Youth and the Future of Community Forestry

Abstract

Forests managed by Indigenous and other local communities generate important benefits for livelihood, and contribute to regional and global biodiversity and carbon sequestration goals. Yet, challenges to community forestry remain. Rural out-migration, for one, can make it hard for communities to maintain broad and diverse memberships invested in local forest commons. This includes young people, who can contribute critical energy, ideas, and skills and are well positioned to take up community forest governance and work, but often aspire to alternative livelihoods and lifestyles. Through an initiative called the Future of Forest Work and Communities, we sought to connect researchers and practitioners with young people living in forest regions, and explore whether community forestry is, or could be, a viable option for them in a globalising world. We achieved this through two phases of qualitative research: youth visioning workshops and questionnaires conducted in 14 forest communities and regions across 9 countries, and a more in-depth case study of two forest communities in Oaxaca, Mexico, using participant observation and semi-structured interviews. We found important synergies across sites. Youth held strong connections with their communities and local forests, but work and/or study aspirations meant many would likely leave their home communities (at least for a time). Community forestry was not seen as an obvious livelihood pathway by a majority of youth, although interest in forest work was evident through participation in several workshop activities. As community leadership and support organisations consider community forestry as an engine of local development, the research highlights the importance of engaging local youth to understand their interests and ideas, and thus identify practical and meaningful ways to empower them as community and territorial actors.

Full text

land
Article
Youth and the Future of Community Forestry
James P. Robson 1, *, Sarah J. Wilson 2, Constanza Mora Sanchez 1and Anita Bhatt 1
1School of Environment and Sustainability (SENS), University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B5, Canada; constanza.mora@usask.ca (C.M.S.); anita.bhatt@usask.ca (A.B.)
2School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada; sjwil@umich.edu
*Correspondence: james.robson@usask.ca
Received: 18 September 2020; Accepted: 22 October 2020; Published: 24 October 2020


Abstract:
Forests managed by Indigenous and other local communities generate important benefits
for livelihood, and contribute to regional and global biodiversity and carbon sequestration goals.
Yet, challenges to community forestry remain. Rural out-migration, for one, can make it hard
for communities to maintain broad and diverse memberships invested in local forest commons.
This includes young people, who can contribute critical energy, ideas, and skills and are well positioned
to take up community forest governance and work, but often aspire to alternative livelihoods and
lifestyles. Through an initiative called the Future of Forest Work and Communities, we sought to
connect researchers and practitioners with young people living in forest regions, and explore whether
community forestry is, or could be, a viable option for them in a globalising world. We achieved this
through two phases of qualitative research: youth visioning workshops and questionnaires conducted
in 14 forest communities and regions across 9 countries, and a more in-depth case study of two
forest communities in Oaxaca, Mexico, using participant observation and semi-structured interviews.
We found important synergies across sites. Youth held strong connections with their communities
and local forests, but work and/or study aspirations meant many would likely leave their home
communities (at least for a time). Community forestry was not seen as an obvious livelihood pathway
by a majority of youth, although interest in forest work was evident through participation in several
workshop activities. As community leadership and support organisations consider community
forestry as an engine of local development, the research highlights the importance of engaging local
youth to understand their interests and ideas, and thus identify practical and meaningful ways to
empower them as community and territorial actors.
Keywords:
forests; youth; youth aspirations; community forestry; migration; mobility; rural–urban
linkages; cultural norms; livelihoods
1. Introduction
Local and Indigenous communities are important actors in forest governance and conservation [
1
,
2
].
In Latin America, for example, Indigenous and other local communities either own or have use and
management rights to over 200 million square kilometres of forests [
3
]. Globally, community forestry
(CF)
1
has become an important contributor to climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation
goals [2–5] as well as to rural economies [6–8].
Support for CF has often focused on securing land and resource rights and increasing the economic
opportunities that can accrue from forests [
5
]. The embedded assumption is that, given secure rights
1
Community forestry, as used here, refers to a diversity of arrangements under which Indigenous and other local communities
with access to forest resources, participate in forest use and management practices under some degree of autonomy from or
in collaboration with the; state.
Land 2020,9, 406; doi:10.3390/land9110406 www.mdpi.com/journal/land

Land 2020,9, 406 2 of 25
and benefit flows, forest communities will manage forests better, see incomes, livelihoods and subjective
wellbeing improve, and protect forests to ensure their future integrity [
5
,
9
,
10
]. Yet, the idea that people
will remain in and manage the forests they control is tempered by the numbers leaving well-supported
communities with established forest tenure [11,12].
Over recent years, rural resource-dependent communities have experienced three interlocking
social transformations. First, traditional forms of land use have declined and rural livelihoods have
become less territorially based as rural–urban linkages have strengthened [
13
–
17
]. Second, driven by
falls in fertility levels and rises in life expectancies, families have become smaller and rural populations
have both contracted and aged [
18
,
19
]. Third, mobility and migration have exacerbated these trends,
bringing in remittances to supplement and sometimes replace land-based income, and provide new
opportunities for work and education that take youth and working-aged people away from their
communities [
12
]. Transformations of this kind pose challenges to CF: communities may experience
labour shortages, and underused and under-managed forest commons can become prone to illegal
harvesting and deforestation [19,20].
The reality of smaller and aging rural populations has generated calls for more meaningful
livelihood opportunities in rural settings, which could include forest-related work [
21
,
22
]. Yet, in a
CF context, communities can often suffer from a “liability of smallness” when competing in domestic
and global markets [
23
], a lack of business skills and access to financial services or niche markets [
24
],
and operate within sometimes adverse policy and regulatory environments [
24
]. Then there are
the less studied “internal” challenges affecting how communities govern their forests and organise
forest work [
25
]. Across global regions, CF arrangements are often dominated by men, with women
and youth underrepresented [
26
–
28
]. While the role of women in forest use and management has
attracted research attention [
29
–
32
], knowledge of youth, their perspectives, and their participation in
environmental practice and stewardship is more limited (see [
33
]), although these topics are gaining
traction in rural resource management such as small-scale agriculture [
34
,
35
]. Similarly, while researchers
have solicited youth perceptions of environmental change [
36
,
37
], the implications for youth in resource
management and decision-making remain unclear [
38
,
39
] and few have focused on building youth
capacity as environmental actors (e.g., [40,41]), including in forestry [21,40].
These are knowledge gaps that need to be addressed. For communities, and the practitioners
and academics that support and study them, the realisation that youth—through their choices and
actions—can (and arguably need) to play a leading role in shaping community and forest futures
has increased [
38
]. In communities with too few young people, or where too many opt for off-land
livelihoods, the social organisation, collective labour, ways of knowing, and local institutions that
underpin shared land use and management can weaken [
12
]. At the same time, youth may be open to
forest work opportunities, which may become more numerous as communities improve applications
of REDD+and other PES projects as part of their CF strategies [
42
–
44
], and a new landscape of forest
use and conservation emerges [45].
Better understanding of youth aspirations and youth–community–forest linkages can help in
developing appropriate and forward-thinking CF strategies, policies and practices [
46
–
48
]. It is here
that the current paper makes an important contribution—presenting findings from youth-focused
empirical research conducted in several global regions: a series of visioning workshops with youth
living in forest regions in Asia, Africa and the Americas; and, a more in-depth case study from
Oaxaca, Mexico, a global leader in community forestry [
49
]. Working in places where collective
governance dictates how forests are accessed and used, and benefits distributed, we learnt from local
youth about their work and life plans, their connections to local forests (and territory more generally),
and their views on community decision-making processes and structures—all areas with the potential
to influence youth mobility [48,50–52] and their potential as community actors.
Migration can distance community members, including youth, from customary lands and
territories, complicating the interactions that reaffirm shared norms of trust and reciprocity [
53
–
55
].
For youth, migration and associated cultural change can separate them both physically and emotionally

Land 2020,9, 406 3 of 25
from home and decrease their reliance on territorial resources for livelihood—making it more difficult
for their communities of origin to maintain the place-based social relationships that embed local
commons [
12
,
56
,
57
]. We wanted to find out if this was taking place or likely to happen in the future,
by engaging youth and inviting them to share their perspectives, intentions and ideas. It meant
asking youth whether forest-related work is something that interests them. It meant asking youth
and community leaders about current youth–community integration and relations, and what might
be needed so that youth could contribute to securing a sustainable future for their communities and
territories. Our findings would also allow us to consider whether efforts to engage youth might
influence institutional choice [
58
,
59
], whereby community norms, institutions and organisational
structures adapt to reflect and encompass emergent or changing member profiles, identities, ideas,
and voice [
60
–
62
]. In other words, might youth become the catalyst for new community configurations
(after [30,62,63]) to unfold?
The paper consists of five main sections. Following this Introduction, we describe and explain our
study sites and methods. We then present our main study results, organised into the following thematic
categories: youth livelihood and study aspirations; youth mobility; what influences mobility choices;
changes youth want to see in their communities; youth–territory–forest connections and values; and
youth interest in forestry and forest-related work. We then discuss these results in the broader context
of community and forest futures, and end with a brief conclusion.
2. Methods
Data collection took place from 2017 to 2019, split into two phases: (I) youth visioning workshops
(2017–2018); and, (II) ethnographic fieldwork in two forest communities in Oaxaca, Mexico (2019).
Both phases of research, described in detail below, were approved by the University of Saskatchewan’s
Research Ethics Board.
2.1. Phase One
Youth visioning workshops were organised in 14 locations in forest regions in Africa, Asia, and the
Americas (Table 1).
Table 1. Workshop locations and participant profiles.
Country Community No. of
Participants
Female
Participation
Age Range
of Participants
Average Age
of Participants
No. of
Participants
Born in
Community
9 countries 14 workshops2198 46% 11–37 20 126
Canada Poplar River FN 10 20% 16–26 19 6
Canada Lac Simon 6 80% 26–37 30 tbc
Mexico
San Juan
Evangelista
Analco
16 56% 11–27 17 7
Mexico Jalapa del Valle 16 44% 13–22 16 10
Bolivia Primero de Mayo 13 69% 13–19 16 0
Bolivia San Antonio de
Lomerio 13 38% 15–26 18 8
Bolivia El Puquio 15 53% 16–19 17 8
Nepal Jyalachiti CF,
Panauti 18 44% 19–29 25 15
Peru
Madre de Dios
(multiple
communities)
14 43% 15–34 21 12
Guatemala Uaxactún 15 33% 15–29 19 12
Uganda Lwanunda 19 47% 13–25 19 19
Uganda Buyege 16 56% 16–29 21 7
Tanzania Geita 15 47% 19–32 25 10
Philippines General Nakar 12 42% 15–18 17 12

Land 2020,9, 406 4 of 25
These workshops engaged youth participants in conversations about their lives, their ideas,
and their visions for the future. Each workshop followed a standardised format and set of activities
(Supplementary Materials, Table S1), which allowed common themes to be identified across locations,
while enabling insights and ideas specific to place to be captured. Youth participants also completed
a questionnaire (Supplementary Materials, Table S2) where they provided information about their
educational and work aspirations, their migration experiences and plans, and level of forest use,
knowledge, and dependence.
We selected communities
3
based on several criteria: people–forest interactions, level of forest
dependence
4
, youth migration issues (or alternatively, a strong and vibrant youth presence),
employment and education challenges, and expressed interest in hosting a workshop. Supplementary
Material (Table S3) provides further background on the communities and locales where the 14
workshops took place. In addition to the above criteria, we prioritised communities where the lead
authors and their collaborators had strong working relationships, which were essential in getting
community leadership on board and identifying local people who could become part of workshop
facilitation teams.
For each workshop, youth participants were identified and invited in accordance with local custom.
Participation was voluntary. Specific age ranges were not set, given that definition of what constitutes
“youth” varies across countries and cultures, but ages 15 to 30 were given as general guidance.
Neither did we specify a set number of participants but considered 10 to 15 as ideal given planned
activities. Beyond questions of age and number of participants, we were keen that invited/selected
youth incorporated differences in age, gender, educational attainment, and employment status.
In most workshops, there was an even split between male and female participants. The exceptions
were Primero de Mayo (Bolivia) and Lac Simon (Quebec, Canada), where participants were mainly
female, and Poplar River First Nation (Manitoba, Canada) where participants were overwhelmingly
male. Age ranges varied across workshops, but most were in their mid/late-teens to early/mid-twenties.
The pre-workshop questionnaire gathered information about participants’ birthplace and time spent
living in the home community (for those born elsewhere). Over a third of participants (72, or 36%)
were born outside of the community. A minority of workshops—Analco (Mexico); Primero de Mayo,
San Antonio de Lomerio, El Puquio (Bolivia), Buyege (Uganda), and Geita (Tanzania)—accounted for
most of these. These include populations that have grown through immigration from other regions
(Bolivian cases) or have decades-long histories of out-migration with patterns of return (Analco,
Mexico). Of the 72 participants who were not born in their current home community, only 12 had
arrived in the previous 5 years—nearly all accounted for by the Buyege (Uganda) and Geita (Tanzania)
workshops. Most participants across locations were single and without children. Three workshops
stood out for a relatively high number of married participants and/or those with children—Panauti
(Nepal), Buyege (Uganda), and Geita (Tanzania).
2.2. Phase Two
Case studies of two communities (Figure 1)—San Juan Evangelista Analco (Analco) and Jalapa
del Valle (Jalapa), Oaxaca, Mexico—were conducted over a four-month period between May and
September 2019. This work enabled more in-depth analysis of youth perspectives.
2
While 14 workshops took place, much of the data presented in the Results are based on just 13 of these, because analysis for
Lac Simon (Canada) was incomplete.
3
Community, as used here, refers to a group of people who self-identify as members of a particular community, which in turn
has a home locality (or localities) and customary lands that include forest. However, community membership does not
necessarily depend upon maintaining residence in the home locality or localities.
4
Level of forest-dependence, as used here, was gauged by workshop facilitators in conjunction with community leaderships
and determined by looking at forest dependence generally in the region where the workshop took place (and not in relation
to other workshop locations).

Land 2020,9, 406 5 of 25
Land 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 24
Figure 1. Location of study communities in Oaxaca, Mexico.
Analco is located in Oaxaca’s northern highlands (Sierra Norte), 60 km or a 2-hour drive north
of Oaxaca City (state capital). It had a population of 460 inhabitants in 2018, from a peak of 986 in
19705. Over the past decade and a half, the community has focused attention on territorial resource
use and planning. It began formal forest management in 2013, won a national award for community
forestry in 2016, and has held Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) certification since 2017. Jalapa
is located in Oaxaca’s central valleys (Valles Centrales) region, 20 km or a 45-minute drive from Oaxaca
City. The community had a resident population of 1543 in 2018. In the mid-1970s, Jalapa banned
logging in its (degraded) forests, designating them as conservation areas. The community won a
national prize for nature conservation in 2013. In 2017, following problems (mountain pine beetle,
forest fires) associated with its “no-touch” forest policy, formal forest management was proposed. In
2019, Jalapa began logging under a ten-year, community forest management plan. Leadership in both
communities have said they are keen to engage youth in order to keep community forestry viable.
Primary data were collected via 64 semi-structured interviews; 34 with youth, and 30 with
community leaders, older adult community members, and experts from academia, NGOs, and
government studying or supporting the community forest sector in Oaxaca. Interviews covered
several themes: youth-held aspirations (work, study, family, future plans, the meaning of success),
community life (duties/responsibilities as community members, the assembly and community
decision-making), forests (collective forest management, attachment to local forests and the land,
interest in forest work), and community futures.
Before presenting our study results, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the
research. Youth who participated in Phase 1 and Phase 2 were not randomly selected and do not
constitute a representative sample of youth in their communities. While we invited youth participants
of differing age groups, genders, and educational and work backgrounds, their involvement was
voluntary. Consequently, the data presented here provide no more than a snapshot of youth-held
aspirations, opinions, perspectives, and ideas in the places where we worked. Findings from these
workshops and communities are not generalisable to the broader rural population of the regions and
countries where study sites were located.
5 Sistema Nacional de Información Estadística y Geográfica (INEGI). “Archivo histórico de localidades”. Accessed July, 2020.
https://www.inegi.org.mx/app/archivohistorico/
Figure 1. Location of study communities in Oaxaca, Mexico.
Analco is located in Oaxaca’s northern highlands (Sierra Norte), 60 km or a 2-h drive north of
Oaxaca City (state capital). It had a population of 460 inhabitants in 2018, from a peak of 986 in 1970
5
.
Over the past decade and a half, the community has focused attention on territorial resource use and
planning. It began formal forest management in 2013, won a national award for community forestry in
2016, and has held Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) certification since 2017. Jalapa is located
in Oaxaca’s central valleys (Valles Centrales) region, 20 km or a 45-minute drive from Oaxaca City.
The community had a resident population of 1543 in 2018. In the mid-1970s, Jalapa banned logging in
its (degraded) forests, designating them as conservation areas. The community won a national prize for
nature conservation in 2013. In 2017, following problems (mountain pine beetle, forest fires) associated
with its “no-touch” forest policy, formal forest management was proposed. In 2019, Jalapa began
logging under a ten-year, community forest management plan. Leadership in both communities have
said they are keen to engage youth in order to keep community forestry viable.
Primary data were collected via 64 semi-structured interviews; 34 with youth, and 30
with community leaders, older adult community members, and experts from academia, NGOs,
and government studying or supporting the community forest sector in Oaxaca. Interviews covered
several themes: youth-held aspirations (work, study, family, future plans, the meaning of success),
community life (duties/responsibilities as community members, the assembly and community
decision-making), forests (collective forest management, attachment to local forests and the land,
interest in forest work), and community futures.
Before presenting our study results, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the research.
Youth who participated in Phase 1 and Phase 2 were not randomly selected and do not constitute a
representative sample of youth in their communities. While we invited youth participants of differing
age groups, genders, and educational and work backgrounds, their involvement was voluntary.
Consequently, the data presented here provide no more than a snapshot of youth-held aspirations,
opinions, perspectives, and ideas in the places where we worked. Findings from these workshops and
5
Sistema Nacional de Informaci
ó
n Estad
í
stica y Geogr
á
fica (INEGI). “Archivo hist
ó
rico de localidades”. Accessed July, 2020.
https://www.inegi.org.mx/app/archivohistorico/

Land 2020,9, 406 6 of 25
communities are not generalisable to the broader rural population of the regions and countries where
study sites were located.
3. Results
3.1. Youth Livelihood and Study Aspirations
We asked youth participants about their work and study aspirations. Figure 2shows the frequency
of occurrence of career choices across workshop locations. Certain careers held appeal at most if not
all locations where workshops took place; with engineering, teaching, and medicine leading the way.
Of the jobs mentioned in more than five workshop locations, only two were natural resources-focused
(forestry and farming). Overall, plans centred around a desire for steady, year-round, and reasonably
well-paid work. Most required post-secondary education and few occupations were widely available
in their home communities. The number of youth who aspired to be self-employed (farmer, mechanic,
hairdresser, business owner) was also notable.
Land 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 24
3. Results
3.1. Youth Livelihood and Study Aspirations
We asked youth participants about their work and study aspirations. Figure 2 shows the
frequency of occurrence of career choices across workshop locations. Certain careers held appeal at
most if not all locations where workshops took place; with engineering, teaching, and medicine
leading the way. Of the jobs mentioned in more than five workshop locations, only two were natural
resources-focused (forestry and farming). Overall, plans centred around a desire for steady, year-
round, and reasonably well-paid work. Most required post-secondary education and few
occupations were widely available in their home communities. The number of youth who aspired to
be self-employed (farmer, mechanic, hairdresser, business owner) was also notable.
Figure 2. Most cited career options/choices (score of 100% indicates a career mentioned by at least one
participant at all workshops).
Most youth were students at the time of participating in the research. Approximately half
planned to pursue or complete tertiary education (Figure 3), while a third saw finishing high school
as the limit of their aspirations. Of those pursuing further studies, a relatively small number
considered technical college. More (39%) aspired to university, with a quarter of these planning on a
graduate degree (Masters or PhD). These findings indicate just how many youth are going onto
higher education and the degree of access to high school and post-secondary institutions that make
this possible.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ENGINEER
TEACHER
DOCTOR
ARCHITECT
BUSINESS PERSON
FORESTRY ENGINEER/TECHNICIAN
COMMERCIAL FARMER
NURSE
ACCOUNTANT
ADMINISTRATOR
ELECTRICIAN
LAWYER
MECHANIC
Occurrence (by % workshop)
Figure 2.
Most cited career options/choices (score of 100% indicates a career mentioned by at least one
participant at all workshops).
Most youth were students at the time of participating in the research. Approximately half planned
to pursue or complete tertiary education (Figure 3), while a third saw finishing high school as the
limit of their aspirations. Of those pursuing further studies, a relatively small number considered
technical college. More (39%) aspired to university, with a quarter of these planning on a graduate
degree (Masters or PhD). These findings indicate just how many youth are going onto higher education
and the degree of access to high school and post-secondary institutions that make this possible.

Land 2020,9, 406 7 of 25
Land 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 24
Figure 3. Educational aspirations of youth across workshop locations.
Only a small minority (7%) of respondents across workshop locations expressed an interest in
pursuing a land-based livelihood (Figure 4). Of these, over two-thirds cited family background and
history (“to follow in my father’s footsteps”) as a reason why.
However, when we engaged participants in the “ideal jobs” workshop activity, differences with
the survey data emerged. This was an activity where youth talked about what they would love to do
work-wise, rather than what they were planning to do. Their responses were both more diverse and
more specific than those from the questionnaires. Youth mentioned more jobs tied to culture and the
arts, from dancer to Indigenous storyteller, making Indigenous crafts, and working with traditional
foods and gastronomy. There was an increase in the number of IT-related and tourism-related jobs.
In addition, with regards to natural-resource based work, these featured more prominently than in
the survey data. Eleven individuals mentioned forestry engineer or some other forestry position, and
another 8 youth cited jobs such as “owner of an ornamental plant nursery”, “running a natural
products business”, and being “a Brazil nut exporter”. A disproportionate number were participants
in our Latin American workshops. Increased interest in forest-related work may have been influenced
by participation in earlier workshop activities (“Show off your territory”, “Let’s talk about forests”).
High School
33%
Tech. College
7%
Undergraduate
29%
Graduate
11%
No Reponse
20%
Figure 3. Educational aspirations of youth across workshop locations.
Only a small minority (7%) of respondents across workshop locations expressed an interest in
pursuing a land-based livelihood (Figure 4). Of these, over two-thirds cited family background and
history (“to follow in my father’s footsteps”) as a reason why.
However, when we engaged participants in the “ideal jobs” workshop activity, differences with
the survey data emerged. This was an activity where youth talked about what they would love to do
work-wise, rather than what they were planning to do. Their responses were both more diverse and
more specific than those from the questionnaires. Youth mentioned more jobs tied to culture and the
arts, from dancer to Indigenous storyteller, making Indigenous crafts, and working with traditional
foods and gastronomy. There was an increase in the number of IT-related and tourism-related jobs.
In addition, with regards to natural-resource based work, these featured more prominently than in
the survey data. Eleven individuals mentioned forestry engineer or some other forestry position,
and another 8 youth cited jobs such as “owner of an ornamental plant nursery”, “running a natural
products business”, and being “a Brazil nut exporter”. A disproportionate number were participants
in our Latin American workshops. Increased interest in forest-related work may have been influenced
by participation in earlier workshop activities (“Show offyour territory”, “Let’s talk about forests”).

Land 2020,9, 406 8 of 25
Land 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 24
Figure 4. Youth-held plans to pursue land-based vs. non land-based livelihoods.
3.2. Youth Mobility (Where Might Their Plans Take Them?)
When youth were asked, “How likely are you to move away from your community?”, 60% of females
and 54% of males said this was likely (Figure 5). A third of youth were unsure, and only a small
minority (11–14%) did not expect to leave. Geita (Tanzania), Buyege (Uganda) and El Puquio (Bolivia)
stood out as locations with the highest probability of youth out-migration.
Figure 5. Likelihood that youth will move away from their community.
However, when asked, “Where would you like to be living when you are 30 years old?”, a significant
number of youth across workshops said that they hoped to be in their community (Figure 6), with
Panauti (Nepal) and San Antonio (Bolivia) the stand outs. From a gender perspective, aggregate data
did not point to any overriding trend, although females appeared more likely than males to migrate
within their own country, and males more likely to participate in international migration.
Non land-based
93%
Family History
5%
No Family
History
2%
Land-based
7%
TOTAL FEMALE RESPONDENTS = 93, TOTAL MALE RESPONDENTS = 103
11%
60%
29%
14%
54%
32%
UNLIKE LY LIKE LY UNS URE
TOTAL FEMA LE RESPONDENTS = 93, TOTAL MALE R ESPONDENTS = 103
Female Respondents Mal e R espond ents
Figure 4. Youth-held plans to pursue land-based vs. non land-based livelihoods.
3.2. Youth Mobility (Where Might Their Plans Take Them?)
When youth were asked, “How likely are you to move away from your community?”, 60% of females
and 54% of males said this was likely (Figure 5). A third of youth were unsure, and only a small
minority (11–14%) did not expect to leave. Geita (Tanzania), Buyege (Uganda) and El Puquio (Bolivia)
stood out as locations with the highest probability of youth out-migration.
Land 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 24
Figure 4. Youth-held plans to pursue land-based vs. non land-based livelihoods.
3.2. Youth Mobility (Where Might Their Plans Take Them?)
When youth were asked, “How likely are you to move away from your community?”, 60% of females
and 54% of males said this was likely (Figure 5). A third of youth were unsure, and only a small
minority (11–14%) did not expect to leave. Geita (Tanzania), Buyege (Uganda) and El Puquio (Bolivia)
stood out as locations with the highest probability of youth out-migration.
Figure 5. Likelihood that youth will move away from their community.
However, when asked, “Where would you like to be living when you are 30 years old?”, a significant
number of youth across workshops said that they hoped to be in their community (Figure 6), with
Panauti (Nepal) and San Antonio (Bolivia) the stand outs. From a gender perspective, aggregate data
did not point to any overriding trend, although females appeared more likely than males to migrate
within their own country, and males more likely to participate in international migration.
Non land-based
93%
Family History
5%
No Family
History
2%
Land-based
7%
TOTAL FEMALE RESPONDENTS = 93, TOTAL MALE RESPONDENTS = 103
11%
60%
29%
14%
54%
32%
UNLIK ELY LIKE LY UNS URE
TOTAL FEM ALE RESPONDENTS = 93, TOTAL MALE R ESPONDENTS = 103
Female Respondents Mal e R espond ents
Figure 5. Likelihood that youth will move away from their community.
However, when asked, “Where would you like to be living when you are 30 years old?”, a significant
number of youth across workshops said that they hoped to be in their community (Figure 6),
with Panauti (Nepal) and San Antonio (Bolivia) the stand outs. From a gender perspective, aggregate
data did not point to any overriding trend, although females appeared more likely than males to
migrate within their own country, and males more likely to participate in international migration.

Land 2020,9, 406 9 of 25
Land 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 24
Figure 6. Where youth hope to be living when 30 years old.
These data suggest that while many youth envision life away from their community, some plan
to do so on a temporary basis; to return at a later date. One interviewee from Analco was planning to
return to the community once she started a family so that her children could grow up there—
reflecting a widely-held perception that while cities offer job and study opportunities, life there can
be hard and often dangerous.
It is also important to note that (while in the minority) every location had youth either not
planning or wanting to leave their home community. Furthermore, when we conducted interviews
with youth in Oaxaca (Phase 2 of the research), a third of youth we spoke to in Analco and half of
those we spoke to in Jalapa del Valle expressed a desire to stay (if they could). Some were quite
adamant: “The truth is that I don't want to continue studying. What I like to do is work in the fields and tend
livestock ... since I was in sixth grade, my plan was not to study. Look, I never placed much importance on
study… I always focused more on work in the countryside” (Male, 29 years old, Analco)
3.3. What Influences Youth Mobility Choices?
In each visioning workshop, youth participated in “Push-Pull Matrix” and “Keep-Toss-Create”
activities. These activities emphasised what youth liked (pull factors) and disliked (push factors)
about their communities, and what they wanted to keep or to change. Summary findings are
presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
We observed synergy in responses across sites, with the lack of (well-paid) jobs, and limited
access to education, health, and social services cited as key village push factors in most workshops
and study regions. At the same time, youth valued cultural traditions and identity, and a strong
environmental ethic—with stewardship of land, forest, and water all priorities—resonated across
locations. Youth also valued their communities for providing a sense of security, peacefulness, and
physical space when compared to the congested, noisy and contaminated cities they had experienced
first-hand or heard about from friends and family. However, they also pointed to problems associated
with living in a small, tight-knit and often conservative community setting—places where everyone
knows each other’s business. Youth in multiple locations talked about some variant of “parental
control”, “gossip”, “jealousy”, “egoism”, “backstabbing”, “discrimination” and “judgement” as
things to rally against. Such complaints were often voiced most vociferously by female youth: “It’s
why we mentioned egoism… you know we have this problem here of not allowing individuals to get ahead, to
do well for themselves. We don’t help each other enough.” (Female, 27 years old, Mexico)
41%
16%
25%
18%
45%
12%
18%
25%
IN THE COM MUNIT Y OUTS IDE OF COMMUNIT Y
-IN REGION
OUTSIDE OF REGION OUTSIDE OF COUNTRY
TOTAL FEMALE RESPONDENTS = 79, TOTAL MALE R ESPONDENTS = 83
Female Respondents Male Respondents
Figure 6. Where youth hope to be living when 30 years old.
These data suggest that while many youth envision life away from their community, some plan to
do so on a temporary basis; to return at a later date. One interviewee from Analco was planning to
return to the community once she started a family so that her children could grow up there—reflecting
a widely-held perception that while cities offer job and study opportunities, life there can be hard and
often dangerous.
It is also important to note that (while in the minority) every location had youth either not planning
or wanting to leave their home community. Furthermore, when we conducted interviews with youth
in Oaxaca (Phase 2 of the research), a third of youth we spoke to in Analco and half of those we spoke
to in Jalapa del Valle expressed a desire to stay (if they could). Some were quite adamant: “The truth is
that I don’t want to continue studying. What I like to do is work in the fields and tend livestock
. . .
since I was in
sixth grade, my plan was not to study. Look, I never placed much importance on study
. . .
I always focused more
on work in the countryside” (Male, 29 years old, Analco)
3.3. What Influences Youth Mobility Choices?
In each visioning workshop, youth participated in “Push-Pull Matrix” and “Keep-Toss-Create”
activities. These activities emphasised what youth liked (pull factors) and disliked (push factors) about
their communities, and what they wanted to keep or to change. Summary findings are presented in
Tables 2and 3, respectively.
We observed synergy in responses across sites, with the lack of (well-paid) jobs, and limited access
to education, health, and social services cited as key village push factors in most workshops and study
regions. At the same time, youth valued cultural traditions and identity, and a strong environmental
ethic—with stewardship of land, forest, and water all priorities—resonated across locations. Youth also
valued their communities for providing a sense of security, peacefulness, and physical space when
compared to the congested, noisy and contaminated cities they had experienced first-hand or heard
about from friends and family. However, they also pointed to problems associated with living in
a small, tight-knit and often conservative community setting—places where everyone knows each
other’s business. Youth in multiple locations talked about some variant of “parental control”, “gossip”,
“jealousy”, “egoism”, “backstabbing”, “discrimination” and “judgement” as things to rally against.
Such complaints were often voiced most vociferously by female youth: “It’s why we mentioned egoism
. . .
you know we have this problem here of not allowing individuals to get ahead, to do well for themselves.
We don’t help each other enough.” (Female, 27 years old, Mexico)

Land 2020,9, 406 10 of 25
Table 2. Push–Pull Matrix (aggregate results from 13 workshops analysed).
City Push Village Push
1. Crime /lack of security (13/13)
2. Pollution and contamination (9/13)
3. Drug and alcohol addiction (6/13)
4. Discrimination against Indigenous and rural
people (5/13)
5. High cost of living (5/13)
6. Too hot, heatwaves (5/13)
7. Traffic and car accidents (4/13)
8. Crowded, lack of space (4/13)
9. Lack of water (3/13)
10.
Lack of nature and green spaces (3/13)
Notable responses: Lack of “cooperation among
people” and “collective sense” (Panauti, Lomerio),
“political instabilities” (Buyege), “competition”
(Buyege, Geita), “cell phone addiction” (Uaxactún)
1. Unemployment/economic necessity (13/13)
2. Poor or lack of schooling/higher education
(7/13)
3. Low wages (6/13)
4. Lack of good medical facilities /services (6/13)
5. Desire to see the world and experience new
things (5/13)
6. Lack of access to technology (4/13)
7. Gossip, jealousy, backstabbing (“small village,
large hell”) (4/13)
8. Intra-family violence (3/13)
9. Discrimination based on religion, ethnicity,
and/or caste (3/13)
10.
Poor roads and infrastructure (3/13)
Notable responses: “poor security” (Geita), “poor
leadership” (Geita), “broken family” (General Nakar)
“lack of affordable processed foods (too expensive)”
(Analco), “land incursions” (Madre de Dios)
City Pull Village Pull
1. Education (13/13), esp. higher education.
2. Employment (more opportunities, better jobs,
better paid) (12/13)
3. Things to do, entertainment (sports, music,
cinema, shopping,
4. museums, tourist attractions (10/13)
5. Health care (9/13)
6. Better and more access to technology (8/13)
7. Personal freedom (5/13)
Notable responses: “Economic stability” (Analco),
“More activities for kids (skating, music, museum)”
(Poplar River), “Better communication with family
members who live in other regions” (Madre de Dios),
“Opportunity to start your own business”
(Madre de Dios)
1. Clean air and water (12/13)
2. Flora, fauna, and nature (10/13)
3. Peacefulness (“tranquilidad”) (9/13)
4. Family and community (8/13)
5. Safety (8/13)
6. Traditions and culture (7/13)
7. Good, healthy food (7/13)
8. Cheaper (living costs, food) (6/13)
9. More space, more land (5/13)
10.
Better (cooler) climate (3/13)
Notable responses: “Better environment for making
investments” (Lwanunda); “For me, it’s much more
important having security in the village than the
fiestas . . . feeling safe is more important than having
fun” (Jalapa del Valle)
In contrast, youth across locations saw cities as places that could afford them greater liberty
and opportunities for personal growth and development. In the Canadian, Mexican, Ugandan,
and Filipino workshops, youth pointed to problems locally that emanate from deficient village
governance—sometimes due to ineffective processes and at other times because of undemocratic
structures and a lack of transparency that gave rise to abuses of power. Some youth felt
under-represented in community decision-making, and felt that by being more involved they could
help hold those in power accountable to the needs of the collective, and reduce corruption and the
misuse of power and resources:
“I think they [Chief and Council] underestimate us as youth, our ideas and what will work...we are
the next generation, we want to bring more” (Female youth, Poplar River FN, Canada)

Land 2020,9, 406 11 of 25
Table 3. What youth want to “Keep" and to "Toss" from their communities.
Things to Keep No. of Sites Notes/Examples/Quotes
Cultural traditions and
practices 9/13
Municipal band (Analco); Patron saint festivities (Jalapa
del Valle, Analco); Tequio and community assemblies
(Analco); Native language (boys and girls, Analco;
Lomerio); Paati pauwa (resting place) (Panauti); Culture
and customs (Buyege); Traditional ways (Poplar River),
Ancestral knowledge (Madre de Dios)
Forest stewardship 7/13
Forest management (boys, Analco; Uaxactún); Student
participation in reforestation activities (girls, Analco);
forest conservation and policy of not selling land to
outsiders (Jalapa del Valle); a healthy forest (Primero de
Mayo); Forest ‘guarding’ (Panauti)
Care for nature and water 7/13
Respect for flora and fauna (Analco); Our care of the
river (Jalapa del Valle); Looking after wildlife and
drinking water source (Panauti); a clean stream (Primero
de mayo); clean water (Poplar River)
Public services and facilities 7/13
Schools (Primero de Mayo, Analco, Lomerio, Lwanunda,
Buyege, General Nakar); Soccer field (San Antonio);
Health Centre, education (Lomerio); Hospitals, libraries
(Lwanunda); Family planning (Buyege)
Traditional land practices 4/13
Agriculture and livestock practices (boys, Analco); Xate
Palm (Uaxactún); Agricultural services (Buyege);
swidden agriculture (General Nakar)
Tings to toss No. of sites Notes/Examples/Quotes
Drug/alcohol abuse 8/13
Drunks (Poplar River); the sale of alcohol to non-adults
(Primero de Mayo); Drugs (San Antonio); Alcoholism
(Puquio); Bars and Drinking Places, Gambling, Smoking
and Drug Abuse (Buyege); Drugs (General Nakar);
Marijuana abuse (Panauti)
Paternalistic, ineffective
governance 6/13
Chief and Council! (Poplar River); Corruption (San
Antonio); Dictatorship (Lwanunda); Corruption
(Buyege); Ineffective local governance (General Nakar);
unpaid cargos6(Jalapa del Valle)
Social ills and discrimination
5/13
Egoism (girls, Analco); social discrimination rooted in
caste system (Panauti); pornography (online)
(Lwanunda); dowries (Panauti); machismo (San
Antonio); unregulated and excessive use of the Internet
(boys, Analco)
Litter, contamination in the
community 6/13
Burning of inorganic garbage (boys, Analco); trash (San
Antonio); contamination (Puquio); Garbage all over the
place (Poplar River, Madre de Dios); Plastic bags
(Lwanunda); Burning of garbage (General Nakar),
Deforestation, illegal logging
and/or hunting 7/13
Illegal hunting (boys, Analco; Panauti; Madre de Dios);
Illegal logging (San Antonio; General Nakar; Madre de
Dios); deforestation (Puquio; Uaxactún)
Mining 2/13 Specific issues in General Nakar and Madre de Dios
Youth insights from our Oaxaca study communities highlight how barriers to participation can
incorporate an important gendered dimension:
6
A cargo is a local governance post or obligation that citizens must periodically serve in return for civic and communal
membership and rights.

Land 2020,9, 406 12 of 25
“We think it’s really important that we have much more balanced participation of men and women in
the assemblies. In this community, nearly all the decisions are taken by men. The only way women
participate is through doing cargos. And I have seen, I’ve been in assemblies, and I’ve seen how men
dominate everything, even on the issues where women are well placed to contribute. An example is
the community store, a place that women use much more than men, but we have had little say about
how it should be run and maintained.” (Female, 27 years old, Analco)
“With respect to what my compañera spoke about, it’s true what she says. We have screwed things
up in the past and often it’s because the older men are not willing to listen to others’ opinions
. . .
when younger members have something they want to contribute, they either get laughed at or ignored.
And it’s something that turns us offand some don’t want to participate anymore. So I’m in agreement
with my compañera, when she says she would like to see more women involved, because it’s the women
that play such an important role in the community
. . .
because women will often say that decisions
that have been taken were not smart ones and this should have happened instead. They can help the
community make better decisions and analyze why things don’t work out as we want them to.” (Male,
27 years old, Analco)
3.4. Changes That Youth Want to See in Their Communities
The “Keep-Toss-Create” activity provided an opportunity for youth to reflect upon and discuss
the things that they wanted to see created or established in their communities (Table 4).
This long list can be divided into three broad thematic categories: environmental stewardship
(education and conservation); village development (improved public services, communications,
and jobs); and green economy (ecotourism, local food systems, conservation). Participants in nearly
every workshop talked about the need for new environmental education and/or conservation programs,
in addition to maintaining or creating formal protected areas and the importance of nature and green
spaces. Youth wanted to see these promoted in their communities, along with training opportunities
in forest management and conservation. Such insights highlighted the connection youth had with
their community’s lands. They care about local forests, water, and other territorial resources, and want
to see conservation and sustainable rural development promoted locally. Additionally, access to
health, education, and sporting services and facilities were important to youth in most workshops.
More jobs, and more job-training opportunities, were hoped for (especially among youth at our
Latin American and African workshops), along with improved access to digital communications.
Such findings highlighted youth connections to other places, and the influence of urbanism and
rural–urban linkages in particular. Desire for improved services/infrastructure was evident across sites
and a reminder of what youth want to see in their communities and what they do not like about living
there. When services are lacking, the city becomes a more attractive place to be.

Land 2020,9, 406 13 of 25
Table 4. What youth want to see in their communities (aggregate results from 13 workshops).
Things to Create No. of Sites Notes/Examples/Quotes
Environmental
education/conservation 10/13
Training for young people in forest management and
conservation (Jalapa del Valle); Creation of an
Environmental Management Area (Unidad de Manejo
Ambiental) (girls, Analco); Communal forest
management plans (Madre de Dios); Environmental
education program (Madre de Dios); A system to control
and prevent fires (San Antonio); System to control water
contamination (Puquio); Greater awareness of
(consequences) of uncontrolled forest burning (Puquio);
Promotion of the “Guardians of the Woods” program
(Poplar River; Training for young people in forest
management and conservation (Jalapa del Valle);
Reforestation programs (Lomerio); Create parks, green
areas (Madre de Dios); More forests, trees (Buyege);
More PAs/biodiversity (Madre de Dios)
Better cell/Internet 4/13
Free wifi (boys, Analco); Cell phone coverage (Jalapa del
Valle); Internet café(Lwanunda); Cell phone service
(Madre de Dios)
Sporting facilities 4/13
Roof for the basketball court (Jalapa del Valle; General
Nakar); A stadium (Primero de Mayo); A soccer
academy (Lomerio);
Education services 4/13
More pupils so we can maintain the schools (girls,
Analco); Support (scholarships) for students to increase
numbers in the schools (boys, Analco); A high school
(General Nakar); A school that provides the final 3 years
that lead up to high school (Uaxactún)
Health services 5/13
Medicines for the health centre (boys, Analco); Better
medicines and equipment for the village health centre
(Jalapa del Valle); Better nurses (Poplar River); Hospital
equipment (Primero de Mayo); More health facilities
(Buyege)
Jobs and job training 7/13
Better work opportunities (Jalapa del Valle); More
training in handicrafts (Uaxactún); Forge better
connection between school and the job market
(Lwanunda); For the Telesecundaria (secondary school
without in-person teaching) to add a course on carpentry
(Uaxactún); More jobs (Buyege)
Better roads 5/13
Better roads (Poplar River; Lwanunda, Panauti);
Improved access to the community (Analco); Paved
roads (Jalapa del Valle);
Ecotourism/green
infrastructure 4/13
Eco-friendly housing (Popular River); More ecotourism
sites and centres (Jalapa del Valle); Promotion of
Latzi-Duu ecotourism (boys, Analco); Cycle Trail
(Panauti)
Food
production/greenhouses 4/13
Community greenhouse to produce vegetables (Primero
de Mayo); Greenhouse to grow orchids (San Antonio);
Greenhouse to grow citrus fruits (Puquio); Nursery
(Panauti); Orchid nursery (Analco)
Local gastronomy 3/13
Elaborate new recipes and new products (Uaxactún);
Promote a gastronomy of regional products (Madre de
Dios); Elaborate products from cacao beans in the region
(Madre de Dios); Local organic market (girls, Analco)

Land 2020,9, 406 14 of 25
3.5. Nature of Youth—Territory—Forest Connections and Values
Attachment to place was best reflected in the “Show offyour territory” activity. Youth created a
“tour itinerary” (a list of places to visit, and suggested route) in response to the question, what would
you like to show youth from other communities about your community and forest? In some workshops,
each participant selected one village and one non-village (territorial) “landmark” and jotted down
the reasons for their choice (What does this place mean to you?). In other workshops, landmarks were
suggested by means of a group discussion. In some cases, the same landmark was identified by
multiple participants. In other cases, landmarks held specific, personal meanings to those who chose
them. Youth “co-led” their tour of select landmarks, and in several cases, produced a physical map of
landmarks and route.
Table 5shows the diverse range of landmarks chosen and the most important or popular categories
that they fell under.
Table 5. Categories of “landmarks” chosen by workshop participants. (aggregate across workshops).
THEMATIC CATEGORIES NO. OF LANDMARKS
Nature and countryside 51
Forests 20
tree/plant 10
forest 5
natural area 2
forestry infrastructure 1
Indigenous culture and relationship with the forest 1
tranquillity 1
Landscapes and topography 24
body of water 14
viewpoint 6
mountain 2
caves 1
natural disaster 1
Farming and agriculture 7
countryside 2
farm/field 5
Community infrastructure 58
Commerce, industry, transportation 9
store/market 4
transit infrastructure 3
factory 1
tourist infrastructure 1
Governance 4
government office 4
Health 14
water infrastructure 4
health facility 3
Education 7
school 6
library 1
Community life, culture, spiritual/religion 29
music facility 2
monument 4
gathering spot 3
religious place 11
sports facility 16
Basic needs 2
residence 2

Land 2020,9, 406 15 of 25
Village-specific landmarks covered a large range of types, with health-, recreation-, and sporting-
related landmarks among the most popular. Outside of their villages, several youths chose sites
because of the views they afforded of their community’s territory. As an Analco youth explained,
“I find it really impressive that in this spot you have the coming together of three different communities and their
territories. And besides, the view is amazing”. Many chose landmarks that elicited memories of growing
up or of family gatherings. About 20% of landmarks were forest-related.
When explaining their choices, forest sites were often chosen because of the environmental
products and services that they provided (i.e., water, air, wood) or because of their solitude, their beauty,
and the sense of communal pride they engender.
Forest values were further explored in the “Let’s talk about forest” activity, where participants
were asked to list and rank reasons why forests were important. Table 6shows aggregate data to
describe how forests were valued by youth for a diversity of environmental, spiritual, livelihood,
and health reasons.
Environmental goods and services (provisioning and regulating services) were mentioned by a
majority of participants in most workshops. Youth in a quarter of workshops mentioned the importance
of forests for conserving mother nature/biodiversity. “Water (quality and quantity)” was a key benefit
cited across a majority of workshops—youth perceived of a clear connection between water availability
and good forest stewardship; talking at every workshop about the role that their forests play in
“providing” or “purifying” the water that local people depend upon. This tied in with discussions
during other workshop activities; clean drinking water had been among the most important benefits of
village life (see Push–Pull Matrix), and a reason why youth may choose to stay in their communities.
In contrast, water scarcity and water contamination were among key drawbacks associated with
city life.
It was notable that youth in just one workshop included climate change mitigation as a major
reason to conserve forests. In general, youth focused on the tangible, local benefits of their community
forests. The “Show offyour territory” activity highlighted this well, especially at the Latin American
workshops: Primero de Mayo (Bolivia), where the Acai pulp processing plant was identified as a source
of income for the community; Madre de Dios, Peru, where the chapaja palm tree (Attalea phalerata)
was an important source of fibre, with “the palm leaves used to make roofs, brooms, and other things”;
and, Uaxactun, Guatemala, where non-timber forest products such as xate palm, allspice and breadnut
were included on territorial tours.
While forests were highly valued by youth across study sites and regions, youth-held knowledge
of and frequency of interactions with forests (and the intentionality of these interactions) were less
clear-cut and varied within and across sites. Workshop facilitators noted how youth who valued local
forests often lacked specific knowledge about these forests (and the communal territory in more general
terms). This was also evident during the “Show offyour territory” activity, where selection of landmarks
and tour itinerary tended to be dominated by a few knowledgeable, often older, participants. Lack of
knowledge extended to forest management. In Jalapa, Mexico, for example, youth were not aware of
current logging plans. When asked, “The assembly approved this [the forest plan], CONAFOR approved it,
and now they are carrying out the study
. . .
how many of you knew about [these developments]?”, only 6 of 16
participants said that they did. As the group made clear, “they [the authorities] need to keep us informed!”
In Guatemala, youth called for greater voice and involvement in forest governance—participating
in the workshop was a catalyst for youth to self-organise and demand a voice in local governance
structures [64]. A youth council was subsequently established.

Land 2020,9, 406 16 of 25
Table 6. The benefits of forests as identified by youth.
Benefit % of Workshops
Environmental Services/Regulation
Oxygen/clean air 100
Wildlife habitat 86
Water (quality and quantity) 71
Biodiversity 29
Sustain life 43
Soil 29
Regulation 21
Flora 21
Agriculture 21
Carbon sequestration 21
Regulation 21
Shade 14
Windbreaks 14
Natural disaster buffer 14
Rain 14
Work/Livelihoods/Employment
Work/Livelihoods 86
Food 50
Timber 43
Tourism 43
NTFPs (non-timber forest products) 43
Hunting 14
Housing 14
Research 14
Health and Wellbeing
Medicine 43
Quality of life 14
Tranquillity, Beauty, Nature
Beauty 21
Peace and quietness 14
Future generations 14
Mother earth 14
Landscape 14
3.6. Youth Interest in Forestry and Forest-Related Work
It was not entirely clear how many youth held a real interest in doing forest work. In the “ideal
job” activity, 11 of 198 participants (most in Latin America) wanted to work in the forestry sector,
so around 5%. However, in the two study communities in Oaxaca, Mexico, 7 of 34 youth interviewed
(so around 20%) were either working in the forestry sector or had inclinations to do so. Yet, few could
be specific about what they would like to do or were interested in. So, while forestry was seen as an
option for some, it did not come across as an obvious livelihood opportunity or pathway for many.
This was picked up on by a community leader in Oaxaca: “Right now, the community is growing, it is
generating alternatives to be able to live within the community, and one of the great opportunities is thanks

Land 2020,9, 406 17 of 25
to the forest... we would like to have more young people, but there is little interest” (Common Property
Commissioner, Analco).
Yet despite this, CF is still held out as a sector that offers opportunities to youth. Several of the
academic, NGO, and government experts interviewed in Oaxaca saw CF as well placed to provide
meaningful work to older youth—listing jobs in reforestation, pest control, environmental education,
ecotourism, agave management, oak charcoal production, copal management, non-timber forest
products (palms, resins, mushrooms), logging, and marketing, among others. A sentiment echoed by a
community leader in Jalapa del Valle: “It is very important for us, that we have a large area of forest, and we
have the need for technical advice, that young people get training in this and take a lead” (Common Property
Commissioner, Jalapa).
Additionally, while knowledge about forests and forest management appeared limited among
youth, across locations there was a number of participants keen to share their forestry perspectives
and ideas. For example, while youth promoted a strong conservationist ethic during workshop
activities and discussions, most saw sustainable forest use as being compatible with conservation
and to be promoted as a necessary part of community modernisation and development. In our
final workshop activity—"Co-Design: Pilot Project”—youth highlighted how they might contribute
if brought more into the fold. In small groups, they developed ideas for work-related projects or
initiatives in their community that were land and/or forest based. Their ideas fell into five main
categories—Education/Ecotourism; Agroforestry and NTFPs; Wood and Fibre Extraction; Forests and
Water; and Agriculture and Animal Husbandry—and ranged from modest endeavours, such as a
“Community vegetable garden” (Lomerio, Bolivia), to larger scale proposals such as a “Youth-run
ecotourism centre” (Jalapa, Mexico). Water was a notable focus, including a community water bottling
plants (Nepal, Mexico, Bolivia), irrigation infrastructure (Bolivia), and a water purification system
(Canada). While some groups spent considerable effort developing actual business plans, other ideas
remained more conceptual in nature.
Youth interest in CF and forest-related work was also evident in Phase 2 fieldwork in Oaxaca,
where, again, a small but significant minority of participants spoke enthusiastically about their forest
work experiences to date and their willingness to embrace further opportunities:
“Yes, I would like to get more involved because it is nice, in fact, there was a time when they [local
authorities] gave temporary employment, and I went when I was on vacation. And it was to go to take
care of the small pines that grow on their own, to clean around them so they could continue growing.
Then also pruning and all that
. . .
and I liked to go then yes, I would like to continue doing that”
(Female, 20 years old, Analco)
“Especially for women, we were very motivated because we felt very useful, right?... The men are used
to going to the mountains to attend the tequios
7
, so for them it is no big deal. In the case of women,
it was like something was really motivating us to keep going. We did not want the job to end because
apart from feeling useful, it was paid and so we could contribute to the household. So women were the
ones who were always there ready and on time. I mean, if they told us at 5:30, we were waiting for the
bus at 5:20”. (Female, 28 years old, Analco)
4. Discussion
Rural, resource-dependent communities in Mexico, Latin America, and other regions have been
identified as critical actors in global conservation efforts [
1
,
65
]. Yet, community forests and other
local resource commons exist in a world undergoing accelerated processes of change [
66
], and their
evolution in response to change remains understudied by theorists [55,67,68].
7
Tequios are obligatory labour days levied on adult able-bodied men and, more recently, women to carry out projects in
their community.

Land 2020,9, 406 18 of 25
The experience of migration is pervasive in many rural areas, and can reframe the idea of future
livelihood [
69
] to give less and less weight to the territory, lands, and natural resource practices of
local communities. Within such a context of rural change and de-territorialisation, the actual and
prospective roles for youth in rural community development are important [
63
,
70
,
71
]. Not least to
communities themselves, who understand that the energy, talent, and leadership that young people
can bring to the table [
72
] are assets of great value, not least in places where out-migration has created
shortfalls in collective labour [62,73].
In places where forests are used and managed by local communities, the choices of young people
are no less significant [
21
,
74
]. Faced with limited opportunities where they live, and the allure of
work and education possibilities elsewhere, the global trend has been one of people leaving their
forest communities, often for cities and other urban centres [
11
,
12
]. However, is the emptying out
of forest regions inevitable in an era of globalisation and globalised change? With this research,
we wanted to better understand the views, values, and hopes of young people from forest communities,
to understand forests and community forestry through their eyes, and reflect on the possibilities for
forest-based economies that meet their aspirations for meaningful work—and a good life. Through
exploring youth culture in forest communities in Asia, Africa, and the Americas, the work delivers six
big findings:
1.
Youth value and hold strong connections to their communities. They especially value their
communities for the physical space, healthy (natural) environment, and traditions they provide.
2.
The strong values that youths hold do not translate into plans to remain in their communities
and pursue land-based livelihoods. Work and study aspirations mean that migration (whether
temporary or permanent) is on the cards for most.
3.
Across the board, youth out-migration is strongly influenced by job and/or educational
aspirations and opportunities. Parental control, village gossip, jealousy, egoism, discrimination
and antiquated communal service practices were additional push factors identified in
some communities.
4.
Youth can feel left out of community-level decision-making processes, with village governance
arrangements not inclusive of broad community memberships (and which can be further
exacerbated by patriarchal cultural norms). Feelings of under-representation are more evident
among female than male youth. However, such concerns or criticisms do not appear to be an
influencing factor behind youth-held mobility plans.
5.
While many youth plan to leave their communities for study, work and/or life experiences,
significant numbers expect/plan/hope to return. Similarly, most study communities have a
sizeable minority of resident youth who would like to stay if opportunities allow.
6.
Most youth do not consider community forestry as an obvious livelihood pathway. However,
youth do value the natural environment and forests, and see sustainable forest management as
an important part of community development and advancement.
We found that local forests remain important to some youth in all of the communities where
we worked. Their own reliance or dependence on forests and associated resources might be limited,
but forests are valued by youth who understand their importance for cultural or spiritual reasons,
for the ecosystem services that they provide; and, the direct livelihood benefits that they generate.
Moreover, in each workshop and place we worked, we came across youth with a real sense
of connection and commitment to their community that local leaders could be well served to build
upon. Yet, engaging and empowering youth will involve more than simply creating opportunities
and waiting for youth to respond. Communities must first take the time to listen to and understand
youth, who are not inward-looking but very much connected to realities that lie outside of their home
communities. This was evident in our discussions with youth about their work and study aspirations,
and their views on community vs. city life. In looking to express identity and subjectivity [
69
],
youth meld their own cultural heritage with the influence of dominant, urban society [
72
]. In other

Land 2020,9, 406 19 of 25
words, a multitude of factors and perspectives can (and will) shape the choices and decisions that
youth make, and subsequently their propensity (or not) to invest in their communities despite the
chance to engage the global market through migration [75,76].
What might this mean for the community forestry sector in different global regions? A few years
ago, the anthropologist, Norman Schwartz, remarked: “It does appear that most youngsters no longer want
to live with/in the forests the way their parents did. However, we may be looking at the situation from the wrong
angle, since there are youngsters who want to co-exist with forests on their terms, rather than ours”. He was
making the point that communities need to engage their youth in open and honest conversations before
thinking through policies and initiatives designed to successfully involve young people in forestry and
forest work. Our work supports such a view, and not only in the context of CF but environmental
governance and stewardship more broadly [38,48,77].
In addition, while the need to better engage, involve, and empower youth in such activities is
becoming clear [
78
–
80
], capacities to do so can be limited or constrained (see [
38
,
81
,
82
]). While some
youth may be keen to act upon (perceived) stewardship responsibilities, they face barriers to do so [
74
,
83
].
Some of the most significant are tied to existing cultural norms and institutions, often entrenched [
83
],
and not always representative or inclusive of distributions of identity, power, and privilege across
community memberships [
53
,
84
]. Work in Mexico, Guatemala, and Peru has already shown us
that efforts to engage youth can be a catalyst for organisational and institutional renewal [
64
,
77
,
85
].
However, this may not be a universal outcome, with insights from other places showing us how
resistant to change community norms and institutions can be [52].
In considering new ways for youth to be involved in community activities, collectives will
necessarily enter a process of internal negotiation, through which they try to create forms of “service” and
engagement in which members can participate, and exercise citizenship, regardless of where they live,
how old they are, or the status that they hold. In this way, communities are challenged to develop a set
of internal normative structures that can provide meaning (and sense of representation) across member
profiles, including young people. Oaxaca, Mexico, provides an interesting case in point, where departure
from a strict custom of non-remunerated communal service has been controversial—altering as it does
a long-standing social contract between members and their community—yet perhaps inevitable once
a critical mass of community members become open to “other kinds of being” [see 84]. In the two
study communities from Oaxaca, a majority of older youth complained about having to meet (unpaid)
cargo and tequio responsibilities. It left several feeling conflicted. While the carrying out of such roles
constitute a service to the home community that they value, the impact on individual and family
livelihoods and wellbeing is often adverse: “Being a community member implies many responsibilities
across community life. If they give us a service to do, we have to fulfil it, and we have to make tequios and attend
assemblies. So sometimes, for a young person, it is not that the work is complicated, but it’s hard to fit everything
in
. . .
I am single, and it could be seen as an advantage because I have time to participate, but at the same time to
have so many responsibilities . . . it’s complicated” (Female, 28 years old, Analco).
What is clear is that creating the space and opportunities needed for youth to flourish within their
home communities will not be a quick, overnight process. The cultural norms that dictate how people
are viewed and treated by others, and incorporated into community life, do not change easily [
86
].
Similarly, efforts to engage youth in CF and other community-based initiatives should not be promoted
solely from the perspective of halting youth out-migration or to discourage youth from leaving.
Rather, we believe that it is about keeping youth connected to their places of origin, irrespective of
whether they remain rural residents, opt for life in the city, or leave with a plan to return “home” in
the future. Migration can drive change with the potential to transform rural, resource-dependent
communities [
61
,
87
], yet as a social phenomenon it expands the boundaries or social field of sending
communities as migrants create linkages back to their communities [
12
,
76
,
84
,
88
]. Thus, rather than
having to “decommonise” [
67
] under the pressures of demographic and social change, communities do
have the wherewithal to reconstruct local governance and craft new institutions for upwardly mobile

Land 2020,9, 406 20 of 25
memberships [
89
,
90
]; not least youth, whose decision-making is shaped by varied and often complex
motivations and aspirations [52,91].
5. Conclusions
It has been argued that local and Indigenous communities be given a leading role in environmental
governance as societies strive for more sustainable futures [
81
]. However, as rural populations undergo
demographic transitions, questions remain as to the ability of such communities to perform this
role. In particular, will enough young people remain active players in community- and territory-
making processes?
In the context of community forestry, the loss of young people (whether through out-migration
or because of limited interest in land-based livelihoods) poses a multidimensional challenge to
communities and the organisations that support them, and suggests that youth engagement and
empowerment may be critical to building sustainable CF futures. Yet, CF scholars, practitioners,
and donors have paid limited attention to youth–community–forest connections, including whether
current structures reflect the personal, professional, and shared aspirations of young people and offer
the kind of meaningful opportunities that they will take up. The research presented here contributes to
addressing this knowledge gap.
Across Asia, Africa, and the Americas, we found that while some differences emerged, there was
notable synergy across sites. Despite strong connections to their home communities, we found that a
majority of youth do envision their futures, at least for a time, away from the home village—as they
look to meet aspirations not always well matched with the current realities of community life and
economy, including those tied to forests. However, a minority of youth in most locations do want or
plan to stay, and a significant number are keen to settle long-term in their communities (if opportunities
allow). This suggests that a mass exodus of youth is by no means inevitable, and offers communities
hope for the future.
Yet as community leaders and CF practitioners propose forest- and land-based work as an engine
of local development, our work casts doubt on the assumption that a promise of forest jobs will
keep young people from leaving or encourage more to return. Rather, the research suggests that
communities first need to reach out to youth to better understand their motivations, expectations,
and ideas. Well-developed approaches, such as participatory action research and adaptive collaborative
management [
92
,
93
], offer pointers as to how this might be done. If opportunities can be identified
(and then developed) that reflect youth-held aspirations, and local institutions adapted to incentivise
and empower youth to take on active and significant roles in village, community and territorial life,
then more youth will be enticed to stay or return and to become true “agents of change” [
33
] in the
places that they still call “home”.
Supplementary Materials:
The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/11/406/s1,
Table S1: Overview of Main Workshop Activities; Table S2: Participant Questionnaire; Table S3: Key Background
Information on Workshop Locations and Participating Communities.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualisation, J.P.R., S.J.W., and C.M.S.; methodology, J.P.R. and C.M.S.; validation,
J.P.R. and C.M.S.; formal analysis, J.P.R., S.J.W. and C.M.S.; investigation, J.P.R. and C.M.S.; writing—original
draft preparation, J.P.R., S.J.W., and A.B.; writing—review and editing, J.P.R. and A.B.; visualisation, J.P.R. and
A.B.; supervision, J.P.R. and S.J.W.; project administration, J.P.R. and S.J.W.; funding acquisition, J.P.R. and S.J.W.
Authorship is limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work reported. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
Phase 1 research (youth visioning workshops and synthesis meeting) was made possible due to
funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) (Connection Grant, # 611-2016-0262),
and the Ford Foundation (grant administered by the Institute of International Education, under activity #
CNV3252010/FF12H10). Phase 2 research was made possible due to funding from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) (Insight Development Grant, # 430-2018-00007).
Acknowledgments:
We thank all the young people who participated in the visioning workshops, as well as
the community and non-governmental organisations and authorities who assisted in their organisation and
hosting. We thank colleagues (in no particular order) for their help in workshop design, workshop facilitation,

Land 2020,9, 406 21 of 25
literature searches, assistance in the field, and professional insights: Iain Davidson-Hunt, Shashank Kumar,
Scott Francisco, Fermin Sosa Perez, Michelle Sanchez Luja, Marlene Soriano, Julia Quaedvlieg, Iliana Monterroso,
Julio Zetina, Miriam Castillo, Birendra Karna, Leigh Fox, Hugo Asselin, David Bray, Dan Klooster, Yolanda
Lara, Francisco Chapela, Maria Paula Sarigumba, Maureen Reed, and Melissa (Missy) Rice. We thank the
University of Saskatchewan, Canada, for hosting a synthesis meeting involving the research team and collaborators
in August 2018. Lastly, we thank FLARE (Forests & Livelihoods: Assessment, Research, and Engagement)
(www.forestlivelihoods.org). The impetus for this work followed discussions by FLARE’s ‘The Future of Forest
Work and Communities’ Working Group in 2016 and 2017.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.
References
1.
Boillat, S.; Scarpa, F.M.; Robson, J.P.; Gasparri, I.; Aide, T.M.; Aguiar, A.P.D.; Anderson, L.O.; Batistella, M.;
Fonseca, M.G.; Futemma, C.; et al. Land system science in Latin America: Challenges and perspectives.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017,26, 37–46. [CrossRef]
2.
Rights and Resources Initiative. Securing Community Land Rights: Priorities & Opportunities to Advance
Climate & Sustainable Development Goals. 2017. Available online: https://rightsandresources.org/en/
publication/securing-community-land-rights-rri-brief/#.Wk40a1cSCf0 (accessed on 15 September 2020).
3.
Rights and Resources Initiative. Secure Indigenous Peoples and Community Land Rights as a Nature-Based
Solution to Climate Change. In UN Secretary General Climate Action Summit; Rights and Resources Initiative:
Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
4.
Gray, E.; Veit, P.; Altamirano, J.-C.; Ding, H.; Rozwalka, P.; Z
ú
ñiga, I.; Witkin, M.; Borger, F.G.; Lucchesi, A.;
Carvalho Pereda, P.; et al. The Economic Costs and Benefits of Securing Community Forest Tenure Evidence from
Brazil and Guatemala; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
5.
Persha, L.; Agrawal, A.; Chhatre, A. Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and
biodiversity conservation. Science 2011,331, 1606–1608. [CrossRef]
6.
Porter-Bolland, L.; Ellis, E.A.; Guariguata, M.R.; Ruiz-Mall
é
n, I.; Negrete-Yankelevich, S.; Reyes-Garc
í
a, V.
Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness
across the tropics. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012,268, 6–17. [CrossRef]
7.
Angelsen, A.; Jagger, P.; Babigumira, R.; Belcher, B.; Hogarth, N.J.; Bauch, S.; Wunder, S. Environmental
income and rural livelihoods: A global-comparative analysis. World Dev.
2014
,64, S12–S28. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
8.
Baynes, J.; Herbohn, J.; Smith, C.; Fisher, R.; Bray, D. Key factors which influence the success of community
forestry in developing countries. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015,35, 226–238. [CrossRef]
9.
Charnley, S.; Poe, M.R. Community forestry in theory and practice: Where are we now? Ann. Rev. Anthropol.
2007,36, 301. [CrossRef]
10.
Bray, D.B.; Duran, E.; Ramos, V.H.; Mas, J.F.; Velazquez, A.; McNab, R.B.; Barry, D.; Radachowsky, J. Tropical
deforestation, community forests, and protected areas in the Maya Forest. Ecol. Soc.
2008
,13, 18. [CrossRef]
11.
Hecht, S.B.; Yang, A.L.; Basnett, B.S.; Padoch, C.; Peluso, N.L. People in Motion, Forests in Transition: Trends in
Migration, Urbanization, and Remittances and Their Effects on Tropical Forests; Centre for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR); Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC): Bogor, Indonesia, 2015; Volume 142.
12.
Robson, J.P.; Klooster, D.; Hern
á
ndez-D
í
az, J. Communities Surviving Migration: Village Governance, Environment,
and Cultural Survival in Indigenous Mexico; Routledge/Earthscan: Abingdon, UK, 2019.
13.
Berdegu
é
, J.A.; Bebbington, A.J.; Rosada, T. The rural transformation. In International Development: Ideas,
Experience, and Prospects; Currie-Alder, B., Kanbur, R., Malone, D.M., Medhora, R., Eds.; Oxford University
Press: Oxford, UK, 2014.
14.
Fairbairn, M.; Fox, J.; Isakson, S.R.; Levien, M.; Peluso, N.; Razavi, S.; Scoones, I.; Sivaramakrishnan, K.
Introduction: New directions in agrarian political economy. J. Peas. Stud. 2014,41, 653–666. [CrossRef]
15.
Kay, C. The agrarian question and the neoliberal rural transformation in Latin America. Eur. Rev. Latin Am.
Carib. Stud. 2015, 73–83. [CrossRef]
16.
Kay, C. Reflections on Latin American rural studies in the neoliberal globalization period: A new rurality?
Dev. Chang. 2008,39, 915–943. [CrossRef]

Land 2020,9, 406 22 of 25
17.
Haggblade, S.; Hazell, P.B.; Reardon, T. (Eds.) Transforming the Rural Nonfarm Economy: Opportunities and
Threats in the Developing World; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
18.
United Nations; Department of Economic and Social Affairs; Population Division. World Population Prospects:
The 2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables; Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248; United Nations:
New York, NY, USA, 2017.
19.
Anr
í
quez, G.; Stloukal, L. Rural population change in developing countries: Lessons for policymaking.
Eur. View 2008,7, 309–317. [CrossRef]
20.
Chhatre, A.; Agrawal, A. Forest commons and local enforcement. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2008
,
105, 13286–13291. [CrossRef]
21.
Macqueen, D.; Campbell, J. Prosperity in Place: Meaningful Work for Mobile Youth that Enhances Forest Landscapes;
FAO and IIED: London, UK, 2020.
22.
Kluve, J.; Puerto, S.; Robalino, D.; Romero, J.M.; Rother, F.; Stöterau, J.; Weidenkaff, F.; Witte, M. Interventions
to improve the labour market outcomes of youth: A systematic review of training, entrepreneurship
promotion, employment services, and subsidized employment interventions. Campbell Syst. Rev.
2017
,
12, 1–288.
23. Antinori, C.; Bray, D.B. Community forest enterprises as entrepreneurial firms: Economic and institutional
perspectives from Mexico. World Dev. 2005,33, 1529–1543. [CrossRef]
24.
Klooster, D.; Taravella, R.; Hodgdon, B.D. Striking the Balance: Adapting Community Forest Enterprise to
Meet Market Demands. A Case Study of TIP Muebles (Oaxaca, Mexico); Community Forest Case Studies 7/10;
Rainforest Alliance: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
25.
Hajjar, R.; Oldekop, J.A.; Cronkleton, P.; Etue, E.; Newton, P.; Russel, A.; Agrawal, A. The data not collected
on community forestry. Conserv. Biol. 2016,30, 1357–1362. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26.
Mart
í
nez-Bautista, H.; Zamudio S
á
nchez, F.J.; Alvarado-Segura, A.A.; Ram
í
rez Maldonado, H.; Fuentes
Salinas, M. Factores que determinan el
é
xito o fracaso de proyectos forestales comunitarios con financiamiento
gubernamental en México. Bosque Valdivia 2015,36, 363–374. [CrossRef]
27.
Evans, K.; Flores, S.; Larson, A.M. Participatory Monitoring in Forest Communities to Improve Governance,
Accountability and Women’s Participation. Small-Scale For. 2019,18, 165–187. [CrossRef]
28.
Sunderland, T.; Achdiawan, R.; Angelsen, A.; Babigumira, R.; Ickowitz, A.; Paumgarten, F.; Shively, G.
Challenging perceptions about men, women, and forest product use: A global comparative study. World Dev.
2014,64, S56–S66. [CrossRef]
29.
Quaedvlieg, J. Las Relaciones de G
é
nero y el Role de la Mujer en el Desarrollo Socio Ambiental de Madre de Dios;
Consorcio Madre de Dios: Madre de Dios, Peru, 2015; Unpublished Report.
30.
Cleaver, F. Development through Bricolage: Rethinking Institutions for Natural Resource Management; Routledge:
London, UK, 2017.
31.
Asher, K.; Varley, G. Gender in the jungle: A critical assessment of women and gender in current (2014–2016)
forestry research. Inter. For. Rev. 2018,20, 149–159. [CrossRef]
32.
Lastarria-Cornhiel, S.; Behrman, J.A.; Meinzen-Dick, R.; Quisumbing, A.R. Gender equity and land: Toward
secure and effective access for rural women. In Gender in Agriculture; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
2014; pp. 117–144.
33.
Ginwright, S.; James, T. From assets to agents of change: Social justice, organizing, and youth development.
New Dir. Youth Dev. 2002,96, 27–46. [CrossRef]
34.
McCune, N.; Rosset, P.M.; Cruz Salazar, T.; Morales, H.; Sald
í
var Moreno, A. The long road: Rural youth,
farming and agroecological formación in Central America. Mind Cult. Act. 2017,24, 183–198. [CrossRef]
35.
White, B. Generational dynamics in agriculture: Reflections on rural youth and farming futures. Cah. Agric.
2015,24, 330–334. [CrossRef]
36.
MacDonald, J.P.; Harper, S.L.; Cunsolo Willox, A.; Edge, V.L.; Rigolet Inuit Community Government.
A necessary voice: Climate change and lived experiences of youth in Rigolet, Nunatsiavut, Canada.
Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013,23, 360–371. [CrossRef]
37.
Smith, J.G.; DuBois, B.; Krasny, M.E. Framing for resilience through social learning impacts of environmental
stewardship on youth in post-disturbance communities. Sustain Sci. 2016,11, 441–453. [CrossRef]
38.
Zurba, M.; Trimble, M. Youth as the inheritors of collaboration: Crises and factors that influence participation
of the next generation in natural resource management. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014,42, 78–87. [CrossRef]

Land 2020,9, 406 23 of 25
39.
Macneil, C.; Brown, H.C.P.; Sonwa, D.J. Investigations of the livelihood strategies of young men and women
in forested landscapes of eastern Cameroon. Int. For. Rev. 2017,19, 437–448.
40.
Browne, L.P.; Garst, B.A.; Bialeschki, D. Engaging youth in environmental sustainability: Impact of Camp 2
Grow Program. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2011,29, 70–85.
41.
Nursey-Bray, M.; Palmer, R. Country, climate change adaptation and colonisation: Insights from an
Indigenous adaptation planning process, Australia. Heliyon 2018,4, e00565. [CrossRef]
42.
Marquardt, K.; Pain, A.; Ojha, H. Shifting regimes of management and uses of forests: What might REDD+
implementation mean for community forestry? Evidence from Nepal. For. Pol. Econ. 2018,92, 1–10.
43.
Newton, P.; Schaap, B.; Fournier, M.; Cornwall, M.; Rosenbach, D.W.; DeBoer, J.; Agrawal, A. Community
forest management and REDD+.For. Pol. Econ. 2015,56, 27–37. [CrossRef]
44.
Bayrak, M.M.; Marafa, L.M. REDD+as a Vehicle for Community-Based Forest Management? Critical Insights
from Vietnam. Small-Scale For. 2020,19, 57–81. [CrossRef]
45.
Robson, J.P.; Klooster, D.J. Migration and a new landscape of forest use and conservation. Environ. Cons.
2019,46, 1–8. [CrossRef]
46.
Aquino-Moreschi, A.; Contreras-Pastrana, I. Community, young people and generation: Contesting
subjectivities in the Sierra Norte de Oaxaca. Latin Am. J. Soc. Sci. Child. Youth 2016,14, 463–475.
47.
Howitt, R. Sustainable indigenous futures in remote Indigenous areas: Relationships, processes and failed
state approaches. GeoJournal 2012,77, 817–828. [CrossRef]
48. Clendenning, J. Approaching Rural Young People; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2019; Volume 1.
49.
Bray, D.B.; Merino-P
é
rez, L.; Negreros-Castillo, P.; Segura-Warnholtz, G.; Torres-Rojo, J.M.; Vester, H.F.
Mexico’s community-managed forests as a global model for sustainable landscapes. Conserv. Biol.
2003
,
17, 672–677. [CrossRef]
50.
Trivelli, C.; Morel, J. Rural youth inclusion, empowerment and participation. J. Develop. Stud.
2019
.
[CrossRef]
51.
Theodori, A.E.; Theodori, G.L. Perceptions of community and place and the migration intentions of at-risk
youth in rural areas. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 2014,29, 5.
52.
Robson, J.P.; Wilson, S.J.; Francisco, S.; Rice, M. The Future of Forest Work and Communities: Learning from Youth
Engagement Workshops in Asia, Africa, and the Americas; University of Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, SK, Canada,
2019; Unpublished Report.
53.
Baker, M.J. The Kuhls of Kangra: Community-Managed Irrigation in the Western Himalaya; University of
Washington Press: Seattle, WA, USA; London, UK, 2005.
54.
Klooster, D. The impact of transnational migration on commons management among Mexican Indigenous
Communities. J. Lat. Am. Geogr. 2013,12, 57–86. [CrossRef]
55.
Ostrom, E.; Ahn, T.K. The meaning of social capital and its link to collective action. In Handbook of Social
Capital: The Troika of Sociology, Political Science and Economics; Edward Elgar: Northampton, MA, USA, 2009;
pp. 17–35.
56.
Huber, M.S.Q.; Frommeyer, J.; Weisenbach, A.; Sazama, J. Giving youth a voice in their own community and
personal development. In Community Youth Development; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 297–323.
57.
Zeldin, S.; Christens, B.D.; Powers, J.L. The psychology and practice of youth-adult partnership: Bridging
generations for youth development and community change. Am. J. Community Psychol.
2013
,51, 385–397.
[CrossRef]
58.
Ribot, J.C.; Chhatre, A.; Lankina, T. Introduction: Institutional choice and recognition in the formation and
consolidation of local democracy. Conserv. Soc. 2008,6, 1.
59. Ostrom, E. Understanding Institutional Diversity; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2005.
60.
McCay, B.J. Emergence of institutions for the commons: Contexts, situations, and events. In The Drama of
the Commons; Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolšak, N., Stern, P.C., Stonich, S., Weber, E.U., Eds.; National Research
Council; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
61.
Robson, J.P.; Klooster, D.J.; Worthen, H.; Hernandez-Diaz, J. Migration and agrarian transformation in
Indigenous Mexico. J. Agrar. Chang. 2018,18, 299–323. [CrossRef]
62.
Campbell, D.; Erbstein, N. Engaging youth in community change: Three key implementation principles.
Community Dev. 2012,43, 63–79. [CrossRef]
63.
Zetina, J.; McNab, R.B.; Castillo, M. Youth, forests and community in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Pet
é
n,
Guatemala. World Dev. Perspect. 2019,16, 100142. [CrossRef]

Land 2020,9, 406 24 of 25
64.
De Koning, J.; Cleaver, F. Institutional bricolage in community forestry: An agenda for future research.
In Forest-People Interfaces; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2012;
pp. 277–290.
65.
Garnett, S.T.; Burgess, N.D.; Fa, J.E.; Fern
á
ndez-Llamazares, A.; Mon
á
r, Z.; Robinson, C.J.; Watson, J.E.M.;
Zander, K.K.; Austin, B.; Brondizio, E.S.; et al. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous
lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 2018,1, 369–374. [CrossRef]
66. Berkes, F. Revising the commons paradigm. J. Nat. Res. Resour. Policy 2009,1, 261–264. [CrossRef]
67.
Nayak, P.K.; Berkes, F. Commonisation and decommonisation: Understanding the processes of change in
Chilika Lagoon, India. Conserv. Soc. 2011,9, 132–145. [CrossRef]
68.
Agrawal, A.; Ribot, J. Are Ostrom’s design principles sufficient for design? In Remembering Elinor Ostrom:
Her Work and its Contribution to the Theory and Practice of Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource
Management; Robson, J.P., Davidson-Hunt, I.J., Delaney, A., Lichtenstein, G., Magole, L., Mead, A.T.P.,
Eds.; Policy Matters Issue 19; IUCN Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy: Gland,
Switzerland, 2014.
69.
Farrugia, D. The mobility imperative for rural youth: The structural, symbolic and non-representational
dimensions rural youth mobilities. J. Youth Stud. 2016,19, 836–851. [CrossRef]
70.
Barnett, R.V.; Brennan, M.A. Integrating youth into community development: Implications for policy
planning and program evaluation. J. Youth Dev. 2006,1, 5–19. [CrossRef]
71.
Holden, S.T.; Tilahun, M. Youth as Environmental Custodians: A Potential Tragedy or a Sustainable Business and
Livelihood Model? Norwegian University of Life Sciences: AS, Norway, 2016.
72.
Aquino Moreschi, A. Cultura, genero, y generaciones en los migrantes. In La Migraci
ó
n y Sus Efectos en la
Cultura; Castro Neiro, Y., Ed.; D.F.: CONACULTA: Mexico City, Mexico, 2012.
73.
Robson, J.P.; Berkes, F. How does out-migration affect community institutions? A study of two indigenous
municipalities in Oaxaca, Mexico. Hum. Ecol. 2011,39, 179–190. [CrossRef]
74.
Robson, J.P.; Asselin, H.; Castillo, M.; Fox, L.; Francisco, S.; Karna, B.; Soriano, M. Engaging youth in
conversations about community and forests: Methodological reflections from Asia, Africa, and the Americas.
World Dev. Perspect. 2019,16. [CrossRef]
75.
Robson, J.P. The Impact of Rural to Urban Migration on Forest Commons in Oaxaca, Mexico. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2010.
76.
Stephen, L. Transborder Lives: Indigenous Oaxacans in Mexico, California and Oregon; Duke University Press:
Durham, NC, USA, 2006.
77.
Robson, J.P.; P
é
rez, F.S.; Luja, M.S. Exploring youth-community-forest linkages in rural Mexico.
World Dev. Perspect. 2019,16, 100140. [CrossRef]
78.
CCUNESCO (Canadian Commission for UNESCO). Climate Change, Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship:
What Are UNESCO and Its Networks’ Roles? Concept note prepared for the 57th Annual General Meeting of the Canadian
Commission for UNESCO; Canadian Commission for UNESCO: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2017.
79.
ICE [Indigenous Circle of Experts]. We Rise Together: Achieving Pathway to Canada Target 1 through the
Creation of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas in the Spirit and Practice of Reconciliation; Queen’s Printer:
Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2018.
80.
Restoule, P.; Dokis, C.; Kelley, B. Working to protect the water: Stories of connection and transformation.
In Indigenous Research: Theories, Practices, and Relationships; McGregor, D., Restoule, J.-P., Johnston, R., Eds.;
Toronto and Vancouver; Canadian Scholars: Toronto, ON, Canada; Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2018; pp. 219–239.
81.
Brondizio, E.S.; Le Tourneau, F.-M. Environmental governance for all: Involving local and indigenous
populations is key to effective governance. Science 2016,352, 1272–1273. [CrossRef]
82.
Courtois, V.; Nitah, S. Indigenous-led conservation offers a path to global leadership and reconciliation.
Star. 2018. Available online: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2018/01/23/indigenous-led-
conservation-offers-a-path-to-global-leadership-and-reconciliation.html (accessed on 16 September 2020).
83.
Nightingale, A. Commoning for inclusion? Commons, exclusion, property and socio-natural becomings.
Int. J. Commons 2019,13, 16–35. [CrossRef]
84.
Robson, J.P. Indigenous communities, migrant organizations, and the ephemeral nature of translocality.
Latin Am. Res. Rev. 2019,54, 103–120. [CrossRef]
85.
Quaedvlieg, J.; Merediz, C.; Roca, M.G.; Diaz, K.M.; Suarez, E.C.; Condori, M.Z. Youth perspectives in rapidly
changing landscapes: Lessons from Peru. World Dev. Perspect. 2019,16, 100143. [CrossRef]

Land 2020,9, 406 25 of 25
86.
Ensor, J.; Berger, R. Community-Based Adaptation and Culture in Theory and Practice; Cambridge University
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
87.
White, B. Agriculture and the generation problem: Rural youth, employment and the future of farming.
IDS Bull. 2012,43, 9–19. [CrossRef]
88.
Fox, J.; Rivera-Salgado, G. (Eds.) Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the United States; Center for U.S.-Mexican
Studies; UCSD/Center for Comparative Immigration Studies; UCSD: San Diego, CA, USA, 2004.
89.
Tacoli, C.; Mabala, R. Exploring mobility and migration in the context of rural—Urban linkages: Why gender
and generation matter. Environ. Urban. 2010,22, 389–395. [CrossRef]
90.
Chiang, Y.; Hannum, E.C.; Kao, G. It’s not just about the money: Gender and youth migration from rural
China. Chin. Soc. Rev. 2015,47, 177–201. [CrossRef]
91.
de-Brauw, A. Rural youth: Determinants of migration throughout the world. IFAD Res. Ser.
2019
,55, COV1.
92.
Evans, K.; Cronkleton, P.; Addoah, T.; Zida, M.; Basefeli, S.; Afagachie, K. Lessons Learned from Participatory
Action Research in WAFFI; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2019; Volume 254.
93.
McDougall, C.; Prabhu, R. Kusumanto. In Participatory Action Research on Adaptive Collaborative Management
of Community Forests: A Multi-Country Model; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2003.
Publisher’s Note:
MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).