Cargando…

A global systematic review of forest management institutions: towards a new research agenda

CONTEXT: Globally, forest landscapes are rapidly transforming, with the role of institutions as mediators in their use and management constantly appearing in the literature. However, global comparative reviews to enhance comprehension of how forest management institutions (FMIs) are conceptualized,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon, Owusu, Raphael, Charmakar, Shambhu, Manu, Gordon, Giessen, Lukas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9789374/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36589773
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01577-8
_version_ 1784858939036270592
author Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon
Owusu, Raphael
Charmakar, Shambhu
Manu, Gordon
Giessen, Lukas
author_facet Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon
Owusu, Raphael
Charmakar, Shambhu
Manu, Gordon
Giessen, Lukas
author_sort Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon
collection PubMed
description CONTEXT: Globally, forest landscapes are rapidly transforming, with the role of institutions as mediators in their use and management constantly appearing in the literature. However, global comparative reviews to enhance comprehension of how forest management institutions (FMIs) are conceptualized, and the varying determinants of compliance, are lacking. And so too, is there knowledge fragmentation on the methodological approaches which have and should be prioritized in the new research agenda on FMIs. OBJECTIVES: We review the regional variations in the conceptualization of FMIs, analyze the determinants of compliance with FMIs, and assess the methodological gaps applied in the study of FMIs. METHODS: A systematic review of 197 empirically conducted studies (491 cases) on FMIs was performed, including a directed content analysis. RESULTS: First, FMIs literature is growing; multi-case and multi-country studies characterize Europe/North America, Africa and Latin America, over Asia. Second, the structure-process conceptualization of FMIs predominates in Asia and Africa. Third, global south regions report high cases of compliance with informal FMIs, while non-compliance was registered for Europe/North America in the formal domain. Finally, mixed-methods approaches have been least employed in the studies so far; while the use of only qualitative methods increased over time, the adoption of only quantitative approaches witnessed a decrease. CONCLUSION: Future research should empirically ground informality in the institutional set-up of Australia while also valorizing mixed-methods research globally. Crucially, future research should consider multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to explore the actor and power dimensions of forest management institutions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10980-022-01577-8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9789374
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97893742022-12-27 A global systematic review of forest management institutions: towards a new research agenda Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon Owusu, Raphael Charmakar, Shambhu Manu, Gordon Giessen, Lukas Landsc Ecol Review Article CONTEXT: Globally, forest landscapes are rapidly transforming, with the role of institutions as mediators in their use and management constantly appearing in the literature. However, global comparative reviews to enhance comprehension of how forest management institutions (FMIs) are conceptualized, and the varying determinants of compliance, are lacking. And so too, is there knowledge fragmentation on the methodological approaches which have and should be prioritized in the new research agenda on FMIs. OBJECTIVES: We review the regional variations in the conceptualization of FMIs, analyze the determinants of compliance with FMIs, and assess the methodological gaps applied in the study of FMIs. METHODS: A systematic review of 197 empirically conducted studies (491 cases) on FMIs was performed, including a directed content analysis. RESULTS: First, FMIs literature is growing; multi-case and multi-country studies characterize Europe/North America, Africa and Latin America, over Asia. Second, the structure-process conceptualization of FMIs predominates in Asia and Africa. Third, global south regions report high cases of compliance with informal FMIs, while non-compliance was registered for Europe/North America in the formal domain. Finally, mixed-methods approaches have been least employed in the studies so far; while the use of only qualitative methods increased over time, the adoption of only quantitative approaches witnessed a decrease. CONCLUSION: Future research should empirically ground informality in the institutional set-up of Australia while also valorizing mixed-methods research globally. Crucially, future research should consider multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches to explore the actor and power dimensions of forest management institutions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10980-022-01577-8. Springer Netherlands 2022-12-24 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9789374/ /pubmed/36589773 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01577-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article
Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon
Owusu, Raphael
Charmakar, Shambhu
Manu, Gordon
Giessen, Lukas
A global systematic review of forest management institutions: towards a new research agenda
title A global systematic review of forest management institutions: towards a new research agenda
title_full A global systematic review of forest management institutions: towards a new research agenda
title_fullStr A global systematic review of forest management institutions: towards a new research agenda
title_full_unstemmed A global systematic review of forest management institutions: towards a new research agenda
title_short A global systematic review of forest management institutions: towards a new research agenda
title_sort global systematic review of forest management institutions: towards a new research agenda
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9789374/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36589773
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01577-8
work_keys_str_mv AT kimengsijudendzifon aglobalsystematicreviewofforestmanagementinstitutionstowardsanewresearchagenda
AT owusuraphael aglobalsystematicreviewofforestmanagementinstitutionstowardsanewresearchagenda
AT charmakarshambhu aglobalsystematicreviewofforestmanagementinstitutionstowardsanewresearchagenda
AT manugordon aglobalsystematicreviewofforestmanagementinstitutionstowardsanewresearchagenda
AT giessenlukas aglobalsystematicreviewofforestmanagementinstitutionstowardsanewresearchagenda
AT kimengsijudendzifon globalsystematicreviewofforestmanagementinstitutionstowardsanewresearchagenda
AT owusuraphael globalsystematicreviewofforestmanagementinstitutionstowardsanewresearchagenda
AT charmakarshambhu globalsystematicreviewofforestmanagementinstitutionstowardsanewresearchagenda
AT manugordon globalsystematicreviewofforestmanagementinstitutionstowardsanewresearchagenda
AT giessenlukas globalsystematicreviewofforestmanagementinstitutionstowardsanewresearchagenda