Blog List

Monday, 1 August 2016

Integrated and systemic management of storm damage by the forest-based sector and public authorities

Published Date
, Volume 73, Issue 3, pp 585–600

Title 

Integrated and systemic management of storm damage by the forest-based sector and public authorities

  • , 
  • Jacques Hébert, 
  • Benoit Jourez

Abstract

Key message

Integrated and systemic management of wind damage risk can help to address decision-making requirements, mitigate economic impacts of storms, and improve collective well-being of the forest sector. In this context, public authorities should actively act to enable flexible decision-making and strengthen the resilience of the forest sector facing destructive storms.

Context

Destructive storms are among the major threats to forest-based economies in Europe. Over three decades, the topic has gradually moved to the top of the forest community’s agenda but with little coordination among stakeholders and limited response from public authorities.

Aims

The paper’s goals are to identify key challenges in the current windthrow management framework and present a blueprint for how to progress in the settlement of regional strategies.

Methods

SWOT analyses are used to highlight relevant issues and opportunities in classical approaches from both the forest-based sector and public authorities’ perspectives.

Results

Despite the large body of knowledge that allows decision-makers to react promptly after huge storms, strategic responses still suffer from too individual and fragmented decisions and a lack of holistic economic assessments. To tackle these issues, the paper suggests using systemic and integrated risk management approaches. It also presents the ways to enhance the forest-based sector’s resistance and resilience towards economic shock and supports decision-making with the help of systemic analysis.

Conclusion

This shift of paradigm is one of the key requirements in optimizing the way of dealing with storm damage, but public authorities should concur with it more actively by improving decisional and administrative frameworks.

References

  1. Ananda J, Herath G (2003) The use of analytic hierarchy process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy Econ 5:13–26. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00043-6CrossRef
  2. Ananda J, Herath G (2009) A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecol Econ 68:2535–2548. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.010CrossRef
  3. Angst C, Volz R (2002) A decision-support tool for managing storm-damaged forests. For Snow Landsc Res 77:217–224
  4. Aven T (2009) Perspectives on risk in a decision-making context—review and discussion. Saf Sci 47:798–806. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2008.10.008CrossRef
  5. Aven T, Kristensen V (2005) Perspectives on risk: review and discussion of the basis for establishing a unified and holistic approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 90:1–14. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2004.10.008CrossRef
  6. Barredo JI (2010) No upward trend in normalised windstorm losses in Europe: 1970–2008. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10:97–104. doi:10.5194/nhess-10-97-2010CrossRef
  7. Bartet J-H, Mortier F (2002) Guide : Gérer la crise “Chablis”. Office National des Forêts, Paris
  8. Barthod C, Barrillon A (2002) L’Etat au secours de la forêt : le plan gouvernemental. Rev for fr LIV:41–65. doi: 10.4267/2042/4986
  9. Baur P, Holthausen N, Roschewitz A, Bernath K (2004) Tempêtes en forêt. En quoi l’économie forestière se distingue des autres secteurs. Forêt 10:11–15
  10. Bavard D, de Lagarde O, Magrum M (2013) Évaluation du volet mobilisation des bois chablis—Plan de solidarité nationale consécutif à la tempête Klaus du 24 janvier 2009. Conseil général de l’alimentation, de l’agriculture et des espaces ruraux (CGAAER), Paris
  11. Beck U (1992) Risk society : towards a new modernity. Sage Publications, London
  12. Beierle TC (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal 22:739–749PubMedCrossRef
  13. Birot Y (2002) Tempêtes et forêts : perturbations, catastrophes ou opportunités ? Ann Mines Août 2002:96–102
  14. Birot Y, Gollier C (2001) Risk assessment, management and sharing in forestry, with special emphasis on windstorms. In: Kokkonen O (ed) Proceedings of 14th Convocation of the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS), Espoo
  15. Birot Y, Gardiner B (2013) Challenges for forestry in relation to storms. In: Gardiner B, Schuck A, Schelhaas M-J, Orazio C, Blennow K, Nicoll B (eds) Living with storm damage to forests. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, pp 123–129
  16. Birot Y, Landmann G, Bonhême I (2009) La forêt face aux tempêtes. Quae, Versailles
  17. Bisang K, Zimmermann W (2006) Key concepts and methods of programme evaluation and conclusions from forestry practice in Switzerland. Forest Policy Econ 8:502–511. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.07.002CrossRef
  18. Björheden R (2007) Possible effects of the hurricane Gudrun on the regional Swedish forest energy supply. Biomass Bioenerg 31:617–622. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.06.025CrossRef
  19. Blennow K (2008) Risk management in Swedish forestry—policy formation and fulfillment of goals. J Risk Res 11:237–254. doi:10.1080/13669870801939415CrossRef
  20. Blennow K, Persson E (2013) Societal impacts of storm damage. In: Gardiner B, Schuck A, Schelhaas M-J, Orazio C, Blennow K, Nicoll B (eds) Living with storm damage to forests. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, pp 70–78
  21. Blennow K, Sallnäs O (2005) Decision support for active risk management in sustainable forestry. J Sustain For 21:201–212. doi:10.1300/J091v21n02-12CrossRef
  22. Blennow K, Persson J, Wallin A, Vareman N, Persson E (2014) Understanding risk in forest ecosystem services: implications for effective risk management, communication and planning. Forestry 87:219–228. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpt032CrossRef
  23. Bossel H (Coord.) (2002) Assessing viability and sustainability: a systems-based approach for deriving comprehensive indicator sets. Conserv Ecol. http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art12/. Accessed 9 May 2016
  24. Bouget C, Duelli P (2004) The effects of windthrow on forest insect communities: a literature review. Biol Conserv 118:281–299. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2003.09.009CrossRef
  25. Broman H, Frisk M, Rönnqvist M (2009) Supply chain planning of harvest and transportation operations after the storm Gudrun. INFOR 47:235–245
  26. Bründl M, Rickli C (2002) The storm Lothar 1999 in Switzerland—an incident analysis. For Snow Landsc Res 77:207–216
  27. Brunet S (2007) Société du risque: quelles réponses politiques ? L’Harmattan, Paris
  28. Brunette M, Couture S (2008) Public compensation for windstorm damage reduces incentives for risk management investments. Forest Policy Econ 10:491–499. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2008.05.001CrossRef
  29. Brunette M, Holecy J, Sedliak M, Tucek J, Hanewinkel M (2015) An actuarial model of forest insurance against multiple natural hazards in fir (Abies Alba Mill.) stands in Slovakia. Forest Policy Econ 55:46–57. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.001CrossRef
  30. Buttoud G (2000) How can policy take into consideration the “full value” of forests? Land Use Policy 17:169–175. doi:10.1016/S0264-8377(00)00015-6CrossRef
  31. Buttoud G, Kouplevatskaya-Buttoud I, Slee B, Weiss G (2011) Barriers to institutional learning and innovations in the forest sector in Europe: markets, policies and stakeholders. Forest Policy Econ 13:124–131. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.05.006CrossRef
  32. Campbell B, Sayer JA, Frost P, Vermeulen S, Ruiz-Pérez M, Cunningham T, Prabhu R (2002) Assessing the performance of natural resource systems. Conserv Ecol. http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art22/. Accessed 9 May 2016
  33. Campioli M, Vincke C, Jonard M, Kint V, Demarée G, Ponette Q (2012) Current status and predicted impact of climate change on forest production and biogeochemistry in the temperate oceanic European zone: review and prospects for Belgium as a case study. J For Res 17:1–18. doi:10.1007/s10310-011-0255-8CrossRef
  34. Canadell JG, Raupach MR (2008) Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science 320:1456–1457. doi:10.1126/science.1155458PubMedCrossRef
  35. Caurla S, Lecocq F, Delacote P, Barkaoui A (2010) The French forest sector model: version 1.0. Presentation and theorical foundations. Laboratoire d’Economie Forestière, Nancy
  36. Caurla S, Garcia S, Niedzwiedz A (2015) Store or export? An economic evaluation of financial compensation to forest sector after windstorm. The case of hurricane Klaus. Forest Policy Econ 61:30–38. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2015.06.005CrossRef
  37. Chtioui Y, Kaulfuß S, Hartebrodt C (2015) Forest crisis management advisory guide. Forest Research Institut Baden-Württemberg (FVA). http://www.waldwissen.net/waldwirtschaft/schaden/fva_ratgeber_forstliches_krisenmanagement_startseite/index_EN. Accessed 15 Mar 2016
  38. Corvol A (2005) Tempêtes sur la forêt française. L’Harmattan, Paris
  39. Costa S, Ibanez L (2005) Can wood storage be profitable? French experience after the windstorms in 1999. J For Econ 11:161–176. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2005.08.001
  40. de Rosnay J (1997) Analytic vs. systemic approaches. In: Heylighen F, Joslyn C, Turchin V (eds) Principia Cybernetica web, Principia Cybernetica, Brussels http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/analsyst.html
  41. Diaz-Balteiro L, Romero C (2008) Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: a review and an assessment. For Ecol Manag 255:3222–3241. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.038CrossRef
  42. Direction des Forêts (1987) Les réactions des pouvoirs publics lors de la tempête des 6, 7 et 8 novembre 1982. Rev For Fr 39:257–268. doi:10.4267/2042/25795CrossRef
  43. Drouineau S, Laroussinie O, Birot Y, Terrasson D, Formery T, Roman-Amat B (2000) Expertise collective sur les tempêtes, la sensibilité des forêts et leur reconstitution. INRA-MES, Paris
  44. Dymond C, Spittlehouse D, Tedder S, Hopkins K, McCallion K, Sandland J (2015) Applying resilience concepts in forest management: a retrospective simulation approach. Forests 6:4377. doi:10.3390/f6124377CrossRef
  45. European Commission (2013a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-based sector. COM (2013) 659 final
  46. European Commission (2013b) Green paper on the insurance of natural and man-made disasters. COM (2013) 213 final
  47. FAO/ECE/ILO (1996) Manual on acute forest damage—managing the impact of sudden and severe forest damage. United Nations, Geneva
  48. Fares S, Scarascia Mugnozza G, Corona P, Palahí M (2015) Five steps for managing Europe’s forests. Nature 519:407–409PubMedCrossRef
  49. Fermet-Quinet S (2013) Outils institutionnels, systèmes et organisation pour l’anticipation, le suivi et la gestion des risques naturels dans les forêts du Sud-Ouest de l’Europe. Diagnostic de la gestion du risque sanitaire. Mémoire de dominante forestière, ENGREF—AgroParisTech
  50. FIBOIS (2010a) Actions préventives et propositions d’organisation de la filière en cas de nouvel aléa climatique. FIBOIS Alsace, Schiltigheim
  51. FIBOIS (2010b) Traduction opérationnelle de l’audit tempête. Rapport final. FIBOIS Alsace, Schiltigheim
  52. Fink AH, Brücher T, Ermert V, Krüger A, Pinto JG (2009) The European storm Kyrill in January 2007: synoptic evolution, meteorological impacts and some considerations with respect to climate change. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:405–423. doi:10.5194/nhess-9-405-2009CrossRef
  53. Fischbacher U, Gächter S (2010) Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public goods experiments. Am Econ Rev 100:541–556. doi:10.1257/aer.100.1.541CrossRef
  54. Forest Windblow Action Committee (1988) Guidelines for dealing with windblow in woodlands: marketing, sale and restocking in woods damaged by the storm of 16th October 1987. Forest Research Station, Farnham Surrey
  55. Forestry Commission Scotland (2014) Scottish windblow contingency plan. Forestry Commission Scotland, Edinburgh
  56. Gamper CD, Turcanu C (2009) Can public participation help managing risks from natural hazards? Saf Sci 47:522–528. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2008.07.005CrossRef
  57. Garcia-Gonzalo J, Palma J, Freire J, Tomé M, Mateus R, Rodriguez LCE, Bushenkov V, Borges JG (2013) A decision support system for a multi stakeholder’s decision process in a Portuguese national forest. For Syst 22:359–373. doi:10.5424/fs/2013222-03793
  58. Gardiner BA, Quine CP (2000) Management of forests to reduce the risk of abiotic damage—a review with particular reference to the effects of strong winds. For Ecol Manag 135:261–277. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00285-1CrossRef
  59. Gardiner B, Blennow K, Carnus J-M, Fleischer M, Ingemarson F, Landmann G, Lindner M, Marzano M, Nicoll B, Orazio C, Peyron J-L, Reviron M-P, Schelhaas M-J, Schuck A, Spielmann M, Usbeck T (2010) Destructive storms in European forests: past and forthcoming impacts. Final report to the European Commission—DG Environment. European Forest Institute, Joensuu
  60. Gardiner B, Schuck A, Schelhaas M-J, Orazio C, Blennow K, Nicoll B (2013) Living with storm damage to forests. European Forest Institute, Joensuu
  61. GIP ECOFOR (2010) Retour sur la gestion de crise suite à la tempête Klaus et éléments d’anticipation. Expertise sur l’avenir du massif forestier des Landes de Gascogne, Rapport de synthèse Groupe de travail 1. GIP ECOFOR, Paris
  62. Gopalakrishnan C, Okada N (2007) Designing new institutions for implementing integrated disaster risk management: key elements and future directions. Disasters 31:353–372. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.01013.xPubMedCrossRef
  63. Grayson AJ (1989) The 1987 storm. Impacts and responses. Forestry Commission Bulletin 87. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London
  64. Greiving S, Pratzler-Wanczura S, Sapountzaki K, Ferri F, Grifoni P, Firus K, Xanthopoulos G (2012) Linking the actors and policies throughout the disaster management cycle by “agreement on objectives”—a new output-oriented management approach. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:1085–1107. doi:10.5194/nhess-12-1085-2012CrossRef
  65. Haimes YY (2011) Risk modeling, assessment, and management. Wiley, Hoboken
  66. Hammer S, Schmidt N, Iten R (2003) Lothar: kantonale Strategien. Umwelt-Materialien Nr. 154. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Bern
  67. Hanewinkel M, Hummel S, Albrecht A (2011) Assessing natural hazards in forestry for risk management: a review. Eur J For Res 130:329–351. doi:10.1007/s10342-010-0392-1CrossRef
  68. Hänsli C, Keel A, Kissling-Näf I, Zimmermann W (2003) Lothar sturmschäden im wald, 1999. Eine vergleichende analyse der politischen prozesse und der staatlichen massnahmen nach «Lothar» und «Martin» in der Schweiz, Deutschland und Frankreich – Synthesebericht. Umwelt-Materialien Nr. 159. Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Bern
  69. Harmer R (2012) What happened in the woods? Weather 67:261–265. doi:10.1002/wea.1948CrossRef
  70. Hartebrodt C (2014) Essentials of practical forest crisis management. Forest Research Institute Baden-Württemberg, Freiburg
  71. Heinonen T, Pukkala T, Ikonen VP, Peltola H, Venäläinen A, Dupont S (2009) Integrating the risk of wind damage into forest planning. For Ecol Manag 258:1567–1577. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.07.006CrossRef
  72. Heylighen F, Joslyn C (1992) What is systems theory? In: Heylighen F, Joslyn C, Turchin V (eds) Principia Cybernetica Web, Principia Cybernetica, Brussels http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SYSTHEOR.html
  73. Holecy J, Hanewinkel M (2006) A forest management risk insurance model and its application to coniferous stands in southwest Germany. Forest Policy Econ 8:161–174. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2004.05.009CrossRef
  74. Holmes TP, Prestemon JP, Abt KL (2008) The economics of forest disturbances: wildfires, storms, and invasive species. Springer Netherlands, DordrechtCrossRef
  75. Honkavaara E, Litkey P, Nurminen K (2013) Automatic storm damage detection in forests using high-altitude photogrammetric imagery. Remote Sens 5:1405–1424. doi:10.3390/rs5031405CrossRef
  76. IPPC (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  77. ISO 31000 (2009) Risk management—principles and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
  78. Jactel H, Nicoll BC, Branco M, Gonzalez-Olabarria JR, Grodzki W, Långström B, Moreira F, Netherer S, Orazio C, Piou D, Santos H, Schelhaas MJ, Tojic K, Vodde F (2009) The influences of forest stand management on biotic and abiotic risks of damage. Ann For Sci 66:701–719. doi:10.1051/forest/2009054CrossRef
  79. Kamimura K, Shiraishi N (2007) A review of strategies for wind damage assessment in Japanese forests. J For Res 12:162–176. doi:10.1007/s10310-007-0005-0CrossRef
  80. Kaplan S, Garrick BJ (1981) On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal 1:11–27. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.xCrossRef
  81. Keenan R (2015) Climate change impacts and adaptation in forest management: a review. Ann For Sci 72:145–167. doi:10.1007/s13595-014-0446-5CrossRef
  82. Laffite J-J, Lerat J-F (2009) Reconstitution des peuplements forestiers détruits par la tempête du 24 janvier 2009 dans le massif forestier des Landes de Gascogne. Conseil général de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des espaces ruraux (CGAAER), Paris
  83. Lagergren F, Jönsson AM, Blennow K, Smith B (2012) Implementing storm damage in a dynamic vegetation model for regional applications in Sweden. Ecol Model 247:71–82. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.08.011CrossRef
  84. Lal P, Lim-Applegate H, Scoccimarro MC (2002) The adaptive decision-making process as a tool for integrated natural resource management: focus, attitudes, and approach. Conserv Ecol. http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art11/. Accessed 9 May 2016
  85. Landmann G, Held A, Schuck A, Van Brusselen J (eds) (2015) European forests at risk. A scoping study in support of the development of a European forest risk facility. European Forest Institute, Joensuu
  86. Lesbats R (2002) Les conséquences des tempêtes de décembre 1999 sur la filière bois : des enseignements à en tirer. Conseil économique et social, Paris
  87. Lesgourgues Y, Drouineau S (2009) Un plan d’urgence pour la filière pin maritime. CIPM, Bordeaux
  88. Lindner M, Maroschek M, Netherer S, Kremer A, Barbati A, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Seidl R, Delzon S, Corona P, Kolström M, Lexer MJ, Marchetti M (2010) Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manag 259:698–709. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.023CrossRef
  89. Lindroth A, Lagergren F, Grelle A, Klemedtsson L, Langvall OLA, Weslien PER, Tuulik J (2009) Storms can cause Europe-wide reduction in forest carbon sink. Glob Chang Biol 15:346–355. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01719.xCrossRef
  90. Lovell C, Mandondo A, Moriarty P (2002) The question of scale in integrated natural resource management. Conserv Ecol. http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art25/. Accessed 9 May 2016
  91. MAFF (1988) The effects of the great storm : report of a Technical Coordination Committee and the Government’s response. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London
  92. Marques AF, Borges JG, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Lucas B, Melo I (2013a) A participatory approach to design a toolbox to support forest management planning at regional level. For Syst 22:340–358. doi:10.5424/fs/2013222-03120
  93. Marques AF, Fricko A, Kangas A, Rosset C, Ferreti F, Rasinmaki J, Packalen T, Gordon S (2013b) Empirical guidelines for forest management decision support systems based on the past experiences of the expert’s community. For Syst 22:320–339. doi:10.5424/fs/2013222-03033
  94. Mendoza GA, Martins H (2006) Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. For Ecol Manag 230:1–22. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023CrossRef
  95. Meyer V, Becker N, Markantonis V, Schwarze R, van den Bergh JCJM, Bouwer LM, Bubeck P, Ciavola P, Genovese E, Green C, Hallegatte S, Kreibich H, Lequeux Q, Logar I, Papyrakis E, Pfurtscheller C, Poussin J, Przyluski V, Thieken AH, Viavattene C (2013) Review article: assessing the costs of natural hazards—state of the art and knowledge gaps. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 13:1351–1373. doi:10.5194/nhess-13-1351-2013CrossRef
  96. Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL (2007) Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecol Appl 17:2145–2151. doi:10.1890/06-1715.1PubMedCrossRef
  97. Mitchell SJ (2013) Wind as a natural disturbance agent in forests: a synthesis. Forestry 86:147–157. doi:10.1093/forestry/cps058CrossRef
  98. Moore JR, Manley BR, Park D, Scarrott CJ (2013) Quantification of wind damage to New Zealand’s planted forests. Forestry 86:173–183. doi:10.1093/forestry/cps076CrossRef
  99. Mortier F, Bartet JH (2004) Intégrons la culture de gestion de crise en milieu naturel notamment à la lumière de l’expérience des tempêtes de 1999. Rev For Fr 56:307–321. doi:10.4267/2042/5103CrossRef
  100. Munich Re (2002) Winter storms in Europe (II). Munich Re Group, München
  101. Nabuurs GJ, Pussinen A, van Brusselen J, Schelhaas MJ (2007) Future harvesting pressure on European forests. Eur J For Res 126:391–400. doi:10.1007/s10342-006-0158-yCrossRef
  102. Nicolas J-P (2009) Rapport d’information sur les conséquences de la tempête du 24 janvier 2009 dans le Sud-Ouest. Assemblée nationale, Paris
  103. Nieuwenhuis M, O’connor E (2001) Financial impact evaluation of catastrophic storm damage in Irish forestry: a case study. I. Stumpage losses. Forestry 74:369–381. doi:10.1093/forestry/74.4.369CrossRef
  104. Nilsson S (2015) Is today’s systems analysis up-to-date for today’s and tomorrow’s decision- and policy making? 16th Symposium for Systems Analysis in Forest Resources (SSAFR), Uppsala, Sweden, 19–21 August 2015
  105. Odenthal-Kahabka J (2005) Storm handbook—coping with storm damaged timber. Forest Research Institut Baden-Württemberg (FVA). http://www.waldwissen.net/waldwirtschaft/schaden/sturm_schnee_eis/fva_sturmhandbuch/index_EN. Accessed 12 Dec 2010
  106. OFEV (2008) Aide-mémoire en cas de dégâts de tempête. Aide à l’exécution pour la maîtrise des dégâts dus à des tempêtes en forêt classées d’importance nationale. Office fédéral de l’environnement, Berne
  107. O’Hara KL, Ramage BS (2013) Silviculture in an uncertain world: utilizing multi-aged management systems to integrate disturbance. Forestry 86:401–410. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpt012CrossRef
  108. Oosterbaan A, van den Berg CA, de Boer T, de Jong JJ, Moraal LG, Niemeijer CM, Veerkamp M, Verkaik E (2009) Storm en bosbeheer: afwegingen voor het laten liggen of ruimen van stormhout. Wageningen UR, Alterra
  109. Orazio C, Régolini M, Meredieu C, Gardiner B, Cantero A, Fermet-Quinet S, Hevia A, Branco M, Picard O (2014) Gestion intégrée des risques en forêt : l’expérience du projet FORRISK. Proceedings of Carrefours de l’innovation agronomique, Bordeaux, 3 décembre 2014
  110. Payn T, Carnus J-M, Freer-Smith P, Kimberley M, Kollert W, Liu S, Orazio C, Rodriguez L, Silva LN, Wingfield MJ (2015) Changes in planted forests and future global implications. For Ecol Manag 352:57–67. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.021CrossRef
  111. Petr M, Boerboom L, Ray D, van der Veen A (2014) An uncertainty assessment framework for forest planning adaptation to climate change. Forest Policy Econ 41:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.002CrossRef
  112. Peyron J-L, Blanchard G, Danguy des Déserts D (1999) Les tempêtes, une fatalité ? Rev For Fr LI:729–732. doi: 10.4267/2042/5680
  113. Pinto JG, Fröhlich EL, Leckebusch GC, Ulbrich U (2007) Changing European storm loss potentials under modified climate conditions according to ensemble simulations of the ECHAM5/MPI-OM1 GCM. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 7:165–175. doi:10.5194/nhess-7-165-2007CrossRef
