Outdoor recreation in forest policy and legislation: A European comparison

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/ufug

Outdoor recreation in forest policy and legislation: A European comparison Carsten Mann a,∗ , Eija Pouta b , Sandra Gentin c , Frank Søndergaard Jensen c a

Centre for Technology & Society, Berlin Institute of Technology, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany Agrifood Research Finland, Luutnantintie 13, 00410 Helsinki, Finland c Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: COST Delphi method National Forest Programme (NFP) Recreation inventories Recreation monitoring

a b s t r a c t The benefits of outdoor recreation and the need for recreation inventories and monitoring are described in various policy and legislation documents at the European level. The objective of this paper is to analyse how these recreational aspects are reflected at the national level in core forest policy and legislation documents as well as related domains. The COST Action E33 network was used to extract information about national policies and monitoring practices for international comparison, using the Delphi method. The results provide insights into national policy setting and legislation in the field of outdoor recreation, and reveal similarities, differences, gaps and future needs. Among the main findings is a contradiction between the expressed political importance of outdoor recreation at the national level, and the absence of binding commitments for action. The majority of the countries surveyed recognise and express outdoor recreation in some form of political and/or legislative way. However, recreation monitoring or measurements are rarely mentioned in relevant policies or acts at the national, regional or local level, perhaps due to a lack of political will or resources. The analysis indicates that a consistent forest recreation monitoring system, linked to sustainable forest management, as described for example in the Helsinki process, should be better transferred into national policy and legislation. Comparable data across Europe could then provide a sound base for making decisions on outdoor recreation policy, planning and management, and furthermore provide a basis for the detection of societal changes and demands over time. © 2010 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Introduction Forest recreation has gained increasing societal importance in the last decades. For the sufficient supply and efficient planning of the public recreation resources, guidance at the policy level is needed. Various forest recreation policies are formulated at the EU level, nevertheless, how these European-level objectives are reflected in national policy documents and legislation is rather heterogeneous (e.g. Cirelli, 1999; Cirelli and Schmithüsen, 2000; Cirelli et al., 2001; Yudego, 2002; Bauer et al., 2004). No wider summary exists on how national forest policy documents reflect outdoor recreation. To analyse this, an overview of how forest recreation is reflected in national policy documents can provide valuable insights into its societal importance and respective political status. It can also reveal which policy instruments are efficient for the implementation of monitoring systems for sustainable forest management. From a policy planning perspective it is also important to know if there is a pattern in policy that follows forest and socio-economic

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 30 314 28872; fax: +49 30 314 22654. E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Mann). 1618-8667/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2010.06.004

conditions. It can be hypothesised that biophysical conditions, i.e. the forest supply, may play a major role in priorities for outdoor recreation in national forest programmes, forest legislation and other related policy documents. Based on the economic importance of the forestry sector, different priorities may be assigned to the social dimension of forestry by the national governments. Furthermore, the supply of resources may also have an effect on the strategies by which recreation opportunities are ensured at the policy level. The objective of this study is to evaluate the status of forest recreation in national policy and legislation in Europe, and to analyse the differences and similarities between countries in this respect. The results of the analysis may enhance forest recreation policies in European countries by providing information on alternative, efficient policy solutions. Furthermore, arguments for a common recreation inventory and monitoring system are presented to strengthen the process of international agreements and policy discussions. The paper draws thereby on work undertaken as part of the European-funded COST Action E33, Forests for Recreation and Nature Tourism (FORREC), between 2004 and 2008 (see Bell et al., 2009). The structure of the paper is as follows. First, the common European policy framework and its demands for national policies are

304

C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

described. After the description of the methodological approach, findings from the national policy and legislation levels are presented, and country comparisons made with help of a cluster approach. Finally, the method utilised for data generation and the implications of the findings are critically discussed, needs for recreation inventories and monitoring systems are shown, and future possibilities are presented.

Programmes and legislation. In the following sections we examine empirically how this attempt has been fulfilled at the national level.

Method Policy data collection: the Delphi method

European framework for national outdoor recreation policies In European forest and land use policies, outdoor recreation has been on the political agenda since the 1990s, with measurements proposed for the social and cultural dimensions of forestry as guidance in national forest policy formulation. Relevant European documents include: (1) reports from the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, together with the related Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management (MCPFE, 2003a,b, 2005), (2) EC Council Regulations 1257/1999 and 1783/2003, which include a scheme aimed at improving the economic, ecological or social values of forests (EC, 1999, 2003), and (3) the EU Forest Action Plan (EC, 2006a,b, 2008). All of these political initiatives provide guidelines for implementing recreational policies at the national level and have been adopted by most member states and by the European Commission respectively. In the following, their relevance for forest recreation is described in more detail. The Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) is a key Pan-European political initiative affecting outdoor recreation. In particular, Vienna Resolution 3 contains two criteria and two related indicators measuring the cultural and societal importance of outdoor recreation as part of sustainable forest management (MCPFE, 2005). Criterion 3, Maintenance and Encouragement of Productive Functions of Forests, together with Indicator 3.4, Services – Value of Marketed Services on Forest and other Wooded Land, aim to contribute to improvement in the income of forest owners. Additionally, Criterion 6, Maintenance of other Socio-Economic Functions and Conditions contains indicator 6.10 which is related to the accessibility for recreation (MCPFE, 2003a,b). Moreover, indicator 6.10 states the importance of access to generally improving the quality of life, or for cultural or spiritual reasons. The European Council Regulations 1257/1999 and 1783/2003 (EC, 1999, 2003) provide the opportunity for economic support from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for actions to improve outdoor recreation and tourism activities. Through National Strategic Plans and National Rural Development Programmes, this scheme is utilised to strengthen possibilities for experiencing forests, to conserve the cultural values of forests, and to promote interactions between forests and citizens for physical and mental well-being at the national level. The overall objective of the EU Forest Action Plan is to support and strengthen sustainable forest management and the multifunctional role of forests, including recreation. Related key actions stress the need for recreation in rural and urban areas as well as the need for monitoring activities, although the LIFE+ instrument does not contain any legal obligations and the Action Plan does not specifically mention recreation-related data (EC, 2006b, p. 25). In summary, the three European forestry-related policy documents are relatively homogeneous in content. They all address the issue of outdoor recreation as one out of three sustainability functions of forests, and state their important contribution to societal “well-being”. The necessity of providing outdoor recreation opportunities in terms of access and quality is stated. Attempts have been made to enhance measurements of the social and cultural dimensions of forestry by criteria and indicators that are supposed to be implemented at the national level through National Forest

