Comparing polycentric configuration for adaptive governance within community forests: Case studies in Eastern North America

Abstract

Looking at two cases of community forests (CF) in Eastern North America, this article examines their institutional features in order to assess whether they are conducive to adaptive governance. To do so, this article presents CFs as manifestations of polycentric governance, which allow identifying the complex networks of relations existing between different actors involved in governance at many scales. Polycentric governance is assumed to have a higher adaptability to changing factors. To better capture the variables conducive to adaptive governance in CFs, we draw on the socio-ecological system (SES) framework. The study shows that variables from the SES framework are useful in identifying features of polycentricity in CFs. Moreover, these variables highlight mechanisms Comparing polycentric configuration for adaptive governance 353 of adaptability in CF governance, namely: interaction between organizations and actors, multiplicity of complementary rules from different organizations and structures of governance. Moreover, ongoing communication with the forest users and learning among actors appear key for CF governance's adaptability.

Mosaic governance for urban green infrastructure: Upscaling active citizenship from a local government perspective

“…Although multi-level governance and polycentric governance approaches often focus on formal or more institutionalised actors, they explicitly recognise the socio-cultural diversity of actors and the relevance of self-organisation for nature resource management (Ostrom, 2010). Its focus on the diversity of actors, formal and informal rules and mechanisms, and the multiplicity of scales (Bissonnette et al, 2018) are all relevant for active citizenship in urban greenspace. However, the relevance of spatial connectivity -ecological, recreational and socio-cultural -is less elaborated upon.…”

Organizational Models in European Forestry: An Attempt of Conceptualization and Categorization

“…CFs are not properly a specific organizational model, rather an ownership typology; the allocation of land property rights to the community generally leads to the formation of endogenous organizations [76] that could have various forms. Therefore, CFs do not present a single organizational model or a homogeneous group of organizations, but different models can be found in different countries and even in diverse regions of the same country, because common goods' (eventually called 'commons') management organizations have typically been established in the past and have a strong traditional legacy.…”

“…In some community forests, in the last few decades, the original actors have gradually disappeared and are being replaced by new actors who can have different demands on the resource [78]. CFs often involve forms of collaboration with exogenous political and economic actors that can be found in the same local context [76]. As for private forest owners' associations, the importance of second-tier organizations is cited for CFs, too.…”

The importance of local people and institutional arrangements for forest concessions in Brazil

“…Opposing viewpoints on the same fact may be a consequence of the plurality of perspectives and interests within that group. Even with formal spaces for participation, other arenas also influence decision-making processes, built by the various centers of power (BECK, 1997;OSTROM, 2005, p. 281;BRONDÍZIO et al, 2009;BISSONNETTE et al, 2018).…”