Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Antecedents to Forest Owner Innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector Erlend Nybakk* Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute, Postboks 115, 1431 Ås, Norway. UMB School of Business and Economics, Postboks 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway. E-mail: nye@skogoglandskap.no * Corresponding author Pablo Crespell, FPInnovations, Vancouver, BC, Canada Eric Hansen, Department of Wood Science and Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA Anders Lunnan UMB School of Business and Economics, Postboks 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway. Abstract: Increased urbanization in many societies is having a negative impact on vitality of rural areas. To maintain the vitality of these areas governments have employed a variety of policies, some of which are designed to facilitate innovation and enhance landowner innovativeness. However, little research has investigated the antecedents to landowner innovativeness and whether innovativeness positively impacts economic performance in this setting. The present study investigates these issues in the context of Norwegian forestland owners and their involvement in non-timber forest products and services (a form of ecosystem services). The authors present a conceptual model hypothesizing that social networking, entrepreneurial climate, and a learning orientation each have a direct, positive impact on landowner innovativeness and innovativeness has a direct, positive impact on economic performance. Property size is included as a moderating variable. Data were collected via a mail survey and a total of 683 useable responses were received reaching an adjusted response rate of 35 percent. Results show that social networking and a learning orientation positively impact innovativeness, but that entrepreneurial climate does not. Innovativeness was found to positively impact economic performance. The authors outline implications of the findings that may be used by policy makers, landowners and research. Keywords: Innovativeness, Entrepreneurial Climate, Social Network, Learning, Economic Performance, Forest owners. Elect ronic version of an art icle published as [ Forest Ecology and Management, 2009 [ DOI dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/ j .foreco.2008.09.040. 2009, 608- 618] © [ copyright Elsevier] [ http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ ] 1 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. 1. Introduction Agriculture and forestry in Norway are crucial land uses that serve as a platform for economic diversification, but recent decades have seen a relative decline in income from these traditional industries (Vennesland, 2004). This decline has led to an increased effort to stimulate growth and create other job opportunities based on landowners’ utilization of non-timber aspects of their forestland. In Norway, nontimber forest products and services (NTFP&S) refers to a different suite of activities than the non-timber forest products commonly referred to in e.g. North America. The term is similar to what Lunnan et al., (2006) call alternative income activities. Examples of these uses in Norway are nature-based (eco-) tourism and sales of fishing and hunting licenses. We use the NTFP&S to describe a broad suite of activities involving commercial utilization of forest land and wilderness except for the sale of timber and firewood. We realize that this definition goes beyond what is traditionally considered non-timber forest products. However, because we have not found a perfect term for the concepts used in this study, we continue to use NTFP&S, stressing that our use is broader than the traditional “non-timber forest products.“ Because of the economic decline in traditional sectors, alternative income streams have become increasingly important. In theory, enhancing innovativeness of forest owners can increase alternative incomes and positively impact rural development in Norway. As a result, policies have been implemented to increase innovation by promoting social networks, increasing knowledge and fostering an entrepreneurial climate among rural landowners in Norway (Amdam et al, 1995). The policies have 2 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. also had a strong focus on improving environmental and social sustainability (Vennesland, 2004). Nybakk et al., (2008) found that the degree of social networking by various individuals and organizations had a positive effect on innovativeness among naturebased recreation tourism companies, more than half of which were forest owners. Rametsteiner et al., (2005) studied forest owners in Central Europe and found that the innovation process was affected by both personal and external factors and that co-operation with suppliers, customers and forest owners were the most important factors fostering innovation. In addition, availability of information on innovations was a critical fostering factor. Much research has been conducted on innovativeness in general, but there is still a lack of knowledge regarding how findings apply to landowners and utilization of NTFP&S in rural areas. The overall objective of this study is to gain a better understanding of the role of several antecedents to innovativeness among Norwegian forest owners with respect to non-timber forest products and services and to gain an enhanced understanding of the connection between innovativeness and economic performance. In the next section, the theoretical background for this work is presented. A set of hypotheses is proposed, based on a model where Entrepreneurial Climate, Social Networks and Learning Orientation positively impact the Innovativeness of forest owners and innovativeness positively impacts Economic Performance. Study methods are then introduced, including information about questionnaire development, measurement, and sampling. Analyses are described including model 3 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. testing via structural equations modelling. Finally, results are presented and discussed, implications suggested, and study limitations outlined. 2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses 2.1. Innovation, innovativeness and Innovation systems The concept of innovation is often connected to the findings of Schumpeter (1936). In his early economic analyses he focused on the enterprise and the role of the entrepreneur in economic processes. He defined innovation as a discontinuously occurring set of new combinations of existing resources and considered innovations as the driver for economic development. During recent decades there has been an increase in the use of the term innovation (Fagerberg et al. 2005). There is no unified definition of the term, but there is consensus that innovation represents something new (Grønhaug and Kaufmann, 1988). Rogers (2003:12) defined innovation as, “…an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new to an individual or another unit of adoption”. In this literature, there has been no concern for whether the idea is objectively new. It is considered an innovation if the idea is new to the individual or an organization. Innovations come in a variety of forms with the most recognized being new or improved products or manufacturing systems. However, innovation can also take place in such areas as business management processes. Truly new innovations are often referred to as new-to-the-world innovations or radical innovations while improvements in existing products, services, or management practices are referred to as incremental innovations. When dealing with NTFP&S and other low/non- 4 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. technology businesses “new, incremental innovations” (e.g. Weiss et al., 2007, Nybakk et al., 2008), suggesting a lack of radical innovations. Innovation can be seen as the result of carrying out ideas while innovativeness is a characteristic of an organisation or a person that carries out ideas. A major area of innovativeness research deals with adoption and diffusion (Calantone et al., 2002). Rogers (2003:22) defined innovativeness as “the degree to which an individual or other unit of adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than any other member of the system.” With respect to both individuals and organizations, innovativeness is a characteristic, attitude, or propensity towards developing or adopting innovations (Rogers 2003). Extensive work has been done attempting to identify the characteristics of innovative organizations (e.g., Damanpour 1991, Vincent et al. 2003). Following this and other forest sector innovation research, we define innovativeness as the propensity to create and/or adopt new products, processes, and business systems (Knowles et al., 2008). The Systems of Innovation approach is relatively new having existed for about two decades. However, it has quickly become established and is frequently used in innovation research (e.g. Freeman,1987, Lundvall, 1992, Edquist,1997) and Nelson (1999).The approach has an institutional view of innovation. North (1991) looked at institutions as a set of habits, routines, rules, laws or regulations that dictate the relations and interactions among individuals, groups and organizations. An institution connects to a practice, a relationship or an organization that has been institutionalized inside a society or culture (North, 1991). The institutions shape, and are shaped by, the actions of organizations and relationships among them (Edquist, 5 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. 1997). The main idea is that individuals or organizations do not innovate alone but through interaction with others. Therefore, interaction among actors and institutional settings, not only the actors in the system, is important for innovation activities. This captures the non-linear aspects of innovation processes and has been one of the most important characteristics of the Systems of Innovation approach (Fagerberg et al., 2005). A special case of the Systems of Innovation approach concentrates on regional innovation systems; this work can be traced to Cook (1992). Based on his work, in recent years there has been an increased focus on regional and local levels related to industry development and innovation. 2.2. Entrepreneurial climate and innovativeness The literature has emphasised the importance of localisation on entrepreneurs and companies. Porter (1990, 1998) argued that companies can gain competitive advantage through highly localised processes such as economic structures, values, cultures, institutions, and histories. This view has also been supported by the regional innovation systems and “learning economy” literature (Fagerberg, 2005). Positioned in a “learning economy”, the focus has been to increase the innovation capacity of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SEMs) by identifying how the climate fosters innovation (Storper, 1995). Various terms have been used to describe this socio-cultural impact on local regions. Lordkipanidze et al., (2005) studied sustainable tourism companies and found that poor entrepreneurial culture and climate was an impeding factor to economic development. In the present study we use the term “entrepreneurial climate”. Rametsteiner et al., (2005) who studied factors fostering innovation among forest owners in central 6 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. European countries used the term “entrepreneurial milieu” for the same concept. We define entrepreneurial climate as the local cultural factors, social factors, and traditions that influence the entrepreneur’s innovativeness. A positive entrepreneurial climate gives a local community positive spillover effects resulting from entrepreneurial activities plus social and cultural capital that are important for innovativeness. These observations suggest the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: The higher the level of entrepreneurial climate in the local community, the greater the degree of innovativeness among forest owners. 2.3. Social network and innovativeness Social theory and network analysis have emphasized the importance of networking among heterogeneous groups (Fagerberg et al., 2005). Previous scholars have emphasized that there are advantages with having large and diverse social circles (Granovetter, 1973, Burt 1992, Foss 1994, Jenssen 1999). A strong social network may also influence growth (Zhao and Aram 1995). A social network has been defined as a specific set of linkages among a defined set of persons and it provides entrepreneurs with social capital (Mitchell, 1962, Coleman, 1988), or a quality that can exist between people that increases the return of human capital such as intelligence, education, and work experience (Burt, 1997). Interactions must last for a meaningful time period for them to be considered as part of a social network (Jenssen, 1999). Accordingly, one can look at a social network as a pattern of lasting social interactions among people (Greve and Foss, 1997). Network theory normally distinguishes between strong and weak ties, where the strength of the relationship depends on factors such as trust, friendship, level of 7 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. interaction, and the duration of the relationship (Granovetter, 1973). A person has a strong tie to someone she interacts with regularly and a weak tie with an acquaintance she rarely interacts with. The literature has emphasized the importance of both strong and weak ties in innovations (Fagerberg et al., 2005). Strong ties are important for social support, while weak ties provide much of the novel information. Weak ties have a longer reach, but lack depth. One can argue that strong ties only circulate old ideas, and have limited importance for innovativeness. On the other hand it is important, especially for individual entrepreneurs without the support of an organization, to have trust and support from a social network. Previous scholars have also emphasized the importance of the number of ties (e.g. Ahuja, 2000). Ties make knowledge sharing possible (Granovetter, 1973; Ahuja, 2000; Jenssen, 2001), so one can gain necessary complementary knowledge (Arora and Gambardella, 1990; Ahuja, 2000) and cooperation to implement larger projects, which again can generate more knowledge (Ahuja, 2000). Nybakk et al. (2008) studied nature-based companies in Norway and found that companies were more networked with local actors that were similar them in size and characteristics. The study also indicated a positive link between networking and innovativeness (Nybakk et al., 2008). The literature suggests that local social networks have an important role in an entrepreneur’s ability to be innovative, leading us to propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: The greater the extent of local social networking, the greater the degree of innovativeness among forest owners. 8 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. 2.4. Learning orientation and innovativeness The Systems of Innovation literature has emphasized the importance of social interaction and learning to innovation (e.g. Lundvall and Johnsen, 1994, Isaksen, 1999, Fagerberg et al., 2005). The basic idea in the literature is that innovations come from the interaction and knowledge flow among different actors (Edquist, 1997, 2001). This knowledge is tacit and can therefore be difficult to transfer over longer distances. Recent innovation work emphasizes the role of learning, or a learning orientation, as an antecedent to an innovative culture (Hult et al., 2004, Hurley and Hult, 1998). Proactive learning allows a company to be more innovative by, for example, identifying new market opportunities and having the knowledge and expertise to exploit those opportunities. Calantone et al., (2002) studied the relationships among learning orientation, firm innovativeness, and firm performance using a broad array of US industries. They defined learning orientation as activities of creating and using knowledge to enhance competitive advantage. Most research in this area has utilized measures of learning orientation that are specific to the context of larger firms. The literature contains no guidance regarding measurement of the phenomenon in small- or micro-firms. Forest owners and farmers in Norway often look at themselves as familybased, micro-businesses. Because of the family orientation and micro-nature of these companies, there is little structural similarity with larger companies. Interorganizational issues are especially different. In a one man company, shared vision and intra-organizational knowledge sharing is not relevant. However, openness to 9 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. learning or proactive learning by the individual or individuals in a micro-business holds the same promise of leading to innovation. These observations suggest the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3: The higher the level of learning orientation among forest owners, the greater the degree of innovativeness. 2.5. Innovativeness and economic performance In this study performance is defined as economic performance. The relationship between innovativeness and performance is complex and has been debated in the literature (e.g. Grønhaug and Kaufmann, 1988; Rogers, 2003; Vincent et al., 2003). Producing innovations can result in increased income, but the risk involved in developing innovations can also have a potential negative impact on income. In addition, there is the issue of time delay between an innovation and performance. Almost a century of research has emphasised the importance of innovativeness for positive financial performance (Schumpeter, 1934; Porter, 1990; Fagerberg et al., 2005). Also, the diffusion literature has emphasised the importance of innovativeness in organizations (Rogers, 2003). Many important studies have shown a positive relationship between firm innovativeness and economic performance (e.g., Deshpande et al., 1993; Calantone et al., 2002). Research on the forest products industry has also shown this positive relationship (Crespell et al., 2006; Crespell and Hansen, 2008) as have studies of nature-based tourism in micro-firms in Norway (Nybakk et al., 2008). The literature generally supports that innovativeness positively impacts economic performance, suggesting the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 4: The higher the degree of innovativeness, the greater the economic performance among forest owners 10 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. 2.6. Property size as a moderating effect The overall body of literature investigating the impact of size on innovativeness is inconclusive (Vincent et al. 2003). An argument is made that larger organizations have more resources to use toward innovativeness (Cohen and Kepper 1996, Hurley and Hult 1998) while the counter argument is that smaller organizations are more nimble and better suited to innovativeness (Wagner and Hansen 2005). Income from NTFP&S is typically dependent on the landowner’s property size, because land is one of the most important resources. For example, the income from fishing and hunting rights are normally correlated with forest size. Innovation literature has also emphasized the importance of resources in the success of innovations (Cohen and Klepper, 1996). Thus, one could assume that the more forest land the owner has, the stronger the relationship between innovativeness and performance. Smaller forest owners may be innovative, but do possess sufficient resources to translate this into performance. On the other hand, owning a large land area is not always necessary to achieve high economic performance (e.g. Nybakk et al., 2008). In the Norwegian context a contributing factor is the public right to access the countryside (everyman’s rights) which gives forest owners good possibilities to transform innovative ideas into performance regardless of the size of their ownership. Although the literature is inconsistent regarding size and innovativeness, owners of larger forest areas may benefit more from being innovative, suggesting the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 5: Property size moderates the effect of innovativeness on performance, with large owners benefiting the most from being innovative. 11 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. 2.7. The Proposed Model In this paper, we conceptualize that local social network (from here refereed to as Social Network), Entrepreneurial Climate and Learning Orientation will have a positive impact on Innovativeness and Innovativeness will positively impact Performance. Innovativeness is in this model acting as a mediating variable between each of the three variables and Performance. Finally, Property Size is proposed as a moderating factor enhancing the impact of Innovativeness on Performance for larger landowners (Figure 1). The over all model is also supported by the Systems of Innovation approach (Lundvall, 1992; Edquist,1997). The innovation system approach is based on the idea that actors do not innovate in isolation, but via interactions with others and the innovation process is affected by economic and institutional factors (Lundvall, 1992; Isaksen, 1999). This is also supported by an empirical study among micro-scaled, nature-based tourism companies in rural Norway (Nybakk et al., 2008). 12 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Social Network Property size H1 H5 + H2 Entrepreneurial Climate H4 Innovativeness + + Economic Performance H3 Learning Orientation + Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of the Study with Hypotheses 3. Methods 3.1. Measurement Based on a review of previous studies of forest owners and the objectives of this research, we developed a questionnaire. All constructs in the main model were measured with multiple-item scales, like suggested by Churchill (1979). Whenever possible, we used measurement scales from previous research modified to our setting. Little research has been done in the context of NTFP&S and self-employed forest owners running their own family company. Most firm-level innovativeness research focuses on larger companies in well-known industrial sectors. There are major organizational differences between larger companies and those of interest in this study. Examples include number of employees, scale of activities, and levels of professional management. Substantial modification was therefore needed in the 13 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. scales utilized. In the cases where pre-existing scales were not available, we developed items on the basis of the conceptual definitions of the constructs from previous studies of forest owners. The following discussion outlines the measurement scheme for each construct. All items measuring Social Network, Entrepreneurial Climate, Innovativeness and Performance were measured using seven-point Likert items, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Social Network: The social network scale was measured with three items adapted from Antia and Frazier (2001) and three items developed specifically for this study (Appendix - Table 6). The scale was designed to measure only the local social network. Entrepreneurial Climate: Four items were adapted from Evensen and Rødset (2002) and their study of Norwegian forest owners, and two new items were developed. Learning Orientation: Learning orientation has been measured in a number of ways in the literature. Calantone et al., (2002) utilized a measure with multiple dimensions. We chose to utilize their dimensions; commitment to learning and open-mindedness. The items were modified to fit the context of forest owners and to stand as one rather than two dimensions. An additional item was created specifically for this study. Accordingly, we used one, six-item construct. Innovativeness: In this study we have an incremental view of innovation and follow the six item scale used by Calantone et al., (2002). Performance: Two items were adapted from Olsen et al. (2005) and three were created for this study. Property Size was measured by number of hectares of forestland. Education Level was measured as: 1) primary and secondary school, 2) high school, 3) university/college education (less than four years) and 4) university/college education (four or more years). Economic 14 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Importance: 14 different NTFP&S were measured on a scale from 0 to 7 (0= no activity, 1= very low importance and 7= high importance). 3.2. Questionnaire development A questionnaire was developed consisting of five major sections: Social Network, Entrepreneurial Climate, Learning Orientation, Innovativeness and Performance. Additional items addressed type of forest-related economic activities the forest owners performed. Descriptive information such as property size and education level was also included. The overall questionnaire also included a number of items used in a different study. The questionnaire was pre-tested by ten forest owners, one manager from the forest owners’ association and five researchers. Only small changes were required to make the questionnaire fully suitable for use. 3.3. Sampling and Data Collection A complete and official list with the names and contact information of Norwegian forest owners constituted the sample frame. All forest owners located in south, middle and east Norway and with more than 25 hectares of forest land were selected to an adjusted list, in total 24,897 forest owners. Two-thousand and seven forest owners were then randomly drawn from the adjusted list. The questionnaire and a cover letter explaining the objective and importance of the study were mailed to the forest owners in November 2007 by post following a modified Dillman (1978) approach. A self-addressed, stamped return envelope was also included. A second wave was mailed two weeks later, and contained a reminder. Two weeks after the 15 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. reminder letter, a questionnaire packet similar to the first wave was sent out to all non-respondents. Data collection ended in January 2008 and resulted in 809 returned questionnaires. Twenty-six respondents reported that they were not forest owners and 18 respondents reported that they had less than 25 hectares of forest, reducing the valid sample size to 1965. A total of 110 questionnaires contained significant numbers of missing values (no response) and were deleted from the final data. After eliminating the unusable questionnaires, the non-forest owners and the respondents with an ownership size smaller than our criteria we were left with 683 usable responses, resulting in an overall adjusted response rate of 35 percent. 3.4. Non-response test A concern in all survey research is that respondents may be systematically different from those who did not complete the questionnaire. Only an extremely high response rate could limit this concern, and even with high response bias may still exist (Needham and Vaske, 2008). In the randomly drawn address list we had information about the forest owner’s property size and the location of the property. There were no indications of bias related to number of respondents from different regions. Property size was analysed using t-tests where the respondents were compared to the complete sample list. No significant differences were found (p>0.05) indicating that non-response bias related to size was not a concern. Needham and Vaske (2008) suggest that a non-response check should involve contacting a sample of original non-respondents and asking questions from the questionnaire. A phone survey was conducted by calling 962 original non16 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. respondents, resulting in 105 completed questionnaires (11 percent response rate). Thirty-three percent answered that they did not answer because of lack of time. Eleven percent answered that they were not interested in this type of questionnaire. Differences in age and education between respondents from the survey and from the non-response survey were tested with a t-test/chi-square-test. The results showed that respondents had significantly (p<0.05) higher education and were significantly (p<0.05) younger than non-respondents. This finding indicates non–response bias and that the response rate among young and educated forest owners may be higher than average. The results of these various tests indicate possible non-response bias. One potential method for adjusting for this problem would be to weight the data. The response rate in the non-response test was only 11 percent which may introduce additional non-response bias problems. Additionally, the original survey had a high response rate and number of respondents. An overall conclusion was, therefore, that weighting the data could do as much harm as good. The results of the study are therefore discussed in the context of potential non-response bias. 4. Analysis and Results Basic statistical analyses were done in SPSS 13. LISREL 8.52 (Jöreskog 1993) was used for the Expected Maximization algorithm (EM) for multiple imputations. The models tested were covariance structure models with multiple indicators for all latent constructs and were analyzed with EQS 6.1 (Bentler, 2006). The final data set included 683 cases with less than two percent missing data. Nonetheless, listwise deletion would have led to the loss of 25 percent of the cases. 17 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Consequently, we used the Expected Maximization algorithm (EM) for multiple imputations (Acock, 2005). Most variables did not distribute normally and we therefore used robust statistics and robust standard errors that had been scaled to correct for some of the non-normality in the data (Byrne et al., 2004). Standard deviations and intercorrelations for the study's 29 manifest variables are presented in the appendix in Table 7. The average forest property size among respondents was 207 hectares, but the variation was large (s.d. = 495). The respondent with the largest area of forest land owned 8000 hectares of forest. Eighty-two percent of respondents lived in the same municipality as that in which their forest was located and 83 percent had traditional forestry (e.g. timber production and sale) on their land. The average age of respondents was 53 years and 85 percent were male. Forty percent had college or university education. NTFP&S was of some economic importance during recent years for 95 percent of respondents. But for most forest owners income from NTFP&S is only supplemental to a primary source (Table 1). 18 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Table 1. Proportion of respondents who ranked the importance of the respective product/service as 2 or higher on a scale from 0 to 7 (0= no activity, 1= very low importance and 7= high importance). NTFP&S % Leasing of hunting rights Arranging hunting (small game) Arranging hunting (big game) Real estate, building cottages, sale of plots etc. Renting out cottages Leasing of fishing rights Arranging fishing expedition Extraction of gravel / minerals Renting of fall(s) for hydropower Culture tourism / adventure tourism etc. Golf course, motor sport track, horse riding etc. Bioenergy (firewood not included) NWFP, mushrooms, lichens, mosses etc. 37 20 17 12 11 9 8 8 7 4 4 3 2 4.1. Model Refinement 4.1.1. The Measurement Model The measurement model consisted of five latent variables: Social Networking, Entrepreneurial Climate, Learning Orientation, Innovativeness, and Performance. Given the large sample size (n=6831) we chose to validate the model following a split-sample approach (Byrne, 2006). We randomly divided the dataset into two subsets; a ‘calibration’ sample and a ‘validation’ sample. The calibration process involved running Lagrange and Wald tests, as well as analysis of model fit and examination of the psychometric properties of the scales, such as reliability, variance extracted and discriminant validity. As a result, seven variables were deleted (one or two per construct). Parameter estimates, composite reliability and variance extracted for measurement relationships in the measurement model using the calibration sample is shown in Table 2. The factor loadings for each individual item were statistically significant (p<0.01), and composite reliability was at an acceptable level 1 Each half contained more observations than five times the number of parameters being estimated (p=54), which is considered as a cutoff point for a meaningful use of SEM using ML estimation. 19 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. in the calibration sample. Variance extracted was slightly inferior to the suggested cutoff point of 0.5 but the reported values (>0.42) are considered acceptable, given the conservative nature of the test (Hatcher, 1994). Furthermore, residuals were small, normally distributed and centered on zero. 20 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Table 2. Parameter estimates for measurement relationships in the measurement model. Calibration sample. Constructs and indicators (abbrev.) Standardized loadings Error t-value Social network (CR=0.99, AVE=0.49) 1. Lot of cooperation between me and other actors 2. Frequent conversations with other actors 3. Frequently discuss common problems 4. Central position and important role in network 5. Frequently involved in voluntary work 6. Others often come to me for help when they have ideas 0.804 0.891 0.853 0.626 0.647 Deleted 0.594 0.454 0.521 0.780 0.762 20.6 26.5 21.2 11.8 13.6 0.737 0.675 15.8 0.567 0.849 Deleted 0.824 0.528 9.9 19.6 0.653 0.757 10.7 0.795 0.657 0.736 0.740 0.634 Deleted 0.606 0.754 0.677 0.672 0.773 19.6 13.6 14.1 17.1 12.2 0.857 0.872 0.872 0.752 0.516 0.490 0.489 0.659 20.4 21.2 20.2 16.2 0.817 0.455 0.499 0.787 9.9 22.2 21.9 11.5 Entrepreneurial climate (CR=0.96, AVE=0.42) 1. Many have started utilizing alternative income possibilities (AIC) 2. Many have started thinking about AIC 3. Many positive when others utilize the property commercially 4. Seen as positive when others commercially utilize their property 5. Many have started with new activities, even if these include some risk. 6. Support from the local community when/if I develop new products and services Deleted Learning orientation (CR=0.98, AVE=0.42) 1. My ability to learn is important 2. Question my own utilization of the property 3. Look at learning as an investment 4. Dependent on new knowledge to be competitive 5. Question my own judgement of the market 6. High value for me to attend courses Innovativeness (CR=0.98, AVE=0.57) 1. Seek out new ways 2. Creative in my methods of operation 3. Try out new ideas 4. Innovation and new alternative income businesses are not perceived as too risky 5. Introduced new products and services 6. First on the market with new products and services Performance (CR=0.97, AVE=0.47) 1. Reached the expected profitability 2. Higher profitability than others 3. Increased total sales 4. Increased profitability 5. Increased labour effort (person-years) CR=Composite Reliability; AVE= Average Variance Extracted. 