Mountain forests are an efficient Forest-based Solution (FbS) for Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR) by lowering the frequency, magnitude, and/or intensity of natural hazards. Technical protection measures are often poor solutions as stand-alone measures to reduce disaster risk limited by material wear and fatigue or financial resources and aesthetical values. Protective forests should therefore be considered as key elements in integrated risk management strategies. However, the definition of protective forests and the understanding and assessment of their protective functions and effects differ greatly among Alpine Space countries. In this chapter, we present a short introduction to the concept of Eco-DRR and companion terms and propose a definition of FbS as a specific case of Nature-based Solutions for an ecosystem-based and integrated risk management of natural hazards. That is, we guide the reader through the maze of existing definitions and concepts and try to disentangle their meanings. Furthermore, we present an introduction to forest regulations in the Alpine Space and European protective forest management guidelines. Our considerations and recommendations can help strengthen the role of protective forests as FbS in Eco-DRR and the acknowledgment of the key protective function they have and the crucial protective effects they provide in mountain areas.

No abstract

No abstract

Mountainous areas are expected to face increasing societal pressure due to mass tourism and the rising intensity and frequency of natural hazards triggered by climate change. Therefore, the development of proper strategies for the management of environmental risks will be crucial to ensure their liveability. Against this backdrop, concepts such as territorial resilience and Social–Ecological Systems (SES) can support the prioritisation of protective efforts. This paper presents a conceptual framework to be applied to areas subject to natural hazards. Its aim is to support the integration of different measures, with a special focus on protection forests and other Nature-based Solutions, into current risk management strategies. The framework considers (i) the definition of SES boundaries; (ii) the identification of the main goals to be achieved; (iii) the quantification of the supply and demand of the ecosystem protection service; and (iv) the development of risk management strategies able to include the management of protection forests among the adopted solutions. This framework is intended as a tool to be adopted by local and regional decision-makers as a tool to identify the areas at risk, to recognise the potential role of protection forests, and to operationalise the concept of resilience through the deployment of “grey-green” strategies.

Risks have always shaped the way society has grown and evolved. Consequently, the risk concept has been studied and applied by different disciplines such as natural sciences as well as by economic, engineering, health, and insurance sectors. However, its definition and application are heterogenous and often vary among research communities. This chapter introduces the concept of risk and provides an overview of definitions and interpretations by key policy actors, including associated terms such as hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Its use and the general importance of “risk” in the Alpine Space are emphasized, especially in the light of the increasing impacts of socioeconomic, environmental, and climatic changes on natural hazard risk by discussing resulting consequences and challenges. Furthermore, we provide an overview of the main policy actors, organizations and networks that address integrated natural hazard risk management in the Alpine Space.

Protective forests are an effective Forest-based Solution (FbS) for Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR) and are part of an integrated risk management (IRM) of natural hazards. However, their utilization requires addressing conflicting interests as well as considering relevant spatial and temporal scales. Decision support systems (DSS) can improve the quality of such complex decision-making processes regarding the most suitable and accepted combinations of risk mitigation measures. We introduce four easy-to-apply DSS to foster an ecosystem-based and integrated management of natural hazard risks as well as to increase the acceptance of protective forests as FbS for Eco-DRR: (1) the Flow-Py simulation tool for gravitational mass flows that can be used to model forests with protective functions and to estimate their potential for reducing natural hazards’ energy, (2) an exposure assessment model chain for quantifying forests’ relevance for reducing natural hazard risks, (3) the Rapid Risk management Appraisal (RRA), a participatory method aiming to identify IRM strengths and points for improvement, and (4) the Protective Forest Assessment Tool (FAT), an online DSS for comparing different mitigation measures. These are only a few examples covering various aims and spatial and temporal scales. Science and practice need to collaborate to provide applied DSS for an IRM of natural hazards.

Globalisation strongly influences social, environmental and economic resources, especially in those territories characterised by a historical dependency on a single industry, as in the case of mining. Our study aimed to envision possible future development paths for the mining city of Gällivare, in Northern Sweden, using a participatory approach. Four different transformative narratives were developed depicting a wide range of choices along an ideal anthropocentric-wild gradient. Through applying complementary methodologies for social-ecological system assessment (e.g., Q-methodology, ARDI approach), the expected social, economic and environmental impacts of the scenarios were explored. Results highlight the conflicting demands on natural resources in Northern Sweden and provides a deeper understanding of different perceptions and potential societal acceptance of each scenario from local and nonlocal stakeholder. This paper contributes to local discussions on future development in the area as well as to methodological advancements by providing a framework for the creation of a participative decision-making arena in similar transformative contexts.

The EU Water Framework Directive aims to ensure restoration of Europe’s water bodies to “good ecological status” by 2027. Many Member States will struggle to meet this target, with around half of EU river catchments currently reporting below standard water quality. Diffuse pollution from agriculture represents a major pressure, affecting over 90% of river basins. Accumulating evidence shows that recent improvements to agricultural practices are benefiting water quality but in many cases will be insufficient to achieve WFD objectives. There is growing support for land use change to help bridge the gap, with a particular focus on targeted tree planting to intercept and reduce the delivery of diffuse pollutants to water. This form of integrated catchment management offers multiple benefits to society but a significant cost to landowners and managers. New economic instruments, in combination with spatial targeting, need to be developed to ensure cost effective solutions – including tree planting for water benefits - are realised. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are flexible, incentive-based mechanisms that could play an important role in promoting land use change to deliver water quality targets. The PESFOR-W COST Action will consolidate learning from existing woodlands for water PES schemes in Europe and help standardize approaches to evaluating the environmental effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of woodland measures. It will also create a European network through which PES schemes can be facilitated, extended and improved, for example by incorporating other ecosystem services linking with aims of the wider forests-carbon policy nexus.