Advertisement

Family Forest Owners’ Changing Values and Other Service-Demand Drivers

  • Heimo KarppinenEmail author
  • Áiné Ní Dhubháin
  • Brett J. Butler
Chapter
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 24)

Abstract

Two axioms of service-dominant logic (S-D logic) are that “the beneficiary is always a co-creator of value” and “value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary.” Therefore, to understand the application of S-D logic to family forestry it is imperative to understand drivers that are influencing family forest owners and in particular, their demographics, attitudes and behavior. In this chapter, we use the S-D logic framework to discuss the internal and external drivers impacting family forest owners’ values and the implications. We discuss drivers such as urbanization and changing values and lifestyles, afforestation and land use changes, restitution and privatization, forest land trade and inheritance, as well as relevant changes to the forest industry. Then we look at how these drivers influence owners’ demographics, values, objectives and behavior. Finally, we consider current service provision and future challenges from the S-D logic point of view.

Keywords

Demographics Drivers of change Family forest owners Values 

References

  1. Aastaraamat Mets 2016. (2017). Yearbook Forest 2016 (293 p.). Keskkonnaagentuur.Google Scholar
  2. Amacher, G. S., Conway, M. C., & Sullivan, J. (2003). Econometric analysis of nonindustrial forest landowners: Is there anything left to study? Journal of Forest Economics, 9(2), 137–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beach, R. H., Pattanayak, S. K., Yang, J.-C., Murray, B. C., & Abt, R. C. (2005). Econometric studies of nonindustrial private forest management: A review and synthesis. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(3), 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binkley, C. S., Raper, C. F., & Washburn, C. L. (1996). Institutional ownership of US timberland: History, rationale, and implications for forest management. Journal of Forestry, 94(9), 21–28.Google Scholar
  5. Bliss, J. C., & Martin, A. J. (1989). Identifying NIPF management motivations with qualitative methods. Forest Science, 35(2), 601–622.Google Scholar
  6. Bolkesjø, T. F., Solberg, B., & Wangen, K. R. (2007). Heterogeneity in nonindustrial private roundwood supply: Lessons from a large panel of forest owners. Journal of Forest Economics, 13(1), 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolkesjø, T. F., Buongiorno, J., & Solberg, B. (2010). Joint production and substitution in timber supply: A panel data analysis. Applied Economics, 42, 671–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boon, T. E., & Meilby, H. (2007). Describing management attitudes to guide forest policy implementation. Small-Scale Forestry, 6(1), 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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, 9(4), 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Breil de Pontbriand, L. (2000). European experiences with regulation 2080/92 and the new afforestation policy under Agenda 2000. In N. Weber (Ed.), NEWFOR—New forests for Europe: Afforestation at the turn of the century, EFI Proceedings (Vol. 35, pp. 23–50). European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Brough, P., Rørstad, P. K., Breland, T. A., & Trømborg, E. (2013). Exploring Norwegian forest owner's intentions to provide harvest residues for bioenergy. Biomass and Bioenergy, 57, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butler, B. J., & Wear, D. N. (2013). Forest ownership dynamics of southern forests. General Technical reports SRS-GTR-178 (pp. 103–122). Asheville: USDA-Forest Service, Southern Research Station.Google Scholar
  13. Butler, B. J., Hewes, J. H., Dickinson, B. J., Andrejczyk, K., Butler, S. M., & Markowski-Lindsay, M. (2016). USDA Forest Service National Woodland Owner Survey: National, regional, and state statistics for family forest and woodland ownerships with 10+ acres, 2011–2013 (39 p.). Research Bulletin NRS-99. Newtown Square: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.Google Scholar
  14. Butler, S. M., Butler, B. J., & Markowski-Lindsay, M. (2017). Family forest owner characteristics shaped by life cycle, cohort, and period effects. Small-Scale Forestry, 16(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Catanzaro, P., Markowski-Lindsay, M., Milman, A., & Kittredge, D. (2014). Assisting family forest owners with conservation-based estate planning: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Extension, 52(2), #2FEA9.Google Scholar
  16. Cote, M.-A., Gilbert, D., & Nadeau, S. (2015). Characterizing the profiles, motivations and behaviour of Quebec's forest owners. Forest Policy and Economics, 59, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cubbage, F. W. (1982). Economies of forest tract size in southern pine harvesting (27 p.). Research Paper SO-184. New Orleans: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  18. DeCoster, L. A. (1998). The boom in forest owners—A bust for forestry? Journal of Forestry, 96(5), 25–28.Google Scholar
  19. Egan, A. F., & Luloff, A. E. (2000). The exurbanization of America’s forests: Research in rural social science. Journal of Forestry, 98(3), 26–30.Google Scholar
  20. Favada, I. M., Karppinen, H., Kuuluvainen, J., Mikkola, J., & Stavness, C. (2009). Effects of timber prices, ownership objectives, and owner characteristics on timber supply. Forest Science, 55(6), 512–523.Google Scholar
  21. Ficko, A., Lidestav, G., Ní Dhubháin, Á., Karppinen, H., Živojinović, I., & Westin, K. (2019). European private forest owner typologies: A review of methods and use. Forest Policy and Economics, 99, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Follo, G., Lidestav, G., Ludvig, A., Vilkriste, L., Hujala, T., Karppinen, H., Didolot, F., & Mizaraite, D. (2017). Gender in European forest ownership and management—Reflections on women as “new forest owners.” Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 32(2), 174–184.Google Scholar
  23. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2015). Global forests resources assessment 2015: Desk reference (p. 244). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  24. Häyrinen, L., Mattila, O., Berghäll, S., & Toppinen, A. (2015). Forest owners’ socio-demographic characteristics as predictors of customer value: Evidence from Finland. Small-Scale Forestry, 14(1), 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hänninen, H., Karppinen, H., & Leppänen, J. (2011). Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2010 (94 p.). [Finnish forest owner 2010]. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 208.Google Scholar
  26. Helkama, K. (1999). Recherches récentes sur les valeurs [Recent studies on values]. In W. Doise, N. Dubois, & J. L. Beauvois (Eds.), La construction sociale de la personne (pp. 61–73). Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
  27. Hogl, K., Pregernig, M., & Weiss, G. (2005). What is new about new forest owners? A typology of private forest ownership in Austria. Small-Scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 4(3), 325–342.Google Scholar
  28. Hoogstra, M. A., Schanz, H., & Wiersum., K. F. (2004). The future of European forests—Between urbanisation and rural development. Forest Policy and Economics, 6, 441–445.Google Scholar
  29. Horne, P. (2006). Forest owner’s acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation—A choice experiment based approach. Silva Fennica, 40(1), 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kangas, J., & Niemeläinen, P. (1996). Opinion of forest owners and the public on forests and their use in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 11(1–14), 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karppinen, H. (1988). Trends in ownership of Finnish forest land: Fragmentation or consolidation. In Small scale forestry, experience and potential. International research symposium May 26–29, 1986 (pp. 217–234). University of Helsinki, Lahti Research and Training Centre, Reports 4.Google Scholar
  32. Karppinen, H. (1998a). Private forest ownership in Finland and Estonia: Comparative analysis. In M. Hytönen (Ed.), Social sustainability of forestry in the Baltic Sea Region. Proceedings of workshops organised by the Nordic Research Programme on Social Sustainability of Forestry (NORSUFOR) January 30–31, 1997 in Helsinki, Finland and September 10–12, 1997 in Kärdla, Estonia (pp. 163–175). Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 704.Google Scholar
  33. Karppinen, H. (1998b). Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica, 32(1), 43–59.Google Scholar
  34. Karppinen, H. (2000). Forest values and the objectives of forest ownership. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja [Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers] 757. Doctoral Dissertation, 55 p. + 4 articles.Google Scholar
  35. Karppinen, H. (2005). Forest owners’ choice of reforestation method: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(3), 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Karppinen, H., & Tiainen, L. (2010). “Semmonen niinkun metsäkansa” – suurten ikäluokkien perijät tulevaisuuden metsänomistajina [“Sort of forest people”—Future forest owners: Descendants of the post-war baby boom generation]. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja, 1/2010, 19–38.Google Scholar
  37. Karppinen, H., & Korhonen, M. (2013). Do forest owners share the public’s values? An application of Schwartz’s value theory. Silva Fennica, 47(1). Article id 894.Google Scholar
  38. Karppinen, H., & Berghäll, S. (2015). Forest owners’ stand improvement decisions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karppinen, H., Hänninen, M., & Valsta. L. (2016). Forest owners’ views on storing carbon in their forests. In G. Weiss et al. (Eds.), Forest ownership changes in Europe: Trends, issues and needs for action. Final conference of the COST Action FP1201 FACESMAP, Vienna, Austria, September 7–9, 2016 (pp. 116–118). Book of Abstracts. [Online publication]Google Scholar
  40. Karppinen, H., Hänninen, M., & Valsta, L. (2018). Forest owners’ views on storing carbon in their forests. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 33(7), 708–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kendra, A., & Hull, R. B. (2005). Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. Forest Science, 51(2), 142–154.Google Scholar
  42. Kilgore, M. A., Greene, J. L., Jacobson, M. G., Straka, T. J., & Daniels, S. E. (2007). The influence of financial incentive programs in promoting sustainable forestry on the nation’s family forests. Journal of Forestry, 105(4), 184–191.Google Scholar
