Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27848001›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental management2017

Visions of Restoration in Fire-Adapted Forest Landscapes: Lessons from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.

Lauren S Urgenson, Clare M Ryan, Charles B Halpern, Jonathan D Bakker, R Travis Belote, Jerry F Franklin, Ryan D Haugo, Cara R Nelson, Amy E M Waltz

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental management, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Forest landscape restoration: state of play.Royal Society open science · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Lauren S UrgensonSchool of Environmental and Forest Sciences, College of the Environment, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. lsu@uw.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7097-5079
Clare M RyanSchool of Environmental and Forest Sciences, College of the Environment, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Charles B HalpernSchool of Environmental and Forest Sciences, College of the Environment, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Jonathan D BakkerSchool of Environmental and Forest Sciences, College of the Environment, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
R Travis BeloteThe Wilderness Society, Bozeman, MT, 59715, USA.
Jerry F FranklinSchool of Environmental and Forest Sciences, College of the Environment, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Ryan D HaugoThe Nature Conservancy, Yakima, WA, 98901, USA.
Cara R NelsonCollege of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, 59812, USA.
Amy E M WaltzEcological Restoration Institute, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011-5017, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Collaborative approaches to natural resource management are becoming increasingly common on public lands. Negotiating a shared vision for desired conditions is a fundamental task of collaboration and serves as a foundation for developing management objectives and monitoring strategies. We explore the complex socio-ecological processes involved in developing a shared vision for collaborative restoration of fire-adapted forest landscapes. To understand participant perspectives and experiences, we analyzed interviews with 86 respondents from six collaboratives in the western U.S., part of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program established to encourage collaborative, science-based restoration on U.S. Forest Service lands. Although forest landscapes and group characteristics vary considerably, collaboratives faced common challenges to developing a shared vision for desired conditions. Three broad categories of challenges emerged: meeting multiple objectives, collaborative capacity and trust, and integrating ecological science and social values in decision-making. Collaborative groups also used common strategies to address these challenges, including some that addressed multiple challenges. These included use of issue-based recommendations, field visits, and landscape-level analysis; obtaining support from local agency leadership, engaging facilitators, and working in smaller groups (sub-groups); and science engagement. Increased understanding of the challenges to, and strategies for, developing a shared vision of desired conditions is critical if other collaboratives are to learn from these efforts.

Indexed as

FiresForestsTreesConservation of Natural ResourcesCooperative BehaviorDecision MakingEcologyForestryUnited StatesCFLRPCollaborationDesired conditionsEcological restorationFire-prone forestsPublic lands management

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.