The potential to develop environmental values on privately owned forest land in southern Sweden

ABSTRACT Private forest owners’ management decisions significantly impact the development of forest values in Sweden. This study explored the potential to develop environmental values on privately owned land in southern Sweden. Data were collected through interviews with 23 forest owners and analyzed with semantic content analysis. The interviewees owned estates of productive, predominantly coniferous forest ranging in size from 10–825 ha. They were aged 36–84, and 26% were female. Results showed that there is considerable potential to develop environmental values on private land since 1) Forest owners demonstrated multi-functional views of primarily social and emotional dimensions surrounding forest ownership, and the mindset of combining goals enables many different values to be developed, 2) Desired management showed numerous ideas that could bring a diversity of benefits, and 3) Practical management included various production-favoring measures, but even more for environmental, social, cultural, and emotional purposes that, largely unnoted, bring environmental conservation benefits. All forest owners perceived barriers to management and ownership, categorized primarily to structural or surrounding society factors. Financial incentives, policies encouraging forest owners’ initiatives, an adequate supply of resources and sound management advice are suggested measures to reduce barriers and facilitate the development of environmental values.


Forests in high demand
Forests are increasingly expected to provide more ecosystem services in our bio-based society. They play an essential role as providers of energy (Bentsen and Felby 2012), biodiversity (Brockerhoff et al. 2017), and a variety of other values, e.g. timber production, carbon sequestration, soil preservation, recreation, and aesthetics (Burkhard et al. 2009; Baral et al. 2016). As demand for forest ecosystem services is projected to increase (Kraxner et al. 2013;Fricko et al. 2017;Lauri et al. 2017;Veerkamp et al. 2020), competition for these resources is also likely to rise, something which could be partly countered by an appropriate forest management strategy (Felton et al. 2016a(Felton et al. , 2016bEyvindson et al. 2018). Managing this seemingly inevitable conflict of goals and, at the same time, adapting forestry to the effects of a changing climate and an increased interest from the public in using the forest (Rametsteiner et al. 2009), are some of the most important challenges facing forest managers.
The inherent value of ecosystem services is acknowledged in global goals for sustainable development, including halting biodiversity loss (United Nations 2015). These goals are also evident in the EU Green Deal (European Commission 2021), where working toward carbon neutrality is intended to increase resilience to climate change and biodiversity loss. Sweden's national goals for environmental, cultural, and social values are stated alongside demands for regeneration and forest production (Swedish Forest Agency 2022). About 50% of forest land in Sweden is owned privately (Christiansen 2018), which means that the managerial decisions and practices of private owners are of great importance for achieving these goals. In fact, private owners are vitally important contributors to wider biological values through their diversity of management approaches and the cultural landscape habitats (Mölder et al. 2021). Their estates can hold forests of higher diversity with more significant amounts of dead wood than publicly owned forests (Schaich and Plieninger 2013), as well as greater tree species richness and more complex structures (Rendenieks et al. 2015).

Nature conservation in Sweden
The Swedish forestry model is based on the principle of freedom with responsibility, with the Forestry Act setting the minimum legal requirements for the two equally important goals of environmental and production values (Swedish Forest Agency 2022). Actions for environmental values (nature conservation measures) include general nature consideration for all forestry activities and the establishment of protected areas both with and without management. General nature consideration includes, e.g. withinstand consideration patches, protective edge zones, excluding unproductive or wet areas from management, leaving old deciduous trees and dead wood, and creating high stumps. Also, certain tree species, noble broad leaves, may according to the Forestry Act, not be replaced by other tree species (Swedish Forest Agency 2022). Priority areas for forest protection in southern Sweden are deciduous forests, which constitute half or more of the prioritized forest types (County board of Kalmar 2006;County board of Kronoberg 2007).
In 2021, 2.4 million ha (9%) of all forest land in Sweden was under formal protection, of which 1.3 million ha constituted productive forest (Statistics Sweden 2022). In addition, consideration patches and unproductive land amounted to further 4.9 million ha (Statistics Sweden 2022). Also, more than 60% of forest land is certified (PEFC 2021;, i.e. owners are expected to have larger areas of set-asides and a more significant number and diversity of retained trees than required by law (PEFC 2017;FSC 2020). This could explain why the area of voluntary set-asides, primarily through classifications NS and NO in forestry management plans, has increased from 997 000 ha in 1996 to1.3 million ha in 2021 (Swedish Forest Agency 2019). These areas have been shown to be essential contributors toward fulfilling the nation's environmental goals (Stål et al. 2012;Simonsson et al. 2016;Grönlund et al. 2019), and to be sustainable over time since 75% of private owners could imagine keeping setasides for longer (Stål et al. 2012). However, there are also practical problems due to barriers and lack of incentives for nature conservation measures in voluntary set-aside areas among relevant actors (Grönlund et al. 2020).

Conditions for forest management
Conditions for forestry in Sweden vary drastically from the boreal north, where forest companies and the state own a large part of the forest, to the southern boreo-nemoral mixed forest zone (Moen 1998), where private owners own about 80% of forest land (Christiansen 2018). The north of Sweden is dominated by Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H. Karst), while in the south the species mixtures are more diverse, including Norway spruce (47% of the growing stock), Scots pine (29%), and birch (Betula pendula (Roth), Betula pubescens (Ehrh)) (11%), alongside smaller proportions of deciduous species, e.g. aspen (Populus tremula L.), alder (Alnus glutinosa L.) Gaertn.), oak (Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea (Mattuschka) Liebl.), and beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) (Forest statistics 2021). In addition, forest growth is relatively high in southern Sweden, with a mean annual rate of 8.9 m 3 /ha/year (compare a rate of 5.5 for all of Sweden) (Forest Statistics 2021). Forest management is still characterized by cut-tolength (Söderberg et al. 2021) advanced mechanized methods (Lindroos et al. 2017) and dominated by the clearcutting system with clear-cuts followed by regeneration, pre-commercial thinnings (PCTs), thinnings and final felling, but it has to some extent moved to retention practice and climate adaption (Girdziušas et al. 2021). The relatively favorable growth conditions and the variety of tree species in southern Sweden together create various management options. However, owners are also exposed to various risks of forest damage caused by, e.g. animal browsing, strong winds, fires, droughts, pathogens, and insects (Eriksson et al. 2016).

