The data not collected on community forestry
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 ric...
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Journal Article |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Wiley
2016
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/95377 |
| _version_ | 1855521102839676928 |
|---|---|
| author | Hajjar, R. Oldekop, J. Cronkleton, P. Etue, E. Newton, P. Russell, A. Tjajadi, J.S. Zhou, W. Agrawal, A. |
| author_browse | Agrawal, A. Cronkleton, P. Etue, E. Hajjar, R. Newton, P. Oldekop, J. Russell, A. Tjajadi, J.S. Zhou, W. |
| author_facet | Hajjar, R. Oldekop, J. Cronkleton, P. Etue, E. Newton, P. Russell, A. Tjajadi, J.S. Zhou, W. Agrawal, A. |
| author_sort | Hajjar, R. |
| collection | Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace) |
| description | 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. |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | CGSpace95377 |
| institution | CGIAR Consortium |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2016 |
| publishDateRange | 2016 |
| publishDateSort | 2016 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| publisherStr | Wiley |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | CGSpace953772025-06-17T08:23:32Z The data not collected on community forestry Hajjar, R. Oldekop, J. Cronkleton, P. Etue, E. Newton, P. Russell, A. Tjajadi, J.S. Zhou, W. Agrawal, A. systematic reviews community based organizations conservation methodology environmental management 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. 2016-12 2018-07-03T11:02:53Z 2018-07-03T11:02:53Z Journal Article https://hdl.handle.net/10568/95377 en Open Access Wiley Hajjar, R., Oldekop, J., Cronkleton, P., Etue, E., Newton, P., Russell, A., Tjajadi, J.S., Zhou, W., Agrawal, A.. 2016. The data not collected on community forestry Conservation Biology, 30 (6) : 1357-1362. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12732 |
| spellingShingle | systematic reviews community based organizations conservation methodology environmental management Hajjar, R. Oldekop, J. Cronkleton, P. Etue, E. Newton, P. Russell, A. Tjajadi, J.S. Zhou, W. Agrawal, A. The data not collected on community forestry |
| title | The data not collected on community forestry |
| title_full | The data not collected on community forestry |
| title_fullStr | The data not collected on community forestry |
| title_full_unstemmed | The data not collected on community forestry |
| title_short | The data not collected on community forestry |
| title_sort | data not collected on community forestry |
| topic | systematic reviews community based organizations conservation methodology environmental management |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/95377 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hajjarr thedatanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT oldekopj thedatanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT cronkletonp thedatanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT etuee thedatanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT newtonp thedatanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT russella thedatanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT tjajadijs thedatanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT zhouw thedatanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT agrawala thedatanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT hajjarr datanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT oldekopj datanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT cronkletonp datanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT etuee datanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT newtonp datanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT russella datanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT tjajadijs datanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT zhouw datanotcollectedoncommunityforestry AT agrawala datanotcollectedoncommunityforestry |