Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Service Marketing Phenomena in the Context of Private Forest Owners—a Service Dominant Logic Perspective on Scholarly Literature

  • Forest Policy, Economics and Social Research (A Toppinen, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Forestry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This paper seeks to make an inquiry into the state-of-the art scholarly research of service marketing phenomena in the context of non-industrial private forest owners (NIPF). Its aim is to find out how service marketing issues have been approached in scholarly papers and what kinds of separate research approaches exist towards service marketing challenges. The core purpose of this paper is to use the most recent literature from (service) marketing to evaluate the scholarly research existing in forestry that discusses service marketing and related phenomena.

Recent Findings

In forestry, lot of scholarly research has centered on constructing different types of NIPF typologies. While the aim in some papers has been to either serve as tools for policy making or forest management planning, others have delved deeper into trying to understand NIPF communication, values, objectives, etc. Simultaneously, there has been a radical new development in (service-) marketing theory on how to rethink economic exchange. The core of this service dominant logic (SDL) is that we should move from seeing economic exchange as an exchange of products or product-like services. Instead, we should ask what core “service” this exchange provides for the different exchange parties—i.e., what (strategic) benefits the engagement provides to the actors involved in the exchange relationship. While the two might at first seem disconnected, this paper aims to show that the SDL view could be very useful in explaining the future of the services aimed at NIPF. The new view could be used to explain why some NIPF groups are not reached by traditional service marketing tools. Further, it can also provide light into what type of new service businesses might be needed for the future NIPF service sector.

Summary

This paper constructs a theoretical continuum from a product-centric view of services to the abstract service dominant logic (SDL) view of services. This continuum provides light into the value creation potential of the sector but also possible value creators—i.e., new businesses and economic activities. Results suggest that while new services can be gauged by the developed theoretical view, and while NIPF value creation is a part of some disciplinary explanations of NIPF behavior, the literature is still quite product dominant in its ways to view NIPF behavior.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Payne A, Storbacka K, Frow P. Managing the co-creation of value. J Acad Mark Sci. 2008;36(1):83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. • Dayer AA, Allred SB, Stedman RC. Comparative analysis and assessment of forest landowner typologies. Soc Nat Resour. 2014;27(11):1200–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.933931. An analysis of different approaches to constructing typologies.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kline JD, Alig RJ, Johnson RL. Fostering the production of non-timber services among forest owners with heterogeneous objectives. For Sci. 2000;46(2):302–11.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Häyrinen L, Mattila O, Berghäll S, Toppinen A. Changing objectives of non-industrial private forest ownership: a confirmatory approach to measurement model testing. Can J For Res. 2014;44(4):290–300. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2013-0211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Butler BJ, Markowski-Lindsay M, Snyder S, Catanzaro P, Kittredge DB, Andrejczyk K, et al. Effectiveness of landowner assistance activities: an examination of the USDA forest service's forest stewardship program. J For. 2014;112(2):187–97. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.13-066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hujala T, Tikkanen J, Hänninen H, Virkkula O. Family forest owners' perception of decision support. Scand J For Res. 2009;24(5):448–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580903140679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mattila O, Toppinen A, Tervo M, Berghäll S. Non-industrial private forestry service markets in a flux: results from a qualitative analysis on Finland. Small Scale For. 2013;12(4):559–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-012-9231-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. World Bank national accounts data, and OECD National Accounts data files: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.SRV.TETC.ZS?locations=OE; downloaded 1st Jan. 2018.

  9. •• Vargo SL, Lusch RF. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J Mark. 2004;68(1):1–17. From where it all started. One of the most cited articles in marketing.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. •• Vargo SL, Lusch RF. Service-dominant logic 2025. Int J Res Mark. 2017;34(1):46–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.001. This sums up the state of SDL until now, and discusses the future of SDL.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. •• Mattila O, Roos A. Service logics of providers in the forestry services sector: evidence from Finland and Sweden. Forest Policy Econ. 2014;43:10–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.03.003. This article deals with NIPF services in a SDL Framework.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hujala T, Pykäläinen J, Tikkanen J. Decision making among Finnish non-industrial private forest owners: the role of professional opinion and desire to learn. Scand J For Res. 2007;22(5):454–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580701395434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pohlmann A, Kaartemo V. Research trajectories of service-dominant logic: emergent themes of a unifying paradigm in business and management. Ind Mark Manag. 2017;63:53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Edvardsson B, Tronvol B, Gruber T. Expanding the understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. J Acad Mark Sci. 2011;39(2):327–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vargo SL, Maglio PP, Akaka MA. On value and value co-creation: a service systems and service logic perspective. Eur Manag J. 2008b;26(3):145–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. • Vargo SL, Lusch RF. Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. J Acad Mark Sci. 2016;44:5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3. Injects the institutional view into SDL theorizing.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. •• Vargo SL, Lusch RF. Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J Acad Mark Sci. 2008;36(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6. A follow-up to the 2004 article.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chandler JD, Vargo SL. Contextualization and value-in-context: how context frames exchange. Mark Theory. 2011;11(1):35–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593110393713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Stryker A, Statham A. Symbolic interaction and role theory. In: Lindsey G, Aronsen L, editors. Handbook of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1985. p. 311–78.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hamunen K, Virkkula O, Hujala T, Hiedanpää J, Kurttila M. Enhancing informal interaction and knowledge co-construction among forest owners. Silva Fennica. 2015;49(1) https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.1214.

  21. Hunt SD, Morgan R. The comparative advantage theory of competition. J Mark. 1995;59:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. André K, Baird J, Gerger Swartling Å, Vulturius G, Plummer R. Analysis of Swedish forest owners’ information and knowledge-sharing networks for decision-making: insights for climate change communication and adaptation. Environ Manag. 2017;59(6):885–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0844-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. SciMAT, Cobo MJ, López-Herrera AG, Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F. SciMAT: a new science mapping analysis software tool. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2012;63(8):1609–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bengston DN, Asah ST, Butler BJ. The diverse values and motivations of family forest owners in the United States: an analysis of an open-ended question in the national woodland owner survey. Small Scale For. 2011;10(3):339–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-010-9152-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Akaka MA, Vargo SL, Schau HJ. The context of experience. J Serv Manag. 2015;26(2):206–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2014-0270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. • Butler SM, Butler BJ, Markowski-Lindsay M. Family forest owner characteristics shaped by life cycle, cohort, and period effects. Small-Scale Forestry. 2017;16(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-016-9333-2. This paper has a thorough discussion on how different time-effects (cohort, life-cycle, & period effects) affect forest owner behavior and psychological valuations.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Côté M, Généreux-Tremblay A, Gilbert D, Gélinas N. Comparing the profiles, objectives and behaviours of new and longstanding non-industrial private forest owners in Quebec, Canada. Forest Policy Econ. 2017;78:116–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Côté M, Gilbert D, Nadeau S. Characterizing the profiles, motivations and behavior of quebec's forest owners. Forest Policy Econ. 2015;59:83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Eggers J, Holmström H, Lämås T, Lind T. Accounting for a diverse Forest ownership structure in projections of Forest sustainability indicators. Forests. 2015;6(11):4001–33. https://doi.org/10.3390/f6114001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Häyrinen L, Mattila O, Berghäll S, Närhi M, Toppinen A. Exploring the future use of forests: perceptions from non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Scand J For Res. 2017;32(4):327–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2016.1227472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Häyrinen L, Mattila O, Berghäll S, Toppinen A. Forest owners’ socio-demographic characteristics as predictors of customer value: evidence from Finland. Small Scale For. 2015;14(1):19–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-014-9271-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. • Häyrinen L, Mattila O, Berghäll S, Toppinen A. Lifestyle of health and sustainability of forest owners as an indicator of multiple use of forests. Forest Policy Econ. 2016;67:10–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.03.005. This is an effort into digging for new types of NIPF value

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ingemarson F, Lindhagen A, Eriksson L. A typology of small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Scand J For Res. 2006;21(3):249–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580600662256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kumer P, Štrumbelj E. Clustering-based typology and analysis of private small-scale forest owners in Slovenia. Forest Policy Econ. 2017;80:116–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Majumdar I, Laband D, Teeter L, Butler B. Motivations and land-use intentions of nonindustrial private forest landowners: comparing inheritors to non-inheritors. For Sci. 2009;55(5):423–32.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kärhä K, Oinas S. Satisfaction and company loyalty as expressed by non-industrial private forest owners towards timber procurement organizations in Finland. Silva Fennica. 1998;32(1):27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bliss JC, Kelly EC. Comparative advantages of small-scale forestry among emerging forest tenures. Small Scale For. 2008;7(1):95–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-008-9043-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Butler BJ, Tyrrell M, Feinberg G, VanManen S, Wiseman L, Wallinger S. Understanding and reaching family forest owners: lessons from social marketing research. J For. 2007;105(7):348–57.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Butler BJ, Hewes JH, Dickinson BJ, Andrejczyk K, Butler SM, Markowski-Lindsay M. Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2013: findings from the USDA forest service’s national woodland owner survey. J For. 2016;114(6):638–47. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Andrejczyk K, Butler BJ, Dickinson BJ, Hewes JH, Markowski-Lindsay M, Kittredge DB, et al. Family forest owners’ perceptions of landowner assistance programs in the USA: a qualitative exploration of program impacts on behavior. Small Scale For. 2016;15(1):17–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-015-9304-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gaižutis A. Gaining a position for Lithuanian small-scale forestry through creation of a marketing network for wood trade and services. Unasylva. 2007;58(228):48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Matilainen A, Lähdesmäki M. Nature-based tourism in private forests: stakeholder management balancing the interests of entrepreneurs and forest owners? J Rural Stud. 2014;35:70–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Näyhä A, Pelli P, Hetemäki L. Services in the forest-based sector – unexplored futures. Foresight. 2015;17(4):378–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. • Prokofieva I, Gorriz E. Institutional analysis of incentives for the provision of forest goods and services: an assessment of incentive schemes in Catalonia (north-East Spain). Forest Policy Econ. 2013;37:104–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.09.005. Voluntary incentive schemes concercing payments for ecosystem services.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. • Sikora AT, Nybakk E. Rural development and forest owner innovativeness in a country in transition: qualitative and quantitative insights from tourism in Poland. Forest Policy Econ. 2012;15:3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.09.003. Forest owner innovativeness and responses to institutional change. A basis for new value creation.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. West PC, Fly JM, Drake W. The Cadillac pilot project: a test case for coordination of services to nonindustrial private forest owners. North J Appl For. 1990;7(3):105–9.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Nybakk E, Crespell P. Hansen, & E., Lunnan, A. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: an investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. For Ecol Manag. 2009;257(2):608–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Eggers J, Lämås T, Lind T, Öhman K. Factors influencing the choice of management strategy among small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Forests. 2014;5(7):1695–716. https://doi.org/10.3390/f5071695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Janota JJ, Broussard SR. Examining private forest policy preferences. Forest Policy Econ. 2008;10(3):89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2007.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Follo G. Factors influencing Norwegian small-scale private forest owners' ability to meet the political goals. Scand J For Res. 2011;26(4):385–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2011.566574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hunt LM. Exploring the availability of Ontario’s non-industrial private forest lands for recreation and forestry activities. For Chron. 2002;78(6):850–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kelly MC, Germain RH, Stehman SV. Family forest owner preferences for forest conservation programs: a New York case study. For Sci. 2015;61(3):597–603. https://doi.org/10.5849/forsci.13-120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Maier C, Lindner T, Winkel G. Stakeholders' perceptions of participation in forest policy: a case study from Baden-Württemberg. Land Use Policy. 2014;39:166–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Thompson DW, Hansen EN. Factors affecting the attitudes of nonindustrial private forest landowners regarding carbon sequestration and trading. J For. 2012;110(3):129–37. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.11-010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Thompson DW, Hansen EN. Carbon storage on non-industrial private forestland: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Small-Scale Forestry. 2013;12(4):631–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-013-9235-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Van Gossum P, Luyssaert S, Serbruyns I, Mortier F. Forest groups as support to private forest owners in developing close-to-nature management. Forest Policy Econ. 2005;7(4):589–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2003.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Pelli P, Haapala A, Pykäläinen J. Services in the forest-based bioeconomy – anlysis of European strategies. Scand J For Res. 2017;32:559–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2017.1288826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Blanco V, Brown C, Rounsevell M. Characterizing forest owners through their objectives, attributes and management strategies. Eur J For Res. 2015;134(6):1027–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-015-0907-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Domínguez G, Shannon M. A wish, a fear and a complaint: understanding the (dis)engagement of forest owners in forest management. Eur J For Res. 2011;130(3):435–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-009-0332-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Nordlund A, Westin K. Forest values and forest management attitudes among private forest owners in Sweden. Forests. 2011;2(1):30–50. https://doi.org/10.3390/f2010030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pasanen K, Kurttila M, Pykäiäinen J, Kangas J, Leskinen P. MESTAa - non-industrial private forest owners' decision-support environment for the evaluation of alternative forest plans over the internet. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak. 2005;4(4):601–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. • Põllumäe P, Korjus H, Paluots T. Management motives of Estonian private forest owners. Forest Policy Econ. 2014;42:8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.02.007. Motives, values, and objectives as drivers of forest owner behavior.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Põllumäe P, Lilleleht A, Korjus H. Institutional barriers in forest owners' cooperation: the case of Estonia. Forest Policy Econ. 2016;65:9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Ruseva TB, Evans TP, Fischer BC. Variations in the social networks of forest owners: the effect of management activity, resource professionals, and ownership size. Small Scale For. 2014;13(3):377–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-014-9260-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Blinn CR, Jakes PJ, Sakai M. Forest landowner cooperatives in the United States: a local focus for engaging landowners. J For. 2007;105(5):245–51.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Felcis R. Strategies of managers in the new forms of common property governance: the case of the private forest owners’ cooperatives. Int J Sustain Pol Prac. 2016;12(1):15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Hull RB, Ashton S. Forest cooperatives revisited. J For. 2008;106(2):100–5.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Kittredge DB. The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: international examples and potential application in the United States. Forest Policy Econ. 2005;7(4):671–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2003.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. • Kittredge DB, Rickenbach MG, Knoot TG, Snellings E, Erazo A. It's the network: how personal connections shape decisions about private forest use. North J Appl For. 2013;30(2):67–74. https://doi.org/10.5849/njaf.11-004. Network as the basis of forest owner decission making.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Kueper AM, Sagor ES, Becker DR. Learning from landowners: examining the role of peer exchange in private landowner outreach through landowner networks. Soc Nat Resour. 2013;26(8):912–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.722748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Sarvašová Z, Zivojinovic I, Weiss G, Dobšinská Z, Drăgoi M, Gál J, et al. Forest owners associations in the central and eastern European region. Small Scale For. 2015;14(2):217–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-014-9283-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Bjärstig T, Kvastegård E. Forest social values in a Swedish rural context: the private forest owners' perspective. Forest Policy Econ. 2016;65:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.01.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Huff ES, Leahy JE, Kittredge DB, Noblet CL, Weiskittel AR. Psychological distance of timber harvesting for private woodland owners. Forest Policy Econ. 2017;81:48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Perera P, Vlosky RP, Hughes G, Dunn MA. What do Louisiana and Mississippi nonindustrial private forest landowners think about forest certification? South J Appl For. 2007;31(4):170–5.

