IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v69y2010i6p1355-1363.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Property rights in UK uplands and the implications for policy and management

Author

Listed:
  • Quinn, C.H.
  • Fraser, E.D.G.
  • Hubacek, K.
  • Reed, M.S.

Abstract

Rural areas are subject to changing and often competing demands. Where agricultural production was once paramount, it now competes with other ecosystem services such as carbon storage, rural amenity, and wildlife habitat. If rural areas are to be managed to produce this broad range of goods and services, then more diverse and complex management regimes are needed. This paper explores the literature on property rights before using a 'property rights bundle' approach in the UK uplands to (1) examine the distribution of property rights between stakeholders in a multi-resource system and (2) evaluate the effect of state intervention on the redistribution of property rights and the resulting management regimes. Private land owners were found to be the dominant type of property rights holder and private property the dominant management regime in the uplands of the UK. Government intervention has also created private-state regimes for some public goods such as biodiversity but common property management is still in its infancy with regards to ecosystem services and few stakeholders have claimant rights over resources. As a result, many stakeholders are unable to influence management to produce the goods that they want. A property rights perspective highlights that single management regimes alone are unlikely to manage land sustainably for both private and public goods. Instead, a complex mix of private, private-state and common property regimes are found to be emerging in this multi-resource system. These mixed management regimes have the potential to produce sustainable outcomes but only if the appropriate management regime is matched to each resource, if links are developed between each regime to deal with conflict and if mixed management is adaptable enough to cope with new and changing demands.

Suggested Citation

  • Quinn, C.H. & Fraser, E.D.G. & Hubacek, K. & Reed, M.S., 2010. "Property rights in UK uplands and the implications for policy and management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1355-1363, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:6:p:1355-1363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(10)00043-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meredith J. Soule & Abebayehu Tegene & Keith D. Wiebe, 2000. "Land Tenure and the Adoption of Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 993-1005.
    2. Yandle, Tracy, 2003. "The challenge of building successful stakeholder organizations: New Zealand's experience in developing a fisheries co-management regime," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 179-192, March.
    3. Ahmed, Irina & Deaton, B. James & Sarker, Rakhal & Virani, Tasneem, 2008. "Wetland ownership and management in a common property resource setting: A case study of Hakaluki Haor in Bangladesh," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 429-436, December.
    4. A. J. Dougill & E. D. G. Fraser & J. Holden & K. Hubacek & C. Prell & M. S. Reed & S. Stagl & L. C. Stringer, 2006. "Learning from Doing Participatory Rural Research: Lessons from the Peak District National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 259-275, July.
    5. Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
    6. Evan Fraser, 2004. "Land tenure and agricultural management: Soil conservation on rented and owned fields in southwest British Columbia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 21(1), pages 73-79, March.
    7. Demsetz, Harold, 2002. "Toward a Theory of Property Rights II: The Competition between Private and Collective Ownership," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 653-672, June.
    8. Kabubo-Mariara, Jane, 2007. "Land conservation and tenure security in Kenya: Boserup's hypothesis revisited," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 25-35, October.
    9. Gluck, Peter, 2002. "Property rights and multipurpose mountain forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 125-134, June.
    10. R. Quentin Grafton, 2000. "Governance of the Commons: A Role for the State?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(4), pages 504-517.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stephen Hall & Andrew EG Jonas & Simon Shepherd & Zia Wadud, 2019. "The smart grid as commons: Exploring alternatives to infrastructure financialisation," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(7), pages 1386-1403, May.
    2. Panichvejsunti, Thitiya & Kuwornu, John K.M. & Shivakoti, Ganesh P. & Grünbühel, Clemens & Soni, Peeyush, 2018. "Smallholder farmers’ crop combinations under different land tenure systems in Thailand: The role of flood and government policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 129-137.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. H.M. Tuihedur Rahman & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "An Analytical Framework for Assessing Context-Specific Rural Livelihood Vulnerability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-26, July.
    2. Hirons, M. & McDermott, C. & Asare, R. & Morel, A. & Robinson, E. & Mason, J. & Boyd, E. & Malhi, Y. & Norris, K, 2018. "Illegality and inequity in Ghana’s cocoa-forest landscape: How formalization can undermine farmers control and benefits from trees on their farms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 405-413.
    3. Johanna Choumert & Pascale Phelinas, 2015. "Farmland Rental Values in GM Soybean Areas of Argentina: Do Contractual Arrangements Matter?," CERDI Working papers halshs-01237771, HAL.
    4. Sklenicka, Petr & Zouhar, Jan & Molnarova, Kristina Janeckova & Vlasak, Josef & Kottova, Blanka & Petrzelka, Peggy & Gebhart, Michal & Walmsley, Alena, 2020. "Trends of soil degradation: Does the socio-economic status of land owners and land users matter?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    5. Wasilewski, Adam & Sikor, Thomas, 2003. "Institutional Options for the Protection of Open Space: Evidence from Poland," Discussion Papers 18887, CEESA: Central and Eastern European Sustainable Agriculture International Research Project.
    6. Choumert, Johanna & Phélinas, Pascale, 2015. "Determinants of agricultural land values in Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 134-140.
    7. Chai, Yuan & J. Pannell, David & G. Pardey, Philip, 2023. "Nudging farmers to reduce water pollution from nitrogen fertilizer," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    8. Leonhardt, Heidi & Penker, Marianne & Salhofer, Klaus, 2019. "Do farmers care about rented land? A multi-method study on land tenure and soil conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 228-239.
    9. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Sanchez-Fernandez, Gabriela, 2010. "Empirical evaluation of agricultural sustainability using composite indicators," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1062-1075, March.
    10. Gao, Li & Zhang, Wendong & Mei, Yingdan & Sam, Abdoul G. & Song, Yu & Jin, Shuqin, 2018. "Do farmers adopt fewer conservation practices on rented land? Evidence from straw retention in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 609-621.
    11. Leonhardt, Heidi, 2017. "Tenancy and Soil Conservation in Austria: Analysing the Crop Choice of Farmers," 57th Annual Conference, Weihenstephan, Germany, September 13-15, 2017 262006, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    12. Naveen Adusumilli & Hua Wang, 2019. "Conservation Adoption Among Owners and Tenant Farmers in the Southern United States," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-11, March.
    13. Talbot-Jones, Julia & Bennett, Jeff, 2019. "Toward a property rights theory of legal rights for rivers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Pesci, Caterina & Costa, Ericka & Andreaus, Michele, 2020. "Using accountability to shape the common good," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 67.
    15. Rahman, H.M. Tuihedur & Hickey, Gordon M. & Sarker, Swapan Kumar, 2012. "A framework for evaluating collective action and informal institutional dynamics under a resource management policy of decentralization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 32-41.
    16. Caballero, Gonzalo, 2015. "Community-based forest management institutions in the Galician communal forests: A new institutional approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 347-356.
    17. Bartosz Bartkowski & Stephan Bartke, 2018. "Leverage Points for Governing Agricultural Soils: A Review of Empirical Studies of European Farmers’ Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-27, September.
    18. Sami Myyrä & Elise Ketoja & Markku Yli-Halla & Kyöisti Pietola, 2005. "Land Improvements under Land Tenure Insecurity: The Case of pH and Phosphate in Finland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(4).
    19. Gabriel Hoh Teck Ling & Pau Chung Leng & Chin Siong Ho, 2019. "Effects of Diverse Property Rights on Rural Neighbourhood Public Open Space (POS) Governance: Evidence from Sabah, Malaysia," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-33, June.
    20. Sawadgo, Wendiam & Zhang, Wendong & Plastina, Alejandro, 2019. "What drives landowners’ conservation decisions? Evidence from Iowa," ISU General Staff Papers 201905230700001082, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:6:p:1355-1363. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.