[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v112y2020ics1389934119300735.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forest commons, traditional community ownership and ecological consequences: Insights from Spain

Author

Listed:
  • Guadilla-Sáez, Sara
  • Pardo-de-Santayana, Manuel
  • Reyes-García, Victoria
Abstract
With a terrestrial surface increasingly dominated by human activities, conservation scholars nowadays seek to reconcile extractive land uses, such as low-intensity agriculture, forestry or agroforestry, with biodiversity conservation. This approach has been widely adopted by the international forestry community, which advocates for implementing management strategies both favourable to forest biodiversity and economically profitable. Along these lines, considerable attention is being given to the potential of traditional community management for guaranteeing long-term forest-related resources conservation. Here, we extend this line of research to explore whether certain local forms of use and governance of traditional community forests contribute to the conservation of biodiversity-rich habitats by examining the historical evolution of collective property regimes in Spain. The establishment of a political and economic framework by the late eighteen century that did not recognize community ownership as a form of property, largely disrupted the traditional management systems of Spanish community forests, offering a unique context to analyse the ecological consequences of replacing traditional forms of forest use by other management systems. Results of our historical analysis illustrate that the abolition of traditional uses had negative ecological consequences. In the short term, the privatization of forest commons resulted in a decline of forest cover due to the cut of the woodlots acquired by the new owners, causing flooding and soil erosion. In the long term, the limitation of traditional land uses due to State interventionism of the forest commons not privatized seems to have favoured the decline of biodiversity-rich semi-natural habitats dependent on human practices and the simplification of the rural landscape mosaic. These findings further support the idea that traditional community management can provide useful insights for designing forest management strategies reconciling economic benefits and forest biodiversity conservation. Additionally, the historical evolution detailed in this manuscript helps to understand the multiple legacies of community-ownership forests recognized in Spanish present-day legal code.

