A systematic map of evidence on the contribution of forests to poverty alleviation

Abstract

Background: Forests provide an essential resource to the livelihoods of an estimated 20% of the global population. The contribution of forest ecosystems and forest-based resources to poverty reduction is increasingly emphasized in international policy discourse and conservation and development investments. However, evidence measuring the effect of forest-based activities on poverty outcomes remains scattered and unclear. Lack of systematic understanding of forest-poverty relationships, in turn, inhibits research, policymaking, and efficient financial resource allocation. Methods:To identify relevant studies for inclusion in this systematic map we searched six bibliographic databases, 15 organizational websites, eight systematic evidence syntheses (reviews and maps), and solicited information from key informants. Search results were screened for relevance against predefined inclusion criteria at title, abstract, and full text levels, according to a published protocol. Included articles were coded using a predefined framework. Trends in the evidence, knowledge gaps and relatively well-researched sub-topics are reported in a narrative synthesis. Occurrence and extent of existing evidence about links between interventions and outcomes are presented in a visual heatmap. Data are available through the open access Evidence for Nature and People Data Portal (http://www.natur eandp eople evide nce.org). Results:A total of 242 articles were included in the systematic map database. Included articles measured effects of 14 forest-based intervention types on 11 poverty dimensions. The majority of the evidence base (72%) examined links between productivity-enhancement strategies (e.g. forest management, agroforestry, and habitat management) and monetary income and/or social capital outcomes. Other areas with high occurrence of articles include linkages between interventions involving governance, individual rights/empowerment or linked enterprises/livelihood alternatives with impacts on monetary income from direct sale of goods. A key knowledge gap was on the impacts of investment-based interventions (i.e. enhancing produced, human, and social capitals). Another was the impacts of forest-based interventions on financial capital (savings, debt), non-monetary benefits, and health. Conclusions:The evidence base on forest-based productive activities and poverty alleviation is growing but displays a number of biases in the distribution of articles on key linkages. Priorities for future systematic reviews and evaluations include in-depth examinations into the impacts of rights-based activities (e.g. governance, empowerment) on poverty dimensions; and productivity-enhancing activities on social capital. More comprehensive and robust evidence is needed to better understand the synergies and trade-offs among the different objectives of forest conservation and management and variation in outcomes for different social groups in different social-ecological contexts.

The Processing of Non-Timber Forest Products through Small and Medium Enterprises—A Review of Enabling and Constraining Factors

“…Others have critically reflected on the question of whether forest conservation can occur through the commercialization of NTFPs [36,38,39,64,65]. Several reviews have investigated the contributions of NTFPs, and more generally, of forest or environmental incomes on livelihoods and poverty alleviation (e.g., [1,14,[66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]). However, these typically do not specifically focus on commercialized NTFPs.…”

Bridging Indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal and marine research, monitoring, and management in Canada

“…A third limitation of the search strategy relates to the semantic challenges associated with interdisciplinary fields. As [64] note, compared to fields like medicine with a standard ontology, interdisciplinary fields often have high semantic diversity and rapid radiation of terms over quite short time periods (see [65,66]). While the interdisciplinary team piloted and tested the search strategy to be inclusive, we note that some literature could have been missed due to specific terms not being included.…”

A Systematic Map of Agroforestry Research Focusing on Ecosystem Services in the Asia-Pacific Region

“…This asymmetry creates an evidence gap across this geographical area. The gap indicates the limitations of the contextual diversity, as well as the limitations of the applications of research insights to decisions or practices [71]. In this regard, it is highly recommended that the scope of agroforestry research be broadened, to build the geographical evidence base.…”