Change We can Believe in? Reviewing Studies on the Conservation Impact of Popular Participation in Forest Management

This article presents a review of methods in 60 empirical studies on forest conservation impact of popular participation in forest management. The review illustrates a high degree of variance in methods among the studies, and shows that a majority of the studies could benefit from a stronger focus o...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Conservation and society 2009-04, Vol.7 (2), p.71-82
Main Authors: Lund, Jens Friis, Balooni, Kulbhushan, Casse, Thorkil
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Case studies
Community
Community forestry
Company business management
conservation
Denmark
Developing countries
Ecology
Environment
Environmental impact analysis
Environmental research
Evaluation
forest
Forest conservation
Forest cover
Forest ecology
Forest management
Forest resources
Forestry
Forestry development
Forestry policy
Forestry research
impact evaluation
LDCs
Management
Methods
participation
R&D
Research & development
Review Article
Social aspects
Sustainable development
Sustainable forest management
Sustainable forestry
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4570-4d3bf46ac7488cf1a161ba56f6f5c5db4d265f7030f18e869a0be3e80d47d853
cites
container_end_page 82
container_issue 2
container_start_page 71
container_title Conservation and society
container_volume 7
creator Lund, Jens Friis
Balooni, Kulbhushan
Casse, Thorkil
description This article presents a review of methods in 60 empirical studies on forest conservation impact of popular participation in forest management. The review illustrates a high degree of variance in methods among the studies, and shows that a majority of the studies could benefit from a stronger focus on one or more of the following three areas: (i) the empirical verification and characterisation of popular participation as it exists on the ground, (ii) the indicators of impact and the method used to assess them, and (iii) the disentanglement of the effect of popular participation from other developments in the study area that may impact on forest condition. The variation in methods inhibits comparisons and meta-analyses, as well as questions the basis on which policy recommendations on popular participation in forest management are made. Based on the review, we provide recommendations for future evaluations of the conservation impact of popular participation in forest management.
doi_str_mv 10.4103/0972-4923.58640
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_06ae96eb69ef42b884e6a5b006275b5c</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A216465918</galeid><jstor_id>26392966</jstor_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_06ae96eb69ef42b884e6a5b006275b5c</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A216465918</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4570-4d3bf46ac7488cf1a161ba56f6f5c5db4d265f7030f18e869a0be3e80d47d853</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNks9rFDEUxwdRsFbPnoTgzcNsM5MfkzlJHdq6sNLSFjyGTOZlmmU2WZPsqv-92R0pLHiQHBK-7_O-vCTfonhf4QWtMLnAbVOXtK3JgglO8YviLCusJBUhL4_nufq6eBPjGmNKSNueFal7Um4E9B2QVg59gcnCHpB1n9E97C38tG5ED2k3WIjIO5SeAHXeRQh7lWwWlput0gl5g-78djepgO5USFbb7Vy3Dl37ADGhb8qpETbg0tvilVFThHd_9_Pi8frqsftarm5vlt3lqtSUNbikA-kN5Uo3VAhtKlXxqleMG26YZkNPh5oz02CCTSVA8FbhHggIPNBmEIycF8vZdvBqLbfBblT4Lb2y8ij4MMrjqBNIzBW0HHregqF1LwQFrliPMa8b1jOdvT7OXtvgf-zydeTa74LL00vBGpF_gOMMLWZoVNnTOuNTUDqvATZWewfGZv2yrjjlrK1Ebvh00pCZBL_SqHYxyuXD_X-z4mZ1ypb_YrWfJhhB5kfubk_5i5nXwccYwDy_VoXlIV3ykB95yI88pit3fJg71jH58IzXnLR1yzn5A3gKx-U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>857841060</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Change We can Believe in? Reviewing Studies on the Conservation Impact of Popular Participation in Forest Management</title><source>JSTOR Open Access Journals</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</source><creator>Lund, Jens Friis ; Balooni, Kulbhushan ; Casse, Thorkil</creator><creatorcontrib>Lund, Jens Friis ; Balooni, Kulbhushan ; Casse, Thorkil</creatorcontrib><description>This article presents a review of methods in 60 empirical studies on forest conservation impact of popular participation in forest management. The review illustrates a high degree of variance in methods among the studies, and shows that a majority of the studies could benefit from a stronger focus on one or more of the following three areas: (i) the empirical verification and characterisation of popular participation as it exists on the ground, (ii) the indicators of impact and the method used to assess them, and (iii) the disentanglement of the effect of popular participation from other developments in the study area that may impact on forest condition. The variation in methods inhibits comparisons and meta-analyses, as well as questions the basis on which policy recommendations on popular participation in forest management are made. Based on the review, we provide recommendations for future evaluations of the conservation impact of popular participation in forest management.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0972-4923</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 0975-3133</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4103/0972-4923.58640</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bangalore: WOLTERS KLUWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED</publisher><subject>Case studies ; Community ; Community forestry ; Company business management ; conservation ; Denmark ; Developing countries ; Ecology ; Environment ; Environmental impact analysis ; Environmental research ; Evaluation ; forest ; Forest conservation ; Forest cover ; Forest ecology ; Forest management ; Forest resources ; Forestry ; Forestry development ; Forestry policy ; Forestry research ; impact evaluation ; LDCs ; Management ; Methods ; participation ; R&amp;D ; Research &amp; development ; Review Article ; Social aspects ; Sustainable development ; Sustainable forest management ; Sustainable forestry</subject><ispartof>Conservation and society, 2009-04, Vol.7 (2), p.71-82</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © Lund et al. 2009</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2009 Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2009 Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright Medknow Publications &amp; Media Pvt Ltd Apr 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4570-4d3bf46ac7488cf1a161ba56f6f5c5db4d265f7030f18e869a0be3e80d47d853</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26392966$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/857841060?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,25341,25740,27911,27912,36999,44577,54511,54517,58225,58458</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lund, Jens Friis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balooni, Kulbhushan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Casse, Thorkil</creatorcontrib><title>Change We can Believe in? Reviewing Studies on the Conservation Impact of Popular Participation in Forest Management</title><title>Conservation and society</title><addtitle>Conservation and Society</addtitle><description>This article presents a review of methods in 60 empirical studies on forest conservation impact of popular participation in forest management. The review illustrates a high degree of variance in methods among the studies, and shows that a majority of the studies could benefit from a stronger focus on one or more of the following three areas: (i) the empirical verification and characterisation of popular participation as it exists on the ground, (ii) the indicators of impact and the method used to assess them, and (iii) the disentanglement of the effect of popular participation from other developments in the study area that may impact on forest condition. The variation in methods inhibits comparisons and meta-analyses, as well as questions the basis on which policy recommendations on popular participation in forest management are made. Based on the review, we provide recommendations for future evaluations of the conservation impact of popular participation in forest management.</description><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Community</subject><subject>Community forestry</subject><subject>Company business management</subject><subject>conservation</subject><subject>Denmark</subject><subject>Developing countries</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Environmental impact analysis</subject><subject>Environmental research</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>forest</subject><subject>Forest conservation</subject><subject>Forest cover</subject><subject>Forest ecology</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>Forest resources</subject><subject>Forestry</subject><subject>Forestry development</subject><subject>Forestry policy</subject><subject>Forestry research</subject><subject>impact evaluation</subject><subject>LDCs</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>participation</subject><subject>R&amp;D</subject><subject>Research &amp; development</subject><subject>Review Article</subject><subject>Social aspects</subject><subject>Sustainable development</subject><subject>Sustainable forest management</subject><subject>Sustainable forestry</subject><issn>0972-4923</issn><issn>0975-3133</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>JFNAL</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNks9rFDEUxwdRsFbPnoTgzcNsM5MfkzlJHdq6sNLSFjyGTOZlmmU2WZPsqv-92R0pLHiQHBK-7_O-vCTfonhf4QWtMLnAbVOXtK3JgglO8YviLCusJBUhL4_nufq6eBPjGmNKSNueFal7Um4E9B2QVg59gcnCHpB1n9E97C38tG5ED2k3WIjIO5SeAHXeRQh7lWwWlput0gl5g-78djepgO5USFbb7Vy3Dl37ADGhb8qpETbg0tvilVFThHd_9_Pi8frqsftarm5vlt3lqtSUNbikA-kN5Uo3VAhtKlXxqleMG26YZkNPh5oz02CCTSVA8FbhHggIPNBmEIycF8vZdvBqLbfBblT4Lb2y8ij4MMrjqBNIzBW0HHregqF1LwQFrliPMa8b1jOdvT7OXtvgf-zydeTa74LL00vBGpF_gOMMLWZoVNnTOuNTUDqvATZWewfGZv2yrjjlrK1Ebvh00pCZBL_SqHYxyuXD_X-z4mZ1ypb_YrWfJhhB5kfubk_5i5nXwccYwDy_VoXlIV3ykB95yI88pit3fJg71jH58IzXnLR1yzn5A3gKx-U</recordid><startdate>20090401</startdate><enddate>20090401</enddate><creator>Lund, Jens Friis</creator><creator>Balooni, Kulbhushan</creator><creator>Casse, Thorkil</creator><general>WOLTERS KLUWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED</general><general>Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Medknow Publications &amp; Media Pvt. Ltd</general><general>Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications</general><scope>JFNAL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8GL</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090401</creationdate><title>Change