Report

Brief Introduction

Studies about the relation between forest and well-being features both positive and negative relations and are focused on FDP or more currently focal group, the FPP (CIT). The idea of “proximity” increases the potential explanations about the relations between forest and well-being because people are not only dependent, they can use forest as secondary supply. Thus, forest can maintain the well-being for people that depend on forest to survive; can move out of poverty for people that live nearest to forest and can reduce the well-being that depends on the externalities and context that the FPP are inside (Raza). However, studies that explore these relations and therefore, the well-being of FPP, are using the utility lens of well-being and due to it, cannot explain deeper the factors that influence these relations. For example, in the Raza work's the negative links between forest and well-being is majority explained by the forest health, while social and structural mechanisms of powers are left aside.

Literature gap :

Thus, we wish to investigate whether and how capabilities have been applied thus far in Forest-Proximate People’ well-being studies.

Practical goals:

We aim to identify

• How capabilities have been applied thus far in Forest-Proximate People’ well-being studies

• Which human central capabilities might potentially support the well-being of forest-proximate people

• Whether the relative importance of these capabilities is universal or context-specific.

• Summarize a specific conceptual framework to use capability approach in the forest and FPP’ well-being relations.

Data

result_quant <- read_csv("quant_result.csv")
paged_table(result_quant)

result_quali<- read_csv("quali_result.csv")
paged_table(result_quali)

Results and discussion

General starndards

The initial search returns 613 articles, which 207 features as potential articles after the first filter step. These 207 articles, we included 80 that use the capability approach to understand the well-being of FPP. In general terms, the use of this lens isn’t common to understand the FPP well-being and besides, features a diversity of forms about applying the theory to understand or measure it. In fact, of 80 articles, we only found a few articles that use the FPP/FDP (Newton) terminology explicitly or approximately – that cannot be considered other things (N=11, e.g Kusey). All of the others, we infer the population as FPP, considering the broad mean of this social group (figure below). The majority of the population detected here is indigenous and rural people (N= 49, 61.25%), but we found more specific social groups like students, women, pastoralists and the merger of these groups (e.g. indigenous or women students). The differences between social, economic and biological perspectives seem the reasons behind this. For social articles, the ample range of FPP makes it difficult to understand their capabilities. Each group into FPP has their own particularity, for instance, the rural communities have access (transport, communication, forest etc) as an important step for well-being (ID ICT articles). In the other hand, the biological studies feature more interest in applying the economic view of well-being (NERfa, RAzafi, ALgensen, etc, etc, etc) since its more easy to measure and understand (Soto-navaro). Thus, capability approach isn’t used as a central lens to understand well-being for FPP and therefore, to study the relation between it and forest.

How this lens was applied in FPP’ well-being studies

Capability approach is at the beginning of use to understand this social group and these resound in a diversity of forms to apply. Our result shows that there isn’t a specific way to apply and understand the capability approach. Each study understands and applies this lens based on its own aim, first with the type of capability broad were used and before with differents forms to explore the well-being (see the figure 2 below).

Starting with the types of boards used, the Sen’s approach represents 42.5% of articles founded and Nussbaum represents only 12.5%. Although it’s rare to find explicitly the author’ motivations for choosing some approaches, the main reason was associated with the capacity or not of this central capability (CIT Nussbaum) to capture the spectrum of well-being (CIT ID 85). Thus, in theory, Sen’s articles are focused on to understand the local concepts of well-being while Nussbaum’s articles are focused on apply the list of central capabilities. Our result shows that even in a same approach, we have a diversity of form to understand it. For instance, in Sen approach, article ID ... found context-specific capabilities for .population of ID. and ID 10,234,285 use the Sen’s freedom dimensions (see more details here ID 10,234,285) as dimensions of well-being instead looking for more context-specific capabilities. The Nussbaum’ articles follow the same, with article ID use only the list while for instance, the ID 117 which links Nussbaum capabilities with the Bordiau’s “logic of practice” (CIT Bordiau) and adding a form to understand the specific context living by local people. Yet, we found articles that don’t explicitly explain which boards were used (N=20, 25%), such as ID 22, 87 and 247, that merge more than a one concept, such ID 48,103,85 and until that create a new singular understatement. These new approaches were focused on a specific problem that the article pretend to solve. For instance, the Pearson' capability ID are applied to Australian indigenous people since they have a specific notions of well-being and ID Ruger that create specific notions of health in capability terms.

All of these diversity of approaches to use the capability lens are summed up with different ways of exploring the concept and outcomes (figure above). In Sen’s initial theory, capability, function and agency are the main outcomes to explore well-being (CIT). But, here, our result can access other forms to explore well-being that are encompassing with capability. Autonomy, aspiration, justice, behavior, citizenship, cultural values and empowerment (ID) are just one of the ample other outcome types used to explore the well-being complementary with the capability approach. The initial consequences of it is a divergent understanding about the same concept. For instance, in our samples, empowerment is explored in … way. ID Id ID.. Moreover, agency is explored as agency in Sen’s perspective, as a capability and until linked with behavior ID Id ID. And this ample way to explore the same concepts resound in a hard applicability of capability lens, reflecting in a connection gaps between the theory and the “real world”.

The FPP’ capabilities

Since this lens it’s hard to apply and has a lot of forms to explore, we chose to analyze the capabilities and their meanings because it is one of the main forms to explore well-being. In all, we found 206 capabilities, grouped into Nussbaum’ central capabilities and in capabilities focused on a specific social group, such as indigenous, women, FPP, etc. In the Central capability perspective, Food and avoid disease are currently constricted goods linked with Life and Bodily health capabilities as well as security and education are related with Bodily integrity and Sense, imagination and thought, even in different contexts such as energy power projects (ID). The “organizing capabilities”: Practical reasons and Affiliation features links with the majority of other central capabilities as postulated in theory (CIT NUSSBAUM). For instance, education, mental health, to feel good feelings about your life are endowments grouped into Sense, imagination and thought, Life and Emotion central capabilities but features a clear link with the capacity to organize your life into practical reasons. Affiliations resound the ability to create networks and to shelter/support in it, and generate connections with Emotions and Control one’s environment, mainly the political control. And at least, the Other species and Play capabilities are summarized in the power of the connections between the people and environment, featuring place and therefore, the local context, as an import. In fact, we found that the majority of all parts of well-being can be summarized into the “a rather ample social minimum” (CIT NUSSBAUM, pag 40).

However, the fact of living nearest to forest making with there is an interaction between forest and opportunities for achievement (ID108). We found 25 capabilities focused on FPP that reflect these connections. The majority of capabilities are linked with food, water, energy and household activities (CIT ID). Forests can supply the basic need of food, energy, water and material conditions (CIT ID 241), that there are clear connections between these supplies and the achievement of the social minimum, as aimed by Nussbuam (131). Live and Bodily health are capabilities linked with to ability to acquire sufficient food, Bodily integrity is linked with environmental shelter, Other species, Play and Sense, imagination and thought are linked with the recreational activities, the nature spiritual and aesthetic connections, and at least, material conditions supply by forest such as wood are linked with control one’ environment. Therefore, forest functions as a secondary font of opportunities, used mainly when other capabilities are constricted (ID 518).

Yet, we found capabilities focused on the climatic risk mitigation such as …, on specific activities, such as hunter, and until capabilities that express beyond basic need relations, such as Forest capability (CIT ID). The last can be understood as “ability to enjoy and use the ecosystem services” and resound the already known importance of the ES (díaz). However, accessing this nature contribution is seen as highlighting (ID). Although we found articles that use access as a conversion factor or capability, the idea of multidimensional access of nature is what influences the forest act supplying or not the well-being of FPP (ID). For instance, ID ... detach the role of access ...

The framework to apply the capability approach

Until the moment, capability has had few uses in studies about FPP’ well-being, featuring elevated diversity of forms to understand and explore it when applied. As shown before, the consequence it’s a hard applicability of this lens and misunderstands the same concepts. So, based on our results, we summarize a framework to study the well-being of FPP with capability approach (fig below).

Explain the framework

This framework was based on Robeyns and Smith & Sweard works (CIT) and took account of the capabilities and results we found before. In terms of concept, we interpret the nature contributions to people as an endowment or a good that can be use for people though both: conversion factors and access. Conversion factors are the factors that influence the conversions between having a good and having a capability and function to enjoy this good (Robeyns, 2003) and it’s splitted in three forms of influence based on personal skills, social context and environment. These factors explain the context that people are inserted in and determine which opportunities/capabilities they have or not. Access is interpreted as a burden of power to act or do something (ribot) and in this framework, it is a complementary factor to explain whether determined endowment can be translated into a capability. Both, access and conversion factors are which influence that the NCP turn off a capability, being it specific for FPP or grouped in Nussbaum central capabilities. For instance, are the social conversion factors that explain the dependency of forest to survive, that only can be supplied whether that people have access to forest (ID).

The conceptual space of this framework is postulated by Kusei, in which people that use forest, being in dependency or proximity relation, use it in a collective way. Thus, the unit of capability is the forest-community (ID 316). This can be seen in our results though the capabilities. Affiliation it’s a strong capability associated with the capacity to create networks to acquire resources. Hunter capability it’s also an example of this (figure above). Although it is a specific example, it shows how all communities are involved in these activities and extract functions, such as food, for instance (ID). At least, it’s important to highlight that agency can be an important point in FPP’ well-being. We found specific articles that relate deforestation (i.e a hard environmental conversion factor) with agency and aspiration (ID 316). Then, although the capabilities are collective, it is the individual agency’s role to convert this opportunity into achievements.

Aplying the framework

To show the applicability of this framework, we use the current framework of forest and FPP’ well-being, summarized by Razafidrastima to apply your approach (Figure below). For they, forest can have four effect on people: 1) Subsistence, where it act supply the basic needs for people survive in poverty conditions, 2) Mitigating climatic risk, where forest can avoid people to natural disasters and climatic change, 3) Removing people from poverty conditions, where its improve supplies that can be sale and at least, 4) Negative links, where forest decrease the well-being due of the externalities factors (CIT Razafidrastima). Which our framework makes is untangle the context and factors that influence the transformations of forest (i.e the NCP) in opportunities to generate well-being for FPP or to constrict it, adding a complex shape of well-being based on justice and equity terms. Starting with the subsistence case (1), the NCP is an important endowment due to dependency. Dependency is defined by the social and personal conversion factors that constricted the social minimum (i.e the Nussbaum’ capabilities). So, people only can use the NCP to get capabilities like food, water and energy, for example (ID and Figure). But, to use the NCP, people need both: a soft environmental conversion factor and access to forest. Access forest propitiated the acquisition of food by hunter (ID hunter capability) and construct the house (ID capability material conditions and timber), while the environmental facts is translated with the capacity of forest to supply this demand, with a clear connection with the externalities proposed in the Raza's works (i.e forest health).

The second case, it’s more complex. The mitigation of climatic risk encompasses the prevention of natural disaster and resilience of climatic change. In this case, the social and personal conversion factors are important because it defines the level of vulnerability, and how most poor and vulnerable, more hard is to achieve the resilience climatic risk capability or a self-resilience capability, for instance (ID). Here, the raza' works aim that forest can mitigate the risk by i) reduce exposure to environmental perturbations ii) increase the diversification of activities and iii) provide a safety net. However, the capability approach requests a more holistic view of cause-effect relations and focus on human actions (Smith and Sweard). Perturbations of forest are caused by human use and diversification activities encompassing opportunities to explore more than one NCP resource, being based on social and personal factors. As well as, the net needs to create affiliation capabilities that also request social and personal factors. So, in our framework the social and personal factors are strong, and influence how the environment factors and forest access can behave. For instance, article ID and ID shows

The third case is when forests can move people out of poverty. Raza’ woks aims that it happens when people sell products from forest (fruit, agriculture insumes, timber, etc) and generate income. However, as in the second case, here we have a specific case when we look by the capability prism. Sale forest product is a complement and implicit in not dependent relations between forest and survival. That is, the NCP endowments aren’t the main way to achieve the social minimum, it has a secondary role in the well-being (ID). For it, social and personal factors should permit that people use forest as a complement, and the people need forest access and weak environmental factors to use this NCP. There a cool examples that show how this works …CIT "resex" from Amazonia

The last case is about the negative links between forest and well-being. This negative relation are explain by the externalities that meaning forest health parameters, such as invasive species, evapotranspiration rates, etc (raza) In our framework, the environmental conversion factors is compared with the externalities and it’s clear that a hard environmental factor can lead a negative well-being outcomes in equals vulnerability situation. However, there are other factors that cause these relations. The access of forest is perhaps the main cause. Forest and Land access are seen in a lot of articles as one of the most important things to convert the NCP in capabilities (ID more tha 10 articles that we found). Without access, even by property rights, the absence of a network, or any other reasons, people cannot transform the NCP endowments into capabilities. Here, the social and personal factors acting influence how negative this relation is. When more vulnerable are the people, more need the absence of forest access resound in a negative outcome to forest and FPP’ well-being relations. A good example of this is the spetch work....

Conclusion

Limitations

• FPP is a problem because it is so ample

• Are there sense into study only the FPP’ well-being, since that they aren’t a common social group?

What we add in the literature

Our study contributes to understanding that the well-being of the FPP is linked to the forest and can be understood both through universal capabilities as well as through capabilities focused on people living nearest to forest. Furthermore, our work establishes a framework for future studies to use this lens to understand the relationship between well-being and the forest, mainly focusing on conversion factors and forest access. This access seems to be responsible for mediating the forest and well-being relations and need further investigation to conclude it, mainly empirical investigations.