مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد روند تحقیق در مورد سیاست های غیرمتمرکز جنگلداری – الزویر ۲۰۱۸

elsevier

 

مشخصات مقاله
ترجمه عنوان مقاله روند تحقیق در مورد سیاست های غیرمتمرکز جنگلداری
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله Trends in research on forestry decentralization policies
انتشار مقاله سال ۲۰۱۸
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی ۶ صفحه
هزینه دانلود مقاله انگلیسی رایگان میباشد.
پایگاه داده نشریه الزویر
نوع نگارش مقاله
مقاله مروری (review article)
مقاله بیس این مقاله بیس نمیباشد
نمایه (index) scopus – master journals – JCR
نوع مقاله ISI
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی  PDF
ایمپکت فاکتور(IF)
۴٫۱۸۶ در سال ۲۰۱۷
شاخص H_index ۵۸ در سال ۲۰۱۸
شاخص SJR ۲٫۰۳۵ در سال ۲۰۱۸
رشته های مرتبط منابع طبیعی
گرایش های مرتبط جنگلداری
نوع ارائه مقاله
ژورنال
مجله / کنفرانس نظرات رایج در پایداری محیط زیست – Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
دانشگاه Department of Food and Resource Economics – University of Copenhagen – Denmark
شناسه دیجیتال – doi
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.02.003
کد محصول E9864
وضعیت ترجمه مقاله  ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید.
دانلود رایگان مقاله دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی
سفارش ترجمه این مقاله سفارش ترجمه این مقاله

 

فهرست مطالب مقاله:
Highlights
Introduction
Assessing impacts of forestry decentralization
Forestry decentralization as democratization
Unpacking power in forestry decentralization
Contextualizing forestry decentralization
Conclusion
References and recommended reading
Acknowledgements
References

بخشی از متن مقاله:
We identify and describe four strands in the literature on forestry decentralization policies: studies that assess impacts of forestry sector decentralization policies on forests and livelihoods; studies that examine whether forestry decentralization empowers public and democratic local institutions; studies focusing on power and the role of elites in forestry decentralization, and; studies that historicize and contextualize forestry decentralization as reflective of broader societal phenomena. We argue that these strands reflect disciplinary differences in values, epistemologies, and methods preferences, and that they individually provide only partial representations of forestry decentralization policies. Accordingly, we conclude that a comprehensive understanding of these policies cannot rest solely on any of these strands, but should be informed by all of them.

Introduction

Forestry sector decentralization policies are a widespread phenomenon across the Global South [1]. Officially, these policies have been driven by a belief that situating decision making closer to where forest management and use actually occurs — where its direct effects are felt most immediately — and in the hands of representative local authorities, will result in more ecologically and socially sustainable outcomes [2]. These are broadly the same official rationales underlying the support to various community-based forest management approaches. Research on forestry decentralization policies has proliferated and grown in widely different directions through contributions from different disciplines. Therefore, in this paper, we attempt a synthesis of recent contributions to this literature aiming to identify strands within it and illustrate differences, overlaps, and gaps among these. We believe this will assist scholars in situating their own work within this burgeoning literature. We also believe it is relevant to ongoing efforts at forestry decentralization as well as to more recent carbon forestry initiatives that in different ways articulate with and (re)shape existing forestry decentralization policies [3–۵]. Our review focuses on research that examines forestry decentralization processes by which decision-making powers over forests are handed down, or devolved, to lower levels in a jurisdictional hierarchy of the state [6]. This implies transfers to subnational bodies, such as provinces, districts, wards, villages, or user groups. In the following we present and discuss four strands within the literature assess how decentralization impacts forests and livelihoods; studies that examine whether decentralization empowers public and democratic local institutions; studies focusing on power and elite interests in decentralization, and; studies that historicize and contextualize decentralization as reflective of broader societal phenomena. We argue that these strands reflect disciplinary differences in values, epistemologies, and methods preferences, and that they present partial representations of forestry decentralization policies (see Figure 1). Although we try to provide both depth and coverage, our review should be seen as representative of studies within the four strands we identify, and not as an attempt at fully covering the existing literature.

ارسال دیدگاه

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد. بخش‌های موردنیاز علامت‌گذاری شده‌اند *