The problem of rural poverty has endured even as many states, particularly Maryland, make significant strides toward preserving rural land. The reason for the disparate levels of success in the two spheres lies in conflicting incentives between preserving rural environments and encouraging development in rural areas. Market-based conservation tools, such as easements, promised to be an improvement over traditional zoning and direct government regulation. While these tools have been successful, they are not entirely divorced from single-use zoning and suffer from single-use zoning’s tendency to isolate and discourage multiple uses of land. This framework is ill-suited to rural areas, where low population densities and vast distances exacerbate rural poverty. A better approach, which Maryland, as a leader in land preservation, could champion, is to allow micro-mixed use on rural areas, provided regulations exist to minimize environmental impact.
{"title":"Zoned for Injustice: Moving Beyond Zoning and Market-Based Land Preservation to Address Rural Poverty","authors":"Liz Clark Rinehart","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2435276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2435276","url":null,"abstract":"The problem of rural poverty has endured even as many states, particularly Maryland, make significant strides toward preserving rural land. The reason for the disparate levels of success in the two spheres lies in conflicting incentives between preserving rural environments and encouraging development in rural areas. Market-based conservation tools, such as easements, promised to be an improvement over traditional zoning and direct government regulation. While these tools have been successful, they are not entirely divorced from single-use zoning and suffer from single-use zoning’s tendency to isolate and discourage multiple uses of land. This framework is ill-suited to rural areas, where low population densities and vast distances exacerbate rural poverty. A better approach, which Maryland, as a leader in land preservation, could champion, is to allow micro-mixed use on rural areas, provided regulations exist to minimize environmental impact.","PeriodicalId":445990,"journal":{"name":"Protected Lands Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121350039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Through the Water Framework Directive, the European Commission urges its Mem- ber states to reach a level of "good status" of water for 2015. This level can be different from the regional first-best. Neither the supra-regional regulator (European Commission) nor the regional regulator (Member State) knows perfectly this firstbest. Each region can estimate it thanks to a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). If the estimated first-best is lower than the "good status" level, the region can ask to be exempted from reaching the latter. In this paper, we show that regional regulators do not always invest largely in CBA in optimum, although under-investment increases the probability of being urged to reach the highest level of water quality. Besides, the optimal exemption policy announced by the supra-regional regulator, which depends on the CBA's investment, shall also depend on the local risk preferences and environmental vulnerability. If the exemption policy is uniform across the regions, we obtain that more risk averse and/or more environmentally vulnerable populations invest less in the CBA, contrary to the first intuition. Policy implications are discussed.
{"title":"Supra-Regional vs. Regional Regulators in the Water Pollution Mitigation: Optimal Exemption Policies","authors":"François Destandau, A. Rozan, S. Spaeter","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2430209","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2430209","url":null,"abstract":"Through the Water Framework Directive, the European Commission urges its Mem- ber states to reach a level of \"good status\" of water for 2015. This level can be different from the regional first-best. Neither the supra-regional regulator (European Commission) nor the regional regulator (Member State) knows perfectly this firstbest. Each region can estimate it thanks to a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). If the estimated first-best is lower than the \"good status\" level, the region can ask to be exempted from reaching the latter. In this paper, we show that regional regulators do not always invest largely in CBA in optimum, although under-investment increases the probability of being urged to reach the highest level of water quality. Besides, the optimal exemption policy announced by the supra-regional regulator, which depends on the CBA's investment, shall also depend on the local risk preferences and environmental vulnerability. If the exemption policy is uniform across the regions, we obtain that more risk averse and/or more environmentally vulnerable populations invest less in the CBA, contrary to the first intuition. Policy implications are discussed.","PeriodicalId":445990,"journal":{"name":"Protected Lands Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123743912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This review of the late Kathie Durbin's final book discusses the unlikely enactment of the 1986 Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act and the events leading up to it. The statute's circuitous route through Congress was managed by Oregon's Senator Mark Hatfield, who convinced a skeptical President Reagan to sign the law he essentially opposed. Durbin's account examines both the legislation and the first quarter-century of its implementation. Protecting scenery the 85-mile long, 292,000-acre area with a majority of the land owned by over 50,000 residents required difficult balancing, and Durbin explains the many compromises struck in the legislation and ensuing management by an interstate compact commission and the U.S. Forest Service. The Gorge Commission, through its authority to approve county zoning ordinances in the Scenic Area, fundamentally changed local land use practices. The legislation also directed the Forest Service not only to manage its land to preserve the Gorge's scenery but also gave the agency unprecedented authority to regulate private lands in so-called special management areas, consisting of some 114,000 acres of the area's most environmentally and visually sensitive lands. Durbin's book offers many insights of federal-state and state-local relations that should be of value to other efforts to preserve natural resources in areas dominated by private lands. The book also spotlights a number of controveries involving air quality, treaty fishing rights, dam removal, and efforts to site wind farms, a destination resort, and an Indian casino. Natural resources law would benefit from more case studies such as that provided by Durbin's engaging look at the Columbia River Gorge.
