Ao

Aa

b

ARRA

KSGNFCDS

I

iteedoFowmisbrroa

0h

Land Use Policy 35 (2013) 247– 256

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

jou rn al hom epage: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / landusepol

dapting to the gender order: Voluntary conservation by forestwners in Finland

nnukka Vainioa,∗, Riikka Paloniemib

Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki, FinlandEnvironmental Policy Centre, Finnish Environmental Institute (SYKE), Helsinki, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 8 June 2012eceived in revised form 19 May 2013ccepted 24 May 2013

eywords:ocial psychologyenderatureorest owner

a b s t r a c t

In this article we explore the hidden gender order of the biodiversity policy and, in particular, the socialand societal positions offered to male and female forest owners in voluntary conservation. Two studieswere conducted in the region where the National Biodiversity Program for Southern Finland (“METSO”)has been implemented. Study 1 focused on forest owners’ discursive practices that construct differentactor positions to female and male forest owners; 27 interviews with forest owners were analyzed. Threediscourses – “conservation threatens forestry,” “forestry threatens conservation,” and “good forestry isconservation” – were identified. Forest owners typically described themselves as “loggers” who wereexplicitly described as masculine. This was paired with the feminine position of “bystander.” The othertwo positions found, “protectors” and “political agents”, by contrast, were discussed as non-gendered

onservationiscursive psychologytructural equation modeling

positions. In Study 2 we examined quantitatively how individual forest owners’ nature conservationpreferences and willingness to conserve forests is mediated by gender. The responses of 965 ownerswere analyzed with structural equation modeling. The endorsement of nature conservation preferenceswas found to increase willingness to conserve forests only among male owners. The results illustratehow individual forest owners adapt their nature conservation preferences to forestry’s masculine socio-cultural context.

ntroduction

Conservation of privately owned lands is not only a biodiversityssue, but also a social one. In Finland previous nature conserva-ion programs have failed to recognize forest owners as importantnvironmental agents in conservation. The tension between for-st owners and conservationists has increased the pressure toevelop new conservation policies that incorporate the perceptionsf forest owners. The National Biodiversity Program for Southerninland (“METSO”), a conservation program for state and privatelywned lands was launched by the Finnish government in 2002. Itas piloted during the years 2002–2007 before being fully imple-ented in 2008 (Government of Finland, 2002, 2008). The program

s set to continue through the year 2016. The program empha-ized voluntariness and the option of making temporary contractsetween forest owners and the government’s forestry or envi-onmental authorities. Most importantly, METSO is based on the

ecognition that a multiplicity of conservation actions can be takenn private forest lands and, further, that the actions of forest ownersre even necessary for some forms of biodiversity. For example,

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 9 19124886.E-mail address: annukka.vainio@helsinki.fi (A. Vainio).

264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.05.017

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

semi-natural habitats that have been grazed for decades are amongthe most endangered habitats in the country; they do not survivewithout human action (Kuussaari et al., 2007; Pöyry et al., 2004). Asa result of METSO program, forest owners’ willingness to engage involuntary conservation has increased (Paloniemi and Varho, 2009).

However, the METSO conservation program has not succeededin recruiting female forest owners at the same rate as male owners(Paloniemi et al., 2010; Borg and Paloniemi, 2012). This seemsto be a paradox because traditionally women have expressedstronger conservation attitudes and environmental concerns thanmen (e.g. Blocker and Eckberg, 1997; Tindall et al., 2003). In gen-eral, gender has remained a blind spot in the development ofenvironmental policies, which suggests that women forest ownersare not yet recognized as full environmental agents having poten-tially different preferences from male forest owners. Feministenvironmental research has demonstrated that the economic useof forests coincides with hegemonic masculinity and that forestownership represents a masculine sphere of action (Brandth andHaugen, 2000a,b; Seager, 1993). However, feminist researchershave emphasized that both men and women can either support

or oppose this masculine culture (McGregor, 2006).

Even though private landowners may conserve nature by settingaside certain sites or managing other sites in an environmentallyconscious manner, official conservation efforts are needed for

2 d Use

sbtoarriubFh(2oowi

ccpofosp

ebuhrsb

fi

P

obtf2weafiifoIor

e(2iif

48 A. Vainio, R. Paloniemi / Lan

ystematic conservation planning and especially for combiningiological conservation knowledge with lay knowledge. However,he relationship between private landowners and conservationfficials is not straightforward (Paloniemi and Vainio, 2011). In thisrticle we suggest that one important reason for forest owners’eluctance to engage in cooperative conservation programs hasesulted from the discourse that emphasizes the difference andncompatibility between forest owners’ emphasis of the economicse of forests and the expectations of nature conservation. Wease this suggestion on previous studies, which have shown that ininland, especially during last decades, the environmental debateas been polarized along economic and nature conservation linesRantala and Primmer, 2003; Sabatier, 1998; Vainio and Paloniemi,012). In addition, we suggest that even if in principle women forestwners might be potential conservationists, the masculine culturef forestry encourages men’s participation and does not recognizeomen as active forest owners; consequently, official efforts result

n limiting women’s participation in conservation activities.In this article we explore the gender order of biodiversity

onservation in the Finnish forest sector. We focus on both theonservation preferences of forest owners and on the discursiveractices that construct, maintain and challenge the current statef the art. This question is relevant for understanding the challengesaced by current biodiversity policies to involve private forestwners in voluntary conservation and, in particular, for under-tanding why only a limited number of female forest owners havearticipated in the METSO biodiversity program.

More specifically, we focus on the research question how for-st owners construct the continuum of economic forestry andiodiversity conservation as gendered activities and how individ-al forest owners, both women and men, break this genderedegemony in their conservation attitudes. We examine how theelationship between forestry and conservation is discursively con-tructed and whether individuals align themselves and other actorsased on their gender within these discourses.

We begin by reviewing the research on gender in the context oforestry and biodiversity conservation before turning to our empir-cal analyses and their findings.

rivate forest owners, biodiversity policy and gender

Around 20 per cent of Finns are forest owners. The structuref small-scale private forest owners is changing: a growing num-er of forest owners live in the cities, are more highly educatedhan before and do not get their living directly from farming and/ororestry as they used to do by tradition (Karppinen and Ahlberg,010). Morever, nearly a quarter of the Finnish forest owners areomen, and their number is continuously increasing (Hänninen

t al., 2011). It has been suggested that all these structural changesffect private forest owners’ relationship with nature as well asorestry. Previously timber and wood were important sources ofncome for many forest owners, but nowadays many forest owners,n particular those who are not economically dependent on theirorests, focus also on environmentalist as well as recreationistbjectives (Karppinen and Ahlberg, 2010; Hallikainen et al., 2010).t has also been argued that many forest owners are multi-objectivewners who value equally both monetary benefits as well as envi-onmental conservation (Karppinen, 1998, 2000).

