[Black, J. 2008. Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes. – Regulation & Governance, 2(2), 137–164.]Search in Google Scholar
[Buijs, A., Lawrence, A. 2013. Emotional conflicts in rational forestry: Towards a research agenda for understanding emotions in environmental conflicts. – Forest Policy and Economics, 33, 104–111.10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.002]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Eastaugh, C.S., Kangur, A., Korjus, H., Kiviste, A., Zlatanov, T., Velichkov, I., Srdjevic, B., Srdjevic, Z., Hasenauer, H. 2013. Scaling issues and constraints in modelling of forest ecosystems: a review with special focus on user needs. – Baltic Forestry, 19(2), 316–330.]Search in Google Scholar
[Edwards, P., Kleinschmit, D. 2013. Towards a European forest policy – conflicting courses. – Forest Policy and Economics, 33, 87–93.10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.002]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Gadow, K. v. 2000. Evaluating risk in forest planning models. – Silva Fennica, 34(2), 181–191.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hellström, E. 2001. Conflict cultures – qualitative comparative analysis of environmental conflicts in forestry. – Silva Fennica Monographs, 2, 109 pp.10.14214/sf.sfm2]Search in Google Scholar
[Holmgren, P., Thuresson, T. 1997. Applying objectively estimated and spatially continuous forest parameters in tactical planning to obtain dynamic treatment units. – Forest Science, 43(3), 317−326.]Search in Google Scholar
[Hynynen, J., Ojansuu, R., Hökkä, H., Siipilehto, J., Salminen, H., Haapala, P. 2002. Models for predicting stand development in MELA system. – Metsäntut-kimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja, 835, 116 pp.]Search in Google Scholar
[Karppinen, H. 1998. Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. – Silva Fennica, 32, 43–59.]Search in Google Scholar
[Khadka, C., Hujala, T., Wolfslehner, B., Vacik, H. 2013. Problem structuring in participatory forest planning. – Forest Policy and Economics, 26, 1−11.10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.008]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Kimmins, J.P. 1987. Forest ecology: models and the role in ecology and resource management. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 460-474.]Search in Google Scholar
[Kiviste, A., Hordo, M., Kangur, A., Kardakov, A., Laarmann, D., Lilleleht, A., Metslaid, S., Sims, A., Korjus, H. 2015. Monitoring and modeling of forest ecosystems: the Estonian Network of Forest Research Plots. – Forestry studies / Metsanduslikud uurimused, 62, 26−38.]Search in Google Scholar
[Krott, M. 2005. Forest policy analysis. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. 323 pp.]Search in Google Scholar
[Lindkvist, A., Mineur, E., Nordlund, A., Nordlund, C., Olsson, O., Sandström, C., Westin, K., Keskitalo, E.C.H. 2012. Attitudes on intensive forestry. An investigation into perceptions of increased production requirements in Swedish forestry. – Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 27(5), 438–448.10.1080/02827581.2011.645867]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Nordström, E.-M., Eriksson, L.O., Öhman, K. 2010. Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in northern Sweden. – Forest Policy and Economics, 12(8), 562–574.]Search in Google Scholar
[Põllumäe, P., Korjus, H., Paluots, T. 2014. Management motives of Estonian private forest owners. – Forest Policy and Economics, 42, 8−14.10.1016/j.forpol.2014.02.007]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Raitio, K. 2012. New institutional approach to collaborative forest planning on public land: Methods for analysis and lessons for policy. – Land Use Policy, 29(2), 309–316.10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.07.001]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Raitio, K. 2013. Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis – The case of oldgrowth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland. – Forest Policy and Economics, 33, 97–103.10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.004]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Schröter, M., Rusch, G.M., Barton, D.N., Blumentrath, S., Nordén, B. 2014. Ecosystem services and opportunity costs shift spatial priorities for conserving forest biodiversity. – PLOS ONE, 9(11), e112557.]Search in Google Scholar
[Sims, A., Hordo, M., Kangur, A., Kiviste, K., Jõgiste, K., von Gadow, K. 2009. Tracking disturbances induced changes in stand development on irregular measurement intervals in the Järvselja forest experiments. – Baltic Forestry, 15(2), 151−160]Search in Google Scholar
[Sténs, A., Sandström, C. 2013. Divergent interests and ideas around property rights: The case of berry harvesting in Sweden. – Forest Policy and Economics, 33, 56–62.]Search in Google Scholar
[Transparency International 2017. Open governance. [WWW document]. – URL http://www.transparency.org.uk/our-work/uk-corruption/open-governance/ [Accessed 28 April 2017].]Search in Google Scholar
[United Nations. 1992. Internationally agreed glossary of basic terms related to disaster management. United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs, Geneva.]Search in Google Scholar
[Wolfslehner, B., Seidl, R. 2010. Harnessing ecosystem models and multi-criteria decision analysis for the support of forest management. – Environmental Management, 46(6), 850–861.10.1007/s00267-009-9414-520024654]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[Zachrisson, A., Beland Lindahl, K. 2013. Conflict resolution through collaboration: Preconditions and limitations in forest and nature conservation controversies. – Forest Policy and Economics, 33, 39–46.]Search in Google Scholar