Property rights and multipurpose mountain forest management

Glück, Peter

doi:10.1016/s1389-9341(02)00012-6

Cited by 33 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In state property regimes, citizens typically have rights, such as public right of access to forests, that constrain state-owner's right of possession. Potentially, a state-property regime in which state government owns and controls the property has an advantage in flexibility concerning adaptation to changing values of society, whereas, "effectiveness and efficiency depend on the ruling actors and their interests in the particular political system" (Glück 2002). The statement indicates that state ownership as such is not the main problem in Russia.…”

Section: Property Rights and Tenure As Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Institutions and forest tenure in the Russian forest policy

Torniainen¹

2009

Diss. For.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Property Rights and Tenure As Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 2. Bundles of rights associated with different positions in the resource management system (modified from: Schlager and Ostrom, 1992;Glück, 2002 …”

Section: The Concept Of Property Rights In the Resource Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutions and forest tenure in the Russian forest policy

Torniainen¹

2009

Diss. For.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…BT has positive characteristics (Davis 1963) as this type of technique is relatively easy to understand and apply. Benefit transfer approaches have been used, for example, to estimate non-market benefits from recreation at Forestry Commission forests (Gelan et al 2007). These values were compared with data on the costs of recreational provision.…”

Section: Insights Into Conventional Methods Of Ecosystem Services Valmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuation of ecosystem services: paradox or Pandora’s box for decision-makers?

Nijnik

Miller²

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The valuation of ecosystem services (ES) employs a range of methods. Based on a literature review and selected empirical examples, we consider major opportunities and challenges in ecosystem services valuation. We analyse when different valuation methods are appropriate and most useful. We demonstrate that mechanisms to capture benefits and costs are needed; and that the use of valuation should be incorporated more widely in decision-making. However, we argue that ecosystems are complex systems: neither the ecosystems or the services that they provide are a sum, but are an interrelated system of components. If a component vanishes the whole system may collapse. Therefore, critical natural capital management, in particular, cannot rely on monetary values; whilst the maintanance of the whole system should be considered. Monetary valuation of biodiversity and landscapes is also problematic because of their uniqueness and distinctiveness, a shortage of robust primary valuations, and numerous complexities and uncertainties. We conclude that mixed method and deliberative discourse techniques, as well as proper integration of research tools, should be more widely applied to help decision-makers and the public to understand and assess changes in ES. The approaches developed and tested by us, as presented in this paper, can provide more complete, comprehensive and impartial insights into a range of benefits that humans derive from ecosystems. ‡ ‡

show abstract

“…The initial entitlements are then further specified through the provisions of public forest policies which contribute to define «forest property regimes» as institutions evolving through time as circumstances change (BARZEL 1997;KISSLING-NÄF & BISANG 2001;GLÜCK 2002). Together, the initial entitlement and the specification of rights characterize the allocation of rights referring to the utilisation of forest resources.…”

Section: State Intervention In Allocating Forest Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although significant contributions attempted to clarify the issue (BASS & HEARNE 1997;OSTROM 1998;AIZPURUA & GALILEA 2000;KISSLING-NÄF & BISANG 2001;GLÜCK 2002;KISSLING-NÄF et al 2002;BALAND & FRANÇOIS 2005;, there is still not enough knowledge on how the property relationship on forests effectively works and what structure of rights over forest utilisation exists in the European context. In fact, the actual research on forest property rights is largely characterized by the intent to clarify the legal possibility of transforming secondary forest products and services in marketable goods as an answer to decreasing financial returns from traditional forestry (CESARO et al 1998;MERLO et al 2000;MANTAU et al 2001;REKOLA 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allocation of Property Rights on Forests through Ownership Reform and Forest Policies in Central and Eastern European Countries

Bouriaud

Schmithüsen

2005

Schweizerische Zeitschrift Fur Forstwesen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study applies some concepts of the economics of property rights to the allocation of rights on forests in Central and Eastern European countries. The classification of forest assets, according to their economic characteristics and the analytical framework proposed by SCHLAGER & OSTROM (1992), are used to examine the impact of ownership reforms and policy changes on forest utilisation in the CEE region. It is shown that while reform ownership reforms deal with the formal definition of rights on forestland, new forest policies more properly define the economic rights, e.g. the owner's ability to make a profit from the assets he owns. The conclusions argue that the combination of property and liability rules, applied to ensure the procurement of environmental services, can efficiently allocate forest resources. However, the rules on forest utilisation are formulated collectively in public policy-driven decision making processes in which private forest owners are not yet able to adequately participate. Measures must be adopted to facilitate more effective participation of private land owners in political processes in order to balance the presently ongoing trends of considering forests, irrespective to the legal regime of ownership,as a common-pool resource.

show abstract

Property rights and multipurpose mountain forest management

Cited by 33 publications

References 6 publications

Institutions and forest tenure in the Russian forest policy

Institutions and forest tenure in the Russian forest policy

Valuation of ecosystem services: paradox or Pandora’s box for decision-makers?

Allocation of Property Rights on Forests through Ownership Reform and Forest Policies in Central and Eastern European Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About