Symptoms of postproductivism are more clearly developed in forestry than in agriculture, but they have attracted less attention. The ‘postindustrial’ forest, in which the emphasis placed on timber production is reduced relative to that placed on environmental services (such as biodiversity and recreation), epitomises the character of postproductive forestry. In many parts of the industrialised world, forests have essentially become places of consumption (of amenity, recreation, and wildlife observation) by a largely urban population, rather than places of production (of timber) for a largely urban population. Changing forestry and forest policy in Britain, mainland Europe, and North America are reviewed in the light of a trend towards postproductivism, and some of the causal factors underlying this trend are explored.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsonP RInglehartR, 1995Value Change in Global Perspective (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI).
2.
Agriculture Act, 1986Public General Acts—Elizabeth II chapter 49 (HMSO, London).
3.
BehanR W, 1990, “Multiresource forest management: A paradigmatic challenge to professional forestry”Journal of Forestry8812 – 18.
4.
BengtsonD N, 1994, “Changing forest values and ecosystem management”Society and Natural Resources7515 – 534.
5.
BennulfMHolmbergS, 1990, “The Green breakthrough in Sweden”Scandinavian Political Studies13165 – 184.
6.
BinkleyC S, 1999, “Ecosystem management and plantation forestry: New directions in British Columbia”New Forests1875 – 88.
7.
BirchT WDennisD F, 1980, “The forest landowners of Pennsylvania”, US Department of Agriculture Forest Research Bulletin NE – 66.
8.
BowlerI RIlberyB W, 1993, “Sustainable agriculture in the food supply system”, in Geographical Perspectives on the Social and Economic Restructuring of Rural Areas Ed. NellisM D, (Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS) pp 4–13.
9.
BowlerI RIlberyB W, 1999, “Agricultural land-use and landscape change under the postproductivist transition: Examples from the United Kingdom”, in Land Use Changes and Their Environmental Impact in Rural Areas in Europe Eds KrönertRBaudryJBowlerI RReenbergA, (Parthenon Publishing Group, Carnforth, Lancs) pp 121–139.
10.
BrownGHarrisC, 1992, “The Forest Service: Toward the new resource management paradigm?”Society and Natural Resources5231 – 245.
11.
BrownGHarrisC, 1998, “Professional foresters and the land ethic revisited”Journal of Forestry964 – 12.
12.
CCS, 1986, “Forestry in Scotland: A policy paper”, Countryside Commission for Scotland, Perth Clark R N, Stankey G H, Kruger, L E, 1999, “From new perspectives to ecosystem management: A social science perspective on forest management”, in Ecosystem Management: Adaptive Strategies for Natural Resources Organisations in the 21st Century Eds AleyJBurchW RConoverBFieldD, (Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA) pp 73–84.
13.
ClarkeH DDuttN, 1991, “Measuring value change in Western industrialized societies: The impact of unemployment”American Political Science Review85905 – 920.
14.
ClokePMilbournePThomasC, 1996, “From wasteland to wonderland: Opencast mining, regeneration and the English National Forest”Geoforum27159 – 174.
15.
Countryside Commission, 1987Forestry in the CountrysideCountryside Commission, John Dower House, Crescent Place, Cheltenham, Glos GL50 3RA.
16.
DanaS T, 1943, “Multiple use, biology and economics”Journal of Forestry4625 – 626.
17.
Department of the Environment, 1994, “Sustainable forestry: The UK programme”, Cm 2429 (HMSO, London).
18.
DieterichV, 1953Forstwirtschaftspolitik: Eine Einführung [Forest policy: An introduction] (Parey, Hamburg).
19.
DietrichW, 1992The Final Forest: Battle for the Last Great Trees of the Pacific Northwest (Penguin, New York).
20.
EckerbergK, 1995, “Multiple-use forestry administration, legislation and interest groups”, in Multiple-use Forestry in the Nordic Countries Ed. HytönenM, METLA Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, pp 357–390.
21.
EllefsonP VChengA SMoultonR J, 1997, “Regulatory programs and private forestry: State government actions to direct the use and management of forest ecosystems”Society and Natural Resources10195 – 209.
22.
ErnstC, 1998, “An ecological revolution? The Schlagwaldwirtschaft in western Germany in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries”, in European Woods and Forests: Studies in Cultural History Ed. WatkinsC, (CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon) pp 83–92.
23.
FischerF, 1965, “Der Üetliberg als Erholungsgebiet” [The Üetliberg as a recreational area]Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen116487 – 499.
24.
Forestry Authority and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, 1998, “The UK Forestry Standard: The Government's approach to sustainable forestry”, Forestry Commission, 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT.
Forestry Commission, 1999bEngland Forest Strategy: A New Focus for England's Woodlands: Strategic Priorities and ProgrammesForestry Commission, Great Eastern House, Tenison Road, Cambridge CB1 2DU.
31.
