Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39444832›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Integrating basic human values with forest ecosystem services: pathways to sustainable forest management.

Darja Kobal Grum, Andrej Bončina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Darja Kobal GrumDepartment of Psychology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Andrej BončinaDepartment of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The article explores the intricate relationship between basic human values and forest ecosystem services (FES). The study highlights the critical role that forests play in providing essential services for biodiversity, forest products, climate stabilization and human well-being, and emphasizes the need to understand and integrate human values into forest management and planning. Through a novel approach, this study explores how the concept of "forest" can elicit considerations of fundamental human values that diverge from conventional classifications and measurements of forest values. The study uses a comprehensive methodology, including surveys and content analysis, to uncover the hierarchical structure of human values associated with forests. This approach enables the identification of fundamental values that remain constant despite situational variations. The main results reveal a hierarchical structure of values, with Apollonian values being more prevalent than Dionysian ones. The study shows significant differences in the importance attributed to different FES, reflecting underlying value differences between residents. The study makes a novel contribution by systematically examining the links between human values and FES and proposing a profound and sustainable approach to forest management that takes into account the psychological dimensions of human-forest interactions. The study suggests that recognizing and incorporating the intrinsic human values into forest ecosystem service frameworks can improve sustainable forest management practices and ultimately foster a deeper connection between people and the forest environment.

Indexed as

environmental psychologymultifunctional forestrymulti-objective forest planningpublic perceptions of forestsvalue hierarchy

Identifiers

PMID39444832
PMCPMC11496941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.