CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 874

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework

Agarwal, Bina·2001·World Development
DOI 10.1016/s0305-750x(01)00066-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0305-750x(01)00066-3

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Adhikari, N., Yadav, G., Ray, S. B., & Kumar, S. (1991). Process documentation of women's involvement in forest management at Maheshpur, Ranchi. In R. Singh (Ed.), Managing the village commons, Proceedings of the national workshop, December 15–16 (pp. 118–123). Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal
  2. Agarwal, 1987, Under the cooking pot: The political economy of the domestic fuel crisis in rural South Asia, IDS Bulletin, 18, 1, 10.1111/j.1759-5436.1987.mp18001003.x · DOI
  3. Agarwal, 1997, Environmental action, gender equity and women's participation, Development and Change, 28, 1, 10.1111/1467-7660.00033 · DOI
  4. Agarwal, 1997, “Bargaining” and gender relations: Within and beyond the household, Feminist Economics, 3, 1, 10.1080/135457097338799 · DOI
  5. Agarwal, 2000, Conceptualizing environmental collective action: Why gender matters, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24, 283, 10.1093/cje/24.3.283 · DOI
  6. Agrawal, A. (1999). State formation in community spaces: Control over forests in the Kumaon Himalaya, India. Paper prepared for presentation at the University of California, Berkeley, Workshop on Environmental Politics, April 30
  7. Bahuguna, V. K. (2000). Joint forest management: An instrument for sustainable forest management. Paper presented at a conference on India's Forests Beyond 2000, Commonwealth Forestry Association (India), India Habitat Center, Delhi, April 19–21
  8. Bagadion, B. U., & Korten, F. F. (1991). Developing irrigator's organisations: a learning process approach. In M. M. Cernea (Ed.), Putting people first (pp. 73–112). New York: Oxford University Press
  9. Bardhan, 1993, Analytics of the institutions of informal cooperation in rural development, World Development, 21, 633, 10.1016/0305-750X(93)90115-P · DOI
  10. Baland, 1999, The ambiguous impact of inequality on local resource management, World Development, 27, 773, 10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00026-1 · DOI
  11. Chen, M. (1993). Women and wasteland development in India: An issue paper. In A. Singh, & N. Burra (Eds.), Women and wasteland development in India (pp. 21–90). Delhi: Sage
  12. Chopra, 1997, Environmental degradation and population movements: The role of property rights, Environment and Resource Economics, 9, 383, 10.1023/A:1026455024293 · DOI
  13. Dahlerup, 1988, From a small to a large majority: Women in Scandinavian politics, Scandinavian Political Studies, 11, 275, 10.1111/j.1467-9477.1988.tb00372.x · DOI
  14. Gaul, K. K. (1994). Negotiated positions and shifting terrains: Apprehension of forest resources in the Western Himalaya. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
  15. Hobley, M. (1990). Social reality, social forestry: The case of two Nepalese panchayats. PhD dissertation, Department of Forestry, Australian National University, Canberra
  16. Humphries, 1990, Enclosures, common rights and women: The monetization of families in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Journal of Economic History, 1, 17, 10.1017/S0022050700035701 · DOI
  17. Isham, 1995, Does participation improve performance: Establishing causality with subjective data, The World Bank Economic Review, 9, 175, 10.1093/wber/9.2.175 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Jodha, 1986, Common property resources and the rural poor, Economic and Political Weekly, 21, 1169
  19. Joshi, S. (1998). Report of the workshop on JFM and women. Agha Khan Rural Support Programme, Netrang, Gujarat, September 14
  20. Katz, 1997, Intra-household economics of voice and exit, Feminist Economics, 3, 25, 10.1080/135457097338645 · DOI
  21. Mansingh, O. (1991). Community organization and ecological restoration: An analysis of strategic options for NGOs in Central Himalaya, with particular reference to the Community Forestry Programme of the NGO Chirag. MA dissertation in Rural Development, AFRAS, University of Sussex, UK
  22. Michener, V. J. (1998). The participatory approach: Contradiction and cooperation in Burkina Faso. World Development, 26(12), 2105–2118 · DOI
  23. Moffatt, M. (1998). A gender analysis of community forestry and community leasehold forestry in Nepal with a macro-meso-micro framework. M.A. dissertation in Development Policy Analysis, Department of Economics and Social Studies, University of Manchester, UK
  24. Molinas, 1998, The impact of inequality, gender, external assistance and social capital on local-level cooperation, World Development, 26, 413, 10.1016/S0305-750X(97)10066-3 · DOI
  25. Natrajan, 1995, Trends in firewood consumption in rural India, Margin, 28, 41
  26. Regmi, S. C. (1989). Female participation in forest resource management. A case study of a women's forest committee in a Nepalese Village. MSc dissertation in Social Development, Graduate School of the Ateneo de Manila University
  27. Sarin, 1995, Regenerating India's forest: Reconciling gender equity and joint forest management, IDS Bulletin, 26, 83, 10.1111/j.1759-5436.1995.mp26001012.x · DOI
  28. Seabright, P. (1997). The effect of inequality on collective action. Draft paper. Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge, UK
  29. Seiz, J. (1991). The bargaining approach and feminist methodology. Review of Radical Political Economics, Spring · DOI
  30. Seiz, J. (1999). Game theory and bargaining models. In Elgar Companion to Feminist Economics (pp. 379–390). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
  31. Seeley, 1996, Who benefits from participatory forest management, Banko Janakari, 6, 38
  32. Sen, A. K. (1990). Gender and cooperative conflicts. In I. Tinker (Ed.), Persistent inequalities: Women and world development (pp. 123–149). New York: Oxford University Press
  33. Shah, 1995, Gender, environment and livelihood security: An alternative viewpoint from India, IDS Bulletin, 26, 75, 10.1111/j.1759-5436.1995.mp26001011.x · DOI
  34. Singh, N. M. (1993). Regional workshop of forest development on joint forest management at Keonjhar. In Proceedings of the workshop. Bhubaneswar, Orissa, May 28–29
  35. Stewart, 1996, Groups for good or ill, Oxford Development Studies, 24, 9, 10.1080/13600819608424101 · DOI
  36. Uphoff, N. (1991). Fitting projects to people. In M. M. Cernea (Ed.), Putting people first: Sociological variables in rural development. New York: Oxford University Press
  37. Viegas, P., & Menon, G. (1993). Bringing government and people together: Forest protection committees of West Bengal – role and participation of women. In A. Singh, & N. Burra (Eds.), Women and wasteland development in India (pp. 171–210). New Delhi: Sage
  38. White, 1996, Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation, Development in Practice, 6, 6, 10.1080/0961452961000157564 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Agarwal, B.
Venue
World Development
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-10
Volume
29
Issue
10
Pages
1623-1648
ISSN
0305-750X
DOI
10.1016/s0305-750x(01)00066-3
Cited by
874
References
1
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review