Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorAngelstam, Per Krister
dc.contributor.authorBush, Terrence
dc.contributor.authorManton, Michael
dc.coverage.spatialSwedenen_US
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-21T09:00:12Z
dc.date.available2023-09-21T09:00:12Z
dc.date.created2023-06-12T12:54:46Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citationLand. 2023, 12 (5), .en_US
dc.identifier.issn2073-445X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3091014
dc.description.abstractSwedish policies aim at conserving biological production, biodiversity, cultural heritage and recreational assets. This requires compositionally and structurally functional networks of representative habitats, the processes that maintain them, and resilient ecosystems. The term green infrastructure (GI) captures this. We review (1) policy concerning forest biodiversity conservation from the 1990s; (2) the implementation outputs, including the formulation of short-term and evidence based long-term goals for protected areas, education, and the development of hierarchical spatial planning; (3) the consequences in terms of formally protected and voluntarily set-aside forest stands, as well as conservation management and habitat restoration. We assess the successes and failures regarding policy, outputs and consequences, discuss challenges to be addressed, and suggest solutions. Policies capture evidence-based knowledge about biodiversity, and evidence-based conservation planning as an output. However, the desired consequences are not met on the ground. Thus, the amount of formally protected and voluntary set-aside forests are presently too low, and have limited quality and poor functional connectivity. GI functionality is even declining because of forestry intensification, and insufficient conservation. Challenges include limited collaborative learning among forest and conservation planners, poor funding to conserve forest habitats with sufficient size, quality and connectivity, and national politics that ignores evidence-based knowledge. As solutions, we highlight the need for diversification of forest management systems with a landscape perspective that matches forest owner objectives and regional social-ecological contexts. This requires integrative approaches to knowledge production, learning and spatial planning.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.subjectconnectivityen_US
dc.subjectdisturbance regimesen_US
dc.subjectforest policyen_US
dc.subjectgreen infrastructureen_US
dc.subjecthabitat networken_US
dc.subjectmulti-functional landscapeen_US
dc.subjectnature restorationen_US
dc.subjectprotected areasen_US
dc.subjectsocial systemen_US
dc.subjectspatial planningen_US
dc.titleChallenges and Solutions for Forest Biodiversity Conservation in Sweden: Assessment of Policy, Implementation Outputs, and Consequencesen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.en_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Landbruks- og Fiskerifag: 900en_US
dc.source.pagenumber58en_US
dc.source.volume12en_US
dc.source.journalLanden_US
dc.source.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/land12051098
dc.identifier.cristin2153777
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal