CIFOR-ICRAF aborda retos y oportunidades locales y, al mismo tiempo, ofrece soluciones a los problemas globales relacionados con los bosques, los paisajes, las personas y el planeta.

Aportamos evidencia empírica y soluciones prácticas para transformar el uso de la tierra y la producción de alimentos: conservando y restaurando ecosistemas, respondiendo a las crisis globales del clima, la malnutrición, la pérdida de biodiversidad y la desertificación. En resumen, mejorando la vida de las personas.

CIFOR-ICRAF produce cada año más de 750 publicaciones sobre agroforestería, bosques y cambio climático, restauración de paisajes, derechos, políticas forestales y mucho más, y en varios idiomas. .

CIFOR-ICRAF aborda retos y oportunidades locales y, al mismo tiempo, ofrece soluciones a los problemas globales relacionados con los bosques, los paisajes, las personas y el planeta.

Aportamos evidencia empírica y soluciones prácticas para transformar el uso de la tierra y la producción de alimentos: conservando y restaurando ecosistemas, respondiendo a las crisis globales del clima, la malnutrición, la pérdida de biodiversidad y la desertificación. En resumen, mejorando la vida de las personas.

CIFOR–ICRAF publishes over 750 publications every year on agroforestry, forests and climate change, landscape restoration, rights, forest policy and much more – in multiple languages.

CIFOR–ICRAF addresses local challenges and opportunities while providing solutions to global problems for forests, landscapes, people and the planet.

We deliver actionable evidence and solutions to transform how land is used and how food is produced: conserving and restoring ecosystems, responding to the global climate, malnutrition, biodiversity and desertification crises. In short, improving people’s lives.

Characterising policy responses to complex socio-ecological problems: 60 fire management interventions in Indonesian peatlands

Exportar la cita

Governance of complex socio-ecological problems such as climate change, deforestation, and chronic wildfires is becoming "messier". Theory and case study evidence suggest that "messy" institutional characteristics like non- government involvement and multi-level decision-making can improve social and environmental outcomes. However, these characteristics still lack systematic documentation, and there have been few efforts to systematically characterize and compare the interventions associated with them. We examined 60 fire management interventions (FMI) undertaken between 1999 and 2016 in response to Indonesia’s disastrous peatland fires. We documented their institutional characteristics (i.e., lead sector, multi-level character) and compared their design across institutional types, focusing on design attributes associated with performance such as targeting to high-risk soil types, landholders, and time periods, and the use and design of incentives. We found gaps between scientific recommendations and practice when it came to intervention targeting. However, industry FMI were more likely to employ nuanced targeting among landholders. Government, industry, and civil society adopted differing intervention strategies, including notable differences in the design of incentives. These findings provide the groundwork for research comparing intervention outcomes between institutional types. They also highlight the need for further stock-taking to inform research in these areas.

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102027
Puntuación Altmetric:
Dimensiones Recuento de citas:

Publicaciones relacionadas