Case study reveals disparate approaches to stakeholder participation and benefit distribution across community forests, highlighting the need for deliberate equitable governance.
In the United States as elsewhere, community forestry is growing as a form of forest management and governance. Community forests bring decision-making and benefits closer to the community, yet not everyone in a community has the same access to either. We examine how community forest governing bodies address equity in decision-making about, and benefits from, community forest management. Using a case-study approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with stakeholders associated with two community forests in the U.S. Inter-mountain West. The cases took different approaches to enhancing participation in decision-making about forest management, one through formal processes and one through informal channels, with mixed success for advancing equity. The cases also took different approaches to benefit distribution, one being more proactive and deliberate with its efforts and the other more reactive and responsive to pressure from local residents. We discuss key lessons for how community forest formation and governance can be structured more equitably.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McCaskill et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: