This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .de /ufug

Outdoor recreation in forest policy and legislation: A European comparison

Carsten Manna,∗, Eija Poutab, Sandra Gentinc, Frank Søndergaard Jensenc

a Centre for Technology & Society, Berlin Institute of Technology, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germanyb Agrifood Research Finland, Luutnantintie 13, 00410 Helsinki, Finlandc Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:COSTDelphi methodNational Forest Programme (NFP)Recreation inventoriesRecreation monitoring

a b s t r a c t

The benefits of outdoor recreation and the need for recreation inventories and monitoring are describedin various policy and legislation documents at the European level. The objective of this paper is to anal-yse how these recreational aspects are reflected at the national level in core forest policy and legislationdocuments as well as related domains. The COST Action E33 network was used to extract informationabout national policies and monitoring practices for international comparison, using the Delphi method.The results provide insights into national policy setting and legislation in the field of outdoor recreation,and reveal similarities, differences, gaps and future needs. Among the main findings is a contradictionbetween the expressed political importance of outdoor recreation at the national level, and the absence ofbinding commitments for action. The majority of the countries surveyed recognise and express outdoorrecreation in some form of political and/or legislative way. However, recreation monitoring or measure-ments are rarely mentioned in relevant policies or acts at the national, regional or local level, perhaps dueto a lack of political will or resources. The analysis indicates that a consistent forest recreation monitor-ing system, linked to sustainable forest management, as described for example in the Helsinki process,should be better transferred into national policy and legislation. Comparable data across Europe couldthen provide a sound base for making decisions on outdoor recreation policy, planning and management,and furthermore provide a basis for the detection of societal changes and demands over time.

© 2010 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Forest recreation has gained increasing societal importance inthe last decades. For the sufficient supply and efficient planningof the public recreation resources, guidance at the policy level isneeded. Various forest recreation policies are formulated at theEU level, nevertheless, how these European-level objectives arereflected in national policy documents and legislation is ratherheterogeneous (e.g. Cirelli, 1999; Cirelli and Schmithüsen, 2000;Cirelli et al., 2001; Yudego, 2002; Bauer et al., 2004). No widersummary exists on how national forest policy documents reflectoutdoor recreation. To analyse this, an overview of how forestrecreation is reflected in national policy documents can providevaluable insights into its societal importance and respective polit-ical status. It can also reveal which policy instruments are efficientfor the implementation of monitoring systems for sustainable for-est management.

From a policy planning perspective it is also important to knowif there is a pattern in policy that follows forest and socio-economic

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 30 314 28872; fax: +49 30 314 22654.E-mail address: mann@ztg.tu-berlin.de (C. Mann).

conditions. It can be hypothesised that biophysical conditions, i.e.the forest supply, may play a major role in priorities for outdoorrecreation in national forest programmes, forest legislation andother related policy documents. Based on the economic impor-tance of the forestry sector, different priorities may be assignedto the social dimension of forestry by the national governments.Furthermore, the supply of resources may also have an effect onthe strategies by which recreation opportunities are ensured at thepolicy level.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the status of for-est recreation in national policy and legislation in Europe, andto analyse the differences and similarities between countries inthis respect. The results of the analysis may enhance forest recre-ation policies in European countries by providing information onalternative, efficient policy solutions. Furthermore, arguments fora common recreation inventory and monitoring system are pre-sented to strengthen the process of international agreements andpolicy discussions. The paper draws thereby on work undertakenas part of the European-funded COST Action E33, Forests for Recre-ation and Nature Tourism (FORREC), between 2004 and 2008 (seeBell et al., 2009).

The structure of the paper is as follows. First, the common Euro-pean policy framework and its demands for national policies are

1618-8667/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2010.06.004

Author's personal copy

304 C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

described. After the description of the methodological approach,findings from the national policy and legislation levels are pre-sented, and country comparisons made with help of a clusterapproach. Finally, the method utilised for data generation and theimplications of the findings are critically discussed, needs for recre-ation inventories and monitoring systems are shown, and futurepossibilities are presented.

European framework for national outdoor recreationpolicies

In European forest and land use policies, outdoor recreationhas been on the political agenda since the 1990s, with measure-ments proposed for the social and cultural dimensions of forestry asguidance in national forest policy formulation. Relevant Europeandocuments include: (1) reports from the Ministerial Conference onthe Protection of Forests in Europe, together with the related Indica-tors for Sustainable Forest Management (MCPFE, 2003a,b, 2005), (2)EC Council Regulations 1257/1999 and 1783/2003, which include ascheme aimed at improving the economic, ecological or social val-ues of forests (EC, 1999, 2003), and (3) the EU Forest Action Plan(EC, 2006a,b, 2008). All of these political initiatives provide guide-lines for implementing recreational policies at the national leveland have been adopted by most member states and by the Euro-pean Commission respectively. In the following, their relevance forforest recreation is described in more detail.

The Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe(MCPFE) is a key Pan-European political initiative affecting out-door recreation. In particular, Vienna Resolution 3 contains twocriteria and two related indicators measuring the cultural and soci-etal importance of outdoor recreation as part of sustainable forestmanagement (MCPFE, 2005). Criterion 3, Maintenance and Encour-agement of Productive Functions of Forests, together with Indicator3.4, Services – Value of Marketed Services on Forest and otherWooded Land, aim to contribute to improvement in the incomeof forest owners. Additionally, Criterion 6, Maintenance of otherSocio-Economic Functions and Conditions contains indicator 6.10which is related to the accessibility for recreation (MCPFE, 2003a,b).Moreover, indicator 6.10 states the importance of access to gener-ally improving the quality of life, or for cultural or spiritual reasons.

The European Council Regulations 1257/1999 and 1783/2003(EC, 1999, 2003) provide the opportunity for economic supportfrom the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fundfor actions to improve outdoor recreation and tourism activities.Through National Strategic Plans and National Rural DevelopmentProgrammes, this scheme is utilised to strengthen possibilities forexperiencing forests, to conserve the cultural values of forests, andto promote interactions between forests and citizens for physicaland mental well-being at the national level.

The overall objective of the EU Forest Action Plan is to support andstrengthen sustainable forest management and the multifunctionalrole of forests, including recreation. Related key actions stress theneed for recreation in rural and urban areas as well as the need formonitoring activities, although the LIFE+ instrument does not con-tain any legal obligations and the Action Plan does not specificallymention recreation-related data (EC, 2006b, p. 25).

In summary, the three European forestry-related policy docu-ments are relatively homogeneous in content. They all address theissue of outdoor recreation as one out of three sustainability func-tions of forests, and state their important contribution to societal“well-being”. The necessity of providing outdoor recreation oppor-tunities in terms of access and quality is stated. Attempts havebeen made to enhance measurements of the social and culturaldimensions of forestry by criteria and indicators that are supposedto be implemented at the national level through National Forest

Programmes and legislation. In the following sections we exam-ine empirically how this attempt has been fulfilled at the nationallevel.

Method

Policy data collection: the Delphi method

To generate a European policy overview, a variant of the Del-phi method was initiated for data collection. The Delphi methodimplies a group interaction process that is structured in “rounds”to gather opinions and to provide feedback as an iterative pro-cess (Turoff, 1997). In selecting a Delphi approach, researchers areinterested in collecting expert knowledge in a subject area wheredetailed empirical data are lacking and uncertainty is large (Stewartand Shamdanasi, 1990; Rixon et al., 2007). The Delphi method hasbecome popular in the fields of business, education and health, buthas also found application in resource management, policy evalu-ation and decision making (MacMillan and Marshall, 2006). So far,the Delphi approach has not been utilised to study forest recreationand its reflection in policy and legislation.

For this study, a modified Delphi approach was used to col-lect information on how forest recreation is reflected in policy andlegislation in a systematic and transparent way (cf. Linstone andTuroff, 1975; Powell, 2003). To organise the data generation pro-cess, a panel of experts from science and practise was established(Delbecq et al., 1975; Crance, 1987) by the COST Action leaders andthe COST Action office. European experts with recorded knowledgein the subject area were asked if they are willing to participate inthe COST Action and to work on policy and legislation as well asmonitoring issues of outdoor recreation. The expert panel for thisstudy consisted of 30 members representing 18 countries: Aus-tria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Slovakia, Swe-den, Switzerland and the UK. The experts represented a range ofresearch and practical expertise on recreation. They were mainlyresearchers and scientists from universities and forest researchinstitutes as well as recreation managers working with forest agen-cies and state administrations.

The Delphi process consisted of six rounds of consultation (cf.Rikkonen et al., 2006). In the first round, key concepts of recreationdemand, supply and monitoring were presented and methodologi-cal approaches for the survey were defined together with the expertpanel. Based on this, an e-mail questionnaire was developed andsent to the experts after the meeting. Experts had to carry out afocused literature review and respective content analysis withintheir countries to find out which official documents make referenceto forest recreation and to record their level of concretisation forinventory, management and monitoring action. Hence, the semi-structured questionnaire was subdivided into three sections: (a) adescription of the “core sentences/statements”, i.e. the reflectionof forest recreation, an indication of (b) key variables and (c) mea-surement techniques for recreation inventories and monitoring.Each expert was requested to ask additional national experts forhelp if necessary. For the next rounds, information from the ques-tionnaires was recollected and analysed by a task force team aspart of the expert panel, and the results presented by the panelleaders at the beginning of the next round’s meeting. Similari-ties and differences among the countries concerning the type ofdocuments mentioning outdoor recreation (e.g. concerning policydomain) and the level of precision for action (inventory, manage-ment and monitoring) were highlighted and discussed among theexperts. Additionally, a geographical focus on outdoor recreationin different European regions complemented each meeting. Resultswere recorded by the panel leaders to document the process. After

Author's personal copy

C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312 305

the meeting the task force summarized the information in a reportwhich was sent together with the minutes to all experts for furtherrevision and complementation before the next meeting. When nec-essary, the task force sent clarification questions in between themeetings by e-mail to the experts to achieve complete and com-parable sets of information. The updated information was thenpresented by the panel leaders in the next meeting. This processwas repeated five times. The last two rounds were additionally usedto develop policy recommendations to assess (and improve) thequality of outdoor recreation management, inventory, and moni-toring. An overview of the Delphi process implemented in this studyis presented in Fig. 1.

Data generation took place throughout the duration of the COSTAction from April 2005 to May 2008. During this process, the expertpanel remained relatively stable, i.e. only a few national experts leftand/or were replaced by others.

Analysing the policy documents: the formation of country clusters

The Delphi method produced a dataset of national forest policydocuments and legislation (Table 1). This descriptive informationconstituted the first result of the study and formed the empiri-cal basis for the construction of country clusters according to thepolitical reflection of outdoor recreation.

The first set of clusters described the “importance” of outdoorrecreation in policy documents (priority cluster). The priority clus-ters were formed by adding up the scores for the importanceassigned to outdoor recreation in National Forest Programmes, aswell as its recognition in forest and/or other legislation. Scores forNFP were 0 for “no program” or “not mentioned in the program”,1 for “included” and 2 for “detailed”. Scores for forest and otherlegislation, as well as for monitoring were 0 or 1 (not mentioned,mentioned). The priority classes were then constructed on the basis

Fig. 1. Summary of the Delphi process used in the study (cf. MacMillan and Marshall, 2006, p. 13).

Author's personal copy

306 C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

Table 1The reflection of outdoor recreation in selected policy and legislation documents of 18 European countries (2006–2007).

Country Outdoor recreation inNational Forest Programs0 = no program1 = not mentioned2 = included3 = detailed

Outdoor recreation in Forestlaw0 = not mentioned1 = mentioned

Other relevant legislation onoutdoor recreation0 = does not exist1 = exists

Information and monitoringneeds mentioned in thedifferent policy documents0 = not mentioned1 = mentioned

Austria 2 1 0 0Austrian Forest Programme(2006)

Austrian Forest Law (2002)

Belgium 0 1 1 0Flemish Forest Decree (1990),Flemish Forest Declaration(2003), Wallonian MinisterialCircular (1997), WallonianMinisterial Order (2006)

Flemish Implementing Order(1991, 1993a, 1993b, 2001)

Croatia 2 1 1 1Croatian Forestry Policy andStrategy (2003)

Croatian Forest Law (2005) Croatian Nature Protection Act(2005)

Cyprus 3 1 0 0Cypriot National ForestProgramme (1999)

Cypriot Forest Law (2003)

Denmark 3 1 1 1Danish National ForestProgramme (2002a,b)

Danish Forest Act (2004) Danish Nature Protection Act(2009)

Finland 3 0 1 1Finnish National ForestProgramme (1999, 2008)

Finnish Forest Act (2004) Finnish Outdoor RecreationAct (1973)

France 2 1 1 1French National ForestProgramme (2006)

French Forest Law (2006) French Sport Law (2006),French Urbanism Law (2010),French Environment Law(2010)

Germany 2 1 1 1German National ForestProgramme (2000)

German Forest Law (2006) German Federal NatureProtection Act (2005)

Greece 0 1 0 0Greek Forest Law (1979)

