For decades, various institutions have attempted to improve rural livelihoods in Haiti by implementing agroforestry. While agroforestry provides ecological and economic benefits, little is known about the long-term livelihood outcomes of agroforestry interventions in Haiti. Using the Community Capitals Framework (CCF), this study investigated multiple dimensions of agroforestry outcomes in practicing communities and compared them to communities not practicing agroforestry, in reference to a community-based agroforestry program initiated by the Haiti Timber Reintroduction Program (HTRIP). Data were collected using qualitative research methods of in-depth interviews and focus groups. The results indicate that community agroforestry makes positive contributions to all community capitals–some (social, human, financial, natural, cultural) more than others (built, political). We recommend that institutions pay particular attention to building social, human, and natural capital and how they contribute to financial capital, as this was the entry point for the spiraling up of capitals in rural Haitian communities.

Community-based agroforestry, as a planetary health solution, can rebuild fertile soils, minimize climate risk, diversify farmer incomes, and provide a source of food, raw materials, and other vital ecosystem functions. Utilizing focus groups, individual semi-structured interviews, and field observations, we studied how the Haiti Timber Reintroduction Program (HTRIP), an agroforestry program operating in Haiti since 2005, leveraged institutional infrastructures and social networks to facilitate the adoption, scaling, and sustainability of community-based agroforestry as a solution for planetary health. Results show that the adoption and scaling of community-based agroforestry was facilitated by support from institutional and social networks. The results underscore the importance of cross-sector collaboration and coordination in creating the enabling conditions necessary for successful community-based agroforestry implementation. Additionally, strengthened social networks, cultivated through long-term participation in the HTRIP, contributed to the program’s sustainability. While competing socio-political problems in some low-income settings may seem insurmountable—particularly those in fragile states, where our study took place—our research demonstrates that community-based agroforestry solutions are possible. Where culturally relevant, this ecologically and socially based practice could be scaled up to amplify its benefits to more communities. We encourage further research to explore the scaling up of regenerative practices such as agroforestry for climate resilience and planetary health.

Climate change intensifies existing health inequities by compounding the social and structural conditions that shape exposure, vulnerability, and recovery. Health impact assessment (HIA) is increasingly used to inform climate and resilience decision-making, yet it remains unclear whether these assessments meaningfully address racial equity in the United States, where structural racism is a major driver of environmental and health disparities. This study evaluated the extent to which climate- and resilience-related HIAs incorporate racial and ethnic equity and identified patterns distinguishing stronger from weaker equity-oriented HIA practice. We conducted a document review of climate- and resilience-related HIAs identified through the Institute for People, Place, and Possibility repository. Of 33 records retrieved, 31 met inclusion criteria. Each HIA was independently scored by two reviewers using the Tool for the Racial/Ethnic Equity Evaluation of Health Impact Assessments (TREE-HIA), a 17-item rubric spanning six domains: community engagement, scope and context, analysis/evidence, recommendations, dissemination, and monitoring and evaluation. We then performed a reflexive thematic analysis of the four highest- and four lowest-scoring HIAs using a deductive codebook informed by co-benefits of climate action and Public Health Critical Race Praxis. Most HIAs (23/31; 74%) received negative TREE-HIA scores, indicating inconsistent integration of equity across the HIA process. Thematic analysis identified four distinguishing themes: whether race was treated as a demographic descriptor or as a marker of structural inequity; whether co-benefits were framed in race-neutral or equity-specific terms; the extent and depth of community voice in the assessment process; and whether an intersectional lens was applied. These findings suggest that most U.S. climate- and resilience-related HIAs do not adequately account for racial/ethnic equity. Strengthening HIA practice will require explicit attention to structural racism, deeper participatory engagement, and greater use of intersectional and justice-oriented frameworks to support equitable climate resilience policy.

Forests provide valuable ecosystem services to individuals that live near them and visit them. However, many forests, especially in highly developed areas, are specifically managed for resource conservation purposes. A common practice for conservation is restricting access to people to ensure minimal human-driven harm. While the restriction of human access to a forest increases its biological ecosystem services, it limits its cultural services and may reduce the public’s perceived value of the forest. To investigate how access influences the perceived value of a forest, two forests in the state of New Jersey, USA, were compared. The forests, the Rutgers Ecological Preserve (RUEP) and Hutcheson Memorial Forest (HMF), represent accessible and inaccessible forests respectively. The study reported here evaluated the effects of visitation and accessibility on public perception of both sites. Residents near the RUEP and HMF, and visitors of both sites, were surveyed (n = 48). The results of the surveys demonstrated that the frequency of visitation and community location can have noticeable influences on a number of variables, including one’s belief that forests provide important services and the thought that protected areas take away from an individual’s freedom to use the area. A more positive view of the forests was present in those who visited the public forest most often.