Service Innovation in Forestry: The Perspective of Family Forest Owners

  • Eric HansenEmail author
  • Erlend Nybakk
  • Jose Guerrero
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 24)


Given the critical contribution to diversity of the forested landscape provided by family ownerships, maintaining viability of family forestry is essential to forest sustainability. Innovation, in its various forms, can be an important contributor to maintain viability. Here we focus on the landscape for service innovation among family forestland owners, including discussion of the innovativeness of owners as well as the innovation system within which each owner operates. Service offerings are available to forest owners from various providers and adopting offerings can positively impact viability. Creating and offering services to society are another important potential ingredient for improved viability. Family forestland owners can offer a wide range of revenue generating services beyond traditional wood products. New technologies and business models present many opportunities for landowners. The challenge is designing an innovation system that facilitates both adoption and creation of innovations among family forestland owners. Our chapter concludes with a look at what the future might hold for service innovation and the family forestland owner.


Adoption Innovation systems Innovativeness Service innovation 



The authors would like to thank Richard Pine, President of O’Neill Pine and Glenn Ahrens, Professor at Oregon State University for their help in improving an earlier version of this chapter.


  1. Balch, O. (2013). Natura commits to sourcing sustainably from Amazon. The Guardian. Retrieved December 8, 2017, from
  2. Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2), 616–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Business Wales. (2017). Glastir Woodland Creation | Farming Connect. Retrieved December 9, 2017, from Accessed 8 December 2017.
  4. Candiotti, J. P. (2014). Forestry innovation systems: An exploratory study of the perspectives of innovations in the Swedish forest sector and the forestry innovation systems. Master’s thesis.Google Scholar
  5. Cho, S.-H., Lee, J., Roberts, R. K., English, B. C., Yu, E. T., Kim, T., et al. (2017). Evaluating a tax-based subsidy approach for forest carbon sequestration. Environmental Conservation, 44(3), 234–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Creighton, J., Blatner, K. A., & Carroll, M. S. (2016). For the love of the land: Generational land transfer and the future of family forests in western Washington State, USA. Small-Scale Forestry, 15(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Vasconcelos Gomes, L. A., Facin, A. L. F., Salerno, M. S., & Ikenami, R. K. (2018). Unpacking the innovation ecosystem construct: Evolution, gaps and trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dornelas, B., Esteves, F., & Carneiro, J. (2016). Natura—The international expansion of Brazilian cosmetics leader Natura: In search of a European scent. In R. Van Tulder, A. Verbeke, J. Carneiro, & M. A. Gonzalez-Perez (Eds.), The challenge of bric multinationals (pp. 317–347). Progress in International Business Research (Vol. 11). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  9. Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation: Technologies, organisations and institutions. London, Pinter.Google Scholar
  10. Edquist, C., & Johnson, B. (1997). System of innovation: overview and basic concepts. Systems of innovation: technologies, institutions and organizations. Abigdon, OX: Routledge Press from
  11. Edquist, C. (2001, June). The systems of innovation approach and innovation policy: An account of the state of the art (pp. 12–15). In DRUID conference, Aalborg.Google Scholar
  12. Edquist, C. (2005). Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges. In The oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 181–208). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. EEN. (2018). European Enterprise Network. Retrieved June 30, 2018, from
  14. European Commission. (2013). Forest Management Plans or Equivalent Instruments, Summary of Member States’ Replies to the DG ENV Questionnaire. European Commission, Directorate-General Environment. Directorate B—Natural Capital. ENV.B.1-Agriculture, Forests and Soil (46 p.).Google Scholar
  15. Fagerberg, J. (2005). Innovation: A guide to the literature. In The oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 1–26). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Follo, G., Nybakk, E., Barstad, J., & Talbot, B. (2015). Forest land ownership change in Norway. COST Action FP1201—FACESMAP Country Report. Retrieved June 30, 2019, from
  18. Forestry Agency. (2012). Annual report on forest and forestry in Japan fiscal year 2012 (Summary). Forestry Agency. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan. Retrieved December 8, 2017, from
