Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:03:03.835Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mixed method approaches to evaluate conservation impact: evidence from decentralized forest management in Tanzania†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2014

JENS FRIIS LUND ,
NEIL D. BURGESS ,
SHABANI A. O. CHAMSHAMA ,
KLAUS DONS ,
JACK A. ISANGO ,
GEORGE C. KAJEMBE ,
HENRIK MEILBY ,
FRANCIS MOYO ,
YONIKA M. NGAGA  and
STEPHEN E. NGOWI
...Show all authors
JENS FRIIS LUND*
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
NEIL D. BURGESS
Affiliation:
UNEP-WCMC, 219 Huntington Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK
SHABANI A. O. CHAMSHAMA
Affiliation:
Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania
KLAUS DONS
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
JACK A. ISANGO
Affiliation:
Tanzania Forest Research Institute, Tanzania
GEORGE C. KAJEMBE
Affiliation:
Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania
HENRIK MEILBY
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
FRANCIS MOYO
Affiliation:
Nelson Mandela African Institute of Science and Technology, Tanzania
YONIKA M. NGAGA
Affiliation:
Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania
STEPHEN E. NGOWI
Affiliation:
Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania
MARCO A. NJANA
Affiliation:
Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania
EZEKIEL E. MWAKALUKWA
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania
KATHRINE SKEIE
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
IDA THEILADE
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
THORSTEN TREUE
Affiliation:
Department of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
*
*Correspondence. Dr Jens Lund Tel: +45 3533 1767 Fax: +45 3533 1508 e-mail: jens@ifro.ku.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Nearly 10% of the world's total forest area is formally owned by communities and indigenous groups, yet knowledge of the effects of decentralized forest management approaches on conservation (and livelihood) impacts remains elusive. In this paper, the conservation impact of decentralized forest management on two forests in Tanzania was evaluated using a mixed method approach. Current forest condition, forest increment and forest use patterns were assessed through forest inventories, and changes in forest disturbance levels before and after the implementation of decentralized forest management were assessed on the basis of analyses of Landsat images. This biophysical evidence was then linked to changes in actual management practices, assessed through records, interviews and participatory observations, to provide a measure of the conservation impact of the policy change. Both forests in the study were found to be in good condition, and extraction was lower than overall forest increment. Divergent changes in forest disturbance levels were in evidence following the implementation of decentralized forest management. The evidence from records, interviews and participatory observations indicated that decentralized management had led to increased control of forest use and the observed divergence in forest disturbance levels appeared to be linked to differences in the way that village-level forest managers prioritized conservation objectives and forest-based livelihood strategies. The study illustrates that a mixed methods approach comprises a valid and promising way to evaluate impacts of conservation policies, even in the absence of control sites. By carefully linking policy outcomes to policy outputs, such an approach not only identifies whether such policies work as intended, but also potential mechanisms.

Keywords

Africacommunityconservation impactdecentralized forest managementimpact evaluationinventorypolicy
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 162 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Supplementary material can be found online at www.journals.cambridge.org/ENC

References

Andam, K.S., Ferraro, P.J., Pfaff, A., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G.A. & Robalino, J.A. (2008) Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105: 16089–16094.Google Scholar
Andersson, K. & Gibson, C. (2006) Decentralized governance and environmental change: local institutional moderation of deforestation in Bolivia. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26: 99–123.Google Scholar
Balooni, K. & Inoue, M. (2007) Decentralized forest management in South and Southeast Asia. Journal of Forestry 8: 414–420.Google Scholar
Blomley, T., Pfliegner, K., Isango, J., Zahabu, E., Ahrends, A. & Burgess, N.D. (2008) Seeing the wood for the trees: an assessment of the impact of participatory forest management on forest condition in Tanzania. Oryx 42: 380–391.Google Scholar
Bowler, D.E., Buyung-Ali, L.M., Healey, J.R., Jones, J.P.G., Knight, T.M. & Pullin, A.S. (2012) Does community forest management provide global environmental benefits and improve local welfare? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 101: 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, B. (2003) Questioning the credibility and capacity of community-based resource management. The Canadian Geographer 47: 137–150.Google Scholar
Brooks, T.M., Wright, S.J. & Sheil, D. (2009) Evaluating the success of conservation actions in safeguarding tropical forest biodiversity. Conservation Biology 23: 1448–1457.Google Scholar
Chidumayo, E.N. (1988) Estimating fuelwood production and yield in regrowth dry Miombo woodland in Zambia. Forest Ecology and Management 241: 59–66.Google Scholar
Dressler, W., Büsher, B., Schoon, M., Brockington, D., Hayes, T., Kull, C.A., McCarthy, J. & Shrestha, K. (2010) From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environmental Conservation 37: 5–15.Google Scholar
Frost, P. (1996) The ecology of miombo woodlands. In: The Miombo in Transition. Woodlands and Welfare in Africa, ed. Campbell, B., pp. 11–59. Bogor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
Geldmann, J., Barnes, M., Coad, L., Craigie, I.D., Hockings, M. & Burgess, N.D. (2013) Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Conservation Biology 161: 230–238.Google Scholar
Healey, S.P., Cohen, W.B., Zhiqiang, Y. & Krankina, O.N. (2005) Comparison of tasseled cap-based Landsat data structures for use in forest disturbance detection. Remote Sensing of Environment 97: 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, J.F. (2007) Is small beautiful? Village level taxation of natural resources in Tanzania. Public Administration and Development 27: 307–318.Google Scholar
Lund, J.F. & Nielsen, Ø.J. (2006) The promises of participatory forest management in forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the case of Tanzania. In: L’Afrique Orientale. Annuaire 2005, ed. Charton, H. & Médard, C., pp. 201–241. Paris, France: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Lund, J.F. & Treue, T. (2008) Are we getting there? Evidence of decentralized forest management from the Tanzanian miombo woodlands. World Development 36: 2780–2800.Google Scholar
Lund, J.F., Balooni, K. & Casse, T. (2009) Change we can believe in? Reviewing studies on the conservation impact of popular participation in forest management. Conservation and Society 72: 71–82.Google Scholar
Malimbwi, R.E., Solberg, B. & Luoga, E.J. (1994) Estimation of biomass and volume in miombo woodland at Kitulanghalo Forest Reserve, Tanzania. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 7: 230–242.Google Scholar
Meshack, C.K., Adhikari, B., Doggart, N. & Lovett, J.C. (2006) Transaction costs of community-based forest management: empirical evidence from Tanzania. African Journal of Ecology 44: 468–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, M.R. & Lund, J.F. (2012) Seeing white elephants? Production and communication of information in a locally-based monitoring scheme in Tanzania. Conservation and Society 10: 1–14.Google Scholar
Nolte, C. & Agrawal, A. (2013) Linking management effectiveness indicators to observed effects of protected areas on fire occurrence in the Amazon rainforest. Conservation Biology 27: 155–65Google Scholar
Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K.M. & Soares-Filho, B.S. (2013) Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110: 4956–4961.Google Scholar
Persha, L. & Blomley, T. (2009) Management decentralization and montane forest conditions in Tanzania. Conservation Biology 23: 1485–1496.Google Scholar
Porter-Bolland, L., Ellis, E.A., Guaruiguata, M.R., Ruiz-Mallen, I., Negrete-Yankelevich, S. & Reyes-Garcia, V. (2012) Community managed forests and forest protected areas: an assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management 268: 6–17.Google Scholar
Ribot, J., Lund, J.F. & Treue, T. (2010) Democratic decentralization in Sub-Saharan Africa: its contribution to forest management, livelihoods, and enfranchisement. Environmental Conservation 37: 35–44.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Izquierdo, E., Gavin, M.C. & Macedo-Bravo, M.O. (2010) Barriers and triggers to community participation across different stages of conservation management. Environmental Conservation 37: 239–249.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. & Abdallah, J.M. (2007) Forest diversity, tobacco production and resource management in Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 421–439.Google Scholar
Sunderlin, W., Hatcher, J. & Liddle, M. (2008) From exclusion to ownership? Challenges and opportunities in advancing forest tenure reform. Report. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Thomas, C.W. & Koontz, T.M. (2011) Research designs for evaluating the impact of community-based management on natural resource conservation. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research 32: 97–111.Google Scholar
Topp-Jørgensen, E., Poulsen, M.K., Lund, J.F. & Massao, J.F. (2005) Community-based monitoring of natural resource use and forest quality in montane forests and miombo woodlands in Iringa District, Tanzania, Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2653–2677.Google Scholar
Treue, T., Ngaga, Y.M., Meilby, H., Lund, J.F., Kajembe, G., Iddi, S., Blomley, T., Theilade, I., Chamshama, S.A.O., Skeie, K., Njana, M.A., Ngowi, S., Isango, J.A. & Burgess, N.D. (2014) Does participatory forest management promote sustainable forest utilization in Tanzania? International Forestry Review 16: 23–28.Google Scholar
Vyamana, V.G. (2009) Participatory forest management in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Tanzania: who benefits? International Forestry Review 11: 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waylen, K.A., Fisher, A., McGowan, P.J.K., Thirgood, S.J. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2010) Effect of local cultural context on the success of community-based conservation interventions. Conservation Biology 24: 1119–1129.Google Scholar
White, H. (2009) Theory-based impact evaluation: principles and practice. Journal of Development Effectiveness 1: 271–284.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lund Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Lund Supplementary Material(File)
File 27.4 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Lund Supplementary Material

Figure S1

Download Lund Supplementary Material(Image)
Image 5.3 MB
Supplementary material: Image

Lund Supplementary Material

Figure S2

Download Lund Supplementary Material(Image)
Image 52.2 MB
Supplementary material: Image

Lund Supplementary Material

Figure S3

Download Lund Supplementary Material(Image)
Image 1.8 MB