森林清除、补偿性造林和森林生物多样性补偿:平衡瑞士的灵活性和等效性

IF 4 2区 农林科学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Tobias Schulz , Tamaki Ohmura , David Troxler , Eva Lieberherr
{"title":"森林清除、补偿性造林和森林生物多样性补偿:平衡瑞士的灵活性和等效性","authors":"Tobias Schulz ,&nbsp;Tamaki Ohmura ,&nbsp;David Troxler ,&nbsp;Eva Lieberherr","doi":"10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The settlement area is expanding at the cost of agricultural land in densely populated regions such as Central Europe. This development is also affecting the forest. Forest clearances due to, e.g. traffic and energy infrastructure development, require afforestation elsewhere but surfaces providing appropriate soil are increasingly scarce. Switzerland is an important case in point. It is densely populated, exhibits a large amount of forest – also in the lowlands – and although it features a strong forest protection law, it recently allowed compensating forest clearances with non-forest related offsets. Based on the results of a Q-methodology survey conducted during a stakeholder workshop, we show that pressure for more flexible forest specific rules largely stems from “outside” the forest sector, i.e. the agriculture and development sector. Only a small group of actors aims at reinstalling the more restrictive regime, whereas the largest group of actors embraces the status quo. This group rejects expansion of more flexible rules and adheres to strengthening the top of the mitigation hierarchy, i.e. prioritizing the mitigation of habitat loss caused by development. This interpretation of biodiversity offsetting aligns with the conviction that development needs to respect the limits of growth. Prioritizing the mitigation hierarchy requires a planning rather than a market coordination approach. We show that in a context with rigid biodiversity offsetting rules, following a multipurpose forest regime and with high land-use competition, stakeholder preferences impede the integration of habitat banking approaches into the planning of compensatory afforestation and biodiversity offsetting in the forest.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":12451,"journal":{"name":"Forest Policy and Economics","volume":"163 ","pages":"Article 103219"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124000728/pdfft?md5=1f44df84535ca2b0112b8ef07643a96c&pid=1-s2.0-S1389934124000728-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Forest clearances, compensatory afforestation and biodiversity offsetting in forests: Balancing flexibility and equivalency in Switzerland\",\"authors\":\"Tobias Schulz ,&nbsp;Tamaki Ohmura ,&nbsp;David Troxler ,&nbsp;Eva Lieberherr\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The settlement area is expanding at the cost of agricultural land in densely populated regions such as Central Europe. This development is also affecting the forest. Forest clearances due to, e.g. traffic and energy infrastructure development, require afforestation elsewhere but surfaces providing appropriate soil are increasingly scarce. Switzerland is an important case in point. It is densely populated, exhibits a large amount of forest – also in the lowlands – and although it features a strong forest protection law, it recently allowed compensating forest clearances with non-forest related offsets. Based on the results of a Q-methodology survey conducted during a stakeholder workshop, we show that pressure for more flexible forest specific rules largely stems from “outside” the forest sector, i.e. the agriculture and development sector. Only a small group of actors aims at reinstalling the more restrictive regime, whereas the largest group of actors embraces the status quo. This group rejects expansion of more flexible rules and adheres to strengthening the top of the mitigation hierarchy, i.e. prioritizing the mitigation of habitat loss caused by development. This interpretation of biodiversity offsetting aligns with the conviction that development needs to respect the limits of growth. Prioritizing the mitigation hierarchy requires a planning rather than a market coordination approach. We show that in a context with rigid biodiversity offsetting rules, following a multipurpose forest regime and with high land-use competition, stakeholder preferences impede the integration of habitat banking approaches into the planning of compensatory afforestation and biodiversity offsetting in the forest.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12451,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forest Policy and Economics\",\"volume\":\"163 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124000728/pdfft?md5=1f44df84535ca2b0112b8ef07643a96c&pid=1-s2.0-S1389934124000728-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forest Policy and Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124000728\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Policy and Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124000728","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在中欧等人口稠密地区,居住区不断扩大,农田却在减少。这种发展也影响到了森林。由于交通和能源基础设施建设等原因造成的森林砍伐需要在其他地方植树造林,但能提供适当土壤的地表却越来越少。瑞士就是一个重要的例子。瑞士人口稠密,有大量的森林--在低地也是如此--虽然瑞士有严格的森林保护法,但最近允许用与森林无关的补偿来补偿森林砍伐。根据利益相关者研讨会期间进行的 Q 方法调查结果,我们发现,要求制定更灵活的森林特定规则的压力主要来自森林部门 "外部",即农业和发展部门。只有一小部分参与者希望重新建立限制性更强的制度,而最大的一部分参与者则希望维持现状。这部分人拒绝扩大更灵活的规则,坚持加强减缓等级制度的顶层,即优先减缓发展造成的栖息地损失。这种对生物多样性补偿的解释与发展需要尊重增长极限的信念相一致。确定减缓等级的优先次序需要采用规划而非市场协调的方法。我们的研究表明,在生物多样性抵消规则僵化、遵循多用途森林制度以及土地使用竞争激烈的情况下,利益相关者的偏好阻碍了将生境银行方法纳入森林补偿性造林和生物多样性抵消的规划中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Forest clearances, compensatory afforestation and biodiversity offsetting in forests: Balancing flexibility and equivalency in Switzerland

Forest clearances, compensatory afforestation and biodiversity offsetting in forests: Balancing flexibility and equivalency in Switzerland

The settlement area is expanding at the cost of agricultural land in densely populated regions such as Central Europe. This development is also affecting the forest. Forest clearances due to, e.g. traffic and energy infrastructure development, require afforestation elsewhere but surfaces providing appropriate soil are increasingly scarce. Switzerland is an important case in point. It is densely populated, exhibits a large amount of forest – also in the lowlands – and although it features a strong forest protection law, it recently allowed compensating forest clearances with non-forest related offsets. Based on the results of a Q-methodology survey conducted during a stakeholder workshop, we show that pressure for more flexible forest specific rules largely stems from “outside” the forest sector, i.e. the agriculture and development sector. Only a small group of actors aims at reinstalling the more restrictive regime, whereas the largest group of actors embraces the status quo. This group rejects expansion of more flexible rules and adheres to strengthening the top of the mitigation hierarchy, i.e. prioritizing the mitigation of habitat loss caused by development. This interpretation of biodiversity offsetting aligns with the conviction that development needs to respect the limits of growth. Prioritizing the mitigation hierarchy requires a planning rather than a market coordination approach. We show that in a context with rigid biodiversity offsetting rules, following a multipurpose forest regime and with high land-use competition, stakeholder preferences impede the integration of habitat banking approaches into the planning of compensatory afforestation and biodiversity offsetting in the forest.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Forest Policy and Economics
Forest Policy and Economics 农林科学-林学
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
7.50%
发文量
148
审稿时长
21.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Forest Policy and Economics is a leading scientific journal that publishes peer-reviewed policy and economics research relating to forests, forested landscapes, forest-related industries, and other forest-relevant land uses. It also welcomes contributions from other social sciences and humanities perspectives that make clear theoretical, conceptual and methodological contributions to the existing state-of-the-art literature on forests and related land use systems. These disciplines include, but are not limited to, sociology, anthropology, human geography, history, jurisprudence, planning, development studies, and psychology research on forests. Forest Policy and Economics is global in scope and publishes multiple article types of high scientific standard. Acceptance for publication is subject to a double-blind peer-review process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信