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

Geography

2 Citations (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.

Original language	English
Journal	Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Volume	32
Pages (from-to)	29-37
Number of pages	9
ISSN	1877-3435
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.03.011
Publication status	Published - Jun 2018

Access to Document

10.1016/j.cosust.2018.03.011

Cite this

@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

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this