Advertisement

Help to Self-help? A Service-Dominant Perspective on the Forest Owners’ Own Institutions

  • Dianne Staal WästerlundEmail author
Chapter
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 24)

Abstract

Cooperation between forest owners can be beneficial for the forest owners as well as for the forest landscape. Forest owners might share resources and knowledge while the forest landscape might benefit from an overall view on forest management. In many countries, forest owners’ associations have been formed to facilitate such cooperation. Yet most forest owners have been reluctant to join such institutions in many countries. Common in the arguments for not joining is that the services offered by the associations are not appealing. This is in particular the case for forest owners with small properties, absentee owners and owners with limited forestry knowledge. The associations often engage forest owners who are already active. Other forest owners’ institutions such as clubs and study circles focus on peer-to-peer learning. Participants in these activities are very positive about the help they can get from peers, but here also it is unclear if these activities reach forest owners who have been difficult to reach. Important in the co-creation of value is the need for trust. Trust is a complex concept that is built on credibility and benevolence; however, many companies, as well as forest owners it seems, only consider credibility when defining trust. In the service dominant logic, both aspects are central for true value co-creation. Marketing studies in other sectors have shown that many organizations do not contemplate how trust is formed in business relations.

Keywords

Co-operation Forest owners’ associations Membership Peer-to-peer learning Trust 

References

  1. Andrejczyk, K., Butler, B. J., Dickinson, B. J., Hewes, J. H., Markowski-Lindsay, M., Kittredge, D. B., et al. (2016). Family forest owners’ perceptions of landowner assistance programs in the USA: A qualitative exploration of program impacts on behaviour. Small-scale Forestry, 15(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aurenhammer, P. K., Scap, S., Triplat, M., Krajnc, N., & Breznikar, A. (2018). Actors’ potential for change in Slovenian forest owner associations. Small-scale Forestry, 17(2), 165–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borg, R., Toikka, A., & Primmer, E. (2015). Social capital and governance: A social network analysis of forest biodiversity collaboration in central Finland. Forest Policy and Economics, 50(1), 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broussard, S. A., Goff, G. R., Wetzel, L. P., Luo, M. K. (2011). Evaluating peer impacts of a master forest owners volunteer program. Journal of Extension, 49(5), article # 5RIB3.Google Scholar
  5. Butler, B. J., Hewes, J. H., Dickinson, B. J., Andrejczyk, K., Burler, S. M., & Markowski-Lindsay, M. (2016). Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2013: Findings from the USDA Forest Service’s national woodland owner survey. Journal of Forestry, 114(6), 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context. How context frames exchange. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Claibourn, M. P., & Martin, P. S. (2000). Trusting and joining? An empirical test of the reciprocal nature of social capital. Political Behavior, 22(4), 267–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51.Google Scholar
  9. Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: A social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fawcett, S. E., Jin, Y. H., Fawcett, A. M., & Magnan, G. (2017). I know it when I see it: The nature of trust, thrustworthiness signals, and strategic trust construction. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 28(4), 914–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher, D., & Smith, S. (2011). Cocreation is chaotic: What it means for marketing when no one has control. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 325–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finley, A. O., Kittredge, D. B., Stevens, T. H., Schweik, C. M., & Dennis, D. C. (2006). Interest in cross-boundary cooperation: Identification of distinct types of private forest owners. Forest Science, 52(1), 10–22.Google Scholar
  13. Glück, P., Avdibegovic, M., Cabaravdic, A., Nonic, D., Petrovic, N., Posavec, S., et al. (2010). The preconditions for the formation of private forest owners’ interest associations in the Western Balkan Region. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(4), 250–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamunen, K., Virkkula, O., Hujala, T., Hiedanpää, J., Kurttila, M. (2015a). Enhancing informal interaction and knowledge co-construction among forest owners. Silva Fennica, 49(1), article id 1214.Google Scholar
  15. Hamunen, K., Appelstrand, M., Hujala, T., Kurttila, M., Sriskandarajah, N., Vilkriste, L., et al. (2015b). Defining peer-to-peer learning – from an old ’art of practice’ to a new mode of forest owner extension? The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 21(4), 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansmann, H. (2000). The ownership of enterprise. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknapp Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Henckel, A. (2017). Trust in forest business relationships: Private forest owners trust for the timber purchasers depending by the private forest owners generation affiliation. MSc thesis, SLU Department of Forest Resource Management, Umeå. Arbetsrapport 474.Google Scholar
  18. Herreros Vazquez, F., & Criado Olmos, H. (2003). In whom we trust? The development of particularised trust inside associations. European Political Science, 2(3):56–61.Google Scholar
  19. Hvenmark, J., & Wijkström, F. (2004). The popular movement marinade. The dominant civil society framework in Sweden. In A research paper presented at ISTR’s 6th international conference in Toronto, Canada, 11–14 July 2004.Google Scholar
  20. Hrib, M., Slezova, H., & Jarkovska, M. (2018). To join small-scale forest owners’ associations or not? Motivations and opinions of small-scale forest owners in three selected regions of the Czech Republic. Small-scale Forestry, 17(2), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hujala, T., Pykäläinen, J., & Tikkanen, J. (2007). Decision making among finish non-industrial private forest owners: The role of professional opinion and desire to learn. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 22(5), 454–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Häggqvist, P., Berg Lejon, S., & Lidestav, G. (2014). Look at what they do—A revised approach to communication strategy towards private forest owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(7), 697–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Häyrinen, L., Mattila, O., Berghäll, S., Närhi, M., & Toppinen, A. (2017). Exploring the future use of forests: Perceptions from non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 32(4), 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kittredge, D. B. (2005). The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: International examples and potential application in the United States. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(4), 671–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Korhonen, K., Hujala, T., & Kurttila, M. (2012). Reaching forest owners through their social networks in timber sales. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 27(1), 88–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kronholm, T. (2015). Forest owners’ associations in a changing society. SLU Department of Forest Resource Management, Umeå, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Suecia, Doctoral thesis no. 2015:102.Google Scholar
  27. Kronholm, T. (2016). How are Swedish forest owners’ associations adapting to the needs of current and future members and their organizations? Small-scale Forestry, 15(4), 413–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kronholm, T., & Staal Wästerlund, D. (2013). District council members and the importance of member involvement in organization renewal processes in Swedish forest owners’ associations. Forests, 4(2), 404–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kueper, A. M., Sagor, E. S., & Becker, D. R. (2013). Learning from landowners: Examining the role of peer exchange in private landowner outreach through landowner networks. Society and Natural Resources, 26(8), 912–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Källman, A. (2017). Trust in forest business relationships: Forest-owners trust for the timber purchasers depending by the forest-owners gender. MSc thesis, SLU Department of Forest Resource Management, Umeå. Arbetsrapport 478.Google Scholar
  31. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2013). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (pp. 215–254). Sage Publications: London.Google Scholar
  32. Lidestav, G., & Arvidsson, A-M. (2012). Member, owner, customer, supplier?—The question of perspective on membership and ownership in a private forest owner cooperative. In C. A. Okia (Ed.), Global perspectives on sustainable forest management (pp. 75–94). InTech.Google Scholar
  33. Lönnstedt, L. (2014). Swedish forest owners’ organizations: Establishment and development after the 1970s. Small-scale Forestry, 13(2), 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mannemar Sønderskov, K. (2011). Does generalized social trust lead to associational membership? Unravelling a bowl of well-tossed spaghetti. European Sociological Review, 27(4), 419–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mattila, O., & Roos, A. (2014). Service logics of providers in the forestry services sector: Evidence from Finland and Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 43(1), 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meadows, J., Herbohn, J., & Emtage, N. (2013). Supporting cooperative forest management among small-acreage lifestyle landowners in southeast Queensland, Australia. Society and Natural Resources, 26(7), 745–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mendes, A. M. S. C., Størdal, S., Adamczyk, W., Bancu, D., Bouriaud, L., Feliciano, D., Gallagher, R., Kajanus, M., Meszaros, K., Schraml, U., Venzi, L. (2006). Forest owners’ organizations across Europe: Similarities and differences. In A. Niskanen (Ed.), Issues affecting enterprise development in the forest sector in Europe. University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry, Research notes 169.Google Scholar
  39. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nikolova, N., Möllering, G., & Reihlen, M. (2015). Trusting as a ‘leap of faith’: Trust-building practices in client-consultant relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(2), 232–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nonic, D., Bliss, J. C., Milijic, V., Petrovic, N., Avdibegovic, M., & Mataruga, M. (2011). Challenges of organizing private forest owners in Serbia. Small-scale Forestry, 10(4), 435–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997. The American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Põllumäe, P., Lilleleht, A., & Korjus, H. (2016). Institutional barrier in forest owners’ cooperation: The case of Estonia. Forest Policy and Economics, 65(1), 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rauch, P. (2007). SWOT analyses and SWOT strategy formulation for forest owner cooperations in Austria. European Journal of Forest Research, 126(3), 413–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rickenbach, M. G., Guries, R. P., & Schmoldt, D. L. (2006). Membership matters: Comparing members and non-members of NIPF owners organizations in southwest Wisconsin, USA. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(1), 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rickenbach, M. (2009). Serving members and reaching others: The performance and social networks of a landowner cooperative. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(8), 593–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rinehart, L. M., Eckert, J. A., Handfield, R. B., Page, T. J., & Atkin, T. (2004). An assessment of supplier—customer relationships. Journal of Business Logistics, 25(1), 25–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sarvašová, Z., Živojinović, I., Weiss, G., Dobšinská, Z., Dragoi, M., Gal, J., et al. (2015). Forest owners associations in the Central and Eastern European Region. Small-scale Forestry, 14(2), 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schraml, U. (2005). Between legitimacy and efficiency: The development of forestry associations in Germany. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 4(3), 251–268.Google Scholar
  50. Sheremeta, R. M. (2018). Behaviour in group contests: A review of experimental research. Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(3), 683–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Staatz, J. M. (1987). Farmers’ incentives to take collective action via cooperatives: A transaction-cost approach. USDA ACS Service Report, 18:87–107. Washington DC: US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  52. Torres, E. N., Lugosi, P., Orlowski, M., & Ronzoni, G. (2018). Consumer-led experience customization: A socio-spatial approach. Journal of Service Management, 29(2), 206–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weiss, G., Guduric, I., Wolfslehner, B. (2012). Review of forest owners’ organizations in selected Eastern European countries. Forest policy and institutions working paper nr 30, Rome: FAO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations