DIGITALNA ARHIVA ŠUMARSKOG LISTA
prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu



ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2010 str. 45     <-- 45 -->        PDF

IZVORNI I ZNANSTVENI ČLANCI – ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPERS Šumarski list br. 3–4, CXXXIV (2010), 139-149
UDK 630* 682 (001)


INFLUENCE OF OWNERSHIPAND PROPERTY STRUCTURE ON
WILLINGNESS OF PRIVATE FOREST OWNERS TO COOPERATE


UTJECAJ VLASNIČKE I POSJEDOVNE STRUKTURE NASPREMNOST
ŠUMOPOSJEDNIKANAPOVEZIVANJE


1 11


Špela PEZDEVŠEKMALOVRH, Lidija ZADNIK STIRN, Janez KRČ


SUMMARY: Private forest management is, particularly in Slovenia, far
from optimal. The reason lies in the diversity of ownership and property structure.
In addition, Slovenian private forest owners are not adequately organized
and associated to manage their forests. The willingness of private forest
owners to cooperate was evaluated using the questionnaires. The sample
(n=700) included equal shares of associated and non-associated owners.
Forty-six percent of questionnaires were returned. The results of the survey
analysis showed that 39.1 % of private forest owners were members of forestry
associations (associated), 19.9 % owners showed willingness to cooperate
i.e. to join a forestry association and 41.0 % of the sampled forest owners
were unwilling to cooperate. Based on the data obtained through the survey
we have studied the relationship between ownership and property conditions
in regard to the willingness of forest owners to cooperate. The Chi-square test
showed the statistical significance of the relationship between the size of forest
property and the willingness of owners to cooperate. Further, the results
of multivariate logistic regression showed that it is necessary to search for
private forest owners who are willing to cooperate in the group of forest
owners who are younger than 50 years, who own more than 10 ha of forest
land and live in common household with the co-owners.


Key words:private forests, forest owners’ cooperation, ownership and
property conditions, statistical models, bivariate and multivariate analysis,
logistic regression


INTRODUCTION – Uvod
The study of private forest management has special forest property (on average < 3 ha) and fragmentation (3
importance due to the prevailing share of privately-plots on average) (The Slovenian Forest Service,2005).
owned forests in Europe. In Slovenia, for example, 73 % Private forest management is further hindered by constant
of forests are privately owned. Private forest manage-processes in the society which are related to an increasing
ment is, especially in Slovenia, far from optimal, which is number of owners due to partible inheritance and the di-
a result of a diverse ownership and property structure. minishing sizes of forest property as well as a fall in the
That diversity is displayed in a large number of owners percentage of rural population, which indirectly influen(
around 314.000) and co-owners (around 489.000), small ces the socio-economic structure of the population (Pezdevšek
Malovrh,2006). Consequently, economical


1


Asist. Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh, Biotehniška fakulteta,


dependence of people on forests is decreasing, which is


Oddelek za gozdarstvo,Večna pot 83, 1000 Ljubljana,


reflected in insufficient exploitation of natural resources


spela.pezdevsek.malovrh@bf.uni-lj.si


1


as only two thirds of the potential timber removal in Slo-


Prof. dr. Lidija Zadnik-Stirn, Biotehniška fakulteta,
Oddelek za gozdarstvo,Večna pot 83, 1000 Ljubljana,


venian private forests is implemented and less than half
lidija.zadnik@bf.uni-lj.si


of silvicultural work according to forest management


1


Doc.dr. Janez Krč, Biotehniška fakulteta, Oddelek za gozdarstvo,


plans is carried out. (The Slovenian Forest Service Re


Večna pot 83, 1000 Ljubljana, janez.krc@bf.uni-lj.si




ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2010 str. 46     <-- 46 -->        PDF

Š. Pezdevšek Malovrh, L. Zadnik Stirn, J. Krč: INFLUENCE OF OWNERSHIPAND PROPERTYSTRUCTURE ... Šumarski list br. 3–4, CXXXIV (2010), 139-149


port, 2007, 2008).The effects of inefficient private forest
management are reflected in the decreasing economic
value of forests, low utilization of site potentials, lower
exploitation of financial funds for forest investments,
low value and marketing of timber and unutilised forest
functions. In addition, forest owners tend to be passive
and unwilling to cooperate (Mori et. al., 2006).


Providing the owners with a fresh incentive for forest
management is therefore one of the key issues of private
forest resources mobilization.The solution lies in the activities
related to encouraging cooperation among forest
owners, which has become extremely important due to
increased pressures of competition and a changing position
in global markets, brought about by globalization
and rapid economic progress and a dynamic market.


Several millions of forest owners are members of
different forest associations. Their cooperation is not limited
to an exchange of information and education but
also results in better vertical cooperation between the
owners and the government, commercial com pa nies/ corporations,
the market, etc. (Kittredge,2005).


The experiences of the countries with a tradition of
forest owners’ cooperation (Sweden, Norway, Finland,
Austria and Germany) reveal a story of success. Forestry
cooperation among owners in private forests began in
Scandinavia through forest owners’societies as early as
1910.Their aim was to provide certain services to their
members, ranging from planning to performing silvicultural
and harvesting works and logging (Sennblat,
1989).Today the main goal of private forest owners’ organizations
is lobbying for the owners, primarily in the
fields of forest policy, timber marketing and taxes as
well as the transfer of ownership (Valkonen, 2001,
Toivonen etal., 2005, Wild-Ecketal., 2006).


Particularly encouraging for private forest management
worldwide is the increasing number of associations
for forest owners as a means of cooperation
between forestry experts and forest owners since these
associations provide technical and professional assistance,
spread information and educate the owners in
different fields of forest management. In addition, they
spread the information about the development of forests
and the rural areas among the laymen and increase the
awareness of the importance of forests(Lindestav, et
al., 2003, Stordal et al., 2005, Feliciano, 2006,
Men des,2006,PezdevšekMalovrh,2005, 2006,
Avdibegović, etal. 2010).


