IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v114y2022ics0264837721006529.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why understanding stakeholder perspectives and emotions is important in upland woodland creation – A case study from Cumbria, UK

Author

Listed:
  • Iversen, Sara V.
  • Naomi, van der Velden
  • Convery, Ian
  • Mansfield, Lois
  • Holt, Claire D.S.

Abstract

Upland regions in the United Kingdom (UK) are increasingly under consideration as potential areas for the creation of woodlands. This is driven by a combination of factors, including the aims of UK forestry and environmental policy to increase woodland cover, meeting international greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, agro-environment schemes in national and international policy, and an increasing public awareness of the ecosystem service benefits landscapes can deliver for society. Creating new woodlands in upland areas is challenging, partly due to concerns of the potential impacts from a change in land use and due to stakeholder perspectives. In the UK, the upland landscape is in multiple ownership and currently managed by multiple land managers and stakeholders with contrasting aims and objectives. This research adds a much-needed qualitative element to the overall understanding of this complex topic, by carrying out a Q-methodology investigation of stakeholder perspectives of upland woodland creation. Three characteristic groups of stakeholders are identified as 1. ‘Not enough is done to protect the environment’, 2. ‘Changing the landscape is changing us’ and 3. ‘let’s not let our emotions get in the – seeing the bigger picture’. The clear potential for antagonism, and even conflict, in ideologies and approaches between these groups highlights the importance of engaging with stakeholders and employing approaches rooted in mutual understanding, participation and collaboration. Stakeholder perspectives are a powerful influence on if, and how, woodlands are created and maintained, thus understanding emotions and attitudes is a vitally important part of the challenge of creating new woodlands in the uplands of Cumbria.

Suggested Citation

  • Iversen, Sara V. & Naomi, van der Velden & Convery, Ian & Mansfield, Lois & Holt, Claire D.S., 2022. "Why understanding stakeholder perspectives and emotions is important in upland woodland creation – A case study from Cumbria, UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:114:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721006529
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105929
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721006529
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105929?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Walder, Peter & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2018. "The Environmental Behaviour of Farmers – Capturing the Diversity of Perspectives with a Q Methodological Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 55-63.
    2. Bredin, Yennie K. & Lindhjem, Henrik & van Dijk, Jiska & Linnell, John D.C., 2015. "Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 198-206.
    3. Dempsey, Benedict, 2021. "Understanding conflicting views in conservation: An analysis of England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    4. S. Andrew Predmore & Marc Stern & Michael Mortimer, 2011. "Constructing the public: the 'substantive sieve' and personal norms in US Forest Service Planning," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 403-419.
    5. Olivia FitzGerald & Catherine Matilda Collins & Clive Potter, 2021. "Woodland Expansion in Upland National Parks: An Analysis of Stakeholder Views and Understanding in the Dartmoor National Park, UK," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Hennie Boeije, 2002. "A Purposeful Approach to the Constant Comparative Method in the Analysis of Qualitative Interviews," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 391-409, November.
    7. de Groot, Rudolf & Brander, Luke & van der Ploeg, Sander & Costanza, Robert & Bernard, Florence & Braat, Leon & Christie, Mike & Crossman, Neville & Ghermandi, Andrea & Hein, Lars & Hussain, Salman & , 2012. "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 50-61.
    8. Henry Kaiser, 1958. "The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 23(3), pages 187-200, September.
    9. Kenter, Jasper O. & O'Brien, Liz & Hockley, Neal & Ravenscroft, Neil & Fazey, Ioan & Irvine, Katherine N. & Reed, Mark S. & Christie, Michael & Brady, Emily & Bryce, Rosalind & Church, Andrew & Cooper, 2015. "What are shared and social values of ecosystems?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 86-99.
    10. Langpap, Christian, 2006. "Conservation of endangered species: Can incentives work for private landowners?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 558-572, June.
    11. Atanu Sengupta & Sanjoy De, 2020. "Review of Literature," India Studies in Business and Economics, in: Assessing Performance of Banks in India Fifty Years After Nationalization, chapter 0, pages 15-30, Springer.
    12. Nazmul Huq & Alexander Stubbings, 2015. "How is the Role of Ecosystem Services Considered in Local Level Flood Management Policies: Case Study in Cumbria, England," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1-29, December.
    13. Buijs, Arjen & Lawrence, Anna, 2013. "Emotional conflicts in rational forestry: Towards a research agenda for understanding emotions in environmental conflicts," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 104-111.
    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. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chr, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    2. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Stålhammar, Sanna, 2021. "Polarised views of urban biodiversity and the role of socio-cultural valuation: Lessons from Cape Town," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    4. Juan F. Velasco-Muñoz & José A. Aznar-Sánchez & Marina Schoenemann & Belén López-Felices, 2022. "An Analysis of the Worldwide Research on the Socio-Cultural Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-22, February.
    5. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri & Barton, David N. & Geneletti, Davide & Langemeyer, Johannes & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Marttunen, Mika & Antunes, Paula & Keune, Hans & Santos, Rui, 2016. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 238-249.
    6. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    7. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    8. Folkersen, Maja Vinde, 2018. "Ecosystem valuation: Changing discourse in a time of climate change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 1-12.
    9. Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Figuières, Charles & Simier, Monique & De Wit, Rutger, 2021. "The impact of academic information supply and familiarity on preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    10. Bonhomme, Stphane & Robin, Jean-Marc, 2009. "Consistent noisy independent component analysis," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 149(1), pages 12-25, April.
    11. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    12. Fernando Castelló-Sirvent & Pablo Pinazo-Dallenbach, 2021. "Corruption Shock in Mexico: fsQCA Analysis of Entrepreneurial Intention in University Students," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(14), pages 1-31, July.
    13. Bergstén, Sabina & Stjernström, Olof & Pettersson, Örjan, 2018. "Experiences and emotions among private forest owners versus public interests: Why ownership matters," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 801-811.
    14. Qu, Yang & Hooper, Tara & Austen, Melanie C. & Papathanasopoulou, Eleni & Huang, Junling & Yan, Xiaoyu, 2023. "Development of a computable general equilibrium model based on integrated macroeconomic framework for ocean multi-use between offshore wind farms and fishing activities in Scotland," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 332(C).
    15. Rodríguez-Fuentes, Carlos Javier & Hernández-López, Montserrat, 1997. "Análisis de diferencias estructurales interregionales determinantes en el impacto de la política monetaria," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 7, pages 141-157, Junio.
    16. Ivaldi, Enrico, 2013. "Proposal of a country risk index based on a factorial analysis - Una proposta di indice di rischio paese basato sull’analisi fattoriale: una applicazione ai paesi del sud del Mediterraneo e ai paesi d," Economia Internazionale / International Economics, Camera di Commercio Industria Artigianato Agricoltura di Genova, vol. 66(2), pages 231-249.
    17. Cristina Blasi Casagran & Colleen Boland & Elena Sánchez-Montijano & Eva Vilà Sanchez, 2021. "The Role of Emerging Predictive IT Tools in Effective Migration Governance," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 133-145.
    18. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    19. De Nicola, Arianna & Gitto, Simone & Mancuso, Paolo, 2013. "Airport quality and productivity changes: A Malmquist index decomposition assessment," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 67-75.
    20. Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Ros & Church, Andrew, 2016. "Deliberative Democratic Monetary Valuation to implement the Ecosystem Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 308-318.

    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:lauspo:v:114:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721006529. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.