The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mapping nature: Territorialization of forest rights in Thailand
Abstract
In Thailand, as elsewhere, the administrative definition of forest has changed from one based on classification by species to one based on territory. This process was an important facet of the more general process by which the central government claimed a monopoly on the administration of property rights to natural resources. The process took place in three stages: First, the government declared that all territory not claimed by permanent cultivators or other government agencies was forest under the jurisdiction of the Royal Forestry Department. Second, it demarcated the forests into reserve and protected forests. Third, it mapped all forest land as well as nonforest land according to land use classifications, which became the basis for policies to control occupation and use. These strategies did not allow for local input into land use planning. As a result of this lack of state capacity, and interbureaucratic competition, the Thai government failed to control rural land use.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“In one example offered by Vandergeest (1996), mapped locations came to legally define 'forests' for state agencies in Thailand, regardless of the actual vegetation in those regions.”
From Power of Maps: (Counter) Mapping for Conservation (2015) · cites this paper as Vandergeest (1996)
In the citing paper
“In a discussion related to some of the concerns of this paper,Vandergeest (1996) considers the mapping of forest areas as a critical step in the process whereby the Thai state asserted control over territory, people, and resources (eventually with the forestry department claiming control of nearly half of Thai national territory).”
From Power of Maps: (Counter) Mapping for Conservation (2015) · cites this paper as Vandergeest (1996)
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 41
- 10.2307/3673669 · DOI
- Ananya U., 1991, Study of conservation forest area: Demarcation protection and occupancy in Thailand, Vol. 3 (Occupancy study), 17
- Apichat P., 1992, A study of impact and proposed solutions for the Settlement of the Deteriorated Forest for the Poorest in the North‐East (SDF‐PIN) project
- Banijbatana D., 1962, The management of forests in Thailand
- Bryant R. L., 1993, Contesting the resource: The politics of forest management in colonial Burma
- Bunnag T., 1977, The provincial administration of Siam 1892–1915
- Chalermrath K., 1971, Thailand's public law and policy for conservation and protection of land: With special attention to forests and natural areas
- Chusak W., 1994, Local institutions in common property resource
- Dickson A. J. C., 1908, Twentieth century impressions of Siam, 170
- Dupuis M., 1995, Creating the countryside
- Eudey A., 1989, Hilltribes today, 249
- Feeny D., 1988, World deforestation in the twentieth century, 112
- The Gujarat forest manual, i
- 1881, The Burma forest manual
- 1939, Prachum Kotmai Prachamsok (Laws and statutes)
- 1941, Forest Act B. E. 2484
- 1958, Prawat lae ponngaan kong Krom Paamai (History and work of the Forestry Department)
- 1957, Royal Forestry Department annual report
- 10.2307/3984890 · DOI
- Hafner J. A., 1990, Keepers of the forest: Land management alternatives in Southeast Asia, 69
- Hirsch P., 1990, Development dilemmas in rural Thailand
- Hirsch P., 1993, Political economy of environment in Thailand
- Lohmann L., 1991, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 23, 3, 10.1080/14672715.1991.10413139 · DOI
- Lysa H., 1984, Thailand in the nineteenth century: Evolution of the economy and society
- Mehl C., Study on the role of land in Thai society
- Mekvichai B., 1988, The teak industry in North Thailand
- Niphon T., Thai forestry sector master plan, subsector: Watershed management
- Peluso N. L., 1993, Global Environmental Change
- Pragtong K., 1990, Keepers of the forest: Land management alternatives in Southeast Asia, 167
- Prayong N., 1991, Study of conservation forest area: Demarcation, protection and occupancy in Thailand, Vol. 3 (occupancy study), 73
- Riggs F. W., 1966, Thailand: The modernization of a bureaucratic polity, 10.1515/9780824885458 · DOI
- Sack R. D., 1986, Human territoriality: Its theory and history
- Santisuk T., 1985, Nature conservation in Thailand in relation to social and economic development
- Shalardchai R., 1989, Culture and environment in Thailand, 23
- Soja E. W., 1971, The political organization of space
- Thirawat S., 1955, Brief information on forestry information in Thailand
- Tan‐Kim‐Yong U., 1993, Regional Development Dialogue, 14, 70
- Thongchai W., 1988, Siam mapped: A history of the geobody of Siam
- Tongroj O., 1990, A land policy study
- Weera A., 1993, Legal frameworks for forest management in Asia, 97
- Yos S., 1993, Legal frameworks for forest management in Asia, 105
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Power of Maps: (Counter) Mapping for Conservation
Harris, L. M., & Hazen, H. D. (2015) · ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies · doi:10.14288/acme.v4i1.730 · Cited by 158
Metadata
- Authors
- Vandergeest, P.
- Venue
- Society & Natural Resources
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1996-03
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 159-175
- ISSN
- 0894-1920
- 1521-0723
- Cited by
- 119
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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