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

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 13, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 535-544

  Urquhart, Julie ^a   Courtney, Paul ^a  

^a University of Gloucestershire ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Amenity; Attitudes; Classification; Motivations; Private woodland; Public benefits

Indexed keywords

ADVISORY SERVICES; AMENITY; ATTITUDES; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; CORNWALL; DIVERSE RANGE; ENGLAND; ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION; FOREST POLICY; MARKET MECHANISMS; NATURAL BEAUTY; POLICY OPTIONS; POSTAL SURVEY; PRIVATE WOODLAND; PUBLIC BENEFITS; PUBLIC GOODS; STUDY AREAS;

CONSERVATION; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; FORESTRY;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

CLASSIFICATION; CONSERVATION; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; ENGLAND; FINANCE; FORESTRY; PSYCHOLOGY;

EID: 84860405543     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2011.05.010     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Armstrong J.S., Luske E.J. Return postage in mail surveys: a meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 1987, 51:233-248.
2. Barry J., Proops J. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics 1999, 28:337-345.
3. Becker G., Borchers J., Mutz R. Die Motive der Privatwaldbesitzer in NRW (Eigentumsverbunden und nutzungsorientiert - den meisten ist Wald mehr als Holz). Allgemeine Forst- und Jagd-Zeitung 2000, 22:1180-1183.
4. Bieling C. Non-industrial private forest owners: possibilities for increasing adoption of close-to-nature forest management. European Journal of Forest Research 2004, 123:293-303.
5. Bliss J.C., Martin J.A. Identifying NIPF management motivations with qualitative methods. Forest Science 1989, 35:601-622.
6. Boon T.E., Meilby H. A Forest Owner Typology Based on Forest Management Attitudes, Small-scale Forestry in a Changing Environment, IUFRO Research Group 3.08.00. International Symposium 2005, 30 May-4 June, Vilnius, Lithuania 2005.
7. Boon T.E., Meilby H., Thorsen B.J. An empirically based typology of private forest owners in Denmark: improving communication between authorities and owners. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 2004, Suppl. 4:45-55.
8. Brainard J., Bateman I., Lovett A. Modelling demand for recreation in English woodlands. Forestry 2001, 74:423-438.
9. Church A., Ravenscroft N. Landowner responses to financial incentive schemes for recreational access to woodlands in South East England. Land Use Policy 2008, 25:1-16.
10. Consulting C.J.C. Economic Analysis of the Contribution of the Forest Estate Managed by Forestry Commission Scotland, report for Forestry Commission Scotland 2004, CJC Consulting, Oxford, UK.
11. Davies D. An investigation into the factors determining ruminant livestock distribution in the far south west. University of Plymouth 2001.
12. Davies B.B., Hodge I.D. Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: a Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK. Ecological Economics 2007, 61:323-333.
13. Desselle S.P. Implementing Mail Survey Questionnaires. Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy 2002, 8:157-161.
14. Dhubhain A.N., Chobanova R., Karpinnen H., Mizaraite D., Ritter E., Slee B., Wall S. The values and objectives of private forest owners and their influence on forestry behaviour: the implications for entrepreneurship. Issues affecting enterprise development in the forest sector in Europe, Research Notes 169. University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry 2006, 71-83. A. Niskanen (Ed.).
15. Dickie I., Rayment M. Assessing the Economic Benefits of Forestry in the UK. Paper prepared for the Forestry Commission 2001, RSPB (Ed.).
16. Dillman D.A. Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method 2007, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. Second ed.
17. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis 2006, Pearson Education Inc., New Jersey. Sixth ed.
18. Harrison S., Herbohn J., Niskanen A. Non-industrial, smallholder, small-scale and family forestry: what's in a name?. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy 2002, 1:1-11.
19. Hugosson M., Ingermarson F. Objectives and motivations of small-scale forest owners; modelling and qualitative assessment. Silva Fennica 2004, 38:217-231.
20. Innes J.L. New perspectives in forestry': a basis for a future forest management policy in Great Britain?. Forestry 1993, 66:395-421.
21. Jones S.B., Luloff A.E., Finley J.C. Another look at NIPFs: facing our 'myths'. Journal of Forestry 1995, 93:41-44.
22. Karpinnen H. Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Finland. Silva Fennica 1998, 32:43-59.
23. Klecka W.R. Discriminant analysis 1980, Sage Publications Inc., Newbury Park, Ca.
24. Kline J.D., Alig R.J., Johnson R.L. Fostering the production of non-timber services among forest owners with heterogeneous objectives. Forest Science 2000, 46:302-311.
25. Kula E. The developing framework for the economic evaluation of forestry in the United Kingdom. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1986, 37:365-376.
26. Kurttila M., Hamalainen K., Kajanus M., Pesonen M. Non-industrial private forest owners' attitudes towards the operational environment of forestry - a multinominal logit model analysis. Forest Policy and Economics 2001, 2:13-28.
27. Kurtz W.B., Lewis B.J. Decision-making framework for nonindustrial private forest owners: an application in the Missouri Ozarks. Journal of Forestry 1981, 79:285-288.
28. Kuuluvainen J., Karpinnen H., Ovaskainen V. Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. Forest Science 1996, 42:300-309.
29. Kvarda E. Non-agricultural forest owners' in Austria - a new type of forest ownership. Forest Policy and Economics 2004, 6:459-467.
30. Loenstedt L. Non-industrial private forest owner's decision process: a qualitative study about goals, time perspective, opportunities and alternatives. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 1997, 12:302-310.
31. Lorr M. Cluster analysis for social scientists 1983, Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
32. Marty T.D., Kurtz W.B., Gramann J.H. PNIF owner attitudes in the Midwest: a case study in Missouri and Wisconsin. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 1988, 5:194-197.
33. Matthews J.D. Implementing forest policy in the lowlands of Britain. Forestry 1994, 67:1-12.
34. McKeown B., Thomas B. Q Methodology 1988, Sage Publications Inc., Newbury Park, CA.
35. McLeay F., Martin S., Zwart T. Farm business marketing behaviour and strategic groups in agriculture. Agribusiness 1996, 339-351.
36. Milligan G. An examination of the effect of six types of error pertubation on fifteen clustering algorithms. Psychometrika 1980, 45:325-342.
37. Mizaraite D., Mizaras S. The formation of small-scale forestry in countries with economy in transition: observations from Lithuania. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy 2005, 4:437-450.
38. Pearce D.W. Forestry Expansion - a Study of Technical, Economic and Ecological Factors. Forestry Commission Occasional Paper 1991, 47.
39. Pitt D.J. The fast lane of urban fringe forest economics. Forestry 1992, 65:189-204.
40. Price C. Twenty-five years of cost-benefit analysis in Britain. Forestry 1997, 70:171-189.
41. Ripatti P., Jarvelainen V.P. Forecasting structural change in non-industrial private forest ownership in Finland. Scandinavian Forest Economics 1997, 36:215-230.
42. Schraml U., Memmler M. The farmer never dies - classification of private forest owners, small-scale forestry in a changing environment, IUFRO Research Group 3.08.00. International Symposium 2005 Conference proceedings, 30 May-4 June 2005, Vilnius, Lithuania 2005, 208-216.
43. Selman P. The role of forestry in meeting planning objectives. Land Use Policy 1997, 14:55-73.
44. Serbruyns I., Luyssaert S. Acceptance of sticks, carrots and sermons as policy instruments for directing private forest management. Forest Policy and Economics 2006, 9:285-296.
45. Sime J.D., Speller G.M., Dibben C. Research into the attitudes of owners and managers to people visiting woodlands. Report prepared for the Forestry Commission by Jonathan Sime Associates, Godalming 1993.
46. Suda M., Beck R., Schaffner S. Kleinprivatwaldsorschung - quo vadis?, Paper presented to 33. Meeting of Forest Policy Scientists, 4-6 April 2001, Hann. Munden, Germany 2001.
47. Tabachnick B.G., Fidell L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics 2001, Pearson Education Inc., Boston, MA, USA.
48. Tacq J. Multivariate analysis techniques in social science research 1997, Sage Publications Ltd, London.
49. Tornqvist, T., 1995. Skogsrikets arvingar. Dept of Forest-Industry Market Studies, Dissertation, Swedish University of Agriculatural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, pp. Report no. 41, 442 p.
50. Tsourgiannis L. The marketing strategies of livestock enterprises in Objective One Regions: a comparative study between Greece and United Kingdom. University of Plymouth 2007.
51. Urquhart J., Courtney P., Slee B. Private ownership and public good provision in English woodlands. Small-scale Forestry, online first 2009.
52. Volz R., Bieling C. Zur Soziologie des Kleinprivatwaldes. Forst & Holz 1998, 3:67-71.
53. Von Mutz R., Borchers J., Becker G. Forstliches engagement und forstliches engagmentpontenzial von privatwaldbsizern in nordrhein-westfalen - analyse auf der basis des mixed-rasch-models. Forstwissenschaftliches Cetralblatt 2002, 121:35-48.
54. Warner R.M. Applied Statistics 2008, Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, Ca.
55. Whiteman A. An analysis of forest visitor numbers using household surveys 1987-1991 1991, Research information note, Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.
56. Wiersum K.F., Elands B.H.M., Hoogstra M.A. Small-scale forest ownership across Europe: characteristics and future potential. Small-scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy 2005, 4:1-19.
57. Willis K.G., Garrod G., Scarpa R., Powe N., Lovett A., Bateman I.J., Hanley N., Macmillan D.C. The social and environmental benefits of forests in Great Britain. Report to the Forestry Commission, Edinburgh 2003.
58. Ziegenspeck S., Hardter U., Schraml U. Lifestyles of private forest owners as an indication of social change. Forest Policy and Economics 2004, 6:447-448.