Family forest owners’ opinions about forest management in northern Finland

Abstract

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.

Finnish forest owner objectives as indicators for a diversifying use of forests on the road to a bioeconomy

“…Further, another interesting finding of article II is that the academically educated NIPF owners give aesthetics and conservation more importance than the timber production objective. Uliczka et al (2004), Hallikainen et al (2010) and Koskela (2011) also indicated a connection between more highly educated forest owners and pro-conservation values.…”

Private landowners and environmental conservation: a case study of social-psychological determinants of conservation program participation in Ontario

“…These working lands can be a major or supplemental source of income for their owners or can be a hobby-like activity (e.g., Sorice et al 2012, Urquhart et al 2012. Other than income generation, ownership motives can include aesthetics, recreation, community values, conservation, hunting or fishing, and residential (Hallikainen et al 2010, Plieninger et al 2012, Howley 2013. Not surprisingly, studies on landowners that are likely to use their land for income generation, have found that financial incentives, especially their size and conditions, are important when deciding on enrolment in conservation programs (Koontz 2001, Kabii and Horwitz 2006, Sorice et al 2013.…”

Towards service-dominant thinking in the Finnish forestry service market

“…This finding is in line with results by Koskela (2011), who found that highly educated forest owners in Finland are more willing to voluntarily protect biodiversity. Hallikainen et al (2010) have also found a link between highly educated NIPF owners and their pro-conservation values.…”