Forestry Commission, 1999cForests for Scotland: Consultation Towards a Scottish Forestry StrategyForestry Commission, 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh EH12 7AT.
32.
FranklinJ, 1989, “Towards a new forestry”American Forestry9537 – 44.
33.
FritzbøgerBSøndergaardP, 1995, “A short history of forest uses”, in Multiple-use Forestry in the Nordic Countries Ed. HytönenM, METLA Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, pp 11–42.
34.
GlückP, 1987, “Social values in forestry”Ambio16158 – 160.
35.
GrumbineM, 1994, “What is ecosystem management?”Conservation Biology827 – 38.
36.
HansteinU, 1967, “Über die Gewohnheiten, Ansichten und Wünsche der Waldbesucher” [On the habits, opinions, and wishes of forest visitors]Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift22465 – 467.
37.
HellströmE, 1999, “Environmental forestry conflicts in Europe and the United States”, in World Forests, Society and Environment Eds PaloMUusivuoriJ, (Kluwer, Dordrecht) pp 277–284.
38.
HellströmEReunalaA, 1995, “Forest conflicts from the 1950s to 1983: A review of a comparative study between USA, Germany, France, Sweden, Finland and Norway”, EFI Research Report 3, European Forest Institute, Torikatu 34, FIN – 80100, Joensuu.
39.
HirtP W, 1994A Conspiracy of Optimism: Management of the National Forests Since World War Two (University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE).
40.
HockenjossW, 1968, “Meinungsforschung im Wald—Über die Kompetenz der Laien in forstwirtschaftlichen Fragen” [Public opinion on the role of laymen in questions of forest policy]Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift2312 – 14.
41.
HornsmannE, 1967, “Wie Münchner Bürger sich ihren Wald wünschen” [Forest wishes of Munich citizens]Allgemeine Forstzeitschrift22598 – 599.
42.
House of Commons Agriculture Committee, 1990, “Land use and forestry”, House of Commons papers 1989 – 90, 16 (HMSO, London).
43.
House of Commons Environment Committee, 1993, “Forestry and the environment”, House of Commons papers 1992 – 93, 257 (HMSO, London).
44.
House of Lords Select Committee, 1980, “Scientific aspects of forestry”, House of Lords papers 1979 – 80, 381 (HMSO, London).
45.
HytönenMBlöndalS, 1995, “Timber production and the forest industry”, in Multiple-use Forestry in the Nordic Countries Ed. HytönenM, METLA Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, pp 81–116.
46.
IlberyBBowlerI, 1998, “From agricultural productivism to postproductivism”, in The Geography of Rural Change Ed. IlberyB, (Longman, Harlow, Essex) pp 57–84.
47.
InglehartR, 1971, “The silent revolution in Europe: Intergenerational change in postindustrial societies”American Political Science Review65991 – 1017.
48.
InglehartR, 1990Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).
49.
InglisAGuyS, 1996, “Rural development forestry in Scotland: The struggle to bring international principles to the last bastion of British colonial forestry”, ODI Rural Development Forestry Network Papers 20b, Overseas Development Institute, 111 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7JD.
50.
JonesJ RMartinRBartlettE T, 1995, “Ecosystem management: The United States Forest Service's response to social conflict”Society and Natural Resources8161 – 168.
51.
JonesR, 1994, “National forestry strategy required”Land Use Policy11124 – 127.
52.
KennedyJ J, 1985, “Conceiving forest management as providing for current and future social value”Forest Ecology and Management13121 – 134.
53.
KochNKennedyJ J, 1991, “Multiple-use forestry for social values”Ambio20330 – 333.
54.
KomulainenM, 1995, “Landscape management in forestry”, in Multiple-use Forestry in the Nordic Countries Ed. HytönenM, METLA Finnish Forest Research Institute, Helsinki, pp 295–320.
55.
KuuselaK, 1994Forest Resources in Europe (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
56.
LeanGRosieG, 1988, “Forests of money”Observer Magazine 14 February, pp 34–44.
57.
LehtinenA A, 1991, “Northern natures: A study of the forest question emerging with the timber-line conflict in Finland”Fennia16957 – 69.
58.
LoweP DRüdigW, 1986, “Political ecology and the social sciences—the state of the art”British Journal of Political Science16513 – 550.
59.
LowePMurdochJMarsdenTMuntonRFlynnA, 1993, “Regulating the new rural spaces: The uneven development of land”Journal of Rural Studies9205 – 222.
60.
LowoodH E, 1990, “The calculating forester: Quantification, cameral science and the emergence of scientific forestry in management in Germany”, in The Quantifying Spirit in the 18th Century Eds FrängsmyrTHeilbronJ LRiderR E, (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA) pp 315–342.
61.
McArdleR E, 1942, “What is forestry?”Journal of Forestry40193 – 196.
62.
McManusP, 1999, “Histories of forestry: Ideas, networks and silences”Environment and History5185 – 208.
63.