Iceland 1 0 1 0Icelandic ParliamentaryResolution on Forestry (2003)

Icelandic Forestry Act (1955) Icelandic Nature ConservationAct (1999)

Ireland 3 0 1 0Irish Department ofAgriculture, Food and Forestry(1996)

Irish Forestry Act (1988) Irish Occupiers Liability Act(1995)

Latvia 2 1 1 0Latvian Concept of theNational Programme of Forest(2004)

Latvian Forest Law (2000) Latvian Law on ProtectionBelts (1997)

Lithuania 1 1 1 0Lithuanian Forestry Policy andImplementation Strategy(2002)

Lithuanian Forest Law (2001) Lithuanian Rules of Visitationof Forests (1996)

Norway 2 1 1 0Living Forests (2006) Norwegian Forestry Act (2005) Norwegian Act Relating to

Outdoor Recreation (1996)Slovakia 2 1 1 0

Slovakian Republic NationalForest Programme (2005)

Slovakian Republic NationalForest Law (2005)

Slovakian Republic NatureProtection Act (2002)

Sweden 2 0 0 0Swedish Forest Agency (2005) Swedish Forestry Act (1979)

Switzerland 2 1 0 1Swiss National ForestProgramme (2004)

Swiss Civil Code (1907)

UK 3 0 1 0UK Forestry StandardDocument (1998)

UK Forestry Act (1967) English Countryside andRights of Way Act (2000),Scottish Land Reform Act(2003)

of added scores. The information on recreation monitoring speci-fications was also included as a sum variable. In this manner thepriority of a cluster was highest when outdoor recreation was men-tioned in detail in the NFP, covered by legislation and monitored.In contrast, the priority was lowest when outdoor recreation wasneither mentioned in NFP nor in legislation.

The second set of clusters differentiated the countries based onthe “policy strategies” used to take recreation into account at thepolicy level (strategy cluster). Cluster analysis and latent class anal-ysis were both utilised to guide the formation of country groups. Asit turned out that the results of these two methods were similar, thefinal clustering was formed with latent class analysis (Hagenaars

Author's personal copy

C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312 307

and McCutcheon, 2002) using the first three columns from Table 1as classifying variables. The underlying idea is that behind theobserved variables unobservable classes of individuals (countries)may exist. Each latent class of countries consist of a set of hetero-geneous policy strategies that are homogenous within that class.

In contrast to priority cluster that focused on the emphasis ofrecreation in policy documents, the strategy cluster focused onidentifying the combinations of policy tools applied in the coun-tries to enhance the recreation opportunities. The classificationscould be expected to overlap to some extent for those countrieswith high priority and the strategy of using all policy instruments.

The clusters were used to assess the extent to which theimportance of recreation in policy documents and the respectiveinstitutional strategies used are associated with a country’s forestconditions. For this we estimated the means of two variables: themean forest area per capita and the percentage forest cover of thecountry (see data in Appendix A), for the importance and strategyclusters. It was not relevant to test the statistical significance ofthese measures between clusters, as the countries did not repre-sent a sample of any population of countries, thus the observeddifferences between country clusters were actual.

Finally, we analysed the extent to which the national polit-ical importance of recreation and the policy strategies utilisedare related to the practical implementation of recreation mon-itoring systems. Clusters were formed for those countries that(a) implemented national recreation surveys in their forest andforestry-related policies and laws, and (b) carried out recreationalon-site surveys (see data in Appendix A). Also in this case, theobserved differences were actual differences between countrygroups, and statistical testing did not therefore add any additionalinformation.

Results

For 18 European countries, the main recreation-related nationalpolicy documents were identified by the panel of experts. Of centralinterest were policy documents published since the 1990s. In thisfirst descriptive part of the results, findings are organised accordingto document type and policy domain. In the second part, similari-ties and differences in how outdoor recreation is reflected in policydocuments in terms of priorities and strategies are analysed.

Outdoor recreation at the national policy level

At the national level, various priorities assigned to forest recre-ation in policy programmes and laws were reported by the panelof experts. All 30 experts identified National Forest Programmes(NFP) as important forest policy documents for outdoor recreation.Their common European legislative background ensures that theseprogrammes should form the basis for setting national forest pol-icy to guarantee European-wide sustainable forest management,including the social dimension. However, not all 18 countries rep-resented in this study had prepared an NFP or implemented it inthe same way (Table 1).

In 16 out of 18 countries a NFP (or equivalent policy) existed orwas currently in preparation at the time of data collection. Outdoorrecreation was mentioned in 14 out of 16 NFPs as an objective of thenational forest strategy, its planning and management. Similar tothe European-level documents, the societal importance of provid-ing opportunities for recreation was widely stated at the nationallevel. For some surveyed countries that did not have an “official”NFP, the topic of outdoor recreation was instead mentioned in otherforest policy documents. Norway and Sweden had equivalent pol-icy programmes (Ollonqvist, 2006) mentioning outdoor recreationfor societal well-being. Belgium and Greece indicated not having acomparable National Forest Policy document.

Comparing the fourteen countries that mentioned outdoorrecreation in their NFPs, different priorities and specifications wereassigned by national governments. Forest recreation was of com-paratively high political importance in the less forested Europeancountries, Denmark, Cyprus, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Ofthe Nordic countries, Finland had a well-developed recognitionof recreational aspects reflected in its NFP. By contrast, the cen-tral European countries Austria, France, Germany and Switzerland,and the eastern European countries Slovakia, Croatia and Latvia,attached less importance to outdoor recreation. The overall needfor providing recreation opportunities through forest managementwas widely expressed throughout the NFPs. However, the needfor outdoor recreation inventories and monitoring was only men-tioned by Denmark.

Compared to the National Forest Programmes and their equiv-alents, legislation is more concrete in defining and regulatingoutdoor recreation. The expert panel identified two main typesof legislation relevant for outdoor recreation: the forestry legis-lation, and nature protection/conservation legislation. Both typesof legislation can be seen as complementary in their objectives anddefinitions. Public access was an especially important issue in reg-ulating the relationship between landowners, the state and society.Because different legal access rights limit or enhance outdoor recre-ation use, it was of specific interest for this analysis to examine towhat extent specific regulations on the practice of the right of accessexist in time and use.

All 18 countries indicated having a forest law. In thirteencountries, the National Forest Acts referred to outdoor recreation(Table 1). These were Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark,France, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Slovakia andSwitzerland. Apart from Denmark, France, Greece and Norway, ninecountries included recreation access regulations in their forest leg-islation. In many countries, public access rights to forests are basedon historical traditions (e.g. Finland and Sweden) and therefore arean important part of forestry in these countries. Most of the coun-tries guarantee free access to certain categories of forests, excludingnewly established forest cultures or protected forests. Apart fromthis, the provision of recreation opportunities was widely describedin the acts as a public task rather than a private duty. In addition,careful forest planning was often stated as a necessary prerequisitefor recreational management in a multifunctional way.

