ArticleJournal of environmental management2020
A new protocol for monitoring operational outcomes of environmental management in commercial forestry plantations.
Article in Journal of environmental management, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- DPSIR framework priorities and its application to forest management: a fuzzy modeling.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental degradation is a global phenomenon with a high likelihood of influencing human quality of life. Effective management responses are needed to achieve societal goals of sustainability. We develop here a new monitoring protocol (Management Check: MATCH) that comprehensively evaluates management outcomes at the operational level. Using the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework, we identified pressures influencing ecosystem integrity inside conservation corridors and commercial compartments of a timber production landscape mosaic. They were 1) domestic livestock grazing (the only exogenous pressure), 2) fire management, 3) invasive alien plants (IAPs), and potential soil erosion from two sources: 4) roads, and 5) harvested timber compartments. We assessed the effects of these on wetland and stream buffers. Environmental incidents accounted for more serious management issues (e.g. oil spills). Management responses were systematically unpacked into point-form questions, which formed the building blocks of our monitoring protocol. We assessed management in twelve plantations in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Answers were compared with Best Operational Practice (BOP), and reworked into a Weighted Index of Compliance (WIC) per section. We found that there was poor management of livestock grazing, but good management of IAPs, roads, and timber compartments. Management of wetland and stream buffers was very good. Fire management presented problems linked to lack of direct effects, measurable at the spatial and temporal scales of operations. We discuss operational outcomes within their respective legislative frameworks, and suggest ways of improving management operations, where needed. MATCH is the first monitoring protocol to comprehensively assess environmental management of commercial forestry at the operational level, and to clearly translate operational activities into measurable progress towards strategic goals. In doing so, MATCH breaks down silos and builds bridges for efficient environmental management in dynamic socio-ecological systems. Moreover, the principles developed here can be applied to build tools that help manage major risks in other economic sectors too. Overall, MATCH strengthened strategic and informed action, which is necessary at multiple levels of an organization, to combat major societal risks, such as environmental degradation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.