Search

The decoupling of human-ecosystem relationships in underutilized forested or agricultural regions poses a threat to cultural and biological diversities. Some scholars have proposed transformative strategies involving local-led efforts to reconnect social and ecological systems with the support of bridging organizations (BOs). However, empirically-based understandings about how and under what conditions BOs can address context-specific social conditions to enable transformation work remain limited. Using the concept of social fit - how institutional arrangements address contextual social conditions to enhance governance effectiveness - this study examines the work of the Kyoto Model Forest Association (KMFA), a BO, in improving the relationship between forests and people in Kyoto, Japan. We employed a mixed method approach involving a questionnaire survey, document review, semi-structured interviews, and direct observations. Our findings showed that to improve human-ecosystem interdependence, the KMFA prioritized the provision of public education; invested in places and systems to reduce participation costs; built trust and reduced value mismatches; provided incentives and built management capacity; provided leadership to diverse local forestry groups; facilitated institutional integration of forest and non-forest organizations; and drew resources from diverse organizations. These roles broadened the participation of different actors with novel connections to local ecosystems, enhanced self-organizing capacities, and streamlined the roles of forest management institutions. To sustain these efforts, the KMFA needs to continuously adapt to meet the needs and perceptions of diverse and dynamic actors and to broaden participation. Our analysis provides evidence of the efficacy of BOs to recouple human-ecosystem relationships and improve governance outcomes in underutilized social-ecological systems., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

With its northern location, the exposure and vulnerability of Canada's forest ecosystems to climate change impacts are all too glaring. While there is now an extensive body of literature describing expected climate change impacts and potential responses, studies characterizing the implementation of adaptation and mitigation practices in forest management remain rare in the Canadian forest sector. Using a systematic literature review, we examined reports on forest management practices implemented in response to climate change, specifically focusing on governance and institutional arrangements that either support or limit climate change adaptation and mitigation responses. Our literature sample size of 24 documents suggests that the body of literature reporting on adaptation and mitigation practices in forest management is scarce. Governments remain the dominant actors providing funding and leading the implementation and reporting of climate change adaptation practices, primarily in response to national or international climate change commitments. Forest practices such as enhanced silviculture, assisted migration, and nature-based solutions were the most frequently reported. However, given the scarcity of literature, it is difficult to conclude the scope of climate change adaptation practice uptake in Canada. Barriers such as lack of information/data, inter-jurisdictional knowledge transfer, policy conflicts, forest tenure models, technical capacity gaps, and economic barriers to adaptation need to be overcome to strengthen climate change response in forest management. Better coordination of reporting at the provincial and national levels and improved information flows between private sector organizations and governments are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We identify how changes in Canada's CEA policy landscape impact CEA research. • We analyzed and compared Canada's 2012 CEA and 2019 IAA policies and guidelines. • We systematically review CEA research in Canada's forest ecosystem. • We found few research considered indigenous and public engagement. • We recommend training to provide researchers with the tools for comprehensive CEA. Cumulative effects assessment (CEA), as a subset of environmental impact assessment, has been used over the past half-century to evaluate the impact of anthropogenic and natural processes on the integrity of forest ecosystems. In 2019, the Canadian federal government launched the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) and the Practitioner's Guide to Federal Impact Assessment to replace the 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and the Practitioner's Guide. The new act emphasizes, among other issues, the need for CEA research to actively engage Indigenous communities and the public and apply a gender-based analysis (GBA) plus framework in their assessment. This paper aims to identify how cumulative effects research in Canadian forestry has progressed over time and how it aligns with federal government guidelines under the Impact Assessment Act of 2019. Through a systematic review of CEA research in Canada since 1992 and a document analysis, we examine the conduct of CEA research and compare the 2012 CEAA and the 2019 IAA and their respective practitioners' guides to identify key similarities and differences and establish the influence of the 2019 IAA on CEA research. This accounts for how adaptive CEA research in Canada is to the changing landscape, specifically in measuring and addressing the impacts of disturbances on different interest groups. While much of CEA research followed the impact identification and reporting requirements of the 2012 CEAA and 2019 IAA, few research projects, particularly those written after 2019, paid much attention to Indigenous and public participation, while none considered GBA Plus in their analysis. This is despite the availability of GBA Plus, Indigenous, and public engagement guidelines and resources identified in the 2019 practitioners guide. We recommend active engagement between federal regulatory agencies and industry to ensure that industry and researchers have the proper training and resources to facilitate more meaningful consideration and integration of GBA Plus, including Indigenous and public engagement processes in their CEA research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]