Advertisement

Information Needs of Non-industrial Private Forest Owners After Logging Operations in Finland: A Case Study

Abstract

In this study, the information needs of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland, after logging operations, were investigated. The study was carried out as an online survey in 2017. The survey was targeted at non-industrial private forest owners who had sold their timber during the previous 10 years (2008–2017) and whose email addresses were in the customer relationship management system of a large wood procurement company in Finland. A response link for the survey was successfully sent to 31,988 forest owners, of whom 3323 replied (response rate: 10.4%). The final study data included 3284 non-industrial private forest owners. The results of the study, which need to be interpreted cautiously due to the low response rate, showed that the forest owners want better-quality reporting after logging operations. Furthermore, the results suggested that gender, age, education, occupational status, place of living, size of, and access to, forest property, and length of, and objectives for, forest ownership have a significant effect on their information needs. Younger, highly-educated, female, urban-living and multi-objective forest owners with larger forest holdings and short forest ownership tenures desired more information. Particularly, the respondents conveyed that they would like more and better information about thinning harvesting result. The results also indicated that when different groups of forest owners call for certain information, there is a need for producing different types of reports after logging operations for different forest owner segments.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1

Source: The National Land Survey of Finland, 2018

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Bobik M (2008) Damages to residual stand in commercial thinnings. Master thesis 127, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

  2. Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) America’s family forest owners. J For 102(7):4–9

  3. Butler BJ, Tyrrell M, Feinberg G, Van Manen S, Wiseman L, Wallinger S (2007) Understanding and reaching family forest owners: lessons from social marketing research. J For 105(7):348–357

  4. Butler BJ, Hewes JH, Dickinson BJ, Andrejczyk K, Butler SM, Markowski-Lindsay M (2016) Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2013: findings from the USDA Forest Service’s national woodland owner survey. J For 114(6):638–647

  5. Butler SM, Butler BJ, Markowski-Lindsay M (2017) Family forest owner characteristics shaped by life cycle, cohort, and period effects. Small-Scale For 16(1):1–18

  6. Camp A (2002) Damage to residual trees by four mechanized harvest systems operating in small-diameter, mixed-conifer forests on steep slopes in Northeastern Washington: a case study. West J Appl For 17(1):14–22

  7. Câmpu VR, Borz SA (2017) Amount and structure of tree damage when using cut-to-length system. Environ Eng Manag J 16(9):2053–2061

  8. Cook C, Heath F, Thompson RL (2000) A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas 60(6):821–836

  9. Côté M-A, 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. For Policy Econ 78:116–121

  10. Couper MP (2000) Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches. Public Opin Q 64(4):464–494

  11. Crim SD, Dubois M, Bailey C, Schelhas J (2003) Female forestland owners: characterization of assistance needs. In: Moffat SO (ed) Proceedings of the 2003 Southern Forest Economics Workers annual meeting, bugs, budgets, mergers, and fire: disturbance economics, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 17–18 March 2003, pp 129–139

  12. Cudzik A, Brennensthul M, Białczyk W, Czarnecki J (2017) Damage to soil and residual trees caused by different logging systems applied to late thinning. Croat J For Eng 38(1):83–95

  13. Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, New York

  14. Eronen J, Palander T, Kärhä K, Ovaskainen H (2016) Puunkorjuun laaturaportoinnin automatisointi ja tehostaminen (Automation and enhancement of quality reporting in wood harvesting). In: Metsätieteen päivä 2016: Tutkimuksesta tuotteiksi ja päätöksiksi, Suomen Metsätieteellinen Seura, Helsinki, Finland, 19 October 2016, p 25

  15. European Union (2016) Directive 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L0680&from=fi. Accessed 6 Dec 2018

  16. Favada IM, Karppinen H, Kuuluvainen J, Mikkola J, Stavness C (2009) Effects of timber prices, ownership objectives, and owner characteristics on timber supply. For Sci 55(6):512–523

