Back

With great power comes great responsibility: an analysis of sustainable forest management quantitative indicators in the DPSIR framework

Paillet, Y.; Campagnaro, T.; Burrascano, S.; Gosselin, M.; Ballweg, J.; Chianucci, F.; Dorioz, J.; Marsaud, J.; Maciejewski, L.; Sitzia, T.; Vacchiano, G.

2021-02-12 ecology
10.1101/2021.02.11.430737 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The monitoring of environmental policies in Europe has taken place since the 1980s and still remains a challenge for decision- and policy-making. For forests, it is concretized through the publication of a State Of Europes Forests every five years, the last report just been released. However, the process lacks a clear analytical framework and appears limited to orient and truly assess sustainable management of European forests. We classified the 34 quantitative sustainable forest management indicators in the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework to analyse gaps in the process. In addition, we classified biodiversity-related indicators in the simpler Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework. We showed that most of the sustainable forest management indicators assess the state of European forests, but almost half could be classified in another DPSIR category. For biodiversity, most indicators describe pressures, while direct taxonomic state indicators are very few. Our expert-based classification show that sustainable forest management indicators are unbalanced regarding the DPSIR framework. However, completing this framework with other indicators would help to have a better view and more relevant tools for decision-making. The results for biodiversity were comparable, but we showed that some indicators from other criteria than the one dedicated to biodiversity could also help understanding threats and actions concerning it. Such classification helps in the decision process, but is not sufficient to fully support policy initiative. In particular, the next step would be to better understand the links between DPSIR and PSR categories.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.3%
2
Ecological Indicators
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.3%
3
Journal of Environmental Management
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.9%
4
Forest Ecology and Management
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
5
Conservation Letters
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 20%
6.2%
7
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.8%
8
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.3%
9
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.0%
10
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
11
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.0%
12
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
13
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
14
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.7%
16
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
17
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
18
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
19
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
Communications Earth & Environment
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
21
Ecological Modelling
24 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
22
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
23
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%