OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Urquhart, Julie
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: SD, S900_Conservation
Public goods such as environmental conservation, amenity and carbon sequestration are increasingly\ud emphasised in forest policy agendas. However, many public benefits in woodlands have occurred\ud incidentally, rather than on the basis of socio-economic logic and often at locations relatively\ud inaccessible to major centres of population. In fact, data reveal a concentration of privately owned\ud woodland in densely populated areas, especially in central and southern England, and that woodland is\ud often factored into residential location decisions and lifestyle behaviours. However, the provision of\ud public goods is likely to be contingent on the value systems of private forest and woodland owners and\ud their flexibility of response to measures promoted under the devolved forest strategies.\ud A combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods were employed to construct a robust\ud typology of private woodland owners with respect to their willingness and ability to deliver public good\ud benefits in three study areas in England: the Lake District, Cornwall and the High Weald AONB.\ud Building on an exploratory scoping study, Q Methodology interviews were conducted with 10 woodland\ud owners in each study area, followed by a self-completion survey, administered using Dillman's Total\ud Design Method. Data from 600 woodland owners was subjected to a Factor and Cluster Analysis, with\ud the emergent model validated using Discriminant Analysis.\ud Six discrete private woodland owner types were revealed: Individualists, Multifunctional Owners,\ud Private Consumers, Conservationists, Investors and Amenity Owners. Important distinctions between\ud owner groups are associated with the likely provision of particular benefits and disbenefits, and the\ud classification suggests that a move from a production versus consumption/protection framework to one\ud that includes intersecting goals may be more appropriate. Policy implications are discussed to facilitate\ud use of the typology in targeting particular woodland owner groups with more nuanced policy\ud mechanisms, including incentive schemes, market mechanisms and advisory services.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 60 Adams, H. and Proops, J.L.R, 2001. Social Discourse and Environmental Policy: An Application of Q Methodology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
    • Ammenwerth, E., Iller, C. and Mansmann, U., 2003. Can evaluation studies benefit from triangulation? Internstionsl Journsl of Medicsllnformstics 70, pp. 237-248.
    • Anderson, L.M. and Cordell, H.K., 1988. Influence of trees on residential property values in Athens, Georgia (U.S.A.): A survey based on actual sales prices. Landscape and Urban Planning 15,1-2, pp. 153-164.
    • AONB, 2009. The Woodland Story, Retrieved 3rd February 2009, from http://www.highweald.org/text.asp?Pageld=257.
    • AONB, H.W., 2007. Facts and figures, 3rd February 2009, from http://www.highweald.org.
    • Argent, N., 2002. From pillar to post? In search of the postproductivist countryside in Australia.
    • Australian Geographer 33, 1, pp. 97-114.
    • Ann strong , J.S. and Luske, E.J., 1987. Return postage in mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 51, pp. 233-248.
    • AWl, 2002. Ancient woodland inventory, http://www.magic.gov.uklinfo/awreadme.html.
    • Ayres, RU., van den Bergh, C.J.M. and Gowdy, J.M., 2001. Strong versus weak sustainability: economic, natural sciences, and "consilience". Environmental Ethics 23, 2, pp. 155-168.
    • Blau, P. M., 1964. Exchange and power in social life. Wiley, New York.
    • Bliss, J.C. and Martin, J.A., 1989. Identifying NIPF management motivations with qualitative methods. Forest Science 35, 2, pp. 601 ~22.
    • Bloor, D., 1999. Anti-Latour. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 30, pp. 81-112.
    • Bolland, J.M., 1985. The search for structure: An alternative to the forced Q┬Ěsort technique.
    • Political Methodlogy 11, pp. 91-107.
    • Boon, T.E. and Meilby, H., 2004. Relations between owner characteristics and forest ownership objectives, Human Dimensions of Family, Farm and Community Forestry Intemational Symposium, 29 March-1 ApriI2004, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
    • Boon, T.E. and Meilby, H., 2005. A Forest Owner Typology Based on Forest Management Attitudes. Small-scale Forestry in a Changing Environment, IUFRO Research Group 3.08.00, Intemational Symposium 2005.30 May-4 June, Vilnius, Lithuania.
    • Boon, T.E., Meilby, H. and Thorsen, B.J., 2004. An Empirically Based Typology of Private Forest Owners in Denmark: Improving Communication Between Authorities and Owners.
    • Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research Suppl. 4, pp. 45-55.
    • Bowler, I., 1992. Sustainable agriculture as an alternative path of farm business development.
    • In: Bowler, I.R, Bryant, C.R, Nellis, M.D., (Eds.), Contemporary Rural Systems in Transition, vol. 1, Agriculture and Environment. CAB Intemational, Wallingford. 237-253.
    • Bowler, I. and IIbery, B., 1999. Agricultural land-use and landscape change under the postproductivist transition-examples from the United Kingdom. In: Kroenert, R, Baudry, J., Bowler, I., Reenberg, A., (Eds.), Land-use Changes and their Environmental Impact in Rural Areas in Europe. The Parthenon Publishing Group, Paris. 121-140.
    • Brainard, J., Bateman, I. and Lovett, A., 2001. Modelling demand for recreation in English woodlands. Forestry 74,5, pp. 423-438.
    • Brainard, J., Lovett, A. and Bateman, 1.,2003. Carbon Sequestration Benefits of Woodland.
    • Social & Environmental Benefits of Forestry Phase 2. Edinburgh, Report to the Forestry Commission, Centre for Research in Environmental Appraisal and Management, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
    • Brannan, J., (Ed.) 1992. Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Avebury, Aldershot.
    • Broadmeadow, M. and Matthews, R, 2003. FOf8sts, Carbon and Climate Change: the UK Contribution. Edinburgh, Information Note: FCIN48, Forestry Commission.
    • Brown, S.R, 1980. Political Subjectivity. Yale University Press, New Haven.
    • Brown, S.R, 1986. Q tsctmique and method. In: Berry, W.O., Lewis.B9Ck, M.S., (Eds.), New Tools for Social Scientists. Sage Publications Inc., Beverley Hills, CA.
    • Bryman, A., 1988. Quantity and Quality in Social Research. Routledge, London.
    • Bulmer, M., 1984. Sociological Research Methods: an Introduction. Macmillan, London.
    • Burgess, J., 1995. The ambiguity of woodland landscapes. In: Coles, RW., Bussey, S.C., Heslegrave, W.E., (Eds.), Community Forest in an Urban Context. Urban and Community Forestry Research Group, University of Central England, Birmingham, UK. 39-43.
    • Bumingham, K. and Cooper, G., 1999. Being constructive: Social constructionism and the Defra, 2006b. Agricultural and Horticultural Census. York, Defra.
    • Defra, 2007a. A Strategy for England's Trees, Woods and Forests. Defra.
    • FC, 2009c. Public Opinion of Forestry 2009: England. Edinburgh, Forestry Commission.
    • Government, H., 2006. Climate Change: The UK Programme 2006, Crown copyright.
    • Groves, RM., Cialdini, R and Couper, M.P., 1992. Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 56, pp. 475-495.
    • Gulland, A., 2007. Santuaries for sale. The Guardian. London.
    • Gunter, P.A.Y., 1996. Process-Relational Philosophy: The Raw Unabashed Cash Value of a Mere Metaphysical Speculation. In: (Eds.) Burch, RW.S., H.J., (Ed.), Frontiers in American Philosophy. A&M University Press, College Station, Texas, USA. 11,277-282.
    • Hacking, I., 1999. The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press, London.
    • Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, RE. and Tatham, RL., 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Education Inc., New Jersey.
    • Jones, S.B., Luloff, A.E. and Finley, J.C., 1995. Another look at NIPFs: facing our 'myths'.
    • Journal of Forestry 93, 9, pp. 41-44.
    • McGuire, M., 1987. Public goods. In: Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., Newman, P., (Eds.), The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. Macmillian Press, london. 454.
    • Schmolck, P., 2002. PQMethod Manual, Retrieved March, 2008, from http://www.rzIunibwmuenchen. de/-p41 bsmklgmethod/pgmanual. htm.
    • Woodlandowner.org, 2007. www.woodlandowner.org.uklwoodland-for-sale.htm.
    • February, 2008.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok