| The last two decades have seen an evolution in the theories and policies on the sustainability of forest-dependent communities from community stability to community resilience. However, theoretical and methodological weaknesses in research on community resilience appear to be limiting the relevance of the new concept for scientists and policy makers. There is inadequate understanding of how communities respond to drivers of change. Also, measurement instruments for assessing resilience are lacking.;The goal of this study was to test a proposed theoretical model on the determinants and outcomes of community response to drivers of change. To test the model, a new resilience assessment instrument was developed. Using the collaborative forest management (CFM) program in Ghana as a driver of change, two forest-dependent communities in Ghana were studied over a six-month period in 2009-2010. A mixed methods approach was employed, involving a household survey, key informant interviews, and document reviews. Analysis of the measurement instrument revealed that resilience is a multi-dimensional construct with a four-factor structure comprising the social, ecological, and natural aspects of well-being. Analysis of qualitative data at the community level showed that external forest organizations were influential in introducing CFM to the two communities. The impacts of the CFM program tended to vary across social, economic, physical, human, and natural capitals, but both communities were shown to have been adaptive. At the household level the households' previous connection to forest organizations was the strongest predictor of CFM participation. Location was also a good predictor of CFM participation, but with the exception of bonding social capital, all other types of capitals were weak predictors. Capitals and location were the strongest predictors of CFM outcomes as measured by current levels of capitals and change in capitals. The analysis also showed that conclusions on resilience differ at the two levels of analysis. These results offer mixed support for the hypothesis that institutions and capitals are determinants of community resilience. With regard to policy, the findings suggest that for co-management to enhance community resilience, co-management must be nested within broader institutions of governance and integrated into comprehensive rural development policies. |
