IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v96y2017icp315-325.html

Community Forest Management: An Assessment and Explanation of its Performance Through QCA

Author

Listed:
  • Arts, Bas
  • de Koning, Jessica

Abstract

Community Forest Management (CFM)—ranging from community-based to co-management regimes—has become an influential approach in the management of forests around the world in the last couple of decades. In response to some of the adverse effects of state forestry and commercial timber production, CFM claims to improve local livelihoods and conserve forests. Many international organizations, donors, NGOs, and governments therefore advocate CFM. However, a vast body of literature reveals that the overall results are mixed. This paper contributes to this literature in two ways. By building upon neo-institutionalism in CFM studies, the paper uses a practice-based approach as a theoretical lens to better understand how and why CFM institutions are successful or not. In addition, the paper applies a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) methodology to conduct a systematic cross-case comparison, while allowing for some generalization. By analyzing a decade of CFM research at the Forest and Nature Conservation Policy (FNP) group from Wageningen University in the Netherlands, this paper compares and synthesizes ten CFM cases from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It concludes that: (1) CFM does indeed present mixed results; (2) CFM performs similarly on social and ecological parameters; (3) overall, community-based organizations are strongly engaged in CFM; (4) such strong engagement though is not sufficient for CFM to perform; and (5) in particular, the presence of a “Community of Practice” that links local people to external forest professionals for mutual learning, based on respect and trust, makes a positive difference in terms of livelihoods and forest conditions.

Suggested Citation

  • Arts, Bas & de Koning, Jessica, 2017. "Community Forest Management: An Assessment and Explanation of its Performance Through QCA," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 315-325.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:96:y:2017:i:c:p:315-325
    DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X17300761
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kumar, Sanjay, 2002. "Does "Participation" in Common Pool Resource Management Help the Poor? A Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of Joint Forest Management in Jharkhand, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 763-782, May.
    2. Agrawal, Arun & Chhatre, Ashwini, 2006. "Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 149-166, January.
    3. Arun Agrawal, 1995. "Dismantling the Divide Between Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 26(3), pages 413-439, July.
    4. Poteete, Amy R. & Ostrom, Elinor, 2008. "Fifteen Years of Empirical Research on Collective Action in Natural Resource Management: Struggling to Build Large-N Databases Based on Qualitative Research," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 176-195, January.
    5. Ragin, Charles C., 2000. "Fuzzy-Set Social Science," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226702773.
    6. Laurent Umans, 1993. "A discourse on Forestry science," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 10(4), pages 26-40, September.
    7. Agrawal, Arun, 2001. "Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1649-1672, October.
    8. Arts, Bas & Behagel, Jelle & Turnhout, Esther & de Koning, Jessica & van Bommel, Séverine, 2014. "A practice based approach to forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 4-11.
    9. Amrita Chhachhi & Tim Forsyth & Craig Johnson, 2014. "Elinor Ostrom's Legacy: Governing the Commons and the Rational Choice Controversy," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(5), pages 1093-1110, September.
    10. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226702766 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lemeilleur, Sylvaine & Allaire, Gilles, 2019. "Participatory Guarantee Systems for organic farming: reclaiming the commons," Working Papers MOISA 292325, Institut National de la recherché Agronomique (INRA), UMR MOISA : Marchés, Organisations, Institutions et Stratégies d'Acteurs : CIHEAM-IAMM, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro, Montpellier, France.
    2. Singh, Vijai Shanker & Pandey, Deep Narayan & Prakash, Neha Pandey, 2011. "What determines the success of joint forest management? Science-based lessons on sustainable governance of forests in India," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 126-133.
    3. Chand, Narendra & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Bigsby, Hugh R., 2010. "Why some community forests are performing better than others: a case of forest user groups in Nepal," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 96827, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2018. "The importance of Ostrom’s Design Principles: Youth group performance in northern Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 10-30.
    5. L. Jamila Haider & Benjamin Neusel & Garry D. Peterson & Maja Schlüter, 2019. "Past management affects success of current joint forestry management institutions in Tajikistan," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 2183-2224, October.
    6. Behera, Bhagirath, 2009. "Explaining the performance of state-community joint forest management in India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 177-185, November.
    7. Frey, Ulrich J. & Rusch, Hannes, 2014. "Modeling Ecological Success of Common Pool Resource Systems Using Large Datasets," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 93-103.
    8. Dash, Madhusmita & Behera, Bhagirath, 2015. "Local institutions, collective action and forest conservation: The case of Similipal Tiger Reserve in India," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 167-184.
    9. Fleischman, Forrest D. & Boenning, Kinga & Garcia-Lopez, Gustavo A. & Mincey, Sarah & Schmitt-Harsh, Mikaela & Daedlow, Katrin & Lopez, Maria Claudia & Basurto, Xavier & Fischer, Burney & Ostrom, Elin, 2010. "Disturbance, response, and persistence in self-organized forested communities: Analysis of robustness and resilience in five communities in Southern Indiana," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 15(4).
    10. Chand, Narendra & Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Bigsby, Hugh, 2015. "Production efficiency of community forest management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 172-179.
    11. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2019. "How Do Social Preferences and Norms of Reciprocity affect Generalized and Particularized Trust?," CLTS Working Papers 8/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 10 Oct 2019.
    12. Li, Jiaxin & Wang, Zihan & Cheng, Xin & Shuai, Jing & Shuai, Chuanmin & Liu, Jing, 2020. "Has solar PV achieved the national poverty alleviation goals? Empirical evidence from the performances of 52 villages in rural China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    13. Andersson, Krister, 2013. "Local Governance of Forests and the Role of External Organizations: Some Ties Matter More Than Others," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 226-237.
    14. Naidu, Sirisha C., 2011. "Gendered effects of work and participation in collective forest management," MPRA Paper 31091, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Paudel, Jayash, 2018. "Community-Managed Forests, Household Fuelwood Use and Food Consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 62-73.
    16. Ulambayar, Tungalag & Fernández-Giménez, María E., 2019. "How Community-Based Rangeland Management Achieves Positive Social Outcomes In Mongolia: A Moderated Mediation Analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 93-104.
    17. Wang, Yahua & Chen, Chunliang & Araral, Eduardo, 2016. "The Effects of Migration on Collective Action in the Commons: Evidence from Rural China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 79-93.
    18. Okumu, Boscow & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2020. "Determinants of successful collective management of forest resources: Evidence from Kenyan Community Forest Associations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    19. Paudel, Jayash, 2016. "Community-Managed Forests and Household Welfare: Empirical Evidence from Nepal," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235481, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Lund, Jens Friis & Saito-Jensen, Moeko, 2013. "Revisiting the Issue of Elite Capture of Participatory Initiatives," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:96:y:2017:i:c:p:315-325. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.