IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v26y2013icp43-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholders' perceptions on developing sustainable Red Sanders (Pterocarpus santalinus L.) wood trade in Andhra Pradesh, India

Author

Listed:
  • Kukrety, Sidhanand
  • Dwivedi, Puneet
  • Jose, Shibu
  • Alavalapati, Janaki R.R.

Abstract

Red Sanders (RS, Pterocarpus santalinus L.) is an endangered timber tree species endemic to southern India. Using stakeholders' perceptions, this study evaluates the existing restricted RS wood trade and provides insights for developing a sustainable trade policy by involving private landowners as a strategy for improving its conservation in the wild. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats–Analytic Hierarchy Process framework was used to analyze perceptions of four stakeholder groups (Administrators, Landowners, Traders, and Knowledgeable Sources). There was a consensus among the stakeholders that the challenges for sustainable RS wood trade outweigh the positive features. High price of RS wood and availability of niche international market were seen as the most important Strengths. Long gestation crop (+40years), lack of Incentives, small land holdings, administrative complexities, and competition from commercial agriculture crops were identified as the main challenges. Results indicate that before proceeding with an imminent policy change, it is important to address the major challenges. These results provide a basis to prioritize and address the existing challenges and reinforce the positive features of RS wood trade. A sustainable wood trade policy formulated by incorporating stakeholders' perceptions may help in improving the conservation status of this endangered species.

Suggested Citation

  • Kukrety, Sidhanand & Dwivedi, Puneet & Jose, Shibu & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2013. "Stakeholders' perceptions on developing sustainable Red Sanders (Pterocarpus santalinus L.) wood trade in Andhra Pradesh, India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 43-53.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:26:y:2013:i:c:p:43-53
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.08.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934112002018
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.08.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R. R. & Kalmbacher, Robert S., 2004. "Exploring the potential for silvopasture adoption in south-central Florida: an application of SWOT-AHP method," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 185-199, September.
    2. Kurttila, Mikko & Pesonen, Mauno & Kangas, Jyrki & Kajanus, Miika, 2000. "Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis -- a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 41-52, May.
    3. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    4. Brander, James A. & Scott Taylor, M., 1997. "International trade between consumer and conservationist countries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 267-297, November.
    5. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    6. Masozera, Michel K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R. & Jacobson, Susan K. & Shrestha, Ram K., 2006. "Assessing the suitability of community-based management for the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 206-216, March.
    7. Philippe Rivalan & Virginie Delmas & Elena Angulo & Leigh S. Bull & Richard J. Hall & Franck Courchamp & Alison M. Rosser & Nigel Leader-Williams, 2007. "Can bans stimulate wildlife trade?," Nature, Nature, vol. 447(7144), pages 529-530, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gebregziabher, Dawit & Soltani, Arezoo, 2019. "Exclosures in people’s minds: perceptions and attitudes in the Tigray region, Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 1-14.
    2. Chanthawong, Anuman & Dhakal, Shobhakar, 2016. "Stakeholders' perceptions on challenges and opportunities for biodiesel and bioethanol policy development in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 189-206.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Collins Okello & Stefania Pindozzi & Salvatore Faugno & Lorenzo Boccia, 2014. "Appraising Bioenergy Alternatives in Uganda Using Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)-Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and a Desirability Functions Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-22, February.
    2. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    3. Zelin Liu & Xiyan Duan & Hongling Cheng & Zhaoran Liu & Ping Li & Yang Zhang, 2023. "Empowering High-Quality Development of the Chinese Sports Education Market in Light of the “Double Reduction” Policy: A Hybrid SWOT-AHP Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Syed Hammad Mian & Bashir Salah & Wadea Ameen & Khaja Moiduddin & Hisham Alkhalefah, 2020. "Adapting Universities for Sustainability Education in Industry 4.0: Channel of Challenges and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-33, July.
    5. Uddin, Mohammad Nizam & Hossain, Mohammad Mosharraf & Chen, Yong & Siriwong, Wapakorn & Boonyanuphap, Jaruntorn, 2019. "Stakeholders' perception on indigenous community-based management of village common forests in Chittagong hill tracts, Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 102-112.
    6. Darshini, Dina & Dwivedi, Puneet & Glenk, Klaus, 2013. "Capturing stakeholders´ views on oil palm-based biofuel and biomass utilisation in Malaysia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1128-1137.
    7. Lee, Seungbum & Walsh, Patrick, 2011. "SWOT and AHP hybrid model for sport marketing outsourcing using a case of intercollegiate sport," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 361-369.
    8. Ho, William, 2008. "Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 211-228, April.
    9. Tahseen, Samiha & Karney, Bryan, 2017. "Opportunities for increased hydropower diversion at Niagara: An sSWOT analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 757-770.
    10. Dwivedi, Puneet & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2009. "Stakeholders' perceptions on forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1999-2007, May.
    11. Haque, H.M. Enamul & Dhakal, Shobhakar & Mostafa, S.M.G., 2020. "An assessment of opportunities and challenges for cross-border electricity trade for Bangladesh using SWOT-AHP approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    12. Kajanus, Miika & Leskinen, Pekka & Kurttila, Mikko & Kangas, Jyrki, 2012. "Making use of MCDS methods in SWOT analysis—Lessons learnt in strategic natural resources management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 1-9.
    13. Ghada Elshafei & Dušan Katunský & Martina Zeleňáková & Abdelazim Negm, 2022. "Opportunities for Using Analytical Hierarchy Process in Green Building Optimization," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-24, June.
    14. Liu, Guiwen & Zheng, Saina & Xu, Pengpeng & Zhuang, Taozhi, 2018. "An ANP-SWOT approach for ESCOs industry strategies in Chinese building sectors," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 90-99.
    15. Etongo, Daniel & Kanninen, Markku & Epule, Terence Epule & Fobissie, Kalame, 2018. "Assessing the effectiveness of joint forest management in Southern Burkina Faso: A SWOT-AHP analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 31-38.
    16. Grošelj, Petra & Hodges, Donald G. & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2016. "Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-86.
    17. Sepehr Ghazinoory & Mansoureh Abdi & Mandana Azadegan-Mehr, 2010. "Swot Methodology: A State-of-the-Art Review for the Past, A Framework for the Future," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 24-48, November.
    18. Omkar Joshi & Rajan Parajuli & Gehendra Kharel & Neelam C Poudyal & Eric Taylor, 2018. "Stakeholder opinions on scientific forest management policy implementation in Nepal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, September.
    19. Chanthawong, Anuman & Dhakal, Shobhakar, 2016. "Stakeholders' perceptions on challenges and opportunities for biodiesel and bioethanol policy development in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 189-206.
    20. Ustaoglu, E. & Aydınoglu, A.C., 2020. "Suitability evaluation of urban construction land in Pendik district of Istanbul, Turkey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:26:y:2013:i:c:p:43-53. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.