Forest Resource Access, Dependency, and Vulnerability in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska

Rural communities in the western U.S. and Alaska are highly dependent upon surrounding publicly-owned forests for various economic and non-economic values. Historically, limited data has hampered the understanding of such community-resource linkages. As a result, community interests may not be adequately considered in forest management plan development and policy formulation. Addressing this imbalance is an important issue for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), particularly as it shifts from timberdominated goals to a more holistic ecosystem-based form of management. This study seeks to understand community-resource use linkages, dependency, and vulnerability surrounding the Chugach and Tongass NFs using place-level socioeconomic data from the 2000 U.S. Census in combination with permit data from the USFS’s Timber Information Management Data System (TIM) and Special Use Data System (SUDS). Information on permittees’ activities on forestland and socioeconomic profiles of permittee’s community-of-origin are found to be valuable, not only for forest management and planning purposes, but also for community-level social assessment. An examination of 2007 permit data found that a majority of permit holders were local residents. These communities are found to be dependent on the two forests for various types of activities and are thus more likely to be vulnerable to changes in forest management and policies. The analysis also identified some limitations that may affect the quality of permit data and its potential use in community impact assessments. Despite these limitations of permit data, the methodologies utilized here demonstrate how TIM and SUDS data, in combination with U.S. Census data, could be used to describe Alaska residents’ socioeconomic profiles for communities located in close proximity to the Tongass and Chugach NFs. Such information can assist USFS managers in deriving community-level estimates of forest resource use, degree of dependency, and vulnerability to the likely impacts of alternatives management approaches. Finally, recommendations are given to improve data recording, maintenance, and use in order to better understand communities that are dependent on forest resources in both the Chugach and Tongass NFs, and to specifically identify those communities potentially vulnerable to changes in forest management policies

Resource Use, Dependence and Vulnerability: Community-Resource Linkages on Alaska’s Tongass National Forest

Understanding how rural communities use and depend upon local natural resources is a critical factor in developing policies to sustain the long-term viability of human and natural systems. Such “community-resource” linkages are particularly important in Alaska, where rural communities – many of them comprised of indigenous Alaskan Natives – are highly dependent upon local resources found on public lands. Alaskan communities utilize forests in many ways. To better understand these coupled “social-ecological” systems, we combined socio-economic data from the 2000 U.S. Census with timber permit data from the USDA Forest Service to describe communities and their use of forest resources. Our results suggest that private access to public resources is an important feature of Alaskan communities, and that continued access is likely to be a key factor in sustaining human systems on the landscape. As a result, public land managers should give special consideration to local resource use when making policy decisions

Community Attitudes Toward Wildlife and Protected Areas in Ethiopia

Across Africa, national policies that established protected areas (PAs) typically limited local use of wildlife and other resources. Over time, these policies have raised tensions with rural communities and today threaten to undermine conservation goals. This article examines community–PA relationships at four important sites in Ethiopia—a country of rich tradition with an unusual colonial past. Using focus groups and household surveys, we found that despite local tensions, most respondents held positive views toward wildlife and nearby PAs. Factors influencing positive views included receiving PA benefits, good relations with PA staff, higher education levels, being older, having a large family, diversified income sources, owning fewer livestock, and fewer incidents of wildlife conflicts. In contrast, the devolved control of PAs from federal to regional levels has not influenced community–PA relations as intended. Our results suggest that relations could be improved through involving communities in co-management arrangements, honoring resource tenure and use rights, providing benefits, and implementing conservation education programs