Environmental consideration to cultural heritage
Here you will find statistics on the proportion of known cultural heritage sites that are affected by regeneration felling.
Cultural heritage sites affected by regeneration felling
At the latest inventory in 2025, 18 percent of the known cultural heritage sites in the country subject to felling were damaged or seriously damaged. This represents a statistically significant increase compared with the previous year, when the proportion was 10 percent.
If you add impact, such as light vehile ruts and felling debris left on the site, 38 percent were affected or damaged. 62 percent of the known cultural heritage sites were neither impacted nor damaged.
Cultural heritage sites
Cultural heritage sites refer to ancient monuments and other historic monuments.
A site might be damaged by several damage causes. The highest degree of damage decides a site`s overall degree of damage.
Degrees of damage
- No damage.
- Impact - an impact that can be restored. Examples include minor vehicle ruts, felling debris, and compression damage.
- Damage – damage that can be restored. Examples include vehicle ruts, certain types of soil scarification, and substantial accumulation of felling debris.
- Severe damage – irreversible damage that cannot be restored. Examples include soil scarification, vehicle ruts, or uprooted trees, all of which may expose underlying cultural layers.
The statistics are based on an annual sample survey of felling notifications where the felling was carried out three years before the time of the inventory, and where the objects contain at least one known and registered cultural heritage site. The survey has been conducted since 2012, and each year 500 such objects are randomly selected for follow-up.
Among individual owners, there is an increase in the proportion of damaged or seriously damaged known cultural heritage sites in comparison with 2024. In 2025, the proportion of damaged or seriously damaged known cultural heritage sites subject to regeneration felling were 20 percent among individual owners. The level of damage among other owners remains relatively unchanged in comparison with 2024.
Northern Norrland has over time shown varying results. In 2025, the proportion of cultural heritage sites damaged or seriously damaged in the region were 15 percent. In Southern Norrland, the corresponding level were 16 percent. Svealand, which has historically shown low and gradually decreasing levels of damage, now reports an increase to 12 percent. Götaland were the region with the highest proportion in 2025, with 25 percent of sites damaged or seriously damaged. The increase from 11 percent in 2024 is statistically significant.
Damage by antiquarian assessment
In 2024, the proportion of ancient monuments that were damaged or seriously damaged was 14 percent, while the corresponding percentage for other cultural heritage sites was 7 percent. In the 2025 inventory, the percentage of damaged or seriously damaged ancient monuments and other cultural heritage sites increased to 18 percent. For other cultural heritage sites, the increase is statistically significant.
Surrounding consideration areas
In cases where the County Administrative Board has written a decision, the surrounding area of ancient monument is also assessed. Between 2021 and 2025, the level of damage or serious damage in surrounding area of ancient monuments was 40 percent. In recent years, the proportion of damage or serious damage in these areas has remained between 37 and 40 percent nationwide.
Causes of damage to cultural heritage sites
Frequently, there is a combination of several causes of damage. All causes of damage or serious damage are shown in figure 5. Soil scarification continues to be the single largest cause of damage to known cultural heritage sites subject to regeneration felling. The inventory in 2025 shows that the proportion of known cultural heritage sites subject to regeneration felling with damage or serious damage due to soil scarification is 10 percent. The second most common cause of damage were vehicle ruts, 5 percent. This were followed by wind-felled trees and felling residues, each at 3 percent. The lower percentage of vehicle ruts may be related to the high occurrence of damage caused by soil scarification. Damage from other forestry activities, such as stump harvesting and ditching, were less than 1 percent.
At the regional level, an increase is observed in the percentage of sites with damage or serious damage across all causes in all regions, although most of these changes are not statistically significant. The exception is Götaland, where the increase in soil scarification damage is statistically significant. Southern Norrland had the lowest percentage of soil scarification damage at 4 percent, while Götaland showed the highest level at 17 percent, a clear increase from 7 percent the previous year.
Soil scarification was also the most common cause of damage on the surrounding area of ancient monument. The number of inventoried areas were relatively low and hence the results are presented as five-year averages at the national level.
Damage by type of cultural heritage site
The most common type of known cultural heritage sites in the inventory is the clearance cairn. Also, building remains, abandoned fields, charcoal production sites, croft sites, and fences are relatively common. Damage occurs in all categories, but sites covering large areas generally show higher levels of damage. Burial grounds, croft sites, ancient settlement sites, and charcoal production sites are the types of remains with the highest percentages of damage and serious damage during the period 2021–2025.
Cultural heritage stumps and other marking
The proportion of known cultural heritage sites that are damaged or seriously damaged is higher when no form of marking is present.
The use of cultural stumps the most common method for marking cultural heritage sites to prevent damage prior to silvicultural activities. Other clear markings such as high stumps, posts and signs are relatively rare.
The use of cultural stumps differs between regions. In Götaland, 22 percent of the known cultural heritage sites were marked with cultural stumps, in Svealand the corresponding figure were 49 percent. In Southern Norrland, 58 and 69 percent respectively of the known cultural heritage sites were marked with cultural stumps.
The inventory also examines the placement of cultural stumps. In northern Norrland 31 percent of the cultural stumps are outside and around the cultural heritage site. The corresponding proportion for southern Norrland were 27 percent and 16 percent in Svealand. Götaland had the lowest proportion with 3 percent.