Comparing Sustainable Forest Management Certifications Standards: A Meta-analysis

dc.contributor.authorClark, Michael Rawson
dc.contributor.authorKozar, Joelyn Sarrah
dc.coverage.countryCanadaen_US
dc.coverage.regionNorth Americaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-09-26T19:41:48Z
dc.date.available2011-09-26T19:41:48Z
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.description.abstract"To solve problems caused by conventional forest management, forest certification has emerged as a driver of sustainable forest management. Several sustainable forest management certification systems exist, including the Forest Stewardship Council and those endorsed by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, such as the Canadian Standards Association Sustainable Forestry Management Standard CAN/CSA - Z809 and Sustainable Forestry Initiative. For consumers to use certified products to meet their own sustainability goals, they must have an understanding of the effectiveness of different certification systems. To understand the relative performance of three systems, we determined: (1) the criteria used to compare the Forest Stewardship Council, Canadian Standards Association Sustainable Forestry Management, and Sustainable Forestry Initiative, (2) if consensus exists regarding their ability to achieve sustainability goals, and (3) what research gaps must be filled to improve our understanding of how forest certification systems affect sustainable forest management. We conducted a qualitative meta-analysis of 26 grey literature references (books, industry and nongovernmental organization publications) and 9 primary literature references (articles in peer-reviewed academic journals) that compared at least two of the aforementioned certification systems. The Forest Stewardship Council was the highest performer for ecological health and social sustainable forest management criteria. The Canadian Standards Association Sustainable Forestry Management and Sustainable Forestry Initiative performed best under sustainable forest management criteria of forest productivity and economic longevity of a firm. Sixty-two percent of analyses were comparisons of the wording of certification system principles or criteria; 34% were surveys of foresters or consumers. An important caveat to these results is that only one comparison was based on empirically collected field data. We recommend that future studies collect ecological and socioeconomic data from forests so purchasers can select certified forest products based on empirical evidence."en_US
dc.identifier.citationjournalEcology and Societyen_US
dc.identifier.citationmonthMarchen_US
dc.identifier.citationnumber1en_US
dc.identifier.citationvolume16en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10535/7562
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.subjectsustainabilityen_US
dc.subjectforest managementen_US
dc.subject.sectorForestryen_US
dc.titleComparing Sustainable Forest Management Certifications Standards: A Meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.type.methodologyCase Studyen_US
dc.type.publishedpublisheden_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
ES-2010-3736.pdf
Size:
188.46 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections