Advertisement

Small-scale Forestry

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 257–271 | Cite as

Woodland Management and Public Good Outputs: Appraising the Trade-offs in English Woodlands

  • Julie Urquhart
Research Article

Abstract

This paper examines the trade-offs between woodland management for timber and public good outputs in English woodlands. Recent evidence suggests that some public good values may be declining as a result of a lack of woodland management. Such under-management has been attributed to the decline in timber values and reduction in the productivity of woodlands and forests for timber products. It is argued that assessing the management needs of woodlands in order to enhance public good outputs presents a complex challenge and often depends on a variety of factors, including location, type of woodland, age, condition, substitutability and ownership motivation. However, in most instances a moderate level of management (whether for timber or otherwise) is likely to be beneficial for public good outputs.

Keywords

Non-market benefits Market failure Under-management Wood products 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper has arisen out of a research project conducted on behalf of the Forestry Commission and DEFRA in 2006. The research report was co-authored by Julie Urquhart, Bill Slee and David Taylor.

References

  1. Amar A, Hewson CM, Thewlis RM, Smith KW, Fuller RJ, Lindsell JA, Conway G, Butler S, MacDonald M (2006) What’s happening to our woodland birds? Long-term changes in the populations of woodland birds. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds & British Trust for Ornithology, Sandy, BedfordshireGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson LM, Cordell HK (1988) Influence of trees on residential property values in Athens, Georgia (U.S.A.): a survey based on actual sales prices. Landsc Urban Plan 15(1–2):153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asher J, Warren M, Fox R, Harding P, Jeffcoate G, Jeffcoate S (2001) The millennium atlas of butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman IJ, Lovett AA (2000) Estimating and valuing the carbon sequestered in softwood and hardwood trees, timber products and forest soils in Wales. J Environ Manage 60(4):301–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benson JF, Willis KG (1992) Valuing informal recreation on the Forestry Commission Estate, Forestry Commission Bulletin 104. Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger B (1996) Psychological benefits of an active lifestyle: what we know and what we need to know. Quest 48:330–353Google Scholar
  7. Brainard J, Lovett A, Bateman I (2003) Carbon sequestration benefits of woodland. Social & environmental benefits of forestry phase 2, Report to the Forestry Commission, Centre for Research in Environmental Appraisal and Management, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess J (1995) The ambiguity of woodland landscapes. In: Coles RW, Bussey SC, Heslegrave WE (eds) Community forest in an urban context. Urban and Community Forestry Research Group, University of Central England, Birmingham, UK pp 39–43Google Scholar
  9. Burgess J, Harrison CM, Limb M (1988) People, parks and the urban green: a study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Stud 25(6):455–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chokor BA, Mene SA (1992) An assessment of preference for landscapes in the developing world: case study of Warri, Nigeria, and environs. J Environ Manage 34:237–256Google Scholar
  11. Church A, Ravenscroft, N, Rogers G (2005) Woodland owners’ attitudes to public access provision in South-East England, information note on report to the Forestry Commission. EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  12. CJC Consulting (2005) Review of evidence for the formulation of forestry policy in England, report for DEFRA. CJC Consulting. Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarkson R, Deyes K (2002) Estimating the social cost of carbon emissions, Government economic service working paper 140. Working Paper 140, HM Treasury & Defra, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Coles RW, Bussey SC (2000) Urban forest landscapes in the UK—progressing the social agenda. Landsc Urban Plan 52(2–3):181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The values of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. English Nature (2003) England’s best wildlife and geological sites. The condition of sites of special scientific interest in England in 2003. English Nature, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  17. FC (Forestry Commission) (1999) The England forest strategy. Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  18. FC (Forestry Commission) (2001) Woodlands for Wales. Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  19. FC (Forestry Commission) (2005a) Forestry statistics 2005. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/foreststats.nsf/byunique/woodland.html
  20. FC (Forestry Commission) (2005b) Woodland management for bats. Forestry Commission for England and Wales, Bat Conservation Trust, Countryside Council for Wales, English NatureGoogle Scholar
  21. FC (Forestry Commission) (2006) The Scottish forest strategy. Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  22. Fenton NJ, Frego KA (2005) Bryophyte (moss and liverwort) conservation under remnant canopy in managed forests. Biol Conserv 122(3):417–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fisher BS, Nasar JL (1992) Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: prospect, refuge, and escape. Environ Behav 24(1):35–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. FTA (Forestry & Timber Association) (2004) A level playing field for forestry: a manifesto for multi-purpose forestry and a vision for changeGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuller RJ, Chamberlain DE, Burton NHK, Gough SJ (2001) Distributions of birds in lowland agricultural landscapes of England and Wales: how distinctive are bird communities of hedgerows and woodland? Agric Ecosyst Environ 84(1):79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garrod G, Willis K (1992) Valuing goods characteristics: an application of the hedonic price method to environmental attributes. J Environ Manage 34(1):59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garrod GD, Willis KG (1997) The non-use benefits of enhancing forest biodiversity: A contingent ranking study. Ecol Econ 21:45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garrod GD (2003) Landscape values of forests, social and environmental benefits of forestry phase 2. Report to the Forestry Commission, Centre for Research in Environmental Appraisal and Management, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  29. Grundel R, Pavlovic N, Sulzman C (1998) Habitat use by the endangered Karner blue butterfly in oak woodlands: the influence of canopy cover. Biol Conserv 85(1–2):47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hanley ND, Willis KG, Powe NA, Anderson M (2002) Valuing the benefits of biodiversity in forests, Report to the Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. Centre for Research in Environmental Appraisal and Management, University of NewcastleGoogle Scholar
  31. Harrison C, Burgess J, Millward A, Dawe G (1995) Accessible natural greenspace in towns and cities: a review of appropriate size and distance criteria. English Nature Report No. 153, English Nature, Peterborough, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. Heggie B (2001) Public opinion of forestry 2001. HQ Economics & Statistics Unit, Report for the Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  33. Hickman SA, Lee RE, Sallis JF, Castro CM, Chen AH (1999) The association of physical activity change with self-esteem in ethnic minority women: a prospective analysis. J Gender Cult Health 4(4):281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hirsch F (1976) The social limits to growth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  35. Humphrey JW (2005) Benefits to biodiversity from developing old-growth conditions in British upland spruce plantations: a review and recommendations. Forestry 78(1):33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) Experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Karjalainen E, Komulainen M (1999) The visual effect of felling on small- and medium-scale landscapes in north-eastern Finland. J Environ Manage 55(3):167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kirby KJ, Smart SM, Black HIJ, Bunce RGH, Corney PM, Smithers RJ (2005) Long term ecological change in British woodland (1971–2001), A resurvey and analysis of change based on the 103 sites in the nature conservancy Bunce 1971 woodland survey. English Nature, PerthGoogle Scholar
  39. Liley D, Brereton T, Roy D (2004) The current level of butterfly monitoring in UK Woodlands. Report to the Forestry Commission, Report no. SO4-35Google Scholar
  40. Liski J, Pussinen A, Pingoud K, Mäkipää R, Karjalainen T (2001) Which rotation length is favourable to carbon sequestration? Can J For Res 31(11):2004–2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Magill AW (1992) Managed and natural landscapes: what do people like? USDA Forest Service Res., Pa PSW-213Google Scholar
  42. McCool SF, Benson RE, Ashor JL (1986) How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences. Environ Manage 10(3):385–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morales DJ (1980) The contribution of trees to residential property value. J Arboricult 6(6):305–308Google Scholar
  44. Nelson CR, Halpern CB (2005) Short-term effects of timber harvest and forest edges on ground-layer mosses and liverworts. Can J Bot 83(6):610–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pearce DW (2003) The social cost of carbon and its policy implications. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 19(3):362–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peterken GF, Backmeroff C (1988) Long-term monitoring in unmanaged woodland nature reserves, No. 9. Nature Conservancy CouncilGoogle Scholar
  47. Rackham O (1976) Trees and woodland in the British landscape. Dent, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Ribe RG (1989) The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us? Environ Manage 13(1):55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ribe RG, Matteson MY (2002) Views of old forestry and new among reference groups in the Pacific Northwest. West J Appl For 17(4):173–182Google Scholar
  50. Ribe RG, Armstrong ET, Gobster PH (2002) Scenic vistas and the changing policy landscape: visualizing and testing the role of visual resources in ecosystem management. Landsc J 21(1):42–66Google Scholar
  51. Sheppard SRJ, Harshaw HW, McBride JR (2001) Priorities for reconciling sustainability and aesthetics in forest landscape management. In: Sheppard SRJ, Harshaw HW (eds) Forests and landscapes: linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics. CABI Publishing, New York, pp 263–288Google Scholar
  52. Slee B (2005) The scope for reconciling public good and private forestry in the UK, Small-scale forestry in a changing environment, Lithuanian Forest Research Institute, IUFRO International SymposiumGoogle Scholar
  53. Stern N (2006) The stern review: report on the economics of climate change. HM Treasury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Thomas JA, Telfer MG, Roy DB, Preston CD, Greenwood JJD, Asher J, Fox R, Clarke RT, Lawton JH (2004) Comparative losses of British buttferlies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303(5665):1879–1881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. TNS (2004) Leisure day visits: report of the 2002/03 Great Britain day visits survey. Report to the Countryside AgencyGoogle Scholar
  56. Tudor O, Dennis RLH, Greatorex-Davies JN, Sparks TH (2004) Flower preferences of woodland butterflies in the UK: nectaring specialists are species of conservation concern. Biol Conserv 119(3):397–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Huylenbroek G, Durand G (eds) (2003) Multifunctional agriculture: a new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  58. van Kooten GC, Binkley CS, Delcourt G (1995) Effect of carbon taxes and subsidies on optimal forest rotation age and supply of carbon services. Am J Agric Econ 77(May):365–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ward Thompson C, Aspinall P, Bell S, Findlay C (2005) It gets you away from everyday life: local woodlands and community use—what makes a difference? Landsc Res 30(1):109–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Warren M, Clarke S, Currie F (2001) The coppice for butterflies challenge: a targeted grant scheme for threatened species. Br Wildl 13(1):21–28Google Scholar
  61. Willis KG, Garrod GD (1991) Valuing open access recreation on inland waterways: on-site recreation surveys and selection effects. Reg Stud 25(6):511–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Willis KG, Garrod G, Scarpa R, Powe N, Lovett A, Bateman IJ, Hanley N, Macmillan DC (2003) The social and environmental benefits of forests in Great Britain. Report to the Forestry Commission, EdinburghGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steve Harrison, John Herbohn 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Countryside and Community Research InstituteUniversity of GloucestershireCheltenhamUK

Personalised recommendations