Understanding community forestry: a qualitative meta‐study of the concept, the process, and its potential for poverty alleviation in the United States case

Abstract

This paper provides an assessment of the conceptual basis of community forestry from around the world, based on case studies presented in the literature, mainly over the last decade. More than 400 documents were examined for this comprehensive qualitative meta‐study (meta‐theory, meta‐analysis, meta‐method, and meta‐synthesis) of community forestry. An overall conclusion is offered regarding the extent to which community forestry can be adapted to foster practices that enhance livelihoods, particularly for poverty populations, in rural United States communities. Special attention is paid to signifiers of community empowerment and reflexivity as well as other elements of success suggested in the literature.

Poverty Alleviation Efforts through a Community Forestry Program in Java, Indonesia

“…Such was mainly driven by the diminishing availability of important forest resources for the daily livelihood of forest dependent people (Arnold, 1991;Dev et al, 2003). In their review on 250 community forestry cases across the globe, Glasmeier and Farrigan (2005) conclude on the subsistent purposes of community forestry in the developing world. Nonetheless, scholars recently appear to stress on the absolute improvement of the well-being of forest users, with the view on to the accumulation of wealth and the uses of forests as source of savings and asset building for permanent increases in income (Oyono, 2005;Sunderlin, 2006;Pandit et al, 2008).…”

Poverty alleviation as a pathway to sustainable forest management

“…In addition, the empowerment of local resource users provides benefits by influencing outcomes through the adoption of local ecological knowledge or best practices (Gadgil et al 1993). Also, it is argued that when there is ownership or a similar attachment to the resource, the local people will show a greater responsibility for its continued health (Glasmeier and Farrigan 2005).…”

Sustainable Intensification, Community, and the Montpellier Panel: A Meta-analysis of Rhetoric in Practice in Sub-Saharan Africa

“…Concepts of community historically are missing from meaningful analyses of ecological management or development (Flint, Luloff, & Finley, 2008;Glasmeier & Farrigan, 2005). In this study, only five articles specifically included elements of community, either through community development in general or through facilitating collective action or improving community infrastructure (see a list of all 58 papers in this meta-analysis in the Appendix; also see Andersson & Gabrielsson, 2012;Asaah et al, 2011;Peacock & Hastings, 2011;Silici et al, 2011;Wambugu et al, 2011).…”