Toward sustainable and just forest recovery: research gaps and potentials for knowledge integration

Abstract

Forest recovery is central for addressing major sustainability challenges, such as climate change and biodiversity loss. While positive assessments prevail over the global ecological forest restoration potential, critical research highlights limited potentials and even detrimental local impacts, particularly in the Global South. Here, we argue that knowledge integration across land system science (LSS) and political ecology (PE) can contribute to addressing this contradiction and advance knowledge about ecologically sustainable and socially just forest recovery. We identify five key areas where knowledge integration is promising: (1) developing multidimensional forest definitions, (2) linking forest land to users and interests, (3) identifying reforestation failures and successes, (4) associating drivers and impacts across places and scales, and (5) including justice dimensions in assessments of socio-ecological forest recovery potentials. For each knowledge area, we review key contributions by LSS and PE, and outline future research directions to address ecologically sustainable and socially just forest recovery. Forest recovery is central for addressing major sustainability challenges, such as climate change and biodiversity loss. While positive assessments prevail over the global ecological forest restoration potential, critical research highlights limited potentials and even detrimental local impacts, particularly in the Global South. Here, we argue that knowledge integration across land system science (LSS) and political ecology (PE) can contribute to addressing this contradiction and advance knowledge about ecologically sustainable and socially just forest recovery. We identify five key areas where knowledge integration is promising: (1) developing multidimensional forest definitions, (2) linking forest land to users and interests, (3) identifying reforestation failures and successes, (4) associating drivers and impacts across places and scales, and (5) including justice dimensions in assessments of socio-ecological forest recovery potentials. For each knowledge area, we review key contributions by LSS and PE, and outline future research directions to address ecologically sustainable and socially just forest recovery. Forest recovery is a central aim for combatting major sustainability challenges, such as climate change1Shukla P.R. Skea J. Calvo Buendia E. Mansson-Delmotte V. Pörtner H.-O. Roberts D.C. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2019https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/download/Google Scholar and biodiversity loss.2IPBESBrondizio E.S. Settele J. Díaz S. Ngo O. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany2019https://ipbes.net/global-assessmentGoogle Scholar While deforestation is an ongoing trend in the global tropics,3Baccini A. Walker W. Carvalho L. Farina M. Sulla-Menashe D. Houghton R.A. Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss.Science. 2017; 358: 230-234Crossref PubMed Scopus (230) Google Scholar,4Köhl M. Lasco R. Cifuentes M. Jonsson Ö. Korhonen K.T. Mundhenk P. de Jesus Navar J. Stinson G. Changes in forest production, biomass and carbon: results from the 2015 UN FAO global forest resource assessment.For. Ecol. Manag. 2015; 352: 21-34Crossref Scopus (102) Google Scholar a growing number of studies has identified large reforestation potentials, in particular with regard to their contribution to climate change mitigation.5Bastin J.-F. Finegold Y. Garcia C. Mollicone D. Rezende M. Routh D. Zohner C.M. Crowther T.W. The global tree restoration potential.Science. 2019; 365: 76-79Crossref PubMed Scopus (225) Google Scholar,6Busch J. Engelmann J. Cook-Patton S.C. Griscom B.W. Kroeger T. Possingham H. Shyamsundar P. Potential for low-cost carbon dioxide removal through tropical reforestation.Nat. Clim. Change. 2019; 9: 463-466Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar Forest recovery has also become a policy pillar in global to national climate change mitigation plans, including the United Nations REDD+ program (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). Tree planting is part of many corporate climate actions,7Seymour F. Seeing the forests as well as the (trillion) trees in corporate climate strategies.One Earth. 2020; 2: 390-393Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar as well as a key component of sustainability strategies involving nature-based solutions.8Griscom B.W. Adams J. Ellis P.W. Houghton R.A. Lomax G. Miteva D.A. Schlesinger W.H. Shoch D. Siikamäki J.V. Smith P. et al.Natural climate solutions.