MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411119400 · doi:10.1016/j.nbsj.2025.100242

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

2025· review· en· W4411119400 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elham Ashrafizadeh, Rasoul Yousefpour

Bibliographic record

VenueNature-Based Solutions · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsDisaster risk reductionReduction (mathematics)EcosystemEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementEcologyMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 3,568 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature-Based SolutionsSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207