Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 2
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Methods
- Part II Embodied Environmental Sociology
- Part III Beyond the Human
- Part IV Sustainability and Climate Change
- 12 Possibilities and Politics in Imagining Degrowth
- 13 Sustainable Consumption
- 14 Sustainability Cultures: Exploring the Relationships Between Cultural Attributes and Sustainability Outcomes
- 15 Socio-Ecological Sustainability and New Forms of Governance: Community Forestry and Citizen Involvement with Trees, Woods, and Forests
- 16 Carbon Markets and International Environmental Governance
- 17 The Multi-Level Governance Challenge of Climate Change in Brazil
- Part V Resources
- Part VI Food and Agriculture
- Part VII Social Movements
- Index
- References
15 - Socio-Ecological Sustainability and New Forms of Governance: Community Forestry and Citizen Involvement with Trees, Woods, and Forests
from Part IV - Sustainability and Climate Change
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 2
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Methods
- Part II Embodied Environmental Sociology
- Part III Beyond the Human
- Part IV Sustainability and Climate Change
- 12 Possibilities and Politics in Imagining Degrowth
- 13 Sustainable Consumption
- 14 Sustainability Cultures: Exploring the Relationships Between Cultural Attributes and Sustainability Outcomes
- 15 Socio-Ecological Sustainability and New Forms of Governance: Community Forestry and Citizen Involvement with Trees, Woods, and Forests
- 16 Carbon Markets and International Environmental Governance
- 17 The Multi-Level Governance Challenge of Climate Change in Brazil
- Part V Resources
- Part VI Food and Agriculture
- Part VII Social Movements
- Index
- References
Summary
The last few decades have been dominated by policy and practice narratives which suggest that active and engaged citizens or communities with effective agency can make important contributions to the creation, management and protection of natural resources such as forests. Socio-ecological system perspectives also conceptualise governance as a situation where ‘the divide between those governing and those being governed’ is eliminated, and see a shift in conventional governance practice to adaptive governance as essential if forests are to cope with the Anthropocene. Adaptive governance relies on social innovation – the ability for citizens, communities and other stakeholders to engage in collective experimentation, learning and risk management, and finding governance solutions that focus on the social and ecological benefits contributing to resilience and sustainability of socio-ecological systems. Social innovation in community forestry in the UK shows combinations of practice that manage differing combinations of resources, forest functions and uses, and organisational arrangements that have the best potential for sustainability. Community self-mobilisation, and engagement with a constellation of actors, other community groups and networks, large organisations and the state, allows for local practices and ideas to be incorporated within existing institutions and to transform and develop in response to changing socio-ecological conditions.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology , pp. 249 - 266Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Ambrose- Oji, B., Wallace, J., Lawrence, A., and Stewart, A. (2010) Forestry Commission working with the Third Sector. Farnham, Surrey: Forest Research report to Forestry Commission England.Google Scholar
Ambrose-Oji, B. (2011) Volunteering and Forestry Commission Wales: scope, opportunities and barriers. Farnham, Surrey: Forest Research report to Forestry Commission Wales.Google Scholar
Ambrose-Oji, B., Lawrence, A., and Stewart, A. (2015) Community based forest enterprises in Britain: two organising typologies. Forest Policy and Economics 58: 65–74.Google Scholar
Arts, B. (2014) Assessing forest governance from a ‘Triple G’ perspective: government, governance, governmentality. Forest Policy and Economics 49: 17–22.Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, K., and Lövbrand, E. (2006) Planting trees to mitigate climate change: contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics 6: 50–75.Google Scholar
Belsky, J. M. (2015) Community forestry engagement with market forces: a comparative perspective from Bhutan and Montana. Forest Policy and Economics 58: 29–36.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. (2017) Environmental governance for the Anthropocene? Social-Ecological systems, resilience, and collaborative learning. Sustainability 9: 1232.Google Scholar
Bixler, R. P. (2014) From community forest management to polycentric governance: assessing evidence from the bottom up. Society and Natural Resources 27: 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaikie, P. (2006) Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34: 1942–1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomley, T., Edwards, K., Kingazi, S., et al. (2017) When community forestry meets REDD+: has REDD+ helped address implementation barriers to participatory forest management in Tanzania? Journal of Eastern African Studies 11: 549–570.Google Scholar
Buijs, A., Hansen, R., Van der Jagt, A., et al. (2019) Mosaic governance for urban green infrastructure: upscaling active citizenship from a local government perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 40: 53–62.Google Scholar
Buijs, A. E., Mattijssen, T. J. M, Van der Jagt, A. P. N., et al. (2016) Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 22: 1–6.Google Scholar
Cadman, T., Maraseni, T., Ok Ma, H., and Lopez-Casero, F. (2017) Five years of REDD+governance: the use of market mechanisms as a response to anthropogenic climate change. Forest Policy and Economics 79: 8–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, K. and Gruby, R. L. (2017) Polycentric systems of governance: a theoretical model for the commons. Policy Studies Journal 47: 927–52.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S., Knapp, C. N., Brinkman, T. J., et al. (2016) Community-empowered adaptation for self-reliance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 19: 67–75.Google Scholar
Dearing, J. A. (2012) Navigating the perfect storm: research strategies for social-ecological systems in a rapidly evolving world. Environmental Management 49: 767–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defra. (2013) Government Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statement. London: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
Dupuits, E. (2015) Transnational self-help networks and community forestry: a theoretical framework. Forest Policy and Economics 58: 5–11.Google Scholar
Eckerberg, K., and Buizer, M. (2017) Promises and dilemmas in forest fire management decision-making: exploring conditions for community engagement in Australia and Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics 80: 133–40.Google Scholar
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., and Norberg, J. (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441–73.Google Scholar
Folke, C., Pritchard, L., Berkes, F, Colding, J., and Svedin, U. (2007) The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecology and Society 12(1): 30.Google Scholar
Gatto, P., and Bogataj, N. (2015) Disturbances, robustness and adaptation in forest commons: comparative insights from two cases in the Southeastern Alps. Forest Policy and Economics 58: 56–64.Google Scholar
George, C., and Reed, M. G. (2017) Operationalising just sustainability: towards a model for place-based governance. Local Environment 22: 1105–23.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (2002) Runaway World: How globalisation is shaping our lives, Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hajer, M., and Versteeg, W. (2005) A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 7: 175–84.Google Scholar
Independent Panel on Forestry. (2012) Independent Panel Report on Forestry: Final Report. London: report to Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
Jerome, G., Mell, I., and Shaw, D. (2017) Re-defining the characteristics of environmental volunteering: creating a typology of community-scale green infrastructure. Environmental Research 158: 399–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kluvánková, T. and Gezík, V. (2016) Survival of commons? Institutions for robust forest social-ecological systems. Forest Economics 24: 175–85.Google Scholar
Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. (2012) Innovations in urban forest governance in Europe. In Johnston, M. and Percival, G. (eds) Trees, People and the Built Environment. Proceedings of the Urban Trees Research Conference, 13–14 April 2011. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission, pp. 141–47.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. and Dandy, N. (2012) Governance and the urban forest. In: Johnston, M. and Percival, G. (eds) Trees, People and the Built Environment. Proceedings of the Urban Trees Research Conference, 13–14 April 2011. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission, 148–58.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. and Ambrose-Oji, B. (2013) A framework for sharing experiences of community woodland groups. Research Note. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. and Ambrose-Oji, B. (2014) Beauty, friends, power, money: navigating the impacts of community woodlands. Geographical Journal 181: 268–79.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A. and Molteno, S. (2012) Community forest governance: a rapid evidence review. Farnham, Surrey: Forest Research, 141.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A., Ambrose- Oji, B. and O’Brien, E. (2014) Current approaches to supporting and working with communities on the National Forest Estate: feedback from community organisations and FES delivery staff Roslin, Midlothian: Forest Research.Google Scholar
Lawrence, A., Anglezarke, B., Frost, B., et al. (2009) What does community forestry mean in a devolved Great Britain? The International Forestry Review 11: 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A., Van der Jagt, A., Ambrose- Oji, B., and Stewart, A. (2014) Local authorities in Scotland: a catalyst for community engagement in urban forests? Trees, People and the Built Environment II. Proceedings of the Urban Trees Research Conference, 2-3 April 2014. University of Birmingham. Institute of Chartered Foresters, Birmingham.Google Scholar
O’Brien, L., Townsend, M. and Ebden, M. (2008) ‘I’d like to think that when I’m gone I will have left this a better place’: environmental volunteering – motivations, barriers and benefits. Report to the Scottish Forestry Trust and Forestry Commission.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 20: 550–57.Google Scholar
Parkins, J. R., Dunn, M., Reed, M. G., and Sinclair, A. John. (2016) Forest governance as neoliberal strategy: a comparative case study of the Model Forest Program in Canada. Journal of Rural Studies 45: 270–78.Google Scholar
Premrl, T., Udovč, A., Bogataj, N., and Krč, J. (2015) From restitution to revival: a case of commons re-establishment and restitution in Slovenia. Forest Policy and Economics 59: 19–26.Google Scholar
Primmer, E., Jokinen, P., Blicharska, M., et al. (2015) Governance of ecosystem services: a framework for empirical analysis. Ecosystem Services 16: 158–66.Google Scholar
Ribot, J. (2004) Waiting for Democracy: The Politics of Choice in Natural Resource Decentralisation, Washington, DC: World Resource Institute.Google Scholar
Rosenau, J., and Czempiel, E. (1992) Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swade, K., Walker, A., Walton, M., and Barker, K. (2013) Community management of Local Authority woodland in England: A report to Forest Research. Shared Assets report to Forest Research.Google Scholar
Teder, M., and Kaimre, P. (2017) The participation of stakeholders in the policy processes and their satisfaction with results: a case of Estonian forestry policy. Forest Policy and Economics 89: 54–62.Google Scholar
Tidey, P. and Pollard, A. (2010) Characterising community woodlands in England and exploring support needs. Small Woods Association report to Forest Research.Google Scholar
van der Jagt, A., Elands, B., Ambrose- Oji, B., Gerőházi, É., and Steen Møller, M. (2016) Participatory governance of urban green spaces: trends and practices in the European Union. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research 3: 11–34.Google Scholar
Wagenaar, H., Healey, P., Laino, G., et al. (2015) The transformative potential of civic enterprise. Planning Theory and Practice 16: 557–585.Google Scholar
Weber, N. (2017) Participation or involvement? Development of forest strategies on national and sub-national level in Germany. Forest Policy and Economics 89: 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, S. J. and Cagalanan, D. (2016) Governing restoration: strategies, adaptations and innovations for tomorrow’s forest landscapes. World Development Perspectives 4: 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wydra, Doris, and Pülzl, Helga (2013). Sustainability governance in democracies. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development 4(1): 86–107. doi:10.4018/jsesd.2013010105Google Scholar