Suggested Citation

  • Guadilla-Sáez, Sara & Pardo-de-Santayana, Manuel & Reyes-García, Victoria, 2020. "Forest commons, traditional community ownership and ecological consequences: Insights from Spain," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:112:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119300735
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934119300735
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102107?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agrawal, Arun & Gibson, Clark C., 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 629-649, April.
    2. Miguel Laborda Pemán & Tine De Moor, 2012. "A Tale of Two Commons: Some Preliminary Hypotheses on the Long-Term Development of the Commons in Western and Eastern Europe, 1000-1900," Working Papers 0031, Utrecht University, Centre for Global Economic History.
    3. Caballero, Gonzalo, 2015. "Community-based forest management institutions in the Galician communal forests: A new institutional approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 347-356.
    4. Bergstén, Sabina & Stjernström, Olof & Pettersson, Örjan, 2018. "Experiences and emotions among private forest owners versus public interests: Why ownership matters," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 801-811.
    5. Bernard W T Coetzee & Kevin J Gaston & Steven L Chown, 2014. "Local Scale Comparisons of Biodiversity as a Test for Global Protected Area Ecological Performance: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-11, August.
    6. Hayes, Tanya M., 2006. "Parks, People, and Forest Protection: An Institutional Assessment of the Effectiveness of Protected Areas," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 2064-2075, December.
    7. Claudia L. Gray & Samantha L. L. Hill & Tim Newbold & Lawrence N. Hudson & Luca Börger & Sara Contu & Andrew J. Hoskins & Simon Ferrier & Andy Purvis & Jörn P. W. Scharlemann, 2016. "Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-7, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Appau, Yaw & Derkyi, Mercy Afua Adutwumwaa, 2022. "Local communities' knowledge and perception of FLEGT -VPA - insights from Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    2. Louda, Jiří & Dubová, Lenka & Špaček, Martin & Brnkaľáková, Stanislava & Kluvánková, Tatiana, 2023. "Factors affecting governance innovations for ecosystem services provision: Insights from two self-organized forest communities in Czechia and Slovakia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    3. Sanz-Hernández, Alexia, 2021. "Privately owned forests and woodlands in Spain: Changing resilience strategies towards a forest-based bioeconomy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kaikai Dong & Guanglei Hou & Dandan Xu & Honglin He & Zhaoli Liu, 2018. "A Method to Compare the Biodiversity Conservation Effectiveness between Regions based on a Reference Condition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Nigel Dudley & Adrian Phillips & Thora Amend & Jessica Brown & Sue Stolton, 2016. "Evidence for Biodiversity Conservation in Protected Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-12, November.
    3. Kubacka, Marta & Żywica, Patryk & Vila Subirós, Josep & Bródka, Sylwia & Macias, Andrzej, 2022. "How do the surrounding areas of national parks work in the context of landscape fragmentation? A case study of 159 protected areas selected in 11 EU countries," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    4. Xu, Xibao & Jiang, Bo & Chen, Minkun & Bai, Yang & Yang, Guishan, 2020. "Strengthening the effectiveness of nature reserves in representing ecosystem services: The Yangtze River Economic Belt in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    5. Luis Santiago Castillo & Camilo Andrés Correa Ayram & Clara L. Matallana Tobón & Germán Corzo & Alexandra Areiza & Roy González-M. & Felipe Serrano & Luis Chalán Briceño & Felipe Sánchez Puertas & Ale, 2020. "Connectivity of Protected Areas: Effect of Human Pressure and Subnational Contributions in the Ecoregions of Tropical Andean Countries," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-19, July.
    6. Jaraíz-Cabanillas, Francisco Javier & Mora-Aliseda, Julián & Jeong, Jin Su & Garrido-Velarde, Jacinto, 2018. "Methodological proposal to classify and delineate natural protected areas. Study case: Region of Extremadura, Spain," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 310-319.
    7. Kelly Maria Zanuzzi Palharini & Luciana Cristina Vitorino & Gisele Cristina de Oliveira Menino & Layara Alexandre Bessa, 2020. "Edge Effects Reflect the Impact of the Agricultural Matrix on the Corticolous Lichens Found in Fragments of Cerrado Savanna in Central Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, September.
    8. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    9. Purnamita Dasgupta, 2007. "Common Property Resources as Development Drivers: A Study of Fruit Cooperative in Himachal Pradesh: India," Working Papers id:917, eSocialSciences.
    10. Skutsch, Margaret & Turnhout, Esther, 2020. "REDD+: If communities are the solution, what is the problem?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    11. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    12. Gadamus, Lily & Raymond-Yakoubian, Julie & Ashenfelter, Roy & Ahmasuk, Austin & Metcalf, Vera & Noongwook, George, 2015. "Building an indigenous evidence-base for tribally-led habitat conservation policies," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 116-124.
    13. Burger Ronelle & Owens Trudy & Prakash Aseem, 2018. "Global Non-Profit Chains and the Challenges of Development Aid Contracting," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Zhan, Shaohua, 2015. "From Privatization to Deindustrialization: Implications of Chinese Rural Industry and the Ownership Debate Revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 108-122.
    15. Suhardiman, Diana & Karki, Emma, 2019. "Spatial politics and local alliances shaping Nepal hydropower," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 525-536.
    16. Saeed, Abdul-Razak & McDermott, Constance & Boyd, Emily, 2018. "Examining equity in Ghana's national REDD+ process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 48-58.
    17. Barbara Quimby & Arielle Levine, 2018. "Participation, Power, and Equity: Examining Three Key Social Dimensions of Fisheries Comanagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    18. Grillos, Tara, 2017. "Participatory Budgeting and the Poor: Tracing Bias in a Multi-Staged Process in Solo, Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 343-358.
    19. Guangdong Li & Chuanglin Fang & James E. M. Watson & Siao Sun & Wei Qi & Zhenbo Wang & Jianguo Liu, 2024. "Mixed effectiveness of global protected areas in resisting habitat loss," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.
    20. Mengina Gilli & Muriel Côte & Gretchen Walters, 2020. "Gatekeeping Access: Shea Land Formalization and the Distribution of Market-Based Conservation Benefits in Ghana’s CREMA," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:112:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119300735. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.