Discursive barriers to voluntary biodiversity conservation: The case of Finnish forest owners

[1]  M. Brockhaus,et al.  Forest owners as political actors , 2021, Environmental Science & Policy.

[2]  W. Adger,et al.  Morals and climate decision-making: insights from social and behavioural sciences , 2021 .

[3]  E. Primmer,et al.  Voluntary agreements to protect private forests – A realist review , 2021, Forest Policy and Economics.

[4]  Marc S. Wilson,et al.  Social dominance as an ideological barrier to environmental engagement: Qualitative and quantitative insights , 2021 .

[5]  Pieta Hyvärinen.  Sienestystä pohjoisilla puupelloilla: metsien moninaiset taloudet ja plantaasiosentrismin ongelma , 2020, Alue ja Ympäristö.

[6]  H. Karppinen,et al.  Forest Owners’ Willingness to Implement Measures to Safeguard Biodiversity: Values, Attitudes, Ecological Worldview and Forest Ownership Objectives , 2020, Small-scale Forestry.

[7]  P. Deuffic,et al.  Two decades of forest-related legislation changes in European countries analysed from a property rights perspective , 2020, Forest Policy and Economics.

[8]  P. Newell,et al.  Unearthing the myths of global sustainable forest governance , 2020, Global Sustainability.

[9]  E. Primmer,et al.  Context sensitive policy instruments: A multi-criteria decision analysis for safeguarding forest habitats in Southwestern Finland , 2020 .

[10]  T. Hujala,et al.  Discoursal power and multi-objective forestry in the Finnish print media , 2020 .

[11]  T. Hujala,et al.  The rise of multi-objective forestry paradigm in the Finnish print media , 2019, Forest Policy and Economics.

[12]  T. Hujala,et al.  Competing discourses of the forest shape forest owners’ ideas about nature and biodiversity conservation , 2019, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[13]  V. Brukas,et al.  Protecting or destructing? Local perceptions of environmental consideration in Lithuanian forestry , 2018, Land Use Policy.

[14]  F. Dietz,et al.  Policy mix: mess or merit? , 2018, Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy.

[15]  P. Harrison,et al.  Arguments for biodiversity conservation: factors influencing their observed effectiveness in European case studies , 2018, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[16]  John F. Haslett,et al.  Making a better case for biodiversity conservation: the BESAFE project , 2018, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[17]  T. Hujala,et al.  Recognizing the Interest of Forest Owners to Combine Nature-Oriented and Economic Uses of Forests , 2018, Small-scale Forestry.

[18]  Heikki Sirviö,et al.  Affirming political ecology: seeds, hatchets and situated entanglements , 2018 .

[19]  T. Hujala,et al.  The order of forest owners' discourses: Hegemonic and marginalised truths about the forest and forest ownership , 2017 .

[20]  M. Kröger,et al.  Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to sustainability? , 2017 .

[21]  R. Lidskog,et al.  The Swedish forestry model: More of everything? , 2017 .

[22]  G. Warriner,et al.  Private landowners and environmental conservation: a case study of social-psychological determinants of conservation program participation in Ontario , 2017 .

[23]  Teppo Hujala,et al.  The use of knowledge in evidence-informed voluntary conservation of Finnish forests , 2016 .

[24]  V. Jarský,et al.  Media analysis in a case study of Šumava National Park: A permanent dispute among interest groups , 2016 .

[25]  C. Barnett.  Towards a Geography of Injustice , 2016 .

[26]  A. Herzele,et al.  What a forest? Whose forest? Struggles over concepts and meanings in the debate about the conservation of the Białowieża Forest in Poland , 2015 .

[27]  Henrik Lindhjem,et al.  Forest Owners’ Participation in Voluntary Biodiversity Conservation: What Does It Take to Forgo Forestry for Eternity? , 2015, Land Economics.

[28]  N. Akrami,et al.  Ideology and climate change denial , 2014 .

[29]  O. Mattila,et al.  Forest Owners’ Socio-demographic Characteristics as Predictors of Customer Value: Evidence from Finland , 2014, Small-scale Forestry.

[30]  E. Primmer,et al.  Forest owner perceptions of institutions and voluntary contracting for biodiversity conservation: Not crowding out but staying out , 2014 .

[31]  R. Paloniemi,et al.  Adapting to the gender order: Voluntary conservation by forest owners in Finland , 2013 .

[32]  A. Lawrence,et al.  Emotional conflicts in rational forestry: Towards a research agenda for understanding emotions in environmental conflicts , 2013 .

[33]  B. Butler,et al.  Factors associated with landowner involvement in forest conservation programs in the U.S.: Implications for policy design and outreach , 2012 .

[34]  Eeva Primmer,et al.  Analysis of institutional adaptation: integration of biodiversity conservation into forestry , 2011 .

[35]  Juha Kotilainen,et al.  Transformation of forest policy regimes in Finland since the 19th century , 2011 .

[36]  V. Hallikainen,et al.  Family forest owners' opinions about forest management in northern Finland , 2010 .

[37]  R. Paloniemi,et al.  Ecological and social aspects of biodiversity conservation on private lands , 2008 .

[38]  J. Olsson,et al.  Sustainability through Good Advice? Assessing the Governance of Swedish Forest Biodiversity , 2005 .

[39]  Christian Langpap.  Conservation Incentives Programs for Endangered Species: An Analysis of Landowner Participation , 2004, Land Economics.

[40]  H. Uliczka.  Nature conservation efforts by forest owners – intentions and practice in a Swedish case study , 2003 .

[41]  J. Arvai,et al.  Print Media Framing of the Environmental Movement in a Canadian Forestry Debate , 2001, Environmental management.