The data not collected on community forestry |
| |
Authors: | Reem Hajjar Peter Cronkleton Emily Etue Peter Newton Aaron J.M. Russel Januarti Sinarra Tjajadi Wen Zhou Arun Agrawal |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. School of Natural Resources and Environment, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, U.S.A.Both the authors contributed equally to this work.;2. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Lima, Peru;3. The Center for People and Forest (RECOFTC), Bangkok, Thailand;4. School of Natural Resources and Environment, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, U.S.A.;5. Environmental Studies Program, Sustainability, Energy and Environment Complex, University of Colorado, Boulder, U.S.A.;6. CIFOR, Indonesia |
| |
Abstract: | Conservation and development practitioners increasingly promote community forestry as a way to conserve ecosystem services, consolidate resource rights, and reduce poverty. However, outcomes of community forestry have been mixed; many initiatives failed to achieve intended objectives. There is a rich literature on institutional arrangements of community forestry, but there has been little effort to examine the role of socioeconomic, market, and biophysical factors in shaping both land‐cover change dynamics and individual and collective livelihood outcomes. We systematically reviewed the peer‐reviewed literature on community forestry to examine and quantify existing knowledge gaps in the community‐forestry literature relative to these factors. In examining 697 cases of community forest management (CFM), extracted from 267 peer‐reviewed publications, we found 3 key trends that limit understanding of community forestry. First, we found substantial data gaps linking population dynamics, market forces, and biophysical characteristics to both environmental and livelihood outcomes. Second, most studies focused on environmental outcomes, and the majority of studies that assessed socioeconomic outcomes relied on qualitative data, making comparisons across cases difficult. Finally, there was a heavy bias toward studies on South Asian forests, indicating that the literature on community forestry may not be representative of decentralization policies and CFM globally. |
| |
Keywords: | biophysical factors community‐managed forests institutional arrangements markets socioeconomic characteristics systematic map arreglos institucionales bosques administrados por comunidades caracterí sticas socioeconó micas factores biofí sicos mapa sistemá tico mercados |
|
|