To generate a European policy overview, a variant of the Delphi method was initiated for data collection. The Delphi method implies a group interaction process that is structured in “rounds” to gather opinions and to provide feedback as an iterative process (Turoff, 1997). In selecting a Delphi approach, researchers are interested in collecting expert knowledge in a subject area where detailed empirical data are lacking and uncertainty is large (Stewart and Shamdanasi, 1990; Rixon et al., 2007). The Delphi method has become popular in the fields of business, education and health, but has also found application in resource management, policy evaluation and decision making (MacMillan and Marshall, 2006). So far, the Delphi approach has not been utilised to study forest recreation and its reflection in policy and legislation. For this study, a modified Delphi approach was used to collect information on how forest recreation is reflected in policy and legislation in a systematic and transparent way (cf. Linstone and Turoff, 1975; Powell, 2003). To organise the data generation process, a panel of experts from science and practise was established (Delbecq et al., 1975; Crance, 1987) by the COST Action leaders and the COST Action office. European experts with recorded knowledge in the subject area were asked if they are willing to participate in the COST Action and to work on policy and legislation as well as monitoring issues of outdoor recreation. The expert panel for this study consisted of 30 members representing 18 countries: Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. The experts represented a range of research and practical expertise on recreation. They were mainly researchers and scientists from universities and forest research institutes as well as recreation managers working with forest agencies and state administrations. The Delphi process consisted of six rounds of consultation (cf. Rikkonen et al., 2006). In the first round, key concepts of recreation demand, supply and monitoring were presented and methodological approaches for the survey were defined together with the expert panel. Based on this, an e-mail questionnaire was developed and sent to the experts after the meeting. Experts had to carry out a focused literature review and respective content analysis within their countries to find out which official documents make reference to forest recreation and to record their level of concretisation for inventory, management and monitoring action. Hence, the semistructured questionnaire was subdivided into three sections: (a) a description of the “core sentences/statements”, i.e. the reflection of forest recreation, an indication of (b) key variables and (c) measurement techniques for recreation inventories and monitoring. Each expert was requested to ask additional national experts for help if necessary. For the next rounds, information from the questionnaires was recollected and analysed by a task force team as part of the expert panel, and the results presented by the panel leaders at the beginning of the next round’s meeting. Similarities and differences among the countries concerning the type of documents mentioning outdoor recreation (e.g. concerning policy domain) and the level of precision for action (inventory, management and monitoring) were highlighted and discussed among the experts. Additionally, a geographical focus on outdoor recreation in different European regions complemented each meeting. Results were recorded by the panel leaders to document the process. After

C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

the meeting the task force summarized the information in a report which was sent together with the minutes to all experts for further revision and complementation before the next meeting. When necessary, the task force sent clarification questions in between the meetings by e-mail to the experts to achieve complete and comparable sets of information. The updated information was then presented by the panel leaders in the next meeting. This process was repeated five times. The last two rounds were additionally used to develop policy recommendations to assess (and improve) the quality of outdoor recreation management, inventory, and monitoring. An overview of the Delphi process implemented in this study is presented in Fig. 1. Data generation took place throughout the duration of the COST Action from April 2005 to May 2008. During this process, the expert panel remained relatively stable, i.e. only a few national experts left and/or were replaced by others.

305

Analysing the policy documents: the formation of country clusters The Delphi method produced a dataset of national forest policy documents and legislation (Table 1). This descriptive information constituted the first result of the study and formed the empirical basis for the construction of country clusters according to the political reflection of outdoor recreation. The first set of clusters described the “importance” of outdoor recreation in policy documents (priority cluster). The priority clusters were formed by adding up the scores for the importance assigned to outdoor recreation in National Forest Programmes, as well as its recognition in forest and/or other legislation. Scores for NFP were 0 for “no program” or “not mentioned in the program”, 1 for “included” and 2 for “detailed”. Scores for forest and other legislation, as well as for monitoring were 0 or 1 (not mentioned, mentioned). The priority classes were then constructed on the basis

Fig. 1. Summary of the Delphi process used in the study (cf. MacMillan and Marshall, 2006, p. 13).

306

C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

Table 1 The reflection of outdoor recreation in selected policy and legislation documents of 18 European countries (2006–2007). Country

Outdoor recreation in National Forest Programs 0 = no program 1 = not mentioned 2 = included 3 = detailed

Outdoor recreation in Forest law 0 = not mentioned 1 = mentioned

Other relevant legislation on outdoor recreation 0 = does not exist 1 = exists

Information and monitoring needs mentioned in the different policy documents 0 = not mentioned 1 = mentioned

Austria

2 Austrian Forest Programme (2006) 0

1 Austrian Forest Law (2002)

0

0

1 Flemish Forest Decree (1990), Flemish Forest Declaration (2003), Wallonian Ministerial Circular (1997), Wallonian Ministerial Order (2006) 1 Croatian Forest Law (2005)

1 Flemish Implementing Order (1991, 1993a, 1993b, 2001)

0

1 Croatian Nature Protection Act (2005) 0

1

1 Danish Nature Protection Act (2009) 1 Finnish Outdoor Recreation Act (1973) 1 French Sport Law (2006), French Urbanism Law (2010), French Environment Law (2010) 1 German Federal Nature Protection Act (2005) 0

1

Belgium

Croatia

Cyprus

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece Iceland

Ireland

Latvia

Lithuania

Norway

Slovakia

Sweden Switzerland

UK

2 Croatian Forestry Policy and Strategy (2003) 3 Cypriot National Forest Programme (1999) 3 Danish National Forest Programme (2002a,b) 3 Finnish National Forest Programme (1999, 2008) 2 French National Forest Programme (2006)

