A Descriptive Plantation Typology and Coding System to Aid the Analysis of Ecological and Socio-Economic Outcomes

被引:2
|
作者
D'Amato, D. [1 ,2 ]
Malkamaki, A. [1 ]
Hogarth, N. J. [3 ]
Baral, H. [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Helsinki, Dept Forest Sci, Latokartanonkaari 7, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland
[2] Aalto Univ, Sch Business, Dept Management Studies, Lapuankatu 2, Helsinki 00101, Finland
[3] Univ Helsinki, Viikki Trop Resources Inst, Latokartanonkaari 7, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland
[4] Ctr Int Forestry Res, Jalan CIFOR, Bogor 16115, Barat, Indonesia
[5] Univ Melbourne, Sch Ecosyst & Forest Sci, Fac Sci, Carlton, Vic 3010, Australia
来源
CURRENT FORESTRY REPORTS | 2017年 / 3卷 / 04期
关键词
Plantation; Typology; Ecological; Socio-economic; Impact; Outcomes; INDUSTRIAL TREE PLANTATIONS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; CHINA CONVERSION; PLANTED FORESTS; LAND-USE; CONSERVATION; IMPACTS; BIODIVERSITY; EXPANSION; ECONOMICS;
D O I
10.1007/s40725-017-0066-z
中图分类号
S7 [林业];
学科分类号
0829 ; 0907 ;
摘要
Purpose of Review After decades of intense academic and policy debate, a shared understanding of the term 'plantation' is still missing. More consistent terminology and plantation typologies are needed to enable comparability between plantation types and related ecological and socio-economic outcomes. Recent Findings Previous research has provided some suggestions for a plantation typology, but a more systematic approach to typology formulation is still needed. Furthermore, previously proposed typologies almost exclusively deal with plantation forestry, ignoring the links with other plantation types. Summary The aim of this review is to identify a comprehensive set of variables that can describe the range of different plantation types, specifically (but not exclusively) in the context of forestry. The typology was developed based on a participatory and iterative analytical process involving several expert stakeholders. The variables that contribute to constructing the typology are presented and explained in light of their influence on ecological and socio-economic outcomes. Variables include the following: (1) characteristics of planted organism (tree/non-tree), (2) species composition (monoculture/mixed), (3) origin of planted species (native/exotic), (4) plantation purpose (economic, social and environmental), (5) plantation intended use (provisioning, regulating and cultural services), (6) land ownership (public and private), (7) management responsibility (public and private), (8) management intensity (high-medium-low), (9) scale (large-medium-small) and composition (monoculture/mixed) in landscape, (10) original initiator of plantation establishment (external and internal) and (11) level of institutional arrangements (high-medium-low). The typology is then tested using three case studies. A code system is presented that scholars and practitioners can use to classify plantation types and provide the basis to aid further analyses.
引用
收藏
页码:296 / 307
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A Descriptive Plantation Typology and Coding System to Aid the Analysis of Ecological and Socio-Economic Outcomes
    D. D’Amato
    A. Malkamäki
    N. J. Hogarth
    H. Baral
    [J]. Current Forestry Reports, 2017, 3 : 296 - 307
  • [2] Socio-economic outcomes of ecological infrastructure investments
    Rasmussen, Laura Vang
    Fold, Niels
    Olesen, Rasmus Skov
    Shackleton, Sheona
    [J]. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2021, 47
  • [3] Socio-economic determinants of suicide: an ecological analysis of 35 countries
    Milner, Allison
    McClure, Rod
    De Leo, Diego
    [J]. SOCIAL PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHIATRIC EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2012, 47 (01) : 19 - 27
  • [4] Socio-economic determinants of suicide: an ecological analysis of 35 countries
    Allison Milner
    Rod McClure
    Diego De Leo
    [J]. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 2012, 47 : 19 - 27
  • [5] Cluster analysis of territories by the totality of ecological and socio-economic indices
    Zhuykov, A
    Sarycheva, L
    [J]. IGARSS 2001: SCANNING THE PRESENT AND RESOLVING THE FUTURE, VOLS 1-7, PROCEEDINGS, 2001, : 1971 - 1972
  • [6] CHURCH-SECT TYPOLOGY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS
    Dynes, Russell R.
    [J]. AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1955, 20 (05) : 555 - 560
  • [7] System Dynamics Modelling of the Socio-Economic and Ecological System of the CROATIA-"SEESC"
    Munitic, A
    Lakos, S
    Trosic, Z
    Grcic, B
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDUSTRIAL & BUSINESS SIMULATION SYMPOSIUM, 1999, : 166 - 171
  • [8] Digital platforms as the basis of a new ecological system of socio-economic development
    Ablyazov, Timur
    Rapgof, Viktoriya
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION ON MANUFACTURING, INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE, 2019, 497
  • [9] Pathways from the payment for ecosystem services program to ecological and socio-economic outcomes
    Jia, Lei
    Deng, Yuanjie
    Hou, Mengyang
    Li, Yuanyuan
    Ding, Zhenmin
    Yao, Shunbo
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2022, 144
  • [10] Considering regional socio-economic outcomes in non-metropolitan Australia: A typology building approach
    Baum, Scott
    Haynes, Michele
    van Gellecum, Yolanda
    Han, Jung Hoon
    [J]. PAPERS IN REGIONAL SCIENCE, 2007, 86 (02) : 261 - 286