Forest transition in developed agricultural regions needs efficient regulatory policy |
| |
| Institution: | 1. CSIRO, Waite Campus, Urrbrae, South Australia 5064, Australia;2. School of Commerce, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia 5002, Australia;3. School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood 3125, Australia;4. School of Public Policy, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521, USA;5. Center for Food and Resources, University of Adelaide, South Australia 5064, Australia;6. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia;7. ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The University of Queensland, Queensland 4072, Australia;1. Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Group, The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, United Kingdom;2. Environmental Network Ltd, Aboyne, United Kingdom;3. Thule Institute, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 7300, 90014 Oulu, Finland;4. Landscape Dynamics and Social Processes, Instituto de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais Mediterrânicas, Universidade de Évora Apartado, 94, 7006-554 Évora, Portugal;5. The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, United Kingdom;6. Ukrainian National Forestry University, Henerala Chuprynky St, 103, L''viv 79000, Ukraine;1. School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Länggasse 85, 3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland;2. CERE, Center of Environmental and Resource Economics and Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, 901 83 Umeå, Sweden;1. Department of Government and Legal Studies, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME, USA;2. Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands;3. Center for Independent Social Research, St. Petersburg, Russia |
| |
| Abstract: | The shift from net forest loss to gain—forest transition—has been associated variously with economic development, market-driven reforestation, forest policy, and globalization. Evidence shows that governments can expedite forest transition, although economic and institutional failures can distort policy incentives. This study addresses the paucity of spatially explicit empirical research on the robustness of the forest transition hypothesis in a developed country context and identifies factors that may hasten, delay, or even reverse forest transition. We applied spatial-econometric analysis to high-resolution forest cover, climatic, socioeconomic, physiographic, and State-jurisdiction data for the Australian intensive agricultural zone from 1988 to 2014. While environmental and physiographic factors explained the spatial distribution of forests, net forest cover change was significantly associated with trends in farm-output prices inducing deforestation in Queensland, the State with less effective land clearance regulations. Changes in land clearing regulations in Queensland were significantly associated with the national forest cover trends that resulted in forest transition in Australia around 2008. Yet when land clearing regulations and their enforcement were subsequently relaxed in 2012, significant forest cover loss was once again observed in that State, particularly in remnant forests. We conclude that if forest regulatory protection is not effective, net forest loss could resume or increase, even in developed countries, in response to growing incentives for forest conversion to agriculture. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
