Advertisement

Small-scale Forestry

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 443–470 | Cite as

Recognizing the Interest of Forest Owners to Combine Nature-Oriented and Economic Uses of Forests

  • Sari PynnönenEmail author
  • Riikka Paloniemi
  • Teppo Hujala
Research Paper

Abstract

Protecting biodiversity within separate set-aside conservation areas has not been effective enough to halt its loss. Thus, new approaches to conserve biodiversity alongside production are needed. The non-market values of a forest may play an essential role when the forest owner decides the use of their land. However, so far the service offerings other than related to timber production, have been scant. The mismatch between decision support services offered and the service interests of forest owners may result in the objectives of forest owners remaining unfulfilled. The aims of this study were to explore the links between family forest owners’ forest management preferences and their objectives for the forest and secondly their preferences for decision support services. Data were collected in a postal survey in the Northern Karelia region, Finland in spring 2014. Data consist of 298 survey answers that were analysed using multi-variate analyses. Two typologies were combined: clustering of forest ownership objectives and the preferred forest management style. We found that the forest owner’s objectives were demonstrated by their preferred way of managing the forest. Opinions about different decision aid services varied between cluster groups. The groups emphasizing nature values considered biodiversity related information about their forest more necessary than other groups. They were also less satisfied with the usability of the forest management plan. Forest advisory services should better acknowledge the prevalence of multiple objectives also among forest owners who are interested in timber selling. Developing services for forest owners with diverse socio-economic backgrounds, information needs and objectives is important.

Keywords

Family forest owners Finland Landowner survey Multi-objective forest planning Advisory services 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Part of the work has been carried out in the project 311 340/2013, funded by the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The Finnish Cultural Foundation, South Savo Regional Fund and the Foundation of South-West Finland’s Forest Management Associations have also funded the work. We want to thank Mikko Kurttila, Markus Nissinen, Eeva Primmer, Salla Rantala, Outi Ratamäki and the Finnish Forest Centre, Pohjois-Karjala office, for their input to data collection, and all survey respondents for their participation in the study.

Supplementary material

11842_2018_9397_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 kb)

References

  1. Amacher GS, Koskela E, Ollikainen M, Conway MC (2002) Bequest intentions of forest landowners: theory and empirical evidence. Am J Agric Econ 84:1103–1114.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.00371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auvinen A, Hildén M, Toivonen H et al (2007) Evaluation of the finnish national biodiversity action plan 1997–2005. Monographs of the Boreal Environment Research 29Google Scholar
  3. Bieling C (2004) Non-industrial private-forest owners: possibilities for increasing adoption of close-to-nature forest management. Eur J For Res 123:293–303.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-004-0042-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanco V, Brown C, Rounsevell M (2015) Characterising forest owners through their objectives, attributes and management strategies. Eur J For Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-015-0907-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boon TE, Meilby H, Thorsen BJ (2004) An empirically based typology of private forest owners in denmark: improving communication between authorities and owners. Scand J For Res 19:45–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14004080410034056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler SM, Butler BJ, Markowski-Lindsay M (2016) Family forest owner characteristics shaped by life cycle, cohort, and period effects. Small Scale For 16:1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-016-9333-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conway MC, Amacher GS, Sullivan J, Wear D (2003) Decisions nonindustrial forest landowners make: an empirical examination. J For Econ 9:181–203.  https://doi.org/10.1078/1104-6899-00034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Côté M-A, Gilbert D, Nadeau S (2015) Characterizing the profiles, motivations and behaviour of Quebec’s forest owners. For Policy Econ 59:83–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Côté M-A, Gilbert D, Nadeau S (2016) Impact of changes in the sociological characteristics of small-scale forest owners on timber harvesting behavior in Quebec, Canada. Small Scale For 15:375–392.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-016-9328-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emtage N, Herbohn J, Harrison S (2007) Landholder profiling and typologies for natural resource-management policy and program support: potential and constraints. Environ Manag 40:481–492.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0359-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT (2012) Exploratory factor analysis: understanding statistics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Favada IM, Karppinen H, Kuuluvainen J et al (2009) Effects of timber prices, ownership objectives, and owner characteristics on timber supply. For Sci 55:512–523Google Scholar
  14. Feliciano D, Bouriaud L, Brahic E et al (2017) Understanding private forest owners’ conceptualisation of forest management: Evidence from a survey in seven European countries. J Rural Stud 54:162–176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ficko A, Lidestav G, Ní Dhubháin Á et al (2017) European private forest owner typologies: a review of methods and use. For Policy Econ.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finnish Forest Research Institute (2014) Finnish statictical yearbook of forestry 2014. Tammerprint OyGoogle Scholar
  17. Follo G, Lidestav G, Ludvig A et al (2016) Gender in European Forest ownership and management—reflections on women as “New Forest Owners”. Scand J For Res.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2016.1195866 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gamborg C, Larsen JB (2003) “Back to nature”—a sustainable future for forestry? For Ecol Manag 179:559–571.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00553-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Government of Finland (2014) Finnish Government Resolution on the Continuation of Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland 2014–2025. 5 Jun 2014 [in Finnish]Google Scholar
  20. Graham RT, Jain TB (1998) Silviculture’s role in managing boreal forests. Conserv Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-00053-020208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gruen TW, Summers JO, Acito F (2000) Relationship marketing activities, commitment, and membership behaviors in professional associations. J Mark 64:34–49.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.3.34.18030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haltia E, Rämö AK (2017) Miksi metsien taloudellisia mahdollisuuksia jätetään käyttämättä?— Metsänomistajakyselyn tuloksia [Why do the economic opportunities of forests remain untapped?—Forest Owner Survey Results]. PTT Reports 256, 180 p. [In Finnish]Google Scholar
  23. Haltia E, Rämö AK, Pynnönen S et al (2017) Miksi metsien taloudellisia mahdollisuuksia jätetään käyttämättä?— Metsänomistejin aktiivisuus ja siihen vaikuttaminen [Why do the economic opportunities of forests remain untapped?—Forest owner activity and means to influence it]. PTT Reports 255 [In Finnish]Google Scholar
  24. Hänninen H, Karppinen H, Leppänen J (2011) Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2010 [Finnish Forest Owner 2010]. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 208Google Scholar
  25. Harlio A (2017) Voluntary biodiversity conservation optimization in agricultural and forest environments. Faculty of Biological and environmental sciences, University of Helsinki, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  26. Hartley MJ (2002) Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. For Ecol Manag 155:81–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00549-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Häyrinen L, Mattila O, Berghäll S, Toppinen A (2015) Forest owners’ socio-demographic characteristics as predictors of customer value: evidence from Finland. Small-scale For 14:19–37.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-014-9271-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hokajärvi R, Hujala T, Leskinen LA, Tikkanen J (2009) Effectiveness of sermon policy instruments: forest management planning practices applying the activity theory approach. Silva Fenn 43:889–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. Scand J For Res 22:454–463.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580701395434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hujala T, Kurttila M, Karppinen H (2013) Customer segments among family forest owners: combining ownership objectives and decision-making styles. Small-scale For 12:335–351.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-012-9215-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ingemarson F, Lindhagen A, Eriksson L (2006) A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scand J For Res 21:249–259.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580600662256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jain AK (2010) Data clustering: 50 years beyond K-means. Pattern Recognit Lett 31:651–666.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2009.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jenkins CN, Joppa L (2009) Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biol Conserv 142:2166–2174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karppinen H (2012) New forest owners and owners-to-be: Apples and oranges? Small-scale For 11:15–26.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-011-9165-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaufman L, Rousseeuw PJ (1990) Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. Wiley, New York (NY)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kline JD, Alig RJ, Johnson RL (2000) Fostering the production of nontimber services among forest owners with heterogeneous objectives. For Sci 46:302–311Google Scholar
  37. Korhonen K, Hujala T, Kurttila M (2012) Reaching forest owners through their social networks in timber sales. Scand J For Res 27:88–99.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2011.631935 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kumela H, Hujala T, Pykäläinen J, Rantala M (2013) Metsänomistajille tarjottavat luontoarvopalvelut : nykytila ja kehitysnäkymiä [Nature value related services offered to forest owners: present state and prospects]. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 253Google Scholar
  39. Kurttila M, Korhonen K, Hänninen H, Hujala T (2010) Yksityismetsien metsäsuunnittelu 2010—nykytilanne ja kehittämistarpeita [Forest mangement planning 2010—present situation and development needs]. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 153Google Scholar
  40. Leppänen J (2010) Finnish family forest owner 2010 survey. Scand For Econ 43:184–195Google Scholar
  41. Leppänen J, Sevola Y (2014) Pien- ja suuromistuksia entistä enemmän [Smallest and greatest forest holdings more common than before]. Forest statistical bulletin 6/2014 [Metsätilastotiedote] Finnish Forest Research Institute MetlaGoogle Scholar
  42. Lidestav G, Ekström M (2000) Introducing gender in studies on management behaviour among non-industrial private forest owners. Scand J For Res 15:378–386.  https://doi.org/10.1080/028275800448011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. MacCallum RC, Widaman Keith F, Shaobo Zhang, Sehee Hong (1999) Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol Methods 4:84–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35012251 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Markowski-Lindsay M, Catanzaro P, Milman A, Kittredge D (2016) Understanding family forest land future ownership and use: exploring conservation bequest motivations. Small-scale For 15:241–256.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-015-9320-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mattila O, Roos A (2014) Service logics of providers in the forestry services sector: evidence from Finland and Sweden. For Policy Econ 43:10–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 For 12:559–578.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-012-9231-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Metsämuuronen J (2011) Tutkimuksen tekemisen perusteet ihmistieteissä [Foundations of research in social sciences]. International Methelp OyGoogle Scholar
  49. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  50. Ní Dhubháin Á, Maguire K, Farrelly N (2010) The harvesting behaviour of Irish private forest owners. For Policy Econ 12:513–517.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nordlund A, Westin K (2010) Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests 2:30–50.  https://doi.org/10.3390/f2010030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ovaskainen V, Hujala T, Hänninen H, Mikkola J (2017) Cost sharing for timber stand improvements: inducement or crowding out of private investment? For Policy Econ 74:40–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Päivinen R, Lehtoviita J, Arnkil N (2017) Kestävää kasvua metsistä -tasapainoisesti tulevaisuuteen [Sustainable growth from forests—balanced way to future]. Tapion raportteja 16Google Scholar
  54. Palander T, Ovaskainen H, Tikkanen L (2009) Profiles of private forest owners and the importance of landscape-scale management in the timber trade process of Finnish wood procurement. Forestry 82:227–239.  https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpp006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Paloniemi R, Tikka PM (2008) Ecological and social aspects of biodiversity conservation on private lands. Environ Sci Policy 11:336–346.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Paloniemi R, Vainio A (2011) Legitimacy and empowerment: combining two conceptual approaches for explaining forest owners’ willingness to cooperate in nature conservation. J Integr Environ Sci 8:123–138.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2011.576682 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Paloniemi R, Hujala T, Rantala S et al (2017) Integrating social and ecological knowledge for targeting voluntary biodiversity conservation. Conserv Lett.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Primmer E, Paloniemi R, Similä J, Tainio A (2014) Forest owner perceptions of institutions and voluntary contracting for biodiversity conservation: not crowding out but staying out. Ecol Econ 103:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rassi P, Hyvärinen E, Juslén A, Mannerkoski I (2010) Suomen lajien uhanalaisuus—Punainen kirja 2010, The 2010 Red List of Finnish SpeciesGoogle Scholar
  60. Rudnick D, Ryan SJ, Beier P et al (2012) The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservation and restoration priorities. Issues in Ecology 16Google Scholar
  61. Silver EJ, Leahy JE, Weiskittel AR et al (2015) An evidence-based review of timber harvesting behavior among private woodland owners. J For 113:490–499.  https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Staal Wästerlund D, Kronholm T (2016) Family forest owners’ commitment to service providers and the effect of association membership on loyalty. Small-scale For.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-016-9359-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Suomen Metsäkeskus (2016) Pohjois-Karjalan metsäohjelma 2016–2020 [Regional Forest Programme of Northern Karelia 2016–2020]. Suomen Metsäkeskus (Forest Centre)Google Scholar
  64. Takala T, Hujala T, Tanskanen M, Tikkanen J (2017) Forest owners’ discourses of forests: ideological origins of ownership objectives. J Rural Stud 51:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tittensor DP, Walpole M, Hill SLL et al (2014) Biodiversity Targets. Science 346:241–245.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257484 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. (2013) Forest Act. 1996. 12.12.1996/1093 Amended 20.12.2013/1085Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Steve Harrison, John Herbohn 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and ForestryUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinginFinland
  2. 2.Environmental Policy CenterFinnish Environment Institute (SYKE)HelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.School of Forest SciencesUniversity of Eastern FinlandJoensuuFinland
  4. 4.Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations