Fig. 1

Fig. 1. The structure of the value types. Sources: Schwartz 1992; Helkama 1999; Lindeman and Verkasalo 2005.

Table 1. Ranking of values: the public (Puohiniemi 2006) and forest owners.
Public Forest owners
BENEVOLENCE SECURITY
SECURITY BENEVOLENCE
CONFORMITY CONFORMITY
UNIVERSALISM TRADITION
HEDONISM UNIVERSALISM
SELF-DIRECTION SELF-DIRECTION
ACHIEVEMENT HEDONISM
STIMULATION ACHIEVEMENT
TRADITION STIMULATION
POWER POWER
Table 2. Ranking of values: the female public (Puohiniemi 2006) and female forest owners.
Female public Female forest owners
BENEVOLENCE SECURITY
UNIVERSALISM BENEVOLENCE
SECURITY CONFORMITY
CONFORMITY TRADITION
SELF-DIRECTION UNIVERSALISM
HEDONISM SELF-DIRECTION
ACHIEVEMENT HEDONISM
STIMULATION ACHIEVEMENT
TRADITION STIMULATION
POWER POWER
Fig. 2

Fig. 2. Means of value scores by the forest owners’ demographics.

Table 3. Softies and Toughies by owner characteristics.
Characteristic Softies Toughies
% of forest owners
Gender
Male ** 68 80
Female 32 20
Owner’s age, yrs
< 40 3 11
40–59 33 36
≥ 60 64 53
Occupation    
Wage earner 29 29
Farmer 14 22
Entrepreneur 6 8
Retiree 49 40
Other 2 1
Vocational education
No degree 30 35
Vocational school 36 36
College 19 19
Academic 15 10
Place of residence
Rural 51 61
Population center 20 19
Small town 18 13
Urban area (> pop. 20 000) 11 7
Objective group
Multiobjective owners 34 45
Recreationists 32 20
Self-employed owners 14 15
Investors 13 12
Indifferent owners 7 8
n 850 78
** Significant at 5%
Table 4. Forest owners’ probability of assignment to Softies. Logit model.
Characteristic Reduced model  
  Coeff. Odds ratio Sig.
Constant –2.930 0.053 0.000
Gender
Male = 0 0.654 1.922 0.000
Female = 1      
Owner’s age, yrs 0.033 1.033 0.000
Objective group
Multiobjective owners 1.023 2.782 0.000
Recreationists 1.173 3.231 0.000
Self-employed owners 0.400 1.491 0.099
Investors 0.005 1.005 0.984
Indifferent owners (reference group)      
Log-likelihood 1624.6    
Pseudo-R2 0.146    
n 1295