Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- wiki:protection_forest [2017/07/25 08:50] – created marsth
+++ wiki:protection_forest [2018/11/27 10:45] (current) – marsth
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+====== Protection forest ======
-**<font 12.0pt/inherit;;inherit;;inherit>Protection forest</font>**
 Forests in populated mountainous areas have a very important regulating function: the protection of soils, slopes and people from gravitational mass movements and hazards.
@@ Line 9: / Line 7: @@
 To speak of a protection forest there needs to be a **natural** **hazard potential**, a **damage potential** and a **forest** that has a **protective effect** against the natural hazard.
-   * **Natural****hazard potential: **The natural hazards whose impact forests can mitigate or even prevent are gravitational, erosion and channel processes. They include avalanches, landslides, rock-falls, mudslides, debris flows and overbank sedimentation. Slower hazardous processes like erosion through wind, water and floods are usually weakened and hindered by forests as well.
+   * **Natural**** hazard potential: **The natural hazards whose impact forests can mitigate or even prevent are gravitational, erosion and channel processes. They include avalanches, landslides, rock-falls, mudslides, debris flows and overbank sedimentation. Slower hazardous processes like erosion through wind, water and floods are usually weakened and hindered by forests as well.
   * **Damage potential: **Is defined in this context as all human assets, infrastructures and economically used areas that are at risk/ endangered by a natural hazard.
   * **Protective effect of forests: **The protective function of forests includes both direct and indirect protection((MCPFE 1998 - Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Forests in Europe, 1998. Lisbon)) . Indirect Protection being the prevention of soil erosion and regulation of waterflow, direct protection the shielding of human life and activities((Notaro, S., Paletto, A., 2012. The economic valuation of natural hazards in mountain forests: An approach based on the replacement cost method. Journal of Forest Economics 18, 318–328. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2012.06.002)) . This distinction can also be found in the laws on protection forests of the Alpine countries. The Austrian forestry law (ForstG 1975 ver.2002) for example classifies protection forests in **‘site protection forest’**  (erosion and unpopulated area protection) and **‘object protection forest’**  (safeguarding human life, infrastructure and cultivated areas).
@@ Line 22: / Line 20: @@
 To delineate a protection forest it is essential to find out where the above-mentioned criteria are evident and a forest has this additional function and role.
-To accomplish this there are different model approaches possible depending on the scale of the assessment and the available geodata. A very good overview of these approaches can be looked up in  the reports of various Projects ([[http://193.170.148.89/enfin/projects_proalp.html|ProAlp]], [[http://www.alpine-space.org/2007-2013/projects/projects/detail/PARAmount/show/index-2.html|PARAmount]], [[https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/de/home/themen/naturgefahren/fachinformationen/naturgefahrensituation-und-raumnutzung/gefahrengrundlagen/silvaprotect-ch.html|SilvaProtect]])
+To accomplish this there are different model approaches possible depending on the scale of the assessment and the available geodata. A very good overview of these approaches can be looked up in the reports of various Projects ([[http://193.170.148.89/enfin/projects_proalp.html|ProAlp]], [[http://www.alpine-space.org/2007-2013/projects/projects/detail/PARAmount/show/index-2.html|PARAmount]], [[https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/de/home/themen/naturgefahren/fachinformationen/naturgefahrensituation-und-raumnutzung/gefahrengrundlagen/silvaprotect-ch.html|SilvaProtect]])
-Mapping ES Supply, Flow and Demand:
+Within the [[:wiki:alpesbackground|AlpES project]] the provision dynamics of the ES [[:wiki:protection_of_areas_against_avalanches_mudslides_and_rockfalls_in_the_alps|protection of areas against avalanches, mudslides and rockfalls in the Alps]] were assessed by means of the following supply, demand and flow indicators:
-  * The Supply of this service is represented by all the forest areas that have an actual regulating/ protecting function.
+  * Supply: [[:wiki:protection_forest_calc|Site-protecting forest]] (%)
-  * The Flow of this service represents how often a natural hazard that would have negatively affected human lives has been prevented or mitigated.
+  * Flow: [[:wiki:protection_forest_calc|Object-projecting forest]] (%)
-  * The Demand of this service is defined by the amount of human assets and infrastructures in potential hazard zones.
+  * Demand: [[:wiki:protection_forest_calc|Infrastructure at risk]] (%)
 **Web links **
@@ Line 37: / Line 35: @@
 **Additional Literature **
   * Bauerhansl, C., Berger, F., Dorren, L., Duc, P., Ginzler, C., Kleemayr, K., Koch, V., Koukal, T., Mattiuzzi, M., Perzl, F., others, 2010. Development of harmonized indicators and estimation procedures for forests with protective functions against natural hazards in the alpine space (PROALP).
   * Berger, F., Larcher, V., Simoni, S., Pasquazzo, R., Strada, C., Zampedri, G., 2012. PARAmount Project WP6 guidelines - Rockfall and Forecast systems.
@@ Line 49: / Line 48: @@
   * PARAmount Project PP4-PP10, 2012. Avalanche Guidelines -guide‐lines for snow‐avalanches hazard.
   * Rickenmann, D., 2005. Runout prediction methods, in: Debris-Flow Hazards and Related Phenomena. Springer, pp. 305–324.
+  * Voigt, S., 2010.  Der Schutzwald im Alpenraum - Länderübergreifende Harmonisierung der Abgrenzungskriterien für die Schutzwaldausweisung und deren GIS gestützte Modellierung und Verortung - Master Thesis, Universität Salzburg
+~~DISCUSSION~~{{tag> "ecosystem_services" "AlpES_project" }}