Do forest owners share the public's values? An application of Schwartz's value theory

Silva Fennica

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Karppinen, Heimo ^a   Korhonen, Mika ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b Kämnerintie 7e 41   (Finland)

Author keywords

Demographics; Family forest owners; Objectives of forest ownership; Schwartz's value theory; The public

Indexed keywords

POPULATION STATISTICS; TIMBER;

DEMOGRAPHICS; FAMILY FOREST OWNERS; FOREST OWNERSHIP; THE PUBLIC; VALUE THEORY;

FORESTRY;

DATA SET; FOREST COVER; FORESTRY PRODUCTION; LANDOWNERSHIP; PROBABILITY; SECURITY; TIMBER;

BIOLOGICAL POPULATIONS; FORESTRY; FORESTS; STATISTICS;

FINLAND;

EID: 84881188904     PISSN: 00375330     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14214/sf.894     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Afifi A.A., Clark V. (1984). Computer-aided multivariate analysis. Lifetime Learning Publications Belmont, Cal. 458 p.
2. Anderberg M.R. (1973). Cluster analysis for applications. Academic Press, New York, NY. 358 p.
3. 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.
4. Bliss J.C., Nepal S.K., Brooks Jr. R.T., Larsen M.D. (1997). In the mainstream: Environmental attitudes of Mid-South forest owners. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 21(1): 37-43.
5. Bourke L., Luloff A.E. (1994). Attitudes toward the management of nonindustrial private forest land. Society and Natural Resources 7(5): 445-457.
6. Butler B.J. (2008). Family Forest Owners of the United States, 2006. USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. General Technical Report NRS-27. 72 p.
7. Carmines E.G., Zeller R.A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-017. Newbury Park, CA. 71 p.
8. Dillman D.A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. 2nd ed. 2007 update with new internet, visual and mixed-mode guide. John Wiley, New York. 523 p.
9. Elands B.H.M., O'Leary T. (2000). The myth of forests: a reflection of the variety of rural identities in Europe and the role of forests in it. In: Wiersum K.F., Elands B.H.M. (eds.). The changing role of forestry in Europe: perspectives for rural development. Nature Forest in Society Proceedings 2002-02. Wageningen University, Environmental Sciences, Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group. p. 25-50.
10. 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.
11. Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry (2012). Official statistics of Finland, Agriculture, forestry and fishery. Finnish Forest Research Institute. 454 p.
12. Hair J.F., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L., Black W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 730 p.
13. Hartigan J.A. (1975). Clustering algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 351 p.
14. Helkama K. (1999). Recherches récentes sur les valeurs. [Recent studies on values]. In: Doise W., Dubois N., Beauvois J-L. (eds.). La construction sociale de la personne. Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, Grenoble. p. 61-73.
15. Hosmer D.W. Jr., Lemeshow S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 307 p.
16. 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. 94 p.
17. Hujala T., Kurttila M., Karppinen H. (2013). Customer segments among family forest owners: Combining ownership objectives and decision-making styles. Small-scale Forestry. [In press]. DOI 10.1007/s11842-012-9215-1.
18. Karppinen H. (1998). Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica 32(1): 43-59.
19. 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 population forecasts]. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja 1/2008: 17-32.
20. Karppinen H., Hänninen H. (2000). Forest conservation and economic utilization: public attitudes in Finland. Journal of Forest Economics 6(1): 55-79.
21. Karppinen H., Hänninen H. (2006). Monitoring Finnish family forestry. The Forestry Chronicle 82(5): 657-661.
22. 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 1/2010: 19-38.
23. Kluckhohn F. (1957). Value orientations. In: Grinker R.R., MacGill-Hughes H. (eds.). Toward a unified theory of human behavior. 2nd printing. Basic Books, New York. p. 83-93.
24. Kuuluvainen J., Karppinen H., Ovaskainen V. (1996). Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. Forest Science 42(3): 300-309.
25. Kuuluvainen J., Karppinen H., Hänninen H., Uusivuori J. (2013). Effects of gender and length of land tenure on non-industrial private timber supply in Finland. Manuscript.
26. Leppänen J. (2010). Finnish family forest owner 2010 survey. Scandinavian Forest Economics 43: 184-195.
27. Lewis-Beck M.S. (ed.). (1994). Factor analysis and related techniques. Sage Publications, Toppan Publishing, London, UK. 424 p.
28. Lindeman M., Verkasalo M. (2005). Measuring values with the Short Schwartz's Value Survey. Journal of Personal Assessesment 85(2):170-178.
29. Mulaik S. (1972). The foundations of factor analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY. 435 p.
30. 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.
31. Prince-Gibson E., Schwartz S.H. (1998). Value priorities and gender. Social Psychology Quarterly 61(1): 49-67.
32. Puohiniemi M. (1995). Values, consumer attitudes and behaviour. An application of Schwartz's value theory to the analysis of consumer behaviour and attitudes in the two national samples. University of Helsinki, Department of Social Psychology, Research Reports 3/1995. 159 p.
33. Puohiniemi M. (2006). Täsmäelämän ja uusyhteisöllisyyden aika. [Time of precise life and neo-community]. Limor kustannus. 339 p.
34. Rokeach M. (1973). The nature of human values. The Free Press, New York. 438 p.
35. Roncek D.W. (1991). Using logit coefficient to obtain the effects of independent variables on changes in probabilities. Social Forces 70(2): 509-518.
36. Schultz P.W., Zelezny L.C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior. A five-country survey. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 29(4): 540-558.
37. Schwartz S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna M.P. (ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology vol. 25. Academic Press, San Diego. p. 1-65.
38. Schwartz S.H. (2006). Les valeurs de base de la personne: Théorie, mesures et applications [Basic human values: theory, measurement and applications]. Revue Francaise de Sociologie 47(4): 929-968.
39. Schwartz S.H. (2011). A revised theory and instrument to measure basic individual values. A lecture given on June 1, 2011 at University of Helsinki.
40. Schwartz S.H., Bardi A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures. Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32(3): 268-290.
41. Schwartz S.H., Rubel T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities:Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89(6): 1010-1028.
42. Schwartz S.H., Rubel-Lifschitz T. (2009). Cross-national variation in the size of sex differences in values: effects of gender equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97(1): 171-185.
43. Spini D. (2003). Measurement equivalence of 10 value types from the Schwartz value survey across 21 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 34(1): 3-23.
44. Steel B.S., List P., Shindler B. (1994). Conflicting values about federal forests: A comparison of national and Oregon publics. Society and Natural Resources 7(2): 137-153.
45. Tarrant M.A., Cordell H.K. (2002). Amenity values of public and private forests: examining the value-attitude relationship. Environmental Management 30(5): 692-703.
46. Valkeapää A., Karppinen H. (2013). Citizens' view of legitimacy in the context of Finnish forest policy. Forest Policy and Economics. [In press].
47. Vaske J.J., Donnelly M.P., Williams D.R., Jonker S. (2001). Demographic influences on environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about national forest management. Society and Natural Resources 14(9): 761-776.
48. Vehkalahti K. (2000). Reliability of measurement scales. Tarkkonen's general method supersedes Cronbach's alpha. Stat. Res. Rep. 17. The Finnish Statistical Society, Helsinki, Finland.