| 1. |
- Elbakidze, Marine, et al.
(author)
-
Defining Priority Land Covers that Secure the Livelihoods of Urban and Rural People in Ethiopia: a Case Study Based on Citizens' Preferences
- 2018
-
In: Sustainability. - : MDPI AG. - 2071-1050. ; 10
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Securing land management systems that maintain land covers is important for sustaining human livelihoods in Africa; however, simultaneously maintaining a viable natural environment is a serious challenge. Aggravated by rapid population growth and biodiversity loss, Ethiopia is an illustrative example of this issue. Stressing the need for a bottom-up stakeholder perspective, we identify and map land covers that deliver multiple ecosystem services that are important for the livelihoods of rural and urban citizens in the southern part of Ethiopia's Rift Valley. First, we interviewed 400 urban and rural residents to identify the land covers that deliver desired ecosystem services in three agroecological zones, representing a steep gradient in the livelihood conditions. Second, to support the inclusion of priority land covers in spatial planning, we located spatial concentrations of individual land covers providing bundles of desired ecosystem services. The majority of urban respondents selected homegarden agroforestry (92% of respondents from this group), freshwater lake (82%), river (70%), agroforestry shade-grown coffee (65%), natural old-growth forest (59%), rural settlement (52%), Afromontane undifferentiated forest (52%), and urban areas (73%) as important for their livelihood. In contrast, the majority of rural respondents selected three land covers: homegarden agroforestry (80% of respondents from this group), agroforestry shade-grown coffee (58%), and urban areas (65%). To maintain the identified natural and semi-natural priority land covers, at least two land management strategies are crucial to sustain the provision of ecosystem services for the livelihoods of both urban and rural people, and biodiversity conservation: (1) maintaining traditional agroforestry land-use practices, and (2) enhancing the protection and sustainable management of natural forest ecosystems. Additionally, integrated spatial planning is needed that considers both rural local community-based resource management that focuses on local needs for employment and products, and global demands to conserve biodiversity.
|
|
| 2. |
- Naumov, Vladimir, et al.
(author)
-
How to reconcile wood production and biodiversity conservation? The Pan-European boreal forest history gradient as an "experiment"
- 2018
-
In: Journal of Environmental Management. - : Elsevier BV. - 0301-4797 .- 1095-8630. ; 218, s. 1-13
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- There are currently competing demands on Europe's forests and the finite resources and services that they can offer. Forestry intensification that aims at mitigating climate change and biodiversity conservation is one example. Whether or not these two objectives compete can be evaluated by comparative studies of forest landscapes with different histories. We test the hypothesis that indicators of wood production and biodiversity conservation are inversely related in a gradient of long to short forestry intensification histories. Forest management data containing stand age, volume and tree species were used to model the opportunity for wood production and biodiversity conservation in five north European forest regions representing a gradient in landscape history from very long in the West and short in the East. Wood production indicators captured the supply of coniferous wood and total biomass, as well as current accessibility by transport infrastructure. Biodiversity conservation indicators were based on modelling habitat network functionality for focal bird species dependent on different combinations of stand age and tree species composition representing naturally dynamic forests. In each region we randomly sampled 25 individual 100-km(2) areas with contiguous forest cover. Regarding wood production, Sweden's Bergslagen region had the largest areas of coniferous wood, followed by Vitebsk in Belarus and Zemgale in Latvia. NW Russia's case study regions in Pskov and Komi had the lowest values, except for the biomass indicator. The addition of forest accessibility for transportation made the Belarusian and Swedish study region most suitable for wood and biomass production, followed by Latvia and two study regions in NW Russian. Regarding biodiversity conservation, the overall rank among regions was opposite. Mixed and deciduous habitats were functional in Russia, Belarus and Latvia. Old Scots pine and Norway spruce habitats were only functional in Komi. Thus, different regional forest histories provide different challenges in terms of satisfying both wood production and biodiversity conservation objectives in a forest management unit. These regional differences in northern Europe create opportunities for exchanging experiences among different regional contexts about how to achieve both objectives. We discuss this in the context of land-sharing versus land-sparing. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
