Governing Old-Growth Forests: The Interdependence of Actors in Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia

Society and Natural Resources

Volumn 25, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 900-914

  Raitio, Kaisa ^a,b   Saarikoski, Heli ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^b SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^c FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

forest conflicts; forest planning; governance; Great Bear Rainforest

Indexed keywords

CIVIL SOCIETY; CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; FOREST MANAGEMENT; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INDIGENOUS POPULATION; OLD-GROWTH FOREST; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; RAINFOREST; STAKEHOLDER;

BRITISH COLUMBIA; CANADA; GREAT BEAR RAINFOREST;

EID: 84864013137     PISSN: 08941920     EISSN: 15210723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2011.642462     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Alasuutari, P. 1998. An introduction to social sciences. London: Sage.
2. Armstrong, P. 2009. Conflict resolution and the British Columbia's Great Bear Rainforest. Lessons learned 1995-2009. http://www.coastforestconservationinitiative.com/pdf7/GBR_PDF.pdf (accessed 18 June 2010).
3. Boström, M. 2003. How state-dependent is a non-state rule-making project? The case of forest certification in Sweden. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 5 (2): 165-180.
4. Bulkeley, H.2005. Reconfiguring environmental governance. Towards a politics of scales and networks. Polit. Geogr.24:875-902.
5. Bernstein, S., and B. Cashore. 2007. Can non state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regul. Governance 1 (4): 347-371.
6. Cashore, B., G. Hoberg, M. Howlett, J. Rayner, and J. Wilson. 2001. In search of sustainability: British Columbia forest policy in the 1990s. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.
7. CCLRMP. 2004. BC Central Coast LRMP completion table. Report of consensus recommendations to the provincial government and First Nations. http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/cencoast/docs/table_rec/final_report_may20_04.pdf
8. Clapp, R. A. 2004. Wilderness ethics and political ecology: Remapping the Great Bear Rainforest. Polit. Geogr. 23: 839-862.
9. Daniels, S. E., and G. B. Walker. 2001. Working through environmental conflict. The collaborative learning approach. Westport, CT: Praeger.
10. Delmas, M., and O. Young. 2009. Introduction: New perspectives on governance for sustainable development. In Governance for the environment. New perspectives, ed. M. Delmas and O. Young, 3-11. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11. Glück, P., J. Rayner, and B. Cashore. 2005. Changes in the governance of forest resources. In Forests in the global balance-Changing paradigms, ed. G. Mery, R. Alfaro, M. Kanninen, and M. Labovikov, 51-74. IUFRO World Series, vol. 17. Helsinki: IUFRO.
12. Howlett, M., J. Rayner, and C. Tollefson. 2009. From government to governance in forest planning? Lessons from the case of British Columbia Great Bear Rainforest initiative. For. Policy Econ. 11: 383-391.
13. Kooiman, J. 1993. Findings, speculations and recommendations. In Modern governance: New government-society interactions, ed. J. Kooiman, 249-262. London: Sage.
14. Lemos, M. C., and A. Agrawal. 2009. Environmental governance and political science. In Governance for the environment. New perspectives, ed. M. Delmas and O. Young, 69-97. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15. Liefferink, D., M. S. Andersen, and M. Enevoldsen. 2000. Interpreting joint environmental policy-making: Between deregulation and political modernization. In The voluntary approach to environmental policy. Joint environmental policy-making in Europe, ed. A. Mol, V. Lauber, and D. Liefferink, 10-31. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16. Mc Gee, G., A. Cullen, and T. Gunton. 2009. A new model for sustainable development: A case study of the Great Bear Rainforest regional plan. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 12 (5): 745-762.
17. Ollonqvist, P. 2002. Collaboration in the forest policy arena in Finland-From neo-corporatist planning to participatory programme preparation. In National forest programmes in a European context, ed. E. Gislerud and I. Neven, 27-48. Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute.
18. Pierre, J., and G. Peters. 2000. Governance, politics and the state. London: MacMillan.
19. Rhodes, R. A. W. 1996. The new governance: Governing without governance. Polit. Stud. XLIV: 652-667.
20. Rydin, Y., and E. Falleth, eds. 2006. Networks and institutions in natural resource management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
21. Saglie, I.-L. 2006. Fragmented institutions: the problem facing natural resource management. In Networks and institutions in natural resource management, ed. Y. Rydin and E. Falleth, 1-14. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
22. Smith, M., and L. Coady. 2001. Joint Solutions Project (JSP). Presentation to the 9th Annual Conference of the Coastal Communities convened by the Coastal Community Network. March 16.
23. Stoker, G. 1998. Governance as theory: Five propositions. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 50 (155): 17-28.
24. Tahvonen, O., T. Leppänen, K. Hyytiäinen, T. Laakso, T. Määttä, and E. Viitala. 2004. Timber production goals, and economic goals in the Finnish forest legislation (Puuntuotannolliset ja taloudelliset tavoitteet Suomen metsälainsäädännössä). University of Eastern Finland Publications in Law no. 12. Joensuu, Finland.
25. van Tatenhove, J., and P. Leroy. 2003. Environment and participation in a context of political modernisation. Environ. Values 12: 155-174.
26. World Wide Fund For Nature 2010. Protected area networks-Cornerstone of development: Making it happen! Gland, Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature International.