MétaCan
← all works

Community Forestry in Theory and Practice: Where Are We Now?

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

About CanadaIts subject is Canada, wherever its authors sit.

No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame — the usual design — would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Machine scores (provisional)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread
0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Abstract

Community forestry refers to forest management that has ecological sustainability and local community benefits as central goals, with some degree of responsibility and authority for forest management formally vested in the community. This review provides an overview of where the field of community forestry is today. We describe four case examples from the Americas: Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Bolivia. We also identify five hypotheses embedded in the concept of community forestry and examine the evidence supporting them. We conclude that community forestry holds promise as a viable approach to forest conservation and community development. Major gaps remain, however, between community forestry in theory and in practice. For example, devolution of forest management authority from states to communities has been partial and disappointing, and local control over forest management appears to have more ecological than socioeconomic benefits. We suggest ways that anthropologists can contribute to the field.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

The record

Venue
Annual Review of Anthropology
Topic
Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Field
Environmental Science
Canadian institutions
Funders
Keywords
Community forestryForest managementDevolution (biology)SustainabilityField (mathematics)Environmental resource managementForestryGeographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningBusinessEcologyEconomics
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes