IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Property rights in UK uplands and the implications for policy and management


  • Quinn, C.H.
  • Fraser, E.D.G.
  • Hubacek, K.
  • Reed, M.S.


Rural areas are subject to changing and often competing demands. Where agricultural production was once paramount, it now competes with other ecosystem services such as carbon storage, rural amenity, and wildlife habitat. If rural areas are to be managed to produce this broad range of goods and services, then more diverse and complex management regimes are needed. This paper explores the literature on property rights before using a 'property rights bundle' approach in the UK uplands to (1) examine the distribution of property rights between stakeholders in a multi-resource system and (2) evaluate the effect of state intervention on the redistribution of property rights and the resulting management regimes. Private land owners were found to be the dominant type of property rights holder and private property the dominant management regime in the uplands of the UK. Government intervention has also created private-state regimes for some public goods such as biodiversity but common property management is still in its infancy with regards to ecosystem services and few stakeholders have claimant rights over resources. As a result, many stakeholders are unable to influence management to produce the goods that they want. A property rights perspective highlights that single management regimes alone are unlikely to manage land sustainably for both private and public goods. Instead, a complex mix of private, private-state and common property regimes are found to be emerging in this multi-resource system. These mixed management regimes have the potential to produce sustainable outcomes but only if the appropriate management regime is matched to each resource, if links are developed between each regime to deal with conflict and if mixed management is adaptable enough to cope with new and changing demands.

Suggested Citation

  • Quinn, C.H. & Fraser, E.D.G. & Hubacek, K. & Reed, M.S., 2010. "Property rights in UK uplands and the implications for policy and management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1355-1363, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:6:p:1355-1363

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Demsetz, Harold, 2002. "Toward a Theory of Property Rights II: The Competition between Private and Collective Ownership," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 653-672, June.
    2. Meredith J. Soule & Abebayehu Tegene & Keith D. Wiebe, 2000. "Land Tenure and the Adoption of Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 993-1005.
    3. Yandle, Tracy, 2003. "The challenge of building successful stakeholder organizations: New Zealand's experience in developing a fisheries co-management regime," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 179-192, March.
    4. Ahmed, Irina & Deaton, B. James & Sarker, Rakhal & Virani, Tasneem, 2008. "Wetland ownership and management in a common property resource setting: A case study of Hakaluki Haor in Bangladesh," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 429-436, December.
    5. A. J. Dougill & E. D. G. Fraser & J. Holden & K. Hubacek & C. Prell & M. S. Reed & S. Stagl & L. C. Stringer, 2006. "Learning from Doing Participatory Rural Research: Lessons from the Peak District National Park," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 259-275, July.
    6. Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
    7. Kabubo-Mariara, Jane, 2007. "Land conservation and tenure security in Kenya: Boserup's hypothesis revisited," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 25-35, October.
    8. Gluck, Peter, 2002. "Property rights and multipurpose mountain forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 125-134, June.
    9. R. Quentin Grafton, 2000. "Governance of the Commons: A Role for the State?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(4), pages 504-517.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    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:ecolec:v:69:y:2010:i:6:p:1355-1363. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.