Suchergebnisse

Aims Primary forests are critical for forest biodiversity and provide key ecosystem services. In Europe, these forests are particularly scarce and it is unclear whether they are sufficiently protected. Here we aim to: (a) understand whether extant primary forests are representative of the range of naturally occurring forest types, (b) identify forest types which host enough primary forest under strict protection to meet conservation targets and (c) highlight areas where restoration is needed and feasible. Location Europe. Methods We combined a unique geodatabase of primary forests with maps of forest cover, potential natural vegetation, biogeographic regions and protected areas to quantify the proportion of extant primary forest across Europe's forest types and to identify gaps in protection. Using spatial predictions of primary forest locations to account for underreporting of primary forests, we then highlighted areas where restoration could complement protection. Results We found a substantial bias in primary forest distribution across forest types. Of the 54 forest types we assessed, six had no primary forest at all, and in two‐thirds of forest types, less than 1% of forest was primary. Even if generally protected, only ten forest types had more than half of their primary forests strictly protected. Protecting all documented primary forests requires expanding the protected area networks by 1,132 km2 (19,194 km2 when including also predicted primary forests). Encouragingly, large areas of non‐primary forest existed inside protected areas for most types, thus presenting restoration opportunities. Main conclusion Europe's primary forests are in a perilous state, as also acknowledged by EU's "Biodiversity Strategy for 2030." Yet, there are considerable opportunities for ensuring better protection and restoring primary forest structure, composition and functioning, at least partially. We advocate integrated policy reforms that explicitly account for the irreplaceable nature of primary forests and ramp up protection and restoration efforts alike.

Aims: Primary forests are critical for forest biodiversity and provide key ecosystem services. In Europe, these forests are particularly scarce and it is unclear whether they are sufficiently protected. Here we aim to: (a) understand whether extant primary forests are representative of the range of naturally occurring forest types, (b) identify forest types which host enough primary forest under strict protection to meet conservation targets and (c) highlight areas where restoration is needed and feasible. Location: Europe. Methods: We combined a unique geodatabase of primary forests with maps of forest cover, potential natural vegetation, biogeographic regions and protected areas to quantify the proportion of extant primary forest across Europe's forest types and to identify gaps in protection. Using spatial predictions of primary forest locations to account for underreporting of primary forests, we then highlighted areas where restoration could complement protection. Results: We found a substantial bias in primary forest distribution across forest types. Of the 54 forest types we assessed, six had no primary forest at all, and in two-thirds of forest types, less than 1% of forest was primary. Even if generally protected, only ten forest types had more than half of their primary forests strictly protected. Protecting all documented primary forests requires expanding the protected area networks by 1,132km2 (19,194km2 when including also predicted primary forests). Encouragingly, large areas of non-primary forest existed inside protected areas for most types, thus presenting restoration opportunities. Main conclusion: Europe's primary forests are in a perilous state, as also acknowledged by EU's "Biodiversity Strategy for 2030." Yet, there are considerable opportunities for ensuring better protection and restoring primary forest structure, composition and functioning, at least partially. We advocate integrated policy reforms that explicitly account for the irreplaceable nature of primary forests and ramp up protection and restoration efforts alike.

Aims: Primary forests are critical for forest biodiversity and provide key ecosystem services. In Europe, these forests are particularly scarce and it is unclear whether they are sufficiently protected. Here we aim to: (a) understand whether extant primary forests are representative of the range of naturally occurring forest types, (b) identify forest types which host enough primary forest under strict protection to meet conservation targets and (c) highlight areas where restoration is needed and feasible. Location: Europe. Methods: We combined a unique geodatabase of primary forests with maps of forest cover, potential natural vegetation, biogeographic regions and protected areas to quantify the proportion of extant primary forest across Europe's forest types and to identify gaps in protection. Using spatial predictions of primary forest locations to account for underreporting of primary forests, we then highlighted areas where restoration could complement protection. Results: We found a substantial bias in primary forest distribution across forest types. Of the 54 forest types we assessed, six had no primary forest at all, and in two-thirds of forest types, less than 1% of forest was primary. Even if generally protected, only ten forest types had more than half of their primary forests strictly protected. Protecting all documented primary forests requires expanding the protected area networks by 1,132 km2 (19,194 km2 when including also predicted primary forests). Encouragingly, large areas of non-primary forest existed inside protected areas for most types, thus presenting restoration opportunities. Main conclusion: Europe's primary forests are in a perilous state, as also acknowledged by EU's "Biodiversity Strategy for 2030." Yet, there are considerable opportunities for ensuring better protection and restoring primary forest structure, composition and functioning, at least partially. We advocate integrated policy reforms that explicitly account for the irreplaceable nature of primary forests and ramp up protection and restoration efforts alike.

Aims Primary forests are critical for forest biodiversity and provide key ecosystem services. In Europe, these forests are particularly scarce and it is unclear whether they are sufficiently protected. Here we aim to: (a) understand whether extant primary forests are representative of the range of naturally occurring forest types, (b) identify forest types which host enough primary forest under strict protection to meet conservation targets and (c) highlight areas where restoration is needed and feasible. Location Europe. Methods We combined a unique geodatabase of primary forests with maps of forest cover, potential natural vegetation, biogeographic regions and protected areas to quantify the proportion of extant primary forest across Europe's forest types and to identify gaps in protection. Using spatial predictions of primary forest locations to account for underreporting of primary forests, we then highlighted areas where restoration could complement protection. Results We found a substantial bias in primary forest distribution across forest types. Of the 54 forest types we assessed, six had no primary forest at all, and in two-thirds of forest types, less than 1% of forest was primary. Even if generally protected, only ten forest types had more than half of their primary forests strictly protected. Protecting all documented primary forests requires expanding the protected area networks by 1,132 km(2)(19,194 km(2)when including also predicted primary forests). Encouragingly, large areas of non-primary forest existed inside protected areas for most types, thus presenting restoration opportunities. Main conclusion Europe's primary forests are in a perilous state, as also acknowledged by EU's "Biodiversity Strategy for 2030." Yet, there are considerable opportunities for ensuring better protection and restoring primary forest structure, composition and functioning, at least partially. We advocate integrated policy reforms that explicitly account for the irreplaceable nature of primary forests and ramp up protection and restoration efforts alike.

AbstractWetland restoration is an important water quality and climate resilience strategy. Wetland restoration rarely considers tradeoffs at large spatial and temporal scales, which limits capacity to aid decision makers. High resolution data can reveal hundreds to thousands of possible restoration options across a landscape, but guidance for setting restoration targets at these scales is limited. This study uses structured decision making (SDM) as a process for evaluating the desirability of numerous restoration options, with a case study on the Outer Coastal Plain of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA. The Nature Conservancy, in partnership with federal, state, and nonprofit organizations, evaluated a decision to target large-scale wetland restoration based on two fundamental objectives: improve water quality and enhance climate resilience. A total of 964 potentially restorable alternatives were delineated across the study area. The alternatives were evaluated on seven water quality and climate resilience criteria. High-priority alternatives were mapped based on multi-criteria ranking methods and principal component analysis. Sensitivity analysis included varying nutrient load data, implementing multiple ranking methods with different assumptions, and varying criteria weights. The maps revealed seven distinct regions of restoration opportunities. Tradeoffs were evaluated to distinguish between desirable and less desirable regions. Results indicated that three regions were promising choices to initiate landowner engagement and outreach. This study highlights the advantages of SDM to structure large-scale restoration decisions. In doing so, our work offers a roadmap toward further developing SDM in future applied restoration contexts.

Failures of conservation policies in place to revert the current loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services urge to expand conservation approaches by seeking new opportunities for harmonizing nature restoration and social and economic needs. Rewilding has emerged as an ambitious solution to restore the integrity of ecological communities, emphasizing the need to switch from policy goals mostly focused on structural components of biodiversity such as species and habitats, towards a more comprehensive consideration of ecosystem processes and the role of species in maintaining these processes. However, contrasting perspectives on the implementation of rewilding goals, as well as misinterpretations of its ecological foundations, have obscured the debate about whether rewilding should be included or not in the conservation agenda. In this talk, I will discuss the benefits of a pragmatic approach to rewilding for boosting large-scale and long-term visions for biodiversity restoration in Europe, while taking advantage of opportunities provided by socio-economic changes and policy opportunities, such as land abandonment and the potential to contribute to the goals of Green Infrastructure. I will present rewilding as a multi-faceted concept that focuses on (1) increasing the functional ecological connectivity of habitats, (2) promoting more sustainable and biodiversity-rich food webs, and (3) allowing space for natural disturbances. Furthermore, I will make a case for the implementation of an European-scale rewilding strategy that is based on the identification and spatial assessment of the current state, the opportunities, and the risks and limitations of a rewilding approach. This advocacy has the ultimate goal of promoting the adoption of a proactive biodiversity restoration agenda at the EU level that explicitly incorporates rewilding principles. ; peerReviewed

The article deals with such empirical measures of the quality of democracy as the attitude of the Lithuanian population towards the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities, their preparedness to fight discrimination, and the social experience of the population in the restoration of violated rights. The social practice of restoring violated rights to equal opportunities and non-discrimination is examined in the context of microsociology, that is, at the level of individual cases. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has been chosen for the analysis of individual experience and the examination of social practices for the restoration of violated rights, because, given the high prevalence of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the very low number of people willing to defend their rights, it can be argued that this ground of discrimination plays a crucial role in identifying factors that encourage and/or limit people's willingness to protect their rights. The paper presents a summary of the qualitative interviews conducted with those who have been discriminated on the basis of their sexual orientation and provides insights from experts with experience in dealing with such cases.

Interest in ecological restoration has recently intensified as scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders use restoration in management strategies to address and mitigate global climate change and biodiversity loss. Northern ecosystems offer special challenges to restoration managers because of their short growing seasons and long recovery periods. This special feature of Ecology and Society on ecological restoration in northern regions draws together 11 papers based on presentations from the conference "Restoring the North", convened in October 2011 in Selfoss, Iceland. We summarize two themes of this conference: ( 1) setting objectives and evaluating success in restoration, and ( 2) legislation, policy, and implementation of restoration. We conclude that northern countries altogether comprise a significant knowledge base and suggest five actions to enhance restoration practices within them: ( 1) improved documentation of restoration actions, including objectives, measures and results, ( 2) regular evaluation of restoration progress and outcome, ( 3) coordination of conservation actions among northern countries, including location of restoration actions to sites where they are most useful in a global context, ( 4) formation of a common platform to strengthen development of research about ecological, political, social, and technical aspects of ecological restoration, and ( 5) education of new generations of restoration actors who can work in diverse biogeographic settings and cultures.

Peatlands conversion to dryland for plantation has caused environmental havoc and is more prone to natural disasters in Indonesia. Community engagements under village administration should be the main strategy for supporting peatlands restoration. Since the new law on villages was enacted in 2014, the village has gained authority and delegated responsibilities from the upper-level government to make rural development decisions in various sectors, including those connected to environmental management, such as peatland restoration. The recognition of authority is followed by the transfer of significant funds, called village funds, from the central government as a form of commitment to undertake the village law. Currently, applied regulations allow community engagement to utilize the village fund for supporting peatland restoration. This study investigated the community's perceptions of village fund utilization for peatland restoration through in-depth interviews and questionnaires with site-level stakeholders that influence village budget allocation-related policies. The investigated aspects included village budgeting and development planning mechanism, the capacity of the community, and rules of district government in supervising the villages. Based on our findings, the identified challenges include the absence of environmental aspects as a part of village development pillars for developing village planning and budgeting, lack of community's environmental-economical nexus knowledge, and lack of district government in supervising village fund utilization and management at the site-level. However, the opportunities to direct the village fund utilization for peatlands restoration are widely open by strengthening the roles of district government to improve village fund governance at the site level.