Spatial overlap between environmental policy instruments and areas of high conservation value in forest
In order to safeguard biodiversity in forest we need to know how forest policy instruments work. Here we use a nationwide network of 9400 plots in productive forest to analyze to what extent large-scale policy instruments, individually and together, target forest of high conservation value in Norway...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2014-12, Vol.9 (12), p.e115001-e115001 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e115001 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | e115001 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 9 |
| creator | Sverdrup-Thygeson, Anne Søgaard, Gunnhild Rusch, Graciela M Barton, David N |
| description | In order to safeguard biodiversity in forest we need to know how forest policy instruments work. Here we use a nationwide network of 9400 plots in productive forest to analyze to what extent large-scale policy instruments, individually and together, target forest of high conservation value in Norway. We studied both instruments working through direct regulation; Strict Protection and Landscape Protection, and instruments working through management planning and voluntary schemes of forest certification; Wilderness Area and Mountain Forest. As forest of high conservation value (HCV-forest) we considered the extent of 12 Biodiversity Habitats and the extent of Old-Age Forest. We found that 22% of productive forest area contained Biodiversity Habitats. More than 70% of this area was not covered by any large-scale instruments. Mountain Forest covered 23%, while Strict Protection and Wilderness both covered 5% of the Biodiversity Habitat area. A total of 9% of productive forest area contained Old-Age Forest, and the relative coverage of the four instruments was similar as for Biodiversity Habitats. For all instruments, except Landscape Protection, the targeted areas contained significantly higher proportions of HCV-forest than areas not targeted by these instruments. Areas targeted by Strict Protection had higher proportions of HCV-forest than areas targeted by other instruments, except for areas targeted by Wilderness Area which showed similar proportions of Biodiversity Habitats. There was a substantial amount of spatial overlap between the policy tools, but no incremental conservation effect of overlapping instruments in terms of contributing to higher percentages of targeted HCV-forest. Our results reveal that although the current policy mix has an above average representation of forest of high conservation value, the targeting efficiency in terms of area overlap is limited. There is a need to improve forest conservation and a potential to cover this need by better targeting high conservation value areas. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0115001 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1635249541</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A418635452</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_ace3500b39e647deb70528280b1933c6</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A418635452</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-d6805a22d1bb585289ace5e06c087890d32b7e681bc8d38be3e7f79d191ce1dd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgujFjPnoR3ojLIsfAwsLrnob0uS0zZBJatKO7r833ekuU9kL6UXLyfO-J3nTkyQvMVpjWuIPWzd6K8y6dxbWCOMcIfwoOcUVJauCIPr46PskeRbCFqGcsqJ4mpyQPEeEUHaatNe9GLQwqduDN6JPaxh-A9gU7F57Z3dgh7jaO6PlTaptGPw41UIqrEqFBxFS16SdbrtUOhvA76Ofs-lemBGiIG2chzA8T540wgR4Mb_Pkh-fP32_-Lq6vPqyuTi_XMmiIsNKFQzlghCF6zpnOWGVkJADKiRiJauQoqQuoWC4lkxRVgOFsikrhSssAStFz5LXB9_euMDnjALHBc1JVuUZjsTmQCgntrz3eif8DXdC89uC8y0XftDSAI-9aYy1phUUWamgLlHcEmGojslSWUSvj3O3sd6BkjEYL8zCdLlidcdbt-cZKWhJJ4N3s4F3v8aYE9_pIMEYYcGNt_uusio2RxF98w_68OlmqhXxANo2LvaVkyk_zzCLYJaTSK0foOKjYKfjNUKjY30heL8QRGaAP0MrxhD45vrb_7NXP5fs2yO2A2GGLjgzTr9QWILZAZTeheChuQ8ZIz7Nw10afJoHPs9DlL06vqB70d0A0L-0tAZC</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1635249541</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Spatial overlap between environmental policy instruments and areas of high conservation value in forest</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Sverdrup-Thygeson, Anne ; Søgaard, Gunnhild ; Rusch, Graciela M ; Barton, David N</creator><contributor>Hewitt, Judi</contributor><creatorcontrib>Sverdrup-Thygeson, Anne ; Søgaard, Gunnhild ; Rusch, Graciela M ; Barton, David N ; Hewitt, Judi</creatorcontrib><description>In order to safeguard biodiversity in forest we need to know how forest policy instruments work. Here we use a nationwide network