4.5 Article

A Policy-Driven Knowledge Agenda for Global Forest and Landscape Restoration

期刊

CONSERVATION LETTERS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 125-132

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/conl.12220

关键词

Aichi biodiversity targets; Bonn challenge; environmental policy; ecological restoration; large-scale restoration; New York Declaration on Forests; multidisciplinary research; restoration governance; restoration planning; science-policy interface

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES), Brazil
  2. UK Government
  3. U.S. NSF [DEB-1313788]
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences
  5. Division Of Environmental Biology [1313788] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The global restoration movement is gaining momentum. International and national leaders are demonstrating unparalleled political will for achieving ambitious targets. However, the knowledge base for implementing large-scale forest and landscape restoration (FLR) needs further development. Besides application of scientific and local knowledge, a broad understanding of the social, economic, and environmental context in which this knowledge is being applied is also needed. To address knowledge gaps and guide implementation of FLR at local to global scales we propose a knowledge creation agenda that we derive from emerging policy goals. We present a holistic approach that addresses food security, ecosystem services, and livelihoods, and that supports implementation by a wide array of actors from farmers and municipalities to corporations and state agencies. Our knowledge creation agenda is based on six broad policy goals, with several associated knowledge gaps for each goal. We recognize that this agenda is simply a starting point and will surely evolve and become more locally focused as the concept of FLR gains ground and as multiple groups of stakeholders engage in the long-term process of restoring functionality and value to ecosystems and landscapes around the world.

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

4.5
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