IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v13y2011i7p535-544.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Seeing the owner behind the trees: A typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England

Author

Listed:
  • Urquhart, Julie
  • Courtney, Paul

Abstract

The diversity of woodland ownership in England has increased in recent decades to encompass a wide range of non-financially-oriented owners, many with little previous experience of woodland management. With public benefits such as environmental conservation, amenity and carbon sequestration being increasingly emphasised in forest policy agendas, there is a need to understand the willingness and ability of traditional and new owner groups to deliver such benefits. A quantitative typology of private woodland owners was developed through a self-completion postal survey administered in three study areas in England: the Lake District, Cornwall and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Owners were classified using Factor, Cluster and Discriminant analysis into six owner types: the Individualist, the Multifunctional Owner, the Private Consumer, the Conservationist, the Investor and the Amenity Owner. Of all owner types, Multifunctional Owners are the most likely to deliver a range of public benefits, while Individualists are the least amenable to subsidies to encourage public good delivery. A range of policy options will be required to reflect to diverse range of objectives and goals of woodland owners, including advisory services, incentives and market mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Urquhart, Julie & Courtney, Paul, 2011. "Seeing the owner behind the trees: A typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(7), pages 535-544, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:13:y:2011:i:7:p:535-544
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934111000785
    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. Fraser McLeay & Sandra Martin & Tony Zwart, 1996. "Farm business marketing behavior and strategic groups in agriculture," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 339-351.
    2. Armstrong, J. Scott & Lusk, Edward J., 1987. "Return Postage in Mail Surveys: A Meta Analysis," MPRA Paper 81693, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Davies, B.B. & Hodge, I.D., 2007. "Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 323-333, March.
    4. Glenn Milligan, 1980. "An examination of the effect of six types of error perturbation on fifteen clustering algorithms," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 45(3), pages 325-342, September.
    5. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    6. Ziegenspeck, Svantje & Hardter, Ulf & Schraml, Ulrich, 2004. "Lifestyles of private forest owners as an indication of social change," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(5), pages 447-458, August.
    7. Kvarda, Mag. Eva, 2004. "`Non-agricultural forest owners' in Austria - a new type of forest ownership," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(5), pages 459-467, August.
    8. Kurttila, Mikko & Hamalainen, Kari & Kajanus, Miika & Pesonen, Mauno, 2001. "Non-industrial private forest owners' attitudes towards the operational environment of forestry -- a multinominal logit model analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 13-28, April.
    9. Serbruyns, Inge & Luyssaert, Sebastiaan, 2006. "Acceptance of sticks, carrots and sermons as policy instruments for directing private forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 285-296, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ficko, Andrej & Lidestav, Gun & Ní Dhubháin, Áine & Karppinen, Heimo & Zivojinovic, Ivana & Westin, Kerstin, 2019. "European private forest owner typologies: A review of methods and use," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 21-31.
    2. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    3. Fabra-Crespo, M. & Rojas-Briales, E., 2015. "Comparative analysis on the communication strategies of the forest owners' associations in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 20-30.
    4. S. Martin & F. McLeay, 1998. "The Diversity of Farmers' Risk Management Strategies in a Deregulated New Zealand Environment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(2), pages 218-233, June.
    5. Clare Hall & Anita Wreford, 2012. "Adaptation to climate change: the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 207-222, February.
    6. Ní Dhubháin, Áine & Maguire, Karl & Farrelly, Niall, 2010. "The harvesting behaviour of Irish private forest owners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(7), pages 513-517, September.
    7. Pauline Pedehour & Marianne Lefebvre, 2023. "Combining digital technologies and incentives for water conservation: A Q-method study to understand preferences of French irrigators," Post-Print hal-04626643, HAL.
    8. Winkler, Klara J. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2016. "More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 86-98.
    9. Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Philippa & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2015. "Identifying viewpoints on innovation in low-input and organic dairy supply chains: A Q-methodological study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 25-34.
    10. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    12. Hermelingmeier, Verena & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2017. "Identifying Five Different Perspectives on the Ecosystem Services Concept Using Q Methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 255-265.
    13. Ghoochani Omid M. & Bakhshi Azadeh & Cotton Matthew & Nejad Azar Hashemi & Ghanian Mansour, 2015. "Environmental values in the petrochemical industry: A Q-method study in South West Iran," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 3(4), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.
    15. Davies, Ben B. & Hodge, Ian D., 2012. "Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 51-57.
    16. Novais, Ana & Canadas, Maria João, 2010. "Understanding the management logic of private forest owners: A new approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 173-180, March.
    17. Turhan, Ethemcan, 2016. "Value-based adaptation to climate change and divergent developmentalisms in Turkish agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 140-148.
    18. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    19. Vecchio, Yari & Di Pasquale, Jorgelina & Del Giudice, Teresa & Pauselli, Gregorio & Masi, Margherita & Adinolfi, Felice, 2022. "Precision farming: what do Italian farmers really think? An application of the Q methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    20. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).

    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:forpol:v:13:y:2011:i:7:p:535-544. 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/forpol .

    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.