Official natural resource management in Finland emphasizesqually the ecological and the social aspects of sustainabilityFinnish Forest Act, 1996; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,

001). Especially during 1990s, biodiversity conservation was

ntegrated to conventional forest management through redefin-ng the Forest Act (1996) and by providing planning servicesor forest owners (Primmer and Karppinen, 2010). The social

Policy 35 (2013) 247– 256

sustainability criterion means that people should be treatedequally, and everyone should have the opportunity to participate.However, despite the official efforts of the mainstream biodiversityconservation, forestry and forestry-related activities are still runby men. In the rural areas of Finland women are often consideredas farmers’ wives, or daughter-in-laws (Silvasti, 2003), as theyare in other countries where the forest industry is nationallyimportant, such as Norway (Brandth and Haugen, 2000a,b) andCanada (Reed, 2003a,b). It has been suggested that forestry andforest policy are gendered spheres, limiting women’s involvementand undermining their environmental agency while privilegingmen’s contributions (Brandth and Haugen, 2000a,b; Reed, 2003a,b;Varghese and Reed, 2012).

Whereas forestry has been depicted as a typically mascu-line activity, environmental protection has often been associatedwith women (Glazebrook, 2002). Women typically express greaterenvironmental concern than men (Blocker and Eckberg, 1997;Bord and O’Connor, 1997; Davidson and Freudenburg, 1996;Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Mohai, 1997; Tindall et al., 2003);women also report greater participation in pro-environmentalbehavior (Zelezny et al., 2000). Feminist research in particular haspresented an image of active environmentalist women (Dobschaand Ozanne, 2001; Seager, 1993).

Previous research conducted in Sweden and Finland hasreported that women forest owners are more conservation-oriented than men, who tend to emphasize the economic useof forests (Hiedanpää, 2002; Leskinen et al., 2004; Uliczka et al.,2004). However, in the context of forestry, women have notmobilized their pro-environmental perspectives as expected(Varghese and Reed, 2012). For example in Finland, METSO hasnot recruited female owners at the same rate as male owners(Paloniemi et al., 2010; Borg and Paloniemi, 2012). It has beensuggested that this discrepancy reflects the masculine genderorder, which limits women’s opportunities and participation.Even larger societal trends emphasizing gender equality have notaffected forest ownership at the same rate: for example in Finnishrural areas, land is still typically transferred from father to son(Silvasti, 2003). According to Reed (2003a,b), in Canada where mostforests are publicly owned, females working in forestry and/orliving in forestry communities supported and strengthened thegender division by downplaying their own agency and devotingthemselves to their spouses.

Previous studies applying a discursive approach in rural con-texts have shown how dominant discourses marginalize womenand tend to describe them primarily as spouses and housewives(Brandth and Haugen, 2000b; Liepins, 1996; Walter and Wilson,1996). Brandth and Haugen (2000a) applied discourse analysis tomaterial in Norwegian forestry magazines and identified Norwe-gian forest management as a hegemonically masculine space wheregender was never made a topic: gender was effectively invisible. Inthese magazines, female forest owners were described as “silentowners” because they have been invisible in most areas of forestry.

Empirical focus of the study

To explore the gender order of biodiversity conservation inthe Finnish forest sector and reasons explaining why female for-est owners participate in voluntary forest conservation less thanexpected, we analyzed both the qualitative and the quantitativedata. Study 1 focused on discourses in the interviews with forestowners, describing the relationship among forestry, conservation

and gender. Study 2 generalized these findings by examining theeffect of owners’ conservation preferences on their willingness toengage in voluntary conservation, with special attention given topossible gender differences.

d Use Policy 35 (2013) 247– 256 249

wfFoapga

S

tvc2ssr(ttrcB

D

rtaffst

ttwlehvtaogesr

M

(

Table 1Interview statements.

1. I have sufficient power to be able to decide about matters in my forest.2. Parliament legislates the laws in such a way that the laws serve our

common interests.3. The European Union has too much power over forest issues in Finland.4. Some groups have too much power over forest issues.5. It is right that the Forest Law restricts the cutting of forests in order to

preserve diversity in nature.6. Currently, forest conservation in Finland is excessive.7. Forest owners, the forest industry and forest service entrepreneurs have

equal status in the forest sector.8. It is wrong for big forest companies to determine the price of wood.

A. Vainio, R. Paloniemi / Lan

The interviews and questionnaires were collected in the areahere the METSO program has been implemented. We interviewed

orest owners in the region of Pirkanmaa, located in southerninland. This region represents a wealthy area where private forestwnership is common: about three-quarters of the forests in therea are privately owned while the state ownership falls below 10ercent (Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry, 2009). The geo-raphic area of the questionnaire in turn reflects the entire targetrea of the METSO program (Government of Finland, 2002).

tudy 1

In this study we examined how forest owners constructedhe interrelationship between gender, forestry and nature conser-ation. More specifically, we used discursive analytical methodsommonly applied within social psychology (Potter and Hepburn,007; Wood and Kroger, 2000). The discursive approach states thatocial interaction creates and maintains social reality. Accordingly,ocial interaction creates meaning and different versions of socialeality. In addition discourses offer people various subject positionsHarré and Van Langenhove, 1999). When individuals adopt a posi-ion offered by a discourse, they begin to interpret the issue fromhat position. In addition each subject position comes with certainights and duties. Subject positions can be interpreted through theoncepts that play an essential role in organizing the discourses.illig (1991) calls such concepts “discursive resources.”

This study focuses on the following research questions:

RQ1a: How is the relationship between forestry and nature con-servation constructed?RQ1b: What kinds of discursive positions do forest owners ascribeto themselves, how do these positions relate to general discourses(RQ1a), and in particular, how is gender constructed in these dis-cursive positions?

ata

We interviewed twenty-seven forest owners in the Pirkanmaaegion. In order to interview both owners with an economic orien-ation and owners with an environmental orientation, we asked theuthorities from the regional environment center and two regionalorestry associations to send us the contact details of about twentyorest owners. These registers did not correspond to the actual divi-ion of ownership; even if a couple owned a forest jointly, often onlyhe husband’s name was entered in the register.

We first contacted the owners by letter and then agreed byelephone on the interview. Two forest owners could not be con-acted, and nine refused to take part. Of those who refused, fourere women. Among men, the reasons for refusing were either

ack of time or interest to participate. Women who refused hadither not followed forest owners’ issues in the media, considerederself as too old, or not interested in the issue. We wanted to inter-iew everyone in families who dealt with forest-related tasks. Inhe end we interviewed eighteen men and five women, as wells two couples where both parties took part in the interview, butnly the man’s name appeared in the register (total N = 27). Such aender distribution reflects the national gender distribution of for-st owners in Finland. Twenty-one of these individuals had beenuggested by the two regional forestry associations and six by theegional environment center.

ethod

We used the semi-structured qualitative attitude approachNousiainen et al., 2009), which applies Billig’s (1991) idea of

9. The Forest Owners’ Associations serve the interests of forest ownerswell.

studying discourses as argumentation. This approach employsattitudinal statements, which is the standard approach in quan-titative psychological research, as stimulus material, but insteadof asking respondents to evaluate the attitudinal statements on ascale (agree vs. disagree), the participants were asked to discussthe statements freely. The statements were selected on the basis ofour previous research on forest owners who were involved in theconservation programs before METSO (Paloniemi and Koskinen,2005) in addition to previous research on media discourses on thelegitimacy of different policy actors (Rantala and Primmer, 2003).We tested the attitudinal statements in two pilot interviews beforeselecting the final set of statements for the actual data collection.To create an argumentative situation, we selected statements thatelicited discussion associated with our research queries having todo with (1) perceptions of nature conservation and forestry and(2) the discursive power positions of forest owners as comparedto other actors. The statements are given in Table 1.

The interviewer presented the statements to each intervieweeone at a time on paper and read them aloud at the same time. Thiswas done in order to present the statements to the intervieweesas general statements and not as the opinions of the interviewer.The interviewees were encouraged to comment freely on the state-ments. All but three interviews were conducted face-to-face; owingto logistic constraints three were conducted by telephone. Theseinterviews took about 20–90 min and were recorded and tran-scribed.

Both researchers analyzed the data. Following Willig’s (2003)approach, the analysis was divided into three phases: reading thetexts, classification and the actual analysis. We focused only onpassages in which the forest owners talked about nature conserva-tion. To identify discourses about conservation, we identified whatkinds of discursive variations emerged from the selected passages.In addition we identified the kinds of discursive subject positionsof forest owners that were discussed in the interviews, how thesediscursive positions were related to each other and, in particular,how gender was constructed in these positions (Billig, 1991; Harréand Van Langenhove, 1999).

In order to identify gendered aspects of discourses, we wereinformed by previous discursive research conducted within thecontext of forestry and gender by Brandth and Haugen (2000a,b).They, for example, identified silence as an important dimension ofdiscourse. Therefore, we paid special attention to both the presenceand the absence of “gender” in the interviews. We also paid atten-tion to whether forest owners mentioned women and men equally(for example, many interviewees owned forests with their spouseor another relative). In addition, following Brandth and Haugen(2000a,b), we paid special attention to the issues that were used

to make a distinction between masculinity and femininity, such asphysical strength. It is worth noticing that the aim of the study wasnot to examine how female forest owners discursively constructfemale forest ownership, but to analyze how both female and male

250 A. Vainio, R. Paloniemi / Land Use

Table 2The use of discursive positions of forest ownership and associated discursive genderroles among male and female forest owners.

Position Gender role Males (N = 20) Females (N = 7)

Logger Masculine 18 3Protector Non-gendered 2 0

op

R

fadrtapte“eoctwp

t“prij“id“dt“

“beo“pc

i

Bystander Feminine 0 2Political agent Non-gendered 3 2

wners construct the masculinity and femininity in the discursiveositions for forest ownership.

esults

In the interviews the forest owners discussed two broad themes:orests as nature and the social relations between forest ownersnd environmental policy actors. We identified three views oriscourses that described different relationships between envi-onmental protection and forestry: “environmental protectionhreatens forestry,” “forestry threatens environmental protection”nd “forestry is environmental protection.” These discourses wereortrayed as being at odds with each other, and the research par-icipants associated different environmental policy actors withach discourse. More specifically, the actors “forest industry,”nature conservationists” (referring to the Green political party,nvironmental NGOs as well as concerned citizens), and forestwners were most frequently mentioned. The forest industry wasonsistently depicted as endorsing the “environmental protec-ion threatens forestry” discourse, whereas nature conservationistsere described as endorsing the “forestry threatens environmentalrotection” discourse.

Four discursive subject positions for forest owners were iden-ified. We called them “loggers,” “protectors,” “bystanders” andpolitical agents.” Table 2 illustrates how the use of discursiveositions was distributed in the data. These positions were usedather consistently in the interviews: all interviewees except threedentified themselves with only one discursive position. All sub-ect positions except “protectors” were described by the discoursegood forestry is environmental protection,” which was seen as typ-cal of forest owners. Instead, “protectors” described themselves asifferent from other forest owner positions. They supported theforestry threatens environmental protection” discourse and byoing this they aligned themselves more with “nature conserva-ionists.” In the following excerpt, a forest owner uses the discoursegood forestry is environmental protection:”

Of1: Many people think that everything that is not done isnature conservation, meaning that nothing should be done [inthe forest]. I do not agree with that, in my opinion a well-tendedforest is also a lot easier and more pleasant to walk throughcompared to a forest that has been left totally abandoned anduntouched [ID: 18, female]

In this excerpt, a female forest owner positioned herself as alogger,” but described herself also as a nature conservationistecause for her, forest management was nature conservation. How-ver, she explained that “nature conservationists” attacked forestwners, because for them the only true nature conservation is

doing nothing.” In other words, she recognized that many peo-le think along the lines of the discourse “forestry threatens natureonservation”; she did not agree with such interpretation.

1 The abbreviations used in the excerpts are as follows: I, interviewer; Om, malenterviewee; Of, female interviewee; ID, interview number.

Policy 35 (2013) 247– 256

In addition, forest owners’ discursive subject positions con-structed gender in multiple ways, as illustrated in Table 2. “Loggers”were described as definitely masculine, and this discursive positionwas paired with the feminine position of “bystander.” “Protectors”as well as “political agents” were described as gender neutral. Inthe following analysis, we focus on the description of these subjectpositions and how gender was constructed in each.

Loggers

Both men and women often described the typical forest owneras a “logger.” Mostly men, but also some women aligned themselveswith this position. Masculinity was present in the focus on physicalwork required by forestry operations. In this position, forests weredescribed as a resource to be controlled and managed:

Om: Yes, it’s really important [pause] I have put a lot of effortinto cultivating that birch. I have been growing five thousandcurly birches. The oldest are ten years old; they are all clones;that’s why they are all big.

I: Why have you chosen curly birch?

Om: I don’t know; I participated in a training course focusingon special kinds of tree species [pause] then I also participatedin another course [pause] it took one and half years.

I: Yeah.

Om: So, that is how I found the inspiration – somehow. I cannotcultivate more trees because I have to prune them every year;otherwise they do not produce high-quality wood. So five thou-sand [curly birches] are enough for one man, because the lop-offperiod is not so long. [ID: 26, male]

This owner described his forest site as a cultivated one: it pro-duced high-quality wood for the wood processing industry. Sucha forest site was, on one hand, dependent on the owner’s mone-tary investment, and on the other hand, on his physical forestrywork, the tending and management efforts made at the site. Theowner strictly controlled the quality and growth of his trees byusing cloned trees and pruning them every year by himself. In addi-tion, he explicitly described a forest owner as being a man: the sizeof one’s forest was limited by the amount of physical work one mancould do alone.

Tension was evident between the “conservationists”’ discourseand the “forestry as conservation” discourse used in the “logger”position. The superiority of the “logger’s” position was justifiedbecause the actions in his forest were considered to be a moralright as well as a responsibility.

Om: But if it leads to the forest being in an untended state inthe end, I don’t really think it’s a good thing.

I: Why is it left untended, if it is, well [pause]?

Om: Well, mostly it is, when you think of forests, that is, howthey grow and progress from one stage to another. First, theystart off as saplings, and after that it’s essential to go and cullsurplus saplings, so that the right kind of trees are left to growwhile taking into account the type of land. And then you gothere every ten years or so and take out the weakest trees, sothat the forest is refined and refined. If you don’t go and dothese things, then the whole process comes to a stop, and thetrees might weaken and get sick; if there is too much wood per

square meter, the forest falls into decay. [ID: 02, male]

This male forest owner described forestry routines, includ-ing removing decomposing wood, favoring certain tree speciesand renewing the forest stands, i.e. logging, which often meant

d Use

coto

B

owId

hramwtveiwcng

“ceb

ate

P

i

A. Vainio, R. Paloniemi / Lan

lear-cutting the forest at regular intervals. This “economic” usef forests was presented as the preferred state of affairs: a well-ended, cultivated forest is a normal forest. In other words, signsf human activity were described as “natural” elements of forests.

ystanders

Being a “bystander” meant being a companion of a male forestwner. The woman’s role was to make a comment on or pick uphere the man left off whenever talking about forest ownership.

n the following example a couple who owned a forest togetherescribed their everyday life as forest owners:

Om: The forest has not been [for me] important in any way;it has been just this kind of [pause], I mean I wanted earlieras well to [become a forest owner], but I regarded it as a kindof expensive hobby, but then I managed to persuade my wife.Or actually it was my father-in-law who made her [agree]. Heshared my views so he got her to agree, her father, that is [pause]

I: How important is forest ownership to you?

Om: I don’t know; it was only a kind of hobby. In that way itwas not so important but [interrupted]

Of: Well, I think, excuse me, that it’s been really important toyou.

Om: Well, back then it was.

Of: And it still is. [ID: 21, male and ID: 22, female]

In the above excerpt the female forest owner did not talk abouterself and her relationship to the forest she owned. Instead, sheeflected her forest ownership through her husband by talkingbout his activities. That this woman stayed out of the spotlightost likely results from the fact that she was interviewed togetherith her husband. When female owners were interviewed with

heir husbands, the women’s generally invisible position becameisible. However, in most cases in which a couple owned a for-st together, only the man took part in the interview. In thesenterviews even the invisibility of the spouses was invisible: they

ere not mentioned in any way. In such cases the role of non-ommunication, in other words, what was not said and who wasot present, was an essential element in the social construction ofender in forest ownership.

The position of “bystander” was contrasted to the position oflogger,” which was represented as a typical forest owner with mas-uline characteristics, such as physical strength. In the followingxcerpt a woman forest owner defines herself through her hus-and:

Of: Yeah, I’d like to learn more about all that forest work, butluckily I have my husband, who knows these things. He’s beenlogging, and even though I’m not much help, I’ve been with himthere anyway.

I: Well, do you think of yourself as a typical forest owner?

Of: Obviously, I can’t do any of the hard work; maybe my hus-band would be a typical forest owner. [ID: 25, female]

This woman forest owner characterized a typical forest owners someone who can fell trees: she stated that she could not dohis even if she wanted to. Instead, she defined her husband as anxample of a typical forest owner.

rotectors

The subject position of “protector” was represented as beingn opposition to that of a “logger” or “bystander.” “Protectors”

Policy 35 (2013) 247– 256 251

aligned themselves with “nature conservationists,” adhering to thediscourse of “forestry threatens environmental protection.” Theposition of “protector” was presented as rather atypical and anoma-lous among forest owners:

Om: Maybe it’s that, I’m kind of anomalous as a forest owner,that I see the forest as a public utility [pause] and of course Ispend a lot of time in the forest [pause] just being there, think-ing about things, and it is a place, where if you spend a lot oftime, you find so many more dimensions, especially when I goberry- and mushroom-picking a lot [pause]. Yeah, I do think thismodern forestry is madness, it really is. [ID: 04, male]

In this excerpt the forest owner described how the forest belongsto everyone; it cannot be considered the property of a forest owner.The position of “protector” appears gender neutral. “Berry- andmushroom-picking” as well as “spending a lot of time in the forest”mentioned in this interview are rather gender-neutral activities inFinland.

Another forest owner who identified himself as a protectordescribed how forest management was actually morally ques-tionable, not from the human perspective, but from the broadperspective of all species:

Om: Well, here we come back to the question of whether we areserving the people’s interests; let’s consider the perspective ofenvironmental protection [pause]. Legislators, of course, servethe general interests of society [pause] where you continuouslystrive for a higher standard of living and well-being [pause],and forest-related legislation is directed to this end. But thenthere is the other perspective, that of environmental protection,where you would look at this kind of holistic future of all species,and then the answer would be negative. That’s because thereare way too few protected forests [pause], various species aresuffering and [pause] facing extinction and so on. There are twoanswers to this. But when we say “our common interests,” Ithink it means the interests of humans. [ID: 06, male]

This excerpt illustrates how “protectors” (like “loggers”)defended their position using the moral rhetoric of duties andresponsibilities. Despite the fact that this position appeared gen-der neutral, the owners who described themselves as “protectors”were all men.

Political agents

Forest owners also discussed having a position of influence onforest policies at the societal level. This was associated with therhetoric of “good forestry is nature conservation.” However, theseowners did not discuss the relationship between conservation andforestry as a moral issue, but rather as a pragmatic feature of thepolitical context. In the following quotation, a male forest ownerdescribes himself as being a political agent along with being a “log-ger”:

Om: So my personal goal [in forest ownership] is, of course,to maintain a livelihood and ensure continuity. Of course, it’smy dream that there would be continuity across the genera-tions. But then again, apart from this interest, I want to promotethe interest of the private forestry community; for example,because we live in an expanding town, there are town planningissues every year, in connection with which we make state-ments and keep in contact with decision-makers, as well astry to communicate the interests of and problems facing the

forestry community. [ID: 01, male]

In the following forest owner’s description, the duty of a politicalagent was to promote the interests of forest owners in general.

2 d Use

bd“wsIfntets

bnta

S

ndsattrw

t(idponnafsc

Hpc

52 A. Vainio, R. Paloniemi / Lan

Of: I’m not a typical forest owner at all, as I don’t have any powerin my own forest, since it is owned by a corporation. Still, I’mreally curious about these common issues, but I think it’s not sogood that you don’t always have the energy to write about them[pause]. I’ve been in a really strong position as a forest owner.

