What motivates forest owners to manage their land? What activities do they carry out in their forests? What factors influence multifunctional forest management?
In a time where forests face major challenges due to (climate-related) disturbances despite their vital role in climate protection, our research examines the institutional frameworks that shape forest management practices, the relations between forest owners and their forests, and how forest owner associations and organizations can contribute to achieving forest management goals.
Forest management is a complex issue shaped by a range of national characteristics, including legal regulations, the centralization of administration, the presence of forest owner associations, and ownership structures. Furthermore, the personal motivations of owners, such as their relationship to their forest, play a decisive role in the management of small forest holdings. In short, there are various factors that influence how forest owners perceive and manage their properties.
These findings were published in a new report by our partners at the University of Freiburg, the University of Göttingen, the WSL, and Menon Economics. The insights were derived from a combination of literature reviews, interviews with owners and other stakeholders involved in small-scale forestry in five countries (Germany, Norway, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland), and the results of an online survey.
Relationship Drivers and Owner Profiles
One of the report’s key findings is that forest owners’ motivations for maintaining and managing their land go beyond purely economic gain. A sense of connection to the forest is a decisive factor, as forests also hold emotional significance for owners, and local knowledge and lived memories influence their management decisions.
In this context, three types of forest owners were identified based on their relationship to their forests: those with a conflicted, enthusiastic, or flexible relationship to the forest. Forest owners with a conflicted relationship feel a sense of responsibility and manage their forests accordingly, but are mindful of economic profitability. Those with an enthusiastic relationship value their forests for both personal and ecological reasons. They are actively involved in management and participate in forest owner networks to exchange advice and experiences. In contrast, forest owners with a flexible relationship are less emotionally attached to their land, do not view it as part of their identity, and generally manage their property more pragmatically by acting on a case-by-case basis when problems or opportunities arise.
The Role of Institutional Frameworks
Forest owners are not a homogeneous group. They are embedded in specific national and local contexts—institutional, personal, and professional—that have a strong influence on the management of their forests. Some of these differences in national contexts, particularly regarding informal institutions, are linked to terminological and conceptual discrepancies between countries and even within them. For example, there may be differing interpretations of what constitutes multifunctional forest management or when forest areas are considered “small.”
As for the formal institutional frameworks, there are significant differences between individual countries. In Spain, for example, responsibilities for forestry are devolved to the regions (comunidades autónomas), similar to Switzerland, where the cantons enjoy a high degree of autonomy. In other countries, such as Norway and Germany, forestry policy is set at the federal level but implemented by regional authorities. In contrast, Romania pursues an almost entirely centralized approach to forest management.
The decision-making process in forest management also varies from country to country. In Switzerland, forest management measures must be coordinated or approved by cantonal forestry offices. In Norway, Spain, and Germany, there are many (government-run) advisory services that guide forest owners in their decision-making. In Romania, detailed forest management plans specify the permitted management measures.
Perceptions of Forest Management Practices
A finding that seems paradoxical at first glance is that most owners who state they are not involved in forest management nevertheless carry out operational activities on their land. In fact, only one-third of those who state they do not manage their forests actually refrain from any management measures.
This apparent contradiction points to differing interpretations of the term “forest management.” Many stakeholders understand forest management to refer to large-scale harvesting techniques and do not consider individual tree harvesting for firewood, the use of non-timber forest products, or the retention of deadwood to be part of forest management.
These findings only scratch the surface of the results presented in the full report. For a deeper understanding of the motivations, barriers, and institutional frameworks influencing small-scale forest owners across Europe, we invite you to read the full document. It is available for download on our website and offers valuable insights for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners working toward more inclusive and sustainable forest management. You can find it here (in English):
Motivations and Barriers of Small Forest Owners for Multifunctional Management