Using Mixed Methods to Develop a Frame-Based Private Landowner Typology

Society and Natural Resources

Volumn 26, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 945-961

  Jansujwicz, Jessica S ^a   Calhoun, Aram J K ^a   Leahy, Jessica E ^a   Lilieholm, Robert J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

Author keywords

community based conservation planning; framing; landowner typology; private land; vernal pools

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION PLANNING; DECISION MAKING; IDENTIFICATION METHOD; LANDOWNER; PRIVATE LAND; PROPERTY RIGHTS; STAKEHOLDER; TYPOLOGY;

MAINE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84880052629     PISSN: 08941920     EISSN: 15210723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2012.729294     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Boon, T. E., and H. Meilby. 2007. Describing management attitudes to guide forest policy implementation. Small-Scale For. 6: 79 - 92.
2. Brook, A., M. Zint, and R. De Young. 2003. Landowners' responses to an Endangered Species Act listing and implications for encouraging conservation. Conserv. Biol. 17 (6): 1638 - 1649.
3. Brugnach, M., A. Dewulf, C. Pahl-Wostl, and T. Taillieu. 2008. Towards a relational concept of uncertainty: About knowing too little, knowing too differently and accepting not to know. Ecology and Society 13 (2). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art30
4. Burns, M., and A. S. Cheng. 2007. Framing the need for active management for wildlife mitigation and forest restoration. Society Nat. Resources 20: 245 - 259.
5. Calhoun, A. J. K., and P. G. deMaynadier, eds. 2008. Science and conservation of vernal pools in the northeastern United States. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
6. Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research design: Qualitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Davis, M. L. E., and J. M. Fly. 2010. Do you hear what I hear: Better understanding how forest management is conceptualized and practiced by private forest landowners. J. For. 108: 321 - 328.
8. Dewulf, A., M. Craps, and G. Dercon. 2004. How issues get framed and reframed when different communities meet. A multi-level analysis of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes. J. Commun. Appl. Social Psychol. 14: 177 - 192.
9. Dewulf, A., B. Gray, R. Lewicki, L. Putnam, N. Aarts, R. Bouwen, and C. van Woerkum. 2009. Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: Mapping the terrain. Hum. Relations 62 (2): 155 - 193.
10. Dillman, D. A., J. D. Smyth, and L. M. Christian. 2009. Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
11. Emtage, N., J. Herbohn, and S. Harrison. 2006. Landholder typologies used in the development of natural resource management programs in Australia-A review. Australasian J. Environ. Manage. 13 (2): 79 - 94.
12. Erickson, D. L., and R. DeYoung. 1993. Management of farm woodlots and windbreaks: Some psychological and landscape patterns. J. Environ. Systems 22: 233 - 247.
13. Finley, A. O., and D. B. Kittredge, Jr. 2006. Thoreau, Muir, and Jane Doe: Different types of private forest owners need different kinds of forest management. Northern J. Appl. For. 23 (1): 27 - 34.
14. Fischer, A. P., and J. C. Bliss. 2009. Framing conservation on private lands: Conserving oak in Oregon's Willamette Valley. Society Nat. Resources 22: 884 - 900.
15. Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
16. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
17. Gray, B. 2003. Framing of environmental disputes. In Making sense of environmental disputes: Concepts and cases, ed. R. J. Lewicki, B. Gray, and M. Elliott, 11 - 34. Washington, DC: Island Press.
18. Gray, B. 2004. Strong opposition: Frame-based resistance to collaboration. J. Commun. Appl. Psychol. 3: 166 - 176.
19. Groffman, P. M., C. Styliniski, M. C. Nisbet, M. Duarte, R. Jordan, A. Burgin, M. A. Prentali, and J. Coloso. 2010. Restarting the conversation: Challenges at the interface between ecology and society. Front. Ecol. Environ. 8 (6): 284 - 291.
20. Hogl, K., M. Pregernig, and G. Weiss. 2005. What is new about new forest owners? A typology of private forest ownership in Austria. Small-Scale For. Econ. Policy 4 (3): 325 - 342.
21. Jennings, S. M., and I. E. van Putten. 2006. Typology of non-industrial private forest owners in Tasmania. Small-Scale Forest Econ. Manage. Policy 5 (1): 37 - 56.
22. Jick, T. D. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Admin. Sci. Q. 24:60-611.
23. Karppinen, H. 1998. Values and objectives of non-industrial private forest owners in Sweden. Silva Fenn. 32 (1): 43 - 59.
24. Kittredge, D. B. 2004. Extension/outreach implications for America's family forest owners. J. For. 102 (7): 15 - 18.
25. Kline, J. D., R. J. Alig, and R. L. Johnson. 2000. Fostering the production of nontimber services among forest owners with heterogeneous objectives. For. Sci. 46: 302 - 311.
26. Kuuluvainen, J., H. Karppinen, and V. Ovaskainen. 1996. Landowner objectives and non-industrial private timber supply. For. Sci. 42 (3): 300 - 309.
27. Lakoff, G. 2010. Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environ. Commun. 4 (1): 70 - 81.
28. Lewicki, R. J., B. Gray, and M. Elliott, eds. 2003. Making sense of intractable environmental conflict. Washington, DC: Island Press.
29. Madsen, L. M. 2003. New woodlands in Denmark: The role of private landowners. Urban For. Urban Greening 1 (3): 185 - 195.
30. Merriam, S. B. 2009. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
31. Minsky, M. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In The psychology of computer vision, ed. P. H. Winston, 211 - 277. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
32. Morgan, D. E., and J. K. Calhoun. 2012. The Maine municipal guide to mapping and conserving vernal pools. Gilsland, Maine: Maine Audubon Society.
33. Napier, T. L., and S. M. Camboni 1998. Attitudes toward a proposed soil conservation program. J. Soil Water Conserv. 43: 186 - 191.
34. Neale, M. A., and M. H. Bazerman. 1985. The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Acad. Manage. J. 28: 34 - 49.
35. Nisbet, M. C., and D. A. Scheufele. 2009. What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am. J. Bot. 96 (10): 1767 - 1778.
36. Reading, R. P., T. W. Clark, and S. R. Kellert. 1994. Attitudes and knowledge of people living in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Society Nat. Resources 7: 349 - 365.
37. Rosenberg, S., and R. D. Margerum. 2008. Landowner motivations for watershed restoration: Lessons from five watersheds. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 51 (4): 477 - 496.
38. Schön, D. A., and M. Rein. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy conflicts. New York, NY: Basic Books.
39. Strauss, A. C., and J. M. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453 - 458.
41. Van Herzele, A., and P. Van Gossum. 2008. Typology building for owner-specific policies and communications to advance forest conversion in small pine plantations. Landscape Urban Plan. 87: 201 - 209.
42. van Lieshout, M., A. Dewulf, N. Aarts, and C. Termeer. 2011. Do scale frames matter? Scale frame mismatches in the decision making process of a "mega farm" in a small Dutch village. Ecol. Society 16 (1): 38. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art38
43. Vincent, S. G., and T. E. Shriver. 2009. Framing contests in environmental decision-making: A case study of the tar creek (Oklahoma) Superfund site. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 5 (2): 164 - 178.