Extension and Education Services: Applying Service-Dominant Logic Through Peer-to-Peer Learning

  • Paul F. CatanzaroEmail author
  • Katri Hamunen
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 24)


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.


Education Extension Family forest owners Peer-to-peer learning S-D logic 


  1. Berghäll, S. (2018). Service marketing phenomena in the context of private forest owners—A service dominant logic perspective on scholarly literature. Current Forestry Reports, 4(3), 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burt, R. (2005). Brokerage and closure: an introduction to social capital. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, B. J., Hewes, J. H., Dickinson, B. J., Andrejczyk, K., Butler, 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, 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl.), S95–S120.Google Scholar
  5. Eisen, M.-J. (2001). Peer-based learning: a new-old alternative to professional development. Adult Learning, 12(1), 9–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FAO. (2016). State of the world’s forests 2016: forests and agriculture; land-use challenges and opportunities. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  7. Gootee, R. S., Blatner, K. A., Baumgartner, D. M., Carroll, M. S., & Weber, E. P. (2010). Choosing what to believe about forests: differences between professional and non-rofessional evaluative criteria. Small-Scale Forestry, 9, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamunen, K., Appelstrand, M., Hujala, T., Kurttila, M., Sriskandarajah, N., Vilkriste, L., et al. (2015a). Defining peer-to-peer learning—from an old “art of practice” to a new mode of forest owner extension? Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 21(4), 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamunen, K., Virkkula, O., Hujala, T., Hiedanpää, J., & Kurttila, M. (2015b). Enhancing informal interaction and knowledge co-construction among forest owners. Silva Fennica, 49(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Harshaw, H. W., & Tindall, D. B. (2005). Social structure, identities, and values: a network approach to understanding people’s relationships to forests. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(4), 426–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hujala, T., & Tikkanen, J. (2008). Boosters of and barriers to smooth communication in family forest owners’ decision making. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 23(5), 466–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Kilgore, M. A., Snyder, S. A., Eryilmaz, D., Markowski-Lindsay, M. A., Butler, B. J., Kittredge, D. B., et al. (2015). Assessing the relationship between different forms of landowner assistance and family forest owner behaviors and intentions. Journal of Forestry, 113, 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kittredge, D. B. (2004). Extension/outreach implications for America’s family forest owners. Journal of Forestry, 102, 15–18.Google Scholar
  16. Knoot, T. G., & Rickenbach, M. (2011). Best management practices and timber harvesting: the role of social networks in shaping landowner decisions. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 26(2), 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 & Natural Resources, 26(8), 912–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 (In Finnish.).
  19. 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
  20. Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ma, Z., Kittredge, D. B., & Catanzaro, P. (2012). Challenging the traditional forestry extension model: Insights from the Woods Forum Program in Massachusetts. Small-Scale Forestry, 11(1), 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Markowski-Lindsay, M., Catanzaro, P., Milman, A., & Kittredge, D. (2016). Understanding family forest land future ownership and use: Exploring conservation bequest motivations. Small-Scale Forestry, 15, 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2001). Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem management: A study of Lake Racken Watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems, 4, 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rickenbach, M., & Kittredge, D. B. (2009). Time and distance: Comparing motivations among forest landowners in New England, USA. Small-Scale Forestry, 8, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Shiner, M. (1999). Defining peer education. Journal of Adolescence, 222, 555–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Topping, K. J., & Ehly, S. W. (2009). Peer assisted learning: A framework for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(2), 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Natural Resources Institute FinlandJoensuuFinland

Personalised recommendations