4.2 Article

Beauty, friends, power, money: navigating the impacts of community woodlands

Journal

GEOGRAPHICAL JOURNAL
Volume 181, Issue 3, Pages 268-279

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/geoj.12094

Keywords

evidence-based policy; evaluation; community forestry; impact assessment; social forestry; United Kingdom

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Community forestry in the UK has developed rapidly over the last 25 years, and the wide range of drivers has resulted in a great variety of relationships between communities and woodlands, and over 650 community woodlands. Given strong current policy interest, the study aims to assess existing evidence for the impact of these initiatives. The variety of models, evaluation purposes, and impacts requires a new approach to organising the evidence, including a new typology of community woodlands. The review identified more than 70 studies, covering 681 evaluation cases. Of these, 41% are urban regeneration' programmes, 32% are locally led community place' projects, and 22% are locally owned community resources'. Only 3% are economic partnerships' where the primary objective is enterprise; and 1% are lifestyle alternatives'. The majority of evaluations are conducted by the public sector. Evaluations tend to focus on the positive and the quantitative and relate predominantly to outputs (e.g. trees planted, meetings attended). Only 21% of cases identify outcomes (e.g. neighbourhoods enhanced, wellbeing enhanced), and there is little evidence of community empowerment or meaningful engagement in decisionmaking. Attention has shifted from biophysical to social and participation indicators in recent years, but evidence of change over time is lacking. The policy relevance of the evidence base will be greatly enhanced if cases distinguish between types of community woodland, consistently include comparable indicators, and link context, process, outputs and outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available