Study Why Landowners plant trees

6pointer

Well-Known Member
[h=1]Landowners’ attitudes to woodland creation and management in the UK: a review of current evidence[/h]
landowners_photo01.jpg
landowners_photo02.jpg
What does existing evidence tell us about landowners’ values, attitudes and knowledge in relation to decisions about woodland management and creation?
[h=2]Summary[/h]Current strategic objectives include an increase in woodland area and quality. Organisations such as the Forestry Commission (FC) and Woodland Trust (WT) need to engage with woodland owners and/or their agents, and to understand their attitudes and decisions better, in order to support these objectives.
A considerable number of studies have already been conducted, that explore these issues. Before conducting further research, we reviewed these. We conducted an extensive search, and applied the following criteria for inclusion in the review - work that is:
  • Based on empirical data, not author’s opinion or literature review;
  • Focused on values, attitudes, beliefs, or actions of owners and their representatives, not on description or economic assessment of woodland management options;
  • Published from 1990 onwards, after woodland grants replaced tax incentives as the principal policy delivery mechanism.
This led to 34 eligible studies which were included in the review.
[h=2]Key findings[/h][h=3]Owners’ reasons for having and planting woodland[/h]There is a clear pattern amongst the studies that provide evidence on owners’ reasons for having and planting woodland. Landscape and conservation (wildlife and shelterbelt) are ranked highest, with shooting also often high; production and profit come low in the list of priorities, and provision of public recreation even lower.
Many studies report a sense of custodianship or responsibility for the land and landscape. This is closely linked to a concern for control over land use.
In addition the studies of farmers’ attitudes highlight a shared culture which seeks peer respect based on ‘good’ or ‘correct’ land use. Using the land for its appropriate productive purpose is an important value and can undermine attempts to encourage tree planting.
[h=3]Relationship between grant availability and decisions to plant[/h]There is mixed and inconclusive evidence about the relationship between grant availability and decisions to plant. Availability of grants does appear to influence those who are already interested in woodland, but not to affect the choices of those who are not interested. Expert opinion suggests that higher grants reach a ‘tipping point’ and can change behaviour, but this has not been tested in the evidence reviewed.
[h=3]Landowners’ perceptions of grants and grant schemes[/h]The evidence reviewed by this study highlight four primary aspects of landowners’ perceptions of grants and grant schemes. These relate to:
  • Bureaucracy and administration
  • Economic adequacy
  • Control and property rights and
  • Restrictiveness and flexibility.
The complexity and bureaucracy involved in grant application is reported only in recent literature and appears to have increased considerably in the last few years. The perceived relevance and importance of grants varies in relation to the purpose of the grant.
[h=3]Owning existing woodland vs. creating new woods[/h]The studies reveal fewer differences than might have been expected between owners of existing woodland and those landowners asked about creating new woods All apparently rated conservation highly, and showed little interest in the economic potential. However studies of woodland owners often showed strong emotional and cultural connections with their woodlands that were not apparent among farmers, whose values favoured production and ‘appropriateness’.
[h=3]Role of grants[/h]Furthermore, the role of grants in changing behaviour seems stronger in relation to woodland creation. Personal contact with an advisor affects grant uptake for woodland creation, whereas advice alone may be effective in influencing management of neglected woodland.
[h=3]Attitudes of different types of landowners[/h]A few studies draw out differences of attitudes and / or behaviour between different subgroups of those surveyed, and two studies construct typologies of different kinds of owners. One particular challenge will be to test indicators which help to assess which ‘type’ an owner falls into, if indeed such types are widely applicable.
[h=2]Reports and publications[/h]
 
I plant trees, to provide shelter and to encourage deer to live in the area and to shoot deer, also to make the place look nice the way I want it and to help blackcock and capercaille, unfortunately I will be dead before it all grows and looks right, I plant some tree's every year, some times I can get grant aid and this helps a lot, but it is not the reason I plant, but I know for some estates grant aid is the only reason.
 
I work in forestry, we seem to be doing a lot more conservation work in recent years. I'm not sure if it's social concience or for better grants but it's good to see and is more enjoyable work! Maybe we're just getting a better class of client!
 
And there's me thinking it was because they all had a deep understanding of global warming and the need to cover the country with trees and wind farms.
 
Not read any of the thread do apology's to op and any contributors so far
But my take on it
to plant trees on a large scale means one thing
To make money from them
Either through a grant scheme or by harvesting the trees
Or both
It is that simple
 
Not read any of the thread do apology's to op and any contributors so far
But my take on it
to plant trees on a large scale means one thing
To make money from them
Either through a grant scheme or by harvesting the trees
Or both
It is that simple

+ 1 on that
 
Not read any of the thread do apology's to op and any contributors so far
But my take on it
to plant trees on a large scale means one thing
To make money from them
Either through a grant scheme or by harvesting the trees
Or both
It is that simple

And the winner for todays stating the obvious prize goes to.....
 
I just like to plant a few i dont make money and it dont cost me money. I do it because i want to.

ME.jpg
 
You know you can get tax relief on trees that you plant? You don't pay income tax on the sale of timber either.
 
Obviously trees are planted to make money. That is why people do it. Why else would they do it? Is that a bad thing?
 
Last edited:
Some people plant trees for environmental/amenity use with no real thought of financial reward. Not everybody is a money grabber. Actually one of the big tax advantages is it moves money out of the inheritance tax net.

David.
 
Timber is my business.
People plant trees for a number of reasons for wood and non wood benefits. The returns are not great when one considers the timescale from planting to harvesting - NDR calculations. They are costly to establish if fencing and individual guarding is required and realistically one must wait about 50 years before harvesting in the case of conifers. Grants can be good but a lot are targeted to plant a specific type of woodland in a particular area and permit public access/public benefit. Grants for conifers in the uplands are poor but it is a potential rural land use in an otherwise impoverished location. Woodlands can increase the overall land value by as much as 20% on a mixed estate - they refer to it as the ''pretty woods effects'' A lot of the benefits of having woodlands do not have a value/return - carbon fixing, aesthetics, landscaping, habitat, land stabilisation etc. Take woodland stalking, does the revenue go to the games dept or forestry dept for providing a condusive enviroment. I bet it goes to the former in most cases and hence the presence of woodland is not being recognised in the P&L account
 
Thanks 6pointer,

Nice study from Forest Research and Woodland Trust, I remember reading it when first published (2010) and its good to revisit.

Its is interesting that the study suggests that conservation and landscape aesthetics ranked higher in landowners' priorities than economic potential. Is that true do you think? or is conservation more fashionable and 'income' has become a dirty word? I work in forestry too, and while say 20% of my work is conservation/recreation orientated, the majority is still about planting, managing and harvesting an economic product.

With regards the 'role of grants' it is interesting that personal visits from consultants/grant authorities increase the uptake of schemes, even though the info/applications etc are freely available...
 
My opinion maters little but i would suggest that the amount of public money lost buy the forestry companies was unacceptable and they then had to justify what they were doing by diversifying into the recreation sector and opening up there forest officially to the public they made the money loss acceptable as there was now a benefit to public welbeing. Well done to them on that one and it has helped in Scotland we have access every were and long may it continue.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top