Green Practices Guideline for Forest Operation

5. Expert review: This involves consulting with experts in the field to gain their perspective on the feasibility of the evaluation method, including any potential challenges and opportunities. (a) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method align with current industry standards and best practices? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (b) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method address the research question or problem it is intended to solve? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (c) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method utilise appropriate methods and techniques? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (d) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method account for potential sources of bias? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (e) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method account for potential confounding variables? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (f) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method account for potential ethical concerns? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (g) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method account for potential limitations? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (h) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method account for potential uncertainties? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (i) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method account for potential generalisability? (1 , not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (j) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method perform in terms of data quality? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) 6. Stakeholder analysis: This involves identifying and assessing the perspectives and needs of the stakeholders affected by the evaluation method, to understand the feasibility of the method in relation to their needs and concerns. (a) On a scale of 1-5, how important are the stakeholders in the success of this evaluation method? (1 = not important at all, 5 = extremely important) (b) On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied are stakeholders with this evaluation method? (1 = not satisfied at all, 5 = extremely satisfied) (c) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method meet the needs of the stakeholders? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (d) On a scale of 1-5, how much input did stakeholders have in the development of this evaluation method? (1 = no input, 5 = significant input) (e) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method align with the goals and objectives of the stakeholders? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (f) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method account for potential stakeholder conflicts? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (g) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method account for potential stakeholder resistance? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (h) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method account for potential stakeholder power imbalances? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (i) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method consider the perspectives of diverse stakeholders? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) (j) On a scale of 1-5, how well does this evaluation method involve stakeholders in the implementation and monitoring process? (1 = not well at all, 5 = extremely well) 114 GREEN PRACTICES GUIDELINE FOR FOREST OPERATION