ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2026
Trail erosion assessment and monitoring in natural areas: a comparison of traditional and high-resolution topographic surveying methods.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recreational trails in natural areas are subject to erosion, particularly when poorly planned and under visitation pressure. Accurate erosion monitoring is essential for sustainable trail management, especially in quantitative analysis requiring objective parameters of accuracy and precision. This study compares the feasibility of five erosion measurement methods applied to forest trails. The methodological approach included two traditional techniques: (i) cross-sectional area (CSA) and (ii) maximum depth (MaxD); and three high-resolution topographic (HRT) techniques: (iii) terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), (iv) structure from motion photogrammetry using an action camera (SfM-AC), and (v) an unmanned aerial system (SfM-UAS). Repeated field surveys enabled estimation of short-term erosion, in addition to historical erosion, which was assessed by comparing reconstructed pre-trail topography with current conditions. Notably, to our knowledge, this is the first study in trail management to apply check points (CPs) to quantify vertical uncertainty and integrate it into a DoD-based analysis, thereby improving the detection and interpretation of erosion processes. Results show that while CSA is practical and low cost, it may introduce undetected errors, as it does not allow for quantifying measurement uncertainty. In contrast, HRT methods produced georeferenced and accurate outputs to support spatial and temporal analyses and yielded consistent estimates of surface change. The methods differed in terms of time, financial costs, logistics, and required level of expertise. Among HRT approaches, SfM-AC emerged as the most feasible, balancing affordability, operational simplicity, and technical performance. These findings underscore the need to match erosion measurement methods to trail conditions and project objectives, and highlight the potential of photogrammetry for monitoring trail erosion in diverse environments.
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.