Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1477-1493 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | One Earth |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| Early online date | 26 Oct 2023 |
| Publication status | Published - 17 Nov 2023 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Abstract
The way forests are defined, using terms such as ancient, old-growth, primary, sacred, or intact forest landscapes, has far-reaching impacts on how, why, and where forests are conserved and managed. Definitions of terms such as “old-growth forests” have been discussed individually but not collectively assessed. Here, we review the definitions and uses of terms associated with natural and near-natural forests using systematic mapping methods and critical analysis. Our findings reveal a variety of definitions for different terms, although a few frequently cited ones prevail. Our results also highlight the dominance of Western institutions and scientific knowledge in shaping global discourses on forest conservation, often at the expense of Indigenous and local perspectives. Despite the increasing recognition of the value-based benefits that forests provide, definitions that explicitly incorporate values are scarce. This omission of the voices of forest-proximate communities and a lack of consideration for their local values and needs result in recognition, contextual, and procedural inequities when employing mainstream terms to define natural and near-natural forests.
Keywords
- conservation, equity, evidence synthesis, forest management, Indigenous communities, systematic map
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Environmental Science(all)
- Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)
- Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: One Earth, Vol. 6, No. 11, 17.11.2023, p. 1477-1493.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Whose perspective counts? A critical look at definitions of terms used for natural and near-natural forests
AU - Savilaakso, Sini
AU - Lausberg, Nik
AU - Waeber, Patrick O.
AU - Hillgén, Oona
AU - Isotalo, Anna
AU - Kleinschroth, Fritz
AU - Djenontin, Ida N.S.
AU - Boul Lefeuvre, Nastasia
AU - Garcia, Claude A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors
PY - 2023/11/17
Y1 - 2023/11/17
N2 - The way forests are defined, using terms such as ancient, old-growth, primary, sacred, or intact forest landscapes, has far-reaching impacts on how, why, and where forests are conserved and managed. Definitions of terms such as “old-growth forests” have been discussed individually but not collectively assessed. Here, we review the definitions and uses of terms associated with natural and near-natural forests using systematic mapping methods and critical analysis. Our findings reveal a variety of definitions for different terms, although a few frequently cited ones prevail. Our results also highlight the dominance of Western institutions and scientific knowledge in shaping global discourses on forest conservation, often at the expense of Indigenous and local perspectives. Despite the increasing recognition of the value-based benefits that forests provide, definitions that explicitly incorporate values are scarce. This omission of the voices of forest-proximate communities and a lack of consideration for their local values and needs result in recognition, contextual, and procedural inequities when employing mainstream terms to define natural and near-natural forests.
AB - The way forests are defined, using terms such as ancient, old-growth, primary, sacred, or intact forest landscapes, has far-reaching impacts on how, why, and where forests are conserved and managed. Definitions of terms such as “old-growth forests” have been discussed individually but not collectively assessed. Here, we review the definitions and uses of terms associated with natural and near-natural forests using systematic mapping methods and critical analysis. Our findings reveal a variety of definitions for different terms, although a few frequently cited ones prevail. Our results also highlight the dominance of Western institutions and scientific knowledge in shaping global discourses on forest conservation, often at the expense of Indigenous and local perspectives. Despite the increasing recognition of the value-based benefits that forests provide, definitions that explicitly incorporate values are scarce. This omission of the voices of forest-proximate communities and a lack of consideration for their local values and needs result in recognition, contextual, and procedural inequities when employing mainstream terms to define natural and near-natural forests.
KW - conservation
KW - equity
KW - evidence synthesis
KW - forest management
KW - Indigenous communities
KW - systematic map
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85183769453&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.10.003
DO - 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.10.003
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85183769453
VL - 6
SP - 1477
EP - 1493
JO - One Earth
JF - One Earth
SN - 2590-3330
IS - 11
ER -