Nepali women using community forestry as a platform for social change

Society and Natural Resources

Volumn 23, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1216-1229

  Giri, Kalpana ^a   Darnhofer, Ika ^b  

^a ForestAction   (Nepal)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES   (Austria)

Author keywords

Decision making; Gender; Management of natural resources; Nepal; Participation; Perception

Indexed keywords

COMMUNITY FORESTRY; DECISION MAKING; GENDER ISSUE; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PERCEPTION; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; SOCIAL CHANGE; WOMENS STATUS;

NEPAL;

EID: 78149397388     PISSN: 08941920     EISSN: 15210723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08941921003620533     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Acharya, K. P. 2002. Twenty-four years of community forestry in Nepal. Int. For. Rev. 4(2):149-156.
2. Adhikary, B. 2002. Community forestry and livelihoods, household characteristics and common property forest use: Complementarities and contradictions. J. For. Livelihood 2(11):3-61.
3. Agarwal, B. 2000. Conceptualising environmental collective action: Why gender matters. Cambridge J. Econ. 24(3):283-310.
4. Agarwal, B. 2001a. Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: An analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Dev. 29(10):1623-1648.
5. Agarwal, B. 2001b. The hidden side of group behavior: A gender analysis of community forestry groups. QEH working paper QEHWPS76. Department of International Development, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
6. Agarwal, B. 2009. Rule making in community forestry institutions: The difference women make. Ecol. Econ. 68(8-9): 2296-2308.
7. Agrawal, A. 2001. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev. 29(10):1649-1672.
8. Allendorf, T. D., Smith, J. L. D., and D. H. Anderson. 2007. Residents' perceptions of Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Landscape Urban Plan. 82(1-2):33-40.
9. Armitage, D., and B. Hyma. 1997. Sustainable community-based forestry development: A policy and programme framework to enhance women's participation. Singapore J. Trop. Geogr. 18(1):1-19.
10. Axelby, R. 2007. 'It takes two hands to clap': How Gaddi shepherds in the Indian Himalayas negotiate access to grazing. J. Agrarian Change 7(1):35-75.
11. Banjade, M. R., and H. Ojha. 2005. Facilitating deliberative governance: Innovations from Nepal's community forestry program. A case study in Karmapunya. For. Chron. 81(3):403-408.
12. Behera, B., and S. Engel. 2005. Who forms local institutions? Levels of household participation in India's Joint Forest Management program. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of International Society for New Institutional Economics, 22-24 September, Barcelona, Spain.
13. Buchy, M., and S. Subba. 2003. Why is community forestry a social-and gender-blind technology? The case of Nepal. Gender Technol. Dev. 7(3):313-332.
14. Cornwall, A. 2003. Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development. World Dev. 31(8):1325-1342.
15. Dalton, B. 2004. Creativity, habit and the social products of creative action: Revising Joas, incorporating Bourdieu. Sociol. Theory 22(4):603-622.
16. Department of Forests. 2007. Achievements. http://www.dof.gov.np/achievements.htm (accessed 12 September 2009).
17. Flint, C. G., A. E. Luloff, and J. C. Finley. 2008. Where is "community" in community-based forestry?. Society Nat. Resources 21:526-537.
18. Fussel, W. 1996. The value of local knowledge and importance of shifting beliefs in the process of social change. Commun. Dev. J. 31(1):44-53.
19. Gautam, A. P., and G. P. Shivakoti. 2005. Conditions for successful local collective action in forestry: Some evidence from the hills of Nepal. Society Nat. Resources 18:153-171.
20. Gupte, M. 2004. Participation in a gendered environment: The case of community forestry in India. Hum. Ecol. 32(3):365-382.
21. His Majesty's Government of Nepal. 2002. Operational guidelines (revised) 2002. Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation.
22. Koirala, R., K. Giri, and B. Pokharel. 2008. Development and status of community forestry governance in Nepal. Paper presented at the National Convention of the Society of American Foresters, 5-9 November, Reno-Tahoe, NV.
23. Lachapelle, P., P. Smith, and S. McCool. 2004. Access to power or genuine empowerment? An analysis of three community forest groups in Nepal. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 11(1):1-12.
24. Lama, A., and M. Buchy. 2002. Gender, class, caste and participation: The case of community forestry in Nepal. Indian J. Gender Stud. 9(1):27-42.
25. Matta, J. R., and J. R. Alavalapati. 2006. Perceptions of collective action and its success in community based natural resource management: An empirical analysis. For. Policy Econ. 9:274-284
26. Mohanty, R. 2002. Women's participation in JFM in uttaranchal villages. Mimeo.
27. Nightingale, A. 2005. "The experts taught us all we know": Professionalisation and knowledge in Nepalese community forestry. Antipode 37(3):281-604.
28. Nightingale, A. 2006. The nature of gender: Work, gender and environment. Environ. Plan. D Society Space 24(2):165-185.
29. Nepal Planning Comission. 1997. Ninth plan (1997-2002). Kathmandu, Nepal: HMG=Nepal Singha Darbar.
30. Nepal-Swiss Community Forestry Project. 2004. Community forestry user group database compilation Ramechhap. Ramechhap, Nepal: NSCFP.
31. Ojha, H. R., J. Cameron, and C. Kumar. 2009. Deliberation or symbolic violence? The governance of community forestry in Nepal. For. Policy Econ. 11(5-6):365-374.
32. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33. Paudel, D. 1999. Distributional impacts of community forestry programmes. On different social groups of people in the Mid-hills of Nepal. Master's thesis, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
34. Pokharel, B. K., and H. Ojha. 2005. Community forestry in Nepal: A platform for public deliberations or technocratic hegemony? Paper presented at the XXII IUFRO World Congress, 8-13 August, Brisbane, Australia.
35. Thoms, C. 2008. Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: A critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum 39:1452-1465.
36. Tinker, I. 2004. Quotas for women in elected legislatures: Do they really empower women? Women's Stud. Int. Forum 27(5-6):531-546.
37. Sharma, K. 2006. The political economy of civil war in Nepal. World Dev. 34(7):1237-1253.
38. Shortall, S. 2008. Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation and social capital: Exploring the differences. J. Rural Stud. 24:450-457.
39. 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.
40. Upadhyay, B. 2005. Women and natural resource management: Illustrations from India and Nepal. Nat. Resource Forum 29(3):224-232.
41. Vissandjee, B., A. Apale, S. Wieringa, S. Badool, and S. Dupéré. 2005. Empowerment beyond numbers: Substantiating women's political participation. J. Int. Women's Stud. 7(2):123-141.