Service-Dominant Logic Driven Services for Family Forest Owners—The Present and the Potential

  • Sami BerghällEmail author
  • Anders Roos
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 24)


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).


Forest owner services Intangible value Logic of exchange Value co-creation 


  1. Akaka, M. A., Vargo, S. L., & Schau, H. J. (2011). The context of experience. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 206–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Bengston, D. N., Asah, S. T., & Butler, B. J. (2011). The diverse values and motivations of family forest owners in the United States: An analysis of an open-ended question in the national woodland owner survey. Small-Scale Forestry, 10(3), 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjärstig, T., & Kvastegård, E. (2016). Forest social values in a Swedish rural context: The private forest owners’ perspective. Forest Policy and Economics, 65, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanco, V., Brown, C., & Rounsevell, M. (2015). Characterizing forest owners through their objectives, attributes and management strategies. European Journal of Forest Research, 134(6), 1027–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Bliss, J. C., & Kelly, E. C. (2008). Comparative advantages of small-scale forestry among emerging forest tenures. Small-Scale Forestry, 7(1), 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Butler, B. J., Hewes, J. H., Dickinson, B. J., Andrejczyk, K., Butler, S. M., & Markowski-Lindsay, M. (2013). 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
  11. Butler, B. J., Markowski-Lindsay, M., Snyder, S., Catanzaro, P., Kittredge, D. B., Andrejczyk, K., et al. (2014). Effectiveness of landowner assistance activities: An examination of the USDA forest service’s forest stewardship program. Journal of Forestry, 112(2), 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames exchange. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2012). SciMAT: A new science mapping analysis software tool. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1609–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Côté, M., Gilbert, D., & Nadeau, S. (2015). Characterizing the profiles, motivations and behavior of quebec’s forest owners. Forest Policy and Economics, 59, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Côté, M., Généreux-Tremblay, A., Gilbert, D., & Gélinas, N. (2017). Comparing the profiles, objectives and behaviours of new and longstanding non-industrial private forest owners in Quebec, Canada. Forest Policy and Economics, 78, 116–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dayer, A. A., Allred, S. B., & Stedman, R. C. (2014). Comparative analysis and assessment of forest landowner typologies. Society and Natural Resources, 27(11), 1200–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Domínguez, G., & Shannon, M. (2011). A wish, a fear and a complaint: Understanding the (dis)engagement of forest owners in forest management. European Journal of Forest Research, 130(3), 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edvardsson, B., Tronvol, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding the understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: A social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eggers, J., Lämås, T., Lind, T., & Öhman, K. (2014). Factors influencing the choice of management strategy among small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Forests, 5(7), 1695–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Felcis, R. (2016). Strategies of managers in the new forms of common property governance: The case of the private forest owners’ cooperatives. International Journal of Sustainability Policy and Practice, 12(1), 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferranto, S., Huntsinger, L., Stewart, W., Getz, C., Nakamura, G., & Kelly, M. (2012). Consider the source: The impact of media and authority in outreach to private forest and rangeland owners. Journal of Environmental Management, 97(1), 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Follo, G. (2011). Factors influencing Norwegian small-scale private forest owners’ ability to meet the political goals. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 26(4), 385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Forest Carbon Works. (2019). Cited 2nd Sept, 2019.
  25. 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
  26. Goduscheit, R. C., & Faullant, R. (2018). Paths toward radical service innovation in manufacturing companies—a service dominant logic perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(5), 701–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Häyrinen, L., Mattila, O., Berghäll, S., & Toppinen, A. (2014). Changing objectives of non-industrial private forest ownership: A confirmatory approach to measurement model testing. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 44(4), 290–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Häyrinen, L., Mattila, O., Berghäll, S., & Toppinen, A. (2016). Lifestyle of health and sustainability of forest owners as an indicator of multiple use of forests. Forest Policy and Economics, 67, 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Huff, E. S., Leahy, J. E., Kittredge, D. B., Noblet, C. L., & Weiskittel, A. R. (2017). Psychological distance of timber harvesting for private woodland owners. Forest Policy and Economics, 81, 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hujala, T., & Tikkanen, J. (2008). Boosters of and barriers to smooth communication in family forest owners’ decision making. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23(5), 466–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hujala, T., Pykäläinen, J., & Tikkanen, J. (2007). Decision making among Finnish 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
  35. Hujala, T., Tikkanen, J., Hänninen, H., & Virkkula, O. (2009). Family forest owners’ perception of decision support. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 24(5), 448–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hull, R. B., & Ashton, S. (2008). Forest cooperatives revisited. Journal of Forestry, 106(2), 100–105.Google Scholar
  37. Hunt, L. M. (2002). Exploring the availability of Ontario’s non-industrial private forest lands for recreation and forestry activities. Forestry Chronicle, 78(6), 850–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing, 59, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ingemarson, F., Lindhagen, A., & Eriksson, L. (2006). A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 21(3), 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Janota, J. J., & Broussard, S. R. (2008). Examining private forest policy preferences. Forest Policy and Economics, 10(3), 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kärhä, K., & Oinas, S. (1998). Satisfaction and company loyalty as expressed by non-industrial private forest owners towards timber procurement organizations in Finland. Silva Fennica, 32(1), 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Karppinen, H. (1998). Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica, 32(1), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kelly, M. C., Germain, R. H., & Stehman, S. V. (2015). Family forest owner preferences for forest conservation programs: A New York case study. Forest Science, 61(3), 597–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kilgore, M. A., Snyder, S. A., Eryilmaz, D., Markowski-Lindsay, M., Butler, B. J., Kittredge, D. B., et al. (2015). Assessing the relationship between different forms of landowner assistance and family forest owner behaviors and intentions. Journal of Forestry, 113(1), 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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, 27(4), 671–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kittredge, D. B., Rickenbach, M. G., Knoot, T. G., Snellings, E., & Erazo, A. (2013). It’s the network: How personal connections shape decisions about private forest use. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 30(2), 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. Kuipers, B. T., Shivan, G. C., & Potter-Witter, K. (2013). Identifying appropriate communication means for reaching nonindustrial private forest landowners. Journal of Forestry, 111(1), 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kumer, P., & Štrumbelj, E. (2017). Clustering-based typology and analysis of private small-scale forest owners in Slovenia. Forest Policy and Economics, 80, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Maier, C., Lindner, T., & Winkel, G. (2014). Stakeholders’ perceptions of participation in forest policy: A case study from Baden-Württemberg. Land use Policy, 39, 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Majumdar, I., Teeter, L., & Butler, B. (2008). Characterizing family forest owners: A cluster analysis approach. Forest Science, 54(2), 176–184.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. Metsä Group. (2019). Cited 2nd Sept, 2019.
  58. MHG Systems. (2019). Cited 2nd Sept, 2019.
  59. Näyhä, A., Pelli, P., & Hetemäki, L. (2015). Services in the forest-based sector—unexplored futures. Foresight, 17(4), 378–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nordlund, A., & Westin, K. (2011). Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests, 2(1), 30–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, 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(2), 608–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Payne, A., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pelli, P., Haapala, A., & Pykäläinen, J. (2017). Services in the forest-based bioeconomy—anlysis of European strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 32(7), 559–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Perera, P., Vlosky, R. P., Hughes, G., & Dunn, M. A. (2007). What do Louisiana and Mississippi nonindustrial private forest landowners think about forest certification? Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 31(4), 170–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pohlmann, A., & Kaartemo, V. (2017). Research trajectories of service-dominant logic: Emergent themes of a unifying paradigm in business and management. Industrial Marketing Management, 63, 53–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Põllumäe, P., Korjus, H., & Paluots, T. (2014). Management motives of Estonian private forest owners. Forest Policy and Economics, 42, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Põllumäe, P., Lilleleht, A., & Korjus, H. (2016). Institutional barriers in forest owners’ cooperation: The case of Estonia. Forest Policy and Economics, 65, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Prokofieva, I., & Gorriz, E. (2013). Institutional analysis of incentives for the provision of forest goods and services: An assessment of incentive schemes in Catalonia (north-east Spain). Forest Policy and Economics, 37, 104–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rouleau, M. D., Lind-Riehl, J., Smith, M. N., & Mayer, A. L. (2016). Failure to communicate: Inefficiencies in voluntary incentive programs for private forest owners in Michigan. Forests, 7(9), 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ruseva, T. B., Evans, T. P., & Fischer, B. C. (2014). Variations in the social networks of forest owners: The effect of management activity, resource professionals, and ownership size. Small-Scale Forestry, 13(3), 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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
  73. Sarvašová, Z., Živojinović, I., Weiss, G., Dobšinská, Z., Drăgoi, M., Gál, J., et al. (2015). Forest owners associations in the central and eastern European region. Small-scale Forestry, 14(2), 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sikora, A. T., & Nybakk, E. (2012). Rural development and forest owner innovativeness in a country in transition: Qualitative and quantitative insights from tourism in Poland. Forest Policy and Economics, 15, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Stora Enso. (2019). Cited 2nd Sept, 2019.
  76. 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
  77. Thompson, D. W., & Hansen, E. N. (2012). Factors affecting the attitudes of nonindustrial private forest landowners regarding carbon sequestration and trading. Journal of Forestry, 110(3), 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thompson, D. W., & Hansen, E. N. (2013). Carbon storage on non-industrial private forestland: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Small-scale Forestry, 12(4), 631–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tyrväinen, L., Mäntymaa, E., & Ovaskainen, V. (2014). Demand for enhanced forest amenities in private lands: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland. Forest Policy and Economics, 47, 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. UPM Metsä. (2019). Cited 2nd Sept, 2019.
  81. Urquhart, J., & Courtney, P. (2011). Seeing the owner behind the trees: A typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(7), 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Van Gossum, P., Luyssaert, S., Serbruyns, I., & Mortier, F. (2005). Forest groups as support to private forest owners in developing close-to-nature management. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(4), 589–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. West, P. C., Fly, J. M., & Drake, W. (1990). The cadillac pilot project: A test case for coordination of services to nonindustrial private forest owners. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 7(3), 105–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations