Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2015 | 2 | nr 1 | 59--78
Tytuł artykułu

Fit between Conservation Instruments and Local Social Systems : Cases of Co-Management and Payments for Ecosystem Services

Treść / Zawartość
Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
We draw on the concept of 'fit' to understand how co-management and Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) as governance instruments could better acknowledge local social complexities. Achieving 'participatory fit' requires well-designed and fair processes, which enhance local acceptance towards the implemented rules. Thus, such fit can contribute to establishing new institutions in conservation governance. However, previous literature on participation has had strong focus on properties of decision-making processes, which often neglects the question on how local realities effect on local people's ability and willingness to participate in the work of governance instruments. We approach 'participatory fit' by identifying six properties of heterogeneous local social systems that governance instruments need to acknowledge to nurture balanced bottom-up participation: 1) economic resources and structures, 2) relationships to land, 3) level of education, 4) relationships between diverse actors, 5) divergent problem definitions, and 6) local identities. We discuss related sources of misfits and develop proposals on how conservation instruments could function as bridging organizations facilitating polycentric institutional structures that fit better to the social systems they are intended to govern. Such hybridization of governance could avoid pitfalls of considering one particular instrument (e.g. co-management or PES) as a panacea able to create win-win solutions. (original abstract)
Opis fizyczny
  • University of Oulu, Finland
  • University of Oulu, Finland
  • University of Oulu, Finland
  • Adams M. 2008. Foundational myths: country and conservation in Australia. Transforming Cultures eJournal 3(1): 291-317.
  • Adams W.M., and J. Hutton. 2007. People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation & Society 5(2): 147-183.
  • Adhikari B., and A. Agrawal. 2013. Understanding the Social and Ecological Outcomes of PES Projects: A Review and an Analysis. Conservation & Society 11(4): 359-374.
  • Adhikari B., S. Di Falco, and J.C. Lovett. 2004. Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economics 48(2): 245-257.
  • Adhikari B., and J.C. Lovett. 2006a. Transaction costs and community-based natural resource management in Nepal. Journal of Environmental Management 78(1): 5-15.
  • Adhikari B., and J.C. Lovett. 2006b. Institutions and collective action: does heterogeneity matter in community-based management? Journal of Development Studies 42(3): 426-445.
  • Agarwal B. 2009. Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women's participation in community forest governance. Ecological Economics 68(11): 2785-2799.
  • Agarwal B. 2010. Does women's proportional strength affect their participation? Governing local forests in South Asia. World Development 38(1): 98-112.
  • Agrawal A. 2001. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development 29(10): 1649-1672.
  • Agrawal A., and C.C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27(4): 629-649.
  • Agrawal A., and S. Goyal. 2001. Group size and collective action: third-party monitoring in common-pool resources. Comparative Political Studies 34(1): 63-93.
  • Agrawal A., and K. Gupta. 2005. Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal's Terai. World Development 33(7): 1101-1114.
  • Agrawal A., and E. Ostrom. 2001. Collective action, property rights and devolution of forest and protected area management. In: Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural resource management: exchange of knowledge and implications for policy (eds. Meinzen-Dick R., A. Knox, and M. Di Gregorio). Pp. 75-109. Feldafing, Germany: DSE.
  • Ajayi O.C., B.K. Jack, and B. Leimona. 2012. Auction design for the private provision of public goods in developing countries: lessons from payments for environmental services in Malawi and Indonesia. World Development 40(6): 1213-1223.
  • Andersson K.P., and E. Ostrom. 2008. Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy Science 41(1): 71-93.
  • Andrade G.S., and J.R Rhodes. 2012. Protected areas and local communities: an inevitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies? Ecology & Society 17(4): 14.
  • Araral E. 2009. What explains collective action in the commons? Theory and evidence from the Philippines. World Development 37(3): 687-697.
  • Armitage D., R. Plummer, F. Berkes, R. Arthur, A. Charles, I. Davidson-Hunt, A. Diduck, et al. 2009. Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology 7(2): 95-102.
  • Asquith N.M., M.T. Vargas & S. Wunder. 2008. Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecological Economics 65: 675-684.
