Forest carbon projects in the Ukrainian Carpathians: an assessment of potential community impacts and benefits

Egan, Amanda R.; Keeton, William S.; Danks, Cecilia; Zia, Asim; Soloviy, Ihor

doi:10.15287/afr.2016.718

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A desk-based literature survey, combined with our visits to the case studies and meetings with key informants have provided empirical evidence that, in the Ukrainian Carpathians, mountain communities were historically dependent on maintaining of an ecologically balanced environment with the use of forest resources for daily life. Forest-dependent communities strongly rely on firewood, fencing, home building materials, food from plants and animals -NWFP (which have seasonal and cyclical yields), forage for cattle, and income through employment in the logging industry, tourism and recreation, and other intangible benefits (seen also in Egan et al, 2017;Chernyavskyy et al, 2011), i.e. multiple ES.…”

Section: Evidence From the Literature Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Social-ecological innovation in remote mountain areas: Adaptive responses of forest-dependent communities to the challenges of a changing world

Melnykovych

Nijnik

Soloviy

et al. 2018

Science of The Total Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To better understand how constantly changing human-environment interactions could be better organized to respond to current challenges, we examined the Ukrainian Carpathians as an example case of complex forest social-ecological systems (FSES). We did it by interviewing diverse and relevant local stakeholder (N=450). In particular, we strived to: i) outline how people and nature are linked and interact in coupled FSES; ii) examine the preferences of stakeholders on the forests and associated ecosystem services (ES); iii) map key drivers threatening well-being of FSES and iv) identify potential responses to address the challenges at a local scale. To answer these questions we followed a mixed method route by integrating qualitative (participatory) and quantitative data collection and analyses, with further application of a Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework in combination with the ES approach in order to assess benefits, threats to these benefits, and responses regarding the studied FSES. We found that the key benefit from FSES is timber and non-wood forest products (like berries and mushrooms), but also various regulating services were ranked highly by respondents. To explore social-ecological innovation, with potential responses of forest-dependent communities to challenges they face, we employed a commonly used assumption that governance must fit to the particular characteristics of FSES in order to enable sustainability. For the particular case of the Ukrainian Carpathians, we identified and discussed the following five nonconformities or "misfits" threatening sustainability: 1) Spatial misfit in legislation; 2) Poor contextualization; 3) Trap of the single ES; 4) Participatory misfit; and 5) Robbing the commons. By conceptualizing those key threats, we proposed responses for sustainability. The findings contributed to an advanced understanding of complex FSES, their key challenges and potential solutions in order to secure well-being of people and nature in coupled social-ecological systems, in the conditions of a changing world.

show abstract

Section: Evidence From the Literature Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Social-ecological innovation in remote mountain areas: Adaptive responses of forest-dependent communities to the challenges of a changing world

Melnykovych

Nijnik

Soloviy

et al. 2018

Science of The Total Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The S4C research agenda for 2022-2030 [291] highlights the priority for forest management partnerships among local communities, compossessorates (i.e., traditional social unions for shared use of forests [129]), individual owners, and the state for natural climate solutions, ecological silviculture, and promoting social innovations. The latter has gained importance as a key indicator of successful SFM implementation, and notable progress in this regard is evident in ongoing developments in the Carpathian countries [25,292,293].…”

Section: Forestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carpathian Forests: Past and Recent Developments

Kholiavchuk,

Gurgiser,

Mayr

2023

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forests of the Carpathians are of increasing research interest, as they cover a large area (>9 Mha) within European forests and are influenced by diverse environmental conditions and contrasting historical developments. We reviewed 251 papers dealing with Carpathian forests, their history, and future perspectives. Over 70% of articles and reviews appeared in the last ten years, and 80% refer to the Western and Eastern Carpathians, while the Serbian Carpathians remain a gap in this research field. Forest expansion and species changes have occurred since Holocene deglaciation, influenced by timber use, settlements, cropland development, and, since the Bronze Age, pasture activities. At higher elevations, early conifer successors have been increasingly replaced by Norway spruce (Picea abies), silver fir (Abies alba), European beech (Fagus sylvatica), and hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), while oaks have been present in the Carpathian foothills throughout the whole of history. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Norway spruce afforestation was favored, and timber use peaked. Recent transitions from agriculture to forest land use have led to a further increase in forest cover (+1 to +14% in different countries), though past forest management practices and recent environmental changes have impaired forest vitality in many regions; climate warming already causes shifts in treelines and species distributions, and it triggers pest outbreaks and diseases and affects tree–water relations. The risk of forest damage is the highest in monodominant Norway spruce forests, which often experience dieback after cascade disturbances. European beech forests are more resilient unless affected by summer droughts. In the future, increasing dominance of broadleaves within Carpathian forests and forest management based on a mix of intensive management and ecological silviculture are expected. Maintenance and promotion of silver fir and mixed European beech forests should be encouraged with respect to forest stability, biodiversity, and economic sustainability. As supported by the Carpathian Convention and related institutions and initiatives, connectivity, management, and stakeholder cooperation across administrative borders will be crucial for the future adaptive potential of Carpathian forests.

show abstract

Forest carbon projects in the Ukrainian Carpathians: an assessment of potential community impacts and benefits

Cited by 2 publications

References 26 publications

Social-ecological innovation in remote mountain areas: Adaptive responses of forest-dependent communities to the challenges of a changing world

Social-ecological innovation in remote mountain areas: Adaptive responses of forest-dependent communities to the challenges of a changing world

Carpathian Forests: Past and Recent Developments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About