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

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1355-1363
Number of pages9
JournalEcological Economics
Volume69
Issue number6
Early online date1 Mar 2010
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2010

Keywords

  • property rights
  • management regimes
  • multi-resource systems
  • ecosystem services
  • public goods
  • state intervention
  • resource-management
  • land-tenure
  • conservation
  • environment
  • ownership
  • adoption

Cite this

Property rights in UK uplands and the implications for policy and management. / Quinn, C. H.; Fraser, E. D. G.; Hubacek, K.; Reed, M.

In: Ecological Economics, Vol. 69, No. 6, 01.04.2010, p. 1355-1363.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Quinn, C. H. ; Fraser, E. D. G. ; Hubacek, K. ; Reed, M. / Property rights in UK uplands and the implications for policy and management. In: Ecological Economics. 2010 ; Vol. 69, No. 6. pp. 1355-1363.
@article{db0487fe80ae47949704f7c709b88262,
title = "Property rights in UK uplands and the implications for policy and management",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "property rights, management regimes, multi-resource systems, ecosystem services, public goods, state intervention, resource-management, land-tenure, conservation, environment, ownership, adoption",
author = "Quinn, {C. H.} and Fraser, {E. D. G.} and K. Hubacek and M. Reed",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.006",
language = "English",
volume = "69",
pages = "1355--1363",
journal = "Ecological Economics",
issn = "0921-8009",
publisher = "ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Property rights in UK uplands and the implications for policy and management

AU - Quinn, C. H.

AU - Fraser, E. D. G.

AU - Hubacek, K.

AU - Reed, M.

PY - 2010/4/1

Y1 - 2010/4/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - property rights

KW - management regimes

KW - multi-resource systems

KW - ecosystem services

KW - public goods

KW - state intervention

KW - resource-management

KW - land-tenure

KW - conservation

KW - environment

KW - ownership

KW - adoption

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.006

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.006

M3 - Article

VL - 69

SP - 1355

EP - 1363

JO - Ecological Economics

JF - Ecological Economics

SN - 0921-8009

IS - 6

ER -