  • Baland J.M., and J.P. Platteau. 2007. Collective action on the commons: The role of inequality. In: Inequality, cooperation, and environmental sustainability (eds. Baland J.M., P. Bardhan, and S. Bowles). Pp. 10-35. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Baral N. 2012. Empirical analysis of factors explaining local governing bodies' trust for administering agencies in community-based conservation. Journal of Environmental Management 103(30): 41-50.
  • Baral N., and J.T. Heinen. 2007. Decentralization and people's participation in conservation: A comparative study from the Western Terai of Nepal. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 14(5): 520-531.
  • Behera B. 2009. Explaining the performance of state-community joint forest management in India. Ecological Economics 69(1): 177-185.
  • Berkes F. 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39): 15188-15193.
  • Berkes F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5): 1692-1702.
  • Berkes F., & Folke. C. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. In: F. Berkes, C. Folke, and J. Colding (eds.). Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience, 1-25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bertzky B., C. Corrigan, J. Kemsey, S. Kenney, C. Ravilious, C. Besançon, and N. Burgess. 2012. Protected planet report 2012: tracking progress towards global targets for protected areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC.
  • Borrini-Feyerabend G., A. Kothari, and G. Oviedo. 2004. Indigenous and local communities and protected areas: towards equity and enhanced conservation. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC.
  • Boyce J. 2002. The political economy of the environment. UK: Edward Elgar.
  • Bozmoski A., and N. Hultman. 2010. Participant perceptions of risk and benefit in carbon forestry: evidence from central Tanzania. Journal of Environment and Development 19(1): 4-27.
  • Brockington D. 2004. Community conservation, inequality and injustice: myths of power in protected area management. Conservation & Society 2(2): 411-432.
  • Brown K. 2003. Integrating conservation and development: a case of institutional misfit. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(9): 479-487.
  • Bruner A., R. Naidoo, and A. Balmford. 2008. Review of the costs of conservation and priorities for action. Accessed on December 4, 2013.
  • Caizhen L. 2010. Water policies in China: a critical perspective on gender equity. Gender, Technology & Development 13(3): 319-339.
  • Carlsson L., and F. Berkes. 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75(1): 65-76.
  • Castro A.P., and E. Nielsen. 2001. Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management. Environmental Science & Policy 4(4-5): 229-239.
  • Chen X., F. Lupi, G. He, and J. Liu. 2009. Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in payments for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(28): 1812-1817.
  • Chhatre A., and A. Agrawal. 2008. Forest commons and local enforcement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(36): 13286-13291.
  • Coombess B., and S. Hill. 2005. "Na whenua, na Tuhoe. Ko D.o.C. te partner"-Prospects for Comanagement of Te Urewera National Park. Society and Natural Resources 18(2): 135-152.
  • Cornwall A. 2008. Unpacking 'participation': models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal 43(3): 269-283.
  • Corbera E. 2012. Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4(6): 612-619.
  • Corbera E. 2005. Bringing development into carbon forestry markets: challenges and outcomes of small-scale carbon forestry activities in Mexico. In: Carbon forestry: who will benefit? (eds. Murdiyarso D. and H. Herawati). Pp. 42-56. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.
  • Corbera E., and K. Brown. 2010. Offsetting benefits? Analyzing access to forest carbon. Environment and Planning A, 42(7): 1739-1761.
  • Corbera E., and K. Brown. 2008. Building institutions to trade ecosystem services: marketing forest carbon in Mexico. World Development 36(10): 1956-1979.
  • Corbera E., C. González Soberanis, and K. Brown. 2009. Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: an analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics 68(3): 743-761.
  • Corbera E., N. Kosoy, and M.M. Tuna. 2007. Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: Case studies from Meso-America. Global Environmental Change 17(3-4): 365-380.
  • Cox M., G. Arnold, and S. Villamayor Tomás. 2010. A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecology and Society 15(4): 38. [online] URL:
  • Cronkleton P., J.M. Pulhin, and S. Saigal. 2012. Co-management in community forestry: how the partial devolution of management rights creates challenges for forest communities. Conservation & Society 10(2): 91-102.
  • Daily G., and P. Matson. 2008. Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(28): 9455-9456.
  • Dearden P., M. Bennett, and J. Johnston. 2005. Trends in global protected area governance, 1992-2002. Environmental Management 36(1): 89-100.
  • DeCaro D.A. and M.K. Stokes 2013. Public participation and institutional fit: a social-psychological perspective. Ecology and Society 18(4): 40.
  • Dzingirai V. 2003. 'CAMPFIRE is not for Ndebele migrants': the impact of excluding outsiders from CAMPFIRE in the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. Journal of Southern African Studies 29(2): 445-459.
  • Engel S., S. Pagiola, and S. Wunder. 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65(4): 663-675.
  • Farley J., and R. Costanza. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecological Economics 69(11): 2060-2068.
  • Fisher J. 2012. No pay, no care? A case study exploring motivations for participation in payments for ecosystem services in Uganda. Oryx 46(1): 45-54.
  • Folke C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441-473.
  • Folke C., L. Pritchard, F. Berkes, J. Colding, and U. Svedin. 2007. The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecology & Society 12(1): 30.
  • Fraser N. 2009. Scales of justice; reimagining political space in a globalising world. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Gibson C.C., and S.A. Marks. 1995. Transforming rural hunters into conservationists: an assessment of community-wildlife management programmes in Africa. World Development 23(6): 941-957.
  • Gibson C.C., J.T. Williams, and E. Ostrom. 2005. Local enforcement and better forests. World Development 33(2): 273-284.
  • Grieg-Gran M., I. Porras, and S. Wunder. 2005. How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Development 33(9): 1511-1527.
  • Gutiérrez N.L., R. Hilborn, and O. Defeo. 2011. Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470(7334): 386-389.
  • Hanna S.S., C. Folke, and K-G. Maler (eds.). 1997. Rights to nature: ecological, economic, cultural and political principles of institutions for the environment. Washington DC: Island Press.
  • Hazzah L., M. Borgerhoff Mulder, and L. Frank. 2009. Lions and warriors: social factors underlying declining African lion populations and the effect of incentive-based management in Kenya. Biological Conservation 142(11): 2428-2437.
  • Heikkinen H.I., O. Moilanen, M. Nuttall, and S. Sarkki. 2011. Managing predators, managing reindeer: contested conceptions of predator policies in the southeast Reindeer herding area of Finland. Polar Record 47(242): 218-230.
  • Hiedanpää J. 2013. Institutional misfits: law and habits in Finnish wolf policy. Ecology & Society, 18(1): 24.
  • Holling C.S., and G.K. Meffe. 1996. Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management. Conservation Biology 10(2): 328-337.
  • Houde N. 2007. The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology & Society 12(2): 34.
  • Hsieh H-F., and S.E. Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277-1288.
  • Huang M., S.K. Upadhyaya, R. Jindal, and J. Kerr. 2009. Payments for watershed services in Asia: a review of current initiatives. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 28(3-5): 551-575.
  • Jack B., C. Kousky, and K. Sims. 2008. Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(28): 9465-9470.
  • Jones S. 2007. Tigers, trees and Tharu: an analysis of community forestry in the buffer zone of the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Geoforum 38(3): 558-575.
  • Jones N., J.R.A. Clark, M. Panteli, M. Proikaki, and P.G. Dimitrakopoulos. 2012. Local social capital and the acceptance of protected area policies: an empirical study of two Ramsar river delta ecosystems in northern Greece. Journal of Environmental Management 96(1): 55-63.
  • Jumbe C.B., and A. Angelsen. 2007. Forest dependence and participation in CPR management: empirical evidence from forest co-management in Malawi. Ecological Economics 62(3-4): 661-672.
  • Kellert S.R., J.N. Mehta, S.A. Ebbin, and L.L. Lichtenfeld. 2000. Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society & Natural Resources 13(8): 705-715.
  • Kemkes R.J., J. Farley, and C.J. Koliba. 2010. Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision. Ecological Economics 69(11): 2069-2074.
  • Kerr J., M. Vardhan, and R. Jindal. 2012. Prosocial behavior and incentives: evidence from field experiments in rural Mexico and Tanzania. Ecological Economics 73: 220-227.
  • Kumar S. 2002. Does "participation" in common pool resource management help the poor? A social cost-benefit analysis of joint forest management in Jharkhand, India. World Development 30(5): 763-782.
  • Lachapelle P.R., P.D. Smith, and S.F. McCool. 2004. Access to power or genuine empowerment? An analysis of three community forest groups in Nepal. Human Ecology Review 11(1): 1-12.
  • Lemaitre S. 2011. Indigenous peoples' land rights and REDD: a case study. RECIEL 20(2): 150-162.
  • Lise W. 2000. Factors influencing people's participation in forest management in India. Ecological Economics 34(3): 379-392.
  • Liverman D. 2004. Who governs, at what scale and at what price? Geography, environmental governance, and the commodification of nature. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94(4): 734-738.
  • Lund J.F., and T. Treue. 2008. Are we getting there? Evidence of decentralized forest management from the Tanzanian Miombo woodlands. World Development 36(12): 2780-2800.
  • MA. 2003. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Washington DC: Island Press.
  • Malla Y.B., H.R. Neupane, and P.J. Branney. 2003. Why aren't poor people benefiting more from community forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihood 3(1): 78-92.
  • Maskey V., T.G. Gebremedhin, and T.J. Dalton. 2006. Social and cultural determinants of collective management of community forest in Nepal. Journal of Forest Economics 11(4): 261-274.
  • Matose F. 2006. Co-management options for reserved forests in Zimbabwe and beyond: policy implications of forest management strategies. Forest Policy & Economics 8(4): 363-374.
  • McAfee K., and E.N. Shapiro. 2010. Payments for Ecosystem Services in Mexico: nature, neoliberalism, social movements, and the state. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100(3): 579-599.
  • McDermott M., S. Mahanty, and K. Schreckenberg. 2013. Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy 33: 416-427.
  • Menzies N.K. 2007. Our forest, your ecosystem, their timber: communities, conservation, and the state in community-based forest management. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Mohanty B., and G. Sahu. 2012. An empirical study on elements of forest governance: a study of JFM implementation models in Odisha. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 37: 314-323.
  • Mukul S.A., A.M. Rashid, S.A. Quazi, M.B. Uddin, and J. Fox. 2012. Local peoples' responses to co-management regime in protected areas: a case study from Satchari National Park, Bangladesh. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 21(1): 16-29.
  • Mulrennan M.E., R. Mark, and C.H. Scott. 2012. Revamping community-based conservation through participatory research. The Canadian Geographer 56(2): 243-259.
  • Muradian R., M. Arsel, L. Pellegrini, F. Adaman, B. Aguilar, B. Agarwal, E. Corberra, et al. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conservation Letters 6(4): 274-279.
  • Musyoki J.K., J. Mugwe, K. Mutundu, and M. Muchiri. 2013. Determinants of household decision to join community forest associations: a case study of Kenya. ISRN Forestry 2013: 1-10.
  • Nagendra H., and E. Ostrom. 2012. Polycentric governance of multifunctional forested landscapes. International Journal of the Commons 6(2): 104-133.
  • Naidu S.C. 2009. Heterogeneity and collective management: evidence from common forests in Himachal Pradesh, India. World Development 37(3): 676-686.
  • Neef A., and D. Thomas. 2009. Rewarding the upland poor for saving the commons? Evidence from Southeast Asia. International Journal of Commons 3(1): 1-15.
  • Nightingale A.J. 2002. Participating or just sitting in? The dynamics of gender and caste in community forestry. Journal of Forests and Livelihood 2(1): 17-24.
  • North D. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Olsson P., C. Folke, V. Galaz, T. Hahn, and L. Schultz. 2007. Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden. Ecology & Society 12(1): 28.
  • Olsson P., C. Folke, and T. Hahn. 2004. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in Southern Sweden. Ecology & Society 9(4): 2.
  • O'Neill J. 2001. Property, care, and environment. Environment and Planning C 19(5): 695-711.
  • Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ostrom E. 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 20(4): 550-557.
  • Ostrom E. 2009. A general framework for analysing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325: 419.
  • Pagiola S., A. Arcenas, and G. Platais. 2005. Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Development 33(2): 237-253.
  • Pagiola S., J. Bishop, N. Landell-Mills (eds.). 2002. Selling forest environmental services. market-based mechanisms for conservation and development. London: Earthscan.
  • Pejchar L., P. Morgan, M. Caldwell, C. Palmer, and G. Daily. 2007. Evaluating the potential for conservation development: biophysical, economic, and institutional perspectives. Conservation Biology 21(1): 69-78.
  • Peterson R.B., D. Russell, P. West, and J.P. Brosius. 2010. Seeing (and doing) conservation through cultural lenses. Environmental Management 45(1): 5-18.
  • Portes A. 1998. Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual review of sociology 24(1): 1-24.
  • Pretty J. 2003. Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302(5652): 1912-1914.
  • Ray B., and R.N. Bhattacharya. 2011. Transaction costs, collective action and survival of heterogeneous co-management institutions: case study of forest management organisations in West Bengal, India. The Journal of Development Studies 47(2): 253-273.
  • Reed M.S., A. Graves, N. Dandy, H. Posthumus, K. Hubacek, J. Morris, C. Prell, et al. 2009. Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management 90(5): 1933-1949.
  • Reid H., D. Fig, H. Magome, and N. Leader-Williams. 2004. Co-management of contractual national parks in South Africa: lessons from Australia. Conservation & Society 2(2): 377-409.
  • Reynolds T.W. 2011. Institutional determinants of success among forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 40(3): 542-544.
  • Robertson N., and S. Wunder. 2005. Fresh tracks in the forest: assessing incipient payments for environmental services initiatives in Bolivia. Jakarta, Indonesia: (CIFOR) Center for International Forestry Resources.
  • Rosa H., D. Barry, S. Kandel, and L. Dimas. 2004. Compensation for environmental services and rural communities: lessons from Americas. Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts Amherst: Working Paper Series 96. Accessed on December 4, 2013.
  • Sarkki S., H.I. Heikkinen, and T.P. Karjalainen. 2013. Sensitivity in transdisciplinary projects: A case of reindeer management in Finland. Land Use Policy 34: 183-192.
  • Sillitoe P., A.A. Alshawi, and A. Hassan. 2010. Challenges to conservation: land use change and local participation in the Al Reem Biosphere Reserve, West Qatar. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 6(1): 28.
  • Singh V.S., D.N. Pandey, and N.P. Prakash. 2011. What determines the success of joint forest management? Science-based lessons on sustainable governance of forests in India. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 56(1): 126-133.
  • Sommerville M., J. Jones, and E. Milner-Gulland. 2009. A revised conceptual framework for payments for environmental services. Ecology & Society 14(2): 34.
  • Soussan J.G. 2000. Community forestry in Nepal: sustainability and impacts on common and private property resource management. Leeds: University of Leeds, School of Environment Final Technical Report of Natural Resource Systems Programme project R6778.
  • Stoll-Kleemann S., A.C. De la Vega-Leinert, and L. Schultz. 2010. The role of community participation in the effectiveness of UNESCO Biosphere Reserve management: evidence and reflections from two parallel global surveys. Environmental Conservation 37(3): 227-238.
  • Tacconi L. (2012). Redefining payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 73(1): 29-36.
  • Thakadu O.T. 2005. Success factors in community based natural resources management in northern Botswana: lessons from practice. Natural Resources Forum 29(3): 199-212.
  • van Noordwijk M., B. Leimona, R. Jindal, G.B. Villamor, M. Vardhan, S. Namirembe, D. Catacutan, et al. 2012. Payments for environmental services: evolution toward efficient and fair incentives for multifunctional landscapes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37: 389-420.
  • West P., and D. Brockington. 2006. An anthropological perspective on some unexpected consequences of protected areas. Conservation biology 20(3): 609-616.
  • West P., J. Igoe, and D. Brockington. 2006. Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 251-277.
  • Wilshusen P., S.R. Brechin, C. Fortwangler, and P.C. West. 2002. Reinventing a square wheel: a critique of a resurgent protection paradigm in international biodiversity conservation. Society & Natural Resources 15(1): 17-40.
  • Wunder S. 2006. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Bogor, Indonesia: (CIFOR) Center for International Forestry Research Occasional Paper No. 42.
  • Wunder S. 2007. The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical Conservation. Conservation Biology 21(1): 48-58.
  • Wunder S. 2013. When payments for environmental services will work for conservation. Conservation letters 6(4): 230-237.
  • Xu J., L. Chen, Y. Lu, and B. Fu. 2006. Local people's perceptions as decision support for protected area management in Wolong Biosphere Reserve, China. Journal of Environmental Management 78(4): 362-372.
  • Young O.R. 2002. The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay and scale. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Young O., and A. Underdal. 1997. Institutional dimensions of global change. Bonn, Germany: International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change IHDP Scoping Report.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.