Innovations for securing forest ecosystem service provision in Europe – A systematic literature review

On the relation between monocultures and ecosystem services in the Global South: A review

“…In the Appraisal, we implemented the inclusion/exclusion criteria to determine the final sample (Maier et al, 2021;Palomo-Campesino et al, 2018). We provided a set of inclusion/exclusion criteria comprising the identification of monocrops, reported ES supply or demand and finally of being geographically located in the global south (see also Fig.…”

Effects of forest roads and an assessment of their disturbance of the natural enviroment based on GIS spatial multi-criteria analysis: case study of the University Forest of Taxiarchis, Chalkidiki, Greece

“…In recent decades, there has been an awareness regarding the impact of human intervention-in particular, human constructions and infrastructure-within forest areas (Baraloto et al 2015;Escobedo et al 2019;Kazama et al 2021;Reddiar and Osti 2022;Mohammed et al 2022). Contemporary policies and strategies for the conservation and protection of forests determine, in particular, the types and sizes of technical projects that are allowed to be implemented within forest ecosystems (Maier et al 2021).…”

Governance Innovations for forest ecosystem service provision – Insights from an EU-wide survey

“…These include new silvicultural practices to more close-to-nature management or improving species mix (e.g., Bauhus et al, 2017a ; Krumm et al, 2020 ; Puettmann et al, 2012 ), the establishment of collaborative forest owner associations (e.g., Bowditch et al, 2020 ; Primmer, 2011 ), the setup of certification systems and the design of payment schemes for ecosystem services ( Živojinović et al, 2015 , Prokofieva and Wunder, 2014 ), among others. Often these governance approaches emerge as pilot studies or independent business endeavors at local level ( Maier et al, 2021 ). Some of them proved to secure conservation and social functions of forests, and were able to provide alternative income streams for forest owners (e.g., Živojinović et al, 2015 ), while for many other governance approaches a systematic evaluation of their design, implementation, and outcomes are missing (e.g., Baylis et al, 2016 ; Börner et al, 2020 ; Maier et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Often these governance approaches emerge as pilot studies or independent business endeavors at local level ( Maier et al, 2021 ). Some of them proved to secure conservation and social functions of forests, and were able to provide alternative income streams for forest owners (e.g., Živojinović et al, 2015 ), while for many other governance approaches a systematic evaluation of their design, implementation, and outcomes are missing (e.g., Baylis et al, 2016 ; Börner et al, 2020 ; Maier et al, 2021 ).…”