Monitoring systems to improve forest conditions

Laura Vang Rasmussen; Martin Rudbeck Jepsen

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.03.011

Monitoring systems to improve forest conditions

Laura Vang Rasmussen, Martin Rudbeck Jepsen

LUKKET: Geografi

2 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

There is a lack of generalizable empirical analyses of whether particular types of monitoring promote effective forest governance, and under what circumstances. We reviewed a specific sample of the peer-reviewed literature on how monitoring, including state-level, participatory, and third-party monitoring, might affect forest conditions. Examining 25 cases, we found three trends which limit our understanding of the effect of monitoring. First, there was a bias toward studies in Brazil and India, indicating that the literature might not be globally representative. Second, no studies compared different types of monitoring. Third, the majority of studies relied on qualitative approaches, making comparison across cases difficult. These insights suggest focusing research agendas on comparative assessment across sites and monitoring systems.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Vol/bind	32
Sider (fra-til)	29-37
Antal sider	9
ISSN	1877-3435
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.03.011
Status	Udgivet - jun. 2018

Adgang til dokumentet

10.1016/j.cosust.2018.03.011

Citationsformater

@article{114ab836afe14021b1ec707b24cc25fe,

title = "Monitoring systems to improve forest conditions",

abstract = "There is a lack of generalizable empirical analyses of whether particular types of monitoring promote effective forest governance, and under what circumstances. We reviewed a specific sample of the peer-reviewed literature on how monitoring, including state-level, participatory, and third-party monitoring, might affect forest conditions. Examining 25 cases, we found three trends which limit our understanding of the effect of monitoring. First, there was a bias toward studies in Brazil and India, indicating that the literature might not be globally representative. Second, no studies compared different types of monitoring. Third, the majority of studies relied on qualitative approaches, making comparison across cases difficult. These insights suggest focusing research agendas on comparative assessment across sites and monitoring systems.",

author = "Rasmussen, {Laura Vang} and Jepsen, {Martin Rudbeck}",

year = "2018",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1016/j.cosust.2018.03.011",

language = "English",

volume = "32",

pages = "29--37",

journal = "Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability",

issn = "1877-3435",

publisher = "Elsevier Ltd. * Current Opinion Journals",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Monitoring systems to improve forest conditions

AU - Rasmussen, Laura Vang

AU - Jepsen, Martin Rudbeck

PY - 2018/6

Y1 - 2018/6

N2 - There is a lack of generalizable empirical analyses of whether particular types of monitoring promote effective forest governance, and under what circumstances. We reviewed a specific sample of the peer-reviewed literature on how monitoring, including state-level, participatory, and third-party monitoring, might affect forest conditions. Examining 25 cases, we found three trends which limit our understanding of the effect of monitoring. First, there was a bias toward studies in Brazil and India, indicating that the literature might not be globally representative. Second, no studies compared different types of monitoring. Third, the majority of studies relied on qualitative approaches, making comparison across cases difficult. These insights suggest focusing research agendas on comparative assessment across sites and monitoring systems.

AB - There is a lack of generalizable empirical analyses of whether particular types of monitoring promote effective forest governance, and under what circumstances. We reviewed a specific sample of the peer-reviewed literature on how monitoring, including state-level, participatory, and third-party monitoring, might affect forest conditions. Examining 25 cases, we found three trends which limit our understanding of the effect of monitoring. First, there was a bias toward studies in Brazil and India, indicating that the literature might not be globally representative. Second, no studies compared different types of monitoring. Third, the majority of studies relied on qualitative approaches, making comparison across cases difficult. These insights suggest focusing research agendas on comparative assessment across sites and monitoring systems.

U2 - 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.03.011

DO - 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.03.011

M3 - Journal article

SN - 1877-3435

VL - 32

SP - 29

EP - 37

JO - Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

JF - Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

ER -

Monitoring systems to improve forest conditions

Abstract

Adgang til dokumentet

Fingeraftryk

Citationsformater