ProAlp succeeded in:

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