John Stanturf

Dr. John Stanturf

Estonian University of Life Sciences
+1
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

38Years (1989-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 February 2010 in Forest Ecology and Management
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
YLYongqiang Liu
Yongqiang Liu
JSJohn Stanturf
John Stanturf
SGScott Goodrick
Scott Goodrick

1 April 2013 in Forest Ecology and Management
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
YLYongqiang Liu
Yongqiang Liu
SGScott L. Goodrick
Scott L. Goodrick
JSJohn Stanturf
John Stanturf

27 August 2020 in Forests
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MHMarkus Höhl
Markus Höhl
VAVianny Ahimbisibwe
Vianny Ahimbisibwe
JSJohn Stanturf
John Stanturf
Peter ElsasserPeter Elsasser
Peter Elsasser
MKMichael Kleine
Michael Kleine
ABAndreas Bolte
Andreas Bolte
Research Highlights: The global Forest Landscape Restoration ambitions could be impaired by projects that ignore key principles such as the engagement of local communities in decision making and implementation, equitable benefit sharing, and monitoring for adaptive management. This entails the danger of continued degradation, disappointed local stakeholders, and ultimately, project failure. Other projects face technical problems related to tree establishment and nursery production. Background and Objectives: There are high hopes for Forest and Landscape Restoration to regain ecosystem integrity and enhance human well-being in deforested and degraded areas. We highlight various problems and success factors experienced during project implementation on a global scale. Materials and Methods: We use data from a global online survey to identify common obstacles and success factors for the implementation of forest restoration. Results: While the majority of respondents reported successful projects, others indicate drastic problems and failed projects. Major obstacles to forest restoration experienced by survey respondents were a lack of local stakeholder involvement and a mismatch between goals of local communities and restoration managers, as well as environmental, anthropogenic, and technical barriers to tree regeneration. Conclusions: When local communities, their goals, and needs are disregarded in project planning and implementation, as reported from various cases in our survey and the limited available literature, there is a risk of project failure. Failed projects and disappointed stakeholders, as well as discouraged funders and policy-makers, could lessen the momentum of global forest restoration ambitions. Adhering to key principles of Forest and Landscape Restoration can promote much-needed community support, with the potential to overcome barriers to forest regeneration and enable communities for the protection, management, and monitoring of the restored forests beyond the limited project and funding periods. Research is needed to gain a better understanding of the perception of local communities towards restoration activities. Further studies on the implementation of forest restoration at the intersection of environmental factors, socioeconomic conditions, forest regeneration/silviculture, and nursery production are needed.

1 October 2007 in Forest Ecology and Management
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JSJohn Stanturf
John Stanturf
SGScott L. Goodrick
Scott L. Goodrick
KOKenneth W. Outcalt
Kenneth W. Outcalt

1 May 2019 in Annals of Forest Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JSJohn Stanturf
John Stanturf
MKMichael Kleine
Michael Kleine
SMStephanie Mansourian
Stephanie Mansourian
JPJohn Parrotta
John Parrotta
PMPalle Madsen
Palle Madsen
ABAndreas Bolte
Andreas Bolte

1 June 2001 in Restoration Ecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JSJohn Stanturf
John Stanturf
SSStephen H. Schoenholtz
Stephen H. Schoenholtz
CSCallie Jo Schweitzer
Callie Jo Schweitzer
JSJames P. Shepard
James P. Shepard