Hanna Ekström , Brian Danley , Yann Clough , Nils Droste
{"title":"Barking up the wrong tree? - A guide to forest owner typology methods","authors":"Hanna Ekström , Brian Danley , Yann Clough , 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}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
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.