Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 17, Issue 11, pp 2757–2772 | Cite as

Preservation or degradation? Communal management and ecological change in a southeast Michigan forest

  • Fred NelsonEmail author
  • Elisa Collins
  • Alain Frechette
  • Cynthia Koenig
  • Mosé Jones-Yellin
  • Brihannala Morgan
  • Gita Ramsay
  • Gautam Rao
  • Claudia Rodriguez
  • Zewdie Jotte Tulu
  • Cristy Watkins
  • John Zinda
Original Paper

Abstract

Local communities play an increasingly important role in the management and conservation of forests at local and global scales. Conventional analyses of community forest management tend to view the outcomes of these efforts, as with common pool resources (CPRs) more generally, as contingent on the ability of local institutions to control collective levels of extractive use and enforce group rules. This paper provides a case study of a community forest in southern Michigan, in the Midwestern United States, that challenges these assumptions about community-based forest management. The factors driving change in this forest are not tied to excessive extraction or disturbance by human agents but rather the proliferation of shade-tolerant invasive species. The community institutions and values that made it possible for the forest to grow and mature now threaten its very existence. By discouraging any form of active management, the forest has become susceptible to the growing pressures of human-induced environmental change such as the introduction of exotic plant species. Biodiversity conservation in such contexts consequently relies not only on restraining local forest utilization practices or the preservation of land from development, but on active management interventions by local forest users. Understanding the impact of community management on CPRs in human-dominated ecosystems will require broadening the scope of analysis to account for the importance of active management and the potentially deleterious effects of preservationist approaches on native biota.

Keywords

Community-based forest management Common pool resources Michigan Quakers Oak savannas Preservation Local institutions Forest conservation 

Abbreviations

CBFM

Community-based forest management

CPR

Common pool resource

DBH

Diameter at breast height

FLCC

Friends Lake Cooperative Community

IFRI

International Forestry Resources and Institutions

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are extremely grateful to the Friends Lake Cooperative Community for supporting this study by welcoming us onto the property, into their homes and board meetings, and sharing a wealth of information and perspectives. We would like to particularly express our gratitude to Pam and Phil Hoffer, Renée Heberle, and Helen Current. Valuable suggestions and comments on this study and previous editions of this paper were provided by Michael Hathaway. The collection of forestry data greatly benefited from the knowledge of Nancy Walker. We are also grateful to Natalie Dushane for supporting the FLCC research project’s logistics. Finally, we would like to extend our deepest appreciation to Arun Agrawal, who guided us through this study.

References

  1. Abrams MD (1992) Fire and the development of oak forests. Bioscience 42(5):346–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams MD (2003) Where have all the white oaks gone? Bioscience 53(10):927–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agee J (2002) The fallacy of passive management: managing for firesafe forest reserves. Conserv Biol Pract 3(1):18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agrawal A (2001) Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev 29(10):1649–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Agrawal A, Gibson C (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev 27(4):629–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arnold JEM (1998) Managing forests as common property. FAO forestry paper no. 136. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker M, Kusel J (2003) Community forestry in the United States: learning from the past, crafting the future. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnes BV (1991) Deciduous forests of North America. In: Röhrig E, Ulrich B (eds) Temperate deciduous forests. Ecosystems of the world, vol 7. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Bean MJ (1998) The Endangered Species Act and private land: four lessons learned from the past quarter century. Environ Law Report 27(12):10701–10710Google Scholar
  10. Bean MJ, Wilcove DS (1997) The private-land problem. Conserv Biol 11(1):1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bean M, Bonnie R, Male T, Searchinger T (2003) The private lands opportunity: the case for conservation incentives. Environ Def. Available via: http://www.ddcf.org/doris_duke_files/download_files/ccireport2z.pdf. Cited 11 March 2007
  12. Berkes F (1989) Common property resources: ecology and community-based sustainable development. Belhaven Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyce JK, Shelley BG (2003) Natural assets: democratizing environmental ownership. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Bromley DW, Feeny D, McKean M et al (1992) Making the commons work: theory, practice, and policy. ICS Press, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  15. Bruner AG, Gullison RE, Rice RE, da Fonseca GA (2001) Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291:125–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bryant D, Nielsen D, Tangley L (1997) The last frontier forests: ecosystems and economies on the edge. World Resources Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. Burns RM, Honkala BH (1990) Silvics of North America. Agriculture Handbook no. 654. USDA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Callicott JB, Nelson MP (eds) (1998) The great new wilderness debate. The University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  19. Carter J, Gronow J (2005) Recent experience in collaborative forest management: a review paper. CIFOR occasional paper no. 43. Centre for International Forestry Research, BogorGoogle Scholar
  20. Child B, Lyman MW (eds) (2005) Turning natural resources into community assets: lessons from two continents. Sand County Foundation and The Aspen Institute, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  21. Comer PJ, Albert DA (1998) Vegetation of Michigan circa 1800. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, LansingGoogle Scholar
  22. Contreras-Hermosilla A (2000) The underlying causes of forest decline. CIFOR occasional paper no. 30. Centre for International Forestry Research, BogorGoogle Scholar
  23. Cronon W (1995) The trouble with wilderness; or, getting back to the wrong nature. In: Cronon W (ed) Uncommon ground: rethinking the human place in nature. W.W. Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Curtin CG (2002) Integration of science and community-based conservation in the Mexico/U.S. Borderlands. Conserv Biol 16(4):880–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Curtis JT (1959) The vegetation of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  26. Daggett D (2005) Gardeners of Eden: rediscovering our importance to nature. Thatcher Charitable Trust, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  27. DellaSalla DA, Martin A, Spivak R et al (2003) A citizen’s call for ecological forest restoration: forest restoration criteria and principles. Ecol Restor 21(1):14–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dickmann DI, Leefers LA (2003) The forests of Michigan. The University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  29. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907–1912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dodge SL, Harman JR (1985) Wood lot composition and successional trends in south-central lower Michigan. Mich Bot 24:43–54Google Scholar
  31. Dolsak N, Ostrom E (2003) The commons in the new millennium: challenges and adaptation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Dyer JM (2006) Revisiting the deciduous forests of eastern North America. Bioscience 56(4):341–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Food, Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2005) State of the world’s forests 2005. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  34. Fox SR (1986) The American conservation movement: John Muir and his legacy. University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  35. Friends Lake Cooperative Community (FLCC) (1994). Friends lake cooperative community by-laws. FLCC, ChelseaGoogle Scholar
  36. Friends Lake Cooperative Community (FLCC) (1998) Friends lake cooperative community guidelines. FLCC, ChelseaGoogle Scholar
  37. Gibson CC, Koontz T (1998) When “community” is not enough: institutions and values in community-based forest management in southern Indiana. Hum Ecol 26(4):621–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gibson CC, McKean MA, Ostrom E (eds) (2000) People and forests: communities, institutions, and governance. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Hayes T (2006) Parks, people, and forest protection: an institutional assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas. World Dev 34(12):2064–2075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Henderson R (1995) Oak savanna communities. In: Department of Natural Resources (ed) Wisconsin’s biodiversity as a management issue: a report to department of natural resource managers. Department of Natural Resources, Madison, pp 88–97Google Scholar
  41. Heneghan L, Fatemi F, Umek L et al (2006) The invasive shrub European buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica, L.) alters soil properties in Midwestern U.S. woodlands. Appl Soil Ecol 32(1):142–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hutton JM, Leader-Williams N (2003) Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation: realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx 37(2):215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) (2005) Field manual. Indiana University, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  44. Invasive Plants Association of Wisconsin (IPAW) (2007) Buckthorn. Available via: http://www.ipaw.org/invaders/buckthorn/index.htm. Cited 22 May 2007
  45. Khamaganova E, Ludewigs T, Namubiru EL et al (2001) Revisiting the elf lore family and the Lothlorien Forest. International Forestry Resources and Institutions Research Program, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  46. MacDougall AS, Beckwith BF, Maslovat CY (2004) Defining conservation strategies with historical perspectives: a case study from a degraded oak grassland ecosystem. Conserv Biol 18(2):455–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McKean MA (2000) Common property: what is it, what is it good for and what makes it work? In: Gibson CC, McKean MA, Ostrom E (eds) People and forests: communities, institutions and governance. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Meine C (2004) Correction lines: essays on land, Leopold, and conservation. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Molnar A, Scherr SJ, Khare A (2004) Who conserves the world’s forests? A new assessment of conservation and investment trends. Forest Trends and Ecoagriculture Partners, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  50. Nash RF (1982) Wilderness and the American mind, 3rd edn. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  51. National Invasive Species Council (NISC) (2006) Invasive species. Information Available via: http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov. Cited 10 November 2006
  52. Nielsen S, Kirschbaum C, Haney A (2003) Restoration of Midwest oak barrens: structural manipulation or process-only? Conserv Ecol 7(2):10. Available via: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol7/iss2/art10. Cited 11 March 2007Google Scholar
  53. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Ostrom E (1999) Self-governance and forest resources. CIFOR occasional paper no. 20. Center for International Forestry Research, BogorGoogle Scholar
  55. Poteete AR, Ostrom E (2004) Heterogeneity, group size, and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management. Dev Change 35(3):435–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pyne S (2004) Tending fire: coping with America’s wildland fires. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  57. Rossman AY (ed) (2001) A special issue on global movement of invasive plants and fungi. Bioscience 51(1):93–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sayre N (2005) Working wilderness: the Malpai Borderlands Group story and the future of the western range. Rio Nuevo Press, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  59. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) (2004) Land use in southeast Michigan, Washtenaw County, 1990–2000. SEMCOG, DetroitGoogle Scholar
  60. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. White A, Martin A (2002) Who owns the world’s forests? Forest Trends, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  62. Whitney GG, DeCant JP (2001) Government land office surveys and other early land surveys. In: Egan D, Howell EA (eds) The historical ecology handbook: a restorationist’s guide to reference ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, pp 142–172Google Scholar
  63. Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  64. Wyckoff-Baird B (2005) Growth rings: communities and trees. The Aspen Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fred Nelson
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Elisa Collins
    • 1
  • Alain Frechette
    • 1
  • Cynthia Koenig
    • 1
  • Mosé Jones-Yellin
    • 1
  • Brihannala Morgan
    • 1
  • Gita Ramsay
    • 1
  • Gautam Rao
    • 1
  • Claudia Rodriguez
    • 1
  • Zewdie Jotte Tulu
    • 1
  • Cristy Watkins
    • 1
  • John Zinda
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.ArushaUnited Republic of Tanzania

Personalised recommendations