2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2005.08.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Institutional analysis of evolution of joint forest management in India: A new institutional economics approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
49
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 86 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
49
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Mukul et al, 2008 found that effective co-management between PA managers and local forest user groups are necessary to secure the future of PA in Bangladesh. One option, which developed in the community forestry program in Nepal, could be established in forest management is specifying the number of families and size of village to regulating management of a specific forest resources, access to the forests and equitable distribution of benefits among the community members (Wakiyama, 2004;Gautam et al, 2004;DoF, 2011;Adhikari et al, 2007;Acharya, 2002) and this is also found in joint forest management in India (Panigrahi, 2006;Behera & Engel, 2006;Vemuri, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mukul et al, 2008 found that effective co-management between PA managers and local forest user groups are necessary to secure the future of PA in Bangladesh. One option, which developed in the community forestry program in Nepal, could be established in forest management is specifying the number of families and size of village to regulating management of a specific forest resources, access to the forests and equitable distribution of benefits among the community members (Wakiyama, 2004;Gautam et al, 2004;DoF, 2011;Adhikari et al, 2007;Acharya, 2002) and this is also found in joint forest management in India (Panigrahi, 2006;Behera & Engel, 2006;Vemuri, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the shift from state management to co-management is a step in the right direction, insecure, incomplete and (often) incoherent property rights transfers from the state to local communities remains an important source of incentive incompatibility for communities (Behera & Engel, 2006). In some cases, the rents are shared with the state in the form of user fees (Kumar, 2002;Kajembe et al, 2003;Behera & Engel, 2006;Jumbe & Angelsen, 2006;Limenih & Bekele, 2008;Robinson & Lokina, 2012). The incentives could be even smaller, if we consider foregone income from deterred agricultural land expansion.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent research from around the globe has focused on the various factors that lead to successful community forestry outcomes, including common property management, power dynamics, and accountability (Agrawal and Chhatre 2006;Behera and Engel 2006). Despite this prior work in Nepal (Varughese and Ostrom 2001;Poteete and Ostrom 2004;Ojha 2006;Ojha et al 2009), little is known about how different governance relationships between community forestry groups may mediate socialecological challenges like invasive species management (Epanchin-Niell et al 2009) or what this means for how institutional analysis may be most effectively conducted (i.e.…”
Section: Community Forestry and Institutional Heterogeneitymentioning
confidence: 99%