Shortly after the formal emergence of the concept of development (1949), the concept of rural development appeared as a specific application of development to rural areas (circa 1950). Later, the concept of sustainable development emerged in the late 1980s, which also influenced the classification of rural development.^1–3 This precise chronology is important for tracking the evolution of the concept of rural development.

Rural development has evolved from an initial equivalence with scientific agriculture towards a more comprehensive understanding, as seen in Territorial Rural Development (TRD), Integrated Rural Development (IRD), Sustainable Rural Development (SRD), and variants such as Sustainable Integrated Rural Development (SIRD). With the recognition that rural development is not limited to agriculture, the concept of New Ruralities emerged, consolidating a more inclusive vision of rural development. The demands of decarbonized development to address climate change have led to a specific formulation: Low-Emission Rural Development. Rural development has also been influenced by processes of participation and social inclusion, and terms such as Inclusive Rural Development (IRD) and Participatory Rural Development (PRD) have been coined. Specifically, the concept of Rural Transformation seeks to generate the conditions that guide the path towards rural development.^4–8

To understand the evolution of the conceptualization of rural development, it is necessary to break down the words contained within it—that is, development and rurality. It is important to note that after the concept of development emerged, criticisms arose questioning its universality, its evolutionary perspective, and its marked emphasis on economic growth and a commitment to technological optimism. Subsequent terms such as sustainable development, human-scale development, and sustainable human development, while certainly addressing criticisms of its extreme economic bias and incorporating social and environmental aspects, did not fundamentally change the way of life, the mode of production, distribution, and consumption, and therefore failed to satisfy the need for a profound and genuinely sustainable conception. This is why proposals have emerged that fall under the umbrella of post-development or alternatives to development, such as Buen Vivir (Good Living), or Buenos Vivires (Good Living), or Buenos Convivires (Good Living Together). As can be seen in these latter aspects, there is no longer explicit talk of development, nor is economic motivation the central axis of thought and action (Sachas, 1992).^9–13

The same applies to the concept of rurality. Initially restricted to the countryside, that is, non-urban areas, it is not possible to dichotomize it due to the close interrelations and interconnections between what is called rural and what is called urban. Rurality has been understood in different ways, as has the space of agriculture in all its forms, alluding to low population density, distance from cities, sociocultural characteristics, or specifically, the space where poverty predominates. But these characterizations do not account for the fact that rurality is a dynamic space co-constituted by social relations, networks, and flows between the local and the global.^14,15

To analyze the link between rural development and forests, Peru in South America is taken as a case study. In Peru, direct responsibility for rural development lies with the Ministry of Agrarian Development and Irrigation (MIDAGRI) and other affiliated entities. Although Peru has strategies, policies, programs, and legislation related to rural development, these have a strong agrarian and economic orientation. Through the National Strategy on Forests and Climate Change (ENBCC), led by the Ministry of the Environment,¹⁶ the sustainable forest landscape management approach is established, from which rural development ceases to be a collateral effect and becomes an explicit objective of forest management. However, due to the sectoral approach of public administration and the highly disciplinary training of Peruvian academia, it has not received the expected acceptance.

Although forestry engineers, by virtue of their scope of practice, are linked to rural development, this relationship has not always been explicit. This is understandable, given that forestry training is specifically geared towards the conservation of natural forests, the sustainable use of natural forests, the promotion of forest plantations, especially commercial ones, and, in recent years, the restoration of forests and the contribution to climate change mitigation, primarily through carbon credits, has gained prominence. Consequently, the concept of low-emission rural development has emerged within environmental and forestry institutions.

A review of the curricula in some forestry faculties in the Peruvian Amazon reveals a lack of courses directly related to rural development. While related courses such as Rural Anthropology and Rural Sociology exist, they contribute to the field but fail to fully grasp the complexity of rural development challenges. Although several theses address community forest management in general, or specifically community participation or a gender perspective, few studies establish a direct link between forestry sciences and rural development. The works of Castro¹⁷ and Andrade¹⁸ stand out in this regard.

Although the current proposed National Forestry and Wildlife Policy uses the word "rural" several times in relation to space and population, it does not explicitly mention rural development.¹⁹ In contrast, the National Development Strategy²⁰ indirectly considered the forestry sector's contribution to rural development. Furthermore, forest zoning, a management tool promoted by SERFOR, is not a rural development policy itself, but it significantly influences its potential. Some limitations of forest zoning as a tool for contributing to rural development include: a dominant biophysical-normative approach, weak integration with rural development policies, unequal capacities among regional governments, largely consultative rural participation, and a sectoral focus on forestry, among others.²¹

In Peru, the specialized work of forestry engineers is assumed to be a contribution to rural development, although the true implications of this are often overlooked. Generally, the discourse of forestry engineers emphasizes their contribution to economic development and, consequently, to sustainable development, while obscuring their contribution to rural development.²² Dourojeanni^23–27 is one of the most prominent authors establishing the link between forestry engineers and rural development. He recognizes that forestry engineering cannot be limited to technical and productive aspects, as is often the case, but must embrace social and territorial responsibility, explicitly contributing to rural well-being. In this sense, he suggests a stronger connection between education, forestry practice, public policy, and rural well-being. He further recommends the participation of rural stakeholders and communities, as well as the formulation of forestry policies that are consistent with local economies.

It is concluded that although the potential contribution of forestry engineers to rural development is high, it is not widely recognized, and forestry development is more closely associated with the forestry industry, its contribution to the national economy, and, consequently, its political and discursive implications for sustainable development. This product-oriented approach fails to grasp the true dimensions of the territory, much less the complex relationships within socio-ecological systems. Furthermore, discussions are now moving beyond traditional rural development to embrace alternative approaches such as Buen Vivir (Good Living), where the focus is no longer primarily on the economic dimension but rather on human well-being, the well-being of ecosystems within the framework of biocultural rights, and harmonious living and coexistence. In this sense, the entire scope of a proposal for Forest Sciences for Life remains open for discussion.^28–30

None.

The author declares there is no conflicto of interest.

1. Mönks J, Carbonnier G, Mellet A, et al. Towards a renewed vision of development studies. International Development Policy / Revue internationale de politique de développement. 2017;(9)8.
2. Du Pisani JA. Sustainable development – ​​historical roots of the concept. Environmental Sciences. 2006;3(2):83–96.
3. Ellis F, Biggs S. Evolving themes in rural development 1950s–2000s. Development Policy Review. 2001;19(4):437–448.
4. Woodhill J, Romina Cavatassi, Leslie Lipper, et al. Resilient and inclusive rural transformation: Exploring pathways for sustainable development. Global Food Security. 2025;46:100868.
5. Liu D, Li F, Qiu M, et al. An integrated framework for measuring sustainable rural development towards the SDGs. Land Use Policy. 2024;147:107339.
6. Smith JB, Brown RD. The challenge climate change poses to achieving resilient and inclusive rural transformation. Global Food Security. 2024;43:100811.
7. Smith LC, Jones A. Gendered pathways for resilient and inclusive rural transformation. Global Food Security. 2024;43:100818.
8. Castro Aponte AE. Community forestry development in the conservation of the Andean ecosystem of the Vicos Recuayhuanca micro-basin, Ancash, Peru (Master's thesis). Pontifical Catholic University of Peru.
9. Bermúdez-Restrepo C, Vaca-López A. Critical contributions of Buen Vivir (Sumak Kawsay) as a Latin American alternative to global sustainability. Sustainability. 2026;18(2):622.
10. Ziai A. Theorizing postdevelopment. The European Journal of Development Research. 2025;37:500–523.
11. Demaria F, Kothari A, Salleh A, et al. Post-development: From the criticism of development to a pluriverse of alternatives. In: S Villamayor-Tomas, et al., editors. The Barcelona School of Ecological Economics and Political Ecology. 2023. p. 59–69.
12. Chassagne N. Sustaining the 'good life': Buen Vivir as an alternative to sustainable development. Community Development Journal. 2018;54(3):482–500.
13. Escobar A. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press. 1995.
14. Nelson KS, Nguyen TD, Brownstein NA, et al. Definitions, measures, and uses of rurality: A systematic review of the empirical and quantitative literature. Journal of Rural Studies. 2021;82:351–365.
15. Heley J, Jones L. Relational rurals: Some thoughts on relating things and theory in rural studies. Journal of Rural Studies. 2012;28(3):208–217.
16. Ministry of the Environment – ​​MINAM. National strategy on forests and climate change (Supreme Decree No. 007-2016-MINAM). 2016.
17. Castro-Arce K, Vanclay F. Transformative social innovation for sustainable rural development: An analytical framework to assist community-based initiatives. Journal of Rural Studies. 2020;74:45–54.
18. Andrade Chang MB. Community participation in the management of forest development projects: a case study in communal forests of Ucayali (Undergraduate thesis). Pontifical Catholic University of Peru. 2017.
19. National Forest and Wildlife Service - SERFOR. National Forest and Wildlife Policy to 2030 (Proposal). Lima: SERFOR. 2024a.
20. Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation [MINAG]. National Forestry Strategy. Version agreed upon with forestry institutions and stakeholders. MINAG, FAO Project GCP/PER/035/NET “Support for the National Strategy for Forestry Development”. 2002.
21. National Forest and Wildlife Service - SERFOR. Methodological guide for forest zoning. SERFOR, Ministry of Agrarian Development and Irrigation. 2024b.
22. Arce Rojas RS. The approach to forestry development in Peru. Revista Forestal del Perú. 2022;9(2):e3851.
23. Dourojeanni M. Interpretations on deforestation in protected natural areas in the Peruvian Amazon. Kawsaypacha. 2023;(11).
24. Dourojeanni M. To democratize and strengthen forestry use in Peru. Kawsaypacha. 2022;(10).
25. Dourojeanni MJ, Jorge Malleux, César Sabogal, et al. Foundations of a new forest policy for Peru. Revista Forestal del Perú. 2021;36(2):118–179.
26. Dourojeanni MJ. Is timber harvesting from natural forests in Peru sustainable? Sustainable Forestry. 2020;3(1).
27. Dourojeanni MJ. A new strategy for the development of the Peruvian Amazon. Revista Forestal del Perú. 1976;6(1–2).
28. Arce R. Forest sciences for life. Revista Forestal del Perú. 2023;38(2):157–178.
29. Felix GF, Lorenzo Cintori, Romina Cavatassi, et al. Natural resources management for resilient inclusive rural transformation. Global Food Security. 2024;42:100794.
30. Sachs W. The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. Zed Books. 1992.