4.7 Article

A Bayesian Belief Network Approach to Predict Damages Caused by Disturbance Agents

Journal

FORESTS
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f9010015

Keywords

Bayesian networks; forest management; uncertainty; expert elicitation

Categories

Funding

  1. European FP7 project FunDivEUROPE (Functional significance of forest biodiversity)
  2. European FP7 project MOTIVE (Models for AdapTIVE forest Management)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In mountain forests of Central Europe, storm and snow breakage as well as bark beetles are the prevailing major disturbances. The complex interrelatedness between climate, disturbance agents, and forest management increases the need for an integrative approach explicitly addressing the multiple interactions between environmental changes, forest management, and disturbance agents to support forest resource managers in adaptive management. Empirical data with a comprehensive coverage for modelling the susceptibility of forests and the impact of disturbance agents are rare, thus making probabilistic models, based on expert knowledge, one of the few modelling approaches that are able to handle uncertainties due to the available information. Bayesian belief networks (BBNs) are a kind of probabilistic graphical model that has become very popular to practitioners and scientists mainly due to considerations of risk and uncertainties. In this contribution, we present a development methodology to define and parameterize BBNs based on expert elicitation and approximation. We modelled storm and bark beetle disturbances agents, analyzed effects of the development methodology on model structure, and evaluated behavior with stand data from Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) forests in southern Austria. The high vulnerability of the case study area according to different disturbance agents makes it particularly suitable for testing the BBN model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available