Property rights and ecosystem properties

Sandberg, Audun

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.01.002

Cited by 31 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the main factors structuring access is the combination of forest ownership and forest management, and more specifically, the confrontation between legal forestry frameworks and local forest management (Sandberg 2007). This confrontation is more or less universal, as national forestry frameworks are often poorly compatible with local forest practices and organizations (Fairhead and Leach 1996).…”

Section: Complex Access Systems With Overlapping State and Customary mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Multiple Dimensions of Rural Forests: Lessons from a Comparative Analysis

Génin¹,

Aumeeruddy‐Thomas²,

Balent³

et al. 2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Rural forests are characterized by different levels of formal and nonformal appropriation by rural communities who have generally managed, shaped, or rebuilt these forest formations over many generations with refined local knowledge and practices related to their use and perpetuation. Rural forests are therefore social-ecological systems that contribute to ecosystem and landscapes configuration, definition of rural territories, and sustainability of local livelihoods. Although some studies have attempted to explain their specificities, in specific geographical and social contexts, their characteristics are not well defined as they encompass highly diversified situations. This lack of comprehension of the identity of rural forests is at the heart of the lack of dialogue between forestry policies and rural forest development. Our major aim is to identify universal characteristics of rural forests as well as specificities that can differentiate them. Eleven situations of rural forests were analyzed by means of detailed, harmonized monographs, from developing and developed countries, and localized within contrasting ecological environments (humid tropics, dry forests, temperate forests) and socio-economic and public policies contexts. Qualitative data were obtained through a common analytical framework and were encoded with an approach based on the collective appreciation of the group of researchers who developed case studies. These were pooled within a common analysis chart and were processed by means of multivariate analyses. Results were further discussed taking into consideration four major characteristics that emerged from this analysis, and which form the identity of rural forests. These are: 1) specific forest structures and levels of integration in agricultural matrices which are linked historically to overall agroecosystem approaches and practices, 2) a multiscale approach to domestication practices from landscape to individual trees inscribed in continuities between "nature" and "culture", natural processes and human techniques of control and transformation, 3) multiple uses of plant species which vary in relation to the commercial or noncommercial status of their products and a reversible nature of these use patterns accordingly, 4) the imbricate nature of rules of access and control between state and customary levels, and between individual and collective levels, requiring specific formal and informal arrangements. Typologies of rural forests can be drawn along each of these major characteristics and provide a reliable system to analyze and understand the functioning of rural forests. Forestry approaches in rural contexts, hence, need to consider variations along these major lines that form the identity cards of rural forests.

show abstract

Section: Complex Access Systems With Overlapping State and Customary mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Multiple Dimensions of Rural Forests: Lessons from a Comparative Analysis

Génin¹,

Aumeeruddy‐Thomas²,

Balent³

et al. 2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, political, economic, and legal institutions already impinging on water, such as cooperative irrigation, are a key contextual factor for understanding operational norms (Ostrom 1992). Ensuring the effectiveness of governance transitions therefore requires an understanding of how actors navigate socio-cultural norms and how ecosystems are comprehended vis-à-vis different culturally grounded rights regimes (Agrawal 2003, Sandberg 2007.…”

Section: Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethics and Water Governance

Groenfeldt¹,

Schmidt²

2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Ethics and values are important dimensions of water governance. We show how a "values approach" contributes to an understanding of global water governance, and how it complements other perspectives on governance, namely management, institutional capacity, and social-ecological systems. We connect these other approaches to their own value systems and the ethical attitudes they engender. We then offer a way to explicitly incorporate, and where necessary adjudicate, competing value systems through a values-based approach to governance. A case of the Santa Fe River in New Mexico, USA illustrates how value systems are reflected in water policies and how these values affect governance priorities, such as in environmental flows. The values-based approach clarifies tacit values and creates space to align local values with those needed for effective water governance at the global level.

show abstract

“…Several other authors decouple resources from institutional arrangements governing them. While they make different arguments, one of the threads that run through their work is the idea that rights of ownership can be combined in a wide variety of ways to create different institutional structures to manage a variety of types of resources (Bromley 1991;Steins 1996, 1998;Berge 2002;Ostrom 2003;Sandberg 2007;Short 2008). In this regard, Elinor Ostrom (2003, 249) notes, "Thus, common-pool resources are not automatically associated with commonproperty regimes -or with any other particular type of property regime".…”

Section: Goods and Property Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Maine land: Private property and hunting commons

Acheson

2009

Int J Commons

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In the burgeoning literature on property rights, relatively little analysis has been done on the relation between property rights regimes (i.e. individual property, state property, clan property), and the types of goods that are produced. In Maine [USA], the decisions of landowners are strongly influenced by government regulation which creates a number of types of goods. In addition, some of the rights to that land are appropriated by the public who use this land for recreation. Although the right of the public to use private land is under attack, currently this forestland is both privately owned and a recreational commons. At the same time, new property institutions are coming into being. As a result, a single "privately owned" parcel of land produces private goods, public goods, common pool resources and toll goods all at the same time. The Maine case points out that the relationship between various kinds of property rights and goods is more complicated than has been assumed by many social scientists involved in the "commons" debate.

show abstract

Property rights and ecosystem properties

Cited by 31 publications

References 17 publications

The Multiple Dimensions of Rural Forests: Lessons from a Comparative Analysis

The Multiple Dimensions of Rural Forests: Lessons from a Comparative Analysis

Ethics and Water Governance

Maine land: Private property and hunting commons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About