McQuillanA G, 1993, “Cabbages and kings: The ethics and aesthetics of new forestry”Environmental Values2191 – 221.
64.
MarsdenT, 1995, “Beyond agriculture? Regulating the new rural spaces”Journal of Rural Studies11285 – 296.
65.
MarsdenTMurdochJLowePMuntonRFlynnA, 1993Constructing the Countryside (UCL Press, London).
66.
MatherA S, 1991, “Pressures on British forest policy: Prologue to the postindustrial forest?”Area23245 – 253.
67.
MatherA S, 1996, “Rural land use in Britain: Agency restructuring and policy adaptation”, in Changing Rural Policy in Britain: Planning, Administration, Agriculture and the Environment Eds CurryNOwenS, (Countryside and Community Press, Cheltenham) pp 87–106.
68.
MCPFE, 1993, Declaration and Resolutions—Helsinki, Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Liason Unit Vienna, Maxergasse 2, A-1030, Vienna.
69.
MCPFE, 1998, Declaration and Resolutions—Lisbon, Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Liason Unit Vienna, Maxergasse 2, A-1030, Vienna.
70.
MerchantC, 1987, “The theoretical structure of ecological revolutions”Environmental Review11265 – 274.
71.
MerchantC, 1989Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender and Science in New England (University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC).
72.
MoreT, 1996, “Forestry's fuzzy concepts: An examination of ecosystem management”Journal of Forestry9419 – 23.
73.
MorrisCEvansN J, 1999, “Research on the geography ofagricultural change: Redundant or revitalized?”Area31349 – 358.
NCC, 1988The Flow Country; the Peatlands of Caithness and SutherlandNature Conservancy Council, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1UA.
79.
ParviainenJ, 1994, “Finnish silviculture: Managing for timber production and conservation”Journal of Forestry9233 – 36.
80.
PeckTOttitschA, 2000“The European forest as a source of industrial raw materials”Land Use Policy17209 – 220.
81.
ReedM GGillA M, 1997, “Tourism, recreational, and amenity values in land allocation: An analysis of institutional arrangements in the postproductivist era”Environment and Planning A292019 – 2040.
82.
ReunalaA, 1984, “Forest as symbolic environment”Communicationes Instituti Forestalis Fenniae1281 – 85.
83.
RohrschneiderR, 1990, “The roots of public opinion toward new social movements: An empirical test of competing explanations”American Journal of Political Science341 – 30.
RSPB, 1986, “Forestry in the flow country: The threat to birds”, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy, Beds SG19 2TN.
86.
SaastamoinenO, 1995, “New forest policy: The rise of environmental and the fall of social consciousness”Finnish Journal of Rural Research and Policy (English Supplement)3125–137.
87.
SAEFL, 1999The Swiss Forest— Taking Stock: Interpretation of the Second National Forest Inventory in Terms of Forest Policy. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape, Berne.
SchmithüsenFKazemiY, 1995, “Analyse des rapports entre les attitudes des gens envers la forêt et leurs attitudes envers la gestion forestière” [Analysis of the relationship between attitudes to the forest and attitudes to forest management]Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen146247 – 264.
90.
SchmithusenFKazemiYSeelandK, 1997, “Perceptions and attitudes of the population towards forests and their social benefits”, IUFRO Occasional Paper 7, International Union of Forestry Research Organisations, Vienna.
91.
Scottish Development Department, 1990, “Indicative forestry strategies”, SDD Circular 13/1990, Scottish Development Department, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ.
92.
SedjoR A, 1994, “The global environmental effects of local logging cutbacks”Resources1172 – 5.
93.
ShucksmithM, 1993, “Farm household behaviour and the transition to postproductivism”Journal of Agricultural Economics44466 – 478.
94.
ShvidenkoANilssonS, 1994, “What do we know about the Siberian forests?”Ambio23396 – 404.
95.
Strathclyde Regional Council, 1988, “Structure Plan Update, 1988”; copies available in the National Library of Scotland, George IV Bridge, Edinburgh EH1 1EW.
96.
TGUK, 1985The Forestry and Woodland CodeTimber Growers UK, Agriculture House, Knightsbridge, London SW1X 7NJ.
97.
TollefsonC, 1998, “Introduction”, in Wealth of Forests: Markets, Regulation and Sustainable Forestry Ed. TollefsonC, (UBC Press, Vancouver) pp 3–16.
98.
TompkinsS, 1986The Theft of the Hills: Afforestation in ScotlandRamblers' Association, Camelford House, 87 – 90 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TW.
99.
United Nations, 1993Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3 – 14 June 1992. Volume 1: Resolutions Adopted by the Conference (United Nations, New York).
100.
van den BergL M, 1999, “Negotiated multifunctionality of agriculture: Experiences from a FAO-initiated scoping project”, paper presented at International Geographical Union Sustainability of Rural Systems Conference, Kelowna, Canada; copy available from the author, DLO Winard Staring Centre, Wageningen.