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 2017; 114: 11645-11650Crossref PubMed Scopus (381) Google Scholar Forest conservation is frequently expected to bring co-benefits for local communities. For instance, the Sustainable Development Goals emphasize how forestry measures are an “investment in people and their livelihoods, especially the rural poor, youth and women” (see https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/forests). This positive perception on the potential role of forest recovery to benefit people and the planet has been increasingly countered by critical research concerned with the ecological feasibility and the social impacts of large-scale reforestation and forest conservation. Debates on the ecological feasibility revolve around the realistic potential for reforestation in terms of climatic suitability of land areas9Bond W.J. Stevens N. Midgley G.F. Lehmann C.E.R. The trouble with trees: afforestation plans for Africa.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019; 34: 963-965Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar and the expected carbon sequestration potential.10Lewis S.L. Mitchard E.T.A. Prentice C. Maslin M. Poulter B. Comment on “The global tree restoration potential.”.Science. 2019; 366: eaaz0388Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar Among the negative social outcomes, land conflicts over industrial tree plantations have been identified across the Global South.11Gerber J.-F. Conflicts over industrial tree plantations in the South: who, how and why?.Glob. Environ. Change. 2011; 21: 165-176Crossref Scopus (175) Google Scholar Reforestation initiatives promoted in the context of climate change mitigation policies have been linked to livelihood loss in many national and local contexts.12Scheidel A. Work C. Forest plantations and climate change discourses: new powers of ‘green’ grabbing in Cambodia.Land Use Policy. 2018; 77: 9-18Crossref Scopus (20) Google Scholar,13Richards C. Lyons K. The new corporate enclosures: plantation forestry, carbon markets and the limits of financialised solutions to the climate crisis.Land Use Policy. 2016; 56: 209-216Crossref Scopus (8) Google Scholar There is also growing concern over the negative social impacts of expanding conservation areas, which frequently target forests, on the livelihoods of customary land users.14Schleicher J. Zaehringer J.G. Fastré C. Vira B. Visconti P. Sandbrook C. Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over one billion people.Nat. Sustain. 2019; 2: 1094-1096Crossref Scopus (14) Google Scholar We argue that further knowledge integration across land system science (LSS)15Verburg P.H. Crossman N. Ellis E.C. Heinimann A. Hostert P. Mertz O. Nagendra H. Sikor T. Erb K.-H. Golubiewski N. et al.Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: a global land project perspective.Anthropocene. 2015; 12: 29-41Crossref Scopus (128) Google Scholar and political ecology (PE)16Robbins P. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. John Wiley & Sons, 2011Google Scholar has much to offer to enhance a nuanced understanding of sustainable and just forest recovery processes. Both fields address, in different ways, the complexities of social and environmental factors shaping forest recovery, as pointed out in an extensive review article detailing the explanatory claims of PE and land-change science, the major precursor of LSS.17Turner B.L. Robbins P. Land-change science and political ecology: similarities, differences, and implications for sustainability science.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2008; 33: 295-316Crossref Scopus (206) Google Scholar LSS has a tradition in mapping land system change (in particular: land-use and land-cover change), focusing on socio-ecological phenomena, such as ecosystem services, land-atmosphere processes, land governance, and urban-rural teleconnections.15Verburg P.H. Crossman N. Ellis E.C. Heinimann A. Hostert P. Mertz O. Nagendra H. Sikor T. Erb K.-H. Golubiewski N. et al.Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: a global land project perspective.Anthropocene. 2015; 12: 29-41Crossref Scopus (128) Google Scholar Rooted in land-change science, many LSS studies adopt a post-positivist approach relying on empirical methods, modeling, and testing, which creates interfaces to analyses of the natural world, such as biogeochemical fluxes, or biodiversity trends, and, in principle, allows applicability of methods at multiple scales.17Turner B.L. Robbins P. Land-change science and political ecology: similarities, differences, and implications for sustainability science.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2008; 33: 295-316Crossref Scopus (206) Google Scholar PE on the other hand, rooted in critical social sciences, frequently adopts constructivist or post-Marxist perspectives, and focuses on power relations, conflict, and justice concerns associated to specific resource uses. PE thus addresses land characteristics, such as tenure, access, and diverse forms of material and cultural land uses, and establishes interconnections between political processes and environmental outcomes, including conflicts and social injustices related to land-use change.17Turner B.L. Robbins P. Land-change science and political ecology: similarities, differences, and implications for sustainability science.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2008; 33: 295-316Crossref Scopus (206) Google Scholar While the two fields importantly cross-fertilize each other, the distinct viewpoints and epistemologies hamper a straightforward integration of approaches.17Turner B.L. Robbins P. Land-change science and political ecology: similarities, differences, and implications for sustainability science.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2008; 33: 295-316Crossref Scopus (206) Google Scholar,18Brannstrom, C., and Vadjunec, J.M. Notes for avoiding a missed opportunity in sustainability science: integrating land change science and political ecology. In Land Change Science, Political Ecology, and Sustainability. Synergies and Divergences, C. Brannstrom and J.M. Vadjunec, eds. (Routledge), pp. 1–23.Google Scholar Zimmerer,19Zimmerer K.S. Methods and environmental science in political ecology.in: Perreault T. Bridge G. McCarth J. The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology. Routledge, 2015: 172-190Google Scholar for example, describes how the integration of empirical methods into PE may even pose “professional risks,” as it may provoke antagonistic reactions by colleagues who are unsupportive of such integrative efforts. Here, we argue that further knowledge integration from PE and LSS into forest recovery research is a risk worth taking, because it has the potential to advance knowledge on sustainable and just forest recovery pathways. In fact, integration is already occurring in important areas, and “hybrid research” is emerging that, while not reconciling distinct epistemologies, fosters “an understanding and appreciation of divergent approaches.”17Turner B.L. Robbins P. Land-change science and political ecology: similarities, differences, and implications for sustainability science.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2008; 33: 295-316Crossref Scopus (206) Google Scholar Rather than seeking full integration of knowledge systems, such research acknowledges productive tensions, or “fruitful frictions”19Zimmerer K.S. Methods and environmental science in political ecology.in: Perreault T. Bridge G. McCarth J. The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology. Routledge, 2015: 172-190Google Scholar that provoke mutual learning and guide careful and selective integration of methods and approaches with the purpose of addressing specific problems in original and meaningful ways. In this Perspective, we identify where further knowledge integration across PE and LSS is promising for enhancing our knowledge about sustainable and just forest recovery pathways. We draw attention to five knowledge areas in which we consider a selective integration of knowledge and methods to be productive (Figure 1), based on emerging contributions at the interface of the two fields, or on identified research gaps: (1) developing multidimensional forest definitions, (2) linking forest land to users and interests, (3) identifying failures and successes of forest recovery, (4) associating drivers and impacts across places and scales, and (5) including justice dimensions in assessments of socio-ecological forest recovery potentials. The identification of key areas for knowledge integration was initially informed by our own research experience on forest recovery processes in different interdisciplinary contexts (including LSS and PE), and then refined in an iterative way through a literature review (see the Experimental Procedures). For the discussion of these knowledge areas, we provide a narrative review that (1) describes the problem arising from a lack of knowledge integration, (2) discusses particular contributions to addressing this problem by LSS and PE, and (3) highlights, based on research at the interface of the two fields wherever available, in which concrete ways further knowledge integration appears promising. Given the diversity of PE and LSS research and their sometimes blurred boundaries, the specific contributions highlighted here are not intended to indicate strict topical divisions between the fields, but tendencies and strengths in approaching forest recovery concerns that bear potential for further cross-fertilization. With regard to social aspects of forest recovery, we focus on justice, conflict, and the role of specific actors involved, i.e., customary groups or social movements. We take a trivalent perspective to justice that considers distributional aspects, such as who benefits from certain land uses, as well as procedural issues, such as involvement in forest governance, and recognition, concerned with how different cultural identities and related forest uses are valued and respected.20Schlosberg D. Reconceiving environmental justice: global movements and political theories.Environ. Polit. 2004; 13: 517-540Crossref Scopus (472) Google Scholar,21Martin A. Coolsaet B. Corbera E. Dawson N.M. Fraser J.A. Lehmann I. Rodriguez I. Justice and conservation: the need to incorporate recognition.Biol. Conserv. 2016; 197: 254-261Crossref Scopus (76) Google Scholar The most important ecological dimensions we address relate to major global sustainability challenges, focusing on the carbon sink function of forest recovery connected to mitigating global climate change,1Shukla P.R. Skea J. Calvo Buendia E. Mansson-Delmotte V. Pörtner H.-O. Roberts D.C. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2019https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/download/Google Scholar but including also biodiversity conservation.2IPBESBrondizio E.S. Settele J. Díaz S. Ngo O. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany2019https://ipbes.net/global-assessmentGoogle Scholar Geographically, we mainly address forest recovery processes in the Global South. Analyses of deforestation are included only if they draw conclusions for forest recovery or illustrate methodological or conceptual contributions that could be applied to forest recovery research. The choice of a particular forest definition sensitively shapes ecological and social outcomes of forest recovery efforts on the ground.22Chazdon R.L. Brancalion P.H.S. Laestadius L. Bennett-Curry A. Buckingham K. Kumar C. Moll-Rocek J. Vieira I.C.G. Wilson S.J. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration.Ambio. 2016; 45: 538-550Crossref PubMed Scopus (168) Google Scholar, 23Putz F.E. Redford K.H. The importance of defining ‘forest’: tropical forest degradation, deforestation, long-term phase shifts, and further transitions: importance of defining ‘forest.Biotropica. 2010; 42: 10-20Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 24Van Holt T. Binford M.W. Portier K.M. Vergara R. A stand of trees does not a forest make: tree plantations and forest transitions.Land Use Policy. 2016; 56: 147-157Crossref Scopus (21) Google Scholar International agreements on climate change mitigation refer to forests as minimum areas of 0.5–1 ha with a tree canopy cover of more than 10%–30%, comprised of trees higher than 2–5 m.25UNFCCCAfforestation and Reforestation Projects under the Clean Development Mechanism. UNFCCC Secretariat, 2013Google Scholar However, this definition does not capture important ecological and social qualities of forests and may obscure declines in carbon stock, biodiversity loss, and livelihood impacts related to forest change. These impacts can be grasped in interdisciplinary approaches, and we argue that knowledge integration from LSS and PE can inform on suitable dimensions for monitoring forest change (Figure 2). Several studies from the field of conservation ecology have highlighted how structural forest definitions may foster ecological degradation.26Sasaki N. Putz F.E. Critical need for new definitions of “forest” and “forest degradation” in global climate change agreements.Conserv. Lett. 2009; 2: 226-232Crossref Google Scholar,27Van Noordwijk M. Minang P. If we cannot define it, we cannot save it: forest definitions and REDD.ASB Policy Brief. 15. ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, Nairobi, Kenya2009https://www.asb.cgiar.orgGoogle Scholar The central concern of these studies is that policies targeting forest conservation for climate change mitigation do not distinguish between natural forests and plantations, allowing conversions of old-growth forests into monocrop tree plantations that technically remain forests despite severe ecological degradation, such as biodiversity loss. LSS studies have shown that such political reforestation targets resulted in a shift from primary forest to forest plantations in different geographical contexts.28Hua F. Wang L. Fisher B. Zheng X. Wang X. Yu D.W. Tang Y. Zhu J. Wilcove D.S. Tree plantations displacing native forests: the nature and drivers of apparent forest recovery on former croplands in Southwestern China from 2000 to 2015.Biol. Conserv. 2018; 222: 113-124Crossref Scopus (17) Google Scholar,29Sloan S. Meyfroidt P. Rudel T.K. Bongers F. Chazdon R. The forest transformation: planted tree cover and regional dynamics of tree gains and losses.Glob. Environ. Change. 2019; 59: 101988Crossref Scopus (3) Google Scholar Furthermore, the low threshold for forest cover allows for selective logging of up to 70%–90% in closed-canopy forests, leading to carbon losses, without being considered deforestation.23Putz F.E. Redford K.H. The importance of defining ‘forest’: tropical forest degradation, deforestation, long-term phase shifts, and further transitions: importance of defining ‘forest.Biotropica. 2010; 42: 10-20Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar These important ecological changes remain invisible in forest assessments based on such structural definitions.30Tropek R. Sedla ek O. Beck J. Keil P. Musilova Z. imova I. Storch D. Comment on “High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change.”.Science. 2014; 344: 981Crossref PubMed Scopus (120) Google Scholar More nuanced definitions are required that consider diverse ecological aspects, as well as a more holistic perspective that understands forests embedded in both ecological and social landscapes.22Chazdon R.L. Brancalion P.H.S. Laestadius L. Bennett-Curry A. Buckingham K. Kumar C. Moll-Rocek J. Vieira I.C.G. Wilson S.J. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration.Ambio. 2016; 45: 538-550Crossref PubMed Scopus (168) Google Scholar Forest definitions also have major social implications: they reflect particular management objectives, social values, and needs attached to forests. The structural definitions underlying those applied by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were initially developed to monitor and manage forests as sources of timber, no matter whether they were planted or natural forests. Thus, they reflected the interests of the timber, plantation, and pulp industries but not those of other groups; for instance, indigenous people relying on forests materially and culturally.22Chazdon R.L. Brancalion P.H.S. Laestadius L. Bennett-Curry A. Buckingham K. Kumar C. Moll-Rocek J. Vieira I.C.G. Wilson S.J. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration.Ambio. 2016; 45: 538-550Crossref PubMed Scopus (168) Google Scholar This has provoked social consequences, particularly for forest-dependent communities whose access to livelihood resources and cultural sites is threatened when forests are converted to tree plantations, or for adjunct land users facing adverse social-environmental impacts of tree plantation expansion, such as pollution, wildlife loss, and other issues.31Carriere R. Lohmann L. Pulping the South: Industrial Tree Plantations and the World Paper Economy. Zed Books, 1996Google Scholar Environmental movements summarized their profound concerns over the prevailing use of structural forest definitions with the slogan “tree plantations are not forests,” and urged the FAO through mass petitions to revise its definition.32WRMHow Does the FAO Forest Definition Harm People and Forests? An Open Letter to the FAO. World Rainforest Movement, 2016Google Scholar These concerns are exacerbating in the context of climate change mitigation policies, where several studies document the profound social problems resulting from the accelerated expansion of tree plantations, endorsed by the UNFCCC as reforestation.12Scheidel A. Work C. Forest plantations and climate change discourses: new powers of ‘green’ grabbing in Cambodia.Land Use Policy. 2018; 77: 9-18Crossref Scopus (20) Google Scholar,13Richards C. Lyons K. The new corporate enclosures: plantation forestry, carbon markets and the limits of financialised solutions to the climate crisis.Land Use Policy. 2016; 56: 209-216Crossref Scopus (8) Google Scholar,33Olwig M.F. Noe C. Kangalawe R. Luoga E. Inverting the moral economy: the case of land acquisitions for forest plantations in Tanzania.Third World Q. 2016; 36: 2316-2336Crossref Scopus (13) Google Scholar All forest definitions will require practicable compromise, and no single forest definition will be able to capture all socio-ecological aspects. However, a multidimensional conceptualization of forests is needed for management, monitoring, and restoration within current mitigation efforts that must be informed by the multiple social and ecological functions that specific forest landscapes provide.22Chazdon R.L. Brancalion P.H.S. Laestadius L. Bennett-Curry A. Buckingham K. Kumar C. Moll-Rocek J. Vieira I.C.G. Wilson S.J. When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration.Ambio. 2016; 45: 538-550Crossref PubMed Scopus (168) Google Scholar,34Ellison D. Morris C.E. Locatelli B. Sheil D. Cohen J. Murdiyarso D. Gutierrez V. Noordwijk M.van Creed I.F. Pokorny J. et al.Trees, forests and water: cool insights for a hot world.Glob. Environ. Change. 2017; 43: 51-61Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar Definitions used in the governance, restoration, and monitoring of forest landscapes must be informed by what is at risk.23Putz F.E. Redford K.H. The importance of defining ‘forest’: tropical forest degradation, deforestation, long-term phase shifts, and further transitions: importance of defining ‘forest.Biotropica. 