Community forestry initiatives for the creation of sustainable rural livelihoods: A case from North America

Unasylva

Volumn 51, Issue 202, 2000, Pages 53-63

  Danks, C ^a  

^a Watershed Res and Training Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COPING STRATEGY; FORESTRY PRODUCTION; RURAL ECONOMY; SUSTAINABILITY;

NORTH AMERICA;

EID: 0033789541     PISSN: 00416436     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce. 1992. 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Summary social, economic, and housing characteristics: California. 1990 CHP-5-6. Washington, DC, USA, United States Government Printing Office.
2. Bureau of the Census, United States Department of Commerce. 1993. 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Summary Tape File 3b. Washington, DC, USA.
3. California Employment Development Department. 1999. Labor market information/ Unemployment by county. www.calmis.cahwnet.gov/htmlfile/ subject/lftable.htm
4. Committee of Scientists. 1999. Sustaining the people's lands: recommendations for stewardship of the national forests and grasslands into the next century. Washington, DC, USA, United States Department of Agriculture.
5. Dana, S.T. & Fairfax, S.K. 1980. Forest and range policy. New York, USA, McGraw-Hill.
6. Danks, C. 1997. Developing institutions for community forestry in northern California. Rural Development Forestry Network Paper 20a. London, UK, Overseas Development Institute.
7. Danks, C.M. 2000. Community participation in forest management: the role of social capital and organizational capacity in collaborative efforts in Trinity County, California. Berkeley, University of California, California, USA. (Ph.D. dissertation)
8. Danks, C. & Jungwirth, L. 1999. Community-based socioeconomic assessment and monitoring of activities related to national forest management. Working Paper Series. Hayfork, California, USA, Watershed Research and Training Center.
9. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Washington, DC, USA, United States Government Printing Office.
10. Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture/Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Record of Decision of the Northwest Forest Plan. Washington, DC, USA, United States Government Printing Office.
11. Fortmann, L. & Kusel, J. 1991. Well-being in forest-dependent communities. Sacramento, California, USA, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
12. Greber, B. 1994. Economic assessment of FEMAT options. Journal of Forestry, 92(4): 36-40.
13. Hoffmann, S.A. & Fortmann, L. 1996. Poverty in forested counties: an analysis based on Aid to Families with Dependent Children. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress, Vol. 2, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis, California, USA, University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.
14. Trinity County Assessor. 1996. County Assessor maps and ownership records: Trinity County. Napa, California, USA, CD-Data.
15. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). 1998. Endangered spaces: the Global 200/Featured ecoregions. www.worldwildlife.org