2 German National Forest Programme (2000) 0 1 Icelandic Parliamentary Resolution on Forestry (2003) 3 Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (1996) 2 Latvian Concept of the National Programme of Forest (2004) 1 Lithuanian Forestry Policy and Implementation Strategy (2002) 2 Living Forests (2006) 2 Slovakian Republic National Forest Programme (2005) 2 Swedish Forest Agency (2005) 2 Swiss National Forest Programme (2004) 3 UK Forestry Standard Document (1998)

1 Cypriot Forest Law (2003) 1 Danish Forest Act (2004) 0 Finnish Forest Act (2004) 1 French Forest Law (2006)

1 German Forest Law (2006) 1 Greek Forest Law (1979) 0 Icelandic Forestry Act (1955)

0

1

1

1

0

1 Icelandic Nature Conservation Act (1999) 1 Irish Occupiers Liability Act (1995)

0

1 Latvian Forest Law (2000)

1 Latvian Law on Protection Belts (1997)

0

1 Lithuanian Forest Law (2001)

1 Lithuanian Rules of Visitation of Forests (1996)

0

1 Norwegian Forestry Act (2005)

1 Norwegian Act Relating to Outdoor Recreation (1996) 1 Slovakian Republic Nature Protection Act (2002) 0

0

0

0

1

1 English Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000), Scottish Land Reform Act (2003)

0

0 Irish Forestry Act (1988)

1 Slovakian Republic National Forest Law (2005) 0 Swedish Forestry Act (1979) 1 Swiss Civil Code (1907) 0 UK Forestry Act (1967)

of added scores. The information on recreation monitoring specifications was also included as a sum variable. In this manner the priority of a cluster was highest when outdoor recreation was mentioned in detail in the NFP, covered by legislation and monitored. In contrast, the priority was lowest when outdoor recreation was neither mentioned in NFP nor in legislation.

0

0

The second set of clusters differentiated the countries based on the “policy strategies” used to take recreation into account at the policy level (strategy cluster). Cluster analysis and latent class analysis were both utilised to guide the formation of country groups. As it turned out that the results of these two methods were similar, the final clustering was formed with latent class analysis (Hagenaars

C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

and McCutcheon, 2002) using the first three columns from Table 1 as classifying variables. The underlying idea is that behind the observed variables unobservable classes of individuals (countries) may exist. Each latent class of countries consist of a set of heterogeneous policy strategies that are homogenous within that class. In contrast to priority cluster that focused on the emphasis of recreation in policy documents, the strategy cluster focused on identifying the combinations of policy tools applied in the countries to enhance the recreation opportunities. The classifications could be expected to overlap to some extent for those countries with high priority and the strategy of using all policy instruments. The clusters were used to assess the extent to which the importance of recreation in policy documents and the respective institutional strategies used are associated with a country’s forest conditions. For this we estimated the means of two variables: the mean forest area per capita and the percentage forest cover of the country (see data in Appendix A), for the importance and strategy clusters. It was not relevant to test the statistical significance of these measures between clusters, as the countries did not represent a sample of any population of countries, thus the observed differences between country clusters were actual. Finally, we analysed the extent to which the national political importance of recreation and the policy strategies utilised are related to the practical implementation of recreation monitoring systems. Clusters were formed for those countries that (a) implemented national recreation surveys in their forest and forestry-related policies and laws, and (b) carried out recreational on-site surveys (see data in Appendix A). Also in this case, the observed differences were actual differences between country groups, and statistical testing did not therefore add any additional information. Results For 18 European countries, the main recreation-related national policy documents were identified by the panel of experts. Of central interest were policy documents published since the 1990s. In this first descriptive part of the results, findings are organised according to document type and policy domain. In the second part, similarities and differences in how outdoor recreation is reflected in policy documents in terms of priorities and strategies are analysed. Outdoor recreation at the national policy level At the national level, various priorities assigned to forest recreation in policy programmes and laws were reported by the panel of experts. All 30 experts identified National Forest Programmes (NFP) as important forest policy documents for outdoor recreation. Their common European legislative background ensures that these programmes should form the basis for setting national forest policy to guarantee European-wide sustainable forest management, including the social dimension. However, not all 18 countries represented in this study had prepared an NFP or implemented it in the same way (Table 1). In 16 out of 18 countries a NFP (or equivalent policy) existed or was currently in preparation at the time of data collection. Outdoor recreation was mentioned in 14 out of 16 NFPs as an objective of the national forest strategy, its planning and management. Similar to the European-level documents, the societal importance of providing opportunities for recreation was widely stated at the national level. For some surveyed countries that did not have an “official” NFP, the topic of outdoor recreation was instead mentioned in other forest policy documents. Norway and Sweden had equivalent policy programmes (Ollonqvist, 2006) mentioning outdoor recreation for societal well-being. Belgium and Greece indicated not having a comparable National Forest Policy document.

