Skogens miljö och dess biodiversitet har ett stort ekonomiskt- ochrekreationsvärde för människor. Skogsbruket påverkar skogsmiljön på olika sätt,till exempel menar vissa att brukandet av skogen är ohållbart med avseende påarters utbredning och förekomst då det anses påverka många arter ochskogsmiljön negativt. Ofta lyfts skogsbolagen i debatten som den enhet som måsteförändra sitt brukande.Efter jämförelse mellan privata- och bolagsägda bestånd visade resultatet intenågon större skillnad i arters förekomst mellan de båda ägarformerna.Skogsbolagens bestånd innehöll sammanlagt flest antal växtarter medan deprivatägda innehöll fler anmärkningsvärda arter. Ett t-test visade att insamlad datainte hade underlag nog att styrka hypotesen som var att det skulle finnas störreantal arter i de privatägda skogarna som därmed skulle indikera en högrebiodiversitet. Detta eftersom privatägda skogar ofta har en historik av andraskötselmetoder än de som är vedertagna av skogsbolagen. Vidare studier medstörre underlag av data behövs för att kunna utveckla jämförelsen av de olikaägarformerna.

<p>Due to the climate change natural disasters expects to increase and in some areas the conditions for dissemination of hazardous pollutants from contaminated areas could be affected. Different inventories and mapping has been made to identify areas of risk for flood or avalanche around the country. At the same time inventory and treatment of potential polluted areas (MIFO objects) is progressing. In Ljungans run of area in Västernorrlands county is a exposed area due to the amount of clay and silt in the ground that are sensitive in the context avalanche. The area has also a lot of MIFO objects and risks of flood.</p><p>This essay aims to investigate what data material that is available regarding MIFO objects, flood- and avalanche risks in Ljungans run of area in Västernorrlands county. Also to investigate if there are MIFO object that is in risk of flooding and/or avalanche in the selected area and if so how they are prioritized today. Is there adequate reasons to reassess the prioritizes of polluted areas that are to be inventoried and treated?</p><p>A literature study and analyse of data material with geographical informations system (GIS) has been maid. The result is that 207 MIFO objects in areas of risk. Of these is 186 MIFO objects not prioritized today and 23 MIFO objects have been located in areas that are in risk of avalanche and flood.</p><p>The conclusion is that there are no reasons to reassess the MIFO objects that are prioritized today. It’s however relevant to lift these objects that been found in risk areas. Overlook and reassessment of the objects that today is not prioritized and is located in areas of risks should be reassessed and in some cases it could be adequate reasons to prioritized further objects.</p>

Due to the climate change natural disasters expects to increase and in some areas the conditions for dissemination of hazardous pollutants from contaminated areas could be affected. Different inventories and mapping has been made to identify areas of risk for flood or avalanche around the country. At the same time inventory and treatment of potential polluted areas (MIFO objects) is progressing. In Ljungans run of area in Västernorrlands county is a exposed area due to the amount of clay and silt in the ground that are sensitive in the context avalanche. The area has also a lot of MIFO objects and risks of flood. This essay aims to investigate what data material that is available regarding MIFO objects, flood- and avalanche risks in Ljungans run of area in Västernorrlands county. Also to investigate if there are MIFO object that is in risk of flooding and/or avalanche in the selected area and if so how they are prioritized today. Is there adequate reasons to reassess the prioritizes of polluted areas that are to be inventoried and treated? A literature study and analyse of data material with geographical informations system (GIS) has been maid. The result is that 207 MIFO objects in areas of risk. Of these is 186 MIFO objects not prioritized today and 23 MIFO objects have been located in areas that are in risk of avalanche and flood. The conclusion is that there are no reasons to reassess the MIFO objects that are prioritized today. It’s however relevant to lift these objects that been found in risk areas. Overlook and reassessment of the objects that today is not prioritized and is located in areas of risks should be reassessed and in some cases it could be adequate reasons to prioritized further objects.