Private forest owners' decision-situation and perspectives of environmental values
Within the framework imposed by legal requirements and ecological conditions, owners have a considerable degree of freedom to manage their forests based on their personal preferences; as Lawrence et al. (2020) points out, Swedish forest policy is relatively deregulated, with managerial responsibility taken by owners, in a context of other private actors, and NGOs. Decisions depend on, according to Heckhausen and Heckhausen (2008), personal factors (needs, motives, goals), the specific situation (opportunities, possible incentives), and a combination of these factors (also stressed by Stern (2000), who posited a combination of material incentives and social/individual norms, values, and beliefs). Forest owners' behavior was further explained by Deuffic et al. (2018) as a combination of four individual logics of action (utilitarianism, appropriateness, cognition, practices) and five main structural factors (policies, market conditions, environmental aspects, knowledge, and social norms). Considering these studies, and inspired by Dandy (2012), we suggest that five main categories of factors could help us to better understand private forest owners' decision-situation in southern Sweden: Internal factors; Structural factors; Knowledge, advice, and information; Ownership role (social/cultural factors); and Surrounding society. The heterogeneity of private owners, reflected by the numerous owner typologies that have been developed (Ficko et al. 2019), means that these factors may vary in relative importance with any one owner. We expound more on these factors in the following section.
Forest owners' Internal factors (e.g. personal values, attitudes, beliefs, objectives, risk perception, emotions) have been described and analyzed in many previous studies (e.g. Karppinen 1998;Blennow and Sallnäs 2002;Boon et al. 2004;Wiersum et al. 2005;Ingemarson et al. 2006;Nordlund and Westin 2011;Eriksson 2012;Eriksson 2014;Koskela and Karppinen 2021). In contrast, fewer studies describe the relations of these factors to forestry behavior (Ní Dhubháin et al. 2007), one notable example being Karppinen (1998), who found multi-objective forest owners to be more active than others regarding silviculture and harvesting. Forest owners' values were examined by Koskela and Karppinen (2021) in Finland, where security, benevolence, conformity, and tradition (Schwartz 1994) were found to be the most important. Also, these owners were more willing to implement conservation measures with a lower impact on property rights or if they included financial compensation. Values and beliefs influence forest management attitudes, as Nordlund and Westin (2011) found for forest owners in Sweden, where ecological values positively affected environmentally oriented management attitudes. Risk perception is another crucial factor; serious risks which forest owners in Sweden perceive are natural hazards and political decisions, e.g. regarding the implementation of environmental regulations (Eriksson 2014). Finally, the importance of emotions has been highlighted in several studies (e.g. Buijs and Lawrence 2013;Lähdesmäki and Matilainen 2014;Jakobsson et al. 2021). Lähdesmäki and Matilainen (2014) explained two dimensions of psychological ownership: identity and control. Those who inherit their forest see themselves as a link in the generation chain, responsible for decisions regarding previous and future generations, which is reflected in how the forest is managed. Regarding actions for the environment, registration of protected areas can lead to owners experiencing feelings of losing ownership, leading them to take actions to reduce or not develop environmental values in order to maintain control and ownership (Jakobsson et al. 2021). Few studies capture internal objective-oriented factors like visions or desired futures, albeit formulating backcasting visions in participatory processes was used in Sweden by Sandström et al. (2016) and Lilli et al. (2020). Motivational theories such as goal setting by Locke (1996) are more individual and precise but even rarer.
Structural factors (e.g. socio-demographic factors, ownership conditions, estate characteristics, and owner's resources) have been studied from several perspectives, including the relationships between structural and internal factors: and between structural factors and behavior. In Sweden, 62% of forest owners are men (Christiansen 2018), and higher harvesting and silvicultural activity levels have been found in this group compared to women (Lidestav and Ekström 2000;Lidestav and Berg Lejon 2013). The mean age is 60 years, and the mean estate size in southern Sweden is 35 ha (Christiansen 2018). Older owners have been found less likely to carry out harvesting activities while owning a larger forest of greater quality increases harvesting frequency (Lidestav and Ekström 2000). Eggers et al. (2014) also found more intensive and productive strategies among owners of larger properties. Nordlund and Westin (2011) found that women regard environmental and recreational values higher than men. Furthermore, Uliczka et al. (2004) found that attitudes to environmental values were more favorable among younger females with high formal education compared to older, residential forest owners who were dependent on income from their holdings. Tiebel et al. (2022) also saw a positive relationship between conservation and female gender and higher education levels, but also formalized forestry, active forestry, and ecological values in the owned forest. Another influencing factor is the duration of ownership, which typically characterized Ingemarson et al.'s (2006) nature conservation group, including recent owners, a small percentage who had inherited their forest, and those who depended on income from the forest.
Related to Knowledge, advice, and information, Eriksson and Fries (2020) found that male owners, owning larger holdings, having bought the land, and having owned the forest for a long time, were associated with higher levels of subjective knowledge. Their objective knowledge was also higher, but differences were smaller when the level of forestry involvement (certification, forest owner association membership, involvement in forestry work, etc.) was controlled for.
Differences in knowledge levels may be due to limited knowledge sourcesbeing self-taught, learning from fathers, and attending forest days (Häggqvist et al. 2014). However, forest owners can also access advice and information from governmental actors such as regional forestry boards or private actorsmembership organizations or companies (Lawrence et al. 2020). Joa and Schraml (2020) found that pro-and con-conservation owners had similar knowledge levels, implying the importance of other factors in decisionmaking for conservation. Similarly, Uliczka et al. (2004) found that education affected conservation knowledge but not attitudes to it.
With regard to Ownership role (e.g. networks, norms, traditions), social networks are often important sources of information and services (Korhonen et al. 2012;Ruseva et al. 2014;André et al. 2017); and as Hujala et al. (2007) demonstrated among Finnish forest owners, decision-making needs are diversefrom depending on professionals to self-reliance and self-learning. Common network members in Sweden are family members, co-owners, neighbors, other owners, owners' associations, companies, and the Swedish Forest Agency (André et al. 2017). Co-ownership is increasing (Haugen et al. 2016), and many forest owners already make decisions with their partners (André et al. 2017). Owners with more extensive networks are more active (Ruseva et al. 2014) regarding, e.g. felling (Stoettner and Dhubháin 2019). Also, individual family traditions, relationships with neighbors, and local social norms significantly impact the management options considered by individual landowners, not least local norms against clear-cutting, and trust in local experts (Lind-Riehl et al. 2015). Deuffic et al. (2018) also found that social norms were an important influence on traditionoriented forest owners. For them, it is essential to respect and maintain family traditions and history. Another significant factor can be the forest owner's attachment to (or detachment from) the geographical area where their forests are located (Bergstén et al. 2018).
Surrounding societyin other words the body of current laws and regulationssets the framework for forest owners' decisions. However, the terms of the Forestry Act changes over time, especially regarding governance and environmental considerations (Enander 2007), as do certification standards. In addition, forest owners are influenced by economic factors: prices and markets for forest products, costs of forestry measures, taxation, and incentives (Dandy 2012). Even though owners are becoming less dependent on traditional economic benefits from their forests (Ingemarson et al. 2006), economic advantages may be emerging based on, e.g. recreation, tourism (Bjärstig and Sténs 2018), hunting, berry-and mushroom-picking (Richnau et al. 2013). Forest owners may also be influenced by shifting societal norms: moves toward environmental protection may, for example, allow some owners to legitimize forestry with nature conservation measures (Deuffic et al. 2018).

Study objective and research questions
Since some 80% of the productive forest land in southern Sweden is owned privately (Christiansen 2018), private owners significantly impact forest structures and the creation of environmental and other values. However, present knowledge levels about this are low: Indeed, for Sweden, currently, statistics are only available for follow-ups on cuttings (Swedish Forest Agency 2023a) and the occurrence of endangered or threatened species (e.g. SLU Artdatabanken 2020), little is known of the values created inand by -regular forest management in the vicinity of rural settlements, grazing areas, water bodies, forest patches. and border zones -in short, these is still much to be learned about the environmental values of privately owned forest estates.
Additionally, although several interacting factors evidently influence private forest owners' management decisions and actions, we do not yet fully know the connection between owners' values, desires, and consequential actions, and therefore, we do not know what environmental values actually are and even less about how they could be intentionally created or promoted on private land. An example of this general uncertainty can be seen in the well-intentioned environmental policies promoting retention forestry that worked from the 1990s but have now been shown to have had unintended negative consequences, such as forest owners conducting thinning delaying or inhibiting the creation of high environmental values (Jakobsson et al. 2021).
A deeper investigation into private forest owners' values, desires and practices is certainly warranted so as to identify ways to promote environmental values and the barriers to reaching them. To achieve this here, we first wanted to investigate the primary research question, what matters most to private owners in their forest ownership and management, and, secondly, to explore the nature of their desired forest management. Thirdly, we wanted to investigate forest owners' perceived management barriers, and fourthly how they manage their forests in practice. The answers to these questions capture and describe the potential to develop environmental values from the forest owner's perspective. This also enables an analysis of whether practical management aligns with desires and what matters most to the owners, or, if not, if the perceived barriers can explain this discrepancy. Answers to these questions could show possible paths forward in nature conservation. The ultimate aim of this study was thus to deepen our knowledge of private forest owners' perspectives and practices so as to understand the potential for developing environmental values on privately owned land in southern Sweden.

Methods and interview guide
The study was conducted through qualitative in-depth individual semi-structured interviews. The interview guide was constructed using a framework based on three disciplines: 1) contextual behavioral science, 2) political science and economics, and 3) evolutionary science (Prosocial World 2022). The framework uses a four-field model to capture thoughts and feelings (i.e. what matters most), desired actions, experienced barriers, and actions. Based on this framework, an interview guide including thematized openended questions was constructed according to the research questions. These were supplemented with background questions about the owner and the characteristics of the estate.

Selection and description of the forest owners and their estates
The study was delimited to private forest estates in southern Sweden in a west-east gradient within Halland, Kronoberg, and Kalmar counties, representing different climates and site conditions in the boreo-nemoral mixed forest zone (Moen 1998). To capture the diversity of the forest owner group, 20 owners were randomly selected within each of six groups (stratified sampling): the county of Halland estates > 100 ha (large) and ≤ 100 ha (small), the county of Kalmar > 100 ha and ≤ 100 ha, and the county of Kronoberg > 100 ha and ≤ 100 ha. The selection was made from Lantmäteriet's (the Swedish mapping, cadastral and land registration authority) real property register (Lantmäteriet 2022). A letter was sent by regular mail to these 120 forest owners with information about the study, stressing voluntary participation and confidentiality. The letter was followed by a telephone call to female and male owners of various ages to decide if, how, and when to conduct an interview. Finally, 23 forest owners were interviewed; based on the selection criteria, six (26%) were female, ages ranged between 36 and 84 years, and the area owned of productive forest land varied between 10 and 825 ha (13 participants owned > 100 ha) (Table 1).
Based on the information elicited by the background questions, other structural factors varied among the interviewees. 43% had university-level education; others had professional or upper secondary school education. Education subjects were forestry (22%), agriculture, science, economics, healthcare, and others. The owners either worked, were retired, or combined retirement with work. Approximately 61% lived on their estates. About half owned the forest outright themselves, and the duration of ownership varied between three and 69 years. 74% of forest acquisitions came from within the family: purchase, heritage, gift, or in some cases, a combination of these. 43% were dependent on income from the forest. Most owners had certified their forest (70%), and 83% had a forest management plan.
The estates were predominantly coniferous, the main species being Norway spruce and Scots pine. Birch and oak were common, and other deciduous tree species included aspen, rowan (Sorbus aucuparia), linden (Tilia cordata), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), maple (Acer platanoides), and salix (Salix sp). On a few properties, there were Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) and larch (Larix sp). Many estates were impacted by Storm Gudrun in 2005, which had clearly affected the species composition and age distribution in that young forests with a high proportion of deciduous trees were common. Related to environmental values, noble broad leaved woodlands, woodland key habitats (WKHs) and biotope protection areas were present in several estates. Other types of protection and user rights included water protection areas and trekking. In addition to productive forest land, the estates included grazing, water, cultural heritage, and farm environments.

Data analysis
The interviews took place between May 2021 and January 2022 and were conducted by two researchers, either jointly or separately, and either by phone or remotely via web conferencing systems; each interview lasted about 1-2 h. The open-ended questions were complemented by follow-up questions when needed. All interviews were recorded digitally and then transcribed verbatim.
The transcribed data were analyzed through summative content analysis in two steps. Content analysis involves describing a phenomenon by closely examining texts to identify codes and categories directly from the data. The analysis is done by repeatedly reading the text, coding meaningful pieces, finding categories, overarching themes, and sub-themes (Elo and Kyngäs 2008). This has been done in previous studies on forest owners' perspectives, e.g. by Häyrinen et al. (2017) and Bjärstig and Sténs (2018).
In the first step, the Nvivo 12 program was used to analyze the data deductively by direct coding based on the study's research questions. Two researchers performed the analysis. For calibration, the researchers analyzed two transcripts, the results were discussed, and then a new analysis was performed and discussed. Finally, a degree of agreement between the researchers' codings of 91.6% was achieved. In the second step, the coded text was analyzed inductively when, separately for each research question, the original quotes were examined and summarized in interpreted underlying meanings. These meanings were then interpreted in sub-themes and themes (Table 2).
Identified sub-themes and themes were counted and described through the number of counts of themes identified for each research question, themes identified per forest owner, differences in identified themes between men and women, and between large and small forest owners. More prominent themes concerning the number of forest owners or text codes were prioritized for further qualitative description. Owners' expressions which were interpreted as relating to environmental aspects were highlighted and described qualitatively for each research question. Answers to the question about perceived barriers were analyzed by relating identified themes to the five categories enumerated above: Internal factors; Structural factors; Knowledge, advice, and information; Ownership role and Surrounding society.

What matters most in forest management and ownership
When asked what was most important in management and ownership, 205 text codes and 15 themes were identified. The theme Finance was mentioned by most owners (15), closely followed by Recreation and well-being (14), Inheritance and family ties (14), and To manage the forest (14) (Figure 1).
One owner, a woman who owned a small estate, mentioned aspects within one theme only: To Manage the forest. All others mentioned aspects within 2-8 themes. All themes occurred for both women and men, except Long- Table 2. Illustration of the inductive analysis steps using a piece of text first coded deductively as perceived barriers.

Original quote
Interpreted meaning Sub-theme Theme "It is instead of having deciduous trees. But then it is the case that there is a lot of sand in these arable lands and the deciduous trees do not like that very much, but the land is probably more intended for spruce forest in that case." These areas seem to suit spruce better than deciduous trees term perspective and Sustainability, which occurred only for men, all but one with small estates. Furthermore, all themes occurred for both small and large forest owners, except Sustainability and Family community, which only occurred for small forest owners.
Finance was never found alone as a theme that matters most. Usually, other themes also played an important role and in combination. Owners saw economic value in the forest providing an opportunity for income, financial security, and a financial balance.
The theme Recreation and well-being was partly about a hunting interest and partly about the value of outdoor pursuits in one's own forest, for example, through picking berries and mushrooms. The value of increasing accessibility and recreational values for others was also mentioned, as well as the merits of enjoying a beautiful forest and the value of the forest in providing opportunities for recovery and therapy.
Inheritance and family ties was essentially all about managing the forest's heritage and future generations. Owners thought that the forest was a link in a chain of generations. It was about respect for past and future generations and all that generations must stand up for; forest ownership is often a keenly felt responsibility. Forest owners also wished to pass on the estate to the next generation and hoped that their children would take over management.
The theme To manage the forest was also found with several forest owners. This theme captured what it meant to manage the forest for various reasons: so that the forest is not destroyed, it is kept in order, looks good, is healthy, and finally can be used for recreation, to control wildlife, or create unique biotopes.
Eight forest owners highlighted aspects related to Lifestyle and identity. In essence, they meant that the forest is simultaneously a lifestyle, a profound life choice, and an identity. Aspects related to Homeland, which included being raised on the estate, the importance of the home village, and local anchoring, were mentioned by three owners, and Family community was identified as a theme for two. Family community meant that the forest was seen as a family affair, or that there was a strong sense of it belonging within the family.
Aspects of environmental values could primarily be identified within the themes To manage the forest, A standing forest, and To nurture the forest. In To manage the forest, two owners mentioned creating diversity and unique biotopes. A standing forest was about the importance of a standing forest so that new forests are established and built. To nurture the forest, expressed by six female and male owners of both small and large estates, was expressed as nurturing the forest for biological diversity, allowing the forest to remain untouched, to promote natural values and diversity, to protect the forest and cultural relics, to manage the forest sensitively, and to save the unique.

Desired forest management
When asked about desired management, 20 themes ( Figure  2) and 215 text codes were identified. Of the themes, three (Aesthetics, Trial, Usefulness) were only mentioned by women, and nine (Rules, Desired interaction, More forest, Sustainability, Climate adaptation, Information, Game, Balanced production, Follow the plan) by men. Wildlife was only mentioned by owners of large states, whereas More forest, Information, Trial, Balanced production, and Follow the plan were only articulated by small-estate owners.
More than half of the codes, 126, mentioned by 21 forest owners, composed the single theme Management. This theme, in turn, contained 21 sub-themes: Tree species adaptation, Status quo, Rules, More varied forest, Adaptation infrastructure, Economics, Water, Preserve open habitats, Adaptation recreation, Response, PCT (pre-commercial thinning), Values, Adaptation wildlife, Active management, Adaptation silviculture, More forest, Nature considerations, Adaptation risk, Successive change, Well-managed, Other goals and adaptations.
The sub-theme mentioned by most was Tree species adaptation (11 men, three women, seven with large estates). Specific tree species mentioned included Scots pine, oak, beech, hybrid aspen, larch, birch, Sitka spruce, and Douglas fir.
Within the sub-theme Status quo, seven forest owners, all men, stated that management was good as it wasthey did not want to change(even though four of them also mentioned aspects of Tree species adaptation).
The sub-theme More varied forest was mentioned by five men. This included forest age distribution, mixing of several tree species, and less Norway spruce. PCT, mentioned by four, was related to the cultural landscape, namely maintaining open habitats. This could be close to the farm and main buildings, but also take the form of areas of grazing or haymaking. One female owner that mentioned Preserve open habitats also talked of PCT with two other women. These cases were about aesthetics, highlighting a visual impression, or clearing up. Another aspect of Preserve open habitats was letting former grazed areas become deciduous forests.
In the Management theme, there were several aspects related to adaptation: adaptation infrastructure, recreation, wildlife, silviculture, and risk. Moreover, the forest estate should be well managed (Active management), as well as managing water surfaces to look at (Water) and for wildlife (Wildlife). In addition to Management, the next largest three themes in terms of the number of forest owners were Rules (8), Attitudes (6), and Social goals (6). Though Rules framed issues such as improved prerequisites for motivations, four owners seemed to be rather content with the rules and found them balanced. In the Attitudes theme, owners expressed an attitude about a particular management or forest type as a motivation for their desired management for example, that birch allows more light than spruce. Social goals included social aspects of life in the forest and the overall life situation.
Regarding environmental aspects, there were several examples of what owners would like to do, such as grazing and clearing open habitats, creating corridors along roads and ponds, and using more deciduous trees. When clearing in the forest (PCT), the focus was on visual impressions rather than creating habitats, though PCT was also mentioned as a measure to create a more varied forest. Some owners were highly motivated in this regard and would like to do more.

