Recreational access to private land in England and Wales: public good; private interest

Since the Eighteenth Century the protection of public recreational access to private land has been maintained by the state through a mixture of legal rights of passage and the safeguarding of certain de facto access rights. While this situation has been modified in the last fifty years to facilitate some formalisation of access arrangements and landowner compensation in areas of high recreational pressure and low legal accessibility, recent policies indicate that a shift from public to private rights is underway. At the core of this paradigm shift are the new access payment schemes introduced as part of the restructuring of the European Common Agricultural Policy. Under these schemes landowners are now paid for 'supplying' recreational access, with the state, as the former upholder of citizen rights, now assuming the duplicitous position of further underwriting private property ownership through the effective commodification of access, while simultaneously proclaiming significant improvements in citizens' access rights.

Partnership in the provision of recreational access: the reconstruction of the public interest in private land in England and Wales

This paper examines the evolution of public rights of access to private land in England and Wales. Since the Eighteenth Century the administration and protection of these rights has been though a form of public/private partnership in which the judiciary, while maintaining the dominance of private property, have safeguarded de facto public access by refusing consistently to punish simple trespass. While this situation has been modified, principally by post-World War II legislation, to allow for some formalisation of access arrangements and consequent compensation to landowners in areas of high recreational pressure and low legal accessibility, recent policy initiatives suggest that the balance of the partnership has now shifted in favour of landowners. In particular, the new access payment schemes, developed by the UK Government in response to the European Commission's Agri-Environment Regulations, identify the landowner as the beneficiary of the partnership, financed by tax revenue and justified on the spurious basis of improved 'access provision'. As such the State, as the former upholder of citizen rights, now assumes the duplicitous position of underwriting private property ownership through the commodification of access, while proclaiming a significant improvement in citizens' access rights.

Impact of externalities on sustainable development: evidence from public-private partnerships in Kazakhstan and Russia

Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the influence of public-private partnerships (PPPs) on social and economic conditions in Kazakhstan and Russia from a public economics perspective, namely, through the lens of a market failure and PPPs’ negative externalities. Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on the concept of a market failure and using the externalities perspective, the paper investigates whether partnerships are instrumental in solving market problems, which is illustrated by the evidence from ongoing PPP projects in Kazakhstan and Russia. Findings – Results show that citizens face expansion of monopolistic trends in the service provision and decreased availability of public services. Additionally, the government support to partnerships recreates a negative externality in the form of a higher risk premium on loan interest rates that banks use to finance PPPs. The partnerships’ impact on sustainable development often appears detrimental, as they significantly intensify the struggle between sub-national governments for increased transfers from the national budget. Practical implications – The government agencies must incorporate the appraisal of the PPP externalities and their effects on the society in the decision-making regarding the PPP formation. Originality/value – The authors suggest that, although government is interested in PPPs’ positive externalities, in reality many negative externalities may offset the positive spillover effects. As a result, the partnerships’ contributions to economic and social sustainability remain controversial. Extending the value-for-money concept to incorporate the assessment of PPP externalities might significantly enhance the partnership conceptualisation by more comprehensive and accurate assessment of PPPs’ economic and social value.

Private industrial project management: a systems-based case study

The technique of linear responsibility analysis is used for a retrospective case study of a private industrial development consisting of an extension to existing buildings to provide a warehouse, services block and packing line. The organizational structure adopted on the project is analysed using concepts from systems theory which are included in Walker's theoretical model of the structure of building project organizations (Walker, 1981). This model proposes that the process of building provision can be viewed as systems and subsystems which are differentiated from each other at decision points. Further to this, the subsystems can be viewed as the interaction of managing system and operating system. Using Walker's model, a systematic analysis of the relationships between the contributors gives a quantitative assessment of the efficacy of the organizational structure used. The causes of the client's dissatisfaction with the outcome of the project were lack of integration and complexity of the managing system. However, there was a high level of satisfaction with the completed project and this is reflected by the way in which the organization structure corresponded to the model's propositions.

Social interactions and resource ownership in two private protected areas of Paraguay

This paper describes the results of field research to dissect how social interactions differ between two reserves in Paraguay having very different styles of governance. The two reserves were Mbaracayu Natural Forest Reserve (Reserva Natural del Bosque de Mbaracayti, RNBM) and San Rafael Managed Resource Reserve (Reserva de Recursos Manejados San Rafael, RRMSR). RNBM is a private reserve owned by a non-governmental organisation. while RRNISR is a publicly-managed reserve, albeit with a substantial degree of private land ownership. Both reserves are intended to protect Atlantic Forest, one of the five world biodiversity 'hotspots', and also one of the most highly threatened. Each reserve and its buffer zone comprises a set of stakeholders, including indigenous communities and farmers, and the paper explores the interactions between these and the management regime. Indeed, while the management regimes of the two reserves are different, one being highly top-down (RNBM) and the other more socially inclusive (RRMSR), the issues that they have to deal with are much the same. However, while both management regimes will readily acknowledge the need to address poverty, inequality appears to be a far more sensitive issue. Whereas this may be expected for the privately-owned RNBM it is perhaps more surprising in RRNISR even when allowing for the fact that much of the land in the latter is in private hands. It is argued that the origins of this sensitivity rest within the broader features of Paraguayan society, and the prevalence of private land ownership. Yet ironically, it is the inequality in land ownership that is perhaps the most significant threat to conservation in both reserves. Therefore, while reserve-level analyses can provide some insight into the driving forces at play in the interaction between conservation and sustainable management, larger scales may be necessary to gain a fuller appreciation of the dynamics operating at site level. Even in a society with a history of centralised control these dynamics may be surprising. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

What is the new medicines use review ‘patient survey’ attempting to capture in the context of existing patient satisfaction with pharmacy questionnaires and a new conceptual framework?

The community pharmacy service medicines use review (MUR) was introduced in 2005 ‘to improve patient knowledge, concordance and use of medicines’ through a private patient–pharmacist consultation. The MUR presents a fundamental change in community pharmacy service provision. While traditionally pharmacists are dispensers of medicines and providers of medicines advice, and patients as recipients, the MUR considers pharmacists providing consultation-type activities and patients as active participants. The MUR facilitates a two-way discussion about medicines use. Traditional patient–pharmacist behaviours transform into a new set of behaviours involving the booking of appointments, consultation processes and form completion, and the physical environment of the patient–pharmacist interaction moves from the traditional setting of the dispensary and medicines counter to a private consultation room. Thus, the new service challenges traditional identities and behaviours of the patient and the pharmacist as well as the environment in which the interaction takes place. In 2008, the UK government concluded there is at present too much emphasis on the quantity of MURs rather than on their quality.[1] A number of plans to remedy the perceived imbalance included a suggestion to reward ‘health outcomes’ achieved, with calls for a more focussed and scientific approach to the evaluation of pharmacy services using outcomes research. Specifically, the UK government set out the main principal research areas for the evaluation of pharmacy services to include ‘patient and public perceptions and satisfaction’as well as ‘impact on care and outcomes’. A limited number of ‘patient satisfaction with pharmacy services’ type questionnaires are available, of varying quality, measuring dimensions relating to pharmacists’ technical competence, behavioural impressions and general satisfaction. For example, an often cited paper by Larson[2] uses two factors to measure satisfaction, namely ‘friendly explanation’ and ‘managing therapy’; the factors are highly interrelated and the questions somewhat awkwardly phrased, but more importantly, we believe the questionnaire excludes some specific domains unique to the MUR. By conducting patient interviews with recent MUR recipients, we have been working to identify relevant concepts and develop a conceptual framework to inform item development for a Patient Reported Outcome Measure questionnaire bespoke to the MUR. We note with interest the recent launch of a multidisciplinary audit template by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) in an attempt to review the effectiveness of MURs and improve their quality.[3] This template includes an MUR ‘patient survey’. We will discuss this ‘patient survey’ in light of our work and existing patient satisfaction with pharmacy questionnaires, outlining a new conceptual framework as a basis for measuring patient satisfaction with the MUR. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the NHS Surrey Research Ethics Committee on 2 June 2008. References 1. Department of Health (2008). Pharmacy in England: Building on Strengths – Delivering the Future. London: HMSO. www. official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7341/7341.pdf (accessed 29 September 2009). 2. Larson LN et al. Patient satisfaction with pharmaceutical care: update of a validated instrument. JAmPharmAssoc 2002; 42: 44–50. 3. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (2009). Pharmacy Medicines Use Review – Patient Audit. London: RPSGB. http:// qi4pd.org.uk/index.php/Medicines-Use-Review-Patient-Audit. html (accessed 29 September 2009).

Women and writing c1340-c1650; the domestication of print culture

The transition from medieval manuscript to early printed book is currently a mmajor topic of academic interest, but has received little attention in relation to women's involvement. The essays in this volume both add female names to the list of those authors who created English Literature, and examine women's responses to older texts. Taking its cue from the advances made by recent work on manuscript culture and book history, this volume also includes studies of material evidence. These reveal women's participation in the making of books, and also the traces they left behind when handling individual volumes. Finally, studies of women's roles in relation to apparently ephemeral texts, such as letters, pamphlets and almanacs, challenge traditional divisions between public and private spheres and between manuscript and print.