d.t3.1.1 report zstate of the art of risk governance ... › projects › greenrisk4...d.t3.1.1 –...

D.T3.1.1 – Report ‘SoA of risk governance: approaches/tools to manage risk with focus on forests’ 1

D.T3.1.1 Report ‘State of the art of risk governance: approaches/tools to manage risk with focus on forests’

WP T3 Responsibility for Deliverable Francesca Poratelli (DISAFA), Silvia Cocuccioni (EURAC)

Contributors Cristian Accastello (DISAFA), Filippo Brun (DISAFA), Stefan Steger (EURAC), Stefan

Schneiderbauer (EURAC), Kathrin Renner (EURAC)

Torino, December 2019


GreenRisk4ALPs Partnerships BFW - Austrian Forest Research Centre (AT)

DISAFA - Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Turin (ITA)

EURAC - European Academy of Bozen-Bolzano – EURAC Research (ITA)

IRSTEA - National research institute of science and technology for environment and agriculture,

Grenoble regional centre, IRSTEA (FRA)

LWF - Bavarian State Institute of Forestry (GER)

MFM - Forestry company Franz-Mayr-Melnhof-Saurau (AT)

SFM - Safe Mountain Foundation (ITA)

UL - University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Forestry and Renewable

Resources (SLO)

UGOE - University of Göttingen, Department of Forest and Nature Conservation Policy (GER)

WLS - Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (CH)

WLV - Austrian Service for Torrent and Avalanche Control (AT)

ZGS - Slovenia Forest Service (SLO)

https://disafaen.campusnet.unito.it/do/home.plhttp://www.eurac.edu/en/pages/default.aspxhttp://www.irstea.fr/en/institute/centers/grenoblehttps://www.lwf.bayern.de/http://www.mm-forst.at/de/http://www.fondazionemontagnasicura.org/en/http://www.bf.uni-lj.si/en/forestry/about/https://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/67088.htmlhttps://www.wsl.ch/en/forest.htmlhttps://www.bmlfuw.gv.at/forst/wildbach-lawinenverbauung.htmlhttp://www.zgs.si/eng/news/index.html


Table of Contents

GreenRisk4ALPs Partnerships ............................................................................................................... 2

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................... 3

Table of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Table of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction: Risk governance in mountain ecosystems ..................................................................... 6

Materials and methods .......................................................................................................................... 7

Results and discussion .......................................................................................................................... 9

Bibliometric analysis .......................................................................................................................... 9

Qualitative review ............................................................................................................................. 11

Study areas and hazards analysed ............................................................................................. 13

Forest effectiveness ..................................................................................................................... 14

Uncertainties and hazards interaction ........................................................................................ 15

Scenarios development ............................................................................................................... 15

Stakeholders involvement ........................................................................................................... 15

Monetary evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 15

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 17

References ............................................................................................................................................ 18

Appendix A: List of the articles selected with the keywords search on Scopus and WoS ............... 19


Table of Figures

Figure 1 - Number of publications indexed on Scopus from 1990 to 2018 including gravitational

natural hazards and risk management search terms in their title, abstract or keywords. The

different colours in the bar chart show the number of documents in which only one natural hazard

is mentioned in the title, abstract and keywords. Some documents refer to more than one natural

hazard in those fields, therefore the total number of documents indexed in Scopus per year (blue

horizontal lines) is higher than the sum of the ones that mention each natural hazard. ................. 9

Figure 2 - Ratio between the number of documents published in a year and those published in

2018 on Scopus. If the ratio is equal to 1, then the number of documents published in that year is

the same as the number of documents published in 2018. If the ratio is higher than 1, then more

documents were published in a given year compared to 2018 That is, a ratio of 0.2 means that

20% of the number of documents published in 2018 were published. The numbers indicated by

the arrows show the actual number of documents published in a given year. ................................ 10

Figure 3 - Number of documents published on Scopus from 1990 to 2018 mentioning

gravitational hazards, risk management and Eco-DRR/protection forests search terms in their

abstracts, title or keywords (left, Y-axis) compared to the number of documents published

including only gravitational hazards and risk management terms (right, Y-axis). ............................ 11

Figure 4 - Workflow to select the publications for the qualitative review. ........................................ 12

Figure 5 - Gravitational hazards studied in the publications listed in Table 2. ................................ 13

Figure 6 - Study area distribution of the publications selected in Table 2 along the alpine space

(AS). Not all the papers had a study area, only 17. ............................................................................ 14

Figure 7 - Study area distribution of the publications selected in Table 2 across the alpine space

(AS) for different hazards. .................................................................................................................... 14


Table of Tables

Table 1 - Search terms used for the bibliometric analysis .................................................................. 7

Table 2 - Publications selected for the qualitative review after the abstract analysis .................... 12


Introduction: Risk governance in mountain ecosystems

Mountain areas have always been subject to natural hazards such as avalanches, rockfall,

landslides and torrents (Keiler and Fuchs, 2018). These natural hazards used to be managed by

avoiding them and/or placing settlements in areas less prone to such hazards (Bründl et al.,

2009). However, in the last century the growth of the mountain economy, which is based primarily

on winter tourism, led to a growth of settlements into areas affected by gravitational hazards

(UNISDR, 2015; Newman et al., 2017), making the protection from natural hazards a matter of

primary importance.

Historically risk was managed by avoiding hazardous areas or by using natural elements such as

forests as protection elements from natural hazards (Meloni et al., 2006). Protection forests have

been used for a long time and managed to prevent or mitigate hazardous events. An example of

this is the Chambons forest in the western Italian Alps, which has been managed since 1500 to

protect the village of Chambons that was built in 1200 from avalanches and rockfall (Regione

Autonoma Valle d’Aosta - Regione Piemonte, 2006).

In the last century, the rate of growth of settlements in the mountains has led to the study of

technical protection measures and to their preference over protection forests due to their

immediate efficacy. This has led to an increase in studies concerning both natural hazard and

defence strategies.

Even though technical measures proved to be effective in preventing or mitigating the effects of

different natural hazards, the role of climate change and its effects on ecosystem processes, has

brought up the question whether these structures are suitable to face upcoming changes (Holub

and Hübl, 2008). The main problem with these measures is their lack of resilience and that they

were planned for specific situations.

To solve this problem, various options of risk management have been analysed in the past few

years with great importance focused on ecosystem-based solutions due to their higher adaptive

capacity to climate change (Faivre et al., 2017).

A bibliometric analysis and review have been carried out to analyze the state of the art of the

research in mountain risk management, with a particular focus on literature concerning the

following aspects:

- Mountain ecosystem: in particular with a focus on risk mitigation in the Alpine region

- Natural hazards: gravitational hazards with those being the most frequent in the region of

interest

- Risk management: focus on studies that could affect the usual risk management

solutions that can provide practical information and useful tools

- Ecosystem based disaster risk reduction: Eco-DRR measures are based on a sustainable

use and management of ecosystems as a mean to reduce extreme events.

In particular, the bibliometric analysis was aimed at gaining an insight into the current state of

knowledge regarding natural hazard risk management in mountain areas and nature-based

solutions. The objective of the subsequent qualitative part was to analyse the strengths and the

research gaps in this field of study.


Materials and methods

The analysis was composed of a quantitative bibliometric analysis followed by a qualitative

review.

As a first step, search terms were selected to compose the query strings (see Table 1 below). The

search terms were attributed to three main topic groups on which the research focuses: 1.

gravitational natural hazards (in particular avalanches, rockfall, shallow landslides and debris

flows), 2. risk management, and 3. ecosystem-based solutions, with the main solution being

protection forests. The three groups of search terms, which constitute the focal points of this

review and of the GreenRisk4ALPs project are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 - Search terms used for the bibliometric analysis

Topic Group Search terms

Natural hazard

snow avalanche

debris-flow

rock fall (or Rockfall)

landslide

Risk

management

risk

exposure

vulnerability

hazard management

Eco-DRR

protection forest

protect* function

protect* effect

Eco-DRR

nature-based solution

ecosystem-based approach

ecosystem-based solution

The four natural hazards were chosen to focus on the most present gravitational hazards in the

Alps. Eco-DRR solutions act in two ways: preventing events from happening (for example the role

of the forest in the starting zone of avalanches) or mitigating their impact in the runout zone.

