What does community forestry mean in a devolved great britain?

International Forestry Review

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 281-297

  Lawrence, A ^a   Anglezarke, B ^b   Frost, B ^c   Nolan, P ^d   Owen, R ^b  

^a FOREST RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^b Forestry Commission Wales   (United Kingdom)

^c Ae Village   (United Kingdom)

^d The Mersey Forest   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAPACITY BUILDING; COMMUNITY FORESTRY; FORESTRY POLICY; NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION; PARTNERSHIP APPROACH; POLICY REFORM; RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT; RURAL DEVELOPMENT; STATE ROLE; SUSTAINABILITY; URBAN RENEWAL;

ENGLAND; SCOTLAND; UNITED KINGDOM; WALES;

EID: 77954666366     PISSN: 14655489     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1505/ifor.11.2.281     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. ADHIKARI, H. 2005. Poverty, property rights and collective action: Understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management. Environment and Development Economics 10: 7-31.
2. AGRAWAL, A. and OSTROM, E. 2001. Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics & Society 29(4): 485-514.
3. BAKER, M. and KUSEL, J. 2003. Community forestry in the united states: Learning from the past, crafting the future. Community forestry in the United States: learning from the past, crafting the future: xii + 247 pp.
4. BATEMAN, I.J., DIAMAND, E., LANGFORD, I.H. and JONES, A. 1996. Household willingness to pay and farmers' willingness to accept compensation for establishing a recreational woodland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 39(1): 21-43.
5. BHATTACHARYA, A.K. and BASNYAT, B. 2005. Decentralisation and community forestry programmes in Nepal: Issues and challenges. International Forestry Review 7(2): 147-155.
6. BISHOP, K. 1992. Assessing the benefts of community forests: An evaluation of the recreational use benefts of two urban fringe woodlands. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management 35(1): 63-76.
7. BRADSHAW, B. 2003. Questioning the credibility and capacity of community-based resource management. The Canadian Geographer 47(2): 137-150.
8. BROWN, AP. 2008. Crofter forestry, land reform and the ideology of community. Social and Legal Studies 17(3): 333-349.
9. CALLANDER, R. 2000. Birse community trust. In: Reid D, (ed)Social land ownership: Eight case studies from the highlands and islands of Scotland.
10. CAMPBELL, L and BRYAN, A. 2006. Evaluation of partnerships between community groups and forestry commission Scotland. A study for community woodlands association.: Campbell Consulting (Highland) Ltd.
11. CENTRAL SCOTLAND FOREST TRUST. 2007. Annual report and forest review. Available: http://www.csft.org.uk/about/annual-report-and-forest-review.
12. CLG. 2007. The English indices of deprivation 2007. London: Department of Communities and Local Government. Available: http://www.communities.gov.uk/ documents/communities/pdf/576659.pdf.
13. COED LLEOL. 2009. Coed Lleol. Available: www. coedlleol.org.uk
14. COMMUNITY WOODLAND ASSOCIATION. 2008. CWA annual report 2007-2008: Community Woodland Association. Available: http://www.communitywoods. org/index.php/areports/
15. DEFRA. 2007. England trees woods and forests.
16. EDWARDS, D. ELLIOTT, A. HISLOP, M. MARTIN, S. MORRIS, J. O'BRIEN, L. PEACE, A. SARAJEVS, V. SERRAND, M. and VALATIN, G. 2008. A valuation of the economic and social contribution of forestry for people in Scotland. Final report for forestry commission Scotland. Available: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/ fr/INFD-6S8CSP.
17. FAIRBURN, J. WALKER, G. and MITCHELL, G. 2005. Investigating environmental justice in Scotland: Links between measures of environmental quality and social deprivation.: Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER). Available: http://www.wrc.org.za/downloads/ FWR/UE4(03)01%20 Executive%20summary.doc
18. FAO. 1997. Issues and opportunities in the evolution of private forestry and forestry extension in several countries with economies in transition in central and eastern Europe. Rome: FAO. Available: http://www.fao. org/docrep/w8827E/w8827e0d.htm.
19. FOREST RESEARCH. 2008. An evaluation of Cydcoed. Available: http://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/fr/INFD-76KC7H.
20. FORESTRY COMMISSION. 1998. England forestry strategy. A new focus for England's woodlands. Cambridge: Forestry Commission.
