4.7 Article

Delivery of Ecosystem Services by Community Woodland Groups and Their Networks

期刊

FORESTS
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f12121640

关键词

community Woodland group; ecosystem services; cultural; networks

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CWGs represent a promising woodland management model, focusing on providing cultural services for the benefit of the local community and promoting biodiversity. To realize their potential and address management challenges, CWGs often rely on access to advice, labor, equipment, and funding from across multiple networks.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment stresses that it is possible to manage ecosystems so as to strengthen their capacity to provide a range of goods and services. In reality, the delivery of ecosystem services reflects policy and delivery mechanisms, the environment, and the objectives of landowners and managers. Amid gradual changes to forest policy and more recent periods of austerity, the management of treescapes by locally led groups, such as Community Woodland Groups (CWGs), has become increasingly common. Through document analysis and interviews we explore the objectives and activities of British-based CWGs, and the implications these have for the delivery of ecosystem services. Additionally, we explore CWGs involvement with three types of networks and the ways in which each facilitate CWGs' establishment, operations and ecosystem service provision. We conclude that, while CWGs are capable of delivering a range of ecosystem services, their focus is typically on: (i) cultural services for the benefit of the local community, and (ii) biodiversity. Since these foci parallel the goods and services emphasised in contemporary forest policy agendas, it is apparent that CWGs represent a promising model for woodland management. However, to realise their potential and confront management challenges, CWGs often rely on access to advice, labour, equipment and funding from across multiple networks.

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