Ecological restoration legitimacy and scaling: socio-cultural microcosms as structural determinants

Abstract

Ecological restoration is widely promoted as a scalable response to climate change, biodiversity loss, and land degradation. Yet many technically feasible initiatives do not expand beyond pilot sites or endure after external support ends. This conceptual analysis examines how localized configurations of norms, authority, identity, hierarchy, and tenure shape restoration legitimacy and restoration scaling. We define a socio-cultural microcosm as an intervention-specific configuration of these dimensions that filters who may authorize ecological change, how costs and benefits are distributed, and whether an intervention fits local meanings and livelihood systems. A structured comparative synthesis of 12 case studies from Africa and South Asia identifies five recurrent dimensions: sacred governance, gender norms, livelihood identities, social hierarchies, and customary tenure. It is observed that these dimensions often act jointly. For example, gender exclusion has different scaling effects when combined with insecure tree tenure in the Sahel than when combined with formal participation rules and committee hierarchies in Nepal. The concept differs from the social-ecological systems framework, institutional bricolage, and dynamic sustainabilities by focusing specifically on the local configuration that converts an otherwise feasible restoration intervention into adoption, adaptation, selective compliance, resistance, or durable stewardship. The paper concludes with a diagnostic framework for restoration planners. Restoration scaling should therefore be treated as repeated institutional alignment across places, not as the replication of a technical package only.

1 Introduction

Ecological restoration has become a central element of global environmental policy. The Bonn Challenge, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, the New York Declaration on Forests, and AFR100 present restoration as a pathway for climate mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity recovery, and improved livelihoods (Aronson and Alexander, 2013; Perring et al., 2020; Chazdon et al., 2016). Advances in restoration ecology, spatial planning, and finance have also encouraged expectations that successful interventions can be expanded across landscapes.

A persistent gap remains between these ambitions and realized outcomes. Projects may perform well at pilot sites but show weaker adoption, maintenance, or legitimacy when expanded. Technical performance, incentives, institutional capacity, and policy support matter, but they do not fully explain this pattern (Mansourian and Parrotta, 2018; Löfqvist et al., 2023).

Restoration interventions enter landscapes that are already structured by history, authority, identity, and unequal access to land and resources. Land may be an ecological substrate and an economic asset, but it may also carry spiritual obligations, ancestral claims, and political meanings (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Biersack and Greenberg, 2006; Li, 2007). Local actors therefore evaluate restoration not only by expected ecological or economic benefits, but also by its effects on autonomy, recognition, risk, and social order (West et al., 2006; Wainaina et al., 2023).

Political ecology, environmental anthropology, critical institutionalism, and social-ecological systems research already show that environmental action is socially embedded. The unresolved issue is analytical specificity: how can a restoration study identify the particular local configuration that makes an intervention legitimate in one place but contested in another? This paper addresses that problem by treating socio-cultural conditions as interacting determinants of restoration decisions rather than as a residual category of “context” (Cleaver, 2002; Ostrom, 2009; Cleaver and de Koning, 2015).

We use socio-cultural microcosm to mean a localized, intervention-specific configuration of norms, recognized authorities, livelihood identities, social hierarchies, and tenure relations. The configuration acts as a legitimacy filter. It shapes who can authorize ecological change, whose knowledge counts, who carries costs, who receives benefits, and whether the proposed change is interpreted as stewardship, risk, or dispossession (Peluso and Watts, 2001; Ribot and Peluso, 2003).

The analysis compares case evidence from sacred forests, agroforestry systems, community forestry, pastoral rangelands, terraced farming, and customary-tenure landscapes in Africa and South Asia. The comparison uses the same variables across cases and traces four observable pathways: adoption, local adaptation, selective compliance, and resistance or institutional fragility.

The paper makes three contributions. First, it specifies restoration legitimacy as a condition that precedes durable adoption. Second, it provides a configurational framework for comparing how five socio-cultural dimensions interact across cases. Third, it reframes restoration scaling as repeated alignment with heterogeneous systems of authority, tenure, identity, and risk rather than as the simple diffusion of a standardized intervention.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 develops the concept and explains the evidence-selection and comparative-synthesis procedure. Section 3 presents the thematic evidence along the case studies selected. Section 4 discusses theoretical and practical implications. Sections 5–6 present the concluding thoughts and limitations and future research.

2 Conceptual and analytical approach

2.1 Conceptual framework: Restoration scaling and socio-cultural microcosms

2.1.1 Restoration beyond technical rationality

Many restoration programs assume that land users will adopt a practice when expected benefits, incentives, information, or regulatory pressure exceed perceived costs (Hounkpati et al., 2024). This assumption is useful for some decisions, but it is incomplete when land-use choices are embedded in collective rights, moral obligations, and contested authority.

Anthropological and political-ecology research shows that land-use decisions are shaped by moral economies, cosmologies, and historically produced relations of power as well as by material returns (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Agrawal and Gibson, 1999; Robbins, 2020). Land can express kinship, belonging, and political legitimacy. Decisions about restoration, enclosure, grazing, or harvesting may therefore concern recognition and authority as much as productivity or perceived material outcomes.

Restoration is consequently a ‘political’ intervention. It can redefine property, restrict access, elevate some forms of knowledge, and change who is entitled to govern a landscape (Fairhead and Leach, 1996; Peluso and Watts, 2001; Ribot and Peluso, 2003). Projects may reproduce inequality when externally defined categories of degradation and improvement displace local accounts of stewardship or ignore historical dispossession (Ferguson, 1994; Escobar, 1998; Fairhead et al., 2012).

Sacred landscapes make this point especially clear. Sacred groves and taboo forests are governed through ritual authority, prohibitions, and obligations that can protect biodiversity but can also limit which ecological modifications are permissible (Bhagwat and Rutte, 2006; Tengö et al., 2007; Ormsby and Bhagwat, 2010; Kala, 2011). Restoration in these settings may be welcomed as repair or rejected as interference, depending on who authorizes it and whether it respects ritual boundaries.

Restoration interventions are therefore judged by their effects on identity, autonomy, spiritual order, and social hierarchy as well as by measurable ecological outcomes. New access rules can be interpreted as violations of customary authority even when they promise environmental benefits (Brosius, 1999; West et al., 2006; Li, 2014).

This perspective does not deny technical or financial constraints. It shows that their effects are mediated by social institutions. A technically effective practice may remain unused, be selectively adopted, or be maintained only while external enforcement continues if it lacks local authorization and distributive legitimacy.

2.1.2 Socio-cultural microcosms

A socio-cultural microcosm is the localized configuration through which a specific restoration proposal is interpreted and acted upon. The term draws an analogy with ecological microclimates, but it does not describe a small or isolated culture. Its analytical boundary is the restoration decision arena: the actors, authorities, rights, meanings, and livelihood practices that become relevant when a proposed intervention changes land or resource use. The microcosm may operate at community, landscape, or institutional level and may cut across administrative boundaries.

The concept focuses on mechanisms that conventional planning tools often leave implicit. Land-suitability maps, carbon estimates, and cost-benefit models can identify where an intervention is biophysically or economically plausible, but they do not by themselves show who can authorize change, whose rights are at risk, or which meanings make the change acceptable (Leachet al., 2010; Löfqvist et al., 2023).

Five dimensions are at the centre of this analysis: sacred governance, gender norms, livelihood identities, social hierarchies, and customary tenure. These dimensions are analytically distinct but empirically interdependent. A socio-cultural microcosm is present when at least two dimensions combine to generate a mechanism that affects adoption, adaptation, selective compliance, resistance, or long-term maintenance. The concept should not be used as a synonym for culture, context, or any isolated social constraint.

The concept is related to, but not interchangeable with, three cognate frameworks. Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework provides a nested diagnostic vocabulary for resource systems, governance systems, actors, and interactions (Ostrom, 2009; McGinnis and Ostrom, 2014). Institutional bricolage explains how people assemble and adapt institutions from existing social materials, including unequal relations of authority (Cleaver, 2002; Cleaver and de Koning, 2015). Dynamic sustainabilities emphasizes uncertainty, plural problem framings, power, and competing pathways of change (Leach et al., 2010). Socio-cultural microcosms do not replace these frameworks. They add an intervention-specific unit of comparison: the configuration that converts a proposed restoration practice into a locally authorized, modified, resisted, or fragile pathway and therefore determines whether the practice is transferable across places, i.e., scalable.

Together, the five dimensions form a configuration that filters restoration decisions. The same intervention may be authorized in one place, modified in another, and rejected elsewhere because the configuration of authority, identity, hierarchy, and tenure differs. What fails to scale is not only the practice itself but the legitimacy conditions that sustained it in the original site.

Figure 1 summarizes this argument. It contrasts a technical-rational model of adoption with a socio-cultural microcosm perspective and shows how both feed into pathways of adoption, negotiation, selective compliance, or resistance. The figure is a heuristic; it does not imply that technical and socio-cultural processes are separate in practice.

FIGURE 1

2.2 Evidence identification and comparative synthesis

This article uses a structured, purposive literature synthesis for theory building rather than a systematic review for effect estimation. The procedure follows guidance for transparent literature reviews, thematic synthesis, and framework analysis (Thomas and Harden, 2008; Gale et al., 2013; Snyder, 2019). Searches combined “ecological restoration,” “forest landscape restoration,” “regreening,” “community forestry,” or “land rehabilitation” with terms for each dimension and region, including sacred forest or grove, ritual or taboo, gender and tree tenure, caste, pastoral mobility, customary tenure, agroforestry, Konso, Gedeo, Madagascar, Nepal, Sahel, Maasai, Barabaig, and Kaya. Searches used Google Scholar and publisher databases, followed by backward and forward citation chaining from key reviews and case studies.

The analysis focuses on analytical generalization where we checked whether the same mechanism appears across different settings, not whether a numerical association can be generalized to a population. Contrasting cases were used to identify boundary conditions and to avoid treating any single cultural form as uniformly enabling or constraining restoration. This choice of analytical approach fits the article’s conceptual purpose but limits claims about completeness and causal effect size.

2.3 Case selection and analytical boundaries

Cases were selected through maximum-variation sampling. They span sacred forests, agroforestry landscapes, community forestry, pastoral rangelands, customary-tenure systems, and terraced farming. They also vary in the dominant source of legitimacy: ritual authority, gendered institutions, livelihood identity, caste or elite hierarchy, tenure, and local risk management.

The cases are comparable because each contains a restoration-relevant decision in which local institutions shape what ecological change is authorized and maintained. The evidence is not equally direct. The Sahel and Nepal include explicit restoration or regreening programs. Sacred groves, Konso terraces, and Gedeo agroforestry are partly analytical analogues that show how established governance systems enable or constrain ecological change. This difference is reported as an evidence limitation rather than treated as equivalent proof.

Figure 2 maps the ten case settings and their regional distribution. The map is descriptive and does not imply national coverage or representativeness. The cases were selected for theoretical contrast, not geographic balance.

FIGURE 2

Table 1 provides the common comparative matrix for ecological setting, socio-cultural institutions, adoption barrier, scaling mechanism, and design implication.

3 Comparative evidence synthesis

This section reports the case evidence using the common variables defined in Section 2. Interpretive claims about theoretical novelty and restoration scaling are developed in Section 4.

3.1 Sacred governance and restoration legitimacy

3.1.1 Madagascar: Spirits, fady, and forest boundaries

In Madagascar, sacred forests governed by fady (taboos) represent one of the most extensively documented forms of indigenous environmental governance. Fady are moral prohibitions associated with ancestral spirits, burial sites, and lineage histories, and they regulate who may enter forests, which species may be used, and what forms of landscape modification are permissible (Tengö et al., 2007; Mölkänen, 2025). Empirical studies consistently show that sacred forests protected by fady are often better conserved than surrounding landscapes, functioning as de facto biodiversity refugia in regions characterized by extensive deforestation and forest degradation, and weak formal enforcement (Tengö et al., 2007).

From a restoration perspective, these sacred forests complicate dominant assumptions about land availability and social acceptance. While conservation actors may interpret the persistence of forest cover as an opportunity for expansion or enrichment planting, local communities often distinguish sharply between protection and intervention. Restoration actions such as assisted natural regeneration, boundary tree growing, or the introduction of non-traditional or commercially valuable species can be perceived as spiritual transgressions if they alter recognized ancestral geographies or ritual spaces (Horning, 2008). In such contexts, conservation success does not imply consent for ecological modification.

Moreover, attempts by external actors to instrumentalize taboo systems—by encouraging the extension of fady to new areas or species for restoration objectives—have been shown to undermine legitimacy and provoke resistance. Taboos are not policy tools but embedded moral institutions that derive authority from ancestral relationships and social memory (Tengö et al., 2007). Where restoration initiatives fail to engage ritual authorities or elders who mediate spiritual legitimacy, adoption may be limited to superficial compliance or outright rejection.

Across the Madagascar sources, the recurring mechanism is ritual authorization. Restoration is more likely to be accepted when elders and ritual authorities define permissible sites, species, and practices. It becomes spatially bounded, selectively implemented, or resisted when project maps override ancestral geographies. The evidence is strong for forest governance and weaker for long-term outcomes of named restoration projects.

3.1.2 India: sacred groves and shifting religious authority

India’s sacred groves have long been recognized as culturally protected forest patches that harbor significant biodiversity within intensively cultivated landscapes (Chandran and Hughes, 2000). Governed historically by localized folk deities, ritual specialists, and customary sanctions, sacred groves often prohibit extraction of Non-timber Forest Products (NTFPs), hunting, or tree cutting, creating conditions conducive to long-term forest persistence (Kent, 2013). In restoration contexts, sacred groves, including those in India, are frequently cited as reference ecosystems or seed sources for surrounding degraded and deforested lands.

However, peer-reviewed scholarship emphasizes that sacred grove governance is neither static nor uniform. Religious transformations—particularly the replacement of folk deity systems with institutionalized temple worship—have altered authority structures governing sacred groves (Ormsby and Bhagwat, 2010). These shifts have direct implications for restoration, as temple committees or religious trusts may prioritize infrastructure development, pilgrimage access, or ritual construction over ecological integrity.

In many regions, roads, shrines, and buildings have been constructed within sacred groves with strong religious legitimacy, although such developments fragment habitats and degrade ecological function (Ormsby and Bhagwat, 2010). Restoration initiatives that propose fencing, access restrictions, invasive species removal, or regeneration may face resistance if they conflict with contemporary religious priorities or challenge the authority of new institutional custodians.

The Indian evidence shows that sacred governance interacts with social hierarchy and institutional change. Folk custodians, priests, temple committees, and caste-based roles may authorize different forms of ecological change. The scaling outcome is therefore conditional rather than uniformly positive: sacred status can protect forest cover, but new religious authorities can also legitimize roads, buildings, or access changes that conflict with restoration goals (Ormsby and Bhagwat, 2010; Kala, 2011).

3.1.3 Kenya: Sacredness and protection of the Kaya forests

The Kaya forests of coastal Kenya are sacred sites and biodiversity refugia governed through Mijikenda custodianship, customary rules, and statutory heritage institutions. Burial sites, ritual obligations, and restricted access support protection, while land-use pressure and coordination gaps create tension between customary and state authority (Nyamweru and Kimaru, 2008; Habel et al., 2023). The relevant mechanism is plural authorization: restoration or protection measures require agreement across custodians, community institutions, and public agencies. Evidence concerns conservation and co-management more directly than restoration scaling.

3.2 Gender norms, labor, and institutional exclusion

3.2.1 The Sahel: Women, tenure, and time poverty in restoration adoption

Across the Sahel, restoration initiatives increasingly rely on agroforestry, farmer-managed natural regeneration (FMNR), and soil and water conservation (SWC) as strategies for climate change adaptation and land rehabilitation. Large-scale regreening in Niger demonstrates that such approaches can restore tree cover and productivity when local institutions support long-term management (Partey et al., 2018). However, gendered tenure systems and labor relations shape who can adopt and benefit from these restoration pathways.

Women play critical roles in agricultural production, fuelwood collection, and food provisioning, yet their rights to land and trees are often mediated through male relatives or customary authorities (Djoudi et al., 2016). This limits women’s authority to plant, protect, or harvest trees, particularly where tree tenure is contested or linked to land ownership. Even where women contribute labor to restoration, benefits from restored trees—such as fruit, income, nontimber forest products (NTFPs), agroforestry tree products (ATPs), timber, or fodder—may accrue disproportionately to men. Women are generally overlooked in the natural resources management sector when it comes to the benefits of such interventions (Duguma et al., 2022).

Time poverty further constrains adoption. Restoration activities such as constructing stone lines, digging planting pits, or managing tree regrowth require sustained labor inputs. Women’s disproportionate responsibility for unpaid care work reduces their capacity to engage in labor-intensive restoration activities, particularly when benefits are uncertain or delayed (Doss et al., 2018). Without secure tenure or guaranteed benefit-sharing, incentives to adopt restoration at scale remain weak.

The scaling outcome is spatially and socially uneven. Regreening may expand on plots controlled by men while remaining limited on land managed by women. The mechanism is not gender alone: insecure tree tenure combines with labor demands, delayed benefits, and gendered livelihood responsibilities. Training without changes in decision rights and benefit control is therefore unlikely to remove the barrier.

3.2.2 Nepal: community forestry and the inclusion debate

Nepal’s community forestry program is widely cited as a global benchmark for decentralized forest governance and large-scale restoration. Through the institutionalization of Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs), degraded forestlands have undergone measurable regeneration, with improved forest cover and associated ecosystem services across extensive areas. This has positioned Nepal as a key reference case for governance-driven restoration models and participatory conservation (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999).

Yet a substantial body of scholarship challenges the progress narratives by demonstrating that ecological recovery has often coexisted with persistent institutional exclusion. Feminist political ecology has shown that CFUG governance structures frequently reproduce gendered hierarchies, limiting women’s substantive influence despite their central reliance on forest resources for fuelwood, fodder, and subsistence needs (Agarwal, 2001). Representation policies mandating women’s presence on CFUG committees have not consistently translated into decision-making authority, suggesting that formal inclusion mechanisms are insufficient to alter underlying power relations.

Empirical studies highlight that exclusion is produced through both formal and informal institutional practices. Meeting norms, literacy requirements, and procedural expectations privilege male participation, while women’s time poverty and domestic labor burdens constrain engagement. Moreover, key negotiations often occur outside formal assemblies in male-dominated networks, undermining the practical significance of committee representation (Nightingale, 2002). Recent evidence confirms the persistence of these dynamics, showing that women remain underrepresented in leadership positions and marginalized in agenda-setting and rule enforcement, even as community forestry institutions evolve (Baral et al., 2024). These findings indicate that gender exclusion is not merely residual but structurally embedded within governance processes.

Donor-driven inclusion mandates may unintentionally deepen this contradiction when they emphasize numerical indicators of participation over institutional transformation. In such cases, women’s involvement risks becoming tokenistic: responsibilities and workloads increase without corresponding gains in authority, benefit access, or bargaining power (Cleaver, 2012). From a restoration perspective, this is not simply an equity concern but a durability challenge. Restoration depends on the legitimacy of rules governing access, harvesting, and protection; institutions that systematically marginalize key users may weaken compliance, intensify conflict, and undermine long-term stewardship outcomes.

Nepal, therefore, presents a different interaction from the Sahel. Forest restoration can scale biophysically while gendered committee hierarchies and forest-dependent livelihoods produce unequal voice and benefits. Formal representation may improve access to meetings without changing agenda-setting power. The outcome is not non-adoption but socially uneven and potentially fragile stewardship (Agarwal, 2001; Agarwal, 2010; Baral et al., 2024).

3.3 Pastoral identity, mobility, and restoration conflict

3.3.1 Kenya and Tanzania: Maasai and Barabaig pastoralism

Among Maasai and Barabaig pastoralists in Kenya and Tanzania, cattle are not simply productive assets but central to social capital, moral identity, and political legitimacy. Livestock ownership is deeply embedded in cultural value systems that link herding to adulthood, respectability, and lineage continuity (Lane, 1995; Galaty, 2016). Pastoralism is therefore not merely an economic livelihood but a way of life through which authority, wealth, and belonging are organized.

Seasonal mobility across communal rangelands is a defining feature of this pastoral system. Rather than reflecting “underdevelopment,” mobility constitutes an adaptive strategy for managing climatic variability, uneven forage distribution, and drought cycles. Research across East African rangelands demonstrates that herd movement allows pastoralists to track spatially and temporally shifting grazing resources, making mobility a key mechanism of ecological resilience and risk reduction (Homewood et al., 2009; Turner, 2011). From this perspective, pastoralism functions as an indigenous form of rangeland management, sustaining livestock productivity while maintaining rangeland heterogeneity.

Restoration interventions that promote tree-based restoration, fencing, grazing exclusion, or permanent land-use conversion often directly conflict with pastoral logics by restricting access to grazing corridors, dry-season reserves, and mobility routes. Such interventions may also impose fixed territorial boundaries that contradict customary tenure arrangements based on shared access and negotiated seasonal rights (Turner, 2011; Galaty, 2016). In many cases, pastoralists interpret restoration not primarily as ecological improvement but as a restructuring of access, authority, and land control.

This interpretation is intensified by historical experiences of dispossession. Maasai and Barabaig communities have long histories of land alienation through colonial and postcolonial conservation policies, ranching schemes, and state-led privatization. Conservation enclosures and protected areas have frequently reduced grazing land while framing pastoral practices as environmentally destructive, legitimizing restrictions on mobility (Lane, 1995; Homewood et al., 2009). Consequently, contemporary restoration initiatives—particularly those framed around afforestation, biodiversity offsets, or carbon sequestration—may be perceived as continuations of enclosure politics rather than neutral environmental projects (Fairhead et al., 2012).

The cross-source mechanism is the interaction of livelihood identity, communal tenure, and historical dispossession. Interventions that restrict mobility can be interpreted as renewed enclosure. This produces resistance, avoidance, or strategic compliance even where tree planting or grazing exclusion appears technically sound. Restoration scaling is more plausible when mobility corridors, seasonal access, and collective decision rights are protected.

3.3.2 Identity transitions, risk, and sedentarist bias

As rangelands shrink due to population growth, land privatization, agricultural expansion, and conservation enclosures, some pastoralists diversify into cultivation or wage labor. However, these livelihood transitions are rarely neutral economic shifts. They are socially contested and morally charged, often framed as threats to the dignity and autonomy associated with pastoral identity (Lesorogol, 2008). Among Maasai communities, cultivation may be adopted pragmatically but simultaneously stigmatized as incompatible with the ideals of mobility, livestock wealth, and masculine status, generating ambivalence toward sedentarization pathways (Homewood et al., 2009).

These identity dynamics shape perceptions of restoration risk. Sedentary restoration models—such as agroforestry, permanent soil bunds, fenced enclosures, or fixed land rehabilitation zones—implicitly assume stable land tenure, long-term residence, and household-based management. Yet pastoral moral economies often value flexibility, mobility, and collective access, meaning that interventions requiring permanent settlement may be interpreted as institutionalizing loss of autonomy (Turner, 2011; Galaty, 2016). Even when technically viable, restoration that appears to “turn herders into farmers” can be resisted as a culturally illegitimate development trajectory.

Political ecology research further highlights the sedentarist bias embedded in many state and NGO programs, where mobile livelihoods are framed as backward or environmentally harmful. This bias can produce restoration agendas that prioritize enclosure, privatization, and tree-based restoration while ignoring pastoralist knowledge systems and rangeland governance practices (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Robbins, 2020). Such framing reduces the legitimacy of pastoral management and encourages interventions that simplify rangeland complexity in the name of restoration.

These findings explain why agricultural restoration packages often transfer poorly to pastoral settings. The barrier is not a generalized rejection of environmental stewardship. It is the institutional effect of a package that assumes fixed residence, exclusive plots, and sedentary authority. The evidence base is substantial for pastoral development, conservation, and tenure change, but fewer studies follow restoration projects over long periods.

3.4 Indigenous risk management in Ethiopia

3.4.1 Konso terraces and elder authority

The Konso cultural landscape of southern Ethiopia is defined by extensive dry-stone terraces and integrated soil and water conservation systems that have sustained agricultural productivity for centuries under highly variable rainfall and steep topography. These landscape infrastructures are internationally recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage cultural landscape, reflecting their long-term socio-ecological significance (UNESCO, 2017).

Scholarly works emphasize that Konso terraces are not simply technical erosion-control structures, but institutionally governed systems embedded in collective labor arrangements, intergenerational knowledge transfer, and culturally grounded authority (Watson, 2009; Nyssen et al., 2014). Terrace construction and maintenance depend on coordinated communal labor and social enforcement mechanisms that regulate land use and ensure continuity across generations. In this setting, innovation is subject to prolonged local experimentation and social validation. Empirical studies show that new soil and water conservation practices must demonstrate reliability over multiple seasons and gain endorsement through customary governance structures before wider adoption occurs (Gashure and Wana, 2023).

These institutions operate as conservative risk-management regimes, reflecting the high costs of failure in an ecologically marginal environment. Long-term resilience is therefore sustained through incremental adaptation rather than rapid technological substitution, consistent with broader political ecology accounts of how local institutions stabilize land management under chronic environmental stress (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Cleaver, 2012). However, this governance logic also constrains the rapid scaling of externally introduced restoration techniques. Practices promoted without elder legitimacy or extended evidence are often perceived as risky, particularly under demographic pressure and shifting policy contexts (Gashure and Wana, 2023).

The Konso case identifies temporal validation as the mechanism. Elder authority, collective labor, and the high cost of failure favor incremental testing over rapid diffusion. This can slow restoration scaling in the short term but increase durability when a practice is endorsed after multi-season evidence. Because the evidence concerns an established land-management system, the case is an analogue for restoration design rather than a direct evaluation of a restoration program.

3.4.2 Gedeo agroforestry systems

The Gedeo landscape is a long-standing multistory agroforestry system in which food production, coffee, enset, biodiversity, and cultural activities are managed together (Abebe et al., 2010; Negash, 2013). Sacred patches and lineage institutions regulate access and tree management, so tree cover is an actively governed social-ecological outcome rather than a simple indicator of restoration need (Maru et al., 2023).

The main restoration risk is institutional substitution. Standardized species mixes, spacing rules, or performance metrics can weaken local design authority and encourage simplification. Market pressure and changing household strategies also affect whether farmers maintain the vertical and species complexity of the system (Abebe et al., 2010; Lemma et al., 2025).

The mechanism combines livelihood identity, customary authority, and economic viability. Effective restoration in Gedeo is less about introducing agroforestry than about sustaining the institutions and incentives that keep an already-restorative system complex. As with Konso, the evidence is strongest for continuity and change in an indigenous land-use system, not for transfer of a discrete restoration package.

3.5 Interactions among dimensions and cross-case outcomes

The comparison shows that no single dimension has a fixed effect. Sacred governance can protect forests, but its effect changes when religious authority shifts or when custodianship is stratified. Gender norms can limit restoration scaling through insecure tree tenure in the Sahel, while in Nepal they operate through committee hierarchy and informal agenda setting. Livelihood identity produces resistance most strongly when it combines with communal tenure and a history of dispossession, as in Maasai and Barabaig rangelands.

These interactions generate outcomes that the dimensions would not produce alone. In the Sahel, gendered labor demands without tenure insecurity might reduce participation but not necessarily long-term benefit control; insecure tenure without time poverty might still permit investment by women with adequate labor. Together they concentrate restoration on male-controlled plots. In Nepal, formal inclusion rules combined with male-dominated informal institutions can support forest recovery while preserving unequal authority. The biophysical scaling outcome can therefore appear successful even when social legitimacy remains uneven.

Table 2 summarizes the interaction mechanisms, observed scaling pathways, and evidence limitations across the cases. The table also makes clear that several cases are analogues from conservation or customary land management. They strengthen mechanism-based theory but do not substitute for longitudinal evaluation of restoration projects.

4 Discussion

The comparative synthesis shows that restoration outcomes are mediated by localized configurations of legitimacy, authority, identity, hierarchy, and tenure. Technical feasibility remains necessary, but it is not sufficient. The relevant question is how technical options enter an existing decision arena and how several social dimensions combine within that arena.

4.1 Restoration legitimacy as a structuring variable

Restoration legitimacy is not simply a favorable opinion that emerges after implementation. It can be a prior authorization condition. Across cases, ritual authorities, customary tenure holders, forest-user committees, elders, and livelihood institutions determine whether ecological change is permissible and who may govern it. Legitimacy also has a distributive component: rules are less likely to endure when labor, risk, authority, and benefits are allocated in ways that key users regard as unfair (Ribot and Peluso, 2003; Cleaver, 2012).

4.2 Socio-cultural microcosms as filters of scaling

Socio-cultural microcosms help explain variation in restoration scaling because they identify configurations rather than isolated variables. The Nepal–Sahel comparison is illustrative. In both settings, gender inequality matters. In the Sahel, it combines with insecure land and tree rights and labor burdens, producing uneven spatial adoption. In Nepal, it combines with formal inclusion rules, male-dominated committees, and forest dependence, allowing biophysical recovery to expand while authority and benefits remain unequal. The same dimension therefore produces different outcomes through different configurations.

A second interaction appears in pastoral systems. Livelihood identity does not by itself prevent restoration. Resistance is strongest when restoration restricts mobility, alters communal tenure, and resonates with a history of enclosure. Likewise, sacred governance is not inherently conservation-supportive: its effect depends on which religious or customary authority is recognized and whether that authority benefits from the proposed change.

This configurational focus improves transferability analysis. A pilot should not be scaled merely because the practice performed well. Planners should identify which authorization, tenure, distributional, and identity conditions made the pilot workable and then test whether those conditions exist—or can be negotiated—at each new site.

4.3 Rethinking scaling: from replication to alignment

Restoration scaling is therefore better understood as repeated alignment than as replication. Finance, policy, and extension can expand a practice only when the intervention is negotiated within local authority, tenure, livelihood, and risk-management systems (Mansourian and Parrotta, 2018; Chazdon et al., 2016). Alignment does not mean accepting every local institution as equitable. 1t means making authority and distribution explicit, then changing the intervention and, where necessary, the institution through legitimate and accountable processes.

4.4 Power, inequality, and differential adoption

Restoration adoption is uneven because social groups do not enter a project with equal rights, labor burdens, information, or bargaining power. Gender, caste, class, age, and lineage can determine who speaks, who works, who loses access, and who receives benefits. Formal participation can therefore coexist with elite capture or symbolic inclusion (Agarwal, 2001; Reed, 2008; Lund et al., 2018).

This is both an equity and an effectiveness problem. Projects may record high participation while rules remain weakly legitimate among those who perform daily management of the restoration actions. Monitoring should therefore disaggregate authority, costs, and benefits, not only attendance or hectares under restoration activities.

4.5 Livelihood identity and the politics of land-use change

Livelihood identities provide standards for judging acceptable land-use change. In pastoral systems, mobility and livestock are linked to autonomy, status, and ecological risk management. Enclosure or sedentary tree-based restoration may therefore be interpreted as a threat to the livelihood system rather than an environmental improvement (Turner, 2011; Galaty, 2016). Similar reasoning applies when restoration packages replace culturally organized agroforestry with simplified technical designs.

Restoration in such settings should preserve the social and ecological functions of mobility and multifunctional land use. The practical task is to co-design interventions around livelihood logics, not to assume a universal transition toward fixed plots and standardized tree cover.

4.6 Theoretical contribution and practical diagnostic

The socio-cultural microcosm concept offers a narrower contribution than a general theory of environmental governance. The social-ecological systems framework maps nested system components and interactions; institutional bricolage explains how institutions are assembled and changed; dynamic sustainabilities reveals plural framings, uncertainty, and competing pathways (Ostrom, 2009; Cleaver, 2002; Leach et al., 2010). Socio-cultural microcosms add a restoration-specific diagnostic unit: the local configuration that determines whether a particular ecological change is authorized, distributively acceptable, identity-compatible, and maintainable (i.e., sustainably managed).

The applied novelty of this concept is a transferability test. Before scaling a pilot, planners should identify the configuration that supported it and compare that configuration with the proposed receiving sites. Table 3 translates the five dimensions into questions, indicators, and design responses. The tool is not a scoring index. It is a structured proposed list for identifying interaction risks and deciding what must be negotiated and agreed up on before implementation.

This approach also connects this concept to regionally grounded work on indigenous knowledge, gendered collective action, and participatory management. Research from India and South Asia shows that traditional ecological knowledge, women’s decision power, and the quality of participation affect conservation and land-management outcomes (Farooquee et al., 2004; Agarwal, 2009; Agarwal, 2010; Reed, 2008). Recent evidence from compensatory afforestation in Maharashtra likewise emphasizes community participation and adaptive management rather than the conventional technical restoration planning alone (Wadghane et al., 2025). These studies support the practical claim that restoration scaling requires institutional adaptation, but the diagnostic framework still needs prospective field testing.

The socio-cultural microcosm is a context-dependent concept whose explanatory value is greatest in settings where authority, tenure, and identity are plural, contested, or embedded in customary institutions. This is especially true in customary forests, pastoral tenure systems, sacred governance regimes, and community-managed landscapes, where outcomes are shaped by social legitimacy, legal pluralism, and institutional fit rather than by formal rules alone (Fischer et al., 2023; Tias et al., 2026). By contrast, its explanatory leverage is more limited in centralized or standardized settings, where governance outcomes depend more heavily on top-down coordination, bureaucratic design, and formal administrative capacity, and where technocratic approaches often constrain local participation (Djenontin and Zulu, 2021). The concept is not designed to predict biophysical restoration outcomes or quantify variables such as social capital. Its main value is diagnostic: it helps reveal how institutional configurations shape authorization, participation, distribution, and legitimacy across scales (Carlisle and Gruby, 2019). Although developed from cases in Africa and South Asia, the concept appears adaptable to other institutionally plural settings, including Indigenous territories in Latin America and customary systems in Southeast Asia. Its applicability to urban and highly formalized restoration contexts is likely narrower and still requires further empirical testing.

5 General reflection

This conceptual analysis examined why restoration actions that show progress at pilot or original sites may fail to achieve durable adoption across broader landscapes. The comparative evidence indicates that outcomes are shaped by configurations of sacred governance, gender norms, livelihood identities, social hierarchy, and customary tenure as well as by ecological and economic conditions. These five dimensions of socio-cultural microcosms often interact. Gender exclusion produces different outcomes when it operates through insecure tree tenure than when it operates through formal committees and informal agenda setting. Pastoral identity becomes a strong source of resistance when restoration also restricts communal mobility and recalls historical dispossession. Sacred governance can protect ecological integrity or authorize development, depending on institutional change and hierarchy.

Restoration scaling should therefore be treated as repeated alignment across sites beyond just technical feasibility. A technically feasible restoration model is transferable only when the legitimacy conditions that supported it are present or can be negotiated. Socio-cultural microcosms provide a way to identify those conditions and to explain adoption, adaptation, selective compliance, resistance, and durability.

6 Limitations and future research

This study relies on secondary sources rather than original longitudinal fieldwork. The evidence base is uneven. Some cases document explicit restoration or regreening programs, while others are analogues from conservation, customary land management, or long-standing agroforestry. The latter clarify mechanisms but cannot establish restoration effects directly.

The structured search was purposive rather than exhaustive. It used English-language literature and may underrepresent locally published or broader gray literature that may be useful. The case corpus is concentrated in Africa and South Asia, so the framework requires testing in Latin America, Southeast Asia, Indigenous territories in settler states, and urban restoration settings.

The five dimensions also simplify internal heterogeneity. A “community” may contain conflicting authorities, mixed livelihoods, and changing identities. Future research should examine variation within sites and model how configurations change over time, especially under migration, commercialization, climate stress, and legal reform.

The concept has not yet been tested prospectively. A strong next step is to apply Table 3 before implementation, record predicted mechanisms and risks, and compare those predictions with adoption, adaptation, resistance, equity, and maintenance over several years. Comparative designs should also test whether socio-cultural microcosm variables improve explanation beyond standard governance and tenure indicators.

Finally, alignment can reproduce injustice when powerful customary or religious institutions exclude others. Future work should distinguish legitimacy from mere compliance and examine when institutional change is required for equitable restoration rather than treating all local authority as inherently desirable.

These limitations narrow the claim. Socio-cultural microcosms are best treated as a testable diagnostic proposition: restoration interventions are more likely to endure when their technical design is aligned with a locally legitimate and distributively defensible configuration of authority, identity, hierarchy, and tenure.

References

• 1

  AbebeT. (2005). Diversity in homegarden agroforestry systems of southern Ethiopia. Agrofor. Syst.64, 289–298. 10.1007/s10457-005-2276-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AbebeT.WiersumK. F.BongersF. (2010). Spatial and temporal variation in crop diversity in agroforestry homegardens of southern Ethiopia. Agrofor. Syst.78, 309–322. 10.1007/s10457-009-9246-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AgarwalB. (2001). Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for south Asia and a conceptual framework. World Dev.29, 1623–1648. 10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00066-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  AgarwalB. (2009). Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women's participation in community forest governance. Ecol. Econ.68, 2785–2799. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  AgarwalB. (2010). Does women's proportional strength affect their participation? Governing local forests in south Asia. World Dev.38, 98–112. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.04.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  AgrawalA.GibsonC. C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev.27, 629–649. 10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00161-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  AronsonJ.AlexanderS. (2013). Ecosystem restoration is now a global priority: time to roll up our sleeves. Restor. Ecol.21, 293–296. 10.1111/rec.12011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  BaralS.ShresthaK. K.TiwariS. (2024). Persistence of women's exclusion in Nepal's community forestry practice. Geoforum155, 104092. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2024.104092

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  BhagwatS. A.RutteC. (2006). Sacred groves: potential for biodiversity management. Front. Ecol. Environ.4, 519–524. 10.1890/1540-9295(2006)4[519:SGPFBM]2.0.CO;2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BiersackA.GreenbergJ. B. (2006). Reimagining Political Ecology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  BlaikieP.BrookfieldH. (1987). Land Degradation and Society. London, UK: Methuen.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  BlystadA. (2005). A History of the Barabaig: Identity and Land Use in Tanzania. Uppsala, Sweden: Nordic Africa Institute.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  BooneC. (2014). Property and Political Order in Africa: Land Rights and the Structure of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139629256

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  BrosiusJ. P. (1999). Green dots, pink hearts: displacing politics from the Malaysian rain forest. Am. Anthropol.101, 36–57. 10.1525/aa.1999.101.1.36

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  CarlisleK.GrubyR. L. (2019). Polycentric systems of governance: a theoretical model for the commons. Policy Stud. J.47, 927–952. 10.1111/psj.12212

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  ChandranM. D. S.HughesJ. D. (2000). Sacred groves and conservation: the comparative history of traditional reserves in the mediterranean area and in South India. Environ. Hist.6, 169–186. 10.3197/096734000129342262

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  ChazdonR. L.BrancalionP. H.LaestadiusL.Bennett-CurryA.BuckinghamK.KumarC.et al (2016). When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio45, 538–550. 10.1007/s13280-016-0772-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  CleaverF. (2002). Reinventing institutions: bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource management. Eur. J. Dev. Res.14, 11–30. 10.1080/714000425

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  CleaverF. (2012). Development Through Bricolage: Rethinking Institutions for Natural Resource Management. 1st ed.London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315094915

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  CleaverF.de KoningJ. (2015). Furthering critical institutionalism. Int. J. Commons9, 1–18. 10.18352/ijc.605

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  CorberaE.EstradaM.MayP.NavarroG.PachecoP. (2011). Rights to land, forests and carbon in REDD+: insights from Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica. Forests2, 301–342. 10.3390/f2010301

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  DjenontinI. N.ZuluL. C. (2021). The quest for context-relevant governance of agro-forest landscape restoration in central Malawi: insights from local processes. For. Policy Econ.131, 102555. 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102555

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  DjoudiH.BrockhausM.LocatelliB. (2016). Once there was a Lake: vulnerability to environmental changes in northern Mali. Reg. Environ. Change16, 1639–1652. 10.1007/s10113-015-0837-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  DossC.Meinzen-DickR.QuisumbingA.TheisS. (2018). Women in agriculture: four myths. Glob. Food Secur.16, 69–74. 10.1016/j.gfs.2017.10.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  DugumaL. A.NzyokaJ.ObwochaE.MinangP.WainainaP.MutheeK. (2022). The forgotten half? Women in the forest management and development discourse in Africa: a review. Front. For. Glob. Change5, 948618. 10.3389/ffgc.2022.948618

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  EscobarA. (1998). Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. J. Political Ecol.5, 53–82. 10.2458/v5i1.21397

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  FairheadJ.LeachM. (1996). Misreading the African Landscape: Society and Ecology in a Forest–Savanna Mosaic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  FairheadJ.LeachM.ScoonesI. (2012). Green grabbing: a new appropriation of nature?J. Peasant Stud.39, 237–261. 10.1080/03066150.2012.671770

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  FarooqueeN. A.MajilaB. S.KalaC. P. (2004). Indigenous knowledge systems and sustainable management of natural resources in a high-altitude society in kumaun himalaya, India. J. Hum. Ecol.16, 33–42. 10.1080/09709274.2004.11905713

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  FergusonJ. (1994). The Anti-politics Machine: “Development,” Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  FischerH. W.ChhatreA.DudduA.PradhanN.AgrawalA. (2023). Community forest governance and synergies among carbon, biodiversity and livelihoods. Nat. Clim. Change13, 1340–1347. 10.1038/s41558-023-01863-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  GadgilM.VartakV. D. (1975). Sacred groves of India: a plea for continued conservation. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc.72 (2), 314–320. Available online at: http://repository.ias.ac.in/64199.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  GalatyJ. G. (1992). The land is yours: social and economic factors in the privatization, sub-division and sale of Maasai ranches. Nomadic Peoples (30), 26–40. Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43123355.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  GalatyJ. G. (2013). “Land grabbing in the eastern African rangelands,” in Pastoralism and Development in Africa: Dynamic Change at the Margins. Editors CatleyJ.LindJ.ScoonesI. (London: Routledge), 143–153.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  GalatyJ. G. (2016). Land Grabbing in the Eastern African Rangelands. Oxford: James Currey Publishers.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  GaleN. K.HeathG.CameronE.RashidS.RedwoodS. (2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med. Res. Methodol.13, 117. 10.1186/1471-2288-13-117

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  GalvinK. A. (2009). Transitions: pastoralists living with change. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.38, 185–198. 10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164442

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  GardnerC. J.RadofiringaL. R.RajeriarisonZ.DaviesZ. G. (2010). Protected areas for conservation and poverty alleviation: experiences from Madagascar. J. Appl. Ecol.47, 1011–1020. 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01826.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  GashureS.WanaD. (2023). Sustainability of the long-term indigenous soil and water conservation practices in the UNESCO designated cultural landscapes of Konso, Ethiopia. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain.5, 100221. 10.1016/j.crsust.2023.100221

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  GoldmanM. J.RiosmenaF. (2013). Adaptive capacity in Tanzanian maasailand: changing strategies to cope with drought. Glob. Environ. Change23, 588–597. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  HabelJ. C.Schultze-GebhardtK.ShauriH. S.MaarifaA. M.MaghendaM.FungomeliM.et al (2023). Kaya forests: nucleus of cultural and biological diversity and functionality. J. Trop. Ecol.39 (e21), 1–5. 10.1017/S026646742300010X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  HomewoodK. (2008). Ecology of African Pastoralist Societies. Oxford, UK: James Currey.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  HomewoodK.Chenevix TrenchP.KristjansonP. (2009). “Staying Maasai? Pastoral livelihoods, diversification and the role of wildlife in development,” in Staying Maasai? Studies in Human Ecology and Adaptation (New York: Springer), 369–408. 10.1007/978-0-387-87492-0_10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  HorningN. R. (2008). Strong support for weak performance: donor competition, institutional oversight, and nongovernmental organization behavior in Madagascar. Afr. Aff.107, 405–431. 10.1093/afraf/adn036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45

  HounkpatiK.NjoyaH. M.AdjonouK.KokouK.SieberS.LöhrK. (2024). Drivers affecting adoption of forest landscape restoration among smallholder farmers in central Togo. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.8, 1425797. 10.3389/fsufs.2024.1425797

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  KalaC. P. (2011). Traditional ecological knowledge, sacred groves and conservation of biodiversity in the pachmarhi biosphere reserve of India. J. Environ. Prot.2, 967–973. 10.4236/jep.2011.27111

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47

  KentE. F. (2013). Sacred Groves and Local Gods: Religion and Environmentalism in South India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  LaneC. R. (1994). Pastures lost: alienation of barabaig land in the context of land policy and legislation in Tanzania. Nomadic Peoples34 (35), 81–94. Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43124074.

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  LaneC. (1995). “The barabaig pastoralists of Tanzania: sustainable land use in jeopardy,” in Grassroots Environmental Action: People's Participation in Sustainable Development. 1st ed. (London: Routledge), 25. 10.4324/9781315832166

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  LeachM.MearnsR.ScoonesI. (1999). Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Dev.27, 225–247. 10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00141-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  LeachM.ScoonesI.StirlingA. (2010). Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology, Environment, Social Justice. 1st ed.London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781849775069

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 52

  LegesseG.Ta'aT. (2025). The Gedeo agroforestry: evolution, characteristics, and components. Trees, For. People22, 101033. 10.1016/j.tfp.2025.101033

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 53

  LemmaS.AsfawZ.ToleraM.TeshomeA. (2025). Effects of management practices and socio-physical factors on perennial plant diversity of agroforestry systems of Gedeo landscapes, southern Ethiopia. Agrofor. Syst.99, 10. 10.1007/s10457-024-01104-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 54

  LesorogolC. K. (2008). Land privatization and pastoralist well-being in Kenya. Dev. Change39, 309–331. 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00481.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 55

  LiT. M. (2007). The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 56

  LiT. M. (2014). Land's End: Capitalist Relations on an Indigenous Frontier. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  LöfqvistS.KleinschrothF.BeyA.de BremondA.DeFriesR.DongJ.et al (2023). How social considerations improve the equity and effectiveness of ecosystem restoration. BioScience73, 134–148. 10.1093/biosci/biac099

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 58

  LundJ. F.SungusiaE.MabeleM. B.SchebaA. (2018). Promising change, delivering continuity: REDD+ as conservation fad. World Dev.89, 124–139. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.08.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 59

  MalhotraK. C.GokhaleY.ChatterjeeS.SrivastavaS. (2001). Cultural and Ecological Dimensions of Sacred Groves in India. New Delhi, India: Indian National Science Academy and Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 60

  MansourianS.ParrottaJ. (2018). Forest Landscape Restoration: Integrated Approaches to Support Effective Implementation. 1st ed.London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315111872

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 61

  MaruY.GebrekirstosA.HaileG. (2023). Indigenous sacred forests as a tool for climate change mitigation: lessons from Gedeo community, southern Ethiopia. J. Sustain. For.42, 260–287. 10.1080/10549811.2021.2007490

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 62

  McGinnisM. D.OstromE. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol. Soc.19, 30. 10.5751/ES-06387-190230

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 63

  MölkänenJ. (2025). Living with spirits and environmental conservation efforts in rural north-eastern Madagascar. Approaching Relig.15 (1), 61–78. 10.30664/ar.156009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 64

  MwangiE. (2007). The puzzle of group ranch subdivision in Kenya's maasailand. Dev. Change38, 889–910. 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00440.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 65

  NegashM. (2013). The Indigenous agroforestry systems of the south-eastern rift valley escarpment, Ethiopia. Biodivers. Conservation22, 2385–2408. 10.1007/s10531-013-0530-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 66

  NightingaleA. J. (2002). Participating or just sitting in? The dynamics of gender and caste in community forestry. J. For. Livelihood2, 17–24. 10.3126/jfl.v2i1.59671

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 67

  NightingaleA. J. (2005). The experts taught Us all we know: professionalisation and knowledge in Nepalese community forestry. Antipode37, 581–604. 10.1111/j.0066-4812.2005.00505.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 68

  NyamweruC.KimaruE. (2008). The contribution of ecotourism to the conservation of natural sacred sites: a case study from coastal Kenya. Journal for the study of religion. Nat. Cult.2, 327–350. 10.1558/jsrnc.v2i3.327

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  NyssenJ.FranklA.HaileM.HurniH.DescheemaekerK.CrummeyD.et al (2014). Environmental conditions and human drivers for changes to north Ethiopian Mountain landscapes over 145 years. Sci. Total Environ.485 (486), 164–179. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.052

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 70

  OjhaR. H.PershaL.ChhatreA. (2009). Community Forestry in Nepal: A Policy Innovation for Local Livelihoods. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 71

  OrmsbyA. A.BhagwatS. A. (2010). Sacred forests of India: a strong tradition of community-based natural resource management. Environ. Conserv.37, 320–326. 10.1017/S0376892910000561

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 72

  OstromE. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science325, 419–422. 10.1126/science.1172133

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 73

  ParteyS. T.ZougmoréR. B.OuédraogoM.BruceM. (2018). Developing climate-smart agriculture to face climate variability in West Africa: challenges and lessons learnt. J. Clean. Prod.187, 285–295. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.199

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 74

  PelusoN. L.WattsM. (2001). Violent Environments (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 75

  PerringM. P.De FrenneP.BaetenL.MaesS. L.DepauwL.BlondeelH.et al (2020). Step back from the forest and step up to the bonn challenge: how a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration. Restor. Ecol.28, 11–19.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 76

  ReedM. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Conserv.141, 2417–2431. 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 77

  ReijC.TappanG.SmaleM. (2009). Agroenvironmental Transformation in the Sahel: Another Kind of Green Revolution. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 78

  RibotJ. C.PelusoN. L. (2003). A theory of access. Rural. Sociol.68, 153–181. 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2003.tb00133.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 79

  RinaudoT. (2012). “Restoring the land: the farmer-managed natural regeneration (FMNR) revolution,” in World Vis. Aust.Melbourne, Australia.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 80

  RobbinsP. (2020). Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. 3rd ed.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 81

  SheridanM. J.NyamweruC. (2008). African Sacred Groves: Ecological Dynamics and Social Change (Oxford, UK: James Currey).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 82

  SnyderH. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res.104, 333–339. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 83

  TengöM.von HelandJ. (2011). “Adaptive capacity of local Indigenous institutions: the case of the taboo forests of southern Madagascar,” in Adapting Institutions. 1st ed., 37–74. 10.1017/CBO9781139017237.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 84

  TengöM.JohanssonK.RakotondrasoaF.LundbergJ.AndriamaherilalaJ. A.RakotoarisoaJ. A.et al (2007). Taboos and forest governance: informal protection of hot spot dry forest in southern Madagascar. Ambio36, 683–691. 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[683:tafgip]2.0.co;2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 85

  ThomasJ.HardenA. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol.8, 45. 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 86

  TiasP. A.McDermottC. L.MulyaniM. E. (2026). Navigating the nexus between customary norms and state laws in shaping rural forest governance: a case study in Aceh province, Indonesia. For. Policy Econ.182, 103672. 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103672

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  TurnerM. D. (2011). The new pastoral development paradigm: engaging the realities of property institutions and livestock mobility in dryland Africa. Soc. and Nat. Resour.24, 469–484. 10.1080/08941920903236291

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 88

  UNESCO (2008). Sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1231/ (Accessed January, 2026).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 89

  UNESCO (2017). Konso Cultural Landscape. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available online at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1333 (Accessed January, 2026).

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 90

  WadghaneR.GhangaleS.KalaC. P.SonwaneyV. (2025). Community participation, technical solutions, and adaptive management: keys to successful compensatory afforestation fund management and planning authority (CAMPA) plantation initiatives in Maharashtra. J. Resour. Ecol.16, 715–729. 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2025.03.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 91

  WainainaP.MinangP. A.MutheeK. (2023). Relational values within landscape restoration: a review. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.64, 101335. 10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101335

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  WatsonE. E. (2009). Living Terraces in Ethiopia: Konso Landscape, Culture and Development. Woodbridge, UK: James Currey.

  • Google Scholar

• 93

  WestP.IgoeJ.BrockingtonD. (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.35, 251–277. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar