1 / 11

Development of Harmonised Forest Protection Indicators in the Alpine Space

ProAlp successfully developed harmonised indicators for forests protecting against natural hazards, including hazard and damage potential modeling and cross-boundary forest mapping. The study focused on forests with direct protective functions only due to spatial limitations. Despite challenges, the results are promising and call for further validation. Efforts were made to estimate protective effects, harmonize approaches, and adapt indicators to remote sensing capabilities for downscaling. Evaluating protective effect estimation poses challenges, with differences observed in coarse and fine-scale approaches. Key thematic areas discussed include hazard potential, damage potential, and protective effect estimation.

katherinewhite
Download Presentation

Development of Harmonised Forest Protection Indicators in the Alpine Space

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Development of Harmonised Indicators and Estimation Procedures for Forests with Protective Functions against • Natural Hazards in the • Alpine Space • Conclusions

  2. ProAlp succeeded in: • developing harmonized indicators and estimation procedures for forests with protective functions against natural hazards. • modeling the hazard potential for avalanche and rockfall

  3. ProAlp succeeded in: • including the damage potential into the derivation of forests with protective functions. • combining NFI and RS data for downscaling point information into total area • producing maps of the different system components and hazard types

  4. Indicators and thresholds: • ProAlp only deals with forests with direct protective function, because forests with indirect protective function cannot be modeled spatially explicit • Indicators were restricted according to actual NFI and RS possibilities • Some of the thresholds have to be validated in the future

  5. Cross boundary forest mapping: • Forest mapping in the Alpine Space is challenging • Huge impact of the quality of the Landsat scene • manual corrections are important after kNN classification • Different forest definitions are less important

  6. Hazard Potential: • Low accuracy of digital terrain models makes it difficult to model the hazard potential • “simple” stochastic general gradient models were used for the potential process area of avalanche and rockfall • Nevertheless results are surprisingly good • Further validation on a local scale are still necessary

  7. Damage Potential: • area estimation of forests with direct protective functions are highly sensible to the used infrastructure data. • Existing data on the international level are not suitable. • Concrete results of ProAlp concerning area estimation of protection forests only show the capability of the developed methods.

  8. Protection forest – protective effect: • The estimation of the protective effect of forests is still open to scientific research. • Nevertheless the approaches in some alpine countries like the silvicultural guidelines in NAIS (Switzerland), ISDW (Austria) and GSM (France) are promising

  9. Protection forest – protective effect: • Within ProAlp it was possible to harmonize these approaches • It was also possible to fit the indicators to the possibilities of remote sensing techniques for down-scaling procedures

  10. Protection forest – protective effect: • The evaluate the results of the estimation of the protective effect is challenging • First comparisons of coarse and fine scale approach show differences of the results • Comparisons between the statistical and coarse scale mapping approach are promising

  11. Thank You for your Attention

More Related