I: You have this kind of strong position?

Of: Yeah, because I’ve even been the wife of a managing directorfor a while [pause]. It was not a small sawmill at all in CentralEurope [pause]. It is not the same at all, centralized sawmillownership, when in Finland we have these small sawmills; well,there’s so much wood there [in Central Europe], how it grows;yeah, I’ve been in a privileged position. I’m not a regular forestowner’s wife [pause]. He’s not the forest owner; I am. [ID: 14,female]

This female forest owner described how she had “no power”ecause she owned forest with a corporation. However, later sheescribed herself as being in “a strong position” because she wasthe wife of a managing director” and not “a regular forest owner’sife.” In other words, if her husband had also been a forest owner,

he would have been ascribed a powerless “bystander” position.nstead, because of the professional position of her husband inorest industry, she also had power as a political agent on theational and European levels in different organizations. In addi-ion, owning forest apart from her husband enabled her to makeconomically independent decisions in her life. This excerpt illus-rates how females’ position in forest ownership and forestry ishaped by their husbands’ positions.

The position of “political agent” appeared gender neutralecause it described an active agency in terms of expertise,etworks and knowledge, and these characteristics were ascribedo both genders (see also Brandth and Haugen, 2000b). Both womennd men identified with the position of “political agent.”

tudy 2

The first study provides evidence that forest owners approachature conservation with multiple discourses that offer both gen-ered and non-gendered subject positions. However, the findingsuggest that the prevailing masculinity of forest ownership encour-ges men’s participation and limits women’s (particularly throughhe role of bystander, often offered to and taken by women). Inhe second study we sought to examine quantitatively the inter-elationships among gender, conservation preferences and theillingness to conserve forests.

More specifically, we identify two types of attitudes to conserva-ion: a willingness to combine environmental protection and forestryi.e. nature conservation should take place on private lands and thatt can be combined with forestry) and a willingness to protect bio-iversity completely (i.e. nature conservation should take place onrivate lands and it can be accomplished only without any forestryperations). In addition two broad themes identified in Study 1,amely, the forest as nature and social relations, are identified asature preferences (an expectation that nature conservation policy,bove all, should focus on protecting nature) and participation pre-erences (an expectation that nature conservation policy, above all,hould focus on improving forest owners’ involvement in natureonservation).

We tested the following hypotheses:

2a. The endorsement of nature preferences and participationreferences increase owners’ willingness to protect biodiversityompletely.

Policy 35 (2013) 247– 256

H2b. The endorsement of nature preferences and participationpreferences increase owners’ willingness to combine environmen-tal protection and forestry.

H2c. The endorsement of nature preferences increases a will-ingness to conserve forests (both combined with forestry andcompletely) more among men than among women.

H2d. The endorsement of participation preferences increases awillingness to conserve forests (both combined with forestry andcompletely) more among men than among women.

Materials and method

Participants and design

We sent a questionnaire to 2000 forest owners living in the geo-graphic target area of Finland’s METSO program (Government ofFinland, 2002). The target group was selected from the databaseof forest owners belonging to the Central Union of AgriculturalProducers and Forest Owners as well as the Forest ManagementAssociations in this area. On the basis of a systematic samplingdesign, every hundredth person from the beginning of the databasewas selected. Slightly fewer than half of the landowners returned acompleted questionnaire (N = 965, response rate = 48%). The meanage of the respondents was 59, slightly higher than the averagefor Finnish forest owners (which is 57; Finnish Statistical Yearbookof Forestry, 2009). The proportion of men was 76 percent, whichcorresponds to the gender distribution among forest owners inthe country as a whole (Hänninen et al., 2011). The question-naire was based on the results of our previous thematic interviewswith landowners who had protected their lands with fixed-termconservation contracts (Kumela and Paloniemi, 2006) and on ourtheoretical model of participation in conservation as a learningprocess (Koskinen and Paloniemi, 2010).

Variables

We analyzed forest owners’ responses to four sets of statements:(a) nature preferences and (b) forest owners’ participation prefer-ences as well as two dimensions of voluntary conservation: (c) thewillingness to conserve nature within forestry and (d) the will-ingness to protect nature exclusively from forestry. All items wereanswered on a 5-point scale (“totally disagree”–“totally agree”). Inaddition relevant background information such as age and genderwas requested.

Nature preferences measured participants’ expectations that themain goal of nature conservation policy should be nature protec-tion. These expectations was measured with four items ( ̨ = .90): (a)“Nature conservation policy should protect valuable habitats andecosystems”; (b) “Nature conservation policy should protect inter-esting plants, fungi, and animals”; (c) “Nature conservation policyshould preserve wilderness areas in southern Finland”; and “Natureconservation policy should preserve beautiful landscapes.”

Participation preferences measured the participants’ expecta-tions that the nature conservation policy should involve forestowners in nature conservation. These expectations were measuredusing three items ( ̨ = .87): (a) “Nature conservation policy shouldstrengthen forest owners’ relationship to nature”; (b) “Nature con-servation policy should increase forest owners’ awareness of natureconservation”; and (c) “Nature conservation policy should encour-age forest owners to participate in decision-making concerningnature conservation.”

Willingness to combine conservation and forestry was associatedwith the perception that nature conservation should take placeon private lands and that it can be accomplished within forestryoperations. Willingness to engage personally in such action was

d Use

maffca

wpitc“sa

A

S

iti–ipb

atgmaiccigiivt

R

mdtwTtcptsmt

s(tl

A. Vainio, R. Paloniemi / Lan

easured using three items ( ̨ = .622): (a) “I am willing to man-ge nature conservation autonomously, as part of commercialorestry”; (b) “I am willing to conserve nature as part of commercialorestry by means of environmental aids”; and (c) “I am willing toonserve nature within commercial forestry if it does not requiredditional duties of me.”

Willingness to conserve biodiversity completely was associatedith the perception that nature conservation should take place onrivate lands and should be done separately from forestry. A will-

ngness to engage personally in such action was measured usinghree items ( ̨ = .73): (a) “I am willing to put land into permanentonservation, in which the land area stays in my possession”; (b)I am willing to create living conditions for new animal and plantpecies on my lands”; and (c) “I am willing to maintain the animalnd plant species already living in the area.”

nalysis

tructural equation modeling

The hypotheses were tested through structural equation model-ng (SEM) using AMOS 18.0 (Arbuckle, 2009). More specifically, weested a model in which two kinds of conservation preferences –mproving biodiversity and facilitating forest owners’ participation

predicted two dimensions of voluntary conservation: the will-ngness to combine conservation and forestry and willingness torotect biodiversity completely. The effect of age was controlledy drawing covariance paths to each main variable.

In addition analyzing gender in terms of multiple groups notice-bly improved the model’s goodness-of-fit of the model, indicatinghat male and female owners should be analyzed as separateroups. In order to test whether the models differed for groups ofen and women, the model was tested using a multiple-group SEM

pproach (Jöreskog, 1971; Raykov and Marcoulides, 2006). Follow-ng CSA, we first tested whether the measurement models wereomparable for both groups. The following stepwise procedure ofonstraints was imposed: (1) factor loadings, (2) intercepts of thendicators and (3) error covariances. The comparison of the model’soodness-of-fit statistics indicated that the factor loadings andntercepts were the same for males and females, whereas constrain-ng error covariances resulted in a significant decline in RMSEAalues. Therefore, factor loadings and intercepts were constrainedo be equal for males and females in the subsequent analyses.

esults

The means, standard deviations, and correlations between allain variables and background variables (age and gender) are

escribed in Table 3. As the table shows, all main variables excepthe willingness to combine conservation and forestry correlatedith each other, indicating that the variables were interrelated.

he willingness to combine conservation and forestry was foundo be clearly higher than the willingness to protect biodiversityompletely t(843) = 26.290, p < .001. The endorsement of naturereferences was slightly higher than the endorsement of par-icipation preferences, t(820) = 3.23, p < .01. Women held slightly

tronger nature preferences and participation preferences thanen. Both younger men and women were more interested in pro-

ecting biodiversity exclusively from forestry than older people.

2 The Alpha of the scale was found to be relatively low, probably owing to themall number of items. Therefore, the reliability was also analyzed by means of CFAconfirmatory factor analysis), as suggested by Brown (2006); this method estimatedhe reliability of the scale as .68, which was quite acceptable. In addition all itemsoaded on the factor (i.e. scale) at p < .001.

Policy 35 (2013) 247– 256 253

The actual hypotheses were tested with SEM, and the resultsare summarized in Fig. 1. First, the endorsement of nature prefer-ences ( ̌ = .49, p < .001) was found to increase owners’ willingness toprotect biodiversity completely, whereas the endorsement of par-ticipation preferences was found to have no effect (H2a). Second,the endorsement of participation preferences ( ̌ = .29, p < .001) wasfound to increase owners’ willingness to combine conservation andforestry, whereas the endorsement of nature preferences did nothave any effect (H2b). Therefore, Hypotheses H2a and H2b wereonly partially supported.

In order to test H2c and H2d, we looked at the proposed dif-ferences between males and females in the causal paths betweenthe main variables. These differences were examined with multi-group SEM by placing equality constraints on each path, one by one,and analyzing the chi-square difference tests between the models.In the default model, all of the path coefficients were allowed tovary freely across the two groups. Table 4 presents the goodness-of-fit statistics of the tested models. Two statistically significantgender differences were found, illustrated in Fig. 1. The endorse-ment of nature preferences increased the willingness to combineconservation and forestry as well as the willingness to conserve bio-diversity completely among men, but not among women (p < .05)as had been expected (H2c). There was no gender difference in therelationship between the endorsement of participation preferen-ces and willingness to conserve nature (H2d). Therefore, H2d wasnot confirmed.

Discussion

According to the findings of these two studies, forest ownersdiscursively construct the relationship between nature conserva-tion, forestry and gender in multiple ways. However, the powerfulhegemony of masculinity in forestry seems to result in a situation inwhich individual women and men prefer to support the genderedorder, rather than abandon it.

In the qualitative study we found four discursive positions forforest owners. Our data did not support the idea often expressedin the literature, namely that women typically identify with envi-ronmentalism (Dobscha and Ozanne, 2001; Seager, 1993). In ourinterviews environmentalism – the position of a “protector” –appeared as gender neutral; however, no female forest owner iden-tified with environmentalism. Instead many women, particularlythose who owned their forests alone, had adopted the position ofthe “logger.” This finding illustrates that for women forest owners,it may be easier to adopt the position of a “logger,” which doesnot challenge the dominant discourse of forestry, as does “pro-tector”. It is also possible that the masculinity of forest ownershipculture extends to the environmental political organizational cul-tures, excluding women from being active environmentalists (seeTindall et al., 2003). Our study supports the findings of Reed (2000,2003b, 2004), according to which women living in a forestry-drivenculture might be adamant opponents of environmentalism; theyadopt the role of “logger” because they see conservation as a threatto their livelihood and the social system they endorse. The sig-nificant number of female “loggers” in our study indicates that inFinland, it is relatively easy for women to assume typically “mascu-line” positions that do not challenge the economy-driven status quoin forestry. Despite the structural changes of private forest owners,forestry still is an important part of small scale-farming in Finland,as was also the case in our data, and that is why these forest owners’relationship with nature is strongly shaped by productionism. One

reason feminist theorists perceive women to be more active envi-ronmentalists than men might be the urban starting points of thetheories (Alston, 1995; Sachs, 1996). Feminist literature also warnsagainst falling into “the essentialist trap,” namely, that all women

254 A. Vainio, R. Paloniemi / Land Use Policy 35 (2013) 247– 256

Table 3Means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients of the main variables and background variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Nature preferences 4.09 .832. Participation preferences 4.00 .85 .64***

3. Willingness to combine conservation and forestry 3.75 .97 .20*** .25***

4. Willingness to protect biodiversity completely 2.60 1.06 .40*** .33*** .22***

5. Gender .76 .43 −.09** −.10** ns ns6. Age 58.60 12.9 ns ns ns −.12***

Note. Scale in gender 0–1 (0 = female, 1 = male); age is reported in years; other variables, 1–5.** p < .01, two-tailed.

*** p < .001, two-tailed.

WILLINGNESS TO COMBINE CONSERVATION

AND FORESTRY

WILLINGNESS TO CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY

COMPLETELY

.75***

.75***

.29**

.41*

.57***n.s.

PARTICIPATIONPREFERENCES

NATUREPREFERENCES

n.s.n.s.

.20*n.s.

malefemale

F ales ad ables,r s indi

a2

trqeawpmwHit

TG

N.

ig. 1. Relations between the main variables estimated with SEM. Values for mifferences between males and females at p < .05. Note: Ovals represent latent variepresent covariances (ns = not significant, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001). Broken line

re essentially conservationists or would like to be (McGregor,006).

The position of “bystander” was described as traditionally andypically female, defined as the lack of “masculine” characteristicsequired by forest management. Even though the women in ourualitative data assumed other positions as well, only female for-st owners adopted the bystander position, which in our data camecross as the typical position of female forest owners in situationshere couples owned forests together. This finding is partly sup-orted by a phenomenon encountered in inviting the interviewees:en introduced themselves as the principal forest owners, even

hen they and their spouses had equal ownership of their land.owever, the results regarding the “bystander” position should be

nterpreted with caution because of the small number of women inhe interview data.

able 4oodness-of-fit statistics of alternative CFA models.

1. Four factors, multi-group (men, women), constrained (factor loadings andintercepts), age controlled

2. Four factors, multi-group (men, women), unconstrained, age controlled

3. Four factors

4. One factor

ote. Interpretations of the measures: �2/df values between 3 and 1 (Carmines and McIve05 indicate a “close fit,” whereas RMSEA values under .08 indicate a “moderate fit” (Brow*** p < .001.

nd females are reported separately. Bold arrows indicate statistically significant one-way arrows represent standardized regression weights and two-way arrowscate statistically non-significant paths.

The position of the “political agent,” emphasizing exper-tise, knowledge and social networks, and the opposite of the“bystander,” has been historically recent. While in Finland andother forestry-driven countries, private forest ownership hastraditionally been connected to logging and physical strength,internationalization, societal development, technological innova-tions and higher educational demands in the forest sector haveopened new possibilities for educated women to rise above the“bystander” position and become active political agents where theirposition is mainly defined by expertise and knowledge and notgender (see Brandth and Haugen, 2000b).

In the quantitative analysis we found no gender differences withrespect to forest owners’ willingness to engage in conservation.However, women’s conservation preferences did not turn into awillingness to conserve their own forests, as happened with men’s

�2 df �2/df CFI RMSEA

387.137*** 160 2.420 .949 .039

358.091*** 138 2.595 .951 .041283.696*** 69 4.112 .953 .057

1215.991*** 65 18.708 .743 .136

r, 1981), CFI values over .90 (McDonald and Marsh, 1990), and RMSEA values underne and Cudeck, 1993).

d Use

cpatwp

wogtdecaMctowtccospt

C

trfuwthnttffo

Gsuesshtsams

opofcd2

A. Vainio, R. Paloniemi / Lan

onservation preferences. This finding reflects the observations inrevious literature on gender and forestry, which describe forestrys hegemonically masculine context that offers marginal positionso women (Brandth and Haugen, 2000a,b), as well as findings inhich women’s environmental concerns do not turn into activeolitical participation (Tindall et al., 2003).

Together our two studies support our general proposition thatomen’s reluctance to join voluntary conservation efforts as a part

f the Finnish national biodiversity program METSO results fromendered power structures in forestry, which limits women’s par-icipation. Our two studies indicate that women forest owners haveifficulty in finding active conservation roles and that men for-st owners have more societally constructed opportunities to takeonservation action. However, younger women have expressed

greater willingness to protect biodiversity apart from forestry.ore and more of these new groups of forest owners are living in

ities; they may have fewer connections to forest owners’ associa-ions and forestry practices than the previous generation of forestwners. We believe that the potential of this new generation – asell as that of other currently invisible actor groups – should be

aken more seriously as a part of biodiversity and forestry poli-ies. On one hand, more attention should be paid to establish newhannels for them to express their more diversified objectives forwning, using and conserving forests. On the other hand, moreocial and societal support is needed for constructing new actorositions allowing and encouraging forest owners to take actionoward such objectives.

onclusion

More than a quarter of Finnish forest owners are women, andheir number is continuously rising. However, according to theesults of our studies, the conservation preferences of these femaleorest owners do not turn into willingness to conserve their forestsnlike the situation with men. Similarly in our interviews, nooman was represented in the position of active forest “protec-

or.” Instead, the women who owned forests together with theirusbands typically assumed the position of a bystander and didot talk about themselves as active decision-makers. For women,he “silent” position of a bystander in forestry is a culturally impor-ant phenomenon, a situation that has often been ignored whenocusing only on forest owners who actively participate either inorestry or conservation and who, based on our findings, are moreften male than female.

However, it is very challenging to study invisibility and silence.ender has rarely been acknowledged in studying forest owner-hip, probably because it is easy to leave women’s invisible positionnexamined. Keeping gender out of the picture might lead to thempirical fallacy that Finnish forest ownership, or forest owner-hip in other national contexts, is gender neutral. The interest intudying women environmentalists in the field of gender studiesas led to a similar empirical fallacy, namely, the erroneous notionhat the typical environmentalist is a woman. This is why womenhould be placed at the core of future research on forest ownershipnd conservation, just as gender studies have made otherness andarginality its main research subject. There is a strong need for

tudies that give voice to women in forestry.In general policy-makers and policy-implementers should seri-

usly take into account forest owners’ gender and conservationreferences. They should increase tolerance toward different typesf land conservation and encourage women to express their pre-

erences for conservation practices appropriate for them. Womenould also empower themselves by creating alternative arenas ofiscourse as they have done in Norway (see Brandth and Haugen,000b). This could be possible through the implementation of more

Policy 35 (2013) 247– 256 255

flexible and adaptive biodiversity policies, which target the activeinclusion of previously marginalized groups such as women.

References

Alston, M., 1995. Women on the Land. The Hidden Heart of Rural Australia. UNSWPress, Kensington, NSW.

Arbuckle, J., 2009. Amos 18 User’s Guide. AMOS Development Corporation. SpringHouse, PA.

Billig, M., 1991. Ideology and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology. Sage, Lon-don.

Blocker, T., Eckberg, D., 1997. Gender and environmentalism: results from the 1993general social survey. Social Science Quarterly 78, 841–858.

Bord, R., O’Connor, R., 1997. The gender gap in environmental attitudes: the case ofperceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly 78, 830–840.

Borg, R., Paloniemi, R., 2012. Deliberation in cooperative networks for forest conser-vation. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9, 1–16.

Brandth, B., Haugen, M.S., 2000a. From lumberjack to business manager: masculinityin the Norwegian forestry press. Journal of Rural Studies 16, 343–355.

Brandth, B., Haugen, M.S., 2000b. Breaking into a masculine discourse: women andfarm forestry. Sociologia Ruralis 38, 427–442.

Brown, T., 2006. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Press,New York, NY.

Browne, M., Cudeck, R., 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K.,Long, J. (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp.136–162.

Carmines, E., McIver, J., 1981. Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In:Bohrnstedt, G., Borgatta, E. (Eds.), Social Measurement: Current Issues. Sage,Beverly Hills, pp. 65–115.

Davidson, D., Freudenburg, W., 1996. Gender and environmental risk concerns:a review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior 28,302–329.

Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B., Sinkovics, R., Bohlen, G., 2003. Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review ofthe evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research 56,465–480.

Dobscha, S., Ozanne, J., 2001. An ecofeminist analysis of environmentally sensi-tive women using qualitative methodology: the emancipatory potential of anecological life. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 20, 201–214.

Finnish Forest Act (1093/1996).Peltola, A. (Ed.), 2009. Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Finnish Forest

Research Institute, Vammala, Finland.Glazebrook, T., 2002. Karen Warren’s ecofeminism. Ethics and the Environment 7,

12–26.Government of Finland, 2002. Government Decision in Principle on an Action Pro-

gramme to Protect Biodiversity in Forests in Southern Finland, the WesternParts of the Province of Oulu and the South-Western regions of the Provinceof Lapland.

Government of Finland, 2008. Government Resolution on the Forest BiodiversityProgramme for Southern Finland 2008–2016. (METSO-Programme).

Hallikainen, V., Hyppönen, M., Pernu, L., Puoskari, J., 2010. Family forest owners’opinions about forest management in Northern Finland. Silva Fennica 44,363–384.

Harré, R., Van Langenhove, L. (Eds.), 1999. Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts ofIntentional Action. Blackwell, Malden.

Hiedanpää, J., 2002. European-wide conservation versus local well-being: the recep-tion of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland. Landscape andUrban Planning 61, 113–123.

Jöreskog, K., 1971. Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychome-trika 36, 409–426.

Hänninen, H., Karppinen, H., Leppänen, J., 2011. Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2010.In: Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute, p. 208.

Karppinen, H., 1998. Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest ownersin Finland. Silva Fennica 32, 43–59.

Karppinen, H., 2000. Forest values and the objectives of forest ownership. FinnishForest Research Institute, Research Papers, Helsinki (Doctoral dissertation).

Karppinen, H., Ahlberg, M., 2010. Metsänomistajakunnan rakenne 2020: Yleiseenväestömuutokseen perustuvat ennustemallit. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 1,17–32.

Koskinen, S., Paloniemi, R., 2010. Social learning processes of environmental policy.In: Meijer, J., der Berg, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Policy. Nova SciencePublisher, NY, pp. 291–305.

Kumela, H., Paloniemi, R., 2006. Luonnonarvokauppa – vastaus luonnonsuojelunkohtaamattomuuden ongelmiin? Alue & Ympäristö 35, 25–36.

Kuussaari, M., Heliölä, J., Pöyry, J., Saarinen, K., 2007. Contrasting trends of butterflyspecies preferring semi-natural grasslands, field margins and forest edges innorthern Europe. Journal of Insect Conservation 11, 351–366.

Leskinen, P., Leskinen, L., Tikkanen, J., 2004. Assessing objectives of regional forestpolicy in northern Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 19, 180–190.

Liepins, R., 1996. Reading agricultural power. Media as sites and processes in the

construction of meaning. New Zealand Geographer 52, 3–10.

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2001. Strategy for Renewable NaturalResources in Finland. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Publications 8b/2001.

McGregor, S., 2006. Beyond Mothering Earth: Ecological Citizenship and the Politicsof Care. UBC Press, Vancouver.

2 d Use

M

M

N

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

R

R

R

56 A. Vainio, R. Paloniemi / Lan

cDonald, R., Marsh, H., 1990. Choosing a multivariate model: noncentrality andgoodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin 107, 247–255.

ohai, P., 1997. Gender differences in the perception of most important environ-mental problems. Race, Gender and Class 5, 153–169.

ousiainen, M., Pylkkänen, P., Saunders, F., Seppänen, L., Vesala, K., 2009. Are alter-native food systems socially sustainable? A case study from Finland. Journal ofSustainable Agriculture 33, 566–594.

aloniemi, R., Koskinen, S., 2005. Ympäristövastuullinen osallistuminen oppimis-prosessina. Terra 117 (1), 17–32.

aloniemi, R., Primmer, E., Similä, J., Furman 4, E., 2010. Arviointi: tulokset ja tulkinta.In: Koskela, T., Syrjänen, K., Loiskekoski, M., Paloniemi, R. (Eds.), METSO-väliarvio2010: toimintaohjelman käynnistyminen 2008–2009, pp. 41–64.

aloniemi, R., Varho, V., 2009. Changing ecological and cultural states and pre-ferences of nature conservation policy: the case of nature values trade inSouth-Western Finland. Journal of Rural Studies 25, 87–97.

aloniemi, R., Vainio, A., 2011. Legitimacy and empowerment: combining two con-ceptual approaches for explaining forest owners’ willingness to cooperate innature conservation. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 8, 123–138.

otter, J., Hepburn, A., 2007. Discursive constructionism. In: Holstein, J., Gubrium, J.(Eds.), Handbook of Constructive Research. The Guilford Press, NY, pp. 275–293.

rimmer, E., Karppinen, H., 2010. Professional judgment in non-industrial privateforestry: forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conserva-tion. Forest Policy and Economics 12, 136–146.

öyry, J., Lindgren, S., Salminen, J., Kuussaari, M., 2004. Restoration of butterflyand moth communities in semi-natural grasslands by cattle grazing. EcologicalApplications 14, 1656–1670.

antala, T., Primmer, E., 2003. Value positions based on forest policy stakeholders’rhetoric in Finland. Environmental Science and Policy 6, 205–216.

aykov, T., Marcoulides, G., 2006. A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling,2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

eed, M., 2000. Taking stands: a feminist perspective on other women’s activism inforestry communities of northern Vancouver Island. Gender, Place and Culture7, 363–388.

Policy 35 (2013) 247– 256

Reed, M., 2003a. Marginality and gender at work in forestry communities of BritishColumbia. Journal of Rural Studies 19, 373–389.

Reed, M., 2003b. Taking Stands: Gender and the Sustainability of Rural Communities.UBC Press, Vancouver.

Reed, M., 2004. Moral exclusion and the hardening of difference. Women’s StudiesInternational Forum 27, 223–242.

Sabatier, P., 1998. The advocacy coalition framework: revisions and relevance forEurope. Journal of European Public Policy 5, 98–130.

Sachs, C., 1996. Gendered Fields. Rural Women, Agriculture, and Environment. West-view Press, Colorado.

Seager, J., 1993. Earth Follies: Coming to Terms with the Global Environmental Crisis.Routledge, NY, USA.

Silvasti, T., 2003. Bending borders of gendered labour division on farms: the case ofFinland. Sociologia Ruralis 43, 54–166.

Tindall, D., Davies, S., Mauboulès, S., 2003. Activism and conservation behavior inan environmental movement: the contradictory effects of gender. Society andNatural Resources 16, 909–932.

Uliczka, H., Angelstam, P., Jansson, G., Bro, A., 2004. Non-industrial private forestowners’ knowledge of and attitudes towards nature conservation. ScandinavianJournal of Forest Research 19, 274–288.

Vainio, A., Paloniemi, R., 2012. Forest owners and power: a Fou-cauldian study on Finnish forest policy. Forest Policy & Economics 21,118–125.

Varghese, J., Reed, M., 2012. Theorizing the implications of gender order forsustainable forest management. International Journal of Forestry Research,http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/257280.

Walter, G., Wilson, S., 1996. Silent partners: women in farm magazine successstories, 1934–91. Rural Sociology 61, 227–248.

Willig, C., 2003. Discourse analysis. In: Smith, J. (Ed.), Qualitative Psychology. Sage,London, pp. 159–183.

Wood, L., Kroger, R., 2000. Doing Discourse Analysis. Sage, California.Zelezny, L., Chua, P., Aldrich, C., 2000. Elaborating on gender differences in environ-

mentalism. Journal of Social Issues 56, 443–457.