DIGITALNA ARHIVA ŠUMARSKOG LISTA
prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu
| ŠUMARSKI LIST 11-12/2011 str. 24 <-- 24 --> PDF |
Š. Pezdevšek Malovrh, D. G. Hodges, B. Marić, M.Avdibegović: PRIVATE FOREST OWNER EXPECTATIONS ... Šumarski list br. 11–12, CXXXV (2011), 557-566 and legal matters to European standards, including countries.Anumber of analysts have compared private forestry. Due to the fact that more than one-half of Europe’s forests are privately owned, significantly contributing to wood supply, private forest ownership has a central position in almost all European forest policy debates (Schmithüsen andHirsch,2010). The long period of centrally planned economies in South-East European countries hindered the development of scientifically-based knowledge on private forest issues. During the period of socialism, private forests largely were unattended and even abandoned by both national forest policy makers and forest owners. With political change and the associated processes (e.g., privatisation, restitution, denationalisation), private forest ownership now is an emerging topic in national forest policy.At the same time, the complexity of international forest policy processes resulted in new modes of forest management in which private forests owners are mobilised as a very strong interest group at the national and international levels.The demands of society on forests, including those in private ownership, are changing rapidly, increasing the urgency for improved forest conditions.Thus, the formation of interest associations is one among the solutions for private forest owners but also a logical reaction to the increasing societal demands on private forests. However, private forest owners have not established interest associations in some South-East European countries; their fate still rests mainly with public forest administration. This is not in accordance with Pluralistic theory, according to which interests groups are reflection of the society with the various interests of its members (Truman, 1951). This theory also does not explain why private forest owners are not organized in these countries.According to the Theory of CollectiveAction (Olson, 1965), rational behaving individuals support an organisation that works for the interest of its members. On the other hand, if the number of potential members (in this case private forest owners) is very large, individuals behave quite rationally if they do not join interest associations – they simply benefit as “free riders”.The phenomenon of membership in private forest owner interest associations and particularly the expectations that members have from such associations is a core research problem discussed in this paper. Compared to central and western Europe, few studies have addressed this problem in South-East European forests in several European countries, presenting differ ent aspects of private forest ownership, management, and policy, including the issue of private forest owner interest associations (Grayson, 1993; Niskanen and Väyrynen, 2001; Hirsch et. al., 2007; Hägglund, 2008; Schmithüsen and Hirsch, 2010 ibid.). More recently, several authors have explored the issue of private forest owner associations in South-East European countries, including the preconditions for establishing independent interest associations and member expectations (Pezdevšek Malovrh et. al, 2011; Nonić et. al, 2011; Avdibegović et. al, 2010a; Avdibegović et. al, 2010b; Glück et. al, 2010a; Glück et. al, 2010b,Pezdevšek Malovrh et. al, 2010a; Pezdevšek Malovrh,2010b; Milijić et. al, 2010;PezdevšekMalovrh,2006;Pezdevšek Malovrh, 2005). Nevertheless, a significant lack of knowledge on private forest ownership persists in these countries, particularly knowledge gained from comparative studies. Specific deficiencies in previous studies include understanding the expectations of private forest owners regarding interest associations (e.g. advices, services, lobbying etc.) and the socio-demographic characteristics affecting their expectations. Private forests are important resources for national economic development for both Slovenia and Bosnia- Herzegovina, particularly in rural areas. Based on the differences in the share of private forests (roughly 70% of all forests in Slovenia and only 20%in Bosnia-Herzegovina), the experiences with private forest owner associations are quite different. Slovenian private forest owners are relatively well organized by associations, while private forest owners in Bosnia-Herzegovina are poorly represented in national forest policy deliberations due to the lack of independent interest associations. Comparing the demands of private forest owners on their interest associations in Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina can offer important information for key national forest policy actors, public forest administration, and private forest owners (particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina). Thus, the purpose of this paper is to identify the expectations of private forest owners for their interest associations in these two countries as well as understand how socio-demographic characteristics, ownership structure, and property conditions affect these expectations. METHODS OF RESEARCH – Metode Istraživanja Similar quantitative surveys were administered to private forest owners in Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina with some variation to account for country-specific conditions.The surveys questioned owners about a range of issues related to private forest owners and management: gender, age, education, ownership structure, property size, fragmentation, harvesting activities, and expectations of their interest associations.The data were obtained from personal face-to-face interviews with randomly selected private forest owners. The surveys were conducted with some basic sample design concepts: |