2010; 42: 10-20Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar Definitions in the global Forest Resource Assessments, distinguishing “natural” and “planted” forests4Köhl M. Lasco R. Cifuentes M. Jonsson Ö. Korhonen K.T. Mundhenk P. de Jesus Navar J. Stinson G. Changes in forest production, biomass and carbon: results from the 2015 UN FAO global forest resource assessment.For. Ecol. Manag. 2015; 352: 21-34Crossref Scopus (102) Google Scholar offer only a very rough distinction in this direction. Monitoring the carbon sequestration of forest change should move away from binary definitions of very few different types of forest, “other wooded land,” and non-forested areas. Such comprehensive assessments are common in LSS. Building on remotely sensed data, studies develop and operationalize non-binary land classifications, distinguishing different levels of, e.g., carbon stocks3Baccini A. Walker W. Carvalho L. Farina M. Sulla-Menashe D. Houghton R.A. Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss.Science. 2017; 358: 230-234Crossref PubMed Scopus (230) Google Scholar,35Erb K.-H. Kastner T. Plutzar C. Bais A.L.S. Carvalhais N. Fetzel T. Gingrich S. Haberl H. Lauk C. Niedertscheider M. et al.Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.Nature. 2018; 553: 73-76Crossref PubMed Scopus (119) Google Scholar or tree cover.36Hansen M.C. Potapov P.V. Moore R. Hancher M. Turubanova S.A. Tyukavina A. Thau D. Stehman S.V. Goetz S.J. Loveland T.R. et al.High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change.Science. 2013; 342: 850-853Crossref PubMed Scopus (4125) Google Scholar,37Song X.-P. Hansen M.C. Stehman S.V. Potapov P.V. Tyukavina A. Vermote E.F. Townshend J.R. Global land change from 1982 to 2016.Nature. 2018; 560: 639-643Crossref PubMed Scopus (283) Google Scholar For understanding social aspects of forest change, as well as the implications that specific forest definitions have for different user groups, it is necessary to look at who is at risk, why, and how, which are issues at the core of PE.16Robbins P. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. John Wiley & Sons, 2011Google Scholar Attention must be paid to peoples' access schemes to forests that in turn shape their vulnerability.38Ribot J. Cause and response: vulnerability and climate in the Anthropocene.J. Peasant Stud. 2014; 41: 667-705Crossref Scopus (201) Google Scholar The only social distinction made in national reports of the Forest Resource Assessment is on public versus private forests. A consistent international distinction between different forms of customary, small-scale and large-scale corporate forest ownership and access rights, partly existing in national forest inventories, would be a first step toward monitoring of social changes and informing policies to avoid “social degradation.” Combining social and ecological attributes into a typology of land-use categories suitable for climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation that is widely accepted, useful in monitoring and technically also operational, remains a key challenge and research gap. Adequately linking a physical piece of forest land to people using or wanting to use it is a precondition for avoiding conflicts resulting from competing land-use claims.39Andriamihaja O.R. Metz F. Zaehringer J.G. Fischer M. Messerli P. Land competition under telecoupling: distant actors’ environmental versus economic claims on land in North-Eastern Madagascar.Sustainability. 2019; 11: 851Crossref Scopus (10) Google Scholar Several studies report conflicts in the forestry sector that resulted from inadequate forest classifications and improper identification of the actual land users.33Olwig M.F. Noe C. Kangalawe R. Luoga E. Inverting the moral economy: the case of land acquisitions for forest plantations in Tanzania.Third World Q. 2016; 36: 2316-2336Crossref Scopus (13) Google Scholar,40Work C. Thuon R. Inside and outside the maps: mutual accommodation and forest destruction in Cambodia.Can. J. Dev. Stud. Rev. Can. Détudes Dév. 2017; 38: 360-377Crossref Scopus (10) Google Scholar Knowledge about who uses which forest land for what is therefore a prerequisite for preventing conflict and developing socially just forest recovery initiatives. Such identification can build on concepts and methods being debated and developed in both LSS and PE (Figure 3). LSS has a strong tradition in linking land to people, because one of its core interests is in understanding land system dynamics at the interface of biophysical and human subsystems.41Turner B.L. Lambin E.F. Reenberg A. The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 2007; 104: 20666-20671Crossref PubMed Scopus (1179) Google Scholar Integrated concepts used in LSS like “land functions,” denoting the “wide range of goods and services”42Verburg P.H. van de Steeg J. Veldkamp A. Willemen L. From land cover change to land function dynamics: a major challenge to improve land characterization.J. Environ. Manage. 2009; 90: 1327-1335Crossref PubMed Scopus (320) Google Scholar provi