{"title":"The Struggle Over the Columbia River Gorge: Establishing and Governing the Country’s Largest National Scenic Area","authors":"M. Blumm, N. Baker","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2392887","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2392887","url":null,"abstract":"This review of the late Kathie Durbin's final book discusses the unlikely enactment of the 1986 Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act and the events leading up to it. The statute's circuitous route through Congress was managed by Oregon's Senator Mark Hatfield, who convinced a skeptical President Reagan to sign the law he essentially opposed. Durbin's account examines both the legislation and the first quarter-century of its implementation. Protecting scenery the 85-mile long, 292,000-acre area with a majority of the land owned by over 50,000 residents required difficult balancing, and Durbin explains the many compromises struck in the legislation and ensuing management by an interstate compact commission and the U.S. Forest Service. The Gorge Commission, through its authority to approve county zoning ordinances in the Scenic Area, fundamentally changed local land use practices. The legislation also directed the Forest Service not only to manage its land to preserve the Gorge's scenery but also gave the agency unprecedented authority to regulate private lands in so-called special management areas, consisting of some 114,000 acres of the area's most environmentally and visually sensitive lands. Durbin's book offers many insights of federal-state and state-local relations that should be of value to other efforts to preserve natural resources in areas dominated by private lands. The book also spotlights a number of controveries involving air quality, treaty fishing rights, dam removal, and efforts to site wind farms, a destination resort, and an Indian casino. Natural resources law would benefit from more case studies such as that provided by Durbin's engaging look at the Columbia River Gorge.","PeriodicalId":445990,"journal":{"name":"Protected Lands Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115685784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem services assessment (ESA) have become common parlance in the environmental field. Scientists, policy-makers and activists have promoted the ES approach as a means of conveying the extent of threats to natural ecosystems with the goal of crafting socially acceptable and effective policy to address ecological threats and biodiversity conservation. Yet there are some significant challenges to wide acceptance of the ES approach which hinder its absorption into the mainstream geography literature. This paper reviews the historical development of the ES approach focusing on its relevance to applied geography at different stages of its development, describes the present state-of-the-art of ES, and synthesizes the results from several seminal papers and reports. I posit that there are two major stumbling blocks: 1) the difficulty of simplifying complexities between services so that statutory planning processes can incorporate the approach, and 2) the lack of cross-landscape assessment methods and examples. If we focus on the most immediately surmountable challenges to the ES approach much progress could be made in a short time. The subsequent and final substantive section of this review summaries these challenges and offers some suggestions for moving forward.
{"title":"Ecosystem Services in Practice: Challenges to Real World Implementation of Ecosystem Services across Multiple Landscapes","authors":"M. Portman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2873105","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2873105","url":null,"abstract":"Ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem services assessment (ESA) have become common parlance in the environmental field. Scientists, policy-makers and activists have promoted the ES approach as a means of conveying the extent of threats to natural ecosystems with the goal of crafting socially acceptable and effective policy to address ecological threats and biodiversity conservation. Yet there are some significant challenges to wide acceptance of the ES approach which hinder its absorption into the mainstream geography literature. This paper reviews the historical development of the ES approach focusing on its relevance to applied geography at different stages of its development, describes the present state-of-the-art of ES, and synthesizes the results from several seminal papers and reports. I posit that there are two major stumbling blocks: 1) the difficulty of simplifying complexities between services so that statutory planning processes can incorporate the approach, and 2) the lack of cross-landscape assessment methods and examples. If we focus on the most immediately surmountable challenges to the ES approach much progress could be made in a short time. The subsequent and final substantive section of this review summaries these challenges and offers some suggestions for moving forward.","PeriodicalId":445990,"journal":{"name":"Protected Lands Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"16 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130643640","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper surveys the current state of knowledge concerning the value of the Amazon rainforest, including a survey of work to date to quantify changes in economic values when the rainforest cover changes. The focus is on local and regional impacts of forest loss or protection, including both gross values of forest protection and opportunity costs of converting the forest to other uses including agriculture. Important gross value items surveyed are timber and non-timber product extraction from a sustainably maintained rainforest; local values of eco-tourism; biological resources including bio-prospecting; a range of hydrological impacts including watershed protection, hydropower production, and changes in rainfall patterns; and impacts of forest fires and their control. Mapping such values in geographical space is of high value for implementing efficient and effective (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation ) programs for protecting the remaining forest. The current data basis for such mapping is found to be quite weak and in need of improvement for all value elements.
{"title":"How Much is the Amazon Worth? The State of Knowledge Concerning the Value of Preserving Amazon Rainforests","authors":"P. May, B. Soares-Filho, J. Strand","doi":"10.1596/1813-9450-6668","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-6668","url":null,"abstract":"This paper surveys the current state of knowledge concerning the value of the Amazon rainforest, including a survey of work to date to quantify changes in economic values when the rainforest cover changes. The focus is on local and regional impacts of forest loss or protection, including both gross values of forest protection and opportunity costs of converting the forest to other uses including agriculture. Important gross value items surveyed are timber and non-timber product extraction from a sustainably maintained rainforest; local values of eco-tourism; biological resources including bio-prospecting; a range of hydrological impacts including watershed protection, hydropower production, and changes in rainfall patterns; and impacts of forest fires and their control. Mapping such values in geographical space is of high value for implementing efficient and effective (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation ) programs for protecting the remaining forest. The current data basis for such mapping is found to be quite weak and in need of improvement for all value elements.","PeriodicalId":445990,"journal":{"name":"Protected Lands Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123017338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has had a troubled relationship with wild lands, the nation’s last remaining places with wilderness characteristics. While for twenty five years BLM recognized wilderness values as a resource it must balance and could stringently protect consistent with the multiple use mandate, in 2003 the agency largely disclaimed that interpretation, potentially imperiling future protection of wild lands yet undesignated as wilderness or wilderness study areas. Since then, the agency has made incremental – but potentially powerful – steps toward reclaiming a view of its authority that could afford more protection for yet-undesignated wild lands. Although BLM’s current policy does not authorize strong “default” protection for wild lands as before, it does direct the agency to survey and consider wild lands in all land plans and project approvals. This article traces the evolution of BLM’s interpretation of its duty and authority under FLPMA to manage lands with wilderness characteristics. The article concludes that, while over time BLM’s view of its responsibility toward yet-undesignated wilderness has narrowed, the recent controversial Wild Lands Policy and ensuing agency guidance re-acknowledge wilderness values as a legitimate FLPMA resource to be protected. It remains to be seen if and how the agency will use its reclaimed authority to meaningfully protect the nation’s remaining vulnerable wild lands.
{"title":"The Birth, Death, and Afterlife of the Wild Lands Policy: The Evolution of the Bureau of Land Management's Authority to Protect Wilderness Values","authors":"Liv Brumfield","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2332599","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2332599","url":null,"abstract":"Since the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has had a troubled relationship with wild lands, the nation’s last remaining places with wilderness characteristics. While for twenty five years BLM recognized wilderness values as a resource it must balance and could stringently protect consistent with the multiple use mandate, in 2003 the agency largely disclaimed that interpretation, potentially imperiling future protection of wild lands yet undesignated as wilderness or wilderness study areas. Since then, the agency has made incremental – but potentially powerful – steps toward reclaiming a view of its authority that could afford more protection for yet-undesignated wild lands. Although BLM’s current policy does not authorize strong “default” protection for wild lands as before, it does direct the agency to survey and consider wild lands in all land plans and project approvals. This article traces the evolution of BLM’s interpretation of its duty and authority under FLPMA to manage lands with wilderness characteristics. The article concludes that, while over time BLM’s view of its responsibility toward yet-undesignated wilderness has narrowed, the recent controversial Wild Lands Policy and ensuing agency guidance re-acknowledge wilderness values as a legitimate FLPMA resource to be protected. It remains to be seen if and how the agency will use its reclaimed authority to meaningfully protect the nation’s remaining vulnerable wild lands.","PeriodicalId":445990,"journal":{"name":"Protected Lands Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133210023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Transferable development rights (TDRs) are a market-based approach to land conservation. They allow the development rights from one property to be transferred to another, with the first “sending�? property placed under a development restriction or conservation easement and the “receiving�? property permitted more dense development than would otherwise be allowed by baseline zoning regulations. This paper summarizes the economics literature on TDRs and describes a long-running program in a county in Maryland, one of the few programs with an active TDR market. It updates previously published results from the program and describes some problems that have arisen in recent years as the program has matured. The paper offers some observations as to why these problems have occurred and suggestions for other communities considering TDR programs.
{"title":"Markets for Development Rights: Lessons Learned from Three Decades of a TDR Program","authors":"M. Walls","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2197996","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2197996","url":null,"abstract":"Transferable development rights (TDRs) are a market-based approach to land conservation. They allow the development rights from one property to be transferred to another, with the first “sending�? property placed under a development restriction or conservation easement and the “receiving�? property permitted more dense development than would otherwise be allowed by baseline zoning regulations. This paper summarizes the economics literature on TDRs and describes a long-running program in a county in Maryland, one of the few programs with an active TDR market. It updates previously published results from the program and describes some problems that have arisen in recent years as the program has matured. The paper offers some observations as to why these problems have occurred and suggestions for other communities considering TDR programs.","PeriodicalId":445990,"journal":{"name":"Protected Lands Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126122480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite China’s legislative attempts to conserve its natural resources and, in turn, protect biodiversity, Chinese law remains ineffective in pursuit of these goals due to struggles with implementation and enforcement, engendering legislation with economic values rather than ecological ones, and a lack of public participation. This Article provides an overview of Chinese biodiversity and conservation legislation and suggests that China can improve biodiversity legislation through increasing the public role in conservation efforts, increased liability and enforcement, and improved administration coordination.
{"title":"Challenges to China's Natural Resources Conservation & Biodiversity Legislation","authors":"Wenxuan Yu, Jason J. Czarnezki","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2133580","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2133580","url":null,"abstract":"Despite China’s legislative attempts to conserve its natural resources and, in turn, protect biodiversity, Chinese law remains ineffective in pursuit of these goals due to struggles with implementation and enforcement, engendering legislation with economic values rather than ecological ones, and a lack of public participation. This Article provides an overview of Chinese biodiversity and conservation legislation and suggests that China can improve biodiversity legislation through increasing the public role in conservation efforts, increased liability and enforcement, and improved administration coordination.","PeriodicalId":445990,"journal":{"name":"Protected Lands Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126605338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2012-05-01DOI: 10.18215/ENVLP.8..201205.163
Rakhyun E. Kim
One of the ways the clash between economic development and environmental protection in South Korea is manifested is in the country’s policies on coastal land use and reclamation. Even though coastal wetlands are legally considered public property, they have been continuously reclaimed and privatized by the state and its close corporate entities under the Public Waters Reclamation Act of 1962. Since its accession to the Ramsar Convention (the 'Convention'), Korea has been curtailing the privatization of public lands. The country has instituted domestic measures to implement the provisions of the Convention and to follow the principle of sustainable use of wetlands. Coastal law and policy have also gained political prominence since Korea hosted the Tenth Ramsar Conference in 2008. Efforts to uphold the country’s obligations under the Convention and to limit large-scale coastal reclamation projects, however, have not been effective. Over 1,000 square kilometers of coastal wetlands, or thirty percent of the remaining wetlands, are currently being developed. In addition, numerous special development laws, providing loopholes for developers to circumvent limits on land reclamation projects, have been passed.This article reviews South Korea’s legal and institutional landscape and examines the question of whether the Ramsar Convention has been genuinely internalized by the legal system. Domestic laws are insufficient in upholding the principles of the Convention, and government administrators are not committed to upholding them. This article ultimately concludes that Korean law needs to adopt and internalize certain outside norms in order to effectively carry out Korea’s obligations under the Ramsar Convention.
{"title":"Is Ramsar Home Yet? A Critique of South Korean Laws in Light of the Continuing Coastal Wetlands Reclamation","authors":"Rakhyun E. Kim","doi":"10.18215/ENVLP.8..201205.163","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18215/ENVLP.8..201205.163","url":null,"abstract":"One of the ways the clash between economic development and environmental protection in South Korea is manifested is in the country’s policies on coastal land use and reclamation. Even though coastal wetlands are legally considered public property, they have been continuously reclaimed and privatized by the state and its close corporate entities under the Public Waters Reclamation Act of 1962. Since its accession to the Ramsar Convention (the 'Convention'), Korea has been curtailing the privatization of public lands. The country has instituted domestic measures to implement the provisions of the Convention and to follow the principle of sustainable use of wetlands. Coastal law and policy have also gained political prominence since Korea hosted the Tenth Ramsar Conference in 2008. Efforts to uphold the country’s obligations under the Convention and to limit large-scale coastal reclamation projects, however, have not been effective. Over 1,000 square kilometers of coastal wetlands, or thirty percent of the remaining wetlands, are currently being developed. In addition, numerous special development laws, providing loopholes for developers to circumvent limits on land reclamation projects, have been passed.This article reviews South Korea’s legal and institutional landscape and examines the question of whether the Ramsar Convention has been genuinely internalized by the legal system. Domestic laws are insufficient in upholding the principles of the Convention, and government administrators are not committed to upholding them. This article ultimately concludes that Korean law needs to adopt and internalize certain outside norms in order to effectively carry out Korea’s obligations under the Ramsar Convention.","PeriodicalId":445990,"journal":{"name":"Protected Lands Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129953395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Household waste generated is often uncolleted in rural areas causing various types of pollution like: air and water pollution, soil pollution and the aesthetic degradation of the landscape. The environmental legislation proposed by the European Union was transposed on the national legislation but the implementation process was difficult because of particular situations encountered in practice. Rudimentary infrastructure of waste management and limited access to waste collection services lead to uncontrolled household waste disposal. In this context, the geographical location of rural settlements influences the way of waste disposal either on river banks or open dumps placed on roadsides or forest areas with various environmental implications. Those, forest areas in the proximity of human settlements or recreation areas become vulnerable to waste pollution. Even if local authorities are obliged to provide waste collection facilities since July 16, 2009 the illegal dumping of waste in forests is still present. This situation is reflected by field observations from Suceava and Neamt counties. Usually forest areas affected by uncontrolled waste disposal are located in hilly regions or subcarpathian areas. The degradation of these areas is visible and this can have a negative influence not only on the environment but also on tourism activities.
{"title":"The Illegal Dumping of Waste in Forest Areas - Evidence from Rural Territory","authors":"A. Lamasanu, F. Mihai","doi":"10.5281/ZENODO.19127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.19127","url":null,"abstract":"Household waste generated is often uncolleted in rural areas causing various types of pollution like: air and water pollution, soil pollution and the aesthetic degradation of the landscape. The environmental legislation proposed by the European Union was transposed on the national legislation but the implementation process was difficult because of particular situations encountered in practice. Rudimentary infrastructure of waste management and limited access to waste collection services lead to uncontrolled household waste disposal. In this context, the geographical location of rural settlements influences the way of waste disposal either on river banks or open dumps placed on roadsides or forest areas with various environmental implications. Those, forest areas in the proximity of human settlements or recreation areas become vulnerable to waste pollution. Even if local authorities are obliged to provide waste collection facilities since July 16, 2009 the illegal dumping of waste in forests is still present. This situation is reflected by field observations from Suceava and Neamt counties. Usually forest areas affected by uncontrolled waste disposal are located in hilly regions or subcarpathian areas. The degradation of these areas is visible and this can have a negative influence not only on the environment but also on tourism activities.","PeriodicalId":445990,"journal":{"name":"Protected Lands Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126913188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：