After selection search terms were evaluated, and the query strings were optimized to obtain a

balance between shortness of the query string and number of results obtained. The query strings

were then entered into the Scopus database in “Titles, Abstract and Keywords” of published

documents. The Scopus database was the only database used for the quantitative analysis as its

objective was to analyse the general trend of articles published over time.

Different search approaches were carried out: The first search combined the first two groups of

terms (those regarding natural hazards and risk management), the second included Eco-DRR

terms. The search terms belonging to different topic groups were linked with the Boolean operator

“AND” while the search terms belonging to the same group were linked with the Boolean operator

“OR”. This allowed the search database to find the documents that included at least one term

from each group of topics. Examples of the query strings can be found below:

TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( "snow avalanche" OR "debris-flow" OR "rock fall" OR "Rockfall" OR landslide )

AND ( "risk" OR "exposure" OR "vulnerability" OR "hazard management" ) )

TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( "snow avalanche" OR "debris-flow" OR "rock fall" OR "Rockfall" OR landslide )

AND ( "risk" OR "exposure" OR "vulnerability" OR "hazard management" ) AND ( "protection

forest" OR "protect* function" OR "protect* effect" OR "Eco-DRR" OR "nature-based solution"

OR "ecosystem-based approach" OR "ecosystem-based solution" ) )


The publication trend was analysed and compared with the total number of papers indexed on

Scopus through the years. In order to obtain an estimate of the total amount of papers the word

“the” was used as a search term, being the most common English word. In the following

qualitative bibliographic review, the same research was carried out in the Web of Science

database to see, if any additional papers could be found that had not yet been indexed on

Scopus. The results were added to the ones found on Scopus. Lastly, papers concerning

mountain ecosystems in particular in the Alps, were selected, reviewed and analysed. For each

article, the following parameters were highlighted:

1) Natural hazard considered (Avalanche/Rockfall/Landslide/Debris flow)

2) Presence of a risk management

3) Eco-DRR

a. Dominant species

b. Forest management

c. Analysis of forest effectiveness

4) Uncertainties considered (fires/pests/hazard interactions/etc.)

5) Eco-DRR other than forests

6) Scenario developments

7) Stakeholders involvement

8) Monetary evaluation


Results and discussion

Bibliometric analysis The first search conducted focused on the number of publications indexed on Scopus concerning

risk management related to gravitational hazards. These are the documents, which included at

least one search term of the natural hazard group and one of the risk management group in the

title, abstract or keywords. The results show a strong increase in the overall number of

publications on the topic, ranging from less than 50 papers in 1990 to more than 700 in 2018

(blue line in Figure 1). Overall, the gravitational natural hazard search terms showed a

considerable increase over time. The most mentioned hazard was landslides1, which is also the

hazard term that showed the highest increase over time. The other search terms showed a stable

but lower increase.

Figure 1 - Number of publications indexed on Scopus from 1990 to 2018 including gravitational natural hazards and

risk management search terms in their title, abstract or keywords. The different colours in the bar chart show the

number of documents in which only one natural hazard is mentioned in the title, abstract and keywords. Some

documents refer to more than one natural hazard in those fields, therefore the total number of documents indexed in

Scopus per year (blue horizontal lines) is higher than the sum of the ones that mention each natural hazard.

The total number of documents published on Scopus per year has increased over time.

Consequently, the research also aimed at comparing the growth of the number of publications

mentioning risk management and natural hazards with that of the overall number of documents

indexed in Scopus (see Figure 2). For better comparison, the ratio between the documents

published in any year and those published in 2018 was calculated. Figure 2 shows how the

1 Note that the term “landslide” is often used as an overarching term, which also includes rockfall and

other gravitational natural hazards. This can explain the greater use of the term “landslide” compared to

the other terms.


publications regarding risk management and gravitational natural hazards increased more

compared to the overall number of documents published in Scopus from 1980 to 2018. The total

number of publications with natural hazards and risk management search terms published from

1980 to 2018 was 7987. In 1980, the published documents mentioning natural hazard and risk

management search terms were only three, while this number rose to 762 in 2018. The number

of total papers published in 1980, was not as low compared to those published in 2018: in 1990,

the total number of publications on Scopus was 20% of the number of papers published in 2018.

Figure 2 - Ratio between the number of documents published in a year and those published in 2018 on Scopus. If the

ratio is equal to 1, then the number of documents published in that year is the same as the number of documents

published in 2018. If the ratio is higher than 1, then more documents were published in a given year compared to

2018 That is, a ratio of 0.2 means that 20% of the number of documents published in 2018 were published. The

numbers indicated by the arrows show the actual number of documents published in a given year.

In the second step of the bibliometric analysis, we selected papers also dealing with Eco-DRR,

with a particular focus on protection forests (see Figure 3) since this is the main focus of the

GreenRisk4ALPs project. With this limitation the number of documents published from 1990 to

2018 found on Scopus was only 44. The first document to mention natural hazards, risk

management and nature-based solutions (e.g. protection forests) dates back to 1991.


Figure 3 - Number of documents published on Scopus from 1990 to 2018 mentioning gravitational hazards, risk

management and Eco-DRR/protection forests search terms in their abstracts, title or keywords (left, Y-axis) compared

to the number of documents published including only gravitational hazards and risk management terms (right, Y-axis).

Unlike the trend of the papers concerning only the natural hazards, the trend of papers adding

ecosystem-based measures has a less stable publication rate with a slight stable increase in the

last years.

Qualitative review An additional search was carried out on Web Of Science using the same keywords and 4 other

papers were found. From these 48 articles (Appendix A), after an abstract review, those

concerning the alpine environment were selected and further analysed. For the review, the

following workflow has been applied:


Figure 4 - Workflow to select the publications for the qualitative review.

A total of 22 articles were selected (Table 2). Two main patterns were observed: The majority of

papers had a more classic structure, dealing with a specific hazard and focusing on a specific

area. The other papers were instead more focused on providing a useful framework for decision

making purposes and was directed to a wider and less scientific audience ([1],[6],[9], the

numbers refer to the articles listed in Table 2).

Table 2 - Publications selected for the qualitative review after the abstract analysis

ID Full references

[1] Accastello et al., 2019: A framework for the integration of nature-based solutions in

environmental risk management strategies

[2] Bebi et al., 2001: Assessing structures in mountain forests as a basis for investigating

the forests' dynamics and protective function

[3] Bigot et al., 2009: Quantifying the protective function of a forest against rockfall for past,

present and future scenarios using two modelling approaches

[4] Brang et al., 2006: Management of protection forests in the European Alps: an overview

[5] Brang et al., 2001: Resistance and elasticity: promising concepts for the management of

protection forests in the European Alps

[6] Breschan et al., 2018: A topography-informed morphology approach for automatic

identification of forest gaps critical to the release of avalanches

[7] Dorren et al., 2006: Balancing tradition and technology to sustain rockfall-protection

forests in the Alps

[8] Getzner et al., 2017: Gravitational hazards: Valuing the protective function of Alpine

forests

[9] Faivre et al., 2018: Translating the Sendai Framework into action: The EU approach to

ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction

[10] Fidej et al., 2015: Assessment of the protective function of forests against debris flows in

a gorge of the Slovenian Alps

[11] Kobayashi et al., 2017: The Potential Role of Tree Diversity in Reducing Shallow

Abstract review and

selection of papers

dealing with Alpine

environment

Keyword

s choice

Keywords

research on

Scopus

Same keywords

research on

Web of Science

Bibliometric

analysis

Selection of 48

articles

Qualitative

review


Landslide Risk

[12] Monnet et al., 2010: Using geomatics and airborne laser scanning for rockfall risk zoning:

a case study in the French Alps

[13] Moos et al., 2018: Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction in mountains

[14] Moos et al., 2018: Integrating the mitigating effect of forests into quantitative rockfall

risk analysis – Two case studies in Switzerland

[15] Moos et al., 2017: Quantifying the effect of forests on frequency and intensity

of rockfalls

[16] Preti et al., 2013: Forest protection and protection forest: Tree root degradation over

hydrological shallow landslides triggering

[17] Sakals et al. 2006: The role of forests in reducing hydrogeomorphic hazards

[18] Schonenberg et al., 2005: Effect of timber removal from windthrow slopes on the risk of

snow avalanches and rockfall

[19] Stokes, 2005: Selecting tree species for use in rockfall-protection forests

[20] Teich et al., 2012: Snow Avalanches in Forested Terrain: Influence of Forest Parameters,

Topography, and Avalanche Characteristics on Runout Distance

[21] Teich et al., 2009: Evaluating the benefit of avalanche protection forest with GIS-based

risk analyses—A case study in Switzerland

[22] Vacchiano et al., 2015: Effect of avalanche frequency on forest ecosystem services in a 1

spruce-fir mountain forest

Study areas and hazards analysed

The first parameter analyzed was the natural hazard dealt with in the papers. Unlike the global

trend of papers concerning natural hazards, in our selection the main hazards considered are

avalanches and rockfall, while only a few focused on landslides (Figure 5).

Figure 5 - Gravitational hazards studied in the publications listed in Table 2.

Second, we analyzed the location of the study areas used in the papers. Figure 6 shows that the

majority of the case studies were carried out in the Swiss and French Alps, while only a focused

on the southern part of the Alps.


Figure 6 - Study area distribution of the publications selected in Table 2 along the alpine space (AS). Not all the papers

had a study area, only 17.

Comparing the main hazard and the location of the study area revealed how studies on different

hazards are distributed across the Alps, with two main focal areas: Switzerland for avalanches

([2],[6],[20],[21]), and France for rockfall ([3],[12],[19]).

Figure 7 - Study area distribution of the publications selected in Table 2 across the alpine space (AS) for different

hazards.

Forest effectiveness

We focused this review on risk management measures in which forests have a predominant role.

In all of the papers collected, the protective effect of forest is addressed, but in different ways. A

common theme in all the articles is the need of proper forest management to assure an efficient

protective effect against different hazards.

In the majority of the studies analysed the main silvicultural measure to achieve maximum

protection from natural hazards is through managing uneven, multi-layered forest stands. This

forest structure is considered to be the most efficient for all of the gravitational hazards

considered in this review. Managing for an uneven-aged forest through silvicultural techniques

aims at developing a forest structure similar to natural ones, those being the ones with the

highest resistance and resilience. This objective is stated directly in some of the selected papers,

in particular in: [1], [4], [5], [10], [15], [17], [19]. Fidej et al. (2015) also stated that aiming for an

uneven-aged layered forest structure is the best way to mimic natural disturbances, which

naturally occur in forest stands.

Concerning the forest structures in [2], [8] and [9], the role of forest gaps has been addressed

and the maximum dimension of gaps that still allows for an efficient protective effect has been


evaluated. The problem of forest gaps has been analysed for both avalanches and rockfall. In

particular, gaps are critical in avalanche starting zones, where the forest serves a role in

preventing avalanche formation. Forest are also important in the transit zone of rockfall, where

they allow the rocks to fall without obstacles and to gain speed.

Additionally, species composition of stands has been analysed. In the papers concerning

avalanches [20] as the main hazard, a comparison has been made between deciduous and

evergreen conifer species, with the latter resulting as the most efficient in preventing avalanche

release. This is due to two main effects: the first is the interception of falling snow by tree crowns,

which results in the exposure of the snow to air and sun, leading to faster sublimation and lower

snow height on the ground. The second effect is the reduction of the formation of surface hoar

and weak snow layers in the snowpack which are required for slab avalanche formation. That is,

tree crowns shade the snowpack leading to reduced temperature variations between night and

day influencing snow metamorphism. A focus has been made on the comparison between

Austrian pine (Pinus nigra) reforestations and broadleaved coppice stands [3], with the former

resulting in less effectiveness due to their even aged and regular structure, while the latter being

more efficient due to the high density of coppice shoots. The forest effect on landslides has been

addressed focusing mainly on the roots [16] and explain how a broad and structured root system

affects the soil and its structure, making it more or less prone to slides during heavy rain events.

Uncertainties and hazards interaction

In eight papers ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [18], [22]) uncertainties that may affect the protection

services provided by forest were considered. In particular, these studies focused on fires, pests,

animal browsing, windthrow and drought, which are the main disturbances that could affect

protection forests and compromise their effect.

In two papers [18], [22] the post disturbance management of direct protection forests was

considered, in particular the effect of the disturbance on the protection service was analysed. The

role of dead wood in the aftermath of a disturbance (windthrow) has been considered, in

particular the authors focused on its protective effect that was still important in the first years

following the disturbance and decreased gradually in the following years.

Another interesting topic that was analysed by Vacchiano et al. (2015) is the cascading effect

created by a disturbance decreasing the capacity of a forest to mitigate other natural hazard

events. In particular, the effect of avalanches on direct protection forest against rock fall has

been analysed. The main problems were caused by the frequency with which avalanches

occurred, i.e., a high avalanche frequency aside from affecting the protective effect of the present

stand, also prevented forest regeneration from replacing the stand.

Scenarios development

We also addressed, if land use and land use change, climate change and socio-economic change

scenarios were developed in the studied papers. Among all studies five developed different

scenarios; four of these dealt with land use change scenarios and one with both climate change

and socio-economic changes.

Stakeholders involvement

The involvement of stakeholders has been chosen as a parameter for the review given its

importance in the GR4A project. However, the results of the bibliographic analysis showed that

the involvement of stakeholders was only marginally addressed in studies.

Monetary evaluation

Only one article [8] from our selection dealt with monetary evaluation. The approach used is a

cost analysis carried out through a national pricing list. The authors used an interesting approach:

They evaluated the protective effect of forests from an economic point of view, i.e. a replacement


cost approach was used, and different scenarios were analysed. Both permanent structures and

wooden ones had been considered and the costs due to forest management were assessed. The

results showed how, where the ecological conditions allow for it, protection forest are the most

convenient solution from an economic point of view.


Conclusions

Through the analysis conducted on the selected publications we aimed at highlighting the

potential role of Eco-DRR in preventing and mitigating natural hazards and report the knowledge

currently available on the topic. From the results provided by the publication analysis, we show

that even though the use of ecosystem-based solutions in risk management is broadly

recognized, there is still low response of the users to this kind of measures and they are not

always recognized at a legislative level. This might be caused by the lack of stakeholder’s

involvement in the subject. Involving stakeholder through understandable guidelines or seminars

could increase the perception of Eco-DRR as an efficient solution. The value of Eco-DRR could

also be strengthen by the support of thorough economic evaluations of the different options to

mitigate and prevent a natural hazard (e.g. green measures, technical measures or avoidance

measures), which is almost absent at the moment.

The results of this analysis highlight how the GR4ALPs project can provide innovative content to

this research field by addressing a combination of topics, such as the stakeholders involvement

and the monetary evaluation of the forest protection, that has not yet been explored in depth and

reported in the scientific literature. The economic evaluation implemented in the TEGRAV analysis

and the stakeholder involvement addressed throughout the project (WP2-WP5) will not only

provide a more detailed insight on ecosystem-based solutions but can also help to bridge the gap

between research and users of ecosystems-based solutions, such as local administrations,

decision makers and forest managers.


References Bruendl, M., Romang, H.E., Bischof, N., Rheinberger, C.M., 2009. The risk concept and its

application in natural hazard risk management in Switzerland. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst.

Sci. 9, 801–813.

Faivre, N., Fritz, M., Freitas, T., de Boissezon, B., Vandewoestijne, S., 2017. Nature-Based

Solutions in the EU: Innovating with nature to address social, economic and

environmental challenges. Environmental Research 159, 509–518.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.032

Fidej, G., Mikoš, M., Rugani, T., Jež, J., Kumelj, Š., Diaci, J., 2015. Assessment of the protective

function of forests against debris flows in a gorge of the Slovenian Alps. iForest -

Biogeosciences and Forestry 8, 73. https://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0994-007

Holub, M., Hübl, J., 2008. Local protection against mountain hazards: state of the art and future

needs. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 8, 81–99.

Keiler, M., Fuchs, S., 2018. Challenges for Natural Hazard and Risk Management in Mountain

Regions of Europe, in: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Oxford

University Press, Oford, UK.

Newman, J.P., Maier, H.R., Riddell, G.A., Zecchin, A.C., Daniell, J.E., Schaefer, A.M., van Delden, H.,

Khazai, B., O’Flaherty, M.J., Newland, C.P., 2017. Review of literature on decision support

systems for natural hazard risk reduction: Current status and future research directions.

Environmental Modelling & Software 96, 378–409.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.042

Regione Autonoma Valle d’Aosta - Regione Piemonte, 2006. Selvicoltura nelle foreste di

protezione. Esperienze e indirizzi gestionali in Piemonte e in Valle d’Aosta. Compagnia

delle Foreste, Arezzo.

UNISDR, 2015. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. United Nations,

Geneva, Switzerland.

Vacchiano, G., Maggioni, M., Perseghin, G., Motta, R., 2015. Effect of avalanche frequency on

forest ecosystem services in a spruce–fir mountain forest. Cold Regions Science and

Technology 115, 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2015.03.004


Appendix A: List of the articles selected with the keywords search on Scopus and WoS

Authors Year Title

[No author name available],

2014 3rd International Conference on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development, EESD 2013

Accastello C. et al. 2019 A Framework for the integration of nature-based solutions in environmental risk management strategies

Bebi P. et al. 2001 Assessing structures in mountain forests as a basis for investigating the forests' dynamics and protective function

Bianchi E. et al. 2018 The Economic Evaluation of Forest Protection Service Against Rockfall: A Review of Experiences and Approaches

Bigot C. et al. 2009 Quantifying the protective function of a forest against rockfall for past, present and future scenarios using two modelling approaches

Brang P. 2001 Resistance and elasticity: Promising concepts for the management of protection forests in the European Alps

Brang P. et al. 2006 Management of protection forests in the European Alps: An overview

Breschan J.R. et al. 2018 A topography-informed morphology approach for automatic identification of forest gaps critical to the release of avalanches

Bründl M. et al. 2014 Integrative Risk Management: The Example of Snow Avalanches

Dorren L. et al. 2015 The new NaiS target profile for rockfall [Das neue NaiS-Anforderungsprofil Steinschlag]

Dorren L. et al. 2016 Quantifying the stabilizing effect of forests on shallow landslide-prone slopes

Dorren L.K.A. et al. 2006 Panarchy and sustainable risk prevention by managing protection forests in mountain areas

Dorren L.K.A. et al. 2006 Balancing tradition and technology to sustain rockfall-protection forests in the Alps

Faivre N. et al. 2018 Translating the Sendai Framework into action: The EU approach to ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction

Fidej G. et al. 2014 Assessment of the protective function of forests against debris flows in a gorge of the Slovenian alps

Fidej G. et al. 2014 Assessment of the protective function of forests against debris flows in a gorge of the Slovenian alps

Getzner M. et al. 2017 Gravitational natural hazards: Valuing the protective function of Alpine forests

Greminger P. 2003 Managing the risks of natural hazards

Jiro T. 1991 Distinguishing between points with and without small land landslides on mountainsides in a typhoon damaged area on the lower Niyodo River


Klimeš J. 2011 Rockfall hazard and risk assessment on forested slopes, examples from Czechia [Hodnocení ohrožení a rizika vzniku skalních řícení na zalesněných svazích, příklady z česka]

Kobayashi Y. et al. 2017 The Potential Role of Tree Diversity in Reducing Shallow Landslide Risk

Lange W. et al. 2016 Risk perception for participatory ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change in the mata Atlântica of Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil

Liniger M. 2000 Computer simulations of rockfall [Computersimulation von stein- und blockschlagen]

Monnet J.M. et al. 2010 Using geomatics and airborne laser scanning for rockfall risk zoning: A case study in the french alps

Moos C. et al. 2018 Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction in mountains

Moos C. et al. 2017 Quantifying the effect of forests on frequency and intensity of rockfalls

Moos C. et al. 2018 Integrating the mitigating effect of forests into quantitative rockfall risk analysis – Two case studies in Switzerland

Moos C. et al. 2018 Integrating the mitigating effect of forests into quantitative rockfall risk analysis – Two case studies in Switzerland

Mustafin R. et al. 2018 Assessment of slope stability in coastal water protection zones

Nater W. et al. 1993

Measurement and modelling of changes and risks for forest protection as a result of anthropogenic influences [Messung und Modellierung der Veranderungen und Risiken fur Schutzwalder als Folge anthropogener Einflusse]

Preti F. 2013 Forest protection and protection forest: Tree root degradation over hydrologicalshallow landslides triggering

Renaud F.G. et al. 2016 Developments and opportunities for ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation

Ronchi S. et al. 2018 Adopting an ecosystem services-based approach for flood resilient strategies: The case of Rocinha Favela (Brazil)

Sakals M.E. et al. 2006 The role of forests in reducing hydrogeomorphic hazards

Sandholz S. et al. 2018 Governing green change: Ecosystem-based measures for reducing landslide risk in Rio de Janeiro

Schönenberger W. et al.

2005 Effect of timber removal from windthrow slopes on the risk of snow avalanches and rockfall

Spusta V. et al. 1998 Changes of the avalanche cadastre in the Czech part of the Giant Mts

Stokes A. 2006 Selecting tree species for use in rockfall-protection forests

Sudmeier-Rieux K. et al.

2015 Opportunities, incentives and challenges to risk sensitive land use planning: Lessons from Nepal, Spain and Vietnam

Teich M. et al. 2012 Snow avalanches in forested terrain: Influence of forest parameters, topography, and avalanche characteristics on runout distance


Teich M. et al. 2009 Evaluating the benefit of avalanche protection forest with GIS-based risk analyses-A case study in Switzerland

Vacchiano G. et al. 2015 Effect of avalanche frequency on forest ecosystem services in a spruce-fir mountain forest

Vergani C. et al. 2017 Root reinforcement dynamics of European coppice woodlands and their effect on shallow landslides: A review

Vergani C. et al. 2017 Investigation of root reinforcement decay after a forest fire in a Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) protection forest

Wasser B. et al. 2014 Effect of protection forests on natural hazards due to gravity: Protect-Bio [Wirkung von Schutzwald gegen gravitative Naturgefahren - Protect-Bio]

Wilford D.J. et al. 2006 Protection forests: Recognizing and maintaining the forest influence with regard to hydrogeomorphic processes

Wohlgemuth T. et al.

2017 Post-windthrow management in protection forests of the Swiss Alps

Woltjer M. et al. 2008 Coupling a 3D patch model and a rockfall module to assess rockfall protection in mountain forests

d.t3.1.1 report zstate of the art of risk governance ... › projects › greenrisk4...d.t3.1.1 –...

Documents