Abstract
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.
Highlights
Loss and degradation of tropical forests, in parts of Southeast Asia, are major concerns as countries develop and extract more resources from forests (Austin et al 2017)
This study aims to improve our understanding of these relationships through two main questions: (1) is there a positive association between the level of participation in local decision-making processes and the presence of Community-based forest management (CFM); and (2) is greater participation positively associated with sustainable forest use and conservation support? We test the following hypotheses related to procedural equity and conservation (Fig. 1): Fig. 1
H1: community-based forest management is linked to greater participation in decision making We found no significant relationship between the Hutan Desa and higher levels of participation in village meetings, in our samples, villages without a Hutan Desa permit showed slightly more active participation, and Hutan Desa communities had greater nonparticipation (Fig. 3)
Summary
Loss and degradation of tropical forests, in parts of Southeast Asia, are major concerns as countries develop and extract more resources from forests (Austin et al 2017) To tackle this challenge, a variety of approaches to restore, maintain, and conserve forest ecosystems have been pursued. Community participation in forest management is considered a desirable end goal in its own right as part of democratizing environmental governance (Charnley and Poe 2007, Baker and Chapin 2018) These broad social and ecological objectives do not always align, and there are diverse motivations for integrating biodiversity conservation, or the maintenance of habitats and biodiversity, and procedural social equity, which deals with fairness of process and involves inclusion, representation, and participation of individuals and groups in decision making (McDermott et al 2013, Law et al 2018). It is possible to articulate different aspects of procedural equity by looking at who participates or is excluded, to what extent, and how accepted the process is
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
