|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|91240||159773||2016||8 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.
• Community Forest Association members have significantly higher total and forest-related incomes than non-members
• Livelihood impacts derive from labour and market opportunities supported by donor institutions, more than from differential access to forest products.
• Poor households experienced reduced relative forest incomes following increased intensity of forest patrolling.
• The Kenya Forest Service largely remained in control of decision-making contrary to the intention of the collaborative forest management policy.
• Current forest governance approaches in Kenya appear not to support participation in practice.
We evaluate the livelihoods of member and non-members of Community Forestry Associations under Kenya's participatory forest management (PFM) programme. We use propensity score matching of households based on recall based data from before implementation of PFM from 286 households and comparison of current incomes (2012), as well as review of records and interviews. Results reveal that members have higher total and forest-related incomes than non-members and indicate that impacts derive from labour and market opportunities supported by donor institutions, more than from differential access to forest products. In terms of governance the Kenya Forest Service largely remains in control of decision-making. Thus, PFM resembles Integrated Conservation and Development Project (ICDP) approaches. We conclude that current forest governance approaches in Kenya appear not to support participation in practice. Further, we conclude that impact evaluations must examine both outcomes and participatory forestry to provide meaningful policy evidence.
Journal: Forest Policy and Economics - Volume 69, August 2016, Pages 45–52