Discourses across Scales on Forest Landscape Restoration

Reinecke, Sabine; Blum, Mareike

doi:10.3390/su10030613

Cited by 41 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The justification for the volume was twofold: Our premise was that drivers of forest loss and degradation are predominantly anthropogenic, often crossing scales (e.g., contradictions between livelihood needs at the local level and economic, financial, and political forces operating at national or international scales) and sectors (e.g., infrastructure construction contributing to forest loss and degradation; IPBES, ). Additionally, FLR implementation is often criticised as being too unidimensional and that more could be done to promote integration and interdisciplinarity in FLR implementation (Caughlin, Graves, Asner, Tarbox, & Bohlman, ; Reinecke & Blum, ). To begin to respond to these challenges, we sought to explore and bring together integration lessons from other related and topical land use challenges that could be applied to FLR.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting the pieces together: Integration for forest landscape restoration implementation

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of forest landscape restoration (FLR) is being widely adopted around the globe by governmental, non‐governmental agencies, and the private sector, all of whom see FLR as an approach that contributes to multiple global sustainability goals. Originally, FLR was designed with a clearly integrative dimension across sectors, stakeholders, space and time, and in particular across the natural and social sciences. Yet, in practice, this integration remains a challenge in many FLR efforts. Reflecting this lack of integration are the continued narrow sectoral and disciplinary approaches taken by forest restoration projects, often leading to marginalisation of the most vulnerable populations, including through land dispossessions. This article aims to assess what lessons can be learned from other associated fields of practice for FLR implementation. To do this, 35 scientists came together to review the key literature on these concepts to suggest relevant lessons and guidance for FLR. We explored the following large‐scale land use frameworks or approaches: land sparing/land sharing, the landscape approach, agroecology, and socio‐ecological systems. Also, to explore enabling conditions to promote integrated decision making, we reviewed the literature on understanding stakeholders and their motivations, tenure and property rights, polycentric governance, and integration of traditional and Western knowledge. We propose lessons and guidance for practitioners and policymakers on ways to improve integration in FLR planning and implementation. Our findings highlight the need for a change in decision‐making processes for FLR, better understanding of stakeholder motivations and objectives for FLR, and balancing planning with flexibility to enhance social–ecological resilience.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting the pieces together: Integration for forest landscape restoration implementation

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, forests can be a habitat for rare and endangered species (Erdösa et al, 2015(Erdösa et al, , 2017. The World Resources Institute (WRI) sets a strategic goal for 2020 to recover 150 million hectares of deforested and degraded land worldwide (Reinecke & Blum, 2018). However, as shown by the recent Hungarian experience with the use of Robinia pseudoacacia in afforestation of pastures, it entails the loss of grassland species and their replacement by nitrophils (Matus et al, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural comparative analysis of forest and steppe plant communities in the south of Kryvyi Rih region

Shevchuk

2018

Biosys. divers.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We made a comparative analysis of the floristic structure of 11 various-aged (30–50-year-old) forest and four steppe communities in the south of Kryvyi Rih region. We ascertained that the forest communities have low specific richness (2–90 species), whereas steppe ones contain from 167 to 251 species. The ten families leading in the species number are: Asteraceae, Poaceae, Rosaceae, Fabaceae, Lamiaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Boraginaceae, Apiaceae, Brassicaceae and Polygonaceae. Specific representation of the steppe communities depends on the geomorphologic formation, grazing pressure, soil cover composition; respective order of families differs slightly: Asteraceae, Poaceae, Fabaceae, Rosaceae, Scrophulariaceae, Lamiaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Brassicaceae, Apiaceae, Boraginaceae. The core of the geographical structure of forest vegetation is the species with a palaearctic type of range (30.3–54.5%), and in the steppe, species with the Black Sea area group (15.6–24.0%). The second and the third most numerous in forest groups are groups of species of transitional areas (3.6–23.3%) and holarctic species (7.0–17.2%). In the steppe communities, almost the same proportions are formed by the species of the palaearctic group and the plants of group of transitional areas (15.8–23.1% and 18.3–21.7% respectively). We revealed that in the forest and steppe communities the most numerous group in the spectra is the biomorph of hemicryptophytes (25.6–42.4% and 45.8–47.0% respectively). According to the structure of the above-ground shoots, identical proportions are formed by rosetteless and semi-rosetted species (38.3–60.5% and 37.2–56.7% respectively) in the forest communities, and semi-rosetted species (47.4–49.1%) in the steppe ones; as for the type of structure of underground shoots in forest communities, species without special underground formations (33.3–65.1%) and caudex formations (18.6–36.4%) prevail, and, in the steppe communities – caudex species do (39.1–47.9%); xeromesophytes (33.3–100%), and mesoxerophytes (32.9–40.6%) dominate in the hygrospectra of forest and steppe communities respectively; in heliospectra, there is the predominance of heliophytes (62.3–97.1% and 50.8–67.5% respectively); in trophoscopes, the mesotrophs are prevalent (57.1–98.4% and 47.0–52.1% respectively). The ecological and coenotic spectrum of forest communities is characterized by the domination of synanthropophants (36.3–58.6%), and in steppe ones – steppants (51.8–55.0%). We revealed the similarity of the floristic composition of forest and steppe communities (6.8–39.4%), and the largest index is noted for the plot with a strict nature reserve regime (19.4–39.4%). In forest communities, this value is 15.6–66.7%, and it varies in different-aged plantations of the same species. The analysis shows that there are significant differences in the floristic and biomorphological composition of forest and steppe communities; it confirms the concept of O.L. Belgard on the environment transforming function of artificial steppe forests, changing the biotic circulation, which is inherent in the steppes.

show abstract

“…Ecological restoration has emerged as a common framework for addressing multiple natural resource management challenges, including the promotion of local livelihoods, sustainable development, conservation of biodiversity, mitigation of climate change, and adaptation to disturbances including climate change [25]. Proponents of restoration suggest that these efforts can be broadly relevant when customized to particular landscape and social contexts [26].…”

Section: An Evolving Foundational Concept: Ecological Restorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifting Perspectives in Assessing Socio-Environmental Vulnerability

Long

Steel

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governments and institutions across the globe are conducting vulnerability assessments and developing adaptation plans to confront rapidly changing climatic conditions. Interrelated priorities, including the conservation of biodiversity, ecological restoration, sustainable development, and social justice often underlie these efforts. We collaborated with colleagues in an effort to help guide vulnerability assessment and adaptation (VAA) generally in Southeast Asia and specifically in the watershed of the Sirindhorn International Environmental Park (SIEP) in Phetchaburi Province, Thailand. Reflecting upon our experiences and a review of recent VAA literature, we examine a series of seven questions that help to frame the socio-ecological context for VAAs. We then propose a three-dimensional framework for understanding common orientations of VAAs and how they appear to be shifting and broadening over time, particularly in the USA. For example, key leaders in the SIEP project emphasized social development and community-based approaches over more ecology-centric approaches; this orientation was consistent with other examples from SE Asia. In contrast, many efforts for US national forests have evaluated vulnerability based on projected shifts in vegetation and have promoted adaptation options based upon ecological restoration. Illustrating a third, highly integrated approach, many VAAs prepared by indigenous tribes in the USA have emphasized restoring historical ecological conditions within a broader context of promoting cultural traditions, social justice, and adaptive capacity. We conclude with lessons learned and suggestions for advancing integrated approaches.

show abstract

Discourses across Scales on Forest Landscape Restoration

Cited by 41 publications

References 32 publications

Putting the pieces together: Integration for forest landscape restoration implementation

Putting the pieces together: Integration for forest landscape restoration implementation

Structural comparative analysis of forest and steppe plant communities in the south of Kryvyi Rih region

Shifting Perspectives in Assessing Socio-Environmental Vulnerability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About