Conditions for successful local collective action in forestry: Some evidence from the Hills of Nepal

Society and Natural Resources

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 153-171

  Gautam, Ambika P ^a   Shivakoti, Ganesh P ^a  

^a ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Thailand)

Author keywords

Common pool resources; Design principles; Forestry; Local institutions; Nepal; Sustainability

Indexed keywords

COLLECTIVE ACTION; COMMON PROPERTY RESOURCE; FOREST MANAGEMENT; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; SUSTAINABILITY;

ASIA; EASTERN HEMISPHERE; EURASIA; HIMALAYAS; MIDDLE HILLS; NEPAL; SOUTH ASIA; WORLD;

EID: 14344266759     PISSN: 08941920     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08941920590894534     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Agrawal, A. 2001. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev. 29(10):1649-1672.
2. Agrawal, A. 2002. Common resources and institutional sustainability. In The drama of the commons, National Research Council, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, ed. E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolak, P. C. Stern, S. Stovich and E. U. Weber, 41-85. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3. Agrawal, A. and C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev. 27(4):629-649.
4. Arnold, J. E. M. 1998. Managing forests as common property. FAO Forestry Paper 136. Rome Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
5. Baland, J. and J. Platteau. 1996. Halting degradation of natural resources: Is there a role for rural communities? Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
6. Gautam, A. P. 2002. Forest land use dynamics and community-based institutions in a mountain watershed in Nepal: Implications for forest governance and management. PhD dissertation, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand.
7. Gautam, A. P., G. P. Shivakoti, and E. L. Webb. 2004. A review of forest policies, institutions, and changes in the resource condition in Nepal. Int. For. Rev. 6(2): 136-148.
8. Gibson, C. 1999. Dependence, scarcity, and the governance of forest resources at the local level in Guatemala. Bloomington, IN: Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University.
9. Gibson, C., and T. Koontz. 1998. When "community" is not enough: Institutions and values in community-based forest management in southern Indiana. Hum. Ecol. 26(4):621-647.
10. Gibson, C., M. A. McKean, and E. Ostrom, eds. 2000. People and forests: Communities, institutions, and governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243-1248.
12. Hardin, G. 1998. Extensions of "the tragedy of the commons." Science 280:682-683.
13. His Majesty's Government of Nepal. 1993. Forest act 1993 (official translation). Kathmandu, Nepal: HMGN, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation.
14. International Forestry Resources and Institutions. 2001. IFRI research program field manual version 10.0. Bloomington, IN: Center for the Study of Institutions, Population, and Environmental Change, Indiana University.
15. Larson, B. A. and D. W. Bromley. 1990. Property rights, externalities, and resource degradation. J. Dev. Econ. 33:235-262.
16. McGinnis, M. and E. Ostrom. 1996. Design principles for local and global commons. In The international political economy and international institutions, vol. II, ed. O. R. Young, 465-493. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
17. Morrow, C. E. and R. W. Hull. 1996. Donor-assisted common pool resources institution: The case of Yanesha Forestry Cooperative. World Dev. 24(10):1641-1657.
18. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Ostrom, E. 2000. Reformulating the commons. Swiss Polit. Sci. Rev. 6(1):29-52.
20. Steins, N. A. and V. M. Edwards. 1999. Collective action in common pool resource management: the contribution of a social constructivist perspective to existing theory. Society Nat. Resources 12:539-557.
21. Thompson, J. T. 1992. A framework for analyzing institutional incentives in community forestry. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
22. Webb, E. L. and A. P. Gautam. 2001. Effects of community forest management on the structure and diversity of a successional broadleaf forest in Nepal. Int. For Rev. 3(2): 146-157.
23. Wittayapak, C. and P. Dearden. 1999. Decision-making arrangements in community-based watershed management in northern Thailand. Society Nat. Resources 12:673-691.