21 Deleted Deleted Deleted 0.577 0.891 0.866 0.617 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Following the approach of Anderson and Gerbing (1988) we then adjusted the structural model (Figure 1). Table 3 shows good model fit. According to Hu and Bentler (1999) values of the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) should be above 0.95, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) below 0.06 and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) below 0.08 Therefore, we conclude that our model provided a good fit to the data. Table 3: Robust fit indices by sample. Sample N Satorra CFI SRMR X2,d.f. RMSEA [95% C.I.] Calibration 341 318.9, 199 0.96 0.066 0.042 [0.033-0.050] Validation 342 372.8, 199 0.95 0.056 0.051 [0.043-0.058] Pooled 683 674.8, 199 0.96 0.053 0.046 [0.040-0.051] We next validated the model using the validation sample. The approach to validation followed the seminal work by Jöreskog (1971), as described by Byrne (2006). In this ‘invariance-testing strategy’, a final model (that with the best fit for the calibration sample) is tested on a second independent validation sample from the same population. This strategy tests the replicability of the measurement across groups. This procedure allowed us to validate the model, showing measurement invariance between the two samples (Table 3). Based on this result we pooled both samples. The results from the measurement model with pooled data are presented in Table 4. 22 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Table 4. Descriptives and correlation matrix for the constructs from the measurement model (Pooled data; n=683) Correlation Studied scales Mean* S.D.* CR AVE Alpha AIC NW EC LO Social networking (NW) 3.17 1.49 0.98 0.47 0.89 0.58 1 Entrepreneurial climate (EC) 3.60 1.26 0.95 0.40 0.82 0.48 0.44 1 Learning orientation (LO) 4.39 1.42 0.98 0.42 0.87 0.53 0.48 0.38 1 Innovativeness (IN) 3.07 1.59 0.99 0.53 0.92 0.73 0.51 0.13 0.50 IN 1 2.91 1.51 0.94 0.51 0.85 0.58 0.38 0.20 0.18 0.28 Performance CR=Composite Reliability; AVE= Average Variance Extracted. All items were measured on a 7-point interval scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).);*: Item statistics (mean of all items in each construct); AIC=Average Inter-item Correlation; Alpha= Cronbach’s Alpha. 4.1.2. The Structural Model The model showed a good fit from the pooled sample (X2=514.9202, p=.00, CFI=.95, X2/df=2.5, SRMR=.072, RMSEA= .048 [.043, .053], with residuals normally distributed, small, and centered around zero). Given the satisfactory fit of the model the hypotheses were evaluated by examining the robust estimated structural path coefficients (Table 5). Table 5 in here The findings presented in Table 5 and Figure 2 suggest that (H1) Social Network and (H3) Learning Orientation have a positive effect on Innovativeness (p<0.01), and Innovativeness (H4) has a positive affect on Performance (p<0.001) based on the calibration, validation and the pooled dataset. Entrepreneurial Climate (H2) was not significantly (p>0.05) related to innovativeness. Based on this we hereafter report all results referring to the pooled sample. 23 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. To test for the significance of the indirect effects, we followed the bootstrapping method advocated by Shrout and Bolger (2002). We created 1,000 bootstrap or pseudo samples of size 683. We estimated empirical indirect effect means and standard errors for all three indirect effects. The results indicated that the indirect effect of Social network on Performance via Innovativeness was significant (b=.064 (95% CI: .028; .100), ß=.32 x .31 = .100). Similarly, the indirect effect of Learning orientation on Performance via Innovativeness was significant (b=.105 (95% CI: .100; .152), ß=.37 x .31 = .115). To double check these results we also used Sobel’s (1982) formula for normal theory to test the significance of indirect effects, as described in Baron and Kenny (1986). This procedure yielded equivalent results to the bootstrapping procedure. This was expected, given the large sample size, and little evidence of non-normality for the indirect effects. In order to test moderating effects we first divided the dataset into ‘large owners’ and ‘small owners’. In the case of H5, the parameter from Innovativeness to Performance was constrained to be equal between the two groups. In the second step, the parameter was allowed to be free (Sauer and Dick, 1993). The chi square test revealed a significant difference (p<0.05) between groups for the relationship between Innovativeness and Performance, supporting the existence of the moderator effect. This effect was equal to 0.36 for large owners, whereas for small owners it was 0.26, suggesting that large owners benefit more from being innovative. Figure 2 shows the structural model with robust regression coefficients, significance of X2 and t-tests and coefficients of determination for the endogenous constructs. The results showed that four of the five hypotheses were supported. The model explained 32 24 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. percent of the variation in Innovativeness and nine percent of the variation in Performance. Property size Social Network 0.32*** x21= 4.1* R2=0.32 -0.08 n.s. Entrepreneurial Climate R2=0.09 0.31*** Innovativeness Economic Performance 0.37*** Learning Orientation Figure 2. The structural model, with robust parameters. (Above arrow; reg. coef.; *: p<0.05; ** = p< 0.01; *** = p< 0.001 Owner age and education level were also tested as controlling variables. Only education was significant (p<0.05) and negative, meaning that more educated owners are less innovative. 5. Discussion and Implications With the exception of the relationship between Entrepreneurial Climate and Innovativeness, our proposed model performed as expected. Accordingly, the results support four of the five hypotheses and reveal that Social Network and Learning Orientation are critical antecedents to Innovativeness. Innovativeness is an important 25 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. ingredient for obtaining high Performance and larger property sizes allow landowners to more effectively turn Innovativeness into Performance. It is conceptualized in this paper that the local Social Network will have a positive impact on Innovativeness and Performance, with Innovativeness acting as a mediating variable between Social Network and Performance. Social Network was positively related to Innovativeness (H1; β = 0.32, p < 0.001). These findings are consistent with earlier literature (Isaksen, 1999; Vennesland, 2004; Nybakk et al., 2008). Forest owners do not innovate alone, but in cooperation with others (Fagerberg et al., 2005). Networking can contribute to innovative capacity and innovativeness among local forest owners utilizing NTFP&S by giving them novel ideas and access to resources, and by transferring knowledge. Accordingly, forest owners who invest in networking with local actors will obtain advantage by gaining new ideas, concentrating on core expertise and finding new and better ways to run their businesses. By developing new policy instruments to promote networking and clustering in rural regions, policymakers can help to develop innovativeness among forest owners. We find no evidence of the impact of Entrepreneurial Climate on Innovativeness in the structural model (H3; β=-0.08, p > 0.05). Literature has suggested that a positive Entrepreneurial Climate facilitates innovativeness among forest owners (Rametsteiner et al., 2005) When other actors in the local community are entrepreneurial and are utilizing NTFP&S in a new, innovative way, this should have a positive effect on innovativeness among others. A possible explanation for this non-significant result could be the way it was measured. It could be that more 26 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. innovative forest owners are more critical of a lack of a positive entrepreneurial climate. In other words, they may experience frustrations from what they perceive to be a poor Entrepreneurial Climate. Given that previous research found a positive relationship between Entrepreneurial Climate and Innovativeness, further investigation is warranted. Learning Orientation was positively related to Innovativeness (H3; β = 0.37, p < 0.001). A forest owner committed to learning seeks a better understanding of his environment, resources, markets, customers and suppliers. The finding suggests that innovation itself is a process of learning that fosters implementation of new ideas, new products, and new ways of running the business. This is consistent with both organizational management literature (e.g. Calantone et al., 2002) and Systems of Innovation literature (e.g. Lundvall, 1992; Isaksen, 1999). Organizational management literature emphasizes that a positive learning orientation also reflects an acknowledgement of and preference for assimilating new ideas (Hurley and Hult, 1998; Calantone et al., 2002). Learning capacity and the desire for learning among forest owners are important factors influencing innovativeness. Accordingly, forest owners will benefit from being committed to learning. Forest owners’ associations and politicians can facilitate innovation by supporting learning related activities and a learning climate in rural areas. This can be done by organizing courses and conferences where forest owners can learn and develop skills as well as share existing knowledge. This is crucial for product and services development and to improve existing products. Gielen et al., (2003) studied agricultural entrepreneurs in the Netherlands and emphasized the importance of new 27 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. impulses from weak, unknown networks for farmers to be continuously innovative. To help forest owners to establish such networks, meetings, conferences and courses are important. Another issue is that learning about innovation is largely ‘learning by doing’. Policy measures to help forest owners ‘to do’ might in turn allow them to learn to be more innovative (Lunnan et al 2006). Consistent with earlier literature (Grønhaug and Kaufmann, 1988; Nybakk et al., 2008, Crespell and Hansen, 2008), Innovativeness was positively related to Performance in this study (β = 0.33, p < 0.001). Innovativeness and its antecedents explained nine percent of the variation in Performance. Many other factors beyond Innovativeness affect the Performance of forest owner operations. Also, being highly innovative carries risk and added costs that can potentially negatively affect performance. The effect of Innovativeness on Performance may have a time delay. Investments in innovations may require cash outlays which can negatively impact short-term profitability. Time is required to implement innovations, learn about markets, etc. before profits are generated. Nevertheless, the relationship was significant and the finding emphasizes how important Innovativeness is for Performance and potential economic growth and rural development related to forest land in Norway. Forest owners need to continuously renew and innovate to be competitive over time. Emphasizing this, it is also important to stress that renewal is not incompatible with keeping old traditions and characteristics of Norwegian rural areas. The moderating effect of forest owners’ Property Size on the relationship between Innovativeness and Performance was supported (H5; p<0.05). The findings 28 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. suggest that large forest owners are more able to turn Innovativeness into higher Performance. These findings indicate that an increase in average forest Property Size will have a positive effect on forest owners’ ability to transform innovativeness into performance. One reason for this can be that a large forest area is a resource that can be important for turning ideas into actions. Larger forest owners have more land to use and likely more hunting and fishing rights. This makes them less dependent on other forest owners. Norway has had strict rules and regulations for forestland transactions which prevent forest owners from buying more forestland. According to the findings in this study, this can have a negative effect on performance among innovative forest owners. Norway has many small forest owners and additional cooperation may be a way to accomplish this larger forest area and an enhanced ability to benefit from innovations. Clearly, Social Networking and a Learning Orientation influence Innovativeness among forest owners, which then have a positive effect on Performance. The overall findings suggest that policymakers will have the greatest potential impact on innovativeness among forest owners by stimulating networking and learning. This again can lead to development of regional value-creating environments, and help to establish sustainable employment and growth in profitability in rural Norway. This study also shows that property size is important for forest owners’ ability to transform innovativeness into performance. 29 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. 6. Limitations and Future Research This was a cross-sectional study and longitudinal data were not collected, which prevents drawing conclusions regarding causality. Nevertheless, the study results were supported by theory, which may indicate causality. A similar study should be repeated after several years to see if the findings are constant over time. Non-response bias may be present in this study. It appears that younger and more educated forest owners with higher economic performance related to NTFP&S were more likely to respond. A potential reason for this can be that they are more interested in these topics. This suggests that our findings may be more representative of this group of forest owners. To reduce this problem in further studies, one should seek to increase the response rate among older and less educated owners. Entrepreneurial Climate has been suggested as a factor influencing innovativeness, but this phenomenon has been difficult to measure and document in quantitative studies. A more objective measurement of Entrepreneurial Climate should be developed and related to location. The present study calls attention to the importance of antecedents, and links Innovativeness to Performance among forest owners utilizing NTFP&S. It emphasizes the effect Learning Orientation and Social Network have on Innovativeness, but it does not directly address the issue of how politicians can influence this through policy instruments. This study is limited to the local network, 30 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. but national and international networks can also be of importance. Additionally, the study does not consider the structure and quality of the network and does not take into account factors such as strong and weak ties, centrality, density (redundancy), and variety of knowledge in the network. Future research is needed to address these issues and how they effect the link between social network and innovativeness in NTFP&S. Also, the study model explains less than one-third of Innovativeness. There are undoubtedly other important antecedents to Innovativeness that we have not addressed in this study. Future studies should identify and address these issues. We have in this study emphasized the importance of Learning Orientation and Social Networking, but we have not looked at their antecedents. These antecedents can be important for policymakers in order to develop tools to increase networking and learning orientation among forest owners. Future research could identify the antecedents, seek a deeper understanding of networks and learning orientation, and construct a comprehensive framework of both antecedents and consequences. 7. Acknowledgements This research was made possible through grants from The Research Council of Norway. We want to thank Birger Vennesland (Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute), Henrik Lindhjem (Department of Economics and Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences and ECON), Jon Bingen Sande (Norwegian University of Life Sciences), Silja Korhonen-Sande (University of Helsinki), Mark Needham (Oregon State University) and Chris Knowles (Oregon Wood Innovation Center) for help and feedback. We would also like to express gratitude to the Forest 31 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Business Solutions group at Oregon State University and EFI Regional Project Center, INNOFORCE network, for interesting conversations and feedback. 8. References Acock, A.C. 2005. Working with Missing Values. White paper: Department of Human Development and Family Studies, 322 Milam Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.17 pp. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425-452. Amdam, R., Isaksen A. og Olsen, G.M. 1995 Regionalpolitikk og bygdeutvikling : drøfting av lokale tiltaksstrategiar [Regional policy and rural development]. Samlaget. In Norwegian. 245p Anderson, J. C., Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. Antia, K.D., Frazier, G.L. 2001 .The Severity of Contract Enforcement in Interfirm Channel Relationships. Journal of Marketing 65, 67-81. Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1990). Complementary and external linkages: The strategies of large firms in biotechnology. Journal of Industrial Economics, 38, 361-379. 32 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Bentler, P. M. 2006. EQS 6: Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc. Baron, R. M., Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 11731182. Burt, R.S. 1992. Structural holes. The social structure of competition. Cambrige, Massachusetts and London Harvard University Press. Burt, R.S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative science quarterly, 42, pp 42-48. Byrne, B. M., Stewart, S. M., Lee, P. W. H. (2004). Validating the Beck depression inventory-II for Hong Kong community adolescents. International Journal of Testing, 4(3), 199-216. Byrne, B. M. 2006. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS (2 ed.). Manwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 440 p. 33 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Calantone, R.J, Cavusgil, S.T., Zhao, Y. 2002. Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management 31: 515– 524. Cohen, W.M., Klepper, S. (1996), "Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: the case of process and product R&D", The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 232-43. Coleman, A.C. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of sociology, Vol. 94, Supplement, pp 95-120. Cook, 1992. Regional Innovation System: Competitive Regulations in the New Europa. Geoforum 23:365-82. Crespell, Pablo, Chris Knowles, and Eric Hansen. 2006. Innovation in the North American Sawmilling Industry. Forest Science. 52(5):568-578. Crespell, Pablo and Eric Hansen. 2008. Work Climate, Innovativeness, and Firm Performance: In search of a conceptual framework. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. (Submitted). Churchill, G.A. Jr. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. of Mktg. Res. 16(1): 64-73. 34 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal. 34(3): 555590. Deshpande, R., Farley, J. U., Webster, J., F.E. 1993. Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(January), 23-27. Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. . New York: Wiley. Edquist, C. 1997. Systems of Innovation: Technologies, institutions, and organizations. C. Edquist (ed.), London, Washington: Pinter. 456 pp Edquist, C., 2001. The system of innovation approach and innovation policy—an account of the state of the art. Lead Paper at the Nelson Winter Conference DRUID, Aalborg, June 12–15, 2001. Draft version of paper downloaded from http://www.druid.dk/conferences/nw/ on 10.02.2003. 24 pp. Evensen, M. B, Rødset, S. 2002. Entreprenørskap i skogbruket– En undersøkelse om skogeieres holdninger til og erfaringer med omstilling i skogbruket.Q M. Sc. Thesis. Department of Economics and Resource Management, Agricultural University of Norway. In Norwegian 35 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Fagerberg, J., Nelson, R.R., Mowery, D.C. 2005. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 565 pp. Foss, L. (1994). Entrepreneurship: The Impact of Human Capital, a Social Network and Business Resources on Start-up. Dissertation submitted to the Norwegian School of Economics and Business. Bergen, Norway. 298 pp Freeman, C. 1987. Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter. London, England. 155 pp. Galer G, van der Heijden K. 1992. The learning organization: how planners create organizational learning. Mark Intell Plann,10(6):5– 12. Gielen, P., M., Hoeve, A., Niewenhuis, L. F. M. 2003: Learning entrepreneurs: learning and innovation in small companies. European Educational Research Journal, Volume 2, Number 1, 2003. Granovetter, M. 1973. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Socilogy. 78:1360-1380. Greve, A., Foss, L. 1990. Nettverk og entreprenørskap. En empirisk undersøkelse av sosiale nettverk og etableringer av bedrifter. Rapport nr. 17, Senter for 36 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. anvendt forskning, Norges Handelshøyskole og Sosialøkonomisk institutt ved Universitetet i Oslo. In Norwegian. Grønhaug, K., Kaufman, G. 1988. Innovation: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. Norwegian University Press. 530 pp. Hatcher, L. 1994. A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation modeling (6 ed.). Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute. 588 p. Hu, L.-t., Bentler, P. M. 1999. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. Hult GTM, Ferrell OC. 1997. A global learning organization structure and market information processing. J Bus Res, 40(2):155– 66. Hurley RF, Hult GTM. 1998. Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. J Mark. 62:42– 54. Hurt TH, Joseph K, Cook CD. 1977. Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Hum Commun Res, 4(1):58– 65. Hurt TH, Teigen CW. 1977. The development of a measure of perceived organizational innovativeness. Commun Yearb, 1(1):377 – 85. 37 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Hollenstein H. A. 1996. composite indicator of a firm’s innovativeness. An empirical analysis based on survey data for Swiss manufacturing. Res Policy, 25(4):633 –45. Isaksen, A. 1999. Regionale innovasjonssystemer [Regional Innovation Systems]. Step rapport 02 1999, Oslo. In Norwegian. 304 pp. Jensen, J. I. 1999. Entrepreneurial networks – A study of the impact of social networks and resource access on the start-up of organizations. Dissertation submitted to the Norwegian School of Economics and Business. Bergen, Norway. 220 pp. Jenssen, J. I. (2001). Social networks, resources, and entrepreneurship. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 2(2), 103-109. Jöreskog, K. G. 1971. Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric sets. Psychometrika, 36, 409-426. Jöreskog, K. G. 1993. LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 226 p. Knowles, Chris, Eric Hansen and Steve Shook. 2008. Assessing Innovativeness in the North American Softwood Sawmilling Industry Using Three Methods. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. (In Press). 38 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Lordkipanidze, M., Brezet, H., Backman, M. 2005. The entrepreneurship factor in sustainable tourism development. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (8), 787798. Lunnan, A., Nybakk, E., Vennesland, B. 2006 Entrepreneurial attitudes and probability for start-ups - an investigation of Norwegian non-industrial private forest owners. Forest Policy and Economics 8 (7), 683-690 Lundvall B-Å., Johnson, B. 1994. The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies. 1:23-42. Lundvall B-Å. Ed. 1992. National Systems of Innovation – Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter Publishers, London. 342 pp. Mitchell, J.C. 1962. The concept and use of social networks. In; Jensen, J. I. 1999. Entrepreneurial networks – A study of the impact of social networks and resource access on the start-up of organizations. Dissertation submitted to the Norwegian School of Economics and Business. Bergen, Norway. Needham, M. D., Vaske, J. J. 2008, (in press). Survey implementation, sampling, and weighting data. In J. J. Vaske, Survey research and analysis: Applications in human dimensions of natural resources. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. 39 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Nelson, R. R. 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Study, Oxford University Press. 541 pp North, D. C. 1991. Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5 (1), Winter, 97112 Nybakk, E., Hansen, E. 2008. Entrepreneurial attitude, Innovation and Performance in the Norwegian nature-based tourism. Forest Policy and Economics, 10(7-8), 473-479 Nybakk, E. Vennesland, B., Hansen, E., Lunnan, A. 2008. Networking, Innovation and Performance in Norwegian Nature-Based Recreation Services Industry. Journal of Forest Products Business, 5(4):26. Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F., Hult, G. T. M. 2005. The performance implications of fit among business strategy, marketing organization structure, and strategic behavior. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 49-65. Porter, M. E. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review (March-April), 73-93. Porter, M. E. 1998. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review (November-December), 77-90. 40 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Rametsteiner, E., Weiss, G., Kubeczko, K. 2005. Innovation and entrepreneurship in forestry in central Europe. EFI Research Report 19, European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland. 250 pp. Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Ed. New York, NY: Free Press. 550 pp. Sauer, P. L., Dick, A. 1993. Using Moderator Variables in Structural Equation Models. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 637-640. Shrout, P. E., Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in Experimental and Nonexperimental Studies: New Procedures and Recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422-445. Shrout, P. E., Fleiss, J. L. 1979. Intraclass Correlations: Uses in Assessing Rater Reliability. Psychological bulletin, 86(2), 420-428. Sinkula JM, Baker, WE. 1997. Noordewier TA. Framework for market-based organizational learning: linking values, knowledge, and behavior. J Acad Mark Sci. 25(4):305– 18. Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (pp. 290312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 41 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development, translated by R. Opie from the 2nd German edition [1926]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 255 pp. Storper, M. 1995. The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: the region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies. European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol. 2, 3: 191- 221. Vennesland, B. 2004. Social Capital and Networks in Forest-based Rural Economic Development. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19 (5): 82-89. Vincent, L. H., S. G. Bharadwaj and Challagalla, G.N. 2003. Meta-analytic review of antecedents and consequences of innovation. American Marketing Association. 34 pp. Wagner, E. and E. Hansen. 2005. Innovation in large versus small companies: Insights from the U.S. wood products industry. Management Decision. 43(6): 837-850. Weiss G., Martin, S. Matilainen, A., Vennesland, B., Nastase, C., Nybakk. E., Bouriaud, L. 1997. Innovation Processes in Forest-related Recreation Services: The Role of Public and Private Resources in Different Institutional Backgrounds. Small-scale Forestry. 6:423–442 42 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Zhao, L., and Aram, J. D. (1995). Networking and growth of young technologyintensive ventures in China. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(5), 349-370. Appendix. 43 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Table 6. Scales used in the study Factor Items (full text) 1. I cooperate with other actors in the local community. 2. I have some conversations with other actors in the local community about topics related to utilization of the property. Social Network 3. We frequently discuss common problems in the local community. 4. I have a central position and important role in the local network. 5. I am frequently involved in voluntary work and help others in the local community. 6. When others in the local community have some questions related to new ideas about new ways of utilization of the property, they often come to me for help. 1. I think forest owners have started thinking about utilizing alternative income possibilities (NTFP&S). 2. When someone in the local community has new ideas to utilize their property commercially, this will be gratefully accepted. 3. Several forest owners have started with new alternative commercial activities Entrepreneurial related to their forest land. climate 4. The local community is positive when others utilize their property commercially (e.g. lease out hunting rights). 5. Many have started with new activities, even if it includes some risk. 6. I will experience support from the local community when/if I start up with new products and services form the forest. 1. My ability to learn is important to increase the value added to the forest land. 2. I often question my own utilization of the property. Learning orientation 3. I look at learning as an investment and not a cost. 4. I am dependent on new knowledge to be competitive. 5. I often question my own judgement of the market. 6. It has high value for me to attend courses, seminars and other forest and countryside learning activities. 1. I often seek out new ways to do things. 2. I am creative in my methods of operation. Innovativeness 3. I frequently try out new ideas. 4. I implement innovations even if it involves risk. 5. I have introduced new products and services in the last years. 6. I am often first in the municipality to utilize the forest and countryside in new ways. 1. I reached the expected profitability. 2. I reached higher profitability than other forest owners in the local community in the last three years. Performance 3. Total sales have increased in the last three years. 4. Profitability has increased in the last three years. 5. Labour effort (person-years) has increased in the last three years. 44 Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E. & Lunnan, A. 2009. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 608618. Table 7: Pearson correlation coefficients, standard deviations and means for the manifest variables (n=683) Innovativeness I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 LO 1 LO 2 LO 3 LO 4 LO 5 LO 6 EC 1 EC 2 EC 3 EC 4 EC 5 EC 6 SN 1 SN 2 SN 3 SN 4 SN 5 SN 6 P1 P2 P3 P4 Me an S. D. Learning Orientation Entrepreneurial Climate Social Network Performance L L L L L L E E E E E E S S S S S S O O O O O O C C C C C C N N N N N N P P P P P I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 .7 .7 .6 .4 .4 .3 .2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .1 .2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .0 .2 .1 .1 .2 1 9* 6* 8* 2* 3* 9* 7* 7* 1* 5* 4* 9* 2* 2* 2 3* 3* 8* 4* 5* 2* 2* 5* 8’ 9* 9* 8* 3* .8 .6 .4 .4 .3 .2 .3 .2 .3 .3 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .1 .2 .2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .0 .2 .1 .1 .2 2 3* 1* 3* 9* 0* 4* 1* 4* 9 8* 9* 7* 3* 1 0* 8* 1* 7* 5* 6* 2* 9* 4* 2* 9* 5 3* .7 .4 .4 .3 .2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .1 .2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .0 .2 .2 .2 .2 1 2* 5* 8* 4* 3* 4* 1* 4* 1* 9* 4 3* 2 5* 6* 9* 5* 4* 6* 4* 7* 7’ 9* 1* 0* 5* .4 .5 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .2 .2 .0 .1 .0 .1 .1 .2 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .1 .2 .2 .2 .2 1 9* 6* 9* 5* 4* 4* 8* 5* 4* 9* 3* 1* 4* 1 8* 1* 4* 0* 6* 3* 5* 6* 3* 2 8* .7 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .3 .0 .2 .1 .1 .2 1 2* 9* 7* 8* 5* 7* 6* 1* 3 3* 1 7* 1* 3* 9* 4* 6* 4* 0* 8’ 8* 4* 5* 0* .2 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 .1 .0 .1 .0 .1 .1 .2 .3 .2 .3 .2 .3 .1 .3 .1 .1 .2 1 1* 1 4* 2* 7* 3* 8* 6* 8* 8* 0* 7* 8* 5* 0* 1 0* 5* 5* 3* 4* 7* 3* .5 .6 .6 .4 .4 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 2* 5* 3* 9* 6* 8* 3* 9* 2* 7* 6* 9* 5* 3* 1* 7* 4* 0* 5* 1* 3* 7* .4 .5 .5 .3 .2 .1 .2 .0 .2 .1 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 1 8* 4* 3* 1* 2* 4* 0* 5 0* 9* 2* 8* 2* 3* 9* 2* 8’ 7 5 0’ 5’ .6 .4 .4 .2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .2 .3 .3 .3 .2 .3 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 0* 6* 9* 9* 5* 3* 7* 1* 5* 2* 9* 4* 1* 2* 6* 5* 6* 2* 2* 1* .6 .4 .2 .2 .2 .1 .2 .2 .2 .3 .2 .1 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1 0* 5* 9* 0* 6* 7* 3* 5* 4* 0* 4* 8* 8* 9* 5 9’ 6 6 8’ .4 .2 .1 .2 .1 .2 .2 .2 .3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 6* 7* 2* 7* 3* 5* 0* 7* 4* 1* 2* 6* 2* 0’ 9* 4* 7* 5* .2 .1 .2 .1 .1 .2 .3 .3 .3 .2 .3 .3 .0 .2 .1 .1 .2 1 2* 3* 0* 5* 6* 0* 0* 1* 2* 9* 4* 0* 5 1* 7* 8* 2* .4 .6 .3 .4 .3 .2 .3 .2 .1 .2 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 1 2* 2* 3* 6* 5* 7* 0* 7* 5* 0* 3* 2 8’ 6 6 2* .4 .4 .3 .5 .1 .2 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1 8* 8* 7* 5* 9* 2* 0* 3* 5* 9’ 4 7 8’ 9’ 5 .4 .6 .4 .3 .3 .3 .1 .2 .2 .0 .1 .0 .1 .1 1 4* 1* 4* 0* 6* 1* 9* 9* 1* 9’ 6* 7 1* 6* .3 .4 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .0 1 7* 6* 0* 5* 4* 0’ 9* 8’ 8’ 6 9’ 0* 8 .4 .2 .3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .0 .1 .1 .0 .1 1 4* 9* 2* 0* 3* 2* 4* 7 5* 0* 8’ 4* .3 .3 .3 .2 .3 .2 .1 .2 .1 .1 .2 1 2* 8* 6* 8* 0* 3* 6* 0* 5* 8* 0* .7 .6 .4 .4 .4 .2 .3 .2 .2 .2 1 2* 0* 8* 5* 5* 3* 2* 0* 2* 4* .7 .5 .4 .4 .2 .3 .2 .2 .2 1 7* 2* 9* 8* 3* 5* 4* 4* 7* .5 .5 .5 .1 .3 .2 .2 .2 1 4* 3* 1* 7* 0* 2* 2* 4* .5 .7 .2 .4 .2 .2 .3 1 5* 3* 0* 2* 5* 3* 1* .5 .1 .2 .1 .2 .2 1 9* 3* 5* 7* 1* 3* .2 .4 .2 .2 .3 1 2* 3* 7* 6* 1* .4 .4 .4 .3 1 7* 1* 4* 0* .6 .4 .4 1 0* 9* 8* .7 .5 1 5* 4* .5 1 2* 3. 3. 2. 2. 1. 1. 4. 4. 4. 4. 3. 4. 4. 3. 3. 3. 2. 3. 3. 3. 3. 2. 3. 2. 3. 2. 2. 3. 2. 29 22 92 84 91 82 64 15 95 45 75 05 28 66 59 81 88 15 39 46 41 33 28 54 49 45 65 05 71 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 86 77 72 75 56 39 80 77 68 82 77 89 69 49 64 72 57 42 01 89 82 61 90 77 01 66 88 99 77 ’ = Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. * = Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level 45