The supposition is that the willingness of private forest
owners to cooperate primarily depends on the personal
interests, which are linked with the owner’s
needs and socio-economic status on the one hand, and
are limited with the state of the forest and its size on the
other. In the starting phase of joining forest owners and
with some examples of good practice already present, it
is crucial to find out which characteristics of forest
owners and which conditions influence the owners’
willingness to cooperate. Considering the diversity that
characterizes Slovenian privately-owned forests we decided
to focus our research on analysing how the age of
forest owners and the ownership and property structure
affect their willingness to cooperate; these factors had
proved crucial in preliminary analyses.


The aim of the paper is to find out, using of surveys
analyzed by logistic regression, how certain characteristics
linked with forest owners affect their willingness
to cooperate and which group of private forest owners
shows the highest willingness to join associations.


Ownership and property stru cture in Slovenian forests


Vlasnička i posjedovna struktura šuma u Sloveniji


The property structure of Slovenian privately-owned
forests was analysed on the basis of forest management
plan 2001–-2010.The analysis revealed that 58.4 % of
owners have a forest property smaller than 1 ha and that
this property accounts for 16.2 % of the forests in Slovenia.
In terms of size such property is comparable to the
property bigger than 30 ha, which is nonetheless owned
by merely 0.6 % of all owners. Hence, the two categories
of forest property, privately-owned forests smaller
than 1 ha and those bigger than 30 ha, account for less
than a third of all privately-owned forests in Slovenia. It
can therefore be claimed that in Slovenia the most important
categories in terms of size of property are those
between 1 and 30 ha as they represent over a quarter of
Slovenian forests size-wise as well as ownership-wise.
Slightly over 6 % of private owners own between 5 and


9.99ha which covers just below one fifth of private forests
in Slovenia.The last quarter of private forests is
the size range from 10 to 29.99 ha, owned by 3.7 % of
forest owners.


Another important factor in property structure is the
number of spatially separated plots. Namely, a certain
forest property may not always be in one piece. Consequently,
in forest management it is not only the size of
the property that is important but also the fragmentation
of property that is of major concern (Medved,
2000). Based on prior research (Winkler,Gašperšič,
1987, Medved,1991, Medved,2000, PezdevšekMalovrh,
2006) it has been established that
the average number of spatially separated plots is increasing
and according to the latest data, owners, on
average, possess property on three different locations.


The situation in ownership structure was analysed
on the basis of the data provided by the land and pro




ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2010 str. 47     <-- 47 -->        PDF

perty register of the Land Survey Institute of the Republic
of Slovenia. For every forest owner we analysed
the form of ownership based on their cadaster unit and
plot number for all plot numbers together.Ownership
was studied in three categories: firstly, one owner with
no co-owners, secondly, several owners, living in the
same household and thirdly, several owners living in dif


ferent households (Medved, 2000). The general assumption
was that owners living in common household,
regardless of their number, have the same goals in forest
management.The situation, however, differs where the
co-owners live in different households; in these cases,
the owners/co-owners does not generally share the
needs and goals in forest management.


METHODS – Metode


Surveying forest owners –


.


.


Statistical methods


All collected data in our research was first analysed
through the use of frequency distribution and crosstabulation.
For the purpose of logistic regression, the analysed
characteristics were then classified into two types of variables:
the dependant variable and the independent variables.
The dependant variable (response variable) Y


Anketiranje šumoposjednika


(


.


– Statističke metode
represents the object of our research – “willingness to
cooperate” and hadthree values: associated, willing to
cooperate and unwilling to cooperate;Yis thus a nominal


variable.The independent variables (explanatory variables)
X1, X2…, explainthe degree of willingness to cooperate.
The independent variables comprise: owner’s age,




ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2010 str. 48     <-- 48 -->        PDF

Š. Pezdevšek Malovrh, L. Zadnik Stirn, J. Krč: INFLUENCE OF OWNERSHIPAND PROPERTYSTRUCTURE ... Šumarski list br. 3–4, CXXXIV (2010), 139-149


size and fragmentation of the forest property, form of
ownership and number of co-owners.These variables can


2


either be continuous, discrete or attributive.The . test
was used in order to find out whether there is a relationship
between pairs of variables. Statistically significant relationship
between two variables was defined where p


2


value was less than 0.05.The . tests were performed by
using theSPSS for Windows 16.0computer package.


Willingness of private forest owners for cooperation
regarding the age of forest owners and the ownership
and property structure was performed by the nominal logistic
regression method (Backhaus,2004,Grimm
et. al, 2002,Košmelj,2001a,Košmelj,2001b, Ho-
s mer, Lemeshow, 2000, Albright et. al., 2000,
Norman,2000), by means of theBackward stepwise
algorithm (Field,2009) of theSPSS for Windows 16.0
software package.


The nominal logistic regression is a generalised version
of logistic regression. Logistic regression belongs
to the generalised linear models, which are used for the
prediction of binary dependant variables (“yes”/“no”).
In our case, however, the dependant variable has three
values – associated, willing to cooperate and unwilling
to cooperate.This kind of statistical model is referred
to as nominal logistic regression model. (Košmelj,
Vadnal,2003).The last category of the independent
variable was chosen to represent the reference cate


gory.The estimation of the parameters in logistic re


gression is based on the method of maximum likelihood.
TheWald testwas used to establish the statistical
significance of the correlation between the dependant
variable and the independent variables.The uncharacteristicWald
test enables the exclusion of insignificant
variables from the model, thus ridding the model of unnecessary,
disturbing variables.


The logistic regression method was chosen due to the
fact that it involves fewer statistical requirements than
alternative methods, such as discriminant analysis, pro-
bit analysis, etc. Unlike the aforementioned ana lyses,
the nominal logistic regression is not based on the assumption
of linear correlation between the independent
and the dependant variable nor the assumption of homoscedasticity.
However, logistic regression has an inconvenience,
namely, the multicollinearity (Poje, 2003).
Multicollinearity refers to a situation in which independent
variables in a regression model are a linear combination
of other independent variables. In logistic
regression, to avoid multicollinearity, none of the independent
variables of a multiple model may therefore represent
a linear combination of other independent
variables (Jesenko, 2007).The independent variables
which are a linear combination of other independent variables
are thus to be excluded from the model.


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION – Rezultati i rasprava


Basic information about sample- private forest owner


Osnovni podaci o anketiranima šumoposjednicima


The sample represents 322 forest owners, 75.8 % of (68.9 %) live in rural area, a hamlet or a small village of
whom are male and 24.2 % are female.The average age up to 500 inhabitants with neither shop nor post office,
of the respondents is 54 years and the average level of who generally belong to a village local community
education is completed primary education(31.7 %) or (82.9 %). More than half of the respondents (58.9 %)
vo cational school (32.6 %). The majority of respondents consider their economic status to be average.


General data relating to property conditions – Opći podaci o strukturi šumoposjeda


The mean area of forest ho lding of the respondents
is 16.7 ha.The size of the smallest forest property is 0.1
ha, while the biggest forest property extends up to 150
ha.The respondents were classified depending on the
size of their forest property into categories referred to
as stratums.The stratums and the shares of the respondents
per stratum are given inTable 1.


Table 1 shows that approximately the same number
of forest owners from all stratumsparticipated inthe sur-


Table 1.Size of forest property (stratum)


Tablica 1.Veličina posjeda (grupe)


Stratum (ha)– Grupe (ha)
Up to 0.99
Do 0,99
1 to 4.99
1 do 4,99
5 to 9.99
5 do 9,99
10 to 29.99
10 do 29,99
Over 30
Više od 30
n1990649158
%5.928.019.928.318.0


vey. The exception is the first stratum (up to 0.99 ha)
with the share of only 5.9 %. Such small number of the
respondents from the first stratum is due to several causes:
some owners refused to take part in the survey or
were not even aware that they own a forest, the address
of some owners could not be found or it was impossible
for us to contact them or they are deceased.The refusal
of the owners of forest properties smaller than 1 ha to
participate in the survey shows their inactiveness, lack of


interest or negative attitude towards
foresters and even the forest itself.


The respondents, generally know
how many separate plots of forest
they possess. Only 2.5 % of the respondents
could not answer this
question and were therefore excluded
from the analyses relating to the




ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2010 str. 49     <-- 49 -->        PDF

Š. Pezdevšek Malovrh, L. Zadnik Stirn, J. Krč: INFLUENCE OF OWNERSHIPAND PROPERTY STRUCTURE ... Šumarski list br. 3–4, CXXXIV (2010), 139-149


fragmentation of forest property. Forest holdings of
most respondents are divided into several separate lots,


4.3on the average. Such fragmentation is highly inconvenient
for management. In fact, only 28.7 % of the respondents
own undivided forest property, i.e. a forest
property on only one location, whereas forest property
Table 2. Average fragmentation of forest property


Tablica 2.Prosječni prostorno odvojeni kompleksi posjeda


of the other respondents is fragmented into two separate
parcels (16.6 % of the respondents), three separate lots


(12.1 %), four separate parcels (9.9 %) or more. The
average number of separate parcels of forest property
per stratum is given inTable 2. We can see that forest
property becomes more fragmented, the bigger it gets.
Stratum (ha) –Grupe (ha)
Up to 0.99
Do 0,99
1 to 4.99
1 do 4,99
5 to 9.99
5 do 9,99
10 to 29.99
10 do 29,99
Over 30
Više od 30
Average number of separate plots
Prosječni prostorno odvojeni kompleksi posjeda 1.3 3.0 4.8 5.3 5.4


In fact, most undivided forest properties are found
in the first stratum (72.2 %).The situation in this stratum
is, as can well be expected, a prevailing number of
undivided forest properties, generally too small to be
fragmented. Only 16.7 % of the respondents from the
first stratum own a forest property on two locations and
only 11.1 % own a forest holding on three locations.
The forest properties in the stratum of 1–4.99 ha already
tend to be more fragmented; on the average, they
are divided into three separate lots.Almost one third


(30.3 %) of the respondents from the second stratum
own an undivided forest property, 24.7 % own a forest
General data relating to ownership structure –


The analysis of the ownership situation was performed
on the sample of 308 respondents out of 322.This
was due to the non-identical records on some plot numbers
in different databases (Register on forest owners and
the Land Survey Institute of the Republic of Slovenia).


More than half of the respondents (59.4 %) are the
sole holders of their forest property (Table 3). As for the
rest, they have co-owners; 18.8 % of these respondents
share common household with their co-owners.The management
of a private forest property is simpler where
there is a sole holder or all joint owners share common
household (which is the case in 78.2 % of the respondents).
The rest of the respondents (21.8 %), do not share


Table 3. Structure of the respondents by ownership


property on two locations, while, surprisingly, as much
as 12.4 % of the respondents own a forest property on
more than six locations. Most fragmented forest properties
fall under the middle category of 5 – 9.99 ha; in
this stratum, only 8.9 % of forest properties are undivided.
In the stratum 10 –29,99 ha, on the one hand, the
share of undivided forest properties increases (27.8 %),
whereas, on the other, half of the respondents (50 %)
own a forest property on more than five locations.As
for the forest properties of over 30 ha, 31.5 % are undivided,
whereas 27.8 % are fragmented into more than
six separate plots.


Opći podaci o vlasništvu


common household with the other co-owners.The management
of such properties is more demanding as it involves
constant coordination of interests of the joint owners.


On the average, the respondents who entered a coowner
relationship have 8 co-owners. More than half of
these respondents (54.4 %) share their forest property
with one co-owner, 10.4 % with two co-owners, and one
particular forest property is shared by as many as 98 joint
owners. Based on thefrequency distribution of the number
of co-owners, to simplify the data processing, the respondents
were classified into three categories based on
the number of co-owners; the categories and the share of
respondents per category are given inTable 4.


Table 4 shows that 54.4 % of the


Tablica 3.Struktura anketiranih šumoposjednika prema obliku vlasništva


respondents who are in a co-owner


Form of ownership –Oblik vlasništvan%
Sole holder –Vlasnik18359.4
Joint owners – share common household
Suvlasnici žive u istom domaćinstvu5818.8
Joint owners – do not share common household
Suvlasnici ne žive u istom domaćinstvu6721.8


relationship share their forest property
with one co-owner, 23.2 %
with 2 to 5 joint owners and 22.4 %
with more than 5 joint owners.


Among the respondents who
live in common household with


Table 4.Structure of the respondents by number of co-owners
their co-owners, 84.5 % have only
Tablica 4.Struktura anketiranih po broju suvlastnikaone co-owner and 15.5 % between


Number of co-owners –Broj suvlasnikan%
1 co-owner– 1 suvlasnik5854.4
2 to 5 co-owners –2 do 5 suvlasnika2923.2
More than 5 co-owners –Više od 5 suvlasnika2822.4


2 to 5 co-owners.As for therespondents
who do not share common
household with their co-owners, the
situation is different. In this case,




ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2010 str. 50     <-- 50 -->        PDF

Š. Pezdevšek Malovrh, L. Zadnik Stirn, J. Krč: INFLUENCE OF OWNERSHIPAND PROPERTYSTRUCTURE ... Šumarski list br. 3–4, CXXXIV (2010), 139-149


2


the number of co-owners is higher, namely, there is a


prevailing number of respondents who share their fo


rest property with more than 5 co-owners (41.8 %), followed
by the respondents with 2 to 5 co-owners,
whereas the share of the respondents with one coowner
is 28.4 %.


2


The . test showed that the independent variables
form of ownership and number of co-owners are statisti-


Results of bivariate analysis


The joint distribution of the dependent variable degree
of willingness to cooperate and each individual independent
variable (size and fragmentation of forest
property and form of ownership) was displayed


2


through the use of crosstabulation.Then, the . test was


cally significantly correlated(. =44.993***, p=0.000).
Due to a strong correlation of these two variables
(r=0.973***) and a highVIF (VIF>5), in order to avoid


s


the multicollinearity in the nominal logistic regression
model, the variable number of co-owners was later on
eliminated from the nominal logistic regression model.


– Rezultati bivariatne analize
performed in order to test the statistical significance of
relationship between each individual independent variable
and the dependent variable willingness to cooperate.
The impact was further investigated through the
use of bivariate nominal logistic regression.


Influence of forest property size on the willingness to cooperate


Utjecaj veličine posjeda na spremnost za povezivanje


Increasing the forest property size (from the smallest
to the biggest), the number of the owners who do
not cooperate nor are willing to do so in the future decreases
(Table 5). Owners of forest properties bigger
than 30 ha are the most keen to cooperate with other forest
owners (60.3 % already cooperate). The willingness
to cooperate is primarily expressed by the
owners from stratum 10 to 29.99 ha (26.4 %) and stratum
5 to 9.99 ha (21.9 %).The least interest to cooperate
is shown by the owners of the properties smaller
than 0.99 ha; only 10.5 % of them cooperate with other


forest owners and only 5.3 % expressed the willingness
to do so.


The stratums were then regrouped in two categories
by forest property size, namely forest property of the
area of up to 10 ha and those bigger than 10 ha, and the
bivariate nominal logistic regression was performed.
The correlation between the size of forest property and
the willingness of the owners to cooperate with other
forest owners proved to be highly statistically significant
(p=0,000) when comparing the owners who cooperate
with those who are unwilling to do so. The


2
owners with forest property smaller


Table 5 Willingness to cooperate in relation to property size (. =58.734***)
Tablica 5.Spremnost za povezivanje od zavisnosti od veličine posjeda than 10 ha have 0.207 times smaller
(.2=58,734***) odds of “willingness to cooperate”


Size of property (ha)
Willingness to cooperate
Spremnost za povezivanje
Veličina posjeda (ha) Cooperates
Povezani
Willing
Spremni
Unwilling
Nisu spremni
Up to 0.99- Do 0.99 10.5 % 5.3 % 84,2 %
1 to 4.99- 1 do 4.99 21.1 % 15.6 % 63,3 %
5 to 9.99- 5 do 9.99 37.5 % 21.9 % 40,6 %
10 to 29.99- 10 do 29.99 50.5 % 26.4 % 23,1 %
Over 30- Više od 30 60.3 % 19.0 % 20,7 %
Total – Ukupno 39.1 % 19.9 % 41.0 %


than for the owner of bigger forest
property (95 % confidence interval


(CI)is 0.120–0.355).The influence
of the size of forest property proved
to be highly statistically significant
(p=0,000) also when comparing the
owners who are willing to cooperate
with th ose unwilling.The odds
for »willingness to cooperate« with
the owners of forest properties up
to 10 ha is 0.294 times smaller than


Table 6Dependence of willingness to cooperate on the size of forest property
Tablica 6.Utjecaj veličine posjeda na spremnost za povezivanje


BStd. ErrorWalddfSig.Exp(B)
95 % C.I. for EXP(B)
LowerUpper
Willingness of the owner to cooperate: Cooperates/Unwilling – Spremnost za povezivanje:Povezani/Nisu spremni
Up to 10 ha –Do 10 ha-1.5770.27532.75710.0000.2070.1200.355
Over 10 ha –Više od 10 ha1.000
Willingness of the owner to cooperate:Willing/Unwilling – Spremnost za povezivanje:Spremni /Nisu spremni
Up to 10 ha –Do 10 ha-1.2240.32514.17710.0000.2940.1560.556
Over 10 ha –Više od 10 ha1.000
Willingness of the owner to cooperate: Cooperates/Willing –Spremnost za povezivanje:Povezani/Spremni
Up to 10 ha –Do 10 ha-0.3530.3091.30710.2530.7030.3841.287
Over 10 ha –Više od 10 ha1.000




ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2010 str. 51     <-- 51 -->        PDF

Š. Pezdevšek Malovrh, L. Zadnik Stirn, J. Krč: INFLUENCE OF OWNERSHIPAND PROPERTY STRUCTURE ... Šumarski list br. 3–4, CXXXIV (2010), 139-149


that of owners with forest properties bigger than 10 ha
(95 % CI is in this case 0.156–0.556).
Based on the results of the bivariate nominal logistic
regression we conclude that the owners who own more


that 10 ha of forest show more interest for co-operation
than the owners of smaller forest property (Table 6).


Influence of fragmentation on willingness to cooperate


Utjecaj usitnjenosti posjeda na spremnost za povezivanje


The independent variable fragmentation of the forest
holding was initially discrete with a large number
of values (1,2,3,....); for the purpose of crosstabulation,
however, it has been transformed into a categorial variable
and was assigned six categories.The crosstabulation
sho wed that the owners of more fragmented
forest properties tend to show greater interest for cooperation
(they more often cooperate and they are also
more willing to cooperate) than the owners of less fragmented
forest properties. In fact, the smallest interest
for co-operation was shown by the owners of undivided
forest properties (36.7 % of them cooperate, whe


reas 16.7 % are willing to do so) and among the owners
of forest properties on two locations 44.5 % cooperate
and only 9.6 % are willing to cooperate, (Table 7).


2


However, the . test showed that there is no statistically
ignificant relationship between the fragmentation
of forest property and the willingness to cooperate


2


(. =14.439, p=0.154).
Nevertheless, in spite of statistical insignificance of
this relationship the influence of fragmentation of forest
property on the willingness to cooperate was further
analysed through the use of bivariate nominal


Table 7 Fragmentation of forest property and willingness to cooperate


2


(. =14.439)


Tablica 7.Spremnost za povezivanje u zavisnosti od usitnjenosti poseda
(.2=14,439)


Number of Willingness to cooperate /Spremnost za povezivanje
separate plots
Broj parcela
Cooperates
Povezani
Willing
Spremni
Unwilling
Nisu spremni
1 36.7 % 16.7 % 46.7 %
2 44.2 % 9.6 % 46.2 %
3 34.2 % 18.4 % 47.4 %
4 54.8 % 16.1 % 29.0 %
5 41.7 % 20.8 % 37.5 %
6 or more –Više od 6 35.4 % 30.4 % 34.2 %


logistic regression.The fragmentation
categories were regrouped so
that the variable only had two values:
undivided forest property and
fragmented forest property.The nominal
logistic regression confirmed


2


the results of the . test, showing a
statistically insignificant relationship
between fragmentation and the
willingness of the owner to cooperate.
Thus, the variable fragmentation
was not considered in the
multivariate nominal logistic regression
model.


Influence of form of ownership on willingness to cooperate


Utjecaj oblika vlasništva na spremnost za povezivanje


The biggest interest for co-operation was shown by
the respondents who are joint owners of forest property
and share common household with their co-owners.


53.4 % of them already cooperate (Table 8). Further,
the biggest willingness for co-operation was expressed
by the sole holders (20.8 %).The respondents who are
joint owners and do not share common household with
their co-owners are the least keen on co-operation; only
31.3% cooperate and no more than 19.4 % are willing
to do so.
2


The . test showed that the willingness to cooperate is
not statistically significantly related to the form of


2


ownership (. =7.634, p=0.106). Nevertheless, the bivariate
nominal logistic regression was further investigated
(Table 9). The bivariate nominal logistic regression showed
that dependence/influence of the form of ownership


2


Table 8Willingness to cooperate per form of ownership (.=7.634)


Tablica 8.Spremnost za povezivanje prema obliku vlasništva(.2=7,634)


Form of ownership
Oblika vlasništva
Willingness to cooperate/Spremnost za povezivanje
Cooperates
Povezani
Willing
Spremni
Unwilling
Nisu spremni
Sole holder –Vlasnik37.2 %20.8 %42.1 %
Joint owners – share common household
Suvlasnici žive u istom domaćinstvu53.4 %17.2 %29.3 %
Joint owners – do not share common household
Suvlasnici ne žive u istom domaćinstvu31.3 %19.4 %49.3 %




ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2010 str. 52     <-- 52 -->        PDF

Š. Pezdevšek Malovrh, L. Zadnik Stirn, J. Krč: INFLUENCE OF OWNERSHIPAND PROPERTYSTRUCTURE ... Šumarski list br. 3–4, CXXXIV (2010), 139-149


on the willingness to cooperate is statistically significant rate” for joint owners who live in common household


(p=0.010) only when comparing the respondents who with their co-owners is 2.866 times higher than of those


are willing to cooperate with those unwilling under the who do not share common household with all their co


consideration of the following two forms of ownership: owners (95 % CI is in such case 1.280–6.414). For all the
the respondent is a joint owner and shares common houother
combinations, the influence of the form of ownerssehold
with his co-owners, and the respondent is a joint hip on the dependant variable proved to be statistically
owner and does not share common household with all insignificant.The variable form of ownership was also
co-owners. In fact, the odds of “willingness to coopeconsidered
in the multivariate regression model later on.


Table 9 Dependence of willingness to cooperate on the form of ownership


Tablica 9.Utjecaj oblika vlasništva na spremnost za povezivanje


B
Std.
Error Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
95 % CEXP(B)
.I. for
Lower Upper


Willingness of the owner to cooperate: Cooperates/Unwilling – Spremnost za povezivanje:Povezani/Nisu spremni


Sole holder –Vlasnik 0.341 0.325 1.098 1 0.295 1.406 0.743 2.660
Joint owners – share common household
Suvlasnici žive u istom domaćinstvu 1.053 0.411 6.558 1 0.010 2.866 1.280 6.414
Joint owners – do not share common household
Suvlasnici ne žive u istom domaćinstvu 1.000


Willingness of the owner to cooperate:Willing/Unwilling – Spremnost za povezivanje:Spremni/Nisu spremni


Sole holder –Vlasnik 0.264 0.382 0.479 1 0.489 1.303 0.616 2.755
Joint owners – share common household
Suvlasnici žive u istom domaćinstvu 0.401 0.516 0.604 1 0.437 1.493 0.543 4.104
Joint owners – do not share common household
Suvlasnici ne žive u istom domaćinstvu 1.000


Willingness of the owner to cooperate:Cooperates/Willing–Spremnost za povezivanje:Povezani/Spremni


Sole holder –Vlasnik -0.076 0.406 0.035 1 0.851 0.926 0.418 2.053
Joint owners – share common household
Suvlasnici žive u istom domaćinstvu -0.652 0.507 1.655 1 0.198 0.521 0.193 1.407
Joint owners – do not share common household
Suvlasnici ne žive u istom domaćinstvu 1.000


Multivariate logistic regression – Multivariatni model logističke regresije


In order to find out the differences between the
owners who cooperate with other forest owners and
those who are willing to cooperate and those unwilling,
a multivariate model of logistic regression was performed.
The following independent variables were consideredin
this model: the size of forest property (up to 10
ha and over 10 ha), the form of ownership (sole holder,
co-owners who share common household, co-owners
who do not all share common household) as well as the
owner’s age (under 50 and over 50).The results of the
multivariate nominal logistic regression are given in
Table 10. Let us first compare the associated owners
with those who are unwilling to cooperate.The most influential
factor here is the size of property (p=0.000), followed
by age (p=0.002) and type of ownership where
several owners live in common household with the coowners
(p=0.007). Owners with a smaller property (up
to 10 ha) are thus less likely to show willingness to cooperate
(95 % CI is in such case 0.097–0.320), the odds
being 0.176 lower compared to owners with bigger property;
owners aged under 50 showed 2.452 times higher


tendency to be willing to cooperate (95 % CI is in such
case 1,381–4,351) than those aged over 50; and owners
who share common household with the co -owners are


3.446times more likely to be willing to cooperate (95 %
CI is in such case 1.407–8-441) compared to owners
who do not share the household with the co-owners.The
comparison of the willing and unwilling to cooperate revealed
a significant statistical influence of the size of
property (p=0.000) and age(0.006). Ownerswith smaller
property (up to 10ha) display 0.239 times lower tendency
to cooperate (95 % CI is in such case 0.120–0.478)
compared to owners with a bigger property; furthermore,
owners aged under 50 are 2.539 times more likely to be
willing to cooperate than older owners (95 % CI is in
such case 1.302–4.950).


ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2010 str. 53     <-- 53 -->        PDF

Š. Pezdevšek Malovrh, L. Zadnik Stirn, J. Krč: INFLUENCE OF OWNERSHIPAND PROPERTY STRUCTURE ... Šumarski list br. 3–4, CXXXIV (2010), 139-149


Table 10 Results of multivariate nominal logistic regression


Tablica 10.Rezultati multivariatne nominalne logističke regresije


B
Std.
Error Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
95 % CI
Lower Upper


Willingness of the owner to cooperate: Cooperates/Unwilling– Spremnost za povezivanje: Povezani/Nisu spremni


Size of forest property– Veličinaposjeda
Up to 10 ha– Do 10 ha -1.738 0.305 32.484 1 0.000 0.176 0.097 0.320
Over 10 ha–Više od 10 1.000
Form of ownership– Oblika vlasništva
Sole holder– Vlasnik 0.454 0.362 1.571 1 0.210 1.575 0.774 3.205
Joint owners – share common household
Suvlasnici žive u istom domaćinstvu
1.237 0.457 7.329 1 0.007 3.446 1.407 8.441
Joint owners – do not share common household
Suvlasnici ne žive u istom domaćinstvu
1.000
Age– Starost
Under 50 let– Do 50 godina 0.897 0.293 9.384 1 0.002 2.452 1.381 4.351
Over 50 let–Više od 50 godina 1.000


Willingness of the owner to cooperate: Willing/Unwilling– Spremnost za povezivanje: Spremni/Nisu spremni


Size of forest property– Veličinaposjeda
Up to 10 ha– Do 10 ha -0.307 0.326 0.886 1 0.347 0.736 0.388 1.394
Over 10 ha–Više od 10 1.000
Form of ownership– Oblika vlasništva
Sole holder– Vlasnik -0.059 0.427 0.019 1 0.890 0.942 0.408 2.177
Joint owners – share common household
Suvlasnici žive u istom domaćinstvu
0.538 0.525 1.048 1 0.306 1.712 0.612 4.793
Joint owners – do not share common household
Suvlasnici ne žive u istom domaćinstvu
1.000
Age– Starost
Under 50 let– Do 50 godina -0.035 0.324 0.012 1 0.914 0.966 0.512 1.822
Over 50 let–Više od 50 godina 1.000


Willingness of the owner to cooperate: Cooperates/Willing– Spremnost za povezivanje: Povezani/Spremni


Size of forest property– Veličinaposjeda
Up to 10 ha– Do 10 ha -1.431 0.353 16.388 1 0.000 0.239 0.120 0.478
Over 10 ha–Više od 10 1.000
Form of ownership– Oblika vlasništva
Sole holder– Vlasnik 0.514 0.425 1.457 1 0.227 1.671 0.726 3.848
Joint owners – share common household
Suvlasnici žive u istom domaćinstvu
0.700 0.559 1.566 1 0.211 2.013 0.673 6.022
Joint owners – do not share common household
Suvlasnici ne žive u istom domaćinstvu
1.000
Age– Starost
Under 50 let– Do 50 godina 0.932 0.341 7.476 1 0.006 2.539 1.302 4.950
Over 50 let–Više od 50 godina 1.000


CONCLUSIONS– Zaključci


The survey of 322 forest owners who were proportiocooperate
in forestry associations.Amultivariate model
nally selected for the sample (i.e. half of them associated of nominal logistic regression was used to compare the
and half non-associated) revealed that 39.1 % of the three categories: the associated owners, owners who are
owners were associated, 19.9 % were willing to join a founwilling
to cooperate and those who are willing to join a
restry association and 41.0 % were unwilling to do so. forestry association.The model included all statistically
2
The statistical model of bivariate analysis, the . test was characteristic variables from the bivariate logistic regresused
to establish a potential correlation between ownerssion
models as well as the age of the owners.The results
hip and property conditions and the willingness of owners show that the non-associated and the unwilling to coope


to cooperate.The analysis showed a connection between rate differ most significantly in the size of forest property


the size of forest property and the owners’willingness to (p=0.000), age (p=0.002) and the ownership type where




ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2010 str. 54     <-- 54 -->        PDF

Š. Pezdevšek Malovrh, L. Zadnik Stirn, J. Krč: INFLUENCE OF OWNERSHIPAND PROPERTYSTRUCTURE ... Šumarski list br. 3–4, CXXXIV (2010), 139-149


several owners share common household (p=0.007).The
discrepancy between the willing to cooperate and the unwilling
is most strongly pronounced in the size of forest
property (p=0.000) and age (p=0.006) while no such differences
can be observed between the associated owners
and those willing to cooperate.


REFERENCES
Albright,S.C.,W. L. Winston, C. J.Zappe,2000:
Managerial statistics. Duxburry, Thomson learning,
Pacific Grove, 937 pp.
Avdibegović, M., N. Petrović, D. Nonić, S.
Posavec, B. Marić, D. Vuletić, 2010:
Sprem nost privatnih šumoposjednika u Hrvatskoj,
Srbiji i Bosni i Hercegovini na suradnju pri
izgradnji i održavanju šumskih cesta, Šum. list
1–2/2010, str. 55–64, Zagreb.
Backhaus,K.,Erichson,B.,Plinke,W.,Weiber,
R., 1994: MultivariateAnalysemethoden.
Berling, SpringerVerlag, 575 str, Berlin.
Feliciano, M. S.D., 2006: Effectiveness Assessment
of Forest Owners Organisations from the North
and Centre of Portugal, U: S.Wall (ur)., Small-
scale forestry and rural development, Galway-
Mayo Institute of technology, 51–61., Galway.
Field,A., 2009: Discovering statistics using SPSS,
Sage Publication, 821 str., London.
Grimm, L. G., P. R. Yarnold, 2002: Reading and
understanding multivariate statistics. American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC.,
373 pp.
Hosmer, D.W., S.Lemeshow,2000: AppliedLogistic
Regression,AWiley-Interscience Publication,
375 str., New York.
Jesenko,J., M.Jesenko,2007: Multivariatne statistič
ne metode, Moderna organizacija, 345 str,
Kranj.
Kittredge, D. B, 2005:The cooperation of private
forest owners on scale larger than one individual
property: international examples and potential
application in the United States, Forest Policy
and Economics, 7: 671–688.
Košmelj, K., 2001a: Osnove logistične regresije


(1. del), Zb. Bioteh. Fak, 77. (2): 271–238., Ljub ljana.

Košmelj, K., 2001b: Osnove logistične regresije


(2.del), Zb. Bioteh.Fak, 77. (2): 239–245., Ljubljana.

Košmelj,K., K. Vadnal,2003: Uporaba modelov
lo gistične regresije za analizo povpraševanja po
socialnih storitvah kot dopolnilnih dejavnosti na
kmetiji, Zb. Bioteh. Fak, 81. (2): 221–232., Ljub ljana.



It can be concluded that private forest owners who
are the most willing to cooperate in forestry associations
are younger than 50 years, own more than 10 ha
of forest land and live in common household with the
co-owners.


– Literatura
Lindestav,G., C. Berlin, T.Nordfjell,2003:
Swedish non-industrial private forest owners in
transformation, U: R. Robek (ur.), Forest Operation
Improvments in Farm Forestry in Slovenia,
129–137 str., Rome.
Medved,M., 1991:Vključevanje lastnikov gozdov v
gozdno proizvodnjo, Magisterij, Univerza v
Ljub ljani, Biotehniška fakulteta, Oddelek za gozdarstvo
in obnovljive gozdne vire.
Medved, M., 2000: Gozdnogospodarske posledice
posestne sestave slovenskih zasebnih gozdov.
Di sertacija, Univerza v Ljubljani, Biotehniška
fa kulteta, Oddelek za gozdarstvo in obnovljive
gozdne vire.
Mendes,A. M. S. C.M., 2006: Forest Owners Organizations
in Portugal, U: S.Wall (ur), Small-scale
forestry and rural development, Galway-Mayo
Institute of technology, 289–304, Galway.
Mori,J., I.Kotnik,T.Lesnik,2006: Možnosti so-
de lovanja Zavoda za gozdove Slovenije, Kmetijsko
gozdarske zbornice Slovenije in Zveze
lastnikov gozdov Slovenije za razvoj povezovanja
lastnikov gozdov, Gozdarski vestnik, 64. (10):
476–502, Ljubljana.
Norman, G. R., 2000: Biostatistics. Decker Inc.,
Lon don, 324 pp.
Pezdevšek Malovrh,Š., 2005: Pomen povezovanja
lastnikov gozdov za razvoj podeželja (študij
p rimera: Društvo lastnikov gozdov mirenske do-
line.), Gozdarski vestnik, 63. (5–6): 269–280,
Ljubljana.
PezdevšekMalovrh,Š., 2006: Povezovanje lastnikov
gozdov kot ukrep za povečanje konkurenčnosti
v zasebnih gozdovih ob uvajanju sodobnih
tehnologij, Gozdarski vestnik, 64. (10): 451–462,
Ljubljana.
Poje,A., 2003: Ekonomska svoboda in gospodarska
uspešnost v tranzicijskih državah. Diplomsko
delo, Univerza v Ljubljani, Ekonomska fakulteta.
Poročilo Zavoda za gozdove Slovenije o gozdovih za
leto 2007., 2008: Zavod za gozdove Slovenije,
Ljubljana.
Sennblat,G., 1989: Small-Scale Operations in Private
Forestry, Small Scale Forestry, 89. (1): 3–13.




ŠUMARSKI LIST 3-4/2010 str. 55     <-- 55 -->        PDF

Š. Pezdevšek Malovrh, L. Zadnik Stirn, J. Krč: INFLUENCE OF OWNERSHIPAND PROPERTY STRUCTURE ... Šumarski list br. 3–4, CXXXIV (2010), 139-149


Stordal,S., L.Gudbrand,F. J.Hair,2005: Diffe-Vehovar, V., 2001: Vzorčenje v anketah. Knjižna
rences in Management and Risk Characteristics zbir ka Profesija, Fakulteta za družbene vede,
of forest Owners in Eastern Norway and the 189 str., Ljubljana.
Role of Forest OwnersAssociations, U: S. Miza


Wild-Eck et.al., 2006: Extension of Private Forest
ras (ur.), Small-Scale Forestry in a Changing En-


Owners: Insights from a Representative Opinion
vironment, 242–259,Vilnius.


Poll in Switzerland, Small-scale Forest EconoToivonen,
R., 2005:The Challenge of Information


mics, Management and Policy, 5. (2): 161–174.
Service Development for Private Forest Owners:


Winkler,I., F.Gašperšič,1987: Zasebni gozdovi
The Estonia and Finland Cases, Small-scale Fo


v Sloveniji – stanje in novejša gibanja. Biotehnirest
Economics, Management and Policy, 4. (4):


ška fakulteta, Oddelek za gozdarstvo in Inštitut
451–470.


za gozdno in lesno gospodarstvo, Strokovna in
Valkonen,J., 2001:Analysis of the European Small


znanstvena dela, 94, 116 str., Ljubljana.
scale Forestry, European Small-Scale Forestry


Zavod za gozdove Slovenije, 2005: Skrbno z gozdom,
and its Challenges for the Development ofWood


v dobro narave in ljudi, v: B. Debevec (ur.),
Harvesting Technology, TTS Institute’s Publica-
.


Zavod za gozdove Slovenije, Ljubljana, 11 strtions, 101–120, Helsinki.


SAŽETAK: Gospodarenje privatnim šumama, posebice u Sloveniji, nije
optimalno. Na to najviše utječe i raznolika vlasnička i posjedovna struktura.
Šumoposjednike u gospodarenju njihovim šumama posebice ograničava mali
i usitnjeni šumski posjed s velikim brojem vlasnika i suvlasnika. Zbog toga je
značajno da se šumoposjednici počinju udruživati u različite organizacijske
oblike povezivanja.


Predviđamo da spremnost šumoposjednika za povezivanje ponajprije ovi si
od neposrednih ekonomskih i socijalnih interesa šumoposjednika te od veličine i
stanja njihovog šumskog posjeda. Spremnost šumoposjednika za povezivanje
utvrđivali smo anketiranjem. Zbog različitih prirodnih i društvenih prilika, posjednike
šuma anketirali smo u cijeloj Sloveniji. Na temelju indeksa šumoposjednika,
posjednike smo podijeli u pet grupa po veličini posjeda. Unutar ovih grupa
podjelili smo ih na povezane i nepovezane. Uzorak ispitanika (n=700) predstavljali
su sustavno izabrani šumoposjednici. Na anketu je odgovorilo 46 % ispitanika.
Uzorak je obuhvatio 322 pretežito muška šumoposjednika. Prosječna
starost anketiranih vlasnika je 54 godina, s prosječno završenom osnovnom ili
trogodišnjom srednjom školom. Većina anketiranih šumoposjednika živi u ruralnim
sredinama. Prosječni šumski posjed iznosi 16,7 ha i nalazi se u 4,3 pros torno
odvojena kompleksa. Prevladava oblik vlasništva bez suvlasništva, a
šumoposjednici koji su u suvlasništvu imaju prosječno osam suvlasnika. U
uzorku je 39,1 % anketiranih šumovlasnika već uključeno u različite oblike povezivanja,
19,9 % ih je spremno uključiti se u različite oblike povezivanja, dok
41 % šumoposjednika povezivanje ne interesira. Rezultati bivarijantne analize
ukazuju na povezanost spremnosti za povezivanjem šumoposjednika i veličine
njegovoga posjeda. Veću spremnost za povezivanje pokazuju šumoposjednici
koji imaju više od 10 ha šuma. Rezultati multivarijantne analize pokazuju da se
šumoposjednici koji pokazuju spremnost za povezivanje i šumoposjednici koji
nisu spremni za povezivanje, razlikuju po veličini posjeda, starosti i obliku vlasništva
(vlasnika je više i svi žive u istom kućanstvu). Rezultati istraživanja pokazali
su da treba šumoposjednike koji su spremni za povezivanje tražiti u grup i
šumoposjednika koji su stari do 50 godina, imaju šumski posjed veći od 10 ha i
koji sa suvlasnicima žive u istom kućanstvu.


Ključne riječi:privatna šuma, suradnja i povezivanje šumoposjednika,
vlasnička i posjedovna struktura, statistički modeli, bivariatna i multivariatna
analiza, logistička regresija