误入歧途?- 森林所有者类型学方法指南

IF 4 2区 农林科学 Q1 ECONOMICS Forest Policy and Economics Pub Date : 2024-03-29 DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103208
Hanna Ekström , Brian Danley , Yann Clough , Nils Droste
{"title":"误入歧途?- 森林所有者类型学方法指南","authors":"Hanna Ekström ,&nbsp;Brian Danley ,&nbsp;Yann Clough ,&nbsp;Nils Droste","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Creating typologies of forest owners is a common approach for analyzing and understanding heterogeneity in responses to forest policies and management practice uptake. While many forest owner typologies have been developed, only a few quantitative methods dominate the field with little information on how methodological choice affects outcomes. In this study we compare five methods for quantitative typology formation and ask what type of information each method provides, and to which degree the methods complement each other. Empirically we use data from a survey conducted in 2014–2015 about Swedish forest owner's objectives, attitudes, and factors of decision-making. The results show that individual forest owners are assigned to different clusters by the compared methods, and how each method highlights different aspects of forest owner characteristics. The study shows the importance of method selection as it influences how we can describe and interpret forest owners in connection to policy adoption, uptake of practices, and environmental awareness. We conclude by providing basis for a methodological guidance on how to make judgments when selecting method(s) to typology formation based on research purpose and approach.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"163 ","pages":"Article 103208"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barking up the wrong tree? - A guide to forest owner typology methods\",\"authors\":\"Hanna Ekström ,&nbsp;Brian Danley ,&nbsp;Yann Clough ,&nbsp;Nils Droste\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103208\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Creating typologies of forest owners is a common approach for analyzing and understanding heterogeneity in responses to forest policies and management practice uptake. While many forest owner typologies have been developed, only a few quantitative methods dominate the field with little information on how methodological choice affects outcomes. In this study we compare five methods for quantitative typology formation and ask what type of information each method provides, and to which degree the methods complement each other. Empirically we use data from a survey conducted in 2014–2015 about Swedish forest owner's objectives, attitudes, and factors of decision-making. The results show that individual forest owners are assigned to different clusters by the compared methods, and how each method highlights different aspects of forest owner characteristics. The study shows the importance of method selection as it influences how we can describe and interpret forest owners in connection to policy adoption, uptake of practices, and environmental awareness. We conclude by providing basis for a methodological guidance on how to make judgments when selecting method(s) to typology formation based on research purpose and approach.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12451,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forest Policy and Economics\",\"volume\":\"163 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103208\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forest Policy and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124000613\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124000613","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对森林所有者进行分类是分析和了解对森林政策和管理实践的反应的异质性的常用方法。虽然已经开发了许多森林所有者类型学,但只有少数定量方法在该领域占据主导地位,而关于方法选择如何影响结果的信息却很少。在本研究中,我们比较了五种定量类型学形成方法,并询问每种方法能提供什么类型的信息,以及这些方法在多大程度上相互补充。在实证方面,我们使用了 2014-2015 年进行的一项关于瑞典森林所有者的目标、态度和决策因素的调查数据。结果显示,通过比较不同的方法,森林所有者被归入了不同的群组,而且每种方法都突出了森林所有者不同方面的特征。这项研究表明了方法选择的重要性,因为它影响到我们如何描述和解释森林所有者与政策采用、实践吸收和环境意识之间的关系。最后,我们将根据研究目的和方法,为如何在选择方法时做出判断提供方法论指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Barking up the wrong tree? - A guide to forest owner typology methods

Creating typologies of forest owners is a common approach for analyzing and understanding heterogeneity in responses to forest policies and management practice uptake. While many forest owner typologies have been developed, only a few quantitative methods dominate the field with little information on how methodological choice affects outcomes. In this study we compare five methods for quantitative typology formation and ask what type of information each method provides, and to which degree the methods complement each other. Empirically we use data from a survey conducted in 2014–2015 about Swedish forest owner's objectives, attitudes, and factors of decision-making. The results show that individual forest owners are assigned to different clusters by the compared methods, and how each method highlights different aspects of forest owner characteristics. The study shows the importance of method selection as it influences how we can describe and interpret forest owners in connection to policy adoption, uptake of practices, and environmental awareness. We conclude by providing basis for a methodological guidance on how to make judgments when selecting method(s) to typology formation based on research purpose and approach.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forest Policy and Economics
Forest Policy and Economics 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
7.50%
发文量
148
审稿时长
21.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.
期刊最新文献
A generalized Faustmann model with multiple carbon pools Enhancing the economic feasibility of fuel treatments: Market and policy pathways for US Federal Lands The oil palm replanting imperative: Are smallholder farmers willing to participate? Reviewing factors that influence voluntary participation in conservation programs in Latin America Preliminary evidence of softwood shortage and hardwood availability in EU regions: A spatial analysis using the European Forest Industry Database
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1