analysis of the potential effects of various influences...

Volume 3: Woodland management segmentation and assessment of interventions

March 2015

Analysis of the potential effects of various influences and interventions on woodland management and creation decisions, using a segmentation model to categorise sub-groups

Volume 3: Woodland management segmentation

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are very grateful to the numerous individuals who participated in the research presented in this report. In particular, we would like to thank the hundreds of woodland owners and managers who gave up their time to respond to the telephone/online survey and all those who volunteered additional time to be interviewed following the survey. We would also like to thank the project Steering Group (Sarah Andrews, Bradley Bates, Alan Betts, Andrew Crawford, Norman Dandy, Rob Green and Sheila Ward) and Amanda Mitchell and Jenny Tickner at Defra for all their support and assistance. We would also like to extend special thanks to Ben Ditchburn and colleagues in the Forestry Commission’s National Forest Inventory team for their invaluable contribution to the research.

Authors

URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited

Ipsos MORI Rural Development Initiatives (RDI)

University of Aberdeen

CJC Consulting

James Hutton Institute

Christopher Eves

Marina Johnson

Steven Smith

Thomas Quick

Chris White

Jennifer Black

Catriona MacDonald

Edward Langley

Mark Jenner

Will Richardson

Martin Glynn

Jillian Anable Bob Crabtree Bill Slee

Suggested citation: Eves, C., Johnson, M., Smith, S., Quick, T., Langley, E., Jenner, M., Richardson, W., Glynn, M., Anable, J., Crabtree, B., White, C., Black, J., MacDonald, C., and Slee, B. (2013). Analysis of the potential effects of various influences and interventions on woodland management and creation decisions, using a segmentation model to categorise sub-groups - Volume 3: Woodland management segmentation and assessment of interventions. Defra, London.

Corresponding author: Steven Smith, URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited, 6-8 Greencoat Place, London. SW1P 1PL; [email protected].

URS 6-8 Greencoat Place London SW1P 1PL United Kingdom Tel +44 (0)207 798 5000 www.ursglobal.com

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ursglobal.com/


ii

Limitations

URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“URS”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by URS. This Report may not be relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of URS. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by URS has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report. The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by URS in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between August 2012 and March 2015 and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances. Where assessments of works or costs identified in this Report are made, such assessments are based upon the information available at the time and where appropriate are subject to further investigations or information which may become available. URS disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to URS’ attention after the date of the Report. Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, projections or other forward-looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the Report, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. URS specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report.


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 5

1.1 This report ........................................................................... 5 1.2 Background......................................................................... 5 1.3 Aims and Objectives ........................................................... 7 1.4 Structure of the report ......................................................... 7

2 EVIDENCE BASE REVIEW ............................................... 8

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................... 8 2.2 Scope of the evidence base review .................................... 8

3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................. 18

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 18 3.2 Establishing a representative sample of woodland

owners .............................................................................. 18 3.3 Woodland Management proxy indicator ........................... 21 3.4 Approach to the survey ..................................................... 22 3.5 Key issues in survey design ............................................. 23 3.6 Survey targets................................................................... 27 3.7 Survey quotas ................................................................... 28 3.8 Survey mode and design .................................................. 29 3.9 The use of Likert scales .................................................... 31 3.10 Pilot survey ....................................................................... 31 3.11 Undertaking the survey ..................................................... 32 3.12 Follow-up interviews ......................................................... 32 3.13 Validation of follow-up research into the segmentation

model ................................................................................ 34 3.14 Development of the segmentation model ......................... 34 3.15 Limitations ......................................................................... 34

4 SURVEY RESULTS – HEADLINE STATISTICS ............. 36

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 36 4.2 Physical and geographical characteristics ....................... 36 4.3 Socio-economic characteristics ........................................ 37 4.4 Objectives for woodlands ................................................. 41 4.5 Levels of management ..................................................... 41 4.6 Barriers to woodland management .................................. 45 4.7 Receptiveness to interventions......................................... 46 4.8 Membership of organisations ........................................... 49

5 SURVEY RESULTS – FURTHER ANALYSIS ................. 50

5.2 Question 1: What are the differences in terms of management between those woodlands included in the Forestry Commission's proxy indicator of woods in management versus those not included? ......................... 50

5.3 Question 2: Are new woodland owners a distinct group of private woodland owners? ................................................ 63

5.4 Question 3: How does woodland size influence woodland owner objectives, barriers and responsiveness to interventions? ................................................................... 71

5.5 Question 4: Do farmers constitute a distinct group of woodland owners? ............................................................ 80


iv

6 SEGMENTATION MODEL ............................................... 88

6.1 Introduction ....................................................................... 88 6.2 Methodological approach to segmentation ....................... 88 6.3 Summary segment profiles ............................................... 90 6.4 Indicators of ‘management’ .............................................. 97 6.5 Management activities undertaken ................................... 99 6.6 Barriers to management ................................................. 102 6.7 Current sources of information and advice ..................... 106 6.8 Membership of organisations ......................................... 106 6.9 General attitudes ............................................................ 109 6.10 Potential response to incentives ..................................... 109 6.11 Proportion of land holdings and regional distribution ..... 111 6.12 Socio-economic characteristics ...................................... 111 6.13 Key predictive questions for future analysis ................... 113

7 FOLLOW-UP WORK ...................................................... 115

7.2 Timber Producers ........................................................... 115 7.3 Multi-functional Owners .................................................. 116 7.4 Profit seeking guardians ................................................. 117 7.5 Aspiring Managers .......................................................... 118 7.6 Disengaged Conservationists ......................................... 119 7.7 Conclusions .................................................................... 120

8 DISCUSSION ................................................................. 122

8.1 Introduction ..................................................................... 122 8.2 Baseline and business-as-usual scenario ...................... 122 8.3 Findings of our further analysis ...................................... 133 8.4 Segmentation model – baseline and opportunities for

change ............................................................................ 136

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 149

9.1 Introduction ..................................................................... 149 9.2 Recommendations .......................................................... 149

10 FURTHER RESEARCH ................................................. 152

APPENDIX A SURVEY LETTERS AND MAPS ISSUED .............. 154

APPENDIX B WOODLAND MANAGEMENT SURVEY ................ 155

APPENDIX C SECTION FOUR SURVEY RESULTS – ADDITIONAL GRAPHS .................................................. 156

APPENDIX D SECTION FIVE SURVEY RESULTS – ADDITIONAL GRAPHS ......................................................................... 157

APPENDIX E FOLLOW UP WORK SEMI-STRUCTURED SCRIPTS ........................................................................ 158

APPENDIX F FOLLOW UP WORK INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS159

APPENDIX G SUPPORTING TECHNICAL NOTE ON METHODOLOGICAL ANALYSIS ................................... 160


5

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report

1.1.1 URS – in partnership with Ipsos MORI, Rural Development Initiatives (RDI), the University of Aberdeen, CJC Consulting and the James Hutton Institute – was commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Forestry Commission England to undertake an ‘analysis of the potential effects of various influences and interventions on woodland management decisions, using a segmentation model to categorise sub-groups’. The aim of the research is to assist the government in establishing the interventions that are most likely to achieve its ambitions for England’s woodlands and forests.

1

1.1.2 The findings of the research are set to inform delivery of the new Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) which provides money for projects to improve agriculture, forestry, the environment and rural life. The previous RDPE played a key role in supporting forestry and the government is considering how best to use funding available under the new RDPE (2014 - 20).

1 It will also provide a significant evidence base for policy development

going forward.

The outcomes from the research are documented in four volumes:

Volume 1: Summary for policy-makers

Volume 2: Evidence base review

Volume 3: Woodland management segmentation and assessment of interventions

Volume 4: Woodland creation segmentation and assessment of interventions

1.1.3 This report – Volume 3: Woodland management segmentation and assessment of interventions – documents the outcomes of the research in relation to woodland management, including our conclusions and recommendations to Defra and Forestry Commission England.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 In its January 2013 Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statement,1 the government underlined its

ambition to see an increase in woodland planting and management in England. The statement advised that the government believed a shared programme will be necessary to deliver these objectives. This research was undertaken to assist the development of this programme. With respect to woodland management, the government’s Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statement suggested that a ‘shared woodland management programme’, undertaken by the whole forestry sector, including government, could bring around two-thirds of woodland into active management over the next five years, with this figure eventually rising to 80% on the assumption that markets for wood products continue to develop as the government believes they can.

1

1.2.2 This ambition represents a step-change in the level of woodland management undertaken across England. Data from the Forestry Commission indicated that only 54% of woodland was under ‘active management’ in December 2013

2. This equates to the area of woodland

managed to the UK Forestry Standard, as identified through grant scheme and felling license data

3, and is an accepted proxy for active management. Section 3.3 sets out further details on

1 Defra (2013). Government Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statement, Incorporating the Government’s Response to the Independent Panel on

Forestry’s Final Report [online] available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-forestry-policy-statement

2 Forestry Commission England (2013). Corporate Plan Performance Indicators: Headline Performance Update [online] available at:

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCE_HEADLINE_PERFORMANCE_INDICATORS_31DEC13.pdf/$FILE/FCE_HEADLINE_PERFORMANCE_INDICATORS_31DEC13.pdf

3 The Panel’s Final Report states “What is clear is that wherever and whenever management takes place, it must conform to the guidance in the

UK Forestry Standard as a minimum”.

http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-forestry-policy-statement




6

the use of this proxy indicator. This 54% in management therefore represents those captured under Forestry Commission grants and licence data. There are also other woods in management, e.g. those in Natural England grants, which may be another few percentage (~4%) and those that are not receiving grants but their woodlands are still managed. This managed area includes 100% of Forestry Commission woodlands and 36% of other woodlands

4; efforts to increase the area of woodland under management must therefore be

focused largely on privately owned woodlands.

1.2.3 Although private woodland owners must obviously play a critical role if levels of management are to be increased, the potential to usefully engage with them is hampered by the fact that surprisingly little is known about who they are or what motivates them.

5 In particular, whilst a

good deal is known about the major owners of woodland, little information is available on the ownership patterns and owner attitudes for smaller woods.

6 Significantly, in terms of

promoting woodland management, a study for Forest Research argued that “It is probable that many landowners, having comparatively small forest holdings and being currently disengaged from national forestry organisations and institutions, are unaware of either policy initiatives or the grants system”; this, in turn, makes targeting new forestry policy initiatives problematic

7,

particularly given the acknowledged difficulty in identifying woodland owners in the first instance.

8

1.2.4 In order to design cost-effective policy interventions that promote a genuine increase in woodland management, it is critical to develop a greater understanding of the attitudes and motivations of woodland owners with respect to woodland management. Developing a greater understanding of attitudes and motivations should, in turn, assist in establishing the most effective means of influencing behaviour and promoting change, i.e. formulating interventions which lead to greater woodland management. Developing a segmentation model, which divides woodland owners into distinct groups based on shared characteristics, can inform the approach to engaging them in woodland management, and could help improve the cost-effectiveness of policy interventions.

9 Indeed the purpose of segmentation is to understand

different groups and their preferences so that resources and services can be targeted more effectively.

10 Segmentation models are usually developed through undertaking a survey of a

representative sample of the population followed by statistical analysis to create the segments and this approach has been followed here in relation to woodland owners/managers.

4 Forestry Commission (2011). Personal Communication to the Independent Panel on Forestry Secretariat.

5 Quine, C., Crabtree, R., Quick, T., Rowcroft, P and Smith, S. (2012). Woodland Management in England. Final Report to the Independent Panel

on Forestry. URS, London [online] available at: www.defra.gov.uk/forestrypanel/files/IPF_Woodland_Management_in_England1.pdf (accessed 24 June 2013).

6 Yeomans, A., Hemery, G. E., and Brown, N.D (2008). Developing effective methods for identifying woodland owners: an Oxfordshire pilot

study. Contract report CR 2007/08/190 for Forest Research. 38pp. [online] available at: www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Woodland_Owner_Survey_Sep08.pdf/$FILE/Woodland_Owner_Survey_Sep08.pdf

7 Lawrence A., N. Dandy and Urquhart, J. (2010). Landowner attitudes to woodland creation and management in the UK. Forest Research,

Alice Holt, Farnham [online] available at www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/ownerattitudes

8 Yeomans, A., and Hemery, G. (2010). Prospects for the market supply of wood and other forest products from areas with fragmented forest-

ownership structures: - England case study, A contract report for ConFor and CEPF. Sylva Foundation [online] available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/supply-wood/england_en.pdf

9 Urquhart and Courtney (2011). Seeing the owners behind the trees: a typology of small scale private woodland owners in England. Forest

Policy and Economics 13: 535-544 .

10 Barnet and Mahony (2011). Segmenting Publics (online) available at:

www.publicengagement.ac.uk/sites/default/files/SEGMENTING%20PUBLICS%202%20Nov%202011.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/forestrypanel/files/IPF_Woodland_Management_in_England1.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Woodland_Owner_Survey_Sep08.pdf/$FILE/Woodland_Owner_Survey_Sep08.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/ownerattitudes

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/supply-wood/england_en.pdf

https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/sites/default/files/SEGMENTING%20PUBLICS%202%20Nov%202011.pdf


7

1.3 Aims and Objectives

1.3.1 This report forms the second phase in the development of the segmentation model. The aim is to create a segmentation of woodland owners and managers to understand their interactions with various policy levers, and to represent their key attitudes, motivations, and barriers. In response to the model findings, the report aims to provide an assessment of current and potential influences and interventions relating to woodland management decisions.

1.4 Structure of the report

1.4.1 The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 summarises the key messages from the evidence base review (EBR) and the way in which these were addressed through the survey of woodland owners

Chapter 3 sets out the research methodology, including the approach to designing the survey, the development of the segmentation model and the follow-up work undertaken to validate the model

Chapter 4 summarises the broad findings from the survey

Chapter 5 provides a more in-depth discussion of the survey findings organised around a set of key questions

Chapter 6 sets out the segmentation model

Chapter 7 sets out the results of the follow-up work undertaken to validate the segmentation model

Chapter 8 sets out a discussion regarding potential interventions to promote greater woodland management based on the research findings

Chapter 9 sets out key conclusions and recommendations for future work


8

2 EVIDENCE BASE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 Yeomans and Hemery (2010) point out that while the Forestry Commission puts a great deal of time and effort into promoting its initiatives, there is no formal database that details woodland owners’ names and addresses with a view to the promotion of Commission schemes.

11 Moreover, they argued that if direct communications were coupled with typology

and market segmentation research, the potential exists for the most suitable and relevant policy initiatives to be targeted at specific groups of woodland owners and managers.

12

2.1.2 To inform the survey questions which, in turn, underpin the segmentation model, a critical analysis of the existing literature and data on woodland owners was undertaken. This is presented in Volume 2: Evidence base review (EBR) with key points summarised below. Note that the EBR covered both woodland creation and management and was undertaken to inform the development of both segmentation models.

2.2 Scope of the evidence base review

2.2.1 The EBR was based predominantly upon the literature and data analysed by Lawrence et al. (2010)

13 in their review of current evidence around landowners’ attitudes to woodland creation

and management in the UK (the ‘Lawrence Review’).14

Lawrence et al. reviewed studies that:

were based on empirical data, not modelling or literature review; and

focussed on the values, attitudes, beliefs, and actions of owners and their representatives, rather than woodland resources.

In addition a search was undertaken to identify relevant research or data published since the Lawrence Review.

2.2.2 The review was also expanded to include research into farmer’s willingness to engage in environmental activities and to enter into agri-environment schemes. While this does not necessarily indicate attitudes towards woodland management, it was nonetheless considered to provide useful background information. A selection of the most relevant literature identified by Gaskell et al. (2013)

15 was reviewed.

11 Yeomans, A., and Hemery, G. (2010) Prospects for the market supply of wood and other forest products from areas with fragmented forest-

ownership structures: - England case study, A contract report for ConFor and CEPF. Sylva Foundation [online] available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/supply-wood/england_en.pdf

12 Ibid.


Alice Holt, Farnham [online] available at http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/ownerattitudes

14 Of note is the forthcoming publication by Lawrence A., and N. Dandy. (2014) Private landowners’ approaches to planting and managing forests

in the UK: What’s the evidence? Land Use Policy 36 (2014) 351-360

15 Gaskell, Reed, Short, Ingram, Boatman, Jones, Conyers, Carey, Winter and Lobley (2013) Farmer attitudes and evaluation of outcomes to

on-farm environmental management (online) available. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/campaign-for-the-farmed-environment



https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/campaign-for-the-farmed-environment


9

2.2.3 In total, 31 studies were reviewed. For each study, the following information was assembled:

location of study;

sample size;

details of sample (e.g. farmers, private estates, local authorities);

methodology (e.g. survey or semi-structured interview);

whether the focus was on woodland management, creation or both;

details of the segmentation if one was developed;

woodland characteristics investigated (e.g. size, type, age, use of (wood) land);

socio-economic details of the sample (age, income, gender etc.);

management/creation objectives of the sample;

underlying values and beliefs that drive 'objectives' of different groups;

constraints and barriers to management/creation encountered by different groups; and

interventions discussed/assessment of efficacy of interventions.

2.2.4 Table 2-1 sets out the main findings from the EBR together with the key questions arising from the review, which were used to inform the development of the woodland owners’ survey. It should be noted that it was not possible to analyse each of the questions identified under ‘Topics to explore as part of the primary data collection and analysis’ in Chapter 5. However, data from the segmentation could be used to provide evidence and inform many of these questions as part of another project to assess them.


10

Table 2-1: Main findings from the Evidence Base Review for woodland management

Topic Finding from the EBR Topics to explore as part of the primary data collection and

analysis

Socio-economic characteristics of woodland owners

Land tenure and woodland ownership in England is complicated, fragmented and

geographically varied. In addition a range of actors influence woodland owners including

managers, regulators and tenants. Because only about half of rural land in England is

registered, there is no comprehensive data on woodland ownership and the socio-

economic characteristics of these owners.

Few of the studies reviewed as part of the EBR collected information on the basic socio-

economic characteristics of woodland owners (e.g. age profile, gender and income).

A greater number of studies collected information on how the woodland was acquired,

how long the woodland had been under its current ownership, and the extent to which it

was profit-or loss-making. These studies suggested that woodlands often remained in the

same ownership for many years. They also suggested that only a minority of woodlands

were profit-making and, moreover, that this number had declined substantially over the

last three decades due to cheaper imports of timber and changes in the tax regime.

There is a low turnover of rural land in England which introduces a small number of ‘new-

entrants’ into woodland ownership each year. There is evidence to suggest that this has

led to a small but potentially significant shift to new owners from non-farming

backgrounds.16

Evidence suggests that these new entrants have distinct objectives for

owning woodland, which relate to personal enjoyment and conservation:

“There has been a trend for increased fragmentation of woodland ownership with the people who want to own their own little bit of woodland for the pleasure of owning it having increased enormously.”

17

What are the overall socio-economic characteristics

of the woodland owning population?

What is the turnover in woodland ownership?

Are new woodland owners distinct in terms of their

socio-economic characteristics?

Do farmers represent a distinct segment of woodland

owners? Do their attitudes and motivations vary from

those of other woodland owners?

How important are woodlands in providing an income

to woodland owners?

Does the evidence indicate that new-entrant activity is

concentrated in particular geographical areas (e.g.

the South East of England)?

To what extent does the type of woodland ownership

(personal, forestry business or timber business)

influence woodland management?

16 Urquhart, J., P. Courtney, and B. Slee (2009) Private ownership and public good provision in English woodlands. Small-scale Forestry.

17 Yeomans and Hemery (2010) Prospects for the market supply of wood and other forest products from areas with fragmented forest ownership structures: - England case study.




11


analysis

Physical

characteristics of

woodlands

Information on woodland size was collected by the majority of studies included in the

EBR. Data on the type of woodland owned (e.g. broadleaf/conifer) and the accessibility of

woodland was also collected by several. A very small number of studies went into some

depth with regard to physical characteristics (e.g. condition; date planted).

The Forestry Commission and the National Forest Inventory collect detailed information

on the physical characteristics of woodlands across Great Britain. Information is collected

on a wide range of factors:

Silvicultural system Recent treatment Habitat type

Woodland pasture Management practice Rhododendron

Deadwood (qualitative estimate)

Boundary features General health

Forest type Cultural features Pests/diseases

Stumps Micro-habitats Ground layer vegetation

Invasive species Thinning Field layer vegetation

Original ground preparation

Recreation and social

features

Shrub layer vegetation

Natural regeneration

and damage

Veteran trees Plot mensuration data

Stand mensuration

data

Lying deadwood

(quantitative estimate)

As such a wide range of data is being collected on the physical characteristics of

woodlands. However, there is an absence of research on woodland owner attitudes and

motivations in respect of their woodlands.

To what extent does woodland size influence

woodland management?

To what extent does woodland type influence


To what extent is accessibility an important

determinant of woodland management?

To what extent does geographical location influence



12


analysis

Woodland

management

objectives

A clear pattern on owners’ objectives for having woodland is evident from the literature.

Landscape and conservation are often ranked the highest with timber production and

return on investment ranked less highly. Provision of public access is often given the

lowest priority. The importance ascribed to shooting and woodfuel varies and is likely to

depend on, amongst other factors, location and size of woodland.

There is some evidence that woodland size is an important determinant of an owner’s

objectives and values. Timber and shooting are likely to be important objectives for

owners of large woodlands, while amenity, conservation and wood-fuel are more

important for owners of small woodlands. However, no study tests the relationship

between the physical characteristics of woodlands (e.g. size and accessibility) and

owner’s objectives and values. Nor do studies test the relationship between the socio-

economic characteristics of a woodland owner and their objectives.

Does the observed hierarchy of owner’s objectives for

their woodlands hold at the national level?

Is there any discrepancy between owners’ stated

objectives and the extent to which they actively

manage their woodland to fulfil these objectives?

Do owners’ objectives vary depending on the physical

characteristics of their woodlands; e.g. by woodland

size, geographical location or species composition?


13


analysis

Underlying

motivations to

manage woodland

It is often difficult to distinguish between an owner’s values and their objectives. Few

studies reviewed in the EBR seek to understand how personal values, beliefs, attitudes

and underlying motivations shape an owner’s objectives. Those papers that seek to build

a typology of woodland owners distinguish between groups based on their stated

objectives rather than their underlying values. There has been little attempt in the

literature to explore the underlying drivers behind the stated objectives. This misses an

opportunity to build a more nuanced picture of woodland owners.

However, the literature indicates some initial findings from studies of owners with respect

to the underlying motivations for woodland management:

many believe management is unlikely to bring financial reward or have a lack of

belief in economic potential of their woodlands;

a strong custodian ethic or personal connection with their woodlands focusing on

a sense of responsibility or obligation to protect the landscape and woodland

heritage, rather than allowing public access;

the perceived and actual rights of ownership, which influence a desire to control

property and retain privacy – this results in a reluctance to grant recreational

access and shapes responses to government incentive arrangements;

difference in opinion between smaller woodland owners and larger ones;

changing social make-up of landowners which is likely to shift the balance of

landowners’ values; and

owners appear to be managing by neglect or ‘positive non-intervention’, out of a

belief that it is the best course of action for wildlife.

Is the size of woodland an important determinant of

an owner’s objectives and values?

To what extent are an owner’s motivations linked to

family tradition or identity through inheritance?

How do family-oriented reasons for ownership affect

the management systems and interventions adopted?

Do people with a lack of economic objective for their

woodlands, lack personal preference for making

money from their woodlands or lack belief that it is

feasible?

To what extent do those not managing their woodland

hold a genuine belief that leaving them untouched is

best (positive non-intervention)?

Is there a difference between the motivations and

attitudes towards management of new woodland

owners and traditional ones, and between smaller

and larger land owners?

Explore the conceptualisation of management i.e.

what do people believe constitutes a neglected or

unmanaged woodland?


14


analysis

Levels of woodland

management

(cont. overleaf)

There is a perception that woodland management in England is sparse in coverage.

Plantlife, for example, has argued that “too many of our woods are neglected,

mismanaged or under-managed”. 18

Despite the large demand for timber products and the predicted increase in demand, the

utilisation of national woodlands remains low, with only 39% of England’s annual timber

increment harvested according to figures published in 2006. The rate of harvesting differs

between broadleaf and softwood woodlands with 61% of the annual increment of

softwoods harvested and 18% of the annual increment of broadleaf harvested.19

The Forestry Commission’s 25-year forecast of softwood timber availability (2012) notes

that by the last period of the forecast (2032–36) the average annual standing volume of

softwood will have declined to 235 million m3, down from 336 million m3 in 2011. This

reduction will occur as forecast removals exceed forecast increment. However, this

assessment assumes that private woodland is managed in a way that maximises total

production, with the report noting that ‘owners are unlikely to manage their forests and

woodlands to biological potential throughout the 25-year period’.20

A similar forecast for

hardwood is not yet available.

Extent of management based upon certification

Certification of woodland indicates that a management plan is in place and measures are

being taken to ensure the sustainability of the woodland. Forestry Statistics 2013 indicate

that 27% or 355,000 hectares of woodlands in England were certified to UKWAS

standard. Of this 60% or 214,000 hectares were in the public forest estate, managed by

the Forestry Commission.21

What level of woodland management do people

believe that they are undertaking?

Does this correspond with the evidence on the ground

from National Forest Inventory Field surveys?

Does it correspond to the information on woodland

management that the Forestry Commission collects?

What types of management are being undertaken in

woodlands that are not subject to grants or felling

licences?

For what purposes are woodlands that are considered

‘managed’ by the Forestry Commission actually being

managed?

18 Plantlife (2011). Forestry Recommissioned: Bringing England’s woodlands back to life [online] available at: http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uploads/documents/WR_web.pdf

19 Jaakko Poyry Consulting (2006). Woodland and Forest Sector in England. A mapping study carried out on behalf of the England Forest Industries Partnership.

20 Forestry Commission (2012), 25-year forecast of softwood timber availability: National Forest Inventory Report [online] available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcnfi112.pdf/$FILE/fcnfi112.pdf

21 Forestry Commission (2013) Forestry Statistics 2013 [online] available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forstats2013.nsf/LUContents/733EDABDF0EA86B780257360003953A3

http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uploads/documents/WR_web.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcnfi112.pdf/$FILE/fcnfi112.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forstats2013.nsf/LUContents/733EDABDF0EA86B780257360003953A3


15


analysis

Levels of woodland

management

(cont.)

Extent of management based on number of woodlands with either a felling licence or in a

grant scheme

Owners are required to manage their woodland in compliance with the UK Forestry

Standard in order to be eligible for either a felling licence or for a woodland grant. The

area of woodland subject to a felling licence or grant monies therefore provides an

indication of the area under active management. Forestry Commission data indicates that

54% of woodland was in ‘active management’ in December 2013.22

This generally

includes 100% of Forestry Commission woodlands and 36% of non-Forestry Commission

woodlands.23

The Forestry Commission has carried out woodland surveys and compiled forest

inventories at 10–15 year intervals since 1924. A new National Forest Inventory is

underway and will report in 2014. The last national inventory – known as the National

Inventory of Woodland and Trees (NIWT) – was carried out between 1994 and 2000.24

The field work for the NIWT included observations on the degree to which management

was apparent (published) and also whether there were signs of thinning. The survey

distinguished stands with no sign of thinning from those with multiple episodes and also

categorised stands by productive potential. Quine et al. (2007) presented results on the

lack of thinning in British woodlands.25

The Forestry Commission woodland surveys suggested that management intent could be

inferred for almost 90% of stands; timber production was the most common objective.

The studies analysed as part of the EBR found a range of management activities between

different groups. For example there are suggestions that woodland management is a

continuum and that 100% managed woodlands should not necessarily be aimed for.26

22 Forestry Commission England (2013). Corporate Plan Performance Indicators: Headline Performance Update 31 December 2013 [online] available at:


23 Forestry Commission (2011) Personal Communication to IPF Secretariat.

24 Forestry Commission (2003). National Inventory of Woodland and Trees: Inventory Report [online] available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/nigreatbritain.pdf/$FILE/nigreatbritain.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/nigreatbritain.pdf/$FILE/nigreatbritain.pdf


16


analysis

Barriers to woodland

management

The EBR identified a large number of studies that looked at barriers in relation to specific

woodland management issues. For example, several seek to identify the barriers to

managing woodland for biomass production. These include a lack of long-term market

viability and established supply chains. A number of studies identify issues relating to

public access, such as legal concerns and concerns over vandalism. Another focuses on

certification, with constraints including issues of site scale and bureaucracy. A limited set

of studies identify more general barriers affecting owners and managers.

General barriers to increasing woodland management can be described as:

poor economic returns from woodland management;

access to markets;

economies of scale (many woods are too small to be managed economically);

inaccessibility;

lack of skills and expertise;

lack of time;

lack of interest;

legislative and regulatory barriers; and

a belief that not managing the woodland is the best course of action for wildlife.

There is no conclusive evidence on which of these barriers is most significant or whether

certain groups of owners face particular barriers.

What are the main barriers to increasing woodland

management?

Does the data support the idea that greater access to

timber/woodfuel markets will increase levels of


Do particular groups face different barriers to

woodland management? (for example do new-

entrants encounter different barriers to more

established owners?)

Are there a group of woodlands owners for whom the

provision of additional advice would encourage them

to manage their woodland to a greater extent?

How significant a barrier is concern over forestry

regulations to greater woodland management?

Is there a group of owners who are not managing

their woodland because they believe it is better for

biodiversity?

Do barriers to woodland management differ

depending on other variables? (for example, size,

type or location of woodland?)

25 Quine, C.P., Fuller, R.J., Smith, K.W. & Grice, P.V. (2007) Stand management: a threat or opportunity for birds in British woodland? Ibis 149: 161-174.

26 Quine, C., Crabtree, R., Quick, T., Rowcroft, P and Smith, S. (2012). Woodland Management in England. Final Report to the Independent Panel on Forestry. URS, London [online] available at:

www.defra.gov.uk/forestrypanel/files/IPF_Woodland_Management_in_England1.pdf



17


analysis

Response to

interventions

There are a range of interventions that could be used to incentivise greater levels of

woodland management. These include:

grants for different aspects of woodland management (from woodland planning

to providing public access);

facilitating greater access to markets;

making certification easier;

improving tax benefits;

the provision of greater assistance with pest and disease management;

less stringent regulations;

greater access to trusted and impartial advice; and

assistance in preparing a woodland management plan.

The literature reviewed in the EBR does consider the effectiveness of some of these

interventions, although there is a particular focus on grants and little comparison between

different types of interventions.

The efficacy of grants is the primary intervention discussed in the studies. One of these

studies found that under half of respondents felt that grants are effective at encouraging

management. Other studies indicate that such schemes have low levels of uptake and

are unable to provide adequate support. Low uptake of grants, insufficient funding,

complex applications and onerous conditions were identified as issues with grant

schemes.

The evidence reviewed draws differing conclusions on the efficacy of policy interventions.

For example: grant aid is described in some studies as being an effective and primary

factor in encouraging and determining woodland management. Other findings indicate

that such schemes have low levels of uptake and are unable to provide adequate support.

There is conflicting information on the levers that may bring about an increase in uptake.

Some studies found a reluctance to create woodland regardless of grant size, whilst

others considered increases in grant size to be key means of raising participation.

What interventions are viewed most positively by

woodland owners?

Are there specific groups that would benefit from

softer forms of interventions rather than increases to

grant payments?

What are the main barriers to greater uptake of

grants?

Would those woodland owners that are receiving a

grant undertake the same level of management

without one?


18

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 The focus of the research was two-fold: to develop a greater insight into the attitudes and motivations of, firstly, woodland owners with a view to increasing levels of woodland management and, secondly, farmers with the aim of increasing levels of woodland creation. For the purposes of the research, the attitudes and motivations of woodland owners and farmers were investigated and analysed separately and this chapter sets out the methodological approach taken with respect to woodland owners. However, it should be noted that the distinction between the two groups is somewhat artificial as there is clearly considerable overlap between them – preliminary results from the National Forest Inventory (NFI) field surveys suggest that the majority of woodlands are part of a mixed estate;

27 and

data from the Forest Statistics 2013 indicates that many farms already contain areas of woodland.

28

3.1.2 However, evidence demonstrates that the same individual can have very different attitudes towards woodland management as opposed to woodland creation and can face different barriers in relation to the two. As such it was necessary to ask one set of questions for the woodland management segmentation model and another for the woodland creation segmentation model. From a practical perspective asking the same individual to answer two sets of questions was not considered feasible. Therefore two separate surveys, albeit with some common elements, were designed to elicit information on woodland management and woodland creation, respectively.

3.2 Establishing a representative sample of woodland owners

3.2.1 It was clear from the evidence base review that no previous study of woodland owners had involved a robust, representative sample at the England scale. In particular, previous surveys were:

predominantly restricted to a particular geographical area which could introduce a bias since woodland size, type and other factors vary spatially;

predominantly based on a sample of those woodlands covered by grant schemes or subject to felling licences, i.e. those woodlands represented within Forestry Commission statistics on grants and regulations. The surveys therefore failed to include woodlands that are not, for one reason or another, reflected in these statistics. Some studies, however, made efforts to include other owners through ‘snowball’ sampling

29 and other

initiatives. Nevertheless, these studies are arguably skewed towards those woodlands already captured in Forestry Commission statistics and fail to account for woodland owners who:

- are disengaged from grants and regulations for one reason or another;

- wish to manage their woodland without the conditions imposed by a grant scheme or have never had need of a felling licence;

- are unaware of grant schemes;

- do not have time or the inclination to manage their woodland.

27 Preliminary results from the National Forest Inventory (NFI) survey suggest that the largest single group or ‘type of property' that contain

woodland within England are 'mixed estates ', this is followed by 'farms', then 'mainly woodland'. Beyond this there are 5 other types of property.

These are (in no particular order) crofting estate, private residence, recreation, public building and grounds, and industrial and grounds

28 Forestry Commission (2013) Forestry Statistics 2013 [online] available at:

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forstats2013.nsf/LUContents/E5088599199CE3FF8025736100394E3B

29 Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling technique where existing study subjects recruit future subjects from among their

acquaintances (thus the sample group appears to grow like a rolling snowball); as sample members are not selected from a sampling frame,

snowball samples are subject to numerous biases (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_sampling)

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forstats2013.nsf/LUContents/E5088599199CE3FF8025736100394E3B

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_sampling


19

3.2.2 Key to the success of this project was therefore establishing a robust England-wide sampling frame that incorporated the full range of private woodland owners. Early discussions with the project Steering Group and others within the Forestry Commission indicated that the National Forest Inventory might provide the ideal sampling frame – see Box 1.

Box 1: The National Forest Inventory

The Forestry Commission’s National Forest Inventory (NFI) is an inventory of Britain’s forests and woodlands conducted on a five year cycle. The NFI is designed to ensure that the Forestry Commission has a robust evidence base for policy and programme development.

30 The elements of the inventory are, firstly, a digital map of woodland in

Britain constructed from aerial photography, complemented by other sources of information (see Figure 3-1 for the England map), and, secondly, a programme of ground surveying of woodland using a representative sample drawn from the woodland and forested areas of Great Britain.

31 The current cycle of the NFI began in 2009 and

will be completed in 2014.

A key role for the NFI is to provide a baseline for Britain’s woodland and forested area against which changes can be gauged, for example changes in the level of woodland management, the extent of woodland planting or the impacts of climate change. According to the Forestry Commission, information from the ground survey will also be used to inform softwood and hardwood timber production forecasts, reports on woodland structure, and other economic, ecological, environmental and social aspects of British woodlands.

For the purposes of the NFI, woodland is defined as a minimum area of 0.5 hectares under stands of trees with, or with the potential to achieve, tree crown cover of more than 20% of the ground. Areas of young trees, which have the potential to achieve a canopy cover of more than 20%, are also interpreted as woodland and mapped

32

(areas currently felled are also mapped33

). With respect to the ground survey, Forestry Commission surveyors are visiting approximately 15,000 one-hectare sample squares that have been randomly plotted across Britain to gather representative information.

34

According to the Forestry Commission, each one-hectare survey will typically be conducted by one surveyor within one day and require no input from woodland owners or managers. The surveyor will record a variety of information including tree species present, tree heights, tree ages and woodland area. The Forestry Commission will then use this information to assess the biodiversity value, condition and general health of the woodland, as well as sustainable timber potential (with the latter feeding into the Forestry Commission’s Production Forecast).

34 At the outset, the NFI team were

provided with target levels of accuracy that it would be desirable to achieve for some key forest metrics at Great Britain, country and regional level. It was statistically assessed that around 15,000 one hectare samples would be needed to achieve these targets; this sample size corresponds to about 0.4% coverage of total Great Britain woodland area.

33

Further information on the NFI is available at: www.forestry.gov.uk/inventory.

30 Forestry Commission (2009). England Executive Board, 21 July 2009 [online] available at: www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/eng-eeb-jul09-paper-

35.pdf/$file/eng-eeb-jul09-paper-35.pdf

31 Forestry Commission (2011). National Forest Inventory Woodland Area Statistics: England [online] available at:

www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/NFI_England_woodland_area_stats_2010_FINAL.pdf/$FILE/NFI_England_woodland_area_stats_2010_FINAL.pdf

32 Forestry Commission (2011). NFI Method Statement [online] available at:

www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/NFI_Method_Statement_250511.pdf/$FILE/NFI_Method_Statement_250511.pdf

33 Brewer, A. (2013). Forestry Commission, personal communication, 31 July 2013.

34 Forestry Commission (undated). National Forest Inventory - Frequently Asked Questions [online] available at:

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-83uhys

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/inventory

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/eng-eeb-jul09-paper-35.pdf/$file/eng-eeb-jul09-paper-35.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/eng-eeb-jul09-paper-35.pdf/$file/eng-eeb-jul09-paper-35.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/NFI_England_woodland_area_stats_2010_FINAL.pdf/$FILE/NFI_England_woodland_area_stats_2010_FINAL.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/NFI_Method_Statement_250511.pdf/$FILE/NFI_Method_Statement_250511.pdf

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-83uhys


20

Figure 3-1: National Forest Inventory, England, distribution of woodland 0.5ha and over


21

3.2.3 Early discussions with the NFI team indicated that the database of woodland owners and managers assembled for the purposes of the inventory would provide an ideal sampling frame. In order to undertake field surveys, the NFI team had requested contact details from woodland owners and managers (see Appendix A). While the FC has a statutory right to access land and undertake the field surveys, they considered it in the interest of on-going surveys to make every effort to find out who owned or managed the land on which the 1 hectare sampling square fell and to notify them of the upcoming field survey. The majority of the planned 15,000 NFI one hectare sample squares were selected from 2010 onwards and the private sector squares were then researched for ownership and letters informing them of the need to survey a part of their land.

35 The letters were accompanied by a map which identified a 40

hectare area of land (denoted by a red circle) in which the sample square of interest was located (NFI did not inform owners of the sample square’s exact location to ensure that owners/managers did not start to manage that piece of woodland differently if they knew it was going to be surveyed). The letters were also accompanied by a Woodland Ownership Form (see Appendix A).

3.2.4 Compiling a database of who owned woodland in each of the 15,000 hectare plots (sampled across Great Britain) was complicated by the fact that information held by the Land Registry for England and Wales is incomplete and because, in some instances, one hectare plots were held by multiple owners. The NFI team established the ownership on the basis of government records (in relation to forestry and agricultural grants and regulations); information from the Land Registry; information from large owners (e.g. the National Trust); the records of managers and agents; and through direct liaison with industry and owner groups.

36 Although

research into the ownership of the 15,000 sample squares is ongoing (66% complete), the NFI team considered that sufficient information had already been compiled for the purposes of this research project at the time of its inception. Specifically, ownership information (including addresses and telephone numbers) had been established for around 3,281 private sector sample squares across England.

3.2.5 It should be noted however that whilst the 15,000 squares represent a balanced stratified random sample across Great Britain, the sub-sample of 3,281 squares is a self-selecting subset and is therefore slightly less balanced than the final result. More balance was achieved through setting regional and monthly quotas during the field NFI survey, ensuring that private owners across all nine former government office regions were surveyed proportionally through time. There is therefore the possibility that survey progress was marginally more advanced in some regions than in others, but it was considered that this was a minor factor and would not adversely impact results.

3.2.6 The database of 3,281 owners/managers provided by the NFI team was governed by strict rules over data protection, and precautions were taken to ensure contact details remained confidential and limited to the survey team (i.e. Ipsos MORI).

3.3 Woodland Management proxy indicator

3.3.1 For the purposes of this study woodlands have been considered to be ‘managed’ where there has been FC England grant or felling licence activity. This proxy indicator is used by the FC to track levels of woodland management in England as part of its official statistical reporting (Figure 3-2) and so allows this study to detail the levels of ‘management’ undertaken by each segment against a baseline figure. As grant or felling licence activity can be established using questions with simple yes/no responses, this indicator also allows for ease in terms of surveying and interpretation of results.

35 Brewer, A. (2013). Forestry Commission, personal communication, 31 July 2013.

36 Ditchburn, B. (2013). Forestry Commission, personal communication, 31 July 2013.


22

3.3.2 It is however important to note that the FC recognise that other woodlands might be considered to be managed as well as those that have been subject to grant or felling licence activity. In practice the FC considers woodland to be managed in a positive manner when the owner has:

decided their objectives for the wood;

planned how they are going to achieve these objectives (i.e. produced a ‘management plan’);

is putting this plan into practice; and

the objectives, plan and actions are consistent with the UK Forestry Standard.

3.3.3 The FC will be working during 2014/15 on how to further improve the indicator they use for reporting woodland management so that it better reflects these principles. This refined definition may form the basis for future work examining woodland management in England. In the meantime, the results of this study in terms of the ‘management’ levels reported should be interpreted in light of the relatively narrow scope of the proxy indicator used, with other woodlands potentially in active, sustainable management but outside of the current strict definition.

Figure 3-2 – Percentage of woodland in active ‘management’, including the Public Forest Estate (i.e. where there has been Forestry Commission England grant or felling licence activity typically in the previous 5 to 10 years)

3.4 Approach to the survey

3.4.1 The NFI team initially made contact with the owners/managers included in the database, informing them of the need to survey a portion of their woodland. This letter asked whether the owners/managers would be willing to participate in a survey on their future woodland management intentions. On behalf of the project team, the NFI then wrote to those owners/managers who had agreed to participate in such a survey requesting their participation (the letters were dispatched on behalf of the NFI by Ipsos MORI). It should be noted that 500 owners/managers had not agreed to participate in such a survey and the NFI team did not write to these owners/managers (in addition, a further 160 owners/managers did not agree to facilitate the NFI field survey). The letter stated that the aim of the survey was to assist Defra and the Forestry Commission to understand how best to assist woodland owners to achieve the most from their woodlands, for example through the provision of advice on woodland management or securing grant aid or support to identify local contractors and timber buyers.


23

3.4.2 It is important to emphasise that the NFI sampled one hectare plots, as opposed to the whole woodland area held by an owner or overseen by a manager. However, the letters sent by the NFI to owners/managers were accompanied by maps highlighting a 40 hectare area in which the relevant sample square was located (in order that owners/managers did not manage the woodland within the survey square differently in the knowledge that it was set to be surveyed – see Appendix A). As such, for the purposes of the woodland management survey, owners/managers were asked to answer questions about the larger piece of woodland in which the one hectare sample square fell. To facilitate this, two maps (one large scale, one small scale) that denoted the broad location within which the NFI sample square fell were sent to the woodland owners/managers alongside the letters requesting their participation in the survey – see Appendix A. The introduction to the survey made clear that it was the broad area of woodland (encircled in red on the maps) that was of interest, rather than any other woodland the owners might hold or the managers might oversee.

3.4.3 Importantly, linking the woodland management survey to the NFI in this way meant that field data on the physical characteristics of woodlands and information on the attitudes and motivations of their owners/managers with regards to woodland management could be explicitly linked for the first time.

3.5 Key issues in survey design

3.5.1 A series of key issues were encountered in designing the survey and these are discussed in turn below.

Owners vs. managers

3.5.2 In preparation for the field surveys, the NFI team researched the ownership of those one hectare sample squares in private hands prior to sending out letters informing owners/managers of the need to survey a portion of their land. The Woodland Ownership Form enclosed with the letters asked respondents to clarify whether they were indeed the ‘owner’, ‘agent’, ‘manager’ (or ‘other’) of the woodland area circled on the accompanying maps.

3.5.3 The inclusion of both owners and managers within the NFI sampling frame prompted the question of whether or not the woodland management survey should encompass both owners and managers. In discussion with the project Steering Group, it was decided that managers (and agents) should be included since they might conceivably represent an important and perhaps distinct set of owners. For example, it was reasonably suspected that managers were more likely to be engaged by a woodland owner when the woodland in question was large and/or where it was expected to generate a financial return. In addition, given that the survey’s underlying rationale was to assist in identifying means for promoting woodland management, it was considered important to engage with managers since they would be responsible for day-to-day management decisions. In addition, it was considered that there might be merit in exploring through the survey the level of autonomy that managers enjoyed in making woodland management decisions.

3.5.4 Including managers had implications for the design of the survey. Firstly, it was necessary for the survey to include a specific sub-section in the survey for questions directed solely at managers (and agents) (see Appendix B). Secondly, in order to ensure that the data collected was comparable for the purposes of segmentation, it was necessary to ask managers to respond to the survey questions on behalf of woodland owners. However, while managers would be in a position to answer basic questions on behalf of owners, they might not necessarily be in a position to answer ‘attitudinal’ based questions. These types of questions seek to understand a respondent’s underlying motivations and values. The following is an example from the telephone survey:


24

“I am firstly going to ask you some questions about any responsibilities you may or may not feel as a woodland owner. Please remember to respond to these statements with respect to the woodland indicated on the map. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:”

A. It is important to me to conserve my woodland for future generations

B. The woodland is on my land and I should decide how it should be managed

C. I feel that I am a guardian of not just my woodland but the wider landscape

D. I should be paid by the government for the wider benefits my woodland provides

E. When making management decisions regarding my woodland I consider the wider public interest

F. There is not much point in owning a woodland like mine if it is open to public access

G. Agricultural land is more aesthetically pleasing than woodlands

[CHOOSE RESPONSES FROM]:

1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree

4. Agree 5. Strongly agree 6. Don’t know

3.5.5 In light of the inevitable difficulty that managers might have in confidently answering questions such as these, they were excluded from the manager (and agent) sub-section of the survey. The implications of this decision for the subsequent segmentation are discussed later in this chapter.

Implications of using the NFI sampling squares

3.5.6 Since the sub-sample of 3,281 NFI one hectare sample squares was spread across England, it was quite possible that:

NFI sample squares could fall within different areas of woodland belonging to the same owner or overseen by the same manager;

two or more NFI sample squares could fall within the same area of woodland belonging to a single owner or overseen by a single manager;

two or more NFI sample squares could fall within the same area of woodland but each could belong to a different owner

two or more NFI sample squares could fall within the same area of woodland but each be overseen by a different manager

two or more NFI sample squares could fall within the same area of woodland but each could belong to a different owner but be overseen by the same manager

two or more NFI sample squares could fall within the same area of woodland but each could belong to a different owner and be overseen by different managers

These possibilities are illustrated in Figure 3-3.


25

Figure 3-3: Possible implications of using the NFI sampling frame

3.5.7 Those owners or managers with more than one entry in the database were reasonably considered likely to own or manage larger areas of woodland. If, for the sake of argument, a decision had been made to ask these owners or managers to complete the survey only once, the response rate with respect to larger woodlands would have been artificially lowered. For this reason, the following approach was adopted:

1. Where the owner or manager held or oversaw two or more NFI sample squares in the same area of woodland (i.e. they received several letters and accompanying maps with each of the latter showing a red encircled area), the respondent was asked whether they managed all the areas of woodland in the same way as the area that they had already answered questions on. Where the owner/manager said that they did, the survey responses were duplicated. Where the owner/manager said that they did not, they were asked to complete the survey for the other NFI sample squares in their woodland. See questions QO38, QO39 and Q42 in Appendix B.


26

2. Where the owner or manager held or oversaw two or more NFI sample squares in different areas of woodland the respondent was asked to complete the survey for each NFI sample squares. See question Q40 and Q44 in Appendix B.

37

The inclusion of all woodland owner types in the NFI database

3.5.8 The NFI field surveys are being carried out on 15,000 one-hectare sample squares that have been randomly plotted across Great Britain in order to gather representative information. The ground survey is not therefore restricted to privately held woodlands but also includes woodlands owned by the Forestry Commission itself as well as charities, local authorities and other public bodies.

3.5.9 A key question was whether or not the research (and therefore the resulting segmentation model) should encompass the whole range of owners including bodies such as the Ministry of Defence, the Crown Estate, the Church Commissioners, the National Trust, RSPB, the Woodland Trust and local authorities or be restricted solely to private woodland owners.

3.5.10 For several key reasons, the decision was taken to focus solely on private woodland owners:

Organisations such as the Woodland Trust, the RSPB and the National Trust are likely to have an agreed overall stance on woodland management. For example, the National Trust states that “In all woodlands our aim is to maximise their value to people and to wildlife, now and for the future. We also aim to support local economic development and to contribute to the sustainable production of timber and other forest products”. It is therefore reasonable to assume that woodlands owned by organisations such as these are appropriately managed in line with specific objectives and, as such, the survey would reveal relatively limited additional information. In addition, questions relating to socio-economic characteristics (age, income etc.) would be difficult or impossible for these organisations to answer for individual woodlands and this would likely compromise the comparability of the responses received.

With respect to local authorities, while some may have a corporate woodland strategy, many will not (a brief internet search indicated this to be the case). Extending the survey to local authorities could therefore have provided additional information on the management of publicly owned woodlands. However, again questions relating to socio-economic characteristics (age, income etc.) would be difficult or impossible for these organisations to answer for individual woodlands and this would likely compromise the comparability of the responses received. In addition, it was difficult to know who within a local authority might constitute the ‘decision-maker’ with a respect to a woodland. For example, should a survey be addressed to rangers employed by the authority to undertake day-to-day woodland management or to the director of environmental services who might oversee multiple woodland holdings and be responsible for corporate woodland strategy? Similar arguments were considered to apply to bodies such as the Crown Estate and the Church Commissioners.

3.5.11 In light of the above, a decision was made that only private woodland owners, private timber businesses and private non-timber businesses would be included in the survey and in the subsequent segmentation model. Charities, local authorities and other institutional owners were therefore removed from the sample of 3,281 owners/managers. Note that the study team recognised that, similar to environmental organisations and local authorities, large private timber and non-timber businesses might not necessarily be in a position to answer questions on socio-economic characteristics.

37 Owners/managers were not asked whether they managed the areas of different woodland in the same way as the one they had answered

questions on because many of the survey questions asked about specific characteristics of the woodland (e.g. type and size) that were obviously not applicable to other woodlands.


27

Preference for method of contact

3.5.12 The NFI team had already made contact with the owners/managers included in the database having sent them a letter informing them of the need to survey a portion of their woodland. The version of this letter used from November 2010 until early 2012 asked whether the owners/managers would be willing to participate in a survey on their future woodland management intentions. The letter also asked how the owner/manager would like to be contacted regarding participation in such a survey (telephone, post or online) (for further details see Appendix A).

3.5.13 In order to respect respondents’ preferences regarding means of contact, the project team opted for a multi-modal survey. Those that had expressed a preference to be contacted by telephone were included in the database for telephone interviews while those that had expressed a preference to be contacted by email were given the option of completing the survey online.

3.6 Survey targets

3.6.1 All surveys are subject to margins of error from sampling, as a section of the population, rather than the entire population itself, is being surveyed. Where a random probability technique has been used to draw a sample (as in this case, see Box 1), and where each sample member has a known and non-zero chance of being selected, margins of error can be calculated for the sample selected, based on its size.

3.6.2 In other words, where a sample of members of the population is drawn, the accuracy of the data that is produced by that sample, in terms of its representativeness of the population, can be calculated. In the context of this survey, a sample of 3,281 woodland owners and managers was provided by the NFI. This, in turn, was part of a larger 15,000 strong sample taken from across Great Britain (see Box 1).

3.6.3 Using this information the margin of error associated with the survey results was calculated at a 95% confidence level. This means that the chances are 95 in 100 that the “true” values (if we interviewed all woodland owners/managers) will fall within a specified range (the calculated margin of error). The closer a survey finding is to the absolutes of zero or 100% the smaller the margin of error. The table illustrates the predicted ranges for key sample sizes and percentage results at the “95% confidence level”. For example a survey finding of 10% based on 1,000 respondents has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.9%. That is we can be 95% certain that the true value (if we interviewed everyone) is between 8.1% and 11.9%.

Figure 3-4: Sampling tolerances

Approximate sampling tolerances applicable to percentages at or near these levels

Sample size on which survey result is based

10% or 90% 30% or 70% 50%

+% +% +%

1,000 1.9 2.8 3.1

600 2.4 3.7 4.0

200 4.2 6.4 6.9


28

3.6.4 Given the relatively large woodland owning population (assumed to be between 50,000 and 80,000 in England)

38 a sample size of 1,000 was deemed necessary to capture the full

diversity of woodland owners.

3.6.5 It should be noted that figures in the table assume a random probability sampling approach (whereas regional quotas were used). Strictly speaking, however, this was not a random probability approach as we set quotas on a regional basis to ensure representation, but in practice Ipsos MORI advised that good quota sampling has been found to be as reliable as a purely random approach.

3.7 Survey quotas

3.7.1 The only quotas that were set were in relation to geographical region.39

These quotas were put in place to prevent over-sampling of one region at the expense of another – see Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Regional Quotas set

Region Quota

East Midlands 60

East 100

South East and London 240

North East 57

North West 74

South West 184

West Midlands 78

Yorkshire & Humber 205

Total 1000

3.7.2 Regions with greater numbers of woodland owners/managers (either because there was more woodland or because ownership was more fragmented) were set higher quotas. This ensured that the results would be representative of the woodland owning/managing population.

3.7.3 Quotas were set on geographic region, however, it should be noted that the quotas were relaxed towards the end of the survey due to the difficulties of obtaining sufficient survey responses in some regions. As a result, for example, the quota for East Midlands was exceeded by 8%, whilst the sample for the North East was 9% under.

3.7.4 In addition, a variable was created which indicated whether the respondent was a duplicate or not. If the respondent was a duplicate, their data was weighted accordingly and given a higher value. This was in light of the survey question that asked:

Finally we understand the National Forest Inventory has sampled another part of the same wood which is managed by you. Do you manage this second piece of woodland in the same way as the one we have discussed today?

38 Forestry Commission (2011) Forestry Statistics 2011

39 The Government Office Regions of North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, East Midlands, West Midlands, East of England, South

West, London and South East were used


29

3.7.5 If the respondents answered ‘yes’ to this question, it was viewed as a respondent having been surveyed twice, without actually having been so. The weighting variable therefore ensured that the data was geographically representative, and could account for the duplicated respondents.

3.7.6 In order to allow the reporting of statistics which give an indication of how widespread or how often something is practised in ‘absolute’ terms, data was sometimes used which was weighted to reduce any bias introduced by fact that the regional quotas were not fully met. The weighting was applied in an effort to make the key characteristics of regional distribution match what is known to be the true distribution within the population. In this case, for example, the fact that the East Midlands was overrepresented in the sample can be corrected through a weighting to ‘downgrade’ the importance of the responses from this region. This means that if there are some factors which are systematically more likely to be practised in the North East these are not overrepresented in the analysis. However, in general, the weighting had minimal impact on the results, as the actual number of surveys completed in each region was largely in line with the quotas originally set. Also, weighting poses a challenge as to when to report statistics which are weighted or unweighted without this being confusing for the reader. As such, the decision was made that unweighted data would largely be reported. Exceptions to this were made only when the regional weighting would have clearly distorted the picture of how well something was practised or represented ‘on the ground’. In such instances, weighted figures were reported.

3.8 Survey mode and design

3.8.1 The final version of the woodland management survey can be found in Appendix B. As discussed, it was decided to run a multi-modal survey (telephone and online) to enable the survey team to use the preferred method of contact provided by the woodland owner/manager in their previous correspondence with the NFI team.

3.8.2 In terms of survey content, the types of questions that were included were influenced by two factors: firstly, the information collected during the Evidence Base Review (EBR) and the gaps this identified; and, secondly, the information that was necessary to facilitate a robust segmentation model.

3.8.3 The survey was structured to elicit six categories of information from the woodland owner/manager.

1. Internal factors: attitude, values and beliefs

3.8.4 Attitudinal statements are often used as the basis for segmentation models. They seek to extract information on an individual’s worldview, as that is seen as key in influencing intentions and actual behaviour. As discussed by Gaskell et al. (2013) there is considerable debate over the extent to which attitude is a reliable predictor of behaviour. For example, a direct relationship between participation and a positive interest in, or concern for, the environment is not always clear cut. As such attitudes, values and beliefs play an important part in intentions, but they do not work in isolation.

3.8.5 Questions were developed for the survey which allowed exploration of the importance of worldviews in influencing woodland owner objectives for their woodland and actual behaviour. As discussed, it was only possible to ask these ‘attitudinal’ questions of woodland owners and not of woodland managers, therefore we also asked questions on actual behaviour as discussed under Point 6.


30

2. External factors: social norms and roles

3.8.6 External factors including social norms and roles also influence the intentions of an individual. As such, questions were asked about what organisations a respondent was a member of and how they understood woodland management. With respect to woodland owners, questions were also asked about the importance of family and friends in the decision making process, and the owners’ commitment to maintaining a tradition of woodland management. For woodland managers a number of questions were asked about the relationship between the owner and the manager, and the importance of each in making decisions about woodland management. These questions sought to understand how external factors influence the decision making process.

3. Intentions (also referred to as motivations or objectives)

3.8.7 Intentions (or objectives) are reasons for undertaking or not undertaking certain activities. These are underpinned by values, beliefs and attitudes and are also influenced by social norms and roles.

3.8.8 The survey asked for the objectives held by woodland owners for their woodland, and how important the woodland was in providing various benefits.

The objectives are set out below:

A. Timber production B. Woodfuel for personal use C. Woodfuel for sale D. Space for recreation and relaxation E. Game shooting F. Sports other than shooting (for example, mountain biking, horse riding or

orienteering) G. A home for wildlife H. Landscape and amenity I. Shelter or screening (for example, to shield crops or livestock from the wind,

reduce soil erosion or reduce noise) J. Public access K. Privacy and security

L. As a store of carbon

4. Barriers

3.8.9 Barriers reduce an individual’s perception of their ability to participate.

Potential barriers preventing greater woodland management referred to in the survey might include the following:

A. The economic returns from woodland management B. Lack of time C. Lack of knowledge and skills D. Lack of interest in woodland management E. Difficulty accessing labour and expertise F. Belief it should be left in its natural state G. Small size H. Inaccessibility I. Access to markets


31

5. Supporting conditions (e.g. grants or access to markets)

3.8.10 Supporting conditions enable an individual to act and can help them turn good intentions into actual behaviour, and help remove barriers to participation.

Supporting conditions referred to in the survey might include: A. Higher grant rates B. Greater access to Forestry Commission advice C. Easier routes to certification D. More favourable tax benefits E. Greater assistance with disease and pest control F. Access to local buyers for woodfuel G. Less restrictive regulations H. Greater availability of trusted and impartial advice I. Greater availability of trusted contractors J. More affordable private advice K. Free woodland management plan

6. Behaviour

3.8.11 As well as the factors that feed into the decision about whether to manage woodland, for what objectives and to what extent, it is important to document actual behaviour.

The survey asked a number of questions focused on actual behaviour:

To what extent was the woodland actively managed for particular benefits?40

What management activities had been undertaken during the previous five years?

3.9 The use of Likert scales

3.9.1 Likert scales were extensively used in the survey. A typical question using a Likert Scale might pose a statement and ask the respondent whether they Strongly Agree - Agree - Undecided - Disagree or Strongly Disagree.

41 Following discussions with the University of

Aberdeen (contracted to undertake the segmentation), it was decided that Likert scale questions would be included wherever possible in the survey to facilitate later segmentation.

3.10 Pilot survey

3.10.1 A pilot survey was undertaken to enable any issues (e.g. confusion on the part of respondents) to be addressed before the survey was launched in full.

3.10.2 The main concern highlighted by the pilot was the survey’s length, which at 33 minutes was considered too long As such, efforts were made to reduce the number of questions to save time where possible. For example, a number of attitudinal statements were deleted where these were deemed to be somewhat repetitive. Revision to the survey after the pilot phase reduced the average length of the survey to 28.5 minutes.

40 Active management was defined as activities such as coppicing to support biodiversity, maintaining paths for public access or thinning to

support game shooting.

41 See www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/cookbook/info_likert_scale/

http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/ltdi/cookbook/info_likert_scale/


32

3.11 Undertaking the survey

3.11.1 Ipsos MORI undertook the telephone and online survey. In total, 1572 pieces of sample were contacted to achieve the full number of interviews.

3.11.2 To ensure that sufficient responses were collected, two reminders were sent out to those that who had been asked to complete the online survey. If they had not completed the online survey within two weeks, their contact details were added to the telephone interview database.

3.11.3 A total of 985 surveys were completed by owners/managers.

3.12 Follow-up interviews

3.12.1 Following the survey, a series of telephone interviews were undertaken with a subset of those owners/managers who had expressed a willingness to be re-contacted. The aim of the interviews was to gain a richer understanding of the attitudes, motivations and behaviours of woodland owners/managers and ‘ground truth’ the segmentation model.

3.12.2 Overall, around 400 owners/managers had consented to be re-contacted. Follow-up phone interviews were subsequently undertaken with 45 owners/managers who were available at the time of the research.

3.12.3 Ideally, the follow-up interviews would have been undertaken following the creation of the segmentation model, thus allowing an equal number of interviews to be undertaken for each segment. However, given time constraints (the need for the research to feed into the emerging Rural Development Programme for England), it was necessary to undertake the follow-up research in parallel with development of the segmentation model.

3.12.4 In order to identify an appropriate set of interviewees in the absence of the segmentation model, owners/managers were divided into separate groups. This ensured that a diverse range of people amongst those that had agreed to be re-contacted were interviewed, representing diverse positions with regards to woodland management. Having said this, a particular focus was on those groups that were considered most interesting from a policy perspective, including those not currently managing their woodlands (see below). The aim of the interviews here was to identify the barriers to woodland management they faced.

3.12.5 In order to maximise the usefulness of the interviews, the aim was to focus on those groups that:

could increase management;

would likely maintain management despite reduced financial incentives; and

were not currently considered to be managing their woodland by the Forestry Commission but were in fact doing so.

3.12.6 As a result, the following types of owners were considered the most likely to be relevant:

1. those with a large woodland area not currently under management;

2. those managing their woodlands but without a UKFS-compliant management plan (or who weren’t considered to be managing their woodland by the Forestry Commission);

3. those that require a small push to start managing their woodland (e.g. a one-off provision of advice or a one-off grant);

4. those that require better access to markets to encourage them to increase woodland management;

5. those that require small increases in grant aid to start managing their woodland; and


33

6. those that claim grants but would manage their woodland without any incentives (i.e. deadweight).

3.12.7 Based on the types of owners/managers identified above, the following groups were engaged in follow-up work – see Table 3-2. The table includes a broad summary of the topics explored with each group. Detailed semi-structured interview scripts were prepared for each of these groups and can be found in Appendix E.

Table 3-2: Definition of different groups and summary of topics to explore

Level of management

Group Summary of topics to explore

Non-management 1 - Economically

or financially constrained

Are they really only constrained by a lack of financial incentive?

Is the barrier short-term capital requirements or long term revenue considerations?

What level of economic incentive would they require to start managing their woodland?

Are there any other interventions that would encourage them to manage? Would greater access to markets encourage them to manage? Would interventions such as woodfuel cooperatives?

2 - Time-

constrained What would incentivise this group to manage/or to ask someone

else to manage the woodland? E.g. access to affordable contractors to carry out the work or a financial incentive?

3 - Constrained

by lack of expertise

What is the best way to increase their understanding of woodland management? E.g. FC Woodland Officer visits, greater access to affordable advice, the provision of a woodland management plan, or access to trusted contractors?

4 - Believe it is

better for biodiversity

Explore their understanding of the relationship between woodland management and biodiversity. Where does their understanding of this come from? What types of biodiversity are they interested in? Do they understand the concept of species richness and how different disturbance regimes support biodiversity?

Would they be willing to increase management if they believed it would benefit biodiversity?

Would they be willing to increase management if they received grants? Or if they received advice/a woodland management plan from an FC Woodland Officer?

5 - Unconstrained What is it that prevents this group (if this group exists) from managing their woodland? Is it simply a lack of inclination/interest?

Woodlands not actively managed for public benefit

6 - Commercial

woodlands What incentives does this group require to manage the

woodland for a broader range of social benefits?

How important are current interventions (grants, tax breaks) in making forestry a commercially viable occupation? If grants/tax breaks did not exist would they continue to manage the woodland in the same way?

How would they react if grants/tax breaks became dependent on them providing a broader range of environmental services?

Are they interested in emerging carbon markets?


34

Level of management

Group Summary of topics to explore

Active management

7 - Under FC

Grants and Regulations

What has their experience of the grants system been?

How important has the grant system been in enabling them to manage their woodlands vs. market incentives?

Would they have undertaken the same level of management if they hadn’t received a grant? (e.g. can we reduce grant levels to this group? Are they deadweight?)

Do they feel they could do more?

What incentives would encourage them to increase the management of their woodland?

Do they currently pay for their advice and if not would they be happy to pay for advice?

8 - Not under FC

Grants and Regulations

Why have they not applied for grants?

What are their reasons for being disengaged from the policy system?

As far as we can tell would this group qualify as managing their woodlands in compliance with the UKFS?

Do they have a good understanding of woodland management?

Can we encourage this group to manage more, if they need to?

What can we do to ensure the information about this group is captured by the Forestry Commission?

3.13 Validation of follow-up research into the segmentation model

3.13.1 The follow up interview transcripts were mapped back onto the final segmentation model to ‘ground-truth’ the segment categorisations and ‘build the narrative’ around the different segment profiles. Due to the validation being undertaken in parallel with development of the segmentation model, there was no guarantee that there would be an equal number of follow-up respondents for each segment.

3.13.2 Chapter 7 discusses the findings of the follow up work and Appendix F contains the interview transcripts.

3.14 Development of the segmentation model

3.14.1 Segmentation requires significant preparation in order to understand the structure of the dataset and to determine the most appropriate set of variables to include in the model. In this case, a decision had to be made as to whether it was appropriate to segment both woodland owners and managers together in the same model. A number of different models were created using a hybrid cluster analysis method explained in Chapter 6. The analysis determined that one combined segmentation model was appropriate and the results of this, together with summary profiles, are presented in Chapter 6.

3.15 Limitations

In order to establish levels of woodland management the survey listed a series of management activities and asked woodland owners/managers whether these had been undertaken in their woodland during the past five years. Whilst this provided some indication of the levels of management, the results obtained are limited due to the openness of this question to interpretation. 'Woodland management activities' need to be more clearly defined as they include an array of maintenance activities such as thinning, seen as vital for biodiversity, which can be undertaken to varying extents and frequencies. It would be useful to develop a typology of woodlands incorporating a three-dimensional representation of the management activities being undertaken, including the extent and frequency of these. This could be integrated into future surveys to enable a clearer picture of actual management activities being implemented on the ground, in conjunction with research on perceived barriers and motivations.


35

The survey sought to establish levels of engagement with the grant system by asking respondents whether their woodland had ever been in receipt of a grant (including currently having a grant for their woodland). It would have been useful to have separated this question into one focused on past grants and one focused on current grants in order to track change over time. This would also have provided a more accurate picture of those woodlands that could currently be classified as being ‘Under FC Grants and Regulations’ (i.e. that have both a grant and a felling licence). However, it should be noted that felling licences are most likely to be issued periodically to small woodland owners, therefore owners could currently have grants but no felling licences.

In order to establish whether or not a respondent was a farmer, membership of the NFU was used as a proxy. Whilst this is considered to be an appropriate proxy given the focus of this organisation, the survey would ideally have clearly asked whether a respondent was a farmer in order to reduce the potential for error.

The survey includes managers as well as owners. Whilst ideally the survey would have contacted owners in all cases, given that these are the ultimate decision makers for their woodland, the engagement of this survey with managers can also be considered an advantage. This is due to the responsibility that these managers often have for the day-to-day woodland management decisions, influences that they can exert on woodland owners, and the need to examine to what extent these individuals represent a distinct group of stakeholders, potentially requiring a targeted policy approach.

More broadly, there has been some criticism of the use of segmentation models to create typologies. It has been suggested that the relevance of typologies based on attitudinal measures is limited where the assumed attitude-behaviour relationship can be questioned. Another criticism of typology building is that much of this work groups individual land managers into apparently coherent groups, based around single descriptors, whilst in reality they are not easily contained in such frameworks. Our work has sought to address these concerns in so far as is possible by examining the attitudes of respondents alongside their past behaviours (such as in terms of the woodland management activities that they have undertaken). In addition, we have explored the coherence of our groupings through telephone interviews with individual stakeholders.

Whilst the follow up telephone interviews conducted during this study have helped to test the validity of our segmentation model, these interviews could have been greater in number and spread more evenly across the segments. Ground-truthing the segmentation was constrained by the fact that the segmentation model had not yet been finalised when undertaking the follow-up interviews, and therefore equal numbers of interviews were not undertaken for each segment.

The issue of self-selection is a limitation of this study, given that those more willing to take part in the survey are also potentially more likely to be engaged in woodland management (although there will always be a degree of this in any survey as not everyone will be willing to answer). In particular, it is important to note that 500 owners/managers did not agree to participate in the survey, whilst in addition 160 owners chose not to facilitate the NFI survey which formed the basis of our sample. Capturing the views of these stakeholders would have allowed a more representative set of results.

Throughout the segmentation exercise efforts were made to ascertain whether physical and socio-economic variables (e.g. land area, woodland type, type of owner, income) are important determinants of likely management levels and priorities. Our findings indicate that these factors are not dominant. There is therefore a strong indication that the motivational factors for woodland management cut across traditional ways of classifying land owners. This may make it somewhat difficult to target these groups of owners with incentives and messages. However, one potential means of targeting particular stakeholder groups is through the organisations they tend to belong to.


36

4 SURVEY RESULTS – HEADLINE STATISTICS

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The telephone/online survey was carried out with 985 respondents in total. The majority of those contacted during the survey were woodland owners (67%). Meanwhile, around a third of those surveyed (34%) were managers of woodlands (Figure 1: Appendix C, i). Below is a summary of the headline statistics that the survey yielded. All of the results presented here are unweighted, with the exception of the regional distribution of woodlands.

4.2 Physical and geographical characteristics

Size of woodland

4.2.1 This referred to the larger piece of contiguous woodland that the one hectare NFI sample square was a part of. Other woodlands that the owner or manager might own/manage were excluded from the survey and, instead, a general question about other woodland holdings was asked at the end of the survey. The aim here was to ensure that all the answers given throughout the survey related to the area of woodland that included the 1 hectare square that was sampled as part of the NFI. In this way, the data collected through the NFI field surveys could be analysed in conjunction with the data from the telephone/online survey. A detailed picture of the physical state of woodlands as well as the attitudes and motivations of their owners/managers could therefore be assembled.

4.2.2 The majority of the woodlands captured through the telephone survey were relatively small (Figure 4-1) with 76% of the woodlands less than 20 hectares in size. A relatively large number of woodland owners/managers did not know how large the woodland in question was (139 respondents).

4.2.3 The distribution of woodland size recorded through the survey closely matches those recorded by the Forestry Commission National Inventory of Woodland & Trees for England

42, so

providing further confidence in the representativeness of the survey. However, it should be noted that the sample was weighted on the basis of the nine former government office regions to ensure that the survey wasn’t dominated by owners/managers from southern England where there is a preponderance of smaller woodlands.

42 Forestry Commission (2001) National Inventory of Woodland & Trees [online] available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/hcou-54pg9u

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/hcou-54pg9u


37

Figure 4-1: Size of woodlands (Base = 1000, unweighted)

Type of woodland

4.2.4 Broadleaf and mixed woodlands made up the majority of the sample, with 43% of respondents falling into each of the categories (Figure 2: Appendix C, i). Those with mainly conifer woodlands totalled only 13% of the sample.

Location of woodland

4.2.5 The survey results show that around a quarter of all respondents were located in the South East and London region, followed by the South West region (18%) and Yorkshire and the Humber (21%) (Figure 3a: Appendix C, ii). The lowest proportions of respondents were from the East Midlands (6%), the West Midlands (8%), the North West (7%), and the North East (6%).Unweighted figures are presented for information (Figure 3b: Appendix C, ii)

43.

4.3 Socio-economic characteristics

Nature of ownership

4.3.1 Respondents considered ‘personal’ to be the best description of ownership type in the majority of cases (81%) (Figure 4: Appendix C, iii). Those who considered ownership to be of a business nature made up nearly a fifth of those surveyed (7% private forestry or timber business; 12% other private business).

43 Both the weighted and the unweighted results have been presented for the regional distribution of the participants. This is

because some regions of the country are overrepresented in the data (e.g. there is a greater proportion of the woodland

managers from East Midlands in our data compared to what we know to be the ‘true’ distribution when we look at national

statistics – see Section 3.7 for a more detailed explanation). Therefore, we can weight the data to compensate for this and this

essentially downgrades the importance of the answers from those in the overrepresented regions and upgrades those that are

underrepresented. The weighted data is more representative of the true national distribution of woodland owners / managers.

However, the differences are very small and, as discussed in Section 3.7, in the interests of transparency, unweighted data is

used in the majority of the analysis presented in this report.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

<20ha 20-<50ha 50-<100ha 100-<500ha >500ha

National Inventory of Woodland and Trees Our Survey


38

Age of respondents

4.3.2 As reported in the literature, the age profile of private woodland owners in England is distinct from the age profile of the general population that is over 25 (Figure 4-2). The greatest proportion of private woodland owners are aged between 55 and 65. The three age brackets that cover the age range from 45 to 74 account for 79% of the woodland owning population.

Figure 4-2: Age profile of private woodland owners (blue bars) compared to the general population of England

44 (red bars)

45 (Base = 905

46, unweighted)

Gender of respondents

4.3.3 As reported in the literature the majority of woodland owners are male (78%) (Figure 5: Appendix C, iii). Females make up 16% of the sample. ‘Others’ (such as trusts) make up 4%, and 2% didn’t provide an answer.

Income of respondents

4.3.4 The overall average income of private woodland owners (above returns from their woodlands) is significantly higher than that of the general population (Figure 4-3). Over half the sample had earnings of over £50,000 a year, with 28% of respondents earning £100,000 or more. In comparison, median gross annual earnings for full-time employees stood at £26,500 for the year ending 5th April 2012.

47

44 ONS, 2011 Census: Usual resident population by five-year age group and sex, local authorities in the United Kingdom [online] available at:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/population-and-household-estimates-for-the-united-kingdom/rft-table-3-census-2011.xls

45 NB. ONS data provides information on the proportion of the UK population that falls into particular age bands. These include a 15-19 year age

group and a 20-24 years age group. The legal age to begin full time work in the UK is 16 years. As such, the figures given for those aged ‘under

25’ in the ‘general population’ in Figure 4-2 cover those between 15 and 24 years of age, and so are not entirely comparable with the ‘woodland

managers’ group which covers only those in full time work.

46 52 respondents didn’t know and 43 refused to answer

47 ONS (2012) Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, 2012 Provisional Results [online] available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-

survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2012-provisional-results/stb-ashe-statistical-bulletin-2012.html

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Under 25

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 - 64

65 - 74

75 - 84

85+ years Generalpopulation

WoodlandManagers

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/population-and-household-estimates-for-the-united-kingdom/rft-table-3-census-2011.xls

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2012-provisional-results/stb-ashe-statistical-bulletin-2012.html

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2012-provisional-results/stb-ashe-statistical-bulletin-2012.html


39

Figure 4-3: Income of private woodland owners (Base = 452; 548 either refused to answer or did not know; unweighted)

Length of ownership

4.3.5 As discussed below, many woodlands are inherited through generations from previous family ownership. As a result it is possible for owners to state that they have owned their woodland for more than a lifetime. Just over half of woodland owners had owned their woodland for between 5 and 49 years, with 51% of respondents indicating this (Figure 6: Appendix C, iv). There were also a large proportion of longer-term owners, with a further 41% of owners in the 50-248 and 250-999 year categories. Relatively new entrants (<1-4 years) were a small part of the sample, with just 4% falling into this category.

Means of acquiring woodland

4.3.6 Generally speaking, woodlands tended to have been purchased by their owners (51%), or inherited (40%) (Figure 7: Appendix C, iv). Those having planted their woodland made up just 16% of those surveyed.

Economic viability of woodlands

4.3.7 The results indicate that, in terms of economic viability, a large proportion of woodlands are breaking even (44%) or are considered loss-making (32%), including their income from grants. (Figure 8: Appendix C, v). Only a small fraction of woodlands are seen to be profitable (6%). However, there was also a notable degree of uncertainty amongst respondents (18%) perhaps indicating that monitoring financial performance is not necessarily a priority for some owners.

Sources of woodland income

4.3.8 Revenues from timber production and grant monies were considered to be the most important sources of income by respondents; with around a third considering each of these to be important or very important (Figure 4-4). Other sources of income were game shooting (24% important or very important) and woodfuel (23% important or very important).

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Up to £9499

£9,500 - £17,499

£17,500 - £29,999

£30,000 - £49,999

£50,000 - £99,999

£100,000 or more


40

Figure 4-4: Importance of woodland activities in generating income48

4.3.9 It is notable that woodland managers were far more likely to regard an activity as being either important or very important to income generation across all of the categories (Figure 4-5). For instance, over twice as many managers considered timber to be an important or very important source of income from their woodland (48%). This indicates that managers are unsurprisingly often responsible for overseeing woodlands with clear sources of income generation.

Figure 4-5: Activities considered both important or very important to woodland managers (blue) and woodland owners (red) (Base: 335 managers, 665 owners

48; unweighted)

48 Base: 1000, unweighted

3%

13% 12% 15% 14%

2%

9% 12%

17% 17%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Other sports Woodfuel Game shooting Timber Grants

Very important Important

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Other sports Woodfuel Game shooting Grants Timber


41

4.4 Objectives for woodlands

4.4.1 As Figure 4-6 demonstrates, woodlands are considered to be important (30%) or very important (46%) as a home for wildlife by a large proportion of owners/managers, with landscape and amenity value also regarded highly (30% and 39% respectively). Sports other than shooting as well as public access were both seen as being of low importance in a high majority of cases.

4.4.2 Of particular note is that 39% of respondents identified carbon storage as an important woodland management objective. This woodland owner survey is believed to be one of the first to include carbon-related objectives. This finding could potentially indicate that information regarding carbon and climate change is successfully reaching land owners and managers and having an impact. However it could equally just indicate a 'default' response (such as could be the case with biodiversity and landscape) given that woodlands provide this benefit or meet this objective by default and without intervention.

4.5 Levels of management

Management activities undertaken in the past five years

4.5.1 The survey results indicate that the majority of the surveyed woodlands have been subject to some form of management over the past five years, with just 9% having been subject to no management (Figure 4-7). The most frequently undertaken intervention by 68% of respondents is ‘maintenance operations including fencing’. Other frequently undertaken activities were pest control (61%) and thinning (60%). Clear felling was the management activity undertaken least often (15%), although given the long rotation lengths involved, this is not a surprising result as few of the woodlands surveyed are likely to have been clear felled in the last 5 years.


42

Figure 4-6: Important (blue) and very important (red) aspects of the woodland according to respondents (Base: 1000, unweighted)

18% 18%

11%

20%

15%

5%

30% 30%

19%

6%

21% 23%

17% 16%

8%

22%

15%

3%

46%

39%

14%

5%

21% 16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Timber woodfuel forpersonal use

woodfuel forcommercial use

recreation andrelaxation

game shooting sports other thanshooting

home for wildlife landscape andamenity

shelter orscreening

public access privacy andsecurity

carbon store


43

Figure 4-7: Management activities undertaken by woodland owners/managers over the past five years (Base: 1000, unweighted)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Tree planting Maintenanceoperations

Installinginfrastructure

Thinning Selective felling Clear felling Pest control Weed control Other, pleasespecify

None Don't know


44

Participation in grant schemes and felling licences

4.5.2 50% of respondents reported that their woodlands were currently, or had historically, been part of a grant scheme. 43% had never been part of a grant scheme

49 and 7% didn’t know whether

they or the owner they represented had been in receipt of a grant (Figure 9: Appendix C, v). 33% of woodlands were in receipt of a felling licence (Figure 10: Appendix C, vi).

4.5.3 It is interesting to consider which woodlands have never been subject to a grant or felling licence since this gives an indication that a woodland may not be managed. These woodlands could be considered as ‘unmanaged’ by the Forestry Commission according to one definition

50. In all, 359 (36%) of the 1000 woodlands were neither subject to a grant nor a

felling licence (Figure 4-8).

4.5.4 Since these woodlands may not be covered by some official statistics, it is critical to consider the types of activities the woodland owners/managers are undertaking and to explore what ‘level’ of management they are undertaking. This matter will be explored in greater depth in Chapter 5.

Figure 4-8: Percentage of respondents that have been subject to a grant or felling licence (Sample size = 1000, unweighted)

49 NB. Respondents were asked the following question: ‘Is the woodland, or has it ever been, in receipt of a grant?’ As such, it should be

expected that the number of positive responses is in excess of FC statistics on the number of woods that are currently in receipt of grant support.

50 ‘Management’ of woodland is defined in a number of different ways by the Forestry Commission. See Section 3.3 for further information on the

Woodland Management proxy indicator adopted for the purposes of this study.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Only fellinglicence

Only grant Both felling &grant

Neither Don't know grant& No felling

Don't know felling& No grant

Don't know both


45

4.6 Barriers to woodland management

4.6.1 The barrier to woodland management cited most by respondents was insufficient economic returns (Figure 4-9). In all, 44% of owners agreed this was a barrier, with a further 8% agreeing strongly. Other highly cited barriers included management not being a priority (34% agreed, 4% strongly), the woodland in question being too small (24% agreed, 6% strongly) and insufficient access to markets (25% agreed, 4% strongly).

4.6.2 Three of the barriers were cited by less than one quarter of respondents. These were sufficient knowledge (16% agreed, 3% strongly), access to labour (15% agreed, 2% strongly), and the belief that woodland should be left in its natural state (15% agreed, 4% strongly).

4.6.3 In contrast to woodland owners, it is clear that economic returns are regarded as less of a concern by woodland managers, with 32% agreeing and 7% strongly agreeing this was a barrier (Figure 4-10). Nonetheless, this was the second most cited concern. A lack of time was the most cited barrier with this seen as an issue by far more managers than owners. A shortage of skilled workers was also cited more often by manager respondents.

4.6.4 Managers were more likely to see management of the woodland as a priority compared to owners, and were much less likely to perceive size, accessibility, and a sense that their woodland should be left to nature, as barriers.

Figure 4-9: Proportion of woodland owners who agreed (blue) or strongly agreed (red) that a barrier to woodland management applied to them (Base = 665, unweighted)

44%

24%

34%

16% 20%

15% 15%

24%

13%

25%

8%

3%

4%

3%

2%

2% 4%

6%

12%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Economicreturns

Time Not apriority

Knowledge Skills Access tolabour

Believe itshould be

left

Too small Tooinaccessible

Access tomarkets


46

Figure 4-10: Proportion of woodland managers who agreed (blue) or strongly agreed (red) that a barrier to woodland management applied to them (Base = 335, unweighted)

51

4.7 Receptiveness to interventions

4.7.1 The intervention that respondents most often indicated they would be responsive to was higher grant rates, with 47% agreeing and 16% strongly agreeing that this would encourage them to increase woodland management (Figure 4-11). Beyond this there was little variation in the response rate, although favourable tax benefits, the availability of trusted and impartial advice, and the provision of a free management plan were all cited by over 40% of respondents. Around 30% of respondents were receptive to the remaining interventions. The availability of trusted contractors was the least cited intervention (22% agree, 5% strongly agree).

4.7.2 As well as owners, it is also of interest to examine the receptiveness of managers to the suggested interventions. As Figure 4-12 clearly shows, there are lower proportions of receptive managers across all interventions. The general pattern however remains similar, with higher grant rates (29% agreed, 16% strongly agreed) and favourable tax benefits (24% agreed, 11% strongly agreed) being cited most. Relative to the range of interventions proposed, managers were also more receptive to assistance with disease and pest control (22% agreed, 7% strongly agreed). Around 20% of managers were receptive to each of the remaining interventions.

.

51 N.B Managers were not asked to give answers about ‘knowledge’, ‘access to markets’ or ‘access to labour’ in terms of barriers

32%

56%

27% 23%

5% 10% 8%

7%

7%

3% 5%

1%

1%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Economicreturns

Time Not a priority Skills Believe it shouldbe left

Too small Too inaccessible


47

Figure 4-11: Proportion of owners who agreed (blue) or strongly agreed (red) that they would be receptive to an intervention (Base = 665, unweighted)

47%

30% 26%

39% 35%

28% 31%

37%

22%

28%

35%

16%

5%

4%

9%

4%

5%

6%

6%

5%

5%

9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Higher grant rates ForestryCommission advice

Certification waseasier

Favourable taxbenefits

Assistance withdisease and pest

control

Local buyers forwoodfuel

Regulations werenot so restrictive

Availability oftrusted and

impartial advice

Trustedcontractors

Affordable privateadvice

Free managementplan

Strongly Agree Agree


48

Figure 4-12: Proportion of managers who agreed (blue) or strongly agreed (red) that they would be receptive to an intervention (Base: 335, unweighted)

29%

16% 16%

24% 22%

20% 19%

14%

18% 20%

16%

2% 6%

11%

7%

3% 4%

3%

3%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Higher grant rates Forestry Commissionadvice




control




impartial advice

Trusted contractors Affordable privateadvice

Strongly Agree Agree


49

4.8 Membership of organisations

4.8.1 The large proportion of respondents that were members of the National Farmers Union (41%), suggests that, as anticipated, there is a significant contingent of woodland owning farmers (Figure 11: Appendix C, vi). Tenant farmers appear to make up a far smaller proportion (2%). Other often cited organisations include the Country Land & Business Association (38%), the Royal Forestry Society (25%) and Confor (18%).

4.8.2 Relatively few respondents were members of the Small Woods Association (4%) and the Small Woodland Owners Group (1%). This is notable given the high proportion of small woodland owners in the sample and suggests that many of these owners may not be engaged with formal woodland organisations, or that they are engaged with other organisations.


50

5 SURVEY RESULTS – FURTHER ANALYSIS

5.1.1 In order to focus the analysis of what is a very large data set, this section provides analysis and commentary in relation to four key questions considered to be of particular interest to Defra and Forestry Commission England:

1. What are the differences in terms of management between those woodlands included in the Forestry Commission's proxy indicator of woods in management versus those not included?

2. Are new woodland owners a distinct group of private woodland owners?

3. How does woodland size influence woodland owner objectives, actual or perceived barriers to management and responsiveness to interventions?

4. Do farmers constitute a distinct group of woodland owners?

5.1.2 There are numerous other questions that the survey results could be used to analyse. However, given the project’s focus and the availability of resources the analysis was limited to these four questions.

5.1.3 It should be noted that the analysis undertaken here focuses on the number of owners/managers that fall into a particular category (e.g. the number of those without a grant in a particular region). Lawrence et al., in their 2010 review, note that at times the area of woodland to fall into a particular category may be a more useful indicator (e.g. the total area of woodland without a grant in a particular region). The importance of size as a determinant of woodland owner attitudes and motivations is explored in more depth under Question 3 in this section. It is hoped that future research will use the data set acquired to explore these area-related relationships in more detail to allow for the potential development of more spatially targeted interventions.

5.2 Question 1: What are the differences in terms of management between those

woodlands included in the Forestry Commission's proxy indicator of woods in management versus those not included?

52

Introduction

How many of the woodlands would not be included in the managed woodland proxy indicator?

5.2.1 56% of the woodlands included in the sample would be classified as under ‘FC Grants and Regulations’ and therefore included in the FC proxy indicator because they were subject to either a felling licence or a grant (either currently or in the past) (Figure 1: Appendix D, i). This figure is higher than might be anticipated given that the Forestry Commission’s indicator suggests that just 36% of private woodlands are in ‘active management’ (on the basis that they are subject to a grant or felling licence)

53. However, in this case, it should be noted that,

for the purposes of the survey, participants were asked whether they had been in receipt of a grant at any point.

54 In addition, some woodlands may be subject to grants from Natural

England and these are not reflected in Forestry Commission statistics. Taken together, these two factors may account for the discrepancy between the 36% and 56% figures. It should also be noted that a further 8% of respondents were unsure as to whether or not they were part of a grant scheme or in receipt of a felling licence.

52 See Section 3.3 for further information on the Woodland Management proxy indicator adopted

53 The proportion of woodlands in England which are in active management is currently 54% of which 16% forms the Public Forest Estate.

Forestry Commission (2013) Forestry Statistics 2013 [online] available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forstats2013.nsf/LUContents/2B1ACBEE309A1CB5802573600034B50D

54 Question: Is the woodland, or has it ever been, in receipt of a grant?

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forstats2013.nsf/LUContents/2B1ACBEE309A1CB5802573600034B50D


51

80%

19%

4%

42%

23%

22%

15% 10%

14%

7%

6%

8% 10%

49%

44%

61% 75% 80%

14% 7% 6% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

<20ha 20ha - <50ha 50ha - <100ha 100ha - <500ha >500ha

Uncertain

Both a grantand a fellinglicence

Only a fellinglicence

Only a grant

Not captured inFC statistics

5.2.2 This leaves 36% of woodlands that are not subject to ‘FC Grants and Regulations’ and which are therefore not included in the Forestry Commission management woodland indicator. This raises two key questions. Firstly, is this subset of 36% of owners/managers a distinct group in terms of attitudes and motivations and, secondly, to what extent are they managing their woodlands in practice?

5.2.3 Note that, where appropriate, the results for those responding ‘only a grant’, ‘only a felling licence’ or ‘both a grant and felling licence’ will be combined under the heading ‘under FC Grants and Regulations’. Those who had ‘neither a felling licence or grant’ will be referred to as ‘not under FC Grants and Regulations’. Respondents that ‘did not know’ whether they had a grant or felling licence are referred to as ‘uncertains’.

55

Physical and geographical characteristics

How does size of woodland relate to the managed woodland indicator?

5.2.4 As Figure 5-1 demonstrates, woodlands under FC Grants and Regulations are much more likely to be large woodlands when compared to woodlands that have neither a grant or a felling licence. For instance, whilst the FC proxy indicator of managed woodland shows only 56% of the woodlands in the dataset as being managed according to the metric ‘under FC Grants and Regulations’, all woodlands over 500ha and 98% of those over 100ha are considered to be ‘managed’.

Figure 5-1: Percentage of woodland under FC grants and Regulations relative to size (Base:1000, unweighted

56, differences are statistically significant)

Note: Chi square test57

(X2=199.161 (20) p=0.00) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference in the size

of woodland

55 The total number of ‘Uncertains’ in the sample was 80. These can be broken down as follows: 13 I don’t know felling licence/I don’t know grant;

21 No grant/I don’t know felling licence; 46 No felling/I don’t know grant

56 Sample 1000; those who did not know the size of the wood (139 respondents) and those who gave an ‘Other’ figure (7 respondents) are not

shown in the graph.


52

How does type of woodland relate to the managed woodland indicator?

5.2.5 In terms of woodland type, owners of coniferous woodland are highly likely to be under FC Grants and Regulations, with 78% having a grant, a felling licence or both. Only 17% do not have either (Figure 2: Appendix D, i – statistical test indicates that there is a significant difference between the type of woodland and level of management). In contrast, 40% of mainly broadleaf woodland owners and 37% of mixed woodland owners have woodlands that are not included in the indicator. This may relate to the tendency for coniferous plantations to be more productively oriented, particularly in terms of timber.

58

How does location of woodland relate to the managed woodland indicator?

5.2.6 The extent to which a woodland is or isn’t under FC Grants and Regulations does not appear to be strongly correlated to its location, and no statistically significant relationship was found (Figure 3: Appendix D, ii).

Socio-economic characteristics

How does the gender, age, and income of respondents relate to the managed woodland indicator?

5.2.7 In terms of the age profile of those whose woodland is captured under FC Grants and Regulations compared to those whose woodland isn’t, there is some indication that those with woodlands not under ‘management’ tend to fall into the middle age groups (Figure 4: Appendix D, ii – statistically significant

59). Those that were not under FC Grants and Regulations were

more likely to be female (Figure 5: Appendix D, iii – statistically significant60

). There is little discernible difference in the income of those under FC Grants and Regulations and those not, with the results found to not be statistically significant (Figure 6: Appendix D, iii).

How does the means of acquiring woodland relate to the managed woodland indicator?

5.2.8 As Figure 5-2 shows, those woodlands that are not in FC Grants and Licences account for a large proportion of those woodlands that have been purchased (45%). In comparison, only 29% of inherited woodlands and 20% of planted woodlands are not under FC Grants and Regulations. The comparatively high level of ‘management’ amongst those owners who have planted their woodland perhaps relates to the government focus on using grants to drive woodland creation, thereby increasing familiarity with the grants system. It also indicates that those owners who have inherited their woodlands either have a greater disposition for management or that the FC has over time had more opportunity to engage with those owners, compared to those who have recently purchased their woodlands. The research indicates that FC intervention in terms of management advice at the point of sale when woodlands change hands might be helpful.

57 Where relationships are statistically tested (in this case the relationship between those with/without FC grants and regulations and woodland

size) one test of significance has been performed. A non-parametric test of statistical significance was used here (Chi Square) as non-interval data has been used. For instance, there is no logical ordering between the management categories ‘Uncertains’,’ Both grant and a felling licence’ etc and the ‘size’ variable can only be considered as ordinal as the six points used are of equal increment. This test indicates that at least two management levels are different to each other on their scores on the size question. However, the test does not mean that there is a difference between every one (in this case all five) of the management categories. It also does not indicate which ones are different from each other. In many cases the latter would require a time consuming post-hoc test. This approach has been taken due to the time required to create within category tests, and the difficulties in presenting and discussing the results of such tests. More information on statistical testing is provided in Appendix G section 1.3.

58 Around 39% of England’s annual softwood increment is harvested, in comparison to just 18% on the annual increment of broadleaf (Source:

Quine, C., Crabtree, R., Quick, T., Rowcroft, P and Smith, S. (2012). Woodland Management in England. Final Report to the Independent Panel on Forestry. URS, London [online] available at: www.defra.gov.uk/forestrypanel/files/IPF_Woodland_Management_in_England1.pdf

59 Note: Chi Chi square test (X

2=25.482 (14) p=0.030) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference in the level of management (under

or not under FC regulations) according to age.

60 Note: Chi Chi square test (X

2=26.439 (4) p=0.000) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference in the level of management (under

or not under FC regulations) according to gender.



53

Figure 5-2: Means of acquiring woodland by those under FC Grants and Regulations (Base:

100061

, unweighted, differences are statistically significant)

Note: Chi square test (X2=123.372 (20) p=0.00) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference in the way in

which the woodland was acquired depending on the level of management (with/without a felling licence etc). For instance, on interpreting the graph, it appears that those do not fall under FC grants and regulations have a greater tendency to have purchased their land.

Objectives for woodlands

5.2.9 A number of interesting trends begin to emerge when comparing the objectives of those that are under FC Grants and Regulations with those that are not (Figure 5-3). Those not under FC Grants and Regulations are less interested in timber and game shooting than those who are under FC Grants and Regulations. They are also less interested in activities that offer the potential for income generation such as woodfuel for sale. These owners appear to place a slightly greater importance on recreation and relaxation, privacy and security, and the provision of a habitat for wildlife.

61 Sample of 1000 (those who did not know how their wood was acquired and ‘Uncertains’ not shown on the graph); respondents were allowed to

select multiple means of acquisition

48%

64%

72%

45%

29% 20%

7% 7% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Purchased Inherited Planted

Uncertains

Not under FC Grantsand Regulations

Under FC Grants andRegulations


54

Figure 5-3: Woodland objectives rated as either important or very important by those under FC Grants and Regulations and those who are not (Sample of 1000, ‘Uncertains’ not shown, unweighted

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between the two grant status categories and the woodland objective are not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each management objective. All others are statistically significant at P<0.05.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Timber Woodfuel forpersonal use~

Woodfuel forsale

Recreation andrelaxation

Game shooting Sports other thanshooting

Home for wildlife Landscape andamenity

Shelter orscreening~

Public Access Privacy andsecurity

Store of carbon~

Under FC Grants or Regulations Not under FC Grants or Regulations


55

Levels of management

5.2.10 It is clear that those whose woodland is under FC Grants and Regulations are consistently more likely to have undertaken each of the management activities referred to in the survey (Figure 5 4). In addition, those not under FC Grants and Regulations are more likely to have not undertaken any management activities in the past five years.

5.2.11 It is clear, however, that those woodlands not under FC Grants and Regulations are nonetheless often subject to management of some description, with just 16% of those not captured under FC Grants and Regulations indicating they had not undertaken any of the suggested activities. In practice, some degree of management is therefore being undertaken in these woods. This is in line with Forestry Commission research which indicates that, in practice, a higher proportion of woodlands are in ‘management’

62 than the proportion under

FC Grants and Regulations would suggest.63

5.2.12 In light of the levels of management being conducted by those who are not under FC Grants and Regulations it is interesting to also examine the number of these owners who consider themselves to be managing their woodland in line with the UK Forestry Standard (which applies to those in receipt of grants and felling licences).

5.2.13 A notable finding from the data in Figure 5-5 is that almost a quarter of those not under FC Grants and Regulations consider themselves to be managing their woodlands in compliance with the UKFS. There is also a very high level of uncertainty in this group (48%), which could mean that woodlands are being managed to UKFS standards without their owners/managers being aware of it. For instance, some owners may not be aware that they are UKFS compliant whilst their manager may be aware.

5.2.14 Another interesting finding is that whilst those under FC Grants and Regulations consider themselves in compliance with the UKFS more often, this is not 100% as might be expected (Figure 5-5). Indeed, 36% of those respondents previously in receipt of a grant either consider their woodland not to be managed in compliance with UKFS or do not know whether they are compliant. The figures are lower, but still high for those with a felling licence but no grant (32%), and for those with both (19%).

There are a number of factors that might explain this disparity, including:

grant aid can be given for single activities which will be UKFS compliant, but other non-grant aided activities in the same woodland may not be UKFS compliant;

older grant schemes (some go back to 1988) will not be compliant with the UKFS as they were established before its creation (1999);

having a felling licence means that the woodland operation is compliant with UKFS, but because these licences only cover the part of the woodland that is being felled the whole woodland may not be compliant with the UKFS. Also, felling licences that have been issued may not have been activated or used;

a management plan may be UKFS compliant (which is the basis of management grant), but not all the subsequent operations may be compliant. The FC is currently undertaking an independent assessment and verification of compliance with the UKFS.

62 For example those that have been found in field surveys to show observable evidence of active management (e.g. thinning, felling, planting) or

show observable evidence of any form of management (e.g. fencing, pest control)

63 Ben Ditchburn (Forestry Commission), Personal communication, July 26

th, 2013


56

Figure 5-4: Comparison of management activities undertaken under FC Grants and Regulations and those that are not (Base: 665 Woodland Owners, ‘Uncertains’ not shown, unweighted; differences between the two grant status categories are statistically significant for each activity)

Note: There is a statistically significant difference at P<0.05 between all the management activities and the two grant status categories based on individual Chi square tests for each one. See Appendix G section 1.3 for a more detailed

discussion of the statistical testing used in this study.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Maintenanceoperations including

fencing

Pest control Thinning Selective felling Tree planting Weed control Installinginfrastructure (rides,

roads, hardstandings etc.)

Clear felling Other, please specify None

Under FC Grants and Regulations Not under FC Grants and Regulations


57

Figure 5-5: Those that consider they are managing their woodland in compliance with the UKFS in relation to Woodland under FC Grants and Regulations (Base: 1000 unweighted)

Note: Chi square test (X2=241.252 (8) p=0.00) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference between at

least two of the management categories and whether they consider they are managing their woodland in compliance with the UKFS. For instance, on interpreting the graph, it appears that those do not fall under FC grants and regulations are much less likely to say they are managing to UKFS standards.

Figure 5-6: Levels of woodland management in private English conifer woodlands according to the NFI field survey

64

64 Forestry Commission (2012) NFI Statistical report – UK 25-year Forecast of Softwood Availability [online] available at:

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/NFI-Statistical-Analysis-Report_UK-25-Year-Forecast-Softwood-Availability.pdf/$file/NFI-Statistical-Analysis-Report_UK-25-Year-Forecast-Softwood-Availability.pdf

24%

63% 68%

81% 28%

9% 9%

11%

48%

27% 23%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Neither felling licenceor grant

Only a grant Only a felling licence Both a grant andfelling licence

Don't know if theyare managing toUKFS

Do not considerthey are managingto UKFS

Consider they aremanaging to UKFS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

None Management < 3 yrs old Management > 3 yrs old

% o

f p

riva

te s

ecto

r co

nif

er s

ecti

on

s




58

5.2.15 The NFI data presented above in Figure 5-6 suggests that the level of non-management is around 25% in coniferous forests in England (comparative figures are not yet available for broadleaved or mixed woodlands). Given that the majority of the forests in our sample were found to be broadleaved or mixed, we might expect the level of non-management to be higher than this figure. However, this does not tally with the percentage of people in the overall survey who said they (or a third party acting on their behalf) had undertaken no management activities in the last 5 years. This was only 9% of respondents from across the whole survey sample.

65

5.2.16 Whether the management undertaken amounts to UKFS compliant management, or is beneficial more generally, is difficult to discern from the survey results. For instance, ‘maintenance operations’ includes fencing, which often surrounds woodland to mark its ownership, rather than to improve its condition. Maintenance is the most often cited management activity by all respondents.

65

5.2.17 It is notable, however, that thinning levels (a positive management intervention which, for example, lets more light penetrate the woodland floor and thus encourage plants and biodiversity

66) appear to be much higher than might be expected, with the NFI finding that just

over 60% of conifer stands had been thinned, whilst our survey found 60%67

of all surveyed woodlands had been thinned in the past five years, despite being primarily broadleaved or mixed woodlands where this is less economic.

68

5.2.18 It should be noted that there are a number of factors that may account for the apparently high levels of management in primarily broadleaved or mixed woodlands compared to more economic coniferous forests. These include:

The NFI figures presented above are based on observation of woodland conditions on the ground. They do not take into account the knowledge of the owner (e.g. they do not include management that may be ‘invisible’ or activities that may be considered ‘management’ by the owner but not the NFI team).

Woodland owners surveyed during this study may have been referring to the entirety of their woodland rather than considering the plot sampled by the NFI.

Woodland owners surveyed during this study may have misrepresented the amount of management they had undertaken in their woodland more generally.

A lack of understanding or a misunderstanding of the definition of thinning amongst some woodland owners interviewed during this study.

Barriers to management

5.2.19 As Figure 5-7 shows, those that are not captured under FC Grants and Regulations are much more likely to agree or agree strongly that a suggested barrier is preventing them from managing their woodland to a greater extent. For these respondents a key reason for not managing their woodland is the woodland not being a priority (50%); and the woodland being too small (46%). In contrast, the woodland being too small was considered a barrier for just 13% of those under FC Grants and Regulations.

65 For more information please see Section 4: Headline Statistics, Figure 4-7

66 Smith, S., Crabtree, R., Glynn, M., Quick, T., Quine, C and Rowcroft, P. (2012) Evidence on Woodland Economy, Woodland Creation and

Woodland Management in England. Final Report to the Independent Panel on Forestry. URS, London

67 Of 627 woodland owners 368 had thinned their woodland, 259 had not. There were 38 woodland owners who were uncertain.

68 Forestry Commission (2012) NFI Statistical report – UK 25-year Forecast of Softwood Availability [online] available at:





59

5.2.20 Amongst those under FC Grants and Regulations an often cited barrier to management was access to markets (39%), with this considered less of a barrier by those not under FC Grants and Regulations (22%).

Figure 5-7: Barriers to greater management of woodlands in relation to FC Grants and Regulations (those who agree and strongly agree with each statement) (Base: 665 owners, ‘Uncertains’ not shown; unweighted)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between the two grant status categories and the barriers to management are not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each barrier

Receptiveness to interventions

5.2.21 Of those under FC Grants and Regulations, 75% agreed or strongly agreed that they would manage their woodland more if they received higher grant rates (Figure 5-8). This intervention was also commonly cited by those not under FC Grants and Regulations, although to a lesser extent, with 57% agreeing or strongly agreeing.

5.2.22 The difference between the ‘managed’ and ‘unmanaged’ groups in terms of receptiveness to increased grant rates is notable given that a roughly equal proportion of each group considered economic returns to be a barrier to further management (Figure 5-7).

5.2.23 Interestingly, the second most cited intervention amongst those not under FC Grants and Regulations was increased availability of trusted and impartial advice (54%), a higher proportion than for those under FC Grants and Regulations (36%). There is a similar divergence with the third most cited intervention. In total, 55% of those under FC Grants and Regulations agreed or strongly agreed that assistance with disease and pest control would help them to manage more. This is in contrast to 41% of those not under FC Grants and Regulations.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Economicreturns too

low~

Lack of time Not apriority

Lack ofknowledge

Lack of skills Limitedaccess to

labour

Should beleft in a

natural state

Too small Tooinaccessible

Not enoughaccess tomarkets

Under FC Grants or RegulationsNot under FC Grants or Regulations


60

Figure 5-8: Receptiveness to interventions of woodland owners in relation to FC Grants and Regulations (those who agree and strongly agree with the statement) (Base: 665 woodland owners, ‘Uncertains’ not shown; unweighted)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between the two grant status categories and the receptiveness to interventions are not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on intervention separately

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Higher grant rates ForestryCommission

advice~

Certification waseasier~

Favourable taxbenefits~



Regulations werenot so restrictive~

Availability oftrused and

impartial advice

Trustedcontractors~

Affordable privateadvice~

Free managementplan~



61

Membership of organisations

5.2.24 In terms of trying to incentivise those owners who are not included in the Forestry Commission proxy indicator of managed woodlands, it is useful to understand the groups that these owners and managers are members of (Figure 5-9). Interestingly, 40% of those owners / managers not in receipt of a grant or a felling licence are members of the National Farmers Union and 23% are members of the Country Land & Business Association. Membership of other organisations is very low.


62

Figure 5-9: Membership of organisations by those under FC Grants and Regulations (Base: 1000, ‘Uncertains’ not shown; unweighted)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between the two grant status categories and membership of organisations are not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each organisation separately.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Country Land &Business

Association

NationalFarmers Union~

Tenant FarmersAssociation~

Royal ForestrySociety

Confor Small WoodsAssociation~

WoodlandHeritage

Small WoodlandOwners' Group~

Institute ofCharteredForesters

RoyalInstitution of

CharteredSurveyors

Local NaturePartnership~

Other~ None of theabove



63

5.3 Question 2: Are new woodland owners a distinct group of private woodland owners?

Introduction

What proportion of those sampled would be considered ‘new entrants’?

5.3.1 In total, 4.2% of the sample (42 respondents) had owned woodland for less than five years (Appendix D: Figure 7, iv) and can be considered ‘new entrants’. Due to the relatively small proportion of new entrants within the overall sample these results should be considered indicative, and in many instances results have been found not to be statistically significant. Although a number of the results in our analysis of new entrants were found to be statistically significant, these should be treated with caution due to the low sample size which impacts on the reliability of the tests. Given the relative lack of literature available on this emerging group of woodland owners it is hoped that these results may nonetheless help to inform future investigations.

5.3.2 If we extrapolate from the survey this equates to less than 1% of the woodland stock changing ownership every year. This figure of a 1% turnover in woodland ownership fits well with the 1% turnover of rural land in general.

69

Whilst not large, this change in ownership does have policy implications:

“Change in land ownership, and its impact, seem to be poorly understood, yet may be key points at which to influence woodland management behaviour. How much land changes hands, between whom, and how much ‘real’ change in management consequently occurs are therefore important questions.”

70

5.3.3 This change particularly warrants investigation as the evidence base suggests that there is a small but potentially significant shift to new owners from non-farming backgrounds, with these new entrants having distinct woodland ownership, particularly in terms of personal enjoyment and conservation.

71


What size and type of woodland do new entrants tend to own, and where are they concentrated?

5.3.4 The evidence base review (Volume 2) noted that new entrants were particularly likely to purchase small woodlands. Our analysis found that there was not a statistically significant difference between entrants and non-new entrants in terms of woodland size (Figure 8: Appendix D, iv). It has also been suggested in the literature that new entrants are more likely to purchase broadleaf woodlands. However, the results of the survey do not support this, with the type of woodland purchased by new entrants broadly similar to the profile of non-new entrants, and no statistically significant difference found (Figure 9: Appendix D, v). Nonetheless, given the small sample size of new entrants in this study, these results are inconclusive.

69 Ward, J., and Manley, W. (2002). New entrants to land markets: attitudes towards land management and conservation. Land Use Policy

Group [online] Available at http://www.lupg.org.uk/pdf/pubs_New_Entrants_report[1].pdf




http://www.lupg.org.uk/pdf/pubs_New_Entrants_report%5b1%5d.pdf



64

5.3.5 The literature on new entrants to woodland ownership suggests that their woodland is geographically concentrated, with activity highest in hot spots of high amenity value and accessibility. New entrant activity considered to be most prevalent in East Sussex and the M3/M4 triangle to the west of London, with other notable areas being the rest of Southern England, the Eastern Home Counties, the West Midlands, Cheshire and the Welsh Borders, Suffolk, South West Wales and Yorkshire. Our results indicate that a higher proportion of new entrants are from the South East and London (31%) when compared to non-new entrants (25%), with little variation in other regions. However, no statistically significant difference was found for any of the regions (Figure 10: Appendix D, v).


What is the age profile of new entrants?

5.3.6 There is no statistically significant difference between the two segments in terms of their age profile. In terms of indicative findings, the results of the survey indicate that new entrants tend to be younger (Figure 5-10). This runs contrary to suggestions in the literature that new owners are often retirees.

72 However, the limited sample and lack of statistical significance

obtained prevents firm conclusions being drawn.

Figure 5-10: Age profile of new-entrants in comparison to non-new entrants (Base: 96873

, unweighted)

Note: Chi square test (X2=6.514 (7) p=0.481) indicates that there is no statistically significant difference between the

length of time since entering woodland management and age of the entrant. As noted previously, care should be taken in terms of weight on the statistical significance (or otherwise) of these results. Due to the low sample size of the non-entrants some cells in the statistical test do not have any data in them and this makes it unstable.



73 Sample of 968 (excluding those that answered ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Other’)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

under 25

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 - 64

65 - 74

75 - 84

85+ years

Non-newentrants

Newentrants



65

What is the gender ratio of new entrants?

5.3.7 There is no statistically significant difference between the two segments in terms of their gender profile. The results of the survey indicate that non-new entrants and new entrants have a similar ratio of male to female members (Figure 11: Appendix D, vi).

How do new entrants compare in terms of income?

5.3.8 The survey indicates that new entrants are more than twice as likely to be in the £100,000 or more income range (56%) when compared to the non-new entrants (26%). Figure 12: Appendix D shows that the difference between income and entrant/new entrant is statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval

74. It should be noted that the sample size in this

case was however particularly small, with just 25 of the 42 new entrants having indicated an income range.

75

How do new-entrants tend to acquire their woodland?

5.3.9 As might be expected, our results show that those who are new entrants appear much more likely to have purchased their woodland, with 86% having purchased their woodland compared to 47% of non-new entrants. In contrast, they were much less likely to have either inherited (12% new entrant; 38% non-new entrant) or planted their woodland (2% new entrant; 16% non-new) when compared to non-new entrants. Figure 13: Appendix D (vii) shows that the statistically significant difference between the length of time since entering woodland ownership and how the woodland was acquired

76. This may in part be linked to the way in

which owners/managers define new entrants. Those who have inherited their woodland may be more likely to count themselves as long term owners rather than new entrants. As such they may report the length of their family’s ownership of the woodland, rather than the period that they have owned the woodland for.


5.3.10 The evidence currently available in the literature suggests that new entrants, from less ‘traditional’ ownership backgrounds have a tendency to hold environmental values more strongly and to consider profit making from their woodland to be a lesser interest.

77 Data from

the survey indicates that new owners in some cases appear to have a distinct set of objectives when compared to non-new entrants (Figure 5-11). They are more likely to place importance on their woodlands for recreation and relaxation (62% compared to 41%) and have less interest in game shooting (12% as opposed to 30%). This latter result brings into question Ward and Manley’s (2002) finding that shooting interests are a key factor for undertaking woodland management amongst new entrants.

74 Chi square test (X

2=11.323 (5) p=0.045) indicates that there a statistically significant difference (at 95% level) between the length of time since

entering woodland management and income of the entrant. Interpretation of the graph would suggest that new entrants are much wealthier than older entrants.

75 8 new entrant respondents refused to answer this question; 9 respondents were managers and so did not answer this question.

76 Note: Chi square test (X

2=25.164 (7) p=0.001) indicates that there a statistically significant difference between the length of time since entering

woodland ownership and how the woodland was acquired. Test was undertaken before categories were collapsed. Interpretation of the graph would suggest that new entrants are much more likely to have purchased woodlands.





66

Figure 5-11: Woodland benefits that new entrants and non-new entrants rate as either important or very important (Base: 1000, unweighted)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between the new entrants/non new entrants and the importance of woodland benefits are not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each benefit separately. All others are statistically significant at P<0.05. As noted previously, care should be taken in terms of weight on the statistical significance (or otherwise) of these results. Due to the low sample size of the non-entrants some cells in the statistical test do not have any data in them and this makes it unstable.


What management activities are being carried out by new entrants?

5.3.11 The evidence base review suggests that new entrants might be less likely to have undertaken management activities due to a lack of knowledge and skills. The findings of the survey do not appear to support this idea, as there appears to be no obvious difference in the levels of management undertaken (it should be noted that the majority of these results are not statistically significant) (Figure 5-12). The only notable divergence is that new entrants are less likely to have undertaken pest control in their woodland (43% as opposed to 62%, difference statistically significant).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Timber~ Woodfuelfor

personaluse~

Woodfuelfor sale~

Recreationand

relaxation

Gameshooting

Sportsother thanshooting~

Home forwildlife~

Landscapeand

amenity~


PublicAccess~

Privacyand

security*

Store ofcarbon


67

Figure 5-12: Comparison of levels of management activities in the last five years for new-entrants and established woodland owners (Base: 668 owners only; unweighted)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between the new entrants/non new entrants and management activities are not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each management activity separately. All others are statistically significant at P<0.05.See Appendix G section 1.3 for a more detailed discussion of the statistical testing used in this study. As noted previously, care should be taken in terms of weight on the statistical significance (or otherwise) of these results. Due to the low sample size of the non-entrants some cells in the statistical test do not have any data in them and this makes it unstable.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Maintenanceoperations~

Pest control Thinning~ Selective felling~ Tree planting~ Weed control~ Installinginfrastructure~

Clear felling~ Other~ None~ Don't know~

New entrants Non-new entrants


68

To what extent are the woodlands of new entrants under FC Grants and Regulations?

5.3.12 The results of this cross-tabulation have been found not to be statistically significant. In terms of indicative results, new entrants are much less likely to have entered a grant scheme or to have acquired a felling licence (Figure 14: Appendix D, vii). In total, 50% of new entrants are neither in a grant scheme nor hold a felling licence, compared to 36% non-new entrants. This means that half of new entrants are considered not to be managing their woodland according to Forestry Commission statistics. However, as (Figure 5-12) above indicates, new entrants are undertaking a range of management activities and only 5% state that they are not undertaking any management activities (almost half as many as non-new entrants). Again though, these findings are only indicative as the majority of results have been found to not be statistically significant.


5.3.13 The evidence base review notes that certain particular barriers to woodland are likely to be more prevalent in certain groups. According to our survey results, barriers to woodland management do appear to differ depending on whether the woodland owner is a new entrant or not (Figure 5-13). Although a number of the results have been found to be statistically significant, these should be treated with caution due to the low number of new entrants which impacts on the reliability of the tests.

5.3.14 It is notable that fewer new owners see economic considerations as a barrier to management, particularly in terms of economic returns which were twice as often a concern for non-new entrants (57% as opposed to 35%). Non-new entrants were also nearly twice as likely to see their woodland not being a priority as a barrier to management (21% compared to 39%).

5.3.15 New entrants are slightly more likely than established owners to see knowledge and skills as a barrier to greater management. This lends some support to suggestions that new entrants may be less likely to undertake management activities due to a lack of knowledge and skills, although to what degree they are restricted by these factors remains uncertain.

5.3.16 The literature covered in the evidence base review notes that a lack of time is frequently cited as an obstacle by new entrants. According to our findings non-new entrants more often considered this to be a barrier to management (21% compared to 28%), although this finding is only indicative as differences were not statistically significant.


69

Figure 5-13: Barriers to management in relation to length of woodland ownership (those who agree and strongly agree with the statement) (Base: 657

78, unweighted)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between the new entrants/non new entrants and barrier to management are not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each barrier separately. As noted previously, care should be taken in terms of weight on the statistical significance (or otherwise) of these results. Due to the low sample size of the non-entrants some cells in the statistical test do not have any data in them and this makes it unstable

Responsiveness to interventions

5.3.18 Overall new entrants appear to have similar priorities to other private woodland owners. There does appear to be a slight tendency for new entrants to be less responsive to most interventions, but a lack of statistical significance means little can be read into these results.

78 Sample of 657 (624 non-new entrant owners; 33 new entrant owners); uncertains not shown

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Economicreturns too

low

Lack of time~ Not apriority~

Lack ofknowledge~

Lack of skills Limitedaccess tolabour~

Should beleft in a

natural state

Too small~ Tooinaccessible

Not enoughaccess tomarkets

New entrant (<5 years) Non new entrant (5 years or more)


70

Figure 5-14: Attitude towards incentives in relation to length of woodland ownership (those who agree and strongly agree with the statement) (Base: 657 = 624 non-new entrant owners, 33 new entrant owners; unweighted, no statistically significant differences)

Note: There were no statistically significant differences at P<0.05 between new entrants/non-new entrants as to their attitudes towards incentives according to Chi square tests undertaken on each incentive separately. As noted previously, care should be taken in terms of weight on the statistical significance (or otherwise) of these results. Due to the low sample size of the non-entrants some cells in the statistical test do not have any data in them and this makes it unstable.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Higher grant rates ForestryCommission advice







impartial advice

Trustedcontractors

Affordable privateadvice

Free managementplan

New entrant Non-new entrant


71


5.3.19 New entrants are most likely to be members of the Royal Forestry Society (24%) (Figure 15: Appendix D, viii – all differences referred to here are not statistically significant). They are also more likely to be part of small woodland organisations, for instance the Small Woodland Owners Group (5% new entrants, 1% non-new entrants; statistically significant

79). This lends

support to the survey’s findings that new entrants are more likely to purchase smaller woodlands.

5.3.20 New entrants are around half as likely to be a part of the Country Land & Business Association and the NFU when compared to non-new entrants.

80 This may reinforce suggestions in the

literature81

that a shift is taking place in woodland ownership, with a greater proportion of owners coming from non-farming backgrounds. It is also notable that only 7% of new entrants are members of Confor compared to 18% of non-new entrants. This may reflect a lack of focus on ‘productive’ uses of woodland by new entrants.

5.4 Question 3: How does woodland size influence woodland owner objectives, barriers and responsiveness to interventions?

Introduction

Why does the influence of woodland size warrant investigation?

5.4.1 It is apparent from the existing literature that those who own small woodlands (<20ha) are believed to have different characteristics from those who own larger woodlands and this is borne out by the survey findings. For example, those who own small woodlands are less likely to be captured under FC Grants and Regulations.

5.4.2 The literature also points to a number of differences between the two groups, with a particular focus on the varying importance placed on management objectives. It is has been stated that:

‘Where the evidence is separated on woodland area, more large woodland owners are interested in management than small.’

82

5.4.3 Small woodland83

owners make up a large proportion of those surveyed (Figure 16: Appendix D, ix). Excluding those responding ‘did not know’ or ‘other’, 76% of the survey respondents owned small woodlands. Medium-sized woodlands (20ha - <100ha) formed 17% of the sample, with large woodlands accounting for the remaining 7% (100ha - >500ha).

79 Note: Fishers Exact tests used to test statistical significance here as sample sizes often very low for individual organisations

80 Country Land & Business Association (19% new entrants, 39% non-new entrants; statistically significant); NFU (19% new entrants, 43% non-

new entrants; statistically significant)

81 Urquhart, J., P. Courtney, and B. Slee (2009) Private ownership and public good provision in English woodlands. Small-scale Forestry



83 For the purposes of this study, small woodlands have been classed as those within the 0-<20ha range. This is based upon the findings of a

survey of the Small Woodland Owners Group, the findings of which are covered in depth in Volume 2: Evidence base review. This survey found that, of the 149 respondents, 86% owned woodlands less than 11 hectares in size. As such, it is assumed that those who consider themselves to be small woodland owners are likely to predominantly fall within this 0-<20ha band. This approach has been taken due to the time required to create within category tests, and the difficulties in presenting and discussing the results of such tests.



72


Does woodland type vary in relation to size?

5.4.4 The proportion of mainly conifer woodland tends to increase in line with increases in woodland size, rising from just 10% of small woodlands to 40% of woodlands in the large category (Figure 5-15). Mainly coniferous woodland makes up 15% of medium-sized woodlands. Conversely, the proportion of mainly broadleaved woodlands falls as woodlands increase in size, from 48% of the smallest woodlands to 22% of the largest. The proportion of mixed woodland is relatively similar across the size bands.

Figure 5-15: Type of woodland in relation to woodland size (Base: 85484

, unweighted)

Note: Chi square test (X2=51.312 (6) p=0.000) indicates that there a statistically significant difference between the

type of woodland and woodland size. Interpretation of the graph would suggest that the proportion of mainly broadleaf reduces as size increases, but the opposite is true for mainly conifer.

Are certain sizes of woodland concentrated in particular areas?

5.4.5 There is statistically significant difference in the proportion of woodland sizes in each of the English Regions

85. The highest proportions of large woodlands are found in the North East of

England (19%) (Figure 17: Appendix D, ix). Relatively high amounts of large woodland are also found in the East Midlands and the North West. Small woodlands make up the highest proportion of woodlands across all regions, particularly so in the East of England (90%) and in the West Midlands (80%).

84 Sample size: 854 (excluding those that answered ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Other’ to the size question: 146 respondents). 645 had small woodlands

(<10ha - <20ha); 146 had ‘medium woodlands’ (20ha - <100ha); and 63 had ‘large woodlands’ (100ha - >500ha)


2=33.013 (14) p=0.003) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference between the woodland size and

region. As previously discussed, this does not mean there is a difference between every region and every other region. Interpretation of the graph would suggest that woodlands may be smaller in the Eastern region and largest in the North East.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Small (0ha - <20ha) Medium (20ha - <100ha) Large 100ha - >500ha)

Mainly Broadleaf Mainly Conifer Mixed Don't Know


73


Does the age profile of owners change in relation to woodland size?

5.4.6 It appears that the age profile of woodland owners is broadly similar regardless of woodland size as there is no statistically significant relationship here (Figure 18: Appendix D, x).

Does the gender ratio of owners change in relation to woodland size?

5.4.7 The survey results show that the proportion of female woodland managers declines from 17% of small woodlands down to just 7% of large woodland owners (Figure 19: Appendix D, x). At the same time, the proportion of male owners rises from 79% to 87%. However, these results are not statistically significant.

Does the total income of owners change in relation to woodland size?

5.4.8 The results of the survey show that those respondents with small woodlands tend to have a lower income than those with larger woodlands, whilst there is a great deal of similarity between the earnings of medium and large woodland owners (Figure 20 and 20b: Appendix D, xi). However, these results are not statistically significant and so are indicative only.

Is the means by which woodland is acquired related to woodland size?

5.4.9 There appears to be little relationship between the size of woodland and the means through which it is acquired, although interpretation of the graph would suggest that small (<20ha) or medium sized woodlands (20-<100ha) are much more likely to have been purchased woodlands (Figure 21: Appendix D, xii – statistically significant difference between how the woodland was acquired and woodland size

86).


5.4.10 As noted in the evidence base review, there is some evidence to suggest that the importance placed on different management objectives varies depending on woodland size. Specifically, the literature points towards a greater focus on ‘productive’ uses of woodland amongst larger woodland owners, including: the production of timber, capital growth and investment, and sporting objectives. In contrast, those who own smaller woodlands have been found to consider woodfuel, conservation, and biodiversity to be much more important objectives. Nichols (2005) found that only 50% of large estates were interested in biodiversity and 30% in wider environmental benefits.

87


2=29.675 (14) p=0.008) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference between the how the woodland was

acquired and woodland size. Test was undertaken before categories were collapsed. Interpretation of the graph would suggest that new entrants are much more likely to have purchased woodlands

87 Nicholls, D., Young, M. (2005) Private woods in crisis?: A report on a survey of private woodland estates in England and Wales. University of

Cambridge Department of Land Economy and Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge


74

5.4.11 The survey results to some extent support these assertions. The proportion of those who considered game shooting to be of importance was found to differ, but not to the extent that might be expected. In all, 25% of small woodland owners considered this objective to be important or very important compared to 38% for both medium and large woodland owners. It should also be noted that whilst those with smaller woodlands do seem to be slightly more interested in their woodland being a home for wildlife, no statistically significant difference was found (Figure 5-16). Shelter and screening was also of relatively high importance for small woodland owners (possibly because some smaller woodlands form part of mixed estates). Perhaps surprising is the emphasis placed on carbon storage by smaller woodland owners.

5.4.12 Also supportive of the literature is the finding that timber production is a more often an important objective for large woodland owners (73%) in comparison to medium (52%) and small owners (28%). Woodfuel for commercial sale is also a much greater priority for large woodland owners.


5.4.13 The results clearly show that those with larger woodlands are more likely to have undertaken all management activities across those stated in the survey (Figure 5-17). Thinning, selective felling, and maintenance operations had been carried out by over 80% of large owners; and installing infrastructure, tree planting, clear felling, and weed control by over 65%. In contrast, only maintenance operations (62%) and thinning (53%) had been carried out by more than half of small woodland owners.


75

Figure 5-16: Woodland objectives rated as either important or very important to the owner in relation to woodland size (Base: 854, unweighted)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between the woodland size bands and woodland objectives is not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each woodland objective separately. All others are statistically significant at P<0.05.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Timber Woodfuel forpersonal use

Woodfuel forsale

Recreation andrelaxation~

Game shooting Sports other thanshooting

Home forwildlife~

Landscape andamenity~

Shelter orscreening

Public Access Privacy andsecurity~

Store of carbon~

Small (0ha-<20ha) Medium (20ha-<100ha) Large (>100ha)


76

Figure 5-17: Management activities undertaken in the last five years in relation to woodland size (Base: 568 = 665 owners only answered this question, with those 67 respondents that answered ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Other’ excluded; unweighted)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between the woodland size bands and the management activity is not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each management activity separately. All others are statistically significant at P<0.05.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Maintenanceoperations

including fencing

Pest control~ Thinning Selective felling Tree planting Weed control Installinginfrastructure

(rides, roads, hardstandings etc.)

Clear felling Other (pleasespecify)

None~ Don't know~



77


5.4.14 The survey results show that small woodland owners tend more often to feel that barriers to woodland management apply to them (Figure 5-18). The most cited barrier for all woodland owners was a lack of economic returns (56% small; 52% medium; 43% large), although the differences between the size bands for this barrier were not found to be statistically significant. It is notable that small owners tend to see the small size of their wood, a lack of time, inaccessibility, and a lack of priority to be barriers far more often than those with larger woodlands.

5.4.15 The literature notes that levels of woodland related knowledge seem to vary significantly, with the size of woodland owned a factor in this.

88 Our results support this, with 21% of small

woodland owners citing lack of knowledge as a barrier in comparison to 7% of medium sized woodland owners and no large woodland owners.


5.4.16 Those with large and medium woodlands most often agreed or strongly agreed that higher grant rates would help them to increase their levels of management (62% small, 76% medium, 81% large; Figure 5-19). This was the only factor for which a statistically significant difference between the size bands was found.


5.4.17 Our results show that those with larger woodlands are far more likely to be members of Confor (59% large, 23% medium, 13% small), the Royal Forestry Society (56% large, 34% medium, 19% small), and the Royal institution of Chartered Foresters (33% large, 10% medium, 5% small) (Figure 22: Appendix D, xii – all differences referred to here are statistically significant). Membership of the Country Land & Business Association was often cited by large (43%), medium (47%) and small (33%) woodland owners. Interestingly, 45% of small woodland respondents were members of the NFU, in comparison to 36% of medium-sized and 27% of large woodland respondents.





78

Figure 5-18: Those who agreed or strongly agreed that the suggested barriers to management applied to them in relation to their woodland size (Base: 598 = 665

owners only answered this question, with those 67 respondents that answered ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Other’ excluded; unweighted)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between the woodland size bands and the barrier to management is not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each barrier separately. All others are statistically significant at P<0.05.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Economic returnstoo low~

Lack of time Not a priority Lack of knowledge Lack of skills~ Limited access tolabour~

Should be left in anatural state

Too small Too inaccessible Not enough accessto markets~



79

Figure 5-19: Those who agreed or strongly agreed that the suggested interventions would help them to manage their woodland more in relation to woodland size

(Base: 598 = 665 owners only answered this question, with those 67 respondents that answered ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Other’ excluded; unweighted)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between the woodland size bands and the intervention is not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each intervention separately. All others are statistically significant at P<0.05.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Higher grant rates ForestryCommission

advice~



Assistance withdisease and pest~

Local buyers forwoodfuel~



impartial advice~

Trustedcontractors~





80

5.5 Question 4: Do farmers constitute a distinct group of woodland owners?

Introduction

Why might farmers potentially be a distinct group?

5.5.1 As noted under Question Two, there is evidence for an increase in the number of new entrants from non-farming backgrounds, with these owners having distinct objectives when compared to more established owners.

89 Meanwhile, there is also a shift towards farmers owning an

increasing area of woodlands.90

5.5.2 In order to understand the policy implications of this shifting baseline it will be important to understand more about farming owners, particularly as opinion in the literature disagrees on the extent to which they can be considered distinct from other owners. For instance, Urquhart, Courtney & Slee (2009) considered farmers to be a distinct group

91 in their typology of

woodland owners. In contrast, Urquhart & Courtney (2011) found the distinction between agricultural and non-agricultural owner too simplistic, with farmer respondents represented across all groups.

5.5.3 As our survey did not directly ask whether a respondent was a farmer or not, membership of the NFU was used as a proxy. Of those surveyed, farmers made up 41% of the sample (Figure 23: Appendix D, xiii). This question examines the characteristics of these respondents compared to those who were not NFU members (59%).


Do farmers tend to own a particular size of woodland?

5.5.4 There is a statistically significant relationship between NFU and non-NFU members on woodland size (Figure 24: Appendix D, xiii

92). Farmers are more likely to own woodlands of a

small size (81% NFU; 72% Non-NFU) and appear less likely to own larger woodlands. For instance, they are less likely to own a woodland in the >100ha band (5% NFU; 9% Non-NFU).

Do farmers own particular types of woodland?

5.5.5 The results of our survey indicate that there is some degree of variation between the two groups (Figure 25: Appendix D, xiv – statistically significant

93). NFU members were found to

be half as likely as non-NFU owners to own mainly coniferous forests (8% NFU; 16% Non-NFU), with farmers instead owning a slightly higher number of mixed and mainly broadleaved woodlands.


90 Forestry Commission (2013) Forestry Statistics 2013 [online] available at:


91 Farmer woodland owner group: Motivations - Public amenity, conservation, sporting shooting; Characteristics -Woodland needs to be financially

neutral/profitable; av. Size - 15ha


2=11.062 (2) p=0.004) indicates that there a statistically significant difference between NFU membership and the size of

the woodland. Interpretation of the graph would suggest that NFU members own smaller plots of woodland


2=13.103 (3) p=0.004) indicates that there a statistically significant difference between NFU membership and the

woodland type. Interpretation of the graph would suggest that NFU members own a greater proportion of mainly broadleaf or mixed woodland.



81

Are farmer woodland owners concentrated in particular areas?

5.5.6 Whilst there is a statistically significant relationship between regions in terms of the proportion of NFU members or non-NFU in each, this does not mean that all regions are different from each other (Figure 26: Appendix D, xiv). Indeed, there are only a few cases which stand out, with interpretation of the graph suggesting that non-NFU members are over represented (compared to their proportion in the sample as a whole) in all regions other than the Eastern region, and particularly in the North West.


Do farmer woodland owners have a particular age profile, gender ratio, and income?

5.5.7 There was little variation in the age profile of farmer owners as opposed to non-farmer owners, with none of the differences between the two groups found to be statistically significant (Figure 27: Appendix D, xv). There is some variation in terms of gender ratio, with NFU members are slightly less likely to be female when compared to non-NFU members (13% NFU; 18% Non-NFU) (Figure 28: Appendix D, xv – statistically significant

94).

5.5.8 In terms of the income received by those who are NFU members and those who are not, those who are not NFU members have higher tendency to be in the higher income bracket (more than £50k) when compared to NFU members (Figure 5-20, statistically significant).

Figure 5-20: NFU and non-NFU members in relation to income (Base: 452, unweighted)

Note: Fishers Exact test indicates the relationship between NFU membership and income is statistically significant at P<0.005.

Do farmer woodland owners tend to acquire their woodland in a different manner?

5.5.9 There appears to be little difference in the means through which woodland was acquired when the two groups are compared, with no statistically significant differences found (Figure 29: Appendix D, xvi).


2=7.101 (2) p=0.029) indicates that there a statistically significant difference between NFU membership and gender

(treating ‘refused’ as missing). Interpretation of the graph suggests NFU members have a greater proportion of males than the sample average.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

non-NFU NFU

Less than £50k More than £50k


82


5.5.10 There appears to be little variation in the objectives held by NFU members and non-NFU members in terms of their woodland (Figure 5-21). These results lend credence to the findings of Urquhart & Courtney (2011) who found that farmers fell across all of the groups included in their typology. However, some notable differences remain. In particular, there appears to be a greater focus on recreation and relaxation, and privacy and security, on the part of non-NFU members. These are interesting findings given the focus in some parts of the literature on farmers being a distinct group of owners in terms of their objectives.

5.5.11 The findings of Urquhart, Courtney & Slee (2009) suggested that farmers could be distinguished as a group due to their focus on public amenity, conservation, and shooting. Game shooting as a more important objective for farmers is supported by the results, with 35% of NFU members likely to regard this as important or very important compared to 25% of non-NFU members. Levels of management

5.5.12 The extent to which farmers and non-farmers are managing their woodlands appears to be broadly similar (Figure 5-22). The only statistically significant difference between NFU and non-NFU members was in the case of pest control. NFU members are more likely to have undertaken pest control, with 64% having done so in the past five years, compared to 46% of non-NFU members.


83

Figure 5-21: The proportion of NFU and non-NFU members who rated a woodland objective as important or very important (Base: 665 owners, unweighted)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between NFU membership and the importance of the objective is not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each objective separately. All others are statistically significant at P<0.05.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Timber~ Woodfuel forpersonal use

Woodfuel forsale

Recreation andrelaxation

Game shooting Sports other thanshooting~

Home forwildlife~

Landscape andamenity~


Public Access~ Privacy andsecurity

Store of carbon~

NFU member Non-NFU


84

Figure 5-22: Woodland management activities conducted over the past five years by NFU and non-NFU members (Base: 665 owners, unweighted)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between NFU membership and the management activity is not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each activity separately. All others are statistically significant at P<0.05.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Tree planting~ Maintenanceoperations

including fencing~

Installinginfrastructure

(rides, roads, hardstandings etc.)~

Thinning~ Selective felling~ Clear felling~ Pest control Weed control~ Other (pleasespecify)~

None~ Don't know~

NFU member Non-NFU


85


5.5.13 There are some notable differences between NFU members and non-NFU members when it comes to the barriers they perceive are preventing them from increasing their levels of woodland management (Figure 5-23). The most cited barrier is a lack of sufficient economic returns, with this considered to be a barrier more often by famers (62% NFU; 51% non-NFU). This supports Urquhart, Courtney & Slee’s (2009) conclusion that farmers need their woodland to be financially neutral or profitable.

95

5.5.14 NFU members are also more likely to see their woodland as not being a priority (47% NFU; 32% non-NFU) and the time available to them as a limitation (33% NFU; 24% non-NFU). Meanwhile, non-NFU members are more likely to see as lack of knowledge (16% NFU; 22% non-NFU) and skills (16% NFU; 27% non-NFU) as limiting factors.


5.5.15 The results of survey reveal little variation between NFU and non-NFU members in terms of the effectiveness of particular interventions (Figure 5-24), with no statistically significant results found in the majority of instances. The exception to this is more local buyers for woodfuel. Those who are members of the NFU appear more likely to be responsive to more local buyers for woodfuel than those who are not members (41% NFU; 29% non-NFU).



86

Figure 5-23: Barriers to management faced by NFU and non-NFU members (Base: 665 owners, unweighted)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between NFU membership and the barrier to management is not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each barrier separately. All others are statistically significant at P<0.05.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Economic returnstoo low

Lack of time Not a priority Lack of knowledge Lack of skills Limited access tolabour~

Should be left in anatural state~

Too small~ Too inaccessible~ Not enough accessto markets

NFU member Non-NFU


87

Figure 5-24: NFU and non-NFU members’ responsiveness to interventions (Base: 665 owners, unweighted)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between NFU membership and the responsiveness to the intervention is not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each intervention separately. All others are statistically significant at P<0.05

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Higher grantrates~

ForestryCommission

advice~




control~




impartial advice~

Trustedcontractors~



NFU Member Non-NFU


88

6 SEGMENTATION MODEL

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 Segmentation relies on multivariate statistical procedures, but also requires a degree of a-priori decision making and subjective interpretation to settle on the most appropriate final model. In this case, these decisions were complicated by the differentiation on the questionnaire between woodland owners and woodland managers. In order to understand whether it was appropriate to combine these two groups into one segmentation model, several models had to be run in order to compare the results and settle on a solution. It was thought, for example, that woodland owners would benefit from a separate model as they had responded to a number of additional attitudinal questions in the survey. However, this analysis determined that there was no added benefit of splitting the two groups. This section therefore presents the one final combined model.

6.2 Methodological approach to segmentation

6.2.1 The identification of segments from the questionnaire data requires a number of stages with some iteration between them. The detail of the decisions taken in each of these stages, including variables used and statistical output, is described in Appendix G. The following section summarises the various stages prior to the profiling of the segments.

Figure 6-1: Methodological stages employed in the segmentation analysis.

Step 1: Data reduction

6.2.2 The purpose of this segmentation is to identify homogenous groups on the basis of their current management activity and their motivations and barriers to management now and potentially in the future. The questionnaire contained a variety of questions on woodland management objectives, barriers and incentives to woodland management. In order to produce a combined model, questions which had been asked identically to both managers and owners had to be used in the segmentation. The following sets of questions were used:

1. Data reduction

• Factor analysis on attitudes and ‘priorities’ to produce smaller number of composite variables (e.g. for-profit / not-for-profit priorities)

2. Cluster analysis

• Two-stage clustering method:• Heirarchical (Wards method, squared Euclidean distance)

• Use cluster centres as input to K-means procedure

• Final 5 cluster solution decided by (i) Dendogram (ii) Sum of F-statistic/ Variance Ratio Criterion (iii) Initial profiling and interpretation

3. Profiling

• Profiling using all available and relevant data and testing for statistically significant differences between groups


89

Management priority (Q11) – asked about the importance of various aspects/outputs of woodland ownership to the owner (e.g. timber production, a store for carbon etc.). Factor analysis was applied to the 12 options given, and two strong factors were identified, one relating to profit making activities (timber production and woodfuel for sale) and non-profit making (space for recreation and relaxation, a home for wildlife, privacy and security, landscape and amenity, a store for carbon, woodfuel for personal use, shelter and screening). Hence these two factors (profit making activities and non-profit making activities) were entered into the cluster analysis as two composite variables using the mean score of the constituent questions). Game shooting and public access did not factor analyse and were entered into the cluster analysis as single additional items.

Barriers to management (Q17 owners / Q22 managers) – asked about various barriers to management (including time, knowledge, skills, access to labour etc.). Where these questions were asked identically of both managers and owners, these were added to the cluster analysis.

Incentives to management (Q22 owners / Q28 managers) – asked about the degree to which various incentives would encourage more management activity. Again, where these questions were asked identically of both managers and owners, these were added to the cluster analysis.

6.2.3 In total, 21 variables were used in the cluster analysis covering 29 variables on the questionnaire.

Step 2: Cluster analysis

6.2.4 The cluster analysis phase represents the test of whether the respondents fall into naturally occurring groups on the basis of their responses to a number of questions relating to their management priorities, barriers to management and attraction to certain incentives.

6.2.5 Cluster analysis is the name for a group of multivariate techniques and is the most frequently used method of segmenting a market. Without making any prior assumptions about the important differences within a population, it identifies homogenous groups of respondents according to their similarity on any number of combinations of variables. It does this by maximising the differences between groups whilst simultaneously minimising the differences within a group on the variables used.

6.2.6 However, the procedure presents a complex challenge requiring several methodological choices that determine the quality of the final solution. Two types of method were used in combination during this analysis, in order to ensure a greater level of statistical robustness and a meaningful output. A hierarchical method is used first in an exploratory ‘structure-seeking’ phase to create solutions and cluster centres, followed by the iterative partitioning method (K-means) to ‘fine tune’ the analysis. Whilst being more time consuming, research has shown that this two stage approach increases the validity of solutions. Details of the exact bases, classification algorithms and validation procedures used in this study to choose the optimum number of clusters are provided in Appendix G.

Step 3: Interpretation and profiling

6.2.7 The ultimate test of a set of clusters is its usefulness. Usefulness is defined here as the ability of this process to shed light on the characteristics and motivations of woodland owners and managers and the likelihood of responding to initiatives to encourage management activity.

6.2.8 The cluster analysis concluded that five relatively stable groups could be identified. These were profiled on both the variables used to create them and all other useful variables collected on the questionnaire.


90

6.3 Summary segment profiles

6.3.1 The above steps resulted in the identification of five distinct segments96

from all those surveyed. Their relative size and indicative labels (created after profiling) can be seen in Figure 6-2.

Figure 6-2: Segment sizes (number of respondents) and labels (Base: 985 owners and managers (unweighted

97)

6.3.2 Appendix G includes a full statistical breakdown of the segments according to their score on many of the variables in the survey. The following sections summarise the main points in order to capture the principal characteristics of each segment.

6.3.3 The segments have varying degrees of self-reported priorities for their woodland and stated barriers and incentives to undertaking management activities. Table 6-1 provides a summary profile of each of the five segments, followed by a more lengthy description of each. The five segments are arranged in the table in the order of their current levels of management activity from highest (Timber Producers) to lowest (Disengaged Conservationists).

96 NB. The ‘Aspiring Managers’ and ‘Multifunctional Owners’ segments include both woodland owners and woodland managers.

97 These are the unweighted figures. However, the weighted figures are exactly the same in this instance. The weighting is based on English

regions to compensate for the fact that the sample was over represented in some regions and not others. Weighting can be used to ensure a more accurate estimate is provided for the proportion of woodland owners/managers represented by each segment. As the weighting makes virtually no difference in the profiling of the segments themselves unweighted analysis is also used for the remainder of this chapter. Note that 15 participants were not able to be put into segments because there was missing data on at least one key variable.

Timber Producers

16%

Multi-functional Owners

22%

Profit-seeking Guardians

22%

Aspiring Managers

24%

Disengaged Conservationists

16%


91

Table 6-1: Summary profile of each segment (all results unweighted)

1. Timber

Producers

2. Multi-functional

Owners

3. Profit-seeking

Guardians

4. Aspiring Managers 5. Disengaged

Conservationists

Level of management Very high; most likely

to have undertaken all

types of management

High; majority have a

written plan

High; but yet to make a

profit - trying diverse

activities

Very Low; relatively

new to ownership

compared to the other

segments and are not

yet managing

Very low; do not

believe in management

% with a felling licence

and/or grant – i.e.

captured by FC Grants

and Regulations

90% 80% 77% 40% 35%

% woodlands

represented by a

manager / agent

90% 25% 32% 19% 14%

Motives Breaking even and to

pass down through

generations

Profit and to provide

other private and social

benefits; enjoy owning,

sharing with family and

owners wish to pass to

future generations

Trying to make a profit;

wildlife and personal

amenity are also

important

Not expecting to make

a profit; relatively low

value put on habitat,

wildlife, landscape; not

important to pass down

generations

Escape from everyday

life; wildlife and

landscape is important


92

1. Timber

Producers

2. Multi-functional

Owners

3. Profit-seeking

Guardians


Conservationists

Activities Timber production

mainly but also other

activities including

game shooting; least

likely to use as a

place for relaxation

Above average

participation in all

activities

Above average

participation in all

activities, especially

woodfuel for personal

use and to sell as well

as game shooting

Have not yet

concentrated on

activities for income.

Very low priority to

allow public access

Virtually no activities

Barriers to

management

Few barriers Few barriers Cost and time

constraints; owners find

management harder

than anticipated

Owners find

management a chore;

cost and time

constraints

Believe woodland

should be left alone;

believe their holding is

too small

Receptiveness to

interventions

Reliant on grants to

make a profit

Consider wider social

benefit – but believe

they should be paid

Attracted by nearly all

incentives; consider

wider social benefits

but think they should be

paid; find grants

bureaucratic

Lack of skills, expertise

– would welcome

advice; low level of

grant uptake

Largely uninterested in

incentives to support

management; lack

knowledge about

woodland’s financial

performance

Ownership & land

characteristics

Largely managed;

most likely to be

owned by a trust;

large and above

average conifer

Mostly long-term

private ownership;

relatively large

Largely private;

relatively large (and

often multiple) holdings

Largely private;

recently purchased;

relatively small

Almost all private;

mostly purchased and

smallest average size


93

1. Timber

Producers

2. Multi-functional

Owners

3. Profit-seeking

Guardians


Conservationists

Average land size

(hectares)

68.5 51.1 39.4 10.4 5.9

Socio-economic

characteristics

Highest proportion of

35-44 year olds.

Highest total incomes

No distinctive

characteristics

Youngest and lowest

proportion of females of

all groups (8%)

Highest proportion of

55-64 year olds. High

total incomes

Oldest and highest

proportion of female of

all groups (26%)


94

1. Timber Producers

Woodlands are actively managed largely for timber production, largely by agents/managers on behalf of owners (90%). Forestry and private business owners are mainly part of this group.

Least likely to recognise any of the barriers to managing their woodland. Their largest barriers are time and cost, but the proportion worrying about these factors is well below average.

This group manages the woodland to pass the forest onto future generations. The desire to ‘break even’ is stronger than the profit motive for many owners/managers so woodland management is not seen to be as much of an important source of income as for groups 2 and 3. Nevertheless, they are the most likely of all the groups to make a profit from their woodland (22% of the sample).

Revenue from forestry is largely from selling timber. However, they are also reliant on grants to make a profit and they consider grants an important component of their revenue.

An average number say they inherited the woodland but this group is most likely of all segments to say they planted the woodland (19% of them).

They have the least regard of all the groups to providing habitat for wildlife or for using the woodland as a place for relaxation or recreation.

They actively manage it for timber, for commercial woodfuel and to satisfy grant conditions. Some members of the group manage it for public access but overall this is a relatively small number.

Almost all of the woodlands are considered actively managed in the past, currently and the future. Most likely of all the groups to have undertaken all management activities in the past five years.

Compared to other segments the proportion of this group that has received a grant (76%) or a have a felling licence (65%) was the highest. Overall, more of this segment is under FC Grants and Regulations than any other (90%).

The small number who do not have a grant in this group state that they do not need one for what they want to do with their woodland.

This group has the largest land-holdings of any of the groups.

This group has the highest income of any of the groups and is likely to be owned by a company or a trust.

2. Multi-functional Owners

Woodlands are managed to a great extent already, both to provide an income stream (from grants, timber and woodfuel) and to provide a range of other private and social benefits.

Generally experiences fewer barriers to management compared with other groups.

This group has a range of objectives for their woodlands with a high number being managed both to provide timber and to support wildlife.

The woodlands tend to break even (46%) but an above average number make a profit (14% of the sample) and a below average number make a loss (36%).

The group is likely to consider the wider social and environmental benefit when managing their woodlands but they believe they should be paid for doing so.

They enjoy owning their woodland, sharing it with family and friends and are more open than other groups to providing public access.


95

They also value the woodland as a family asset and wish to pass it down to future generations.

They do not think that woodlands are best left unmanaged but that active management to enhance wildlife for habitat is important.

On the whole the respondents consider that their woodlands are managed in accordance with the UKFS and the majority of owners have a written management plan.

This group is likely to apply for grants to help them undertake activities in their woodland and to supplement the income they derive from it.

This group has the second highest proportion with a felling licence and/or a grant so that 80% of this segment is categorised under FC Grants and Regulations.

Compared with those of the other groups, these woodlands are relatively large and have been under the same ownership for a relatively long time.

3. Profit-seeking Guardians

Woodlands are actively managed but they very rarely make a profit (4%) and 80% of them either break even or make a loss (with the remainder uncertain). This group are slightly put off managing due to costs and time constraints.

To try and make a profit, they engage in a range of activities including selling timber and woodfuel as well as providing commercial shooting.

The woodland is important to the owner for a full range of reasons, including wildlife, shooting, woodfuel, landscape and amenity.

They do think about the wider benefits of their woodlands but they think that they should be paid for providing these services.

They have undertaken the majority of management operations over the last 5 years.

This group would manage their woodland more actively if there was more money to be made out of it and if they could access markets for woodfuel etc.

They are attracted by nearly all incentives especially higher grant rates, more favourable tax benefits and greater access to woodfuel buyers.

This group has the third highest proportion with a felling licence and/or a grant (although the highest number of uncertains) so that 77% of this segment is recognised under FC Grants and Regulations.

They are likely to apply for grants but feel that these are bureaucratic and restrictive.

This is the youngest group (although still middle-aged) with the lowest proportion of females representation.

Woodlands are relatively large and the owner is likely to own additional woodlands.

4. Aspiring Managers

Members of this group have the lowest levels of current active management of any of the groups (39%) and only 28% consider that they are in compliance with the UKFS. However, their attitudes suggest that they are willing to manage it to a greater extent in the future.

This group are relatively new to woodland ownership with the majority having purchased their woodland.

Compared to the other groups, a primary reason for their lack of management is a lack of skills, expertise and knowhow and difficultly in accessing people with the right technical knowledge to help them.


96

However, other barriers to management included the costs, time investment and the fact that they don’t see it as a priority.

Large numbers of them do not know whether their woodland makes a profit, breaks even or makes a loss. Those that do know indicate that it breaks even or makes a loss and very few suggest it makes a profit (2%).

They believe that the economic returns of most activities do not justify the costs.

The woodland is not actively managed for any objective although they suggest habitat for wildlife, landscape conservation and shelter screening are important to them – although these motives are generally lower than the other groups.

They do undertake some management activities such as thinning and maintenance operations but to a lesser extent than groups 1, 2, and 3.

They are interested in a range of incentives to help them manage their woodlands to a greater extent and are particularly interested in advice and a free management plan.

Very few of these owners have a felling licence and only a quarter are or have been in receipt of a grant. Consequently, only 40% of this segment is recognised under FC Grants and Regulations.

The low level of grant uptake is due to a lack of knowledge about them and how to apply for them.

They find management a chore and acknowledge that the woodland is probably under-utilised. Many of them would consider selling the woodland in the future and do not regard it as important as other groups to pass the woodland onto future generations.

Woodlands are relatively small and compared to other groups have been owned for a shorter period of time.

5. Disengaged Conservationists

Only around half (52%) of these woodlands are actively managed and relatively few consider that they are managing their woodland in compliance with the UKFS (31%).

The woodlands were mostly purchased and this group has the highest number of private owners within the segmentation with only a very few owners (14%) asking a manager to look after it on their behalf.

Woodland management is undertaken to a lesser extent by this group because they think that it should be left alone to let nature take its course. Costs, small size of woodland and it being a low priority also act as barriers to greater management.

Owners are the least likely to engage in any income-generating activities. Owners suggest the woodland breaks even but a large number do not know the financial situation of the woodland.

On the whole the woodland is not seen as important in delivering any benefit, with the exception of habitat for wildlife and landscape conservation, and it tends not to be actively managed to provide these benefits.

This group is largely uninterested in any incentives to support greater management of their woodland resource.

Owners believe that woodlands are best left alone to let nature take its course and they don’t consider felling trees as an essential part of woodland management.

The woodland provides them with an escape from everyday life.


97

Very few of this segment has a felling licence (9%) and only a fifth are or have been in receipt of a grant. Consequently, only 35% of this segment is recognised under FC Grants and Regulations.

Very few owners within this group have received a grant for their woodland, stating that they don’t need a grant to do what they want with their woodland.

This group has the smallest average woodlands and have owned them for the shortest period of time.

They are the oldest group and have the highest proportion of female ownership.

6.4 Indicators of ‘management’

6.4.1 Figure 6-3 shows the degree to which each segment could be perceived as ‘managing’98

their woodland according to a number of different indicators. In each case, the Timber Producers have the highest proportion in ‘management’, the second-most by the Multi-functional Owners, and the third-most by the Profit-seeking Guardians. There is then a clear drop-off amongst the remaining two segments. There are some slight differences between these two segments, with more of the Disengaged Conservationists claiming to manage their woodland in compliance with the UK Forestry Standard and have a felling licence, but the Aspiring Managers scoring slightly higher in terms of the other metrics. These results also show that the current proportion of each segment in receipt of a grant to manage the woodland ranges from more than 75% of the Timber Producers to just over 20% of the Disengaged Conservationists.

98 ‘Management’ of woodland is defined in a number of different ways by the Forestry Commission. See Section 3.3 for further information on the

Woodland Management proxy indicator adopted for the purposes of this study.


98

Figure 6-3: The proportion of each segment that might be considered to be ‘managed’ according to the proxy used (Base: 985 owners and managers)99

Note: Chi Square tests undertaken on each management level separately indicates that there is a statistically significant difference at P<0.05 between the segments and each management level shown here. However, as previously discussed, this does not mean that all segments are significantly different from all other segments on each management level as the Chi square can only tell us that at least two segments are different from each other in each case. See Appendix G section 1.3 for a more detailed discussion of the statistical testing used in this study.

99 NB. For the purposes of the survey, participants were asked whether they had been in receipt of a grant at any point.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Do you manage the woodland incompliance with the UK Forestry

Standard?

Do you have a written management planfor this woodland?

Is this woodland certified under either theFSC or PEFC schemes?

Is there a felling licence for thiswoodland?

Have you received a grant to support themanagement of the woodland?

% t

hat

sta

ted

'yes

'


99

6.4.2 As stated in the previous section, 56% of the woodlands included in the sample would be captured under FC Grants and Regulations because they either have a felling licence or they have been in receipt of a grant.

100 Figure 6-4 shows the degree to which this proportion differs

across the segments. The figures here range from only 35% of the Disengaged Conservationists currently under grants and regulations, to 81% of the Timber Producers.

Figure 6-4: The proportion of each segment with a felling licence and/or grant (Base: 985 owners and managers)

Note: Chi square test (X2=306.004 (16) p=0.000) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference between

segment membership and having a felling licence/grant. However, as previously discussed, this does not mean that all segments are significantly different from all other segments this question as the Chi square can only tell us that at least two segments are different from each other.

6.5 Management activities undertaken

6.5.1 Management activities were further explored in the survey by asking both managers and owners whether they undertook specific tasks such as tree planting, thinning and so on. The proportion of respondents in each segment claiming to have undertaken each task is shown in Figure 6-5. Here we see a similar pattern to above, with Timber Producers and Multi-functional Owners most often undertaking each activity (although the Profit-seeking Guardians are the most likely to engage in pest control).

100 NB. For the purposes of the survey, participants were asked whether they had been in receipt of a grant at any point.

56%

43%

30%

5% 5%

7%

8%

5%

3% 4%

18%

22%

27%

18% 14%

8%

8%

15%

14% 12%

10%

19% 23%

60% 65%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Timber Producers Multi-functionalOwners

Profit-seekingGuardians

Aspiring Managers DisengagedConservationists

Not under FCgrants andregulations

Uncertain

Only a grant

Only a fellinglicence

Both a grant and afelling licence


100

Figure 6-5: The proportion of each segment undertaking each management task activity (Base: 985 owners and managers)

Note: Chi Square tests undertaken on each management task separately indicates that there is a statistically significant difference at P<0.05 between the segments and each management activity shown here. However, as previously discussed, this does not mean that all segments are significantly different from all other segments on each activity as the Chi square can only tell us that at least two segments are different from each other in each case

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Tree planting Maintenance operationsincluding fencing

Installing infrastructure Thinning Selective felling Clear felling Pest control Weed control

Timber Producers Multi-functional Owners Profit-seeking Guardians Aspiring Managers Disengaged Conservationists


101

6.5.2 Table 6-2 sheds further light on management levels within each segment. Green shading denotes the highest levels of activity and red the lowest. Interestingly, this shows that the Multi-functional Owners score highly across a range of activities, whereas the Timber Producers’ are focused on a smaller number of activities, namely timber and commercial woodfuel operations. It can also be observed that the Multi-functional Owners appear to be the most community minded, scoring the highest on activities such as public access and educational initiatives.

Table 6-2: The extent to which the woodland is actively managed for different activities (red lowest, green highest; % saying they do this to a very great or great extent)

Timber

Producers


Profit-seeking

guardians

Aspiring Managers

Disengaged Conserv-ationists

Average

Timber production 59% 52% 43% 8% 2% 33%

Woodfuel for personal use

20% 25% 25% 16% 10% 20%

Woodfuel for sale 28% 25% 24% 2% 1% 16%

Place for personal recreation and relaxation~

24% 32% 30% 28% 32% 29%

Game shooting 29% 23% 50% 4% 8% 23%

Sports other than shooting

5% 8% 7% 4% 2% 5%

Benefit of wildlife 46% 60% 57% 40% 49% 51%

Conserve the local landscape

56% 61% 58% 42% 49% 53%

Shelter or screening~

28% 24% 28% 22% 23% 25%

Public access 13% 13% 6% 5% 1% 8%

Education resource for the local community

7% 10% 5% 3% 3% 6%

Satisfy the conditions of a grant scheme

51% 39% 28% 12% 10% 28%

Base: 985 owners and managers. ~ denotes that the difference between the segments and the management level on each activity are not statistically significant at P<0.05 according to Chi square tests undertaken on each management activity separately. All others are statistically significant, but as previously discussed, this does not mean that all segments are significantly different from all other segments as the Chi square can only tell us that at least two segments are different from each other.

6.5.3 One question in the survey asked managers alone whether they felt the woodland could be managed more than it currently is. A particularly striking result when comparing across segments is shown in Figure 6-6 where virtually none of the Timber Producers believe that the woodland warranted more management, yet 100% of the Multi-functional Owners and the majority of all the other groups felt that it did. If this question is taken together with question 21 in the survey (which asked whether the woodland is underutilised in terms of harvesting wood/wood products and whether it could be managed more to provide habitat for wildlife), we see that the Multi-functional Owners believe their land is utilised more or less sufficiently for wood products, but management activity could be stepped up for wildlife conservation.


102

Figure 6-6: Manager’s opinion on whether more management is possible (Base: 334)

Note: Based on the question ‘Do you think that the woodland could be managed to a greater extent than it currently is? (Yes/No/Don’t know (counted as missing (N=4)). Chi square test

101 (X

2=306.070 (4) p=0.000)

indicates that there is a statistically significant difference between at least two segments and perceived

management potential.

6.6 Barriers to management

6.6.1 Barriers to management are many and varied. A number of barriers were scored with respect to how strongly the respondent agreed or disagreed that they hindered woodland management. Figure 6-7 shows the average scores per segment for a set of barriers asked of both owners and managers (where 1 represents strongly disagree, 3 neutral and 5 strongly agree). Most segments rate lack of economic returns as being their greatest barrier. The exception to this is the Timber Producers who cite time as being their greatest constraint and the Disengaged Conservationists who are most likely to claim their holding is too small. Multi-functional Owners rated the barriers cited in the survey lowest overall, with Aspiring Managers rating them highest.

101 Where relationships are statistically tested (in this case the relationship between those with/without FC grants and regulations and woodland

size) one test of significance has been performed. A non-parametric test of statistical significance was used here (Chi Square) as non-interval

data has been used. For instance, there is no logical ordering between the management categories ‘Uncertains’,’ Both grant and a felling licence’

etc. and the ‘size’ variable can only be considered as ordinal as the six points used are of equal increment. This test indicates that at least two

management levels are different to each other on their scores on the size question. However, the test does not mean that there is a difference

between every one (in this case all five) of the management categories. It also does not indicate which ones are different from each other. In

many cases the latter would require a time consuming post-hoc test. This approach has been taken due to the time required to create within

category tests, and the difficulties in presenting and discussing the results of such tests. More information on statistical testing is provided in

Appendix G, Section 1.3.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Timber Producers Multi-functionalOwners

Profit-seekingGuardians

Aspiring Managers DisengagedConservationists


103

Figure 6-7: Barriers to woodland management by owners/managers in each segment (Base: 985 owners and managers)

Note: For this graph, the attitude statements have been treated as interval data and a mean score for each attitude statement has been calculated (where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). This is to provide a visual means of displaying the differences between segments on each attitude statement. However, the statistical testing has been carried out between the segments and each attitude statement separately using a non-parametric test (Chi Square) as described previously as this is appropriate for non-interval data. Individual statistical test scores are not displayed here, but the tests indicate that the scores on ALL of the attitude statements differ across segments – although as explained previously, this does not mean that all segments are different from all other segments on each statement.

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Economic returns too low Lack of time Not a priority Lack of skills Should be left in a naturalstate

Too small Too inaccessible

Stre

ngt

h o

f it

em b

ein

g a

bar

rier

to

wo

od

lan

d m

anag

emen

t (L

ow

(st

ron

gly

dis

agre

e),

Hig

h (

stro

ngl

y ag

ree)

)



104

6.6.2 Figure 6-8 presents a similar analysis, but this time for the three barriers asked only of owners in the sample. Generally these scored lower than the previous barriers, but nevertheless this reveals how a lack of knowledge is rated as relatively important by the Aspiring Managers and the identification of buyers is important for the Profit-seeking Guardians and Timber Producers.

Figure 6-8: Barrier to woodland management by owners only (Base: 651 owners only)

Note: Chi Square tests undertaken on each barrier separately indicates that there is a statistically significant difference at P<0.05 between the segments and barrier shown here. However, as previously discussed, this does not mean that all segments are significantly different from all other segments on each barrier as the Chi square can only tell us that at least two segments are different from each other in each case.

6.6.3 The survey also asked both owners and managers to identify issues which prevented them from participating in grant schemes. Figure 6-9 shows the proportion of respondents who answered ‘yes’ to each option. Again we can see that the perceived barriers are generally lower for the Timber Producers and the Multi-functional Owners, but the picture is reasonably complex. For instance, the Multi-functional Owners score relatively high in terms of bureaucracy and desiring higher grant payments. Once again, the Aspiring Managers claim a lack of knowledge to be a common barrier, but are less likely than to claim that the grants are too small than Disengaged Conservationists.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Don't know how best to manage Cannot access the labour If I could identify buyers for timber,woodfuel or other products

% S

tro

ngl

y ag

reei

ng

wit

h it

em b

ein

g a

bar

rier

to

wo

od

lan

d

man

agem

ent

Timber Producers Multi-functional Owners Profit-seeking Guardians

Aspiring Managers Disengaged Conservationists


105

Figure 6-9: Barriers preventing participation in grant schemes by segment (Base: 985 owners and managers)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between the segments and the barrier on each activity are not statistically significant at P<0.05 according to Chi square tests undertaken on each barrier separately. All others are statistically significant but as previously discussed, this does not mean that all segments are significantly different from all other segments as the Chi square can only tell us that at least two segments are different from each other.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

I don’t need a grant to do what I want to

do

I don’t know enough about them

I don’t know how to apply

Application processis too bureaucratic

and time-consuming

Land has to beregistered before

applying for a grant

The commitmentrequired is too long-

term

Grants restrict theactivities I can

undertake in mywoodland

Grant payments aretoo small to justify

applying

Grant rates are toochangeable

The conditionsattached to grantsare too changeable

% t

hat

sta

ted

'yes

'



106

6.7 Current sources of information and advice

6.7.1 Figure 6-10 shows the relative importance of different types of information and advice for woodland management and how this differs across segments. Not all sources of information were asked for both owners and managers as shown on the graph. The analysis shows that overall, books and magazines and the internet are the most popular sources, with friends and colleagues being the next most frequently cited by owners and other agents by managers. The Profit-seeking Guardians often claim to be the greatest users of different sources of information such as books and magazines, friends and colleagues and other owners and agents. Timber Producers, on the other hand, are the highest users of information from more formal sources such as the Forestry Commission or professional bodies whereas the Aspiring Managers have notably low levels of use of these sources. The Disengaged Conservationists have a particular tendency to rely on friends and colleagues and other owners for their information.

6.8 Membership of organisations

6.8.1 The survey also asked whether respondents were a member of any organisations. Figure 6-11 shows the percentage in each segment who indicated they were members of each organisation. Whilst all segments are represented in some way in all organisations, we can see quite a difference across the segments. For instance, the Timber Producers are disproportionately well represented in the Royal Forestry Society, Confor and Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Multi-functional Owners have good representation across all organisations; and the Profit-seeking Guardians tend to be members of the National Farmers Union and Country Land & Business Association.


107

Figure 6-10: Information sources consulted by segment (Base: 985 owners and managers, or ^651 owners only or #334 managers only)

Note: Chi Square tests undertaken on each information source separately indicates that there is a statistically significant difference at P<0.05 between the segments and each of the information sources shown here. However, as previously discussed, this does not mean that all segments are significantly different from all other segments on information source as the Chi square can only tell us that at least two segments are different from each other in each case.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Books andmagazines

Internet ForestryCommission

Professional body Friends &Colleagues^

Other Owners^ External agents^ WiderCommunity^

Employedagent/forester^

Local Initiatives^ Other agents#

% s

ayin

g 'y

es'



108

Figure 6-11: Membership of organisations by segment (Base: 985 owners and managers)

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between the segments and membership of each organisation are not statistically significant at P<0.05 according to Chi square tests undertaken on each organisation separately. All others are statistically significant but as previously discussed, this does not mean that all segments are significantly different from all other segments as the Chi square can only tell us that at least two segments are different from each other.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

National FarmersUnion

Country Land &Business Association

Royal ForestrySociety

Confor Royal Institution ofChartered Surveyors

Institute ofChartered Foresters

Local NaturePartnership

Woodland Heritage Small WoodsAssociation

Tenant FarmersAssociation



109

6.9 General attitudes

6.9.1 Both owners and managers were asked a comprehensive set of attitudinal questions to gauge their views on how they see their role as guardians of the land and conservationists, their priorities for use of the land and profit seeking, how difficult management is perceived to be in general, and the degree to which the land enables them to get closer to nature. There are a large number of these attitudes and the average scores on each for each segment can be seen in Appendix G. The main points have been captured in the summary profiles for each segment near the beginning of this section.

6.10 Potential response to incentives

6.10.1 Table 6-3 summarises the degree to which each segment is likely to be incentivised to manage their land more based on questions on the survey asking whether each incentive would encourage the respondent to manage their/the owner’s land more.

6.10.2 From this we can see that Timber Producers score consistently lowest on the degree to which each incentive would encourage them to manage the land more. We know from Figure 6-4 that they are the segment with the highest uptake of grants and from Figure 6-6 that they do the maximum amount of management they perceive can be done already. Thus more incentives are unlikely to lead to more management for this group.

6.10.3 On the other hand, a large proportion of the Profit-seeking Guardians are currently, or have been in receipt of a grant, but this group scores the highest in terms of suggesting they could be encouraged or helped to manage their land more. Apart from initiatives based around the provision of advice (greater availability of trusted and impartial advice; Forestry Commission Officers spent more time with me; and a third party prepared a management plan for free), this group scored the most positively on all other incentives. Interestingly, only 26% of the Aspiring Managers are currently, or have been in receipt of a grant. They are attracted to all the incentives but score especially high on those incentives relating to the provision of advice. This matches their characteristic desire to make a profit on their land and they appear willing to learn how to do this. The Disengaged Conservationists have below average interest in all of the incentives.


110

Table 6-3: Responsiveness to interventions for woodland management for each segment102

– bracketed numbers indicate the derived score for each segment

I would manage my land more if…

Timber Producers

Multi-functional

Owners

Profit-seeking

Guardians

Aspiring Managers

Disengaged Conservatio-

nists

Average Derived Score

…grant schemes offered higher payments for woodland management

Very Low

(1.07)

High

(3.79)

Very High

(4.28)

High

(3.89)

Low

(2.23)

3.23

...Forestry Commission officers spent more time with me

Very Low

(1.01)

Low

(2.51)

High

(3.38)

High

(3.44)

Very Low

(1.99) 2.60

…gaining certification was easier

Very Low

(1.04)

Low

(2.51)

High

(3.51)

High

(3.28)

Low

(2.02) 2.63

…the tax benefits associated with woodland management were more favourable

Very Low

(1.04)

High

(3.27)

Very High

(4.00)

High

(3.55)

Low

(2.16) 2.96

…the government provided more assistance with disease and pest control

Very Low

(1.08)

High

(3.19)

High

(3.91)

High

(3.37)

Low

(2.12) 2.88

…there were local buyers for woodfuel

Very Low

(1.02)

Low

(2.53)

High

(3.65)

High

(3.00)

Very Low

(1.92) 2.54

…regulations weren't so restrictive

Very Low

(1.06)

Low

(2.69)

High

(3.73)

High

(3.21)

Low

(2.14) 2.69

…there was greater availability of trusted and impartial advice

Very Low

(1.04)

Low

(2.48)

High

(3.50)

High

(3.62)

Low

(2.13) 2.68

…there was a greater availability of trusted contractors

Very Low

(1.02)

Low

(2.42)

High

(3.44)

High

(3.08)

Very Low

(1.99) 2.50

…a third party prepared a management plan for the woodland for free

Very Low

(1.06)

Low

(2.58)

High

(3.62)

High

(3.68)

Low

(2.12) 2.75

102 Note: Very high = score of 4.0 or over. High = score of 3.0 to 3.9. Low = score of 2.0 to 2.9. Very low = score below 2.0


111

6.11 Proportion of land holdings and regional distribution

6.11.1 The proportion of woodland owners and managers falling into each segment in the sample was shown in Figure 6-2 . However, the average size of land area covered by each segment differs significantly. Figure 6-12 contrasts the proportion of owners/managers with the proportion of total land owned by those in the total sample, together with the average size of land holding (in hectares) for each. Here we can see that the Aspiring Managers and Disengaged Conservationists own smaller land holdings on average and therefore, despite comprising relatively large proportions of owners/managers, represent a much smaller total woodland area. It is also notable that a relatively large number of woodland owners/managers did not know how large their woodland was. This equated to 14% of those surveyed.

6.11.2 Data on the regional distribution of the segments (both weighted and unweighted) indicated that there is no statistically significant difference in the geographical concentrations of the segments.

6.12 Socio-economic characteristics

6.12.1 From the survey, it is possible to say something about the average age, gender and income of the owners included in the segments. Age and gender do vary significantly, with the Profit-seeking Guardians being markedly younger than the other segments and the Disengaged Conservationists being the oldest (X

2=42.003 (28) p=0.043). There is however no statistically significant difference between the owners in each segment in relation to the proportion of each falling into different household income bands. Income was only asked of owners in the sample, and so potentially hides the income differential that may lead to the different proportion of managers in each group, ranging from just under 90% of the Timber Producers to just 14% of the Disengaged Conservationists.


112

Figure 6-12: Proportion of owners / managers compared to the proportion of total land holding (Base: 984, unweighted, not tested for statistical significance)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Timber Producers (ave 66.2 ha) Multi-functional Owners (ave 48.9 ha) Profit-seeking Guardians (ave. 39.7 ha) Aspiring Managers (ave. 10.3 ha) Disengaged Conservationists (ave. 6.0 ha)

Proportion of owners/managers Total land owned


113

6.13 Key predictive questions for future analysis

6.13.1 As outlined in the Evidence Base Review, it is possible that Defra and the Forestry Commission England will need to ask a specific set of questions to identify the woodland segments in subsequent research or customer profiling. For example, future surveys of land or woodland owners may want to identify which segment of the model they fall under by including a set of key questions which link the respondent to a relevant segment. This could be used to enable identification of how segments change over time or how individuals from different segments actually behave in response to future policy interventions. Therefore in order to create ‘indicators’ to facilitate this replication of segments, the results of the survey were analysed to estimate the predictive strength of each variable. This identified a minimum number of ‘key’ questions needed to identify segments (Table 6-4).

6.13.2 The key predictive questions were derived statistically by examining the segments produced from the 21 questions (and whether they were captured by Forestry Commission statistics in terms of possession of a grant and/or felling licence) that were subjected to cluster analysis, and applying discriminant analysis in order to identify the most ‘powerful’ ones (the ones that best discriminate between the segments). Appendix G section 1.4 sets out the process undertaken in more detail. The key questions, set out in Table 6-4 are ranked from highest (Q1) to lowest (Q13) in terms of their contribution across all the discriminant functions.

6.13.3 The questions can be asked either as a standalone survey where people can find out what segment they fall into immediately for example on a website, or as part of future questionnaires where many people are allocated into segments at once. In both instances, the responses that people indicate to each question need to be ‘weighted’ by the coefficients to determine which segments they are in (see Table 4 of Appendix G - Weighting coefficients).

6.13.4 In addition to the key questions, it would also be beneficial to use the profiling data collected and the qualitative analysis to identify other variables in the survey that the segmentation and statistical analysis/discriminant analysis did not highlight.

103 For example, looking at the

membership of organisations as an indicator, to enable targeted policy interventions for each segment.

103 Binary variables, where a respondent either belongs or does not belong, do not have as much power in the analysis, and therefore would not have

been identified as key questions/variables for differentiating segments.


114

Table 6-4 - Key predictive questions for replication of the segments

Key predictive questions

NB. Likert scales need to be used for all questions

1 The woodlands would be managed more if…grant schemes offered higher payments for woodland management

2 The woodlands would be managed more if…Forestry Commission officers spent more time with me

3 How strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about managing your woodlands: My/The woodland is too small to warrant active management

4 Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following: Game shooting

5 Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following: Priority timber for profit

6 The woodlands would be managed more if…the tax benefits associated with woodland management were more favourable

7 The woodlands would be managed more if…the government provided more assistance with disease and pest control

8 The woodlands would be managed more if…there were local buyers for woodfuel

9 The woodlands would be managed more if…regulations weren't so restrictive

10 The woodlands would be managed more if…there was a greater availability of trusted contractors

11 The woodlands would be managed more if…there was greater availability of trusted and impartial advice

12 The woodlands would be managed more if …a third party prepared a management plan for the woodland for free

13 Recognition by the FC – Woodland owner is in receipt of:

1. Both a grant and a felling licence

2. Only a felling licence

3. Only a grant

4. Uncertain*

5. Not captured in FC statistic

(Where 1-3 = recognised by FC; * if either receipt of a grant or felling licence is uncertain

104, overall score = 4 (uncertain))

104 Respondents that ‘did not know’ whether they had a grant or felling licence are referred to as ‘uncertains’. The total number

of ‘Uncertains’ in the sample during this study was 80. These can be broken down as follows: 13 I don’t know felling licence/I

don’t know grant; 21 No grant/I don’t know felling licence; 46 No felling license/I don’t know grant


115

‘Timber prices dictate ultimately whether or not felling/thinning operations proceed.’

‘EWGS is the most simple and straight forward of all the woodland grant schemes. However, the process has become more complex. This is becoming a major barrier and often leads to frustration and can put owners off.’

7 FOLLOW-UP WORK

7.1.1 This section provides an analysis of the follow-up telephone interviews that were conducted with a sample of woodland owners/managers from within each segment. The analysis includes a discussion of the interview findings in order to ‘build the narrative’ around each segment profile and examines the extent to which the interview findings either support or deviate from the segmentation model and the implications of any notable deviations. The transcripts from the 45 follow-up interviews can be found in Appendix F.

7.2 Timber Producers

Support for the ‘Timber Producers’ segmentation characteristics

7.2.1 Four interviews were conducted covering seven distinct woodlands within the ‘Timber Producers’ segment. Analysis of the interview findings indicated a strong correlation with the key segmentation characteristics of this group. For example the results demonstrated that Timber Producers actively manage their woodlands with their primary objective being timber production and associated revenue generation. Grants play a key role in supporting their timber and non-timber business and they are the most likely of all the groups to make a profit from their woodland (22% of the sample). The interview respondents were either agents or forest managers (either directly employed by the land owner/woodland owner or acting as a forestry consultant) with considerable experience of forestry management and timber production. This correlated strongly with the segment characteristics, which indicated that the woodland parcels are largely managed by agents.

7.2.2 All interviewees had considerable experience of past and present grant schemes, knowledge of how these are accessed to help with specific management operations and in particular, an understanding of where the woodland provides a community benefit/service such as public access and habitat for wildlife. This supports the segmentation, which identified that this group holds the highest proportion of grants of all five segment groups (76%). The interviewees have been dealing with grant systems for many years and have seen them go through various iterations. The general consensus is that each time, the process appears to become increasingly complicated with a greater number of hurdles to negotiate. Forestry Commission staff were said to be “generally helpful but have increasingly limited time to support woodland owners and are restricted as they no longer have freedom to manoeuvre”. In general, however, the experience of the grant system is a reasonably positive one across the group as a whole. Timber prices are the driving factor behind woodland management decisions, with grants acting as a useful financial tool to supplement timber producing activities. This correlates strongly with the key segment characteristics which identify this group as most likely to make a profit from their woodland, and actively manage it for timber.

7.2.3 Non-timber revenue generating activities (e.g. sporting rights) were highlighted as being of growing importance by several respondents. Activities could include sporting rights and letting the woodland for recreational and leisure activities. Several respondents stated that a reduction or withdrawal of grant support would affect their ability to continue to provide public access and biodiversity related benefits such as PAWS restoration. One stated that the withdrawal of grants would lead to a complete stoppage of activities in their woodlands. This

supports the shared segment characteristics, which identify that the revenue for this group is largely generated from timber, but that they are also reliant on grants to make a profit and consider grants to be integral to generating profit from their woodland.

‘We do generate revenue through letting of woodland areas for recreational and leisure activities.’


116

‘Access to woodland is critical for long term sustainable management. Woodfuel WIG promises much but doesn’t really deliver in practice. Can a more simplified access grant be created? A better targeted grant would allow more woodlands to be managed.’

‘Removing barriers would be just as effective as offering incentives in many cases. Land management constraints can often be the main stumbling block for undertaking management such as limitations imposed on sites that are SSSIs.

‘Woodfuel is very important but we need other markets as well such as local furniture co-ops’

‘As a responsible land manager I must consider the productive capacity of the farmland and woodland.’

7.2.4 All four interviewees stated that given greater support in key areas they could achieve more with their woodland. Increases in timber prices coupled with a more streamlined grant system would allow them to increase non-revenue generating activities such as increased PAWS restoration, protection of ancient woodlands and improved public access. However, road access for management was seen as the overriding limiting factor for economically sustainable forest management. All those interviewed expressed a desire to improve access to their woodlands in order to allow increased management to take place. Access improvements were also viewed as a long-term sustainable way of investing in the woodland and a good use of public funds.

7.2.5 One interviewee felt in particular that certification to UKWAS was becoming more burdensome and may act as a deterrent if the additional cost of managing schemes for compliance cannot be justified. According to one of the respondents a good quality long-term plan linked to the Woodland Management Grant and felling licence applications should be sufficient to ensure the woodlands are managed sustainably and provide multiple benefits. All respondents believed that more woodlands could be brought into management given the right mechanisms, although the segmentation indicates that virtually none of the Timber Producers believe that their woodlands warranted more management. Timber prices were identified as being key as owners need a financial return to encourage them to manage their woodlands.

Variation from the ‘Timber Producers’ segmentation characteristics

No significant variations from the segment model were identified, except for the fact that all those interviewed demonstrated significant regard for the provision of wildlife and recreation. This is a slight deviation from the segment’s shared characteristics, which identified Timber Producers as holding the least regard for these of all the groups

7.3 Multi-functional Owners

Support for the ‘Multi-functional Owners’ segmentation characteristics

7.3.1 A total of ten owners and managers/agents were interviewed for the Multi-functional Owners segment group, and all interviews conducted generally supported the segmentation model. All respondents were actively managing their woodlands, primarily with the aim of achieving a return on investment; a key characteristic of the segment group. The woodlands are to a great extent managed to provide multi-purpose benefits, including the provision of wildlife habitat and recreation space, with timber production and cost neutrality being key, in line with the shared characteristics identified by the model. All but one respondent viewed grants as an important means to assist in making the woodland break-even in financial terms. Most of those interviewed felt that grants could be better targeted and one respondent believed that some areas of woodland do not justify grants and could be managed commercially without any support. The group expressed a series of concerns related to the grants and licensing process, believing them to be overly complex for the diverse nature and size of the woodlands they hold.


117

‘We try to manage it as best as we can with available resources, but labour is expensive.’

‘As we receive a considerable amount of public money we know we have to account for it and be seen to do something for it.’

7.3.2 Respondents that considered timber production to be a high priority were especially keen to see more market options available to them, as they perceive the lack of availability of local markets to be a barrier. The range of woodland management objectives is very diverse within this group; this is in line with the shared characteristics of the group which indicated that Multi-functional Owners are likely to have a range of woodland management objectives.

Variation from the ‘Multi-functional Owners’ segmentation characteristics

7.3.3 Overall, most interview results reinforced the segment characteristics and no distinct variations from the Multi-functional owner’ segment characteristics were revealed during the interviews. All those interviewed were managing their woodlands for multi-purpose benefits; however, all stated that they could increase the level of management and provision of community benefits further, if the right incentives and mechanisms were put in place. One respondent mentioned the need to inject further capital into the woodland and argued that investment in the right machinery would allow additional areas to be brought into productive management. This is especially applicable where a farm or estate may be taking advantage of the RHI for a wood-fuelled boiler and producing their own fuel.

7.4 Profit seeking guardians

Support for the ‘Profit-seeking Guardians’ segmentation characteristics

7.4.1 A total of nine follow up interviews were conducted with respondents that matched the Profit-seeking Guardians segment. Overall, the interviews supported findings from the segmentation model. The interviews indicate responsiveness to financial incentive which, in turn, supports the segmentation. Several respondents indicated that the financial barrier to woodland management is the most significant for them. The majority of respondents hold profit-making motives and are engaging with, or are attracted by, grants to support woodland management activities. The interviews highlight recognition amongst respondents that financial instruments such as grant support would assist them in undertaking greater management by making it more economically feasible. For example, respondents noted that grants could help justify the additional costs needed for improving access and infrastructure, and for purchasing equipment necessary to adequately manage woodland parcels where management would be otherwise unviable.

7.4.2 Barriers to greater grant uptake included the complexity of the process. One respondent expressed a desire for the grants system to be targeted at longer-term investments e.g. the woodfuel WIG, where the investment can be spread over a number of years. This correlates with the model, which highlighted that this segment is slightly dis-incentivised to engage in woodland management due to costs and time constraints. Several respondents indicated that the time consuming nature of woodland management is a barrier, as well as being able to access appropriately skilled and equipped contractors that are cost effective for smaller sites. However overall, the interviews supported the segmentation in revealing a willingness to engage with greater woodland management given additional financial, management and advisory support/incentives.

7.4.3 The interviews revealed that the woodlands are important to the owners for a range of reasons, including their value for wildlife as well as for profit-making. This supports the findings of the model.


118

‘I would engage someone to manage it, but I have no idea where to start’

‘Grants are important but not the primary driver. Timber prices are important and determine the level of activity in woodland’

‘I lack knowledge of woodlands as I am a dairy farmer; I need to know what can be achieved by keeping it as ancient woodland. I am aware that mature trees will need felling, then replanting but not sure what species I should put back in to ensure it remains an asset and not a liability’.

‘My aims are not commercial in managing my woodland, so I don’t think anyone would advise me when my aims are for conservation – even if they did I would not want to pay much for it’

‘I think woodlands are self-sustaining, I just chop down dead trees and that’s about it. I think this is sufficient to manage it, but I may be wrong as I am no expert’.

Variation from the ‘Profit-Seeking Guardians’ segmentation characteristics

7.4.4 The segmentation model indicates that ‘Profit-seeking guardians’ tend to undertake a relatively high level of management of their woodlands. However, the findings of the survey sample revealed that a significant number of the respondents either engage in no management or a minimal level of management, such as light thinning, in order to maintain their ability to continue recreational activities. The interviewees indicated that this low level of management may be attributable to lack of sufficient woodland management knowledge. The interviews illustrated a range of activities that are being co-ordinated within this group; contrary to the segmentation characteristics, the majority of these are operated for personal use rather than for profit-making. It was found that the degree to which the owners actively managed their woodlands was primarily attributable to cost constraints, lack of adequate management skills, time constraints and disinterest. Low timber prices were also a contributing factor to the

low level of woodland management indicated by respondents, with several interviewees indicating that the main barrier to them was external timber prices and the resultant low potential for generating profit, which would not be resolved by grants assistance alone.

7.4.5 However, none of the interviewees indicated that they viewed woodland management as hard or a chore, which is a variation from the segment characteristics. The majority of respondents felt that they would welcome and benefit from advice, training or support of some kind, with several indicating that they lack knowledge in either the grants system or in woodland management itself.

7.5 Aspiring Managers

Support for the ‘Aspiring Managers’ segmentation characteristics

7.5.1 A total of nineteen interviews were conducted that matched the key characteristics for the ‘Aspiring managers’ group. According to the segmentation, the Aspiring Managers segment scores the second lowest in terms of their current levels of management activity. Overall the interviews conducted supported findings from the segmentation model in that eighteen out of nineteen respondents for this group reported that they were not currently managing their woodland or reported low levels of management due to a range of factors. Key barriers to management ranged from it being low on their list of priorities, to time constraints and the attitude that their woodlands were for personal use or for amenity value only and thus didn’t require management. These factors are in line with the segment characteristics. Other barriers to management revealed through the interviews included cost, a lack of technical

expertise in woodland management, and the perceived lack of cost effectiveness in employing external contractors to undertake work on small woodland parcels. This also correlates with the segment characteristics. Some respondents indicated that they would be willing to increase management of their woodlands in the future when they had more time following retirement. However overall, the respondents did not report an interest in greater management for profit-making, which correlates strongly with the survey results.


119

‘I don’t think I would qualify for grants, but I don’t want to apply as it will put a constraint on what I can do – I’d rather not be pressurised with timescales and compliance requirements’

‘Most grants don’t even touch the real costs of doing the work'

‘I am not interested in grant schemes as they are too restrictive in prescribing what I have to grow. For example I wanted to plant red oak for the foliage in the autumn and was told I could only plant native oak’

‘Tradition and heritage are the main drivers behind the management of the wood in order to pass it onto the next generation in

the same condition.’

‘It was easier to get grants before, it’s very bureaucratic now and they change the grants all the time so it’s hard to keep track’

7.5.2 The strongest correlation to the shared characteristics for this segment is the expressed interest in maintaining or creating habitat for wildlife. Any management activities undertaken were reported as being minimal, with several respondents stating that they would be interested in greater management of the woodland if it would benefit biodiversity but were not largely motivated by profit-making.

7.5.3 It should be noted that there was a reasonable level of disparity amongst the respondents regarding their motivations regarding greater woodland management. Some have the time but lack the interest, others lack the time and knowledge, others have time but lack knowledge and others responded that they felt that minimal management was sufficient for biodiversity. The general consensus amongst respondents was that the limited size and/or location of their woodland was a significant factor in their lack of management or interest in future management, which is in line with the findings of the segmentation model.

Variation from the ‘Aspiring Manager’ segmentation characteristics

7.5.4 The segmentation indicates that Aspiring managers tend to have a low level of grant uptake due to lack of knowledge surrounding the grants available and the application process itself. While this was true for some respondents, the survey revealed a mixed attitude towards grants with some interviewees stating that the grant process offered little incentive as the system was too bureaucratic and the amount of money available was too little. Other interviewees responded that grant schemes were overly complex and restrictive and that they

did not want to be ‘constrained by what they could plant and grow’, and thus were not interested in receiving grants. Finally, others responded that they were unaware of grants but were in general not interested in being ‘tied into the financial obligations associated with them’.

7.5.5 Furthermore, the segment group shared characteristics state that this group typically finds management a chore and that many of them would consider selling the woodland in the future. However, the interviews did not support this. No respondents commented on the likelihood of their selling their woodlands, although one respondent said that they felt that their woodland was a ‘burden’ and several indicated a complete lack of interest in their woodlands in general. This lack of interest tended to come from landowners that were also farmers and did not derive any amenity or aesthetic value from their woodlands, unlike other respondents in the group. These variations from the model indicate that this group holds a diverse range of attitudes and calls into question whether the term ‘aspiring’ is appropriate for this segment (this issue is returned to later in the discussion).

7.6 Disengaged Conservationists

Support for the ‘Disengaged Conservationists’ segmentation characteristics

7.6.1 In total three interviews were conducted which matched the key characteristics for the Disengaged conservationists segment. According to the segmentation, characteristics of this group include a detached approach to woodland management; a focus on wildlife and landscape objectives; a low level of engagement in income generating activities; and a lack of responsiveness to policy and financial incentives. Overall, the interview findings supported the segmentation model in that all three respondents reported that their woodlands were largely

unmanaged and that their primary motive for holding the land was for private use. None of the respondents reported an interest in managing the land for income generating activities, which correlates with the segment characteristics. In line with the shared characteristics of this group,


120

‘I want to use my woodland to create an environment that is best for UK wildlife but I need advice’

interviewees were also not currently in receipt of grants, and two out of the three respondents were not interested in receiving grants, or with the grants process, viewing it as being either too time consuming a process or potentially acting as a future constraint on the landowner. Furthermore, the respondents were largely uninterested in receiving grants as they were not necessary to support their limited plans for the woodland.

Variation from the ‘Disengaged Conservationists’ segmentation characteristics

7.6.2 The segmentation indicates that Disengaged Conservationists tend not to respond positively to advice or seek to engage in any policy, financial, or advisory-based incentives. However, all three interviewees answered that they would respond positively, or seek out advice from a body such as the Forestry Commission; or were interested in assistance in the development of a management plan to meet their objectives for the woodland. Furthermore, two out of the three respondents indicated that they would be willing to pay for such advice if it contributed to improving woodland biodiversity. This perhaps highlights an oversimplification of the motivations and interests of the group.

7.6.3 It should be noted that the interview sample size for this segment was low. Further interviews with owners/managers from the Disengaged conservationists segment may be worthwhile, particularly if it were to examine in greater depth this segments’ potential response to advice on and assistance with increased management.

7.7 Conclusions

7.7.1 The 45 follow up interviews largely reinforced the segmentation findings, and provided additional narrative around their key characteristics. In particular, the interviews reinforced the segmentation finding that the Timber Producers are the most likely of all the groups to actively manage their woodlands and generate a profit. Whilst accounting for 16% of all landowners, a position jointly held with the Disengaged Conservationists, Timber Producers also had the highest proportion of grant holders, and the highest income from their woodlands amongst all of the groups. Attitudes towards greater woodland management amongst the Timber Producers are positive as they are largely already well-established active managers. In comparison, the Disengaged conservationists are currently the most inactive managers. The interviews supported this model finding but also revealed a willingness to seek out or receive advice on how to engage in a higher level of woodland management, a significant outcome that was not highlighted by the segmentation.

7.7.2 Across the segments the interviewees highlighted frustration with their experience of the existing grants system with several respondents in each segment stating that the process acted as a deterrent due to its complexity. Many also held the view that engaging with the process would result in constraints in terms of current or future management decisions. However, respondents generally revealed a willingness to respond positively to financial instruments and/or the provision of appropriate management advice, a willingness that was supported across almost all of the segment groups. The Aspiring managers segment indicated the greatest reluctance to entering the grants process, even with access to greater information. This is one reason why the term ‘Aspiring’ might be called into question, an issue returned to in later chapters.

7.7.3 Key variations identified between the segmentation results and follow up interviews related primarily to:

Despite the model findings, Timber Producers demonstrated a significant regard for wildlife and recreation;

The model indicates that Profit-seeking Guardians tend to have a high level of management; however, the interviews revealed that a significant number of the respondents either engage in no management or a minimal level of management;


121

Contrary to the segmentation characteristics, the activities carried out by the Profit-seeking Guardians were primarily for personal use rather than as a profit-making activity;

The model findings indicate Aspiring managers as having a low level of grant uptake due to lack of knowledge; however the interviews indicated that this was due rather to the perception that the grant process offered little incentive as the system was too bureaucratic, overly complex and restrictive, and the amount of money available was too little; and

Contrary to the segmentation findings for the Disengaged conservationists, the limited number of interviewees undertaken indicated that they would respond positively to financial and advisory incentives to greater woodland management or seek out advice and assistance in the development of a management plan to meet their objectives for the woodland.

7.7.4 The following chapter discusses the potential policy implications in light of the segmentation and the follow-up interviews, including how any uncertainties surrounding the segmentation might affect its use in practice.


122

8 DISCUSSION

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 Having examined the results of the survey through an analysis of the headline results (Section 4); a more detailed investigation into several key questions (Section 5); the development of a segmentation model to distinguish groups of respondents (Section 6); and follow-up interviews to confirm the validity of the segmentation (Section 7), this section will now look to:

set out the current baseline for woodland management in England and how it might develop in future under a business-as-usual scenario;

consider suitable policy responses in light of the research findings, including an appraisal of both current and potential future interventions; and

suggest areas where further analysis could be usefully carried out using the survey results.

8.2 Baseline and business-as-usual scenario

8.2.1 The survey results provide a reasonably detailed picture of the current state of private woodland management across England. When examined in conjunction with what we know from the literature, the research findings allow us to make some informed predictions about potential future trends. This element of the study details this baseline and its evolution over time given current and likely future conditions (‘a business-as-usual’ scenario), whilst making broad suggestions on how these findings might be relevant to policy-making.

8.2.2 Using the summary statistics set out in Section 4 as a basis, Table 8-1 lists the broad survey findings and illustrates where these findings can be combined with existing evidence to predict future trends under a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario, the broad policy implications of these trends, and opportunities for future research using the survey dataset.


123

Table 8-1: Baseline and business-as-usual scenario

Characteristics Current state of play Business-as-usual

scenario Broad policy implications Future research

Physical Woodland size A little over three-quarters of all the woodlands sampled in the survey are less than 20 hectares in size, with the majority of these less than ten hectares.

It seems unlikely that the large difference in the proportion of small woodland owners when compared to large and medium-sized owners, will change significantly in the longer-term. The tendency toward wood lotting - the subdividing of a discrete woodland area into many blocks for individual ownership – may increase the proportion of smaller woodland parcels over time.

Policy should seek to take into account the varying actions, constraints, motivations, and values of owners of differing woodland sizes. Whilst small owners are in the majority and will remain so, policy should target the largest undermanaged woodlands to minimise transaction costs and so gain maximum value from interventions.

Further analysis has been conducted into the relationship between woodland size and woodland owner and manager characteristics in Section 5 of this report. These findings are discussed in more depth below.

Woodland type According to the survey results, private owners predominately own broadleaved or mixed woodland, with owners of coniferous woodlands clearly in a minority.

Broadleaved woodland area in England is increasing (+10% over the past 20 years), whilst the area of coniferous woodland has remained stable over the same period.

105 As a result,

coniferous woodland owners are likely to remain in the minority over the long-term.

Interventions could be weighted towards the needs of broadleaved woodland owners and the opportunities presented by this form of woodland given their likely long-term predominance in terms of numbers. However, it should be noted that coniferous woodlands tend to be larger, and also contain PAWS sites; therefore incentives targeted at these woodlands may also be beneficial.

106

Use the data set to explore how woodland type relates to the objectives of owners and managers, and their responsiveness to different interventions with a view to suitably tailoring policy interventions such as grants.

105 Countryside Survey: England Results from 2007 (published September 2009). NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Natural England, 119pp. (CEH Project Number:

C03259).

106 According to the Forestry Commission Forestry Statistics 2013, conifer woodlands made up 26% of all non-FC managed woodland in terms of area. Our survey found that 13% of woodlands were mainly coniferous.

Source: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forstats2013.nsf/0/061E41873F94CC788025735D0034F33B

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forstats2013.nsf/0/061E41873F94CC788025735D0034F33B


124



Woodland location A quarter of respondents are located in the South East and London, and around a fifth in the South West and Yorkshire. The North East, East Midlands, West Midlands, & North West are each home to below 10%.

Given the relatively slow rate of woodland creation in England, it appears unlikely that this geographical distribution will alter significantly in the longer- term.

These findings may aid policy-makers by allowing interventions to be targeted at concentrations of woodland owners, so lowering transaction costs. Areas of high woodland ownership may also be particularly suitable for the establishment of woodland cooperatives.

Given the limited sample sizes, if regional data was combined regional variations in the characteristics of owners and managers could be explored in more depth using the survey data. A more fine grained analysis of woodland locations could be undertaken, using the maps of woodland plots to identify clusters of owners/managers with similar values and constraints. This could help to identify priority areas for measures to create local markets or encourage collaboration between owners/managers.

Socio-economic

Owner-manager ratio The majority of those contacted during the survey were woodland owners, with around a third being woodland managers.

The proportion of woodland managers is unlikely to rise without a general increase in woodland profitability and may shrink without it. In either case the pace of change is likely to be slow.

The presence of two distinct forms of stakeholder is likely to have implications for how a policy is received, given the potential for values to differ. Policy-makers should seek to ensure that they are communicating appropriately with either owners or managers.

Further investigation into the particular characteristics of owners and managers could be undertaken using the dataset. Some differences between the two groups are highlighted in Section 4 of this report (including varying responsiveness to interventions).


125



Age of respondents The age profile of woodland owners and managers is clearly distinct from the general population, with the majority of respondents aged over 45.

Given an ageing population and increasing disparities in wealth between the generations, the average age of woodland owners may increase. This trend may be somewhat countered by the influence of new entrants

107 (+1% a

year), who tend to be younger (although still middle -aged).

Ensuring easy access to suitable and affordable labour may be an important policy consideration given the physical nature of much woodland management work. An ageing population may otherwise result in a reduction in woodland management.

The results of this survey could be used to explore in more depth the characteristics of those in the higher age ranges, particularly in terms of barriers. This may aid planning for a potentially older group of woodland stakeholders.

Gender The majority of woodland owners and managers are male, with females making up only a small proportion of those sampled.

This gender ratio is unlikely to change rapidly. Amongst new entrants

108 there is a

slightly higher proportion of females, but the turnover of owners is currently very low (1% a year based on the limited survey sample).

Encouraging a wider proportion of the population to be involved in woodland management care may yield longer-term benefits.

The dataset could be used as the basis for further research into the differing characteristics of male and female woodland owners, with a particular focus on the motivations of female owners and the barriers they face.

Income

The average income of private woodland owners in England is significantly higher than that of the general population. Over half those sampled earned over £50,000 a year.

There is the potential for the average income of woodland owners to slowly rise in future, with new entrants

109 tending to earn

more than more established owners.

No clear policy implications

Further research could use the dataset to examine the characteristics of high and low earning woodland owners, including the barriers they face and their responsiveness to interventions.

107 For further information on new entrants please see Section 5 of this report and the discussion that follows this table


109 It should be noted that the sample of new-entrants was particularly low in this case due to the number who refused to answer the question on income. Just 25 of the 42 new entrants gave an income range. For further

information on new entrants please see Section 5 of this report and the discussion that follows this table.


126



Means of acquiring woodland

Woodlands tend to have been either purchased or inherited by their owners, with a minority having planted their woodland.

There may be an increase in those having created their woodland if the Government’s woodland creation ambitions are realised. Note that new entrants

110 are more likely

to buy their woodland than to plant them.

The provision of advice upon purchase may be a sensible policy approach given this common route into ownership.

The dataset could be used to examine the characteristics of those who purchased, planted, or inherited their woodland in more detail, particularly in terms of variations in their responsiveness to interventions.



127



Economic viability

Only a very small proportion of the woodlands covered by this survey are considered to be profitable, with the majority breaking even, and around a third considered loss making.

The timber industry in the UK is positive about medium term prospects, whilst demand for biomass for energy is anticipated to grow.

111 As such, levels of

woodland profitability may be set to increase. The Grown in Britain programme is likely to contribute to this, in response to the IPF recommendation ‘to seize the opportunity provided by woodlands to grow our green economy by strengthening the supply chain, and promoting the use of wood more widely across our society and economy. These and other actions should be set out in a Wood Industry Action Plan’.

The Ecosystem Markets Task Force (EMTF) argued that “there is an opportunity to bring more unmanaged woodlands into active, sustainable management for woodfuel by raising awareness of the environmental benefits of doing so, and supporting the emergence of the small and medium sized biomass heat market”. However, according to the EMTF, “It appears that the conditions to support the market are in place but are not fully visible”.

112 The

EMTF referred to a potential need to support the establishment of local cooperatives and local supply chains. In addition to promoting the emergence of woodfuel supply chains, the government could focus on assisting woodland owners/managers to diversify sources of woodland income through, for example, providing for sport, recreation, public access etc. and so increase the financial resilience of woodlands.

The results of this survey could be examined to determine the characteristics of those with less profitable woodlands, with an emphasis on understanding the barriers they face and their responsiveness to interventions. In addition, the geographic nature of the dataset could be used to identify areas where economic viability is of interest to a number of owners who could potentially then be helped to collaborate.

111 Quine, C., Crabtree, R., Quick, T., Rowcroft, P and Smith, S. (2012). Woodland Management in England. Final Report to the Independent Panel on Forestry. URS, London [online] available at:

www.defra.gov.uk/forestrypanel/files/IPF_Woodland_Management_in_England1.pdf

112 Ecosystem Markets Task Force (2013) Realising nature’s value: The Final Report of the Ecosystem Markets Task Force [online] available at: www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/files/Ecosystem-Markets-Task-Force-

Final-Report-.pdf


http://www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/files/Ecosystem-Markets-Task-Force-Final-Report-.pdf



128



Sources of woodland income

Both grants and timber were cited as important sources of income by a third of respondents. Managers are more likely to regard an activity as an important factor in generating income than owners.

Woodfuel was cited by a little over a fifth of respondents as an important source of income. This may increase in future as markets develop, whilst the importance of timber may also grow if prices rise

in the medium-term.111111

Generally speaking, it makes sense for the government to ‘wean’ woodland owners/managers off grants in the longer-term through promoting the demand for woodland products and aiding the diversification of revenue-generating activities. Grants could be usefully directed at assisting with the capital costs of diversification.

An in-depth analysis of the data may allow for the characteristics of those who are able to generate income from means other than grants, and those who are grant dependent, to be determined.

Length of ownership The vast majority of owners have owned their woodland over the medium- to long- term, with only a small minority of owners classified as new entrants (owners for less than 5 years).

The length of time that woodland has been in ownership is unlikely to change dramatically over the long-term since the turnover of owners is currently very low (1% a year).

Whilst the increase in new entrants is slow, this shift may start to have more significant implications over the medium- to long-term.

Analysis of new entrants in terms of their distinct characteristics can be found in Chapter 5 of this report.


129



Objectives for woodland

Owner and manager objectives

Respondents often considered their woodland to be important as a home for wildlife with landscape and amenity value also regarded highly. Carbon storage, recreation and relaxation, and privacy and security were ranked as important by over a third of respondents.

The degree of importance placed on wildlife and landscape considerations appears likely to remain given their relative strength and a tendency for new entrants

113 to more often

hold environmental values. Timber and woodfuel may become more important objectives over the medium term. Carbon storage is already surprisingly often seen as an objective given the early stage of carbon markets, and this may increase as these markets develop.

There is arguably a need to capitalise on the importance placed on wildlife considerations by providing advice, grants or other incentives focused on enhancing woodland biodiversity. Measures are already in place to promote the emergence of woodfuel supply chains while the price of timber will remain a key determinant. The need to demonstrate ‘additionality’ will constrain owners receiving payment for carbon storage unless they actively create further woodland.

An examination of the characteristics of those with particular objectives should be possible using the dataset. Research could focus on examining the barriers faced by these groups of stakeholders and their receptiveness to different interventions.



130




Management activities undertaken

Most of the woodlands surveyed have been subject to some form of management in the past five years, with just 9% subject to no management. In contrast, 36% of woodlands are considered ‘unmanaged’ according to one Forestry Commission definition.

114

Maintenance, pest control, and thinning were common activities. However, the extent to which woodlands are managed in line with the UKFS is a key point for discussion.

A potential increase in the profitability of woodlands due to medium-term timber and woodfuel prospects may increase levels of management, as more woods enter productive use. There appears to be no difference in the levels of management undertaken by new entrants

115 when

compared to longer-term owners.

The most important aim for policy-makers will be bringing non-managed woodlands into active management, with interventions targeted at addressing the barriers faced by woodland owners/managers.

A more detailed investigation into the differences between those woodlands that are under FC Grants and Regulations and those that are not has been undertaken in Section 5 of this report. These findings are discussed in more depth below.

114See Section 3.3 for further information on the Woodland Management proxy indicator used by the Forestry Commission.



131



Barriers to woodland management

Barriers faced by woodland owners & managers

The most often cited barrier by respondents was insufficient economic returns from woodlands. Other frequently cited barriers were a lack of priority afforded to management, the woodland being too small and limited access to markets. Woodland managers consider economic returns a barrier less often. This was their second most cited concern, with lack of time being the main barrier they face.

Economic returns may decline as a barrier if medium-term prospects in timber and woodfuel are positive, with knock on effect on the prevalence of other barriers. This is more likely to be the case for managers and owners of already productive woodlands. Beyond this there appears to be little suggestion that the barriers being faced will noticeably change. Barriers do appear to differ for new entrants.

116

Knowledge of the barriers facing woodland owners and managers presents policy-makers with a clear opportunity to work to address them. This should be done in a targeted way, with an initial focus on addressing the barriers facing those with the most potential to bring larger areas of woodland into active management. Helping to make woodlands economically viable is also a key area for focus. For example, availability of local markets for timber forest products as well as wood fuel markets, added value sawmill and other primary and secondary processing markets (small round wood to panel board, logs to fencing mills) to ensure woodland owners have access to a range of markets for all grades of timber products. The transportation of timber and timber products is also key due to rising fuel costs, requirement of specialist haulage vehicles to access difficult sites, damage to rural roads etc.

The barriers facing woodland owners and managers could be further explored using the dataset. The characteristics of owners/managers who are subject to a particular barrier could be explored (e.g. the management activities of those who do not have sufficient access to markets).



132



Receptiveness to interventions

Owner and manager receptiveness

Higher grant rates were the intervention most respondents indicated they would be responsive to. Favourable tax benefits, trusted and impartial advice, and free management plans were also often cited. Managers are less receptive across all interventions, although the general pattern remains similar.

There is no evidence to suggest that a change in responsiveness is likely. New entrants

117 are slightly

less receptive to all interventions, particularly higher grant rates and access to trusted contractors. However, the degree of receptiveness to interventions may change as an owner or manager becomes more established.

It is clear that an increase in grant rates is the surest way to increase management according to the results. However, a more nuanced policy response will be to target interventions at particular groups (e.g. those most responsive to advice) using the study findings and further research using the dataset.

A more detailed analysis of those woodland owners who are most responsive to advice based interventions has been included in Section 5. These findings are discussed in more depth below. Further research could use the same dataset to examine the characteristics of those who are responsive to other interventions.


Organisations owners and managers are part of

A large proportion of survey respondents were found to be members of the NFU. Also often cited were the Country & Land Business Association, the Royal Forestry Society and Confor. Few respondents were members of the Small Woods Association and the Small Woodland Owners Group.

There is nothing particular to indicate any significant shift in patterns of organisational membership. However, new entrants

118

are more likely to be part of small woodland organisations and less likely to be part of the Country Land & Business Association and the NFU.

The groups that woodland owners choose to be members of are likely to be excellent means of engaging with them. By examining the characteristics of those who are members of particular groups the type of information and advice disseminated through these networks can be tailored by policy-makers.

Section 5 of this study presents an analysis of the characteristics of those who are members of the NFU. These findings are discussed in more depth below. Future research could use the dataset to examine the characteristics of woodland owners who are members of other groups.




133

8.3 Findings of our further analysis

8.3.1 The relationships between the variables discussed above in Table 8-1 were explored in more depth in Chapter 5, which looked to ask additional questions of the dataset. These results can tell us more about the current state of play in English private woodland management and what scope there is for further research.

In total four key questions were examined:

1. What are the differences in terms of management between those woodlands included in the Forestry Commission's proxy indicator of woods in management versus those not included in the proxy indicator?

119

8.3.2 Some notable differences emerge when those owners under FC Grants and Regulations (56% of our sample) are compared to those that are not (36% of our sample, with 8% being ‘uncertain’). In terms of the physical characteristics of the woodland owned or managed by these two groups, it is clear that small woodland owners are much less likely to be under FC Grants and Regulations. Broadleaved woodlands are also much less likely to be subject to ‘management’ according to this metric.

8.3.3 In socio-economic terms the two groups appear to differ very little in terms of age or income. Woodlands that have been purchased appear to be less ‘managed’ than others, particularly relative to those that have been planted. This lends support to the idea that the provision of management advice upon purchase might bring about positive results.

8.3.4 Those who are not under FC Grants and Regulations appear to be much less interested in activities that would generate income from their woodland and are also less likely to respond to increased grant payments. This is an interesting finding given that an insufficient economic return was found to be the most often cited barrier for both groups. This suggests that those not under FC Grants and Regulations may be put off from applying for grants despite economic concerns. The factors behind this reluctance warrant further investigation given the importance of effectively targeting interventions at this group of stakeholders.

8.3.5 A key finding was that a large proportion of the woodland not under FC Grants and Regulations appears to be subject to some degree of management. Around a quarter of those not under FC Grants and Regulations considered themselves to be managing their woodland to UKFS standard, whilst not all of those under FC Grants and Regulations believe they were managing to the UKFS standard. A discussion as to whether management in line with the UKFS is an appropriate metric for gauging levels of woodland management is therefore warranted. It will also be important to consider whether the official statistics on management should be based on the receipt of grant and/or felling licences. Levels of non-management are also much lower according to our sample than suggested by FC statistics. Multiple factors may explain these discrepancies. It will be important for further research to examine this issue if policy-makers are to have a clear understanding of the baseline level of woodland management in England, so allowing for changes over time to be effectively tracked.

2. Are new woodland-owners a distinct group of private woodland owners?

8.3.6 New entrants (owners for less than five years) made up only a very small proportion of our sample, 4.2% in all. This indicates two important things: that the turnover in woodland ownership is very low, standing at less than 1% per year (roughly in line with the turnover in rural land more generally

120); and that our analysis of the characteristics of new entrants

119 See Section 3.3 for further information on the Woodland Management proxy indicator adopted





134

should be considered only indicative due to the low sample size involved, with the majority of results found not to be statistically significant.

8.3.7 The low turnover in woodland ownership has important policy implications, as it suggests that if the attitudes and activities of woodland owners/managers are to change over the short- to medium-term, this will be primarily through changes amongst current owners. As such, the characteristics of established owners should be the key concern. Nonetheless, over the longer-term, the attitudes and motivations of new entrants may be increasingly significant.

8.3.8 In terms of the characteristics of the new entrants captured by our survey, it is clear that in some ways they do represent a distinct group of stakeholders. New entrants to woodland ownership tend to be wealthier, and appear less likely to be from a farming background. In some cases new owners also appear to have distinct objectives when compared to non-new entrants, for instance placing greater importance on the recreation and relaxation value of their woodlands.

8.3.9 Should policy be designed in future with a focus on increasing management amongst new entrants, it will be important for it to address the barriers facing these owners. It is particularly notable that new entrants appear to see economic barriers as much less of a concern than more established owners/managers. Lack of skills and lack of knowledge were more often highlighted as barriers by new entrants than more established owners/managers, suggesting that advice-based policy interventions may be more effective than financial ones.

8.3.10 These findings suggest that the shift in ownership taking place, whilst small, may in the long-term result in a noticeably different group of owners with particular attitudes. Policy-makers should ensure they address this group appropriately as its size grows, taking into account their shared characteristics, and how these may change over time. As such, and given the small sample of new woodland owners covered in this survey, further research may be warranted into how best to engage with and influence the activities of this group in future.

3. How does woodland size influence woodland owner objectives, barriers and responsiveness to interventions?

8.3.11 The size of woodland owned or managed by those captured in the survey varies considerably. The large majority of owners have small woodlands (0ha-<20ha). Medium owners (20ha-<100ha) accounted for less than a fifth of respondents and large owners (100ha->500ha) less than 10%. The question of how size relates to owner/manager characteristics is considered important in light of the literature which suggests that small owners differ from those who own larger woodlands. The results of the survey in many ways support this assertion, with potential implications for policy-making.

8.3.12 There are some basic differences between the owners of different sized woodlands, including the dominance of small woodlands in terms of numbers across all regions, with large woodlands most concentrated in the North East, plus the tendency for the proportion of mainly conifer woodland to increase in line with increases in woodland size. These results may prove somewhat useful in targeting policy, for example by focusing on the particular opportunities associated with broadleaved woodlands when addressing small owners.

8.3.13 The most interesting differences between these sets of owners emerge through an examination of the objectives they have for their woodlands, the activities they are undertaking, and the barriers they face. The survey results to some extent support assertions in the literature that smaller woodland owners are less interested in productive uses than larger woodland owners, who tend to be more focused on income generating activities, such as timber production. Game shooting is an exception to this, with it classed as important by a quarter of small woodland owners. As such, this may provide a useful means of driving income generation in smaller woodlands.


135

8.3.14 In terms of management, the survey results reveal that small woodland owners are less likely to have conducted all of the suggested management activities during the past five years. It will be important to understand why management is lower amongst small woodland owners if policy interventions are to be designed to increase levels.

8.3.15 Importantly, small woodland owners tended to feel most strongly that a particular barrier to management applied to them. Small owners tended to see the small size of their wood, a lack of time, inaccessibility, and a lack of priority to be barriers far more often than those with larger woodlands. In addition, the literature suggests that levels of woodland-related knowledge can vary with the size of woodland owned. Our results support this, with over a fifth of small woodland owners citing lack of knowledge as a barrier, far in advance of larger owners.

8.3.16 To increase management amongst small woodland owners, policy-makers should investigate means to address the barriers discussed above. A focus on providing advice may provide results given the relatively high levels of small owners who see knowledge as a barrier. However, financial incentives are still likely to have a key role to play. Whilst higher grant rates were more often supported by medium- and large-scale owners, these were still highly regarded by smaller owners. As a result, policy-makers may consider employing the full suite of interventions in promoting management among smaller owners, with advice being followed by financial support where necessary.

4. Do farmers constitute a distinct group of woodland owners?

8.3.17 Whilst there is evidence for an increase in the number of new entrants from non-farming backgrounds, with these owners having distinct objectives when compared to more traditional owners, farmers still own large areas of woodland, and accounted for over 40% of our sample. Woodland-owning farmers are therefore an important group for policy-makers to engage with; however, there is disagreement in the literature as to how much farmers differ from other owners.

8.3.18 First of all, looking at the geographical and physical characteristics of the woodlands owned by farmers, the survey findings indicate that farmers tend to slightly more often own smaller woodlands, and to be much less likely to own coniferous forests. Geographically, NFU members are over represented (compared to their proportion in the sample as a whole) in the Eastern, South West and East Midlands regions. There were few differences recorded in terms of socio-economic characteristics, with little variation in the age profile and gender ratio of farmers compared to non-farmers. However, non-NFU members have a slightly higher tendency to be in the higher income bracket (more than £50k) when compared to NFU members, suggesting that farmers may have less resources available to commit to woodland management.

8.3.19 Interestingly there appears also to be little variation in terms of the woodland objectives held by farmers and non-farmers, with this running contrary to suggestions in the literature that farmers can be distinguished from other woodland owners on this basis. One notable, if perhaps unsurprising difference is that non-farmer owners place a much greater focus on recreation and relaxation and privacy and security than NFU members.

8.3.20 The level of management conducted by farmers and non-farmers was also broadly similar according to the survey. Nonetheless, in terms of barriers to management, some key differences between farmer and non-farmer owners emerge. For instance, a lack of economic returns is considered to be a barrier more often by farmers. Other areas where farmers more often face difficulties are their woodland not being a priority and limited time available. Non-famers meanwhile see a lack of knowledge and skills as limiting factors.

8.3.21 Despite these differing barriers, there appears to be little variation in the responsiveness of farmers and non-farmers to the interventions suggested, with the one exception to this being an increase in the number of local buyers for woodfuel, which was more often cited by NFU members.


136

8.3.22 These findings suggest that whilst the farmers and non-farmers might be targeted with similar types of interventions, the barrier these interventions are targeted at should differ. For instance, a little under half of NFU members and non-NFU members considered free management plans as an intervention that might help them to increase their levels of woodland management. Such plans could be tailored in light of the needs of the two groups, with farmers helped to produce management plans which focus on low input methods of woodland management, and non-farmers provided with the additional knowledge they need.

8.4 Segmentation model – baseline and opportunities for change

8.4.1 The discussion of the survey’s headline results and the further analysis of these results help to broadly outline the current state of play with regards to woodland management in England and the way in which it might evolve over time. However, a more nuanced picture can be painted of the nature of woodland ownership and management in England through the findings of the segmentation model. This section considers what the segmentation findings tell us about the baseline situation for each segment, and what opportunities there are to drive change.

Timber Producers

The current baseline

8.4.2 While only 16% of woodland owners/managers are classified as ‘Timber Producers’, together they account for 31% of the sampled woodland area. While this segment would, in theory, be a priority for engagement, in practice, this group is already highly engaged in woodland management with a diversity of woodland management activities being undertaken at relatively high levels (virtually none of the Timber Producers believed that their woodlands warranted more management).

8.4.3 According to the segmentation model, the management of woodland by this group tends to be focused on the provision of timber in order to generate revenue, with public goods given less regard.

121 This segment’s productive focus means they are the most likely group to make a

profit from their woodland. However, the difficulties facing all woodland owners in maintaining profitable and well managed woodland are highlighted by the fact that even this highly productive segment is often reliant on grants.

8.4.4 Timber Producers were found to be the least responsive to suggested woodland management interventions, including higher grant payments, advice, easier certification, tax benefits, regulatory reform, and enhanced access to markets. This suggests that this segment is reasonably content with the current system or perhaps doesn’t believe that the system has anything additional to offer.

Opportunities for change

8.4.5 Despite the relatively positive alignment between the current policy environment and the needs of this segment, there are several opportunities for positive change. Grants are clearly key given this group’s reliance on them. While the survey results indicate that this group is least likely to be responsive to an increase in money from grants, it is suggested that the current grant system could nonetheless be examined with a view to reform, particularly in terms of its complexity and capacity to deliver optimum outcomes. This is because without the uptake of grants it is possible that Timber Producers may not continue providing public goods and managing their woodlands.

121 For instance, Timber Producers have the least regard of all the groups to providing habitat for wildlife


137

8.4.6 In the follow-up interviews Timber Producers raised concerns over the perceived increasing complexity of the grant system

122 and the burden and extra costs associated with certification

to UKWAS.123

It could be helpful to streamline the grant and certification system in discussion with Timber Producers. For example the development of ‘fast track’ schemes for well-established operations could be considered. Given the important role this group plays in maintaining large areas of woodland in productive management it is essential that support reflects their needs, and that their business activities are not unduly hindered.

8.4.7 Whilst it is important to support Timber Producers in their productive activities, it is equally vital that grants deliver public goods given the investment of public money. The segmentation suggests that public goods are regarded as relatively low priorities by this group. However, it is notable that the group’s objections to the grant system appear to focus more on process than outcomes. As such, this group may be open to generating additional public goods given support that is easily accessible and not considered burdensome. As such, it is suggested that opportunities to increase public goods provision through a streamlined grant system are explored.

8.4.8 The opportunity to increase public goods from productive woodlands through grant system reform is further supported by the interview findings.

124 These ran contrary to the

segmentation findings in that respondents had an understanding of where their woodland provided community benefits and highlighted non-timber production revenue generating activities as being increasingly important. In addition, the desire to ‘break even’ is strong for many owners/managers in this segment, which suggests openness to providing public good so long as costs are met. The degree to which this segment is willing and able to provide such goods deserves further exploration if incentives are to be appropriately designed and targeted.

8.4.9 The findings suggest that there might be some scope to use grants to encourage Timber Producers to invest in sources of revenue other than timber. For example, grants could be used to support the establishment of other woodland-related businesses. A more diverse income stream may help to keep timber-producing woodlands viable (providing, for instance, a hedge against volatile timber prices) and so help reduce grant dependence in the longer-term. According to Timber Producers interviewed during the study, road access for management was seen as the main factor limiting sustainable forest management.

125 This raises the

question as to whether one-off grants for facilitating access might be considered in future beyond those that are currently available in relation to wood fuel.

8.4.10 If this segment is found to be increasingly open to the provision of public goods, or can be incentivised to be so, then opportunities may emerge for the development of new forms of finance for these woodlands. In particular, the development of novel private and public Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes could be explored, given the capacity for such schemes to provide income for owners in return for the provision of woodland-based ecosystem services. In addition, given the large size of their woodlands, Timber Producers could be offered advice and incentives to explore how changes in their management might affect landscape-scale processes (for example, flood risk alleviation) and so deliver public benefits. However, the provision of wider ecosystem services may be challenging for Timber

122 One Timber Producer interviewed stated that ‘[I]have been dealing with grant system for many years and seen it go through various iterations.

Each time it seems to get more complicated and there are a greater number of hurdles to get over’.

123 One Timber Producer interviewed stated that: ‘There [is] a strong feeling that certification to UKWAS is becoming more burdensome and may

even put the owner off if the additional cost of managing the scheme cannot be justified. There don’t seem to be enough tangible benefits of certification anymore and therefore is it necessary?’

124 One Timber Producer interviewed stated that ‘Increased timber prices primarily [would encourage them to increase the management of their

woodland] but this could be coupled with other income streams from carbon or other benefits. We do generate revenue through letting of woodland areas for recreational/leisure activities. This could be increased’.

125 One Timber Producer interviewed stated that ‘Access to woodland is critical for long term sustainable management’.


138

Producers given their focus on timber production and its potential incompatibility with the provision of other services, such as recreational access.

8.4.11 Timber Producers are the least likely to recognise any of the barriers to increased woodland management discussed in the survey. In contrast, those most likely to be responsive to advice-based interventions more often agreed that a barrier to further management applied to them. As such, advice-based interventions are unlikely to be useful in instigating change with this segment.



8.4.12 Making up 22% of the sample of woodland owners/managers, this segment is important for two key reasons. Firstly, this group of owners collectively controls the largest area of woodland when compared to those in the other segments

126 (although Timber Producers do

have a higher per capita level of ownership). As such, changes brought about in the values and behaviours of this group of owners/managers are likely to have correspondingly wide ranging impacts, so making this a segment of key concern.

8.4.13 Secondly, Multi-functional Owners could currently be considered to be ‘trailblazers’ in terms of generating the widest range of woodland benefits, with high levels of woodland management undertaken to provide both public and private benefits. They also tend to own woodland that is proving relatively economically viable (when compared, for instance, to that owned/managed by the Profit-seeking Guardians) and face relatively few barriers to the management of their woods.

8.4.14 There is still much work to be done to bring more of these woods into financially sustainable long-term management (they are still often reliant on grant support) and to ensure the benefits gained from these woodlands are maximised. However, given their relatively advanced position in these respects, Multi-functional Owners’ may provide useful examples for other managers, including Timber Producers who have less of a focus on providing multiple benefits, and the Profit-seeking Guardians who have yet to find a way to financially support their wish to deliver multiple benefits from their woodlands.


8.4.15 Whilst the woodlands of Multi-functional Owners are the second most likely to be generating a profit and to be breaking even, around a third are still failing to make a profit.

127 This segment

is also likely to apply for grants to help them undertake activities in their woodland and to supplement the income they derive from it. If these woodlands are to set an example of how woodlands can be managed for multiple benefits over the longer term, then there is a clear need to make these woods financially viable, particularly as these owners tend to see their major barrier as being a lack of economic return and highlight fiscal interventions (e.g. higher grant rates and tax reforms) as the best means of persuading them to increase their levels of management.

8.4.16 Given the level of engagement this segment currently has with the grants system, this appears to be a key lever for instigating change within this group. In particular, grant support targeted at this group could be focused on increasing the financial viability of these woodlands. This should be with a view to ‘weaning’ these owners off grant support. Opportunities for grant reallocation appear to already be emerging in the case of some Multi-functional Owners.

128

126 34% of the total woodland area owned by those surveyed

127 Making a profit 14%; Breaking even 45.9%; Making a loss 33.5%

128 One Multi-functional Owner interviewed stated that: Rotational fellings on larger scales generate enough revenue to incentivise owners

[without grant aid].


139

8.4.17 Reducing reliance on grant finance is likely to rest on expanding markets for wood and woodfuel to the point at which they support long-term management. However, at present Multi-functional Owners tend to believe their woodland is managed more or less sufficiently for wood products.

8.4.18 It is unclear whether this lack of focus on increasing income generation through wood production is due to these woodlands truly being at maximum productive capacity, or whether additional barriers, such as poor market conditions (including price fluctuations

129 and access

to markets130)

, and other factors (such as trade-offs with other woodland objectives131

) are influencing the extent to which these owners feel their woodlands can generate income from wood. Further research could be conducted into the wood producing capabilities of this segment, in order to identify barriers, trade-offs, and opportunities for change that could then be supported through grants or advice.

132

8.4.19 In addition to supporting increased management for timber as a primary resource, opportunities for rural business diversification could also be explored through grant aid. This segment is likely to be particularly open to such incentives given their focus on providing multiple benefits from their woodlands, and with the need for such diversification already acknowledged by some.

133 A wider variety of income sources may help to increase the

financial viability of these woodlands in the short-to-medium term, given that timber prices are unlikely to significantly increase.

8.4.20 Opportunities for the diversification of woodland activities that might be supported by grant aid include socially focused services, such as Forest Schools

134 and social enterprises more

generally (given the acceptability of a break-even position to some Multi-functional Owners). There are also likely to be additional economic options, especially in terms of increasing ownership of the woodland value chain. For example, the creation of wood product cooperatives could enable owners to capture more of the value generated by the production of timber from their woodlands.

8.4.21 In terms of generating income from wider sources, there is also the opportunity for grant schemes to support Multi-functional Owners in developing markets for the wider public benefits generated by their woodlands through Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES). For example, local authorities in areas with green space deficits might be potentially willing to pay for public access through some sort of PES scheme. This segment is particularly suitable for trialling such schemes given their focus on providing multiple benefits and the relatively large average size of their woodlands. These larger woodlands are likely to have a greater impact on landscape-scale functions and to benefit from economies of scale. The multi-functional nature of these woodlands also reduces the likelihood of antagonistic uses, although there is still some potential for conflicts (e.g. shooting activities and public access

135).

129 One Multifunctional Owner interviewed stated that: Incentives, if awarded, are more secure than relying on market prices for timber which can

fluctuate wildly and can’t be relied on

130 Access to markets is cited as the second largest barrier according to multifunctional woodland owners. It should be noted that managers were

not asked this question on market access. This may be important given that managers made up nearly 25% of the survey respondents in this segment.

131 One Multifunctional Owner interviewed stated that: Our woods have a visual impact on the AONB valley, if went commercial, woodlands would

lose visual amenity.

132 For example: the Multifunctional Owner who stated trade-offs with visual amenity might occur if he moved into commercial production went on

to state that he was considered continuous forestry as a solution. Grant aid and advice could be targeted at supporting management practices such as this where wood production could be increased.

133 One Multifunctional Owner interviewed stated that: Woodfuel is very important but we need other markets as well such as local furniture co-ops

and coppice products

134 In the survey Multifunctional Owners most often stated that their woodland was managed as an ‘Education resource for the local community’

(10% of respondents)

135 In the survey Multifunctional Owners more often stated that their woodland was managed for Shooting (8%) and for Public Access (13%)


140

8.4.22 As a note of caution, it is important that any reduction in grant support, or the reallocation of grant support to activities focused on income generation, does not result in a decline in wider public benefits currently offered by these woodlands.

136 This segment is highly engaged with

the grant system and in delivering a level and range of management in excess of that provided by most other woodland owning groups. They also collectively control a large area of woodland. Any changes in policy must therefore be carefully targeted to ensure that existing management levels are maintained.

8.4.23 If financial support through grants is bring about any increase in woodland management from this segment, it will be important to address the perceived bureaucracy of the grant system which many Multi-functional Owners consider a barrier to their participation

137, and which at

times can act as a delaying factor for the work they wish to undertake.138

Again, as for the Timber Producers, opportunities to streamline the grant system should be sought.

8.4.24 Given the long-established nature of many of the respondents in this segment a ‘fast track style’ scheme for well-established operations and/or those with a clear long term management plan might be a suitable approach. The forthcoming integration of the English Woodland Grant Scheme into a single Natural Environment Land Management Scheme under the next Rural Development Programme (RDP) could present an opportunity for such changes to be piloted.

139

8.4.25 It should be noted that around 40% of Multifunctional Owners are members of the NFU and so likely to be from a farming background. As such, reforms to agri-environment schemes may prove to be useful means of promoting changes in management by this segment. In this respect there was some concern expressed that payments for woodlands through the grant system do not come close to matching those available for the provision of other habitats through Higher Level Stewardship.

140

8.4.26 Non-financial incentives appear less likely to be effective at encouraging greater management from Multi-functional Owners. This segment is considered to have a low level of receptiveness to advice-based interventions, including the provision of a free third party management plan (nonetheless over 40% of Multi-functional Owners do not have such a plan).

8.4.27 Identifying means of encouraging these owners to adopt plans may be advisable if woodlands are to be effectively managed over the longer-term. The follow-up interviews indicated that fluctuating timber prices may be limiting the demand for such plans.

141

136 In the survey Multi-functional Owners most often stated that their woodland was managed for the ‘Benefit of wildlife’ (60%) and to ‘Conserve the

local landscape’ (61%)

137 In the survey over a third of Multifunctional Owners saw the bureaucratic and time consuming nature of the grant application process as a

barrier to their participation in such schemes.

138 One Multifunctional Owner interviewed stated that: When first introduced, EWGS was simple to use but has become increasing more complex.

We are now finding that some applications take over a year to get approval for. Grant are useful but if they are causing severe delays to work programmes then can be more trouble than they are worth. We often can’t plan work due to uncertainty of applications.

139 Defra (2013) Review of forestry functions and organisational arrangements for their delivery in England [online] available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224841/pb13976-forestry-functions-review-130717.pdf

140 One Multi-functional Owner interviewed stated that: Current EWGS payment for woodland management grant is £30/ha whereas the HLS

payment for managing wild bird seeded meadows is £500/ha

141 One Multi-functional Owner interviewed stated that: [in reference to woodland management plans] Are they necessary when most owners

change felling programmes to react to market fluctuations. It’s this that ultimately drives felling programmes, management and reinvestment into the woodlands to provide the other benefits.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224841/pb13976-forestry-functions-review-130717.pdf


141

Profit-seeking Guardians


8.4.28 The Profit-seeking Guardians segment makes up 22% of the survey sample and accounts for 24% of the total sampled woodland area with relatively large (and often multiple) holdings.

8.4.29 This segment is characterised by woodland owners/managers who are undertaking relatively high levels of management but who very rarely make a profit, with 80% of them either breaking even or making a loss. These owners/managers are trying to diversify their activities and are characterised by being strongly responsive to almost all incentives. This segment is aware of the wider benefits that their woodlands provide, but think that they should be paid for providing these, as they are put off by the costs and time consuming nature of woodland management.


8.4.30 The segmentation indicates that the majority of Profit-seeking Guardians’ woodlands are actively managed to produce public benefits, but that they would manage their woodlands more actively if there was more money to be made from them. The segmentation also indicates that the majority of the woodland management activities undertaken by this segment are for personal benefit, rather than as a means of making a profit.

8.4.31 While these owners/managers are already managing for some activities, such as game shooting

142, there are opportunities for a wider array of benefits to be obtained from these

woodlands. For example, those in the Profit-seeking Guardian segment actively manage their woodlands less for public access or as educational resources

143 when compared with Multi-

functional Owners.

8.4.32 Low timber prices were identified as a contributing factor to low uptake of woodland management amongst the respondents.

144 Several interviewees indicated that the main

barrier to them was external timber prices and the resultant low potential for generating profit, irrespective of grants.

8.4.33 The segmentation indicated that the Profit-seeking Guardians have above average participation in all activities, especially woodfuel for personal use and selling timber. They are particularly attracted to greater access to local woodfuel buyers and access to markets for woodfuel. To help link local supply chains, greater support could be provided in setting up local cooperatives and concentrating capital investment to facilitate geographically clustered end users.

145 Respondents also identified high interest in greater availability of trusted

contractors, and indicated interest in access to appropriately skilled and equipped contractors that are cost effective for smaller sites.

146 Cooperatives could therefore also help make

production more economically viable through the pooling of resources. However, it should be noted that cooperatives do not have a proven track record in England and therefore more innovative approaches that achieve economies of scale and match owners’ preferences may need to be explored.

142 50% of those in the Profit-seeking Guardian segment had actively managed their woodland for game shooting

143 Public access: Profit-seeking Guardians 6%, Multi-functional Owners 13%. Education resource for the local community: Profit-seeking

Guardians 5%, Multifunctional Owners 10%.

144 Grants are important but not the primary driver. Timber prices are important and determine levels of activity in woodland

145 ‘One Profit-seeking Guardian interviewed stated that ‘Woodfuel is very important but we need other markets as well such as local furniture co-

operatives’ and another stated, ‘As our woodland holding is small we only ever have small amounts of timber to sell’.

146 One Profit-seeking Guardian interviewed stated that ‘Economies of scale are key for us to make management operation economically viable’.


142

8.4.34 It should be noted, however, that access to markets was considered a barrier by fewer than 30% of all woodland owners, regardless of woodland size. According to the Ecosystem Markets Task Force the conditions to support the woodfuel market are already in place but are not fully visible.

147 Therefore increased advice on the grants available is important, in light of

the capital costs associated with woodland management for woodfuel. This may be particularly useful for this segment, who were the most likely to regard the identification of buyers for timber, woodfuel, or other products as a barrier to increasing their management.

148

8.4.35 65% of the Profit-seeking Guardians have received a grant to support the management of their woodland. Despite this, several interview respondents indicated that lack of economic returns is the most significant barrier for them, and that they would manage their woodland more actively if there was more money to be made from it. There was a recognition amongst respondents that financial instruments including higher grant payments would assist in making increased management more economically viable, by justifying the additional costs needed for improving access, infrastructure and purchasing equipment necessary to manage woodlands.

149

8.4.36 Almost 50% of Profit-seeking Guardian respondents stated that grant payments were too small to justify applying, the highest proportion of any segment. In addition, these respondents felt strongly that higher grant rates would help them to manage their woodlands more. However, the perception that grants are overly bureaucratic, restrictive and complex was common amongst respondents.

150 In addition, the opinion was shared that they would

manage their woodlands more actively if gaining certification was easier and regulations weren't so restrictive. As such, it could be helpful to streamline the grant and certification system in partnership with Profit-seeking Guardians. Whilst there may be synergies in the approach taken to streamlining across segments, the specific requirements of each segment should be considered during this process. Given the potential for this group to improve the management of large areas of woodland, it is important that grant support reflects their needs.

8.4.37 In terms of helping to address the lack of economic returns that hinder increased woodland management, grants supporting additional means of generating an economic return could be focused on this segment, for example grants for establishing non-timber woodland businesses.

8.4.38 Woodland owners in this segment are more likely to be members of the NFU, and so more likely to be from a farming background, than owners/managers from other segments. As nearly half of Profit-seeking Guardians can be considered to be farmers, reform to agri-environment schemes may be a useful policy lever.

147 Ecosystem Markets Task Force (2013). Realising nature’s value: The Final Report of the Ecosystem Markets Task Force [online] available at:

www.defra.gov.uk/ecosystem-markets/files/Ecosystem-Markets-Task-Force-Final-Report-.pdf

148 It should be noted that woodland managers were not asked this question on market access. This may be important given that managers made

up around 32% of the survey respondents in this segment.

149 One Profit-seeking Guardian interviewed stated that ‘It would be difficult to justify management in smaller woodlands without grants or if they

were reduced, due to the additional costs needed for improving access and infrastructure and obtaining the right contractors and equipment to do the work’

150 For example, during the follow-up interviews respondents asked why a public register is necessary when they have an approved UKWAS

compliant plan in place. Similarly they asked why such a high level of forest inventory detail is required during applications when UKWAS compliant plans exist on their woodland already.



143

8.4.39 Over 30% of Profit-seeking Guardians are not receiving any grants. As such, the provision of advice on available grants could be considered in order to increase engagement with these owners/managers and to encourage them to manage their woodland to a greater extent and for a greater variety of benefits. Additional research could also be undertaken, beginning with the data used in this report, to identify the key characteristics of those who are not engaged in the grants system. This could help to tailor a response through understanding why they are disengaged (e.g. from the existing data the profitability of their woodlands can be determined), the effects of their disengagement (e.g. are they managing their woodlands less?) and whether it would be worth expending time and effort on bringing them into the grants system.

8.4.40 It is also noteworthy that over 40% of the woodlands in this segment had been inherited. Given this finding, inheritance tax reform could conceivably help to deliver management objectives. For instance, lower rates of tax might be traded for public good provision through a long term woodland management plan.

8.4.41 In comparison with Timber Producers and Multi-functional Owners, those in the Profit-seeking Guardians segment more often indicated that their levels of woodland management might be limited due to insufficient woodland management knowledge.

151 This could potentially be

resolved by building in greater management support, for example by supporting woodland mapping and helping an owner to understand a woodland’s potential (in terms of timber, habitat, landscape, recreation etc.) and the available means of bringing a woodland into management. In terms of reaching this segment, Profit-seeking Guardians tend to be members of the NFU and the Country Land & Business Association.

Aspiring Managers


8.4.42 Aspiring Managers comprise almost a quarter of owners and managers in the survey sample, representing the largest segment from the model; however, they only own 7% of the total sampled woodland area.

8.4.43 The segmentation indicated that respondents from this segment have the lowest levels of active management when compared to the other groups (39%), with many respondents not yet managing. These respondents also tend to be relatively new to woodland ownership. The follow-up interviews supported this with 18 of 19 respondents reporting that they were not currently managing their woodland. The majority have not yet concentrated on woodland activities associated with income generation and were not expecting to make a profit from their woodlands. However, they were interested in a range of incentives and were willing to manage their woodlands to a greater extent in the future as they recognised that they were probably under-utilised.


8.4.44 Most Aspiring Managers are not expecting to make a profit from their woodlands, and out of those that do undertake profit-making activities very few suggested that the woodland made a profit (2%). Both the survey and the follow-up interviews indicate that their woodlands were not actively managed for any objective although they have an interest in landscape conservation and providing habitat for wildlife. They also share the attitude that their woodlands are for personal use or primarily for amenity value. The segmentation indicates that they assign very low priority to public access.

151 One Profit-seeking Guardian interviewed stated that: [he] lacks any expertise, doesn’t understand the rules and regulations that you have to

operate under, can’t differentiate a ‘good versus a bad tree’, and is unsure as to who is responsible if a tree on his property falls onto a road or house.


144

8.4.45 It should be noted that the literature suggests the most important stated woodland management objectives tend to be those requiring limited intervention, such as biodiversity and landscape considerations. It is not clear from the evidence presented in the literature, or indeed from the results of this survey

152, why this tends to be. One suggestion is that that

these types of management objective represent a ‘default’ position, which landowners resort to when asked to identify their woodland objectives.

153 Given the generally low tendency for

Aspiring Managers to set clear objectives for their woodland, and to manage it in line with these objectives, it may be worthwhile conducting further research into the true motivations of those in this segment

154 before taking steps to target them with particular incentives.

8.4.46 Compared to the other segments, a primary reason for lack of management was a lack of skills, expertise and knowhow as well as a difficulty in accessing people with the right technical knowledge to assist them.

155 Aspiring Managers also indicated a ‘very high’ interest in a visit

by a Forestry Commission officer, a ‘very high’ interest in greater availability of trusted and impartial advice, and a ‘very high’ interest in a third party preparing a management plan for their woodland for free.

8.4.47 The provision of advice on woodland management should therefore be considered, particularly when focused on addressing the cost and time constraints identified as barriers by respondents in this segment.

156 For example the provision of a free woodland management

plan could be set up focusing on teaching low ‘time input’ methods, given that this segment tends to find management ‘a chore’.

8.4.48 Many Aspiring Managers do not see their woodlands as a management priority, and often believe that the economic returns of most activities do not justify the costs involved.

157 The

provision of advice on the potential financial benefits of increased woodland management may help to address this. However, several interview respondents stated that they would be interested in greater management of the woodland if it would benefit biodiversity but were not largely motivated by profit making. Therefore Aspiring Managers could be targeted with advice on biodiversity in particular as well as advice on how best to generate financial returns from woodlands.

8.4.49 The woodlands owned by Aspiring Managers are largely private, relatively small and recently purchased. As a result, this segment is more likely to be isolated from advice and interest groups, which may perpetuate their lack of knowledge. The results show that those in this segment are most likely to be part of the NFU and the Country Land & Business Association and these organisations may provide a means of reaching this segment with information and advice.

152 Whilst the follow up interviews do tell us more than the survey about the attitudes of woodland owners in terms of the environment, their scope and

focus is such that only limited conclusions can be drawn

153 Lawrence A., N. Dandy and Urquhart, J. (2010). Landowner attitudes to woodland creation and management in the UK. Forest Research, Alice

Holt, Farnham [online] available at http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/ownerattitudes

154 For instance, the environmental attitudes of such respondents could be tested in more depth for instance by enquiring whether they would manage

their woodland differently should a more profitable means of production be identified, even if this is at the expense of biodiversity

155 One Aspiring Manager interviewed stated that ‘From a practical point of view I can manage my woodland, but I have no specific expertise on how to

best do this’

156One Aspiring Manager interviewed stated that ‘I would be interested in joining a local hub of skilled woodland managers to gain low-cost or free

advice’

157 Aspiring Managers cited a lack of sufficient economic returns as a barrier more often than those in any other segment



145

8.4.50 Aspiring Managers tend not to seek out information from the Forestry Commission or professional bodies and seek out all sources of information less often than other segments (with the exception of the Disengaged Conservationists). With this being the case, the Forestry Commission could seek to increase engagement with this group, and encourage their membership of professional bodies, in order to facilitate knowledge exchange on woodland management and to develop ‘networks of conservation advice’.

158

8.4.51 Also, given that the majority of this segment purchased their woodland, the provision of advice upon purchase might be considered as another way of providing owners with capacity building on woodland management. For example a visit by a Forestry Commission officer when a change occurs in the Land Registry title of woodland could be considered.

8.4.52 Aspiring Managers scored second lowest in terms of their levels of grant uptake (40%). The data suggests that this reflects a lack of knowledge about grants (65%) and how to apply for them, with the follow-up interviews also indicating that some respondents were ‘unaware of grants’. However, there was no lack of responsiveness to such interventions, as the data indicates there is a ‘high’ interest in grant schemes offering higher payments amongst those in the segment. Increased provision of advice on available grants should be considered, to raise awareness of the potential for profit-making activities.

159 This is important as this segment

gives low priority to profit-making activities, perhaps due to their lack of knowledge on available grants, and identifies cost as a constraint.

160

8.4.53 The follow-up interviews also suggested that the grant process was too bureaucratic, overly complex and with too little money available. Respondents also indicated that they were not necessarily interested in receiving grants as they were overly restrictive, constraining what owners could plant, and they were not interested in being tied into the financial obligations associated with them.

8.4.54 According to the survey results, those in the Aspiring Managers segment are often members of the NFU, and so are likely to be from a farming background. As such, reforms to the Environmental Stewardship scheme are likely to be a key policy lever.

8.4.55 This segment indicated a ‘high’ interest in increased management if the government provided more assistance with disease and pest control.

161 One means by which this could be

achieved is through the provision of increased advice. For example, the interviews conducted with those in this segment indicated a desire for there to be clearer guidance on the removal of high and low value infected timber, and where the landowners’ responsibilities lay. Grants are likely to be particularly effective in addressing concerns such as these, for example by covering the capital costs of fences to keep out deer. The Forestry Commission could conduct further research to determine exactly what sort of assistance is required.

8.4.56 There was a ‘high’ interest in local buyers for woodfuel amongst those in this segment. Similar measures as those outlined in the discussion for Profit-seeking Guardians could be adopted, such as establishing local cooperatives in order to generate economies of scale. Further research could look at the spatial distribution of these two groups using GIS and the mapped woodland plots, to look for concentrations of these owners to then pilot cooperatives.



159 One Aspiring Manager interviewed stated that: ‘If there was financial assistance to manage my woodland I would seriously consider it, but at

the moment it is not of interest commercially’

160 One Aspiring Manager interviewed stated that: ‘We feel our capital is better invested elsewhere as we are unaware of what returns we could

get from our woodland. If there was a grant to help me sort timber out, I would use that to move things forward, but using my own income stream on something which I don’t know anything about is too risky’.

161 One Aspiring Manager interviewed stated that ; There is a major concern about our ability to react to pest and disease events. There are not

enough people with the appropriate equipment or knowledge to react to major incidences.’


146

8.4.57 Within such cooperatives innovative solutions could be considered, such as creating small-scale supply chains linking local woods, small woodfuel power plants and public building complexes such as schools or retirement homes perhaps through local authority spatial planning or, alternatively, targeting woodfuel systems in areas of high fuel poverty. Establishing such cooperatives could help address the unrecorded flow of woodfuel

162 by

bringing together the many small woodland owners who primarily produce woodfuel for personal consumption, and potentially render their activities profitable.

‘“I called a sample of farmers that we (regional woodland project) had historically given advice to, whilst 90 % hadn’t taken up the management advice, an estimated 70% were taking fire wood out of their woodlands, in most cases without a felling licence. If you take that across virtually every farm in the region that equals a lot of timber flow that is not being recorded”

163

In line with the findings of the segmentation model, the general consensus amongst interview respondents was that the limited size and/or accessibility of their woodland were significant factors in their lack of management, or interest in future management. In addition, the follow-up interviews indicated a perceived lack of cost effectiveness in employing external contractors to undertake work on small woodland parcels. Cooperatives could help address these barriers and could also provide a means of accessing trusted contractors (which were of ‘high’ interest to those in this segment).



8.4.58 Those in the Disengaged Conservationists segment makes up 16% of the survey sample but own just 3% of the total sampled woodland area. According to the segmentation model, Disengaged Conservationists comprise mostly private owners who have purchased their woodland and who have owned them for the shortest period of time. They have a relatively low level of engagement in woodland management. Around half (52%) of their woodlands are actively managed, and comparatively few believe that their woodlands are managed in compliance with the UKFS (31%). Owners/managers in this group are unlikely to have been in receipt of a grant, to have a woodland management plan, or possess a felling licence. These findings may be related to the belief held by these owners that woodlands are best left alone to let nature take its course.

8.4.59 The public good aspects of woodland management are comparatively less important to those in this segment, and there is a lack of interest in productive uses for private benefit, such as timber production. Accordingly, Disengaged Conservationists were found to have a below average interest in all of the incentives that could promote greater management of their woodlands. This may suggest that this segment lacks knowledge of current incentives as well as the support systems necessary to allow them to complete necessary management activities. Most importantly, this finding may also indicate a lack of understanding of the potential benefits of additional woodland management.

162 Yeomans, A., and Hemery, G. (2010). Prospects for the market supply of wood and other forest products from areas with fragmented forest-ownership

structures: - England case study. Sylva Foundation [online] available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/supply-wood/england_en.pdf

163 Yeomans, A., and Hemery, G. (2010). Prospects for the market supply of wood and other forest products from areas with fragmented forest-

ownership structures: - England case study. Sylva Foundation [online] available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/supply-wood/england_en.pdf





147

8.4.60 The literature review documented in the Evidence Base Review (Volume 2) suggests that there are an increasing number of private, small woodland owners from non-farming backgrounds, with relatively little knowledge of woodland management. It is possible that a number of those in the Disengaged Conservationist segment fall into this category given the relatively short length of their ownership.

164

8.4.61 Given that this segment owns the smallest total area of woodland, it is may be considered less of a priority target for policy interventions, as it is unlikely to result in significant returns in terms of an increased area under management.


8.4.62 Those in the Disengaged Conservationists segment are relatively unlikely to see their woodland as important in terms of delivering any of the woodland benefits suggested in the survey, with the exception of the provision of habitat for wildlife and landscape conservation.

165

However, their approach appears often to be very much hands off. Whilst around half of respondents manage their woodland actively for the benefit of wildlife or to conserve the local landscape, more owners in this segment believe their woodland should be left to nature than in any other. In addition, they are relatively unlikely to have undertaken management activities, with less than 40% having completed each of the suggested activities, with the exception of thinning.

8.4.63 Despite indicating a ‘low’ interest in assistance with woodland management, this segment could nonetheless be offered advice on potential unrealised benefits of management, particularly for biodiversity.

166

8.4.64 The segmentation identified cost as a key barrier to greater management; therefore advice should be free or low cost

167 and should be directed at encouraging least cost interventions (or

those supported by easily accessible grants). Lawrence et al. (2010) emphasised that the provision of free expert advice is particularly appreciated and likely to influence outcomes, with the Forestry Commission’s Woodland Officers highly regarded in this role.

168 However, as with

respondents in the Aspiring Managers segment (see Section 8.4.4 previously), further research into the environmental attitudes of Disengaged Conservationists may be appropriate before pursuing a primarily biodiversity-focused strategy.

8.4.65 Our survey found that 21% of Disengaged Conservationists had been in receipt of a grant, the lowest of any of the segments, and very few had held a felling licence (9%). In addition, 72% stated that they didn’t need a grant to do what they want with their woodland. In response to this, advice could also be provided on available grants to help realise management benefits. For example, the Woodland Improvement Grant (WIG) pays for work to provide environmental benefits such as coppice restoration and deer management which may be of interest to those in this segment given their apparent objectives. Given that around 40% of those in this segment are members of the NFU, there could also be potential opportunities to reach this segment through Environmental Stewardship and its successor scheme.

164 Those in the Disengaged Conservationist segment have, on average, owned their woodland for a shorter period of time than respondents in the

other segments.

165 One Disengaged Conservationist interviewed stated that: ‘I want to use my woodland to create an environment that is best for UK wildlife but I

need advice’

166 Research is inconclusive on the potential benefits of leaving woodland unmanaged. For example Slee et al. maintain that in terms of carbon

sequestration, non-intervention measures are probably the most appropriate for ancient semi-natural woodland. However, the distinction should be made between those choosing to leave their woodland unmanaged i.e. implementing non-intervention with specific objectives, and those not managing their woodland due to other barriers or beliefs. Further research could be undertaken to explore this further (see section 9)

167 One Disengaged Conservationist interviewed stated that: ‘[he] would not be happy to pay for advice on how to manage the woodland for his

objectives’

168 One Disengaged Conservationist interviewed stated that: ‘Ideally the Forestry Commission should appoint a regional contact point, to address

the issue of confidence by having someone to turn to for advice’. Another stated that he would be: ‘Interested in visit from FC to come and advise’


148

8.4.66 However, it should be noted that Disengaged Conservationists tended to view grants as being either too time consuming or potentially acting as a future constraint on their activities.

169

Therefore, since there is an opportunity to increase public goods from the unmanaged woodlands owned by this segment by introducing them to potential grants, it is suggested that opportunities for a more streamlined and flexible grant system should be explored, with support that is easily accessible and not unduly burdensome.

8.4.67 The organisations that Disengaged Conservationists are members of are likely to be an effective means of reaching these owners with advice. In particular, the NFU and the Country Land & Business Association may be useful organisations to disseminate information as these are the organisations that Disengaged Conservationists are most likely to be members of. Membership of other, more forestry orientated organisations tends to be very low for this segment. Addressing this could help bring Disengaged Conservationists into contact with other woodland owners and so facilitate knowledge exchange.

8.4.68 Given that this segment’s woodlands are mostly purchased, the provision of advice upon purchase could be considered. For example a visit by a Forestry Commission officer when a change occurs in the Land Registry title of a woodland.

8.4.69 This segment has the smallest average size of woodland (5-9ha), with the survey indicating that Disengaged Conservationists have the greatest tendency to see the small size of their woodland as a barrier to increasing levels of management. To help overcome this barrier, cooperative opportunities could be explored. For example, the Forestry Commission could seek to link small owners, who could then work together to hire contractors on a more cost-efficient basis. This latter intervention may be important given that respondents in this segment are on average the oldest.

170 However, as noted above, there may be some

difficulties in instigating cooperative action given the currently disengaged nature of those in this segment.

8.4.70 It is probable that many of the woodland owners in this segment, with their comparatively small forest holdings and disengagement from national forestry organisations and institutions, are relatively unaware of current policy initiatives and the grants system. As such, advice based interventions are likely to be the most useful means of bringing about change within this segment. With the increase in new woodland owners who may or may not have a background in land management, there is a need to educate and provide advice, information and advocacy.

169One Disengaged conservationist interviewed stated that: ‘I don’t want to apply as it will put a constraint on what I can do, I’d rather not be

pressurised with timescales and compliance requirements’

170 One Disengaged conservationist interviewed stated that: ‘Since I got older [the woodland has] been left, I always did it myself but would need

contractor now’


149

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 This section identifies some of the key messages identified from the findings of the research. Overall, it is important to recognise that the survey focused on private woodland owners, private timber businesses and private non-timber businesses. In addition, it should be noted that significantly more analysis of the survey data collected as part of this research is possible.

9.2 Recommendations

The survey findings indicate that on average 72% of owners/managers are undertaking some 'management' activities. This is higher than might be expected given the Forestry Commissions Grants and Regulations data indicates that those with felling licences and/or in receipt of a grant comprise 54% of woodlands.

171 However, at one end of the spectrum

this could equate to owners putting up a fence to protect a woodland from livestock, to owners undertaking regular thinning activity at the other.

For any future surveys, it would be helpful to develop a robust typology of management activities covering, for example, thinning, selective felling, deadwood management, pest control etc. which could be translated into survey questions in order to gain a clear understanding of the management activities undertaken in a given wood, including their frequency and extent.

More generally, the research findings suggest that FC Grants and Regulations are not necessarily a very accurate proxy for levels of woodland management.

For this research, the NFI team did not write to the 500 owners/managers who had previously not agreed to participate in a survey of their woodlands (in addition, a further 160 owners/managers did not agree to facilitate the NFI field survey). This may limit the representativeness of the sample used for this research, and perhaps indicates a characteristic that many owners own their woodland for personal use and are not interested in third-party advice or interference.

Some owners and managers may deliberately be ‘neglecting’ their woodland out of a belief that this is the best course of action for wildlife (although it shouldn’t necessarily be assumed that re-introducing management will automatically benefit biodiversity). This non-intervention could be regarded as a management decision to the same extent as a decision taken to proactively manage woodland, for example regular thinning, provided that the decision is based on achieving stated objectives.

The segmentation model established a clear group of Timber Producers, who own and actively manage larger coniferous woodlands, and are in receipt of grants (76%). Although Timber Producers accounted for 31% of the sampled woodland area, they already undertake significant levels of woodland management and were the least responsive to the interventions suggested in the survey. Policy might therefore be best focused on encouraging this segment to diversify their businesses to enhance their resilience, as grants currently form an integral part of their finances and viability. For instance, grants could be provided for public good provision in the longer-term, as there are already measures in place to promote timber (e.g. the ‘Grown in Britain’ initiative to increase market demand) and woodfuel (e.g. the woodfuel action plan).

171 Forestry Commission England (2013). Corporate Plan Performance Indicators: Headline Performance Update, December [online] available at:





150

The segmentation findings show similarities to previous segmentations as reviewed in the Evidence Base Review. In particular the Multi-functional Owners segment reflects the segmentation set out by Urquhart et al. This group is characterised as often owning larger woodlands, and being motivated by multiple objectives, such as education, conservation and financial return, alongside personal enjoyment/recreation. In addition, they are often entrepreneurial, and likely to apply for grants. Multi-functional Owners’ woodlands could become ‘flagship’ woods in terms of their financial stability, and their delivering of a variety of beneficial services. As such aiming policy interventions at these 'multi-objective managers', to encourage them to increase their existing activities and increase their viability and resilience, is likely to be an efficient and effective use of funds. Multi-functional Owners may benefit from current efforts to expand woodfuel markets as well as future Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes, particularly given their relatively large size and existing emphasis on delivering multiple benefits.

Profit-seeking Guardians formed a key segment, owning a quarter of the woodlands surveyed with relatively large (and often multiple) holdings. Whilst the surveys indicated that 81% were actively being managed, the follow-up interviews indicated a low level or lack of management. This segment was characterised by relatively large holdings, interest in incentives, and frustration as they endeavour to diversify their activities but struggle to make their woodlands viable. This segment is the most obvious target for efforts to increase woodland management. Policies should look to encourage Profit-seeking Guardians to realise their goals through timber/woodfuel production and public good provision.

Generally, policy interventions should prioritise targeting Profit-seeking Guardians and Multi-functional Owners, as together they account for 58% of woodland cover.

The Aspiring Managers segment proved the most challenging to categorise as there was a reasonable level of disparity amongst the respondents regarding their motivations and perceived barriers. The segmentation suggests that woodland management is low on their priority list in relation to other activities, that they have little interest in greater management for profit-making, but that they have a reasonably strong interest in biodiversity and maintaining or creating habitat for wildlife. There was also a relative lack of awareness of policy initiatives or the grants system. Whilst this segment represent almost a quarter of woodland owners, and are open to future management and interventions, they cover just 7% of woodland area. The question of whether the term ‘aspiring’ is appropriate for this segment is open to debate.

The segmentation indicated that where Disengaged Conservationists were actively managing their woodland, it was primarily as a place for personal recreation and relaxation. In general, they were not interested in managing land for income generating activities, with almost three-quarters of the respondents indicating that they were not interested in grants, and they strongly believed that their woodlands were best ‘left alone to let nature take its course’. This group is also largely uninterested in any incentives to support greater management of their woodland resource. Given that this segment is potentially growing in size (they are the smallest average woodlands and have owned them for the shortest period of time), there may however be a need to try and incentivise management, in which case increased grant rates seem marginally to be the most promising interventions. However, policy initiatives should take into account the fact that this segment currently covers just 3% of sampled woodland area.

Data on the regional distribution of the segments (both weighted and unweighted) indicated that there is no statistically significant difference in the geographical concentrations of the segments, indicating that there is no clear basis for targeting owners/managers differently from region-to-region.

Although there is no explicit data on the number of woodland owners who are farmers, the surveys indicated that farmers do not form a discrete group, as each segment contained between 31-49% NFU members. However, the survey did not ask participants explicitly


151

whether or not they were farmers and this omission should be rectified in any future surveys.

Only 42 respondents (4.2% of the sample) had owned their woodland for less than five years, indicating a low turnover in woodland ownership. Efforts to increase levels of woodland management will therefore rest largely on persuading more established owners of the benefits associated with enhanced management. Given the small size of the sample for new entrants, the identification of any shared characteristics should only be taken as indicative. Nevertheless the survey findings indicate that new entrants tend to own smaller woodlands, to be wealthier, appear less likely to be from a farming background and in some cases have differing objectives and feel they face different barriers.

The survey results suggest that small woodland owners are less likely to have conducted the management activities referred to in the survey during the past five years. In terms of barriers to management, small woodland owners cited lack of economic returns, the small size of their woodlands and a lack of time as barriers more often than those with larger woodlands. Over a fifth of small woodland owners cited lack of knowledge, far in advance of larger woodland owners.


152

10 FURTHER RESEARCH

10.1.1 The following recommendations outline both further research that could be undertaken using the data set that has informed this report, and research requiring additional data collection. Table 8-1 in the ‘Business-as-usual’ section of Chapter 8 also outlines recommendations for future research.

Focus on measures to aggregate small woodland owners to render woodland management more efficient both in terms of costs and time could be pursued, for example through the promotion of cooperatives. Advice-based interventions might also be useful. It might also be helpful to include a clear focus on the management of small woodlands as part of future agri-environment schemes in light of the fact that 45% of small woodland respondents were NFU members.

Efforts to increase levels of woodland management are most likely to be best directed at the Profit-seeking Guardians (possibly through the NFU and/or CLA) while shoring up the Timber Producers and Multi-functional Owners, possibly through changes in the grant system to increase the provision of public goods, or through efforts to expand woodfuel markets and the use of PES. In addition, the Aspiring Managers segment could be usefully targeted with relatively inexpensive advice-based interventions.

Given the relatively small proportion of new entrants within the overall sample, results on new woodland-owners should be considered as indicative. A further survey of new entrants drawing on a larger sample could be useful in order to determine how distinctive they are as a group and how they might best be targeted, for example with management advice at the point of woodland purchase. With the NFI set to cover 15,000 sample squares across Great Britain, future surveys could perhaps target, for example, 2,000 owners/managers in order to capture a larger sub-set of new-entrants for analysis.

Future research could examine the enabling conditions for successful timber woods, so that grants can be targeted at those aspects that make woodlands profitable or offer advice where timber woods are struggling to make profit.

There are numerous opportunities to explore the dataset produced by this study in more depth. Those seeking to conduct further research in this area may find it useful to draw upon the findings of the Evidence Base Review (Volume 2). This review provided the basis for this report by examining the extent and quality of prior research into woodland owner’s attitudes, motivations, the barriers they face, and their interaction with various policy levers. A summary of the findings of this review along with suggestions for lines of enquiry based on the research gaps it highlighted can be found in Table 2-1 of this report. Whilst a number of these gaps have been explored in this study, there is much potential to both pursue new areas of research and to expand further on the findings of this report using the dataset.

Certain forms of woodland management may deliver greater value than others, either in terms of the full suite of potential woodland benefits, or in terms of specific woodland benefits (e.g. biodiversity value). It may be useful to consider the potential impact of various management interventions and then consider how particular woodland owning segments might be cost effectively incentivised to undertake those activities that deliver the greatest desired benefit.

Another question that could potentially be explored in future is the degree to which there is a ‘management gap’. For example, whilst those in the Timber Producers segment have a tendency to see their woodlands an being managed optimally, the extent to which this is the case from the perspective of Defra and the Forestry Commission is not entirely clear (although the amount of woodland under management that is in line with the UKFS may indicate this). At the other end of the spectrum, it could be the case that Disengaged Conservationists see themselves as managing their woodland ‘optimally’ through their lack of intervention. As such, further research could explore in more detail the gap


153

between different the visions of optimum management held by stakeholders, and those held by Defra and the Forestry Commission.

Defra and the Forestry Commission should consider undertaking a similar survey every five years or so in order to assist with monitoring progress towards the government’s ambition of 80% of woodlands in management.


154

APPENDIX A SURVEY LETTERS AND MAPS ISSUED

04th March 2013 <<Contact Name>> <<ADD 1>> <<ADD 2>> <<ADD 3>> <<ADD 4>> <<ADD 5>> <<ADD 6>> Ipsos MORI ID number: <<Ipsos MORI ID number>> Woodland ID: <<Woodland ID Number>> Dear <<Contact Name>> Survey of woodland owners You kindly agreed to the National Forest Inventory undertaking a field survey of an area of your woodland. We are writing to let you know that the work is well under way and the information collected has already been used to produce some of the most comprehensive information on woodlands that we have had to date. Already through your help we know that we have more woodlands in Great Britain than we previously thought, including a significantly larger amount of broadleaved woodland. In addition, through finding greater amounts of softwood timber currently in forests, we have given a boost to the timber processing sector. We have also been able to use the information to assist in the management of the Chalara Fraxinea or ‘ash dieback’ outbreak. As such we would very much like to thank you for your help, it is greatly appreciated. If you are interested in finding out more about these or other results from the National Forest Inventory they are available at the web link overleaf. In our last correspondence you answered some questions on woodland ownership and property type in relation to the piece of woodland we conducted the field survey on. We are now proposing to undertake a more detailed telephone survey of woodland owners to understand their management intentions. This survey will be carried out jointly between the Forestry Commission and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). This survey is necessary as the Government’s ambition is to see an increase in the area of woodland in England as well as increased management of existing woodlands. For example in the Government’s recent response to the Independent Panel on Forestry’s recommendations they expressed an ambition to increase over time the number of woodlands with a UK Forestry Standard compliant management plan to 80% and we need to know how to help owners achieve this. For further information on this and the Government’s response please see: http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13871-forestry-policy-statement.pdf. The aim of the telephone survey therefore is to help Defra and the Forestry Commission understand how best to assist woodland owners to achieve the most from their woodlands, for example through the provision of advice on woodland management or securing grant aid or support to identify local contractors and timber buyers. The project is being managed by URS, an independent consultancy, and the survey itself will be undertaken by Ipsos MORI, an independent research company. If you do not disagree to this survey you will be contacted by telephone over the next month. You will be asked a series of questions on your objectives for your woodland. The interview will take around 20 minutes and will focus on the management of the same area of woodland that fell within the National Forest Inventory, indicated on the enclosed map.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13871-forestry-policy-statement.pdf

If you are no longer the owner of this area of woodland could we kindly request that you let us know this and if possible the new owner and their address via the contact details overleaf. Any answers you give to the survey will remain confidential. All information gathered will be held in strictest confidence, and will not be used to police, regulate or directly affect your management of the wood in any way. Information will be published only in summary form (Great Britain, country and region) and will not reveal any information about individual woodland holdings or owners. Ipsos MORI are bound by the Market Research Society Code of Conduct which states that all the answers they receive will be treated in strict confidence. During the survey no other individual outside Ipsos MORI, (including Defra, URS and the Forestry Commission) will have access to the information, or will know who has been interviewed or will see individual responses to the survey. At the end of the survey the contact details used by Ipsos Mori will be destroyed and will not be used for further surveys by Ipsos Mori. The detailed results will be used to produce the summary results of the survey, and these summaries will be published. The National Forest Inventory will then solely hold the survey details in the strictest confidence under the Data Protection Act. The National Forest Inventory will then combine this data with that arising from the ongoing field survey to produce further information linking the nature of woodlands, woodland managers and their incentive to manage. Please note that if you own or manage multiple areas of woodland, it is possible you will receive more than one invitation to participate in the survey. The survey is completely voluntary and if you do not wish to participate, please telephone Ipsos MORI on 0808 141 3049 (calls are free) or send an email to [email protected] by the 11th March 2013, so that your details can be removed from the survey. If you get in touch please quote the reference number at the top of this letter. However, we very much hope that you decide to take part in the survey as your answers will be invaluable in helping to protect and enhance England’s woodlands. Yours sincerely,

Ben Ditchburn National Forest Inventory Forestry Commission More information and the latest results from the National Forest Inventory can be found at www.forestry.gov.uk/inventory




Issued: 01 October 2010

National Forest Inventory – Woodland Ownership Form

1. Ownership

Please tick appropriate box if you are the Owner, Agent, Manager (or Other) of thecircled woodland area.

OWNER AGENT MANAGER OTHER

(please state)

Please tick this box if you are NOT the Owner, Agent or Manager of this part of woodland, and refer to Section 2.

2. Relevant Information

If you are not the current Owner, Manager or Agent of the site, but you know who is, please provide their name, and their contact details if you have them, of the current owner or manager in the box below. If you don't know, just write "Unknown" in the box.

Survey Site:

1


3. Time and Duration of Visit A NFI surveyor will visit your wood for about half a day some time during the next 12 months. The amount of time the surveyor needs to spend on site will depend most upon the complexity of the woodland. The actual date of the visit will depend upon the surveyor’s progress through previous sites and, of course, the weather. We will also revisit about 5 per cent of the sample squares within two months of the first visit for quality assurance purposes, and this may include your site. If so, we will notify you separately and make arrangements on a similar basis. Please tick a visit within the next 12 months is acceptable. Please specify any times that are unsuitable to you. 4. Site Markers We would be grateful if you could further help us by allowing us to leave some small marker pegs in the ground at the sample site. The pegs are unobtrusive and similar to ordinary tent pegs, and we only need to place an average of five at each site. They will help us to relocate the site at the next visit in five years' time, thereby helping to ensure the accuracy of future surveys. Please tick this box if you will allow us to leave marker pegs on your land. 5. Access If your woodland is some distance from a public highway it could take our surveyor a long time to walk to the wood, which will incur extra costs to the taxpayer. We would therefore be grateful if you were willing to allow the surveyor vehicular access to your land to keep these costs down, and to leave gates unlocked or provide the surveyor with a key for the day. Please tick this box if you consent to the surveyor having vehicular access to your woodland and contacting you to arrange access on the day. Please enter in this box the appropriate contact details for arranging access if they are 2


different from those given at the top of the letter accompanying this form: 6. Future Management Questionnaire As well as monitoring any changes in Britain’s woodlands over time, another part of the Forestry Commission's role is to try to predict what is going to happen to those woods in the future. How woodland owners intend to manage their forests has a significant impact upon that future, and the knowledge you have will be vital in helping us to build a picture of that future and to plan for it. So we would like to know whether you are willing to share this knowledge with us through a brief, confidential questionnaire. All information provided would be held in the strictest confidence, and any information gathered would be published in summary form only at region, country and Great Britain levels. Please tick this box if you are able to take part in the questionnaire and help us build a picture of how Britain’s forests will be managed in the future. If you ticked the previous box, please tick one of these boxes to indicate your preferred means of conducting the questionnaire. by telephone call by post by e-mail

SIGNED PRINT DATE

Name: Address: Phone: Mobile: E-mail:

3


155

APPENDIX B WOODLAND MANAGEMENT SURVEY

1300490601 Woodland Management CATI Questionnaire FINAL v4 20-03-13 Internal Use Only

Defra / Forestry Commission Woodland Management Survey - CATI Script

PLEASE NOTE:

• ALL INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS ARE IN CAPS. • ALL ROUTING INSTRUCTIONS ARE IN CAPS AND BLUE TEXT

Introduction Hello my name is……and I’m calling from Ipsos MORI, the independent market research company. We are conducting a survey among private woodland owners on behalf of the National Forest Inventory and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The findings of this survey will help inform the way in which Defra and the Forestry Commission support private woodland owners with woodland management in the future, with the aim of increasing woodland management across England. The National Forest Inventory and Defra recently sent you a letter asking if you would be willing to take part in this survey and answer some questions about a woodland which you own or which you manage on behalf of an owner. A map showing the woodland in which we are interested was enclosed with the letter. All of the survey questions relate to this particular woodland, which forms part of the National Forest Inventory, rather than any other woodlands you might own or manage. [NB if the participant is unsure which woodland you are referring to please state a local landmark as indicated on the map to which you have access. If they remain unsure which woodland is being referred to please offer to email them the map, request their email address and seek to arrange a time for the telephone interview] The letter you received sets out how your answers will be protected and held in confidence under the Data Protection Act. Unless you’d like me to repeat this, or if you have any questions regarding this, I will move onto the survey. [NB if participant would like more information regarding confidentiality statement read: Any answers you give to the survey will remain confidential. All information gathered will be held in strictest confidence, and will not be used to police, regulate or directly affect your management of the wood in any way. Information will be published only in summary form (country and region) and will not reveal any information about individual woodland holdings. Ipsos MORI are bound by the Market Research Society Code of Conduct which states that all the answers they receive will be treated in strict confidence. During the survey no other individual outside Ipsos MORI, (including Defra, the Forestry Commission or URS) will have access to the information, or will know who has been interviewed or will see individual responses to the survey. At the end of the survey the contact details used by Ipsos Mori will be destroyed and will not be used for further surveys. The National Forest Inventory will then solely hold the survey details in the strictest confidence under the Data Protection Act. The National Forest Inventory will then combine this data with that arising from the ongoing field survey to produce further information linking the nature of woodlands, woodland managers and their incentive to manage.] [NB if the owner/manager asks what the National Forest Inventory is: The National Forest Inventory aims to provide accurate, up to date, information about the size, distribution, composition and condition of the forests and woodlands within the UK. Data is


currently being collected for the 2009-2014 Inventory using ground surveys, aerial photography, and other sources such as satellite imagery as well as information provided by woodland owners and managers. A representative sample of 15,000 woodlands across the UK will be ground surveyed. These surveys collect in-depth data on the physical characteristics of the woodlands, for example on tree species and levels of invasive species in the woodland More information can be found on their website www.forestry.gov.uk/inventory]

[NB if the owner asks if their woodland has already been surveyed on the ground (they may not know or some are yet to be surveyed) by the National Forest Inventory, the interviewer can check this in the database which has a field entitled ‘has the field survey been done’] [NB If the owner asks for details of the field survey, the interviewer will need to tell the owner that they do not have access to that data as it is confidential, but if the owner wants to find out about that or any other aspect of the field survey they will need to contact the National Forest Inventory] [NB if the owner/manager asks for further information on the field survey/NFI please direct them to the following: CONTACT DETAILS FOR NFI For more information on the NFI please visit www.forestry.gov.uk/inventory

To find out more specific details about the survey of your woodland you can contact us via the Main Switchboard: 0131-445-2176 (0830-1700 hrs). Please ask to speak to a member of the National Forest Inventory Team: Mark Lawrence or Esther Whitton.

Alternatively, please email: [email protected]

Or write to:

National Forest Inventory, Forestry Commission, Northern Research Station, Roslin, Midlothian, EH25 9SY

Q1 ASK ALL The interview will take around 25 minutes. Could I ask you to take part?

1. Yes 2. No [OFFER TO SEND THEM AN ELCTRONIC VERSION OF THE SURVEY TO

FILL OUT AT THEIR CONVENIENCE]. Q1A ASK ALL SINGLE CODE





Are you the owner of this area of woodland?

1. Yes [GO TO QO4A OF THE ‘OWNER’ SURVEY] 2. No [GO TO Q1B]

Q1B ALL THOSE WHO CODE 2 AT Q1B Would it be possible to speak to the owner of the woodland?

1. Yes – [GO BACK TO Q1A] Wait for owner to answer phone and then enter response

2. Yes but not at the moment [GO TO Q1C] 3. No

READ OUT: IF no: Ok, that’s fine. We would also like to speak to the managers and agents of these woodlands so that we can build a better understanding of how woodland is currently being managed and for what purposes. [Go to Q2A]

4. Don’t know the owner THANK AND CLOSE Q1C. Could you let us know the contact number or email of the owner?

1. Yes – [TEXT BOX] and then THANK AND CLOSE 2. No

READ OUT IF no: Ok, that’s fine. We would also like to speak to the managers and agents of these woodlands so that we can build a better understanding of how woodland is currently being managed and for what purposes [Go to Q2A]

Q2A Are you responsible for the management of this woodland? I.e. are you the agent or manager

of this woodland?

1. Yes [GO TO Q3] 2. No [GO TO Q2B]

Q2B. Would it be possible to speak to the person with responsibility for managing it?

1. Yes – [GO BACK TO Q1] Wait for owner or day-to-day manager to answer phone and then enter response

2. Yes but not at the moment [GO TO Q2C] 3. No THANK AND CLOSE 4. Don’t know the owner or manager THANK AND CLOSE

Q2C. Could you let us know the contact number or email of the manager so we can speak to them?

1. Yes – [TEXT BOX] and then THANK AND CLOSE


2. No – THANK AND CLOSE

Q3 Would you be happy to answer questions on the management of the woodland on behalf of the owner?

1. Yes [GO TO Q4A OF THE ‘DAY-TO-DAY MANAGER SURVEY’] 2. No [THANK AND CLOSE]

*** MANAGER & AGENT SUBSECTION OF THE WOODLAND MANAGEMENT SURVEY***

A. CHARACTERISTICS OF WOODLAND [NB DO NOT READ OUT HEADINGS] ASK ALL READ OUT SINGLE CODE Q4A. What type of owner best describes the owner you represent for the woodland indicated on the

map?

1. Personal (for example, farmer or private woodland owner) 2. Private forestry or timber business 3. Other private business 4. Charity 5. Forestry Commission 6. Other public body (not Forestry Commission) 7. Local authority

IF CODE 1-3: GO TO Q5 IF CODE 4-7: GO TO Q4B ASK THOSE WHO SAID CODE 4-7 IN Q4 OPEN END Q4B Thank you for your time. Unfortunately we are currently interested in individual woodland

owners, rather than organisations that own woodlands. However, we would very much like to talk to you within the next few months. In principle would you be willing to participate in a semi-structured interview or focus group to discuss woodland management in England?

1. Yes

• Defra, the Forestry Commission or one of the project partners will contact you (for example, URS, CJC Consulting or RDI Associates)

• Via email or phone (depending on the approach they prefer) Please specify how best to contact + request contact details [TEXT BOX] and then THANK AND CLOSE



READ OUT: The first set of questions are going to ask you about the characteristics of the woodland, which is indicated on the map. ASK ALL NUMERICAL RESPONSE Q5. Approximately, what area of the woodland indicated on the map does the owner own?

1. [NUMERICAL BOX RANGE 1-999,999] Acres 2. [NUMERICAL BOX RANGE 1-999,999] Hectares 3. DK/Prefer not to say/other response (for example, two football fields)

PLEASE ASK THEM TO SPECIFY WHETHER THE FIGURE QUOTED IS IN ACRES OR HECTARES, AND ENSURE YOU USE CORRECT BOX

ASK ALL READ OUT RESPONSES SINGLE CODE Q6. What type of woodland is it?

1. Mainly conifer 2. Mainly broadleaf 3. Mixed woodland 4. Don’t Know

ASK ALL NUMERICAL RESPONSE Q7. Approximately how long has the woodland been in the same ownership (in years)?

1. [NUMERICAL BOX RANGE 1-9,999] Years 2. Don’t Know/Prefer not to say

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE Q8. Was this woodland purchased, inherited, or planted?

1. Purchased 2. Inherited 3. Planted 4. Don’t Know


ASK ALL READ OUT RESPONSES SINGLE CODE Q9. Generally speaking, and taking into account any grants received, is this woodland:

1. Profit-making 2. Loss-making 3. Breaks even 4. Don’t know

ASK ALL ONE CODED RESPONSE PER LINE READ OUT EACH LINE Q10. Please indicate how important, if at all, the following activities are in generating income from

the woodland.

A. Timber production B. Woodfuel for sale C. Game shooting D. Sports other than shooting (for example, mountain biking, horse riding or

orienteering) E. Grants

[CHOOSE RESPONSES FROM]: 1. Not at all important 2. Of little importance 3. Moderately important 4. Important 5. Very important 6. Don’t know


B. Behaviours [NB DO NOT READ OUT HEADINGS] READ OUT This part of the survey focuses on how the owner currently uses the woodland and what objectives the owner has for the woodland. ASK ALL ONE CODED RESPONSE PER LINE READ OUT EACH LINE ROTATE STATEMENTS Q11 Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following:

A. Timber production B. Woodfuel for personal use C. Woodfuel for sale D. Space for recreation and relaxation E. Game shooting F. Sports other than shooting (for example, mountain biking, horse riding or

orienteering) G. A home for wildlife H. Landscape and amenity I. Shelter or screening (for example, to shield crops or livestock from the wind,

reduce soil erosion or reduce noise) J. Public access K. Privacy and security L. As a store of carbon

[If asked what a store of carbon means: As trees grow they take carbon out of the atmosphere and store this in biomass. This can help mitigate climate change by reducing the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere]



READ OUT We are now going to ask you some questions about the extent to which the woodland is actively managed to provide the following benefits. By active management we are referring to activities such as coppicing to support biodiversity, maintaining paths for public access or thinning to support game shooting. ASK ALL ONE CODED RESPONSE PER LINE READ OUT EACH LINE ROTATE STATEMENTS

Q12. Please indicate the extent to which the woodland is actively managed for the following:

A. To provide timber B. To provide woodfuel for personal use C. To provide woodfuel for sale D. To provide a place for personal recreation and relaxation E. For Game shooting

b. If the answer is anything other than not at all’ please ask if shooting is on a personal or commercial basis

F. Sports other than shooting (for example, mountain biking, horse-riding or orienteering)

b. If the answer is anything other than ‘not at all’ please ask whether this is on a personal or commercial basis

G. For the benefit of wildlife H. To help conserve the local landscape I. To provide shelter or screening (for example, to shield crops or livestock from the

wind, reduce soil erosion or reduce noise) J. To provide public access K. To provide an education resource for the local community L. To satisfy the conditions of a grant scheme

[CHOOSE RESPONSES FROM]: 1. Not at all 2. To a very little extent 3. To some extent 4. To a great extent 5. To a very great extent 6. Don’t know

READ OUT In this part of the survey, I am going to ask you some questions about the management of the woodland and who makes decisions about its management. Please remember to respond to these statements with respect to the woodland, which is indicated on the map. ASK ALL SINGLE CODE READ EACH STATEMENT


Q13. What is your role in terms of this woodland?

A. Land agent employed by the owner B. Land agent not employed by the owner C. Woodland Manager / Forester employed by the owner D. Woodland Manager / Forester not employed by the owner E. Other please specify [text box]

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE PER LINE READ EACH STATEMENT Q14. Please answer yes, no or not sure to each of the following statements.

A. The woodland has been actively managed in the past B. The woodland is currently actively managed C. The woodland is likely to be actively managed in the future

1.Yes 2.No 3.Not sure

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE Q15 How often are you in contact with the owner regarding the management of the woodland?

A. At least once a month B. Several times a year C. Once a year D. Less than once a year

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE Q16 How much guidance does the owner provide you with in terms of managing the woodland?

A. None B. A little C. Some D. A lot E. A great deal

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE Q17 Do you advise multiple owners on woodland management?

A. Yes B. No


ASK ALL SINGLE CODE PER LINE READ EACH STATEMENT Q18 Who makes the decisions in relation to the following aspects of the woodland’s management?

A. Whether to allow public access B. Whether to apply for grants C. Whether to clear fell the trees D. Whether to undertake thinning E. Whether to plant more trees F. Whether to actively support wildlife G. Whether to sell timber or woodfuel

[CHOOSE RESPONSES FROM]: 1. The owner 2. Me 3. Me and the owner in discussion 4. Me but within a framework agreed with the owner 5. A third party (e.g. a contractor or advisor) 6. Not applicable 7. Don’t know

ASK ALL MULTI CODE Q19. Which, if any, of the following management activities has the owner, you or contractors acting

on your behalf, undertaken in the last five years for the woodland on the map? A. Tree planting B. Maintenance operations including fencing C. Installing infrastructure (rides, roads, hard standings etc.) D. Thinning E. Selective felling F. Clear felling G. Pest control H. Weed control I. None J. Other please specify [TEXT BOX] K. Don’t know

READ OUT In this part of the survey I am going to read out a number of statements and ask you the extent to which you agree or disagree with them. I am firstly going to ask you some questions about the motivations of the woodland owner. Please remember to respond to these statements with respect to the woodland indicated on the map. If you don’t feel that you can answer the question on behalf of the owner, please say ‘don’t know’.


ASK ALL ONE CODED RESPONSE PER LINE READ OUT EACH LINE ROTATE STATEMENTS Q20. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements: ‘START WITH AGREE/DISAGREE THEN PROBE FOR AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE. ‘

A. The owner has other priorities and the woodland is mainly left unmanaged B. One of the owner’s main aims is to make money from their woodland C. One of the owner’s main aims is to pass the woodland onto future generations D. The owner uses the woodland as a place to ‘unwind’ E. The owner considers woodland management a chore F. The owner believes that woodlands are best left alone to let nature take its course G. The owner sees the woodland as a drain on their financial resources H. The owner would consider cutting down the woodland to make way for a more profitable land

use I. The owner is keen that the woodland is managed in the way it has always been managed

[CHOOSE RESPONSES FROM]: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree 6. Don’t know

ASK ALL ONE CODED RESPONSE PER LINE READ OUT EACH LINE ROTATE STATEMENTS READ OUT

I am now going to ask you some questions about your motivations as the day-to-day manager of the woodland. Q21. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements: ‘START WITH AGREE/DISAGREE THEN PROBE FOR AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE. ‘

A. I am confident I know what the owner wants from their woodland B. The owner asks me to make a financial return but I’m free to manage it as I see best C. The woodland is probably under-utilised in terms of harvesting wood or wood products D. The woodland could be managed more to provide habitat for wildlife



1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree 6. Don’t know

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE PER LINE READ EACH STATEMENT ROTATE STATEMENTS Q22. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about

managing the woodland. If the statement is not applicable please state ‘neither agree nor disagree’:

‘START WITH AGREE/DISAGREE THEN PROBE FOR AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE.‘

A. The economic returns from woodland management do not justify the costs involved

B. The amount of time the owner, myself or a third party can manage the woodland is limited

C. Managing the woodland is low on the owner’s list of priorities D. It’s difficult to find people with the right skills to manage the woodland E. The woodland is not managed because the owner believes it should be left in its

natural state F. The woodland is too small to warrant active management G. The woodland is too inaccessible to allow active management


ASK ALL OPEN END Q23. What else, if anything, constrains management of the woodland?

1. [TEXT BOX] 2. NA

In this part of the survey, I am going ask some further questions about the management of the woodland. Please remember to respond to these statements with respect to the woodland, which is indicated on the map.


ASK ALL SINGLE CODE

Q24A. Is the woodland managed in compliance with the UK Forestry Standard?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE Q24B. Is there a written management plan for the woodland on the map?

1. Yes [GO TO Q25] 2. No [GO TO Q25] 3. Don’t know

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE Q25. Is this woodland certified under either the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or Programme

for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) schemes i.e. UKWAS?


ASK ALL SINGLE CODE Q26. Do you or the owner have a felling licence for this woodland?


ASK ALL SINGLE CODE Q27A. Is the woodland, or has it ever been, in receipt of a grant?

1. Yes [GO TO Q27B] 2. No [GO TO Q27C]


3. Don’t know [GO TO Q28A] ASK ALL WHO CODE 1 AT Q27A MULTICODE Q27B. Which one(s)?

1. The English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) 2. Environmental Stewardship (ES) 3. Forestry Dedication Scheme 4. The Woodland Grant Scheme which ended in 2005 5. Farm Woodland Premium Scheme (FWPS) 6. Other (please specify) [text box] 7. Can’t remember [ANCHOR AT BOTTOM]

IF CODE 1 AT Q27B MULTICODE Q27Bi Which English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS)?

1. Woodland Planning Grant 2. Woodland Assessment Grant 3. Woodland Improvement Grant 4. Woodland Management Grant 5. Woodland Creation Grant 6. Woodland Regeneration Grant 7. Can’t remember

IF CODE 2 AT Q27B MULTICODE Q27Bii Which Environmental Stewardship (ES) grant?

1. Entry Level Stewardship 2. Organic Entry Level Stewardship 3. Uplands Entry Level Stewardship 4. Higher Level Stewardship


ASK ALL WHO CODE 2 AT Q27A MULTI-CODE READ OUT RESPONSES ROTATE RESPONSES Q27C. Which if the following barriers, if any, prevent the owner or you from participating in a grant

scheme to assist in managing the woodland?

1. Neither the owner nor I want to apply for one 2. Neither the owner nor I know enough about them 3. Neither the owner nor I know how to apply for them 4. The application process is too bureaucratic and time consuming 5. land has to be registered before applying for a grant 6. The commitment required is too long-term 7. Grants restrict the activities that can be undertaken in the woodland 8. Grant payments are too small to justify applying 9. Grant rates are too changeable 10. The conditions attached to grants are too changeable 11. Other please specify [text box]

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE Q.28A Do you think that the woodland could be managed to a greater extent than it currently is?

1. Yes [GO TO Q28B] 2. No [GO TO Q29] 3. Don’t Know [GO TO Q29]


I am going to ask you some questions about what, if anything, would encourage greater management of the woodland. Please remember to respond to these statements with respect to the woodland, which is indicated on the map. ASK ALL THOSE THAT THINK MORE COULD BE DONE TO MANAGE THE WOODLAND (CODE 1 AT Q28a) SINGLE CODE PER LINE (GRID) ROTATE STATEMENTS Q28B. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements by choosing from the following options ‘START WITH AGREE/DISAGREE THEN PROBE FOR AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE.‘

The woodland would be managed more if…

A. …grant payments for management were higher B. …Forestry Commission officers spent more time with the owner C. …gaining certification was easier D. …the tax benefits associated with woodland management were more favourable E. …the government provided more assistance with disease and pest control F. …there were local buyers for woodfuel G. …regulations weren’t so restrictive H. …there was greater availability of trusted and impartial advice I. …there was a greater availability of trusted contractors J. …a third party prepared a management plan for the woodland for free


ASK ALL SINGLE CODE PER LINE (GRID) (YES/NO RESPONSE) ROTATE RESPONSES Q29. As the day-to-day manager, which of the following sources provide you with information on


A. Book and magazines B. The Internet C. Forestry Commission Woodland Officers D. Professional body, society, or trade organisation E. Other woodland agents and managers F. Other, please specify [TEXT BOX]

[


ASK ALL MULTICODE Q30. Are you a member of any of the following organisations?

A. Country Land & Business Association B. National Farmers Union C. Tenant Farmers Association D. Royal Forestry Society E. Confor F. Small Woods Association G. Woodland Heritage H. Small Woodland Owners’ Group I. Institute of Chartered Foresters J. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors K. Local Nature Partnership L. Other woodland-related organisation, please specify [text box]

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE Q32A. Does the owner you represent have any other woodland holdings?

1. Yes [GO TO Q32B] 2. No [GO TO Q33] 3. Don’t know [GO TO Q33]

ASK ALL WHO CODE 1 AT Q32A NUMERICAL RESPONSE SINGLE CODE Q32B. Approximately how large is the total area of woodland the owner owns?

1. [NUMERICAL BOX RANGE 1-999,999] Acres 2. [NUMERICAL BOX RANGE 1-999,999] Hectares 3. Don’t Know

ASK ALL NUMERICAL RESPONSE SINGLE CODE Q33. Approximately how large is the owners’ total landholding?

1. [NUMERICAL BOX RANGE 1-999,999] Acres 2. [NUMERICAL BOX RANGE 1-999,999] Hectares


3. Don’t know

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE

Q34 Does the owner have any other land on which they would consider planting woodland?


In this final part of the survey, we would like to ask you several questions about the owner’s personal circumstances. If there is more than one owner, please answer the questions in relation to the owner you deal with the majority of the time. If you don’t feel comfortable answering a particular question please let me know and I’ll move on to the next question. ASK ALL CODE APPROPRIATELY Q35. What is the owner’s age?

1. Under 25 2. 25 – 34 3. 35 – 44 4. 45 – 54 5. 55 – 64 6. 65 – 74 7. 75 – 84 8. 85+ years 9. Don’t know

ASK ALL CODE APPROPRIATELY Q36. What is the owner’s gender?

1. Male 2. Female 3. Other (e.g. trust set up by the family) [INSERT TEXT BOX]


ASK ALL SINGLE CODE Q37A. Would you be willing to participate in follow up feedback session / discussion? This could include:

• Focus group/workshop where our project partners will present the results and you will have the chance to provide feedback

• Project partners include URS, CJC Consulting and RDI Associates • Being recontacted within three months. If not re-contacted within 3 months your details

will be destroyed. • Please note that agreeing to this would entail sharing identifiable information from this

survey with the project partners listed above. However identifiable information would not be shared with Defra, the Forestry Commission or the National Forest Inventory.

1. Yes [GO TO Q37B] 2. No [GO TO CLOSING SCREEN]

ASK THOSE WHO CODE 1 AT Q37A OPEN END Q37B. What is the best way for us to contact you about participating in the follow up session / discussion?

1. [OPEN END] Q37C. Are you happy for this invitation to come from one of our project partners?

1. Yes 2. No

MANAGERS (CODE 1 @ Q2A) WHO ARE IN THE SPREADSHEET TWICE WITH SAME CONTACT NUMBER AND NUMBER/EMAIL IF THEIR ENTRIES ARE IN THE SAME WOODLAND AREA (CODE A UNDER DUPLICATES) ASK: Q38. Finally we understand the National Forest Inventory has sampled another part of the same wood which is managed by you. Do you manage this second piece of woodland in the same way as the one we have discussed today? You should have received a letter and maps for this woodland.

1. Yes, definitely - THANK AND CLOSE 2. Yes, I think so - THANK AND CLOSE 3. No – GO TO Q39 4. DK – GO TO Q41

ASK THOSE WHO SAY NO/DK AT Q38: Q39. Would you be willing to be re-contacted by an Ipsos MORI interviewer in the next few weeks so we can ask repeat the survey and ask you how you manage this second piece of woodland?


1. Yes - THANK AND CLOSE 2. No - THANK AND CLOSE

MANAGERS (CODE 1 @ Q2A) WHO ARE IN THE SPREADSHEET TWICE WITH SAME CONTACT NUMBER AND NUMBER/EMAIL IF THEIR ENTRIES ARE IN DIFFERENT WOODLAND AREAS (CODE B UNDER DUPLICATES) ASK: Q40. Finally we understand the National Forest Inventory has sampled another piece of woodland that you manage in a different wood. Would you be willing to be re-contacted by an Ipsos MORI interviewer in the next few weeks so we can ask repeat the survey and ask you how you manage this second piece of woodland?


MANAGERS (CODE 1 @ Q2A) WHO ARE IN THE SPREADSHEET THREE OR MORE TIMES WITH SAME CONTACT NUMBER AND NUMBER/EMAIL IF ALL THEIR ENTRIES ARE IN THE SAME WOODLAND AREA (CODE C UNDER DUPLICATES) ASK: Q42. Finally we understand the National Forest Inventory has sampled other parts of the same wood which are managed by you. Do you manage these in the same way as the one we have discussed today? You should have received a letter and map for each piece of woodland.

1. Yes, definitely - THANK AND CLOSE 2. Yes, I think so - THANK AND CLOSE 3. No – GO TO Q43 4. DK – GO TO Q43

ASK THOSE WHO SAY NO/DK AT Q42: Q43. Would you be willing to be re-contacted by an Ipsos MORI interviewer in the next few weeks so we can ask repeat the survey and ask you how you manage one of the other pieces of woodland sample by the National Forest Inventory?



MANAGERS (CODE 1 @ Q2A) WHO ARE IN THE SPREADSHEET THREE OR MORE TIMES WITH SAME CONTACT NUMBER AND NUMBER/EMAIL IF TWO OR MORE OF THEIR ENTRIES ARE IN DIFFERENT WOODLAND AREAS (CODE D UNDER DUPLICATES) ASK: Q44. Finally we understand the National Forest Inventory has sampled other pieces of woodland that you manage in a different wood or woods. Would you be willing to be re-contacted by an Ipsos MORI interviewer in the next few weeks so we can repeat the survey and ask you how you manage one of the other pieces of woodland sample by the National Forest Inventory?


CLOSING SCREEN READ OUT We have come to the end of the survey. Thank you very much for you time.


***OWNER SUBSECTION OF THE WOODLAND MANAGEMENT SURVEY***

A. Characteristics of your woodland [NB DO NOT READ OUT HEADINGS] ASK ALL SINGLE CODE QO4A. What type of owner best describes you?

1. Personal (for example, farmer or private woodland owner) 2. Private forestry or timber business 3. Other private business 4. Charity 5. Forestry Commission 6. Other public body (not Forestry Commission) 7. Local authority

IF CODE 1-3: GO TO QO5 IF CODE 4-7: GO TO QO4B ASK THOSE WHO SAID CODE 4-7 IN Q4A OPEN END QO4B. Thank you for your time. Unfortunately we are currently interested in individual woodland

owners, rather than organisations that own woodlands. However, we would very much like to talk to you within the next few months. In principle, would you be willing to participate in a semi-structured interview or focus group to discuss woodland management in England?

1. Yes

• Defra, the Forestry Commission or one of the project partners will contact you (for example, URS, CJC Consulting or RDI Associates)

• Via email or phone (depending on the approach they prefer) [SPECIFY] Please specify how best to contact + request contact details [TEXT BOX] and then THANK AND CLOSE



READ OUT: The first set of questions are going to ask you about the characteristics of the woodland, which is indicated on the map. ASK ALL NUMERICAL RESPONSE QO5. Approximately what area does the woodland cover?

1. [NUMERICAL BOX RANGE 1-999,999] Acres 2. [NUMERICAL BOX RANGE 1-999,999] Hectares 3. Don’t Know/Prefer not to say/other response (for example, two football fields)


ASK ALL READ OUT RESPONSES SINGLE CODE QO6. What type of woodland is it?

1. Mainly conifer 2. Mainly broadleaf 3. Mixed woodland 4. Don’t Know

ASK ALL NUMERICAL RESPONSE QO7. Approximately how long have you, your family or company owned this woodland (in years)?

1. [NUMERICAL BOX RANGE 1-9,999] Years 2. Don’t Know/Prefer not to say

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE QO8. Did you purchase, inherit, or plant this woodland?

1. Purchased 2. Inherited 3. Planted 4. Don’t know


ASK ALL READ OUT RESPONSES SINGLE CODE QO9. Generally speaking and taking into account any grants received, is this woodland:

1. Profit-making 2. Loss-making 3. Breaks even 4. Don’t know

ASK ALL ONE CODED RESPONSE PER LINE READ OUT EACH LINE ROTATE STATEMENTS QO10. Please indicate how important, if at all, the following activities are in generating income from

the woodland.

A. Timber production B. Woodfuel for sale C. Game shooting D. Sports other than shooting (for example, mountain biking, horse riding or

orienteering) E. Grants



READ OUT This part of the survey focuses on how you currently use your woodland and what objectives you have for the woodland. ASK ALL ONE CODED RESPONSE PER LINE READ OUT EACH LINE ROTATE STATEMENTS QO11 Please indicate how important the woodland is to you in terms of the following:

A. Timber production B. Woodfuel for personal use C. Woodfuel for sale D. Space for recreation and relaxation E. Game shooting F. Sports other than shooting (for example, mountain biking, horse riding or orienteering) G. A home for wildlife H. Landscape and amenity I. Shelter or screening (for example, to shield crops or livestock from the wind, reduce soil

erosion or reduce noise) J. Public access K. Privacy and security L. As a store of carbon

[If asked what a store of carbon means:

As trees grow they take carbon out of the atmosphere and store this in biomass. This can help mitigate climate change by reducing the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere]



READ OUT We are now going to ask you some questions about the extent to which the woodland is actively managed to provide the following benefits. By active management we are referring to activities such as coppicing to support biodiversity, maintaining paths for public access or thinning to support game shooting.

ASK ALL ONE CODED RESPONSE PER LINE READ OUT EACH LINE ROTATE STATEMENTS

QO12. Please indicate the extent to which the woodland is actively managed for the following:

A. To provide timber B. To provide woodfuel for personal use C. To provide woodfuel for sale D. To provide a place for personal recreation and relaxation E. For Game shooting

b. If the answer is anything other than not at all’ please ask if shooting is on a personal or commercial basis

F. Sports other than shooting (for example, mountain biking, horse-riding or orienteering)

b. If the answer is anything other than ‘not at all’ please ask whether this is on a personal or commercial basis

G. For the benefit of wildlife H. To help conserve the local landscape I. To provide shelter or screening (for example, to shield crops or livestock from the

wind, reduce soil erosion or reduce noise) J. To provide public access K. To provide an education resource for the local community L. To satisfy the conditions of a grant scheme

[CHOOSE RESPONSES FROM]: 1. To a very great extent 2. To a great extent 3. To some extent 4. To a very little extent 5. Not at all 6. Don’t know


ASK ALL READ OUT ROTATE STATEMENTS In this part of the survey, I am going to read out a number of statements and ask you the extent to which you agree or disagree with them. I am firstly going to ask you some questions about any responsibilities you may or may not feel as a woodland owner. Please remember to respond to these statements with respect to the woodland indicated on the map. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements: READ OUT ROTATE STATEMENTS ‘START WITH AGREE/DISAGREE THEN PROBE FOR AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE.‘ QO13A Guardian/custodian/aesthetic/landscape [NB DO NOT READ OUT HEADINGS]

A. It is important to me to conserve my woodland for future generations B. The woodland is on my land and I should decide how it should be managed C. I feel that I am a guardian of not just my woodland but the wider landscape D. I should be paid by the government for the wider benefits my woodland provides E. When making management decisions regarding my woodland I consider the

wider public interest F. There is not much point in owning a woodland like mine if it is open to public

access G. Agricultural land is more aesthetically pleasing than woodlands [CHOOSE RESPONSES FROM]: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree 6. Don’t know


READ OUT ROTATE STATEMENTS I am now going to read out some statements about the enjoyment you gain from the woodland. Please remember to respond to these statements with respect to your woodland, which is indicated on the map. ‘START WITH AGREE/DISAGREE THEN PROBE FOR AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE.‘ QO13B

A. My woodland provides me with an escape from every-day life B. My woodland provides me with the chance to get closer to nature C. My woodland provides me with a great deal of personal enjoyment D. I get a great deal of enjoyment from sharing my woodland with my family and

friends E. Managing my woodland is a chore F. I have enjoyed owning a woodland much more than I ever thought I would G. My woodland is probably under-utilised in terms of harvesting wood or wood

products H. Managing my woodland is much harder than I ever thought it would be [CHOOSE RESPONSES FROM]: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree 6. Don’t know


ASK ALL READ OUT ROTATE STATEMENTS We are now going to ask you some questions about your approach to managing your woodland. Please remember to respond to these statements with respect to your woodland, which is indicated on the map. ‘START WITH AGREE/DISAGREE THEN PROBE FOR AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE.‘ QO13C.

A. I believe that I have a responsibility to produce timber or woodfuel from my woodland

B. I believe that woodlands are best left alone to let nature take its course C. As a woodland owner I have a duty to protect habitats and species D. Cutting down trees is essential for the management of my woodland E. Controlling pests such as deer and squirrels is essential for the management of

my woodland F. Owning a woodland has made me more environmentally-aware [CHOOSE RESPONSES FROM]: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree 6. Don’t know


ASK ALL READ OUT ROTATE STATEMENTS We are now going to ask you some questions about your attitudes to owning this woodland. Please remember to respond to these statements with respect to your woodland, which is indicated on the map. ‘START WITH AGREE/DISAGREE THEN PROBE FOR AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE.‘ QO13D. Family tradition/identity/bequest [NB DO NOT READ OUT HEADINGS]

A. My woodland is a valued family asset B. I would consider selling my woodland in the future C. I would consider cutting down my woodland to make way for a more profitable

land use D. I have a duty to maintain the woodland for the next generation even if it doesn’t

make money E. I manage my woodland in the way it has always been managed F. I have always wanted to own a woodland



ASK ALL READ OUT ROTATE STATEMENTS We are now going to ask you some questions about your attitudes towards making money from your woodland. Please remember to respond to these statements with respect to your woodland, which is indicated on the map. ‘START WITH AGREE/DISAGREE THEN PROBE FOR AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE.‘ QO13E.

A. My woodland is an important source of income B. Protecting the natural environment is important but the profitability of my

woodland comes first C. I do not manage my woodland to make money D. If there was decent money to be made out of woodlands I would manage my

woodland more actively E. I would like to sell woodfuel from my woodland in the future F. Income from woodfuel is a source of motivation for me to manage my woodland G. The tax benefits associated with owning my woodland are important H. I am content as long as my woodland doesn’t lose money [CHOOSE RESPONSES FROM]: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree 6. Don’t know

READ OUT ROTATE STATEMENTS In this part of the survey, I am now going to ask some questions about the management of your woodland. Please remember to respond to these statements with respect to your woodland, which is indicated on the map. ASK ALL SINGLE CODE PER LINE READ EACH STATEMENT QO14. Please answer yes, no or not sure to each of the following statements.

A. The woodland on the map has been actively managed in the past B. The woodland on the map is currently actively managed C. The woodland on the map is likely to be actively managed in the future


ASK ALL MULTICODE PROMPT IF NECESSARY QO15. Who mainly makes the day-to-day decisions in managing your woodland, which is indicated

on the map?

A. You, as the owner B. A land agent C. A woodland manager or forester D. An external agent (for example, a consultant) E. Other please specify [TEXT BOX] F. Don’t know

ASK ALL MULTI CODE READ OUT QO16. Which, if any, of the following management activities have you or contractors acting on your behalf, undertaken in the last five years for the woodland on the map?

A. Tree planting B. Maintenance operations including fencing C. Installing infrastructure (rides, roads, hard standings etc.) D. Thinning E. Selective felling F. Clear felling G. Pest control H. Weed control I. None J. Other please specify [TEXT BOX] K. Don’t know


ASK ALL SINGLE CODE PER LINE READ EACH STATEMENT ROTATE STATEMENTS QO17A. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements

about managing your woodlands: ‘START WITH AGREE/DISAGREE THEN PROBE FOR AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE.‘

A. The economic returns from woodland management do not justify the costs involved

B. I do not have enough time to manage my woodland C. Managing my woodland is low on my list of priorities D. I don’t know how best to manage my woodland E. I don’t have the necessary skills to manage my woodland F. I cannot access the labour necessary to manage my woodland G. I do not manage my woodland because I believe it should be left in its natural

state H. My woodland is too small to warrant active management I. My woodland is too inaccessible to allow active management J. I would actively manage my woodland if I could identify buyers for timber,

woodfuel or other products from my woodland [CHOOSE RESPONSES FROM]: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree 6. Don’t know

ASK ALL OPEN END QO17B. What else, if anything, constrains management of your woodland that is not listed above?

1. [TEXT BOX] 2. NA


READ OUT In this part of the survey, I am going ask some further questions about the management of your woodland. ASK ALL SINGLE CODE

QO18A. Do you manage the woodland in compliance with the UK Forestry Standard?


ASK ALL SINGLE CODE QO18B. Do you have a written management plan for the woodland on the map?

1. Yes [GO TO QO19] 2. No [GO TO QO19] 3. Don’t know

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE QO19. Is this woodland certified under either the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or Programme

for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) schemes i.e. UKWAS?


ASK ALL SINGLE CODE QO20. Do you have a felling licence for this woodland?



ASK ALL SINGLE CODE QO21A. Are you receiving, or have you ever received, a grant to support the management of this woodland?

1. Yes [GO TO QO21B] 2. No [GO TO QO21C] 3. Don’t know

ASK ALL WHO RECEIVE GRANT ASK SPONTANEOUSLY, PROMPT IF NECESSARY MULTICODE QO21B. Which one(s)?

A. The English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS)

If yes, ask which one: 1. Woodland Planning Grant 2. Woodland Assessment Grant 3. Woodland Improvement Grant 4. Woodland Management Grant 5. Woodland Creation Grant 6. Woodland Regeneration Grant 7. Can’t remember

B. Environmental Stewardship (ES) If yes, ask which one: 1. Entry Level Stewardship 2. Organic Entry Level Stewardship 3. Uplands Entry Level Stewardship 4. Higher Level Stewardship

C. Forestry Dedication Scheme D. The Woodland Grant Scheme which ended in 2005 E. Farm Woodland Premium Scheme (FWPS) F. Other please specify [text box] G. Can’t remember


ASK ALL WHO DO NOT RECEIVE A GRANT MULTI-CODE (TICK ALL THOSE THAT ARE APPLICABLE) ROTATE RESPONSES QO21C. Which of the following barriers, if any, prevent you from participating in a grant

scheme to assist you in managing the woodland?

A. I don’t need a grant to do what I want to do in my woodland B. I don’t know enough about them C. I don’t know how to apply for them D. The application process is too bureaucratic and time-consuming E. Land has to be registered before applying for a grant F. The commitment required is too long-term G. Grants restrict the activities I can undertake in my woodland H. Grant payments are too small to justify applying I. Grant rates are too changeable J. The conditions attached to grants are too changeable K. Other, please specify [TEXT BOX]

READ OUT I am going to ask you some questions about what, if anything, would encourage you to manage your woodland more. Please remember to respond to these statements with respect to your woodland, which is indicated on the map. ASK ALL SINGLE CODE PER LINE ROTATE STATEMENTS QO22. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements by choosing from the following options

I would manage my woodland more if…

‘START WITH AGREE/DISAGREE THEN PROBE FOR AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE.‘

A. …grant schemes offered higher payments for woodland management B. …Forestry Commission officers spent more time with me C. …gaining certification was easier D. …the tax benefits associated with woodland management were more favourable E. … the government provided more assistance with disease and pest control F. …there were local buyers for woodfuel G. …regulations were not so restrictive H. …there was greater availability of trusted and impartial advice I. …there was a greater availability of trusted contractors J. …privately available advice was more affordable K. …a third party prepared a management plan for the woodland for free


1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree 6. Don’t know


ASK ALL SINGLE CODE PER LINE ROTATE RESPONSES QO23. Which of the following provide you with information on woodland management? (YES/NO ANSWERS)

A. Book and magazines B. The Internet C. Forestry Commission Woodland Officers D. Other woodland owners E. Local woodland project initiatives F. The wider woodland community G. Friends and colleagues H. Professional body/society I. External agent/forester/consultant J. Directly employed agent/forester K. Other, please specify [TEXT BOX]

ASK ALL MULTICODE READ OUT RESPONSES QO24. Are you a member of any of the following organisations?

A. Country Land & Business Association B. National Farmers Union C. Tenant Farmers Association D. Royal Forestry Society E. Confor F. Small Woods Association G. Woodland Heritage H. Small Woodland Owners’ Group I. Institute of Chartered Foresters J. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors K. Local Nature Partnership L. Other woodland-related organisation, please specify [text box]

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE QO25A. Have you ever paid for woodland advice?

1. Yes [GO TO Q25B] 2. No [GO TO Q26]


ASK ALL THOSE WHO HAVE PAID FOR WOODLAND ADVICE OPEN END QO25B. Who from?

1. [TEXT BOX] 2. Don’t know

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE QO26. Would you be willing, in principle, to pay for woodland advice?

1. Yes [GO TO Q27] 2. No [GO TO Q28] 3. Don’t Know [GO TO Q28]

ASK THOSE WHO WOULD BE PREPARED TO PAY FOR WOODLAND ADVICE SINGLE CODE

QO27. Who would you be willing to pay for advice from?

1. [TEXT BOX] 2. Don’t know

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE QO28A. Do you have any other woodland holdings?

1. Yes [GO TO Q28B] 2. No [GO TO Q29] 3. Don’t know

ASK ALL WITH ADDITIONAL WOODLAND HOLDINGS NUMERICAL RESPONSE

QO28B. Approximately how large is your entire woodland holding?

1. [NUMERICAL BOX RANGE 1-999,999] Acres 2. [NUMERICAL BOX RANGE 1-999,999] Hectares 3. Don’t Know/Prefer not to say/other response (for example, two football fields)



ASK ALL SINGLE CODE

QO29. Do you have any other land on which you would consider planting woodland?


C. Socio-economic information [NB DO NOT READ OUT HEADINGS] READ OUT In this final part of the survey, I am going to ask you several questions about your personal circumstances. If you don’t feel comfortable answering a particular question please let me know and I’ll move on to the next question. ASK ALL CODE APPROPRIATELY QO30. What is your age?

1. Under 25 2. 25 – 34 3. 35 – 44 4. 45 – 54 5. 55 – 64 6. 65 – 74 7. 75 – 84 8. 85+ years 9. Refused

DO NOT READ OUT CODE APPROPRIATELY QO31. Gender [CODE WITHOUT ASKING]

1. Male 2. Female


ASK ALL SINGLE CODE QO33. I am going to read out a number of income bands. Could you please tell me in which band you would place your total household income per year from all sources, before tax and other deductions? [READ PER YEAR FIRST]

Per Week Per Month Per Year 1. Up to £182 Up to £791 Up to £9,499 2. £183 - £336 £792 - £1,458 £9,500 - £17,499 3. £337 - £576 £1,459 - £2,499 £17,500 - £29,999 4. £577 - £961 £2,500 - £4,166 £30,000 - £49,999 5. £962 - £1922 £4,167 - £8,332 £50,000 - £99,999 6. £1923 or more £8,333 or more £100,000 or more 7. Don’t know 8. Refused

ASK ALL OPEN END QO34. What is your primary occupation?

1. [OPEN END] 2. Prefer not to say

ASK ALL SINGLE CODE QO35A. Would you be willing to participate in follow up feedback session / discussion?

• Focus group/workshop where our project partners will present the results and you will have the chance to provide feedback

• Project partners include URS, CJC Consulting and RDI Associates • Being recontacted within three months. If not re-contacted within 3 months your details

will be destroyed. • Please note that agreeing to this would entail sharing identifiable information from this

survey with the project partners listed above. However identifiable information would not be shared with Defra, the Forestry Commission or the National Forest Inventory.

1. Yes [GO TO Q35B] 2. No [GO TO CLOSING SCREEN]

ASK THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO BE RE-CONTACTED OPEN END QO35B. What is the best way for us to contact you about participating in the follow up session / discussion?

1. [OPEN END]


QO35C. Are you happy for this invitation to come from one of our project partners?

2. Yes 3. No

OWNERS (CODE 1 @ q1A) WHO ARE IN THE SPREADSHEET TWICE WITH SAME CONTACT NUMBER AND NUMBER/EMAIL IF THEIR ENTRIES ARE IN THE SAME WOODLAND AREA (CODE A UNDER DUPLICATES) ASK: QO36. Finally we understand the National Forest Inventory has sampled another part of woodland that you own in the same wood. Do you manage this second piece of woodland in the same way as the one we have discussed today? You should have received a letter and map for this piece of woodland.

1. Yes, definitely - THANK AND CLOSE 2. Yes, I think so - THANK AND CLOSE 3. No – GO TO QO37 4. DK - GO TO QO37

ASK THOSE WHO SAY NO/DK AT QO36: QO37. Would you be willing to be re-contacted by an Ipsos MORI interviewer in the next few weeks so we can ask repeat the survey and ask you how you manage this second piece of woodland?


OWNERS (CODE 1 @ q1A) WHO ARE IN THE SPREADSHEET TWICE WITH SAME CONTACT NUMBER AND NUMBER/EMAIL IF THEIR ENTRIES ARE IN DIFFERENT WOODLAND AREAS (CODE B UNDER DUPLICATES) ASK: QO38. Finally we understand the National Forest Inventory has sampled another piece of woodland that you own in a different wood. Would you be willing to be re-contacted by an Ipsos MORI interviewer in the next few weeks so we can ask repeat the survey and ask you how you manage this second piece of woodland?



OWNERS (CODE 1 @ q1A) WHO ARE IN THE SPREADSHEET THREE OR MORE TIMES WITH SAME CONTACT NUMBER AND NUMBER/EMAIL IF ALL THEIR ENTRIES ARE IN THE SAME WOODLAND AREA (CODE C UNDER DUPLICATES) ASK: QO40. Finally we understand the National Forest Inventory has sampled other pieces of woodland that you own in the same wood. Do you manage these in the same way as the one we have discussed today? You should have received a letter and map for each piece of woodland.

1. Yes, definitely - THANK AND CLOSE 2. Yes, I think so - THANK AND CLOSE 3. No – GO TO QO41 4. DK – GO TO QO41

ASK THOSE WHO SAY NO/DK AT QO41: QO41. Would you be willing to be re-contacted by an Ipsos MORI interviewer in the next few weeks so we can repeat the survey and ask you how you manage one of the other pieces of woodland sampled by the National Forest Inventory?


OWNERS (CODE 1 @ q1A) WHO ARE IN THE SPREADSHEET THREE OR MORE TIMES WITH SAME CONTACT NUMBER AND NUMBER/EMAIL IF TWO OR MORE OF THEIR ENTRIES ARE IN DIFFERENT WOODLAND AREAS (CODE D UNDER DUPLICATES) ASK: QO42. Finally we understand the National Forest Inventory has sampled other pieces of woodland that you own in a different wood or woods. Would you be willing to be re-contacted by an Ipsos MORI interviewer in the next few weeks so we can repeat the survey and ask you how you manage one of the other pieces of woodland sampled by the National Forest Inventory?


CLOSING SCREEN READ OUT We have come to the end of the survey. Thank you very much for you time.


156

APPENDIX C SECTION FOUR SURVEY RESULTS – ADDITIONAL GRAPHS

Woodland management segmentation – Appendix C

i

Introduction

Figure 1: Breakdown of the survey’s level of contact with woodland owners and managers (Base: 1000 = 664 owners; 335 managers, unweighted)


Figure 2: Type of woodland (Base: 1000, unweighted)

34%

66%

Managers

Owners

13%

43%

43%

1% Mainly conifer

Mainly broadleaf

Mixed woodland

Don’t Know


ii

Figure 3a: Location of woodland (Base: 1000, weighted)

Figure 3b: Location of woodland (Base: 1000, unweighted)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

East Mid Eastern North East North West South East andLondon

South West West Midlands Yorkshire &Humber

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%




iii


Figure 4: Type of woodland ownership (Base: 1000, unweighted)

Figure 5: Gender of private woodland owners (Base: 1000, unweighted)

81%

7%

12%

Personal (for example, farmer orprivate woodland owner)

Private forestry or timberbusiness

Other private business

16%

78%

4%

2% Female

Male

Other (e.g. trust setup by the family)

Refused


iv

Figure 6: Approximate length of individual, family or company ownership of the woodland (Base= 1000, unweighted)

Figure 7: Whether the woodland was purchased, inherited, or planted (Base: 1000

1, unweighted)

1 N.B Respondents were allowed to select multiple means of acquisition – e.g. they could indicate that areas of their woodland

were both bought and planted.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

< 1 - 4 5 - 49 50 - 249 250 - 999 1000 - 2000 Prefer not to say Don't know

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Purchased Inherited Planted Don't know


v

Figure 8: Economic viability of the woodland in question, including any grants received (Base: 1000, unweighted)

Figure 9: Proportion of respondents that have received a grant for their woodland (Base: 1000, unweighted)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Profit making Breaks even Loss making Don't know

50%

43%

7% Yes

No

Don't know


vi

Figure 10: Proportion of respondents that are in receipt of a felling licence (Base: 1000, unweighted)


Figure 11: Proportion of respondents that are in receipt of a felling licence (Base: 1000, unweighted)

33%

61%

6% Yes

No

Don't know

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%


157

APPENDIX D SECTION FIVE SURVEY RESULTS – ADDITIONAL GRAPHS

Woodland management segmentation – Appendix D

i

Question 1: What are the differences in terms of management between those woodlands included in the FC’s proxy indicator of woods in management versus those not included?1

Introduction

Figure 1: Proportion of woodlands under FC Grants and Regulations (Base: 1000)


Figure 2: Woodland type in relation to woodlands under FC Grants and Regulations (Base: 1000)

Note: Chi square test2 (X

2=33.175 (6) p=0.00) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference in the type of woodland

depending on the level of management (under or not under FC regulations).

1 ‘Management’ of woodland is defined in a number of different ways by FC. For the purposes of this study those woodlands considered ‘managed’ will be

those under grants and regulations. However, other definitions include: Under a management plan; Shows observable evidence of active management (e.g. thinning, felling, planting); and shows observable evidence of any form of management (e.g. fencing, pest control).

2 Where relationships are statistically tested (in this case the relationship between those with / without FC grants and regulations and woodland size) one

test of significance has been performed. A non-parametric test of statistical significance was used here (Chi Square) as non-interval data has been used. For instance, there is no logical ordering between the management categories ‘Uncertains’,’ Both grant and a felling licence’ etc and the ‘size’ variable can only be considered as ordinal as the six points used are of equal increment. This test indicates that at least two management levels are different to each other on their scores on the size question. However, the test does not mean that there is a difference between every one (in this case all five) of the management categories. It also does not indicate which ones are different from each other. In many cases the latter would require a time consuming post-hoc test. This approach has been taken due to the time required to create within category tests, and the difficulties in presenting and discussing the results of such tests. More information on statistical testing is provided in Appendix G.

56%

36%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Uncertains

Not under FC Grants andRegulations

Under FC Grants andRegulations

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Mainly broadleaf Mainly conifer Mixed woodland

Under FCGrants andRegulations

Not under FCGrants andRegulations


ii

Figure 3: Location of woodland under FC Grants and Regulations (Base: 1000)

Note: Chi square test (X2=13.467 (14) p=0.490) indicates that there is no statistically significant difference the level of management (under or not under FC regulations) according to geography.


Figure 4: Age structure of those under FC Grants and Regulations (Base: 1000, ‘uncertains’ not shown)

Note: Chi square test (X2=25.482 (14) p=0.030) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference in the level of management

(under or not under FC regulations) according to age. For instance, on interpreting the graph, it appears that a greater proportion of those in the middle age groups fall under FC grants and regulations.

54% 63%

56% 53% 55% 57% 55% 56%

32%

25% 37% 37%

37% 37% 39% 37%

14% 12% 8% 11% 8% 5% 6% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%



Uncertains


Under FCGrants andRegulations

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

under 25

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 - 64

65 - 74

75 - 84

85+ years

Don't know

RefusedNot under FCGrants andRegulations

Under FC Grantsand Regulations


iii

Figure 5: Gender of those under FC Grants and Regulations (Base: 1000, ‘uncertains’ not shown)

Note: Chi square test (X2=26.439 (4) p=0.000) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference in the level of management

(under or not under FC regulations) according to gender. For instance, on interpreting the graph, it appears that a greater proportion of males and ‘other’ fall under FC grants and regulations.

Figure 6: Income of those under FC Grants and Regulations3

Note: Chi square test (X2=12.948 (10) p=0.045) indicates that there is no statistically significant difference between the level of

management (under or not under FC regulations) according to income.

3 Sample of 665 (excluding the 335 woodland managers who did not answer this question); those who did not know their income, refused to answer, or

were uncertain whether they had a felling licence or grant are not shown on the graph.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Under FC Grants and Regulations Not under FC Grants and Regulations

Female

Male

Other (e.g. trust setup by the family)

Refused

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Up to £9499

£9,500 - £17,499

£17,500 - £29,999

£30,000 - £49,999

£50,000 - £99,999

£100,000 or more


Under FC Grantsand Regulations


iv

Question 2: Are new woodland-owners a distinct group of private woodland owners? Figure 7: Proportion of new entrants relative to non-new entrants (926 non-new entrants; 42 new entrants)


Figure 8: Percentage of woodlands in different size bands for new-entrants compared to non-new entrants4

Note: Chi square test (X2=9.190 (5) p=0.120) indicates that there is no statistically significant difference between the length of time since

entering woodland ownership and the percentage of woodland in each size band. Care should be taken in terms of weight on the statistical significance (or otherwise) of these results. Due to the low sample size of the non-entrants some cells in the statistical test do not have any data in them and this makes it unstable.


4%

93%

New entrants

Non-new entrants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Under 10ha

10ha - 19ha

20ha - 49ha

50ha - 99ha

100ha - 499ha

Over 500ha


v

Figure 9: Woodland type in relation to new entrant and non-new entrants5


entering woodland management and woodland type. Care should be taken in terms of weight on the statistical significance (or otherwise) of these results. Due to the low sample size of the non-entrants some cells in the statistical test do not have any data in them and this makes it unstable.

Figure 10: Location of entrant and non-new entrant woodlands6


entering woodland management and location of the entrant. Care should be taken in terms of weight on the statistical significance (or otherwise) of these results. Due to the low sample size of the non-entrants some cells in the statistical test do not have any data in them and this makes it unstable.



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Mainly Broadleaf Mainly Conifer Mixed


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%





vi


Figure 11: Gender of entrant and non-new entrant woodland owners7


entering woodland management and gender of the entrant. Care should be taken in terms of weight on the statistical significance (or otherwise) of these results. Due to the low sample size of the non-entrants some cells in the statistical test do not have any data in them and this makes it unstable.

Figure 12: Income of entrant and non-new entrant woodland owners8

Chi square test (X2=11.323 (5) p=0.045) indicates that there a statistically significant difference (at 95% level) between the length of time

since entering woodland management and income of the entrant. Interpretation of the graph would suggest that new entrants are much wealthier than older entrants. Care should be taken in terms of weight on the statistical significance (or otherwise) of these results. Due to the low sample size of the non-entrants some cells in the statistical test do not have any data in them and this makes it unstable.


8 Sample of 449 (owners only, plus ‘I don’t knows’, and ‘refused’ not included): 425 non-new entrants; 25 entrants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Female Male Other (e.g. trust set up by the family) Refused


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Up to £9499

£9,500 - £17,499

£17,500 - £29,999

£30,000 - £49,999

£50,000 - £99,999

£100,000 or more

Non-new entrants

New entrants


vii

Figure 13: Means by which entrant and non-new entrant woodland owners acquire their woodlands9

Note: Chi square test (X2=25.164 (7) p=0.001) indicates that there a statistically significant difference between the length of time since

entering woodland ownership and how the woodland was acquired. Test was undertaken before categories were collapsed. Interpretation of the graph would suggest that new entrants are much more likely to have purchased woodlands. Care should be taken in terms of weight on the statistical significance (or otherwise) of these results. Due to the low sample size of the non-entrants some cells in the statistical test do not have any data in them and this makes it unstable.


Figure 14: Extent to which entrant and non-new entrant woodland owners are under FC Grants and

regulations10

(Differences are not statistically significant)

Note: Chi square test (X2=6.653 (4) p=0.155) indicates that there not a statistically significant difference between the length of time since

entering woodland management and FC grants and regulations. Care should be taken in terms of weight on the statistical significance (or otherwise) of these results. Due to the low sample size of the non-entrants some cells in the statistical test do not have any data in them and this makes it unstable.

9 Sample of 1000; respondents were allowed to select multiple means of acquisition


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Purchased Inherited Planted

New Entrant Non-New Entrant

19% 27%

7%

6% 12%

23% 12%

7%

50%

36%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Not captured in FCstatistics

Uncertain

Only a grant

Only a felling licence

Both a grant and afelling licence


viii


Figure 15: Membership of organisations in relation to length of woodland ownership)11

Note: Fishers Exact tests used to test statistical significance here as sample sizes often very low for individual organisations. ~ indicates that differences between entrants and non-new entrants are not statistically significant. Care should be taken in terms of weight on the statistical significance (or otherwise) of these results. Due to the low sample size of the non-entrants some cells in the statistical test do not have any data in them and this makes it unstable.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



ix

Question 3: How does woodland size influence woodland owner objectives, barriers and

responsiveness to interventions?

Introduction

Figure 16: Size of woodlands (Base: 968, excluding those that answered ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Other’)


Figure 17: Proportion of woodland sizes found in each region of England12

Note: Chi square test (X2=33.013 (14) p=0.003) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference between the woodland size

and regions. As previously discussed, this does not mean there is a difference between every region and every other region. Interpretation of the graph would suggest that woodlands may be smaller in the Eastern region and largest in the North East.

12 Sample size: 854 (excluding those that answered ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Other’: 146 respondents)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<10ha 10 - <20 ha 20 - <50 ha 50 - <100 ha 100 - <500 ha >500 ha

70%

90%

65%

79% 73% 72%

80% 76%

17%

9%

16%

8% 21% 20%

17% 16%

13%

1%

19% 13%

6% 8% 3%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

East Mid Eastern North East North West South Eastand London

South West WestMidlands

Yorkshire &Humber

Large 100ha - >500ha)

Medium (20ha - <100ha)

Small (<10ha - <20ha)


x


Figure 18: Age structure of respondents in relation to woodland size England13

Note: once the ‘don’t know’ and ‘other categories’ are removed from the analysis, Chi square test (X2=6.291 (12) p=0.9013) indicates

that there are no statistically significant difference between age and size of woodland.

Figure 19: Gender of respondents in relation to woodland size14

Note: Chi square test (X2=7.085 (4) p=0.131) indicates that there a no statistically significant difference between gender and size of

woodland.

13 Sample size: 854 (excluding those that answered ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Other’: 146 respondents


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

under 25 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 84 85+ years Don't know Refused



Large (100ha - >500ha)

79% 83% 87%

17% 15% 7%

4% 2% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Other (e.g. trust set upby the family)

Female

Male


xi

Figure 20: Income of respondents in relation to woodland size15

Note: Chi square test (X2=13.150 (10) p=0.215) indicates that there is no statistically significant difference between income and size of

woodland. If income bands are collapsed into two categories (<£50k and > £50k), then there is a significant relationship (X2=9.325 (2)

p=0.010) (but note that Bonferroni adjustment has not been made).

Figure 20b: Income of respondents grouped in relation to woodland size


0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Up to £9499

£9,500 - £17,499

£17,500 - £29,999

£30,000 - £49,999

£50,000 - £99,999

£100,000 or moreLarge 100ha - >500ha)



0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%


Less than £50k

More than £50k


xii

Figure 21: How woodland was acquired in relation to woodland size16

Note: Chi square test (X2=29.675 (14) p=0.008) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference between how the woodland

was acquired and woodland size. Test was undertaken before categories were collapsed. Interpretation of the graph would suggest that smaller woodland owners are much more likely to have purchased woodlands.


Figure 22: Member of organisations in relation to woodland size 17

Note: ~ denotes that the difference between the woodland size bands and membership of organisations is not statistically significant according to Chi square tests undertaken on each organisation separately.

16 Sample size: 854 (excluding ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Other’: 146 respondents); respondents were allowed to select multiple means of acquisition


51% 50% 43%

34% 37% 42%

16% 13% 15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Small (<10ha - <20ha) Medium (20ha - <100ha) Large 100ha - >500ha)

Planted

Inherited

Purchased

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



xiii

Question 4: Do farmers constitute a distinct group of woodland owners?

Introduction

Figure 23: Proportion of NFU and non-NFU members in the sample (Base: 1000)


Figure 24: NFU and non-NFU members in relation to woodland size18

Note: Chi square test (X2=11.062 (2) p=0.004) indicates that there a statistically significant difference between NFU membership and

the size of the woodland. Interpretation of the graph would suggest that NFU members own smaller plots of woodland.

18 Sample of1000 (‘I don’t know’ and ‘Other’ results not shown)

59%

41%

Non-NFU NFU Member

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Non-NFU NFU


xiv

Figure 25: NFU and non-NFU members in relation to woodland type (Base: 1000)


the woodland type. Interpretation of the graph would suggest that NFU members own a greater proportion of mainly broadleaf or mixed woodland.

Figure 26: NFU and non-NFU members in relation to region (Base: 1000)


region. As previously discussed, this does not mean there is a difference between every region and every other region. Interpretation of the graph would suggest that non-NFU members are over represented (compared to their proportion in the sample as a whole) in all regions other than the Eastern region, and particularly in the North West.

45% 42%

8% 16%

45% 41%

2% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NFU Member Non-NFU

Don't know

Mixed woodland

Mainly conifer

Mainly broadleaf

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

East Mid Eastern South East andLondon

North East North West South West West Midlands Yorkshire &Humber

SampleAverage

Non NFU NFU


xv


Figure 27: NFU and non-NFU members in relation to age19

Note: Chi square test (X2=3.538 (7) p=0.831) indicates there is no statistically significant difference between NFU membership and age.

Figure 28: NFU and non-NFU members in relation to gender (Base: 1000)


gender (treating ‘refused’ as missing). Interpretation of the graph would suggest that NFU members have a greater proportion of males than the sample average.

19 Sample of 905 (‘I don’t know’ and ‘Other’ results removed)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

under 25

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 - 64

65 - 74

75 - 84

85+ yearsNon-NFU

NFU Member

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Female Male Other (e.g. trust set up by thefamily)

Refused

NFU Member Non-NFU


xvi

Figure 29: NFU and non-NFU members in relation to means of acquiring woodland20

Note: Chi square test (X2=13.876 (7) p=0.053) indicates that there a no statistically significant difference between NFU membership and

means of acquiring woodland (test undertaken before categories were collapsed).

20 Sample of 1000; respondents were allowed to select multiple means of acquisition

44% 49%

40% 35%

15% 15%

0% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

NFU Member Non-NFU

Don't know

Planted

Inherited

Purchased


158

APPENDIX E FOLLOW UP WORK SEMI-STRUCTURED SCRIPTS

Woodland Owner Segmentation Project 09/005/2013

7

Group 1 – Detailed semi-structured interview script (target 10-15 semi-structured interviews)

***NB: Bullet Points to prompt and guide the discussion only***

Introduction

Some of the answers you provided suggested that you were constrained in terms of what management you can undertake in your woodland and a lack of a financial incentive was identified as an important reason for this. We would like to explore whether this is a fair summary of your situation.

Firstly, could you provide a basic description of your woodland?

Type (conifer. Broadleaf or mixed) Location (is it close to where they live) Size Accessibility Anything else that is noteworthy about the woodland?

How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it?

Mainly left alone/walk in it/ carry out essential maintenance/family and friends use it How regularly do you undertake these activities you mentioned? Have you always used it like this or has your use of it changed over time? In its current state, is it more of a burden or a benefit?

Tell us about what constrains you from managing your woodland to a greater extent and what could encourage you to manage it to a greater extent

If it’s purely financial, break this down further: Do you want to make a profit from managing the woodland or do you want only to

break even, or limit your losses? What is it that prevents you from making a profit from your woodland?

reliable access to markets; the cost associated with management (for example, costs of hiring equipment

for timber extraction, temporary hired labour costs, costs of agents to complete grant applications/felling licences, etc?);

volatility in timber/woodfuel prices and a lack of certainty around return on investment (risk):

timber is the only really viable revenue stream (risk); grant rates are too low; cannot access finance (e.g. bank loans or other conventional finance)

If the woodfuel market begun to provide stable returns to woodland owners, would you be interested in starting to manage your woodland to provide woodfuel?

If they state they need higher grants to manage the woodland: Probe whether they know what the grant levels are at the moment Ask roughly how much more they would need to encourage them to enter a scheme

and what would they be willing to manage it for (i.e. woodfuel, public access, biodiversity)?

Ask if there are other aspects of the grant scheme that put them off (e.g. perceived bureaucracy, lack of expertise to fill in the forms or prepare a management plan?) If


8

these aspects of grant schemes were improved would they be more inclined to enter the scheme?

Where have they got their understanding of the grant system from? Family/friends; The internet, books, magazines Professional adviser

What would they find more attractive? Reliable access to markets to sell woodland products

or government grants? What is their reason for this?

If they state that it is profitable for them to spend their time doing something else (i.e. the opportunity cost of management is too high)

In principle, would they be happy for someone else to come in and manage the woodland? E.g. thin the woodland? Would they be prepared to pay for that service?

If they are not prepared to pay for that service, would they be willing for someone to come in and thin the woodland (and remove woodfuel for them to sell) if they didn’t have to pay for the service?

Any other issues

Refer to typology of interventions (on page 17) to ensure you have covered appropriate topics.

Close


9



Introduction

Some of the answers you provided suggested that you were constrained in terms of what management you can undertake in your woodland and a lack of time was identified as an important reason for this. We would like to explore whether this is a fair summary of your situation.

Firstly, could you provide a basic description of your woodland





Simply a lack of time Is it the opportunity cost of managing it that is too high (i.e. your time is better spent

doing other things?) If you had more time what kind of management actions would you undertake/ what

would you seek to get out of your woodland? Have you considered asking someone else to manage it for you?

If yes, what put you off? If price, would you be happy, in principle, for someone else to come in and

manage the woodland? E.g. thin the woodland? Would you be prepared to pay for that service? If they are not prepared to pay, would they be willing for someone to come in and thin the woodland (and remove woodfuel) if they didn’t have to pay for the service?

If didn’t know how to go about it? Were you be happy in principle to pay someone to come and manage your woodland? If no, as above.

Is it a lack of time to: actively manage the woodlands themselves (i.e. practical work) prepare the necessary management plan/grant applications etc, engage a manager, find out enough about woodland management to have the confidence to

make these decisions

Mix of constraints, ask what they consider the main constraint: Probe as for group 1 if it is financial Probe as for group 3 if it is knowledge/awareness

Any other issues


10

Refer to typology of interventions (on page 17) to ensure you have covered appropriate topics

Close


11



Introduction

Some of the answers you provided suggested that you were constrained in terms of what management you can undertake in your woodland and a lack of the specialist knowledge and skills was identified as an important reason for this. We would like to explore whether this is a fair summary of your situation.






Simply a lack of expertise/awareness How would they characterise this lack of awareness?

Totally daunted/don’t know where to start; Don’t have a good understanding of what you’ve got and what you should be

aiming for/the choices you have; Can do certain basic operations but are stuck beyond this; Don’t understand the rules and regulations that you have to operate under

(e.g. felling liscences); Understand certain interests e.g. wildlife or silvicultural but don’t know how to

combine (or that they should); Kind of understand but lack confidence or are concerned about hostile

reaction; Not knowing how to ensure woodland management is beneficial to wildlife. Don’t know how to go about realising money from their woodland (e.g. grants

or selling timber/woodfuel) Do not know how to go about engaging a manager or a contractor?

If they state they just don’t know how to manage the woodland – what is the best way to increase their understanding?

Forestry Commission Officer visit Greater access to affordable advice Provision of a woodland management plan written by an expert Joining a local hub of skilled woodland managers to gain low-cost or free

advice? (if they existed)


12

In principle would you be willing to pay for advice and training on how to manage your woodland?

What other barriers do you face? Financial, time-constrained, lack of access to labour?

Any other issues


Close


13



Introduction

Some of the answers you provided suggested that you do not currently manage your woodland to a great extent and are interested in improving biodiversity. We would like to explore whether this is a fair summary of your situation.


Type (conifer. Broadleaf or mixed) Location (is it close to where you live) Size Accessibility Anything else that is noteworthy about the woodland?




Explore their understanding of the relationship between woodland management and biodiversity. Where does their understanding of this come from? How do they see their woodland fitting into the broader landscape?

What types of biodiversity are they interested in? Do they understand the concept of species richness and how different disturbance regimes support biodiversity?

Would they be willing to increase management if they believed it would benefit biodiversity? Would they be willing to increase management if they received grants? Or if they received

advice/ help in producing a woodland management plan from an FC officer? Would they be willing to pay for advice on how to manage their woodland to improve

biodiversity? Is the physical disturbance to the site off-putting for them? Are they concerned about how others (e.g. neighbours) will react to them thinning and felling

trees? Are they worried that they will be seen as negatively impacting wildlife?

Any other issues


Close


14



Introduction

Some of the answers you provided suggested that you were constrained in terms of what management you can undertake in your woodland and a concern over existing regulations were identified as one of the reasons for that. We would like to explore whether this is a fair summary of your situation





Topics to explore

What aspects of regulation put them off managing your woodland? Registering land before they access grants? Knowledge of statutory controls around felling trees. Perceived inflexibility of planting any more trees and the fear of losing control of how

the land is managed? Restrictions on the number of nights an owner can spend in their woodland.

Would abolishing felling restrictions on newly planted woodlands encourage more planting?

Any other issues


Close


15



Introduction

Some of the answers you provided suggested that you actively manage your woodlands for a number of benefits and you have received grants or professional advice to do this. We would like to explore this further with you.




Mainly left alone/walk in it/ carry out essential maintenance/family and friends use it How regularly do you undertake these activities you mentioned? Have you always used it like this or has your use of it changed over time? What are your

objectives for managing the woodland in this way?

Topics to explore

What has their experience of the grants system been? How important has the grant system been in enabling them to manage their

woodlands? What type of grant did they receive? Would you have undertaken the same level of management if you hadn’t received a

grant? What management actions would you not undertake if you weren’t receiving a grant?

Do you feel you could do more to manage the woodland? What could you do? (e.g. for biodiversity, for woodfuel, for shooting etc.,) What type of support/level of incentive would you require for doing that? Are you likely to change your management practices in the future? Why?

Have you also received advice about managing your woodland? What was your experience like? In principle, would you be happy to pay for advice on how to manage the woodland

for your stated objectives?

Any other issues


Close


16


Detailed semi-structured interview script (target 10-15 semi-structured interviews)


Introduction

Some of the answers you provided suggested that you actively manage your woodlands for a number of benefits but you have not received grants to do this. We would like to explore this further with you.





Topics to explore

Why have you not applied for grants? To do with wanting to maintain control over your woodland? Grant system is too complicated/rates are too low/inflexible You don’t need the financial support to help you manage your woodland

Have you received advice on how to manage your woodland? Who has that advice been from? Did you pay for this advice?

Do you think you could manage your woodland more to provide other benefits (e.g. to improve biodiversity?)

Do you have a woodland management plan? Have you engaged with any other organisations in their pursuit of management? If so, who? Are you happy in principle to register the fact that you are managing their woodland? How

would you like to register that and would you consent to someone verifying that?

Any other issues


Close


17

Typology of woodland management interventions Intervention Sub-type Related questions

Promoting markets

Woodfuel supply chain Does this market appeal to you? Why/why not? If there was predictable demand would you be

interested in participating in the woodfuel supply chain?

Could anything be done to make this opportunity more attractive?

E.g. woodfuel cooperatives, website of accredited/recognised wood-fuel suppliers, someone to come in and oversee complete extraction, etc. on your behalf?

Timber supply chain (hardwood and softwood)

Does this market appeal to you? Why/why not?

Commercial game shooting Does this market appeal to you? Why/why not? Other recreation (e.g. mountain biking)

Does this market appeal to you? Why/why not?

Grants English Woodland Grant Scheme: Woodland Management Grant; Woodland Improvement Grant; Woodfuel Woodland

Improvement Grant Woodland Planning Grant; Woodland Regeneration Grant; Woodland Assessment Grant

What type of grants are most useful/appealing to you and why?

One off grants (e.g. for access) versus continuing payments

Payment levels Other aspects of the grant system that would

make it more attractive Their understanding of the grant system and

where that has come from Agri-environment schemes (Entry Level Stewardship and Higher Level Stewardship)

In what sense have these enabled you to manage your woodlands to a greater extent?

Were there any particular reasons why you chose grants from ELS/HLS rather than from the EWGS?

Experience of the scheme Suggested improvements to the scheme

Other sources of funding For example: The National Forest Company Heritage lottery EA water catchment funding NP and AONB projects Local woodland initiatives Other EU funding (LIFE etc) Wildlife trusts, charities

Benefits of these sources of funding versus conventional grants

Are you in addition to or instead of grants?

Advice Forestry Commission Woodland Officers

Are there areas of woodland management you would especially welcome advice on?

Do they come sufficiently regularly/if at all? Would you pay for visits from a FC woodland

officer? Do they cover all your needs in terms of

providing woodland management advice? Woodland agents or managers Have you employed an agent or manager?

Are these instead of or in addition to visits from FC woodland officers?

What are the advantages of this type of advice? Woodland Trust advisors Have you used these?

Are these instead of or on top of visits from FC woodland officers?

What are the advantages of this type of advice?


18

Intervention Sub-type Related questions

Professional memberships Are you a member of a professional organisation? Why/why not?

Does this provide a valuable source of advice and networks?

Informal advice from family and friends

To what extent do you rely on this for advice about woodland management?

Does the person offering advice have a good grounding in woodland management?

Books and the internet To what extent do you rely on this for advice about woodland management?

What websites do you use, e.g. Confor, FC, Land agents, businesses, etc?

Certification UKWAS (FSC or PEFC) What motivated you to certify your woodland? Was it worthwhile? (E.g. did the prices make the

costs worthwhile)? Were there barriers to certification? Could the

process be simplified? Are you/would you have been interested in

exploring joint certification to reduce costs? Payments for providing environmental services

Biodiversity off-setting Have you heard of this? What is your reaction to it?

Private payments for other ecosystem services (recreational access, flood protection etc.)

Have you heard of this? What is your reaction to it? Which ones appeal to you and why?

Promoting collaboration and cooperation

Ward Foresters Does the idea of teaming up with neighbouring woodland owners, to manage your woodland as one larger unit appeal?

Benefits include sharing the cost of professional advice/contractor work.

Local Nature Partnerships Have you had contact with one? What was your experience of it?

National Partnerships (e.g. the Deer Initiative and the Biodiversity Action Plan)

Have you had contact with one? What was your experience of it?

Reforming taxation

Benign Tax system for forestry Do you consider the tax benefits of forestry important?

Do you think these could be changes to encourage more people to manage their woodlands?


159

APPENDIX F FOLLOW UP WORK INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS

1: TIMBER PRODUCERS

Woodland Owner Segmentation Model: Follow Up Survey

ID Number Ref ID 778 Segment 1

What has their experience of the grants system been? Have been dealing with grant system for many years and seen it go through various iterations. Each time it seems to get more complicated and greater number of hurdles to get over. FC staff are generally helpful but have increasingly limited time to support woodland owners and are restricted as freedom to manoeuvre. In general though the experience is a reasonably positive one and as they receive a considerable amount of public money they know they have to account for it and be seen to do something for it.

How important has the grant system been in enabling them to manage their woodlands vs. market incentives etc.? EWGS grants received relate to PAWS areas of ASNW woodlands. This has enabled them to convert conifer woodlands to native species quicker than they would have been able to otherwise. Market incentives have related to sale of timber which would have existed anyway whereas grant has supported additional cost of planting and establishing native species v conifers so it has not necessarily increased their management but has changed it as without EWGS would probably have replanted with conifer.

Would they have undertaken the same level of management if they hadn’t received a grant? If grant rates were reduced what would they not be able to do?

See above – EWGS grant for establishment of native species has possibly enabled them to do more and better than they would have otherwise done (e.g. stocking densities, species mixes etc). If they had not received grant they would have probably done less clear felling and then replanted with conifer. If they had received lower level of grant they would probably have done less (area) and to a lower standard.

Do they feel they could do more?

If grant levels were higher then yes they probably could do more, but clear felling of woodlands has to take account of other objectives e.g. historic landscape, shooting interests so it would always be limited. If Woodland Management Grant was available on all areas then they would probably do more non-commercial management e.g. ride management, open areas etc


N/A – all of their woodland is in management, the grant aided area relate sonly to ASNW areas to enable them to undertake PAWS conversion. Non-ASNW areas are managed commercially without grant. Generally are able to undertake management at present given market conditions, but higher prices would enable them to do more and higher standard.


In-house forest manager and agents

Other issues discussed: Woodland Regeneration Grant does not give support for medium term management which does not encourage use compared to WCG.



Woodland description: manager of mixed conifer and broadleaf woodlands – ancient woodland sites, PAWS and young plantations. Woodlands managed for economic return, landscape, recreation, amenity, nature conservation and sport.

What has their experience of the grants system been? EWGS is the most simple and straight forward of all the woodland grant schemes in the UK. FC woodland officers are helpful and professional. However, the process has become more complex. Too much time spent chasing RLR/RPA and cross checking land. This is becoming a major barrier for woodland owners and often leads to frustration and can put owners off.

How important has the grant system been in enabling them to manage their woodlands vs. market incentives etc?

For commercially managed properties timber prices are the driving factor for management and not grants. But some owners are motivated by other objectives such as recreation and nature conservation. Grants are essential to support these sorts of ‘soft’ out puts of woodlands as sale of timber is often not nearly enough to pay for additional works.


Either no or the work would be very much reduced. The suite of grants and options are good but some are not fit for purpose especially the Woodfuel WIG. Not enough time to prepare management plans and get an application through, especially for small and difficult sites which is where the grant should be aimed. Many biodiversity and access objectives of UKWAS compliant planning would not be met without grant support.

Do they feel they could do more? Access to woodland is critical for long term sustainable management. Woodfuel WIG promises much but doesn’t really deliver in practice. Can a more simplified access grant be created? Better targeted grant would allow more woodlands to be managed.


See answer to above question. Access is critical.


Owners need a return to encourage them to manage their woodlands. With a good return many will go ahead and pay for services however this tends to be well managed commercial blocks. Owners of small and undermanaged woods are rare in coming forward and take additional resources and innovative ways in which to manage them and this is often reliant on securing grant aid to offset agents fees.

Other issues discussed Any opportunities to reduce red tape and the constant need to cross reference everything. The interviewee almost felt there was a new tier of paranoia with the need to constantly tick boxes to comply with process and audit.


ID Number Ref. ID 1063 Segment No.1

Owner/Manager Manager

Woodland description: Predominantly coniferous plantations and some PAWS in the North West, North East and Yorkshire Dales. Managed on a commercial basis, where possible.

What has their experience of the grants system been? Generally good. Some EWGS options are simple and straightforward such as WRG and WCG whereas others are too complex such a WIGs and WMG. Timescales can be long but now plan for this when making applications.


We are primarily driven by market incentives. We work out the cost of the operation first and then find the best market price as all operations are planned on return from timber sales. Grants are useful where woodlands may not have been managed previously, usually for access reasons or other constraints and where the owner can provide additional non timber benefits. The woodfuel WIG is in principal very good for developing access infrastructure into woodlands which is a long term investment where costs can be spread over time. Improved access allows us to undertake the crucial 1st and 2nd thinnings.


As we generally don’t rely on grants this isn’t really relevant other than where we may be providing additional benefits such as protection/restoration of ancient woodland sites. We have used WIG 80s for clearing invasive species but found this to be a short term measure and not a good use of the grant.

Do they feel they could do more? Greater market incentives would be the main driver to doing more but well targeted grants, such as those for access improvements, would also help.


The RHI can have an impact on woodland management where estates have installed biomass boilers and are producing the fuel from their own woodlands but this only works

for larger projects. Small biomass boilers don’t produce enough demand for timber to be effective at incentivising the investment in the woodlands. Tax based incentives can also work very well. The old schedule D scheme worked very well for estates. Removing barriers would be just as effective as offering incentives in many cases. Land management constraints can often be the main stumbling block for undertaking management such as limitations imposed on sites that are SSSIs. It would be good to see a more joined up approach between FC and NE and better information provided.


NA

Other issues discussed A major concern is the approach to how statutory plant health notices are being dealt with. There seems to be a disjointed approach. Outbreaks of some pests and diseases are being dealt with by government such as Asian longhorn beetle and possibly Chalara but Phytopthora must be dealt with by the landowner. Where landowners have already removed higher value infected timber under a notice it’s impossible to then pay for the removal of lower value timber that has had a second notice. Can there not be clearer guidance on this and where the landowners’ responsibilities lie.


ID Number Ref. ID 1567 Segment No. 1


Woodland description: Predominantly coniferous plantations and some PAWS. Managed for timber production and sport with public access provided throughout. All woodlands are under UKWAS certification. Much of the low value timber is retained for use in the estates woodfuel boiler.

What has their experience of the grants system been? The estate do seek to source grant support where possible especially to assist with the provision of public access and PAWS restoration. They find the process OK and the WRG is particularly useful with management of PAWS and AWS sites.


The grant system is important, particularly the WMG which helps to pay for provision of public access to the woodland. It also goes to supporting 1 full time member of staff on the estate who spends their time undertaking the agreed WMG tasks and general maintenance activities in the woodlands. Timber prices dictate ultimately whether or not felling/thinning operations proceed and are needed to pay for restocking on non PAWS sites and or restock is with conifers.


Activity would certainly decrease and it would be hard to justify allowing continued public access.

Do they feel they could do more? We have a 20 year outline working plan and a 5 year detailed working plan. This is part of the agreed UKWAS certification and allows us to access EWGS and felling licences more easily. With better timber prices and or grant incentives we could provide additional benefits such as increased PAWS restoration.


Increased timber prices primarily but this could be coupled with other income streams from carbon or other benefits. We do generate revenue through letting of woodland areas for recreational/leisure activities. This could be increased.


NA

Other issues discussed They would like to see more support for training and supporting new entrants into the industry. There are not enough skilled and qualified contractors out there and not enough new people coming in to the industry. An increase in woodland management activity will require an increase in people able to undertake the work. There was a strong felling that certification to UKWAS is becoming more burdensome and may even put the owner off if the additional cost of managing the scheme cannot be justified. There don’t seem to be enough tangible benefits of certification anymore and therefore is it necessary? A good quality long term plan linked to WMNG and felling licence applications should be sufficient to ensure the woodlands are managed sustainably and provide multiple benefits.

2: PROFIT-SEEKING GUARDIANS

File Details Page 1 of 2

Interview Record

Contract: Woodland Owner Segmentation Project

Subject: Follow up telephone interview post structured interview undertaken by Ipsos MORI

Group Name and Number:

Segment 2

Sample ID: Ref ID 266

ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTION

1. Basic description of your woodland Conifers and oaks 2 acres oaks, and then 70 acres of conifers More woodlands of 30 acres, chestnut and conifers Bluebell wood under oaks

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Recreation Used to grow Christmas trees years ago – now buy from Denmark as

better shape etc Use woods for paintballing, cross country riding, 40 liveries hack in

woods Bought by his father in 1954, inherited in 1981 since planted 50 acres in

addition to inheritance

3, Tell us about what constrains you from managing your woodland to a greater extent and what could encourage you to manage it to a greater extent

Manage just to clear for jumps and crosscountry (xc), there are 2.5 miles of tracks where they cut stray branches, harrow every fortnight

Doesn’t manage more because not cost effective – in past thinned out plantations, got 10k back in timber but horses churn up pathways so not worthwhile. In addition JCBs churn up xc courses which have to be remade.

Thinning done almost everywhere other than 2 small places Do it themselves – use a JCB contractor

Biodiv Not very informed on biodiversity, didn’t really know what it is, but there are wild flowers and lots of wildlife

Grants Not aware of grant schemes out there Not interested in advice on woodland management or FC visit Informed enough to manage it adequately Could be interested in grants for commercial reasons if don’t affect xc

routes ie existing activities


Interview Record


Expertise Has a good understanding of what needs doing, grew up with woodlands

4. Any other issues

5. Interested in written report accompanying work


Interview Record




Segment 2

Sample ID: Ref ID.325


1. Basic description of your woodland Type - designated or classified as semi-natural ancient woodland,

coppice, horn bean, oak, hazel, sycamore. Location – on the farm Size - 70 acres Accessibility - some vehicle access some not

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? ‘We try to manage it as best as we can with available resources, but

labour is expensive and on a farm we don’t have spare labour hanging around’

They manage it to ensure that the stools don’t get so big that they are carrying too much timber which could cause them to fall over. Some stools are between 10 and 14ft across.

‘We want to ensure that the woodland is kept in as good a condition as we found it in’

They coppice it once every 25-30years The Oaks are left as standard and not felled, although they will be ready

to be felled in 40 yrs time Their woodland is enjoyed by campers using a field in the middle of the

woodland, it is obviously difficult to restrict their access. ‘In the 40 years that we have had this farm our woodland management

has changed, we used to coppice commercially over time for logs, but due to my age and limited time we can no longer do this’

Is not a burden, it is definitely a benefit to them


Interview Record


3. Tell us about what constrains you from managing your woodland to a greater extent and what could encourage you to manage it to a greater extent

‘Woodland is a very precious thing that needs to be looked after, if we don’t coppice it, it will deteriorate and eventually disappear. It is valuable for the country, as it provide an island where lots of creatures lives’

Financial barrier is the most significant for them, if they were able to have more help they would want to manage it better

‘Grants are very restricted so we haven’t entered into them, and often when you apply the money has already gone anyway.

He would not want anyone else managing the woodland as after 40 years he feels he knows it best.

The whole farm has been coppiced in the last 40 years – and he wants to do it again soon

He would be interested in a Forestry Commission Officer visit Assuming that a degree of control was retained, he would be interested

in greater access to affordable advice/trusted contractors, and provision of a tailored woodland management plan

In principle would be willing to pay for advice and training on how to manage woodland if there was a valuable product or resource at the end of it

4. Any other issues



Interview Record




Segment 2



1. Basic description of your woodland Type – ancient wodland Location – on farm Size – 40 acres (incl wide belts totals nearer 60 acres but the latter has

never been managed under grant schemes) Accessibility – road access

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Shoot use woodland, 1 woodland used as a release pen, 1 woodland

used for shoot. Light management for shoot purposes only undertaken, e.g. cut brambles to let light through for beaters.

Generally a benefit but no financial revenue at the moment and no management. They have undertaken one round of coppicing on the 40acres in the past.

‘15yrs ago, worked with the a county wildlife trust survey to plan coppicing over a 15year period. The Trust had designated plots to coppice from yr 1 to yr 10. They were meant to rotate round after yr 10 but we finished 5 yrs ago as the price of coppiced wood went down from £200-£30/acre so the coppice wasn’t going to pay for itself as it should’


‘It seems to me that if you get anyone in to do tree work, then by the time you have paid their fees you don’t get any money back at the end of it, as timber is not a high value product – I am aware that this may just be a perception so it would be good for someone to come and look at it, to advise me on how to better manage it’.

He has not approached the FC to see whether there is anything they can do – but he doesn’ know who to approach and doesn’t know what grants there are out there


Interview Record


‘I lack knowledge of woodlands as I am a dairy farmer, I need to know what can be achieved by keeping it as ancient woodland. I am aware that mature trees will need felling, then replanting but not sure what species I should put back in to ensure it remains an asset and not a liability’.

‘Woodland management is on the back burner as I am a dairy farmer, my time is better spent doing other things’

‘I would be happy for someone else to come in and manage the

woodland and would pay for it if it was a break even service’ whereby

they undertake the management and take a proportion of the wood to

cover costs.

He lacks any expertise, doesn’t understand the rules and regulations that you have to operate under, can’t differentiate a ‘good versus a bad tree’, and is unsure as to who is responsible if a tree on his property falls onto a road or house.

‘I would engage someone to manage it, but I have no idea where to start’

He agreed that a Forestry Commission Officer visit could be a starting point to finding trusted contractors etc

4. Any other issues



ID Number Ref ID 501 Segment No. 2

Owner/Manager Owner

Woodland description: Predominantly coniferous plantations and some PAWS. Managed on a commercial basis where possible. Involved in woodfuel production and supply and uses woodlands to produce raw material.

What has their experience of the grants system been? Generally good. FC woodland officers are very helpful and supportive. Would find it very time consuming to undertake all processes of application himself due to other pressures of work.


Grants are important but not the primary driver. Timber prices are important and determine level of activity in woodland. We are in a good position in that we utilise all smaller diameter material ourselves in our firewood/woodfuel supply business. About ¼ of felled timber is sold to other local markets.


Lots of the smaller blocks of woodland on the farm are left unmanaged as it’s not economic to manage them. Grant would help to bring these woods into management. Undertaking management planning process at the moment and will use this as a stepping stone to longer term commitment to management.

Do they feel they could do more? Yes. But need to invest in access/roading. More support, more management.


Funding for access and roading. See this as a long term investment that will allow ongoing management. All other benefits would be provided as a result.


Rarely need to pay for advice but previous experience has been mixed due to nature of advice given may not always have been correct.

Other issues discussed




Woodland description: manager of predominantly coniferous plantations but also manages small farm and estate mixed woodlands.

What has their experience of the grants system been? The key issue with the grant process is the length of time it takes to get an application approved. Although this has improved over recent months the changes introduced in terms of RLR requirements did cause severe delays and inconvenience. The support from woodland officers is good and there is a general understanding of a resource issue at FC. Can there be an agreed timetable to process applications – this would be very useful to know.


Timber prices are the most important deciding factor in woodland management strategy, particularly with larger commercially managed forests. Grants are more important for small mixed farm and estate woodlands where multi‐purpose benefits are the drivers.


Work in larger forests would continue if grants were reduced as timber prices are the overriding factor. However, it would be difficult to justify management in smaller woodlands without grants or if they were reduced due to the additional costs needed for improving access and infrastructure and obtaining the right contractors and equipment to do the work.

Do they feel they could do more? Yes, but there is a need to work across the whole chain – from woodland owners to agent, contractor, timber merchant, haulier and processor/end user. The Woodfuel WIG is a great opportunity to help invest in infrastructure in woodlands but is too complex and application timescales too long to justify an application in any woodland other than large commercial forests which don’t require the support any way.


The process of grants and felling licence applications could be improved and streamlined. Over the years the process has become more involving and time consuming. Grants should be targeted at long term investments where the investment can be spread over a number of years, perhaps to coincide with felling programmes? If woodlands have approved management plans in place and or are under UKWAS certification, can these not be fast tracked through the application process? There needs to be some benefit to this. Can the management of small woodlands be linked to payments for ecosystem services that would offer attractive rates in return for agreed services?


Woodlands owners require a return on investment. If this is achievable then they are happy to pay for services. If a return cannot be made then the management will not happen. Management of small woods could be incentivised by offering support for professional services.


Woodland Owner Segmentation Model : Follow Up Survey


Owner/Manager Owner

Woodland description: Conifer plantation managed for sport, amenity, landscape and timber.

What has their experience of the grants system been? It’s like any government grant scheme, there’s a process to follow which we have to do to access the money to support work that we would have done anyway so it’s generally worthwhile. We have had a generally good experience of working with the FC and found them helpful and professional.

How important has the grant system been in enabling them to manage their woodlands vs market incentives etc?

Most of the management on the estate is driven by sporting use. Grants help to mitigate the losses on the work which we need to do. Timber prices are also important but we don’t have many local markets for low value small round wood thinning so it’s often a cost operation as the felled timber has to be transported some distance to the nearest market.


Probably not. As stated, thinning operations are usually done at cost and therefore we have to select our areas for management carefully. Economies of scale are key for us to make management operation economically viable. We add some value to our hardwood thinnings through a firewood business.

Do they feel they could do more? Yes. Support for 1st and 2nd thinnings in young stands would help. We also find it hard to source appropriately skilled and equipped contractors that are set up to do smaller, less productive jobs and still make them pay.


We feel the RHI is a major incentive for woodland management and would drive the thinnings process on our estate.


NA

Other issues discussed Carbon trading was discussed briefly but the estate may not be keen to engage in agreements with third party investors.


Interview Record




Segment 2



1. Basic description of your woodland Type – The oldest strip is 51yrs old, which was planted with native trees

using a grant long ago. Since 90s been in set aside and natural regeneration and contains young native trees – oak, beeches, ash some birch. Some strips planted with conifers and used as shelter belts.

Location – along boundary of farm, next to some pasture but woodland areas are mainly fenced off

Size – 88 acres, 75% is native, rest is planted conifers Accessibility – around farmland

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Bulk of it was or is under grant to be set aside 60-75% Took a grant last year and planted 5 acres with natives to act as a

boundary to keep cattle off fence area which is near road and a stream Remainder of woodland is integrated with pasture and provides shelter

to livestock which is useful. Doesn’t do anything with it to manage it Neither a burden nor a benefit – just there.


‘The Conifers could be managed to let natives grow. I spoke to someone who could thin them out and go halves on what was sold, but he concluded that it was not worth it for the timber value in market’.

If he had time to manage it, he would take out falling timber, remove rotten wood, and if trees worth anything would sell, particularly Oak and beech.


Interview Record


Has used planting grants from FC, but not aware of management grants Not got time and interest in woodlands. Would be interested for FC to

send an advisor. ‘Time is a key issue as I am a one man band. Woodland management is not a priority with 450 cattle, 800 sheep and arable land - my time is better spent running the farm’

Only if free would he want to see a woodland management plan written by an expert ‘I would be interested in joining a local hub of skilled woodland managers to gain low-cost or free advice’

He would not in principle be willing to pay for advice and training on how to manage his woodland

4. Any other issues



Interview Record




Segment 2

Sample ID: Ref ID: 945


1. Basic description of your woodland Type – Ash, oak and poplar. Location – on their farms Size – 8 hectares, and 2 hectares on another farm Accessibility – all easy access

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? None of it is managed particularly well – just 1 hectare that is in NE HLS

scheme that has replanting elements He did some replanting in the late 90s in existing woodland. In 1990 and

2007 he used FC woodland grants to plant new woodland to provide a Shelterbelt. He therefore has 3-4 hectares of new woodland which is 8 years old. He also took woodland grants in early 90s to replant 2.5 hectares

Woodland is not really used although it was used for shooting in the past, and is used for Halloween for family and friends

‘My objective is to have a biomass boiler, and become self-sufficient in producing woodchips from my woodland to be burnt. I think I have enough woodland to run this if it was managed properly felling 1.25hect/yr for example. Although I would want to work in conjunction with the FC for advice on how much to fell per year, to get a license, and to replant and fell again to maintain production’

‘I have looked into renewable heat incentive grants to realise this, and have been told companies could come in to woodchip the wood for the boiler. But logistically it is difficult to manage all required parties whilst retaining economic viability. Ideally I would like someone to evaluate my woodland, to understand whether it a sustainable idea with the amount I have’.

His woodland is a benefit to nature but not to him financially


Interview Record



Primarily a lack of knowledge and direction ‘I don’t think it is worth asking someone to manage it for me as I would

be unlikely to be better off financially. Woodlands are a long terminvestment, first you have to clear the timber, then you pay managementcompany fees, then replant and wait, so I may not even be alive to seeassociated financial gains’.

‘Given that timber is not a high value product, by the time you have paidmanagement contractor fees, you have lost potential for profit’

He would be willing to pay for advice or for someone to evaluate hiswoodland, and would be interested in joining a local hub of skilledwoodland managers to gain low-cost or free advice

An environmental consultant came to help with the HLS scheme but nothad anyone woodland specific visit.

‘To engage a manager I would approach the FC for impartial advice’

4. Any other issues

trees.



Interview Record




Segment 2



1. Basic description of your woodland Type – plantation and broadleaf Location – Offices situated next to it. Size - 1000 hectares owned, 190 acres bought from FC a while ago Accessibility - public footpath through some parts, all accessible

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? As they are a Minerals company, they quarry land for potential future

mining of ball clay deposits (for ceramics, the woodlands just happen to

be what overlays the deposits

They have had a woodland survey undertaken by an external forestrycompany (who do a lot of work for national grid to maintain clearance) acouple of years ago

‘We undertake ongoing maintenance by thinning the woodland to keep itcost neutral’

In their Head office, they have a ‘restoration manager’, who deals withapplications for woodland grants etc. They use a consultantoccasionally, if further management or advice is needed.


Things are in hand at the moment with regards to management - ‘We donot feel like we need to manage our woodland to a greater extent at themoment, as it is cost neutral. We are most interested in what’sunderneath it, and therefore just undertake the minimum level ofmanagement to not hinder future exploitation. It would not be in ourinterests to create an ecologically sensitive area’’

They said they would know where to go for more advice e.g to DEFRA


Interview Record

ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTION ‘During these difficult financial times we are constrained by finances to a

certain degree, which makes any additional woodland management lessachievable, when things get better economically, we can look at puttingmore resources into management’.

They would be interested in any available low cost advice or financialincentives/grants

In principle would be willing to pay for advice and training on how tomanage woodland but depends on finances at the time. It is something

that is budgeted for, they have a restoration/management budget.

4. Any other issues 5. Interested in written report accompanying work

3: ASPIRING MANAGERS


Interview Record




Segment 3

Sample ID: Ref ID 6


1. Basic description of your woodland Specimen trees, coppices situated in a valley with lake 2 hectares 300yards from property Footpath past it, vehicle access to it

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Use timber from thinning for wood burning stoves, store and dry it. Grow timber for own consumption only. Thinning activities every year, Planted trees in past alongside road, red oaks next to public highway Put in specimen trees – 70 different varieties Sheep graze in valley so trees fenced off separately


Biodiv Has a personal interest in growing different varieties of trees, not interested in biodiversity per se. He plants some new trees every year.

No grants

Had a forestry grant in 2000 from nearby AONB, but only one he has taken as it was in line with the species he wanted to plant anyway

‘I am not interested in grant schemes as they are too restrictive in prescribing what I have to grow. For example I wanted to plant red oak for the foliage in the autumn and was told I could only plant native oak’ Same for copper beech versus beech.

‘Grants dictate what you have to grow, which is no good to me, so I don’t bother’

He wants to maintain control over his woodland and control over the type of trees planted.

‘Grants provide you with the upfront cost, but all management thereon you have to manage yourself, too expensive and makes original some of money look insignificant’


Interview Record


Expertise

Not received advice on how to manage his woodland in the past Finds out himself from observations on how others manage woodlands,

and from asking nearly local estate managers of woodlands. He reads up on how to manage.

He has enough time and experience, doesn’t think he needs advice on how to plant trees or help managing even for additional benefits

Finance ‘My trees are a financial advantage when I sell the property but in the interim I am not looking to make profit, not a commercial venture just amenity planting’

4. Any other issues



Interview Record




Segment 3



1. Basic description of your woodland Type – 2 small woodlands:1 bought from FC 20 years ago – poplars,

Firs, bluebell = 9 acres; 1 firs and oaks = 4 acres Location – on the farm they run Size – 4 acres and 9 acres Accessibility – 9 acres woodland is on a steep bank itself, up another

steep bank to get wood out of it – need dry land and good weather to get wood out. FC had to sell it as they didn’t have right of way to get wood from it as it is in the middle of the farmland. Neither have public access.

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? 4 acres - 50 years owned it and not managed 9 acres – 20 years owned it and not managed. Want to get rid of Fir

trees, need thinning and selling. Poplars got no value, starting to fall as they are quite tall. Would like English timber to be planted. Nothing grows under the Fir trees. Our woodland is neither a burden nor a benefit, it is just there – it doesn’t cost us anything but it doesn’t bring anything in.

Woodland is fenced off to animals She particularly likes the beech trees and bluebells


Don’t know much about woodland management Would like to fall it and replant it with English wood e.g. oak. Will be a

year or two before they will consider it. Not considered asking someone to manage it due to lack of financial

resources Asked someone to look at value of wood – not come to anything yet


Interview Record


Need financial incentive push us to manage it, at least enough to pay to replant it

Not looked into grants – doesn’t seem that the wood they have has any value.

Not heard about PES – but ‘we have springs in our woodland that serves several farms nearby, the water from these springs doesn’t belong to us though. The farmers have a right to the springs and the water from it’. ‘We have an intensive farm with dairy, beef, corn, therefore time is already a constraint and woodland management is low on the priority list as potential returns are not conclusive’

Lack expertise on how to manage woodland a definite barrier

4. Any other issues

5. Interested in written report accompanying work - can send link?


Interview Record




Segment 3



1. Basic description of your woodland Type – mixed woodland mainly deciduous, untouched for 50years. Pond

within the woodland (since 1928) Location – right next to house Size – 3 acres owned, within plot of 5 acres with other neighbouring

owners Accessibility - road access

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Bought together with neighbours to prevent development next to their

houses Amenity value to them is key Unused and for private access only Use for woodfuel personal use ‘I recently excavated the pond in the woodland to try and let it develop

naturally under the trees, I am hoping to see snakes round there’ ‘I plan to create a wild flower garden in the field that is joint owned next

to our woodland but haven’t got all the neighbours onboard yet’ Have put up bat boxes and owl boxes and built a hibenarium Thinking of building another pond


Time ‘I am retired so I could have the time to work in my woodland, but my time is occupied sufficiently with looking after my house garden’

To manage woodland would need to get other neighbours involved who own neighbouring acres of woodland, and they are busy

Not considered asking someone else to manage it for him as he wants to retain control over it, and it not interested in getting any commercial value from it, other than some woodfuel for personal use


Interview Record


Expertise Has not sought any advice, as has no interest for it to be too productive. Put if he wanted informal advice he would approach the local District Council who have local rangers, and the county wildlife trust.

He has the man power required to manage it, as his gardener can help saw trees - together they know what’s required to do basic management of trees – thinning etc

Would not be willing to pay for advice and training on how to manage his woodland – he just needs to get round to it

Biodiversity

Excavated pond and plans to build another, hoping for snakes etc as he built a hibenarium

‘I would be willing to increase management if it benefited biodiversity but I am not looking for a grant to do so, I have already paid for animals boxes and so on, a grant would not incentivise me particularly’

Would be interested in receiving advice/ help in producing a woodland management plan from an FC officer, but not sure if willing to pay

4. Any other issues



Interview Record




Segment 3

Sample ID: Ref. ID 119


1. Basic description of your woodland 16 acres mixed woodland, mainly deciduous 30mins drive from his house Accessible roads on 2 sides

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Has a woodburner – chop down odd tree to keep stock up Under conservation order so have to apply to chop anything down 2 x a year cuts trees No management as no time Owned woodland for 5-6 years


Biodiv ‘The reason I am interested in having a FC officer come round is I don’t

know if the biodiversity thing you mentioned is a good thing or not’ ‘I think woodlands are self-sustaining, I just chop down dead trees and

that’s about it. I think this is sufficient to manage it, but I may be wrong

as I am no expert’.

No grants Not applied for grants as not got time to look into it all. He received

information from the FC on various ways of managing woodland. He

looked through and found a £1000 loan that he was interested in and a

free FC officer visit. Not followed up due to lack of time but when he

retires in a couple of years and has downsized his house will have more

time.

Would consider a grant to help him better manage Not received any advice to date on managing his woodland Would be willing for someone else to manage woodland if free service,

at present he can’t afford for someone else to manage it

Finance He has a full time job and is ‘only on £30k’ therefore cannot afford

consultant fees etc. Hence he is willing for FC to come for a free visit.


Interview Record


Expertise ‘I don’t have any expertise in this area, I can’t just leap in and do

something in a field unknown to me’

‘From a practical point of view I can manage my woodland, but I have

no specific expertise on how to best do this’

4. Any other issues


Woodland Owner Segmentation Model:Follow Up Survey

ID Number Ref. ID 139 Segment No. 3


Woodland description: Predominantly coniferous plantations and some PAWS. Managed for recreation, nature conservation, water quality and timber production.

What has their experience of the grants system been? Experience of officers at FC local office has been good and format of system is OK. Asking for more freedom to operate as they are UKWAS registered with long term management plan in place plus external audits are carried out annually. FC local office has approved a 10 year thinning licence with WRG for clear fell/restock areas with the long term objective of converting the estate to Continuous Cover Forestry (CCF). This long term planning is essential and the approach taken is welcomed. Curiously, FC East Midlands won’t approve on a similar basis. Why the difference in approach to the licence and grant system? One area that could be improved is up to date information on land including designations, boundaries and other useful information. Can systems be more automated? Would this free up FC officer time to concentrate on other activities.

How important has the grant system been in enabling them to manage their woodlands vs market incentives etc?

The grant system is important, especially where non timber benefits are to be provided such as recreation/public access and nature conservation. But, timber prices are the main driver. The main source of funding for woodland management is through the water business. Consideration of levying customers for car parks, footpaths, toilets, picnic areas etc....


The estate has multi‐purpose drivers but management must be driven through zero cost balance. Main drivers are water quality, business reputation, landscape, amenity and recreation and bio‐diversity. Carbon is a big potential driver for us. Can we offset out carbon through our woodlands and peat lands. Link to PES.

Grants are particularly important for supporting woodland creation. We would half the level of activity without grant support.

Do they feel they could do more? We could do more, especially on AWS and PAWS areas of the estate. Operations in these areas are often at cost so need to be supported with grants. We can raise funding through the water business to help pay for the bulk of work in the woodland estate. If this stopped we would struggle to find enough funds to continue to manage at the same levels. See comment about levying customers for use of recreational facilities above.


Comments above on raising funding relate.


This must be linked to timber harvesting programme and grants but will and do pay for services.



Interview Record




Segment 3



1. Basic description of your woodland Type - natural hardwood, chestnut ash, oak, hazel Location – all over farm (one area is 7 acre block of woodland) Size - 25 acres Accessibility – 7 acres block has canal at top and river at bottom so

woodland always wet

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? 7 acres not used – no plans for it Chestnut for fencing Fuelwood for central heating - not commercial, private use Once a year harvested when need it Use has always been the same


‘If there was financial assistance to manage my woodland I would seriously consider it, but at the moment it is not of interest commercially’

He has not looked at any grant schemes for woodland management, although he is aware that they are probably available.

‘The word that circulates amongst local farmers regarding these schemes is that there are too many rules and regulations and that the financial incentive is not significant enough to justify the work needed’

‘I am not sure whether the schemes would provide enough money to justify the work involved, especially given the size of the woodland I own’

If financial incentives were available he would have the time to invest as he has chestnut and hazel which are sellable timber


Interview Record


Not considered asking someone else to manage it for you, although

would be happy, in principle, for someone else to come in and manage

the woodland if the management or labour cost was less than the value

of timber extracted

He would be willing to increase management if he received grants to benefit biodiversity, as long as it was financially of interest and in his favour

I farm grass, and my 25 acres of woodland are not in one place which makes it difficult for manoeuvring necessary machinery etc - so it is not of much interest unless I had a financial incentive to manage it

He has taken part in the countryside schemes in the past – but ‘the amount of work to keep within the scheme did not make it a wise investment, it was a lot of work for little money – for example laying fencing made £1.50/metre.

4. Any other issues

5. Interested in written report accompanying

Woodland Owner Segmentation Model : Follow Up Survey


Owner/Manager Owner

Are they really only constrained by a lack of financial incentive? Is it also the (perceived) bureaucracy that goes with government incentives (i.e. land registration; perceived loss of control of land)

They have a 150 ac farm (organic) of which approx 60ac is woodland. Most of it is derelict coppice, having been felled in the 30’s/40’s and scrub regeneration on old fields (which they are removing under stewardship scheme). Some poplar which is now falling over. Most of the woodland is situated in a valley with poor access. There is about 10ac of the woodland that has worthwhile amounts of timber in it. The farmland is in stewardship and they do not find the administrative requirements of that off-putting (they have a land agent) and would be willing to consider similar arrangements on the woodland.

Is the barrier short-term capital requirements or long term revenue considerations?

They currently employ a forestry gang for 3 weeks each winter costing about £4k to clear up areas and produce timber for their own use as firewood. In order to more intensively manage those parts of the woodland with timber they need to put in improved access involving a couple of gates to an adjacent lane and short stretch of stone track to get to woodland. Cost would be £2k-£3k which is not itself an issue but not a priority at present. Long term funding would not be a problem as they believe there to be a good market for firewood in the area and always have people asking for it.

What level of economic incentive would they require to start managing their woodland and what would they be willing to manage it for (i.e. woodfuel, public access, biodiversity)?

Grant of £3k - £4k could make a difference. Would manage for own firewood and sale to friends in area who have wood burners etc

Are there any other interventions that would encourage them to manage? (e.g. establishing local market infrastructure, such as a woodfuel cooperative or links with a local woodfuel business)

Not really required as market appears to be operating well.

Main issue seems to be inclination and time to do more.

Are they able to access conventional finance (e.g. bank loans) to help them manage their woodland?

Had not considered, probably could but did not consider it sufficiently costly or a priority to do so.


Received advice from land agent approx 10 years ago who advised them to manage areas with most

timber in but leave others. No advice received since.


Interview Record




Segment Group: 3



1. Basic description of your woodland 8 acres On a steep hillside Ancient woodland – oak, yew, holly, sycamore, larch, douglas fir

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? They are both elderly so sit back and let it grow, occasionally send

someone to collect firewood for them Nest boxes for red squirrels, 30 or more bird boxes, owl boxes, bats,

deer FC plantations around them, used to do selective thinning of spruce,

douglas fir, European larch thinned Has a forestry degree – has expertise/awareness/knowledge People come and check boxes, shoots grey squirrels, rabbits


If someone helped could do more to manage the woodland but he is too old

Has had advice about managing woodland from surveyors who have come round, and people to look at the wildlife, although he knows a lot himself

Grants Used forestry grants in past, to keep sheep out, clear felling, hedge rows

Not looked at grants recently, time limited to do so Would be interested to receive information on grants but ‘most grants

don’t even touch the real costs of doing the work, normally they want to see it in bills, so we have to pay VAT before receipted bill, so we end up carrying the VAT until we get the grant which can take considerable period of time as the civil service work slowly’

‘It is not economic to manage it, or employ someone to do it’ National Park looked at wet part of his woodlands and said to leave it

alone? Would be willing to have someone manage it if broke even, as long as

have some agreement with person on ultimate decisions


Interview Record


Biodiv Not really interested in commercial aspect – replanted ancient woodland best left to be a natural habitat alone

‘A lot of people say jolly good leave it and let it be, but I am aware that I am neglecting the woodlands’

Would be willing to increase management if believed it would benefit biodiversity, and depending on amount and cost of grant willing to increase management if they received grants

Might be willing to pay someone to manage it but not willing to pay for advice on how to manage woodland to improve biodiversity

4. Any other issues Can’t get anywhere in wood because access is not easy and he has

physical mobility issues but very happy for any advice on woodland management plan from an FC officer for free

5. Interested in written report accompanying work –


Interview Record




Segment 3



1. Basic description of your woodland In a conservation area 7 acres, 1 is paddock rest is larch, ash, beech, oak, many other firms,

eucalyptus, rhododendrons, some of which are quite rare – it’s an arboretum

Private pathways to enjoy woodland Hope to open for charity this year Accessible across garden

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Use it for recreation although looking to raise money for charity by

opening to the public – charge fee for viewing it Want to share it as feel very lucky to have their woodland Woodburning stoves – use timber for their consumption


Remove dead or diseased trees, remove dead branches, beech

canopy extensive so cut that back to enable light through for shrubs,

stumps grinding out

Thinning trees out as were plantation planted 30‐40 years ago so not

got enough space Does it all themselves 90% other than technical

aspects when need a tree taken down

Finance Not got enough time, expertise or money for contractors.

‘It is for amenity only, we have no commercial interest especially if it

would destroy or damage woodland, don’t think it is big enough to interest anybody anyway’

Program of work dictated by cost and time

Would consider someone else managing it – but finite budget so tricky to pay


Interview Record


Expertise Prepared to listen if someone interested in coppicing, taking timber

out and selling what they don’t use

Have not received advice on how to manage woodland other than

western power who ruined part of their woodland when they were

away – they gave free advice

Know what needs to be done, but need hands on help, wouldn’t turn

away advice from experts, just want final say

Spoken to Kew gardents, other experts – know where to go if need advice

Grants Not aware of any grants available – if there is very interested to explore it. Need to get balance as it is our home, special place, would

need to look through very carefully – ensure maintain control over

your woodland

Definitely interested in grants if break even, not for profit though

Agree to Forestry Commission Officer visit – share info on grants etc

4 biodiv ‘ I see the management of my woodland as important to biodiversity –

if I leave it to run wild everything suffers, it needs management

otherwise the strong take over, and the weak wither and die’.

Willing to increase management if it would benefit biodiversity and

would be happy to receive grants if maintain ultimate control

Happy to received advice/ help in producing a woodland management

plan from an FC officer

4. Any other issues



Interview Record




Segment 3



1. Basic description of your woodland Part of their 1 acre garden Red beech, ash, sycamore, holly, conifers, acers, pine, yew Accessible

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Part of garden, amenity, lake at bottom of garden Wildlife – bird boxes put up, ‘we just love nature’ No management undertaken, only if damage to bows


Biodiv ‘Everything is in order in our woodland, we have wildlife, birds, loads of

bees, there is nowhere to plant more trees, so I see no need to manage

it unless we get dieback’

Would be willing to get free advice on how to manage woodland to improve biodiversity in form of magazine or leaflet

Potentially willing to increase management if they received grants for biodiversity reasons

Both owners are elderly so happy for help to manage woodland eg FC officer visit, but can’t afford to pay for it

Interested in keeping it safe for wildlife – but think they are doing all that needs doing for that at the moment just by removing damaged trees.

No grants Didn’t know there were any grants available

No interest in commercial value or profit making

Expertise ‘I have a good understanding of managing woodlands which comes from always being interested andreading around subject, but I would be willing to get advice on how to increase biodiversity’

4. Any other issues



Interview Record




Segment 3



1. Basic description of your woodland Type – mature, ancient woodland Location – on the farm Size – 15 hectares, other farm several plots from 0.5hectares – 6

hectares of planted woodland within last 15 years under Farm Woodland Grant Scheme

Accessibility - fine

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Not used commercially at present. ‘The woodland is used as a

shelterbelt or windbreak for the farm, to straighten field boundaries and it provides a habitat for wildlife’

Recreation – run a small shooting syndicate with local farmers The blocks planted over the last 15 years were managed by a contractor

for the first 3 years after planting them. Some of the smaller pockets are still under grant and so they have to maintain the number of trees and undertake limited management, although with young trees you can’t do much more


‘I run a working farm, and so there are a lot of other things that take up our time, our woodlands are at the bottom of the list’

They lack time but do have a basic knowledge and capacity as to what management needs doing. Not up to speed with regulation/grants side of things, need advice/expertise to look into and manage options. For example, advice on how to go about thinning and replanting their mature woodland, and employing a contractor to do so.


Interview Record


Not considered asking someone else to manage it for them, but happy in principle, for someone else to come in and manage the woodland if he had control over which areas were thinned when, e.g. so as not to interfere with the shooting season

‘I would be prepared to pay for that service but would need income from timber to pay for labour costs, and would need to keep some timber for log burning system which includes water heating at the farmhouse

‘Finance is an issue as we are investing in other parts of the farm, and I’ve not had time to concentrate on the woodland side, hopefully in the next 18months I will look into it’

He said that establishment grants are best – ones which encourage you to plant – as without them it would be solely out of own pocket as the return period is 15yrs or more

One off upfront payment is needed, then regular payment towards spraying etc when first establishing, and then ideally payment towards cost of managing it

‘Ideally management should be financed by income from the woodland’ He knows where to ask questions - seek advice from FC ‘I know that woodland needs to be sustainable. You have to have

biodiversity in it to keep the system going. Biodiversity is as important as the commercial potential of my woodland’.

He would increase management if benefitted biodiversity, and would be willing to pay for advice on how to manage his woodland to improve biodiversity

4. Any other issues .



Interview Record Contract: Woodland Owner Segmentation Project



Segment 3



1. Basic description of your woodland Type – broadleaf: beeches, oak, sycamore Location – on their property, owned for 10 years and bought to protect

their house as neighbouring land is in green belt, which has a lot of development threats

Size – 9 acres Accessibility – private woodland

‘The Beech trees are particularly special to me; although they have grown tall and now take light from the house. We would like to reduce them in height, and asked for permission years ago but were told no as the school of thinking at the time was that they can go into shock and die. We would like to explore options and information on whether one can manage/lop beech trees without damaging them’

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? ‘We just enjoy it with our family and collect firewood, and given that it is within the green belt its purpose is to protect us and neighbouring houses from future developments’ It is definitely a benefit and not a burden


‘It is mainly a lack of fitness and a lack of time, and it is not something I would do as a hobby. My husband likes to mess around managing it but he is not physically up for it. It would be nice to have a group of volunteers to help manage it, they do that nearby at a local Park’

If they were physically capable, they would remove some of the

rhododendrons, get rid of saplings and skinny trees that do very little and

fight for light, and stack up rotten wood for creatures – basic

maintenance of the woodland

They have not considered asking someone else to manage it for them,

although they sought advice from a local Woodland Trust


Interview Record ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTION

They are unaware of available grants; they just know that they exist.

They are unaware of the pros and cons of the grants, but in general are

not interested in being tied into financial obligations associated with

them. They would be interested in being sent information to be better

informed on management grants etc available.

The cost of managing is a key barrier – they would be happy for someone

to come and manage it for free or at a low cost, although they use a lot

of woodfuel themselves. Access to affordable contractors to carry out the work would be an incentive

Main constraint is physical ability (and possibly detailed know-how to manage adequately)

4. Any other issues ‘We are privileged to have the woodland and enjoy it, we just don’t want any developments taking place given current threats to greenbelt’

5. Interested in written report accompanying work?


Interview Record




Segment 3



1. Basic description of your woodland Type – 1 hardwood woodland is approx. 40 years old. Other one was

planted in 2001 under the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme and contains oak, ash, beech, sweet chestnut, rowan, scotts pine, alder

Location – 1 on his property, 1 further away Size – 3 acres and 3.5 acres Accessibility – one easy, other difficult as not near a road and on bank

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? 3 acre site left alone and no plans to manage it 3.5 acres managed to fulfil the aims to ‘increase biodiversity of the area

for wildlife, provide a sustainable supply of firewood, and provide a legacy of mature trees in an area of landscape importance’

None of the firewood is sold and the whole site is for private use only For the larger site planted in 2001, he recently won 2 awards for nature

conservation, and in the Western Region RSS competition for woodland for setting out management aims and showing how he has/will achieve them

He used to cut/spray brambles but trees are now high enough He is not likely to change his management practices in the future as he

is ‘too old to change and happy with the way his woodland is going’


He feels he has the expertise to manage it himself. A few days a year he employs someone to help cut trees on the 3.5 acre site


Interview Record


His time is spent managing the larger site, the 3 acre site is not managed as it is much further from the house and harder to reach. Access is the key issue and it would take time just to get there and back, it is not a lack of finance or know how

‘I have not considered asking someone else to manage the smaller site

as it would be too expensive, and I don’t think there would be any

return’

Would be happy, in principle, for someone else to come in and manage the woodland but not willing to pay for it

‘I would not want someone else to write me a plan and pay for it, half the fun is the trial and error of doing it myself’

He is unlikely to be at his property in another 5-10 years so not looking for any investment in management for the smaller site as returns are not on the short term, and his focus is on the larger site.

‘My aims are not commercial in managing my woodland, so I don’t think anyone would advise me when my aims are for conservation – even if they did I would not want to pay much for it’

He would be interested in advice on how to manage his woodland to improve biodiversity - but wouldn’t be willing to pay much as he would need labour to implement it. He is not looking to start management on his second woodland due to his age.

4. ‘The Farm woodland premium scheme was really good, as it paid for everything and was very realistic in helping me plant a wood that was removed from agricultural land’.

The only condition of the grant was to plant it and make sure it grew – although no one came back to check

‘Unusually, I probably would have undertaken the same level of management if I hadn’t received a grant but I appreciate that that is quite odd. I just wanted woods for myself for wildlife and recreational value’

He suggested that a new grant could target property owners of 3-4 hectare paddocks, to encourage them to plant 0.5 acres into copps with a hedge, as it would be great for wildlife and would act as shelter too

4. Any other issues

5. Interested in written report accompanying work - can send link?

Woodland Owner Segmentation Model:Follow Up Survey ID Number Ref ID 1328

Segment No.3 Owner/Manager Owner

Are they really only constrained by a lack of financial incentive? Is it also

the (perceived) bureaucracy that goes with government incentives (i.e. land registration; perceived loss of control of land)

The interviewee only has a small 1 acre woodland which is part of his private residential property. Management of the woodland is not driven by financial incentives but a desire to have a well managed amenity woodland that fits into the nature of the property for his quiet enjoyment. Is the barrier short-term capital requirements or long term revenue

considerations? NA What level of economic incentive would they require to start managing their

woodland and what would they be willing to manage it for (i.e. woodfuel, public access, biodiversity)?

The owner undertakes all of the management himself. Management is ad hoc on a needs basis. Felled trees are converted into firewood for use in the property. Felling never exceeds felling licence requirements therefore has had no interaction with FC in the management of his woodlands. Are there any other interventions that would encourage them to manage?

(e.g. establishing local market infrastructure, such as a woodfuel cooperative or links with a local woodfuel business)

Not interested in grant schemes – woodland is too small to be worthwhile going ahead with that sort of process. Are they able to access conventional finance (e.g. bank loans) to help them

manage their woodland? NA



Interview Record




Segment 3



1. Basic description of your woodland Type - hardwood, pinewood planted in the1990s Location - on her farm Size - 16 acres, 10 acres of which was part of the Farm woodlands

scheme in 1994 Accessibility – very accessible next to field

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? No real use it just adds to amenity of the farm, they walk inside the

woodlands – use has always been the same ‘I recently contacted the FC to see if we can fell some of our wood as it

is difficult to know what we can and can’t do. However, I have given up as it is a long process to get through, then departments give me mixed messages, some say I must apply for a license, some say just cut 5m3, others don’t ring back or others I just can’t get through to them. I do need to know rules for thinning though...’

Woodland is a benefit not a burden Cut some up for firewood – especially dead trees by road side which

they have to get rid of for safety reasons Leave some fallen trees for the wildlife


Key barrier is a lack of knowledge as to what to do – can do basic maintenance only

Not considered someone else managing it because of cost, but would be happy for someone to do it for free


Interview Record


Lack of management is not really a time issue, although ‘we are busy on the working farm so looking for grant schemes and managers isn’t a priority. In the grand scheme our woodland is small with little option for significant return. It doesn’t cost me anything, and doesn’t take up much land’ but they would be interested in management grants if available.

Ways to encourage management that they would be happy with include, visit from a FC Officer, provision of a woodland management plan written by an expert, greater access to affordable advice and access to trusted contractors, joining a local hub of skilled woodland managers

In principle would be willing to pay for advice and training on how to manage woodland if low cost or free

4. Any other issues



Interview Record Contract: Woodland Owner Segmentation Project



Segment 3



1. Basic description of your woodland Type – Coniferous plantation Location – Have to travel 5 hours from home to get to it Size – 50 acres approx Accessibility – very difficult as on a steep bank and requires access

through neighbouring land In a National Park in AONB

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Not used nor managed

‘It should be actively managed but we lack any knowledge as to how to do it, and there is poor access through neighbouring land, which is owned by a farmer who isn’t very cooperative’

The woodland is Inherited land – used to walk there with grandfather Can’t manage it alone, too far away, therefore they are looking to sell it Burden not benefit: ‘For us is it more of a concern, as it is losing money

in real terms, as it is not keeping up with inflation, and there is the liability of disease, or people breaking in as we can’t actively oversee it’.


‘Our key barrier is a lack of understanding as to how to manage our woodland. We lack all confidence as it is so far out of our fields of expertise. This must be a common problem amongst private owners compared to farmers, who are used to making money out of land and know where to go for information’

‘We wouldn’t have a clue as to know how to manage it ourselves, and we wouldn’t know where to start with approaching someone to manage it for us’


Interview Record ITEM DESCRIPTION ACTION

Lack of financial resources is a constraint, as ‘we feel our capital is better invested elsewhere as we are unaware of what returns we could get from our woodland. If there was a grant to help me sort timber out, I would use that to move things forward, but using my own income stream on something which I don’t know anything about is too risky.

Would be happy for someone else to manage it and would be happy to pay for that service – they had never considered having someone to manage it, mainly as they are not sure it would be viable or profitable.

An incentive to manage their woodland would be access to affordable contractors to carry out the work or a grant so that they don’t have to invest their own money.

Not found out enough about woodland management to have the confidence to make these decisions

Lack of time to actively manage the woodlands themselves but do have the time to prepare the necessary management plan/grant applications etc, and to engage a manager,

Best way to increase their understanding = Forestry Commission Officer visit

Provision of a woodland management plan written by an expert would be useful, as would joining a local hub of skilled woodland managers to gain low-cost or free advice

In principle would be willing to pay for advice and training on how to manage your woodland if affordable

‘we are concerned about tree diseases, so more advice on that would be useful, as we are under the impression that if our woodland got diseased it would all have to be cut down. In reality we don’t even know if our plantation type gets diseases’.

‘Ideally the FC should appoint a regional contact point, to address the issue of confidence by having someone to ask for advice’.

4. Any other issues ‘We have to negotiate with the local farmer to be able to access our land

and to extract wood. If the FC could act as an intermediary between us and the farmer it would be extremely useful – the FC would facilitate exploitation of our woodland by helping address the access issue, perhaps by sending a formal letter to the farmer to confirm legitimate management of the woodland is being taken place’

‘It has been very interesting being asked all these questions about managing my woodland, it has got me thinking a lot as I had never thought about these options. Now I am not sure why we haven’t considered them!’



Interview Record




Segment 3



1. Basic description of woodland Birch, willow, oak 26 acres but surveyed area only 2 acres On farmland

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Under HLS agreement, cattle grazing on it Keep woodland natural with Wildflowers and Butterfly Fire wood for themselves, don’t sell externally Amenity value key


Biodiv My woodland provides benefit to plants but I haven’t considered asking someone else to manage it for me as I see no value in doing anything other than using it for firewood collection’

He has bad back can’t walk – physical constraint ‘I am aware that if you manage it, other trees grow better - in the past

we managed the woodland to ensure that the canopy was never over tall – but now we don’t to do any more to manage it, it doesn’t need to make us money’

Would be willing to increase management if it was of benefit to biodiversity and if they received grants

Interested in biodiversity and want to keep it as a wildlife haven If it was free would be interested to receive advice/ help in producing a

woodland management plan from an FC officer


Interview Record


Grants ‘The woodland is on ground that is quite wet, so it is not ideal for planting woodland.’

‘The HLS makes good use of what was neglected before, and the cattle keep the shrubs down’

‘No valuable timber as far as I am aware so has no commercial interest. Someone else could manage it but they won’t get anything out of it’

HLS really useful and is only grant he has used as EWGS not as applicable given planting conditions aren’t favourable.

‘Not applied for other grants as never thought about it – farmers not interested just keep woodland in same state as inherit it or buy it in’

Expertise Not really interested in getting advice and training on how to manage his woodland

If advice on grants available willing to hear it and be taken through paperwork

4. Any other issues


4: DISENGAGED CONSERVATIONISTS


Interview Record




Segment 4



1. Basic description of your woodland Ash plantings, oak trees around them 4-5 acres Boundary of his farm

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Used to coppice it and take timber out Since got older been left- always done it himself but would need

contractor now No grants taken Just used timber for farm fencing material

3, Tell us about what constrains you from managing your woodland to a greater extent

If someone looked after it would be happy if it broke even, not interested in profit from it or commercial use

Would like to see it managed if someone wanted to take what they wanted from it and manage in return.

It’s not profitable for someone to manage it is it? Not looked into grants for now – lack of time ‘Paper work is too much

time/effort even though I have a land agent’ Does have expertise, but health limits his ability to work Interested in visit from FC to come and advise

4. Any other issues

5. Interested in written report accompanying work - NO


Interview Record




Segment 4



1. Basic description of your woodland Type – mixed woodland Location - backs onto garden GPO covered? Size – 1 acre Accessibility – easy

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Considering to apply for felling license from FC Left to grow wild – no recreational use either Was bought to stop development by their house Not asked anyone for advice Problem with deer – eat all undergrowth


He is considering whether to apply for felling license later this year – when inspection is done he will get advice to check that what he wants to do is right. Would contact FC as lives close to research station

He has chestnut that he could coppice and the Silver birch is a liability, so this could be cut and other species replanted

Has not considered asking someone else to manage it for him as he has good knowledge and was previously going to become a forest worker himself


Interview Record


Grants I don’t think I would qualify for grants, but I don’t want to apply as it will put a constraint on what I can do – I’d rather not be pressurised with timescales and compliance requirements’

Grants don’t interest him, as he has no commercial interest solely private use, and wants to maintain control over his woodland

The coppiced wood for be for personal firewood use Does not need financial support to help manage his woodland Has not received advice about managing his woodland but will after

getting FC felling license Would not be happy to pay for advice on how to manage the woodland for

his objectives Would potentially consider grant for biodiversity provision but only if there

were few constraints

4. Any other issues

5. Not interested in written report accompanying work


Interview Record



Sample ID: Ref ID 1179 Segment 4


1. Basic description of your woodland Type - mature ash trees Location – 300yards from property Size - 1 acre of land, bordered by a stream Accessibility – easy

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Kept as a recreational area for owners, first woodland they have owned Part of a larger area of woodland which previously formed the grounds of

a larger estate. The latter now own 5-6 acres, and many 1 acre plots havebeen sold to private buyers

Owner bought woodland 2 years ago, and knows that no managementhas been done for 3-4yrs. The trees are mature and there is a fair amountof undergrowth.

He has employed a tree surgeon to address one tree leaning and onefalling, there is also the need to clear out scrub (elderflower) to open upthe woodland to be able to replant

‘My objective is to replant and create an area that is attractive to wildlife ora woodland park but I need advice on how to create a conservation orwildlife friendly area’


Lack of knowledge on next steps to create environmentally friendlywoodland area is the key barrier.

Owner is happy to manage the area himself (given its small size) and hasthe time and finances to do so.


Interview Record


‘I want to use my woodland to create an environment that is best for UK wildlife but I need advice either on a website, leaflet or in person on what constitutes environmentally friendly woodland management, (e.g. should I be planting trees on the stream bank to slow down erosion, if so which species?; Where should I put bat boxes?) and recommendations for creating a wildlife friendly habitat’

He would be willing to increase management if he received a grant, or if he received advice/ help in producing a woodland management plan. ‘I would even consider allowing limited public access to my woodland in due course, for example giving Wildlife Trust access

Would definitely be willing to pay for advice on how to manage his woodland to improve biodiversity

Not concerned about how others will react to seeing him thinning and felling trees as dealing with dead and fallen/falling trees is a safety issue first and foremost.

Woodland would fit into the broader landscape as nearby hall is converting to B n B, so it could be a recreational selling point

Definitely willing to increase management if benefited biodiversity

4. Any other issues


Minutes prepared by:

5: MULTI-FUNCTIONAL OWNERS


Interview Record




Segment 5



1. Basic description of your woodland Mix of softwood and hardwood 9 acres/5-6 hectares Not very accessible –hand work only as can’t get machines in there

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Woodland was amenity woodland to start with, lots of rhododendrons Got a grant for rhododendron clearing 5-6 years ago, cleared a lot –

grant was WIG from FC Hoping for natural regeneration, and beech regeneration, birch Manage it a bit - if things going to fall clear them, replant if they fall

down Some thinning – done themselves, apply for permission to fell and thin

around lake where there’s sycamore 7 years ago arrived, not got going but got intention to do more and is

ready to start managing


‘Our woods have a visual impact on the AONB valley – if went commercial, woodlands would lose visual amenity as would have to knock down 10 acre patches or so I think’

Has considered continuous forestry – thin to keep tree cover 24/7 Considering starting clear/fell/replant system Doesn’t think would look good if softwood planted- aesthetic issue


Interview Record


Grants Not applied for grants yet – last one was WIG for 12k to manage the

rhododendrons

Would consider grant for planting hardwood ‘It was easier to get grants before, it’s very bureaucratic now and they

change the grants all the time so it’s hard to keep track Not big enough to get someone else to manage it for them ‘Problem in this country, is that people leave woodland to themselves,

especially farmers, need managing’ Will go down that route in due course

Biodiv Has 4 lakes in woodland – creates biodiversity Knock out rhod for wildlife objective as well as for potential future

commercial use

Expertise Know where to go to FC for permission and for advice Land backs onto FC land which belongs to them, FC have a long lease –

they clear fell replant softwood – know them well Happy for a Woodland management plan – FC visit to site, but already

has a friend who is a professional woodland manager friend – free advice ‘FC used to have people to give you advice, help you fill in form and you

just had to sign it, now FC don’t have so many people working for them so different set up – have to employ private contractors to do this’

No real need for additional support as FC next door

4. Any other issues



Interview Record




Segment 5



1. Basic description of your woodland Type – broadleaf, SSSI, ancient as in existence since AD1600 Location – 5/6 miles from where he lives Size – 85 acres (SSSI) plus 20 acres (which cost £5000 net of grants) Accessibility – easy by main road

2. How do you currently use it and what are your objectives for it? Recreational and private use only - run as quite a professional shooting

ground They shoot 9 days throughout the season, 1000 pheasants put in

woodland during summer season The reason it was bought was for shooting – the shoot pays for itself


Owner is 87 and his part owners are also in their 80s so there is a physical constraint to managing their woodland.

‘Our woodland is maintained perfectly adequately for shooting purposes, and we manage it only where it is necessary for the shoot’

They have been involved with 1 or 2 schemes over the years and grants –for example from ANES who provide agricultural advisory services.

Natural England visited in September 2012 and identified the need to maintain the rides (?). FC agent also visited end of 2012 to look at what could be done management-wise, and to see whether it would be commercially viable to restart a coppicing scheme. Not heard anything from either of them since.

‘We would be willing for someone else to manage it, as long as it didn’t conflict with the shooting, and would be willing to pay a small amount if the agent was able to largely balance the cost of doing the work against the grants available, but I do not want to spend my own money for the sake of NE as the woodland does what it needs to do for our purposes’.


Interview Record


‘I am aware that the woodland is in need of coppicing but the SSSI designation restricts the time when timber can be harvested’. Timber can be taken out in Feb and March (when it is wet and low light levels) and not in July and August as 1000 pheasants are released into the wood. But NE/FC etc can’t coppice during Feb-May as would be unsuitable with regards to birds nesting (SSSI designation) therefore it is difficult to find a suitable time

Have tried to coppice twice but both schemes never completed, as the companies went bust, although did get 3 years grants from FC for it

The last grant they used was 3 years ago, for maintaining the rides. These need attention now.

‘Knowledge is not a barrier, we are aware that it needs coppicing, but we are not willing to do out of our own pockets’. The owners don’t need any more advice as the woodland serves it purpose for them as a shooting ground, but they are interested in grants that are mutually beneficial in terms of management costs and exploitation returns.

4. Any other issues



ID Number 38501 (Ref ID 707) Segment 5


Woodland description: manage various woodlands but predominantly coniferous plantations.

What has their experience of the grants system been? When first introduced, EWGS was simple to use but has become increasing more complex. We are now finding that some applications take over a year to get approval for – particularly the Woodfuel WIG. The time delays will no doubt be linked to the cuts.


Grant are useful but if they are causing severe delays to work programmes then can be more trouble than they are worth. We often can’t plan work due to uncertainty of applications. However, the grant incentives, if awarded, are more secure than relying on market prices for timber which can fluctuate wildly and can’t be relied on.


Much of the work we do for owners is grant driven.

Do they feel they could do more? It would be good to see more of a level playing field between support for agri schemes and support for woodland schemes which would allow us to do more and provide more benefits as a result. We could certainly create more woodland with better targeted grants.


Payments targeted at improving and enhancing woodland areas for specific benefits such as biodiversity, carbon and water could be a better carrot for woodland owners. Analyse cost

verses rewards to better understand the long term economic consequences undertaking management operations, especially 1st and 2nd thinnings.


NA

Other issues discussed Some areas of woodland management don’t need financial support and therefore grant money should be spent elsewhere. This is particularly the case with large commercial woods receiving WMG that aren’t providing direct benefits. Rotational fellings on larger scales generate enough revenue to incentivise owners.

Woodland Owner Segmentation Model: Follow Up Survey ID Number Ref ID 1025

Segment No. 5 Owner/Manager Owner

Are they really only constrained by a lack of financial incentive? Is it also

the (perceived) bureaucracy that goes with government incentives (i.e. land registration; perceived loss of control of land)

It’s primarily a lack of financial incentive and in particular lack of local markets for selling timber and other wood products into. Woodfuel is very important but we need other markets as well such as local furniture co-ops and coppice products. Grant support for management could be targeted better especially for sensitive management approaches. For example, there are very poor payments of the management of scrub woodland areas but these are very important for biodiversity on the farm. Can these be improved? Presentation of information on grants could be made better as well. Is the barrier short-term capital requirements or long term revenue

considerations? As a responsible land manager I must consider productive capacity of the farmland and woodland. So it’s a question of both these issues. Capital investment in the woods in the short term would allow long term revenues to be realised. We also need to ensure plant health and pest control is appropriately addressed. Grey squirrels are a major threat to my management strategy of coppice with standards. What level of economic incentive would they require to start managing their

woodland and what would they be willing to manage it for (i.e. woodfuel, public access, biodiversity)?

A better area based annual payment similar to how HLS is set at would make more sense for our situation. The current EWGS payment for woodland management grant is £30/ha whereas the HLS payment for managing wildbird seeded meadows is £500/ha yet the woods probably provide a more important habitat. We provide multiple benefits from carbon sequestration, water and air filtering, landscape and amenity, timber and other forest products and a location of training and education. School visits are important to us and are a good way to educate young people in the benefits of forest management. Payments should be linked to the provision of these multiple benefits based on an agreed long term management plan or strategy with felling licences linked into the operational programme.


See statement in first point above. Creation of local markets and demand would be a big help getting small amounts of timber to market. As our woodland holding is small we only ever have small amounts of timber to sell. Putting it all to woodfuel markets would be a shame as some is better quality or more suited to other uses. Are they able to access conventional finance (e.g. bank loans) to help them

manage their woodland?

We would only access conventional finance to purchase capital assets such as machinery and equipment and we would not take out a loan for management work per se. Other issues discussed The concept of PES was discussed at some length with the interviewee. Summary points as follows:

o Willingness to offer public access in return for payments o Different types of funding options could be made available e.g. funding via

the Probationary Service to take on probationers to undertake training and work experience.

o Very concerned with bio-security and the effect this could have on biodiversity. We need more information on what alternative species we can plant.

o Bureaucracy is a problem. Systems should be made simpler. For example, why is a public register necessary when we have an approved UKWAS compliant plan in place?



Owner/Manager Owner and Manager

Woodland description: Various woodlands owned different counties. Most are p1940s/50s/60s conifer plantations planted for mining industry. Now managed to provide timber for sawmill and surpluses to biomass markets.

What has their experience of the grants system been? Much of the process is seriously complicated and time consuming. Even felling licence applications are too onerous – why is such level of forest inventory detail required when UKWAS compliant plans exist on the woodland already? If we are a known entity to the FC woodland officers can they apply discretion when assessing applications?


Timber prices are ultimately the driving factor behind management however, the suite of grants that exist are good but are becoming increasingly difficult to access. Applied for Woodfuel WIG to improve long term infrastructure and viability of woodland to help get timber to market. Surpluses in receipts can be used to reinvest in the woodland.


Without funding infrastructure work would not have been done. Only the best areas of woodland in terms of ease of access will be managed.

Do they feel they could do more? Yes. With infrastructure/access in place it makes viable to manage for non timber benefits – nature conservation, recreation etc... Woodlands can deliver multiple benefits but investment in access is required to help deliver this.


Where you can get in, you can do it! Timber prices have improved which allows further management and reinvestment.


Owners need to have a good net gain to make it all viable.

Other issues discussed The latest version of grants are much more complex than they have ever been, especially the Woodfuel WIG. It’s a real barrier. Question value of long term management plans – are they necessary when most owners change felling programme to react to market fluctuations. It’s this that ultimately drives felling programmes, management and reinvestment into the woodlands to provide the other benefits. Grant are required to help the provision of non timber related benefits.


ID Number Ref ID 1058 Segment No.5

Owner/Manager Owner

Woodland description: Mixed broadleaf ancient woodland within an AONB. Managed for amenity and sport.

Are they really only constrained by a lack of financial incentive? Is it also the (perceived) bureaucracy that goes with government incentives (i.e. land registration; perceived loss of control of land)

Tradition and heritage are the main drivers behind the management of the wood in order to pass it onto the next generation in the same condition. It is primarily the lack of financial incentive that restricts proactive management.

Is the barrier short‐term capital requirements or long term revenue considerations? The barrier is definitely long term revenue considerations. If the woodlands were able to provide a decent return on investment then management would take place but costs are currently too prohibitive.

What level of economic incentive would they require to start managing their woodland and what would they be willing to manage it for (i.e. woodfuel, public access, biodiversity)?

They have recently invested in a biomass boiler and are claiming the RHI. This will provide a return on investment of 10+%. If the woodlands could provide this then more management would take place. Landscape, amenity and biodiversity are all key motivations. Public access is provided already through a network of PROWs across the land so would not want to provide more. The owner felt that there is a conflict between levels of public access and the provision of areas for biodiversity.


They would be happy to work with local businesses if it meant there were improved margins involved. Recent timber harvesting operations have all gone for firewood due to low value nature of the timber. Local contractors were engaged and they in turn sold the timber to a local firewood merchant. Any higher value logs would have to be transported further afield to get to an appropriate market so creation of more local markets would certainly help.

Are they able to access conventional finance (e.g. bank loans) to help them manage their woodland?

No, this isn’t something they would consider due to there being no return on investment.

Other issues discussed None




Woodland Description: manages a variety of small woodlands. Average size is about 5ha.

Why have they not applied for grants? Working with many owners of woodlands that have not had managementfor a long time with up to 50 woodland owners a year. Owners often don’t apply for grants as they feel they are too complex. They often don’t feel there is the value in the wood to justify any management activity/spend.

Are they aware of the felling licence regime? Most owners are aware of the felling licence regime but not all. Some owners have never done anything at all with their woodland.

Are there any specific reasons that they’ve not taken a grant? Again, this often comes down to complexity and jargon used in grant application forms and processes. Most are also not aware of the different options available from WRG to WIG. Length of time to get an application through can also frustrate some and put some off. Other obstacles such as TPOs can also put owners off.

Can we encourage this group to manage more, if they need to? Yes, with the right ‘carrot’ in place. Grants are a good way to incentivise owners of small and undermanaged woodland to do more/something. As managers/agents, we need to demonstrate in simple terms the benefits of management and to make the process as easy and hassle free as possible to the owner.

Most owners are not after profit just the ability to break even with the woodland.

What can we do to ensure this group is captured in official statistics? A good way to capture this group is too engage better with local forestry and woodland based projects and initiatives such as National parks, AONBs, Woodland Initiatives and trade and membership organisations. Local authorities can also be good points of contact.

Have they engaged with any other organisations in their pursuit of management? If so, who?

Many woodland owners are often members of trade and membership organisations and in particular RFS, SWA, Confor and farming groups.

Other issues discussed More support should be provided for local initiatives to provide more direct support/hand holding for this group of owners. New owners of woodland and those that have not managed their woodlands for a long time or never require handholding through the complete process of bringing their woodland back into management. Other points raised were:

o EWGS system has too many time delays o more freedom of management in certain situations could also help get more woods into

management e.g. management of young plantations, 1st thinings etc.. o Need for simpler regulations – ref Regulation Task Force recommendations o Should earned recognition lie with the landowner or agent?



Owner/Manager Owner and manager

What has their experience of the grants system been? We are currently applying for management grant to provide bio‐diversity benefits in our woodland. The process is quite long winded and complex but we do get support when needed. The management grant could be better focused on supporting small and undermanaged woodlands. A lot of woodland owners we work with find the process complex and there does seem to be a lack of awareness amongst some owners.


The main driver is timber prices but we find the grants useful to allow us to provide the additional benefits such as biodiversity.


On mature woodlands yes, but young plantations no. Grants need to be targeted so they can support first and second thinnings. This is a critical operation in the long term sustainable management of newly created woodlands. Thinnings in small mixed woodlands are often inherently uneconomic to do and therefore grant support can help fund the operation which will ensure the woodland can be well managed.

Do they feel they could do more? Answer to above point refers. We also feel that the EWGS and felling licenses can take too long to get approved. Delays with this combined with limits in terms of biodiversity constraints (e.g. bird nesting, bats) and shooting can delay operations and even put owners off altogether. It also makes it difficult for contracts to plan work programmes.


Changes to the grant system to allow more flexible approaches to include thinning operations. Access to contractors with the right machinery and equipment for working in small and undermanaged woodlands.


NA

Other issues discussed The following points were discussed:

o There is a need to bring ‘grass roots’ forestry back where the importance of good silviculture and the application of thinning regimes should be part and parcel of woodland management. Undertaking thinning operations leads to all the other benefits.

o Further investment is required in the right type of machinery to make operations viable. Contractors need support with this.

o Contractors need to be supported with training and the development of skilled operators. There often isn’t enough margin in jobs to justify the cost of qualifications and the employment of new entrants who can be trained and skilled up.

o A major concern about our ability to react to pest and disease events. There are not enough people with the appropriate equipment to react to major incidences.

o There is no obligation to manage grant funded plantations. These are just left to grown on with no thought to the silviculture or beneficial management. Can we link the management of these plantations to single farm payment?

o Timber is going for biomass when it shouldn’t be. There are various reasons for this but more people should be skilled in grading.




Woodland description: manager of mixed conifer and broadleaf woodlands – ancient woodland sites, PAWS and young plantations. Woodlands managed for economic return, landscape, amenity and sport.

What has their experience of the grants system been? Previous grant schemes were straight forward and easy but now, with the requirement of the RLR, it has become much more time consuming and difficult.


Grants are not critical to the estate being able to manage their woodlands, timber prices are the driving factor. The woodland could be managed on purely a felling licence basis but this would mean that other objectives may not be. Grants are useful to help achieve other objectives such as access and nature conservation improvements.


No, there would be no real difference apart from where specific objectives, such as PAWS restoration, could be met.

Do they feel they could do more? Yes, but the woodlands on the estate need to be captialised more. We need to manage for cost neutrality as the baseline and investment in infrastructure and equipment is needed to help achieve this if we are to manage all woodlands on the estate. The large, mature blocks take care of themselves but we cannot justify management of smaller block and young plantations at present. The estate could invest in small scale forest machinery such as a forwarder to help make timber harvesting and extraction viable. The RHI could be a mechanism to make this work whereby the cost of the equipment is written down over a 5 year period against the income from the RHI. Timber prices also need to be able to ‘hold’ the investments.


Critically important to manage plantations at an early stage – 1st and 2nd thinning at rotation – as this will ensure the woodland can meet the longer term objectives ad higher value end products for market. Woodfuel can be a driver for ensuring 1st and 2nd thinnings. See answer to above question linking to RHI.


We only manage woodland on the estate and not other peoples woodlands.

Other issues discussed Try and avoid over policing and look at the option to allow discretion in the system – could earned recognition be adopted but appreciate this would need policing in itself and would be difficult to police.


160

APPENDIX G SUPPORTING TECHNICAL NOTE ON METHODOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Woodland management – Appendix G

1. TECHNICAL ANNEX Identification of segmentation variables The initial segmentation analysis used questions on the questionnaire which were answered by both owners and managers/agents in order to be able to perform one analysis. This limited the number of variables that could be used. In total, 21 variables were used in the cluster analysis covering 29 variables on the questionnaire.

Management priority Q11: asking about the importance of various aspects/outputs of woodland ownership to the owner (e.g. timber production, a store for carbon etc). Factor analysis was applied to these 12 questions and two strong factors were identified, one relating to profit making activities (timber production and woodfuel for sale) and non-profit making (space for recreation and relaxation, a home for wildlife, privacy and security, landscape and amenity, a store for carbon, woodfuel for personal use, shelter and screening). Hence these two factors (profit making activities and non-profit making) were entered into the cluster analysis as two composite variables using the mean score of the constituent questions). Game shooting and public access did not factor analyse and were entered into the cluster analysis as single additional items. The composition of the two factors together with their rotated factor loadings can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1: Rotated component matrix of Q11 component questions on ‘management priority’

Component

1 2

D. Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following: Space for recreation and relaxation

.712

G. Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following: A home for wildlife

.689

K. Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following: Privacy and security

.660

H. Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following: Landscape and amenity

.614

L. Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following: As a store of carbon

.574

B. Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following: Woodfuel for personal use

.515 .357

I. Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following: Shelter or screening

.500

A. Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following: Timber production

.881

C. Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following: Woodfuel for sale

.863

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.


Barriers to management Qo17 (owners) / Q22 (managers): asking about various barriers to management (including time, knowledge, skills, access to labour etc). Where these questions were asked identically of both managers and owners, these were added to the cluster analysis.

Incentives to management Qo22 (owners)/ Q28 (managers): asking about the degree to which various incentives would encourage more management activity. Again, where these questions were asked identically of both managers and owners, these were added to the cluster analysis.

As a result of the exploratory factor and regression analysis outlined above, the following set of 21 variables was subjected to cluster analysis:

INCENTIVES: I would manage my woodland more if… / The woodlands would be managed more if…

1. …:grant schemes offered higher payments for woodland management 2. …:Forestry Commission officers spent more time with me 3. …:gaining certification was easier 4. …:the tax benefits associated with woodland management were more favourable 5. …:the government provided more assistance with disease and pest control 6. …:there were local buyers for woodfuel 7. …:regulations weren't so restrictive 8. …:there was greater availability of trusted and impartial advice 9. …:there was a greater availability of trusted contractors 10. …:a third party prepared a management plan for the woodland for free

(from Qo22 (owners) & Q28 (managers))

BARRIERS: How strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about managing your woodlands:

11. The economic returns from woodland management do not justify the costs involved 12. I do not have enough time to manage my woodland/ The amount of time the owner, myself or a

third party can manage the woodland is limited 13. Managing my woodland is low on my list of priorities/ Managing the woodland is low on the

owner's list of priorities 14. I don't have the necessary skills to manage my woodland/ It's difficult to find people with the right

skills to manage the woodland 15. I do not manage my woodland because I believe it should be left in its natural state/ The

woodland is not managed because the owner believes it should be left in its natural state 16. My/The woodland is too small to warrant active management 17. My/The woodland is too inaccessible to allow active management

(from Qo17(owners) & Q22 (managers))

IMPORTANCE: Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following:

18. Game shooting 19. Public access

(from Q11 (owners & managers))

20. Priority_non_profit

(Factor/means score)

21. Prority_timber_for_profit

(Factor/means score)


Cluster analysis

The selection of appropriate clustering algorithms (i.e. the rules or procedures followed to sort observations) is critical to the effective use of cluster analysis

1. A variety of procedures for forming clusters have been

developed. Most of the commonly used algorithms can be classified into two general types: (i) agglomerative/hierarchical and (ii) iterative/non-hierarchical methods, each representing a unique perspective on the creation of groups. However, different results can be obtained when different methods are applied to the same data

2 and each method has different strengths and weaknesses. Non-hierarchical

procedures have become dominant for segmenting the large data sets typically encountered in marketing. This method requires the number of clusters to be specified at the outset. K-means is used as it performs better than any other clustering algorithm so long as a non-random starting point is specified.

However, segmentation analysis usually begins ‘blind’ without exact prior knowledge of how many groups are present or even whether there are any clusters in the data. A combination of the two types of method has been used in this analysis.

Agglomerative clustering: A hierarchical method is used first in an exploratory ‘structure-seeking’ phase to create cluster solutions and cluster centres.

K-means clustering: the centroids from these exploratory results are then used as starting points in K-means and a series of ‘tests’ are undertaken to choose the optimum number of clusters.

Agglomerative clustering

The objective of this phase was to reveal the number and structure of the clusters that represent the data most effectively. Hierarchical algorithms progress in a stepwise fashion through the data producing a series of solutions ranging from n clusters (where n is the number of objects in the data set) to a solution with only one cluster present. A variety of methods are available and equally numerous are the number of ‘stopping’ rules developed to identify the appropriate number of clusters. Different algorithms use different mathematical procedures to calculate the distance between the clusters. All the algorithms, however, suffer from a number of problems. Firstly, rarely is the underlying structure of a sample known in advance, making it difficult to select the correct algorithm. Secondly, these algorithms make only one pass through the data and therefore poor clustering assignments cannot be modified

3. Nevertheless, agglomerative cluster analysis

is useful for establishing a range of possible cluster solutions and producing initial cluster seeds which can then be used in K-means analysis.

Most hierarchical clustering procedures can handle only a small number of cases and do not consistently produce clusters that are clearly homogenous and well balanced. Consequently, Ward’s method of hierarchical cluster analysis is used here as a starting point

4.

1 Punj, G. & Stewart, D.W. (1983). Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review and suggestions. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 134-48;

Ketchen, D.J. & Shook, C.L. (1996). The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: an analysis and critique. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 441-458.

2 Aldenderfelder, M.S. & Blashfield, R.K. (1984). Cluster Analysis. Beverley Hill, CA: Sage.

3 Hair et al. (1998). Op. Cit.

4 Ward’s method was used to maximise within-cluster homogeneity because it is a frequently used clustering algorithm known to produce stable

and interpretable results (Punj & Stewart 1983). This method is designed to minimize the variance within the clusters as opposed to the variance between the clusters. The distance between two clusters (Squared Euclidean Distance) is the sum of squares between two clusters summed over all variables. In addition, this method was found to produce the best cluster solution in this study when compared to other algorithms. ‘Best’ in this case means the identification of the most meaningful, interpretable and distinguishable segments.


As indicated by the Dendrogram

5 (Figure 1) there is no definitive way of choosing the number of clusters.

This diagram indicates that anywhere between 3 and 12 clusters could be taken forward for analysis. However, lines have been placed on this diagram to indicate the four clearest possible solutions and the groupings can be seen quite clearly from this diagram. In addition to this method, therefore, time was spent at this stage profiling different cluster solutions (three, four, five and twelve) on the basis of key characteristics such the current level of management, objectives, perceived barriers and responsiveness to incentives. The three cluster solution was found to not show enough variation or differentiation between the clusters and the higher number of clusters were found to derive segments with very similar levels of current levels of management or simply taking on the average sample characteristics. Therefore, from this exploratory analysis, it was felt that a four and five cluster solutions were to be taken forward to the next stage.

5 In agglomerative clustering, each individual starts out as its own cluster. In subsequent steps, the two closest individuals are combined into a

new cluster, thus reducing the number of clusters by one in each step. In some steps, groups of individuals formed at an earlier stage may join

together in a new cluster. Eventually, all individuals are grouped into one large cluster. Because the results at the earlier stages are always

nested within the results at a later stage, this can be represented visually as a ‘tree’ graph or dendrogram. The dendrogram is read from left to

right. Vertical lines show joined clusters. The position of the line on the scale indicates the distance at which clusters are joined. The observed

distances are rescaled to fall into the range of 1 to 25, so you do not see the actual distances; however, the ratio of the rescaled distances within

the dendrogram is the same as the ratio of the original distances. In the last few steps, fairly dissimilar clusters are combined. As explained,

cluster analysis works upwards to place every case into a single cluster. Therefore, we end up with a single fork that subdivides at lower levels of

similarity.


Figure 1: Dendrogram of the hierarchical clustering results

12 Clusters

5 Clusters

4 Clusters

3 Clusters


K-means cluster analysis and choosing the best clustering solution

Once a range of likely cluster solutions and cluster ‘centres’ has been established by the agglomerative method, K-means cluster analysis can be used. The cluster means from the agglomerative procedure are used as starting points for a K-means analysis

6. The number of clusters was specified at four and five. Given

these cluster centres, each subject is assigned to the group with the closest centre. The analysis proceeds to re-compute the centre and reassign subjects iteratively to the newly formed clusters with the goal of minimising the variability within clusters whilst maximising the variability between clusters

7. During each

iteration cycle, cases are ‘passed’ from one cluster to another improving the homogeneity of the clusters.

As with factor analysis, cluster analysis presents the problem of choosing the final number of clusters to be used to describe the data structure. However, no standard objective criterion exists to determine the number of clusters. The selection criterion suggested in the literature range from highly subjective to complex mathematical procedures. A combination of statistical and intuitive evaluation methods has been used here.

ANOVA

Using the 12 factor and four z-scores, a one way ANOVA was performed for the different cluster solutions (four & five). This measures the degree of discreteness of the clusters for each of the solutions. The best solution is one where the centres of each cluster (mean (factor) scores on the clustering variables) should be as distant from one another as possible and the cloud of data points surrounding each cluster centre should be as concentrated as possible. Moreover, the differences in mean values of the variables at each cluster centre should be statistically significant.

The ANOVA procedure examines the variability of the observations within each cluster as well as the variability between group means (producing the ‘F’ ratio). Based on these two estimates of variability, conclusions as to the significance of the differences in the means can be drawn. The higher the ‘F’ ratio, the more there is variability between groups compared to within them and the more discrete and concentrated are the clusters. Accordingly, an F ratio was calculated for each variable for each of the cluster solutions, as shown in the following table. This procedure indicates that the five cluster solution may be marginally better than four clusters. As a result, subjective criteria were used to finally decide upon the solution to use.

6 Iterative partitioning methods make more than one pass through the data set, eliminating problems of undesirable early

combinations that are common in hierarchical procedures. By using the cluster centres generated by the prior hierarchical clustering procedure, problems of the cluster results being biased by the order of the observations are alleviated. 7 The iterative clustering procedure places observations in the clustering groups by minimising the sum of the squared

distances from cluster group means. The initial seeds are then replaced by the means of the clusters and the process is repeated until no more changes are made in the clusters (Hair et al., 1998).


Table 2: F Ratio scores for each of the post-hoc cluster solutions

4 clusters 5 clusters

incentives_a_grant_payments 625.871 739.325

incentives_b_FC 288.751 337.220

incentives_c_certification 284.392 335.121

incentives_d_tax_benefit 380.012 504.665

incentives_e_disease 304.277 381.380

incentives_f_woodfuel_buyers 264.260 312.809

incentives_g_regulations 282.407 347.426

incentives_h_advice 325.301 423.911

incentives_i_contractors 246.352 287.826

incentives_j_plan_free 297.035 382.441

barriers_costs 34.292 30.549

barriers_time 29.397 32.922

barriers_low_priority 66.829 58.546

discincentives_skills 25.120 40.469

barriers_natural 94.307 75.926

barriers_small 154.299 110.903

barriers_inaccessible 50.595 43.827

M_priority_non_profit 6.830 7.256

M_priority_timber_for_profit 172.525 221.361

J. Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following: Public access

8.874 7.986

E. Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following: Game shooting

104.203 115.760

TOTAL F-Ratio 4045.927 4797.629


Subjective criterion

In selecting the appropriate number of clusters, two conflicting considerations have to be balanced. On the one hand, if too few clusters are used, information is lost by merging distinct clusters and the groups will tend to be homogeneous and difficult to interpret. On the other hand, if there are too many clusters, one or more may be too small to be meaningful and the benefit of the clustering is diminished. Although statistical considerations described above have been used in this case, the primary criterion for selecting the number of groups was the interpretability of the various solutions, supported by the principle advocated by Späth

8

(1980): ”Cluster analysis … can be regarded as successful… if a data matrix contains a structure which is made clear and meaningful through interpretation of the clustering produced. Primarily, what makes an application of cluster analysis successful is the significant practical application of the clusters it produces.”

(p.12)

Mean values of the variables used to create the clusters and other selected background variables were compared across clusters and substantive judgements were made regarding the meaningfulness of the groups. Comparisons were made as to the ‘separability’ of the groups. On balance, the five cluster results produced the clearest distinguishable segments. In particular, the five cluster solution provided greater delineation between what became the Multi-functional Owners and Profit-seeking Guardians as compared to the four cluster solution. Thus the five cluster solution was selected as the appropriate solution to be examined in more detail.

Profiling on the cluster variables

The following tables present the unweighted data on each variable in the questionnaire, for each segment as well as the total/average for the sample as a whole.

The following colour scheme is used to indicate the relative performance of each segment:

Lowest scoring

segment

Below average Above average Highest scoring

segment

Note: if the question is shaded red, this means the differences between segments are not statistically significant at p<0.05

8 Späth, H. (1980). Cluster analysis algorithms for data reduction and classification of objects. Chichester, UK: Tavistock/Ellis

Horwood.

SEGMENT SIZE Timber

Producers Multi-functional

Owners Profit-seeking

Guardians Aspiring

Managers Disengaged

Conservationists Total/Average

Weighted Percentage 16% 22% 22% 24% 16% 100%

# Total respondents 164 220 217 238 157 996

# Owners 17 164 145 194 137 657

# Managers 147 56 72 44 20 339

Unweighted Percentage 16% 22% 22% 24% 16% 100%

# Total respondents 162 218 214 238 153 985

# Owners 17 164 145 193 132 651

# Managers 145 54 69 45 21 334

OWNERSHIP AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS

Timber



Guardians Aspiring

Managers Disengaged


Q1A. Are you the owner of this area of woodland?

Yes 10.5% 75.2% 67.8% 81.1% 86.3% 66.1%

No 89.5% 24.8% 32.2% 18.9% 13.7% 33.9%

Q4A. What type of owner best describes you/the owner you represent?

Personal (for example, farmer or private woodland owner)

74.1% 76.1% 79.0% 85.7% 90.2% 80.9%

Private forestry or timber

business 10.5% 10.6% 9.8% 3.8% 2.6% 7.5%

Other private business 15.4% 13.3% 11.2% 10.5% 7.2% 11.6%

Q35. Age Under 25 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% .1%

25 - 34 0.7% 2.0% 2.1% 3.6% 0.7% 2.0%

35 - 44 8.6% 6.1% 6.8% 7.3% 5.6% 6.8%

45 - 54 25.0% 26.4% 28.3% 20.9% 14.6% 23.3%

55 - 64 28.6% 29.4% 30.4% 33.2% 25.7% 29.8%

65 - 74 25.0% 26.9% 23.0% 22.3% 31.9% 25.4%

75 - 84 9.3% 7.6% 6.8% 10.0% 20.1% 10.3%

85+ years 2.9% 1.5% 2.6% 2.3% 1.4% 2.1%

Q36. Gender Male 74.4% 83.5% 89.1% 73.6% 71.8% 79.0%

Female 14.4% 13.7% 8.1% 22.1% 26.2% 16.5%

Other (e.g. trust set up by

the family) 11.3% 2.8% 2.8% 4.3% 2.0% 4.4%

QO33. total household income per year from all sour

Up to £9499 0.0% 3.5% 4.5% 6.4% 3.4% 4.5%

£9,500 - £1,499 0.0% 7.1% 7.9% 9.9% 12.5% 9.0%

£17,500 - £29,999 7.7% 15.0% 12.4% 17.7% 21.6% 16.4%

£30,000 - £49,999 23.1% 20.4% 22.5% 15.6% 12.5% 17.8%

£50,000 - £99,999 15.4% 24.8% 23.6% 24.8% 21.6% 23.6%

£100,000 or more 53.8% 29.2% 29.2% 25.5% 28.4% 28.6%

Region East Mid 8.6% 5.0% 5.6% 7.1% 7.2% 6.6%

Eastern 11.7% 11.0% 8.5% 8.8% 8.5% 9.7%

South East and London 17.9% 21.6% 29.6% 28.6% 23.5% 24.7%

North East 4.9% 6.0% 5.6% 4.2% 5.9% 5.3%

North West 6.2% 11.9% 6.1% 5.5% 7.2% 7.4%

South West 18.5% 24.3% 17.8% 21.0% 17.6% 20.1%

West Midlands 12.3% 4.6% 7.0% 10.1% 9.2% 8.4%

Yorkshire & Humber 19.8% 15.6% 19.7% 14.7% 20.9% 17.8%

Q5. Approximately what area does the woodland in question cover [Hectares]? Rebanded

Under 10 36.4% 41.3% 43.9% 71.0% 75.8% 53.6%

10 - 19 9.9% 16.1% 11.2% 8.4% 7.8% 10.9%

20 - 49 9.9% 15.6% 12.6% 5.0% 4.6% 9.7%

50 - 99 10.5% 6.9% 6.5% 0.4% 1.3% 5.0%

100 - 499 11.1% 7.8% 6.5% 1.3% 0.7% 5.4%

Over 500 2.5% 1.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

Other resp 1.2% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% .6%

Don't know 18.5% 10.6% 16.4% 13.9% 9.8% 13.8%

Q6. What type of woodland is it?

Mainly conifer 24.7% 19.7% 9.8% 6.7% 4.6% 12.9%

Mainly broadleaf 32.1% 38.5% 41.6% 48.7% 53.6% 42.9%

Mixed woodland 42.6% 40.8% 47.7% 43.3% 39.2% 42.9%

Don't Know 0.6% 0.9% 0.9% 1.3% 2.6% 1.2%

Q7. Approximately how long has the woodland been in the same ownership (in years)?

< 1 - 4 3.9% 5.2% 1.9% 6.0% 4.7% 4.4%

5 - 49 47.7% 49.5% 46.4% 59.1% 62.2% 52.8%

50 - 249 31.6% 30.7% 37.2% 29.7% 30.4% 32.0%

250 - 999 16.1% 13.7% 14.0% 4.7% 2.7% 10.3%

1000 - 2000 0.6% 0.9% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% .5%

Q8. Was this woodland purchased, inherited, or planted? - DERIVED

Purchased 38.9% 46.8% 33.6% 55.0% 55.6% 46.0%

Inherited 35.8% 35.8% 44.4% 31.5% 26.1% 35.1%

Planted 10.5% 8.7% 8.9% 8.0% 8.5% 8.8%

Purchased + planted 4.9% 2.8% 3.3% 1.7% 5.9% 3.5%

Interited + planted 8.0% 3.2% 4.7% 1.3% 2.6% 3.8%

Purchased + inherited 0.6% 1.4% 1.9% 0.4% 0.7% 1.0%

Purchased + inherited +

planted 0.0% 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% .3%

Dont know 1.2% 0.9% 2.3% 2.1% 0.7% 1.5%

INCOME AND OBJECTIVES

Timber



Guardians Aspiring

Managers Disengaged


Q9. Generally speaking, and taking into account any grants received, is this woodland …

Profit-making 21.6% 14.2% 4.2% 2.1% 2.6% 8.5%

Loss-making 32.1% 33.5% 46.3% 31.9% 26.8% 34.6%

Breaks even 42.0% 45.9% 41.6% 42.4% 48.4% 43.9%

Don't know 4.3% 6.4% 7.9% 23.5% 22.2% 13.0%

Q10 Please indicate how important, if at all, the following activities are in generating income from the woodland

A. (Timber production) 3.51 3.30 3.16 1.61 1.34 2.59

B. (Woodfuel for sale) 2.68 2.80 2.88 1.38 1.26 2.22

C. (Game shooting) 2.59 2.45 3.27 1.52 1.51 2.28

D. (Sports other than shooting - for example, mountain biking, horse

riding or orienteering)

1.47 1.44 1.54 1.23 1.17 1.37

E. (Grants) 3.20 3.10 3.10 1.90 1.51 2.59

Q11 Please indicate how important the woodland is to the owner in terms of the following

A. Timber production 3.58 3.51 3.46 1.78 1.40 2.77

B. Woodfuel for personal

use 2.38 2.99 3.25 2.65 2.33 2.76

C. Woodfuel for sale 2.67 2.67 2.79 1.32 1.18 2.14

D. Space for recreation

and relaxation 2.78 3.16 3.08 3.03 3.03 3.03

E. Game shooting 2.68 2.58 3.78 1.56 1.69 2.47

F. Sports other than

shooting 1.64 1.66 1.83 1.31 1.21 1.54

G. A home for wildlife 3.96 4.23 4.25 4.13 4.18 4.16

H. Landscape and

amenity 3.97 4.03 4.12 3.66 3.62 3.89

I. Shelter or screening 2.65 2.57 2.90 2.76 2.64 2.71

J. Public access 1.92 1.93 1.72 1.52 1.35 1.69

K. Privacy and security 2.87 2.85 3.15 2.92 2.77 2.92

L. As a store of carbon 2.97 3.18 3.20 2.93 2.82 3.03

ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH MANAGED

Timber



Guardians Aspiring

Managers Disengaged


Q12 Please indicate the extent to which the woodland is actively managed for the following:

A. To provide timber 3.47 3.33 3.20 1.65 1.45 2.63

B. To provide woodfuel

for personal use 2.24 2.59 2.75 2.16 1.97 2.37

C. To provide woodfuel

for sale 2.57 2.40 2.53 1.23 1.14 1.97

D. To provide a place for

personal recreation and relaxation

2.50 2.83 2.79 2.57 2.61 2.67

E. For Game shooting 2.49 2.43 3.38 1.53 1.58 2.29

F. Sports other than

shooting 1.46 1.46 1.66 1.29 1.19 1.42

G. For the benefit of

wildlife 3.45 3.71 3.59 3.06 3.26 3.41

H. To help conserve the

local landscape 3.60 3.63 3.58 3.11 3.13 3.41

I. To provide shelter or

screening 2.61 2.52 2.67 2.42 2.33 2.51

J. To provide public

access 1.85 1.82 1.67 1.50 1.23 1.62

K. To provide an

education resource for the local community

1.78 1.78 1.73 1.41 1.37 1.61

Q12_L. To satisfy the

conditions of a grant scheme

3.16 2.80 2.51 1.70 1.49 2.33

Q12 Please indicate the extent to which the woodland is actively managed for the following (% to a very great extent + to a great some extent):

timber 58.5% 52.3% 42.9% 7.6% 1.9% 33%

woodfuel for personal use 20.2% 25.5% 25.5% 15.6% 9.6% 20%

woodfuel for sale 28.4% 24.7% 24.2% 1.7% 0.6% 16%

place for personal

recreation and relaxation 23.9% 32.3% 30.0% 27.8% 32.3% 29%

Game shooting 29.3% 22.8% 49.5% 3.8% 8.3% 23%

Sports other than

shooting 4.9% 7.7% 7.4% 3.8% 1.9% 5%

benefit of wildlife 46.1% 60.1% 56.7% 40.3% 48.7% 51%

conserve the local

landscape 55.8% 60.7% 57.9% 42.1% 49.3% 53%

shelter or screening 27.6% 24.0% 28.0% 21.5% 22.9% 25%

public access 12.8% 12.7% 5.6% 5.4% 1.3% 8%

education resource for

the local community 7.4% 10.0% 5.1% 3.4% 2.6% 6%

satisfy the conditions of a

grant scheme 50.6% 39.4% 27.6% 11.7% 9.7% 28%

LEVEL OF MANAGEMENT

Timber



Guardians Aspiring

Managers Disengaged


Q14 Degree of active management

Q14a The woodland has been actively managed in

the past 90% 78% 72% 40% 44% 64%

Q14b The woodland is

currently actively managed

96% 93% 81% 39% 53% 72%

Q14c The woodland is

likely to be actively managed in the future

96% 98% 93% 55% 56% 80%

Q18/18/20 Management indicators

Do you manage the woodland in compliance

with the UK Forestry Standard?

80% 67% 58% 28% 31% 52%

Do you have a written

management plan for this woodland?

79% 59% 52% 17% 14% 44%

Is this woodland certified under either the FSC or

PEFC schemes? 35% 23% 13% 7% 5% 16%

Is there a felling licence

for this woodland? 65% 52% 39% 7% 9% 34%

Have received a grant to support the management

of the woodland 76% 67% 60% 26% 21% 50%

Capture by official FC statistics

Both a grant and a felling licence

56% 43% 30% 5% 5% 27%

Only a felling licence 7% 8% 5% 3% 4% 5%

Only a grant 18% 22% 27% 18% 14% 20%

Uncertain 8% 8% 15% 14% 12% 12%

Not captured in FC

statistics 10% 19% 23% 60% 65% 36%

Captured in FC statistics 90% 81% 77% 40% 35% 64%

QO16/19. Which, if any, of the following management activities have you or contractors acting on your behalf, undertaken in the last five years

Tree planting 47% 44% 43% 27% 37% 39%

Maintenance operations

including fencing 80% 74% 71% 61% 56% 68%

Installing infrastructure 43% 38% 34% 14% 16% 29%

Thinning 76% 78% 65% 40% 44% 61%

Selective felling 52% 60% 50% 38% 38% 48%

Clear felling 28% 22% 16% 8% 4% 15%

Pest control 81% 72% 83% 39% 27% 61%

Weed control 53% 51% 42% 27% 24% 39%

None 14% 21% 14% 11% 10% 14%

Other 2% 3% 5% 18% 16% 9%

Don't know 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total management actions Total management

actions 4.59 4.38 4.05 2.55 2.45 3.60

BARRIERS Timber



Guardians Aspiring

Managers Disengaged


Q17/22 Barriers - All economic returns do not

justify the costs 2.59 2.83 3.39 3.63 3.25 3.17

not enough time 2.84 2.35 3.01 3.37 2.73 2.88

low on list of priorities 2.20 2.23 2.77 3.42 3.24 2.79

don't have the necessary

skills 2.46 2.06 2.43 2.98 2.33 2.47

believe it should be left in

its natural state 1.70 1.68 1.92 2.71 2.99 2.19

too small 1.73 1.78 2.00 3.18 3.36 2.40

too inaccessible 1.71 1.84 2.24 2.72 2.65 2.24

Q17 Barriers - owners only don't know how best to

manage 1.35 1.75 2.26 3.01 2.29 2.33

cannot access the labour 1.53 2.06 2.45 2.69 2.21 2.35

if I could identify buyers for timber, woodfuel or

other products 1.94 2.44 3.30 2.78 1.95 2.62

Q21 Which, if any of the following barriers, prevent you from participating in a grant scheme to assist you in managing the woodland? (Those without a grant only N=432)

I don’t need a grant to do what I want to do

48% 44% 20% 41% 72% 47%

I don’t know enough

about them 17% 27% 42% 65% 41% 46%

I don’t know how to apply 7% 16% 30% 44% 26% 30%

Application process is too

bureaucratic and time-consuming

17% 36% 48% 34% 22% 32%

Land has to be registered

before applying for a grant

10% 19% 28% 16% 8% 16%

The commitment required

is too long-term~ 14% 11% 16% 23% 17% 18%

Grants restrict the

activities I can undertake in my woodland

21% 28% 38% 26% 17% 25%

Grant payments are too small to justify applying

34% 42% 48% 35% 18% 33%

Grant rates are too

changeable 14% 16% 23% 21% 6% 16%

The conditions attached

to grants are too changeable~

14% 30% 28% 24% 14% 22%

ATTITUDES - OWNERS

Timber



Guardians Aspiring

Managers Disengaged


Q13 Attitudes - owners only A. It is important to me to

conserve my woodland for future generations

4.71 4.62 4.66 4.37 4.48 4.53

B. The woodland is on my land and I should

decide how it should be managed

4.65 4.19 4.50 4.26 4.41 4.34

C. I feel that I am a guardian of not just my woodland but the wider

landscape

4.65 4.37 4.54 4.27 4.32 4.37

D. I should be paid by the government for the

wider benefits my woodland provides

2.12 3.31 3.78 2.94 2.39 3.09

E. When making management decisions

regarding my woodland I consider the wider public

interest

3.12 3.43 3.50 3.12 2.98 3.25

F. There is not much point in owning a

woodland like mine if it is open to public access

3.18 3.10 3.65 3.44 3.48 3.40

G. Agricultural land is

more aesthetically pleasing than woodlands

1.71 2.07 2.38 2.41 2.14 2.25

A. My woodland provides

me with an escape from every-day life

3.12 3.41 3.50 3.47 3.52 3.46

B. My woodland provides me with the chance to get

closer to nature 4.06 4.01 3.87 3.94 3.98 3.95

C. My woodland provides

me with a great deal of personal enjoyment

4.47 4.36 4.27 4.05 4.19 4.21

D. I get a great deal of enjoyment from sharing

my woodland with my family and friends

3.88 4.17 4.15 3.94 3.93 4.04

E. Managing my

woodland is a chore 1.76 2.05 2.40 2.59 2.19 2.31

F. I have enjoyed owning a woodland much more

than I ever thought I would

3.41 3.92 3.78 3.65 3.73 3.76

G. My woodland is probably under-utilised in terms of harvesting wood

or wood products

2.18 3.11 3.63 3.87 3.20 3.45

H. Managing my woodland is much harder

than I ever thought it would be

1.76 2.63 3.15 2.85 2.33 2.73

A. I believe that I have a responsibility to produce timber or woodfuel from

my woodland

3.06 3.54 3.49 2.67 2.20 2.99

B. I believe that woodlands are best left

alone to let nature take its course

1.71 1.90 2.24 2.95 3.28 2.56

C. As a woodland owner

I have a duty to protect habitats and species

4.47 4.33 4.23 4.14 4.27 4.24

D. Cutting down trees is essential for the

management of my woodland

4.24 4.36 4.46 3.63 3.22 3.93

E. Controlling pests such as deer and squirrels is

essential for the management of my

woodland

4.00 4.20 4.51 3.43 3.12 3.82

F. Owning a woodland

has made me more environmentally-aware

3.29 3.80 3.78 3.46 3.44 3.61

A. My woodland is a

valued family asset 3.76 4.31 4.24 3.92 4.05 4.11

B. I would consider

selling my woodland in the future

2.12 2.13 2.15 2.30 1.90 2.14

C. I would consider cutting down my

woodland to make way for a more profitable land

use

1.53 1.69 1.95 1.83 1.52 1.75

D. I have a duty to maintain the woodland for the next generation even if it doesn't make money

4.47 4.23 4.16 4.16 4.36 4.23

E. I manage my woodland in the way it

has always been managed

2.65 3.15 3.35 3.64 3.71 3.44

F. I have always wanted

to own a woodland 3.59 3.56 3.64 3.38 3.34 3.48

A. My woodland is an

important source of income

1.76 2.41 2.58 1.86 1.64 2.11

B. Protecting the natural environment is important but the profitability of my

woodland comes first

2.24 2.56 2.90 2.17 1.99 2.40

C. I do not manage my

woodland to make money 3.76 3.26 3.20 4.12 4.26 3.72

D. If there was decent money to be made out of

woodlands I would manage my woodland

more actively

1.82 3.11 3.94 3.49 2.48 3.25

E. I would like to sell

woodfuel from my woodland in the future

2.65 3.34 3.77 2.75 2.16 3.00

F. Income from woodfuel is a source of motivation

for me to manage my woodland

2.29 2.92 3.51 2.42 2.02 2.71

G. The tax benefits associated with owning

my woodland are important

2.47 3.37 3.68 2.74 2.02 2.97

H. I am content as long as my woodland doesn't

lose money 3.47 3.41 3.60 3.60 3.49 3.53

ATTITUDES - MANAGERS

Timber



Guardians Aspiring

Managers Disengaged


Q20 Attitudes - managers only

A. The owner has other priorities and the

woodland is mainly left unmanaged

1.70 1.78 2.38 3.20 3.29 2.15

B. One of the owner's main aims is to make

money from their woodland

3.38 3.38 2.87 2.16 2.00 3.02

C. One of the owner's main aims is to pass the

woodland onto future generations

4.33 4.30 4.41 3.90 3.81 4.25

D. The owner uses the woodland as a place to

'unwind' 2.74 2.65 2.97 2.67 2.48 2.75

E. The owner considers

woodland management a chore

1.88 2.06 2.12 2.33 2.11 2.03

F. The owner believes that woodlands are best

left alone to let nature take its course

1.81 1.72 1.99 2.90 2.95 2.04

G. The owner sees the woodland as a drain on their financial resources

2.17 2.20 2.75 2.22 1.95 2.29

H. The owner would consider cutting down the

woodland to make way for a more profitable and

use

1.62 1.71 1.80 1.73 1.90 1.70

I. The owner is keen that the woodland is managed

in the way it has always been managed

3.88 3.67 3.47 3.41 3.86 3.70

Q21

The woodland is probably under-utilised in terms of harvesting wood or wood

products

2.39 2.76 3.64 3.59 3.14 2.92

The woodland could be

managed more to provide habitat for wildlife

2.60 3.02 3.29 3.51 3.29 2.98

Q28a

Q28A. Do you think that the woodland could be managed to a greater

extent than it currently is? (% YES)

1% 100% 97% 96% 62% 53%

INCENTIVES Timber



Guardians Aspiring

Managers Disengaged


Q022/Q28 I would manage my woodland more if …

…:grant schemes offered higher payments for

woodland management 1.07 3.79 4.28 3.89 2.23 3.23

...Forestry Commission

officers spent more time with me

1.01 2.51 3.38 3.44 1.99 2.60

…:gaining certification

was easier 1.04 2.64 3.51 3.28 2.02 2.63

…:the tax benefits associated with woodland

management were more favourable

1.04 3.27 4.00 3.55 2.16 2.96

…:the government provided more assistance

with disease and pest control

1.08 3.19 3.91 3.37 2.12 2.88

…:there were local

buyers for woodfuel 1.02 2.53 3.65 3.00 1.92 2.54

…:regulations weren't so

restrictive 1.06 2.69 3.73 3.21 2.14 2.69

…:there was greater

availability of trusted and impartial advice

1.04 2.48 3.50 3.62 2.13 2.68

…:there was a greater

availability of trusted contractors

1.02 2.42 3.44 3.08 1.99 2.50

…:a third party prepared

a management plan for the woodland for free

1.06 2.58 3.62 3.68 2.12 2.75

ADVICE Timber



Guardians Aspiring

Managers Disengaged


Which of the following provide you with Information on woodland management? (NQ023/NQ29) ALL

Books and magazines 73% 74% 76% 57% 50% 66%

Internet 67% 64% 65% 52% 36% 57%

Forestry Commission 68% 60% 60% 32% 18% 48%

Professional body 67% 57% 56% 31% 20% 46%

OWNERS ONLY Friends & Colleagues^ 59% 57% 65% 41% 45% 51%

Other Owners^ 53% 54% 60% 27% 34% 43%

External agents^ 59% 49% 54% 28% 20% 38%

Wider Community^ 35% 47% 39% 16% 14% 29%

Employed agent/forester^ 24% 31% 34% 16% 11% 23%

Local Initiatives^ 12% 25% 24% 12% 8% 17%

MANAGERS ONLY Other agents# 62% 72% 75% 60% 48% 65%

Q24. Are you a member of any of the following organisations?

National Farmers Union 31% 41% 49% 42% 41% 41.2%

Country Land & Business

Association 47% 45% 50% 25% 21% 38.0%

Royal Forestry Society 54% 36% 26% 7% 6% 25.0%

Confor 46% 27% 17% 2% 3% 18.0%

Royal Institution of

Chartered Surveyors 30% 15% 24% 8% 5% 16.1%

Institute of Chartered

Foresters 18% 13% 7% 2% 1% 7.9%

Local Nature Partnership~

6% 6% 7% 3% 2% 4.8%

Woodland Heritage 12% 4% 5% 1% 4.1%

Small Woods Association 4% 7% 3% 2% 1% 3.6%

Tenant Farmers

Association~ 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1.5%

Small Woodland Owners'

Group~ 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% .8%

Other woodland-related

organisation (please specify)~

12% 10% 13% 9% 5% 10.1%

None of the above 13% 21% 11% 37% 43% 24.7%

Don't know 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% .8%

QO25A. Have you ever paid for woodland advice?

Yes 64.7% 64.6% 62.8% 29.5% 25.8% 45.9%

No 35.3% 34.8% 35.9% 65.8% 72.7% 51.9%

Don't know 0.6% 1.4% 4.7% 1.5% 2.2%

QO26. Would you be willing, in principle, to pay for woodland advice?

Yes 58.8% 65.2% 70.3% 54.9% 37.9% 57.6%

No 41.2% 29.9% 21.4% 35.2% 53.0% 34.6%

Don't know 0.0% 4.9% 8.3% 9.8% 9.1% 7.8%


Statistical testing undertaken

Tests have been undertaken where appropriate to determine whether any apparent associations between one variable and another variable are statistically significant (i.e. probable that the result is not likely to just have happened by chance). Where statistical significance is referred to in the report, it is necessary to bear in mind:

(i) Non parametric tests have usually been used to test for statistical significance. There are several reasons for this:

Non parametric tests are more suitable where non-interval data is being tested (i.e. where there is no logical ordering between categories such as between the categories of ‘purchased, inherited or planted’) but also for attitudinal questions anchored at both ends with likely/non likely or agree/disagree. Attitudinal questions are usually considered ordinal as it cannot be presumed that the five points used are of equal increments.

Non parametric tests are also more suitable where observations have not been drawn from a normally distributed population. There is evidence in this sample of skewed, non-normal distributions of some individual Likert items (such as where the majority of people agree or strongly disagree to an item).

Non parametric tests are more suitable where observations have been drawn from independent or non-random population samples. In this study, the way in which the questionnaire was administered means that the sample is dependent on a pre-defined and self-selecting set of individuals and cannot be considered to be a random sample.

The non-parametric test used are Chi square and Fishers Exact test. The latter is used where there are only two x two categories and where sub-sample sizes are small or the data are very unequally distributed among the categories being analysed.

(ii) The alpha level is set at p = .05, which means that there is less than a 5% possibility that the result occurred by chance. If less than 0.05 (p<0.05), the relationship is considered to be significant at the 95% confidence level and if it is less than 0.01(p<0.01) at 99% level.

(iii) It is important to keep in mind that when you conduct a Chi square test with variables that have more than 2 levels and find a significant result, post hoc tests ideally need to be performed in order to determine where the significance lies. Post hoc means “after the fact.” The post hoc test would compare each of the levels against each of the other level and allows you to determine which pairs of cells (levels) are significantly different. However, post hoc analysis has not been undertaken in this study due to the resources it requires. Instead, we have interpreted the figures as explained in the text narratives.

Key predictive Questions for future analysis

As seen above, the segmentation methodology used 21 survey variables (2 of which were themselves a mean score created out of several variables). Further analysis was undertaken to identify the minimum number of questions that would be needed in order to replicate the segments in future surveys.

These ‘golden questions’ are derived statistically by examining the segments produced from the long list of questions and applying discriminant analysis to identify the most ‘powerful’ ones (i.e the ones that best discriminate between the segments).

Which variables discriminate between the segments the most?

Extensive exploratory analysis was undertaken (using ANOVA, Chi Square tests and ordinal regression) with virtually all the variables in the dataset (i.e all of those variables on which the segments were profiled in the above section) to determine which variables stood out as having relatively high discriminatory value between the segments. These were then put in to a discriminant analysis in order to build a predictive model for segment membership and to discard the variables that in this combined analysis add little to the separation of the groups.


In the exploratory analysis variables such as size of land ownership, type of existing woodland, owner versus manager and indeed all relevant variables from the survey were tested. However, the variables used to perform the cluster analysis largely comprised the most powerful variables, although the importance of timber production and the degree of recognition by FC statistics (i.e. whether they had a grant or felling licence) also came through as important. The results of this exercise identified 13 ‘golden questions’ as outlined in Table 3.

Table 3: Each variable’s contribution across all the discriminant function – ranked from highest to lowest

Rank Variables Structure Matrix9

Potency Index10

1 2 3 4

1 Incentive: Grant schemes .600* .205 -.581 .160 0.133

2 Incentive: More time with Forestry Commission

.415 -.075 .052 -.446* 0.066

3 Barrier: The woodland is too small

.070 -.622* .170 .198 0.066

4 Importance: Game shooting .039 .471 .557* .291 0.062

5 Importance: Timber production -.045 .633* -.074 -.274 0.059

6 Incentive: Tax benefits .475* .131 -.193 .138 0.056

7 Incentive: Disease and pest control

.422* .144 -.153 .205 0.054

8 Incentive: More local buyers for woodfuel

.393* .115 .272 .083 0.038

9 Incentive: Less restrictive regulations

.410* .062 .198 .155 0.037

10 Incentive: Trusted contractors .385* .018 .235 -.039 0.033

11 Incentive: Trusted and impartial advice

.436 -.132 .150 -.515* 0.028

12 Incentive: Free management plan .418 -.092 .121 -.494* 0.025

13 FC recognition~ .415 -.075 .052 -.446* 0.006

9 Structure Matrix: this shows the discriminant loadings or correlations between the observed variables and the dimensions created with the

unobserved discriminant functions (dimensions).

10 Potency index: this assesses each variable’s contribution across all the functions. The potency index is a relative measure among all variables

and is indicative of each variable’s discriminating power. It includes both the contribution of a variable to a discriminant function (its discriminant loading) and the relative contribution of the function to the overall solution (a relative measure among the functions based on the eigenvalue). The composite is simply the sum of the individual potency indices across all significant discriminant functions. Interpretation of the figure is limited however, by the fact that it is useful only in depicting the relative position (such as the rank order) of each variable, and the absolute value has no meaning. (Hair et al 1998

10).

* largest absolute correlation between each variable and any discriminant function.

~ derived variable in the dataset with the following value labels: (1) both a grant and a felling licence (2) only a felling licence (3) only a grant (4) uncertain (5) not captured by FC statistics.


Replicating the segments

The questions can be asked either on a standalone website/ one-off survey where people can find out what segment they are in straight away, or on future questionnaires where many people are allocated into segments at once. Either way, the responses that people indicate to each question need to be ‘weighted’ to determine which segments they are in.

Table 4 provides these weighting coefficients. Membership of a segment is determined on a respondent by respondent basis in four steps:

Step 1: The respondent’s answer to each of the Golden Questions is multiplied by the relevant weighting coefficient. This is done for each of the segments (columns) in the table.

Step 2: The products for each question are summed generating a single total score for each respondent for each column in the table.

Step 3: The relevant ‘constant’ is subtracted from each of the column totals.

Step 4: The respondent is allocated to the segment which they score highest once the constant has been subtracted.

Table 4: Weighting coefficients

Timber

Producers

Multi-functional

Owners

Profit-seeking

Guardians

Aspiring Managers

Disengaged Conservati--

onists

1 Incentive: Grant schemes

1.190 5.041 5.013 4.878 2.846

2 Incentive: More time with FC

1.117 2.535 3.560 3.697 2.211

3 Barrier: The woodland is too small

2.423 2.833 3.220 4.563 4.469

4 Importance: Game shooting

1.722 1.994 2.928 1.479 1.329

5 Importance: Timber production

3.049 2.501 2.208 1.378 1.528

6 Incentive: Tax benefits .648 2.402 3.089 2.703 1.574

7 Incentive: Disease and pest control

1.026 2.793 3.354 2.748 1.887

8 Incentive: More local buyers for woodfuel

.738 1.656 2.792 2.306 1.616

9 Incentive: Less restrictive regulations

.900 1.982 2.954 2.591 1.980

10 Incentive: Trusted contractors

1.063 2.055 3.054 2.583 2.009

11 Incentive: Trusted and impartial advice

-.338 .508 1.059 1.373 .108

12 Incentive: Free management plan

.707 1.265 2.060 2.047 1.078

13 FC recognition~ 1.744 1.922 1.956 2.110 2.302

Constant -16.928 -44.082 -67.902 -58.790 -32.212

Fisher's linear discriminant functions.


Reliability of the allocation algorithm

It is inevitable when using a reduced subset of the original survey questions (i.e. not using every single variable that was used in the original segmentation) that the accuracy of the allocation procedure will never be 100%.

Statistically, the minimum requirement is that the model accuracy performs 25% better than would happen by chance. For instance, if there were two equally sized segments there would be a 50/50 chance that someone would be accurately classified in the correct group anyway. For the woodland owner/manager segments, the chance of accurately classifying someone in the correct group is 20% and adding on 25% to this leaves us with an ‘acceptable’ hit ratio of as little as 45%. However, it would not be a very good tool if only one in every two people were allocated to a segment that is meaningful and accurate for them. Therefore, it is desirable to aim for an allocation efficiency of 80%.

Table 5 summarises the accuracy of the algorithm both at the level of all respondents and for each of the five segments. The percentages indicate the proportion of cases that were allocated to the correct segment when the algorithms were applied to the existing survey data using a ‘cross validated’ method which gives the most pessimistic hit ratio. Overall, the accuracy is very good – at the total level, the accuracy of both algorithms is 87.6% and the accuracy for any single segment is over 80% in all cases. Thus we would interpret our model as having accuracy above that expected by chance.

Table 5: Reliability of the allocation algorithm for each segment (% accuracy)

Segment Predicted Accuracy (%)

Overall - 87.6%

Timber Producers Multi-functional Owners

Profit-seeking Guardians Aspiring Managers


96.3% 82.0% 88.3% 85.7% 88.2%

analysis of the potential effects of various influences...

Documents