307

Comparing the fourteen countries that mentioned outdoor recreation in their NFPs, different priorities and specifications were assigned by national governments. Forest recreation was of comparatively high political importance in the less forested European countries, Denmark, Cyprus, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Of the Nordic countries, Finland had a well-developed recognition of recreational aspects reflected in its NFP. By contrast, the central European countries Austria, France, Germany and Switzerland, and the eastern European countries Slovakia, Croatia and Latvia, attached less importance to outdoor recreation. The overall need for providing recreation opportunities through forest management was widely expressed throughout the NFPs. However, the need for outdoor recreation inventories and monitoring was only mentioned by Denmark. Compared to the National Forest Programmes and their equivalents, legislation is more concrete in defining and regulating outdoor recreation. The expert panel identified two main types of legislation relevant for outdoor recreation: the forestry legislation, and nature protection/conservation legislation. Both types of legislation can be seen as complementary in their objectives and definitions. Public access was an especially important issue in regulating the relationship between landowners, the state and society. Because different legal access rights limit or enhance outdoor recreation use, it was of specific interest for this analysis to examine to what extent specific regulations on the practice of the right of access exist in time and use. All 18 countries indicated having a forest law. In thirteen countries, the National Forest Acts referred to outdoor recreation (Table 1). These were Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Slovakia and Switzerland. Apart from Denmark, France, Greece and Norway, nine countries included recreation access regulations in their forest legislation. In many countries, public access rights to forests are based on historical traditions (e.g. Finland and Sweden) and therefore are an important part of forestry in these countries. Most of the countries guarantee free access to certain categories of forests, excluding newly established forest cultures or protected forests. Apart from this, the provision of recreation opportunities was widely described in the acts as a public task rather than a private duty. In addition, careful forest planning was often stated as a necessary prerequisite for recreational management in a multifunctional way. For Ireland, UK and Finland, outdoor recreation was not mentioned in forest legislation, but in other legislation instead. Cases where outdoor recreation was mentioned in both, forest and other legislation, are Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Slovakia (Table 1). Nature protection legislation predominantly set out access rules for the recreational use of natural areas (including forests). Limitations to access were imposed for certain activity types (e.g. restricted motorised use), ownership structures, or to protect forest cultures and biodiversity. However, six countries, i.e. the Northern European countries Iceland, Ireland and the UK as well as the Nordic countries Sweden, Finland and Norway did not refer to outdoor recreation access in their forest or nature protection legislation. In these countries, specific regulations apply. The Nordic countries have an “Everyman’s right”, allowing the public to enter forests and natural areas to experience nature and the outdoors. The long cultural tradition of “Everyman’s rights” could be a reason why it was not necessary for these countries to explicitly include recreational use rights into national forest policies and acts. Other countries include access regulations in policies concerning woodlands and forests in or close to urban areas, especially in countries with fewer forests such as the UK or Ireland. However, the policies of most surveyed countries included forest recreation issues within sections covering more general aspects of forest use (e.g. France, Germany, and Switzerland) or the natural environment (Austria).

308

C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

Table 2 Country clusters reflecting outdoor recreation in the forest policy and legislation of 18 European countries (2006–2007). Country

Austria Belgium Croatia Cyprus Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Iceland Ireland Latvia Lithuania Norway Slovakia Sweden Switzerland UK

Priority cluster (importance) 1 = high 2 = medium 3 = low

Strategy cluster 1 = NFP, forest and other laws 2 = NFP and other laws 3 = NFP and/or forest laws

2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2

3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 2

Table 4 Forest supply and recreation use pressure in country clusters. Priority cluster

Forest/capita (ha) Forest cover (%)

High

Medium

Low

1.1 35.8

0.6 31.9

1.5 39.4

Strategy cluster

Forest/capita (ha) Forest cover (%)

Monitoring needs of recreational use was specifically examined by the expert panel (Table 1). Within the examined documents, information about levels of forest recreational use was seen in Denmark, Finland and Cyprus as a precondition for effective forest policy formulation; either stated in the NFP (Denmark) or assessed through national forestry-related programmes (Finland and Cyprus). In France, Germany and Switzerland, the need for monitoring of recreational use was also considered in the contexts of land use planning, e.g. through defined recreational functions or areas in forests (e.g. Germany, France), or regional parks and nature urban parks (e.g. Switzerland). Differences and similarities in policy reflection To analyse differences and similarities between the surveyed countries we constructed country clusters based on a) the importance of recreation in policy and legislation (priority clusters) and b) the use of different policy tools and strategies to provide recreation opportunities (strategy clusters). Three priority clusters were identified. The highest political priorities assigned to outdoor recreation were found in Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France and Germany. Outdoor recreation was of medium importance in Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Slovakia, Switzerland and the UK. Low priorities to outdoor recreation were assigned in Greece, Iceland and Sweden.

NFP, forest and other laws

NFP and other laws

NFP and/or forest laws

0.7 32.3

1.3 22.3

1.0 47.2

Three strategy clusters were identified through latent class analysis (Hagenaars and McCutcheon, 2002). The cluster names are based on the main policy instruments that were used to ensure the provision of forest recreation opportunities (Table 2). Eightynine percent of the countries (all except Belgium) belonging to the first class “NFP, forest and other laws” (Table 3) had a NFP, a forest law and also other legislations covering some issues of outdoor recreation. These were mainly Central European countries but also Croatia, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Slovakia. In the cluster “NFPs and other laws” Finland, Iceland, Ireland and the UK were grouped in. Besides Iceland, they detailed forest recreation in their NFP and all covered recreation issues with laws other than the forest law. In the third strategy cluster “NFP and/or forest laws”, all countries had forest recreation mentioned in their NFP and most also in their forest law but they did not cover recreation issues by other laws. Mainly Alpine and Mediterranean countries but also Sweden were classified in this strategy cluster. Our assumption was that the forest supply might play a significant role in the priority setting of recreation as well as strategies to ensure recreation opportunities at the policy level. When comparing the means of forest area per capita and the proportion of forest cover between clusters, some interesting associations were found: a low priority for recreation was associated with a higher than average forest area per capita and a higher percentage forest cover. This could be interpreted as an indication that the importance of forest recreation is self-evident in low-priority countries, and that it does not require prioritisation in policy or legislation. The strategy cluster “NFP, forest and other laws” in contrast, consisted of countries where the average per capita forest area was considerably lower than in other clusters. This could be interpreted as a need for using strong policy tools like the NFP and forest law where there is high competition between different land use alternatives (Table 4). We further assumed that the importance of outdoor recreation in a country’s political agenda was associated with higher monitor-

Table 3 Implemented policy instruments in country clusters (% of investigated countries). Policy instruments

Priority cluster

Outdoor recreation mentioned in NFPs (scores 2 and 3) Outdoor recreation in forest law Other legislation on outdoor recreation Information and monitoring needs mentioned in the policy documents

High

Medium

Low

100 80 100 100

90 80 70 10

67 30 0 0

Strategy cluster

Outdoor recreation mentioned in NFPs (scores 2 and 3) Outdoor recreation in forest law Other legislation on outdoor recreation Information and monitoring needs mentioned in the policy documents

NFP, forest and other laws

NFP and other laws

NFP and/or forest laws

89 100 100 44

75 0 100 25

100 80 0 20

C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

309

Table 5 Legislation and monitoring. Priority cluster

Proportion of countries in which monitoring is mentioned in policy documents (%) National surveys implemented (%) Proportion of countries where on-site surveys have been implemented (%)

High

Medium

Low

100 80 100

10 60 80

0 0 67

Strategy cluster

Proportion of countries in which monitoring is mentioned in policy documents (%) National surveys implemented (%) Proportion of countries where on-site surveys have been implemented (%)

ing efforts (Table 5). It can broadly be stated that mostly Northern and Central European nations have attempted to monitor forest recreation uses, while less attention has been given to this subject by Southern and Eastern European countries. We could observe a clear continuum from a high priority of recreation in policy documents and high level of monitoring, to a lower importance and lower level of monitoring. Furthermore, the strategy cluster appears to be associated with efforts invested in monitoring recreation use in the country. About 75% of the countries which monitor recreational use with on-site and national surveys were grouped in the “NFP and other law” cluster. This may relate to a strong societal need and/or tradition for outdoor recreation in the respective countries. Although the association between forest cover and policy documents, reflecting the societal need for forest recreation, as well as the association between policy documents and monitoring efforts, was noticeable, the association between forest cover and policy efforts and strategies was not self-evident and linear. Discussion and conclusions The national policy documents analysed in this study for European comparison revealed considerable differences in the importance of outdoor recreation at the political level among European countries. The study also provided insights into the policy strategies different European countries have used, more or less purposely, to strengthen the supply and monitoring of recreation. The results particularly revealed the wide use of the National Forest Program as a policy tool to implement social sustainability such as recreation, and the importance of policy-level agreement for the actual implementation of recreation monitoring. The data of the study were collected using a variant of the Delphi method. Experts, researchers and practitioners from each country were representatively selected for the COST Action panel. Not only were they knowledgeable about the topic, but they also brought their national networks into the process for the clarification of questions that arose. As a result, information could be gathered that was not easily available by reviewing the literature from an international perspective. Further, the Delphi method was a practical technique for conducting research that seeks to gather views from geographically dispersed participants in a timely, time-effective and convenient manner for all those involved (McLeod and Childs, 2007). However, the fact that information was available for 18 out of 27 European countries limits the European wide conclusions that can be drawn from the document analysis. The information provided by the experts in the first round questionnaire was essential for the data generation (Schuster et al., 1985; Crance, 1987). The six expert meetings allowed congruencies and differences among the countries to be checked and sufficiently debated. As is apparent, the data analysis process can contain some subjective elements. Even with the use of cross-checked literature

NFP, forest and other laws

NFP and other laws

NFP and/or forest laws

44 56 78

25 75 75

20 40 100

and feedback loops, the process of condensing and refining diverse information is subject to the perception of the researchers. One inherent problem in this case was the heterogeneity of information. Thus, it was necessary to omit certain national details in order to provide a general European overview. Overall, the benefits of the method outweigh its limitations for studying a complex societal phenomenon in a changing, data-poor environment. This modified Delphi approach therefore constituted a transparent and consensual alternative for this study (MacMillan and Marshall, 2006), using its potential and overcoming narrow methodological prescriptions (Mullen, 2000). The need for public authorities to provide recreation opportunities and management is strongly expressed by the surveyed countries at the national level, as it is at the European level. Differences between countries can be observed in the priority given to the social dimension of forests. Only a few countries assign outdoor recreation a low political priority. For about one third of the surveyed countries is outdoor recreation of high political priority, including objectives and strategies. Often, these countries have a low forest cover and/or large distances between forests and urban areas. The majority of countries assign outdoor recreation a medium importance. The analysis suggests that some of the less forested European countries such as Denmark, the UK, Ireland and Cyprus have few forests but strong social needs for outdoor recreation. Because of the lack of suitable natural resources in these countries, public authorities have a greater duty (and possibility) to manage forests according to people’s needs. Within these countries, the development of recreation opportunities is important for planning and management, fostered by the lesser importance of other forest functions, e.g. timber production. In most other European countries, the forested areas are comparably larger. Within these countries, timber production is traditionally of higher economic importance than recreation. An extreme can be found in Sweden. In all the analysed countries, traditional forest uses have to be combined with recreational demands. Diverse and often opposing interest structures exist and negotiation processes in policy setting are complex in terms of multifunctional management. Further hampering policy setting is the fact that the provision of recreational opportunities is not usually compensated due to traditional open access rights and more limited exclusion possibilities. Therefore, the societal importance of providing recreation opportunities is stated in forest policy, but actions to develop recreation opportunities and management, and especially monitoring, are neither well-established nor compulsory, and are often left to decision-makers at the regional or local level. This contradiction between the expressed political importance of outdoor recreation at the European as well as the national level and the non-binding nature of commitments in this respect are among the main findings of the analysis of policy and legislative documents. The majority of surveyed countries recognises

310

C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

and expresses the importance of outdoor recreation for society in some political and/or legislative form. In contrast, the measurement or monitoring of recreation uses and users is rarely fixed in relevant policies or acts at the national level. As a result, adequate information on outdoor recreation is only available for a few countries. Efforts to develop recreational monitoring systems might be hampered by a lack of genuine political willingness at national level and/or a lack of both financial and methodological resources. As a consequence, a European wide comparison of recreational use and users is not realisable due to a lack of information as well as common monitoring practices and methodology. As indicated by the results of the COST Action, recreation is expected to gain higher societal importance and the pressure on suitable natural resources will most likely rise (Sievänen et al., 2008; Bell et al., 2009). Future problems are likely to be caused by changes in societal demand, making it necessary to introduce new opportunities and regulations for recreational supply and use. If societal demands for outdoor recreation opportunities, infrastructure and uses remain undetected, access regulations may fail to ensure a sustainable use of natural resources. Comparable statistical data at different levels across Europe could serve as a sound basis for decisions to improve outdoor recreation policy, planning and management, and a key to detecting changes in use and users over time and space. Acknowledgements We thank Andreas Bernasconi, Anne-Marie Granet, Geert van Kerckhove, Erodotus Kokouris, and Urs Schroff for their extensive input to this work. Furthermore, special thanks go to all other COST E33 Working Group Two members for their important contributions. Appendix A. Forest cover and recreation monitoring data in 18 surveyed European countries. Country

Forest area/ Percentage capitaa (ha) cover of forest (%)a

National surveys implementedb 0 = no 1 = yes

On-site surveys implementedb 0 = no 1 = yes

Austria Belgium Croatia Cyprus Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Iceland Ireland Latvia Lithuania Norway Slovakia Sweden Switzerland UK

0.49 0.07 0.47 0.49 0.11 4.42 0.29 0.13 0.61 0.46 0.17 1.27 0.61 2.67 0.38 3.46 0.17 0.05

1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

a b

47 23 37 42 13 68 31 30 49 1.3 9 46 32 37 42 68 30 11

EFI LTFRA -database (2000). Sievänen et al. (2008).

