CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 19Forest Management and PolicyLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

What do scientists and managers know about soil biodiversity? Comparative knowledge mapping for sustainable forest management

Open access
Vanermen, Iris, Muys, Bart, Verheyen, Kris, Vanwindekens, Frederic, Bouriaud, Laura, Kardol, Paul, Vranken, Liesbet·2020·Forest Policy and Economics
DOI 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102264
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102264

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 79

  1. Bart Muys: conceptualization, methodology, writing -review & editing, co-supervision.
  2. Kris Verheyen: conceptualization, methodology, writing -review & editing, co-supervision. Frederic Vanwindekens: methodology, software, validation, data curation, writing -review & editing.
  3. Laura Bouriaud: investigation, writing -review & editing. Paul Kardol: writing -review & editing.
  4. Liesbet Vranken: conceptualization, methodology, writing -review & editing, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition. References
  5. Addison, S.L., Smaill, S.J., Garrett, L.G., Wakelin, S.A., 2019. Effects of forest harvest and fertiliser amendment on soil biodiversity and function can persist for decades. Soil Biol. Biochem. 135, 194-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.05.006. · DOI
  6. Adhikari, K., Hartemink, A.E., 2016. Linking soils to ecosystem services -a global review. Geoderma 262, 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.009. · DOI
  7. Adhikari, S., Baral, H., 2018. Governing Forest ecosystem Services for Sustainable Environmental Governance: a review. Environments 5, 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/ · DOI
  8. environments5050053. Agentia de Protectia Mediului (APM) Suceava, 2020. Proces verbal al Conferintei a II-a de amenajare pentru fondul forestier proprietate publica a statului administrat de Ocolul Silvic Rasca, din cadrul Directiei Silvice Suceava. http://www.anpm.ro/documents/ 27459/46773638/PV+Conferinta+II+OS+Rasca.PDF/ 035cb2c2-2f77-4097- 92e5-eeca6fca4fe0. Posted 23.01.2020. · DOI
  9. Ampoorter, E., De Schrijver, A., Van Nevel, L., Hermy, M., Verheyen, K., 2012. Impact of mechanized harvesting on compaction of sandy and clayey forest soils: results of a meta-analysis. Ann. For. Sci. 69, 533-542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-012- 0199-y. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Baeten, L., Verheyen, K., Wirth, C., Bruelheide, H., Bussotti, F., Finér, L., Jaroszewicz, B., Selvi, F., Valladares, F., Allan, E., Ampoorter, E., Auge, H., Avăcăriei, D., Barbaro, L., Bărnoaiea, I., Bastias, C.C., Bauhus, J., Beinhoff, C., Benavides, R., Benneter, A., Berger, S., Berthold, F., Boberg, J., Bonal, D., Brüggemann, W., Carnol, M., Castagneyrol, B., Charbonnier, Y., Chećko, E., Coomes, D., Coppi, A., Dalmaris, E., Dănilă, G., Dawud, S.M., de Vries, W., De Wandeler, H., Deconchat, M., Domisch, T., Duduman, G., Fischer, M., Fotelli, M., Gessler, A., Gimeno, T.E., Granier, A., Grossiord, C., Guyot, V., Hantsch, L., Hättenschwiler, S., Hector, A., Hermy, M., Holland, V., Jactel, H., Joly, F.-X., Jucker, T., Kolb, S., Koricheva, J., Lexer, M.J., Liebergesell, M., Milligan, H., Müller, S., Muys, B., Nguyen, D., Nichiforel, L., Pollastrini, M., Proulx, R., Rabasa, S., Radoglou, K., Ratcliffe, S., Raulund-Rasmussen, K., Seiferling, I., Stenlid, J., Vesterdal, L., von Wilpert, K., Zavala, M.A., Zielinski, D., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., 2013. A novel comparative research platform designed to determine the functional significance of tree species diversity in European forests. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 15, 281-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PPEES. 2013.07.002. · DOI
  11. Baldwin, C., Lewison, R.L., Lieske, S.N., Beger, M., Hines, E., Dearden, P., Rudd, M.A., Jones, C., Satumanatpan, S., Junchompoo, C., 2016. Using the DPSIR framework for transdisciplinary training and knowledge elicitation in the Gulf of Thailand. Ocean Coast. Manag. 134, 163-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.09.005. · DOI
  12. Bardgett, R.D., Van Der Putten, W.H., 2014. Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 515, 505-511. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13855. · DOI
  13. Baveye, P.C., Baveye, J., Gowdy, J., 2016. Soil "ecosystem" services and natural capital: critical appraisal of research on uncertain ground. Front. Environ. Sci. 4, 41. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00041. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Bell, S., 2012. DPSIR = a problem structuring method? An exploration from the "ima- gine" approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 222, 350-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor. 2012.04.029. · DOI
  15. Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2008. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems : Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press.