For Ireland, UK and Finland, outdoor recreation was not men-tioned in forest legislation, but in other legislation instead. Caseswhere outdoor recreation was mentioned in both, forest and otherlegislation, are Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Latvia,Lithuania, Norway and Slovakia (Table 1). Nature protection leg-islation predominantly set out access rules for the recreationaluse of natural areas (including forests). Limitations to access wereimposed for certain activity types (e.g. restricted motorised use),ownership structures, or to protect forest cultures and biodiver-sity. However, six countries, i.e. the Northern European countriesIceland, Ireland and the UK as well as the Nordic countries Sweden,Finland and Norway did not refer to outdoor recreation access intheir forest or nature protection legislation. In these countries, spe-cific regulations apply. The Nordic countries have an “Everyman’sright”, allowing the public to enter forests and natural areas toexperience nature and the outdoors. The long cultural tradition of“Everyman’s rights” could be a reason why it was not necessaryfor these countries to explicitly include recreational use rights intonational forest policies and acts. Other countries include access reg-ulations in policies concerning woodlands and forests in or close tourban areas, especially in countries with fewer forests such as theUK or Ireland. However, the policies of most surveyed countriesincluded forest recreation issues within sections covering moregeneral aspects of forest use (e.g. France, Germany, and Switzer-land) or the natural environment (Austria).

Author's personal copy

308 C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

Table 2Country clusters reflecting outdoor recreation in the forest policy and legislation of18 European countries (2006–2007).

Country Priority cluster (importance)1 = high2 = medium3 = low

Strategy cluster1 = NFP, forest and other laws2 = NFP and other laws3 = NFP and/or forest laws

Austria 2 3Belgium 2 1Croatia 1 1Cyprus 2 3Denmark 1 1Finland 1 2France 1 1Germany 1 1Greece 3 3Iceland 3 2Ireland 2 2Latvia 2 1Lithuania 2 1Norway 2 1Slovakia 2 1Sweden 3 3Switzerland 2 3UK 2 2

Monitoring needs of recreational use was specifically examinedby the expert panel (Table 1). Within the examined documents,information about levels of forest recreational use was seen inDenmark, Finland and Cyprus as a precondition for effective for-est policy formulation; either stated in the NFP (Denmark) orassessed through national forestry-related programmes (Finlandand Cyprus). In France, Germany and Switzerland, the need formonitoring of recreational use was also considered in the contextsof land use planning, e.g. through defined recreational functions orareas in forests (e.g. Germany, France), or regional parks and natureurban parks (e.g. Switzerland).

Differences and similarities in policy reflection

To analyse differences and similarities between the surveyedcountries we constructed country clusters based on a) the impor-tance of recreation in policy and legislation (priority clusters) and b)the use of different policy tools and strategies to provide recreationopportunities (strategy clusters).

Three priority clusters were identified. The highest politicalpriorities assigned to outdoor recreation were found in Croatia,Denmark, Finland, France and Germany. Outdoor recreation wasof medium importance in Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia,Lithuania, Norway, Slovakia, Switzerland and the UK. Low prioritiesto outdoor recreation were assigned in Greece, Iceland and Sweden.

Table 4Forest supply and recreation use pressure in country clusters.

Priority cluster

High Medium Low

Forest/capita (ha) 1.1 0.6 1.5Forest cover (%) 35.8 31.9 39.4

Strategy cluster

NFP, forest andother laws

NFP andother laws

NFP and/or forest laws

Forest/capita (ha) 0.7 1.3 1.0Forest cover (%) 32.3 22.3 47.2

Three strategy clusters were identified through latent class anal-ysis (Hagenaars and McCutcheon, 2002). The cluster names arebased on the main policy instruments that were used to ensurethe provision of forest recreation opportunities (Table 2). Eighty-nine percent of the countries (all except Belgium) belonging to thefirst class “NFP, forest and other laws” (Table 3) had a NFP, a for-est law and also other legislations covering some issues of outdoorrecreation. These were mainly Central European countries but alsoCroatia, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Slovakia. In thecluster “NFPs and other laws” Finland, Iceland, Ireland and the UKwere grouped in. Besides Iceland, they detailed forest recreation intheir NFP and all covered recreation issues with laws other than theforest law. In the third strategy cluster “NFP and/or forest laws”, allcountries had forest recreation mentioned in their NFP and mostalso in their forest law but they did not cover recreation issues byother laws. Mainly Alpine and Mediterranean countries but alsoSweden were classified in this strategy cluster.

Our assumption was that the forest supply might play a signif-icant role in the priority setting of recreation as well as strategiesto ensure recreation opportunities at the policy level. When com-paring the means of forest area per capita and the proportion offorest cover between clusters, some interesting associations werefound: a low priority for recreation was associated with a higherthan average forest area per capita and a higher percentage forestcover. This could be interpreted as an indication that the impor-tance of forest recreation is self-evident in low-priority countries,and that it does not require prioritisation in policy or legislation.

The strategy cluster “NFP, forest and other laws” in contrast,consisted of countries where the average per capita forest areawas considerably lower than in other clusters. This could be inter-preted as a need for using strong policy tools like the NFP and forestlaw where there is high competition between different land usealternatives (Table 4).

We further assumed that the importance of outdoor recreationin a country’s political agenda was associated with higher monitor-

Table 3Implemented policy instruments in country clusters (% of investigated countries).

Policy instruments Priority cluster

High Medium Low

Outdoor recreation mentioned in NFPs (scores 2 and 3) 100 90 67Outdoor recreation in forest law 80 80 30Other legislation on outdoor recreation 100 70 0Information and monitoring needs mentioned in the policy documents 100 10 0

Strategy cluster

NFP, forest and other laws NFP and other laws NFP and/or forest laws

Outdoor recreation mentioned in NFPs (scores 2 and 3) 89 75 100Outdoor recreation in forest law 100 0 80Other legislation on outdoor recreation 100 100 0Information and monitoring needs mentioned in the policy documents 44 25 20

Author's personal copy

C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312 309

Table 5Legislation and monitoring.

Priority cluster

High Medium Low

Proportion of countries in which monitoring is mentioned in policy documents (%) 100 10 0National surveys implemented (%) 80 60 0Proportion of countries where on-site surveys have been implemented (%) 100 80 67

Strategy cluster

NFP, forest and other laws NFP and other laws NFP and/or forest laws

Proportion of countries in which monitoring is mentioned in policy documents (%) 44 25 20National surveys implemented (%) 56 75 40Proportion of countries where on-site surveys have been implemented (%) 78 75 100

ing efforts (Table 5). It can broadly be stated that mostly Northernand Central European nations have attempted to monitor forestrecreation uses, while less attention has been given to this subjectby Southern and Eastern European countries. We could observe aclear continuum from a high priority of recreation in policy doc-uments and high level of monitoring, to a lower importance andlower level of monitoring.

Furthermore, the strategy cluster appears to be associated withefforts invested in monitoring recreation use in the country. About75% of the countries which monitor recreational use with on-siteand national surveys were grouped in the “NFP and other law” clus-ter. This may relate to a strong societal need and/or tradition foroutdoor recreation in the respective countries.

Although the association between forest cover and policy doc-uments, reflecting the societal need for forest recreation, as well asthe association between policy documents and monitoring efforts,was noticeable, the association between forest cover and policyefforts and strategies was not self-evident and linear.

Discussion and conclusions

The national policy documents analysed in this study forEuropean comparison revealed considerable differences in theimportance of outdoor recreation at the political level among Euro-pean countries. The study also provided insights into the policystrategies different European countries have used, more or less pur-posely, to strengthen the supply and monitoring of recreation. Theresults particularly revealed the wide use of the National ForestProgram as a policy tool to implement social sustainability such asrecreation, and the importance of policy-level agreement for theactual implementation of recreation monitoring.

The data of the study were collected using a variant of the Delphimethod. Experts, researchers and practitioners from each countrywere representatively selected for the COST Action panel. Not onlywere they knowledgeable about the topic, but they also broughttheir national networks into the process for the clarification ofquestions that arose. As a result, information could be gathered thatwas not easily available by reviewing the literature from an inter-national perspective. Further, the Delphi method was a practicaltechnique for conducting research that seeks to gather views fromgeographically dispersed participants in a timely, time-effectiveand convenient manner for all those involved (McLeod and Childs,2007). However, the fact that information was available for 18 outof 27 European countries limits the European wide conclusions thatcan be drawn from the document analysis.

The information provided by the experts in the first round ques-tionnaire was essential for the data generation (Schuster et al.,1985; Crance, 1987). The six expert meetings allowed congruenciesand differences among the countries to be checked and sufficientlydebated. As is apparent, the data analysis process can contain somesubjective elements. Even with the use of cross-checked literature

and feedback loops, the process of condensing and refining diverseinformation is subject to the perception of the researchers. Oneinherent problem in this case was the heterogeneity of information.Thus, it was necessary to omit certain national details in order toprovide a general European overview. Overall, the benefits of themethod outweigh its limitations for studying a complex societalphenomenon in a changing, data-poor environment. This modifiedDelphi approach therefore constituted a transparent and consen-sual alternative for this study (MacMillan and Marshall, 2006),using its potential and overcoming narrow methodological pre-scriptions (Mullen, 2000).

The need for public authorities to provide recreation oppor-tunities and management is strongly expressed by the surveyedcountries at the national level, as it is at the European level. Dif-ferences between countries can be observed in the priority givento the social dimension of forests. Only a few countries assignoutdoor recreation a low political priority. For about one third ofthe surveyed countries is outdoor recreation of high political pri-ority, including objectives and strategies. Often, these countrieshave a low forest cover and/or large distances between forestsand urban areas. The majority of countries assign outdoor recre-ation a medium importance. The analysis suggests that some ofthe less forested European countries such as Denmark, the UK,Ireland and Cyprus have few forests but strong social needs for out-door recreation. Because of the lack of suitable natural resources inthese countries, public authorities have a greater duty (and pos-sibility) to manage forests according to people’s needs. Withinthese countries, the development of recreation opportunities isimportant for planning and management, fostered by the lesserimportance of other forest functions, e.g. timber production. Inmost other European countries, the forested areas are comparablylarger. Within these countries, timber production is traditionallyof higher economic importance than recreation. An extreme canbe found in Sweden. In all the analysed countries, traditional for-est uses have to be combined with recreational demands. Diverseand often opposing interest structures exist and negotiation pro-cesses in policy setting are complex in terms of multifunctionalmanagement. Further hampering policy setting is the fact thatthe provision of recreational opportunities is not usually com-pensated due to traditional open access rights and more limitedexclusion possibilities. Therefore, the societal importance of pro-viding recreation opportunities is stated in forest policy, but actionsto develop recreation opportunities and management, and espe-cially monitoring, are neither well-established nor compulsory,and are often left to decision-makers at the regional or locallevel.

This contradiction between the expressed political importanceof outdoor recreation at the European as well as the national leveland the non-binding nature of commitments in this respect areamong the main findings of the analysis of policy and legisla-tive documents. The majority of surveyed countries recognises

Author's personal copy

310 C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

and expresses the importance of outdoor recreation for society insome political and/or legislative form. In contrast, the measure-ment or monitoring of recreation uses and users is rarely fixedin relevant policies or acts at the national level. As a result, ade-quate information on outdoor recreation is only available for afew countries. Efforts to develop recreational monitoring systemsmight be hampered by a lack of genuine political willingness atnational level and/or a lack of both financial and methodologicalresources.

As a consequence, a European wide comparison of recreationaluse and users is not realisable due to a lack of information as wellas common monitoring practices and methodology. As indicatedby the results of the COST Action, recreation is expected to gainhigher societal importance and the pressure on suitable naturalresources will most likely rise (Sievänen et al., 2008; Bell et al.,2009). Future problems are likely to be caused by changes in societaldemand, making it necessary to introduce new opportunities andregulations for recreational supply and use. If societal demands foroutdoor recreation opportunities, infrastructure and uses remainundetected, access regulations may fail to ensure a sustainableuse of natural resources. Comparable statistical data at differentlevels across Europe could serve as a sound basis for decisionsto improve outdoor recreation policy, planning and management,and a key to detecting changes in use and users over time andspace.

Acknowledgements

We thank Andreas Bernasconi, Anne-Marie Granet, Geert vanKerckhove, Erodotus Kokouris, and Urs Schroff for their extensiveinput to this work. Furthermore, special thanks go to all other COSTE33 Working Group Two members for their important contribu-tions.

Appendix A.

Forest cover and recreation monitoring data in 18 surveyedEuropean countries.

Country Forest area/capitaa (ha)

Percentagecover of forest(%)a

National surveysimplementedb

0 = no1 = yes

On-site surveysimplementedb

0 = no1 = yes

Austria 0.49 47 1 1Belgium 0.07 23 0 1Croatia 0.47 37 0 1Cyprus 0.49 42 0 1Denmark 0.11 13 1 1Finland 4.42 68 1 1France 0.29 31 1 1Germany 0.13 30 1 1Greece 0.61 49 0 1Iceland 0.46 1.3 0 0Ireland 0.17 9 1 1Latvia 1.27 46 0 0Lithuania 0.61 32 0 0Norway 2.67 37 1 1Slovakia 0.38 42 1 1Sweden 3.46 68 0 1Switzerland 0.17 30 1 1UK 0.05 11 1 1

a EFI LTFRA -database (2000).b Sievänen et al. (2008).

References

Austrian Forest Law, 2002. BGBL. I Nr. 78/2003 [Forstgesetz 1975 inder Fassung der Forstgesetz-Novelle 2002] (retrieved 09.04.2010)http://recht.lebensministerium.at/article/articleview/19480/1/5563.

Austrian Forest Programme, 2006. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environ-ment and Water [Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt

und Wasserwirtschaft (BMLFUW)], Wien, Austria (retrieved 09.04.2010)http://www.walddialog.at/filemanager/list/16026/.

Bauer, J., Kniivilä, M., Schmithüsen, F., 2004. Forest Legislation in Europe: How 23Countries Approach the Obligation to Reforest, Public Access and Use of Non-wood Forest Products. Geneva timber and forest discussion paper 37. UNECE,FAO, Geneva/Rome.

Bell, S., Simpson, M., Tyrväinen, L., Sievänen, T., Pröbstl, U. (Eds.), 2009. EuropeanForest Recreation and Tourism: A Handbook. Taylor & Francis, London.

Cirelli, M.T., 1999. Trends in Forestry Legislation: Central and Eastern Europe. FAOLegal Papers Online (retrieved 02.02.09) http://www.fao.org/Legal/default.htm.

Cirelli, M.T., Schmithüsen, F., 2000. Trends in Forestry Legislation: West-ern Europe. FAO Legal Papers Online (retrieved 02.02.09) http://www.fao.org/Legal/default.htm.

Cirelli, M.T., Schmithüsen, F., Texier, J., Young, T., 2001. Trends in Forestry Laws inEurope and Africa. Legislative study 72, 45. FAO.

Crance, J.H., 1987. Guidelines for Using the Delphi Technique to Develop HabitatSuitability Index Curves. Biological Report 82 (10.134). National Ecology Centre,Fort Collins, CO, USA.

Croatian Forest Law, 2005. Official Gazette No. 140/2005 [Zakon o sumama.2005. Narodne-novine br.140/2005] (retrieved 03.02.2010) http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/290164.html.

Croatian Forestry Policy and Strategy, 2003. Official Gazette No. 120/2003[Nacionalna sumarska politika i strategija. 2003. Narodne Novine br. 120/2003](retrieved 03.02.2010) http://www.vlada.hr/hr/preuzimanja/zakoni i uredbe/nacionalni programi i strategije/nacionalna sumarska politika i strategijanarodne novine 120 03.

Croatian Nature Protection Act, 2005. Official Gazette No. 70/2005 [Zakon o zastitiprirode, Narodne novine br. 70/2005] (retrieved 03.02.2010) http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/288893.html.

Cypriot Forest Law, 2003. 14/67, 49/87, 44/91. Cyprus Forestry Department. Ministryof Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, Lefkosia, Cyprus.

Cypriot National Forest Programme, 1999, Ministry of Agriculture, NaturalResources and Environment. Department of Forests, Nicosia, Cyprus, pp. 6–10;32–33.

Danish Forest Act, 2004. Act no. 453 of 9. June, 2004 [Skovloven]. Min-istry of the Environment, Copenhagen (retrieved 09.05.2010) http://www.skovognatur.dk/Love/Lovgivning/Skovloven.htm.

2002a. Danish National Forest Programme [Danmarks Nationale Skovprogram].Ministry of Environment, Danish Forest and Nature Agency, Copenhagen(retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.skovognatur.dk/Udgivelser/Tidligere/2002/dns.htm.

2002b. Danish National Forest Programme in an International Perspective.Ministry of Environment, Danish Forest and Nature Agency, Copenhagen(retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.skovognatur.dk/Udgivelser/Tidligere/2002/forestprogram.htm.

Danish Nature Protection Act, 2009. [Bekendtgørelse af lov om naturbeskyttelse.Lovbkg. nr. 993 af 24. september 2009]. Danish Ministry of the Envi-ronment, Copenhagen (retrieved 09.04.2010) https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=127104.

Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H., Gustafson, D.H., 1975. Group Techniques for ProgramPlanning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Scott, Foresman andCompany, Glenview, IL.

EC, 1999. Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for ruraldevelopment from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund(EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations. Official Journal ofthe European Communities, 16.6.1999, L160, 80–102.

EC, 2003. Council Regulation (EC) No 1783/2003 of 29 September 2003 amendingRegulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural developmentfrom the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). OfficialJournal of the European Communities, 21.10.2003, L270, 70–77.

EC, 2006a. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the EuropeanParliament on an EU Forest Plan. Commission of the European Communities,Brussels, 15.6.2006, SEC(2006) 748, COM(2006) 302 final.

EC, 2006b. Commission Staff Working Document. Annex to the Communicationfrom the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an EUForest Plan. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 15.6.2006,COM(2006) 302 final, SEC(2006) 748.

EC, 2008. The EU Forest Action Plan. European Commission. Directorate-General forAgriculture and Rural Development.

EFI LTFRA, 2000. Forest Resources of Europe: Main Report. CIS, NorthAmerica/Australia.Japan/New Zealand (retrieved 05.02.09) http://www.efi.int/databases/ltfra/.

2000. English Countryside and Rights of Way Act. CROW, England/Wales (retrieved09.04.2010) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga 20000037 en 1.

Finnish Forest Act, 2004. [Metsälaki, 1093/1996, 552/2004]. Finnish Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1996/en19961093?search%5Btype%5D=pika&search%5Bpika%5D=forest.

Finnish National Forest Programme, 1999. Finland’s National Forest Pro-gramme 2010. Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Publica-tions 2/1999, 40 pp (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.mmm.fi/en/index/frontpage/forests/nfp/documents reports.html.

Finnish National Forest Programme, 2008. Finland’s National Forest Programme2015. More Welfare from Diverse Forests. Finnish Ministry of Agricul-ture and Forestry, Publications 3b/2008, 48 pp (retrieved 09.04.2010)http://www.mmm.fi/en/index/frontpage/forests/nfp/documents reports.html.

Author's personal copy

C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312 311

Finnish Outdoor Recreation Act, 1973. [Ulkoilulaki, 606/1973] (retrieved09.04.2010) http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/1973/19730606.

Flemish Forest Declaration, 2003. [Bossenverklaring, Vlaamse Hoge Bosraad]. Flem-ish High Council of Forestry, pp. 53–80.

Flemish Forest Decree, 1990. [Bosdecreet, 13/06/1990].Flemish Implementing Order, 1991. Flemish Implementing Order Concerning the

Subsidy of Private Forest Owners and the Recognition of Forest Groups. [Besluitvan de Vlaamse Regering betreffende de subsidiëring van de eigenaars vanprivé-bossen en de erkenning van de bosgroeperingen van privé-boseigenaars].29/04/1991. Flemish Implementing Order, Brussels, Belgium.

Flemish Implementing Order, 1993a. Flemish Implementing Order Concerning theAccessibility on Occassional Use of Forests. [Uitvoeringsbesluit van de VlaamseRegering betreffende de toegankelijkheid en het occasioneel gebruik van debossen], 22/07/1993. Flemish Implementing Order, Brussels, Belgium.

Flemish Implementing Order, 1993b. Flemish Implementing Order Concerning theSubsidy for Managers from Public and Private Forests. [Besluit van de VlaamseRegering betreffende de subsidiëring van beheerders van openbare en privé-bossen], 27/06/1993, Brussels, Belgium.

Flemish Implementing Order, 2001. Flemish Implementing Order Concerning theAssessment of Regulations for Compensation of Deforestation. [Besluit Vlaamseregering tot vaststelling van nadere regels inzake compensatie van ontbossingen ontheffing van het verbod op ontbossing], 16/02/2001. Brussels, Belgium.

French Environment Law, 2010. [Code de l’environnement, France] (retrieved09.04.2010) http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006074220&dateTexte=20100305.

French Forest Law, 2006. [Code forestier, France] (retrieved09.04.2010) http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid=F82A482DFA94994816E532F7EEAFC138.tpdjo14v 3?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071514&dateTexte=20100305.

French National Forest Programme 2006–2015, 2006. Ministry of Agriculture andFishery(retrieved 03.03.2010) http://agriculture.gouv.fr/sections/thematiques/foret-bois/biodiversite-plan-d-action-pour-la-foret/downloadFile/FichierAttache 4 f0/national forest programme.pdf?nocache=1196244254.86.

French Sport Law, 2006. [Code du sport, France] (retrieved09.04.2010) http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000006547489&idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006137765&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071318&dateTexte=20100128.

French Urbanism Law, 2010. [Code de l’urbanisme, France] (retrieved09.04.2010) http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006074075&dateTexte=20100305.

German Federal Nature Protection Act, 2005. [Bundesnaturschutzgesetz vom25. März 2002 (BGBI I S. 1193), zuletzt geändert 22. Dezember 2008,BGBl. I S. 2986], Chapter 6, § 56, 57 (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.umweltdigital.de/nd/11327/vorschrift.html.

German Forest Law, 2006. [Bundeswaldgesetz (BWaldG) vom 2. Mai 1975(BGBI. I S. 1037), zuletzt geändert am 31. Juli 2009, BGBl. I S. 2585(Inkrafttreten am 01.03.2010], Chapter II, §13, 14 (retrieved 09.04.2010)http://www.umweltdigital.de/nd/11444/vorschrift.html.

German National Forest Programme, 2000. [Nationales Forstprogramm Deutsch-land. Ein gesellschaftlicher Dialog zur Förderung nachhaltiger Waldbe-wirtschaftung im Rahmen einer Nachhaltigen Entwicklung 1999/2000 –A societal dialogue for the advancement of sustainable forest manage-ment in line with sustainable development], Bonn: BMVEL, Referat 534(Hrsg.) (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.nwp-online.de/fileadmin/redaktion/dokumente/Allgemein/NationalesWaldprogrammZusammenfassung.pdf.

Greek Forest Law, 1979. Act 998/1979 1979 [(EK A’ 289/29-12-1979]. Min-istry of Agriculture, Athens (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.forestap.gr/nomos998.htm.

Hagenaars, J.A., McCutcheon, A.L., 2002. Applied Latent Class Analysis. Kluwer, Dor-drecht.

Icelandic Forestry Act, 1955. [Lög um skógrækt, Act no. 3/1955] (retrieved09.04.2010) http://www.althingi.is/lagas/137/1955003.html.

Icelandic Nature Conservation Act, 1999. Act no. 44/1999 (retrieved 03.02.2010)http://eng.umhverfisraduneyti.is/legislation/nr/389.

Icelandic Parliamentary Resolution on Forestry, 2003. [þingsályktun um skó-

grækt 2004–2008, Samþykkt á Alþingi 15. mars 2003] (retrieved 03.02.2010)http://www.althingi.is/altext/128/s/1439.html.

Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, 1996. Growing for the Future.A Strategic Plan for the Development of the Forestry Sector in Ireland. The Sta-tionary Office, Dublin.

Irish Forestry Act, 1988. Forestry Act No. 26/1988 (retrieved 09.04.2010)http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1988/en/act/pub/0026/index.html.

Irish Occupiers Liability Act, 1995. Government of Ireland No. 10/1995(retrieved 03.02.2010) http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0010/index.html.

Latvian Concept of the National Programme of Forest, 2004. Latvia Ministry ofAgriculture [Latvijas Republikas Zemkopıbas ministrija] (retrieved 09.04.2010)http://www.zm.gov.lv/index.php?sadala=76&id=2702.

Latvian Forest Law, 2000. Promulgated in the newspaper “Latvijas Vestnesis”on March 16, 2000. Effective date March 17, 2000 (retrieved 02.02.2010)http://www.lvm.lv/eng/lvm/legislative acts/?doc=909.

Latvian Law on Protection Belts, 1997. Promulgated in the newspaper “LatvijasVestnesis” on February 25, 1997. Effective date March 11, 1997.

Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M. (Eds.), 1975. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applica-tions. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Lithuanian Forest Law, 2001. [Lietuvos Respublikos Misku istatymas]. No. I-671;10.04.2001, No. IX-240. Valstybes Zinios 2001, No. 35-1161. The Seimas (Parlia-ment) of the Republic of Lithuania, 22.11.1994.

Lithuanian Forestry Policy and Implementation Strategy, 2002. [Lietuvos misku ukiopolitika ir jos igyvendinimo strategija] [interaktyvus] (retrieved 09.04.2010)http://www.am.lt/VI/index.php#a/4997.

Lithuanian Rules of Visitation of Forests, 1996. Ministry of Environment, Republicof Lithuania.

Living Forests, 2006. Living Forests. Standards for Sustainable Forest Man-agement in Norway. Levende Skog, Oslo (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.levendeskog.no/sider/tekst.asp?side=345&submeny=tom&niv2=&menuid=246.

MacMillan, D.C., Marshall, K., 2006. The Delphi process – an expert-based approachto ecological modelling in data-poor environments. Animal Conservation 9,11–19.

McLeod, J., Childs, S., 2007. Consulting records management oracles – a Delphi inpractise. Archival Science 7, 147–166.

MCPFE, 2003a. Improved Pan-European Indicators for Sustainable Forest Manage-ment as Adopted by the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting 7-8 October 2002, Vienna,Austria. MCPFE Liaison Unit Vienna, Austria.

MCPFE, 2003b. Background Information for Improved Pan-European Indicators forSustainable Forest Management. MCPFE Liaison Unit Vienna, Austria.

MCPFE, 2005. MCPFE Work Programme. Pan-European Follow-up of the Fourth Min-isterial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe 28-30 April 2003,Vienna, Austria. Adopted at the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting 16-17 October2003, Vienna, Austria. Updated at the MCPFE Expert Level Meeting 14-15 Octo-ber 2004, Warsaw, Poland. Updated edition – October, 2005. MCPFE Liaison UnitWarsaw, Poland.

Mullen, P.M., 2000. When is a Delphi not a Delphi? Discussion Paper No. 37. HealthServices Management Centre, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham,Birmingham.

Norwegian Act Relating to Outdoor Recreation, 1996. [Lov 1957-06-28 nr.16 Lov om friluftslivet (friluftsloven)]. Ministry of the Environment, Oslo(retrieved 03.02.2010) http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/outdoor-recreation-act.html?id=172932&epslanguage=en-GB.

Norwegian Forestry Act, 2005. [Lov 2005-05-27 nr. 31 Lov om skogbruk(skogbrukslova)]. Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 2005, Oslo (retrieved03.02.2010) http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/Act-relating-to-forestry-Forestry-Act.html?id=87139&epslanguage=en-GB.

Ollonqvist, P., 2006. National forest program in sustainable forest management. In:Nuutinen, T., Kärkkäinen, L., Kettunen, L. (Eds.), Forest Planning in Private Forestsin Finland, Iceland, Norway, Scotland and Sweden, Proceedings of ELAV Seminar,23–24 March 2006, Koli, Finland. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest ResearchInstitute 38, Helsinki, pp. 14–27.

Powell, C., 2003. The Delphi technique: myths and reality. Journal of AdvancedNursing 41 (4), 376–382.

Rikkonen, P., Kaivo-oja, J., Aakkula, J., 2006. Delphi expert panels in the scenario-based strategic planning of agriculture. Foresight 8 (1), 66–81.

Rixon, A., Smith, T.F., McKenzie, B., Sample, R., Scott, P., Burns, S., 2007. Perspec-tives on the art of facilitation: a Delphi study of natural resource managementfacilitators. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 14 (3), 179–188.

Schuster, E.G., Frissell, S.S., Baker, E.E., Loveless Jr., R.S., 1985. The Delphi Method:Application to Elk Habitat Quality. Research Paper INT-353. United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Logan, UT.

Scottish Land Reform Act, 2003. Retrieved February 3rd, 2010 from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2003/asp 20030002 en 1, including theScottish Outdoor Access Code (Part 1): http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/upload/Full%20Access%20Code.pdf.

Sievänen, T., Arnberger, A., Dehez, J., Grant, N., Jensen, F.S., Skov-Petersen, H. (Eds.),2008. Forest Recreation Monitoring – A European Perspective. Working Papersof the Finish Forest Research Institute, vol. 79. FFRI, Helsinki.

Slovakian National Forest Law, 2005. No. 326/2005 (retrieved 03.02.2010)http://www.nlcsk.sk/files/710.pdf.

Slovakian Republic National Forest Programme, 2005. National Forest Pro-gramme of the Slovak Republic. Ministry of Agriculture of the Slo-vak Republic (retrieved 09.03.2010) http://www.forestportal.sk/ForestPortal/lesne hospodarstvo/doc/nlp sr.pdf.

Slovakian Republic Nature Protection Act, 2002. No. 543/2002, 25 June, 2002(retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.lesy.bratislava.sk/zakony/files/543.pdf.

Stewart, D.W., Shamdanasi, P.N., 1990. Focus Groups: Theory and Practise. AppliedSocial Research Methods Series, vol. 20. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Swedish Forest Agency, 2005. Quantitative Targets of Swedish Forest Policy.Swedish Forest Agency, Jönköping: Skogsstyrelsen (retrieved 03.02.2010)http://www.svo.se/episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=18033.

Swedish Forestry Act, 1979. [Skogvårdslag (1979:429)]. Swedish Ministryof Agriculture, Stockholm (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.svo.se/episerver4/templates/SNormalPage.aspx?id=12677.

Swiss Civil Code, 1907. The Boston Book Company, 1915, Boston, p. 262 (retrieved03.02.2010) http://www.archive.org/details/swisscivilcoded00shergoog.

Swiss National Forest Programme, 2004. Swiss National Forest Programme2004–2015. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forest and Landscape(SAEFL). Project Management Swiss NFP + BHP - Brugger & Partner,Zurich, 117 p (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/00527/index.html?lang=en.

Turoff, M., 1997. Alternative Futures for Distance Learning: The Force and the DarkSide (retrieved 17.12.01) http://eies.njit.edu/∼turoff/Papers/daraln.html.

Author's personal copy

312 C. Mann et al. / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 9 (2010) 303–312

UK Forestry Act, 1967. https://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1967/cukpga 19670010 en 1 (retrieved 09.04.2010).

UK Forestry Standard Document, 1998. English Forestry Commission, 1998,2001, 2004 (retrieved 09.04.2010) http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcfc001.pdf/$FILE/fcfc001.pdf.

Wallonian Ministerial Circular, 1997. Wallonian Ministerial Circular 2619 RegardingPlanning in Public Forests. [Circulaire ministérielle 2619 du 22 septembre 1997relative aux aménagements dans les bois soumis au régime forestier].

Wallonian Ministerial Order, 2006. Wallonian Ministerial Order 2678 Regarding theTraffic and Temporary Itineraries for Motor Vehicles.[Circulaire ministérielle2678 du 15 mai 2006 sur la circulation en forêt et les itinéraires temporairespour les véhicules à moteur].

Yudego, B.M., 2002. A Comparison Between National Forest Programmes of someEU-member States. Skogsstyrelsen (National Board of Forestry) Rapport 10,Stockholm.