    Google Scholar 

  76. • Takala T, Hujala T, Tanskanen M, Tikkanen J. Forest owners’ discourses of forests: ideological origins of ownership objectives. J Rural Stud. 2017;51:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.014. Conflicting objectives and ideological doscourses as a base of forest owner contextual value creation.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Tyrväinen L, Mäntymaa E, Ovaskainen V. Demand for enhanced forest amenities in private lands: the case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland. Forest Policy Econ. 2014;47:4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.05.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Ferranto S, Huntsinger L, Stewart W, Getz C, Nakamura G, Kelly M. Consider the source: the impact of media and authority in outreach to private forest and rangeland owners. J Environ Manag. 2012;97(1):131–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Hujala T, Tikkanen J. Boosters of and barriers to smooth communication in family forest owners' decision making. Scand J For Res. 2008;23(5):466–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827580802334209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Kilgore MA, Snyder SA, Eryilmaz D, Markowski-Lindsay M, Butler BJ, Kittredge DB, et al. Assessing the relationship between different forms of landowner assistance and family forest owner behaviors and intentions. J For. 2015;113(1):12–9. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.13-059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Kuipers BT, Shivan GC, Potter-Witter K. Identifying appropriate communication means for reaching nonindustrial private forest landowners. J For. 2013;111(1):34–41. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Rouleau MD, Lind-Riehl J, Smith MN, Mayer AL. Failure to communicate: inefficiencies in voluntary incentive programs for private forest owners in Michigan. Forests. 2016;7(9) https://doi.org/10.3390/f7090199.

  83. • Salmon O, Brunson M, Kuhns M. Benefit-based audience segmentation: a tool for identifying nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owner education needs. J For. 2006;104(8):419–25. An early evaluation of forest owner value creation (benefits).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Vargo S, Akaka M, Vaughan C. Conceptualizing value: a service-ecosystem view. J Creat Value. 2017;3(2):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Latokartanonkaari 7, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

    Sami Berghäll

Authors
  1. Sami Berghäll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sami Berghäll.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Berghäll has no conflicts of interests to declare.

Human and Animal Rights

This article contains no studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Forest Policy, Economics and Social Research

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berghäll, S. Service Marketing Phenomena in the Context of Private Forest Owners—a Service Dominant Logic Perspective on Scholarly Literature. Curr Forestry Rep 4, 125–137 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-018-0081-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-018-0081-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation