The order of forest owners' discourses: Hegemonic and marginalised truths about the forest and forest ownership

Knowledge use in the management of privately owned forests: a focus on decision support services for multi-objective forest use

“…Takala et al (2017a) argued that forest owner objectives reported in survey studies may rather be general appreciations than real objectives, as genuine objectives would be expected to affect practical management decisions. On the other hand, the strong reliance some forest owners show to professional advice (Bieling 2004;Hujala et al 2007) that emphasises timber production (Häyrinen et al 2015), and the hegemony of multiple uses in forest discourses in Finland (Takala et al 2017b) may also distort the understanding of forest owners concerning how they should describe their relationships towards forests. Forest owners may have conscious or unconscious ideas about good forest ownership with multiple values (Takala et al 2017a).…”

“…Forest professionals may stick to this production-oriented discourse as a part of their profession and experience (Selby et al 2007), but also because of their organisational environments. However, this discourse has been found to cause stress or pressure to comply with it regardless of whether a forest owner's objectives are non-monetary or a forest is only a minor part of a household's responsibilities (Takala et al 2017b), and hence it risks alienating forest owners from the services and forest management. Because alienated or indifferent forest owners are considered problematic for active forest management and hence meeting policy goals (Follo 2011;Hamunen et al 2015), it is important for forest professionals to recognise different owner motivations and adapt the decision support services accordingly (Takala et al 2017a).…”

“…Several studies have identified the prevailing hegemonic discourse about "good forest management" aiming for timber production describing the normal and appropriate forest use (e.g. Vainio and Paloniemi 2013;Takala et al 2017b). The activation discourse in the policy is part of this discourse as well.…”

“…That discussion presumes that all forests are managed for timber production and does not take into account other ways to own forestland. Prioritising one forest use over others in a hegemonic manner restricts certain forest owners' possibilities of realising their objectives for their forests, and creates social tensions in regions where forests have socio-economic importance (Takala et al 2017b). Hence, society in general should be more open to different ways of owning and managing forests (Takala et al 2017b).…”

“…Prioritising one forest use over others in a hegemonic manner restricts certain forest owners' possibilities of realising their objectives for their forests, and creates social tensions in regions where forests have socio-economic importance (Takala et al 2017b). Hence, society in general should be more open to different ways of owning and managing forests (Takala et al 2017b). As the demands from individual forest owners and society on forest use versatility are inevitably growing, the forest sector sticking to old goals risks jeopardising the acceptability of forest use and alienating those forest owners who do not prioritise timber production.…”