  17. Ficko A, Lidestav G, Ní Dhubháin Á, Karppinen H, Zivojinovic I, Westin K (2017) European private forest owner typologies: a review of methods and use. For Policy Econ 99:21–31

  18. Finnish Forest Centre (2019) Korjuujäljen tarkastusten tulokset vuodelta 2018 (Harvesting result in thinning stands in Finland, 2018). https://www.metsakeskus.fi/sites/default/files/tiedote-liite-korjuujalki-tarkastukset.pdf. Accessed 21 Apr 2019

  19. 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”. Scand J For Res 32(2):174–184

  20. Froese K, Han H-S (2006) Residual stand damage from cut-to-length thinning of a mixed conifer stand in Northern Idaho. West J Appl For 21(3):142–148

  21. Granhus A, Fjeld D (2001) Spatial distribution of injuries to Norway spruce advance growth after selection harvesting. Can J For Res 31(11):1903–1913

  22. Griffin A (2013) Obtaining customer needs for product development. In: Kahn KB, Kay S, Slotegraaf R, Uban S (eds) The PDMA handbook of new product development. Wiley, New York, pp 213–230

  23. Haltia E, Rämö A-K (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

  24. Haltia E, Rämö A-K, Pynnönen S, Valonen M, Horne P (2017) Miksi metsien taloudellisia mahdollisuuksia jätetään käyttämättä?—Metsänomistajien aktiivisuus ja siihen vaikuttaminen (Why do the economic opportunities of forests remain untapped?—Forest owner activity and means to influence it). PTT Reports 255

  25. Han H-S, Kellogg LD (2000) Damage characteristics in young Douglas-fir stands from commercial thinning with four timber harvesting systems. West J Appl For 15(1):27–33

  26. Hänninen H, Ripatti P (2007) Uudet metsänomistajat (New forest owners). TTS Tutkimuksen Tiedote, Luonnonvara-ala: Metsä 1/2007 (707)

  27. Hänninen H, Karppinen H, Leppänen J (2011) Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2010 (Finnish forest owner 2010). Working papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 208

  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. Can J For Res 44(4):290–300

  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 For 14(1):19–37

  30. 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. Scand J For Res 32(4):327–337

  31. Hujala T, Tikkanen J (2008) Boosters of and barriers to smooth communication in family forest owners’ decision making. Scand J For Res 23(5):466–477

  32. Hujala T, Tikkanen J, Hänninen H, Virkkula O (2009) Family forest owners’ perception of decision support. Scand J For Res 24(5):448–460

  33. Hujala T, Kurttila M, Karppinen H (2013) Customer segments among family forest owners: combining ownership objectives and decision-making styles. Small-Scale For 12(3):335–351

  34. Hwang K, Han H-S, Marshall SE, Page-Dumroese DS (2018) Amount and location of damage to residual trees from cut-to-length thinning operations in a young redwood forest in Northern California. Forests 9(6):352

  35. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2018) Summary for policymakers. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla PR, Pirani A, Moufouma-Okia W, Péan C, Pidcock R, Connors S, Matthews JBR, Chen Y, Zhou X, Gomis MI, Lonnoy E, Maycock T, Tignor M, Waterfield T (eds) Global warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva

  36. Kaplowitz MD, Hadlock TD, Levine R (2004) A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin Q 68(1):94–101

  37. Kärhä K, Oinas S (1998) Satisfaction and company loyalty as expressed by non-industrial private forest owners towards timber procurement organizations in Finland. Silva Fenn 32(1):27–42

  38. Kärhä K, Tammiruusu V (2003) Metsänomistajien puukauppatyytyväisyys ja siitä viestiminen (Customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth communication of Finnish forest owners in their timber-sales transactions). Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 4(2003):465–486

  39. Karppinen H (2012) New forest owners and owners-to-be: apples and oranges? Small-Scale For 11(1):15–26

  40. Karppinen H, Ahlberg M (2008) Metsänomistajakunnan rakenne 2020: yleiseen väestönmuutokseen perustuvat ennustemallit (Finnish forest ownership structure 2020: predictive models based on the general population change). Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 1:17–32

  41. Karppinen H, Hänninen H (2006) Monitoring Finnish family forestry. For Chron 82(5):657–661

  42. Karppinen H, Hänninen H, Ripatti P (2002) Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2000 (Finnish forest owner 2000). Finnish Forest Research Institute, Research Papers 852

  43. Kendra A, Hull RB (2005) Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. For Sci 51(2):142–154

  44. Korhonen K, Hujala T, Kurttila M (2012) Reaching forest owners through their social networks in timber sales. Scand J For Res 27(1):88–99

  45. Korhonen KT, Ihalainen A, Ahola A, Heikkinen J, Henttonen HM, Hotanen J-P, Nevalainen S, Pitkänen J, Strandström M, Viiri H (2017) Suomen metsät 2009–2013 ja niiden kehitys 1921–2013 (Finnish forests 2009–2013 and their development in 1921–2013). Natural Resources Institute Finland, Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 59/2017

  46. Kwak N, Radler B (2002) A comparison between mail and web surveys: response pattern, respondent profile, and data quality. J Off Stat 18(2):257–273

  47. Leivo J, Partanen J, Nousiainen M, Junttila R, Kuoppala H, Partamies M, Pirkonen J (2018) Suomen metsäkeskuksen maastotarkastusohje (Field audit manual by Finnish Forest Centre). Finnish Forest Centre, Handout. https://www.metsakeskus.fi/sites/default/files/maastotarkastusohje.pdf. Accessed 6 Dec 2018

  48. Leppänen J (2010) Finnish family forest owner 2010 survey. In: Helles F, Steen Nielsen P (eds) Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Gilleleje, Denmark, 19–22 May 2010, Scandinavian Forest Economics, vol 43, pp 184–195

  49. Leppänen J, Torvelainen J (2015) Metsämaan omistus 2013 (Ownership of productive forest land area in Finland, 2013). Natural Resources Institute Finland, Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 5/2015

  50. Lönnstedt L (1997) Non-industrial private forest owners’ decision process: a qualitative study about goals, time perspective, opportunities and alternatives. Scand J For Res 12(3):302–310

  51. Majumdar I, Teeter L, Butler B (2008) Characterizing family forest owners: a cluster analysis approach. For Sci 54(2):176–184

  52. Mäkinen H, Hallaksela A-M, Isomäki A (2007) Increment and decay in Norway spruce and Scots pine after artificial logging damage. Can J For Res 37(11):2130–2141

  53. Mäki-Simola E, Torvelainen J (2018) Roundwood removals and drain. In: Vaahtera E, Aarne M, Ihalainen A, Mäki-Simola E, Peltola A, Torvelainen J, Uotila E, Ylitalo E (eds) Finnish forest statistics. Official Statistics of Finland: Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, pp 81–92

  54. Marchi E, Picchio R, Spinelli R, Verani S, Venanzi R, Certini G (2014) Environmental impact assessment of different logging methods in pine forests thinning. Ecol Eng 70:429–436

  55. Mattila O, Toppinen A, Tervo M, Berghäll S (2013) Non-industrial private forestry service markets in flux: results from a qualitative analysis on Finland. Small-Scale For 12(4):559–578

  56. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2015) National Forest Strategy 2025. Government resolution of 12 February 2015. Publications of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 6b/2015

  57. Nordlund A, Westin K (2011) Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests 2(1):30–50

  58. Official Statistics of Finland (2018) Väestön tieto- ja viestintätekniikan käyttö 2018 (Utilization of information and communication technology by the Finnish population in 2018). Official Statistics of Finland: Science, Technology and Information Society 2018. https://www.stat.fi/til/sutivi/2018/sutivi_2018_2018-12-04_fi.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2019

  59. Ovaskainen H (ed) (2019) Kohti automaattista puunkorjuun laadun mittaamista (Towards automatic quality measurement in wood harvesting). Metsätehon Raportti 251

  60. 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(2):227–239

  61. Palander T, Eronen J, Kärhä K, Ovaskainen H (2018) Development of a wood damage monitoring system for mechanized harvesting. Ann For Res 61(2):1–16

  62. Palander TS, Eronen JP, Peltoniemi NP, Aarnio AI, Kärhä K, Ovaskainen HK (2019) Improving a stem-damage monitoring system for a single-grip harvester using a logistic regression model in image processing. Biosyst Eng 180:36–49

  63. Peltola A (2018) Silviculture. In: Vaahtera E, Aarne M, Ihalainen A, Mäki-Simola E, Peltola A, Torvelainen J, Uotila E, Ylitalo E (eds) Finnish forest statistics. Official Statistics of Finland: Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, pp 49–66

  64. Picchio R, Neri F, Maesano M, Savelli S, Sirna A, Blasi S, Baldini S, Marchi E (2011) Growth effects of thinning damage in a Corsican pine (Pinus laricio Poiret) stand in central Italy. For Ecol Manag 262(2):237–243

  65. Picchio R, Tavankar F, Bonyad A, Mederski PS, Venanzi R, Nikooy M (2019) Detailed analysis of residual stand damage due to winching on steep terrains. Small-Scale For 18:255–277

  66. Pöyry Management Consulting (2016) Suomen metsäteollisuus 2015–2035 (Finnish forest industries in 2015–2035). Loppuraportti (X304203) työ- ja elinkeinoministeriölle 19.1.2016. https://tem.fi/documents/1410877/2772829/P%C3%B6yry_Suomen+mets%C3%A4teollisuus+2015-2035.pdf/ac9395f8-8aea-4180-9642-c917e8c23ab2. Accessed 6 Dec 2018

  67. Rämö A-K, Toivonen R (2007) Metsä- ja puukauppapalveluiden laatu ja sen ulottuvuudet metsänomistajien näkökulmasta (Quality factors and dimensions of services on forestry and wood transactions—forest owners’ view). Pellervo Economic Research Institute, Reports 203

  68. Rämö A-K, Mäkijärvi L, Toivonen R, Horne P (2009) Suomalaisen metsänomistajan profiili vuonna 2030 (Finnish forest owners’ profile in 2030). Pellervo Economic Research Institute, Reports 221

  69. Sirén M (2001) Tree damage in single-grip harvester thinning operations. Int J For Eng 12(1):29–38

  70. Staal Wästerlund D, Kronholm T (2014) Market analysis of the harvesting services engaged by private forest owners in Sweden. In: Roos A, Lönnstedt L, Nord T, Gong P, Stendahl M (eds) Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Uppsala, Sweden, 22–24 May 2014, Scandinavian Forest Economics, vol 45, pp 111–119

  71. Vaahtera E, Ihalainen A (2018) Forest resources. In: Vaahtera E, Aarne M, Ihalainen A, Mäki-Simola E, Peltola A, Torvelainen J, Uotila E, Ylitalo E (eds) Finnish forest statistics. Official Statistics of Finland: Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, pp 15–32

  72. Vasiliauskas R (2001) Damage to trees due to forestry operations and its pathological significance in temperate forests: a literature review. Forestry 74(4):319–336

  73. Ylitalo E (2018) Forest industries’ wood consumption. In: Vaahtera E, Aarne M, Ihalainen A, Mäki-Simola E, Peltola A, Torvelainen J, Uotila E, Ylitalo E (eds) Finnish forest statistics. Official Statistics of Finland: Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, pp 115–122

  74. Young RR (2004) The requirements engineering handbook. Artech House Technology management and professional development library. Artech House, Boston

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Kalle Kärhä.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kärhä, K., Eronen, J., Palander, T. et al. Information Needs of Non-industrial Private Forest Owners After Logging Operations in Finland: A Case Study. Small-scale Forestry (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-019-09431-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Family forest owners
  • Information services
  • Harvesting result
  • Thinnings
  • Web-based surveys