Table 3 Crosswalk of included systematic evidence syntheses and their characteristics
From: A systematic map of evidence on the contribution of forests to poverty alleviation
Type | Authors | Population | Stated intervention | Related intervention category | Stated outcomes | Related outcome category | Study type | Top Geo. | Inc. | Ov. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SR | Bowler et al. [25] | Less developed countries | Community forest management | Forest management, governance, individual rights/empowerment | Global environmental and local welfare benefits | Forest income and consumption, social capital, human capital, physical capital | Qual, Quant, Comb | India, Nepal | 42 | 8 |
SR | Brooks et al. [75] | Lower and middle-income countries | Community-based conservation | Governance, individual rights/empowerment | At least two of the four outcomes of interest—attitudinal, behavioral, ecological, and economic | Forest income and consumption | Qual, Quant, Comb | Tanzania, Madagascar | 123 | 4 |
SR | Lawrence et al. [76] | United Kingdom | Community woodlands | Forest management, governance | Biophysical impacts, social impacts, economic and financial impacts, participation | Monetary forest income—wage labor, social capital | Qual, Quant, Comb | N/A (only UK) | 78 | 0 |
SR | Leisher et al. [27] | Non-OECD | Community-based natural resource management with different gender compositions of natural resource management groups | Forest management, governance, individual rights/empowerment | Changes in governance (incl. rule-making and compliance), conflict resolution, and accountability and transparency. All outcomes related to conservation efficacy, incl. improvements in forest cover and greater forest protection | Social capital, access to forest | Qual, Quant, Comb | India, Nepal | 17 | 4 |
SR | Pullin et al. [26] | Global | Protected areas | Managing and enhancing ecosystem services | Livelihood strategies, social capital, empowerment, human rights, access to ecosystem goods and services and natural resources essential to well-being | Forest income and consumption, access to forests, access to land, health, social capital | Qual, Quant, Comb | Uganda, India | 48 | 5 |
SR | Samii et al. [33] | Lower and middle-income countries | Payments for environmental services | Managing and enhancing ecosystem services, strengthening institutions and markets | Poverty conditions of forest dwelling communities—impacts on consumption, income, or income potential | Forest income and consumption | Qual, Quant, Comb | Costa Rica, Mexico | 20 | 7 |
SR | Samii et al. [34] | Lower and middle-income countries | Decentralized forest management | Forest management, governance | Poverty conditions of forest dwelling communities—impacts on consumption, income, or income potential | Forest income and consumption | Qual, Quant, Comb | Uganda | 12 | 7 |
EGM | Puri et al. [29] | Low- and middle-income countries | Forest conservation interventions | All | Knowledge and behavior change, transparency and accountability outcomes, environmental, social, and cost-effectiveness impacts | Human capital, forest income, social capital, physical capital | Quant | Costa Rica, Brazil | 118 | 33 |
EGM | Snilsveit et al. [30] | Global | Land-use change and forest programmes | Habitat management, identifying and strengthening market forces, social capital, strengthening institutions and markets, human capital, produced capital | Uptake of agricultural practices, land-use or forest management; environmental outcomes related to greenhouse gas emissions; human welfare outcomes | Forest income and consumption, health, physical capital, social capital, human capital | Quant | Costa Rica, Brazil | 252 | 32 |