Skip to main content

page search

Community Organizations Taylor & Francis Group
Taylor & Francis Group
Taylor & Francis Group
Publishing Company

Location

Taylor & Francis Group publishes books for all levels of academic study and professional development, across a wide range of subjects and disciplines.


Taylor & Francis Group publishes quality peer-reviewed journals under the Routledge and Taylor & Francis imprints. The newest part of the group, Cogent OA, offers a purely open access program.


Note from Land Portal:


Taylor & Francis Online contains many publications related to land issues, though mostly at the charge of a fee.

Members:

Resources

Displaying 381 - 385 of 661

Historical legacy of the old-growth pine forest in Dividalen, northern Scandes

Journal Articles & Books
December, 2012
Sweden

The Dividalen (Sami: Dieváidvuovdi) valley in Troms county, North Norway, is well known for its old-growth pine forest, a biodiversity hotspot for dead wood-inhabiting fungi and lichens. The majority of the valley is protected within the Upper Dividalen Landscape Conservation Area and National Park. A general conception is that until the mid-nineteenth century when agriculture and forestry entered the valley, the landscape was entirely untouched by man and only used as a pathway for Sami and their reindeer herds on their annual migrations between Sweden and the Norwegian coast.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in Apuí, Southern Amazonas: Challenges and Caveats Related to Land Tenure and Governance in the Brazilian Amazon

Journal Articles & Books
December, 2012

Climate change mitigation mechanisms related to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) may provide significant opportunities for re-arranging political networks and overcome forest governance problems, of which land tenure is the main constraint for REDD and reforestation projects in the Amazon. We present a case study of a pilot REDD project associated with reforestation and payment for environmental services in Apuí, southern Amazonas.

Are hunting clubs the solution to small stock depredation? The case of Ceres, 1979 and 1980

Journal Articles & Books
December, 2012

In 1979 and 1980 predators were under control on sheep farms in the Ceres Karoo. At the time, a subsidised hunting club assisted landowners with predator control measures. A farm-level analysis of data from the Ceres hunting club's logbooks reveals that four out of five farms have experienced no predator damage whatsoever. For those reporting problems, the typical loss was in the region of one per cent of the estimated turnover. Lynx (caracal), leopards and feral dogs were responsible for most of the damage.

Improving Family Forest Knowledge Transfer through Social Network Analysis

Journal Articles & Books
December, 2012

To better engage Maine's family forest landowners our study used social network analysis: a computational social science method for identifying stakeholders, evaluating models of engagement, and targeting areas for enhanced partnerships. Interviews with researchers associated with a research center were conducted to identify how social network analysis could improve knowledge transfer in the researcher–stakeholder relationship. Analysis found a large network of family forest stakeholders and organizations in Maine.

Human–Elephant Conflict Around Bénoué National Park, Cameroon: Influence on Local Attitudes and Implications for Conservation

Journal Articles & Books
December, 2012
Cameroon

Crop raiding by African elephants threatens human livelihoods and elephants, yet studies of long-term changes in crop raiding and effects on attitudes are lacking. The scope of perceived crop damage in three communities and local attitudes toward elephants and protected areas were surveyed in the Bénoué Wildlife Conservation Area, Cameroon in 2010. Temporal changes in attitudes and perceived crop damage were estimated using previous work. The percent of households reporting elephant crop raiding increased since 1997 (58% vs. 40%).