4.7 Article

Mediterranean forest policy beyond the Paris Climate Agreement

期刊

LAND USE POLICY
卷 112, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105797

关键词

Land use; Forestry; Carbon sinks; Forest policy; Mediterranean; Paris Agreement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The nature and complexity of forest ecosystems in the Mediterranean region require robust and integrated policies to meet the commitments of the Paris Agreement. This study finds that while the forestry sector is recognized for its potential in climate change mitigation, there is a lack of focus on forest industry models aiming for climate neutrality. To ensure responsible and sustainable practices, the reconstruction of forest policies should be a top priority for Mediterranean countries.
The nature and complexity of forest ecosystems in the Mediterranean region imply the necessity to implement robust and integrated policies, strategies, and special measures to meet the commitments set in Article 5 of the Paris Agreement. This study aims to present the existing literature on forest policy directions on land use change, forestry, and the utilisation of forests as carbon sinks for Mediterranean countries. Another objective is to review current trends and identify challenging issues that lead to policy gaps. A scoping review and analysis were conducted based on a pre-determined research question. Scopus was used as the search database, and descriptive statistics were applied for data processing. The study finds that the forestry sector is most cited for its high potential in climate change mitigation and resilience planning. However, forest industry models aiming at climate neutrality are the least cited schemes in the literature. If the main goal for Mediterranean countries is to efficiently meet the current and future targets for their international pledges and to ensure a responsible position in a greener planet, forest policy re-construction should be listed at the top of the agenda of policy-makers.

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