是什么驱动和阻止了森林砍伐、再造林和森林退化?更新的元分析

IF 7.8 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Review of Environmental Economics and Policy Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1086/725051
Jonah Busch, Kalifi Ferretti-Gallon
{"title":"是什么驱动和阻止了森林砍伐、再造林和森林退化?更新的元分析","authors":"Jonah Busch, Kalifi Ferretti-Gallon","doi":"10.1086/725051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article updates our previous comprehensive meta-analysis of what drives and stops deforestation (Busch and Ferretti-Gallon 2017). By including six additional years of research, this article more than doubles the evidence base to 320 spatially explicit econometric studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals from 1996 to 2019. We find that deforestation is consistently associated with greater accessibility (as influenced by natural features such as slope and elevation and built infrastructure such as roads, cities, and cleared areas) and with higher economic returns (from agriculture, livestock, and timber). Some demographic variables are consistently associated with less deforestation (e.g., Indigenous people, poverty, and age) or more deforestation (e.g., population), and others are not associated with the level of deforestation (e.g., education and gender). Policies that directly influence allowable land-use activities are associated with less deforestation (e.g., protected areas, enforcement of forest laws, payments for ecosystem services, community forest management, and certification of sustainable commodities). But policies and institutions that primarily seek other ends are not consistently associated with more or less deforestation (e.g., democracy, general governance, conflict abatement, and land-tenure security). We introduce reforestation and forest degradation as new dependent variables alongside deforestation. Greater population is consistently associated with more forest degradation, whereas steeper slope, greater distance from cities, and lower population are consistently associated with more reforestation.","PeriodicalId":47676,"journal":{"name":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","volume":"17 1","pages":"217 - 250"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Drives and Stops Deforestation, Reforestation, and Forest Degradation? An Updated Meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Jonah Busch, Kalifi Ferretti-Gallon\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/725051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article updates our previous comprehensive meta-analysis of what drives and stops deforestation (Busch and Ferretti-Gallon 2017). By including six additional years of research, this article more than doubles the evidence base to 320 spatially explicit econometric studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals from 1996 to 2019. We find that deforestation is consistently associated with greater accessibility (as influenced by natural features such as slope and elevation and built infrastructure such as roads, cities, and cleared areas) and with higher economic returns (from agriculture, livestock, and timber). Some demographic variables are consistently associated with less deforestation (e.g., Indigenous people, poverty, and age) or more deforestation (e.g., population), and others are not associated with the level of deforestation (e.g., education and gender). Policies that directly influence allowable land-use activities are associated with less deforestation (e.g., protected areas, enforcement of forest laws, payments for ecosystem services, community forest management, and certification of sustainable commodities). But policies and institutions that primarily seek other ends are not consistently associated with more or less deforestation (e.g., democracy, general governance, conflict abatement, and land-tenure security). We introduce reforestation and forest degradation as new dependent variables alongside deforestation. Greater population is consistently associated with more forest degradation, whereas steeper slope, greater distance from cities, and lower population are consistently associated with more reforestation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47676,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"217 - 250\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/725051\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Environmental Economics and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725051","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章更新了我们之前关于什么驱动和阻止森林砍伐的综合荟萃分析(Busch和Ferretti Gallon,2017)。通过增加六年的研究,这篇文章将证据基础增加了一倍多,从1996年到2019年,在同行评审的学术期刊上发表了320项空间明确的计量经济学研究。我们发现,森林砍伐始终与更大的可达性(受坡度和海拔等自然特征以及道路、城市和空地等已建基础设施的影响)和更高的经济回报(来自农业、畜牧业和木材)有关。一些人口统计变量始终与森林砍伐减少(例如土著人、贫困和年龄)或森林砍伐增加(例如人口)有关,而其他变量则与森林砍伐水平无关(例如教育和性别)。直接影响允许的土地使用活动的政策与减少毁林有关(例如,保护区、森林法的执行、生态系统服务的付款、社区森林管理和可持续商品的认证)。但是,主要寻求其他目的的政策和机构并不总是与或多或少的森林砍伐联系在一起(例如,民主、普遍治理、减少冲突和土地保有权安全)。我们将重新造林和森林退化作为新的因变量,与森林砍伐并列。人口越多,森林退化越多,而坡度越陡、与城市的距离越远、人口越少,则与更多的重新造林有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
What Drives and Stops Deforestation, Reforestation, and Forest Degradation? An Updated Meta-analysis
This article updates our previous comprehensive meta-analysis of what drives and stops deforestation (Busch and Ferretti-Gallon 2017). By including six additional years of research, this article more than doubles the evidence base to 320 spatially explicit econometric studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals from 1996 to 2019. We find that deforestation is consistently associated with greater accessibility (as influenced by natural features such as slope and elevation and built infrastructure such as roads, cities, and cleared areas) and with higher economic returns (from agriculture, livestock, and timber). Some demographic variables are consistently associated with less deforestation (e.g., Indigenous people, poverty, and age) or more deforestation (e.g., population), and others are not associated with the level of deforestation (e.g., education and gender). Policies that directly influence allowable land-use activities are associated with less deforestation (e.g., protected areas, enforcement of forest laws, payments for ecosystem services, community forest management, and certification of sustainable commodities). But policies and institutions that primarily seek other ends are not consistently associated with more or less deforestation (e.g., democracy, general governance, conflict abatement, and land-tenure security). We introduce reforestation and forest degradation as new dependent variables alongside deforestation. Greater population is consistently associated with more forest degradation, whereas steeper slope, greater distance from cities, and lower population are consistently associated with more reforestation.
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
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Review of Environmental Economics and Policy fills the gap between traditional academic journals and the general interest press by providing a widely accessible yet scholarly source for the latest thinking on environmental economics and related policy. The Review publishes symposia, articles, and regular features that contribute to one or more of the following goals: •to identify and synthesize lessons learned from recent and ongoing environmental economics research; •to provide economic analysis of environmental policy issues; •to promote the sharing of ideas and perspectives among the various sub-fields of environmental economics;
期刊最新文献
How Effective Are Secondary Interventions at Improving Health Outcomes In Children Exposed to Lead in Early Childhood? Environmental and Natural Resource Economics and Systemic Racism The Fiscal Implications of the US Transition Away from Fossil Fuels What Drives and Stops Deforestation, Reforestation, and Forest Degradation? An Updated Meta-analysis Climate Change, Epidemics, and Inequality
×
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