Heterogeneous impacts of community forestry on forest conservation and poverty alleviation: Evidence from Indonesia

People and Nature

article

Truly Santika¹  Kerrie A. Wilson²  Sugeng Budiharta³  Ahmad Kusworo⁷  Erik Meijaard³  Elizabeth A. Law²  Rachel Friedman²  Joseph A. Hutabarat⁷  Tito P. Indrawan⁷  Freya A. V. St. John^1,10  Matthew J. Struebig¹ 

[1] Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent;School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland;ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, University of Queensland;Borneo Futures;Institute for Future Environments, Queensland University of Technology;Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI);Fauna & Flora International - Indonesia Programme;The Nature Conservancy – Indonesia Program;Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA);School of Natural Resources, Bangor University

关键词: avoided deforestation;    human well‐being;    impact evaluation;    multidimensional poverty;    rural development;    sustainable development;    tropics;   

DOI  :  10.1002/pan3.25

学科分类：护理学

来源: Wiley

【 摘 要 】

Community forestry is a participatory approach aiming to achieve sustainable forest management while also reducing poverty among rural communities. Yet, evidence of the impacts of community forestry programmes on both forest conservation and poverty alleviation is scarce, and there is limited understanding of impacts across different social and biophysical contexts. We applied a matching method to assess the extent to which deforestation has decreased and village well-being has improved as a result of Indonesia's community forestry scheme, Hutan Desa (Village Forest). We assessed five dimensions of well-being: basic (living conditions), physical (access to health and education), financial (income support), social (security and equity) and environmental (natural hazard prevention). We found that Hutan Desa was associated with reduced deforestation and poverty. ‘Win-win’ outcomes were found in 51% of cases, comprising (a) positive outcomes for both forests and poverty, (b) a positive outcome for one aspect and a negligible outcome for the other, or (c) a positive outcome for poverty in areas where natural forest had already been lacking prior to Hutan Desa tenure. Benefits to forests and people systematically differed depending on land-use zones, reflecting subtle interactions between anthropogenic pressures and community livelihood characteristics. In Watershed Protection Zones, which are dominated by subsistence-based forest livelihoods, community forestry provided mild conservation benefits, but resulted in the greatest improvements in well-being through improved land tenure. In Limited Production Zones, community forestry provided modest benefits for both conservation and well-being because restrictions on timber harvest due to Hutan Desa designation reduced the financial well-being of logging communities. The greatest conservation benefits were experienced in Permanent or Convertible Production Zones, but well-being improvements were minimal. Here, living conditions and environmental well-being were reduced due to pressure to intensify agricultural production under increased land scarcity in these predominantly cash crop-oriented communities. Our results highlight the spatial and contextual variation in impacts of community forestry policies on poverty alleviation and forest conservation outcomes. Crucially, our study provides vital objective information for future policy development in Indonesia and other tropical countries implementing community forestry schemes. A plain language summary is available for this article.

【 授权许可】

CC BY