Quantifying and valuing forests as a nature-based solution for ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction: A systematic review

Elham Ashrafizadeh, Rasoul Yousefpour
{"title":"Quantifying and valuing forests as a nature-based solution for ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction: A systematic review","authors":"Elham Ashrafizadeh,&nbsp;Rasoul Yousefpour","doi":"10.1016/j.nbsj.2025.100242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Forests play a significant role in mitigating natural hazards and are increasingly recognized as nature-based solutions (NBS) for ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR). However, their protective effects remain under-quantified, limiting their integration into mainstream risk management practices.</div><div>This systematic review investigates the current state of quantitative and monetary assessments of forests as Eco-DRR measures. To this end, we focused exclusively on studies reporting quantitative outcomes for forests across a broad range of gravitational and hydroclimatic hazards. The review aims to: 1) provide a comprehensive overview of the concepts and methodologies used to quantify the protective effects of forests; 2) summarize and analyze quantitative evidence and its variation across forest types, methodologies and hazard types; 3) identify research gaps; and 4) synthesize a conceptual framework to facilitate further research.</div><div>We screened 3568 papers, from which 77 studies were selected, comprising 155 data points. Drawing on the insights from these studies, we developed a conceptual framework to guide future research in this field. Methodologies for the quantification of protective effects were categorized into three main groups: hazard-based, risk-based, and economic valuation methods, with hazard-based approaches being the most frequently applied, followed by economic valuation. Reported monetary values for forest protective effects varied significantly, ranging from less than 1 USD to over 41,000 USD per hectare per year. We investigated potential sources of this variation, including forest type, hazard type, and the methodologies employed.</div><div>Our findings underscore the need for more robust hazard models tailored to specific hazard types that integrate forest characteristics, climate change impacts, and post-disturbance forest recovery. We emphasize the importance of applying risk-based methods when evaluating the protective effect of forests. To this end, the review provides a framework to guide future efforts and support the integration of forests into disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation strategies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100945,"journal":{"name":"Nature-Based Solutions","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100242"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature-Based Solutions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277241152500031X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Forests play a significant role in mitigating natural hazards and are increasingly recognized as nature-based solutions (NBS) for ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR). However, their protective effects remain under-quantified, limiting their integration into mainstream risk management practices.
This systematic review investigates the current state of quantitative and monetary assessments of forests as Eco-DRR measures. To this end, we focused exclusively on studies reporting quantitative outcomes for forests across a broad range of gravitational and hydroclimatic hazards. The review aims to: 1) provide a comprehensive overview of the concepts and methodologies used to quantify the protective effects of forests; 2) summarize and analyze quantitative evidence and its variation across forest types, methodologies and hazard types; 3) identify research gaps; and 4) synthesize a conceptual framework to facilitate further research.
We screened 3568 papers, from which 77 studies were selected, comprising 155 data points. Drawing on the insights from these studies, we developed a conceptual framework to guide future research in this field. Methodologies for the quantification of protective effects were categorized into three main groups: hazard-based, risk-based, and economic valuation methods, with hazard-based approaches being the most frequently applied, followed by economic valuation. Reported monetary values for forest protective effects varied significantly, ranging from less than 1 USD to over 41,000 USD per hectare per year. We investigated potential sources of this variation, including forest type, hazard type, and the methodologies employed.
Our findings underscore the need for more robust hazard models tailored to specific hazard types that integrate forest characteristics, climate change impacts, and post-disturbance forest recovery. We emphasize the importance of applying risk-based methods when evaluating the protective effect of forests. To this end, the review provides a framework to guide future efforts and support the integration of forests into disaster risk reduction and climate adaptation strategies.
量化和评估森林作为基于自然的解决方案以减少基于生态系统的灾害风险:系统回顾
森林在减轻自然灾害方面发挥着重要作用,并日益被认为是基于自然的解决方案,以实现基于生态系统的灾害风险减少。然而,它们的保护作用仍然没有得到充分的量化,限制了它们融入主流风险管理实践。本系统综述调查了作为生态减灾措施的森林数量和货币评估的现状。为此,我们专注于报告森林在广泛的重力和水文气候灾害中的定量结果的研究。审查的目的是:1)提供用于量化森林保护作用的概念和方法的全面概述;2)总结和分析定量证据及其在森林类型、方法和灾害类型之间的差异;3)识别研究空白;4)综合一个概念框架,以便于进一步的研究。我们筛选了3568篇论文,从中选择了77项研究,包括155个数据点。根据这些研究的见解,我们开发了一个概念框架来指导该领域的未来研究。用于量化保护效果的方法主要分为三大类:基于危害、基于风险和经济评价方法,其中基于危害的方法是最常用的,其次是经济评价。报告的森林保护效果的货币价值差异很大,从每年每公顷不到1美元到超过41,000美元不等。我们调查了这种变化的潜在来源,包括森林类型、危害类型和采用的方法。我们的研究结果强调,需要针对具体的灾害类型建立更强大的灾害模型,将森林特征、气候变化影响和干扰后的森林恢复结合起来。我们强调在评价森林的保护作用时采用基于风险的方法的重要性。为此,审查提供了一个框架,指导未来的努力,并支持将森林纳入减少灾害风险和气候适应战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信