References Austrian Forest Law, 2002. BGBL. I Nr. 78/2003 [Forstgesetz 1975 in der Fassung der Forstgesetz-Novelle 2002] (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://recht.lebensministerium.at/article/articleview/19480/1/5563. Austrian Forest Programme, 2006. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water [Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt

und Wasserwirtschaft (BMLFUW)], Wien, Austria (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.walddialog.at/filemanager/list/16026/. Bauer, J., Kniivilä, M., Schmithüsen, F., 2004. Forest Legislation in Europe: How 23 Countries Approach the Obligation to Reforest, Public Access and Use of Nonwood Forest Products. Geneva timber and forest discussion paper 37. UNECE, FAO, Geneva/Rome. Bell, S., Simpson, M., Tyrväinen, L., Sievänen, T., Pröbstl, U. (Eds.), 2009. European Forest Recreation and Tourism: A Handbook. Taylor & Francis, London. Cirelli, M.T., 1999. Trends in Forestry Legislation: Central and Eastern Europe. FAO Legal Papers Online (retrieved 02.02.09) http://www.fao.org/Legal/default.htm. Cirelli, M.T., Schmithüsen, F., 2000. Trends in Forestry Legislation: Western Europe. FAO Legal Papers Online (retrieved 02.02.09) http://www.fao. org/Legal/default.htm. Cirelli, M.T., Schmithüsen, F., Texier, J., Young, T., 2001. Trends in Forestry Laws in Europe and Africa. Legislative study 72, 45. FAO. Crance, J.H., 1987. Guidelines for Using the Delphi Technique to Develop Habitat Suitability Index Curves. Biological Report 82 (10.134). National Ecology Centre, Fort Collins, CO, USA. Croatian Forest Law, 2005. Official Gazette No. 140/2005 [Zakon o sˇ umama. 2005. Narodne-novine br.140/2005] (retrieved 03.02.2010) http://narodnenovine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/290164.html. Croatian Forestry Policy and Strategy, 2003. Official Gazette No. 120/2003 [Nacionalna sˇ umarska politika i strategija. 2003. Narodne Novine br. 120/2003] (retrieved 03.02.2010) http://www.vlada.hr/hr/preuzimanja/zakoni i uredbe/ nacionalni programi i strategije/nacionalna sumarska politika i strategija narodne novine 120 03. Croatian Nature Protection Act, 2005. Official Gazette No. 70/2005 [Zakon o zaˇstiti prirode, Narodne novine br. 70/2005] (retrieved 03.02.2010) http://narodnenovine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/288893.html. Cypriot Forest Law, 2003. 14/67, 49/87, 44/91. Cyprus Forestry Department. Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, Lefkosia, Cyprus. Cypriot National Forest Programme, 1999, Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment. Department of Forests, Nicosia, Cyprus, pp. 6–10; 32–33. Danish Forest Act, 2004. Act no. 453 of 9. June, 2004 [Skovloven]. Ministry of the Environment, Copenhagen (retrieved 09.05.2010) http://www. skovognatur.dk/Love/Lovgivning/Skovloven.htm. 2002a. Danish National Forest Programme [Danmarks Nationale Skovprogram]. Ministry of Environment, Danish Forest and Nature Agency, Copenhagen (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.skovognatur.dk/Udgivelser/Tidligere/ 2002/dns.htm. 2002b. Danish National Forest Programme in an International Perspective. Ministry of Environment, Danish Forest and Nature Agency, Copenhagen (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.skovognatur.dk/Udgivelser/Tidligere/ 2002/forestprogram.htm. Danish Nature Protection Act, 2009. [Bekendtgørelse af lov om naturbeskyttelse. Lovbkg. nr. 993 af 24. september 2009]. Danish Ministry of the Environment, Copenhagen (retrieved 09.04.2010) https://www.retsinformation. dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=127104. Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H., Gustafson, D.H., 1975. Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL. EC, 1999. Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations. Official Journal of the European Communities, 16.6.1999, L160, 80–102. EC, 2003. Council Regulation (EC) No 1783/2003 of 29 September 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). Official Journal of the European Communities, 21.10.2003, L270, 70–77. EC, 2006a. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an EU Forest Plan. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 15.6.2006, SEC(2006) 748, COM(2006) 302 final. EC, 2006b. Commission Staff Working Document. Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an EU Forest Plan. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 15.6.2006, COM(2006) 302 final, SEC(2006) 748. EC, 2008. The EU Forest Action Plan. European Commission. Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. EFI LTFRA, 2000. Forest Resources of Europe: Main Report. CIS, North America/Australia.Japan/New Zealand (retrieved 05.02.09) http://www.efi. int/databases/ltfra/. 2000. English Countryside and Rights of Way Act. CROW, England/Wales (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga 20000037 en 1. Finnish Forest Act, 2004. [Metsälaki, 1093/1996, 552/2004]. Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/ kaannokset/1996/en19961093?search%5Btype%5D=pika&search%5Bpika%5D= forest. Finnish National Forest Programme, 1999. Finland’s National Forest Programme 2010. Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Publications 2/1999, 40 pp (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.mmm.fi/en/index/ frontpage/forests/nfp/documents reports.html. Finnish National Forest Programme, 2008. Finland’s National Forest Programme 2015. More Welfare from Diverse Forests. Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Publications 3b/2008, 48 pp (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.mmm.fi/en/index/frontpage/forests/nfp/documents reports.html.

C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312 Finnish Outdoor Recreation Act, 1973. [Ulkoilulaki, 606/1973] (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/1973/19730606. Flemish Forest Declaration, 2003. [Bossenverklaring, Vlaamse Hoge Bosraad]. Flemish High Council of Forestry, pp. 53–80. Flemish Forest Decree, 1990. [Bosdecreet, 13/06/1990]. Flemish Implementing Order, 1991. Flemish Implementing Order Concerning the Subsidy of Private Forest Owners and the Recognition of Forest Groups. [Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering betreffende de subsidiëring van de eigenaars van privé-bossen en de erkenning van de bosgroeperingen van privé-boseigenaars]. 29/04/1991. Flemish Implementing Order, Brussels, Belgium. Flemish Implementing Order, 1993a. Flemish Implementing Order Concerning the Accessibility on Occassional Use of Forests. [Uitvoeringsbesluit van de Vlaamse Regering betreffende de toegankelijkheid en het occasioneel gebruik van de bossen], 22/07/1993. Flemish Implementing Order, Brussels, Belgium. Flemish Implementing Order, 1993b. Flemish Implementing Order Concerning the Subsidy for Managers from Public and Private Forests. [Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering betreffende de subsidiëring van beheerders van openbare en privébossen], 27/06/1993, Brussels, Belgium. Flemish Implementing Order, 2001. Flemish Implementing Order Concerning the Assessment of Regulations for Compensation of Deforestation. [Besluit Vlaamse regering tot vaststelling van nadere regels inzake compensatie van ontbossing en ontheffing van het verbod op ontbossing], 16/02/2001. Brussels, Belgium. French Environment Law, 2010. [Code de l’environnement, France] (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte= LEGITEXT000006074220&dateTexte=20100305. French Forest Law, 2006. [Code forestier, France] (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid= F82A482DFA94994816E532F7EEAFC138.tpdjo14v 3?cidTexte= LEGITEXT000006071514&dateTexte=20100305. French National Forest Programme 2006–2015, 2006. Ministry of Agriculture and Fishery(retrieved 03.03.2010) http://agriculture.gouv.fr/sections/thematiques/ foret-bois/biodiversite-plan-d-action-pour-la-foret/downloadFile/Fichier Attache 4 f0/national forest programme.pdf?nocache=1196244254.86. French Sport Law, 2006. [Code du sport, France] (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idArticle= LEGIARTI000006547489&idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006137765&cidTexte= LEGITEXT000006071318&dateTexte=20100128. French Urbanism Law, 2010. [Code de l’urbanisme, France] (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte= LEGITEXT000006074075&dateTexte=20100305. German Federal Nature Protection Act, 2005. [Bundesnaturschutzgesetz vom 25. März 2002 (BGBI I S. 1193), zuletzt geändert 22. Dezember 2008, BGBl. I S. 2986], Chapter 6, § 56, 57 (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www. umweltdigital.de/nd/11327/vorschrift.html. German Forest Law, 2006. [Bundeswaldgesetz (BWaldG) vom 2. Mai 1975 (BGBI. I S. 1037), zuletzt geändert am 31. Juli 2009, BGBl. I S. 2585 (Inkrafttreten am 01.03.2010], Chapter II, §13, 14 (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.umweltdigital.de/nd/11444/vorschrift.html. German National Forest Programme, 2000. [Nationales Forstprogramm Deutschland. Ein gesellschaftlicher Dialog zur Förderung nachhaltiger Waldbewirtschaftung im Rahmen einer Nachhaltigen Entwicklung 1999/2000 – A societal dialogue for the advancement of sustainable forest management in line with sustainable development], Bonn: BMVEL, Referat 534 (Hrsg.) (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.nwp-online.de/fileadmin/redaktion/ dokumente/Allgemein/NationalesWaldprogrammZusammenfassung.pdf. Greek Forest Law, 1979. Act 998/1979 1979 [(EK A’ 289/29-12-1979]. Ministry of Agriculture, Athens (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.forestap. gr/nomos998.htm. Hagenaars, J.A., McCutcheon, A.L., 2002. Applied Latent Class Analysis. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Icelandic Forestry Act, 1955. [Lög um skógrækt, Act no. 3/1955] (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.althingi.is/lagas/137/1955003.html. Icelandic Nature Conservation Act, 1999. Act no. 44/1999 (retrieved 03.02.2010) http://eng.umhverfisraduneyti.is/legislation/nr/389. Icelandic Parliamentary Resolution on Forestry, 2003. [þingsályktun um skógrækt 2004–2008, Samþykkt á Alþingi 15. mars 2003] (retrieved 03.02.2010) http://www.althingi.is/altext/128/s/1439.html. Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, 1996. Growing for the Future. A Strategic Plan for the Development of the Forestry Sector in Ireland. The Stationary Office, Dublin. Irish Forestry Act, 1988. Forestry Act No. 26/1988 (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1988/en/act/pub/0026/index.html. Irish Occupiers Liability Act, 1995. Government of Ireland No. 10/1995 (retrieved 03.02.2010) http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/ 0010/index.html. Latvian Concept of the National Programme of Forest, 2004. Latvia Ministry of Agriculture [Latvijas Republikas Zemkop¯ıbas ministrija] (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.zm.gov.lv/index.php?sadala=76&id=2702. ¯ Latvian Forest Law, 2000. Promulgated in the newspaper “Latvijas Vestnesis” on March 16, 2000. Effective date March 17, 2000 (retrieved 02.02.2010) http://www.lvm.lv/eng/lvm/legislative acts/?doc=909. Latvian Law on Protection Belts, 1997. Promulgated in the newspaper “Latvijas ¯ Vestnesis” on February 25, 1997. Effective date March 11, 1997. Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M. (Eds.), 1975. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

311

Lithuanian Forest Law, 2001. [Lietuvos Respublikos Miˇsku˛ i˛statymas]. No. I-671; ˙ Zˇ inios 2001, No. 35-1161. The Seimas (Parlia10.04.2001, No. IX-240. Valstybes ment) of the Republic of Lithuania, 22.11.1994. ¯ Lithuanian Forestry Policy and Implementation Strategy, 2002. [Lietuvos miˇsku˛ ukio politika ir jos i˛gyvendinimo strategija] [interaktyvus] (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.am.lt/VI/index.php#a/4997. Lithuanian Rules of Visitation of Forests, 1996. Ministry of Environment, Republic of Lithuania. Living Forests, 2006. Living Forests. Standards for Sustainable Forest Management in Norway. Levende Skog, Oslo (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www. levendeskog.no/sider/tekst.asp?side=345&submeny=tom&niv2=&menuid=246. MacMillan, D.C., Marshall, K., 2006. The Delphi process – an expert-based approach to ecological modelling in data-poor environments. Animal Conservation 9, 11–19. McLeod, J., Childs, S., 2007. Consulting records management oracles – a Delphi in practise. Archival Science 7, 147–166. MCPFE, 2003a. Improved Pan-European Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management as Adopted by the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting 7-8 October 2002, Vienna, Austria. MCPFE Liaison Unit Vienna, Austria. MCPFE, 2003b. Background Information for Improved Pan-European Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management. MCPFE Liaison Unit Vienna, Austria. MCPFE, 2005. MCPFE Work Programme. Pan-European Follow-up of the Fourth Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe 28-30 April 2003, Vienna, Austria. Adopted at the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting 16-17 October 2003, Vienna, Austria. Updated at the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting 14-15 October 2004, Warsaw, Poland. Updated edition – October, 2005. MCPFE Liaison Unit Warsaw, Poland. Mullen, P.M., 2000. When is a Delphi not a Delphi? Discussion Paper No. 37. Health Services Management Centre, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham. Norwegian Act Relating to Outdoor Recreation, 1996. [Lov 1957-06-28 nr. 16 Lov om friluftslivet (friluftsloven)]. Ministry of the Environment, Oslo (retrieved 03.02.2010) http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/outdoorrecreation-act.html?id=172932&epslanguage=en-GB. Norwegian Forestry Act, 2005. [Lov 2005-05-27 nr. 31 Lov om skogbruk (skogbrukslova)]. Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 2005, Oslo (retrieved 03.02.2010) http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/Act-relating-toforestry-Forestry-Act.html?id=87139&epslanguage=en-GB. Ollonqvist, P., 2006. National forest program in sustainable forest management. In: Nuutinen, T., Kärkkäinen, L., Kettunen, L. (Eds.), Forest Planning in Private Forests in Finland, Iceland, Norway, Scotland and Sweden, Proceedings of ELAV Seminar, 23–24 March 2006, Koli, Finland. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 38, Helsinki, pp. 14–27. Powell, C., 2003. The Delphi technique: myths and reality. Journal of Advanced Nursing 41 (4), 376–382. Rikkonen, P., Kaivo-oja, J., Aakkula, J., 2006. Delphi expert panels in the scenariobased strategic planning of agriculture. Foresight 8 (1), 66–81. Rixon, A., Smith, T.F., McKenzie, B., Sample, R., Scott, P., Burns, S., 2007. Perspectives on the art of facilitation: a Delphi study of natural resource management facilitators. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 14 (3), 179–188. Schuster, E.G., Frissell, S.S., Baker, E.E., Loveless Jr., R.S., 1985. The Delphi Method: Application to Elk Habitat Quality. Research Paper INT-353. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Logan, UT. Scottish Land Reform Act, 2003. Retrieved February 3rd, 2010 from http://www. opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2003/asp 20030002 en 1, including the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (Part 1): http://www.outdooraccess-scotland. com/upload/Full%20Access%20Code.pdf. Sievänen, T., Arnberger, A., Dehez, J., Grant, N., Jensen, F.S., Skov-Petersen, H. (Eds.), 2008. Forest Recreation Monitoring – A European Perspective. Working Papers of the Finish Forest Research Institute, vol. 79. FFRI, Helsinki. Slovakian National Forest Law, 2005. No. 326/2005 (retrieved 03.02.2010) http://www.nlcsk.sk/files/710.pdf. Slovakian Republic National Forest Programme, 2005. National Forest Programme of the Slovak Republic. Ministry of Agriculture of the Slovak Republic (retrieved 09.03.2010) http://www.forestportal.sk/ForestPortal/ lesne hospodarstvo/doc/nlp sr.pdf. Slovakian Republic Nature Protection Act, 2002. No. 543/2002, 25 June, 2002 (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.lesy.bratislava.sk/zakony/files/543.pdf. Stewart, D.W., Shamdanasi, P.N., 1990. Focus Groups: Theory and Practise. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 20. Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Swedish Forest Agency, 2005. Quantitative Targets of Swedish Forest Policy. Swedish Forest Agency, Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen (retrieved 03.02.2010) http://www.svo.se/episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=18033. Swedish Forestry Act, 1979. [Skogvårdslag (1979:429)]. Swedish Ministry of Agriculture, Stockholm (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.svo.se/ episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=12677. Swiss Civil Code, 1907. The Boston Book Company, 1915, Boston, p. 262 (retrieved 03.02.2010) http://www.archive.org/details/swisscivilcoded00shergoog. Swiss National Forest Programme, 2004. Swiss National Forest Programme 2004–2015. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forest and Landscape (SAEFL). Project Management Swiss NFP + BHP - Brugger & Partner, Zurich, 117 p (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/ publikation/00527/index.html?lang=en. Turoff, M., 1997. Alternative Futures for Distance Learning: The Force and the Dark Side (retrieved 17.12.01) http://eies.njit.edu/∼turoff/Papers/daraln.html.

312

C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

UK Forestry Act, 1967. https://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ ukpga/1967/cukpga 19670010 en 1 (retrieved 09.04.2010). UK Forestry Standard Document, 1998. English Forestry Commission, 1998, 2001, 2004 (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/ fcfc001.pdf/$FILE/fcfc001.pdf. Wallonian Ministerial Circular, 1997. Wallonian Ministerial Circular 2619 Regarding Planning in Public Forests. [Circulaire ministérielle 2619 du 22 septembre 1997 relative aux aménagements dans les bois soumis au régime forestier].

Wallonian Ministerial Order, 2006. Wallonian Ministerial Order 2678 Regarding the Traffic and Temporary Itineraries for Motor Vehicles.[Circulaire ministérielle 2678 du 15 mai 2006 sur la circulation en forêt et les itinéraires temporaires pour les véhicules à moteur]. Yudego, B.M., 2002. A Comparison Between National Forest Programmes of some EU-member States. Skogsstyrelsen (National Board of Forestry) Rapport 10, Stockholm.