Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems Monitoring

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Wenjun Jiao	--	3636	2022-08-31 14:29:22	\|
2	format	Jason Zhu	-2 word(s)	3634	2022-09-01 03:47:50	\| \|
3	format	Jason Zhu	-33 word(s)	3601	2022-09-02 08:40:26	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14169958

In order to protect traditional agricultural systems of global importance, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) launched an initiative for the conservation of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) in 2002. After nearly two decades of development, the number of GIAHS has increased from the initial 5 in 2005 to the current 65 in 22 countries around the world. Despite the remarkable increase in the number of GIAHS, many countries are now facing the difficult task of dynamic conservation and adaptive management of GIAHS. As an important element of heritage management, monitoring plays an important role in improving the level of heritage management. Scientific and effective monitoring can not only achieve the conservation of the heritage itself and the maintenance of its value, but also the sustainable development of the heritage site.

Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) action plan monitoring

1. Introduction

Adaptive management constitutes the cornerstone of modern environmental management ^[1] and is widely used in heritage management ^[2]^[3]^[4]. Monitoring is very instrumental in adaptive management, providing important feedback on how social, economic and ecological systems change and whether human activities, including management decision-making, produce effects ^[5]. Thus, monitoring is also deemed an important component of heritage management, representing an important guarantee for the maintenance of heritage vitality and an important foundation for heritage conservation and management. As early as 1972, the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage clearly put forward the concept of heritage monitoring ^[6]. After more than 40 years of development, the world heritage monitoring has finally formed two monitoring forms, i.e., reactive monitoring and regular reporting, and established the protection status information system. These efforts have played an important role in promoting the realization of heritage conservation objectives and improving the level of the world heritage management ^[7]. It has been widely recognized that scientific and effective heritage monitoring cannot only conserve heritage itself and its values but also contribute to the sustainable development of the heritage site ^[8].

In 2002, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) launched a global initiative on the dynamic conservation and adaptive management of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS), aiming to establish a conservation system for GIAHS and their landscapes, biodiversity, knowledge and cultures, enable them to be recognized and conserved worldwide, and make them the basis for sustainable development ^[9]. In 2005, five traditional agricultural systems located in six countries, including the Qingtian rice-fish culture system in China and the Ifugao rice terraces in the Philippines, were designated by FAO as the first GIAHS conservation pilots. Then, the conservation of GIAHS has become increasingly standardized, and great progress has been made in the application, certification and publicity, thanks to the strong support of international organizations such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the governments of China and Japan ^[10]^[11]. In 2015, the GIAHS initiative was endorsed as a regular program at the FAO 39th Session, ushering in a whole new stage for the conservation and management of GIAHS. Since then, both the number of countries that made applications and the number of certified GIAHS have increased year by year. As of May 2022, a total of 65 GIAHS were identified by FAO, which are distributed in 22 countries around the globe. However, as an important task in heritage management, GIAHS monitoring remains far behind other work.

2. Progress in Theoretical Research on GIAHS Monitoring

2.1. Different Understanding of GIAHS Monitoring

As defined by FAO, GIAHS are “remarkable land use systems and landscapes which are rich in globally significant biological biodiversity evolving from the co-adaptation of a community with its environment and its needs and aspirations for sustainable development” ^[12]^[13]. GIAHS are not only alive, complex and multifunctional, but also endangered and vulnerable, therefore once they are damaged, their functions and values will be inevitably lost ^[14]. More and more managers and researchers are coming to realize that the application and designation of GIAHS is only the beginning, while the scientific conservation and management of them is the focus of the follow-up work. As an important means of heritage management, monitoring can be used to obtain the data of GIAHS dynamic changes to assess the impact of conservation and management measures, promptly detect threats and problems faced by GIAHS and make adjustments to the conservation and management measures, thus making heritage management more scientific and effective.

Nevertheless, there are actually two kinds of understanding of GIAHS monitoring. One is the monitoring of GIAHS action plans, and the other is that of GIAHS themselves. Action plans refer to the heritage conservation strategies, measures and actions submitted by GIAHS sites ^[15]. The monitoring of GIAHS action plans, similar to a link in project management, refers to the monitoring of the implementation of conservation and management measures and their impact, with strong pertinence and relatively narrow boundaries. In contrast, the monitoring of GIAHS themselves, more like a “scientific observation”, involves all aspects of conservation and management (not limited to action plans) and their impact on GIAHS, with strong comprehensiveness and a relatively broad boundary scope ^[16]. Due to the different understanding of GIAHS monitoring, countries and research institutions differ in monitoring objectives, indicator systems, and implementation paths when conducting theoretical research and practical application of GIAHS monitoring.

2.2. Theoretical Research on the Monitoring of GIAHS Themselves

Entrusted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of China (MARA), the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS-IGSNRR) has started the theoretical research on GIAHS monitoring since 2014. The researchers believed that the monitoring of GIAHS themselves covers two aspects. On the one hand, dynamic changes in the heritage itself should be observed and recorded in light of the characteristics and values of the heritage interpreted according to the designation criteria. On the other hand, the conservation and management measures taken by the heritage site should be tracked and supervised to reveal their impact on the characteristics and values of the heritage. On this basis, the researchers proposed a GIAHS monitoring indicator system, which combines the two aspects above and consists of six first-level indicators, 24 second-level indicators, and several third-level indicators ^[8]. Among the first-level indicators, ecological conservation, economic development, social maintenance, and cultural inheritance are closely correlated with the GIAHS designation criteria and also intensively reflect the impact of conservation and management measures on the characteristics and values of the heritage. By contrast, institutional and mechanism construction, publicity, demonstration and promotion cover the capacity building of GIAHS conservation and management to the largest extent. The second-level indicators further refine the first-level indicators, and the third-level indicators are the specific items to be monitored during the monitoring process.

As monitoring indicators differ in the speed or frequency of change and the difficulty degree of data collection, the researchers proposed to collect data by combining annual reports and survey reports. For indicators that change relatively fast or frequently and are easy to collect, such as population structure, economic income and multi-channel publicity, annual reports are used for long-term tracking and monitoring. For indicators that change relatively slow or less frequently and are relatively difficult to collect, such as agro-biodiversity, agricultural landscape and cultural awareness, survey reports are used for periodic monitoring within a period of three to five years ^[8]. The scientific validity and operability of GIAHS monitoring can be improved through the combination of annual reports and survey reports.

By drawing on the monitoring experience of World Heritage, the researchers also proposed an implementation framework that consists of a three-tiered monitoring network, a dynamic monitoring system, and a two-tiered inspection system. In this framework, national ministries, provincial competent authorities, and regulatory authorities for heritage sites are the main participants in GIAHS monitoring ^[8]. National ministries, like the ministry of agriculture, are responsible for formulating and issuing norms and policies, guiding GIAHS monitoring nationwide, and organizing GIAHS inspections and evaluations at the national level. The provincial competent authorities are responsible for organizing, coordinating and supervising GIAHS monitoring within their administrative divisions, inspecting and guiding GIAHS conservation and management on an irregular basis, and timely submitting annual reports, survey reports and existing problems to the ministries. Regulatory authorities for heritage sites are responsible for conducting daily GIAHS monitoring, and submitting annual reports, survey reports and other related data to provincial competent authorities and the ministries. A closed loop of monitoring data collection and evaluation feedback is therefore formed by establishing an implementation mechanism that combines active monitoring, supervision and inspection so as to make GIAHS conservation and management more scientific and systematic.