  16. Birgé, H.E., Bevans, R.A., Allen, C.R., Angeler, D.G., Baer, S.G., Wall, D.H., 2016. Adaptive management for soil ecosystem services. J. Environ. Manag. 183, 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.06.024. · DOI
  17. Borcard, D., Gillet, F., Legendre, P., 2011. Numerical ecology with R. Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71404-2. · DOI
  18. Bosma, C., Glenk, K., Novo, P., 2017. How do individuals and groups perceive wetland functioning? Fuzzy cognitive mapping of wetland perceptions in Uganda. Land Use Policy 60, 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2016.10.010. · DOI
  19. Brockerhoff, E.G., Barbaro, L., Castagneyrol, B., Forrester, D.I., Gardiner, B., González- Olabarria, J.R., Lyver, P., Meurisse, N., Oxbrough, A., Taki, H., Thompson, I.D., Van Der Plas, F., Jactel, H., 2017. Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 3005-3035. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10531-017-1453-2. · DOI
  20. van den Broek, K., 2018. Illuminating divergence in perceptions in natural resource management: a case for the investigation of the heterogeneity in mental models. J. Dyn. Decis. Mak. 4, 2. Doi:10.11588/jddm.2018.1.51316. · DOI
  21. Cambi, M., Certini, G., Neri, F., Marchi, E., 2015. The impact of heavy traffic on forest soils: a review. For. Ecol. Manag. 338, 124-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORECO. 2014.11.022. · DOI
  22. Campioli, M., Vincke, C., Jonard, M., Kint, V., Demarée, G., Ponette, Q., 2012. Current status and predicted impact of climate change on forest production and bio- geochemistry in the temperate oceanic European zone: review and prospects for Belgium as a case study. J. For. Res. 17, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10310-011- 0255-8. · DOI
  23. Castellacci, F., Archibugi, D., 2008. The technology clubs: the distribution of knowledge across nations. Res. Policy 37, 1659-1673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008. 08.006. · DOI
  24. Christen, B., Kjeldsen, C., Dalgaard, T., Martin-Ortega, J., 2015. Can fuzzy cognitive mapping help in agricultural policy design and communication? Land Use Policy 45, 64-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2015.01.001. Commission of the European Communities, 2006. Thematic strategy for soil protection (COM 2006.231). European Commission Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. Brussels. Retrieved from. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0231&from=EN. · DOI
  25. Cunha, A.A.R., Silva Filho, J.L., Morais, D.C., 2016. Aggregation cognitive maps procedure for group decision analysis. Kybernetes 45, 589-603. https://doi.org/10. 1108/K-04-2015-0092. · DOI
  26. Drescher, M., Perera, A.H., 2010. Comparing two sets of forest cover change knowledge used in forest landscape management planning. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 53 (5), 591-613. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640561003727110. · DOI
  27. Dumitrascu, M., Stefanescu, S.L., 2018. Stakeholders' Perceptions on Soil Quality Relevance and on the Impact of Soil Protection Policies in Romania. 18th Int. Multidiscip. Sci. GeoConference SGEM2018. Ecol. Econ. Educ. Legis. 18. https://doi. org/10.5593/sgem2018/5.3/s28.096. · DOI
  28. ElSawah, S., Mclucas, A., Mazanov, J., 2013. Using a cognitive mapping approach to frame the perceptions of water users about managing water resources: a case study in the Australian Capital Territory. Water Resour. Manag. 27, 3441-3456. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11269-013-0357-5. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Feliciano, D., Bouriaud, L., Brahic, E., Deuffic, P., Dobsinska, Z., Jarsky, V., Lawrence, A., Nybakk, E., Quiroga, S., Suarez, C., Ficko, A., 2017. Understanding private forest owners' conceptualisation of forest management: evidence from a survey in seven European countries. J. Rural. Stud. 54, 162-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. JRURSTUD.2017.06.016. · DOI
  30. Gari, S.R., Newton, A., Icely, J.D., 2015. A review of the application and evolution of the DPSIR framework with an emphasis on coastal social-ecological systems. Ocean Coast. Manag. 103, 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2014.11.013. · DOI
  31. Goldmann, K., Schöning, I., Buscot, F., Wubet, T., 2015. Forest management type influ- ences diversity and community composition of soil fungi across temperate forest ecosystems. Front. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.01300. · DOI
  32. Gray, S., Chan, A., Clark, D., Jordan, R., 2012. Modeling the integration of stakeholder knowledge in social-ecological decision-making: benefits and limitations to knowl- edge diversity. Ecol. Model. 229, 88-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011. 09.011. · DOI
  33. Gray, Steven, Zanre, E., Gray, Stefan, 2014. Fuzzy cognitive maps as representations of mental models and group beliefs. In: Papageorgiou, E. (Ed.), Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for Applied Sciences and Engineering. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp. 29-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39739-4_2. · DOI
  34. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D.G., Frid, C.L.J. (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge University Press, pp. 110-139.