  43. Kittredge, D. B. (2004). Extension/outreach implications for America’s family forest owners. Journal of Forestry, 102(7), 15–18.Google Scholar
  44. Kline, J. D., Alig, R. J., & Johnson, R. L. (2000). Fostering the production of non-timber services among forest owners with heterogeneous objectives. Forest Science, 46(2), 302–311.Google Scholar
  45. Kluckhohn, F. (1957). Value orientations. In R. R. Grinker & H. MacGill-Hughes (Eds.), Toward a unified theory of human behavior (2nd printing, pp. 83–93). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  46. Koskela, T., & Karppinen, H. (2005). Metsänuudistumisen viivästymisen syyt yksityistiloilla [Causes for delayed reforestation in NIPF forests]. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja, 3/2005, 323–334.Google Scholar
  47. Kuuluvainen, J., Karppinen, H., & Ovaskainen, V. (1996). Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. Forest Science, 42(3), 300–309.Google Scholar
  48. Kuuluvainen, J., Karppinen, H., Hänninen, H., & Uusivuori, J. (2014). Effects of gender and length of land tenure on timber supply in Finland. Journal of Forest Economics, 20(4), 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kvarda, E. (2004). Non-agricultural forest owners’ in Austria—A new type of forest ownership. Forest Policy and Economics, 6, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Land use and forestry regulation for 2021–2030 (LULUCF). (2018). Retrieved June 30, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/lulucf_en.
  51. Leitch, Z. J., Lhotka, J. M., Stainback, G. A., & Stringer, J. W. (2013). Private landowner intent to supply woody feedstock for bioenergy production. Biomass and Bioenergy, 56, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Leppänen, J., & Torvelainen, J. (2015). Metsämaan omistus 2013 [Forest land ownership in 2013]. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus, 5/2015, 11 p. Helsinki: Natural Resources Institute Finland.Google Scholar
  53. Lindroos, O., Lidestev, G., & Nordfjell, T. (2005). Swedish non-industrial private forest owners: A survey of self-employment and equipment investment. Small-Scale Forestry, 4(4), 409–426.Google Scholar
  54. Løyland, K., Ringstad, V., & Øy, H. (1995). Determinants of forest activities—A study of private nonindustrial forestry in Norway. Journal of Forest Economics, 1(2), 219–237.Google Scholar
  55. Ma, Z., Kittredge, D., & Catanzaro, P. (2012). Challenging the traditional forestry extension model: Insights from the Woods Forum Program in Massachusetts. Small-Scale Forestry, 11, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Majumdar, I., Teeter, L., & Butler, B. (2008). Characterizing family forest owners: A cluster analysis approach. Forest Science, 54(2), 176–184.Google Scholar
  57. Mattila, O. (2015). Towards service-dominated thinking in the Finnish forestry service markets. Dissertationes Forestales 198. Helsinki: Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
  58. Mattila, O., & Roos, A. (2014). Service logics of providers in the forestry services sector: Evidence from Finland and Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 43, 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mattila, O., Toppinen, A., Tervo, M., & Berghäll, S. (2013). Non-industrial private forestry service markets in a flux: Results from a qualitative analysis on Finland. Small-Scale Forestry, 12(4), 559–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mayer, A. L., & Tikka, P. M. (2006). Biodiversity conservation incentive programs for privately owned forests. Environmental Science and Policy, 9(7), 614–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meadows, J., Emtage, N., & Herbohn, J. (2014). Engaging Australian small-scale lifestyle landowners in natural resource management programmes—Perceptions, past experiences and policy implications. Land Use Policy, 36, 618–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mizaraite, D., & Mizaras, S. (2005). The formation of small-scale forestry in countries with economy in transition: Observations from Lithuania. Small-Scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 4(4), 437–450.Google Scholar
  63. Nonic, D., Bliss, J., Milijic, V., Petrovic, N., Avidbegovic, M., & Mataruga, M. (2011). Challenges of organizing private forest owners in Serbia. Small-scale Forestry, 10, 435–455.Google Scholar
  64. Ní Dhubháin, Á., Cobanova, R., Karppinen, H., Mizaraite, D., Ritter, E., Slee, B., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ní Dhubháin, Á., Maguire, K., & Farrelly, N. (2010). The harvesting behavior of Irish private forest owners. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(7), 489–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ní Dhubháin, Á., & Wall, S. (1999). The new owners of small private forests in Ireland. Journal of Forestry, 97(6), 28–33.Google Scholar
  67. Ovaskainen, V., Hänninen, H., Mikkola, J., & Lehtonen, E. (2006). Cost-sharing and private timber stand improvements: A two-step estimation approach. Forest Science, 52(1), 44–54.Google Scholar
  68. Ovaskainen, V., Hujala, T., Hänninen, H., & Mikkola, J. (2017). Cost sharing for timber stand improvements: Inducement or crowding out of private investment? Forest Policy and Economics, 74, 40–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pietarinen, J. (1991). Principal attitudes towards nature. In P. Oja & R. Telama (Eds.), Sports for all. Proceedings of the world congress on sport for all, held in Tampere, Finland, on June 3–7, 1990 (pp. 581–587). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  70. Põllumäe, P., & Korjus, H. (2014). Towards a sustainable private forestry: The developments of the two decades in Estonia. In E. Schiberna & M. Stark (Eds.), Adaption in forest management under changing framework conditions. Proceeding of IUFRO symposium by Small-scale forestry (3.08) and Managerial economics and accounting (4.05) groups, May 19–23, 2014, Sopron, Hungary (pp. 179–188).Google Scholar
  71. Rickenbach, M., Zeuli, K., & Sturgess-Cleek, E. (2005). Despite failure: The emergence of “new” forest owners in private forest policy in Wisconsin, USA. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 20(6), 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rolston, H., III, & Coufal, J. (1991). A forest ethic and multivalue forest management. Journal of Forestry, 89(4), 35–40.Google Scholar
  73. Ruoka- ja luonnonvaratilastojen e-vuosikirja 2016 [Food and natural resources statistics e-book]. (2016). Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus, 64/2016. Helsinki: Natural Resources Institute Finland. Retrieved June 30, 2019, from https://stat.luke.fi/.
  74. Salmon, O., Brunson, M., & Kuhns, M. (2006). Benefit-based audience segmentation: A tool for identifying nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owner education needs. Journal of Forestry, 104(8), 419–425.Google Scholar
  75. Schmithüsen, F., & Hirsch, F. (2010). Private forest ownership in Europe (110 p.). Geneva Timber and Forest Study Papers No. 26.Google Scholar
  76. Schraml, U., & Härdter, U. (2002). Urbanität von Waldbesitzern und von Personen ohne Waldeigentum. Folgerungen aus einer Bevölkerungsbefragung in Deutschland. Allgemeine Forst und Jagd Zeitschrift, 173(7/8), 140–146.Google Scholar
  77. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  78. Silver, E. J., Leahy, J. E., Weiskittel, A. R., Noblet, C. L., & Kittredge, D. B. (2015). An evidence-based review of timber harvesting behavior among private woodland owners. Journal of Forestry, 113(5), 490–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Snyder, S. A., & Kilgore, M. A. (2018). The influence of multiple ownership interests and decision-making networks on the management of family forest lands: Evidence from the United States. Small-Scale Forestry, 17(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Snyder, S. A., Kilgore, M. A., Hudson, R., & Donnay, J. (2007). Determinants of forest land prices in northern Minnesota: A hedonic pricing approach. Forest Science, 53(1), 25–36.Google Scholar
  81. Snyder, S. A., Kilgore, M. A., Hudson, R., & Donnay, J. (2008). Influence of purchaser perceptions and intentions on price for forest land parcels: A hedonic pricing approach. Journal of Forest Economics, 14(1), 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Steyaert, P., Barzman, M., Billaud, J. P., Brives, H., Hubert, B., Ollivier, G., et al. (2007). The role of knowledge and research in facilitating social learning among stakeholders in natural resources management in the French Atlantic coastal wetlands. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(6), 537–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Suuriniemi, I., Matero, J., Hänninen, H., & Uusivuori, J. (2012). Factors affecting enlargement of family forest holdings. Silva Fennica, 46(2), 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Swinnen, J. F. (1999). The political economy of land reform choices in Central and Eastern Europe. Economics of Transition, 7(3), 637–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Takala, T., Hujala, T., Tanskanen, M., & Tikkanen, J. (2017). Forest owners’ discourses of forests: Ideological origins of ownership objectives. Journal of Rural Studies, 51, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Urquhart, J., Courtney, P., & Slee, B. (2012). Private woodland owners’ perspectives on multifunctionality in English woodlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Watson, A. C., Sullivan, J., Amacher, G. S., & Asaro, C. (2013). Cost sharing for pre-commercial thinning in southern pine plantations: Willingness to participate in Virginia’s pine bark beetle prevention program. Forest Policy and Economics, 34, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zanchi, G., Thiel, D., Green, T., & Lindner, M. (2007). Afforestation in Europe. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/df6dac1e-6a20-401f-93b7-dd4179818143/wp4_nd_afforestation_in_europe.pdf?v=63664509706.
  89. Zhang, D., & Flick, W. A. (2001). Sticks, carrots, and reforestation investment. Land Economics, 77(3), 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Ziegenspeck, S., Härdter, U., & Schraml, U. (2004). Lifestyles of private forest owners as an indication of social change. Forest Policy and Economics, 6, 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heimo Karppinen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Áiné Ní Dhubháin
    • 2
  • Brett J. Butler
    • 3
  1. 1.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.University College DublinDublinIreland
  3. 3.USDA Forest ServiceAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations