Ecosystem Services in Working Lands: US Northeast

Conclusion 3: Very few programs reviewed in this assessment directly address resilience and even fewer address resilience beyond the farm-scale. Programs focused on resilience, especially as it functions across scale and between urban and rural areas, should be a priority going forward.

Recommendation 3.1

Identify the indicators of resilience (e.g., for who, by who, for what, over what time) at various scales and for various stakeholders across the U.S. Northeast.

Recommendation 3.2

Evaluate the impact of regional consortia and the role of existing governance and institutional structures, especially conservation districts and higher education.

Conclusion 4: Ecosystem service provisioning programs for young and beginner farmers, while important, may not be enough to entice young people into working-lands related careers. Programs that couple ecosystem service provisioning with incentives that directly support livelihood provisioning such as cash-in- hand (basic income), land access/acquisition, free education/professional development, and healthcare, may help.

Recommendation 4.1

Evaluate the regionally-specific factors inhibiting youth from working lands careers in the U.S. Northeast with a particular eye to issues of land tenure, healthcare, and higher education.

Recommendation 4.2

Evaluate the role of cash-transfer and basic income programs to supplement conventional, market-based systems.


Powered by