Extension and Education Services: Applying Service-Dominant Logic Through Peer-to-Peer Learning
Extension is a common approach used to inform the critical decisions made by family forest owners (FFOs) about the future of their land, which could have a tremendous impact on the public benefit these lands provide. The present extension model, based widely on goods-dominant (G-D) logic, is in many cases inefficient in reaching FFOs and has limited success with unengaged FFOs. Outreach strategies that incorporate service-dominant (S-D) logic into their approach, such as peer-to-peer (P2P) learning, hold significant potential to adapt to dynamic service ecosystems and co-create value for FFOs. Instead of a few extension professionals trying to meet the needs of many FFOs in a region, FFOs can help one another, which increases the efficiency and effectiveness of extension and outreach. A wide web of peers with a variety of knowledge and experience can inform the decisions that FFOs make about their forest, helping to maintain or even increase the public benefit the land provides. Extension professionals can play a critical role not only as sources of operant resources but also as organizers and facilitators of P2P learning. Policies that divest themselves of G-D logic-based extension and reinvest in S-D logic-based extension can increase the adoption of these practices and thus the number of informed FFO decisions. In this chapter, we discuss the problems with the G-D logic approach to extension, the opportunities presented by S-D logic extension, ideas for cultivating FFO peer networks, and the different roles extension professionals can play to facilitate them.
KeywordsEducation Extension Family forest owners Peer-to-peer learning S-D logic
- Burt, R. (2005). Brokerage and closure: an introduction to social capital. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl.), S95–S120.Google Scholar
- FAO. (2016). State of the world’s forests 2016: forests and agriculture; land-use challenges and opportunities. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
- Hänninen, H., Karppinen, H., & Leppänen, J. (2011). Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2010. [Finnish family forest owner 2010.] Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 208. (In Finnish.).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
- Kittredge, D. B. (2004). Extension/outreach implications for America’s family forest owners. Journal of Forestry, 102, 15–18.Google Scholar
- Kumela, H., Hamunen, K., Kurttila, M., Gröhn, U., Hokajärvi, R., Huhtinen, M., & Pirinen, M. (2017). Vaikuttavuutta vertaisneuvonnalla: opas metsänomistajaryhmien ohjaamiseen. [Effectiveness with peer advising: a guide for facilitating forest owner groups.] Natural Resources Institute Finland and Finland’s Forest Centre. Retrieved July 6, 2019, from https://indd.adobe.com/view/8f92361f-2c6a-4f42-bb1d-82c150a4e34a. (In Finnish.).
- Lawrence, A. (2016). Extension, advice and knowledge exchange for private forestry: an overview of diversity and change across Europe. In G. Weiss, Z. Dobsinska, D. Feliciano, T. Hujala, A. Lawrence, G. Lidestav, Z. Sarvašová, & I. Živojinović (Eds.), Forest ownership changes in Europe: Trends, issues and needs for action; book of abstracts (pp. 44–47). Vienna: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
- Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Matilainen, A., Koch, M., Živojinović, I., Didolot, F., Lidestav, G., Lähdesmäki, M., et al. (2016). Understanding the forest ownership in different forest owning cultures. In G. Weiss, Z. Dobsinska, D. Feliciano, T. Hujala, A. Lawrence, G. Lidestav, Z. Sarvašová, & I. Živojinović (Eds.), Forest ownership changes in Europe: Trends, issues and needs for action; book of abstracts (pp. 24–26). Vienna: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
- Muth, A., Subjin, A., Sagor, E., Strong, N., & Walkingstick, T. (2013). Growing your peer learning network: tools and tips from the Women Owning Woodlands Network. Corvallis: Oregon State University Extension Service.Google Scholar
- Sagor, E. S. (2012). Personal networks and private forestry: exploring extension’s role in landowner education. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota. Retrieved July 6, 2019, from https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/145001.
- Stein, S. M., McRoberts, R. E., Mahal, L. G., Carr, M. A., Alig, R. J., Comas, S. J., et al. (2009). Private forests, public benefits: increased housing density and other pressures on private forest contributions (No. PNW-GTR-795). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.Google Scholar
- Weiss, G., Gudurić, I., & Wolfslehner, B. (2012). Review of forest owners’ organizations in selected Eastern European countries. Forest Policy and Institutions Working Paper 30. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
- Wiersum, K. F., Elands, B. H. M., & Hoogstra, M. A. (2005). Small-scale forest ownership across Europe: Characteristics and future potential. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 4(1), 1–19.Google Scholar