Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A discourse on Forestry science

  • Articles
  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Forestry science is firmly based on the ideas of rationalization, emancipation, and progress as embedded in the Modernity Project. Its emergence in the late Seventeenth century is primarily a rationalization of timber production, although to some extend attention is given to other functions of the forest. As an applied science, forestry was preoccupied with bio-technical and economic research. The development in forestry science during the last four decades is described as a broadening of this narrow rationalization concept. Social and ecological dimensions of forestry are acknowledged as legitimate and undeniable fields for forestry research. The new rationalization concept is not yet operationalized, but encompasses besides economic efficiency also equity and ecological sustainability. Since the narrow rationalization concept resulted in irrational outcomes, the new concept of sustainable development might be characterized as a rationalization of the Modernity Project. As a critical counterpoint to this mainstream forestry thinking, a Non-modern Project is emerging. Indigenous forestry as an ethnoscience points at the cultural and philosophical biases still underlying professional forestry and forestry science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, W.M.,Green Development: environment and sustainability in the 3rd World. London: Routledge, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, T., “Government failure — the cause of global environmental mismanagement,”Ecological Economics, 4 (1991): 215–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, J. E. M.,Community Forestry, Ten years in review, Community Forestry Note 7. Rome: FAO, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baral, J. C. and P. Lamsal, “Indigenous systems of forest management. A potential asset for implementing community forestry programme in the hills of Nepal,” HMG/UNDP/CFDP Field Document No. 17. Kathmandu, CFDP, 1991.

  • Behan, R. W., “The succotash syndrome, or multiple use: a heartfelt approach to forest land management,”Natural Resources Journal, 7 (1967): 473–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behan, R. W., “Multiresource Forest Management: A Paradigmatic Challenge to Professional Forestry,”Journal of Forestry, 88 (1990): 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergh, J.C.J.M. van den and P. Nijkamp, “Operationalizing sustainable development: dynamic ecological economic models,”Ecological Economics, 3 (1991): 11–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird-David, N., “The Giving Environment: another perspective on the economic system of gatherer-hunters,”Current Anthropology, 31 (1990): 189–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie. P. and H. Brookfield,Land Degradation and Society. London: Methuen, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowes, M.D. and J. V. Krutilla,Multiple Use Management: The Economics of Public Forestlands. Washington, DC: Resources For The Future, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, D. P., “Integrating ecological economic perspectives into forest research and practice, part 1, philosophical perspectives,” in: IUFRO,XIX World Congress Vol. B. Montréal, 1990, pp. 337–344.

  • Bradley, D. P. and B. J. Lewis, “Integrating natural and social dimensions,”Journal of Forestry, 90 (1992): 30–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, D.J. and G. E. Grant, “New Approaches to Forest Management, part 2,”Journal of Forestry, 90 (1992): 21–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buis, J.,Historia forestis. Wageningen: Landbouwhogeschool, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso, F., “Die Entwicklung auf der Anklagebank,”Peripherie (1981): 6–31.

  • Cernea, M. M., “Alternative units of social organization sustaining afforestation strategies,” in: Cernea, M. M. (ed.),Putting people first; sociological variables in rural development. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, pp. 267–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cernea, M. M., “A Sociological Framework: Policy, Environment, and the Social Actors for Tree Planting,” in: Sharma, N.P.,Managing the World's Forests. Dubuque, USA: 1992, pp. 301–335.

  • Chambers, R., “Trees as savings and security for the rural poor,”BOS NiEuWSLETTER, 7 (1988): 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R., N.C. Saxena, and T. Shah,To the hands of the poor, water and trees. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dargavel, J., M. Hobley, and S. Kengen, “Forestry of development and underdevelopment of forestry,” in J. Dargavel, and G. Simpson (Eds.),Forestry: success or failure in developing countries?, CRES Working Paper 1985/20. Canberra: Australian National University, 1985, pp. 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckholm, E.,Losing Ground. Washington DC: World Watch Institute, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO,Forestry for local community development, FAO Forestry Paper 7. Rome: FAO, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. J.,Indigenous Systems of Common Property Forest Management in Nepal. Honolulu: East-West Center, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R.J. and D.A. Gilmour, “Putting the community at the centre of community forestry research,” in: Stevens, M.E., S. Bhumibhamon, and H. Wood (eds.),Research policy for community forestry Asia-Pacific Region. Bangkok: REOFTC, 1990, pp. 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, A. G.,Latin America: underdevelopment or revolution. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, G. and G. Barnard,Farm and Community Forestry, Technical Report No. 3. London: Earthscan, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortmann, L., “Great planting disasters: pitfalls in technical assistance in forestry,”Agriculture and Human Values, 5 (1988): 49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster-Carter, A., “From Rostow to Gunder Frank: Conflicting Paradigms in the Analysis of Underdevelopment,”World Development, 4 (1976): 167–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghai, D. and J. M. Vivian,Grassroots environmental action; people's participation in sustainable development. London: Routledge, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilmour, D.A., G. C. King, and M. Hobley, “Management of Forests for Local Use in the Hills of Nepal, 1. Changing Forest Management Paradigms,”Journal of World Forest Resource Management, 4 (1989): 93–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glacken, C. J.,Traces on the Rhodian shore. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groot, W.T. de,Environmental Science Theory. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publ., 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, L. S. and P. N. King,Tropical forested watersheds; hydrological and soils response to major uses or conversions. Boulder: Westview Press, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G., “The tragedy of the Commons,”Science, 162 (1968): 1243–1248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hettne, B.,Development Theory and the Third World. Helsingborg: Schmidts Boktryckeri AB, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobley, M., “Common Property Does Not Cause Deforestation,”Journal of Forestry, 83 (1985): 663–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoskins, M.W., “Community forestry depends on women,”Unasylva, 32 (1980): 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • ILO (International Labour Organization),Employment, growth and basic needs. Geneva: ILO, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, K.F.S., “The history of agroforestry,” in: Steppler H. A., and P.K.R. Nair (eds.),Agroforestry: a decade of development. Nairobi: ICRAF, 1987, pp. 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koningsveld, H.,Inleiding Wetenschapsfilosofie. Wageningen: Landbouwuniversiteit, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korten, D.C. and R. Klauss (eds.),People centered development, contributions toward theory and planning frameworks. West Harford: Kumarian Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S.,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuper, J. H., “Pro Silva en de Arbeitsgemeinschaft Naturgemässe Waldwirtschaft, twee beheersbenaderingen voor de produktie van hout,”Nederlands Bosbouw Tijdschrift, 64 (1992): 285–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lélé, S.M., “Sustainable Development: A Critical Review,”World Development, 19 (1991): 607–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, N. and A. Long,Battlefield of knowledge: the interlocking of theory and practice in social research and development. London: Routledge, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahat, T. B. S.,Forestry-farming Linkages in the Mountains. Kathmandu: ICIMOD, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malla, Y. B. and R. J. Fisher, “Planting trees on private farmland in Nepal: the equity aspect,” Discussion Paper. Kathmandu, Nepal-Australia Forestry Project, 1987.

  • Mantel, K.,Wald und Forst in der Geschichte; Ein Lehr-und Handbuch. Hannover: Schaper, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzo, K., “Modernist discourse and the crisis of development theory,”Studies in Comparative International Development, 26 (1991): 3–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masterman, M., “The Nature of a Paradigm,” in: Lakatos, I., and A. Musgrave (eds.),Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press, 1972, pp. 59–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall-Skutsch, M., “Participation of women in social forestry programmes: problems and solutions,”BOS NiEuWSLETTER, 5 (1986): 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D., J. Randers, and W.W. Behrens,The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messerschmidt, D. A.,The uses of anthropology in agro/social forestry Research & Design: approaches to anthropological forestry, IOF Project Discussion Paper No. 90/2. Pokhara, IOF, 1990.

  • Mol, P.W. and K.F. Wiersum,Communal Management of Forests in South and Southeast Asia. Wageningen: Agricultural University Wageningen, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard, R. B., “Sustainability as Intergenerational Equity: The Challenge to Economic Thought and Practice,”Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 12 (1992): 85–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldeman, R.A.A.,Forests, Elements of Silvology. Heidelberg: Springer, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persoon, G.A. and K.F. Wiersum, “Anthropology in a forest environment,” in: Kloos, P., and H.J.M. Claessen (eds.),Contemporary anthropology in the Netherlands; the use of anthropological ideas. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1991, pp. 85–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, W., “Opinion,”Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 12 (1992): 151–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocheleau, D.E., “The User-perspective and Agroforestry Research and Action Agenda,” in: Gholz, H. C.,Agroforestry: Realities, Possibilities and Potentials. Dordrecht: Nijhoff Publishers, 1987, pp. 59–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romm, J. “Forestry for development: some lessons from Asia,”The Journal of World Forest Resource Management, 4 (1989): 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rostow, W. W.,The Stages of Economic Growth: a Non-Communist Manifesto. London: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, I., “Environment and Styles of Development,” in: Matthews, W.H. (ed.),Outer Limits and Human Needs. Uppsala: The Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, 1976, pp. 41–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, W. (ed.),The development dictionary: a guide to knowledge as power. London: Zed Books, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V.,Staying Alive: women, ecology and development. London: Zed Books, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.B., “The varieties of sustainability,”Agriculture and Human Values, 9 (1992): 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trainer, F.E., “Environmental significance of development theory,”Ecological Economics, 2 (1990): 277–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, B.S. (ed.),Theories of Modernity and Postmodernity. London: Sage Publ., 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umans, L., “Tropische bosbouw en ontwikkeling,”Milieu, 7 (1992): 165–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umans, L.,Analysis and typology of indigenous forest management in the humid tropics of Asia. Wageningen: IKC-NBLF, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vayda, A.P., “Progressive Contextualization: Methods for Research in Human Ecology,”Human Ecology, 11 (1983): 265–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veer, C.,Bosbouw als sociaal systeem. Wageningen: Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, R., “The management of common property resources: collective action as an alternative to privatization or state regulation,”Cambridge Journal of Economics, 11 (1987): 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, K.,Shifting cultivators; local technical knowledge and natural resource management in the humid tropics, Community Forestry Note 8. Rome: FAO, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werker, S., “Beyond the Dependencia Paradigm,”Journal of Contemporary Asia, 15 (1985): 79–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westoby, J. C., “The role of Forest Industries in the Attack of Economic Underdevelopment.” Rome: FAO, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westoby, J. C., “Forest Industries for Socio-Economic Development,” in:Proceedings of the Eighth World Forestry Congress, Jakarta. Jakarta: 1978, pp. 19–27.

  • Westoby, J.C.,Introduction to World Forestry: people and their trees. Oxford: Blackwell Publ., 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiersum, K.F., “Forestry and development; an overview,”Netherlands Review of Development Studies, 2 (1988/89): 7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development),Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank,Forestry sector policy paper. Washington, DC: World Bank, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zivnuska, J. A., “The integration of forest development plans and national development plans. How to make the forestry case at the national level,” in:Proceedings of the Sixth World Forestry Congress, Madrid. Madrid: 1966, pp. 557–565.

Download references

Authors
  1. Laurent Umans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Laurent Umans worked as associate lecturer at the Department of Forestry, Agriculture University Wageningen, The Netherlands. Currently he is working for the Food and Agricultural Organization as an associate expert forestry development in the Hill Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Project in Nepal. He published on the themes “forestry and economic development” and “indigenous forestry”.

The author would like to thank Ir. K. F. Wiersum, Ir. J. Schakel, and Dr. H. van den Belt from the Agricultural University Wageningen, The Netherlands as well as Dr. B. Arts from the Catholic University Nijmegen, The Netherlands for their comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Umans, L. A discourse on Forestry science. Agric Hum Values 10, 26–40 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02217558

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02217558

Keywords

Search

Navigation