2.3. Theoretical Research on the Monitoring of GIAHS Action Plans

The United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS) and the Rural Development Administration (RDA) of South Korea conducted two-year theoretical research on the monitoring of GIAHS action plans and released the Manual of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Monitoring and Evaluation Manual: A Technical Reference in March 2022 ^[17]. The researchers proposed to monitor and evaluate the GIAHS action plans by using the Theory of Change (ToC) and establishing an analytical framework of “inputs-outputs-outcomes-impacts”. In this framework, inputs refer to conservation and management actions taken in accordance with the GIAHS action plans; outputs refer to the tangible and intangible products resulting from these actions; outcomes refer to the observation and recording of these outputs according to monitoring indicators. The outcomes are subject to constant, periodical and systematic evaluations and feedback is then formed to facilitate the adjustments to action plans, which will ensure GIAHS to be on the pathway to attain their intended impacts (or long-term goals).

The researchers believed that the five designation criteria of food and livelihood security, agro-biodiversity, local and traditional knowledge systems, cultures, value systems and social organizations, and landscape and seascape features are critical for ensuring the integrity of GIAHS, so these criteria are considered as core criteria for the monitoring of GIAHS action plans. Additionally, the researchers also proposed three enabling criteria, namely governance, capacity development and research, partnerships and outreach. Based on the eight core criteria, they further proposed 22 sub-criteria to form a criteria system for GIAHS action plan monitoring. For food and livelihood security, the sub-criteria are population statistics, agricultural income, and income from related industries; for agro-biodiversity, they are agro-biodiversity, threats to agro-biodiversity, and agro-ecology; for local and traditional knowledge systems, they are farming practices, transfer of traditional wisdom and farming techniques, and water resource management; for cultures, value systems and social organizations, they are preservation of culture, history, knowledge and values, and social organizations; for landscapes and seascapes features, they are landscapes and seascapes assessment, and maintenance; for governance, they are management and monitoring, and economic policies; for capacity development and research, they are training on agricultural skills and technology, funding, and research; and for partnerships and outreach, they are public relations and outreach, community engagement, and exchange and cooperation ^[17].

In order to make the monitoring indicators more feasible and monitoring data more practical, the researchers carried out surveys in the heritage sites of Japan and South Korea. The indicators that were considered feasible by 50% of the respondents or more were used as basic indicators and those considered feasible by less than 50% of the respondents were adopted as advanced indicators. The two types of indicators are collectively referred to as key performance indicators (KPIs). In order to further improve the operability of the monitoring, the researchers divided the monitoring data collection methods into three categories, namely quantitative statistics, qualitative listing and qualitative reporting.

The researchers held that, in the monitoring and evaluation of GIAHS action plans, the organizational form and the implementation mechanism are crucial and stakeholders play different roles. Government agencies at all levels participate in and guide the implementation of GIAHS action plans; the management office is specifically responsible for the implementation of these plans; a monitoring and evaluation team needs to be set up in the management office to be responsible for the monitoring and evaluation of the plans and a working group also needs to be established to ensure the successful monitoring and evaluation; and GIAHS-related producers, consumers, community managers, and volunteers in heritage sites are extensive participants in the monitoring and evaluation of GIAHS action plans. The researchers also proposed the monitoring and evaluation process for the GIAHS action plans, which includes a. launching monitoring and evaluation; b. monitoring data collection and analysis; c. self-evaluation report; d. third-party evaluation; e. feedback and reflection; f. future scenario planning; g. developing the new action plan; h. completing monitoring and evaluation and implementing the new action plan ^[17].

3. Progress in GIAHS Monitoring Practices of Different Countries

3.1. GIAHS Monitoring Practice in China

China’s GIAHS monitoring practice includes both monitoring of GIAHS themselves and monitoring of GIAHS action plans, which are conducted at the national and local levels, respectively. At the national level, MARA has started the annual report of GIAHS monitoring with the technical support of CAS-IGSNRR since 2014. According to the fundamental principles of comprehensiveness, scientific validity and operability, the annual report of GIAHS monitoring relates to 18 second-level indicators, 27 third-level indicators and over 150 monitoring items. The report is designed to reflect the changes in ecological conservation, economic development, social maintenance and cultural inheritance functions of GIAHS, as well as in institutional and mechanism building, publicity, demonstration and promotion capabilities within a short term from the perspectives of counties, heritage sites and typical villages ^[18]. In 2015, MARA entrusted CAS-IGSNRR to develop a dynamic monitoring system for GIAHS in China, so as to perform the functions of online filling, editing and reporting of monitoring data, and generation, downloading and online viewing of annual reports. As of the end of 2020, this system has completed the online filling of monitoring reports for five years, with the number of participating GIAHS increasing from 11 to 15 and that of counties involved increasing from 23 to 30.

MARA has started to organize GIAHS inspections and evaluations at the national level since 2015. The inspection and evaluation team is composed of members of the GIAHS Expert Committee under MARA. It evaluates the conservation and development effectiveness of GIAHS every three years by combining report site inspection. CAS-IGSNRR has designed the GIAHS Conservation and Development Evaluation Form. This form consists of five first-level indicators, 17 second-level indicators and 36 third-level indicators, which are used to measure the progress in ecological conservation, economic development, social maintenance, cultural inheritance and capacity building. The inspection and evaluation team will, according to the annual and survey reports and inspection results, rate each indicator and then obtain a comprehensive score for GIAHS conservation and development effectiveness.

At the local level, regulatory authorities of heritage sites monitor and evaluate GIAHS action plans (i.e., GIAHS conservation and development plans) on their own. Qingtian rice-fish culture system in Zhejiang province, Xuanhua traditional vineyard system in Hebei province, Xinghua Duotian agrosystem in Jiangsu province Shaoxing ancient Chinese torreya system in Zhejiang province, among others, are GIAHS designated earlier. They have successively carried out the revision of action plans and realized the tracking and monitoring of GIAHS conservation actions. For example, in 2016 the Qingtian County evaluated the implementation effect of the Plan for the Conservation and Development of Qingtian Rice-fish Culture System (2006–2015), based on which it formulated the Plan for the Conservation and Development of Qingtian Rice-fish Culture System (2016–2025). In 2017, due to the adjustment of administrative divisions of Xuanhua District, a phased evaluation was conducted on the Plan for the Conservation and Development of Xuanhua Traditional Vineyard System (2013–2022) and the Plan for the Conservation and Development of Xuanhua Traditional Vineyard System (2016–2015) was formulated.

3.2. GIAHS Monitoring Practice in South Korea

The GIAHS monitoring practice in South Korea is similar to that in China, covering both GIAHS themselves and GIAHS action plans. Differently, the two kinds of monitoring actions in South Korea are organized at the national level. The central government of South Korea believes that the monitoring of GIAHS themselves is the core task of GIAHS management at the national level. It is designed to exploit heritage resources to promote rural vitalization and prevent unnecessary damage to heritage due to excessive development. In 2016, the central government of South Korea proposed an indicator system for GIAHS monitoring, which is composed of three first-level indicators, namely operating system, conservation and utilization. The first-level indicators are further divided into 10 second-level indicators including formation of management authority, management system, establishment of management planning, traditional agriculture, ecology, landscape, traditional culture, economic effect, socio-cultural effect, and environmental effect, which are further refined into 17 third-level indicators ^[19]. By the characteristics of each monitoring indicator, monitoring data are divided into three types, namely quantitative data, qualitative data and list data.

The monitoring of GIAHS themselves in South Korea is organized and implemented by the central government, with the joint participation of local governments, private enterprises, local residents, and other stakeholders ^[19]. Among them, the central government is responsible for formulating general policies, identifying heritage status, providing monitoring guidelines and, together with local governments, regulating heritage sites and their surrounding areas. Local governments are responsible for formulating and conducting specific GIAHS action plans, implementing GIAHS monitoring, and responding to feedback from local residents. The GIAHS management committee, composed of the local government, related experts and local residents, is responsible for the advancement of the conservation and management of GIAHS and is also one of the most important participants in GIAHS monitoring. In addition, the farmers and residents’ consultative group actively collaborate on various tasks of heritage conservation and management, while farmers are also an important object subject to GIAHS monitoring. The GIAHS monitoring in South Korea has been initiated since 2018 and conducted once every two years, and the central government provides financial support worth about 40 million won every two years to each heritage site. Up to now, two phases of monitoring and evaluation of four heritage sites, which lasted four years, have been completed in South Korea.