We can Believe in? Reviewing Studies on the Conservation Impact of Popular Participation in Forest Management</title><author>Lund, Jens Friis ; Balooni, Kulbhushan ; Casse, Thorkil</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4570-4d3bf46ac7488cf1a161ba56f6f5c5db4d265f7030f18e869a0be3e80d47d853</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Community</topic><topic>Community forestry</topic><topic>Company business management</topic><topic>conservation</topic><topic>Denmark</topic><topic>Developing countries</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Environmental impact analysis</topic><topic>Environmental research</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>forest</topic><topic>Forest conservation</topic><topic>Forest cover</topic><topic>Forest ecology</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>Forest resources</topic><topic>Forestry</topic><topic>Forestry development</topic><topic>Forestry policy</topic><topic>Forestry research</topic><topic>impact evaluation</topic><topic>LDCs</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>participation</topic><topic>R&amp;D</topic><topic>Research &amp; development</topic><topic>Review Article</topic><topic>Social aspects</topic><topic>Sustainable development</topic><topic>Sustainable forest management</topic><topic>Sustainable forestry</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lund, Jens Friis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balooni, Kulbhushan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Casse, Thorkil</creatorcontrib><collection>JSTOR Open Access Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: High School</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Conservation and society</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lund, Jens Friis</au><au>Balooni, Kulbhushan</au><au>Casse, Thorkil</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Change We can Believe in? Reviewing Studies on the Conservation Impact of Popular Participation in Forest Management</atitle><jtitle>Conservation and society</jtitle><addtitle>Conservation and Society</addtitle><date>2009-04-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>71</spage><epage>82</epage><pages>71-82</pages><issn>0972-4923</issn><eissn>0975-3133</eissn><abstract>This article presents a review of methods in 60 empirical studies on forest conservation impact of popular participation in forest management. The review illustrates a high degree of variance in methods among the studies, and shows that a majority of the studies could benefit from a stronger focus on one or more of the following three areas: (i) the empirical verification and characterisation of popular participation as it exists on the ground, (ii) the indicators of impact and the method used to assess them, and (iii) the disentanglement of the effect of popular participation from other developments in the study area that may impact on forest condition. The variation in methods inhibits comparisons and meta-analyses, as well as questions the basis on which policy recommendations on popular participation in forest management are made. Based on the review, we provide recommendations for future evaluations of the conservation impact of popular participation in forest management.</abstract><cop>Bangalore</cop><pub>WOLTERS KLUWER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED</pub><doi>10.4103/0972-4923.58640</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0972-4923
ispartof Conservation and society, 2009-04, Vol.7 (2), p.71-82
issn 0972-4923
0975-3133
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_06ae96eb69ef42b884e6a5b006275b5c
source JSTOR Open Access Journals; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)
subjects Case studies
Community
Community forestry
Company business management
conservation
Denmark
Developing countries
Ecology
Environment
Environmental impact analysis
Environmental research
Evaluation
forest
Forest conservation
Forest cover
Forest ecology
Forest management
Forest resources
Forestry
Forestry development
Forestry policy
Forestry research
impact evaluation
LDCs
Management
Methods
participation
R&D
Research & development
Review Article
Social aspects
Sustainable development
Sustainable forest management
Sustainable forestry
title Change We can Believe in? Reviewing Studies on the Conservation Impact of Popular Participation in Forest Management
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T04%3A47%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Change%20We%20can%20Believe%20in?%20Reviewing%20Studies%20on%20the%20Conservation%20Impact%20of%20Popular%20Participation%20in%20Forest%20Management&rft.jtitle=Conservation%20and%20society&rft.au=Lund,%20Jens%20Friis&rft.date=2009-04-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=71&rft.epage=82&rft.pages=71-82&rft.issn=0972-4923&rft.eissn=0975-3133&rft_id=info:doi/10.4103/0972-4923.58640&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA216465918%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4570-4d3bf46ac7488cf1a161ba56f6f5c5db4d265f7030f18e869a0be3e80d47d853%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=857841060&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A216465918&rft_jstor_id=26392966&rfr_iscdi=true