  35. Hartmann, M., Niklaus, P.A., Zimmermann, S., Schmutz, S., Kremer, J., Abarenkov, K., Lüscher, P., Widmer, F., Frey, B., 2014. Resistance and resilience of the forest soil microbiome to logging-associated compaction. ISME J. 8, 226-244. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/ismej.2013.141. · DOI
  36. Ingram, J., Fry, P., Mathieu, A., 2010. Revealing different understandings of soil held by scientists and farmers in the context of soil protection and management. Land Use Policy 27, 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2008.07.005. · DOI
  37. Jabbour, R., Zwickle, S., Gallandt, E.R., McPhee, K.E., Wilson, R.S., Doohan, D., 2014. Mental models of organic weed management: comparison of new England US farmer and expert models. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 29 (4), 319-333. https://doi.org/10. 1017/s1742170513000185. · DOI
  38. Jetter, A.J., Kok, K., 2014. Fuzzy cognitive maps for futures studies-a methodological assessment of concepts and methods. Futures 61, 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. futures.2014.05.002. · DOI
  39. Jones, N.A., Ross, H., Lynam, T., Perez, P., 2014. Eliciting mental models: a comparison of interview procedures in the context of natural resource management. Ecol. Soc. 19 (1), 13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06248-190113. · DOI
  40. Jucker, T., Bouriaud, O., Coomes, D.A., 2015. Crown plasticity enables trees to optimize canopy packing in mixed-species forests. Funct. Ecol. 29, 1078-1086. https://doi. org/10.1111/1365-2435.12428. · DOI
  41. Juerges, N., Hansjürgens, B., 2018. Soil governance in the transition towards a sustain- able bioeconomy -a review. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 1628-1639. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.143. · DOI
  42. Khadka, C., Hujala, T., Wolfslehner, B., Vacik, H., 2013. Problem structuring in partici- patory forest planning. For. Policy Econ. 26, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. FORPOL.2012.09.008. · DOI
  43. Knorn, J., Kuemmerle, T., Radeloff, V.C., Szabo, A., Mindrescu, M., Keeton, W.S., Abrudan, I., Griffiths, P., Gancz, V., Hostert, P., 2012. Forest restitution and protected area effectiveness in post-socialist Romania. Biol. Conserv. 146, 204-212. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.020. · DOI
  44. Kontogianni, A.D., Papageorgiou, E.I., Tourkolias, C., 2012. How do you perceive en- vironmental change? Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping informing stakeholder analysis for environmental policy making and non-market valuation. Appl. Soft Comput. 12, 3725-3735. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2012.05.003. · DOI
  45. Korboulewsky, N., Perez, G., Chauvat, M., 2016. How tree diversity affects soil fauna diversity: a review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 94, 94-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. soilbio.2015.11.024. · DOI
  46. Lähtinen, K., Toppinen, A., Suojanen, H., Stern, T., Ranacher, L., Burnard, M., Kitek Kuzman, M., 2017. Forest sector sustainability communication in Europe: a sys- tematic literature review on the contents and gaps. Curr. For. Reports. 3, 173-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-017-0063-2. · DOI
  47. Lamarque, P., Tappeiner, U., Turner, C., Steinbacher, M., Bardgett, R.D., Szukics, U., Schermer, M., Lavorel, S., 2011. Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Reg. Environ. Chang. 11, 791-804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0214-0. · DOI
  48. Lawrence, A., Gillett, S., 2011. Human Dimensions of Adaptive Forest Management and Climate Change: A Review Of International Experience. Forestry Commission Research Report. Forestry Commission 1-44 Edinburgh. i-iv +.
  49. Lemanceau, P., Maron, P.-A., Mazurier, S., Mougel, C., Pivato, B., Plassart, P., Ranjard, L., Revellin, C., Tardy, V., Wipf, D., 2015. Understanding and managing soil biodi- versity: a major challenge in agroecology. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 67-81. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0247-0. · DOI
  50. Lewison, R.L., Rudd, M.A., Al-Hayek, W., Baldwin, C., Beger, M., Lieske, S.N., Jones, C., Satumanatpan, S., Junchompoo, C., Hines, E., 2016. How the DPSIR framework can be used for structuring problems and facilitating empirical research in coastal sys- tems. Environ. Sci. Pol. 56, 110-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2015.11. 001. · DOI
  51. Lukac, M., 2017. Soil biodiversity and environmental change in European forests. Cent. Eur. For. J. 63, 59-65. https://doi.org/10.1515/forj-2017-0010. · DOI
  52. McAlister, A.M., Lee, D.M., Ehlert, K.M., Kajfez, R.L., Faber, C.J., Kennedy, M.S., 2017. Qualitative coding: an approach to assess inter-rater reliability. ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo. Conf. Proc. 2017-June. Doi:10.18260/1-2-28777. · DOI
  53. MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Island Press, Washington DC.
  54. Mehryar, S., Sliuzas, R., Sharifi, A., Reckien, D., van Maarseveen, M., 2017. A structured participatory method to support policy option analysis in a social-ecological system. J. Environ. Manag. 197, 360-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.017. · DOI
  55. Mendoza, G.A., Prabhu, R., 2006. Participatory modeling and analysis for sustainable forest management: overview of soft system dynamics models and applications. For. Policy Econ. 9, 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2005.06.006. · DOI
  56. Meyfroidt, P., 2013. Environmental cognitions, land change, and social-ecological feed- backs: an overview. J. Land Use Sci. 8, 341-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X. 2012.667452. · DOI
  57. Montanarella, L., Lobos Alva, I., 2015. Putting soils on the agenda: the three Rio con- ventions and the post-2015 development agenda. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 15, 41-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.008. · DOI
  58. Müller, F., Burkhard, B., 2012. The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 26-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2012.06.001. · DOI
  59. Nichiforel, L., Keary, K., Deuffic, P., Weiss, G., Jellesmark Thorsen, B., Winkel, G., Avdibegović, M., Dobšinská, Z., Feliciano, D., Gatto, P., Gorriz Mifsud, E., Hoogstra- Klein, M., Hrib, M., Hujala, T., Jager, L., Jarský, V., Jodłowski, K., Lawrence, A., Lukmine, D., Pezdevšek Malovrh, Š., Nedeljković, J., Nonić, D., Krajter Ostoić, S., Pukall, K., Rondeux, J., Samara, T., Sarvašová, Z.A., Elena Scriban, R., Šilingienė, R., Sinko, M., Stojanovska, M.B., Stojanovski, V.B., Stoyanov, N.C., Teder, M.D., Vennesland, B.E., Vilkriste, L.F., Wilhelmsson, E.G., Wilkes-Allemann, J.H., Bouriaud, L., 2018. How private are Europe's private forests? A comparative property rights analysis. Land Use Policy 76, 535-552. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000250212. · DOI
  60. Nielsen, U., Wall, D.H., Six, J., 2015. Soil biodiversity and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 40, 63-90. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014- 021257. · DOI
  61. Olazabal, M., Chiabai, A., Foudi, S., Neumann, M.B., 2018a. Emergence of new knowl- edge for climate change adaptation. Environ. Sci. Pol. 83, 46-53. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.envsci.2018.01.017. · DOI
  62. Olazabal, M., Neumann, M.B., Foudi, S., Chiabai, A., 2018b. Transparency and re- producibility in participatory systems modelling: the case of fuzzy cognitive mapping. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 35, 791-810. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2519. · DOI · Paper page
  63. Özesmi, U., Özesmi, S.L., 2004. Ecological models based on people's knowledge: a multi- step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecol. Model. 176, 43-64. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.10.027. · DOI
  64. Prager, K., Curfs, M., 2016. Using mental models to understand soil management. Soil Use Manag. 32, 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12244. · DOI
  65. Raymond, C.M., Fazey, I., Reed, M.S., Stringer, L.C., Robinson, G.M., Evely, A.C., 2010. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 91, 1766-1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2010.03. 023. · DOI · Paper page
  66. Rist, L., Shackleton, C., Gadamus, L., Stuart, F., Iii, C., Gowda, C.M., Setty, S., Kannan, R., Uma Shaanker, R., 2015. Ecological knowledge among communities, managers and scientists: bridging divergent perspectives to improve Forest management outcomes. Environ. Manag. 57, 798-813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0647-1. · DOI
  67. Sousa-Silva, R., Verbist, B., Lomba, Â., Valent, P., Suškevičs, M., Picard, O., Hoogstra- Klein, M.A., Cosofret, V.C., Bouriaud, L., Ponette, Q., Verheyen, K., Muys, B., 2018. Adapting forest management to climate change in Europe: linking perceptions to adaptive responses. For. Policy Econ. 90, 22-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol. 2018.01.004. · DOI
  68. Šūmane, S., Kunda, I., Knickel, K., Strauss, A., Tisenkopfs, T., Rios, I., Des, I., Rivera, M., Chebach, T., Ashkenazy, A., 2018. Local and farmers' knowledge matters! How in- tegrating informal and formal knowledge enhances sustainable and resilient agri- culture. J. Rural. Stud. 59, 232-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRURSTUD.2017.01. 020. · DOI · Paper page
  69. Thees, O., Olschewski, R., 2017. Physical soil protection in forests -insights from pro- duction-, industrial-and institutional economics. For. Policy Econ. 80, 99-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.024. · DOI
  70. Van Der Sluis, T., Arts, B., Kok, K., Bogers, M., Busck, A.G., Sepp, K., Loupa-Ramos, I., Pavlis, V., Geamana, N., Crouzat, E., 2018. Landscape research drivers of European landscape change: stakeholders' perspectives through fuzzy cognitive mapping dri- vers of European landscape change: stakeholders' perspectives through fuzzy cogni- tive mapping. Landsc. Res. 44, 458-476. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2018. 1446074. · DOI
  71. Vanwindekens, F.M., Stilmant, D., Baret, P.V., 2013. Development of a broadened cog- nitive mapping approach for analysing systems of practices in social-ecological sys- tems. Ecol. Model. 250, 352-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLMODEL.2012.11. 023. · DOI
  72. Vanwindekens, F.M., Baret, P.V., Stilmant, D., 2014. A new approach for comparing and categorizing farmers' systems of practice based on cognitive mapping and graph theory indicators. Ecol. Model. 274, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLMODEL. 2013.11.026. · DOI · Paper page
  73. Vasslides, J.M., Jensen, O.P., 2016. Fuzzy cognitive mapping in support of integrated ecosystem assessments: developing a shared conceptual model among stakeholders. J. Environ. Manag. 166, 348-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.10.038. · DOI
  74. Verheyen, K., Ceunen, K., Ampoorter, E., Baeten, L., Bosman, B., Branquart, E., Carnol, M., De Wandeler, H., Grégoire, J.-C., Lhoir, P., Muys, B., Setiawan, N.N., Vanhellemont, M., Ponette, Q., 2013. Assessment of the functional role of tree di- versity: the multi-site FORBIO experiment. Plant Ecol. Evol. 146, 26-35. https://doi. org/10.5091/plecevo.2013.803. · DOI
  75. VMM, 2018. Environmental Outlook 2018. Solution for a sustainable future. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0026-0576(96)94124-0. · DOI
  76. Vuillot, C., Coron, N., Calatayud, F., Sirami, C., Mathevet, R., Gibon, A., 2016. Ways of farming and ways of thinking: do farmers' mental models of the landscape relate to their land management practices? Ecol. Soc. 21, 35. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- 08281-210135. · DOI
  77. Wagner, K., 2007. Mental models of flash floods and landslides. Risk Anal. 27, 671-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00916.x. · DOI
  78. Yoon, B.S., Jetter, A.J., 2016. Comparative analysis for fuzzy cognitive mapping. Eng. Technol. Manag. Fac. Publ. Present. 112, 1897-1908. https://doi.org/10.1109/ PICMET.2016.7806755. · DOI
  79. Yousefpour, R., Temperli, C., Jacobsen, J.B., Thorsen, B.J., Meilby, H., Lexer, M.J., Lindner, M., Bugmann, H., Borges, J.G., Palma, J.H.N., Ray, D., Zimmermann, N.E., Delzon, S., Kremer, A., Kramer, K., Reyer, C.P.O., Lasch-Born, P., Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Hanewinkel, M., 2017. A framework for modeling adaptive forest management and decision making under climate change. Ecol. Soc. 22 (4), 40. https://doi.org/10. 5751/ES-09614-220440. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vanermen, I., Muys, B., Verheyen, K., Vanwindekens, F., Bouriaud, L., Kardol, P., & Vranken, L.
Affiliations
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava (RO)
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
Corresponding author
Vanermen, Iris
ORCID
Venue
Forest Policy and Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
119
Pages
102264
ISSN
1389-9341 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102264
OpenAlex
W3048243977
Cited by
19
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Forest Policy and Economics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Belgian Federal Science Policy Office
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Keywords
soil biodiversity, forest management, knowledge mapping, fuzzy cognitive mapping, sustainable forest management, ecosystem services, adaptive management, knowledge sharing, research-practice gap, Flanders, Romania

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review