For agricultural systems to achieve climate-smart objectives, including improved food security and rural livelihoods as well as climate change adaptation and mitigation, they often need to be take a landscape approach; they must become ‘climate-smart landscapes’. Climate-smart landscapes operate on the principles of integrated landscape management, while explicitly incorporating adaptation and mitigation into their management objectives.

Background: Conservation decisions not only impact wildlife, habitat, and environmental health, but also human wellbeing and social justice. The inclusion of safeguards and equity considerations in the conservation field has increasingly garnered attention in international policy processes and amongst conservation practitioners. Yet, what constitutes an ‘equitable’ solution can take many forms, and how the concept is treated within conservation research is not standardized. This review explores how social equity is conceptualized and assessed in conservation research. Methods/Design: Using a structured search and screening process, we identified 138 peer-reviewed studies that addressed equity in relation to conservation actions. The authors developed a coding framework to guide the review process, focusing on the current state of, definitions used for, and means of assessing social equity in empirical conservation research. Review Results: Results show that empirical research on social equity in conservation is rapidly growing, with the majority of studies on the topic published only since 2009. Equity within conservation research is skewed toward distributional concerns and to a lesser extent procedural issues, with recognition and contextual equity receiving little attention. Studies are primarily situated in forested biomes of the Global South. Conservation interventions mostly resulted in mixed or negative impacts on equity. Synthesis and Discussion: Our results demonstrate the current limitations of research on equity in conservation, and raise challenging questions about the social impacts of conservation and how to ameliorate equity concerns. Framing of equity within conservation research would benefit from greater transparency of study motivation, more explicit definition of how equity is used within the study context, and consideration for how best to assess it. We recommend that the empirical conservation literature more deeply engage with different notions of equity when studying, planning, and implementing actions to address potential trade-offs among equity and conservation objectives and beneficiaries.

Community forestry is a participatory approach aiming to achieve sustainable forest management while also reducing poverty among rural communities. Yet, evidence of the impacts of community forestry programmes on both forest conservation and poverty alleviation is scarce, and there is limited understanding of impacts across different social and biophysical contexts. We applied a matching method to assess the extent to which deforestation has decreased and village well‐being has improved as a result of Indonesia's community forestry scheme, Hutan Desa (Village Forest). We assessed five dimensions of well‐being: basic (living conditions), physical (access to health and education), financial (income support), social (security and equity) and environmental (natural hazard prevention). We found that Hutan Desa was associated with reduced deforestation and poverty. ‘Win‐win’ outcomes were found in 51% of cases, comprising (a) positive outcomes for both forests and poverty, (b) a positive outcome for one aspect and a negligible outcome for the other, or (c) a positive outcome for poverty in areas where natural forest had already been lacking prior to Hutan Desa tenure. Benefits to forests and people systematically differed depending on land‐use zones, reflecting subtle interactions between anthropogenic pressures and community livelihood characteristics. In Watershed Protection Zones, which are dominated by subsistence‐based forest livelihoods, community forestry provided mild conservation benefits, but resulted in the greatest improvements in well‐being through improved land tenure. In Limited Production Zones, community forestry provided modest benefits for both conservation and well‐being because restrictions on timber harvest due to Hutan Desa designation reduced the financial well‐being of logging communities. The greatest conservation benefits were experienced in Permanent or Convertible Production Zones, but well‐being improvements were minimal. Here, living conditions and environmental well‐being were reduced due to pressure to intensify agricultural production under increased land scarcity in these predominantly cash crop‐oriented communities. Our results highlight the spatial and contextual variation in impacts of community forestry policies on poverty alleviation and forest conservation outcomes. Crucially, our study provides vital objective information for future policy development in Indonesia and other tropical countries implementing community forestry schemes. A plain language summary is available for this article.

Climate change, increasingly recognized as a hurdle to achieving sustainable development goals, has already begun impacting the lives and livelihoods of people around the world, including on the African continent. Vulnerability is a concept often employed in the context of climate change to identify risks and develop policy and adaptation measures that address current and projected impacts. However, it is situated in a broader social context, driven by factors such as land tenure and access, livelihood diversification, and empowerment, which single out historically marginalized groups like women. This paper applies a vulnerability framework to a case study of cocoa farming in the Central Region of Ghana, depicting not only the variety of factors contributing to climate change vulnerability but also different narratives on vulnerability that emerge based on a woman’s relation to cocoa production itself. The paper conveys how homogeneous representations of women farmers and the technical focus of climate-orientated policy interventions may threaten to further marginalize the most vulnerable and exacerbate existing inequalities. This has implications for both climate change policy design and implementation, as well as the broader social development agenda that has bearing on vulnerability.