Riparian research and legislation, are they working towards the same common goals? A UK case study
Riparian research and legislation, are they working towards the same common goals? A UK case study
复制标题
河岸研究和立法，他们是否朝着相同的共同目标努力？
DOI：
10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.023
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
6
通讯作者：
De Sosa L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
De Sosa L
河岸地区的价值长期以来一直得到认可，因为它们在支持野生动物多样性方面做出了贡献，并有能力提供广泛的生态系统服务。然而，它们的多种用途（例如防洪、生物多样性、污染物衰减）加上术语的不一致使用（例如河岸、洪泛平原、湿地、缓冲带）导致了与河岸地区相关的零碎政策的发展。这篇综述汇集了当前欧盟和英国的立法以及关注河岸地区的研究出版物。我们批判性地评估了目前与河岸地区有关的立法框架，并确定了需要解决的关键科学知识差距，以支持未来的决策。我们的研究结果揭示了与河岸政策和管理相关的几个主要问题，包括：(i)有关河岸地区的立法支离破碎的性质；（二）存在多余的政策工具；（三）缺乏实际目标；（四）相互矛盾的措施；（五）无法实现的目标。此外，我们的研究结果表明，大多数研究都集中在农业系统和单一生态系统属性或功能上，而不是支持政策声明中广泛期望的生态系统服务方法。我们建议，未来的研究可以更好地支持河岸保护政策，减少对不同生态系统“是什么”的关注，更多地关注它们能以多种利益的方式“提供”什么。
The value of riparian areas has long been recognised due to their contribution in supporting wildlife diversity and their capacity to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. Their multiple uses (e.g. flood prevention, biodiversity, pollutant attenuation) combined with an inconsistent use of terminology (e.g. river bank, floodplain, wetland, buffer strip), however, has led to the development of fragmented policies associated with riparian areas. This review brings together current EU and UK legislation alongside research publications focused on riparian areas. We critically evaluate the current legislative framework relating to riparian areas and identify key scientific knowledge gaps which need to be addressed to support future decision-making. Our findings revealed several major problems associated with riparian policy and management, including: (i) the fragmented nature of legislation concerning riparian areas; (ii) the presence of redundant policy instruments, (iii) a lack of practical objectives, (iv) contradictory measures, and (v) unachievable targets. Further, our results suggest that most research is focused on agricultural systems and single ecosystem attributes or functions, rather than supporting an ecosystem-service approach that is widely aspired to in policy statements. We recommend that future research could better support riparian protection policies by focusing less on what the different ecosystems ‘are’, and more on what they can ‘offer’ by way of multiple benefits.