Research Background & ProjectsMy research examines how people and societies come together to solve urgent sustainable development challenges. I have explored these themes through research on environmental governance, social dimensions of ecosystem restoration, and climate vulnerability and adaptation.
I am a human geographer by training, and I embrace a mixed-methods approach that combines in-depth qualitative fieldwork, quantitative analysis, and interdisciplinary social-natural scientific research. In recent years, I have had the opportunity to contribute directly to policy and practice in Sweden, India, and internationally. See my Google Scholar Profile Right: Conducting fieldwork in India with Dil Khatri and Vijay Guleria, 2024 |
|
Current and emerging research
Landscapes targeted for restoration in Himachal Pradesh, India
A cross-national comparative analysis of restoration projects in 17 countries
|
Building Restoration futures: From Ecological Recovery to Creative Transformations
In the UN’s current “Decade of Ecosystem Restoration”, countries around the world are scaling up efforts to achieve ambitious targets(1). However, current paradigms focus on natural scientific dimensions of ecosystem recovery, with far less attention to the human dimensions that drive action on the ground(2). My current research seeks to build the scientific foundations of “restoration futures” – a people-centered vision for building more thriving and sustainable rural landscapes. This work is anchored on a fundamental paradox: while “to restore” implies the recovery of something lost, we undertake restoration to build a better future. Building on this premise, Restoration Futures seeks to:
My colleagues and I have sought to develop this agenda through a series of workshops involving 40+ researchers in different parts of the world. We have several outputs in progress, and we recently submitted a paper written by my student Anamika Menon, Restoring Landscapes, Re-Making Societies: How diverse understandings of restoration shape prospects for long-term socio-ecological change based on cases in 17 countries globally (left). |
|
Pathways forward with the EU’s Nature Restoration Law in Sweden
The EU’s Nature Restoration Law has set ambitious goals for restoration across the continent. It represents a fantastic opportunity to study how large-scale targets may impact national policy and local action. We ask: How can large-scale forest restoration be pursued in ways that integrate environmental goals, production needs, and diverse human values for thriving forest futures? Focusing on the case of Sweden, this research examines how policy is formulated at the national level, how to connect EU targets with local needs and aspirations, and how its implementation can help to support human well-being and environmental goals across forested landscapes in Sweden. We also plan to organize “Restoration Futures Labs” to co-create visions for more resilient and sustainable forest landscapes over time. We are collaborating directly with the Swedish Forest Agency and Environmental Protection Agency to help shape implementation as the law is scaled up. This work has been funded by FORMAS and the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation. |
|
|
Building synergies between biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and rural prosperity through community forest governance
Much current restoration is targeting rural landscapes of the Global South, where local people are often directly dependent upon natural resources for their basic needs. My work in India & Nepal is seeking to better understand when restoration is better able to bring positive impacts for both human well-being and ecosystem functionality. Through a mixed-methods approach that combines social scientific analysis with ecological sampling, we ask: “How, and under what conditions, can community forest governance support improvements in human well-being, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity from forest restoration?” This work has been funded by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet). We are also working directly with the Indian Forest Service and the Southasia Institute of Advanced Studies (SIAS) to connect insights from this research to policy and practice in the study areas. Photos: Himalayas (upper right); Measuring above ground biomass (lower right); conducting social science surveys (below) 
|
|
|
Can community forest governance improve rural prosperity and well-being from forest restoration?
Current discussions on ecosystem restoration often call for “human-centered” approaches, both to promote the ecological success of projects as well as to ensure human needs and fundamental concerns of justice. Yet much current restoration policy discourse is aspirational – it often says what may be achieved in the future, yet it rarely looks back at the past. Through historical and qualitative research, my colleagues and I are studying 5 decades of forest restoration in the Indian Himalayas. We seek to understand how community-based approaches have been implemented in practice, when they have become meaningfully responsive to local people, and how interventions have transformed the ways that people relate to landscapes over time. Our work is centered around a fundamental question: “Under what conditions can community forest governance lead to improvements in rural livelihoods and human well-being from forest restoration?” This research is funded by FORMAS. Right: A forest restored by a community forestry institution, managed over the past 20 years Below, left: Focus group discussion led by Dhwani Lalai Below, center & right: Care of livestock requires grazing & fodder from across the landscape |
|
|
|
|
A co-produced knowledge agenda for securing and sustaining community forest rights
Globally, millions of Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities, and Afro-descendant Peoples (IP, LC & ADP) are struggling for secure forest and land rights. Secure tenure is critical for livelihoods, cultures, identities, and self-determination. It is not only a matter of justice—it is critical to achieving global goals for climate action, biodiversity conservation, rural development, and human well-being.
At present, I am working with researchers at CIFOR-ICRAF and the International Land and Forest Tenure Facility to build a global research agenda that synthesizes experience and insights from 25 local partners across 17 countries on their experience fighting for and sustaining community rights for land and forests.
Our work is built on principles of coproduction to ensure that research is locally owned, captures needs and values that are locally meaningful, and helps to feed into local struggles for community forest rights. At the same time, we build this agenda through scientifically rigorous design and methods to expand the international evidence base of what is needed for communities to be able to achieve secure tenure and when this can help to support positive outcomes for people and the environment.
Our work is built around 5 core research areas:
We are currently in the process of developing this agenda and seeking funding.
Globally, millions of Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities, and Afro-descendant Peoples (IP, LC & ADP) are struggling for secure forest and land rights. Secure tenure is critical for livelihoods, cultures, identities, and self-determination. It is not only a matter of justice—it is critical to achieving global goals for climate action, biodiversity conservation, rural development, and human well-being.
At present, I am working with researchers at CIFOR-ICRAF and the International Land and Forest Tenure Facility to build a global research agenda that synthesizes experience and insights from 25 local partners across 17 countries on their experience fighting for and sustaining community rights for land and forests.
Our work is built on principles of coproduction to ensure that research is locally owned, captures needs and values that are locally meaningful, and helps to feed into local struggles for community forest rights. At the same time, we build this agenda through scientifically rigorous design and methods to expand the international evidence base of what is needed for communities to be able to achieve secure tenure and when this can help to support positive outcomes for people and the environment.
Our work is built around 5 core research areas:
- Understanding how communities and their advocates struggle to achieve tenure, and when they succeed
- Building scientifically rigorous evidence of how tenure security impacts social, economic, and environmental goals
- Studying what is needed to secure and sustain tenure over time
- Advancing knowledge of how to structure knowledge co-production in ways that help to support local needs and capacity
- Synthesizing insights for scaling up: How tenure might shape social and environmental impacts at a global scale
We are currently in the process of developing this agenda and seeking funding.
Previous research
|
From formal rights to meaningful self-determination
My earlier research examined how policy reforms for decentralization influence community resource governance. I showed that more empowered local governance requires far more than project-based consultations; it emerges through longer-term policy commitment to build local institutions with meaningful rights and discretion(3). My work shows that decentralized planning can improve responsiveness and effectiveness of development decision-making, yet such strategies are rarely simple and are often vulnerable to elite capture. Nevertheless, my work shows that devolving authority to democratically elected institutions can generate more inclusive representation and strengthen citizens’ direct participation in decision-making, especially where there are explicit protections for marginal groups(4). Left: Village men conducting maintenance on an irrigation canal through a project sanctioned by the elected village council and funded with state resources. |
|
Social vulnerability, climate adaptation, and health
Policy increasingly aims to support rural populations confronting a changing climate. My previous work has developed tools for analyzing social vulnerability of different social and economic groups(5). I have identified ways that state agricultural extension and support can help to drive adaptation of agricultural systems(6). However, I also show how a narrow focus on technical solutions often undermines the possibility of more climate resilient alternatives(7). A major theme of my work is that, because many climate responses are highly context specific, there is a need for decentralized planning processes(8). My work on small-scale water infrastructure shows that empowering local governments can support more effective responses, where changing power relationships open new spaces for citizens to have a voice in planning processes(9). My work on the COVID-19 pandemic also shows that decentralized governance can serve a critical role for protecting basic household security in times of dramatic upheaval(10). However, our work also found that many rural health care workers faced significant risks, thus raising concerns about labor exploitation and unsafe working conditions of frontline workers(11). My team’s work shows how local government institutions were often critical for developing site-specific responses to diverse and changing needs during this period(12). My recent work has sought to expand the conceptual foundations for analyzing vulnerability. I argue for “decentering climate” to understand how vulnerability unfolds across multiple, interconnected spheres of life. Such a lens shows that vulnerability is always experienced in relation to the lives that people have reason to value and strive to build. A core question thus emerges: If vulnerability is the propensity for loss and suffering, what lies in wait if it is to be addressed? To which future should we strive?(13) Upper right: Farmer in Bihar, India Lower right: A network diagram of interactions between rural institutions & agricultural extension, Takoli Panchayat, lower Kullu Valley, Himachal Pradesh |
|
|
Governing landscapes for biodiversity, carbon, and well-being
My previous work showed that 3+ decades of state-driven tree planting in northern India has not improved forest canopy cover(14). We explain this counter-intuitive finding as the result of the exigencies of bureaucratic practice and the ways that plantations compete with other land uses in forest mosaic landscapes. Our team’s work also shows that large-scale maps devised to support restoration goals risk obscuring key social dimensions of human resource use, poverty, and inequality(15). My colleagues and I have argued that a “human-centered” approach may be better able to support human and environmental outcomes in rural landscapes of the global south(16). My work on community-forest governance shows that where communities have substantive and long-term influence in planning and management, there is a far greater likelihood of livelihood benefits and improved forest cover(17). Using a dataset from 15 tropical countries, my work shows that forests with legally-recognized local management systems are more likely to have favorable outcomes for livelihoods, carbon sequestration, & biodiversity(18). This work underscores the need to move beyond project-based participation toward deeper institutional reforms for empowered local governance(19). Our team’s work also shows that basic social safety nets and anti-poverty programs are associated with positive gains for forest growth(20). Recent work using a global dataset in 15 tropical countries shows that reduced poverty and improved living standards are associated with positive gains in biodiversity in community-managed forests(21). Upper left: A human dominated landscape with forests, agriculture, grasslands, and settlements, Himachal Pradesh, India (source: A Chhatre) Lower left: An old map from a forest cooperative society in Kangra in an area that has seen extensive plantation over the years. |
Works referenced
1. M. Hernandez‐Montilla, K. Devenish, L. Alencar, R. Benzeev, P. Choksi, I. N. S. Djenontin, M. E. Fagan, H. Fischer, P. Isaacs Cubides, T. Linhares Juvenal, M. Kabutey‐Ongor, J. Kamoto, A. Kinzer, D. Kroeker‐Maus, S. Mansourian, F. Melo, D. C. Miller, S. Nofyanza, A. Pradeep, F. Reiner, W. Rattanarat, N. Sakuntaladewi, C. Song, L. V. Rasmussen, J. A. Oldekop, Forwarding forest restoration: Seven key socio‐ecological issues for advancing forest restoration in a world in flux. People and Nature, pan3.70254 (2026).
2. I. N. S. Djenontin, H. W. Fischer, J. Yin, G. Chi, Unveiling global narratives of restoration policy: Big data insights into competing framings and implications. Geoforum 161, 104241 (2025).
3. H. W. Fischer, S. S. Ali, Reshaping the public domain: Decentralization, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), and trajectories of local democracy in rural India. World Development 120, 147–158 (2019).
4. H. W. Fischer, Beyond Participation and Accountability: Theorizing Representation in Local Democracy. World Development 86, 111–122 (2016).
5. H. W. Fischer, A. Chhatre, Assets , livelihoods , and the ‘ profile approach ’ for analysis of differentiated social vulnerability in the context of climate change. Environment and Planning A, doi: 10.1177/0308518X15623278 (2015).
6. H. W. Fischer, A. Chhatre, S. Devalkar, M. Sohoni, Rural institutions, social networks, and self-organized adaptation to climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 104002 (2021).
7. H. W. Fischer, N. L. N. Reddy, M. L. S. Rao, Can more drought resistant crops promote more climate secure agriculture? Prospects and challenges of millet cultivation in Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh. World Development Perspectives 2, 5–10 (2016).
8. H. W. Fischer, Policy innovations for pro-poor climate support: social protection, small-scale infrastructure, and active citizenship under India’s MGNREGA. Climate and Development 0, 1–14 (2019).
9. H. W. Fischer, Decentralization and the governance of climate adaptation: Situating community-based planning within broader trajectories of political transformation. World Development (2021).
10. A. Dutta, H. W. Fischer, The local governance of COVID-19: Disease prevention and social security in rural India. World Development 138, 105234 (2021).
11. C. Nichols, F. Jalali, H. Fischer, The “Corona Warriors”? Community health workers in the governance of India’s COVID-19 response. Political Geography 99, 102770 (2022).
12. D. Gupta, H. Fischer, S. Shrestha, S. Shoaib Ali, A. Chhatre, K. Devkota, F. Fleischman, D. B. Khatri, P. Rana, Dark and bright spots in the shadow of the pandemic: Rural livelihoods, social vulnerability, and local governance in India and Nepal. World Development 141, 105370 (2021).
13. H. W. Fischer, K. Devkota, D. Gupta, D. B. Khatri, Decentering climate in vulnerability analysis: On aspiration, striving, and the fullness of life in uncertain times. World Development 198, 107214 (2026).
14. E. A. Coleman, B. Schultz, V. Ramprasad, H. Fischer, P. Rana, A. M. Filippi, B. Güneralp, A. Ma, C. Rodriguez Solorzano, V. Guleria, R. Rana, F. Fleischman, Limited effects of tree planting on forest canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India. Nature Sustainability 4, 997–1004 (2021).
15. B. Schultz, D. Brockington, E. A. Coleman, I. Djenontin, H. W. Fischer, F. Fleischman, P. Kashwan, K. Marquardt, M. Pfeifer, R. Pritchard, V. Ramprasad, Recognizing the equity implications of restoration priority maps. Environmental Research Letters 17 (2022).
16. F. Fleischman, S. Basant, A. Chhatre, E. A. Coleman, H. W. Fischer, D. Gupta, B. Güneralp, P. Kashwan, D. Khatri, R. Muscarella, J. S. Powers, V. Ramprasad, P. Rana, C. R. Solorzano, J. W. Veldman, Pitfalls of Tree Planting Show Why We Need People-Centered Natural Climate Solutions. BioScience 70, 947–950 (2020).
17. H. W. Fischer, B. Schultz, E. A. Coleman, A. M. Filippi, V. Guleria, B. Güneralp, V. Kurli, B. Lawrence, A. Ma, V. Ramprasad, P. Rana, R. Rana, C. Rodriguez Solorzano, F. Fleischman, Forest restoration for environment and well-being is associated with empowered local governance over long time horizons. Environ. Res. Lett., doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/adf1b8 (2025).
18. H. W. Fischer, A. Chhatre, A. Duddu, N. Pradhan, A. Agrawal, Community forest governance and synergies among carbon, biodiversity and livelihoods. Nature Climate Change, 1–8 (2023).
19. F. Fleischman, E. Coleman, H. Fischer, P. Kashwan, M. Pfeifer, V. Ramprasad, C. R. Solorzano, J. W. Veldman, B. B. N. Strassburg, Restoration prioritization must be informed by marginalized people. Nature 607, E5–E6 (2022).
20. P. Rana, H. Fischer, E. Coleman, F. Fleischman, Using machine learning to uncover synergies between forest restoration and livelihood support in the Himalayas. Ecology and Society (2023).
21. N. Pradhan, I. Ibáñez, Poverty solutions are also biodiversity solutions. Nature Sustainability (2026).
1. M. Hernandez‐Montilla, K. Devenish, L. Alencar, R. Benzeev, P. Choksi, I. N. S. Djenontin, M. E. Fagan, H. Fischer, P. Isaacs Cubides, T. Linhares Juvenal, M. Kabutey‐Ongor, J. Kamoto, A. Kinzer, D. Kroeker‐Maus, S. Mansourian, F. Melo, D. C. Miller, S. Nofyanza, A. Pradeep, F. Reiner, W. Rattanarat, N. Sakuntaladewi, C. Song, L. V. Rasmussen, J. A. Oldekop, Forwarding forest restoration: Seven key socio‐ecological issues for advancing forest restoration in a world in flux. People and Nature, pan3.70254 (2026).
2. I. N. S. Djenontin, H. W. Fischer, J. Yin, G. Chi, Unveiling global narratives of restoration policy: Big data insights into competing framings and implications. Geoforum 161, 104241 (2025).
3. H. W. Fischer, S. S. Ali, Reshaping the public domain: Decentralization, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), and trajectories of local democracy in rural India. World Development 120, 147–158 (2019).
4. H. W. Fischer, Beyond Participation and Accountability: Theorizing Representation in Local Democracy. World Development 86, 111–122 (2016).
5. H. W. Fischer, A. Chhatre, Assets , livelihoods , and the ‘ profile approach ’ for analysis of differentiated social vulnerability in the context of climate change. Environment and Planning A, doi: 10.1177/0308518X15623278 (2015).
6. H. W. Fischer, A. Chhatre, S. Devalkar, M. Sohoni, Rural institutions, social networks, and self-organized adaptation to climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 104002 (2021).
7. H. W. Fischer, N. L. N. Reddy, M. L. S. Rao, Can more drought resistant crops promote more climate secure agriculture? Prospects and challenges of millet cultivation in Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh. World Development Perspectives 2, 5–10 (2016).
8. H. W. Fischer, Policy innovations for pro-poor climate support: social protection, small-scale infrastructure, and active citizenship under India’s MGNREGA. Climate and Development 0, 1–14 (2019).
9. H. W. Fischer, Decentralization and the governance of climate adaptation: Situating community-based planning within broader trajectories of political transformation. World Development (2021).
10. A. Dutta, H. W. Fischer, The local governance of COVID-19: Disease prevention and social security in rural India. World Development 138, 105234 (2021).
11. C. Nichols, F. Jalali, H. Fischer, The “Corona Warriors”? Community health workers in the governance of India’s COVID-19 response. Political Geography 99, 102770 (2022).
12. D. Gupta, H. Fischer, S. Shrestha, S. Shoaib Ali, A. Chhatre, K. Devkota, F. Fleischman, D. B. Khatri, P. Rana, Dark and bright spots in the shadow of the pandemic: Rural livelihoods, social vulnerability, and local governance in India and Nepal. World Development 141, 105370 (2021).
13. H. W. Fischer, K. Devkota, D. Gupta, D. B. Khatri, Decentering climate in vulnerability analysis: On aspiration, striving, and the fullness of life in uncertain times. World Development 198, 107214 (2026).
14. E. A. Coleman, B. Schultz, V. Ramprasad, H. Fischer, P. Rana, A. M. Filippi, B. Güneralp, A. Ma, C. Rodriguez Solorzano, V. Guleria, R. Rana, F. Fleischman, Limited effects of tree planting on forest canopy cover and rural livelihoods in Northern India. Nature Sustainability 4, 997–1004 (2021).
15. B. Schultz, D. Brockington, E. A. Coleman, I. Djenontin, H. W. Fischer, F. Fleischman, P. Kashwan, K. Marquardt, M. Pfeifer, R. Pritchard, V. Ramprasad, Recognizing the equity implications of restoration priority maps. Environmental Research Letters 17 (2022).
16. F. Fleischman, S. Basant, A. Chhatre, E. A. Coleman, H. W. Fischer, D. Gupta, B. Güneralp, P. Kashwan, D. Khatri, R. Muscarella, J. S. Powers, V. Ramprasad, P. Rana, C. R. Solorzano, J. W. Veldman, Pitfalls of Tree Planting Show Why We Need People-Centered Natural Climate Solutions. BioScience 70, 947–950 (2020).
17. H. W. Fischer, B. Schultz, E. A. Coleman, A. M. Filippi, V. Guleria, B. Güneralp, V. Kurli, B. Lawrence, A. Ma, V. Ramprasad, P. Rana, R. Rana, C. Rodriguez Solorzano, F. Fleischman, Forest restoration for environment and well-being is associated with empowered local governance over long time horizons. Environ. Res. Lett., doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/adf1b8 (2025).
18. H. W. Fischer, A. Chhatre, A. Duddu, N. Pradhan, A. Agrawal, Community forest governance and synergies among carbon, biodiversity and livelihoods. Nature Climate Change, 1–8 (2023).
19. F. Fleischman, E. Coleman, H. Fischer, P. Kashwan, M. Pfeifer, V. Ramprasad, C. R. Solorzano, J. W. Veldman, B. B. N. Strassburg, Restoration prioritization must be informed by marginalized people. Nature 607, E5–E6 (2022).
20. P. Rana, H. Fischer, E. Coleman, F. Fleischman, Using machine learning to uncover synergies between forest restoration and livelihood support in the Himalayas. Ecology and Society (2023).
21. N. Pradhan, I. Ibáñez, Poverty solutions are also biodiversity solutions. Nature Sustainability (2026).
