Metsänomistajille tarjottavat palvelut, palveluntarjoajat ja palvelukentän rakenne

Suomessa metsänomistajille on tarjolla neljäntyyppisiä eri palveluita metsänhoidossa, puukaupassa, omaisuudenhoidossa ja informaatiopalveluissa. Palveluita tarjoaa joukko hyvin erikokoisia organisaatioita, joista osa toimii markkinalähtöisesti toisten tarjotessa palveluitaan lakiperusteisesti. Metsäalan palvelumarkkinat ovat nyt murrosvaiheessa, ja muutoksia on tapahtumassa sekä tarjonta- että kysyntäkentässä. Metsänomistajille tarjottavien palveluiden markkinoita ei tarjoajanäkökulmasta ole aiemmin tutkittu kattavasti. Tutkimukset ovat usein keskittyneet suppeasti johonkin palvelulajiin, eikä kokonaiskuvausta palvelumarkkinoista omaisuudenhoitopalvelut mukaan lukien ole ollut tarjolla. Tarjoajakenttään on odotettavissa muutoksia, sillä metsäalan palvelumarkkinoiden rahoituspohjaa ollaan muuttamassa, jolloin markkinoiden kilpailu vapautuu nykytilanteeseen verrattuna. Muutokset koskevat etenkin lakisääteisten organisaatioiden toimintaa, mutta ne tulevat vaikuttamaan koko toimialaan. Kysyntäkentässä aiempi tutkimus on ollut kattavampaa. Etenkin metsänomistajarakenteen muutosta, joka johtuu pääasiassa metsätilojen siirtymisestä kaupungistuneelle sukupolvelle, on tutkittu runsaasti. Lisäksi palveluiden kysyntään vaikuttavia tekijöitä ja palvelun eri laatu-ulottuvuuksia on tutkittu. Voidaan kuitenkin epäillä, kyetäänkö markkinoilla tarjoamaan sellaisia palveluita, jotka todella kattavasti tyydyttävät metsänomistajien tarpeita ja pystyvät tarjoamaan sellaisia hyötyjä, joista ollaan valmiita maksamaan. Tässä tutkimuksessa on tarkasteltu nykyisiä metsäpalvelumarkkinoita, sillä kokonaiskuvan luominen nykytilanteesta tarjoaa pohjan tulevien muutoksien ennakoimiselle. Tutkimusmenetelmänä on käytetty kvalitatiivista sisällönanalyysiä, ja tarkastelun kohteena on ollut palveluntarjoajien metsänomistajille suuntaama markkinointimateriaali – pääasiassa tarjoajien internetissä oleva materiaali. Markkinointimateriaalien tukena on käytetty palveluorganisaatioiden edustajien ja alan asiantuntijoiden teemahaastatteluita. Palveluita ja organisaatioita on tarkasteltu niiden asiakkaan kokemien hyötyjen pohjalta, joita markkinoinnissa palveluihin ja palveluntarjoajiin on pyritty liittämään. Teoreettisesti taustalla on käytetty mallia kuluttajan valintakriteereistä hankintapäätöstä tehtäessä. Tulosten perusteella on löydettävissä kysynnän kannalta kriittisiä palveluita, joiden ympärille palvelukokonaisuuksia on rakennettu. Metsänomistamisen odotetaan olevan kannattavaa, joten eräs palveluntarjonnan haasteista syntyy alan tarpeesta rahoittaa itsensä mielekkäällä aikajänteellä. Tämä luo tarpeen tuloja synnyttävien palveluiden yhdistämiseen kokonaisuuksiksi kustannuksia aiheuttavien, mutta muita hyötyjä tuottavien palveluiden kanssa. Tarjoajien kannalta tärkeää on kyetä luomaan asiakkaita hyödyttäviä palvelukokonaisuuksia muuttuville markkinoille.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.

The struggle for protection of environmental refugees: who's responsibility? Discourses from the United Nations and Non-governmental organizations

This thesis identifies, examines and problematizes some of the discourses that have so far come to light on the issue of protection for environmental refugees. By analyzing the discourses produced by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and two non-governmental organizations - the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) and Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD), I examine the struggling discourses that have emerged about how protection for environmental refugees has been interpreted. To do this, I rely on Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's theory and method of discourse analysis. The results show that responsibilization is the main point of struggle in the discussions on the protection of environmental refugees. As a floating signifier, it was utilized by the discourses produced by the UNCHR and the selected NGOs in contingent ways and with different political objectives. The UNHCR discourse responsibilized both the environmental refugees for their own protection and the individual states. The EJF and EquityBD, by contrast, allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees to the international community. These contingent understandings of responsibilization necessitated different justifications. While the EJF discourse relied on humanitarianism for the assistance of environmental refugees, the EquityBD discourse constructed a rights based, more permanent solution. The humanitarian based discourse of the EJF was found to be inextricably linked with the neoliberal discourse produced by the UNHCR. Both these discourses encouraged environmental refugees to stay in their homelands, undermining the politics of protection. Another way in which protection was undermined was by UNHCR's discourse on securitization. In this context, climate change induced displacement became threat to developed countries, the global economy and transnational classes. The struggling discourses about who/what has been allocated responsibility for the protection of environmental refugees also meant that identities of the displaced be constructed in specific ways. While the UNHCR discourse constructed as voluntary migrants and predators, the EJF and EquityBD discourses portrayed them as victims. However, even though the EJF discourse constructed them as victims, their reliance on humanitarianism could also be interpreted as a way of giving the environmental refugee a predator like identity. These discourses on responsibilization and identity formation clashed with each other in the aim of achieving a hegemonic position in discussions and debates about the protection of environmental refugees.