of 9400 plots in productive forest to analyze to what extent large-scale policy instruments, individually and together, target forest of high conservation value in Norway. We studied both instruments working through direct regulation; Strict Protection and Landscape Protection, and instruments working through management planning and voluntary schemes of forest certification; Wilderness Area and Mountain Forest. As forest of high conservation value (HCV-forest) we considered the extent of 12 Biodiversity Habitats and the extent of Old-Age Forest. We found that 22% of productive forest area contained Biodiversity Habitats. More than 70% of this area was not covered by any large-scale instruments. Mountain Forest covered 23%, while Strict Protection and Wilderness both covered 5% of the Biodiversity Habitat area. A total of 9% of productive forest area contained Old-Age Forest, and the relative coverage of the four instruments was similar as for Biodiversity Habitats. For all instruments, except Landscape Protection, the targeted areas contained significantly higher proportions of HCV-forest than areas not targeted by these instruments. Areas targeted by Strict Protection had higher proportions of HCV-forest than areas targeted by other instruments, except for areas targeted by Wilderness Area which showed similar proportions of Biodiversity Habitats. There was a substantial amount of spatial overlap between the policy tools, but no incremental conservation effect of overlapping instruments in terms of contributing to higher percentages of targeted HCV-forest. Our results reveal that although the current policy mix has an above average representation of forest of high conservation value, the targeting efficiency in terms of area overlap is limited. There is a need to improve forest conservation and a potential to cover this need by better targeting high conservation value areas.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25502238</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Biodiversity ; Biodiversity conservation ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Certification ; Conservation ; Conservation of Natural Resources ; Ecology ; Ecology and Environmental Sciences ; Ecosystems ; Environmental management ; Environmental Policy ; Forest conservation ; Forest management ; Forestry ; Forests ; Habitats ; Hepatitis C virus ; Landscape protection ; Laws, regulations and rules ; Management planning ; Measures ; Mountain forests ; Norway ; Protection and preservation ; Regulation ; Science Policy ; Timber ; Wilderness ; Wilderness areas</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2014-12, Vol.9 (12), p.e115001-e115001</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2014 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2014 Sverdrup-Thygeson et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2014 Sverdrup-Thygeson et al 2014 Sverdrup-Thygeson et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-d6805a22d1bb585289ace5e06c087890d32b7e681bc8d38be3e7f79d191ce1dd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-d6805a22d1bb585289ace5e06c087890d32b7e681bc8d38be3e7f79d191ce1dd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263736/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4263736/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2101,2927,23865,27865,27923,27924,53790,53792,79471,79472</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25502238$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Hewitt, Judi</contributor><creatorcontrib>Sverdrup-Thygeson, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Søgaard, Gunnhild</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rusch, Graciela M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barton, David N</creatorcontrib><title>Spatial overlap between environmental policy instruments and areas of high conservation value in forest</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>In order to safeguard biodiversity in forest we need to know how forest policy instruments work. Here we use a nationwide network of 9400 plots in productive forest to analyze to what extent large-scale policy instruments, individually and together, target forest of high conservation value in Norway. We studied both instruments working through direct regulation; Strict Protection and Landscape Protection, and instruments working through management planning and voluntary schemes of forest certification; Wilderness Area and Mountain Forest. As forest of high conservation value (HCV-forest) we considered the extent of 12 Biodiversity Habitats and the extent of Old-Age Forest. We found that 22% of productive forest area contained Biodiversity Habitats. More than 70% of this area was not covered by any large-scale instruments. Mountain Forest covered 23%, while Strict Protection and Wilderness both covered 5% of the Biodiversity Habitat area. A total of 9% of productive forest area contained Old-Age Forest, and the relative coverage of the four instruments was similar as for Biodiversity Habitats. For all instruments, except Landscape Protection, the targeted areas contained significantly higher proportions of HCV-forest than areas not targeted by these instruments. Areas targeted by Strict Protection had higher proportions of HCV-forest than areas targeted by other instruments, except for areas targeted by Wilderness Area which showed similar proportions of Biodiversity Habitats. There was a substantial amount of spatial overlap between the policy tools, but no incremental conservation effect of overlapping instruments in terms of contributing to higher percentages of targeted HCV-forest. Our results reveal that although the current policy mix has an above average representation of forest of high conservation value, the targeting efficiency in terms of area overlap is limited. There is a need to improve forest conservation and a potential to cover this need by better targeting high conservation value areas.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biodiversity conservation</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Certification</subject><subject>Conservation</subject><subject>Conservation of Natural Resources</subject><subject>Ecology</subject><subject>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environmental management</subject><subject>Environmental Policy</subject><subject>Forest conservation</subject><subject>Forest management</subject><subject>Forestry</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>Hepatitis C virus</subject><subject>Landscape protection</subject><subject>Laws, regulations and rules</subject><subject>Management planning</subject><subject>Measures</subject><subject>Mountain forests</subject><subject>Norway</subject><subject>Protection and preservation</subject><subject>Regulation</subject><subject>Science Policy</subject><subject>Timber</subject><subject>Wilderness</subject><subject>Wilderness areas</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7rr6D0QLgujFjPnoR3ojLIsfAwsLrnob0uS0zZBJatKO7r833ekuU9kL6UXLyfO-J3nTkyQvMVpjWuIPWzd6K8y6dxbWCOMcIfwoOcUVJauCIPr46PskeRbCFqGcsqJ4mpyQPEeEUHaatNe9GLQwqduDN6JPaxh-A9gU7F57Z3dgh7jaO6PlTaptGPw41UIqrEqFBxFS16SdbrtUOhvA76Ofs-lemBGiIG2chzA8T540wgR4Mb_Pkh-fP32_-Lq6vPqyuTi_XMmiIsNKFQzlghCF6zpnOWGVkJADKiRiJauQoqQuoWC4lkxRVgOFsikrhSssAStFz5LXB9_euMDnjALHBc1JVuUZjsTmQCgntrz3eif8DXdC89uC8y0XftDSAI-9aYy1phUUWamgLlHcEmGojslSWUSvj3O3sd6BkjEYL8zCdLlidcdbt-cZKWhJJ4N3s4F3v8aYE9_pIMEYYcGNt_uusio2RxF98w_68OlmqhXxANo2LvaVkyk_zzCLYJaTSK0foOKjYKfjNUKjY30heL8QRGaAP0MrxhD45vrb_7NXP5fs2yO2A2GGLjgzTr9QWILZAZTeheChuQ8ZIz7Nw10afJoHPs9DlL06vqB70d0A0L-0tAZC</recordid><startdate>20141211</startdate><enddate>20141211</enddate><creator>Sverdrup-Thygeson, Anne</creator><creator>Søgaard, Gunnhild</creator><creator>Rusch, Graciela M</creator><creator>Barton, David N</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141211</creationdate><title>Spatial overlap between environmental policy instruments and areas of high conservation value in forest</title><author>Sverdrup-Thygeson, Anne ; Søgaard, Gunnhild ; Rusch, Graciela M ; Barton, David N</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-d6805a22d1bb585289ace5e06c087890d32b7e681bc8d38be3e7f79d191ce1dd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biodiversity conservation</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Certification</topic><topic>Conservation</topic><topic>Conservation of Natural Resources</topic><topic>Ecology</topic><topic>Ecology and Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environmental management</topic><topic>Environmental Policy</topic><topic>Forest conservation</topic><topic>Forest management</topic><topic>Forestry</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>Hepatitis C virus</topic><topic>Landscape protection</topic><topic>Laws, regulations and rules</topic><topic>Management planning</topic><topic>Measures</topic><topic>Mountain forests</topic><topic>Norway</topic><topic>Protection and preservation</topic><topic>Regulation</topic><topic>Science Policy</topic><topic>Timber</topic><topic>Wilderness</topic><topic>Wilderness areas</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sverdrup-Thygeson, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Søgaard, Gunnhild</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rusch, Graciela M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barton, David N</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sverdrup-Thygeson, Anne</au><au>Søgaard, Gunnhild</au><au>Rusch, Graciela M</au><au>Barton, David N</au><au>Hewitt, Judi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Spatial overlap between environmental policy instruments and areas of high conservation value in forest</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2014-12-11</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>e115001</spage><epage>e115001</epage><pages>e115001-e115001</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>In order to safeguard biodiversity in forest we need to know how forest policy instruments work. Here we use a nationwide network of 9400 plots in productive forest to analyze to what extent large-scale policy instruments, individually and together, target forest of high conservation value in Norway. We studied both instruments working through direct regulation; Strict Protection and Landscape Protection, and instruments working through management planning and voluntary schemes of forest certification; Wilderness Area and Mountain Forest. As forest of high conservation value (HCV-forest) we considered the extent of 12 Biodiversity Habitats and the extent of Old-Age Forest. We found that 22% of productive forest area contained Biodiversity Habitats. More than 70% of this area was not covered by any large-scale instruments. Mountain Forest covered 23%, while Strict Protection and Wilderness both covered 5% of the Biodiversity Habitat area. A total of 9% of productive forest area contained Old-Age Forest, and the relative coverage of the four instruments was similar as for Biodiversity Habitats. For all instruments, except Landscape Protection, the targeted areas contained significantly higher proportions of HCV-forest than areas not targeted by these instruments. Areas targeted by Strict Protection had higher proportions of HCV-forest than areas targeted by other instruments, except for areas targeted by Wilderness Area which showed similar proportions of Biodiversity Habitats. There was a substantial amount of spatial overlap between the policy tools, but no incremental conservation effect of overlapping instruments in terms of contributing to higher percentages of targeted HCV-forest. Our results reveal that although the current policy mix has an above average representation of forest of high conservation value, the targeting efficiency in terms of area overlap is limited. There is a need to improve forest conservation and a potential to cover this need by better targeting high conservation value areas.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>25502238</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0115001</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2014-12, Vol.9 (12), p.e115001-e115001 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1635249541 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PAIS Index; Public Library of Science (PLoS); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Analysis Biodiversity Biodiversity conservation Biology and Life Sciences Certification Conservation Conservation of Natural Resources Ecology Ecology and Environmental Sciences Ecosystems Environmental management Environmental Policy Forest conservation Forest management Forestry Forests Habitats Hepatitis C virus Landscape protection Laws, regulations and rules Management planning Measures Mountain forests Norway Protection and preservation Regulation Science Policy Timber Wilderness Wilderness areas |
| title | Spatial overlap between environmental policy instruments and areas of high conservation value in forest |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T09%3A08%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Spatial%20overlap%20between%20environmental%20policy%20instruments%20and%20areas%20of%20high%20conservation%20value%20in%20forest&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Sverdrup-Thygeson,%20Anne&rft.date=2014-12-11&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=e115001&rft.epage=e115001&rft.pages=e115001-e115001&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0115001&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA418635452%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1635249541&rft_id=info:pmid/25502238&rft_galeid=A418635452&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_ace3500b39e647deb70528280b1933c6&rfr_iscdi=true |