Individual Forest Owners in Context

  • Kerstin Westin
  • Louise Eriksson
  • Gun Lidestav
  • Heimo Karppinen
  • Katarina Haugen
  • Annika Nordlund


In this chapter, changes that have taken place on an overarching level in society, such as globalisation, supranational agencies, privatisation and restitution, are discussed from the forest owners’ perspective. The forces influencing forest owners and forest ownership as described in Chap.  2 in this volume are scrutinised and interpreted here on a micro level. Urbanisation, economic restructuring, demographic change and new ownership constellations are both drivers and consequences of changes in lifestyles, forest owner identity, place attachment and attitudes to the forest resource.


  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Altman, I., & Low, S. (1992). Place attachment. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambrušová, L., Dobšinská, Z., Sarvašová, Z., Hricová, Z., & Šálka, J. (2015). Slovakia. In I. Živojinović et al. (Eds.), Forest land ownership change in Europe. COST action FP1201 FACESMAP country reports. joint volume. EFICEEC-EFISEE Research Report. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences. Vienna (BOKU), pp. 531–548, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  5. Axen, J., & Kurani, K. S. (2013). Developing sustainability-oriented values: Insights from households in a trial of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Global Environmental Change, 23, 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, D. R., Eryilmaz, D., Klapperich, J. J., & Kilgore, M. A. (2013). Social availability of residual woody biomass from nonindustrial private woodland owners in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Biomass and Bioenergy, 56, 82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bengston, D. N. (1994). Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources, 7, 515–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bengston, D. N., Fan, D. P., & Celarier, D. N. (1999). A new approach to monitoring the social environment for natural resource management and policy: The case of US national forest benefits and values. Journal of Environmental Management, 56, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blennow, K., Persson, J., Tomé, M., & Hanewinkel, M. (2012). Climate change: Believing and seeing implies adapting. PLOS ONE, 7, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bliss, J. C., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity and private forest management. Society & Natural Resources, 1(1), 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bliss, J. C., Nepal, S. K., Brooks Jr., R. T., & Larsen, M. D. (1994). Forestry community or granfalloon? Do forest owners share the public’s views? Journal of Forestry, 92(9), 6–10.Google Scholar
  12. Boon, T. E., Meilby, H., & Thorsen Jellesmark, B. (2004). An empirically based typology of private forest owners in Denmark: Improving communication between authorities and owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler, B. J. (2008). Family forest owners of the United States (2006). Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Services, Northern Research Station.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeCoster, L. A. (1998). The boom in forest owners—A bust for forestry? Journal of Forestry, 96(5), 25–28.Google Scholar
  16. Domínguez, G., & Shannon, M. (2011). A wish, a fear and a complaint: Understanding the (dis)engagement of forest owners in forest management. European Journal of Forest Research, 130, 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eagles, P. F. J. (2010). Changing societal values and carrying capacity in park management: 50 years at Pinery Provincial Park in Ontario. Leisure/Loisir, 34, 189–206. doi: 10.1080/14927713.2010.481114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  20. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 269–322). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Eagly, A. H., & Kulesa, P. (1997). Attitudes, attitude structure, and resistance to change: Implication for persuasion on environmental issue. In M. H. Bazerman, D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel, & K. A. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.), Environment, ethics, and behavior. The Psychology of Environmental Valuation and Degradation (pp. 122–153). San Francisco: Lexington Press.Google Scholar
  22. Eggers, J., Lämås, T., Lind, T., & Öhman, K. (2014). Factors influencing the choice of management strategy among small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Forests, 5, 1695–1716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eriksson, L. (2016). The importance of threat, strategy, and resource appraisals for long-term proactive risk management among forest owners in Sweden. Journal of Risk Research. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2015.1121905.
  24. EU. (2015). The 2015 ageing report. Economic and budgetary projections for the 28 EU member states (2013–2060). European Economy 3/2015. Retrieved March 17, 2016.Google Scholar
  25. Eurostat. (2017). Eurostat statistics explained. Accessed June 14, 2017.
  26. Favada, I. M., Karppinen, H., Kuuluvainen, J., Mikkola, J., & Stavness, C. (2009). Effects of timber prices, ownership objectives, and owner characteristics on timber supply. Forest Science, 55(6), 512–523.Google Scholar
  27. Follo, G. (2008). Det norske familjeskogbruket, dets kvinnlige og manlige skogeier, forvaltningsaktivitet—og metaforiske forbindelser. Academic diss NTNU 2008:173. Norges teknisk-naturvitenskaplige universitet.Google Scholar
  28. Follo, G., Lidestav, G., Ludvig, A., Vilkriste, L., Hujala, T., Karppinen, H., et al. (2016). Gender in European forest ownership and management—Reflections on women as “new forest owners”. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2016.1195866.
  29. Fulton, D. C., Manfredo, M. J., & Lipscomb, J. (1996). Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1, 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenfield, P. M. (2016). Social change, cultural evolution, and human development. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haugen, K. (2015). Contested lands? Dissonance and common ground in stakeholder views on forest values. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie. doi: 10.1111/tesg.12165.
  32. Heany, C. A., & Israel, B. A. (2002). Social networks and social support. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & F. M. Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed., pp. 185–209). San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holmgren, L. (2006). Forest ownership and taxation in a Swedish boreal municipality context. Doctor’s dissertation, Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae, p. 49. ISSN 1652-6880. ISBN 91-576-7098-6.Google Scholar
  35. Holmgren, L., Lidestav, G., & Nyquist, S. (2005). Taxation and investment implications of non-industrial private forestry within a boreal Swedish municipality. Small-Scale Forest Economics Management and Policy, 4, 35–51.Google Scholar
  36. Hänninen, H., & Karppinen, H. (2010). Yksityismetsänomistajat puntarissa [Finnish family forestry under the spotlight]. In Y. Sevola (Ed.), Metsä. talous. yhteiskunta. Katsauksia metsäekonomiseen tutkimukseen (Vol. 145, pp. 55–67). Metlan työraportteja/Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute.Google Scholar
  37. Hänninen, H., Karppinen, H., & Leppänen, J. (2011). Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2010 [Finnish forest owner 2010]. Metlan työraportteja/Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 208, p. 94.Google Scholar
  38. Ingemarson, F., Lindhagen, A., & Eriksson, K. (2006). A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 21(3), 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jacobson, M. G. (2002). Factors affecting private forest landowner interest in ecosystem management: Linking spatial and survey data. Environmental Management, 30, 577–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jansen, M. A., Holahan, R., Lee, A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Lab experiments for the study of social-ecological systems. Science, 328, 613–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaltenborn, B. (1997). Recreation homes in natural settings: Factors affecting place attachment. Norsk Geografisk Tidskrift, 51, 187–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kangas, A., Luakkanen, S., & Kangas, J. (2006). Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management—A review. Forest Policy and Economics, 9, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kangas, J., Hytönen, L., & Loikkanene, T. (2001). Integrating the AHP and HERO into the process of participatory natural resource planning. The analytic hierarchy process in natural resources and environmental decision making. Managing Forest Ecosystems, 3, 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kansallinen metsästrategia 2025. (2015). Valtioneuvoston periaatepäätös 12.2.2015 [National Forest strategy 2025]. Maa-ja metsätalousministeriön julkaisuja 6/2015, p. 54.Google Scholar
  45. Kant, S., & Lee, S. (2004). A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: An analysis of multiple forest values in Northwestern Ontario. Forest Policy and Economics, 6, 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Karppinen, H. (1988a). Trends in ownership of Finnish forest land: Fragmentation or consolidation. In Small scale forestry, experience and potential. International research symposium May 26–29. 1986. University of Helsinki. Lahti Research and Training Centre. Reports 4, pp. 217–234.Google Scholar
  47. Karppinen, H. (1998b). Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica, 32(1), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Karppinen, H. (2000). Forest values and the objectives of forest ownership. Doctoral dissertation, Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja [Finnish Forest Research Institute. Research Papers] 757. 55 p. +4 articles.Google Scholar
  49. Karppinen, H. (2005). Forest owners’ choice of reforestation method: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Karppinen, H. (2012). New forest owners and owners-to-be: Apples and oranges? Small-Scale Forestry, 11(1), 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Karppinen, H., & Berghäll, S. (2015). Forest owners’ stand improvement decisions: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Karppinen, H., & Tiainen, L. (2010). ”Semmonen niinkun metsäkansa”—suurten ikäluokkien perijät tulevaisuuden metsänomistajina [“Sort of forest people”—Future forest owners: Descendants of the post-war baby boom generation]. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja, 1, 19–38.Google Scholar
  54. Kendra, A., & Hull, B. (2005). Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. Forest Science, 51(2), 142–154.Google Scholar
  55. Kittredge, D. B., Rickenbach, M. G., Knoot, T. G., Snellings, E., & Erazo, A. (2013). It’s the network: How personal connections shape decisions about private forest use. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 30(2), 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kline, J. D., Alig, R. J., & Johnson, R. L. (2000). Fostering the production of non-timber services among forest owners with heterogeneous objectives. Forest Science, 46(2), 302–311.Google Scholar
  57. Kuuluvainen, J., Karppinen, H., Hänninen, H., & Uusivuori, J. (2014). Effects of gender and length of land tenure on timber supply in Finland. Journal of Forest Economics, 20(4), 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kuuluvainen, J., Karppinen, H., & Ovaskainen, V. (1996). Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. Forest Science, 42(3), 300–309.Google Scholar
  59. Lähdesmäki, M., & Matilainen, A. (2014). Born to be a forest owner? An empirical study of the aspects of psychological ownership in the context of inherited forests in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(2), 101–110. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2013.869348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Leppänen, J., & Hänninen, H. (2008). Parcelisation of family forests in Finland. In E. Bergseng, G. Delbeck, & H. F. Hoen (Eds.), Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the Scandinavian society of forest economics (Vol. 42, pp. 361–377). Lom: Scandinavian Forest Economics.Google Scholar
  61. Leppänen, J., & Torvelainen, J. (2015). Metsämaan omistus 2013 [Forest ownership in 2013]. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 5/2015. Luonnonvarakeskus, Helsinki, p. 10.Google Scholar
  62. Leitch, Z. J., Lhotka, J. M., Stainback, G. A., & Stringer, J. W. (2013). Private landowner intent to supply woody feedstock for bioenergy production. Biomass and Bioenergy, 56, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 207–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Li, C., Wang, C. P., Liu, S. T., & Weng, L. H. (2010). Forest value orientations and importance of forest recreation services. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 2342–2348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lidestav, G. (2010). In competition with a brother: Women’s inheritance positions in contemporary Swedish family forestry. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 25(Suppl 9), 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lien, G., Størdal, S., & Baardsen, S. (2007). Technical efficiency in timber production and effects of other income sources. Small-Scale Forestry, 6, 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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
  68. Lindroos, O., Lidestav, G., & Nordfjell, T. (2005). Swedish non-industrial private forest owners. A survey of self-employment and equipment investments. Small-Scale Forest Economics Management and Policy, 4, 409–442.Google Scholar
  69. Lönnqvist, J. E., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., & Verkasalo, M. (2011). Personal values before and after migration: A longitudinal case study on value change in Ingrian–Finnish migrants. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 584–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Majumdar, I., Teeter, L., & Butler, B. (2008). Characterizing family forest owners: A cluster analysis approach. Forest Science, 54(2), 176–184.Google Scholar
  71. Manning, R., Valliere, W., & Minteer, B. (1999). Values, ethics, and attitudes toward national forest management: An empirical study. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Manstead, A. S. (2000). The role of moral norms in the attitude-behavior relation. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context. The role of norms and group membership (pp. 11–30). Lawrence, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  73. McFarlane, B. L., & Boxall, P. C. (2003). The role of social psychological and social structural variables in environmental activism: An example of the forest sector. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Meadows, J., Herbohn, J., & Emtage, N. (2013). Supporting cooperative forest management among small-acreage lifestyle landowners in Southeast Queensland, Australia. Society and Natural Resources, 26, 745–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mehmood, S., & Zhang, D. (2001). Forest parcelization in the United States. A study of contributing factors. Journal of Forestry, 99(4), 30–34.Google Scholar
  76. Metsätilakoon ja rakenteen kehittäminen—Työryhmän loppuraportti. (2012). [Enlargement and structural development of the forest holding size—Final report of the working group]. Työryhmämuistio MMM, 1, 25.Google Scholar
  77. Ní Dhubáin, A., Cobanova, R., Karppinen, H., Mizaraite, D., Ritter, E., Slee, B., et al. (2007). The values and objectives of private forest owners and their influence on forestry behaviour: The implications for entrepreneurship. Small-Scale Forestry, 6(4), 347–357. doi: 10.1007/s11842-007-9030-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Nordlund, A., & Westin, K. (2011). Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests, 2, 30–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ostrom, E. (1990). ‘Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Ovaskainen, V., Hänninen, H., Mikkola, J., & Lehtonen, E. (2006). Cost-sharing and private timber stand improvements: A two-step estimation approach. Forest Science, 52(1), 44–54.Google Scholar
  81. Paletto, A., Hamunsen, K., & De Meo, I. (2015). Social network analysis to support stakeholder analysis in participatory forest planning. Society and Natural Resources, 28, 1108–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Petucco, C., Abildtrup, J., & Stenger, A. (2015). Influences of nonindustrial private forest landowners’ management priorities on the timber harvest decision—A case study in France. Journal of Forest Economics, 21, 152–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pierce, J. L., & Rodgers, L. (2004). The psychology of ownership and worker-owner productivity. Group & Organization Management, 29, 588–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Raymond, C. M., Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2010). The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 422–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Ripatti, P. (1996). Factors affecting partitioning of private forest holdings in Finland. A logit analysis. Acta Forestalia Fennica, 252, 84.Google Scholar
  86. Robinson, O. C. (2013). Values and adult age: Findings from two cohorts of the European Social Survey. European Journal of Aging, 10, 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  88. Ruseva, T. B., Evans, T. P., & Fischer, B. C. (2014). Variations in the social networks of forest owners: The effect of management activity, resource professionals, and ownership size. Small-Scale Forestry, 13, 377–395. doi: 10.1007/s11842-014-9260-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sagor, E. S., & Becker, D. R. (2014). Personal networks and private forestry in Minnesota. Journal of Environmental Management, 132, 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Salmon, O., Brunson, M., & Kuhns, M. (2006). Benefit-based audience segmentation: A tool for identifying nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owner education needs. Journal of Forestry, 104(8), 419–425.Google Scholar
  91. Schmithüsen, F., & Hirsch, F. (2010). Private forest ownership in Europe. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Paper 26, UN, Geneva.Google Scholar
  92. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 221–279). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  93. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content of and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social of Issues, 50, 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11. doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Schwartz, S. H., & Tessler, R. C. (1972). A test of a model for reducing measured attitude-behavior discrepancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvements (p. 527). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  98. Statistics Finland. (2014). Statistical yearbook of Finland. Volume 109. Statistikcentralen, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  99. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27, 723–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Stroebe, W., & Stroebe, M. S. (1996). The social psychology of social support. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 37–65). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  101. Suuriniemi, I., Matero, J., Hänninen, J., & Uusivuori, J. (2012). Factors affecting enlargement of family forest holdings. Silva Fennica, 46(2), 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Swedish Forest Agency. (2014). Swedish statistical yearbook of forestry 2014. Jönköping: Swedish Forest Agency.Google Scholar
  103. The World Fact Book. (2016). Retrieved April 4, 2016, from
  104. Thompson, D. W., & Hansen, E. N. (2013). Carbon storage on non-industrial private forestland: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Small-Scale Forestry, 12, 631–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Thompson, S. C., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Urquhart, J., & Courtney, P. (2011). Seeing the owner behind the trees: A typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England. Forest Policy and Economics, 13, 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Vaske, J., & Korbin, K. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 16–21. doi: 10.1080/00958960109598658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Westin, K. (2015). Place attachment and mobility in city regions. Population, Space and Place. doi: 10.1002/psp.1949.
  109. 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, 1–19.Google Scholar
  110. Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830–840.Google Scholar
  111. Xu, Z., & Bengston, D. N. (1997). Trends in national forest values among forestry professionals, environmentalists, and the news. Society & Natural Resources, 10, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Zhang, Y., Zhang, D., & Schelhas, J. (2004). Small-scale non-industrial private forest ownership in the United States: Rationale and implications for forest management. In J. R. R. Alavalapati, & D. R. Carter (Eds.), Competitiveness in southern forest products markets in a global economy; Trends and prediction. Proceedings of the Southern Forest Economics Workshop 29004, St Augustine, Fl.Google Scholar
  113. 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
  114. Živojinović, I., Weiss, G., Lidestav, G., Feliciano, D., Hujala, T., Dobšinská, Z., et al. (2015). Forest land ownership change in Europe. COST action FP1201 FACESMAP country reports. Joint Volume. EFICEEC-EFISEE Research Report. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences. Vienna (BOKU). Vienna. Austria. p. 693. [Online publication].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kerstin Westin
    • 1
  • Louise Eriksson
    • 1
  • Gun Lidestav
    • 2
  • Heimo Karppinen
    • 3
  • Katarina Haugen
    • 1
  • Annika Nordlund
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Economic HistoryUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Forest Resource ManagementSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations