Following successful national forest restoration projects, South Korea has designated and operates Leading Forest Management Zones (LFMZs) to improve forest quality and promote sustainable use. The objective of this study is to comparatively evaluate the operational characteristics of 26 LFMZs (5 national and 21 private forests) based on complete long-term data from 2013 to 2024 and to identify ownership-based structural differences in integrated forest management performance. Five core indicators representing the forest management cycle (afforestation, timber harvest, forest products, forest roads, and forest tending) were analyzed using multivariate statistical methods. Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA) results revealed statistically significant structural differences between national and private forest management systems (F = 13.22, p = 0.001, R2 = 0.47). Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) identified forest road development and timber harvest intensity as the primary drivers of these differences. National forest LFMZs exhibited consistently higher and more balanced management intensity across all indicators, supported by stable institutional frameworks and professional management capacity. In contrast, private forest LFMZs showed substantial variability in performance, reflecting differences in ownership structure and regional conditions. Correlation analysis further demonstrated strong positive relationships among afforestation, forest tending, forest road development, and timber harvest, underscoring the importance of integrated forest management. These findings provide empirical evidence to support differentiated, ownership-sensitive forest management strategies and contribute to strengthening sustainable forest governance in South Korea under climate change and socio-economic transitions.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Soongil Kwon
G. Y. Lee
Seungho Kim
Forests
Korea Institute of Science and Technology
Korea Forest Service
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Kwon et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/69b606ea83145bc643d1d665 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/f17030360
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: