Toward a pro-poor forest science
Two distinct visions of tropical forests co-exist in the scientific literature. One is more neo-Malthusian. The other is more pro-poor. The evidence increasingly favours the latter, although many uncertainties remain. The pro-poor literature emphasises that poor families create and manage forests as...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | Inglés |
| Published: |
2002
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/18501 |
| _version_ | 1855526388621115392 |
|---|---|
| author | Kaimowitz, D. |
| author_browse | Kaimowitz, D. |
| author_facet | Kaimowitz, D. |
| author_sort | Kaimowitz, D. |
| collection | Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace) |
| description | Two distinct visions of tropical forests co-exist in the scientific literature. One is more neo-Malthusian. The other is more pro-poor. The evidence increasingly favours the latter, although many uncertainties remain. The pro-poor literature emphasises that poor families create and manage forests as well as destroy them, that the forests and the communities have evolved together, and that many forestry regulations and conservation initiatives hurt the poor without helping the forest. For those that support a more pro-poor vision, the challenge is to find ways to reach broader audiences with their message. That will require communicating in ways people can relate to and convincing them that they and the rural poor share many common interests. |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | CGSpace18501 |
| institution | CGIAR Consortium |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2002 |
| publishDateRange | 2002 |
| publishDateSort | 2002 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | CGSpace185012025-01-24T14:13:02Z Toward a pro-poor forest science Kaimowitz, D. forestry policies poverty communication Two distinct visions of tropical forests co-exist in the scientific literature. One is more neo-Malthusian. The other is more pro-poor. The evidence increasingly favours the latter, although many uncertainties remain. The pro-poor literature emphasises that poor families create and manage forests as well as destroy them, that the forests and the communities have evolved together, and that many forestry regulations and conservation initiatives hurt the poor without helping the forest. For those that support a more pro-poor vision, the challenge is to find ways to reach broader audiences with their message. That will require communicating in ways people can relate to and convincing them that they and the rural poor share many common interests. 2002 2012-06-04T09:06:32Z 2012-06-04T09:06:32Z Journal Article https://hdl.handle.net/10568/18501 en Kaimowitz, D. 2002. Toward a pro-poor forest science . IDS Bulletin 33 (1) :123-126. |
| spellingShingle | forestry policies poverty communication Kaimowitz, D. Toward a pro-poor forest science |
| title | Toward a pro-poor forest science |
| title_full | Toward a pro-poor forest science |
| title_fullStr | Toward a pro-poor forest science |
| title_full_unstemmed | Toward a pro-poor forest science |
| title_short | Toward a pro-poor forest science |
| title_sort | toward a pro poor forest science |
| topic | forestry policies poverty communication |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/18501 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kaimowitzd towardapropoorforestscience |