Societal Expectations from Family Forestry in the USA and Europe

  • Emily S. HuffEmail author
  • Nataly Jürges
  • Maria Canadas
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 24)


Humans rely on forests for a wide variety of tangible goods and less tangible services. Over time, societies have come to expect that forests provide certain things, ranging from timber products to spaces for recreational and spiritual enjoyment. We focus on these societal expectations in this chapter, and specifically consider what is expected from family or small-scale private forests in the USA and Europe. These expectations will shape the services provided by forests either directly via landowner and land manager actions or indirectly via policies that may encourage action. We present this chapter as a conceptual discussion, intended to identify what societal expectations are from family forests and how they may relate to the service-dominant logic framework and the potential this framework provides for better matching expectations with services from this important forest land ownership base.


Environmental values Institutions Raw material Social benefits 


  1. Acheson, J. M. (2006). Public access to privately owned land in Maine. Maine Policy Review, 15(1), 18–30.Google Scholar
  2. Amacher, G. S., Conway, M. C., & Sullivan, J. (2003). Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: Is there anything left to study? Journal of Forest Economics, 9, 137–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrejczyk, K., Butler, B. J., Dickinson, B. J., Hewes, J. H., Markowski-Lindsay, M., Kittredge, D. B., et al. (2016a). Family forest owners’ perceptions of landowner assistance programs in the USA: A qualitative exploration of program impacts on behaviour. Small-Scale Forestry, 15(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrejczyk, K., Butler, B. J., Tyrrell, M. L., & Langer, J. (2016b). Hansel and Gretel walk in the forest, landowners walk in the woods: A qualitative examination of the language used by family forest owners. Journal of Forestry, 114(1), 52–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aurenhammer, P. (2017). Forest land-use governance and change through Forest Owner Associations—Actors’ roles and preferences in Bavaria. Forest Policy and Economics, 85, 176–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bliss, J. C., & Martin, A. J. (1989). Identifying NIPF management motivations with qualitative methods. Forest Science, 35(2), 601–622.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1983). Forms of capital. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  8. Burnett, M., & Davis, C. (2002). Getting out the cut: Politics and national forest timber harvests, 1960–1995. Administration & Society, 34(2), 202–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butler, B. J., & Leatherberry, E. C. (2004). America’s family forest owners. Journal of Forestry, 4–9.Google Scholar
  10. Butler, B. J., Markowski-Lindsay, M., Snyder, S., Catanzaro, P., Kittredge, D. B., Andrejczyk, K., et al. (2014). Effectiveness of landowner assistance activities: An examination of the USDA forest service’s forest stewardship program. Journal of Forestry, 112(2), 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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(6), 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butler, S. M., Huff, E. S., Snyder, S. A., Butler, B. J., & Tyrrell, M. (2017). The role of gender in management behaviors on family forest lands in the United States. Journal of Forestry, 116(1), 32–40.Google Scholar
  13. Canadas, M. J., & Novais, A. (2014). Bringing local socioeconomic context to the analysis of forest owners’ management. Land Use Policy, 41, 397–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Canadas, M. J., Novais, A., & Marques, M. (2016). Wildfires, forest management and landowners' collective action: A comparative approach at the local level. Land Use Policy, 56, 179–188.Google Scholar
  15. Cialdini, R., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Colby, K. T. (1988). Public access to private land—Allemansrätt in Sweden. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15(3–4), 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. Forest Policy and Economics, 78, 116–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Drobny, N., & Böhm, J. (2015). Neue Waldbesitzer-Generation – Neue Wege in der Kommunikation. Veränderungen der Waldbesitzstrukturen erfordern neue Informationstechniken. LWF aktuell, 107, 21–23.Google Scholar
  19. Elands, B. H., & Wiersum, K. F. (2001). Forestry and rural development in Europe: an exploration of socio-political discourses. Forest policy and economics, 3(1–2), 5–16.Google Scholar
