LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Newton, P; Oldekop, J. A.; Brodnig, G.; Karna, B. K.; Agrawal, A. (2016)
Publisher: IOP Publishing
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Understanding the relationships and tradeoffs among management outcomes in forest commons has assumed new weight in the context of parallels between the objectives of community forest management and those of reduced emissions for deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+)\ud programs to reduce carbon emissions while supporting local livelihoods. We examine the association between biophysical, demographic, institutional and socio-economic variables and three distinct forest management outcomes of interest to both community forestry and REDD+ advocates—carbon storage, biodiversity conservation, and livelihood benefits—in 56 forest commons in Nepal. REDD+ programs aim foremost to increase forest carbon storage and sequestration, but also seek to improve forest biodiversity, and to contribute to local livelihood benefits. The success of REDD+ programs can therefore be defined by improvements in one or more of these dimensions, while satisfying the principle of ‘do no harm’ in the others. We find that each outcome is associated with a different set of independent variables. This suggests that there is a need for policy-makers to clearly define their\ud desired outcomes and to target their interventions accordingly. Our research points to the complex ways in which different factors relate to forest outcomes and has implications for the large number of cases where REDD+\ud projects are being implemented in the context of community forestry.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Acharya K P 2002 Twenty-four years of community forestry in Nepal Int. Forestry Rev. 4 149-56
    • Adhikari B, Di Falco S and Lovett J C 2004 Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal Ecological Econ. 48 245-57
    • Agrawal A and Angelsen A 2009 Using community forest management to achieve REDD+ goals ed A Angelson Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options (Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research)
    • Angelsen A 2009 Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options. (Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research)
    • Balooni K and Lund J F 2014 Forest rights: the hard currency of REDD+ Conservation Lett. 7 278-84
    • Bampton J F, Ebregt A and Banjade M R 2007 Collaborative forest management in Nepal's Terai: policy, practice and contestation J. Forest Livelihood 6 30-43
    • Bartón K 2015 MuMIn R package version 1.13.4. (http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/MuMIn/MuMIn.pdf)
    • Burnham K P and Anderson D R 2004 Multimodel inference understanding AIC and BIC in model selection Sociological Methods Res. 33 261-304
    • Chhatre A and Agrawal A 2009 Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 17667-70
    • Dahal N and Banskota K 2009 Cultivating REDD in Nepal's community forestry: a discourse for capitalizing on potential? J. Forest Livelihood 8 41-50
    • Dhital N 2009 Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in Nepal: exploring the possibilities Forests Livelihoods 8 57-62
    • Guisan A and Zimmermann N E 2000 Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology Ecological Modelling 135 147-86
    • Hayes T and Persha L 2010 Nesting local forestry initiatives: revisiting community forest management in a REDD+ world Forest Policy Econ. 12 545-53
    • Ho D E, Imai K, King G and Stuart E A 2007 Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference Political Anal. 15 199-236
    • IFRI 2013 International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) Research Network Manual (www.ifriresearch.net/wpcontent/uploads/2012/09/IFRI_Manual.pdf)
    • Karky B S and Skutsch M 2010 The cost of carbon abatement through community forest management in Nepal Himalaya Ecological Econ. 69 666-72
    • Larson A M and Soto F 2008 Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33 213
    • MFSC 2013 Persistence and Change: Review of 30 years of Community Forestry in Nepal (Kathmandu: Government of Nepal: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Multi Stakeholder Forestry Programme)
    • Nagendra H 2002 Tenure and forest conditions: community forestry in the Nepal Terai Environ.Conservation 29 530-9
    • Newton P et al 2015 Community forest management and REDD+ Forest Policy Econ. 56 27-37
    • Ojha H R, Khatri D, Shrestha K K, Bushley B and Sharma N 2013 Carbon, community and governance: is Nepal getting ready for REDD+? Forests Trees Livelihoods 22 216-29
    • Oksanen J et al 2013 Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.0-7. (http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ vegan/vegan.pdf)
    • Pandit R and Bevilacqua E 2011 Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal Forest Policy Econ. 13 345-52
    • Persha L, Agrawal A and Chhatre A 2011 Social and ecological synergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods and biodiversity conservation Science 331 1606-8
    • Poteete A R and Ostrom E 2004 Heterogeneity, group size and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management Dev. Change 35 435-61
    • R Core Development Team 2014 R: A Language Environment for Statistical Computing (Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing)
    • Ripley B et al 2015 MASS R package version 7.3-40 (http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/MASS/MASS.pdf)
    • Rights and Resources Initiative 2014 What Future for Reform? Progress and Slowdown in Forest Tenure Reform Since 2002 (Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative)
    • Schreckenberg K and Luttrell C 2009 Participatory forest management: a route to poverty reduction? Int. Forestry Rev. 11 221-38
    • Sunderlin W D 2006 Poverty alleviation through community forestry in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam: an assessment of the potential Forest Policy Econ. 8 386-96
    • Turner I 1996 Species loss in fragments of tropical rain forest: a review of the evidence J. Appl. Ecology 200-9
    • Whittingham M J, Stephens P A, Bradbury R B and Freckleton R P 2006 Why do we still use stepwise modelling in ecology and behaviour? J. Animal Ecology 75 1182-9
    • Yadav N P, Dev O P, Springate-Baginski O and Soussan J 2003 Forest management and utilization under community forestry J. Forest Livelihood 3 37-50
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article