4.7 Article

Assessment of sustainable land management practices in Mediterranean rural regions

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 276, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111293

关键词

Mediterranean basin; Desertification; Climate change adaptation; WOCAT; Sustainable land management

资金

  1. Basque Government through the BERC 2018-2021 program
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness MINECO through BC3 Maria de Maeztu excellence accreditation [MDM 2017-0714]
  3. Juan de la Cierva Program [IJCI-2015-23500]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sustainable land management practices can be suitable vehicles to simultaneously address the causes and consequences of land degradation, desertification, and climate change in land managed systems. Here, we assess the potential of a variety of sustainable land management practices that, beyond addressing specific and local issues, assist in tackling Mediterranean Basin-wide land-use challenges. With this work, we aim to highlight those options that simultaneously promote local and regional Basin-wide adaptation. To do that, we developed a novel multi-objective assessment that evaluates the effectiveness of 104 practices adopted within the Mediterranean Basin and documented in the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies global database. Results indicate that agroforestry and green covers in perennial woody crops can promote multiple ecosystem services while addressing climate change adaptation. We further argue that these two practices together with reforestation, assist in regulating the hydrological cycle of the Basin and in maintaining its multifunctional landscape. Lastly, we reflect on potential biophysical and socio-economic barriers and opportunities associated with the implementation of the three practices. Our approach provides a Basin-wide integrated view that facilitates the coordination of sustainable management strategies across the Mediterranean region.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据