comparison of forest definitions at the national level using dominance analysis
Clicks: 180
ID: 226254
2014
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
180 views
26 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #15 of 21 articles by views in peerj computer science
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Comparison of forest definitions at the national level using dominance analysis. Despite Italian forests are subject of protection since long time, the first forest definition legally binding has been enacted only in 2001. However, thanks to the action of international, national and regional institutions, 25 forest definitions are effective today on the Italian territory. All definitions of forest are fully described and their qualification analyzed using four definition types: legislation, policies, technical and allocative. Only those that are included in the first three types were subjected to dominance analysis. Macro-criteria, criteria and sub-criteria have been defined to build an absolute valuation matrix. Concordance, discordance and dominance analysis have been cattied out after normaliztion. Forest definitions have been subdivided into two groups: dominant and dominated. The first group includes all regional definitions due to the details of their content, while the second group includes definition adopted by international and national institutions. Three aspects have been emphasized in the conclusion: (a) all definitions, except that adopted by the Lombardy Region, are based on the “forest land” and not on the “forest”; (b) most definitions do not include the multifunctional nature of the forest thus neglecting one of the most relevant forest profiles; (c) the first part of all definition is devoted to technical details as if the main motivation for their elaboration were the quantification of the forest area.
| Reference Key |
f2014forest@comparison
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Carbone F |
| Journal | peerj computer science |
| Year | 2014 |
| DOI |
10.3832/efor1055-011
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.