Hajjar Reem, Oldekop Johan A, Cronkleton Peter, Etue Emily, Newton Peter, Russel Aaron J M, Tjajadi Januarti Sinarra, Zhou Wen, Agrawal Arun
School of Natural Resources and Environment, The University of Michigan, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, U.S.A..
School of Natural Resources and Environment, The University of Michigan, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, U.S.A.
Conserv Biol. 2016 Dec;30(6):1357-1362. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12732. Epub 2016 Jun 15.
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.
保护与发展领域的从业者越来越多地推广社区林业，将其作为一种保护生态系统服务、巩固资源权利和减少贫困的方式。然而，社区林业的成果参差不齐；许多举措未能实现预期目标。关于社区林业制度安排的文献丰富，但很少有人努力研究社会经济、市场和生物物理因素在塑造土地覆盖变化动态以及个体和集体生计成果方面的作用。我们系统地回顾了关于社区林业的同行评议文献，以检查和量化社区林业文献中相对于这些因素的现有知识空白。在研究从267篇同行评议出版物中提取的697个社区森林管理（CFM）案例时，我们发现了3个限制对社区林业理解的关键趋势。首先，我们发现将人口动态、市场力量和生物物理特征与环境和生计成果联系起来的数据存在大量空白。其次，大多数研究集中在环境成果上，而评估社会经济成果的大多数研究依赖定性数据，使得跨案例比较变得困难。最后，对南亚森林的研究存在严重偏差，这表明关于社区林业的文献可能无法代表全球的分权政策和社区森林管理。
