Private woodland owners’ perspectives on multifunctionality in English woodlands

Urquhart, Julie; Courtney, Paul; Slee, Bill

doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.08.006

Cited by 57 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, while Q-methodology has the benefit of providing statistically significant results without requiring a large sample population, a small sample size can also mean that the results cannot be seen as statistically representative of the whole population (Doody et al, 2009). However, while it cannot be used to determine exactly what proportion of the population hold a particular view, Q-methodology provides an accurate reflection of the different perspectives that exist within the population and the differences that exist between stakeholder groups (Urquhart et al, 2012). The initial uses of Q-methodology were predominantly in social sciences, however its use in the assessment of opinions on environmental management and policy has become more frequent (Addams and Proops, 2000;Brodt et al, 2006;Frantzi et al, 2009;Guimaraes, 2009;Urquhart et al, 2012;Visser et al, 2007).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder perceptions of recreational and management impacts on protected coastal dune systems: A comparison of three European countries

Kindermann

Gormally

2013

Land Use Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder perceptions of recreational and management impacts on protected coastal dune systems: A comparison of three European countries

Kindermann

Gormally

2013

Land Use Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For instance, we dropped the definition "using pesticides to keep insects from harming plants or trees" (Steiner Davis and Fly 2010:323) because the use of pesticides in forests is prohibited in Slovenia. We also included statements that resembled owner management objectives recognized in private forest owner typologies (Dhubháin et al 2008, Urquhart et al 2012, assuming substantial association between individual representation of forest management and his or her behavior.…”

Section: Survey Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest owner representation of forest management and perception of resource efficiency: a structural equation modeling study

Ficko¹,

Bončina²

2015

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Underuse of nonindustrial private forests in developed countries has been interpreted mostly as a consequence of the prevailing noncommodity objectives of their owners. Recent empirical studies have indicated a correlation between the harvesting behavior of forest owners and the specific conceptualization of appropriate forest management described as "nonintervention" or "hands-off " management. We aimed to fill the huge gap in knowledge of social representations of forest management in Europe and are the first to be so rigorous in eliciting forest owner representations in Europe. We conducted 3099 telephone interviews with randomly selected forest owners in Slovenia, asking them whether they thought they managed their forest efficiently, what the possible reasons for underuse were, and what they understood by forest management. Building on social representations theory and applying a series of structural equation models, we tested the existence of three latent constructs of forest management and estimated whether and how much these constructs correlated to the perception of resource efficiency. Forest owners conceptualized forest management as a mixture of maintenance and ecosystem-centered and economics-centered management. None of the representations had a strong association with the perception of resource efficiency, nor could it be considered a factor preventing forest owners from cutting more. The underuse of wood resources was mostly because of biophysical constraints in the environment and not a deep-seated philosophical objection to harvesting. The difference between our findings and other empirical studies is primarily explained by historical differences in forestland ownership in different parts of Europe and the United States, the rising number of nonresidential owners, alternative lifestyle, and environmental protectionism, but also as a consequence of our high methodological rigor in testing the relationships between the constructs. We suggest developing natural resource management concepts that emphasize forests not just as ecosystems, but as socialecological systems.

show abstract

“…The management of forests, and ultimately of the economic, social and ecological utilities they produce (MA 2003), is thus largely determined by non-industrial private forest owners-henceforth referred to as NIPF owners. Previous studies (Boon et al 2004;Wiersum et al 2005;Ingemarson et al 2006;Ní Dhubháin et al 2007;Urquhart and Courtney 2011;Urquhart et al 2012) have shown that NIPF owners make up an increasingly heterogeneous group, that their approaches to forest management tend to differ across different sub-groups (Lindroos et al 2005;Ingemarson et al 2006;Nordlund and Westin 2011;Urquhart and Courtney 2011), and that they are increasingly influenced by other activities than traditional timber production (Lien et al 2007). Therefore, changes within the group of forest owners can be expected to have consequences on the use and management of forests (MA 2003;Haugen 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Forest Owners: Change and Continuity in the Characteristics of Swedish Non-industrial Private Forest Owners (NIPF Owners) 1990–2010

Haugen

Karlsson

Westin

2016

Small-scale Forestry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a total survey of the characteristics and changes over time within the entire population of Swedish non-industrial private forest owners (NIPF owners). By charting the changed demographic, socio-economic and geographic profile of the NIPF owners, it also provides a baseline for a discussion and analysis of potential implications for forest management, policy and values. NIPF owners differ in important ways from the general population of Sweden. However, the gap has narrowed over time with regard to, e.g., educational level and sex composition. The ongoing urbanization process is evident in the growing share of non-residential NIPF owners who live at a distance from their forest property and who differ from their residential (rural) peers through, e.g., higher education, higher income and a higher prevalence of co-ownership of their forest holdings. Although these changes might translate into updated views on forest values among NIPF owners, there could be a delay before this impacts on forest management practices and output.

show abstract

Private woodland owners’ perspectives on multifunctionality in English woodlands

Cited by 57 publications

References 63 publications

Stakeholder perceptions of recreational and management impacts on protected coastal dune systems: A comparison of three European countries

Stakeholder perceptions of recreational and management impacts on protected coastal dune systems: A comparison of three European countries

Forest owner representation of forest management and perception of resource efficiency: a structural equation modeling study

New Forest Owners: Change and Continuity in the Characteristics of Swedish Non-industrial Private Forest Owners (NIPF Owners) 1990–2010

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About