References
- Bartczak, A., Metelska-Szaniawska, K. 2015. Should we pay, and to whom, for biodiversity enhancement in private forests? An empirical study of attitudes towards payments for forest ecosystem services in Poland. Land Use Policy, 48, 261–269. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.027.
- Bergseng, E., Vatn, A. 2009. Why protection of biodiversity creates conflict – Some evidence from the Nordic countries. Journal of Forest Economics, 15 (3), 147–165. DOI: 10.1016/J.JFE.2008.04.002.
- Biczkowski, M., Wiśniewski, Ł., Rudnicki, R., Wiśniewski, P. 2024. Spatial adequacy of afforestation in Poland: do afforestation needs and environmental preferences matter? Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 64, 25–48. DOI: 10.12775/BGSS-2024-0012.
- Bjärstig, T., Kvastegård, E. 2016. Forest social values in a Swedish rural context: The private forest owners’ perspective. Forest Policy and Economics, 65, 17–24. DOI: 10.1016/J.FORPOL.2016.01.007.
- Boon, T.E., Meilby, H., Thorsen, B.J. 2004. An empirically based typology of private forest owners in Denmark: Improving communication between authorities and owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19 (4), 45–55. DOI: 10.1080/14004080410034056.
- Danley, B. 2019. Forest owner objectives typologies: Instruments for each owner type or instruments for most owner types? Forest Policy and Economics, 105, 72–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.018.
- Domínguez, G., Shannon, M. 2011. A wish, a fear, and a complaint: Understanding the (dis)engagement of forest owners in forest management. European Journal of Forest Research, 130 (3), 435–450. DOI: 10.1007/S10342-009-0332-0/METRICS.
- Dunn, O.J. 1964. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics, 6 (3), 241–252.
- Feliciano, D. et al. 2017. Understanding private forest owners’ conceptualisation of forest management: Evidence from a survey in seven European countries. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 162–176. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.016.
- Ficko, A., Lidestav, G., Ní Dhubháin, Á., Karppinen, H., Zivojinovic, I., Westin, K. 2019. European private forest owner typologies: A review of methods and use. Forest Policy and Economics, 99, 21–31. DOI: 10.1016/J.FORPOL.2017.09.010.
- Gadaud, J., Rambonilaza, M. 2010. Amenity values and payment schemes for free recreation services from non-industrial private forest properties: A French case study. Journal of Forest Economics, 16 (4), 297–311. DOI: 10.1016/J.JFE.2010.05.001.
- Gibbons, J.D., Chakraborti, S. 2011. Nonparametric Statistical Inference (5th ed.). CRC Press.
- Gołos, P., Wysocka-Fijorek, E., Gil, W. 2021. Management needs in private forest in the opinion of representatives of various stakeholders. Sylwan, 165 (8), 542–553. DOI: 10.26202/SYLWAN.2021047.
- Graves, S., Piepho, H.P., Selzer, L. 2019. multcompView: Visualizations of Paired Comparisons. R package version 0.1-8.
- Haugen, K. 2016. Contested lands? Dissonance and common ground in stakeholder views on forest values. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 107 (4), 421–434. DOI: 10.1111/TESG.12165.
- Häyrinen, L. 2019. Finnish forest owner objectives as indicators for a diversifying use of forests on the road to a bioeconomy. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10138/304003.
- Josset, C., Shanafelt, D. W., Abildtrup, J., Stenger, A. 2023. Probabilistic typology of private forest owners: A tool to target the development of new market for ecosystem services. Land Use Policy, 134, 106935. DOI: 10.1016/J.LANDUSE-POL.2023.106935.
- Karaszewski, Z. 2023. Sektor leśno-drzewny a rozwój lokalny. In: Lasy i leśnictwo a rozwój obszarów wiejskich (ed. D. Gwiazdowicz). Oficyna Wydawnicza G&P, Poznań.
- Karppinen, H., Korhonen, M. 2013. Do forest owners share the public’s values? An application of Schwartz’s value theory. Silva Fennica, 47 (1). DOI: 10.14214/SF.894.
- Kumer, P., Štrumbelj, E. 2017. Clustering-based typology and analysis of private small-scale forest owners in Slovenia. Forest Policy and Economics, 80, 116–124. DOI: 10.1016/J.FORPOL.2017.03.014.
- Kuuluvainen, J., Karppinen, H., Ovaskainen, V. 1996. Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. Forest Science, 42 (3), 300–309. DOI: 10.1093/FORESTSCIENCE/42.3.300.
- Majumdar, I., Teeter, L., Butler, B. 2008. Characterizing family forest owners: A cluster analysis approach. Forest Science, 54 (2), 176–184. DOI: 10.1093/FORESTSCIENCE/54.2.176.
- Mayer, A.L. 2019. Family forest owners and landscapescale interactions: A review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 188, 4–18. DOI: 10.1016/J.LANDURBPLAN.2018.10.017.
- Ní Dhubháin, Á. et al. 2007. The values and objectives of private forest owners and their influence on forestry behaviour: The implications for entrepreneurship. Small-scale Forestry, 6 (4), 347–357. DOI: 10.1007/S11842-007-9030-2.
- Ogle, D.H., Doll, J.C., Wheeler, P., Dinno, A. 2022. FSA: Fisheries Stock Analysis. R package version 0.9.4.
- Põllumäe, P., Korjus, H., Kaimre, P., Vahter, T. 2014. Motives and incentives for joining forest owner associations in Estonia. Small-scale Forestry, 13 (1), 19–33. DOI: 10.1007/s11842-013-9237-3.
- R Core Team. 2023. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
- Sandström, C., Lindkvist, A., Öhman, K., Nordström, E.M. 2011. Governing competing demands for forest resources in Sweden. Forests, 2 (1), 218–242. DOI: 10.3390/F2010218.
- Shaffer, J.P. 1995. Multiple hypothesis testing. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 561–584.0
- Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. 2023. Statistics Poland, Statistical Office in Białystok, Warszawa, Białystok.
- Sténs, A., Bjärstig, T., Nordström, E.M., Sandström, C., Fries, C., Johansson, J. 2016. In the eye of the stakeholder: The challenges of governing social forest values. Ambio, 45 (Suppl. 2), 87–99. DOI: 10.1007/S13280-015-0745-6.
- The Agricultural Census 2020. Characteristics of agricultural holdings in 2020. 2022. Statistics Poland, Agriculture Department, Labour Market Department.
- Urquhart, J., Courtney, P. 2011. Seeing the owner behind the trees: A typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England. Forest Policy and Economics, 13 (7), 535–544. DOI: 10.1016/J.FOR-POL.2011.05.010.
- Vedel, S.E., Jacobsen, J.B., Thorsen, B.J. 2015. Forest owners’ willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality. Ecological Economics, 113, 15–24. DOI: 10.1016/j. ecolecon.2015.02.014.
- Wickham, H. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer, New York.
- Wysocka-Fijorek, E. 2013. Concept of private-public forest company. Sylwan, 157 (11), 803–810.
- Wysocka-Fijorek, E. 2014. Social, legal, and economic aspects of forest management in private forests. Scientific Journal Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW Problems of World Agriculture, 14 (29), 216–225. DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.198861.
- Wysocka-Fijorek, E., Gil, W., Gołos, P., Dobrowolska, E. 2020. Who applies for afforestation subsidies? Analysis of the age of beneficiaries of the Rural Development Program from 2004 to 2018. Folia Forestalia Polonica, Ser. A – Forestry, 62 (4), 279–287. DOI: 10.2478/ffp-2020-0027.