Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: learning from experiences of participatory biodiversity assessment
- 2 Monitoring and assessment of biodiversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity and other international agreements
- 3 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: a multi-scale assessment for global stakeholders
- 4 Conservation of biological diversity in El Salvador shade coffee: the importance of taxonomic capacity for participatory assessments
- 5 Taking stock of nature in species-rich but economically poor areas: an emerging discipline of locally based monitoring
- 6 Researching local perspectives on biodiversity in tropical landscapes: lessons from ten case studies
- 7 Participatory resources monitoring in SW China: lessons after five years
- 8 Forest inventory in Nepal – technical power or social empowerment?
- 9 Perceptions of landscape change in British Columbia's Northwest: implications for biodiversity and participatory management
- 10 How thousands planned for a billion: lessons from India on decentralized, participatory planning
- 11 Inside monitoring: a comparison of bird monitoring groups in Slovenia and the United Kingdom
- 12 The personal and political of volunteers' data: towards a national biodiversity database for the UK
- 13 Improving forest management through participatory monitoring: a comparative case study of four community-based forestry organizations in the Western United States
- Index
- References
13 - Improving forest management through participatory monitoring: a comparative case study of four community-based forestry organizations in the Western United States
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 December 2010
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: learning from experiences of participatory biodiversity assessment
- 2 Monitoring and assessment of biodiversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity and other international agreements
- 3 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: a multi-scale assessment for global stakeholders
- 4 Conservation of biological diversity in El Salvador shade coffee: the importance of taxonomic capacity for participatory assessments
- 5 Taking stock of nature in species-rich but economically poor areas: an emerging discipline of locally based monitoring
- 6 Researching local perspectives on biodiversity in tropical landscapes: lessons from ten case studies
- 7 Participatory resources monitoring in SW China: lessons after five years
- 8 Forest inventory in Nepal – technical power or social empowerment?
- 9 Perceptions of landscape change in British Columbia's Northwest: implications for biodiversity and participatory management
- 10 How thousands planned for a billion: lessons from India on decentralized, participatory planning
- 11 Inside monitoring: a comparison of bird monitoring groups in Slovenia and the United Kingdom
- 12 The personal and political of volunteers' data: towards a national biodiversity database for the UK
- 13 Improving forest management through participatory monitoring: a comparative case study of four community-based forestry organizations in the Western United States
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Community-based forestry (CBF) in the United States (USA) has taken a variety of forms, as resource-dependent communities attempt to balance local social, ecological and economic needs with the preferences of stakeholders outside the community. Although CBF is about more than biodiversity, stakeholders value it for different reasons. This has inspired some community-based organizations to use participatory biodiversity monitoring to assess the impacts of alternative forest restoration activities, address conflicting goals among stakeholders, restore trust and build community in rural areas undergoing rapid demographic and economic changes.
In this chapter we examine such projects in four CBF organizations (CBFOs) that participated in the Ford Community-Based Forestry Demonstration Program. First, we provide background information on community-based forestry in the USA, and some of the theories that informed this research. Then we present the ecological and social contexts and stewardship strategies of our four case study sites, followed by a detailed account of one participatory monitoring project undertaken by each group and the ecological and social outcomes. Finally, we discuss key challenges including the sustainability and replicability of these efforts.
Community-based forestry in the USA
The sustained yield model was the dominant forest management model in the twentieth century, focused on maximizing timber yields in perpetuity (Cortner and Moote, 1994). However, forestry has undergone a profound transformation since the 1980s. In the western states, where much forested land is owned by the federal government, well-publicized environmental conflicts have effectively shut down timber production on federal lands.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Taking Stock of NatureParticipatory Biodiversity Assessment for Policy, Planning and Practice, pp. 266 - 287Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
and (2005). Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004). Forest Futures: Science, Politics, and Policy for the Next Century. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
and (2003). Community Forestry in the United States: Past Practice, Crafting the Future. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2004). Postfire management on the forested public lands of the westernUnited States. Conservation Biology 18(4), 957–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (2001). Community-based ecosystem monitoring. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 12(3–4), 143–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004). Why do we all need community science. Society and Natural Resources 17, 841–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (2006). Ford Foundation Community-Based Forestry Demonstration Program Research Component Final Report. New York: Ford Foundation.Google Scholar
and (2005). Introduction: natural resources as community assets. In Natural Resources as Community Assets: Lessons from Two Continents, eds. and . Madison, WI: Sand County Foundation.Google Scholar
(1999). Regulating federal natural resources: a summary case against devolved collaboration. Ecology Law Quarterly 25, 602–610.Google Scholar
and (1994). Trends and issues in land and water resources management: Setting the agenda for change. Environmental Management 18(2), 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Community forestry initiatives for the creation of sustainable rural livelihoods: a case from North America. Unasylva 51(202), 53–63.Google Scholar
, and (2006). Integration or cooptation? Traditional knowledge and science in the Alaska Beluga whale committee. Environmental Conservation 33(4), 306–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (2002). Ecological causes and consequences of demographic change in the New West. BioScience 52(2), 151–162.CrossRef
(2002). The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
, and (2005). Dry forests and wildland fires of the inland Northwest USA: contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern eras. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (eds.) (2003). Forest Communities, Community Forests: Struggles and Successes in Rebuilding Communities and Forests. Landham, MD: Rowman andLittlefield.
(1993). Compass and Gyroscope, Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Local communities and the management of public forests. Ecology Law Quarterly 25(4), 624–629.Google Scholar
and (2001). Adaptive management on public lands in the United States: commitment or rhetoric. Environmental Management 28(2), 141–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and , eds. (2004). Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and Society, 9.CrossRef
(1999). The politics of TEK: power and the integration of knowledge. Arctic Anthropology 36, 1–18.Google Scholar
, and (2002). Community data – where does the value lie? Assessing confidence limits of community collected water quality data. Water Science and Technology 45, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2006). Managing fire-prone forests in the western United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(9), 481–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004). Tending Fire: Coping with Americia's Wildland Fires. Washington D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
and (2007). Forest community connections: continuity and change. In Forest Community Connections, eds. and . Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
and (2003). Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire regimes and forest structure in the Klamath Mountains. Ecological Applications 13(3), 704–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). Global Environment Outlook 2000. New York: United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
, et al. (2006). Local ecological knowledge and practical fisheries management in the tropics: a policy brief. Marine Policy 30, 794–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2000). Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington, D.C.: Island PressGoogle Scholar
(2003). Who Will Own the Forest? Origins and Implications of Changing Ownership. Portland, OR: World Forest Institute.Google Scholar
(2004). Who Will Own the Forest? Globalization and Consolidation Effects on Forests. Portland, OR: World Forestry Institute.Google Scholar