Exploring Local Values for Forest Biodiversity on Mount Cameroon

Lawrence, Anna; Ambrose-Oji, Bianca; Lysinge, R.; Tako, Charles

doi:10.1659/0276-4741(2000)020[0112:elvffb]2.0.co;2

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Values for habitats and ecological processes were relatively abstract concepts for many villagers and were best explored in the forest itself, where they became more immediate and tangible (Lawrence et al 2000). Questions such as 'What do you like about this place?…”

Section: Research Site and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participatory approaches often pay more attention to social, economic and organisational indicators (Hartanto et al 2002;Smith et al 2003;Springate-Baginski et al 2003). Rural communities are attributed with holding values in relation to biodiversity (Brown 1998;Lawrence et al 2000;Nunes & van den Bergh 2001;Brandon et al 2005), but the term originates in, and the discourse is dominated by, the conservation ethics of the industrialised world (Gaston 1996;Tangwa 1999;Potvin et al 2002). Within that discourse, its meaning is contested, varying between the descriptive, quantitative, conceptual and normative (Gaston 1996;Perlman & Adelson 1997;Mayer 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper is not concerned primarily with describing local values for biodiversity, but rather analysing a process for understanding and communicating those values. Much ethnobotanical work has a strongly utilitarian focus (Lawrence et al 2000;Potvin et al 2002), many studies being based on counts of 'useful species' or uses of species (Boom 1987;Prance et al 1987;Phillips & Gentry 1993a;Phillips & Gentry 1993b;Campbell et al 1997;Fabricius & Burger 1997;Hellier et al 1999). Indices of 'species used' may not correlate with habitat 5 values (Phillips et al 1994), and recent work has moved towards more locally defined values (Lawrence et al 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Building on these ethnobotanical and participatory experiences, it is logical to explore the full range of values associated with all the constituent parts of biodiversity, and to recognise that different actors value components in different ways (Brown 1998;Lawrence et al 2000). Our conceptual framework (Table 1), is based on three dimensions:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Adaptive value of participatory biodiversity monitoring in community forestry

Lawrence

Paudel²,

Barnes

et al. 2006

Envir. Conserv.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of action research in community forests, stakeholders' values for biodiversity can be elicited, communicated and understood with the help of a multidimensional conceptual framework. This incorporates levels of diversity (genes, species, habitats and processes), types of values (direct use, indirect use, option and existence) and stakeholders. This paper explores the effect of using this framework on forest monitoring, learning and communication, and wider implications for conservation, in Baglung District (Nepal). Monitoring was initially an unfamiliar concept to villagers, but the process clarified its purpose, whilst helping to elicit and exchange values and knowledge amongst stakeholders. This precipitated proposals for silvicultural experimentation and social inquiry into the diversity of users' needs. The framework allowed the translation of local value statements into categories recognized by other actors. It aided external stakeholders in understanding the factors contributing to values held by community forest users. Villagers' appreciation of ‘quality’ forest did not necessarily equate to the most ‘biodiverse’ forest, but rather the greenest and densest and that stocked with useful species. Elite domination, tenure and access to markets affected values assigned and behaviour in forest management. Elicitation of these values provoked questioning of forest management decisions and benefit sharing among community forest users. This, in turn, stimulated more democratic forest management and more inclusive, wide-ranging biodiversity values. Participatory monitoring is more conceptually challenging than is usually recognized, and the links between equity and conservation merit further attention in different cultural contexts.

show abstract

Section: Research Site and Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Adaptive value of participatory biodiversity monitoring in community forestry

Lawrence

Paudel²,

Barnes

et al. 2006

Envir. Conserv.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prance et al (1987) proposed separating 'major' and 'minor' uses but others have attempted to express values in terms that explicitly reflect the significance of plants as perceived by local participants (Phillips et al 1994), or as recorded by direct observation of activities (e.g., Zent 1996). This work has largely focussed on developing quantitative ways to express use values (reviewed by Phillips 1996) although recent work has attempted to explore other less tangible values (e.g., Lawrence et al 2000). Rural communities with access to forest resources have been consistently reported to use most of the species available to them (e.g., Boom 1987;Prance et al 1987;Phillips et al 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local values for harvested forest plants in Madre de Dios, Peru: Towards a more contextualised interpretation of quantitative ethnobotanical data

Lawrence

Phillips

Ismodes³

et al. 2005

Biodivers Conserv

Self Cite

144

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study builds on earlier quantitative ethnobotanical studies to develop an approach which represents local values for useful forest species, in order to explore factors affecting those values. The method, based on respondents' ranking of taxa, compares favourably with more time-consuming quantitative ethnobotanical techniques, and allows results to be differentiated according to social factors (gender and ethnic origin), and ecological and socio-economic context. We worked with 126 respondents in five indigenous and five immigrant communities within a forest-dominated landscape in the Peruvian Amazonia. There was wide variability among responses, indicating a complex of factors affecting value. The most valued family is Arecaceae, followed by Fabaceae and Moraceae. Overall, fruit and noncommercialised construction materials predominate but women tend to value fruit and other non-timber species more highly than timber, while the converse is shown by men. Indigenous respondents tend to value more the species used for fruit, domestic construction and other NTFPs, while immigrants tend to favour commercialised timber species. Across all communities, values are influenced by both markets and the availability of the taxa; as the favourite species become scarce, others replace them in perceived importance. As markets become more accessible, over-exploitation of the most valuable species and livelihood diversification contribute to a decrease in perceived value of the forest.

show abstract

Introduction: learning from experiences of participatory biodiversity assessment

Lawrence

2010

Taking Stock of Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exploring Local Values for Forest Biodiversity on Mount Cameroon

Abstract: BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Adaptive value of participatory biodiversity monitoring in community forestry

Adaptive value of participatory biodiversity monitoring in community forestry

Local values for harvested forest plants in Madre de Dios, Peru: Towards a more contextualised interpretation of quantitative ethnobotanical data

Introduction: learning from experiences of participatory biodiversity assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About