  20. Elands, B. H., O'Leary, T. N., Boerwinkel, H. W., & Wiersum, K. F. (2004). Forests as a mirror of rural conditions; local views on the role of forests across Europe. Forest policy and economics, 6(5), 469–482.Google Scholar
  21. Enzenbach, B., Krause, E., & Kirchner, S. (2008). Wald ist nicht nur Männersache. LWF aktuell, 62, 20–21.Google Scholar
  22. Etzioni, A. (1991). The socio-economics of property. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 465–468.Google Scholar
  23. EU. (2009). Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Official Journal L, 140, 0016–0062 (05/06/2009).Google Scholar
  24. FAO. (2002). Land tenure and rural development. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from
  25. Feliciano, D., Bouriaud, L., Brahic, E., Deuffic, P., Dobsinska, Z., Jarsky, V., et al. (2017). Understanding private forest owners’ conceptualisation of forest management: Evidence from a survey in seven European countries. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 162–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Follo, G., Lidestav, G., Ludvig, A., Vilkriste, L., Hujala, T., Karppinen, H., et al. (2017). Gender in European forest ownership and management: reflections on women as “new forest owners”. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 32(2), 174–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glaeser, E. L., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2004). Do institutions cause growth? Journal of Economic Growth, 9(3), 271–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger & F. Lawrence, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hansen, E. N. (2010). The role of innovation in the forest products industry. Journal of Forestry, 108(7), 348–353.Google Scholar
  30. Haugen, K., Karlsson, S., & Westin, K. (2016). New forest owners: Change and continuity in the characteristics of Swedish non-industrial private forest owners (NIPF owners) 1990–2010. Small-Scale Forestry, 15, 533–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haynes, R. W., Montgomery, C. A., & Alexander, S. J. (2017). Wood-products markets, communities, and regional economies. In D. H. Olson & B. Van Horne (Eds.), People, forests, and change (pp. 47–61). Washington, DC: Island Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Häyrinen, L., Mattila, O., Berghäll, S., & Toppinen, A. (2016). Lifestyle of health and sustainability of forest owners as an indicator of multiple use of forests. Forest Policy and Economics, 67, 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heldmann, G. (2013). Family forests on the edge: Implications for public recreation access in Maine. M.S. Thesis, University of Maine, Digital Commons.Google Scholar
  34. Hoogstra-Klein, M. (2016). Exploring the financial rationales of Dutch forest holdings and their relation with financial results. European Journal of Forest Research, 135, 1025–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hull, R. B., Robertson, D. P., & Buhyoff, G. J. (2004). “Boutique” forestry: New forest practices in urbanizing landscapes. Journal of Forestry, 102(1), 14–19.Google Scholar
  36. Ice, G. G., Schilling, E., & Vowell, J. (2010). Trends for forestry best management practices implementation. Journal of Forestry, 108(6), 267–273.Google Scholar
  37. Jörgensen, H., & Stjernström, O. (2008). Emotional links to forest ownership. Restitution of land and use of a productive resource in Põlva County, Estonia. FenniaInternational Journal of Geography, 186(2), 95–111.Google Scholar
  38. Juerges, N., & Newig, J. (2015). How interest groups adapt to the changing forest governance landscape in the EU: A case study from Germany. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 228–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kendra, A., & Hull, B. (2005). Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. Forest Science, 51(2), 142–154.Google Scholar
  40. Kilgore, M. A., & Snyder, S. A. (2016). Lake States natural resource managers’ perspectives on forest land parcelization and its implications for public land management. Land Use Policy, 59, 320–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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(1), 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kittredge, D. B. (2005). The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: International examples and potential application in the United States. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(4), 671–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Konijnendijk, C. C. (2003). A decade of urban forestry in Europe. Forest policy and Economics, 5(2), 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Korhonen, K., Hujala, T., & Kurttila, M. (2012). Reaching forest owners through their social networks in timber sales. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 27(1), 88–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krott, M., & Neitzel, C. (2018). Moderner Kleinprivatwald – Eigentümer “first”. AFZ Wald, 73(5), 21–23.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Kvarda, E. (2004). ‘Non-agricultural forest owners’ in Austria—A new type of forest ownership. Forest Policy and Economics, 6, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lidskog, R., & Sjödin, D. (2014). Why do forest owners fail to heed warnings? Conflicting risk evaluations made by the Swedish forest agency and forest owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(3), 275–282.Google Scholar