21. FORESTRY COMMISSION. 2003. National inventory of woodlands and trees: Great Britain. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission. Available: http://www.forestry. gov.uk/pdf/nigreatbritain.pdf/$FILE/nigreatbritain.pdf.
22. FORESTRY COMMISSION SCOTLAND. 2005a. The national forest land scheme. Available: http://www. forestry.gov.uk/nfs.
23. FORESTRY COMMISSION SCOTLAND. 2005b. Working in partnership. Available: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcfc107.pdf/$FILE/fcfc107.pdf.
24. FORESTRY COMMISSION SCOTLAND. 2006. Woods in and around towns-progress report. Available: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-5w2nfz.
25. FORESTRY COMMISSION SCOTLAND. 2008. Scottish forestry strategy implementation plan 2008-2011: Forestry Commission Scotland Available: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-6aggzw
26. GIBSON, C.C., MCKEAN, M.A. and OSTROM, E. (eds.) 2000. People and forests: Communities, institutions, and governance. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
27. GLASMEIER, A.K. and FARRIGAN, T. 2005. Understanding community forestry: A qualitative meta-study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the united states case. Geographical Journal 171: 56-69.
28. HODGE, S. and MAXWELL, C. 2005. Involving communities in the governance of Scotland's state forests: Forestry Commission Scotland. Available: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/involvingcommunities.pdf/$FILE/ involvingcommunities.pdf.
29. JEANRENAUD, S. 2001. Communities and forest management in western Europe.: WG-CIFM.150.
30. JOHNSTON, M. 1999. The springtime of urban forestry in Britain-developments between the 1st and 3rdconferences, 1988-1993. Part I. Arboricultural Journal 23(3): 233-260.
31. JOHNSTON, M. 2002. A review of the black country urban forest millennium programme, 1995-2001. Arboricultural Journal 26(2): 111-139.
32. KESSEL, A., GREEN, J. PINDER, R., WILKINSON, P., GRUNDY, C. and LACHOWYCZ, K. 2009. Multidisciplinary research in public health: A case study of research on access to green space. Public Health 123(1): 32-38.
33. LARSON, A.M. 2003. Decentralisation and forest management in Latin America: Towards a working model. Public Administration and Development 23(3): 211-226.
34. LAWRENCE, A. 2007. Beyond the second generation: Towards adaptiveness in participatory forest management CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 2(28): available at www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews.
35. LCN. 2009. Landscape character assessment. Available: http://www.landscapecharacter.org.uk/lca
36. MATHESON, C. 2000. Abriachan forest trust. In: Reid D, (ed)Social land ownership: Eight case studies from the highlands and islands of Scotland.
37. MCCARTHY, J. 2005. Devolution in the woods: Community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism. Environment and Planning A 37(6): 995-1014.
38. MCDANIEL, J.M. 2003. History and the duality of power in community-based forestry in southeast Bolivia.Development and Change 34(2): 339-356.
39. MILBOURNE, P., KITCHEN, L. and STANLEY, KG. 2006. Social forestry: Exploring the social contexts of forests and forestry in rural areas. In: Cloke, P., Marsden, T. and Rooney, P. (eds) International handbook of rural studies. London: Sage, 230-242.
40. NAIL, S. 2007. Forest policies and social change in England: Springer.328.
41. NAIL, S. 2008. Forest policies and social change in England: Springer.328.
42. NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES. 2001. Woodland for Wales. Available: www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/woodwaleseng.pdf/$FILE/woodwaleseng.pdf.
43. NATURAL ENGLAND. 2009. Woodland initiatives network. Available: http://woodland.net.countryside.gov.uk/
44. NOBLE, M., WRIGHT, G., SMITH, G. and DIBBEN, C. 2006. Measuring multiple deprivation at the small-area level. Environment and Planning A 38(1): 169-185.
45. RAO, KRM., MANIKANDAN, M.S. and LEAL FILHO, W. 2005. An overview of the impacts of changes in common property resources management in the context of globalisation: A case study of India. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 12(4): 471-477.
46. REED, M.G. and MCILVEEN, K. 2006. Toward a pluralistic civic science?: Assessing community forestry. Society &Natural Resources 19(7): 591-607.
47. REFORESTING SCOTLAND. 2003. A review of community woodland in Scotland: Context, status and future directions for the community-led woodland movement. Available: www.reforestingscotland.org/past-projects/community-woodlands. php#community-woodlands-review.
48. RHEE, S. 2000. Adaptive co-management of forests: How powerful stakeholders represent local communities. TRI News 19: 10-13.
49. RUMMERY, K. 2006. Introduction: Themed section: Partnerships, governance and citizenship. Social Policy and Society 5(02): 223-225.
50. SALKA, J., LONGAUER, R. and LACKO, M. 2006. The effects of property transformation on forestry entrepreneurship and innovation in the context of Slovakia. Forest Policy and Economics 8(7): 716-724.
51. SCANDRETT, E. 2007. Environmental justice in Scotland: Policy, pedagogy and praxis. In: Environmental Research Letters.
52. SCHAMA, S. 1995. Landscape and memory. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.652.
53. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2002. Scottish forestry strategy. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2006. Scottish index of multiple deprivation 2006: General report. Available: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/151578/0040731.pdf.
54. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2007. Scottish forestry strategy. Available: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forestry.nsf/byunique/infd-6aggzw.
55. SHORT, C. 2000. Common land and elms: A need for policy innovation in England and Wales. Land Use Policy 17(2): 121-133.
56. SHORT, C. and WINTER, M. 1999. The problem of common land: Towards stakeholder governance. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 42(5): 613-630.
57. SLEE, B. and SNOWDON, P. 1999. Rural development forestry in the united kingdom. Forestry 72(3): 273-284.
58. SOCIAL REGENERATION CONSULTANTS. 2006. Social impact study. Central Scotland forest trust. Available: http://www.csft.org.uk/about/publications/141- social-impact-study-documents.
59. SQW and LUC. 2005. Evaluation of the community forest programme. Available: http://www.communityforest. org.uk/resources/executive-summary.pdf.
60. STEDMAN, R.C., PARKINS, J.R. and BECKLEY TM. 2005. Forest dependence and community well-being in rural Canada: Variation by forest sector and region. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35(1): 215-220.
61. STOCKDALE, A., LANG, A.J. and JACKSON, R.E. 1996. Changing land tenure patterns in Scotland: A time for reform? Journal of Rural Studies 12(4): 439-449.
62. STUBBS, M. 2008. Natural green space and planning policy: Devising a model for its delivery in regional spatial strategies. Landscape Research 33(1): 119-139.
63. SUNDERLIN, W.D. 2006. Poverty alleviation through community forestry in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam: An assessment of the potential. Forest Policy and Economics 8(4): 386-396.
64. TAYLOR, M. 2006. Communities in partnership: Developing a strategic voice. Social Policy and Society 5(02): 269-279
65. TEP. 2006. Mersey forest comparator study. Mersey forest. Available: http://www.merseyforest.org.uk/pages/us- documents.asp.
66. TEP and FORESTRY COMMISSION. 2008. Environmental index. Available: www.naturaleconomynorthwest. co.uk/download.php?Identifying%20Spatial%20 Relationships%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf.
67. TIR COED. 2009. Tir Cœd. Available: www.tircoed.org.uk
68. TSOUVALIS, J. 2000. A critical geography of Britain's state forests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.227.
69. TYLDEN-WRIGHT, R. 2000a. The Laggan forest partnership. In: Reid D, (ed)Social land ownership: Eight case studies from the highlands and islands of Scotland.
70. TYLDEN-WRIGHT R. 2000b. The Laggan forest partnership. In: Social Land Ownership: Eight Case Studies from the Highlands and Islands of Scotland: Caledonia
71. VISION 21. 2007. Mersey forest awareness survey. Mersey forest. Available: http://www.merseyforest.org.uk/pages/us-documents.asp.
72. WAG. 2008. Welsh index of multiple deprivation 2008 (WIMD)-summary report Cardiff: Statistics for Wales, Welsh Assembly Government. Available: http://new. wales.gov.uk/statsdocs/compendia/wimd08/summary/wimd08sumintroe.pdf.
73. WAG. 2009. Statswales. Available: www.statswales.wales. gov.uk
74. WELDON, S. 2004. Social science in forestry: Public participation and partnership: A review of forestry commission practice and governance in a changing political and economic context. Forestry Commission publication: 1-28.
75. WILY, L.A. 2004. Can we own the forest? Looking at the changing tenure environment for community forestry in Africa. Forests Trees and Livelihoods 14(2-4): 217-228.
76. WOODLAND TRUST. 2009. Community woodland network. Available: http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/communitywoodlandnetwork/