Perceived barriers to management
When asked about barriers, 104 text codes and 17 themes were identified. The theme of Finance was mentioned by most (13), closely followed by the themes Rules (12), Time (8), and Site conditions (6) (Figure 3).
All but one owner saw various barriers in their forestry. The one who saw no barriers was a man with a small estate. Two saw one barrier each: Finance and Knowledge, respectively. All others saw several barriers, most within three themes, and one, a woman with a small estate, saw the most barriers linked to eight different themes. Themes only mentioned by women were Energy, Ownership, Material, and Advice, and themes only mentioned by men were Wildlife, Forestry debate, Interest, Forestry rotation, and Market. Only owners of small estates mentioned the five themes Interest, Tools, Ownership, Material, and Advice, and only owners of large estates mentioned Forestry rotation and Market.
What forest owners expressed as barriers were primarily attributed to Structural factors (34) and Surrounding society (19) (Figure 4). Structural factors were Finance, Time, Site Conditions, the impact of Wildlife, lack of appropriate machinery and plant protection (Tools), and the difficulty of changing an existing tree species due to long rotations (Forestry rotation). Surrounding society included Rules, the difficulties of getting hold of people for forestry services (Availability), influencing public debate (Forestry debate), Market, and inadequate supplies of planting material of different tree species (Material). Internal factors included perceived lack of ability due to personal health (Ability), lack of personal energy (Energy), and interest (Interest). Knowledge, advice, and information was mainly about perceived lack of knowledge (Knowledge), but also took in advice that had been given to refrain from carrying out specific measures (Advice). Linked to Ownership role was the perceived loss of property rights or reduced room for forestry activities.
In Finance several forestry measures and the process of contracting work were associated with high costs. Consequently, it was also deemed that it was not worth carrying out certain measures. The owners also mentioned a lack of money and difficulties in getting things going. Regarding Rules, various forms of limiting authority rules and restrictions were mentioned and described as difficult. Specific rules and restrictions were cited, e.g. those arising from the Forestry Act (e.g. rules concerning forest regeneration and use of pesticides). Furthermore, certification rules were mentioned several times, and in these cases, restrictions concerning the choice of tree species were highlighted. Furthermore, the redemption of land by formal protection (biotope protection) as well as NO-areas and WKHs was perceived as highly restrictive. It was also asserted that many rules are too staticthey should be much more flexible.
Time was also experienced by many as a barrier. It was perceived that there was simply not enough time for follow-ups, to acquire information, or build knowledge. Forest owners also found it challenging to keep up with the demands of various management measures such as dedicated wildlife management, PCT, and thinning.
Regarding Site conditions, it was mentioned that spruce bark-beetle virtually controls forestry, and that competitive vegetation and the risk of frost damage makes regenerations difficult or even impossible. Site conditions limit the choice of tree species if there is no land suitable for pine or the land is more suitable for spruce than deciduous tree species.
Regarding environmental values, aspects that could constitute barriers were found in five themes: Finance, Material, Site conditions, Advice, and Rules. It was mentioned that production and profitability would decrease if spruce is replaced with other tree species. Also, it was difficult to get hold of tree species other than pine and spruce, and that site conditions were better suited for spruce than deciduous trees. Related to Rules, the establishment of protected areas and registration of WKHs was perceived to create barriers. The creation of WKHs was felt to prevent owners from managing the forest to maintain or develop environmental values. Also, a fear of growing noble broad leaved trees was expressed by one forest owner. Advice has also been given on not growing these trees.
Of all the themes, five (Combining goals, Game management, Maintenance, Using available space in rules, Storm resilience) occurred for men only, and five (Aesthetics, Avoid authorities, Household need, No active nature consideration, No management) for women. Nine themes occurred only among the responses of large forest owners (Recreation, Test, Aesthetics, Avoid authorities, Combining goals, Game management, Maintenance, Using available space in rules, Storm resilience), and only one (Household need) for small. A significant number of the codes came within Traditional measures, which included logging fallow period, soil scarification, planting, additional planting, PCT, thinning, final cutting, and skidding storm-felled trees. The theme Extra measures concerned pruning, using shelter trees, larch management, grass treatments, building fences for pine, using drones, and extra dense planting. The theme Sub-contracting ranged from having a relative taking care of practical measures to formally contracting forestry companies for their services. Planning included choosing work tasks, routines for working internally with information, having and using a forest management plan, and conducting field visits as preparation for the season. Recreation included measures, such as building bridges and clearing forest paths, to create accessibility, both for the forest owners and visitors. The theme Site adaptation included a commitment to natural regeneration methods on suitable soils, and Test included examples of cooperation with universities. Cultural consideration included open habitats for purposes such as fauna and food production.
Elements that could be attributed to environmental values were found in the themes Nature consideration, Extra measures, Cultural landscape, Recreation, Site adaptation, Aesthetics, and No management, in total 94 codes.
Nature consideration was about promoting the amount of deciduous and mixed forest and maintaining current abundance, reducing spruce, leaving dead wood, and creating bird habitats. Choice of and changing tree species was mentioned by several owners at different levels of intensity. One owner explained a shift from spruce to pine and deciduous forests, using deciduous species along roads and watercourses and saving all beech and oak. Extra measures affecting environmental values were fencing to establish more tree species and, by keeping an overstorey, creating mixed stands. The Cultural landscape concerned grazing and retaining open habitats. The value of the cultural landscape (the value for nature is implicit given that grazing creates species-rich biotopes) was mentioned by two owners. Recreation as affecting environmental values involved measures such as creating water bodies.
Site adaptation was about emphasizing the site when selecting species, and Aesthetic was about creating attractive areas, which involved promoting deciduous trees and letting more light in by reducing over-abundant spruce.

What matters most in forest management and ownership
All forest owners mentioned aspects within several themes that mattered to them most. Only one mentioned aspects within one theme, To manage the forest, an isolated case in which, however, multiple goals also emerged. Here, there are similarities between southern Swedish forest owners and the multi-functional views identified in several previous studies (e.g. Karppinen 1998;Wiersum et al. 2005;Ingemarson et al. 2006;Bjärstig and Sténs 2018). Interestingly, even though we asked participants what mattered most, it seemed difficult for them to highlight any one aspect. Forest ownership and management are important for owners for several differentlinkedreasons.
Finance, expressed as economic security, an opportunity for livelihood, and a way of balancing finances, was most common among the forest owners we interviewed, but it was always mentioned in combination with other themes. Economic values related to, e.g. tourism, mushrooms, berries, and hunting, may be essential to some (Richnau   Bjärstig and Sténs 2018), but this was not evident in this study, where these were values instead linked to Recreation and well-being. This was the second largest theme highlighting the forest's significant role for owners in creating opportunities for hunting, enjoying the outdoor life, exercise, recovery, and therapynot only for themselves but also to increase accessibility, recreational values, and well-being for other people. Although we did not explicitly ask about owners' values, we recognize traits of the values type Benevolence, also found by Koskela and Karppinen (2021) among Finnish private forest owners.
An equally common theme in this study was Inheritance and family ties, similar to Deuffic et al.'s (2018) traditionoriented forest owners who valued maintaining family traditions. The respect for traditions was clearly expressed, another dimension within the Tradition value type (Schwartz 1994) also found in Koskela and Karppinen (2021). The meaning of Inheritance and family ties in this study could be explained by most of the estates being acquired from within the family (74%). Consequently, owners had strong family ties to the estate one or several generations back in time. This theme is likely equally important among private forest owners in Sweden generally, since 76% of all forest estates are acquired from within the family (Skogsbarometern 2021). Consequently, as explained by the influence of emotions in Lähdesmäki and Matilainen (2014), emotions probably influence management decisions for most private owners in Sweden.
This study makes clear the importance of the forest for social values in accordance with Bjärstig and Sténs (2018), and emotional values in accordance with Lähdesmäki and Matilainen (2014). Social and emotional aspects emerged through several themes: interest and commitment to the forest (Interest), the value of forest ownership (Ownership value), and Lifestyle and identity. Furthermore, local anchoring (Homeland) emerged in a way similar to that found by Bergstén et al. (2018), as well as the importance of the forest to connecting with the family or as a means of maintaining family relationships (Family community). Family community could be a factor that becomes more important in the future due to social change, urbanization, and structural change among private forest owners (Wiersum et al. 2005;Haugen et al. 2016). In Sweden, for example, there is an ongoing increase in the proportion of non-residential owners and owners living in metropolitan regions (Haugen et al. 2016), which could increase the importance of the forest estate as a connecting link. Richnau et al. (2013) found that the most important use values among private forest owners in southern Sweden were wood production, recreation, and landscape quality. Recreational values clearly emerged in this study; aspects directly linked to forest production were rarely mentioned. Forest owners also expressed certain aspects that were more important than could be thematized simply as nature conservation, namely, To nurture the forest, even though it was discerned in other themes. Thus, owners expressed a range of intertwined factors where nature conservation was included but rarely expressed as the most important. The character of the interviewees could have influenced this outcome to some extent. There is a known positive relation between female gender and environmental values (Uliczka et al. 2004;Nordlund and Westin 2011;Tiebel et al. 2022), and a negative relationship between age and environmental values (Uliczka et al. 2004). Since the proportion of young women in this study was low compared to the proportion among Swedish forest owners, it might be expected that the expression of such values is somewhat understated in this study. Ingemarson et al.'s (2006) nature conservation group was, e.g. characterized by a small percentage of inherited estates and dependence on forestry income. In this study, the proportion of family-acquired estates was high, and 43% of participants were dependent on income from the forest. Owners of larger estates favor more intensively productive strategies (Eggers et al. 2014), and the owners in this study had, on average, relatively large estates compared to the mean size in southern Sweden. The significance of nature conservation may also have been higher if more owners of non-inherited small estates who were not dependent on forest-derived income had been interviewed.

Desired forest management
In this study, explicit goals were not queried, but rather desired futures, a subtly different approach which proved useful. Owners' preferences in this study were mainly expressed in the theme Management, sub-theme Tree species adaptation, by choosing or favoring different tree species: pine, deciduous trees, and exotic tree species (hybrid aspen, Douglas fir, and Sitka spruce) were mentioned, creating a slightly different desired future instead of spruce domination. Choice of tree species is a decision that strongly affects the next tree generation, more than, e.g. PCT and thinning, which impact an existing tree species mixture and stand structure. Part of Tree species adaptation was also about a desire favoring certain species in existing mixtures.
The motives for these changes can be linked to ownersṕ erception and experience of natural hazards (Eriksson 2014)in Sweden, e.g. Storm Gudrun in 2005, and drought years, especially in 2018 (Buras et al. 2020). However, owners have been described as using experience-based and practical knowledge (Lidskog and Sjödin 2014), thus despite much spruce being damaged in Storm Gudrun the forest was mostly replanted with spruce (Lidskog and Sjödin 2014;Valinger et al. 2019). High animal browsing pressure on pine and deciduous trees, availability of plants, and trust in practical experience firmly anchored in previous generations of ownership was used to explain this choice as being perfectly rational. In this study, this was partly expressed among those who mentioned the status quo (Status quo) being satisfied with the current state of affairs, even though these owners also mentioned tree species adaptation as desirable. This study does not show how many hectares have been converted from spruce to other species, but data from the Swedish Forest Agency show a modest increase in the proportion of pine and deciduous trees in Götaland (Bergquist et al. 2017); for plant deliveries, the proportion of spruce has fallen since 2007, whereas the proportion of pine and deciduous trees is increasing (Swedish Forest Agency 2021).
Incentives and campaigns promoting pine have focused on animal browsing and not climate change or storms (Bengtsson 2019), suggesting that change is possible and that arguments for increasing the proportion of pine remain to be explainedfor deciduous species even more so.
Drought, especially during 2018, also highlighted the importance of adaptation. A specific ecological adaptation can thus be interpreted in the choice of tree species. Could this be a new way of reasoning around tree species selection? In the past, economic decisions have played a significant role; Fujikake (2007) highlighted this in Japan, where ecological functions were downgraded in favor of economic ones. Climate change can affect forest owners' behaviors in different ways than the risk of, e.g. wind damage (Eriksson 2014), since it is a more constant gradient change than the episodical nature of large storm events. The social debate on climate change is now also more widespread and might influence owner behavior more. A forest owner's choice of tree species may also be explained by an interest in having tried something new on a small scale. For the average forest owner, owning about 35 ha in southern Sweden (Christiansen 2018), a small area planting with, for example, hybrid aspen is not a significant change but it is still an interesting innovation.
In addition to aspects related to Tree species adaptation, owners also mentioned management related to More varied forests, for example, through different tree ages, preferably older forests, and mixtures where deciduous trees benefit during the whole rotation period. The reason for this could be a concern for climate change (Blennow 2012)deciduous and mixed forests are supposed to be more resilient than pure spruce forests (Felton et al. 2016a)but also a preference for certain forest types, which relates to aesthetics.
From a nature conservation point of view, owners mentioned several examples of what they want to do. Codes about the cultural landscape were interesting because such adaptations often provide favorable conditions for biological diversity through, for example, grazing and mowing. Historically, most estates in this study had been at least partly used for agriculture, and many owners still had such areas. However, it was also mentioned that grazing had ceased and that the land was either allowed to become deciduous forests, which can benefit biodiversity (Stokland 1994), or that the land was cut by machine. This indicates that future efforts in the cultural landscape may involve less of the grazing component.
Owners mentioned wild water and other water bodies as examples of implemented or desired measures. Compared with not implementing these measures, the benefits in terms of nature conservation are likely to be positive since ponds and streams are known to contribute to species richness (Biggs et al. 2017). The purpose of the water measures in this study mainly concerned wild water or aesthetics, which is why the overall conservation benefit comes as a side-effect. The creation of wild water has in Sweden previously been financially supported, and perhaps for certain types of water measures there is an opportunity to combine forest owners' driving motivation with increased biodiversity. However, the effect of these measures needs to be better known, and priority may be given to other measures. Specific wetland-promoting measures underway in Sweden, such as plugging ditches, refer to carbon sequestration programs (Swedish Forest Agency 2023b), but owners did not mention these in this study.
Aesthetically oriented measures such as highlighting certain tree species along roads were mentioned. These could also provide conservation benefits, e.g. by increasing the number of sunlit trunks in the landscape, which are habitats for rare saproxylic invertebrates (Jonsell et al. 1998). Some aesthetic measures were also about creating a wellthinned forest. Near residential buildings, this was about favoring deciduous trees, as spruce was perceived as gloomy. If owners let aesthetic impressions guide their choices, more deciduous forests would probably be favored along roads and even further from farm environments, contributing to higher diversity (Stokland 1994).

Perceived barriers to management
All but one forest owner perceived barriers to management. What constituted a barrier varied among ownersmost perceived several. The importance of Finance couldsince it was expressed as high costs associated with forestry measures and contracting (as also mentioned by Dandy (2012)), a perceived lack of money and difficulties in getting things goingpartly be explained by the fact that almost half of the owners were dependent on income from the forest. For these, at least, forestry must make ends meet financially.
Several laws and regulations surround forest owners but still provide room for action through the principle of freedom under responsibility (Lawrence et al. 2020). Despite this, laws and regulations (Rules) were mentioned as barriers, in line with Eriksson (2014), who found political decisions the most severe of the perceived risks among forest owners in Sweden. Certification rules were also mentioned (70% had certified their forest), although this system is voluntary. Barriers were associated with certification rules that were perceived as irrelevant regarding, e.g. the use of different tree species. Production conditions vary significantly in southern Sweden from west to east for different tree species; this could lead to tree species rules being perceived as more or less relevant in different geographical regions. Furthermore, land redemption through formal protection, NO-areas, and WKHs was perceived as a barrier by reducing or entirely removing room for action.
Ecological barriers to successful forest regeneration were mentioned (Site conditions), especially competing vegetation in southern Sweden (Nilsson and Örlander 1999). Spruce bark-beetle was also mentioned, possibly because this damage agent has significantly affected forest owners in southern Sweden after the exceptionally dry year of 2018 (Wulff and Roberge 2020). It is not unlikely that other barriers would have emerged if the presence of other causes of damage was more pronounced today. The owners' estates were predominantly coniferous, and a desire to change tree species was expressed by, e.g. replacing spruce with pine and deciduous trees. Some interviewees, however, meant that there were limited suitable sites for other tree species.
Time was also highlighted as a barrier: forest owners felt that there was not enough time to keep up with forestry measures (also pointed out by Grönlund et al. (2019)), to exchange information or build knowledge. The lack of time for wildlife management and PCT could partly be explained by many estates being characterized by a high proportion of young forests needing PCT, which makes time more clearly limiting. Like Deuffic et al. (2018), we found that social norms also seem to affect forest owners in southern Sweden. This emerged through the theme Forestry debate, although only two owners mentioned it. This theme also raised the problem that people without much practical knowledge of forests want to decide on their management and use.
Primarily, barriers were related to Structural factors and Surrounding society and less so to internal factors such as personal Ability, lack of Energy or Interest, lack of Knowledge, preventive Advice, and the risk of losing property/use rights (Ownership role). Structural factors linked to the conditions of forest estates were only mentioned by men. This could be partly explained by the fact that, compared to women, male owners with, e.g. larger estates, are associated with higher levels of subjective and objective knowledge (Eriksson and Fries 2020). If so, they may be more likely to articulate site condition constraints on management.
Aspects that could constitute barriers to nature conservation were found in Finance, Material, Site conditions, Advice, and Rules. Several aspects concerned the choice of tree species. There were profitability barriers to replacing spruce, and other tree species were not always available for planting. Forest owners wanted deciduous forests but simultaneously expressed fear of planting; some said that they had refrained from planting broadleaved trees. The fear could be due to uncertainty or a perceived lack of knowledge, as they have been described as using experience-based and practical knowledge (Lidskog and Sjödin 2014), or it could also relate to Rules since deciduous woodlands may not be replaced by other species (Swedish Forest Agency 2022), which obviously limits future room for action. Similarly, laws and regulations were perceived as barriers for forest owners as formal protected areas and registration of WKHs reduce the scope for action in their forest. As Koskela and Karppinen (2021) found, it seems crucial that conservation measures should benefit forest owners' property rights, but also their autonomy (Joa and Schraml 2020).

Practical management
Factors directly linked to forest production were rarely mentioned when asked what matters most or is desired. However, when interviewees were asked about practical management most text codes related to the sub-theme Traditional measures, which included production-promoting measures such as soil scarification, planting, PCT, thinning, and final felling. Since production-oriented management has been promoted for a long time, (re-establishment was already a demand in the 1905 Forestry Act), and only since the 1990s has production been combined with environmental values (Enander 2007), it is to be expected that these measures are reflected in forest owner actions today. Many owners were older and may have been influenced by policies dating back even further. The discrepancy between what matters most and is desired and what actions are taken is difficult to explain but it may mean that the owner's personal preferences (Heckhausen and Heckhausen 2008) have relatively little influence on behaviors, and that these are more subject to external factors and the specific decision-situation (Heckhausen and Heckhausen 2008). It could therefore be of interest to focus future research on owners' behavior to better understand why certain actions are performed, and others are not.
This production-oriented management alignment is especially common on larger properties owned by men (Lidestav and Ekström 2000;Lidestav and Berg Lejon 2013). In this study, there were many large-sized estates, which Eggers et al. (2014) also found implies an increased level of silvicultural activities and management favoring production. Some larger owners also described frequent information exchange, typical for owners of larger properties (Ruseva et al. 2014), but we could not quantify the level in this study. Though Traditional measures such as planting, PCT, and thinning may not seem primarily to promote diversity, they could increase tree species richness if more species are favored. Also, thinnings can be carried out to increase diversity and create living space for rare species.
Compared to Traditional measures benefitting forest production, other measures that concerned Nature consideration, Recreation, Extra measures, Site adaptation and Cultural consideration were expressed in more codes, the largest being Nature consideration. This indicates that forest owners implement many measures that benefit environmental values. The primary purpose does not have to be conservation per se, but the effect in that direction is probable. Here, forest owners point of departure can be described as holistic in that they take advantage of many interests. The Authorities often have a narrower area of responsibilities and values (Richnau et al. 2013) and thus become more limited in which alternatives provide the greatest benefit to the forest owner and society. It is also worth noting that this positive driving force still appears strong, but that owners' collective ambition within Traditional measures seems to have diminished. Danley et al. (2021) found that only about 10% of private forest owners in Sweden thought more biodiversity protection is needed, and concluded that more than mere volunteerism is needed to achieve environmental goals. This study showed that even though forest owners do not explicitly highlight environmental values, these are created regardless of intention, which indicates that voluntariness has significant potential.
Several management measures we came across decrease the risk of forest damage; for instance, increasing the proportion of deciduous and pine species is thought to reduce the risk of damage by wind, insects, and droughts (Eriksson et al. 2016). These measures may depend on forest owners' degree of risk awareness, even though they have generally been unconcerned about risks (Eriksson 2014). However, they could also have been carried out because of the influence of other factors such as information, advice, social networks, or other goals (e.g. increasing recreational or aesthetic values), resulting in more resilient forests as a positive side-effect.
Co-ownership was common among forest owners in this study and in fact it is increasing generally (Haugen et al. 2016). As a statistic, it is certainly acknowledged in the literature but not investigated per se. How are decisions taken and management implemented in co-ownerships, and how are decisions and management strategies influenced when spouses, siblings, relatives, and others are coowners? This area of research, in combination with interactions with Knowledge, advice, and information and Ownership role, could form an outline for explaining management decisions further.

Conclusions
The multi-functionality of forests is of great importance to private forest owners in southern Sweden, and what matters to them most demonstrates a diversity of intertwined underlying factors. Among these, it was not the production and environmental values that emerged primarily but instead the social and emotional dimensions surrounding forest ownership. The fact that the forest is essential to forest owners for many reasons enables numerous different values to be developed ( Figure 6) and inclines a much broader view than the Forestry Act's equally weighted environmental and production values. The deep emotional attachment to forests gives possibilities and limitations in policy implementation but can potentially be used to promote voluntary actions.
Desired management presented various ideas of what forest owners would prefer to do under optimum conditions: tree species adaptation, managing deciduous species, and creating more varied forests, species admixtures, and open habitats all featured, and if implemented, many of these measures could bring significant environmental benefits..
A discrepancy regarding production-oriented traditional measures was found between what matters most, what is desired, and what actions are actually taken. This indicates that specific decision-situations and external factors are relatively more important than internal factors for determining owners' behavior. Further studies are suggested to understand better why certain management actions are taken and others are not.
Regarding practical management, forest owners carry out various production-favoring traditional measures. However, even more measures for environmental, social, cultural, and emotional purposes were expressed that (intentionally or unintentionally) bring conservation benefits. Considering the diversity of what matters most to forest owners, as well as their desired and practical management, it is concluded that there is considerable potential to develop environmental values on private land.
To better understand the values of private owners' estates and the opportunities to develop them, a more holistic perspective can and should be taken in surveys of which values exist on estates including forest land and farms, water bodies, open land, and the transitions zones between them. Such surveys, in combination with considerations of the private forest owner perspective, can make a valuable contribution to conservation management.
All forest owners perceived barriers to management and ownership, mainly of a structural nature or linked to the surrounding society. Financial incentives, policies encouraging self-generated initiatives, a good supply of appropriate recourses, and sound management advice are considered relevant measures to reduce barriers and promote the development of environmental values. To encourage forest owners' initiatives, right of use for areas with high environmental values could also be maintained. Finally, policy processes could be designed to increase the possibility of capturing forest owners' management ideas.