Service-Dominant Logic Driven Services for Family Forest Owners—The Present and the Potential
Forest owner services face pressures put to these services from various societal directions. Urbanization, alienation from self-made forest management, rising climate and environmental concerns etc. all challenge the traditional forest services of different sector service providers. This chapter aims to tackle the future of the forest owner services by first, building a theoretical model on the ideas developed by Vargo and Lusch (Journal of Marketing 68:1–7, 2004) to discuss economic exchange relationships. The chapter then proceeds to build a view on the scholarly literature of forest owner services. It the compares the developed model with the scholarly material. Thus, discussing the services from the service-dominant logic derived perspectives of logic of value creation, exchange content of the family forest owner—service provider encounters, and the logic of exchange builds a view on how the services could become more value (co-) creation orientated. The results suggest that the S-D logic view has good potential in describing possible new forest owner services. The new services can be born out of three different developmental paths. First, new forest owner groups emerge with new demands concerning their forest management and multi-use objectives (value path), second forest resources become an increasingly important tool to fight climate change (policy path), and third Technological change results in new tools to evaluate, utilize and manage family forests (technology path).
KeywordsForest owner services Intangible value Logic of exchange Value co-creation
- André, K., Baird, J., Gerger Swartling, Å., Vulturius, G., & Plummer, R. (2017). Analysis of Swedish forest owners’ information and knowledge-sharing networks for decision-making: Insights for climate change communication and adaptation. Environmental Management, 59(6), 885–897.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 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 behavior. Small-Scale Forestry, 15(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Blinn, C. R., Jakes, P. J., & Sakai, M. (2007). Forest landowner cooperatives in the United States: A local focus for engaging landowners. Journal of Forestry, 105(5), 245–251.Google Scholar
- Butler, B. J., Tyrrell, M., Feinberg, G., VanManen, S., Wiseman, L., & Wallinger, S. (2007). Understanding and reaching family forest owners: Lessons from social marketing research. Journal of Forestry, 105(7), 348–357.Google Scholar
- Forest Carbon Works. (2019). https://www.forestcarbonworks.org/. Cited 2nd Sept, 2019.
- Gaižutis, A. (2007). Gaining a position for Lithuanian small-scale forestry through creation of a marketing network for wood trade and services. Unasylva, 58(228), 48–52.Google Scholar
- Hamunen, K., Virkkula, O., Hujala, T., Hiedanpää, J., & Kurttila, M. (2015). Enhancing informal interaction and knowledge co-construction among forest owners. Silva Fennica, 49(1), Article id 1214.Google Scholar
- Hull, R. B., & Ashton, S. (2008). Forest cooperatives revisited. Journal of Forestry, 106(2), 100–105.Google Scholar
- 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
- Majumdar, I., Teeter, L., & Butler, B. (2008). Characterizing family forest owners: A cluster analysis approach. Forest Science, 54(2), 176–184.Google Scholar
- Majumdar, I., Laband, D., Teeter, L., & Butler, B. (2009). Motivations and land-use intentions of nonindustrial private forest landowners: Comparing inheritors to non-inheritors. Forest Science, 55(5), 423–432.Google Scholar
- Metsä Group. (2019). https://www.metsaverkko.fi/fi/Sivut/default.aspx. Cited 2nd Sept, 2019.
- MHG Systems. (2019). https://www.wuudis.com/en/. Cited 2nd Sept, 2019.
- Pasanen, K., Kurttila, M., Pykäiäinen, J., Kangas, J., & Leskinen, P. (2005). MESTAa—non-industrial private forest owners’ decision-support environment for the evaluation of alternative forest plans over the internet. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 4(4), 601–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Stora Enso. (2019). https://www.storaensometsa.fi/palvelut/emetsa/. Cited 2nd Sept, 2019.
- UPM Metsä. (2019). https://www.upmmetsa.fi/. Cited 2nd Sept, 2019.