) has identified a range of values among forestry professionals, which can lead to differing policy interpretations and thus, influence the degree to which foresters integrate biodiversity conservation to commercial forestry.

Forest policy is assumed to trickle down the hierarchy and filter through the “funnel” of administration to the planning foresters (Kaufman, 1960, Eckerberg, 1986, Cubbage et al., 1993). Forest planning, in turn, is presumed to be an expert function where decisions would be based on information and preferences. These assumptions are evident in the vast literature on decision optimising and support which also extends to integrated conservation and management (Kangas and Kangas, 2005, Mendoza and Martins, 2006). However, real-world decisions are rarely based simply on complete information and logical weighing of alternatives (Simon, 1997) but are significantly backed up by “rules of thumb” that rely on experience and practice as well as “logic of appropriateness” defined by the social context (March, 1994). In other words, practical decisions are often made with limited attention and resources, based on salient beliefs and social norms.

Recent developments in forest biodiversity conservation policy are twofold. While there is a tendency to elaborate regulation, an increasing interest and reliance on voluntary action can be identified both in research and in practice (Wilson, 2001, Cashore and Vertinsky, 2000, Anton et al., 2004, Kagan et al., 2003). These two approaches are often contrasted, increasingly with the conclusion that voluntary arrangements are gaining dominance, as a reflection of a more general governance and policy shift (Nie, 2008). Voluntary conservation has been found to be effective when there is a background threat of regulation (Langpap and Wu, 2004, May and Winter, 1999; see also: Hiedanpää, 2005, Gootee et al., 2006, Paloniemi and Tikka, 2008). In voluntary settings, meeting legally or otherwise defined standards is based on affirmative motivations (May, 2004), and exceeding them is morally and socially rewarding (Vatn, 2005). Further, this type of “over-compliance” is expected to pay off through improved reputation and accountability (Porter and van der Linde, 1995, Gunningham et al., 2004). A forest sector example of voluntariness is the development of various certification schemes that are embraced by a great majority of actors in forestry and forest industry (Cashore et al., 2005, Gulbrandsen, 2005).

Both regulatory and voluntary integration of conservation into commercial forest management materialise in management standards and principles. One illustrative management principle is that of habitat conservation in connection with commercial forestry operations (Gustafsson, 2000). In Finland, habitat conservation in managed forests has been addressed in recent forest regulation, which sets a minimum requirement by stating that special characteristics of particular habitats must be conserved (Forest Act, 1996). However, delineation of the entire habitat completely outside the operation is not a legal requirement but the site can be managed in a way that does not destroy the special characteristics, e.g. individual trees can be removed. By delineating Forest Act habitats completely outside the operation the planner exceeds the minimum legal requirement. Implementation of the Forest Act has been backed up by inventories of the habitats, data bases and training for forestry professionals (Yrjönen, 2004). Conservation of other valuable habitats is a recommended voluntary practice that applies to all actors managing non-industrial private forests (Tapio, 2001). It is, therefore, another way to over-comply with the legally defined minimum. The decision to delineate to meet the legal minimum requirements of the Forest Act or, to exceed them, is made by the forester who plans the forestry operation. This decision requires professional judgment by the forester, which derives from his knowledge, values and the social expectations he confronts.

The purpose of this article is to study the factors that shape the habitat conservation practice of professional foresters who plan almost all commercial forestry operations in non-industrial private forests.1 Our focus is on the foresters' beliefs about biodiversity conservation and the social normative context where these professionals operate. Additionally, we pay attention to the perception of autonomy by the foresters when they make conservation decisions. Before presenting our analysis, we describe the theory of planned behaviour and its uses in natural resource and environmental contexts. After methods and results, we discuss the implications of our findings for forest policy.

Section snippets

Theory of planned behaviour and application to habitat conservation

The theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1988, Ajzen, 1991) takes the decision-maker's intention to behave in a particular fashion as the best available estimate for the behaviour or decision. Intentions are predicted by three determinants: attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control (Fig. 1). Attitudes express a positive or negative disposition towards the behaviour. More precisely, attitudes consist of decision-makers' beliefs that the behaviour will lead to a particular

Sample frame and survey procedure

We conducted a survey with Finnish foresters making operational management plans in non-industrial private forests. The random sample of foresters stratified by organisations was taken out of a sample frame of 2160 which included the entire identified population of planners responsible for long-term planning and foresters planning operations in Regional Forestry Centres, Local Forest Management Associations, four companies and registered forest service entrepreneurs. The sample taken from each

Intentions

A high proportion of the respondents intended to delineate habitats. 74% intended to delineate Forest Act habitats completely aside, and 17 did not, while 71% of respondents intended to delineate other valuable habitats and 15 did not. The rest were neutral. The distribution of these two intentions differed statistically (χ2 = 557.93, df = 36, p = 0.000). Correlation between the two intentions was 0.677 (p = 0.000).

Attitudes and behavioural beliefs

The respondents' general attitude towards delineation was mostly positive (72% Forest

Discussion

Our analysis of forester judgment in habitat delineation provides essential information about the attitudes and norms of practitioners integrating conservation to commercial non-industrial private forestry, and contributes to the understanding of policy implementation as well as governance of multiple functions of forests more generally. By analysing two voluntary practices that exceed legal minimum requirements of habitat conservation, and the various personal and social factors influencing

Conclusions

We have studied integrated biodiversity conservation, more precisely, professional foresters' habitat delineation practice in non-industrial private forests, and the behavioural and normative beliefs that shape this practice. This group of actors has a decisive role in interpreting policy into practice and thus merits the attention of researchers studying natural resource management and biodiversity conservation, as well as of decision-makers who design policies to guide these activities.

Our

Acknowledgements

We want to thank Icek Ajzen for ideas and comments at an early phase of this research, Steven Wolf for support in research on organisational conditions and networks, and Jari Kuuluvainen for helpful comments on several drafts of this paper. Also Mikael Hildén, Hannu Rita and Eija Pouta deserve thanks for comments. The comments of Tove Enggrob Boon and an anonymous reviewer improved the paper considerably. The research has been financially supported by the Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation and the

References (73)

  • H. Karppinen

    Forest owners' choice of reforestation method: an application of the theory of planned behavior

    Forest Policy and Economics

    (2005)
  • J.J. Kennedy et al.

    Viewing and managing natural resources as human-ecosystem relationships

    Forest Policy and Economics

    (2004)
  • J.J. Kennedy et al.

    Evolving forestry and rural development beliefs at midpoint and close of the 20th century

    Forest Policy and Economics

    (2001)
  • M. Krott et al.

    Measuring bridges between sectors: causative evaluation of cross-sectorality

    Forest Policy and Economics

    (2006)
  • L.A. Leskinen

    Purposes and challenges of public participation in regional and local forestry in Finland

    Forest Policy and Economics

    (2004)
  • D.B. Lindenmayer et al.

    General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation

    Biological Conservation

    (2006)
  • L. Mannetti et al.

    Recycling: planned and self-expressive behaviour

    Journal of Environmental Psychology

    (2004)
  • G.A. Mendoza et al.

    Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms

    Forest Ecology and Management

    (2006)
  • A.S. Notani

    Moderators of perceived behavioral control's predictiveness in the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analysis

    Journal of Consumer Psychology

    (1998)
  • R. Paloniemi et al.

    Ecological and social aspects of biodiversity conservation on private lands

    Environmental Science and Policy

    (2008)
  • J. Pykälä

    Implementation of Forest Act habitats in Finland: does it protect the right habitats for threatened species?

    Forest Ecology and Management

    (2007)
  • A. Selby et al.

    Evidence of lay and professional forest-based development discourses in three contrasting regions of Finland

    Forest Policy and Economics

    (2007)
  • I. Serbruyns et al.

    Acceptance of sticks, carrots and sermons as policy instruments for directing private forest management

    Forest Policy and Economics

    (2006)
  • J. Thøgersen

    A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior

    Journal of Environmental Psychology

    (2004)
  • P. Van Gossum et al.

    Forest groups as support to private forest owners in developing close-to-nature management

    Forest Policy and Economics

    (2005)
  • A. Vatn

    Rationality, institutions and environmental policy

    Ecological Economics

    (2005)
  • A.-P. Auvinen et al.

    Evaluation of the Finnish National Biodiversity Action Plan 1997–2005

    Monographs of the Boreal Environmental Research

    (2007)
  • I. Ajzen

    Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior

    (1988)
  • C.J. Armitage et al.

    Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review

    British Journal of Social Psychology

    (2001)
  • J.S. Armstrong et al.

    Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (1977)
  • T.E. Boon et al.

    Describing management attitudes to guide forest policy implementation

    Small-Scale Forestry

    (2007)
  • B. Cashore et al.

    Policy networks and firm behaviours: Governance systems and firm responses to external demands for sustainable forest Management

    Policy Sciences

    (2000)
  • F.S. Chapin et al.

    Consequences of changing biodiversity

    Nature

    (2000)
  • F.W. Cubbage et al.

    Forest Resource Policy

    (1993)
  • L. Festinger

    A theory of cognitive dissonance

    (1957)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text