  19. Fredman, P., Wall-Reinius, S., & Grundén, A. (2012). The nature of nature in nature-based tourism. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 12(4), 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan (p. 155). London, England: Pinter.Google Scholar
  21. Hämäläinen, S., Näyhä, A., & Pesonen, H. L. (2011). Forest biorefineries—A business opportunity for the Finnish forest cluster. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(16), 1884–1891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen, E., Juslin, H., & Knowles, C. (2007). Innovativeness in the global forest products industry: Exploring new insights. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 37(8), 1324–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison, S., Herbohn, J., & Niskanen, A. (2002). Non-industrial, smallholder, small-scale and family forestry: What’s in a name? Small-Scale Forest Economics Management and Policy, 1(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  24. Hatcher, J. E., Straka, T. J., & Greene, J. L. (2013). The size of forest holding/parcelization problem in forestry: A literature review. Resources, 2(2), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Hovgaard, A., & Hansen, E. (2004). Innovativeness in the forest products industry. Forest Products Journal, 54(1), 26–33.Google Scholar
  28. Hujala, T., Kurttila, M., & Karppinen, H. (2013). Customer segments among family forest owners: Combining ownership objectives and decision-making styles. Small-Scale Forestry, 12(3), 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jandrain, S., Puissant, T., Colson, V., & Rondeux, J. (2006) Un modèle de document simple de gestion (DSG) applicable en propriété forestière privée wallonne. Les Cahiers Forestiers de Gembloux, 33 (p. 27). Retrieved June 30, 2019, from
  30. Joshi, S., & Arano, K. G. (2009). Determinants of private forest management decisions: A study on West Virginia NIPF landowners. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(2), 118–125.Google Scholar
  31. Karppinen, H., & Berghäll, S. (2015). Forest owners’ stand improvement decisions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 275–284.Google Scholar
  32. Knowles, C., Hansen, E., & Shook, S. (2008). Assessing innovativeness in the North American softwood sawmilling industry using three methods. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 38(2), 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kubeczko, K., Rametsteiner, E., & Weiss, G. (2006). The role of sectoral and regional innovation systems in supporting innovations in forestry. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(7), 704–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Likoko, E., & Kini, J. (2017). Inclusive business—A business approach to development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 24(Supplement C), 84–88.Google Scholar
  35. List, J., Schwarzbauer, P., Braun, M., Werner, A., Langthaler, G., & Stern, T. (2016). Naive wood-supply predictions: Comparing two case studies from Austria. Austrian Journal of Forest Science, 133(2), 87–110.Google Scholar
  36. Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Mackenzie, C. (2017). Carbon assessment for forest owners. Retrieved December 15, 2017, from
  38. Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31, 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matilainen, A., & Lähdesmäki, M. (2014). Nature-based tourism in private forests: Stakeholder management balancing the interests of entrepreneurs and forest owners? Journal of Rural Studies, 35, 70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mattila, O. (2015). Towards service-dominant thinking in the Finnish forestry service market. University of Helsinki, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Forest Sciences, Forest Products Marketing and Management (61 pp.). Dissertationes Forestales.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Mendes, A. M. S. C., Štefanek, B., Feliciano, D., Mizaraite, D., Nonic, D., Kitchoukov, E., ... & Stoyanova, M. (2011). In Weiss G et al. (Ed.), Institutional innovation in European private forestry: the emergence of forest owners’ organizations (pp. 68–86).Google Scholar
  43. Natura. (2015). Natura 2015 Annual Report. How Natura generates value. Retrieved July 29, 2018, from
  44. Näyhä, A., & Pesonen, H. L. (2014). Strategic change in the forest industry towards the biorefining business. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nelson, R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  46. NIFA. (2017). The cooperative extension system. Retrieved December 5, 2017, from
  47. Niskanen, A., Slee, B., Ollonqvist, P., Pettenella, D., Bouriaud, L., & Rametsteiner, E. (2007). Entrepreneurship in the forest sector in Europe. University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
  48. NRS. (2008). Who owns America’s forests? Forest ownership patterns and family forest highlights from the National Woodland Owner Survey (8 pp.). Northern Research Station. NRS-INF-06-08. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service.Google Scholar
  49. Nybakk, E., Vennesland, B., Hansen, E., & Lunnan, A. (2008). Networking, innovation, and performance in Norwegian nature-based tourism. Journal of Forest Products Business Research, 5(4), 1–26.Google Scholar
  50. Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hanse, E., & Lunnan, A. (2009). Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management, 257, 608–618.Google Scholar
  51. Nybakk E., Lawrence A., & Weiss G., (2015). Innovation in forest management for new forest owner types—A literature review. In Background paper of working group 2 “New forest management approaches”, COST Action FP1201 “Forest Land Ownership Changes in Europe: Significance for Management and Policy”.Google Scholar
  52. Osmond, J., & Upton, S. (2012). Growing our woodlands in Wales—The 100,000-hectare challenge. Institute of Welsh Affairs.Google Scholar
  53. OSWA. (2017). Main web site. Retrieved December 24, 2017, from
  54. Peter, A. (2012). Forest management in the Natura 2000 ecological network in Romania—Present problems and perspectives. Revista pădurilor, 127(1), 21–27.Google Scholar
  55. Prejer, B., Levall, S., & Mark-Herbert, C. (2017). Fighting poverty as a challenge for business and management education—Developing business models for alleviating poverty: A case study of Stora Enso in Lao PDR. In M. Gudic, A. Rosenbloom, & C. Parkes (Eds.), Socially responsive organizations and the challenge of poverty (pp. 91–100). Greenleaf Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  56. Private Forest Owner Association Styria Ltd. (2013). Waldverband Steiermark. Graz: Waldverband Steiermark. Retrieved December 24, 2017, from
  57. Rajeev, V. (2011). New approaches to sustainable forest management: A study of service innovation in conserving forestry resources. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 2(6), 65–80.Google Scholar
  58. Rametsteiner, E., & Weiss, G. (2006). Innovation and innovation policy in forestry: Linking innovation process with systems models. Forest Policy and Economics, 8, 691–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.Google Scholar
  60. Saigal, S., Bose, S. Lal, P. Verma, M., & Pareek, P. S. (2006). Small and medium forest enterprise associations in India: A brief overview. IIED Small and Medium Forest Enterprise Series No. 18. Edinburgh, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
  61. Schmithüsen, F., & Hirsch, F. (2010). Private forest ownership in Europe. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Papers, 26. Retrieved December 8, 2017, from
  62. Snyder, M. (2014). What is forest fragmentation and why is it a problem? Center for Northern Woodlands Education, Autumn 2014 (82). Retrieved December 8, 2017, from
  63. Toivonen, M., & Tuominen, T. (2009). Emergence of innovations in services. The Service Industries Journal, 29(7), 887–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. UN. (2014). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision, highlights. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division, United Nations.Google Scholar
  65. Vedel, S. E., Jacobsen, J. B., & Thorsen, B. J. (2015). Forest owners’ willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality. Ecological Economics, 113(Supplement C), 15–24.Google Scholar
  66. WBCSD. (2011). Alliance for inclusive business. Inclusive business, creating value in Latin America. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Retrieved December 8, 2017, from
  67. Weiss, G., Martin, S., Matilainen, A., Vennesland, B., Nastase, C., Nybakk, E., et al. (2007). Innovation processes in forest-related recreation services: The role of public and private resources in different institutional backgrounds. Small-Scale Forestry, 6(4), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. World Bank. (2008). Forests sourcebook: Practical guidance for sustaining forests in development cooperation. World Bank Publications.Google Scholar
  69. Yang, L., Wen, Y., & Aguilar, F. X. (2013). Nonindustrial family forest landowners’ stated willingness-to-participate in forest cooperatives in Southern China. International Journal of Forestry Research, 2013, Article ID 983168.Google Scholar
  70. Živojinović, I., Weiss, G., Dobšinská, Z., Lidestav, G., Feliciano, D., Hujala, T., et al. (2015). Forest land ownership changes in Europe. COST Action FP1201 FACESMAP Country Reports, Joint Volume. Retrieved June 30, 2019, from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Høyskolen KristianiaOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations