DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effect of NFM In-Stream Wood Placements on Fish Movement In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effect of NFM In-Stream Wood Placements on Fish Movement In Scotland’s centre of expertise for waters The effect of natural flood management in-stream wood placements on fish movement in Scotland Scotland’s centre of expertise for waters Published by CREW – Scotland’s Centre of Expertise for Waters. CREW connects research and policy, delivering objective and robust research and expert opinion to support the development and implementation of water policy in Scotland. CREW is a partnership between the James Hutton Institute and all Scottish Higher Education Institutes supported by MASTS. The Centre is funded by the Scottish Government. This document was produced by: Jennifer A. Dodd, Matthew Newton and Colin E. Adams, Scottish Centre for Ecology and the Natural Environment (SCENE), University of Glasgow, Loch Lomond, Glasgow G63 0AW. (University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401) Please reference this report as follows: Dodd, J.A., Newton, M & Adams, C.E. (2016) The effect of natural flood management in-stream wood placements on fish movement in Scotland, CD2015_02. Available online crew.ac.uk/publications All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified or stored in a retrieval system without the prior written permission of CREW management. While every effort is made to ensure that the information given here is accurate, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. All statements, views and opinions expressed in this paper are attributable to the author(s) who contribute to the activities of CREW and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders. Cover photograph courtesy of: The James Hutton Institute Acknowledgements: The authors would like to extend their thanks to the members of Steering Group for their input and advice, the attendees and speakers of the workshop at Battleby on the 12th April 2016, and to Dr Colin Bull for his advice during the initial stage of the project. The authors would also like to thank Eleanor Starkey (Newcastle University) and the Haltwhistle Burn Community Project (http://research.ncl.ac.uk/ haltwhistleburn/) for providing pictures of the lattice structure. The authors do not accept responsibility and disclaims any and all liabilities for all loss, injury or damage (direct, indirect or consequential) arising out of, or in connection with, any outcomes relating to adherence with this document and to the external guidance documents referenced and/or linked to in this document. RESEARCH UNDERTAKEN Executive Summary This report provides a review and analysis of information on the passage by fish at wooden obstacles (woody placements), used RESEARCH QUESTION for flood management, in Scotland. The report covers a series of placement types ranging from those permanently in the wetted • What information is available on the passage of fish at stream channel, to those placed on side-bars which are wetted wooden obstacles in small streams? for a low proportion of the year. With an absence of ground • Using that information, produce good practice guidelines tested data, theoretical information from river-barrier assessment for the use of wood in small streams, for the purpose of flood tools combined with the output from an expert panel, provide management, to minimise the impact on fish movement. guidelines for good practice for the use of flood management woody placements in small streams, which minimise the impact MAIN FINDINGS on fish passage. • Wood used in rivers for flood management, is considered a This report should be used in conjunction with SEPA’s Natural positive step towards managing the movement of water Flood Management Handbook, which details the wider in river systems. requirements for the correct siting of woody placements. • The use of in-stream woody placements has the potential to The following steps summarise the fish specific assessment for impact fish movements. woody placements: • The physical characteristics of a woody placement that have » Identify potential site for woody placement following the potential to affect fish include space underneath guidelines provided in SEPA’s Natural Flood Management the structure, structure height, and sizes of the gaps within Handbook. the structure. » Establish whether the site is utilised by fish. This • All fish species have the potential to be affected by the use of includes sites that may only be used by fish for wooden structures, but salmonids, specifically salmon and short periods of the year. No assumption should be trout are highlighted as species of most concern. made about impassable waterfalls, as there may be isolated populations of fish (e.g. resident brown trout) • There is a lack of field-observed and empirical information on upstream. This information should be attained through the movements of fish in streams. discussion with local fisheries organisations, or through electrofishing studies if no information is available. • The impact on fish movement will be minimal if the design details within this report are followed. » If fish population present – follow guidelines. • Any wooden structure placed in a stream has the potential to » If fish population not present – woody placement design move and to change the stream topography. Thus, the not restricted to facilitate fish passage. structural characteristics of the woody placement that permit fish passage must be monitored and maintained to ensure they do not change significantly, resulting in a Wooden placements have been categorised according to structure that presents an impediment to fish passage. fish passage requirements and details about the physical characteristics, which would provide no, or a low, impediment to • This report highlights a large gap in knowledge of fine scale fish movement have been provided. The general categories for temporospatial use of stream habitat by fish. Given the woody placements are: increasing importance of managing this habitat type, there is an urgent requirement to fill this knowledge gap. Category A type placements • The findings within this report will enable organisations Simple timbers (branches removed) spanning the width of the involved with the provision of sustainable flood management stream. These structures are not hydraulically active under less options, required under the Flood Risk Management than bankfull conditions. (Scotland) Act 2009, to install in-stream woody placements that should not impede the migration of fish (in compliance Category B type placements with the Water Framework Directive). Complex timbers (branches retained) spanning the width of the BACKGROUND TO RESEARCH stream. These structures are hydraulically active under most water flow conditions. In Scotland, the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 has established a legislative framework through which the Category C type placements management of flood risk will be achieved by the delivery of more sustainable options. The use of wood in rivers to attenuate Structures that do not span the width of the river. These river flow and alleviate flooding is one such option and is structures may or may not be hydraulically active under less than currently being used by various organisations, stakeholders and bankfull conditions. communities, working together to manage flood risk. The addition of any structure to a watercourse has the potential KEY WORDS to significantly affect the local fauna and flora. At present, the Natural Flood Management, Fish Migration, Woody Placement impact on fish populations of the addition of wood to rivers, for Design the purpose of flood management, is unknown. Glossary of Terms Bankfull conditions – a non-technical term describing a level of Passability – a non-technical term describing the degree to which flow within a stream channel where the water is about to overtop an in-river structure is passable by a fish species/life-stage the banks Simple timber – a branch or tree with all the branches removed Complex timber – a branch or tree with some or all of the such that the timber is similar to a post branches retained Smolt – the life history stage of a juvenile salmon or trout when Downstream migration - the general (active or passive) movement an individual becomes silver in appearance and migrates from downstream of fish usually, but not always, associated with freshwaters to the sea for the first time specific stages of a species life history (e.g. downstream migration of salmon or trout smolts; downstream movement of silver eels) Woody placement – an arrangement of wooden timbers used within and/or across the stream channel Free passage – the unrestricted movement of fish to fulfil all essential elements of their life-cycle, such as growth and Upstream migration – the active movement upstream of fish reproduction* usually, but not always, associated with specific stages of a species life history (e.g. upstream migration of adult salmon or trout to High flow – a non-technical term referring to river flows that are spawning grounds; upstream movement of juvenile eels) elevated from the average conditions, for that time of year Vertical height – the physical height of a woody structure from its Hydraulic head/height – the difference in water level between lowermost point to the highest point (cf hydraulic height) either the water flowing over a structure, or the height of a structure (whichever is higher) to the top of the water level *SEPA guidelines regarding engineering works within river immediately below a structure (cf vertical height) systems “The authorised activities should
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IUCN NCUK River Restoration & Biodiversity Expert Workshop Report
    IUCN NCUK River restoration & biodiversity expert workshop report th th 5 and 6 November 2014 Published by CREW – Scotland’s Centre of Expertise for Waters. CREW connects research and policy, delivering objective and robust research and expert opinion to support the development and implementation of water policy in Scotland. CREW is a partnership between the James Hutton Institute and all Scottish Higher Education Institutes supported by MASTS. The Centre is funded by the Scottish Government. This document was produced by: Stephen Addy, Susan Cooksley and Nikki Dodd The James Hutton Institute Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH Please reference this report as follows: Addy, S., Cooksley, S., and Dodd, N. (2015), IUCN NCUK River restoration & biodiversity expert workshop report, 5th and 6th of November 2014, CREW project number CRW2014_10. Available online at: crew.ac.uk/publications Dissemination status: Unrestricted. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, modified or stored in a retrieval system without the prior written permission of CREW management. While every effort is made to ensure that the information given here is accurate, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. All statements, views and opinions expressed in this paper are attributable to the author(s) who contribute to the activities of CREW and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders. Cover photograph courtesy of: Stephen Addy (the Rottal Burn, Angus, Scotland in July
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Approach and Land
    Ecosystem Approach & Land Use Workshop Report 28th June 2013 Ecosystem Approach & Land Use Workshop Report Laurie Barant, Justin Irvine and Kirsty Blackstock Banchory Lodge Hotel, Banchory 28th June 2013 This document reports on the Regional Land Use Pilot and the Ecosystem Approach workshop. This activity followed the launch of the Dee Catchment Partnership Business Plan (http://www.theriverdee.org/). The report reflects the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the Dee Catchment Partnership, Aberdeenshire Council or James Hutton Institute. Acknowledgments This document was prepared by Laurie Barant, Justin Irvine and Kirsty Blackstock from the James Hutton Institute. It is based on the contributions of the plenary speakers, the workshop leaders (see Appendix One: Agenda) and the participants (see Appendix Two: List of Attendees). Thanks to the following facilitators and scribes from the James Hutton Institute: Katina Tam, Anja Byg and Kerry Waylen; and to Susan Cooksley and Dan Ward of the Dee Catchment Partnership for their assistance with organising the event. Thanks to the participants for their insightful and useful comments. The research was undertaken using funding from the Ecosystem Services Theme of the Scottish Government Environmental Change Programme 2011-2016. The specific research was not directly commissioned or endorsed by Scottish Government. Contacts Research on Ecosystem Approach: Justine Irvine: [email protected] Dee Catchment Partnership: Susan Cooksley: [email protected] Regional Land Use Pilot: Irina Birnie: [email protected] 1 Ecosystem Approach & Land Use Workshop Report 28th June 2013 Summary The aim of the workshop was to consider what an Ecosystem Approach can do for land use in Aberdeenshire.
    [Show full text]
  • Monroe County Soil & Water Conservation District Fish Program
    Monroe County Soil & Water Conservation District Fish Program Catalog Inside Triploid Grass Carp………………….2 Fathead Minnows…....3 Channel Catfish……...4 Koi (no longer offered).…..5 Yellow Perch………...6 Largemouth Bass..…...7 Fish Stocking Program The Monroe County Soil and Water Conservation District’s fish program is a Rainbow Trout……….8 biannual event, offered in spring and summer each year. Harsh winters cause many fish kills in ponds throughout Monroe County, and the Soil and Water Conservation District offers this program to help restock ponds. The species Black Crappie………..9 typically available for stocking include, but are not limited to: Pumpkinseed……….10 Triploid grass carp (10-12”), Catfish (6”), Fathead minnows (1-1.5”), Yellow Perch (2-3" or 4-6”) and Largemouth Bass (2-3” or 4-6”) Barley Straw……......11 You will need to bring 20 gallons of pond water for every 6 Grass Carp, 30 Fish Habitat Spheres..12 Catfish, 30 Goldfish, 500 minnows, 100 Bass, or 150 Perch for a travel time of 30-45 minutes. Please Do NOT use tap water! Use pond water and be sure to bring a cover for the container(s) you’ll be using, so the water doesn’t splash and your fish can’t escape. Five gallon pails, old coolers, trash cans or other similar containers will work. Monroe County Soil and Water Conservation District 145 Paul Road, Building #5 Rochester, NY 14624 (585) 753-7380 Monroe County Soil & Water http://www.monroecountyswcd.org/ Conservation District Providing Today, Protecting Tomorrow This document has been produced to provide a summary of all the species that MCSWCD offers Fish Catalog Page 2 Triploid Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) Photo courtesy of New York State Department of Conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • A Vision for Rural Areas for 2040, Responses to Such Questions Are Required to Enable Coordinated and Aligned Efforts for Its Realisation
    A VISION FOR RURAL AREAS MAP Discussion Paper LONG-TERM VISION FOR RURAL AREAS: CONTRIBUTION FROM 20 SCIENCE- SOCIETY-POLICY PLATFORMS MAP DISCUSSION PAPER RURAL SCOTLAND AND RIVER DEE CATCHMENT Version 07/11/2020 Contact information Facilitators | David Miller, Katherine Irvine and Susan Cooksley Authors: David Miller, Katherine Irvine, Susan Cooksley, Eric Baird, John Barr, Charles Bestwick, Jackie Brierton, Ewen Cameron, Lorna Dawson, Andy Ford, Bob Forrest, Diarmid Hearns, Jim Hume, Derek MacDonald, Willie Nisbett and Roger Owen Suggested citation: Miller, D., Irvine, K., Cooksley, S., Baird, E., Barr, J., Bestwick, C., Brierton, J., Cameron, E., Dawson, L., Ford, A., Forrest, B., Hearns, D., Hume, J., MacDonald, D., Nisbett, W. and Owen, R. 2020. UK Multi-Actor Platform Discussion Paper on Long-term vision for rural areas: contribution from 20 Science-Society-Policy platforms. H2020 Sustainable Hub to Engage into Rural Policies with Actors Project (SHERPA), pp. 37. Page | 1 SHERPA receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 862448 MAP Discussion Paper| Long-term vision for rural areas Names and Affiliations of the Contributors from the Multi-Actor Platforms Eric Baird, Private individual John Barr, Private individual Charles Bestwick, Director Scottish Environment, Food and Agriculture Research Institutes Gateway Jackie Brierton, Chief Executive Officer GrowBiz Scotland Ewen Cameron, Independent Member North East Scotland Biodiversity Partnership, and Convenor
    [Show full text]
  • Firth Farm Carmyllie, Arbroath DD11 2QT Bellingram.Co.Uk
    Firth Farm Carmyllie, Arbroath DD11 2QT bellingram.co.uk An arable farm extending to about 71 ha (175 acres) with principal farmhouse and a range of farm buildings Carnoustie 4 miles, Dundee 11 miles, St Andrews 24 miles, Aberdeen 57 miles • Vestibule and reception hall • 3 public rooms • Dining kitchen • WC/laundry room • 4 double bedrooms • Family bathroom • Range of farm buildings • About 71 ha (175 acres) Viewing Description Strictly by appointment with Bell Ingram Perth office - 01738 621121. Dating from around 1870, Firth Farmhouse is a two storey traditional stone building with a slate roof. The farmhouse is centrally located within the subjects and the adjacent farm buildings lie Directions to the north. Leaving Dundee from the Kingsway East, proceed along the A92 dual carriageway for about 8.8 miles, leaving at the exit for Muirdrum. Travel north on the B9128 Forfar road and after Accommodation about 2.8 miles turn right onto the B961 signposted to Redford and Froickheim and after 0.3 The entrance vestibule has a tiled floor and a coat cupboard and opens through to an L shaped hallway where there is further storage space. To the left is the first public room which miles the entrance to Firth Farm is on the right. is currently being used as a dining room. It has a south facing window to the front and press cupboard. Situation Firth Farm lies approximately five miles north of Carnoustie which is well known for the To the right is the dining kitchen which has two windows. It is fitted with base and wall Carnoustie Golf Links that often hosts the Open Golf Championship.
    [Show full text]
  • Transformative Science 2016 - 2021 New Vision of How the World Was Formed and How It Is Constantly Evolving
    Our global collaboration Our New Corporate from Scotland to the world, and back again Plan Explained The James Hutton Institute collaborates and works in numerous global locations, The James Hutton Institute is a well-respected and globally recognised research exporting and importing knowledge, impact, innovation, skills, learning organisation delivering fundamental and applied science to drive the sustainable and experience. use of land and natural resources. The new James Hutton Institute Corporate Plan 2016-2021 sets out our goals for the next five years set within the context of much longer-term horizon scanning. It describes how we will tackle the scientific challenges needed to help the world, achieve our corporate goals, deliver for our customers and stakeholders and grow the financial stability of the James Hutton Group. The James Hutton Institute has a long history through its legacy organisations in providing independent, world-class scientific research tackling some of the world’s biggest challenges relating to food and environmental security and sustainable development. These are set in the context of significant global changes in population, increased demand for natural resources, a changing climate and economic and geopolitical policy drivers. Our scientists follow the inspiration of James Hutton, after whom we are named, and deliver global impact through excellent science, collaboration and innovation. He was willing to challenge accepted wisdom to create a Transformative Science 2016 - 2021 new vision of how the world was formed and how it is constantly evolving. The observations he made on Scotland’s rocks, soils and landscapes forever changed the way we think about the world.
    [Show full text]
  • New Pathways – New People Securing the Sustainability of Scottish Farming
    New Pathways – New People Securing the Sustainability of Scottish Farming Sustaining a cohort of new entrants Government to explore new and alternative business models is crucial to the ongoing vitality, for new entrant farming businesses (NEWBIE project), and to support farmer-to-farmer demonstration to encourage resilience, and competitiveness of farmers, crofters and landowners to consider options for agriculture and rural areas in Europe. knowledge exchange and support for new entrants (NEFERTITI project). New entrant farmers and crofters are wellsprings Farmers and advisors are encouraged to participate in the of entrepreneurship and innovation, as they bring networking opportunities arising from these projects, to share unique skills, networks, income streams and experiences and gain support with on-farm demonstrations. Links to the project webpages can be found below or by agricultural production pathways to the agricultural speaking directly to the Hutton researchers involved. sector. ‘New entrants’ can be individuals or families These projects seek to answer the following questions: initiating farming or crofting enterprises for the first time, or as successors to previous farming • How can aspiring new entrant farmers/crofters access the generations. Such innovation is important to the agricultural sector in Scotland? How can key barriers such as access to land and capital be removed? productivity and sustainability of Scottish farming. • What types of novel business models exist and where can In Scotland, the high cost of land in some regions and limited new entrants look for business support? availability of tenancies have impacts for those who wish • How can existing farmers/crofters be encouraged to pass to enter farming as new entrants, as do challenges around on their knowledge and experience to those aspiring to join access to capital and skills development.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Online Mapping Applications for Socio-Economic Data: Their Use and Impact
    Exploring online mapping applications for socio-economic data: their use and impact Workshop report Jonathan Hopkins* and Andrew Copus Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences The James Hutton Institute *: [email protected] This workshop took place as part of the “Web-based mapping for open access – building capacity and exploring user preferences” project, funded by the Macaulay Development Trust. The workshop contributed to Work Package 1 of this work. 1 Purpose of document and research aims This document summarises the activities and discussions which took place at a workshop “Exploring online mapping applications for socio-economic data: their use and impact” which took place at the COSLA Conference Centre in Edinburgh on the 3rd October 2016. This workshop was held as part of the project “Web-based mapping for open access – building capacity and exploring user preferences”. The specific aim of the first work package of the project was to “…assess ways in which web mapping facilities can be made more accessible and useful to end users, and can deliver policy impact”. Additionally, during the workshop introduction, three key research questions were noted: How are online mapping applications for socio-economic data used by different groups? How can they be improved/made more effective? How can they be used to generate impact and influence action? And two broader aims for the workshop event itself were recorded: Knowledge exchange, learning and discussion between professional end users, people involved in mapping tools, and researchers Open, informal and useful discussions Workshop organisation and timetable The ‘end users’ of online mapping tools for socio-economic data have been recently described based on the professions of Twitter users who shared the UK-based DataShine and LuminoCity websites1, and five ‘key groups’ of users of the DataShine site have also been identified: the private, public and non-profit sectors, teaching staff, and members of the public2.
    [Show full text]
  • James Hutton Institute Response to the Consultation on the Scottish
    Response to the Consultation on the Scottish Household Survey from the James Hutton Institute Consultation Questions Section A Use of SHS 1. What are the main social survey topics you use in the SHS? Please tick all that apply. Please distinguish between the topics in your following answers. HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEW X Household composition & characteristics of all occupants X Employment status of the highest income householder X Household income from employment and other sources X Health/disability X Driving Transport – Cars, fuel spend, and bicycles X Accommodation - Type of property, tenure, housing aspirations SHCS social survey – Heating patterns, repairs, adaptations X SHCS social survey – Household energy efficiency measures and renewables X Internet access X Recycling X Savings and household finances, including housing costs (mortgage and rent) X Children in the household (childcare, schools, and travel to school) RANDOM ADULT INTERVIEW X Key adult characteristics X Health/disability and caring responsibilities X Accommodation/housing experiences X Neighbourhoods and community safety (including perception of local crime rate and local police performance, harassment and discrimination) X Education - Qualifications X Employment/economic activity X Transport – Travel Diary X Transport – Use of private/public transport, congestion X Perceptions of local government and services Participation in sports activities Participation in cultural activities X Environment – Access to the outdoors, green space, land use X Environment – Climate change X Internet access and use Volunteering Other – please specify 14 2. What do you use the SHS for? We are particularly interested in how analysis of SHS data is used for informing, monitoring and evaluating policy and practice decisions, including examples of where analysis has influenced decision making.
    [Show full text]
  • UK Plant Sciences Federation Translation Working Group Implementation Plan First Published
    UK Plant Sciences Federation Translation Working Group implementation plan First published: November 2014 This report was produced by an independent working group convened under the UK Plant Sciences Federation. All views, unless otherwise noted, are those expressed at the working group meetings, and are not necessarily those of the convening groups. Working group members Belinda Clarke FSB Cluster Director, Agri-Tech East (Chair) Neil Bragg Chairman, Horticultural Development Company (HDC); Non-Executive Director, Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) Jan Chojecki MSB Managing Director, Plant Bioscience Limited (PBL) Katie Field Research Fellow, University of Sheffield David Gardner CEO, Innovation for Agriculture (IfA)/ Royal Agricultural Society of England (RASE) Thomas Howard Shell Open Innovation Independent Research Fellow, University of Exeter Lara Husain AMSB Employer Engagement Officer, Society of Biology (Minute Secretary) Smita Kurup Research Leader, Rothamsted Research Rick Mumford MSB Head of Plant Science, Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) Lars Østergaard FSB Head of Crop Genetics, John Innes Centre Sarah Perfect FSB Global R&D Licensing and Collaboration Manager, Syngenta (UKPSF Executive Committee) Adam Price Professor of Plant Molecular Genetics, University of Aberdeen Rod Scott Professor of Biology and Head of Department, University of Bath Mimi Tanimoto MSB Executive Officer, UKPSF (Coordinator) Lesley Torrance FSB Head of Cell and Molecular Sciences Group, The James Hutton Institute; Professor in Biology, University of St Andrews Scope In a recent review by the UKPSF, UK plant scientists identified knowledge exchange as the biggest weakness in the UK’s research and funding strategy. Although plant science research has led to a broad range of intellectual properties, and despite considerable national activity in this area, there remains unlocked potential for translating basic scientific knowledge into useful applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86
    2009. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86 THE "LOST" JORDAN AND HAY FISH COLLECTION AT BUTLER UNIVERSITY Carter R. Gilbert: Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA ABSTRACT. A large fish collection, preserved in ethanol and assembled by Drs. David S. Jordan and Oliver P. Hay between 1875 and 1892, had been stored for over a century in the biology building at Butler University. The collection was of historical importance since it contained some of the earliest fish material ever recorded from the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Kansas, and also included types of many new species collected during the course of this work. In addition to material collected by Jordan and Hay, the collection also included specimens received by Butler University during the early 1880s from the Smithsonian Institution, in exchange for material (including many types) sent to that institution. Many ichthyologists had assumed that Jordan, upon his departure from Butler in 1879. had taken the collection. essentially intact, to Indiana University, where soon thereafter (in July 1883) it was destroyed by fire. The present study confirms that most of the collection was probably transferred to Indiana, but that significant parts of it remained at Butler. The most important results of this study are: a) analysis of the size and content of the existing Butler fish collection; b) discovery of four specimens of Micropterus coosae in the Saluda River collection, since the species had long been thought to have been introduced into that river; and c) the conclusion that none of Jordan's 1878 southeastern collections apparently remain and were probably taken intact to Indiana University, where they were lost in the 1883 fire.
    [Show full text]
  • TARRN 2018 – Think-Piece– Annie Mckee, the James Hutton Institute
    A. McKee, 16th March 2018 TARRN 2018 – Think-Piece– Annie McKee, The James Hutton Institute Future property ownership and the impact on rural sustainability Introduction Land is the ultimate resource, upon which all prospects for development and production are derived. The ownership and management of land are fundamental to society, and land tenure is said to ‘govern the relationship between people and the environment’ (Forbord et al., 2014). Land tenure is described as the complex ‘bundle’ of property rights (Munton, 2009), based on institutions and policies, which determine “how land and its resulting resources are accessed, who can benefit from these resources, for how long and under what conditions” (Robinson et al., 2014: 282). It is critical for society to evaluate and renegotiate the institutions of property ownership and use, and property rights are interconnected with the sustainability of rural areas. This think-piece aims to explore the emerging literature on, theory of and potential for new ways of property ownership and associated property rights (cf. Hodge and Adams, 2012; Wittman et al., 2017; Hoffman, 2018), and the implications of these shifts in perspective on property rights in resolving issues of inequality, social justice, and sustainability (i.e. economic, social, and environmental). In particular, the think-piece will explore knowledge and understanding on progressive property rights theory, which promotes a norm of social obligation in property rights (Lovett, 2011; Rosser, 2013; Alexander et al., 2009) (Section 1). The think-piece will draw on learning regarding partial or ‘plastic’ property rights, where mutual cooperation is necessary to underpin successful outcomes from the land resource (Wolf, 2017; Roberts and McKee, 2015).
    [Show full text]