The monitoring of GIAHS action plans in South Korea is also organized and implemented by the central government as the action plans are financially supported by the central government. Since 2013, each agricultural heritage system has received three-year financial aid worth approximately 1.5 billion won, of which 70% comes from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) and the remaining 30% from the government of the heritage site; and each fishery heritage system has obtained three-year financial assistance worth approximately 700 million won, of which 70% comes from the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (MOF) and 30% from the government of the heritage site ^[19]^[20]. To ensure the smooth implementation of the action plans, the central government has established a strict monitoring and evaluation system. Evaluations are conducted once or twice each year during the implementation period and the final evaluation is conducted in the fourth year, i.e., the year following the ending of the implementation period. The evaluation items include financial budget execution, database building, heritage changes, residents’ participation, changes in the number of tourists, education and capacity building, etc. The agricultural or fishery heritage systems that have passed the final evaluation will still be financially supported in the second stage.

3.3. GIAHS Monitoring Practice in Japan

Japan attaches great importance to the formulation and implementation of GIAHS action plans and conducts monitoring and evaluation of these plans. As required by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of the country (MAFF), a five-year conservation and development action plan must be formulated at each GIAHS site after it is designated. To ensure the implementation effect of GIAHS action plans, since 2015, MAFF has organized the Japanese GIAHS Expert Committee to set up an evaluation team to inspect and evaluate the GIAHS action plans in the third or fourth year of the implementation period. Specifically, the following steps are followed. First, each heritage site completes a self-evaluation report and submits it to MAFF, including a summary of its previous actions, future action plan, major heritage conservation and utilization indicators, and comprehensive evaluation of conservation actions after designation. Then, experts of the evaluation team research the self-evaluation report and confirm the content of the report through online interviews and field visits, etc. Finally, a small symposium is held between the evaluation team and local representatives. At the symposium, experts announce the monitoring and evaluation results and make suggestions on the formulation and implementation of action plans ^[21]^[22]. Based on experts’ suggestions, the heritage site will revise the action plan in the fifth year of the implementation period and formulate an action plan for the next five-year period.

3.4. GIAHS Monitoring Practice in Portugal

Barroso agro-sylvo-pastoral system was recognized by FAO as a GIAHS in 2018. It is the first and only GIAHS in Portugal. Although there is only one GIAHS, Portugal attaches great importance to its conservation and management and conducts monitoring and evaluation on its action plan. The monitoring and evaluation of the GIAHS action plan in Portugal, unlike in China, South Korea and Japan, is organized by the non-profit organization of the heritage site rather than by the government, with the joint participation of competent government authorities and other stakeholders. Take the Barroso agro-sylvo-pastoral system for example. An executive committee is formed by the main public and private entities to be responsible for the conservation and management of the heritage in general. The executive committee has a monitoring and evaluation committee, which is specifically responsible for the monitoring and evaluation of the heritage, including monitoring indicator design, monitoring data collection, conservation effect evaluation and the proposing of conservation suggestions ^[23]. Moreover, the Barroso platform was officially established in January 2019, with the aim to promote the participation of stakeholders such as research institutions, associations, cooperatives, schools, social organizations and private enterprises in participating in heritage conservation and management. The monitoring and evaluation of the action plan are conducted by a regional development association named ADRAT. Currently, the action plan 2020–2021 of the Barroso agro-sylvo-pastoral system has been implemented and ADRAT is monitoring and evaluating the action plan for the most recent two years.

References

Westgate, M.J.; Likens, G.E.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Adaptive management of biological systems: A review. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 158, 128–139.
Matsuda, H.; Makino, M.; Sakurai, Y. Development of an adaptive marine ecosystem management and co-management plan at the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage Site. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1937–1942.
Phillips, H. The capacity to adapt to climate change at heritage sites-The development of a conceptual framework. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 47, 118–125.
Tu, H.M. The Attractiveness of Adaptive Heritage Reuse: A Theoretical Framework. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2372.
Hedge, P.; Molloy, F.; Sweatman, H.; Hayes, K.R.; Dambacher, J.M.; Chandler, J.; Bax, N.; Gooch, M.; Anthony, K.; Elliot, B. An integrated monitoring framework for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Mar. Policy 2017, 77, 90–96.
UNESCO. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. 1972. Available online: http://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/170665 (accessed on 28 March 2022).
UNESCO World Heritage Center. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. 2013. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000224675 (accessed on 28 March 2022).
Jiao, W.; Zhao, G.; Min, Q.; Liu, M.; Yang, L. Building a monitoring system for Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) based on the monitoring experience of World Heritage. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2020, 28, 1350–1360. (In Chinese)
Food and Agriculture Organization. Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems: Combining Agricultural Biodiversity, Resilient Ecosystems, Traditional Farming Practices and Cultural Identity; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2018; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i9187en/I9187EN.pdf (accessed on 28 March 2022).
Min, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Jiao, W.; Sun, X. Responding to common questions on the conservation of agricultural heritage systems in China. J. Geogr. Sci. 2016, 26, 969–982.
Min, Q.; Zhang, B. Research Progress in the Conservation and Development of China-Nationally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (China-NIAHS). Sustainability 2020, 12, 126.
Koohafkan, P.; Delacruz, M. Conservation and adaptive management of globally important agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS). J. Resour. Ecol. 2011, 2, 12–13.
Min, Q. GIAHS: A new kind of world heritage. Resour. Sci. 2006, 4, 206–208. (In Chinese)
Jiao, W.; Cui, W.; Min, Q.; Zhang, Y. A review of research on agricultural heritage systems and their conservation. Resour. Sci. 2021, 43, 823–837. (In Chinese)
FAO GIAHS Secretariat. Selection Criteria and Action Plan. Available online: http://www.fao.org/giahs/become-a-giahs/selection-criteria-and-action-plan/en/ (accessed on 30 May 2022).
Jiao, W.; Min, Q. Analysis on the key issues in the monitoring of agricultural heritage systems. Study Nat. Cult. Herit. 2019, 4, 57–60. (In Chinese)
Yiu, E.; Jang, B.; Owada, J.; Jeong, M.; Hwang, D. Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Monitoring and Evaluation Manual: A Technical Reference. United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, Tokyo. Available online: https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/unu:8681/GIAHS_M_E_Manual_2022_Web.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2022).
Jiao, W.; Wang, B.; Sun, Y.; Liu, M. Design and Application of the Annual Report of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Monitoring. J. Resour. Ecol. 2021, 12, 498–512.
Park, Y. Monitoring and Evaluation of KIAHS in South Korea. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of East Asia Research Association for Agricultural Heritage Systems, Geumsan, Korea, 13–16 June 2016.
Yang, L.; Min, Q.; Liu, M.; Jiao, W. Experiences of the Republic of Korea’s agricultural heritage conservation and development. World Agric. 2017, 2, 4–8. (In Chinese)
Yagi, N. GIAHS Monitoring and Evaluations in Japan. In Proceedings of the Webinar of the Monitoring and Evaluation of GIAHS: Country and GIAHS Site Experiences, Tokyo, Japan, 10 March 2022.
Zhang, Y.; Jiao, W.; Liu, M. Experiences of Japanese agricultural heritage conservation and development. World Agric. 2017, 3, 139–142. (In Chinese)
Luzio, S. Monitoring and Evaluation in GIAHS Barroso, Portugal. In Proceedings of the Webinar of the Monitoring and Evaluation of GIAHS: Country and GIAHS Site Experiences, Tokyo, Japan, 10 March 2022.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Environmental Sciences

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Wenjun Jiao

Xiao Yang

Qingwen Min

View Times: 470

Update Date: 02 Sep 2022

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm