|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|91119||159744||2016||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
این مقاله ISI می تواند منبع ارزشمندی برای تولید محتوا باشد.
- تولید محتوا برای سایت و وبلاگ
- تولید محتوا برای کتاب
- تولید محتوا برای نشریات و روزنامه ها
پایگاه «دانشیاری» آمادگی دارد با همکاری مجموعه «شهر محتوا» با استفاده از این مقاله علمی، برای شما به زبان فارسی، تولید محتوا نماید.
• Forest property rights are positively correlated to livelihood of forest dependent communities
• There is also a positive relationship between forest property rights and forest conditions
• Positive ecological outcome is to be related to economic one.
• Without State, technical and financial support could be successfully provided by as NGO
• Dependence upon NGO is a major constraint to the sustainability of the approach
Community forestry, promoted as a “win–win” forest management strategy yielded a variety of results that includes both failure and relative success. The willingness of government to hold control over forest resources while transferring only part of property rights to local communities is one of the major constraints. Therefore, there is a need to explore alternative approaches, which enhance the position and accountability of local communities in community forest management. This study evaluated socio-economic and ecological outcomes of community forestry in a context of important property rights conceded to local communities. The study was conducted using focus groups discussions, forest income evaluation and assessment of forest resources and their dynamics. Findings showed that institutional design with important property rights conceded to local communities partially empowered local communities and reduced threats while improving the condition of forest resources. The approach also yielded positive economic outcomes that enabled bordering populations to make up to 25% of their global annual income from the forest. However, the sustainability of this scheme of forest management was mostly limited by the financial dependency on local non-governmental organization, by local institutions and discrepancy in forest benefits sharing among local forest users.
Journal: Forest Policy and Economics - Volume 64, March 2016, Pages 46–55