Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Services in Family Forestry

Part of the book series: World Forests ((WFSE,volume 24))

  • 273 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J. D., & Vargo, S. L. (2011). Contextualization and value-in-context. How context frames exchange. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D., & Smith, S. (2011). Cocreation is chaotic: What it means for marketing when no one has control. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 325–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, H. (2000). The ownership of enterprise. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknapp Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Lönnstedt, L. (2014). Swedish forest owners’ organizations: Establishment and development after the 1970s. Small-scale Forestry, 13(2), 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, P. (2007). SWOT analyses and SWOT strategy formulation for forest owner cooperations in Austria. European Journal of Forest Research, 126(3), 413–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sheremeta, R. M. (2018). Behaviour in group contests: A review of experimental research. Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(3), 683–704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden

    Dianne Staal Wästerlund

Authors
  1. Dianne Staal Wästerlund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dianne Staal Wästerlund .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland

    Teppo Hujala

  2. Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Anne Toppinen

  3. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Amherst, MA, USA

    Brett J. Butler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Staal Wästerlund, D. (2019). Help to Self-help? A Service-Dominant Perspective on the Forest Owners’ Own Institutions. In: Hujala, T., Toppinen, A., J. Butler, B. (eds) Services in Family Forestry. World Forests, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28999-7_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation