Next Article in Journal
An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Sustainable Management of Territorial Resources in Hodh el Chargui, Mauritania
Previous Article in Journal
Generation and Prediction of Construction and Demolition Waste Using Exponential Smoothing Method: A Case Study of Shandong Province, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/su12125113
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Landscape Approaches to Sustainability—Aspects of Conflict, Integration, and Synergy in National Public Land-Use Interests

by
Johan Svensson
1,*,
Wiebke Neumann
1,
Therese Bjärstig
2,
Anna Zachrisson
2 and
Camilla Thellbro
3
1
Department of Wildlife, Fish and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-90183 Umeå, Sweden
2
Department of Political Sciences, Umeå University, SE-90187 Umeå, Sweden
3
Department of Forest Resource management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-90183 Umeå, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(12), 5113; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125113
Submission received: 11 May 2020 / Revised: 11 June 2020 / Accepted: 15 June 2020 / Published: 23 June 2020
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Strong land-use pressure challenges sustainable development and calls for landscape approaches that balance economic, ecological, and socio-cultural aspects and interests. In the boreal, sub-alpine, and alpine regions in Sweden, encompassing 32 million ha, many and different land-use interests overlap, which causes risks for conflict, but potentially also suggests integration and synergy opportunities. Based on geographic information system (GIS) analyses of geographically delineated national interests regulated in the Swedish Environmental Code, including, amongst others, Natura 2000, contiguous mountains, recreation, reindeer husbandry, and wind power, and based on forestry as a dominating land use, we found extensive overlap among similar but also between dissimilar types of interest. In some mountain municipalities, our results show that the designated national interest area is four times as large as the available terrestrial area. Moreover, the overlap is much higher in the alpine than in the boreal biome, and there is increasing designation for nature conservation and a decreasing designation for national interests for culture, recreation, and tourism from south to north. We interpret the results with reference to multiple-use needs and opportunities for landscape approaches to sustainable planning. Departing from biodiversity conservation values, we also discuss opportunities to focus planning strategies on assessing synergy, integration, and conflict based on nature-based and place-based land-use characteristics.

1. Introduction

The landscape approach, although widely embraced and adopted in policy, governance, management, and science, has shown to be difficult to apply in practical sustainability-oriented landscape planning [1,2,3]. Evidently, there is a lack of comprehensive planning frameworks that are capable of incorporating the multifaceted dimensions of landscapes [4,5,6]. Nonetheless, a range of high-ambition agendas currently promote sustainable development based on integrated ecological, economical, socio-cultural, and political landscape dimensions. Examples include the statements of the European Landscape Convention [7] and the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on land degradation and restoration and on the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services [8]. The landscape dimensions are also embedded in the Aichi targets—in particular, #7 on sustainable management, biodiversity, and conservation, #11 on setting aside a minimum of 17% of terrestrial areas, and #15 on restoring degraded ecosystems [9], as well as generally in the UN Sustainable Development Goals [10]. The need to move forward and implement functional landscape approaches is urgent in order to advance the capacity to reach sustainable development and the use of natural resources and multifaceted values of landscapes and nature.
As a concept, the landscape approach encompasses boundary aspects, such as place-based aspects, multi-functionality, sustainability, co-governance, engaged society, collaborative planning, and inter-disciplinarity [11]. Landscape approaches are seen as a ways forward for, for example, integrating different land-use actors operating at different geographic scales [12,13], supporting ecosystem stewardship [14], and allowing spatial targeting of land-sharing and land-sparing [15,16]. Furthermore, landscape approaches have been assigned with the capacity to combine biophysical data with socio-economic data [17] for developing adaption to climate change [18,19] and for mitigation of the generic impact of the human footprint on nature [20,21].
The human footprint is accelerating and, in many regions, the demands on the land exceed the land availability [22]. Systematic forest harvesting and forest management oriented towards plantation forestry and maximum biomass yield have been identified as potentially degrading and not sustainable [8]. Globally, as well as for the boreal forest biome, industrial forest management transforms intact forest landscapes at critical rates [23,24,25,26,27]. Forest harvesting continues despite governance and management policies that advocate increasing conservation rates and sustainable landscape approaches [28,29], thereby accelerating threats to biodiversity and ecosystem services [30,31]. The combined and cumulative effects of continued landscape transformation [26], land-use intensification [32], and different land use forms overlaid in space and time represent a potential “sledgehammer” [33] effect, where ecosystems and landscapes, due to the extensive human footprint, enter irreversible states from which they cannot recover to earlier states.
Among the forest biomes of the world, boreal forests constitute important natural assets due to their extensive coverage, circumpolar distribution, and their relatively intact nature [25,34,35,36]. Like in many other more remote hinterland areas, the Swedish northern boreal and mountain region consists of sensitive natural and cultural environments of high ecological significance and also of interest for many different land uses [9,37,38,39,40]. There is a negative trend in these areas, however, with key habitats and ecosystem services being lost [41,42]. Systematic forest harvesting for timber, pulpwood, and bioenergy extraction have transformed intact forest landscapes [43], and the pressure from forestry on remaining mature and old forests and other land use types in the alpine and mountain foothills remains high [35,44]. Thus, arguments are raised on the need for additional protection and for landscape restoration in the context of green infrastructure development [45]. The contiguous and extensive remaining belt of intact forest landscapes on the Swedish side of the Scandinavian Mountain range is an international high-value conservation asset per se, but also an ecologically significant transition and gradient into the alpine environments at higher altitudes [44]. Given the high conservation, socio-cultural, and landscape values associated with small-scale agricultural farming and the reindeer husbandry culture of the indigenous Sami people, landscape approaches towards sustainable development require landscape planning with the capacity for spatiotemporal and multi-objective resolution in decision-making [46].
With multiple and divergent land-use claims, cumulative land-use impacts, and a general lack of land area in comparison with the area designated for various land-use purposes, sustainable development is a challenge. The interdependencies among multiple and different landscape values need further attention in practical land-use planning [1], not the least since landscape planning should reflect the policy mix of legal and regulatory instruments [47] associated with the different values. To ensure legitimacy in the planning process and outcome, planning strategies and prerequisites need to be transparent, reasonable, and understandable to land owners and to other stakeholders and right-holders [48]. With the comprehensive planning mandate placed at the municipality level, the 15 Swedish mountain municipalities have a key but difficult role [1,3,40]. With respect to landscape planning, the current comprehensive municipal plans in the Swedish mountain region suffer from being too narrow and too focused primarily on physical planning [3], and thus do not provide enough precision and accuracy for a sustainable landscape approach [9]. Consequently, there is an urgent need to explore routes for further development of comprehensive planning to secure a sustainable provision of landscape values for multiple purposes, which simultaneously give strategic guidance to actual sustainability problem identification and solving. Moreover, there is a need to increase planning capacity for adaptation and mitigation to both expected and unexpected sustainability challenges, e.g., for climate-change-induced land-cover transformation, within already existing legal planning frameworks and for further development of these frameworks.
In this study, we have taken an explorative approach to broad geographic and multiple-scale sustainable landscape planning, departing from the economic, ecological, and sociocultural sustainability dimensions in general and from specific land-use interest and landscape values. In Sweden, national interests (Swedish: “Riksintressen”) are legally recognized and defined in the Swedish Environmental Code [49]. These chapters are included in a segment of the Code where possibilities for multiple land-use opportunities are acknowledged and promoted if in accordance with sustainable development of the recognized values. Hence, we explore and move forward sustainable landscape planning based on an already existing legal foundation that currently is in use in comprehensive planning, and that is also associated with a municipal mandate to exercise practical landscape and land-use priority decision-making [3,50]. Since forestry is a dominant form of land use in Sweden in general, and in northern Sweden in particular [26], land where forestry is or can be performed is included as a baseline land use.
Our study objective was to identify, map, and analyze the geographical distribution and overlap between different legally recognized national interests and forestry land, reflecting the economic, ecological, and socio-cultural sustainability dimensions. Focusing on the Swedish mountain region, we explored how the spatial distribution and overlap vary between the mountain municipalities, across the nine-degree-of-latitude stretch of the Scandinavian Mountain Range, and between the alpine and the boreal forest biomes. Our results are interpreted with reference to multiple interests and multiple uses in the view of ecological, economic, and socio-cultural sustainability dimensions as a groundwork for integrated landscape approaches to sustainable planning. With the conservation of biodiversity as a point of departure, we discuss opportunities to focus planning strategies on assessing synergy, integration, and conflict based on nature-based and place-based land-use attributes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Region and Sub-Regions

Our study region covered the northern part of Sweden across nine degrees of latitude (59–69 N°, about 1180 km, Figure 1) and from the Scandinavian mountain range in the west to the Gulf of Bothnia coast in the east, thereby encompassing the alpine and boreal biomes [51] and their transition zone. The Scandinavian mountain range in Sweden, Norway, and Finland, extending south–north from the high arctic Nordkap to the southern boreal Stavanger in Norway, is one of the oldest mountain ranges globally and one of the longest in Europe. The alpine tree line, defined by mountain birch (Betula pubescens var. tortuosa), decreases from around 900 m in the south to around 700 m in the north. Heathland, shrub land, barren land, and mires characterize the area above the tree line, with different Salix species, heather (Calluna vulgaris), graminoids, herbs, and mosses being the dominant vegetation. Coniferous forests (Pinus sylvetris, Picea abies) with elements of deciduous forests characterize the foothill boreal forest below the tree line. The Swedish mountain region encompasses 15 different municipalities, pre-dominantly rural with low population density, rich in natural resources, nature conservation, and tourism values, and with the presence of indigenous Sami culture reindeer husbandry as an exceptional characteristic [37,45,52]. The number of residents in the study region is close to 140,000 (just below one person per km2), with most in the south part; in total, there are three cites with ≥5000 residents and 16 cities with ≥1000 residents [53].
With a focus on the mountain region, we analyzed the data on four levels (also see Table 2). The first was on the mountain municipality level for the 15 municipalities, from south to north: Malung, Älvdalen, Härjedalen, Berg, Åre, Krokom, Strömsund, Dorotea, Vilhelmina, Storuman, Sorsele, Arjeplog, Jokkmokk, Gällivare, and Kiruna. The second was on the mountain sub-region level, encompassing the southern part with Malung up to the Strömsund municipality in Dalarna and Jämtland counties, the central part with Dorotea up to the Sorsele municipality in Västerbotten county, and the northern part with Arjeplog up to the Kiruna municipality in Norrbotten county. The third was on the mountain region level, covering the combined territory of the 15 mountain municipalities, and the fourth was on the biome level, i.e., the alpine biome and the boreal biome.

2.2. National Interests

In Sweden, National Interests (NIs hereafter) were identified and delineated by the Swedish Parliament and the sector authorities based on the natural, cultural, economic, and societal values associated with certain terrestrial and aquatic geographical areas for the purpose of securing the public interest on such values against private and other conflicting interests [50]. The NIs are geographical areas claimed by the Swedish Parliament and State Authorities including, e.g., the Forest Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Sami parliament, and the Energy Agency, to secure the societal and public rights to access and use those resource values. The NIs cover land owned by different owner categories, including by non-industrial private household owners. The NIs were recognized to secure sustainable use of land and water by protecting those values from measures that caused considerable damage [54]. The rationale behind the initiation of NIs in the national physical planning system was the considerable structural changes since the 1950s, mainly by urban expansion and building of secondary homes in coastal and rural areas. This caused major disturbances on previously un-exploited natural and landscape values [54]. In the Environmental Code, the NI framework is placed within the economy rules (Swedish: “Hushållningsbestämmelserna”), which are specifically oriented towards multiple or combined economic, ecological, and socio-cultural aspects of sustainable use. Thus, these are not placed in the Environmental Code Chapter 7, which exclusively defines a specific natural value, use, or interest, as is the case, for example, for nature reserves. Thereby, the NI framework provides a legal basis for promoting multiple integrated land uses in comprehensive planning as a complement and alternative to promoting a specific, single type of land use. The economy rules include Chapter 3 on general rules and Chapter 4 on specific rules for certain values and purposes. Multiple and integrated aspects are expressed more strongly for those NIs that are regulated in Chapter 3.
In this study, we focused on the NI categories that concern nature, recreation, and cultural values, and those associated with land use in terrestrial areas outside urban settings (Table 1). There are several other types of NIs recognized in the Environmental Code that are not included in this study (see footnote to Table 1). In addition to the NIs, our analyses included forestry land—with forests as the dominant land cover type—and forestry as a dominant land use in the study region. The Environmental Code (Chapter 3) recognizes forestry as an important land use, but does not specify forestry as an NI within certain geographical areas. We classified a total of 11 categories—i.e., 10 different NIs and forestry land—into three classes reflecting economic, ecological, and socio-cultural sustainability dimensions, respectively (Table 1). Thus, the classification was based entirely on the overall sustainability dimension recognized as a public right in the Environmental Code.

2.3. Data and Analyses

We downloaded polygons (i.e., vector data) that delineate the spatial distributions of the 11 categories from the public National Geodatabase at the County Administrative Boards (www.lansstyrelsen.se, accessed 13 November 2018), the Geological Survey of Sweden (www.sgu.se, accessed 25 January 2017), and the Environmental Data Portal via the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency [56]. To reduce the risk for erroneous calculation of polygon areas and to reduce delineation overlap, we inspected all polygons visually for false border drawing and corrected obvious errors. All polygon data were merged into one common file, which we used for the intersection analyses. Remaining minor drawing errors were negligible given the size of the study region and sub-regions. To access forestry land potentially available for forestry, we re-classified the Swedish Vegetation map (25 × 25 m, 2002, www.lantmateriet.se) into non-forest and forest pixels, defining all forest types as forest. We then extracted all forest pixels, as well as forestland not in active use for forestry, and converted the map into a shape file, from which we erased protected forest areas and other forest areas with known high nature conservation values using the layer “High-Conservation-Value Forests” [56].
We quantified and summarized the areal (resolution 1 ha) intersection for the polygons belonging to a given category with the polygons of all other NIs using the tool “Tabulate Intersection”. We calculated the intersection of the 11 categories on the four geographical levels—each mountain municipality, the alpine biome, the boreal biome, and the entire study area. We demarcated the alpine (alpine and mountain deciduous forest) and boreal biome (northern and middle boreal forest) following the distribution of the vegetation zones [50]. To avoid inaccuracies in polygon overlap due to minor mapping errors, we followed a conservative approach and ignored all intersections <100 ha. Data on the area and proportional overlap between the 10 NI and forestry land for each municipality and for the alpine and boreal biomes, are available as Supplementary Materials to this study.
Finally, to quantify the spatial distribution of co-occurring categories, we generated three “Fishnets” (10 × 10 km)—one for the entire study area, one for the boreal biome, and one for the alpine biome. Based on our merged polygon layer, we counted the number of co-occurring categories within each Fishnet cell. To account for forestry land specifically, as it is not a formal NI, we performed the same analyses for the 10 NI categories, i.e., without forestry land as the 11th category. We used Arc Map 10.4.1 (ESRI, Redlands, CA, USA) for all spatial analyses.

3. Results

The study region covers close to 32 million ha, of which the terrestrial area is over 29 million ha, from sea level to the highest altitude level in Sweden (Table 2). The mountain municipalities generally cover large geographical areas, ranging from 296 (279 terrestrial) kha (Dorotea, Central) to 2070 (1927) kha (Kiruna, North). The northern sub-region is by far the largest, and covers 46% of the total and terrestrial area in the study region. The alpine biome covers 11,314 (10,354) kha, and the boreal biome 20,410 (18,764) kha.
Across the study area, the 11 categories cover over 60 million ha, which is more than twice the total terrestrial area (Table 3), and is higher (3.4 times) for the alpine biome than for the boreal (1.4 times). We found evident differences in the appearance of classes and categories across municipalities, south to north within the mountain region, and between the biomes. In the Nature Conservation class, “Nature conservation” dominates in 8 out of 15 municipalities and mainly in the south. “Natura 2000 SCI” and “Contiguous mountains” dominate mainly in the north. For the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism class, “Itinerant recreation and tourism” dominates in all seven municipalities in the south, and “Recreation” in all eight municipalities in the central and northern sub-regions. For the Land Use class, “Forestry land” and “Reindeer husbandry” generally cover large geographical areas, except for the latter being absent in one municipality in the south (Malung), which is outside the reindeer husbandry area (see Table 1). “Mining” and “Wind power” cover, comparably, very small areas, and are even absent in some of the municipalities. On the mountain region level, the Nature Conservation class dominates in the south, the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism class in the central, and the Land Use class in the north. On the biome level, “Recreation” and “Nature conservation” dominate in the alpine biome, with “Contiguous mountains” also covering a large area. “Cultural environment” generally encompasses small areas in both the alpine and the boreal biomes. For the Land Use class, “Forestry land” covers 14,528 kha in the boreal biome, which equals 57% of the total area of all categories. The comparable proportion for the alpine biome is 10%, where “Reindeer husbandry” covers a larger (4435 kha; 13%) proportion.
Of the 10 NIs, “Natura 2000 SPA”, “Contiguous mountains”, “Recreation”, and “Itinerant recreation and tourism” have an uneven distribution with an evident dominance in the mountain region and the alpine biome (Figure 2). In addition, “Natura 2000 SCI” and “Nature conservation” are more strongly clustered in the mountain region and the alpine biome, but also occur scattered across the entirety of northern Sweden. “Cultural environment” is more frequently occurring in the southern part, whereas “Reindeer husbandry” uniformly covers the reindeer husbandry area (see Table 1). “Mines” and “Wind power” cover less and more widely dispersed areas; for the latter, with a dominance outside the mountain region and the alpine biome. Some of the NIs, such as “Cultural environment”, “Recreation”, and “Itinerant recreation and tourism”, apparently follow the landscape terrain with parallel river valleys from north-west to south-east.
Our results clearly show that the overlap of NIs and “Forestry land” is extensive across the whole study region, but particularly in the mountain region and in the alpine biome (Figure 3a). A very small fraction of the study region (0.07%, Sorsele municipality) has an overlap of 10 out of the 11 different categories, 31% has an overlap of six or more categories, and 85% an overlap between three and eight categories. Only 2% of the study region has one single category occurring, with these fragments largely confined to the boreal biome and the easternmost parts of the mountain region, and are understood as covered by “Forestry land”. In addition, without “Forestry land”, the main overlap patterns and hotspots with high overlap frequency remain (Figure 3b).
The NI area and “Forestry land” area generally increase, both with latitude and with increasing municipal territory (Figure 4a). The average category area/terrestrial area ratio is 2.7, but varies substantially among the municipalities. Two municipalities have about four times larger category areas than terrestrial areas (Åre with 4.1 and Sorsele with 3.8), and two have a low ratio (Malung with 1.3 and Dorotea with 1.9). Likewise, the proportion of the Land Use class of total category area varies between 21% and 58% (Malung, the only one with more than half of the category area in the Land Use class). The proportion of the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism class ranges from 20–21% in the northern mountain region to 39–40% in the south. The proportion of the Nature Conservation class varies from 12% to 59%. The Nature Conservation class covers 50% or more of the total category area in one municipality in the central mountain region and in the three northernmost municipalities, which is mainly a consequence of large areas of “Contiguous mountains” (see Table 3). Thus, our results show a trend of an increasing proportion of the Nature Conservation class from the southern to the northern mountain sub-regions (Figure 4b), associated with a trend of decreasing proportion of the Land Use class, mainly concerning “Forestry land”. For the alpine and boreal biomes, we found an inverse relationship between the proportional distribution of classes of total category area; for the boreal, 75% to 14% to 11%, and for the alpine, 23% to 30% to 47%, for the Land Use, Culture, Recreation, and Tourism, and Nature Conservation classes, respectively.
Compared to the other classes, we found that the overlaps are higher among categories within the Nature Conservation class in all mountain municipalities except the two southernmost, as well as in the alpine biome (Figure 5a,e). The overlap of the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism class in the Nature Conservation class is higher than the overlap of the Land Use class in the Nature Conservation class, particularly in the southern mountain region and the alpine biome (Figure 5b,f). The overlap of the Land Use class in the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism class is low in the southern, but high in the central and northern mountain sub-regions (in particular, in the Sorsele municipality) and high in the alpine compared with the boreal biome. The overlaps of the Nature Conservation class and the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism classes in the Land Use class are variable, whereas the overlap of the Nature Conservation class in the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism class is about the same (Figure 5c,g). The overlap in the boreal biome is low (Figure 5d,h).
Overlap distributions among the 11 different categories vary substantially between the municipalities (Table 4). The most complex situation (Table 4a) shows that out of 110 possible combinations between the categories, 25 combinations have an overlap ≥ 75%, 28 combinations ≥ 50%, and 42 combinations ≥ 25%. Comparable overlaps in the least complex situation (Table 4c) are 4, 9, and 16 combinations. The most evident trends are overlaps within the Nature Conservation class, particularly between “Nature conservation” and “Natura 2000 SPA”, and between the Nature Conservation class and “Recreation”, “Itinerant recreation and tourism”, and “Reindeer husbandry” (Table 4a,b). The overlap is also apparent within the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism class, between the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism class and the Nature Conservation class, and in “Reindeer husbandry”. Interestingly, “Reindeer husbandry” generally overlaps with both the Nature Conservation and Culture, Recreation, and Tourism classes, but also with “Forestry land” (Table 4c). Moreover, “Mining” overlaps up to 100% with “Recreation”, “Itinerant recreation and tourism”, and “Reindeer husbandry”. In addition, four more combinations overlap by 99% or 100% between “Natura 2000 SPA”, “Contiguous mountains”, and “Recreation” (Table 4a).
Compared to the boreal biome, the alpine biome has about twice as many combinations with an overlap ≥ 75% (8 vs. 4), ≥ 50% (24 vs. 13), and ≥ 25% (53 vs. 24) (Table 5). The most evident trends in the alpine biome (Table 5a) are the overlap within the Nature Conservation class and the overlap between this class and “Recreation”. In the boreal biome (5b), the most evident overlap trends are also within the Nature Conservation class and between this class and “Recreation”, but also the overlap between the Culture, Recreation, and Tourism class and “Forestry land”.

4. Discussion

4.1. Multiple Interests Require Larger Areas Than What Is Available

Highly efficient single-use systems have caused extensive landscape change over vast areas in many regions worldwide; for example, in industrial rotation forestry systems in northern Sweden and elsewhere in forest-rich regions where previously natural and semi-natural intact forest landscapes have been transformed into mono-cultural plantation forests [24,43]. In addition to wood biomass, however, forest ecosystems provide multiple provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services to various human benefits [38], and it is thus evident that there is commonly more than one type of actual or potential interest and value on the same forestland. Our results clearly show that for northern Sweden, with forestry as a strongly dominating land use, there are also many other types of land uses and interests that are claimed. In the case of the alpine and boreal environments of northern Sweden, reindeer husbandry by indigenous Sami people occurs simultaneously and on the same land as forestry, wind power energy production, and recreation and tourism [37]. Moreover, high ecosystem and landscape conservation values are generally recognized in northern Sweden [9,45]. Many different demands separately claim far larger geographical areas than are available, and many different demands combined and overlapping potentially is a conflict risk [57] as well as a risk for inequitable land sparing due to weak and strong demands [58].
In the case of the national interests (NIs) in Sweden, the area where a certain land use interest has been declared may exceed the actual area where the land use is currently practiced [50]. However, with the recognition in the Environmental Code [49], the land use can claim the right for practice, which can result in an even higher pressure on the available natural and societal capital in the future compared with the present day. Furthermore, this may lead to increased conflicts and even higher future complexity in land-use planning. In Sweden, the municipalities in agreement with the County Administration Boards have the mandate to prioritize one or, if possible given sustainable development, combine more than one type of national interest and state the direction in their comprehensive plan [48]. Our results clearly show that, most often, several and diverging national interests overlap in the same geographical area. With the limited capacity for sustainability-oriented planning prioritization in the municipal comprehensive planning process [3,40], the needed premises for sound decision-making are lacking.
In this study, we selected the NIs that are directed towards nature, recreation, and cultural values and land use on terrestrial lands outside urbanized environments. We also included forestry land as a dominant land use. The total area of these categories greatly exceeds the total available land area; in most municipalities, this between three and four times as large as the terrestrial area. Among the 15 mountain municipalities, there is only one where the claimed area is even close to the actual terrestrial area. This situation is pronounced for the entire mountain region, and particularly for the alpine biome. Despite the overall lower category area relative to terrestrial surface area in the boreal biome, the land-use claim is still, overall, 1.4 times higher than the available area. We also found a clear trend with increasing category area relative to terrestrial area from south to north. Generally, across northern Sweden, and particularly in the mountain region and the alpine biome, there are numerous “hotspots” with multiple claims occurring in the same area. This emphasizes the need for developing landscape-planning routines for actual and forecasted prioritization according to the best solution for a sustainable development.

4.2. Ecological, Socio-Cultural and Economic Aspects

We clustered the NIs and “Forestry land” into three main classes that basically reflected ecological, socio-cultural, and economic sustainability dimensions. Our classification did not strictly define each type of NI as in one specific class. “Reindeer husbandry”, for example, is a land use based on economic incentives, but also represents high social and cultural values as it is an indigenous cultural expression with a very long history. In addition, reindeer grazing maintains the openness of the alpine environment, which is of fundamental value for recreation and tourism activities [59]. We found, however, that the classification assisted the analyses and our interpretations well. We found extensive overlap within each class, particularly within the Nature Conservation class and the Cultural, Recreation, and Tourism class. We also found clear south-to-north trends in increasing abundance of the Nature Conservation class and decreasing abundance of the Land Use class, except for “Reindeer husbandry”.
The Nature Conservation class included four categories. In total, “Nature conservation” covers the largest areas and “Natura 2000 SPA” the smallest. All four categories increase in abundance from south to north, with the exception of “Natura 2000 SPA”, which is most abundant in the central part of the mountain region. “Natura 2000 SPA” and “Natura 2000 SCI”, which together cover close to 6 million ha of 10.4 million ha (terrestrial area) in the alpine and around 1 million ha of 18.8 million ha in the boreal biome, are oriented more strictly to conservation of species and habitat biodiversity. “Nature conservation” and particularly “Continuous mountains”, which together cover about 10 million ha in the alpine and close to 2 million ha in the boreal biome, are more oriented towards general natural and landscape values. Taken together, these four categories cover 19 million ha of the 29 million ha (terrestrial area) in northern Sweden. Obviously, the claimed area for conserving and protecting biodiversity, natural, and landscape values is very high, particularly in the alpine region and in the north. Thus, we found that the actual and relative category area is the highest in the part of the study region where the density of human population and urban centers is the lowest.
The Culture, Recreation, and Tourism class included three NI categories; “Cultural environment”, “Recreation” and “Itinerant recreation and tourism”. The former two NI are oriented towards protecting cultural and natural values for the benefit of human experience, whereas the latter opens up for exploitative measures to facilitate recreation and tourism activities. “Itinerant recreation and tourism” dominates in the south mountain region and in all the 7 south municipalities, which can be understood as an outcome of an urban norm focusing on socio-cultural availability of areas for people in south and central Sweden as well as for international tourists, whereas “Recreation” dominates overall across the mountain region. Together, these three categories cover 14 million ha in north Sweden, whereof over 10 million ha in the alpine region which is very close to equal to the terrestrial area (92%). With reference to the above mentioned clear trend in south to north increasing category-area relative to terrestrial area, the southern municipality of Are diverge from this trend as a consequence, in particular, of exceptionally large areas recognized as “Itinerant recreation and tourism”. Given the international high profile in alpine sports and sports and recreation in general in this municipality, this result was expected.
The Land Use class included “Forestry land” and three NI categories: “Reindeer husbandry”, “Mining”, and “Wind power”. The two latter cover very small areas overall, whereas the two former cover very large areas in both biomes. In the boreal biome, “Reindeer husbandry” is by far the largest category after “Forestry land”. Even though our classification was arbitrary in the sense that the four different types of land use are fundamentally different and most often cannot spatially co-exist, our results highlight the dilemma that these different land-use interests actually frequently overlap geographically. “Mines” and “Wind power” exclude or strongly restrict other types of land use, and cause direct conflicts with “Reindeer husbandry” in areas that are much larger than the actual mine and park sites [52]. “Reindeer husbandry” and “Forestry land” do use the same land, but not without conflicts [57], and these conflicts are expected to become increasingly difficult with a changing climate [37,60].

4.3. Landscape Approaches to Sustainable Planning

For landscape approaches to sustainable planning and given the governmental as well as sector authorities’ claim of territory for different land-use purposes, planning in boreal and alpine Sweden has to consider several and sometimes conflicting demands and claims. The geographical extension and distribution of land-use categories presented in this study clearly show the magnitude of this complexity. Places with high frequencies of different NIs are much more common than places with one or few. For the alpine biome, “Natura 2000 SPA”, “Natura 2000 SCI”, “Nature conservation”, “Contiguous mountains”, “Cultural environment”, and “Recreation” together cover close to 23 million ha. Together, these represent intrinsic species and habitat biodiversity, generic nature and landscape values, and natural and cultural values for the benefit of human experience, and thus cover an area that is 220% and 201% of the available terrestrial and total area, respectively. On the same area, about 4.4 million ha land is claimed for “Reindeer husbandry”, and 3.7 million ha land for “Itinerant recreation and tourism”, where the latter category allows more extensive exploitation. This adds up to 299% and 273%, respectively. Adding “Forestry land”, “Mines”, and “Wind power” results in 334% and 306% of the available terrestrial and total area, respectively. Clearly, much more land is demanded and claimed than is available. To ensure sustainable development, a landscape planning approach that takes an integrative approach and that recognizes multiple-use perspectives is hence urgently needed.
The extensive and varying overlap of different land claims causes challenges in planning and prioritization within municipalities, between neighboring municipalities, and generally for the mountain region and alpine biome [3]. Clearly, the situation can be highly complex overall, as in the case of the Vilhelmina municipality, where different types of interests overlap in multiple ways. The situation can also be less complex with more specific overlap, as in the case of Berg municipality, where there is a very high overlap of the Nature Conservation class in the Land Use class. Different municipalities thus have very different premises to handle. Given that the municipal comprehensive planning format is static and constructed based on an urban norm [39], a logical interpretation is that the legal NI recognition provides poor planning guidance for solving sustainability issues in rural areas with overlapping and often non-compatible interests.
From a practical planning point of view, it can be questioned whether there is a need to recognize different NIs for similar purposes; for example, both “Nature conservation” and “Contiguous mountains” in the alpine biome. Moreover, NIs in Chapter 3 of the Environmental Code (e.g., “Nature conservation”) have less strict regulations and delineations, and open up for combinations of different land uses, given that these result in sustainable use of natural resources, whereas NIs in Chapter 4 (e.g., “Continuous mountains”) more strictly define and delineate specific values or a specific segment of values. Fewer and more logically clustered land-use interests would allow a more holistic approach that increases comprehensive planning efficiency and better assists the decision-making process. Potentially, this would also lead to a higher level of coherence with other types of territorial planning; for example, on state-owned land. More detailed information on focal conservation or other values as well as specific governance and management measures can be added in detailed planning and management guidelines for certain areas.

4.4. Synergy, Integration, and Conflict

Given that some types of landscape values and land uses cannot spatially co-exist, the risks for conflict are obvious. However, some types of land uses can indeed co-exist. Given that the land claim exceeds land availability, this calls for identifying integration opportunities and synergetic opportunities—the latter in the sense that the co-existence of different types of land uses may increase the total combined and accumulated values. It can be assumed, for example, that some aspects of nature conservation can be combined with some aspects of recreation and cultural environments, particularly if the conservation values are associated with historic land use and cultural influence. The long history of small-scale farming and the Sami peoples’ reindeer husbandry in northern Sweden has added to the landscape and conservation values that are recognized in the current conservation policy [59,61]. Grazing by reindeer and livestock keeps the landscape open, and cutting of grass and sedge for winter fodder on mires and grasslands maintains flora and biodiversity that are associated with disturbance and openness [62]. Another example of a synergy is nature-based recreation and tourism that rely on amenity values originating from experiencing naturalness [61]. In addition, continuous cover and other types of alternative forest management better favor natural and cultural values than the systematic rotation forestry that dominates in boreal forestry [36,63]. By assessing synergy, integration, and conflict across land demands and claims, opportunities and obstacles for multiple uses can be approached.
Instead of focusing on the expected delivered public interest and value that is presumed in the Swedish Environmental Code NI regulations, we propose that a focus on the synergy, integration, and conflict relations between the different recognized values and land claims will provide more useful planning inputs. Such inputs would increase the applicability of the NI regulations in municipal comprehensive planning, but also more broadly in territorial planning that is oriented towards sustainable management and governance.
In Figure 6, we present a framework that, based on aspects of ecosystem functioning and biodiversity, is built on opportunities for assessing synergy, integration, and conflict. Departing from the intrinsic ecosystem functions (biodiversity, habitat) and the nature and landscape supporting these functions, nature-based land use in the form of recreation, tourism, and cultural heritage, forestry, and reindeer husbandry can be exercised without ample impact. When so, synergy and integration between different interests are possible. Developed facilities for recreation, tourism, and intensive forest management can, however, cause ample impact. When so, the opportunities for synergy and integration will decrease or even expire. In Figure 6, we use the ecosystem approach aspect “place-based” [11] to stress that it is the place or site that is the key premise for the land use. For forestry, for example, conflict risks are enhanced with the rotation forestry system that is generally applied, particularly if combined with exotic tree species, modified plant genotypes, draining, and fertilization [26]. Mining excludes other types of land use and causes irreparable damage to nature and landscape values. Wind power causes disturbance to landscape values, biodiversity [50,64], and on other land use, including, in particular, reindeer husbandry [65], but, in comparison with mining, it does allow some other land-use interests to co-exist.

5. Conclusions

Identifying conflicts, integration, and synergy between different types of land uses are ways forward for landscape approaches to sustainability. Given the fact that there is an extensive overlap of diverging governmental and sector authorities’ land claims, a general interpretation is that single-use and polarizing land-use planning strategies do not reflect the reality in northern Sweden, nor in many other hinterland and natural resource-rich regions with low human population density. The demands on the land substantially exceed the land availability, with overlaps between both similar and related interests and between different and conflicting interests. This complicates landscape approaches [11] and may lead to unsustainable and degrading land use and development [8]. In addition, the pressure for intensified use of natural resources is currently rising; for example, continued intensive forest management is justified as being necessary in the transition towards bio-economy [66,67]. With growing human populations and increasing urbanization, rural and natural resource-rich regions tend to deteriorate by unidirectional outflow of natural capital [22,31,68]. If this movement towards “more of everything” [69] continues unabated, additional threats to landscapes and sustainability will be enforced and ecosystem resilience, as well as sustainability tipping points, may be risked.
Instead, a transition from single- to multiple-use solutions and towards diversification strategies [70] is greatly needed. Opportunities for synergy and interaction among different interests need to be investigated and assessed, and ways forward to avoid and mitigate conflicts need to be explored [71]. In this study, we applied existing legally recognized national interests that claim areas where a certain category of interest is practiced or, as supported by the Environmental Code, can be practiced in the future. Our results clearly show that there is generally a very limited area available for single-use systems. Instead, the extensive overlap of many and different land-use interests calls for an overall strategy towards developing and implementing multiple-use systems that focus on synergy and integration between similar or related interests that can co-exist spatially. If such a strategy is implemented, areas and situations with a high conflict risk can be reduced, and conflict resolution can be directed specifically to those situations where conflicts cannot be avoided. By taking such a landscape approach to multiple uses and diversification in municipal comprehensive planning and other types of territorial planning, focus can be placed on developing adaptation and mitigation towards minimizing the negative impacts of spatially co-occurring natural, landscape, and land-use interests.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/12/5113/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.S., W.N., A.Z., T.B., and C.T.; Methodology, data management, and analyses, J.S. and W.N.; Original draft preparation, J.S.; Review and editing, W.N., T.B., A.Z., and C.T.; Visualization, W.N. and J.S.; Supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition, T.B. and J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the National Environmental Protection Agency, and Energy Agency Vindval research program. J.S., T.B., A.Z., and C.T. were supported by grant 03734-10, and the three former and W.N. were supported by grant 47419-1.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the knowledge exchange and continuous discussions with practitioners, governmental officers, and research colleagues. We appreciate the native language and content editing by John P. Ball of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Carlsson, J.; Lidestav, G.; Bjärstig, T.; Svensson, J.; Nordström, E.-M. Opportunities for integrated landscape planning—The Broker, the Arena, the Tool. Landsc. Online 2017, 55, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Mansourian, S. Governance and forest landscape restoration: A framework to support decision-making. J. Nat. Conserv. 2017, 37, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bjärstig, T.; Thellbro, C.; Stjernström, O.; Svensson, J.; Sandström, C.; Sandström, P.; Zachrisson, A. Between protocol and reality–Swedish municipal comprehensive planning. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2018, 26, 35–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Svensson, J.; Sandström, P.; Sandström, C.; Jougda, L.; Baer, K. Sustainable landscape management in Vilhelmina Model Forest. For. Chron. 2012, 88, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Chazdon, R.L.; Brancalion, P.H.S.; Lamb, D.; Laestadius, L.; Calmon, M.; Kumar, C. A policy-driven knowledge agenda for global forest and landscape restoration. Conserv. Lett. 2017, 10, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Spathelf, P.; Stanturf, J.; Kleine, M.; Jandl, R.; Chiatante, D.; Bolte, A. Adaptive measures: Integrating adaptive forest management and forest landscape restoration. Ann. For. Sci. 2018, 75, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Mikusinski, G.; Blicharska, M.; Antonson, H.; Henningsson, M.; Göransson, G.; Angelstam, P.; Seiler, A. Integrating Ecological, Social and Cultural Dimensions in the Implementation of the Landscape Convention. Landsc. Res. 2013, 38, 384–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. IPBES. Summary for Policymakers of the Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Scholes, R., Montanarella, L., Brainich, A., Barger, N., ten Brink, B., Cantele, M., Erasmus, B., Fisher, J., Gardner, T., Holland, T.G., et al., Eds.; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2018; 44p. [Google Scholar]
  9. Angelstam, P.; Manton, M.; Green, M.; Jonsson, B.G.; Mikusinski, G.; Svensson, J.; Sabatini, F.M. Sweden does not meet agreed national and international forest biodiversity targets: A call for adaptive landscape planning. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2020, 202, 103838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bali Swain, R.; Yang-Wallentin, F. Achieving sustainable development goals: Predicaments and strategies. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2020, 27, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Arts, B.; Buizer, M.; Horlings, L.; Ingram, V.; van Oosten, C.; Opdam, P. Landscape Approaches: A State-of-the-Art Review. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017, 42, 439–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cumming, G.S.; Olsson, P.; Chapin, F.S., III; Holling, C.S. Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2012, 28, 1139–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Keskitalo, E.C.H.; Horstkotte, T.; Kivinen, S.; Forbes, B.; Käyhkö, J. Generality of mis-fit? The real-life difficulty of matching scales in an interconnected world. Ambio 2016, 45, 742–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Chapin, F.S., III; Carpenter, S.R.; Kofinas, G.P.; Folke, C.; Abel, N.; Clark, W.C.; Olsson, P.; Stafford Smith, D.M.; Walker, B.; Young, O.R.; et al. Ecosystem stewardship: Sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Polasky, S.; Nelson, E.; Camm, J.; Csuti, B.; Fackler, P.; Lonsdorf, E.; Montgomery, C.; White, D.; Arthur, J.; Garber-Yonts, B.; et al. Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 14, 1505–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Fischer, J.; Abson, D.J.; Butsic, V.; Chappell, M.J.; Ekroos, J.; Hanspach, J.; Kuemmerle, T.; Smith, H.G.; von Verden, H. Land Sparing Versus Land Sharing: Moving Forward. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Lindenmayer, D.B.; Franklin, J.F.; Fischer, J. General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Bio. Conserv. 2006, 131, 433–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Görg, C. Landscape governance. The “politics of scale” and the “natural” conditions of places. Geoforum 2007, 38, 954–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Heller, N.E.; Zavaleta, E.S. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 14–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Haddad, N.M.; Brudvig, L.A.; Clobert, J.; Davies, K.F.; Gonzales, A.; Holt, R.D.; Lovejoy, T.E.; Sexton, J.O.; Austin, M.P.; Collins, C.D.; et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 2015, 1, e1500052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Jones, K.R.; Venter, O.; Fuller, R.A.; Allan, J.R.; Maxwell, S.L.; Negret, P.J.; Watson, J.E.M. One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 2018, 360, 788–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Bar-on, Y.; Phillips, R.; Milo, R. The biomass distribution on earth 2018. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 6506–6511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Hansen, M.C.; Potapov, P.V.; Moore, R.; Hancher, M.; Turubanova, S.A.; Tyukavina, A.; Thau, D.; Stehman, S.V.; Goetz, S.J.; Loveland, T.R.; et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 2013, 342, 850–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Heino, M.; Kummu, M.; Makkonen, M.; Mulligan, M.; Verburg, P.H.; Jalava, M.; Räsänen, T.A. Forest loss in protected areas and intact forest landscapes: A global analysis. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0138918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Potapov, P.; Hansen, M.C.; Laestadius, L.; Turubanova, S.; Yaroshenko, A.; Thies, C.; Smith, W.; Zhuravleva, I.; Komarova, A.; Minnemayer, S.; et al. The last frontiers of wilderness: Tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1600821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Svensson, J.; Andersson, J.; Sandström, P.; Mikusiński, G.; Jonsson, B.G. Landscape trajectory of natural boreal forest loss as an impediment to green infrastructure. Conserv. Biol. 2019, 33, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rudel, T.K.; Meyfroidt, P.; Chazdon, R.; Bongers, F.; Sloan, S.; Grau, H.R.; van Holt, T.; Schneider, L. Whiter the forest transition? Climate change, policy responses, and redistributed forests in the twenty-first century. Ambio 2020, 49, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Van Teeffelen, A.J.A.; Vos, C.C.; Opdam, P. Species in a dynamic world: Consequences of habitat network dynamics on conservation planning. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 153, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Sverdrup-Thygeson, A.; Sörgard, G.; Rusch, G.M.; Barton, D.N. Spatial overlap between environmental policy instruments and areas of high conservation value in forest. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e115001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Orlikowska, E.; Roberge, J.-M.; Blicharska, M.; Mikusiński, G. Gaps in ecological research on the world’s largest internationally coordinated network of protected areas: A review of Natura 2000. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 200, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Watson, J.E.M.; Evans, T.; Venter, O.; Williams, B.; Tulloch, A.; Stewart, C.; Thompson, I.; Ray, J.C.; Murray, K.; Salzar, A.; et al. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 2, 599–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Naumov, V.; Manton, M.; Elbakidze, M.; Rendenieks, Z.; Priedniks, J.; Uhlianets, S.; Yamelynets, T.; Zhivotov, A.; Angelstam, P. How to reconcile wood production and biodiversity conservation? The Pan-European boreal forest history gradient as an “experiment”. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 218, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Barnosky, A.D.; Hadly, E.A.; Bascompte, J.; Berlow, E.L.; Brown, J.H.; Fortelius, M.; Getz, W.M.; Harte, J.; Hastings, A.; Marquest, P.A.; et al. Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature 2012, 486, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Gauthier, S.; Bernier, P.; Kuuluvainen, T.; Shvidenko, A.Z.; Schepaschenko, D.G. Boreal forest health and global change. Science 2015, 349, 819–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Moen, J.; Rist, L.; Bishop, K.; Chapin III, F.S.; Ellison, D.; Kuuluvainen, T.; Petersson, H.; Puettmann, K.J.; Rayners, J.; Warkentin, I.G.; et al. Eye on the Taiga: Removing Global Policy Impediments to Safeguard the Boreal Forest. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7, 408–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kuuluvainen, T. Ecosystem management of the boreal forest. Oxf. Res. Encycl. Environ. Sci. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pape, R.; Löffler, J. Climate change, land use conflicts, predation and ecological degradation as challenges for reindeer husbandry in northern Europe: What do we really know after half a century of research? Ambio 2012, 41, 421–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Jansson, R.; Nilsson, C.; Keskitalo, E.H.C.; Vlasova, T.; Sutinen, M.-L.; Moen, J.; Chapin III, F.S.; Bråthen, K.A.; Cabeza, M.; Callaghan, T.V.; et al. Future changes in the supply of goods and services from natural ecosystems: Prospects for the European north. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Bjärstig, T. Does collaboration lead to sustainability? A study of public–private partnerships in the Swedish mountains. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Thellbro, C.; Bjärstig, T.; Eckerberg, K. Drivers for public–private partnerships in sustainable natural resource management—Lessons from the Swedish mountain region. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Naturvårdsverket. Steg på vägen. Fördjupad Utvärdering av Miljömålen; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: Stockholm, Sweden, 2012; ISBN 978-91-620-6500-3.
  42. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Naturvårdsverket NV 04173-13. Förslag till en Strategi för Miljömålet Storslagen Fjällmilj; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: Stockholm, Sweden, 2014.
  43. Svensson, J.; Bubnicki, J.W.; Jonsson, B.G.; Andersson, J.; Mikusinksi, G. Conservation significance of intact forest landscapes in the Scandinavian mountains green belt. Landsc. Ecol. in review.
  44. Jonsson, B.G.; Svensson, J.; Mikusiński, G.; Manton, M.; Angelstam, P. European Union’s last intact forest landscape is at a value chain crossroad between multiple use and intensified wood production. Forests 2019, 10, 564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. European Commission. Building a Green Infrastructure for Europe; Publications Office of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2013; 24p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Neumann, W.; Sandström, C.; Holmgren, L.; Ericsson, G. Defining a Mountain Landscape characterized by grazing using actor perception, governmental strategy, and environmental monitoring data. J. Mt. Sci. 2019, 16, 1691–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Albert, C.; Fürst, C.; Ring, I.; Sandström, C. Research note: Spatial planning in Europe and Central Asia—Enhancing the consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2020, 196, 103741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zachrisson, A.; Svensson, J.; Neumann Sivertsson, W.; Bjärstig, T.; Thellbro, C. Comprehensive planning in the ‘deep’ rural context: Participatory planning to overcome institutional barriers. J. Environ. Pol. Plann. in review.
  49. Miljöbalk 1998:8080. Miljö- och Energidepartementet/The Ministry of Environment and Energy. Updated to SFS 2020:75. Available online: http://rkrattsbaser.gov.se/sfst?bet=1998:808 (accessed on 9 March 2020).
  50. Siyal, S.H.; Mörtberg, U.; Mentis, D.; Welsch, M.; Babelon, I.; Howells, M. Wind energy assessment considering geographic and environmental restrictions in Sweden: A GIS-based approach. Energy 2015, 83, 447–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gustafsson, L.; Ahlén, I. (Eds.) Geography of Plants and Animals. National Atlas of Sweden; SNA Publishing: Stockholm, Sweden, 1996; ISBN 9187760363. [Google Scholar]
  52. Bjärstig, T.; Nygaard, V.; Riseth, J.Å.; Sandström, C. The institutionalisation of Sami interest in municipal comprehensive planning—A comparison between Norway and Sweden. Int. Indig. Policy J. 2020, 11, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. SCB. Official Statistics Sweden. Status 2017. 2019. Available online: www.scb.se (accessed on 15 January 2019).
  54. SOU. 1971:75. Ministry of Civil Services. Report 1971, Hushållning Med Mark och Vatten: Inventeringar, Planöverväganden om Vissa Naturresurser, Former för Fortlöpande Fysisk Planering, Lagstiftning. Available online: https://lagen.nu/sou/1971:75 (accessed on 9 March 2020).
  55. Reindeer Husbandry Act. Ministry of Industry. Rennäringslag SFS 1971:437, 1971; updated to SFS 2018:364. Available online: https://icr.arcticportal.org/sweden?lang=en&start=1 (accessed on 21 November 2018).
  56. Swedish EPA. High Conservation Value Forests Database; Miljödataportalen. 2018. Available online: http://mdp.vic-metria.nu/miljodataportalen/ (accessed on 21 November 2018).
  57. Widmark, C. Bargaining costs in a common pool resource situation—The case of reindeer husbandry and forestry in northern Sweden. Can. J. For. Res. 2019, 49, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Barinaga-Rementeria, I.; Etxano, I. Weak or Strong Sustainability in Rural Land Use Planning? Assessing Two Case Studies through Multi-Criteria Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Hedblom, M.; Mikusinski, G.; Hedenås, H.; Blicharska, M.; Adler, S.; Knez, I.; Svensson, J.; Sandström, S.; Sandström, P.; Wardle, D. Landscape perception: Linking biophysical monitoring data to perceived landscape properties. Landsc. Res. 2020, 45, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Löf, A. Examining limits and barriers to climate change adaptation in an Indigenous reindeer herding community. Clim. Dev. 2013, 5, 328–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Blicharska, M.; Smithers, R.J.; Hedblom, M.; Hedenås, H.; Mikusinski, M.; Pedersen, E.; Sandström, P.; Svensson, J. Shades of grey challenge practical application of the cultural ecosystem services concept. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 23, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bengtsson, J.; Bullock, J.M.; Egoh, B.; Everson, C.; Everson, T.; O’Connor, T.; O’Farrell, P.J.; Smith, H.; Lindborg, R. Grasslands—More important for ecosystem services than you might think. Ecosphere 2019, 10, e02582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Brandt, J.P.; Flannigan, M.D.; Maynard, D.G.; Thompson, I.D.; Volney, W.J.A. An introduction to Canada’s boreal zone: Ecosystem processes, health, sustainability, and environmental issues. Environ. Rev. 2013, 21, 207–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Oles, T.; Hammarlund, T. The European Landscape Convention, wind power, and the limits of the local: Notes from Italy and Sweden. Landsc. Res. 2011, 36, 471–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Skarin, A.; Sandström, P.; Alam, M. Out of sight of wind turbines—Reindeer response to wind farms in operation. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 9906–9919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. D’Amato, D.; Droste, N.; Allen, B.; Kettunen, M.; Lähtinen, K.; Korhonen, J.; Leskinen, P.; Matthies, B.D.; Toppinen, A. Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 716–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Eyvindson, K.; Repo, A.; Mönkkönen, M. Mitigating forest biodiversity and ecosystem service losses in the era of bio-based economy. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 92, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hill, R.; Adem, C.; Alangui, W.V.; Molnár, Z.; Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y.; Bridgewater, P.; Tengö, M.; Thaman, R.; Adou Yao, C.T.; Berkes, F.; et al. Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 43, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kröger, M.; Raitio, K. Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to sustainability? For. Policy Econ. 2017, 77, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Felton, A.; Löfroth, T.; Angelstam, P.; Gustafsson, L.; Hjältén, J.; Felton, A.M.; Simonsson, P.; Dahlberg, A.; Lindbladh, M.; Svensson, J.; et al. Keeping pace with forestry: Multi-scale conservation in a changing production forest matrix. Ambio 2019, 49, 1050–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Nilsson, M.; Griggs, D.; Visbeck, M. Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 2016, 534, 320–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 12 05113 g001 550
Figure 1. The study area covers: (a) North Sweden, including the entire alpine biome and a very large share of the boreal biome; (b): The mountain region with the 15 municipalities (thin black line and shaded surface) in the Swedish territory of the Scandinavian mountain range and north Sweden, divided into the alpine (dark blue) and boreal (light blue) biomes. Mountain municipalities: Malung (1); Älvdalen (2); Härjedalen (3); Berg (4); Åre (5); Krokom (6), Strömsund (7); Dorotea (8); Vilhelmina (9); Storuman (10); Sorsele (11); Arjeplog (12); Jokkmokk (13); Gällivare (14); Kiruna (15).
Figure 1. The study area covers: (a) North Sweden, including the entire alpine biome and a very large share of the boreal biome; (b): The mountain region with the 15 municipalities (thin black line and shaded surface) in the Swedish territory of the Scandinavian mountain range and north Sweden, divided into the alpine (dark blue) and boreal (light blue) biomes. Mountain municipalities: Malung (1); Älvdalen (2); Härjedalen (3); Berg (4); Åre (5); Krokom (6), Strömsund (7); Dorotea (8); Vilhelmina (9); Storuman (10); Sorsele (11); Arjeplog (12); Jokkmokk (13); Gällivare (14); Kiruna (15).
Sustainability 12 05113 g001
Sustainability 12 05113 g002 550
Figure 2. Frequency of occurrence, per 10 × 10 km pixels following the Swedish standard map system, of the 10 national interests in the study. The solid line shows the borders for the mountain municipalities that together represent the mountain region, and the broken line shows the border between the alpine biome to the west and the boreal biome to the east. The marked elongated pattern in the upper central part of the study region, particularly evident for “Itinerant recreation and tourism”, is the Vindelälven river valley, which is recognized as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.
Figure 2. Frequency of occurrence, per 10 × 10 km pixels following the Swedish standard map system, of the 10 national interests in the study. The solid line shows the borders for the mountain municipalities that together represent the mountain region, and the broken line shows the border between the alpine biome to the west and the boreal biome to the east. The marked elongated pattern in the upper central part of the study region, particularly evident for “Itinerant recreation and tourism”, is the Vindelälven river valley, which is recognized as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.
Sustainability 12 05113 g002
Sustainability 12 05113 g003 550
Figure 3. (a): Frequency of occurrence of the 10 national interests (NIs) and forestry land per 10 × 10 km pixels; (b) frequency of occurrence of the 10 national interests not including forestry land. The solid line shows the borders for the mountain municipalities that together represent the mountain region, and the broken line shows the border between the alpine biome to the west and the boreal biome to the east.
Figure 3. (a): Frequency of occurrence of the 10 national interests (NIs) and forestry land per 10 × 10 km pixels; (b) frequency of occurrence of the 10 national interests not including forestry land. The solid line shows the borders for the mountain municipalities that together represent the mountain region, and the broken line shows the border between the alpine biome to the west and the boreal biome to the east.
Sustainability 12 05113 g003
Sustainability 12 05113 g004 550
Figure 4. (a) National interest and forestry land area (left axis bars) and total terrestrial area (right axis points) in 1000 ha for the Nature Conservation, the Cultural, Recreation, and Tourism, and the Land Use classes for the mountain municipalities with division into southern, central and northern mountain sub-regions. (b) Percent class area of national interest area (left axis bars) and total national interest and terrestrial area (right axis points) for the mountain sub-regions, the mountain region, the alpine and boreal biomes, and the entire study region of northern Sweden.
Figure 4. (a) National interest and forestry land area (left axis bars) and total terrestrial area (right axis points) in 1000 ha for the Nature Conservation, the Cultural, Recreation, and Tourism, and the Land Use classes for the mountain municipalities with division into southern, central and northern mountain sub-regions. (b) Percent class area of national interest area (left axis bars) and total national interest and terrestrial area (right axis points) for the mountain sub-regions, the mountain region, the alpine and boreal biomes, and the entire study region of northern Sweden.
Sustainability 12 05113 g004
Sustainability 12 05113 g005 550
Figure 5. (a–d) Percent cumulative area overlap of national interests and forestry land for the mountain municipalities; (e–h) for the southern, central, and northern mountain sub-regions, the mountain region, and the alpine and boreal biomes. (a) and (e): Overlap within the Nature Conservation, the Cultural, Recreation, and Tourism, and the Land Use classes. (b) and (f): Overlap of the Cultural, Recreation, and Tourism and Land Use classes in the Nature Conservation class. (c) and (g): Overlap of the Land Use and the Nature Conservation classes in the Cultural, Recreation, and Tourism class. (d) and (h): Overlap of the Nature Conservation and the Cultural, Recreation, and Tourism classes in the Land Use class. See Table 2 for municipality abbreviations.
Figure 5. (a–d) Percent cumulative area overlap of national interests and forestry land for the mountain municipalities; (e–h) for the southern, central, and northern mountain sub-regions, the mountain region, and the alpine and boreal biomes. (a) and (e): Overlap within the Nature Conservation, the Cultural, Recreation, and Tourism, and the Land Use classes. (b) and (f): Overlap of the Cultural, Recreation, and Tourism and Land Use classes in the Nature Conservation class. (c) and (g): Overlap of the Land Use and the Nature Conservation classes in the Cultural, Recreation, and Tourism class. (d) and (h): Overlap of the Nature Conservation and the Cultural, Recreation, and Tourism classes in the Land Use class. See Table 2 for municipality abbreviations.
Sustainability 12 05113 g005
Sustainability 12 05113 g006 550
Figure 6. Framework for assessing synergy, integration, and conflict opportunities and risks in sustainable landscape planning based on national interests and forestry land. “Natura 2000 SCI” and “Natura 2000 SPA” are oriented towards protection of biodiversity and habitat values (dark green), whereas “Nature conservation” and “Contiguous mountains” are oriented towards protecting more generic nature and landscape values (light green). “Cultural environment”, “Recreation”, and “Itinerant recreation and tourism” are land uses that are oriented towards human benefit of natural and cultural values, as well as values associated with historic use and management of nature. “Reindeer husbandry” and “Forestry land” are land uses that are based on nature, landscapes, and ecosystems. If “Cultural environment”, “Recreation”, “Itinerant recreation and tourism”, “Reindeer husbandry”, and “Forestry land” imply a close-to-nature type of land use, then these can or potentially can co-exist with interests associated with biodiversity, habitat, nature, and landscape (dark yellow). Thus, as nature-based land uses, opportunities exist for integration and synergy. “Wind power” and “Mining” are land uses placed in nature without interaction with ecosystems and ecosystem processes. In the case of “Mining”, opportunities for synergy and integration are poor and conflict risk are evident. In the case of “Wind power”, some aspects of integration can be met, whereas conflict risks also are evident. Additionally, with extensive exploitation for “Itinerant recreation and tourism” (e.g., large tourism facilities), “Cultural environment” (environment not based on human interaction with nature), and “Forestry land” (plantation forests), these land uses can also cause conflicts with interests associated with biodiversity, habitat, nature, and landscape, but also with nature-based land use (light yellow). In the case of “Reindeer husbandry” in Sweden, the existing husbandry system is based on annual movement and other traits of the wild reindeer.
Figure 6. Framework for assessing synergy, integration, and conflict opportunities and risks in sustainable landscape planning based on national interests and forestry land. “Natura 2000 SCI” and “Natura 2000 SPA” are oriented towards protection of biodiversity and habitat values (dark green), whereas “Nature conservation” and “Contiguous mountains” are oriented towards protecting more generic nature and landscape values (light green). “Cultural environment”, “Recreation”, and “Itinerant recreation and tourism” are land uses that are oriented towards human benefit of natural and cultural values, as well as values associated with historic use and management of nature. “Reindeer husbandry” and “Forestry land” are land uses that are based on nature, landscapes, and ecosystems. If “Cultural environment”, “Recreation”, “Itinerant recreation and tourism”, “Reindeer husbandry”, and “Forestry land” imply a close-to-nature type of land use, then these can or potentially can co-exist with interests associated with biodiversity, habitat, nature, and landscape (dark yellow). Thus, as nature-based land uses, opportunities exist for integration and synergy. “Wind power” and “Mining” are land uses placed in nature without interaction with ecosystems and ecosystem processes. In the case of “Mining”, opportunities for synergy and integration are poor and conflict risk are evident. In the case of “Wind power”, some aspects of integration can be met, whereas conflict risks also are evident. Additionally, with extensive exploitation for “Itinerant recreation and tourism” (e.g., large tourism facilities), “Cultural environment” (environment not based on human interaction with nature), and “Forestry land” (plantation forests), these land uses can also cause conflicts with interests associated with biodiversity, habitat, nature, and landscape, but also with nature-based land use (light yellow). In the case of “Reindeer husbandry” in Sweden, the existing husbandry system is based on annual movement and other traits of the wild reindeer.
Sustainability 12 05113 g006
Table
Table 1. Classes and categories of national interests and forestry land, with abbreviations applied for the categories in tables and figures and with their definitions according to the Swedish Environmental Code [49].
Table 1. Classes and categories of national interests and forestry land, with abbreviations applied for the categories in tables and figures and with their definitions according to the Swedish Environmental Code [49].
Class and Category Definition
Nature conservation class
 Nature conservation (NCC) 3:6. Land and water areas, and the physical environment in general, that are important for their natural values in public opinion should, as far as possible, be protected against measures that may substantially harm the natural or cultural environment.
 Natura 2000 SCI (Species and Habitat Directive) (NSD) 4:8. Use of land and water in a nature area that has been assigned according to the EU Species and Habitat Directive (2006/105/EG) that, in a substantial way, will impact the environment requires formal permission. Measures that are directly necessary for management and governance of the natural values are allowed.
 Natura 2000 SPA (Bird Directive) (NBD) 4:8. Use of land and water in a nature area that has been assigned according to the EU Bird directive (2009/147/EG) that, in a substantial way, will impact the environment requires a formal permission. Measures that are directly necessary for management and governance of the natural values are allowed.
 Contiguous mountains (NCM) 4:5. A defined mountain area in which buildings and installations can be approved only if they are needed for reindeer husbandry, local inhabitants, scientific purposes, or for itinerant recreation. Measures not needed for the above purposes are approved only if this is without impact on the natural and semi-natural landscape characteristics of the areas.
Culture, recreation, and tourism class
 Cultural environment (CCE) 3:6. Land and water areas, and the physical environment in general, that are important for their cultural values in public opinion should, as far as possible, be protected against measures that may substantially harm the natural or cultural environment.
 Recreation (CRE) 3:6. Land and water areas, and the physical environment in general, that are important for their recreational values in public opinion should, as far as possible, be protected against measures that may substantially harm the natural or cultural environment.
 Itinerant recreation and tourism (CRT) 4:2. A defined geographical area in which the tourism and recreation interests, particularly for itinerant recreation, should be especially considered in the approval of exploitive or other impacts and measures on the environment.
Land use class
 Forestry land (LFO) 3:4. Forestry is of national importance. Forestland that is important for the forest industry should, as far as possible, be protected against measures that may hinder rational forestry.
 Reindeer husbandry (LRH) 3:5. Land and water areas that are important to reindeer husbandry should, as far as possible, be protected against measures that may hinder reindeer husbandry. Reindeer husbandry is an allowed land use within the defined reindeer husbandry area [55].
 Mining (material, minerals) (LMM) 3:7. Land and water areas that harbor known resources of valuable substances and materials should be protected against measures that may substantially hinder their excavation.
 Wind power/energy production (LWP) 3:8. Land and water areas that are particularly suitable for installations for wind energy production should, as far as possible, be protected against measures that may substantially hinder such establishment and use.
Notes: (1) The classification was based entirely on the overall sustainability dimension recognized as a public right in the Environmental Code, i.e., the type of interest that the type of national interest is supposed to deliver. (2) The Swedish Environmental Code also includes other national interests not considered in this study: In Chapter 3 (5–9 §§), hydro-electrical energy production, drinking water supply, energy distribution, communication (physical and digital/electronic), industrial production, waste treatment, nuclear waste storage, commercial fishing, and military and national installations. In Chapter 4 (2–8 §§), water courses protected from hydro-electrical installations, the national city park in Stockholm (Swedish: “Nationalstadsparken”), and coastal and archipelago areas protected from exploitation. (3) Forestry is not recognized as a formal national interest in the Environmental Code, but as a nationally important land use. The data in this category exclude protected forests and other forests with known conservation values using the data on High-Conservation-Value Forests [56].
Table
Table 2. Area (total and terrestrial in 1000 ha) and altitude range (minimum and maximum) for the 15 mountain municipalities (with abbreviations) summarized for the southern, central, and northern sub-regions, for the entire mountain region, for the alpine and boreal biomes, and for the whole study region of northern Sweden.
Table 2. Area (total and terrestrial in 1000 ha) and altitude range (minimum and maximum) for the 15 mountain municipalities (with abbreviations) summarized for the southern, central, and northern sub-regions, for the entire mountain region, for the alpine and boreal biomes, and for the whole study region of northern Sweden.
Total Area (kha) Terrestrial Area (kha) Altitude Range (m)
 MAL; Malung 434 411 266 944
 ÄLV; Älvdalen 719 692 199 1197
 HÄR; Härjedalen 1192 1134 50 1322
 BER; Berg 621 577 275 1789
 ÅRE; Åre 830 727 53 1743
 KRO; Krokom 689 624 33 1277
 STR; Strömsund 1180 1052 189 1390
∑ South 5663 5216 33 1789
 DOR; Dorotea 296 279 39 1475
 VIL; Vilhelmina 879 812 317 1566
 STO; Storuman 828 738 53 1760
 SOR; Sorsele 801 744 83 1593
∑ Central 2804 2573 39 1760
 ARJ; Arjeplog 1458 1268 42 1810
 JOK; Jokkmokk 1947 1775 37 2057
 GÄL; Gällivare 1695 1582 13 1810
 KIR; Kiruna 2070 1927 45 2098
∑ North 7170 6552 13 2098
∑ Mountain region 15,638 14,342 13 2098
Alpine biome 11,314 10,354 33 2098
Boreal biome 20,410 18,764 0 1020
North Sweden 31,724 29,118 0 2098
Notes: (1) The first set of seven municipalities are within Dalarna and Jämtland counties and are summarized into the southern sub-region. The following set of four municipalities are within Västerbotten county and are summarized into the central sub-region. The final set of four municipalities are within Norrbotten county and are summarized into the northern sub-region. (2) All 15 municipalities are summarized into the mountain region. The mountain region encompasses all of the mountain municipalities, whose territories are situated in both the alpine and the boreal biomes.
Table
Table 3. Total area (in 1000 ha) of national interest and forestry land for the mountain municipalities, for the entire mountain region (Mtn region) and the mountain region divided into southern, central, and northern sub-regions, for the alpine and boreal biomes, and for the whole study region of northern Sweden (N Sweden).
Table 3. Total area (in 1000 ha) of national interest and forestry land for the mountain municipalities, for the entire mountain region (Mtn region) and the mountain region divided into southern, central, and northern sub-regions, for the alpine and boreal biomes, and for the whole study region of northern Sweden (N Sweden).
Nature Conservation Culture, Recreation, Tourism Land Use Sum
NNC NSD NBD NCM CCE CRE CRT LFO LRH LMM LWP
 MAL 43 14 4 9 50 96 289 9 514
 ÄLV 234 196 187 50 3 198 270 392 117 0 3 1651
 HÄR 310 97 70 57 85 233 520 727 322 18 2439
 BER 245 27 4 130 101 225 281 333 217 5 1567
  ÅRE 389 215 197 250 61 424 712 305 417 1 2970
 KRO 169 160 33 115 52 233 316 365 268 2 2970
 STR 306 124 94 163 8 306 387 699 427 1 33 2546
 DOR 54 63 42 3 0 65 58 167 89 541
 VIL 274 307 224 178 25 407 183 387 355 2 11 2354
 STO 210 172 164 127 9 370 300 374 314 6 9 2055
 SOR 499 411 405 368 43 482 56 271 300 18 2853
 ARJ 566 318 22 724 40 1017 238 385 557 0 1 3868
 JOK 922 964 218 916 25 1105 156 502 766 1 2 5576
 GÄL 578 654 321 632 5 831 72 518 657 24 7 4298
 KIR 964 700 181 1149 37 887 224 444 821 23 5431
Mtn region 5762 4421 2165 4862 504 6834 3868 6157 5628 58 118 40,377
 South 1694 834 588 765 319 1670 2581 3110 1769 1 70 13,402
 Central 1038 953 835 675 78 1325 597 1199 1057 8 37 7802
 North 3030 2635 742 3421 106 3840 689 1848 2801 49 10 19,173
Alpine 5330 3915 2066 4811 354 6299 3733 3536 4435 34 55 34,568
Boreal 1794 815 214 50 584 2015 985 14,528 4158 46 285 25,474
N Sweden 7124 4730 2280 4861 938 8314 4718 18,063 8593 80 339 60,042
Note: The value 0 represents occurring areas <500 ha, whereas no value represents no occurring area. See Table 1 for category abbreviations. See Table 2 for municipality abbreviations.
Table
Table 4. Percent overlap between national interests and forestry land, cumulative overlap per cent (CO), and average overlap (AO) per cent for (a) Vilhelmina municipality, which had the highest area overlap sum, (b) Härjedalen municipality, which had the median area overlap sum, and (c) Malung municipality, which had the lowest area overlap sum. See Table 1 for category abbreviations.
Table 4. Percent overlap between national interests and forestry land, cumulative overlap per cent (CO), and average overlap (AO) per cent for (a) Vilhelmina municipality, which had the highest area overlap sum, (b) Härjedalen municipality, which had the median area overlap sum, and (c) Malung municipality, which had the lowest area overlap sum. See Table 1 for category abbreviations.
(a) NCC NSD NBD NCM CCE CRE CRT LFO LRH LMM LWP CO AO
NCC 84 81 51 7 79 25 13 73 0 2 415 41
NSD 75 73 46 7 87 34 8 78 0 408 45
NBD 99 100 59 9 88 23 7 83 1 469 52
NCM 78 80 74 13 100 0 11 93 449 56
CCE 79 86 79 89 99 1 17 91 541 60
CRE 53 66 49 44 6 38 23 72 1 351 39
CRT 37 57 28 0 0 85 29 64 1 302 34
LFO 9 6 4 5 1 24 14 20 0 1 84 8
LRH 57 68 53 47 6 83 33 21 1 368 41
LMM 45 45 45 100 100 0 100 435 62
LWP 44 0 45 90 30
(b) NCC NSD NBD NCM CCE CRE CRT LFO LRH LMM LWP CO AO
NCC 30 23 19 7 46 81 29 40 1 275 31
NSD 97 73 52 4 65 81 8 50 0 429 48
NBD 100 100 69 0 83 86 7 52 496 62
NCM 100 87 85 5 95 100 8 52 532 67
CCE 24 4 0 4 27 37 68 27 1 192 21
CRE 62 27 25 23 10 96 37 49 0 329 37
CRT 48 15 12 11 6 43 46 41 0 221 25
LFO 13 1 1 1 8 12 33 21 2 90 10
LRH 39 15 11 9 7 35 66 47 1 230 26
LMM
LWP 13 0 6 0 2 67 11 100 14
(c) NCC NSD NBD NCM CCE CRE CRT LFO LRH LMM LWP CO AO
NCC 31 8 1 44 35 32 151 25
NSD 93 24 0 50 63 8 238 40
NBD 99 100 4 203 68
NCM
CCE 3 0 3 1 53 0 60 10
CRE 38 14 0 85 46 183 37
CRT 19 9 0 45 65 134 27
LFO 5 0 0 2 8 21 2 39 6
LRH
LMM
LWP 0 74 75 37
(1) Quantiles 0–24% (gray), 25–49% (yellow), 50–74% (orange), and 75–100% (red) overlap, where the value 0 represents overlap <0.5% and where no value represents no overlap.
Table
Table 5. Percent overlap between national interests and forestry land, cumulative overlap per cent (CO), and average overlap (AO) per cent for the alpine (A) and boreal (B) biomes. See Table 1 for category abbreviations.
Table 5. Percent overlap between national interests and forestry land, cumulative overlap per cent (CO), and average overlap (AO) per cent for the alpine (A) and boreal (B) biomes. See Table 1 for category abbreviations.
A NCC NSD NBD NCM CCE CRE CRT LFO LRH LMM LWP CO AO
NCC 59 38 67 4 81 35 13 46 0 0 343 34
NSD 80 52 66 2 77 46 6 43 0 374 42
NBD 97 99 76 3 87 31 6 51 0 450 50
NCM 74 54 33 2 87 15 9 48 0 321 36
CCE 56 25 15 23 63 42 44 39 2 0 309 31
CRE 69 48 28 66 4 38 16 47 0 0 316 32
CRT 49 30 17 19 4 64 34 43 0 0 260 26
LFO 20 7 4 12 4 29 36 31 0 1 144 14
LRH 55 38 24 53 3 67 36 25 0 0 301 30
LMM 8 4 3 0 17 9 18 47 37 144 16
LWP 34 3 0 1 52 14 104 17
B NCC NSD NBD NCM CCE CRE CRT LFO LRH LMM LWP CO AO
NCC 22 10 1 7 45 16 46 24 0 1 173 17
NSD 49 25 6 2 31 9 12 22 0 0 155 15
NBD 87 97 11 2 56 11 7 26 298 37
NCM 53 91 46 67 1 11 22 290 41
CCE 22 2 1 42 10 57 15 1 0 150 17
CRE 40 13 6 2 12 28 54 15 1 0 150 17
CRT 30 7 2 0 6 57 57 8 0 0 169 17
LFO 6 1 0 0 2 8 4 21 0 2 43 4
LRH 10 4 1 0 2 7 2 72 0 1 101 10
LMM 1 0 6 0 0 58 23 2 90 11
LWP 4 0 0 4 1 80 11 0 100 12
(1) Quantiles 0–24% (gray), 25–49% (yellow), 50–74% (orange), and 75–100% (red) overlap, where the value 0 represents overlap <0.5% and where no value represents no overlap.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Svensson, J.; Neumann, W.; Bjärstig, T.; Zachrisson, A.; Thellbro, C. Landscape Approaches to Sustainability—Aspects of Conflict, Integration, and Synergy in National Public Land-Use Interests. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5113. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125113

AMA Style

Svensson J, Neumann W, Bjärstig T, Zachrisson A, Thellbro C. Landscape Approaches to Sustainability—Aspects of Conflict, Integration, and Synergy in National Public Land-Use Interests. Sustainability. 2020; 12(12):5113. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125113

Chicago/Turabian Style

Svensson, Johan, Wiebke Neumann, Therese Bjärstig, Anna Zachrisson, and Camilla Thellbro. 2020. "Landscape Approaches to Sustainability—Aspects of Conflict, Integration, and Synergy in National Public Land-Use Interests" Sustainability 12, no. 12: 5113. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125113

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop