Advances and shortfalls in applying best practices to global tree-growing efforts

IF 7.7 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Conservation Letters Pub Date : 2024-01-22 DOI:10.1111/conl.13002
Spencer C. Schubert, Katherine E. Battaglia, Christina N. Blebea, Cole J. P. Seither, Helena L. Wehr, Karen D. Holl
{"title":"Advances and shortfalls in applying best practices to global tree-growing efforts","authors":"Spencer C. Schubert,&nbsp;Katherine E. Battaglia,&nbsp;Christina N. Blebea,&nbsp;Cole J. P. Seither,&nbsp;Helena L. Wehr,&nbsp;Karen D. Holl","doi":"10.1111/conl.13002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>As global tree-growing efforts have escalated in the past decade, copious failures and unintended consequences have prompted many reforestation best practices guidelines. The extent to which organizations have integrated these ecological and socioeconomic recommendations, however, remains uncertain. We reviewed websites of 99 intermediary organizations that promote and fund tree-growing projects to determine how well they report following best practices. Nearly half the organizations stated tree or area planting targets, but only 25% had measurable, time-bound objectives. Most organizations discussed the benefits local communities would receive from trees, but only 38% reported measures of these outcomes. Nonprofit organizations with greater prior experience converged more closely on best practices, and their level of scientific expertise was positively associated with clearer project selection standards. Although many tree-growing organizations acknowledge the importance of clear goals, local community involvement, and monitoring, our results raise questions regarding whether long-term benefits are being achieved and emphasize the need for stronger public accountability standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.13002","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Letters","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.13002","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As global tree-growing efforts have escalated in the past decade, copious failures and unintended consequences have prompted many reforestation best practices guidelines. The extent to which organizations have integrated these ecological and socioeconomic recommendations, however, remains uncertain. We reviewed websites of 99 intermediary organizations that promote and fund tree-growing projects to determine how well they report following best practices. Nearly half the organizations stated tree or area planting targets, but only 25% had measurable, time-bound objectives. Most organizations discussed the benefits local communities would receive from trees, but only 38% reported measures of these outcomes. Nonprofit organizations with greater prior experience converged more closely on best practices, and their level of scientific expertise was positively associated with clearer project selection standards. Although many tree-growing organizations acknowledge the importance of clear goals, local community involvement, and monitoring, our results raise questions regarding whether long-term benefits are being achieved and emphasize the need for stronger public accountability standards.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在全球植树工作中应用最佳做法的进展与不足
随着过去十年全球植树造林工作的不断升级,大量的失败和意外后果促使制定了许多重新造林最佳实践指南。然而,各组织在多大程度上整合了这些生态和社会经济建议仍不确定。我们查看了 99 个推广和资助植树项目的中介组织的网站,以确定它们在多大程度上遵循了最佳实践。近一半的组织声明了植树目标或植树面积,但只有 25% 的组织制定了可衡量、有时限的目标。大多数组织讨论了当地社区将从树木中获得的益处,但只有 38% 的组织报告了这些成果的衡量标准。经验丰富的非营利组织在最佳实践方面更加趋同,其科学专业知识水平与更明确的项目选择标准呈正相关。尽管许多植树组织都承认明确目标、当地社区参与和监督的重要性,但我们的研究结果还是提出了是否实现了长期效益的问题,并强调了加强公共问责标准的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Letters
Conservation Letters BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
70
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Conservation Letters is a reputable scientific journal that is devoted to the publication of both empirical and theoretical research that has important implications for the conservation of biological diversity. The journal warmly invites submissions from various disciplines within the biological and social sciences, with a particular interest in interdisciplinary work. The primary aim is to advance both pragmatic conservation objectives and scientific knowledge. Manuscripts are subject to a rapid communication schedule, therefore they should address current and relevant topics. Research articles should effectively communicate the significance of their findings in relation to conservation policy and practice.
期刊最新文献
Kleptoparasitism in seabirds—A potential pathway for global avian influenza virus spread Moving beyond simplistic representations of land use in conservation Not all conservation “policy” is created equally: When does a policy give rise to legally binding obligations? Identifying Pareto-efficient eradication strategies for invasive populations Genetic variation and hybridization determine the outcomes of conservation reintroductions
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1