DEFORESTATION IN
By
Lucio Muñoz
munoz@interchange.ubc.ca or at http://www.truesustainability.com
Goals of this page
The Deforestation in Central America Page
has three short-term goals: to provide information relevant to deforestation;
to introduce my view on how this information can be handled by simple
non-traditional means of research; and
to provide a venue for positive discourse on deforestation issues.
Nature of this page
The Deforestation in Central America Page
aims at achieving simplicity in the presentation of methodological ideas and at
achieving methodological flexibility so that in the long-term it is possible to
support monitoring and validation processes relevant to countries and regions
in an ongoing basis.
The Theoretical Focus of this
page
The Deforestation in Central America Page
is based on the theoretical premise that the true nature of knowledge about
deforestation causality can only be determined at the point where deforestation
theory, deforestation practice and deforestation perceptions are found in
conjunctural interactions. In other words, theory, practice, and perceptions
must be matched at the same time in order to gain a true insight into
deforestation issues.
The Empirical Focus of this
page
The Deforestation in Central America Page
aims in practice at maximizing comparability within different deforestation
components or issues and between deforestation components or issues. To achieve
this, 12 information components commonly associated with deforestation
processes in Central America are purposively selected to form the empirical
basis of this page. These
information components are: forest resource information; agricultural land use
information; cattle ranching land use information; income information; road
infrastructure information; agricultural trade information; cattle ranching
trade information; external debt information; roundwood
production and consumption information; industrial roundwood
production and consumption information; fuelwood and
charcoal production and consumption information; and population information.
Deforestation Data
This section provides the data collected
by country, and region, and points out their sources. No claim is made here
that the best data available are provided. The only claim made here is that if
these data are not the best data available, they could be used to support or to
calibrate the findings of those holding better data or that if these are the
best data available anyway, we can extract meaningful insights to either
validate or invalidate existing deforestation views and options or to identify
new ones. These data expand from 1970 to 1996, and it will be updated to the
present if the resources needed to do that become available. Currently, data on
five countries are included as these were the ones included in my orginal research to avoid as much as possible comparability
issues: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. But if
resources become available in the future, time will be dedicated to include
data from Belize and Panama. This
section also explains how these deforestation data can be handled through
qualitative comparative means that permits us to gain an understanding of local
deforestation conditions and options in such a way that it is consistent with
regional conditions, and vis a verse.
See here the
deforestation data page
Deforestation Perceptions
This section provides perception data
collected 1996-1997 by country, and region, and describes how it was collected.
No claim is made here that these perceptions are the best data available, but
it can be claimed that these perceptions have been independently gathered from
a wide variety of sources to include as much variability as possible. The other
claim made here is that perceptions, which are usually left out of the equation
theory-practice are very important factors in explaining the theory-practice
gaps that prevail when you have for example the best theory and the best
practice, but still they do not match or to understand the role of practice
when you have theory-perception gaps or to understand the role of theory when
you have practice-perception gaps. Hence, perceptions can be very important
explanatory and policy tools. Perceptions from the seven countries in Central
America are provided as it was feasible to collect perceptions from Belize and
Panama at the same time.
This section also explains how these
perception data can be handled through qualitative comparative means that
permits us to gain an understanding of local and regional deforestation
perceptions and their linkages and lack of linkages in a very consistent and
holistic fashion. Finally, the same 1996-1997 questionnaire was passed in
Central America in the year 2000 to update deforestation perceptions, to
determine changes in deforestation perceptions and to monitor perception
processes to the year 2000.
See here the
deforestation perception page
Deforestation Theories
Work published by others has been used to
determine deforestation theories relevant at each country level and at the
regional level. These theories highlight the deforestation causality that is
relevant according to other research methods. Finally, these theories are very important for validation purposes
or for theory reformulation purposes or for the creation of new theories.
See here the
deforestation theory page
Validation Procedures
Traditionally, it is believed that only
quantitative approaches are subjected to clear validation processes. This
section shows that this may not be the case when using the qualitative based
validation procedures introduced here. These validation procedures are of
several types: those based on matching practice and perceptions only; those
based on matching practice and theories only; those based on matching
perceptions and theories only; and those matching practice, perception, and
theories at the same time. All these procedures are described in detail here
and examples of how they can be applied are given.
See here the
qualitative validation page
My View on Deforestation
Issues
This section will be focused on presenting
my qualitative comparative view on deforestation issues and aim at providing
new ideas presented in my thesis, which may prove a little bit unusual and
controversial at the beginning as they fall within the domain of
non-traditional, but scientifically sound research approaches, and which may have
some relevance at a future date when these methods are better understood. I
believe it is our responsibility to raise controversial issues so that we can
continue our development journey in the less degrading and most cost-effective
fashion possible. I believe that we all agree that without independent views we
run the risk of running into total system failures.
See here my views on
deforestation page
Talkback Deforestation
This section will list the comments or critic
points, positive or negative shared by the readers of these pages. Critical
discourse should be encouraged, not discouraged so I invited you all to let me
know your points of view on any of the methods, issues, approaches, or views
presented here. I will strive to
reply to you to the best of my abilities, but remember, just criticizing is not
enough, a critique to be effective must be accompanied by an alternative view
or paradigm in a defensible fashion. Please, send your views to Lucio
Muñoz at munoz@interchange.ubc.ca
See here the talkback
deforestation page
Deforestation
bibliography
This section will provide the bibliography
used in my research, list academic work done by me so far, list deforestation
and forestry work done by others in the region, list local and international
sources of deforestation information, and provide links to on line academic
work relevant to Central America. This is expected to be, through time, the
most complete bibliography on deforestation issues in Central America. All
those who know or have references not listed here, please send them to me at munoz@interchange.ubc.ca
I will use little by little this bibliography as a testing map for all the
theories and views produced by the qualitative comparative methods and
approaches introduced here.
See here the
deforestation bibliography page
Integrity
No intentions exist here to take the ideas
of other researchers or to distort the academic positions of other researchers
or to use the information gathered for inappropriate purposes. If some or part
of the information provided in this page is seen as belonging to somebody else
or as distorting somebody else statements or seen to be used inappropriately,
please contact Lucio Muñoz at munoz@interchange.ubc.ca
and the corrections that are necessary will be made as soon as possible.
Responsibility
The ideas and mistakes provided in this
page are solely the responsibility of Lucio Munoz and I will put my integrity
upfront to ensure that the content of this page is based on high ethical
values, and if inadvertedly I make mistakes which it is
possible since I am just another human too, please help me to correct them. To
do this, your feedback will be very much appreciated at munoz@interchange.ubc.ca
More information about Lucio Muñoz can be found
in my TRUE SUSTAINABILITY PAGE at http://www.truesustainability.com
CopyRights All the qualitative comparative ideas related to the organization
and handling of deforestation data and perceptions and the qualitative
validation procedures introduced are to my knowledge the only ones of their
nature available or in existence today and they can be used freely for
educational and empirical purposes by all those who can appreciate their
potential use. Also the method of combining rapid assessment techniques and
qualitative comparative analysis is too to my knowledge the only existing
formal attempt to balance quantitative/qualitative deforestation discourse
through these means, and this method can also be used freely by those who can
appreciate its potential applications, both in theory and in practice. Please,
make a citation to Lucio Muñoz when using material from the webpages under Deforestation in
Click
here to see when this page was last Updated
|
June 14, 2001 to December
2006, the site was approaching the 30, 000 direct hits mark January 2007 to December
2013, there were 9,488 visitors From January 2007-December
2007, there were 1,590 hits. From January 2008-December
2008, there were 1,000 hits From January 2009 to December
2009 there were 456 hits From January 2010 to December
2010 there were 1,219 hits From January 2011 to December
2011 there were 1,496 hits From January 2012 to December
2012 there were 1,780 hits From January 2013 to December
2013 there were 1,947 hits From January 2014 to December
2014 there were 2, 111 hits From January 2015 to December
2015 there were 2, 200 hits From January 2016 to December
2016 there were 1, 940 hits |