  114. Pischedda D (2004) Technical guide on harvesting and conservation of storm damaged timber. Concerted action QLK5-CT2001-00645 (STODAFOR project). CTBA, Paris
  115. Prestemon JP, Holmes TP (2004) Market dynamics and optimal timber salvage after a natural catastrophe. For Sci 50:495–511
  116. Raetz P (2004) Les enseignements de la gestion d’une crise. Synthèse du programme de recherche Lothar. Office fédéral de l’environnement, des forêts et du paysage (OFEFP), Berne
  117. Rametsteiner E, Weiss G (2006a) Assessing policies from a systems perspecitve—experiences with applied innovation systems analysis and implications for policy evaluation. Forest Policy Econ 8:564–576. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.07.005CrossRef
  118. Rametsteiner E, Weiss G (2006b) Innovation and innovation policy in forestry: linking innovation process with systems models. Forest Policy Econ 8:691–703. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.06.009CrossRef
  119. Reynolds KM, Borges JG, Vacik H, Lexer MJ (2005) ICT in forest management and conservation. In: Hetemaki L, Nilsson S (eds) Information technology and the forest sector IUFRO world series volume 18. IUFRO, Vienna, pp 150–171
  120. Reynolds KM, Twery M, Lexer MJ, Vacik H, Ray D, Shao G, Borges JG (2008) Decision support systems in natural resource management. In: Burnstein F, Holsapple C (eds) Handbook on decision support systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 499–534CrossRef
  121. Riguelle S (2010) Plan chablis—Guide pour la gestion des crises chablis en Wallonie. Service public de Wallonie, Jambes
  122. Riguelle S, Hébert J, Jourez B, Rommelaere A (2011) Le plan chablis : un outil de planification d’urgence et de gestion de crise pour la forêt wallonne. Forêt Wallonne 111:3–9
  123. Riguelle S, Hébert J, Jourez B (2015) WIND-STORM: a decision support system for the strategic management of windthrow crises by the forest community. Forests 6:3412–3432. doi:10.3390/f6103412CrossRef
  124. Sauter P, Möllmann T, Anastassiadis F, Musshoff O, Möhring B (2016) To insure forests assets or not? An analysis of foresters behavior. Proceedings of IUFRO Risk Analysis Meeting, Freiburg, Germany
  125. Sayer JA, Campbell B (2002) Research to integrate productivity enhancement, environmental protection, and human development. Conserv Ecol. http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art32/. Accessed 9 May 2016
  126. Schelhaas MJ, Nabuurs GJ, Schuck A (2003) Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Glob Chang Biol 9:1620–1633. doi:10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00684.xCrossRef
  127. Schelhaas MJ, Hengeveld G, Moriondo M, Reinds GJ, Kundzewicz ZW, ter Maat H, Bindi M (2010) Assessing risk and adaptation options to fires and windstorms in European forestry. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 15:681–701. doi:10.1007/s11027-010-9243-0CrossRef
  128. Schou E, Thorsen BJ, Jacobsen JB (2015) Regeneration decisions in forestry under climate change related uncertainties and risks: effects of three different aspects of uncertainty. Forest Policy Econ 50:11–19. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.006CrossRef
  129. Schwab O, Maness T, Bull G, Roberts D (2009) Modeling the effect of changing market conditions on mountain pine beetle salvage harvesting and structural changes in the British Columbia forest products industry. Can J For Res 39:1806–1820. doi:10.1139/X09-099CrossRef
  130. Schwarzbauer P, Rauch P (2013) Impact on industry and markets—roundwood prices and procurement risks. In: Gardiner B, Schuck A, Schelhaas M-J, Orazio C, Blennow K, Nicoll B (eds) Living with storm damage to forests. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, pp 64–69
  131. Schwarzbauer P, Weinfurter S, Stern T, Koch S (2013) Economic crises: impacts on the forest-based sector and wood-based energy use in Austria. Forest Policy Econ 27:13–22. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.11.004CrossRef
  132. Schwierz C, Köllner-Heck P, Zenklusen Mutter E, Bresch D, Vidale P-L, Wild M, Schär C (2010) Modelling European winter wind storm losses in current and future climate. Clim Chang 101:485–514. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9712-1CrossRef
  133. Segura M, Ray D, Maroto C (2014) Decision support systems for forest management: a comparative analysis and assessment. Comput Electron Agric 101:55–67. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2013.12.005CrossRef
  134. Seidl R, Lexer MJ (2013) Forest management under climatic and social uncertainty: trade-offs between reducing climate change impacts and fostering adaptive capacity. J Environ Manag 114:461–469. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.028CrossRef
  135. Spathelf P, Maaten E, Maaten-Theunissen M, Campioli M, Dobrowolska D (2014) Climate change impacts in European forests: the expert views of local observers. Ann For Sci 71:131–137. doi:10.1007/s13595-013-0280-1CrossRef
  136. Stadelmann G, Bugmann H, Meier F, Wermelinger B, Bigler C (2013) Effects of salvage logging and sanitation felling on bark beetle (Ips typographus L.) infestations. For Ecol Manag 305:273–281. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.003CrossRef
  137. Subramanian N, Bergh J, Johansson U, Nilsson U, Sallnäs O (2015) Adaptation of forest management regimes in Southern Sweden to increased risks associated with climate change. Forests 7:8CrossRef
  138. Swedish Forest Agency (2006) After Gudrun. Lessons learnt following the storm in 2005 and recommendations for the future. Swedish Forest Agency, Jönköping
  139. Thom D, Seidl R, Steyrer G, Krehan H, Formayer H (2013) Slow and fast drivers of the natural disturbance regime in Central European forest ecosystems. For Ecol Manag 307:293–302. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.07.017CrossRef
  140. Toppinen A, Kuuluvainen J (2010) Forest sector modelling in Europe—the state of the art and future research directions. Forest Policy Econ 12:2–8. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.017CrossRef
  141. Trauman D (2002) Le retour d’expériences: outils et concepts. Ann Mines Août 2002:3–7
  142. Usbeck T, Wohlgemuth T, Dobbertin M, Pfister C, Bürgi A, Rebetez M (2010) Increasing storm damage to forests in Switzerland from 1858 to 2007. Agric For Meteorol 150:47–55. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.08.010CrossRef
  143. Valinger E, Kempe G, Fridman J (2014) Forest management and forest state in southern Sweden before and after the impact of storm Gudrun in the winter of 2005. Scand J For Res 29:1–7. doi:10.1080/02827581.2014.927528CrossRef
  144. van Lierop P, Lindquist E, Sathyapala S, Franceschini G (2015) Global forest area disturbance from fire, insect pests, diseases and severe weather events. For Ecol Manag 352:78–88. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.010CrossRef
  145. Veenman S, Liefferink D, Arts B (2009) A short history of Dutch forest policy: the ‘de-institutionalisation’ of a policy arrangement. Forest Policy Econ 11:202–208. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.03.001CrossRef
  146. Verkerk PJ, Levers C, Kuemmerle T, Lindner M, Valbuena R, Verburg PH, Zudin S (2015) Mapping wood production in European forests. For Ecol Manag 357:228–238. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.08.007CrossRef
  147. Wermelinger B, Duelli P, Obrist MK (2002) Dynamics of saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) in windthrow areas in alpine spruce forests. For Snow Landsc Res 77:133–148
  148. Wermelinger B, Obrist MK, Baur H, Jakoby O, Duelli P (2013) Synchronous rise and fall of bark beetle and parasitoid populations in windthrow areas. Agric For Entomol 15:301–309. doi:10.1111/afe.12018CrossRef
  149. Winkel G, Sotirov M (2015) Whose integration is this? European forest policy between the gospel of coordination, institutional competition, and a new spirit of integration. Environ Plan C. doi:10.1068/c1356j
  150. Yousefpour R, Bredahl Jacobsen J, Thorsen BJ, Meilby H, Hanewinkel M, Oehler K (2012) A review of decision-making approaches to handle uncertainty and risk in adaptive forest management under climate change. Ann For Sci 69:1–15. doi:10.1007/s13595-011-0153-4CrossRef
  151. Yousefpour R, Temperli C, Bugmann H, Elkin C, Hanewinkel M, Meilby H, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2013) Updating beliefs and combining evidence in adaptive forest management under climate change: a case study of Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) in the Black Forest, Germany. J Environ Manag 122:56–64. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.004CrossRef


For further details log on website :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13595-016-0566-1
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Advantages and Disadvantages of Fasting for Runners

Author BY   ANDREA CESPEDES  Food is fuel, especially for serious runners who need a lot of energy. It may seem counterintuiti...