Current issue: 54(1)

Under compilation: 54(2)

Impact factor 1.683
5-year impact factor 1.950
Silva Fennica 1926-1997
Acta Forestalia Fennica

Articles containing the keyword 'family forest owner'.

Category: Research article

article id 894, category Research article
Heimo Karppinen, Mika Korhonen. (2013). Do forest owners share the public’s values? An application of Schwartz’s value theory. Silva Fennica vol. 47 no. 1 article id 894.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the differences in value priorities between Finnish forest owners and the general public. A conclusion is drawn whether and to what extent value changes in society are reflected in forest owners’ values and objectives, and, finally, in their actual forestry behavior. In addition, the study highlights the differences in value priorities among forest owners in various demographic groups. The data set used in this study was based on a nationwide mail survey on Finnish non-industrial private forest owners conducted in 2009 and consisting of 2116 observations of forest owners. Schwartz’s value theory was a good fit for testing the value priorities of forest owners. The three most important values were benevolence, security and conformity, both among the forest owners and the public. Tradition was ranked the fourth most important value by the forest owners, but very low by the public. The forest owners ranked universalism slightly lower than the public in general. This difference was clearly greater when the female forest owners were compared to women in the whole population. The probability of a forest owner belonging to the Softies (high emphasis on universalism and benevolence) increased with age and was higher for the female owners and the owners with recreational or multiple objectives compared to the indifferent owners. The multiobjective owners and recreationists had relatively similar value profiles. The previous literature suggests that multiobjective owners are the most active forest owner group and that recreationists and indifferent owners are the most passive groups in their timber supply behavior. The relationship between values and forestry behavior thus remains ambiguous.
  • Karppinen, Department of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 27, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland ORCID ID:E-mail: (email)
  • Korhonen, Kämnerintie 7e 41, FI-00750 Helsinki, Finland ORCID ID:E-mail:
article id 158, category Research article
Ville Hallikainen, Mikko Hyppönen, Leena Pernu, Jouni Puoskari. (2010). Family forest owners’ opinions about forest management in northern Finland. Silva Fennica vol. 44 no. 2 article id 158.
Forest management guidelines changed at the end of the 1990’s in Finland. Biodiversity, visual landscape, water systems, and different forms of forest use are now better taken into account. The objectives, outdoor recreation motives, and attitudes towards the present forest management activities of the non-industrial private forest owners called family forest owners in this article, whose forest holdings are located in northern Finland, were studied. In addition, a forest owner typology based on the above-mentioned motives, objectives, and attitudes was created, and the relationship between the typology and the forest owners’ background was tested. Principal component analysis, log-linear models, canonical correlations, and K-means cluster analysis were used in the data analysis. The results showed that especially commercial timber production, but also multiple-use forestry, is important for forest owners. Non-timber products such as game, berries, and forest mushrooms were considered more important than biodiversity, conservation of endangered species, tourism, and reindeer herding. The current, more ecological forest management activities were widely accepted by the owners. The changes had been perceived in the forest management activities. Close relationships were found between the objectives, attitudes and motives of the forest owners. Those owners who emphasized ecological tourism and multiple-use forestry, more frequently accepted detailed conservation and other “softer” management methods than those who emphasized commercial timber production. Typologies, called conservationists, timber producers, and multi-objective forest owners, were identified. Forest owner’s education and source of income were closely related to their typology. Highly educated forest owners and those who gained their money from tourism belonged to the groups named conservationists or multi-objective owners, whereas those who lived on forestry income represented timber producers.
  • Hallikainen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Eteläranta 55, FI-96301 Rovaniemi, Finland ORCID ID:E-mail: (email)
  • Hyppönen, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Eteläranta 55, FI-96301 Rovaniemi, Finland ORCID ID:E-mail:
  • Pernu, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Eteläranta 55, FI-96301 Rovaniemi, Finland ORCID ID:E-mail:
  • Puoskari, Finnish Forest Research Institute, Eteläranta 55, FI-96301 Rovaniemi, Finland ORCID ID:E-mail:

Click this link to register for Silva Fennica submission and tracking system.
Log in
If you are a registered user, log in to save your selected articles for later access.
Contents alert
Sign up to receive alerts of new content
Your selected articles

Committee on Publication Ethics A Trusted Community-Governed Archive