In Search of Optimum Institutions for Forest Management

Keijiro Otsuka, Ryo Takahashi, Ridish Pokharel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There is a variety of forest management institutions ranging from state management to community and private management. This article attempts to identify the conditions under which one institution outperforms the others in the efficiency of forest management based on a review of the literature, empirical evidence on the dominant forest management institutions, and theoretical arguments. In conclusion, we argue that the community management system performs best for nontimber forests, whereas a mixed management system, in which forest protection is carried out communally and tree management is carried out individually, is likely to work best for timber forests.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)300-314
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of Sustainable Forestry
Volume34
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Apr 3
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Forestry
forest management
management systems
management
community resource management
mixed forests
Timber
Forests
community
efficiency

Keywords

  • community management
  • management incentives
  • mixed management
  • private management
  • protection cost
  • state management

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Food Science
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
  • Forestry
  • Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

Cite this

In Search of Optimum Institutions for Forest Management. / Otsuka, Keijiro; Takahashi, Ryo; Pokharel, Ridish.

In: Journal of Sustainable Forestry, Vol. 34, No. 3, 03.04.2015, p. 300-314.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Otsuka, Keijiro ; Takahashi, Ryo ; Pokharel, Ridish. / In Search of Optimum Institutions for Forest Management. In: Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 2015 ; Vol. 34, No. 3. pp. 300-314.
@article{5731f17b854f466796acdfd9435faf73,
title = "In Search of Optimum Institutions for Forest Management",
abstract = "There is a variety of forest management institutions ranging from state management to community and private management. This article attempts to identify the conditions under which one institution outperforms the others in the efficiency of forest management based on a review of the literature, empirical evidence on the dominant forest management institutions, and theoretical arguments. In conclusion, we argue that the community management system performs best for nontimber forests, whereas a mixed management system, in which forest protection is carried out communally and tree management is carried out individually, is likely to work best for timber forests.",
keywords = "community management, management incentives, mixed management, private management, protection cost, state management",
author = "Keijiro Otsuka and Ryo Takahashi and Ridish Pokharel",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1080/10549811.2014.993085",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "300--314",
journal = "Journal of Sustainable Forestry",
issn = "1054-9811",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In Search of Optimum Institutions for Forest Management

AU - Otsuka, Keijiro

AU - Takahashi, Ryo

AU - Pokharel, Ridish

PY - 2015/4/3

Y1 - 2015/4/3

N2 - There is a variety of forest management institutions ranging from state management to community and private management. This article attempts to identify the conditions under which one institution outperforms the others in the efficiency of forest management based on a review of the literature, empirical evidence on the dominant forest management institutions, and theoretical arguments. In conclusion, we argue that the community management system performs best for nontimber forests, whereas a mixed management system, in which forest protection is carried out communally and tree management is carried out individually, is likely to work best for timber forests.

AB - There is a variety of forest management institutions ranging from state management to community and private management. This article attempts to identify the conditions under which one institution outperforms the others in the efficiency of forest management based on a review of the literature, empirical evidence on the dominant forest management institutions, and theoretical arguments. In conclusion, we argue that the community management system performs best for nontimber forests, whereas a mixed management system, in which forest protection is carried out communally and tree management is carried out individually, is likely to work best for timber forests.

KW - community management

KW - management incentives

KW - mixed management

KW - private management

KW - protection cost

KW - state management

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84926160934&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84926160934&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10549811.2014.993085

DO - 10.1080/10549811.2014.993085

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84926160934

VL - 34

SP - 300

EP - 314

JO - Journal of Sustainable Forestry

JF - Journal of Sustainable Forestry

SN - 1054-9811

IS - 3

ER -