  50. Lind-Riehl, J., Jeltema, S., Morrison, M., Shirkey, G., Mayer, A. L., Rouleau, M., et al. (2015). Family legacies and community networks shape private forest management in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan (USA). Land Use Policy, 45, 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mallo, M. F. L., & Espinoza, O. (2015). Awareness, perceptions and willingness to adopt cross-laminated timber by the architecture community in the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 94, 198–210.Google Scholar
  52. Mårald, E., & Westholm, E. (2016). Changing approaches to the future in Swedish forestry, 1850–2010. Nature and Culture, 11(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moiseyev, A., Solberg, B., Kallio, A. M. I., & Lindner, M. (2011). An economic analysis of the potential contribution of forest biomass to the EU RES target and its implications for the EU forest industries. Journal of Forest Economics, 17(2), 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. NASF (2019). A Century of Shared Stewardships - State Foresters and the Forest Service. National Association of State Foresters, pp. 16.
  55. Nichiforel, L., Keary, K., Deuffic, P., Weiss, G., Thorsen, B. J., Winkel, G., et al. (2018). How private are Europe’s private forests? A comparative property rights analysis. Land Use Policy, 76, 535–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pezdevšek Malovrh, S., Nonic, D., Glavonjic, P., Nedeljkovic, J., Avdibegović, M., & Krč, J. (2015). Private forest owner typologies in Slovenia and Serbia: Targeting private forest owner groups for policy implementation. Small-Scale Forestry, 14, 423–440.Google Scholar
  58. Pierce, J. L., & Rodgers, L. (2004). The psychology of ownership and worker-owner productivity. Group and Organization Management, 29, 588–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Primmer, E., & Karppinen, H. (2010). Professional judgment in non-industrial private forestry: Forester attitudes and social norms influencing biodiversity conservation. Forest Policy and Economics, 12(2), 136–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pröbstl, U., Wirth, V., Elands, B. H., & Bell, S. (Eds.). (2010). Management of recreation and nature based tourism in European forests. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  61. Pulla, P., Schuck, A., Verkerk, P. J., Lasserre, B., Marchetti, M., & Green, T. (2013). Mapping the distribution of forest ownership in Europe. European Forest Institute, Technical Report 88. pp. 91.Google Scholar
  62. Pülzl, H., & Hogl, K. (2013). Forest governance in Europe. In H. Pülzl, K. Hogl, D. Kleinschmit, D. Wydra, B. Arts, P. Mayer, M. Palahí, G. Winkel, & B. Wolfslehner (Eds.), European forest governance: Issues at stake and the way forward (pp. 11–17). What Science Can Tell Us 2. European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
  63. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Harper Brothers.Google Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Staal Wästerlund, D. S., & Kronholm, T. (2017). Family forest owners’ commitment to service providers and the effect of association membership on loyalty. Small-Scale Forestry, 16(2), 275–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Steel, B. S., List, P., & Shindler, B. (1994). Conflicting values about federal forests: A comparison of national and Oregon publics. Society & natural resources, 7(2), 137–153.Google Scholar
  67. Vanhanen, H., Jonsson, R., Gerasimov, Y., Krankina, O., & Messieur, C. (Eds.). (2012). Making boreal forests work for people and nature. Vantaa: IUFRO’s Special Project on World Forests, Society and Environment. Retrieved June 29, 2019, from
  68. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vargo, S. L., Wieland, H., & Akaka, M. A. (2015). Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Williamson, C. R., & Kerekes, C. B. (2011). Securing private property: formal versus informal institutions. The Journal of Law and Economics, 54(3), 537–572.Google Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Georg-August-University GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  3. 3.University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations