What do we (not) know on forest management institutions in sub-Saharan Africa? A regional comparative review

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

What do we (not) know on forest management institutions in sub-Saharan Africa? A regional comparative review. / Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon; Owusu, Raphael; Djenontin, Ida N.S.; Pretzsch, Jürgen; Giessen, Lukas; Buchenrieder, Gertrud; Pouliot, Mariève; Acosta, Ana Nicole.

In: Land Use Policy, Vol. 114, 105931, 2022.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Kimengsi, JN, Owusu, R, Djenontin, INS, Pretzsch, J, Giessen, L, Buchenrieder, G, Pouliot, M & Acosta, AN 2022, 'What do we (not) know on forest management institutions in sub-Saharan Africa? A regional comparative review', Land Use Policy, vol. 114, 105931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105931

APA

Kimengsi, J. N., Owusu, R., Djenontin, I. N. S., Pretzsch, J., Giessen, L., Buchenrieder, G., Pouliot, M., & Acosta, A. N. (2022). What do we (not) know on forest management institutions in sub-Saharan Africa? A regional comparative review. Land Use Policy, 114, [105931]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105931

Vancouver

Kimengsi JN, Owusu R, Djenontin INS, Pretzsch J, Giessen L, Buchenrieder G et al. What do we (not) know on forest management institutions in sub-Saharan Africa? A regional comparative review. Land Use Policy. 2022;114. 105931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105931

Author

Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon ; Owusu, Raphael ; Djenontin, Ida N.S. ; Pretzsch, Jürgen ; Giessen, Lukas ; Buchenrieder, Gertrud ; Pouliot, Mariève ; Acosta, Ana Nicole. / What do we (not) know on forest management institutions in sub-Saharan Africa? A regional comparative review. In: Land Use Policy. 2022 ; Vol. 114.

Bibtex

@article{42c011c392cd4fde94aa15e15b7fdbe3,
title = "What do we (not) know on forest management institutions in sub-Saharan Africa?: A regional comparative review",
abstract = "With growing concerns linked to the (un)sustainable management of forest resources, the role of institutions as mediators increasingly gains relevance in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This is particularly so, as formal and informal institutions virtually compete for dominance – a yet-to-be-resolved colonial hangover. A large body of scientific knowledge exists on the role of institutions in regulating forest access, use, and management in SSA, albeit fragmented. Sub-regional variations in research on this subject further nuances our understanding of the breadth of conceptual and methodological issues in this field. This raises a central question: How can we advance knowledge on forest management institutions in SSA to enhance forest governance amidst the critical role of forests in addressing current global environmental challenges? We contribute answers to such interrogation by systematically reviewing more than three decades of scientific literature on institutions in forest use and management. Through a structured review of 100 empirical articles (involving 374 cases studies), and guided by the socio-ecological co-evolution framework, we derived two lessons. First, the conceptualization of forest-linked institutions is more skewed towards institutions as processes, than as structures. Second, the major determinants of institutional compliance are economic, ecological, political, socio-cultural, demographic, and geographical in nature. However, the weight of each determining factor varies in specific sub-regions. For instance, in East Africa, economic, ecological, socio-cultural, and geographic factors dominate while economic, demographic, and political factors dominate in Central Africa. Therefore, in crafting forest institutions in SSA, sub-regional disparities in factors that influence compliance (or otherwise) should be critically considered and addressed to improve effectiveness. Methodologically, qualitative approaches (e.g., key informant interviews and focus group discussions), conducted within short time spans, have been prioritized. However, observed knowledge fragmentation on the subject, including inconsistencies or mismatches, calls for combined, long term qualitative analyses with quantitative ones, in a robust mixed-methods approach. Future research should prioritize this methodological approach, with a focus on sub-regional, country-level specificities, to better inform understanding of forest-linked institutional dynamics.",
keywords = "Determinants, Forests, Institutions, Methods, Processes, Structures, Sub-Regional Africa",
author = "Kimengsi, {Jude Ndzifon} and Raphael Owusu and Djenontin, {Ida N.S.} and J{\"u}rgen Pretzsch and Lukas Giessen and Gertrud Buchenrieder and Mari{\`e}ve Pouliot and Acosta, {Ana Nicole}",
note = "Funding Information: This research was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) - Projektnummer (437116427), Grant ID: F-010300-541-000-1170701 . Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 Elsevier Ltd",
year = "2022",
doi = "10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105931",
language = "English",
volume = "114",
journal = "Land Use Policy",
issn = "0264-8377",
publisher = "Pergamon Press",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - What do we (not) know on forest management institutions in sub-Saharan Africa?

T2 - A regional comparative review

AU - Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon

AU - Owusu, Raphael

AU - Djenontin, Ida N.S.

AU - Pretzsch, Jürgen

AU - Giessen, Lukas

AU - Buchenrieder, Gertrud

AU - Pouliot, Mariève

AU - Acosta, Ana Nicole

N1 - Funding Information: This research was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) - Projektnummer (437116427), Grant ID: F-010300-541-000-1170701 . Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Elsevier Ltd

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - With growing concerns linked to the (un)sustainable management of forest resources, the role of institutions as mediators increasingly gains relevance in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This is particularly so, as formal and informal institutions virtually compete for dominance – a yet-to-be-resolved colonial hangover. A large body of scientific knowledge exists on the role of institutions in regulating forest access, use, and management in SSA, albeit fragmented. Sub-regional variations in research on this subject further nuances our understanding of the breadth of conceptual and methodological issues in this field. This raises a central question: How can we advance knowledge on forest management institutions in SSA to enhance forest governance amidst the critical role of forests in addressing current global environmental challenges? We contribute answers to such interrogation by systematically reviewing more than three decades of scientific literature on institutions in forest use and management. Through a structured review of 100 empirical articles (involving 374 cases studies), and guided by the socio-ecological co-evolution framework, we derived two lessons. First, the conceptualization of forest-linked institutions is more skewed towards institutions as processes, than as structures. Second, the major determinants of institutional compliance are economic, ecological, political, socio-cultural, demographic, and geographical in nature. However, the weight of each determining factor varies in specific sub-regions. For instance, in East Africa, economic, ecological, socio-cultural, and geographic factors dominate while economic, demographic, and political factors dominate in Central Africa. Therefore, in crafting forest institutions in SSA, sub-regional disparities in factors that influence compliance (or otherwise) should be critically considered and addressed to improve effectiveness. Methodologically, qualitative approaches (e.g., key informant interviews and focus group discussions), conducted within short time spans, have been prioritized. However, observed knowledge fragmentation on the subject, including inconsistencies or mismatches, calls for combined, long term qualitative analyses with quantitative ones, in a robust mixed-methods approach. Future research should prioritize this methodological approach, with a focus on sub-regional, country-level specificities, to better inform understanding of forest-linked institutional dynamics.

AB - With growing concerns linked to the (un)sustainable management of forest resources, the role of institutions as mediators increasingly gains relevance in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This is particularly so, as formal and informal institutions virtually compete for dominance – a yet-to-be-resolved colonial hangover. A large body of scientific knowledge exists on the role of institutions in regulating forest access, use, and management in SSA, albeit fragmented. Sub-regional variations in research on this subject further nuances our understanding of the breadth of conceptual and methodological issues in this field. This raises a central question: How can we advance knowledge on forest management institutions in SSA to enhance forest governance amidst the critical role of forests in addressing current global environmental challenges? We contribute answers to such interrogation by systematically reviewing more than three decades of scientific literature on institutions in forest use and management. Through a structured review of 100 empirical articles (involving 374 cases studies), and guided by the socio-ecological co-evolution framework, we derived two lessons. First, the conceptualization of forest-linked institutions is more skewed towards institutions as processes, than as structures. Second, the major determinants of institutional compliance are economic, ecological, political, socio-cultural, demographic, and geographical in nature. However, the weight of each determining factor varies in specific sub-regions. For instance, in East Africa, economic, ecological, socio-cultural, and geographic factors dominate while economic, demographic, and political factors dominate in Central Africa. Therefore, in crafting forest institutions in SSA, sub-regional disparities in factors that influence compliance (or otherwise) should be critically considered and addressed to improve effectiveness. Methodologically, qualitative approaches (e.g., key informant interviews and focus group discussions), conducted within short time spans, have been prioritized. However, observed knowledge fragmentation on the subject, including inconsistencies or mismatches, calls for combined, long term qualitative analyses with quantitative ones, in a robust mixed-methods approach. Future research should prioritize this methodological approach, with a focus on sub-regional, country-level specificities, to better inform understanding of forest-linked institutional dynamics.

KW - Determinants

KW - Forests

KW - Institutions

KW - Methods

KW - Processes

KW - Structures

KW - Sub-Regional Africa

U2 - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105931

DO - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105931

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85121277080

VL - 114

JO - Land Use Policy

JF - Land Use Policy

SN - 0264-8377

M1 - 105931

ER -

ID: 288717381