34 sell it. However, the interviewees in this study have not actively increased their forest areas either; there was one interviewee, who had bought some forest land to increase the forest area he had inherited. Theforests were usually legally owned by the interviewee alone or together with his/her spouse. Theforests located in six different regions in Finland, mainly in the central parts of the country. In most cases, the forest owners lived rather near (usually in the same municipality) to the forest areas they owned as only three of the interviewees lived in a different region than his/her forest located. Table 3. The main characteristics of the interviewed forest owners Number of interview Forest area (hectares) Duration of ownership (years) How the forest is acquired The form of the ownership Location of the forest (region) Is the owner living near to the forest Existing cooperation with naturebased tourism 1 250 20 Inheritance Alone Kainuu yes yes 2 235 28 Inheritance / purchase Married couple Keski-Suomi yes yes 3 160 28 Inheritance Alone Pirkanmaa yes yes 4 480 n.a. Inheritance Pirkanmaa yes yes 5 50 n.a. Inheritance Co-ownership Pirkanmaa yes yes 6 40 23 Inheritance Alone Etelä- Pohjanmaa 7 43 39 Purchase Married couple Etelä- Pohjanmaa 8 over 20 22 Inheritance Alone Etelä- Pohjanmaa yes yes yes yes yes yes 9 90 43 Inheritance Alone Pohjois-Savo yes yes 10 20 Purchase Married couple Pohjois-Savo yes yes 11 60 28 Inheritance Married couple Pohjois-Savo yes yes 12 40 48 Inheritance Heirs Pohjois-Savo no yes 13 4 40 Inheritance Alone Etelä-Savo no no 14 6 15 Purchase Married Couple Pohjois-Savo yes no 15 50 15 Inheritance Alone Etelä- Pohjanmaa yes no 16 30 8 Purchase Alone Pohjois-Savo no no 17 80 30 Purchase Alone Etelä- Pohjanmaa yes no Data analysis The data was analyzed by using analyst constructing typologies, in which patterns, categories and themes are looked for from the data and based on these, typologies are formed (Patton 2002). For this purpose a common analyzing framework was created. Typologies are built on ideal types or illustrative endpoints rather than complete and discrete set of categories and they provide one simple form for presenting the qualitative comparisons (Patton 2002). Unlike classification systems, typologies do not provide rules for
35 classifying. Instead, typologies usually identify multiple ideal types, each of which represents a unique combination of the attributes that are believed to determine the relevant outcome (Doty & Glick 1994). In other words, the typologies and their characteristics emerge from the data during the analyzing instead of being decided beforehand. Also since typologies present complex ideal types, the cases can have elements from several different typologies. We started the analysis by writing a summary for each interview in order to point out the circumstances and other relevant issues affecting the interview based on the interviewer’s immediate analysis (Patton 2002). These summaries were written as soon as possible after each interview in order to capture the initial insights emerged during the interviews. The aim of the summaries was not to look for any results at this point, but rather to help in managing the large amount of data produced through the interviews. The actual analysis included two different phases as we analysed separately the interviews of the naturebased entrepreneurs and the private forest owners. We started the analysis by reading through the interviews of the entrepreneurs several times. We looked for the interview extracts that would describe the entrepreneurs’ attitudes towards the forest owners and the ways of collaborating with them. During this phase, we looked for any congruencies and discrepancies in the data for which we could construct the typology to further elucidate the findings (Patton 2002). We eventually organized the data into four different categories as we constructed the typology of nature-based entrepreneur – private forest owner relationship. The types were named in the spirit of stakeholder theory as proactive, accommodation, defensive and community strategies. The process for the second phase of the analysis concerning the private forest owners’ interviews was rather similar to the first one. We first read the interviews through in order to find out any instances indicating the ways forest owners perceive the idea of psychological ownership in the relationship with a nature-based entrepreneur. We listed all these instances conceptually. This listing was further grouped into more general concepts. Although both phases of the analysis were rather inductive in nature, all the time the link between the data and the theories of psychological ownerships and stakeholder approach was important. To ensure the quality of the results, all phases of the analysis and interpretation of the data were a collaborative and iterative effort by both authors. In case of any disagreements, the data was jointly reanalyzed until a shared interpretation was reached. Although rather laborious, this way of utilizing analyst triangulation is often considered to increase the credibility of the research (Patton 2002). As Eisenhardt (1989) argues the use of the more researchers builds confidence in the findings and increases the likelihood of surprising findings. Furthermore, to ensure the transparency of the data analysis, a number of interview citations are presented in the main body of text in order to make it easier for the reader to evaluate the interpretations we have made. In order to increase the credibility of the study, the interview citations are presented both in Finnish and translated into English. The letter in the parenthesis after each citation refers either to a private forest owner (F) or a nature-based tourism entrepreneur (E). The number stands for the number of the interview in question.