Same-same but different: Gendering forest ownership in Sweden
Introduction
Globally, gender has been identified and highlighted in research as a salient dimension embedded in the social relations of forests (e.g. Agarwal, 2009; Arora-Jonsson, 2013; Asher and Varley, 2018; Brandth et al., 2004; Colfer and Minarchek, 2013; Follo et al., 2017; Nightingale, 2006; Reed, 2003). The main attention in research has been on the unequal gender relations and asymmetries between women and men related to forests when it comes to access, rights, and management. Geographically, enquiries into the gender and forest field have mostly dealt with the Global South and conditions linked to tropical forests, particularly in Asia (Arora-Jonsson, 2014; Asher and Varley, 2018; Colfer et al., 2019; Lidestav and Reed, 2010). Therefore, rural women's ownership rights to land and its transforming potential for gender relations and women's economic empowerment, as well as its effects on poverty reduction and environmental sustainability, are well-documented and discussed in research related to the Global South (Agarwal, 1994, Agarwal, 2003; Arora-Jonsson, 2014; Asher and Varley, 2018; Deere, 2017; Deere and León de Leal, 2001; Jackson, 2003). The gap between legal property rights and effective managerial control of forestland has been pointed out as important in women's independence from or dependence on male relatives, and in how women may benefit from forest resources (Agarwal, 2003; Arora-Jonsson, 2013; Colfer and Minarchek, 2013). Women's marked involvement and interests in forests have especially been stressed, including their engagement in community forestry and women's organisations (Agarwal, 2009; Colfer and Minarchek, 2013). Meanwhile, in the Global North, comparatively fewer studies on gender and forests have been conducted (Colfer et al., 2019; Lidestav and Reed, 2010). Nonetheless, studies from the boreal forest regions of North America and Northern Europe have particularly highlighted the marginalisation and exclusion of women in forestry work, by forestry institutions and discourses on forestry (Andersson and Lidestav, 2016; Brandth and Haugen, 1998, Brandth and Haugen, 2000; Holmgren and Arora-Jonsson, 2015; Reed and Davidson, 2011; Reed, 2003). In a production-oriented context, the main reasons suggested for women's marginalisation are the interrelation and historical association of forests with both professional forestry work and rural men and masculinities, especially the specific form of masculinity that emphasises physical work and bodily strength (Brandth and Haugen, 2005b; Lidestav and Sjölander, 2007; Reed, 2003; Reed, 2008). Although forestry work has largely changed due to new technologies, men – through new forms of masculinities and practices, including technical and managerial skills – still dominate the sector (e.g. Brandth and Haugen, 2005a; Johansson et al., 2019b; Reed, 2003). At the same time, women are mostly seen as ‘particular’, and therefore have to justify their presence in forestry (Brandth et al., 2004; Johansson et al., 2019a; Lidestav and Sjölander, 2007; Reed, 2003). The predominant forestry discourse, which emphasises timber production, has also been recognised as being intertwined with notions of certain forms of masculinities (Andersson and Lidestav, 2016; Brandth and Haugen, 1998; Holmgren and Arora-Jonsson, 2015; Lidestav and Sjölander, 2007; Reed, 2003).
The forestry sector's strong association with men and the distinct understanding of masculinity related to forestry have also proven to have consequences for women outside professional forestry, in that women who are private forest owners1 have difficulties identifying with the forest industry and the forest owner role (Follo, 2008; Lidestav, 2010; Lidestav and Sjölander, 2007). In fact, research has demonstrated strong gender biases among private forest owners in the European context, where private owners (individuals or families) own almost half of all forest area (Hirsch et al., 2007; Schmithüsen and Hirsch, 2010; Follo et al., 2017). In Europe, the share of female forest owners amounts to only about 30%, and noticeable differences have been shown between women and men as private forest owners in terms of how they own and value forests, what they do in their forests, and who makes the decisions and has knowledge about forests (e.g. Follo et al., 2017). In Scandinavia, where private forestland is widespread, studies have established that women have not been visible or recognised as forest owners (Andersson and Lidestav, 2016; Brandth et al., 2004, Brandth et al., 2015; Lidestav, 2010). In conclusion, the environment of forests has globally been identified as a gendered space (Asher and Varley, 2018), which contributes to divergences in management issues (e.g. Colfer et al., 2017; Colfer et al., 2016). While there is a shortage of research on gender and forest ownership in the Global North, findings do suggest some parallels with the Global South, such as gendered differences in participation in forest management, but also specific contextual factors that shape the construction and practice of gender (e.g. Colfer et al., 2019).
In addition, the ongoing major social and economic transformations in rural areas of the Global North might also shape these gender biases and differences in the forest environment. Rural restructuring, urbanisation, and globalisation have brought about far-reaching shifts in rural work and life, and have raised questions about how gender constructions are concurrently altering (Bock and Shortall, 2006; Bryant and Pini, 2011; Forsberg and Stenbacka, 2013; Little, 2002). On the subject of private forest owners, these ongoing societal changes have given rise to an increased heterogeneity in the forest owner structure. In European countries, the composition and geographies of private forest ownership display an increasing proportion of female, non-resident, urban, and ageing owners (Follo et al., 2017; Haugen et al., 2016; Weiss et al., 2019; Westin et al., 2017). Additionally, fewer private forest owners are directly dependent on their forest properties as their main source of income (Ingemarson et al., 2006; Urquhart and Courtney, 2011; Weiss et al., 2019; Wiersum et al., 2005). At the same time, a diversity of forest owners' values related to forests have been displayed; i.e., not only a focus on production but also a focus on non-monetary significances, such as recreational and environmental values (e.g. Westin et al., 2017). Along these lines, contemporary forest policies have a broader scope than a few centuries ago, comprising not only economic intents but also environmental and social perspectives (Follo et al., 2017; Mather, 2001). All these shifts and processes constitute potential basis for new relations, negotiations, and constitutions of gender and forest ownership.
As a forest nation in Northern Europe, Sweden is a case where the above ongoing alterations are pronounced. The societal changes, including the advancement of women in forest ownership due e.g. to changed inheritance regulations and practices (Lidestav, 2010) and increased awareness of gender on both the policy (e.g. Holmgren and Arora-Jonsson, 2015) and the organisational level (e.g. Andersson et al., 2018a; Johansson and Ringblom, 2017), suggest that socially constructed conventional and hegemonic gender identities might be shifting, or potentially playing a different role in forest ownership compared to the past. The combination of increased heterogeneity and growing geographical distances to property, in a context that has historically been dependent on social regulation of forest ownership, raises questions related to the present prevailing gendered differences and practices in Swedish forest ownership. Based on the theoretical understanding of ‘gendering’ as ongoing contested spatial and constitutive differencing practices (Bacchi, 2017; Gherardi, 2009; McDowell, 1999; Nentwich and Kelan, 2013), this study, through a qualitative approach, aims to examine and analyse the constitution of private forest ownership in the boreal and production-oriented setting of Sweden. Thus, deriving from interviewees' own perceptions and experiences as practical knowledge of forest ownership, and building on the analytical concept of ‘gendering’, our research questions are: How can we understand the gendering of private forest ownership in Sweden? How might practices of gendering in private forest ownership potentially be (re)shaped or negotiated?
In its focus on the interrelation between gender and forest ownership within the comparatively less studied Global North, this study makes a fruitful contribution to present research. It also fills a gap in previous research, which has revealed the differences between women and men in a ‘gendered forest ownership’ but so far has not specifically examined or analysed the construction and negotiation of forest ownership from the perspective of gendering linked to spatial considerations (cf. Andersson and Lidestav, 2016). Given the integral relations between forest owners and (industrial) forestry in the Swedish setting, this study also adds to the growing literature on gender, forest professionals, forestry organisations, forest policy, and forest management in general (e.g. Andersson et al., 2018a; Holmgren and Arora-Jonsson, 2015; Johansson et al., 2019a; Johansson et al., 2019b; Johansson et al., 2018a; Johansson and Ringblom, 2017).
The paper takes its inception in considering the background of gender and forest ownership in the Swedish situation with its distinct historical, social, economic, and political context and changes. The succeeding theoretical frame elaborates on the key concept of ‘gendering’, upon which this study rests, before the subsequent sections of the paper.
Section snippets
The Swedish context and its gendered forest ownership
Forests are dominant features of the Swedish rural landscape, and productive forestland covers more than half of the country's total land area (Haugen et al., 2016). Approximately 300,000 individual private owners hold about 50% of this forestland (Ibid). Regarding forests, a strong focus on production and economic values has historically prevailed (Mårald et al., 2017). Forests have been of considerable importance for the Swedish economy due to their contributions to the GDP and employment,
Theoretical frame: gendering
This section illustrates how forest ownership can theoretically be considered to be socially and spatially constituted through social practices and ways of constructing meanings of places and spaces (cf. Cresswell, 2015; McDowell, 1999). The theoretical concept of ‘gendering’ and the incorporation of spatial considerations carry the potential to support a further discussion of gendered forest ownership, and the constitutive practices of doing differentiation between subjects (Bacchi, 2017), in
Methodology
This study is based on a qualitative methodology with an aim to provide a rich understanding of individuals' perceptions, experiences, and practices as they are embedded within their sociocultural contexts and conditions (Baxter, 2010). With its practice-based approach (Gherardi, 2009), the study is focused on how gendering is constitutive of gendered subjects within forest ownership. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 51 women and men who were forest owners in Sweden. The
Forest ownership as gender-neutral
Most interviewees stated that they did not consider gender to be of any significance in their own ownership of forest properties, as they had no direct or specific experiences or perceptions related to issues concerning gender in regard to their forest ownership. On questions concerning potential differences between female and male owners in their perceptions and experiences of forest ownership, many of the interviewees downplayed or disputed any differences:
I don't believe much in masculinity
Discussion and conclusions
This qualitative study examines the gendered constitution of private forest ownership in Sweden through ‘gendering’ involved in creating differences as part of doing inequalities. Deriving from private forest owners' perceptions and experiences as practical knowledge of their forest ownership (cf. Follo et al., 2017), the empirical data provide vital insight into the understanding of constituting practices related to spatial considerations, and how they create the basis for shaping and
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank all forest owners who participated in the study. This research was conducted within the PLURAL (Planning for Rural-Urban Dynamics: Living and Acting at Several Places) project and funded by the Swedish Research Council Formas under Grant 2011-1702. The authors are also grateful to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.
References (102)
Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women's participation in community forest governance
Ecol. Econ.
(2009)- et al.
Adaptation to climate change? Why business-as-usual remains the logical choice in Swedish forestry
Glob. Environ. Chang.
(2018) - et al.
Creating alternative spaces and articulating needs: challenging gendered notions of forestry and forest ownership through women's networks
Forest Policy Econ.
(2016) Forty years of gender research and environmental policy: where do we stand?
Women's Stud. Int. Forum
(2014)- et al.
Forest social values in a Swedish rural context: the private forest owners' perspective
Forest Policy Econ.
(2016) - et al.
From lumberjack to business manager: masculinity in the Norwegian forestry press
J. Rural. Stud.
(2000) The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: international examples and potential application in the United States
Forest Policy Econ.
(2005)Marginality and gender at work in forestry communities of British Columbia
Can. J. Rural Stud.
(2003)- et al.
Seeing the owner behind the trees: a typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England
Forest Policy Econ.
(2011) - et al.
Forest ownership changes in Europe: state of knowledge and conceptual foundations
Forest Policy Econ.
(2019)
A Field of one's Own : Gender and Land Rights in South Asia
Gender and land rights revisited: exploring new prospects via the state, family and market
J. Agrar. Chang.
Constituting gender and gender equality through policy: the political of gender mainstreaming in the Swedish forest industry
Equal. Diver. Incl
In the eye of the storm: Adaptation logics of forest owners in management and planning in Swedish areas
Scand. J. For. Res.
Miljömålet i skogsbruket: styrning och frivillighet = [the Environmental Goal of Swedish Forest Policy - Regulation and Voluntariness]
Relational dynamics and strategies: men and women in a forest community in Sweden
Agric. Hum. Values
Discordant connections: discourses on gender and grassroots activism in two forest communities in India and Sweden: winner of the 2009 Catharine Stimpson prize
Signs J. Women Cult. Soc.
Gender, Development and Environmental Governance: Theorizing Connections
Gender in the jungle: a critical assessment of women and gender in current (2014–2016) forestry research
Int. For. Rev.
Policy and discourse: challenging the construction of affirmative action as preferential treatment
J. Eur. Publ. Policy
Policies as gendering practices: re-viewing categorical distinctions
J. Women Polit. Policy
Gender mainstreaming or diversity mainstreaming? The politics of “doing”
NORA - Nordic J. Femin. Gend. Res.
Case studies in qualitative research
Values placed on forest property benefits by Swedish NIPF owners: differences between members in forest owner associations and non-members
Small Scale For. Econ. Manag. Policy
Rural Gender Relations: Issues and Case Studies
Qualitative research design and rigour
Breaking into a masculine discourse - women and farm forestry
Sociol. Rural.
Doing rural masculinity - from logging to outfield tourism
J. Gend. Stud.
Text, body, and tools - changing mediations of rural masculinity
Men Masculinities
Rural masculinity
Women in forestry: dilemmas of a separate women's organization
Scand. J. For. Res.
Paradoxes of a women's organization in the forestry industry
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Qual. Res. Psychol.
Gender and Rurality
In the Way of Women: men's Resistance to Sex Equality in Organizations
Bushler Bay and Hood view, 40 years on: gender, forests and change in the global north
Humboldt J. Soc. Relat.
Introducing 'the gender box': a framework for analysing gender roles in forest management
Int. For. Rev.
Gender and Forests : Climate Change, Tenure, Value Chains and Emerging Issues
The Earthscan Reader on Gender and Forests
Making Sense of ‘Intersectionality’: A Manual for Lovers of People and Forests
Using rapid rural appraisal tools to explore gender and forests in the global north
Hum. Organ.
Masculinities
In Place/out of Place : Geography, Ideology, and Transgression
Place : An Introduction
Women's land rights, rural social movements, and the state in the 21st-century Latin American agrarian reforms
J. Agrar. Chang.
Empowering Women: Land and Property Rights in Latin America
Gendered homophobia and the contradictions of workplace discrimination for women in the building trades
Gend. Soc.
Factors influencing the choice of management strategy among small-scale private forest owners in Sweden
Forests
Explaining gender differences in private forest risk management
Scand. J. For. Res.
Det norske familieskogbruket, dets kvinnelige og mannlige skogeiere, forvaltningsaktivitet — og metaforiske forbindelser. = (the Norwegian family forestry, its female and male Forest Owners, the Management Activities — and Metaphorical Connections.)
Cited by (9)
Active forest ownership – Perception of Finnish women forest owners
2024, Forest Policy and EconomicsMaking gender visible: Objectives and socio-demographic differences among women forest owners
2023, Forest Policy and EconomicsWhat is the ‘problem’ of gender inequality represented to be in the Swedish forest sector?
2023, Environmental Science and PolicyCitation Excerpt :Policy might benefit from broadening the gender equality discussion to masculinities. This may potentially increase “heterogeneity in the constructions and practices of masculinities and femininities related to forest ownership” (Bergstén et al., 2020). As gender equality is not a woman-specific issue, policy should engage men to the same degree as women (Connell, 2005; MacGregor, 2006).
Multidimensional modeling of the economy of forest management and reforestation
2022, Ecological ModellingCitation Excerpt :These models can help policy and decision-makers, land-use planners, environmental analysts, conservation and forest management experts to take into account the factors that influence the dependence of local communities on afforestation and their level of participation in economic activities (Tadesse andTeketay, 2020). Andersson and Lidestav (2016), and Bergsten et al. (2020), look at gender aspects of forest management and forestry. Mann (2001) research the forestry labor market.
Barriers to expanding continuous cover forestry in Sweden for delivering multiple ecosystem services
2022, Ecosystem ServicesCitation Excerpt :Another major shift in forest ownership is related to gender: since 1976 the share of female forest owners grew from 21% to 38 % in 2012 (Živojinović et al., 2015). Recent research on gendered values in forestry in Sweden found that “even if respondents find that - generally there are no differences” gender aspects may act as an excuse for breaking with dominant ideas, including resisting clear felling (Bergstén et al., 2020). In case of a further increase of female forest owner and / or active engagement, this may over time support alternative practices such as CCF to gain ground.
Patterns of inequality in global forest science conferences: An analysis of actors involved in IUFRO World Congresses with a focus on gender and geography
2021, Forest Policy and EconomicsCitation Excerpt :Particularly the involvement of women in forestry has received considerable attention (Agarwal, 2009; Arora-Jonsson et al., 2019; Colfer, 2016; Killian and Hyle, 2020; Lidestav and Egan Sjölander, 2007; Samndong and Kjosavik, 2017). The forest sector has been shown to be a highly male-dominated professional field, in which prevailing norms and practices counteract institutional attempts to diversify the workforce (Andersson and Lidestav, 2016; Bergstén et al., 2020; FAO, 2006; Johansson et al., 2019; Johansson et al., 2018; Katz, 2015; Veltri and Russo, 2011).1 But how diverse is the workforce that generates the knowledge on these themes, i.e. the forest research community?