Scoring the importance of tropical forest landscapes with local people: Patterns and insights

被引:29
作者
Sheil, Douglas [1 ]
Liswanti, Nining [1 ]
机构
[1] Ctr Int Forestry Res, Jakarta 10065, Indonesia
关键词
rapid assessment; rural appraisal; participation; ranking; weighting; valuation;
D O I
10.1007/s00267-005-0092-7
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Good natural resource management is scarce in many remote tropical regions. Improved management requires better local consultation, but accessing and understanding the preferences and concerns of stakeholders can be difficult. Scoring, where items are numerically rated in relation to each other, is simple and seems applicable even in situations where capacity and funds are limited, but managers rarely use such methods. Here we investigate scoring with seven indigenous communities threatened by forest loss in Kalimantan, Indonesia. We aimed to clarify the forest's multifaceted importance, using replication, cross-check exercises, and interviews. Results are sometimes surprising, but generally explained by additional investigation that sometimes provides new insights. The consistency of scoring results increases in line with community literacy and wealth. Various benefits and pitfalls are identified and examined. Aside from revealing and clarifying local preferences, scoring has unexplored potential as a quantitative technique. Scoring is an underappreciated management tool with wide potential.
引用
收藏
页码:126 / 136
页数:11
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
ABEYASEKERA S, 2001, ANAL APPROACHES PART
[2]  
Arrow K. J., 2012, SOCIAL CHOICE INDIVI
[3]  
Barr C., 2001, IMPACTS DECENTRALISA
[4]  
Basuki I, 2005, LOCAL PERSPECTIVES F
[5]  
Campbell BM, 1997, ECON BOT, V51, P59, DOI 10.1007/BF02910405
[6]  
Chambers R., 1992, Discussion Paper - Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex
[7]  
CHAMBERS R, 1995, FOREST TREES PEOPLE, V26, P4
[8]  
COLFER CJP, 1997, SLASH BURN LESSON KE
[9]  
Goldstein W.M., 1997, Research on judgment and decision making: Currents, connections, and controversies, P566
[10]  
KANBUR R, 2001, QUALITATIVE QUANTITA