Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Services in Family Forestry

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

  • 287 Accesses

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.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Afforestation can also arise through the natural expansion/succession of forests typical on abandoned agricultural land.

References

  • Aastaraamat Mets 2016. (2017). Yearbook Forest 2016 (293 p.). Keskkonnaagentuur.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bliss, J. C., & Martin, A. J. (1989). Identifying NIPF management motivations with qualitative methods. Forest Science, 35(2), 601–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolkesjø, T. F., Buongiorno, J., & Solberg, B. (2010). Joint production and substitution in timber supply: A panel data analysis. Applied Economics, 42, 671–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boon, T. E., & Meilby, H. (2007). Describing management attitudes to guide forest policy implementation. Small-Scale Forestry, 6(1), 79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • DeCoster, L. A. (1998). The boom in forest owners—A bust for forestry? Journal of Forestry, 96(5), 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Karppinen, H. (1998b). Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica, 32(1), 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Karppinen, H., & Berghäll, S. (2015). Forest owners’ stand improvement decisions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 275–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendra, A., & Hull, R. B. (2005). Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. Forest Science, 51(2), 142–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kittredge, D. B. (2004). Extension/outreach implications for America’s family forest owners. Journal of Forestry, 102(7), 15–18.

    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 

  • 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 

  • Koskela, T., & Karppinen, H. (2005). Metsänuudistumisen viivästymisen syyt yksityistiloilla [Causes for delayed reforestation in NIPF forests]. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja, 3/2005, 323–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuuluvainen, J., Karppinen, H., & Ovaskainen, V. (1996). Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. Forest Science, 42(3), 300–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvarda, E. (2004). Non-agricultural forest owners’ in Austria—A new type of forest ownership. Forest Policy and Economics, 6, 459–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land use and forestry regulation for 2021–2030 (LULUCF). (2018). Retrieved June 30, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/clima/lulucf_en.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, A. L., & Tikka, P. M. (2006). Biodiversity conservation incentive programs for privately owned forests. Environmental Science and Policy, 9(7), 614–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ní Dhubháin, Á., Maguire, K., & Farrelly, N. (2010). The harvesting behavior of Irish private forest owners. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(7), 489–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ní Dhubháin, Á., & Wall, S. (1999). The new owners of small private forests in Ireland. Journal of Forestry, 97(6), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolston, H., III, & Coufal, J. (1991). A forest ethic and multivalue forest management. Journal of Forestry, 89(4), 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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/.

  • 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 

  • Schmithüsen, F., & Hirsch, F. (2010). Private forest ownership in Europe (110 p.). Geneva Timber and Forest Study Papers No. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suuriniemi, I., Matero, J., Hänninen, H., & Uusivuori, J. (2012). Factors affecting enlargement of family forest holdings. Silva Fennica, 46(2), 253–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinnen, J. F. (1999). The political economy of land reform choices in Central and Eastern Europe. Economics of Transition, 7(3), 637–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, J., Courtney, P., & Slee, B. (2012). Private woodland owners’ perspectives on multifunctionality in English woodlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Zhang, D., & Flick, W. A. (2001). Sticks, carrots, and reforestation investment. Land Economics, 77(3), 443–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Heimo Karppinen

  2. University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

    Áiné Ní Dhubháin

  3. USDA Forest Service, Amherst, MA, USA

    Brett J. Butler

Authors
  1. Heimo Karppinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Áiné Ní Dhubháin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brett J. Butler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heimo Karppinen .

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

Karppinen, H., Ní Dhubháin, Á., Butler, B.J. (2019). Family Forest Owners’ Changing Values and Other Service-Demand Drivers. 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_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation