From providing habitats for wildlife to playing a role in carbon storage, forests are fundamental to maintaining global biodiversity and mitigating climate change. However, how forests are defined can significantly influence global conservation efforts and policy making, according to research from Ida Djenontin, assistant professor of geography.
Djenontin studies how terms used to describe forests—like old growth, ancient, or sacred—have far-reaching impacts on how forests and conserved and managed. She and her team found that such terms can influence conservation policies in significant ways and that Western terminology specifically dominates the scientific literature and shapes the discourse on forest conservation, often at the expense of Indigenous and local perspectives. Penn State Department of Geography spoke with Djenontin to learn more about her research and its implications for global forest conservation efforts.
What inspired you to investigate the definitions of forests and their implications for conservation and management?
The motivation for this research stems from recognizing that natural and near-natural forests attract significant interest for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration. These forests are often considered of high conservation value and are emphasized in biodiversity conservation policies, global restoration strategies and environmental agendas.
However, most of these forests are in areas with high human population density, including many Indigenous peoples and local communities. For example, studies have shown that over 1.4 billion people live in areas identified as top priorities for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. Another study highlights that these priority areas are often in countries where restoration efforts could negatively impact livelihoods, especially in poorer, more populated, economically unequal, and food-insecure regions.
Implementing global biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration concepts locally without considering local and Indigenous cultures and values can be problematic. Indigenous people manage about a quarter of the world’s land and protect 80% of global biodiversity, including 40% of ecologically intact landscapes.
Therefore, our research explores how these high-interest forests are conceived and defined in the context of conservation goals and priorities, and who is responsible for defining them in the first place.
How do the dominant western perspectives in defining forests contrast with indigenous and local perspectives, based on your findings?
Dominant Western perspectives in defining natural and near-natural forests rely solely on Western scientific knowledge, excluding local and Indigenous viewpoints, values and knowledge systems. This exclusion raises concerns about social equity and inclusion in discussions about high-interest forests. Often, this situation negatively impacts Indigenous peoples and local communities.
What are the most significant barriers to incorporating diverse perspectives in the definitions and management of forests?
The most significant barriers include a lack of sensitivity to local contexts, inadequate representation of diverse voices and inappropriate management of power dynamics within conservation efforts. These issues are often repeated in contemporary restoration interventions. Our study found that the value systems used in defining natural and near-natural forests are not inclusive of Indigenous peoples and local communities’ perspectives.
How do you envision the role of collaborative efforts between scientists, policymakers and local communities in shaping more equitable forest conservation strategies?
Collaborative efforts between scientists, policymakers and local communities should focus on co-constructing knowledge and amplifying local and Indigenous voices while navigating power dynamics. By creatively adapting to specific contexts and utilizing available tools and skills, researchers can better understand and consider the socio-political contexts, challenges and opportunities in conservation prioritization decisions.
Based on your research, what steps can be taken to ensure that forest definitions more inclusively reflect the values and needs of forest-proximate communities?
There is need to foster common understandings of the terms used when referring to such forest types among conservation researchers and decision makers, while encouraging reflection on the inclusiveness of their underlying perspectives as these definitions get used to inform decision and policy making for conservation models and practices. Concrete steps could include: Fostering inclusive definitions of terms among all relevant stakeholders, adopting interdisciplinary approaches for future conservation and restoration research, incorporating social science perspectives and embracing value-based definitions, and implementing effective dialogue between relevant stakeholders as key for achieving equity in conservation.
What is your hope for the future of forest conservation, considering the complexities around definitions and local perspectives?
My hope is that forest conservation will effectively engage with environmental justice and equity frameworks to navigate common pitfalls. Governance studies could offer insights and solutions to foster equitable resource sustainability management.