Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Customer Segments Among Family Forest Owners: Combining Ownership Objectives and Decision-Making Styles

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Small-scale Forestry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Empirical forest owner classifications typically distinguish groups based on owners’ behaviour or motivations. Typologies are used to inform forest and environmental policies and market-based service provision. However, single typologies may be weak in discerning owner groups that would bring new insights for policymakers or service providers. The present study aims to put together two previously documented owner classification frameworks to form and analyse customer segments for decision-support services. The first grouping is based on owners’ objectives for forest ownership, while the second grouping focuses on owners’ decision-making styles. These two typologies deal with subjects of interest and motivations for communication, respectively. The study uses a subsample of the Finnish Forest Owner 2010 survey data, collected in 2009 (n = 2,106). Via cross-tabulation of the two groupings, the four largest and potentially most interesting combined owner groups are discerned: multiobjective learners (13 %), multiobjective thinkers (9 %), learning recreationists (8 %) and learning investors (7 %), while the other 16 combined groups each account for less than 6 % of owners. The result thus reveals the need for learning-oriented services for three differing principal subjects of interest as well as multiobjective services for deliberate thinkers, i.e. comparative information about forest management alternatives. The message for policymakers and service providers is that the majority of forest owners may be served with educative interactive services. Learning-oriented indifferent owners need special services to recognize their latent goals. Delegators need ready-made services for outsourced decision making and self-reliant owners need information packages of varying contents. Combinations of groups prove feasible for producing policy advice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allison PD (2001) Missing data. Quantitative applications in the social sciences, vol 136. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Allred SB, Sagor E (2011) Empowering woodland owners through peer learning. J Forest 109(5):303–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Allred SB, Goff G, Wetzel L, Luo M (2011) Evaluating peer impacts of the master forest owner volunteer program in New York. J Ext 49(5) (article number 5RIB3)

  • Anderson TW (2003) An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Boon TE, Meilby H, Thorsen BJ (2004) An empirically based typology of private forest owners in Denmark: improving communication between authorities and owners. Scand J Forest Res 19(4 Suppl. 4):45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler BJ (2008) Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square

  • Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC (2004) America’s family forest owners. J Forest 102(7):4–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler BJ, Tyrrell M, Feinberg G, VanManen S, Wiseman L, Wallinger S (2007) Understanding and reaching family forest owners: lessons from social marketing research. J Forest 105(7):348–357

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vaus DA (1996) Surveys in social research, 4th edn. Social research today 5. UCL Press, London

  • Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Emtage N, Herbohn J, Harrison S (2007) Landholder profiling and typologies for natural resource-management policy and program support: potential and constraints. Environ Manag 40:481–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eyvindson K, Kurttila M, Hujala T, Salminen O (2011) An internet-supported planning approach for joint ownership forest holdings. Small-scale For 10(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Favada IM, Karppinen H, Kuuluvainen J, Mikkola J, Stavness C (2009) Effects of timber prices, ownership objectives, and owner characteristics on timber supply. Forest Sci 55(6):512–523

    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)

  • Hogl K, Pregernig M, Weiss G (2005) What is new about new forest owners? A typology of private forest ownership in Austria. Small-scale Forest 4(3):325–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugosson M, Ingemarson F (2004) Objectives and motivations of small-scale forest owners; theoretical modelling and qualitative assessment. Silva Fenn 38(2):217–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Hujala T, Tikkanen J (2008) Boosters of and barriers to smooth communication in family forest owners’ decision making. Scand J Forest Res 23(5):466–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hujala T, Pykäläinen J, Tikkanen J (2007a) Decision making among Finnish non-industrial private forest owners: the role of professional opinion and desire to learn. Scand J Forest Res 22(5):454–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hujala T, Tikkanen J, Hänninen H, Virkkula O (2007b) Evaluation of decision-support needs among family forest owners in Finland: an application of mixed methods. In: Harrison SR, Bosch A, Herbohn JL (eds) Improving the triple bottom line returns from small-scale forestry, Proceedings from an international conference held in Ormoc, the Philippines, 18–21 June 2007. University of Queensland, Brisbane, pp 215–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Hujala T, Tikkanen J, Hänninen H, Virkkula O (2009) Family forest owners’ perception of decision support. Scand J Forest Res 24(5):448–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingemarson F, Lindhagen A, Eriksson L (2006) A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scand J Forest Res 21(3):249–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karppinen H (1992) Metsänomistuksen muuttuvat tavoitteet. Summary: changing goals of private forest owners. Työtehoseuran metsätiedote 508

  • Karppinen H (1998) Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fenn 32(1):43–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Karppinen H (2004) Landowner attitudes and typologies in relation to forestry. In: Pajuoja H, Karppinen H (eds) Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Vantaa, Finland, 12–15 May 2004. Scand Forest Econ 40:155–167

  • Karppinen H, Ahlberg M (2008) Metsänomistajakunnan rakenne 2020: yleiseen väestömuutokseen perustuvat ennustemallit. [Forest owners in 2020: predicting the structural characteristics of Finnish private forest owners by general population forecasts]. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 1/2008:17–32 (in Finnish)

  • Karppinen H, Hänninen H (2006) Monitoring Finnish family forestry. Forest Chron 82(5):657–661

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendra A, Hull BR (2005) Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. Forest Sci 51(2):142–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline JD, Alig RJ, Johnson RL (2000) Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat. Ecol Econ 33:29–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurttila M, Korhonen K, Hänninen H, Hujala T (2010) Yksityismetsien metsäsuunnittelu 2010—nykytilanne ja kehittämistarpeita [Forest planning on private land 2010—present stage and development needs]. Working papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 153 (in Finnish)

  • Kurtz WB, Lewis BJ (1981) Decision-making framework for non-industrial private forest owners: an application in the Missouri Ozarks. J Forest 79(5):285–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuuluvainen J, Karppinen H, Ovaskainen V (1996) Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. Forest Sci 42(3):300–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvarda E (2004) ‘Non-agricultural forest owners’ in Austria—a new type of forest ownership. Forest Policy Econ 6:459–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leppänen J (2010) Finnish family forest owner 2010 survey. Scand Forest Econ 43:184–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis-Beck MS (ed) (1994) Factor analysis and related techniques. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lönnstedt L (1997) Non-industrial private forest owners’ decision process: a qualitative study about goals, time perspective, opportunities and alternatives. Scand J Forest Res 12:302–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majumdar I, Teeter L, Butler B (2008) Characterizing family forest owners: a cluster analysis approach. Forest Sci 54(2):176–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Marty TD, Kurtz WB, Gramann JH (1988) PNIF owner attitudes in the Midwest: a case study in Missouri and Wisconsin. North J Appl Forest 5(3):194–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Ní Dhubháin A, Cobanova R, Karppinen H, Mizaraite D, Ritter E, Slee B, Wall S (2007) The values and objectives of private forest owners and their influence on forestry behaviour: the implications for entrepreneurship. Small-scale Forest 6(4):347–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordfjell T, Kettunen A, Vennesland B, Suacidani K (2005) Family forestry—future challenges and needs. Swedish Agricultural University, Working paper 145

  • Novais A, Canadas MJ (2010) Understanding the management logic of private forest owners: a new approach. Forest Policy Econ 12(3):173–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickenbach MG, Guries RP, Schmoldt DL (2006) Membership matters: comparing members and non-members of NIPF owner organizations in southwest Wisconsin, USA. Forest Policy Econ 8(1):93–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon O, Brunson M, Kuhns M (2006) Benefit-based audience segmentation: a tool for identifying nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owner education needs. J Forest 104(8):419–425

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraml U (2005) Between legitimacy and efficiency: the development of forestry associations in Germany. Small-scale Forest Econ Manag Policy 4(3):251–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Toivonen R, Järvinen E, Lindroos K, Rämö A-K (2005) The challenge of information service development for private forest owners: the Estonia and Finland cases. Small-scale Forest Econ Manag Policy 4(4):451–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart J, Courtney P (2011) Seeing the owner behind the trees: a typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England. Forest Policy Econ 13(7):535–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Mutz R, Borchers J, Becker G (2002) Forstliches engagement und forstliches engagmentpontenzial von privatwaldbsizern in Nordrhein-Westfalen—analyse auf der basis des mixed-rasch-models. Forstwiss Centralblatt 121:35–48 (in German)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westermayer T (2006) Out-sourcing of work in Germany’s forestry: rural social structure and identity in transformation. Arbeitswissenschaftlicher Forschungsbericht Nr. 3, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau, Freiburg

  • Wiersum KF, Elands BHM, Hoogstra MA (2005) Small-scale forest ownership across Europe: characteristics and future potential. Small-scale Forest Econ Manag Policy 4:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegenspeck S, Härdter U, Schraml U (2004) Lifestyles of private forest owners as an indication of social change. Forest Policy Econ 6(5):447–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Metsämiesten Säätiö Foundation (09T032) and Metsäteho for their financial support and two anonymous reviewers for their comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla), P.O. Box 18, 01301, Vantaa, Finland

    Teppo Hujala

  2. Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metla), P.O. Box 68, 80101, Joensuu, Finland

    Mikko Kurttila

  3. Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 27, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

    Heimo Karppinen

Authors
  1. Teppo Hujala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mikko Kurttila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heimo Karppinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teppo Hujala.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 5.

Table 5 Rotated factor loadings for statements concerning objectives of forest ownership; forest planning subsample of the Finnish Forest Owner 2010 study (n = 1,685)
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Table 6.

Table 6 Rotated factor loadings for statements concerning decision-making style; forest planning subsample of the Finnish Forest Owner 2010 study (n = 1,529)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hujala, T., Kurttila, M. & Karppinen, H. Customer Segments Among Family Forest Owners: Combining Ownership Objectives and Decision-Making Styles. Small-scale Forestry 12, 335–351 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-012-9215-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-012-9215-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation