Forest owner or shareholder? Ownership feelings in a jointly-owned forest

References

• Andabaka M, Teslak K, Ficko A. 2021. Private forest owners’ sense of landownership: motives, influential factors and landscape context. Landscape Urban Planning. 215:104200–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergstén S, Stjernström O, Pettersson Ö. 2018. Experiences and emotions among private forest owners versus public interests: why ownership matters. Land Use Policy. 79:801–811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bliss JC, Martin AJ. 1989. Identifying NIPF management motivations with qualitative methods. Forest Sci. 35:601–622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botha E. 2017. The dark side of psychological ownership in a multi-cultural work context. In: Olckers C., van Zyl L., van deer Vaart L., editors. Theoretical orientations and practical applications of psychological ownership. Cham: Springer; p. 103–117.
   Google Scholar
• Brown G, Crossley C, Robinson SL. 2014. Psychological ownership, territorial behavior, and being perceived as a team contributor: The critical role of trust in the work environment. Personnel Psychol. 67(2):463–485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler BJ, Leatherberry EC. 2004. America's family forest owners. J Forestry. 102:4–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi M, Rochberg-Halton E. 1981. The meaning of things: domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dittmar H. 1992. The social psychology of material possessions: to have is to be. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf and St. Martin's Press.
   Google Scholar
• Domínguez G, Shannon M. 2011. A wish, a fear and a complaint: understanding the (dis)engagement of forest owners in forest management. Eur J Res. 130:435–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubois A, Gadde L-E. 2002. Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. J Bus Res. 55(7):553–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ficko A, Lidestav G, Ní Dhubháin Á, Karppinen H, Zivojinovic I, Westin K. 2019. European private forest owner typologies: A review of methods and use. Forest Policy Econom. 99:21–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finnish Forest Centre. 2021. Tietoa yhteismetsistä [Information on jointly-owned forests]. https://www.metsakeskus.fi/fi/metsan-kaytto-ja-omistus/metsanomistusmuodot/yhteismetsat/tietoa-yhteismetsista (retreived 10.9.2021).
   Google Scholar
• Finnish Forest Centre. 2023. Yksityiset metsänomistajat asuinpaikan mukaan [Private forest owners according to their place of residence]. https://www.metsakeskus.fi/fi/avoin-metsa-ja-luontotieto/tietoa-metsien-omistuksesta/yksityiset-metsanomistajat-asuinpaikan-mukaan (retrieved 05.01.2022).
   Google Scholar
• Furby L. 1978. Possessions: toward a theory of their meaning and function throughout the life cycle. In: Baltes PB, editor. Life span development and behaviour, vol. 1. New York: Academic Press; p. 297–336.
   Google Scholar
• Geringer JM, Hebert L. 1989. Control and performance of international joint ventures. J Int Business Stud. 20:235–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Górriz-Mifsud E, Donazar LO, Eseverri EM, Govigli VM. 2019. The challenges of coordinating forest owners for joint management. Forest Policy Econom. 99:100–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haines AL, Kennedy TT, McFarlane DL. 2011. Parcelization: forest change agent in northern Wisconsin. J Forestry. 109(2):101–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hänninen H, Karppinen H. 2010. Yksityismetsänomistajat puntarissa. In: Sevola Y., editor. Metsä, talous, yhteiskunta. katsauksia metsäekonomiseen tutkimukseen (Vol. 145). Vantaa, Finland: Metlan työraportteja; p. 55–67.
   Google Scholar
• Havia P. 2012. Yhteismetsä. perustaminen, hallinto, verotus. Helsinki: Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapio.
   Google Scholar
• Holmgren E, Keskitalo CH, Lidestav G. 2010. Swedish forest commons — a matter of governance? Forest Policy Econom. 12(6):423–431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jörgensen H, Stjernström O. 2008. Emotional links to forest ownership. restitution of land and use of a productive resource in põlva county, Estonia. Fennia. 186(2):95–111.
   Google Scholar
• Karppinen H, Hänninen H, Horne P. 2020. Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2020. [Finnish Forest Owner 2020]. Natural resources and bioeconomy studies 30/2020. Natural Resources Institute Finland, 73 p.
   Google Scholar
• Korhonen V. 2010. Forest land consolidations and jointly-owned forests: The way towards better forestry competitiveness. FIG Congress 2010, Sydney, Australia, 11-16 April.
   Google Scholar
• Lähdesmäki M, Matilainen A. 2014. Born to be a forest owner? An empirical study of the aspects of psychological ownership in the context of inherited forests in Finland. Scand J Forest Res. 29(2):101–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lähdesmäki M, Matilainen A, Siltaoja M. 2016. Legitimating institutional choices in the forest ownership: building acceptability for jointly owned forests. Eur J Forest Res. 135:1055–1069.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence A, Deuffic P, Hujala T, Nichiforel L, Feliciano D, Jodlowski K, Lind T, Marchal D, Talkkari A, Teder M, et al. 2020. Extension, advice and knowledge systems for private forestry: understanding diversity and change across Europe. Land Use Policy. 94:104522–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence A, Gatto P, Bogataj N, Lidestav G. 2021. Forests in common: learning from diversity of community forest arrangements in Europe. Ambio. 50(2):448–464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legard R, Keegan J, Ward K. 2003. In-depth interviews. In: Ritchie J., Lewis J., editors. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; p. 138–169.
   Google Scholar
• Leppänen J. 2008. Parcelisation of family forests in Finland. In: Bergseng E, Delbeck G, Hoen H.F, editors. Biennial meeting of the Scandinavian society of forest economics. Vol. 42. Lom, Norway: Scandinavian Forest Economics; p. 361–377.
   Google Scholar
• Lidestav G, Bogataj N, Gatto P, Lawrence A, Stjernström O, Wong J. 2017. Forests in common and their contribution to local development. In: Keskitalo E.C.H., editor. Globalisation and change in forest ownership and forest use. Natural resource management in transition. Palgrave Macmillan. London, UK; p. 261–302.
   Google Scholar
• LUKE. 2023. Natural resources Institute Finland, Statistics. Forest property entities by the form of ownership https://statdb.luke.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/LUKE/LUKE__04%20Metsa__02%20Rakenne%20ja%20tuotanto__02%20Metsamaan%20omistus/?tablelist = true (Retrieved May 12th, 2023).
   Google Scholar
• Matilainen A. 2019. Feelings of psychological ownership towards private forests. Academic dissertation. Publications 36, University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute, Mikkeli & Seinäjoki, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Matilainen A, Pohja-Mykrä M, Lähdesmäki M, Kurki S. 2017. “I feel it is mine!” – psychological ownership in relation to natural resources. J Environ Psychol. 51:31–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattila J, Ikävalko M. 2003. Participative strategy process in a professional organization and the concept of psychological ownership. Paper presented at the Nordic Academy of Management annual conference, Reykjavik, Iceland.
   Google Scholar
• Miles MB, Huberman AM. 1994. Qualitative data analysis, An expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Natural Resources Institute Finland. 2019. Official statistics of Finland: ownership of forest land. In: Off. Stat. Finl. https://stat.luke.fi/en/ownership-forest-land-2016_en. (Retrieved May 5th, 2023).
   Google Scholar
• Ní Dhubháin Á, Cobanova R, Karppinn 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 Forestry. 6:347–357.
   Google Scholar
• O’Driscoll MP, Pierce JL, Coghlan A-M. 2006. The psychology of ownership. Group Organizat Manage. 31(3):388–416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton MQ. 2002. Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Peck J, Kirk CP, Luangrath AW, Shu SB. 2021. Caring for the commons: using psychological ownership to enhance stewardship behavior for public goods. J Market. 85(2):33–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peck J, Shu SB. 2018. Psychological ownership and consumer behavior. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Pierce JL, Jussila I. 2010. Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context. Construct Introduct Elaboration. 31(6):810–834.
   Google Scholar
• Pierce JL, Jussila I, Cummings A. 2009. Psychological ownership within the job design context: revision of the job characteristics model. J Organizat Behav. 30:477–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT. 2001. Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Acad Manage Rev 26:298–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierce JL, Kostova T, Dirks KT. 2003. The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a century of research. Rev Gener Psychol. 7:84–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierce JL, Rubenfeld S, Morgan S. 1991. Employee ownership: a conceptual model of process and effects. Acad Manage Rev. 16:121–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Põllumäe P, Korjus H, Kaimre P, Vahter T. 2014. Motives and incentives for joining forest owner associations in Estonia. Small-scale Forestry. 13:19–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preston SD, Gelman SA. 2020. This land is my land: psychological ownership increases willingness to protect the natural world more than legal ownership. J Environ Psychol. 70:101443–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizzo M, Gasparini P, Tonolli S, Zoanetti R, Buffoni D, Dellagiacoma F. 2019. Characterizing small private forests and forest owners’ motivations and attitudes in Trentino (Eastern Alps, Italy). Small-Scale Forestry. 18:393–410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz-Ballesteros E, Gual MA. 2012. The emergence of new commons. Hum Ecol. 40(6):847–862.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson N, De Coster L. 2000. Forest fragmentation: implications for sustainable private forests. J Forestry. 98(3):4–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder SA, Butler BJ, Markowski-Lindsay M. 2019. Small-Area family forest ownerships in the USA. Small-Scale Forestry. 18:127–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer L, Ritchie J, O’Connor W. 2003. Analysis: practices, principles and processes. In: Ritchie J., Lewis J., editors. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London, UK: Sage Publications; p. 199–218.
   Google Scholar
• Stapley E, O'Keeffe S, Midgley N. 2022. Developing typologies in qualitative research: the use of ideal-type analysis. Int J Qual Methods. 21:160940692211006–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tannenbaum AS. 1962. Control in organizations: individual adjustment and organizational performance. Administrative Sci Quarterly. 7:236–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsarenko Y, Polonsky MJ. 2011. ‘You can spend your life dying or you can spend your life living’: identity transition in people who are HIV-positive. Psychol Health. 26(4):465–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verkuyten M, Martinovic B. 2017. Collective psychological ownership and intergroup relations. Perspect Psychol Sci. 12(6):1021–1039.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar