IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Social acceptability of alternative forest regimes in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, using stakeholder attitudes as metrics of uncertainty

Listed author(s):
  • Kijazi, Martin Herbert
  • Kant, Shashi
Registered author(s):

    The study evaluates social acceptability of three alternative forest management regimes: state-controlled management; community-based management; and collaborative management involving multiple stakeholders. Villagers, foresters, park employees, entrepreneurs and environmentalists were surveyed. A fuzzy-logic based possibility schema for evaluation of forest stakeholder attitudes is developed, and empirically used to investigate stakeholder attitudes towards these alternative forest regimes in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Non-parametric statistical analysis is used to draw statistical inferences. The three regimes are ranked based on efficiency, justice, and (un)certainty criteria. The results indicate that the conventional bureaucratic forest regime is falling out of favor in the interests of multi-stakeholders forest management. Due to strategic significance of Mount Kilimanjaro forest resources, and diverse interests of multi-stakeholders (local to global), complete devolution of power to local communities did not gunner an overall favorable social acceptability, either, among the surveyed stakeholders. The findings, however, support a strong desire for increased societal participation in the form of collaborative multi-stakeholder forest management. This outcome calls for significant policy changes to increase participation, as well as harmonization of values and institutions of different stakeholders as a pre-requisite for negotiation among the stakeholders in Mount Kilimanjaro who seek to co-ordinate their activities for sustainable forest management.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Forest Policy and Economics.

    Volume (Year): 13 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 4 (April)
    Pages: 242-257

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:13:y:2011:i:4:p:242-257
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Rogers, Martin & Bruen, Michael, 1998. "Choosing realistic values of indifference, preference and veto thresholds for use with environmental criteria within ELECTRE," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 542-551, June.
    3. Ells, A & Bulte, E & van Kooten, G-C., 1995. "Uncertainty and Forest Land Use Allocation in British Columbia : Vague Priorities and Imprecise Coefficients," Mansholt Working Papers 1995-04, Wageningen University, Mansholt Graduate School of Social Sciences.
    4. Buchy, M. & Hoverman, S., 2000. "Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 15-25, May.
    5. Elliott, Chris & Schlaepfer, Rodolphe, 2001. "Understanding forest certification using the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3-4), pages 257-266, July.
    6. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2005. "Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters' perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 651-669, May.
    7. B. Fine & K. Fine, 1974. "Social Choice and Individual Rankings II," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 459-475.
    8. Kangas, Annika & Laukkanen, Sanna & Kangas, Jyrki, 2006. "Social choice theory and its applications in sustainable forest management--a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 77-92, November.
    9. Shashi Kant & R. Albert Berry, 2001. "A Theoretical Model of Optimal Forest Resource Regimes in Developing Economies," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 157(2), pages 331-355, June.
    10. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2010. "Forest stakeholders' value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 357-369, June.
    11. RogerS, Martin & Bruen, Michael, 1998. "A new system for weighting environmental criteria for use within ELECTRE III," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 552-563, June.
    12. Kant, Shashi & Lee, Susan, 2004. "A social choice approach to sustainable forest management: an analysis of multiple forest values in Northwestern Ontario," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 215-227, June.
    13. Musselwhite, Gary & Herath, Gamini, 2004. "A chaos theory interpretation of community perceptions of Australian forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(6), pages 595-604, October.
    14. B. Fine & K. Fine, 1974. "Social Choice and Individual Ranking I," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 303-322.
    15. Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 169-188, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:13:y:2011:i:4:p:242-257. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.