@article{HuberRiglingBebietal.2013,
  author    = {Huber, Robert and Rigling, Andreas and Bebi, Peter and Brand, Fridolin Simon and Briner, Simon and Buttler, Alexandre and Elkin, Che and Gillet, Francois and Gret-Regamey, Adrienne and Hirschi, Christian and Lischke, Heike and Scholz, Roland Werner and Seidl, Roman and Spiegelberger, Thomas and Walz, Ariane and Zimmermann, Willi and Bugmann, Harald},
  title     = {Sustainable land use in Mountain Regions under global change synthesis across scales and disciplines},
  series = {Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability},
  volume    = {18},
  journal   = {Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Resilience Alliance},
  address   = {Wolfville},
  issn      = {1708-3087},
  doi       = {10.5751/ES-05499-180336},
  pages     = {20},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Mountain regions provide essential ecosystem goods and services (EGS) for both mountain dwellers and people living outside these areas. Global change endangers the capacity of mountain ecosystems to provide key services. The Mountland project focused on three case study regions in the Swiss Alps and aimed to propose land-use practices and alternative policy solutions to ensure the provision of key EGS under climate and land-use changes. We summarized and synthesized the results of the project and provide insights into the ecological, socioeconomic, and political processes relevant for analyzing global change impacts on a European mountain region. In Mountland, an integrative approach was applied, combining methods from economics and the political and natural sciences to analyze ecosystem functioning from a holistic human-environment system perspective. In general, surveys, experiments, and model results revealed that climate and socioeconomic changes are likely to increase the vulnerability of the EGS analyzed. We regard the following key characteristics of coupled human-environment systems as central to our case study areas in mountain regions: thresholds, heterogeneity, trade-offs, and feedback. Our results suggest that the institutional framework should be strengthened in a way that better addresses these characteristics, allowing for (1) more integrative approaches, (2) a more network-oriented management and steering of political processes that integrate local stakeholders, and (3) enhanced capacity building to decrease the identified vulnerability as central elements in the policy process. Further, to maintain and support the future provision of EGS in mountain regions, policy making should also focus on project-oriented, cross-sectoral policies and spatial planning as a coordination instrument for land use in general.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HanKuhlicke2019,
  author    = {Han, Sungju and Kuhlicke, Christian},
  title     = {Reducing Hydro-Meteorological Risk by Nature-Based Solutions: What Do We},
  series = {Water},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Water},
  number    = {12},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {2073-4441},
  doi       = {10.3390/w11122599},
  pages     = {23},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Nature-based solutions (NBS) have recently received attention due to their potential ability to sustainably reduce hydro-meteorological risks, providing co-benefits for both ecosystems and affected people. Therefore, pioneering research has dedicated efforts to optimize the design of NBS, to evaluate their wider co-benefits and to understand promoting and/or hampering governance conditions for the uptake of NBS. In this article, we aim to complement this research by conducting a comprehensive literature review of factors shaping people's perceptions of NBS as a means to reduce hydro-meteorological risks. Based on 102 studies, we identified six topics shaping the current discussion in this field of research: (1) valuation of the co-benefits (including those related to ecosystems and society); (2) evaluation of risk reduction efficacy; (3) stakeholder participation; (4) socio-economic and location-specific conditions; (5) environmental attitude, and (6) uncertainty. Our analysis reveals that concerned empirical insights are diverse and even contradictory, they vary in the depth of the insights generated and are often not comparable for a lack of a sound theoretical-methodological grounding. We, therefore, propose a conceptual model outlining avenues for future research by indicating potential inter-linkages between constructs underlying perceptions of NBS to hydro-meteorological risks.},
  language  = {en}
}