What does equitable distribution mean in community forests?
In: World development: the multi-disciplinary international journal devoted to the study and promotion of world development, Band 157, S. 1-10
7 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: World development: the multi-disciplinary international journal devoted to the study and promotion of world development, Band 157, S. 1-10
World Affairs Online
In: Environmental science & policy, Band 115, S. 99-107
ISSN: 1462-9011
Participatory approaches to forest management have been promoted as a means of returning rights historically removed, and as a way of managing natural resources sustainably, fairly, and to improve livelihoods in communities. Top-down models of community-based forest management take the perspective that if people feel ownership over, have a voice in decisions about, and can benefit from surrounding ecosystems, then they will be motivated to maintain and protect them. However, even participatory approaches, such as community-based forest management, may not always result in clear positive outcomes for involvement in decision making and forest conservation. We examine whether an Indonesian government initiative for community-based forest management was positively associated with community members' participation in local decision making and support for conservation and sustainable management of forest resources, in the context of state-owned lands. We used household questionnaire data to compare villages with and without a community forest, and community forests over time in a case study region of West Kalimantan. Analyzing forest visitations, conservation support, and indicators of procedural equity, we found no consistent association between having a community forest and higher levels of participation in decision making or household support for forest conservation. However, well-being indicators were positively associated with more active participation. The level of support for forest conservation was also positively related to households' leadership in village institutions and higher levels of well-being, particularly subjective well-being, land tenure, and material wealth. These social-demographic factors are important considerations when designing and implementing community-based forest management, which strives for fair and just decision-making processes along with forest conservation. The findings highlight how existing socioeconomic contexts factor into local institutions, and that accounting for these in program design and implementation may help address existing social inequalities that influence achieving joint social and ecological objectives.
BASE
Participatory approaches to forest management have been promoted as a means of returning rights historically removed, and as a way of managing natural resources sustainably, fairly, and to improve livelihoods in communities. Top-down models of community-based forest management take the perspective that if people feel ownership over, have a voice in decisions about, and can benefit from surrounding ecosystems, then they will be motivated to maintain and protect them. However, even participatory approaches, such as community-based forest management, may not always result in clear positive outcomes for involvement in decision making and forest conservation. We examine whether an Indonesian government initiative for community-based forest management was positively associated with community members' participation in local decision making and support for conservation and sustainable management of forest resources, in the context of state-owned lands. We used household questionnaire data to compare villages with and without a community forest, and community forests over time in a case study region of West Kalimantan. Analyzing forest visitations, conservation support, and indicators of procedural equity, we found no consistent association between having a community forest and higher levels of participation in decision making or household support for forest conservation. However, well-being indicators were positively associated with more active participation. The level of support for forest conservation was also positively related to households' leadership in village institutions and higher levels of well-being, particularly subjective well-being, land tenure, and material wealth. These social-demographic factors are important considerations when designing and implementing community-based forest management, which strives for fair and just decision-making processes along with forest conservation. The findings highlight how existing socioeconomic contexts factor into local institutions, and that accounting for these in program design and implementation may help address existing social inequalities that influence achieving joint social and ecological objectives.
BASE
In: Ecology and society: E&S ; a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability, Band 25, Heft 3
ISSN: 1708-3087
In: Land use policy: the international journal covering all aspects of land use, Band 97, S. 104738
ISSN: 0264-8377
Governance of the environment and natural resources involves interests of multiple stakeholders at different scales. In community-based forest management, organisations outside of communities play important roles in achieving multiple social and ecological objectives. How and when these organisations play a role in the community-based forest management process remains a key question. We applied social network analysis to a case study in Indonesian Borneo to better understand the evolution of interactions between organisational actors, and with communities. NGOs featured most prominently in initiating the permit process, implementing management, and providing other support activities, while also being well-connected to donors and government actors. The network configurations indicated significant cooperation among organisations when initiating the community forest process, while bridging between village and organisational levels characterised all stages of the community forest process. While community-based forest management often evokes images of grassroots efforts and broad local capacity to manage forests, reality shows a more dynamic and heterogeneous picture and broader involvement of different actor types and motivations in Indonesia. These findings can be applied to other countries implementing and expanding their decentralised forest policies.
BASE