Introduction

Community-based FLR can contribute to the well-being of people living in extreme poverty around the world (Mori et al. 2017), particularly in developing countries (Aguiar et al. 2021). Restored forest landscapes can provide an important safety net function (Adams et al. 2016). It has the potential to help many households and communities avoid or alleviate poverty by improving their livelihoods (Miller and Hajjar 2020). FLR can enhance the availability of timber, non-timber products, and fuelwood for human use (Ullah et al. 2021). These forest management practices provide non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and influence the composition of both native and introduced species (Jennison et al. 2022). This can lead to restoration and the provision of enhanced ecosystem services (Mori et al. 2017). All the goods and services that can be derived from forest landscapes through better restoration can be a good source of income for forest-dependent communities (Mansourian and Vallauri 2014). FLR can also contribute to food security in isolated communities facing socio-economic challenges and limited access to affordable food options (Chazdon and Uriarte 2016; Ullah 2024).

Most of Pakistan’s forest resources are located in the HKH in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province, which has a rugged mountainous topography (Ali et al. 2020). Approximately 40% of the forests are located in these mountains and play an important role in the livelihoods of rural communities of mountain inhabitants (Ali and Rahut 2018). Rural communities in Pakistan, especially those in the HKH, heavily rely on forest resources for their livelihoods (Rasul 2014). This dependence stems from a historical management approach dating back to the colonial era, notably in 1857, when forests were classified as ‘reserved’ and ‘guzara’ forests (Adnan and Hölscher 2012). Reserved forests, under strict protection, were originally surveyed and demarcated in 1971, remaining under government ownership since 1872 (Hayat et al. 2019). In contrast, Guzara forests catered to local communities’ domestic needs for forest products (Adnan and Hölscher 2012). Managed by the KP Forestry Department, both forest types reflect the long-standing reliance of HKH communities on forest resources, which often serve as a critical income source (Ullah et al. 2023a).

However, there is evidence of rapid deforestation in the HKH of Pakistan (Zeb et al. 2019a, b). Between 1990 and 2010, approximately 170,684 hectares of forest (60% of the total forest area in the HKH) were cleared (Qamer et al. 2016). In addition, the population of mountain dwellers in Pakistan who depend on forest resources is growing at a rate of 5% per year (Hussain et al. 2019), exacerbating challenges related to livelihood capital in these communities (Ullah et al. 2024a). The Forest Department’s involvement in forest resource management has been instrumental in promoting successful landscape restoration efforts, particularly through community participation. Through FLR initiatives, the Forest Department has actively engaged local communities in co-management activities, facilitated by community-based organizations (CBOs) such as VDCs and JFMCs. These committees have played a crucial role in decision-making processes related to forest management, including selecting sites for plantations, setting aside areas for natural regeneration, promoting agroforestry, and hiring personnel for protection activities. In addition, all ethnic groups have equal ownership rights over forest resources, and the establishment of VDCs and JFMCs has provided avenues for participation by all communities (Ullah et al. 2022a).

FLR is of paramount importance for the improvement (social, natural, human, physical and financial benefits) of local communities in Pakistan (Biland et al. 2021). FLR helps rehabilitate watersheds and degraded agricultural lands (Gebrehiwot et al. 2022). In addition, forest restoration controls desertification, restores biodiversity and ecosystem services, and mitigates climate change (Costa et al. 2021; Kandel et al. 2023). Thus, forest restoration can contribute to both local livelihoods and society at large through the production of ecosystem goods and services in Pakistan (Ullah et al. 2022a). For these reasons, forest restoration was a pressing issue in Pakistan. As a result, the KP government launched the Billion Trees Afforestation Project (BTAP) in 2014. Since then, landscape restoration through local community participation has received considerable attention. The provincial government, through a participatory approach, engaged local communities in climate regulation and maintenance of ecosystem services to improve livelihoods through FLR. Since 2014, FLR has been mainly promoted to mitigate climate change, restore and protect biodiversity, rehabilitate degraded agricultural lands, rehabilitate fragile watersheds, and control desertification to improve the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities.

A large body of research links FLR to livelihood benefits globally (Adams et al. 2016; Widianingsih et al. 2016; Erbaugh and Oldekop 2018; Xu et al. 2022). These studies suggest that the livelihood outcomes of FLR depend on governance systems, land productivity, and market dynamics. In addition, these studies have shown that inequalities persist between participating and non-participating households, necessitating targeted interventions to improve forest quality and livelihood opportunities for all communities. In addition, studies in Pakistan have shown positive impacts of agricultural extension programs on FLR initiatives and environmental resilience, thereby contributing to the sustainability of forest-based livelihoods for forest-dependent communities (Ullah et al. 2024a; Ullah 2024). However, there remains a critical need for a nuanced understanding of this relationship between FLR and holistic enhancement of livelihood assets in the context of Pakistan, particularly in the HKH region. Thus, this study aims to address this gap by examining the holistic livelihood impacts of community-based FLR initiatives in the HKH region. Moreover, most of the previous studies are based on quantitative analysis, whereas this study seeks to elucidate the role of FLR in restoring ecological integrity and enhancing various dimensions of livelihood capital for local communities through the conduct of FGDs and field observations. Through a critical analysis of the literature and empirical findings, we aim to provide insights into the unique socio-economic and ecological dynamics that shape the outcomes of FLR interventions in our study area. By contextualizing our research within the broader discourse on FLR and livelihood sustainability, we seek to contribute to both academic scholarship and practical efforts aimed at promoting sustainable development and resilience in mountainous regions of Pakistan.

Despite the implementation of FLR initiatives in KP province in 2014 and their recent expansion across Pakistan in 2019, there is limited research on the linkages between FLR and its impact on livelihoods. Few studies have discussed the impact of FLR on livelihoods through its economic benefits. However, no study is available on the impact of FLR on detailed social, natural, human, physical and financial benefits to local communities in the HKH. As a result, it is still uncertain to what extent FLR can improve the well-being of communities, especially in mountainous regions. To fill this gap, this study aims to (1) assess the impact of community-based FLR on livelihoods in the HKH region of Pakistan, and (2) identify institutional mechanisms that contribute to the successful implementation of FLR initiatives and maximize positive impacts on livelihoods in the HKH region of Pakistan. Based on these objectives, this study will address the following research questions.

  1. 1.

    How does community-based FLR impact livelihoods in the HKH region of Pakistan?

  2. 2.

    What institutional mechanisms facilitate the successful implementation of FLR initiatives to maximize positive livelihood impacts in the HKH region of Pakistan?

Conceptual framework

This study used the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) as an approach to assess the impact of FLR on building community livelihood assets (Fig. 1). The SLF is a general methodology that provides an operational approach to understanding how community livelihoods are shaped (Fig. 1). The framework is one of the most commonly used approaches in studies focused on FLR and community livelihood recovery (Li et al. 2018) and diversification (Biland et al. 2021). The framework has also been used extensively in studies focusing on deforestation (Babigumira et al. 2014; Pérez Marulanda et al. 2020). According to the SLF, livelihoods include strategies that build assets used by farming communities to improve their livelihoods (Jezeer et al. 2019). In developing countries, most people live in rural areas and maintain diversified livelihood strategies (Biland et al. 2021). Therefore, improving diversified livelihoods is important to provide sufficient food for the survival of rural communities and also to reduce vulnerability (Beltrán-Tolosa et al. 2022; Kandel et al. 2024). Livelihood assets are grouped into five categories: natural (land, forests, water, pastures), human (skills, knowledge, labor, health), physical (machinery, buildings, tools, equipment), social (membership in development organizations, social networks and connections), and financial (Dfid 1999). The strategies adopted by communities are influenced by various processes and contexts, including (1) institutions governing landscape restoration rules, (2) access to resources, and (3) the external environment, often characterized by vulnerability contexts such as loss of people, livestock, and employment opportunities (Biland et al. 2021). In this study, the concept of “processes” refers to the mechanisms through which FLR initiatives are implemented and managed, namely equity, accountability, and collaboration. Equity, as a theoretical construct within our conceptual framework, refers to the principle of fairness and justice in decision-making processes and the equitable distribution of resources among community members. In this context, participation in decision-making is inclusive of marginalized groups and ensures equity in the distribution of services among all farmers and community units. In our study, accountability embodies the principles of transparency and responsibility in the oversight of FLR efforts, including financial matters and decision-making processes. Collaboration emphasizes the cooperative efforts between stakeholders, including local communities, government agencies, and NGOs, to achieve common goals in FLR implementation. These processes are operationalized through various mechanisms such as the establishment of CBOs, regular meetings and consultations, and participatory decision-making processes.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Sustainable livelihood framework

Source: DfID 1999

Full size image

Materials and methods

Study area

This study was conducted in the Dir Kohistan region of the Upper Dir district in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of northwestern Pakistan (Fig. 2). The Dir Kohistan region lies between latitudes 35°9’ and 35°47’ N and longitudes 71°52’ to 72°22’ E. It has a total land area of 1,671 square kilometers (412,570 acres). Of the total area, coniferous forest covers 56,810 hectares (140,351 acres). The coniferous forest ranges in altitude from 1,833 m to 3,833 m and is dominated by Cedrus deodara, Abies pindrow, Pinus wallichiana, Picea smithiana, and Pinus gerardiana. There is increasing landscape degradation throughout the valley due to mining, poor natural regeneration in forest areas, conversion of forest land to agriculture and illegal timber trade, which requires concerted FLR efforts. The area is considered highly degraded (Qamer et al. 2016). The government has recently (in 2014) started to implement FLR interventions. The BTAP was launched in 2014, aiming to enhance forest cover, environmental conditions, and rural livelihoods. The BTAP focused on community involvement in landscape restoration and co-management efforts. Through the establishment of CBOs, local communities actively participated in decision-making processes and project activities. These initiatives were aimed to promote equitable distribution of benefits and ensure sustainable management of forest resources for the broader community. The study area is ethnically diverse, with three dominant ethnic groups residing in the valley, including Pashtuns, Gujjars and Kohistanis. The Gujjars are pastoralist communities dependent on livestock for their livelihood but also practice crop farming. The Pashtun and Kohistani communities are subsistence farmers who typically convert forest and pasture land for agriculture and collection of forest products for household use and trade.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Map of Pakistan indicating the study area (Source: Ullah et al. 2012)

Full size image

Data collection

This study uses FGDs as a data collection strategy. The study team conducted FGDs between July and August 2019 with communities that participated in the FLR activities. A total of eight FGDs were conducted, each involving 10 to 30 community members in eight different villages, namely Dad-Kan (FGD-01), Ater-Koon (FGD-02), Dad-Band (FGD-03), Kisan Khel (FGD-04), Ashrit (FGD-05), Siasan (FGD-06), Barikot (FGD-07), and Bar Kalay (FGD-08). Elders are the key decision makers at both the household and community levels in the study area, so only elders participated in each FGD. The main purpose of the FGDs was to explore community members’ perceptions of the impact of FLR on their livelihoods. The FGDs also aimed to identify the institutions and processes of FLR in the study area. Each FGD lasted 2–4 h. A semi-structured questionnaire with a series of open-ended questions was used to elicit community elders’ perceptions of the impact of FLR on their livelihoods and the institutions and processes used for conservation. Informed consent was obtained from the participants before the discussion began, and they were informed that participation in the study was voluntary. The questions included in the questionnaire were based on previous literature related to our conceptual framework in order to obtain rich and relevant data. In accordance with government regulations, discussions were conducted in Pashto and facilitated by Forest Department staff fluent in Pashto, Kohistani, and Gujjar languages to ensure effective communication with community members representing different ethno-linguistic groups. It’s worth noting, however, that all three ethnic groups were able to speak and understand Pashto, which facilitated full participation. The lead author, who served as a government official in the study region for nearly four years, facilitated the FGDs in collaboration with Forest Department staff. The selection of focus group members, representing different ethno-linguistic groups, was determined by consensus of 70% of the entire community, which was communicated during Friday mass meetings held in each of the three ethnic groups.

Data analysis

Qualitative responses from the FGDs were transcribed and coded into themes and narratives (Tables 1 and 2). The coding approach was structured based on the conceptual framework established prior to data collection, encompassing themes related to the impact of FLR on livelihood capital and the institutions and processes involved in landscape restoration initiatives. While adhering to the predefined framework, we remained open to emergent themes that arose during analysis, which were subsequently incorporated into our coding process. To ensure the trustworthiness of our findings, debriefing sessions were conducted with FGD participants. Our analysis focused on understanding changes in social, financial, human, physical, and natural capital, as well as community perceptions of the institutions and processes used in FLR to enhance livelihood capital. We have drawn upon established methods in the literature to inform our data analysis approach (Ward et al. 2018; Oduor 2020).

Table 1 Key topics and themes identified through thematic analysis
Full size table
Table 2 Key topics and themes identified through thematic analysis of institution and process
Full size table

Results

Impact of FLR on livelihoods

The livelihood impacts of FLR were perceived through improvements in various aspects of financial capital, human capital, physical capital, social capital, and natural capital. All the positive impacts of FLR are described in the following themes.

Natural capital

The FGD results highlighted various aspects of FLR impacting natural capital, including controlling deforestation, afforestation, reforestation, and restoration of degraded lands, which have improved since 2014 in FLR-participating communities. Additionally, increased biodiversity and wildlife sightings were noted. Community members perceive the resurgence of bears and snakes as a positive outcome, as it deters illegal activities such as nighttime tree cutting. However, the implications of these changes for community well-being require further elucidation. For instance, while the resurgence of wildlife is viewed positively, it may pose safety concerns due to encounters with potentially dangerous animals like bears and snakes. One of the community members from FGD-1 noted:

“Thanks to community-based forest management, no one dares to cut down a forest tree. Natural forests have a high rate of natural regeneration. New forests are established on degraded land through afforestation and reforestation.” (FGD-1).

Similar sentiments were expressed in FGDs 3 and 4, where participants emphasized the role of FLR in enhancing natural regeneration and preventing illegal logging. Regarding the wildlife and improved biodiversity resulting from FLR, a participant from FGD-4 remarked:

“Bears and snakes that once disappeared from our forests have reappeared.” (FGD- 04).

This observation was echoed in FGDs 5 and 8, highlighting a pattern where communities have noticed the return of previously absent wildlife. In FGD-6, another participant shared:

“We have noticed new plant species in our forests, which has led to an increase in biodiversity.” (FGD- 06).

The consistent reports from different FGDs suggest a widespread impact of FLR on natural capital across various communities. The themes of controlling deforestation, enhancing biodiversity, and reintroducing wildlife were recurrent, indicating that these outcomes were commonly observed and valued by the participants. While the return of wildlife such as bears and snakes was generally seen as positive, there were underlying concerns about safety that may require further attention and management strategies.

Human capital

FLR was perceived to enhance human capital, providing improved access to education, health facilities, and physical security. Respondents in the FGDs highlighted how their increased income from various FLR activities, including forestry, agriculture, and ecotourism, has directly contributed to enhancing access to education, healthcare, and other essential services. For instance, community members now use the cash they earn from forests, crops, livestock and ecotourism to pay for children’s education, health services, food and veterinary medicines. One participant from FGD-8 shared:

“Before, we did not have access to education and health care because we were poor and could not afford services. Do you know why everyone in our community participated in deforestation? Because they were poor and had no livelihood. Now our income has improved and we spend money on education and health for our children. (FGD − 08)

This sentiment was echoed by participants in other FGDs, who reported similar improvements in their ability to afford essential services due to increased income from FLR activities. In addition, respondents from FGDs reported improvements in physical security due to the regular patrolling of the forest by community forest workers. For example, a participant from FGD-1 stated:

” Physical security has also improved since the community forest workers started regular patrols in the forest. The incidents of theft (of goats and sheep) have decreased significantly, as the community forest workers now patrol the forest and rangelands where theft of animals and illegal tree cutting previously occurred.” (FGD − 01).

Physical capital

In many villages in the study area, FLR activities have helped communities construct turbines to generate electricity from streams, water tanks to meet the water needs of people, crops, and livestock, and gabion walls in and around forest areas. However, respondents noted a significant improvement in non-metallic roads to forest and farmland with community support. In addition, FGD respondents reported the establishment of forest-based market infrastructure. Community members also reported observing changes in the physical structure of the land. Community members reported a reduction in the frequency of flooding and landslides from the mountains, which has reduced the frequency of damage to community property. Consider this quote from a community member about physical capital improvements since 2014:

“The community members helped each other and made uncultivated land cultivable. They have built roads in difficult places and rugged mountains to forests and farmlands so that their members can easily reach there to earn their livelihood. With the help of the FLR initiative, turbines, water pounds and gabion walls are being constructed to reduce damage to forests and farmlands.” (FGD – 08).

Social capital

FGD respondents from many communities involved in FLR reported that social networks, trust, and social interactions among community members and between community members and government and non-government agencies were strengthened. Community members expressed that enhanced social capital, characterized by strengthened social networks and trust, facilitated collective action in forest management and improved community cohesion. They reported that the FLR initiatives developed a sense of ownership and cooperation among community members. However, potential conflicts arising from differing interests among community members were acknowledged as a challenge that warrants further investigation.

One common theme from the discussions was the increased social connectedness among community members. This was evidenced by their collaborative efforts not only in forest management but also in agricultural and livestock activities. For instance, a participant in a FGD shared:

“There is social connectedness among community members; they not only work with the forest department in FLR, but also buy inputs for crops and livestock together, which improves their ability to negotiate with input suppliers. Before, farmers used to go alone and buy animals, but now a group of 5 to 10 farmers go together to the town, buy animals and rent a vehicle together (to transport the animals)”. (FGD – 03)

Financial capital

The results of the FGDs on the impact of FLR on financial capital showed that communities involved in FLR reported an increase in income from various sources, including the sale of timber. The mechanism for selling timber involves sustainable harvesting practices regulated by community forest management plans, where timber is selectively harvested to ensure forest regeneration. The harvested timber is then processed and sold in local and regional markets, providing an important source of income. Additionally, communities also reported increased income from crops, livestock, and tourism. The tourism income was attributed to the development of ecotourism sites and the influx of visitors attracted by the improved natural landscapes resulting from FLR initiatives. These tourists purchased local products, stayed in community-run accommodations, and participated in guided tours, which significantly boosted the local economy. They also reported that through FLR initiatives, many community members were able to find doorstep employment opportunities in their communities. A community member in a FGD reported:

“Farmers have adopted agroforestry intensively. In the past, farmers in our region only grew wheat. Now they have diversified their crops and started growing many crops, especially maize/corn. The massive adoption of agroforestry and crop diversification has increased income from wood and animal products. Households have increased the number of animals from two to 10 and up to 15. We used to have only small ruminants in our region. Now each household has up to two cows. This has had a positive impact on household income in the community.” (FGD − 06).

The FLR also instantiated tourism and created employment and business opportunities, thus supporting the livelihoods of local communities. Many communities reported:

“The FLR has significantly improved the stability, greenery, and aesthetic appeal of our mountains. This transformation has led to the emergence of tourist destinations across the region. Many individuals have capitalized on this opportunity by establishing hotels and shops, resulting in a notable increase in economic activity. Additionally, tourists contribute to the local economy by purchasing fresh produce from farmers and dairy products from livestock owners. Consequently, tourism has become a vital source of income for households in the area.” (FGD – 07).

Hundreds of workers are recruited from local communities. Most community members found easy access to local wages. People have started forest-based businesses. FLR initiatives have made it easier to support families financially. (FGD – 05)

Institution and process used in FLR

Participants in all FGDs reported that communities engage in various FLR activities, including afforestation, reforestation, and forest protection, through local community participation, mobilization, and extension services. These processes involve multiple stages, such as planning, implementation, and monitoring, with different actors and mechanisms. For example, the establishment of CBOs such as VDCs and JFMCs, along with collaboration with the forest department, is crucial for the implementation of FLR processes. These entities play a key role in facilitating community participation, ensuring transparency, and promoting collaboration among stakeholders. In addition, FLR initiatives often rely on extension services to disseminate knowledge and build capacity within local communities, thereby enhancing their ability to participate effectively in landscape restoration efforts. Most respondents involved in FLR emphasized that these initiatives promote fairness, cooperation, and accountability in decision-making and resource distribution among community members. They noted that the establishment of CBOs and the involvement of the forest department increased community involvement and cooperation in FLR activities, leading to improved decision-making processes and equitable resource distribution. However, it should be noted that while community members are involved in FLR activities, the forest resources remain under government ownership. Potential challenges, such as conflicting interests among community members or insufficient resources for effective participation, were recognized and require further investigation. A respondent in a community reported:

“The community institutions, including the VDCs and JFMCs, managed the forest on a day-to-day basis with the support of the extension agent and the forest department located near the forest area. Both VDCs and JFMCs ensured the participation of local communities in the planning and implementation of important forest-related decisions, such as the selection of sites and species for plantations, the selection of fencing areas to promote natural regeneration, and the hiring of labor for forest protection. As these institutions were established with the support of local communities, the communities provided support and volunteers for various activities such as mass afforestation and forest management.” (FGD – 04).

In addition, FLR initiatives began to promote fairness and accountability in decision-making and distribution of resources among community members. A respondent in a community reported:

FLR established fairness, accountability, and cooperation among community members. JFMC presidents and members met frequently with community members and were open to their questions and scrutiny. Members of the JFMC consistently maintained transparent financial records, including income and expense accounts, accessible to the broader community. (FGD − 01)

Negative aspects of FLR initiatives

The restoration of natural capital through FLR initiatives has not been without its challenges. While increased biodiversity and wildlife sightings have positive outcomes, they have also led to heightened human-wildlife conflicts. Community members reported incidents where wildlife, such as bears and other large animals, destroyed fences, leading to increased costs for repairs and efforts to reinforce barriers. Livestock and poultry have faced threats and attacks from the resurgent wildlife, with predatory animals attacking farm animals more frequently. This has posed a significant threat to livelihoods. Additionally, there have been instances of wildlife threatening or attacking people, especially in areas where bears and snakes have reappeared, raising safety concerns among the community members. The resurgence of wildlife has also complicated the tasks of community forest workers, making patrolling and forest management activities riskier and more challenging, necessitating additional precautions and resources.

Despite the various benefits of FLR, its impact on financial capital has been mixed, with some negative consequences observed, particularly in relation to livestock-based livelihoods. The restriction of grazing land due to afforestation and reforestation efforts has negatively affected pastoralist communities. These communities have traditionally relied on open rangelands for their livestock, and restrictions on free grazing have led to a weakening of livestock-based livelihoods. Additionally, the decreased grazing areas have adversely affected the milk and meat business. Livestock owners reported a decline in milk production and meat quality, leading to reduced income from these sources.

Discussion

This study analyzed FLR’s impact on the livelihood capital of local communities in the HKH region of Pakistan. With a particular emphasis on natural capital, community members perceived several impacts of FLR, highlighting the perceived benefits reported by local communities in the HKH region of Pakistan. Notably, FLR initiatives, particularly community participation in afforestation and reforestation, have shown to enhance forest cover and improve livelihoods, corroborating previous studies by Ullah et al. (2024b); Ullah et al. (2021). This suggests that policies focused on enhancing natural capital should promote community engagement in afforestation and reforestation initiatives to improve livelihoods by increasing forest cover in the HKH region. This aligns with broader literature indicating that community involvement in FLR promotes natural regeneration and mitigates deforestation, ultimately enhancing household livelihoods (Adams et al. 2016; Chazdon and Uriarte 2016; Erbaugh and Oldekop 2018; Ullah et al. 2022a). Furthermore, our findings underscore the positive impact of FLR on biodiversity, consistent with Oduor’s (2020) observations, suggesting a link between biodiversity enhancement and improved livelihoods. However, while the literature points to the benefits of FLR, it’s essential to recognize potential limitations and tradeoffs associated with these initiatives, which warrants further exploration. While our study focuses on Pakistan, similar opportunities likely exist across the HKH region and beyond. For instance, studies in Nepal and India show that community members perceive FLR activities as integral to conserving land, preserving income sources, and safeguarding livelihoods (Bhattarai et al. 2021; Singh et al. 2021).

Our study found that the FLR improved human capital including access to education, health facilities and physical security of community members. Our thematic analysis confirms that physical security has improved since community forest workers began regular patrols. Specifically, crimes such as animal theft and the cutting of illegal forest trees have decreased significantly. The presence of community forest workers in the forest and rangelands, areas previously plagued by animal theft and illegal tree cutting, has acted as a deterrent to such crimes. This means that policies that prioritize the empowerment of local communities to manage forest resources and ensure their security can contribute to broader societal development goals. Our findings are similar to previous findings by Owusu et al. (2021), who found that FLR is useful for building human capital in communities, including access to education, health facilities, and physical security of community members. In the study regions, health and education facilities were limited, making it difficult for community members to access them, which is also true for other regions in the HKH (Dilshad et al. 2019). In addition, community members have expressed interest in pursuing education and health services from distant regions due to increased income from forest land. They invest the money they earn from agroforestry and tourism in the health and better education of their family members. This is particularly the case in regions where whole communities work together on various rural development initiatives (including forest restoration). In addition, such communities were highly dependent on the forest, trusted their neighbors, and cooperated with all stakeholders (including the forest department). Previous studies have also reported that FLR activities are effective in improving the livelihoods of many households (Richards and Lyons 2016; Ramprasad et al. 2020). Our results offers a novel contribution to the literature by demonstrating the direct impact of FLR on enhancing human capital, exemplified through improved access to education, health facilities, and physical security for community members in the HKH region of Pakistan. These findings underscore the significance of policies supporting community-based forest management for broader societal development goals, distinguishing our study from existing literature by emphasizing the tangible benefits of FLR initiatives on local communities.

Community members perceived an increase in physical capital as a result of community-based forest landscape activities. Similar to our findings, Chen et al. (2012) and Owusu et al. (2021) reported that FLR improved the physical capital of participating communities. In our study, community members in the study regions reported the construction of turbines to generate electricity from streams for community power needs and water ponds to meet water needs for people, crops, and livestock. These physical structures have been supported by various FLR projects, particularly the BTAP and the Dir Kohistan Project (DKP) in the study region (Ullah et al. 2021). In addition, community members in many regions have built gabion walls in the study region. Community-based rehabilitation efforts are key to motivating communities to install retaining walls, check dams, and gabion walls, which protect communities from many hazards and improve livelihoods (Sultana and Tan 2021). This is especially the case in mountainous and hilly regions where communities are exposed to multiple disasters (Sultana and Tan 2021). Many studies have found that building the capacity of communities to know how to effectively construct retaining walls is essential to increasing their ability to build livelihoods (Wamsler and Brink 2014; Zhao et al. 2020). In addition, communities also reported the establishment of forest-based markets and perceived improved access to agricultural markets in the study region. A study by Owusu et al. (2021) reported similar findings, as they reported that FLR improved farmers’ access to markets. Our findings also showed that the community land structure improved and the property, land and crops are protected from flood hazards due to the physical structure developed by the communities. In addition to the observed benefits in Pakistan, similar resilience to environmental hazards, such as floods, has been documented in FLR initiatives in China by Zhao et al. (2020) and India by Nandamudi and Sen (2020), suggesting a broader regional significance of FLR practices in mitigating risks and enhancing agricultural productivity across the HKH region and beyond. These results contribute to the literature by highlighting the tangible improvements in physical capital resulting from community-based forest landscape activities, emphasizing the importance of FLR initiatives in enhancing resilience to environmental hazards and improving livelihoods.

We also reported improvements in social capital as a result of FLR activities. Community members reported that social networks, trust, and social interactions were established and improved among community members and between community members and government and non-government agencies. Previous studies have shown that community engagement in FLR initiatives created warm relationships among communities and between communities and forest staff (Liu et al. 2019; Ullah et al. 2021). This social connectedness plays an important role in community members’ access to information and creates awareness that helps households engage in landscape restoration practices to improve their livelihoods (Ullah et al. 2022b). Communities also reported reduced crime rates and increased cooperation for access to agricultural inputs and livestock. This is consistent with previous findings by Oduor (2020), who reported that community-based restoration activities reduced crime rates due to the presence of community workers to protect forest land and improved access to inputs and services. Previous literature suggests that forest field staff play a crucial role in motivating communities to participate in FLR activities (Liu et al. 2019; Ullah et al. 2021). Strengthening relationships between forest field staff and community members can encourage increased social connections among different communities and households, fostering landscape restoration activities. Enhanced social capital has been shown to enable communities to manage their resources more effectively, leading to improved livelihoods and income outcomes (Islam et al. 2011).

The FLR has also increased the financial capital of farming communities. This included diversifying crop production, adopting agroforestry practices, and increasing income from animal products and tourism. In terms of policy, it suggests the importance of supporting and incentivizing such FLR activities to enhance the financial well-being of communities. This is similar to previous findings by Owusu et al. (2021), who reported that the restoration of forest lands supports the financial capital of communities by promoting agroforestry, tourism and increased agricultural diversification. Previous studies suggest that enrichment, restoration and management of forest lands result in animal and crop farming diversity (Sacande and Berrahmouni 2016; Mori et al. 2017). Similarly, Nielsen-Pincus and Moseley (2013) have reported that the conservation of native forests helps communities to access forest-based businesses and employment. However, our findings reported a reduction in livestock-based livelihoods, while milk and meat businesses were also weakened in communities that did not participate in FLR.

Our study found that community members used multiple institutions and processes for FLR. They established and strengthened CBOs such as VDCs and JFMCs with the help of the forest department and extension workers, who played an important role in community mobilization. The establishment of CBOs is facilitated by the state, with registration overseen by the government forest department. While these institutions aim to promote community-driven initiatives, certain limitations exist, such as restrictions on women’s participation in afforestation activities due to local traditions. Additionally, marginalized social groups may face challenges in accessing and participating in FLR initiatives, which warrants further exploration in future research. The establishment of CBOs, such as VDCs and JFMCs, ensured the participation of community members in landscape restoration activities (Ullah et al. 2021). Such institutions have helped communities acquire information about landscape restoration initiatives and practices (Hampson et al. 2017). These CBOs facilitate community participation in FLR programs (Ullah et al. 2022a). Furthermore, studies suggest that the establishment of CBOs and the formation of cooperatives are reliable means of achieving equity and accountability in decision-making and resource distribution among community members (Hampson et al. 2017; Ullah et al. 2022a). They ensure community participation in innovative landscape restoration practices that positively impact household and community welfare and help improve the livelihoods and incomes of forest-dependent communities (Zoysa 2022).

Restoring natural capital through FLR initiatives has not been without its challenges. While increased biodiversity and wildlife sightings are positive outcomes, they have also led to increased human-wildlife conflict. Community members have reported incidents where wildlife, such as bears and other large animals, destroyed fences, leading to increased costs for repairs and efforts to reinforce barriers. Livestock and poultry have faced threats and attacks from the resurgent wildlife, with predatory animals attacking farm animals more frequently. This has constituted a significant threat to livelihoods. Furthermore, there have been instances of wildlife threatening or attacking people, especially in areas where bears and snakes have reappeared, which has led to concerns among community members regarding safety. The resurgence of wildlife has also complicated the tasks of community forest workers, making patrolling and forest management activities riskier and more challenging, necessitating additional precautions and resources. Despite the various benefits of FLR, its impact on financial capital has been mixed, with some negative consequences observed, particularly in relation to livestock-based livelihoods, which has also been reported by the previous literature (Torres et al. 2023). Restrictions in grazing lands due to afforestation and reforestation efforts have negatively impacted pastoralist communities (Ullah et al. 2023b). These communities have historically depended on open grazing areas for their livestock. Consequently, the reduction in available land has resulted in a decline in livestock-based livelihoods. Furthermore, the diminished grazing areas have negatively impacted the milk and meat business. Owners of livestock have reported a decrease in milk production and meat quality, which has led to a reduction in income from these sources (Ullah et al. 2024a).

Limitations of the study

While efforts were made to comprehensively analyze the impact of FLR on various aspects of livelihood capital, there may be additional factors or variables that influence outcomes that were not fully captured in the study. In addition, further research is needed to conduct comparative studies across regions to better understand variations in FLR outcomes and effectiveness. While our research focuses on the positive impact of FLR activities on participant communities, it is essential to recognize the potential challenges associated with community-based forest management. These challenges, including inequitable burdens on different community members and difficult relationships with state institutions, have been documented in the literature and are pertinent considerations in our study area. At the time of data collection, the lead author was a government official, and the discussion was conducted while on government business. Community members may have responded differently to a government official asking questions about a government program. While our intention was to encourage open dialogue and capture diverse perspectives, it’s important to recognize that power differentials among participants may have influenced their willingness to voice concerns, particularly to researchers perceived as affiliated with powerful institutions such as universities or the state. While our results suggest that community members perceive FLR as bringing a broad set of interrelated benefits, it is crucial to be clear about the limitations of our methodological approach and carefully consider any shortcomings or challenges that may exist.

Conclusion

This study analyzed the impact of FLR on the livelihood capital of local communities in the HKH region of Pakistan. Our study showed that communities that restored forest landscapes experienced several impacts of FLR on livelihood capital. These included natural ones, such as household participation in afforestation, reforestation, control of deforestation, and enhancement of natural regeneration. FLR restored wildlife, improved biodiversity, and initiated ecotourism in the study region. Human capital, including access to education, health facilities, and physical security for community members, was improved. Improvements in physical capital perceived by community members included the installation of turbines to generate electricity from streams for community electricity needs and water tanks to meet water needs for people, crops and livestock. Communities built gabion walls and forest markets to sell things like honey, vegetables, and plants. Reduced damage to community assets where community land structure has been improved and property, land and crops are protected from flood hazards. Improved social capital, such as strengthened social networks, trust, and social interactions among community members and between community members and government and non-government agencies. Communities reported a reduction in crime, and cooperation for access to agricultural inputs and livestock is developing in the region. FLR has also increased the financial capital of farming communities. In particular, diversification of crop production, introduction of agroforestry, and increased income from animal products and tourism are reported. FLR initiatives have created employment and business opportunities. Community members used various institutions and processes for FLR. They established and strengthened CBOs such as VDCs and JFMCs, which played an important role in community mobilization. In addition, FLR initiatives began to introduce fairness and accountability in decision-making and resource distribution among community members.

Based on the positive outcomes of FLR in enhancing livelihood capitals through extension services and CBOs, we recommend continuing to implement an integrated approach that combines FLR initiatives with extension services and CBOs to maximize positive impacts on social, natural, human, financial, and physical capitals. To empower residents in sustainable resource management and ensure the longevity of ecological and livelihood improvements, prioritize capacity-building programs within communities. Additionally, collaborate with governmental bodies, NGOs, and local stakeholders to secure ongoing support, resources, and policies that facilitate sustained FLR efforts and associated livelihood enhancements. Establish a monitoring and adaptive management system to track the impact of restoration efforts on livelihood capitals. This will allow for timely adjustments and continual improvement.