Does "Participation" in Common Pool Resource Management Help the Poor? A Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of Joint Forest Management in Jharkhand, India

By Sanjay Kumar. 2002

391 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Ocean Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/06369be8a80c0163c5276e74b764662e2809758f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

1. J. Lovett
2. E. Milner‐Gulland
3. B. Adhikari
4. J. Baland
5. Salvatore Di Falco
6. K. Gupta
7. Matthew Sommerville
8. Andrew Pullin

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. B. Adhikari
2. J. Baland
3. E. Milner‐Gulland
4. Salvatore Di Falco
5. K. Gupta
6. Matthew Sommerville
7. Julia P. G. Jones
8. Arun Agrawal

In Ocean Engineering

1. B. Adhikari
2. J. Baland
3. Salvatore Di Falco
4. K. Gupta
5. Julia P. G. Jones
6. Arun Agrawal
7. P. Francois

Citations in the corpus

• Energy, Gender and Development: What are the Linkages? Where is the Evidence? (2011, neutral): “Several studies, all from India and Nepal, have found that there is a bias in the design of community forestry groups, whereby most benefits accrue to richer households and to men, and that less benefit, or more cost, accrues to poorer households and women (Agarwal, 1997; Sarin, 1998; Agarwal, 2001;”
• Decentralization and Participation: The Governance of Common Pool Resources in Nepal’s Terai (2005, background): “Land and livestock holding are commonly used as indicators of economic status and its variations (Adhikari, Di Falco, & Lovett, 2004; Kumar, 2002).”
• Commons as Insurance and the Welfare Impact of Privatization (2005, background): “JFM projects are widespread, as of March 31, 2001 there were 44,943 official JFM groups protecting over 11.63 million hectares of land, corresponding to 15.5% of India’s recorded forest area (Kumar, 2002, p. 765).”
• Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal (2004, background): “On one hand, researchers have described the positive impacts of the CF program on forest regeneration and improvement of the biophysical condition of forests, however, at the same time they have questioned the equity and welfare implications of institutional change (Branney and Yadav, 1998; Das, 200”
• Poverty, property rights and collective action: understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management (2005, background): “However, results emerging from experiments in community management suggest that there may be a number of distributional problems associated with structured attempts to manage common pool resources (CPRs) (Kumar, 2002).”
• Does community forest management provide global environmental benefits and improve local welfare (2012, background): “Only two studies reported any baseline data from both CFM and comparator sites, and in both cases their collection and presentation were limited (Kumar 2002; Maharjan et al. 2009).”
• The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based Payment for Environmental Services interventions: A case study from Menabe, Madagascar☆ (2010, background): “, 2000; Thompson and Homewood, 2002; Balint and Mashinya, 2006; Fritzen, 2007), variable opportunity and transaction costs among individuals and communities resulting in the perception of unfair distribution (Kumar, 2002; Adhikari, 2005; Meshack et al., 2006) and the exacerbation of long-standing in”