This workshop strengthens the interface between science and practice in mountain hazard risk management, promoting mutual learning between researchers and practitioners. Focusing on how scientific knowledge and practical experience can be combined to address the impact of climate change on mountain risks in the European Alps, the workshop moves beyond a narrow focus on hazards, explicitly including exposure and vulnerability.
Scientific research indicates that changes in land use, socio-economic development, and governance structures often play a key role in determining future risk. Science can support practice by improving the assessment of exposure and vulnerability dynamics across spatial and temporal scales, and by providing scenario-based approaches that are aligned with climate projections and SSPs.
Conversely, practitioners can contribute valuable insights that are often lacking in scientific research. Local authorities and civil protection agencies can provide insights into institutional constraints, the challenges of implementation, informal practices, and the effectiveness of existing adaptation measures. Integrating this experiential knowledge is crucial for better representing the social and institutional dimensions of vulnerability.
The workshop emphasises the co-production of knowledge through dialogue between science and practice. It explores how different methods and areas of expertise can be combined to inform adaptive risk management strategies. By encouraging dialogue between different disciplines and sectors, the workshop aims to promote adaptive, context-sensitive risk management and strengthen climate resilience in the Alps.
Registered Abstracts
ID: 3.27
Examples of bridging science and practice in mountain hazard risk management – are there further needs and options?
Bernhard Gems
Abstract/Description
With a focus on the Austrian flood and torrential hazard risk management, a well-established dialogue and exchange exists between researchers and decision-makers. This dialogue covers involved disciplines and approaches, ranging from collaborations on site-specific studies to the joint development of guidelines and standards for standardized risk management at the territorial level. Examples from a technical/engineering perspective include: (i) developing complex hazard process models based on field evidence from event reconstruction and monitoring campaigns; (ii) conducting model-based analyses of the requirements, functions and operation of technical structures that mitigate hazard and damage potential; (iii) incorporating state-of-the-art and new research into standards, technical guidelines and policies; (iv) third-mission actions to communicate climate change related alterations of hazards and risk to the public, and (v) jointly developing methods and content for research project calls.
This workshop contribution highlights regional examples of successful collaboration and mutual exchange between research and practice, thereby focusing on the engineering discipline and centred mainly on hazards. Joint tasks address different components of hazard mitigation and risk reduction, and thus all reflect the fundamental problem of progressive land consumption, also in areas affected by mountain hazards.
The need to further enhance the dialogue between research and practice in mountain hazard risk management is particularly pertinent if – considering the impact of climate change in the coming decades – minor adjustments to our proven protection concepts and ways of thinking would no longer be sufficient and a more substantial adaptation of our structures and practices would be required. Firstly, options are discussed that address joint efforts to quantify changes in hazards and risk caused by climate change and determine which mitigation and adaptation approaches can be employed to counteract these changes. A holistic, interdisciplinary approach is required here. Secondly, the focus is on the designing and implementing of research projects. To ensure that research objectives and outcomes are more meaningful, accessible and understandable, science communication and third-mission components must become standard in research initiatives in a way that they are co-developed and jointly reviewed with decision-makers throughout all project phases.
ID: 3.39
Conducting multidisciplinary expert assessments in the context of a crisis: scientific knowledge, uncertainties after La Bérarde disaster (French Alps, June 2024)
Juliette Bazin Caroly, Sandrine; Ravanel, Ludovic
Abstract/Description
La Bérarde disaster of the 21 June 2024 in the Écrins massif (France), was made possible by the concurrence of various factors including a high availability of sediments, an intense rain-on-snow event, and the discharging of a supraglacial lake.
Following this event, a large diversity of scientists from different fields (glaciology, geomorphology, hydrology, torrential hydraulics, meteorology, snow science, seismology, and social sciences) was mobilised by the French State to investigate causes and chronology of the event. This case study has become particularly meaningful of the dynamics of scientific expertise during a crisis.
Based on around twenty semi-structured interviews with experts, this study examines the position of scientific experts in the production of knowledge in a crisis context.
Expert activity appears to be plural, negotiated and anchored in concrete situations. It includes distinguished ways of assuming one’s role, depending on the contexts of intervention, the temporalities involved, and uncertainties. At La Bérarde, expertise is largely embedded in a public commissioning process and aims at producing knowledge mobilised for action, without direct participation in decision-making.
When confronted with complex and multifactorial phenomena, multidisciplinary constitutes a central resource, enabling the articulation of partial but complementary forms of knowledge. This dialogue between different forms of knowledge contributes to consolidating diagnoses, while integrating uncertainty as a constitutive dimension of expertise. This uncertainty is discussed collectively and communicated to institutional decision-makers.
ID: 3.87
From Hazard Mapping to Decision Support: GIS-Based Indicators for Re-Inhabitation in Mountain Areas
Mountain and rural territories across Europe are experiencing the negative impacts of demographic decline, urbanisation, and climate-exacerbated natural hazards, leading to increasing vulnerability and territorial imbalance. Small villages and minor historical centres (MHCs) in alpine and inner areas are particularly exposed to hydrogeological hazards and climate-related pressures, while simultaneously facing service reduction and infrastructural fragility. Although numerous policy initiatives promote the revitalisation and re-inhabitation of these territories, depopulation trends persist. Addressing this gap requires a robust understanding of how environmental risk conditions interact with socio-economic and cultural dynamics, and how this knowledge can be operationalised through spatial data and decision-support tools.
This contribution represents a first step in the development of an interdisciplinary methodology aimed at establishing a spatial, data-driven framework to support evidence-based territorial strategies that integrate mountain risk management with re-inhabitation potential. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted following the PRISMA protocol, synthesising research on MHCs, rural and alpine settlements, hazard and climate-risk analysis, and GIS-based documentation and planning approaches, with a specific focus on multi-criteria evaluation methods. The review highlights persistent fragmentation in spatial, statistical, and environmental data, as well as the lack of standardised and interoperable indicators capable of bridging hazard exposure, accessibility, demographic dynamics, and territorial capital within spatial decision-support systems. In particular, the review identifies valuation-oriented socio-economic metrics as essential for assessing the feasibility and desirability of re-inhabitation in risk-prone contexts.
Based on these results, a preliminary set of indicators is proposed to support spatialisation and integration within a GIS-based multi-criteria analysis. A multiscale framework combines environmental and hazard indicators with socio-economic, infrastructural, and socio-cultural variables, harmonising geospatial data from geoportals and remote-sensing datasets. These data are organised into an interoperable geodatabase and implemented through GIS and WebGIS platforms, supporting spatial analysis and map-based storytelling. The relationships among these variables are intended to guide the analysis and planning of policies and strategies that support the rehabilitation of MHCs from a sustainable and resilient perspective.
ID: 3.86
Monitoring of the Kleines Nesthorn before the Blatten rock avalanche
Janine Wetter Carrel, Maxence; Stitelmann, Olafur; St. Pierre, Théo; Von Wartburg, Jonas
Abstract/Description
On Monday, 19th of May 2025, the village of Blatten in the Lötschental (VS, Switzerland) was completely evacuated because of alpine mass movements detected on the Kleines Nesthorn. On the same day, Geoprevent installed an interferometric radar that provided data on which the local authorities relied to manage the crisis. The radar recorded small movements of the mountain independent of rain, snow, fog or darkness and could therefore see movements that a human eye could not see.
Only one day before the Birch glacier collapse, Geoprevent installed a high-resolution camera on the Eastern moraine of the glacier to monitor the upper part of the glacier, that was masked by its front for the radar. These images revealed a dramatic picture during the last hours and showed a rapid movement of the glacier. With these images and the help of complex algorithms, Geoprevent could provide periodic analysis of the deformations of the Birch Glacier to support the local experts in their risk assessments.
During the crisis and afterwards, Geoprevent was mandated to install a comprehensive multi-component monitoring system of the Kleines Nesthorn, Birch and Nest glaciers. Altogether, an interferometric radar, two high-resolution camera systems, two pan-tilt-zoom camera and several GPS systems were installed. The data gathered provided key and unique insights into the processes happening before and after the collapse of the Birch glacier. The data is currently being post-processed and prepared to be made available for the scientific community. In this work we present an operation point of view.
ID: 3.107
A New High-Alpine In-Situ Rock-Slope Laboratory for Long-Term Monitoring of Rock Temperatures at the Stubai Glacier, Austria
Tobias Schilcher Andlinger, Hannah; Formayer, Herbert; Fey, Christine; Zangerl, Christian
Abstract/Description
Rock fall events in alpine regions are increasing in frequency and intensity. Triggers such as extreme precipitation, freeze–thaw cycles, glacier retreat, and permafrost
degradation are expected to intensify due to climate change. These processes pose an immense risk to communities and infrastructure, underlining the need for research and monitoring in highly developed mountain regions such as the Alps.
We present a new in-situ rock-slope laboratory at the Stubai Glacier, initiated during the CAUTION project, which enables long-term monitoring of rock-slope behavior, specifically rock temperatures and their fluctuations in steep rock faces affected by glacier retreat and thawing permafrost. The laboratory is located along the Bildstöckljoch–Eisjoch–Schaufeljoch–Schaufelspitze ridge at an elevation of 3100–3200 m. A total of 13 temperature loggers were drilled 20–100 cm deep into the rock, targeting near-surface rock thermal conditions. The set-up spans all major slope expositions. Additional sensors were installed in the glacier’s randkluft, an area undergoing significant change. Installed in June 2023, the system provides continuous near-surface rock-temperature measurements at 10-minute intervals.
The data provides insights into daily and seasonal temperature variability, including differences related to slope orientation and distance to the glacier. These measurements are combined with high-resolution deformation-monitoring results and episodic remote-sensing campaigns, enabling detailed investigations. Additionally, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flights equipped with thermal infrared cameras are used to map rock-surface temperatures. This provides further insights into spatial temperature variability and is linked with the in-situ rock-temperature data.
The initiative aims to generate long-term datasets that will be made publicly accessible, further expanding the Austrian permafrost monitoring network and improving data on rock-slope stability. Additionally, it will enhance general knowledge about the impacts of changing temperatures in high-mountain regions.
ID: 3.106
Debris-Flow Mitigation Across the European Alps: A 150-Year Synthesis of Practice, Science, and Governance
Madlaina Juvalta Keiler, Margreth; Gems, Bernhard
Abstract/Description
In the European Alps, debris flows represent one of the most severe natural hazards. Causing major damage and fatalities, they remain a persistent threat to Alpine communities. Minimising the risks associated with debris flows is therefore still of great importance today.
The way in which debris flow processes are explained and understood, and the strategies used to minimise impacts on lives, infrastructure and agricultural land, have changed throughout human history. The development of debris flow management is strongly influenced by technological achievements (e.g., new transport and construction opportunities), a growing understanding of natural hazard processes, governmental changes, and in the variability in the perception and acceptance of debris flow related risks. The introduction of the first government regulations (Torrent Control Act) and the formation of new authorities responsible for torrent control in the late 19th century were important steps towards improving organisation and coordination in the management of debris flow events. Recent debris flow management strategies typically involve complex combinations of mitigation measures, including planning, monitoring and early warning, in addition to structural protection measures. However, each Alpine country has its own history of developing debris flow mitigation strategies.
Based on a literature review, we identify and analyse key criteria for the development of debris flow management strategies in Alpine countries and summarise the key findings in a timeline. Overall, this study provides a comprehensive overview of the changing and evolving approaches to debris flow management in the European Alps over the last 150 years. These insights can serve as a source of inspiration for possible ways of dealing with natural hazards, while also demonstrating limitations of transferring knowledge between practitioners, government and academia.
Submitted Abstracts
If you are not yet logged-in, please log in to your My#Conf environment
Click “Submissions” and select the session you want to review (you need to be chair or co-chair to see the session and the submissions to the session) by clicking on the “external link” symbol:
On the selected session page, scroll down to get to the section “Submitted abstracts”.
-> this list shows all abstracts submitted to your session.
-> each line shows one abstract
To get to the review section, please click on the “eye” symbol: of the abstract.
-> the abstract expands and new sections (First author, Co-author(s) and description) appear.
-> additional, the abstract review area appears below the abstract content.
The review area gives you now a new panel to adjust: FOR CO-CHAIRS
-> dropdown menu to set a review recommendation (you can overwrite this recommendation as often as you want)
-> optional: comments to share with your chair-colleagues and the organizing committee (max. 50 characters, not visible for the authors of the abstract) INFO: You can change your review (incl. comments) for an abstract as often as you want until the chair makes the final decision. Changes are overwritten and not archived.
FOR CHAIRS
-> checkbox to set your final review (when activated, you confirm your final choice and will close the review process of this abstract)
-> optional: comments to share with your co-chair(s) and the organizing committee (max. 50 characters, not visible for the authors of the abstract) INFO: You can leave comments without making your final review as often as you want. Changes are overwritten and not archived. When activating the checkbox, you make your final review and close the review process for this abstract. In case of an erroneous review, you can of course contact us via contact form (please provide the abstract number). You can do the review no matter if your co-chair(s) have already submitted a review recommendation or not.
Details of the used icons/symbols
Once the review of the abstract is completed by the chair, this icon appears.
If at least one review/comment has been provided by the co-chair, this icon appears.
If at least one comment has been provided by the (co-)chair(s), this icon appears.
IMPORTANT: The review result (of the chair) is a general recommendation to the organizing committee, which finally decides on the review. In most cases, we will follow your decisions and in case changes are needed due to organizational issues (e.g. not enough contributions for an individual session), we would contact you. The authors of the abstracts will not be informed immediately after you completed the review but after the end of the review phase.
Abstracts are only visible to (co-)chairs at the moment. Please log in with your account to see this list.
If you are not yet logged-in, please log in to your My#Conf environment
Click “Submissions” and select the session you want to review (you need to be chair or co-chair to see the session and the submissions to the session) by clicking on the “external link” symbol:
On the selected session page, scroll down to get to the section “Submitted abstracts”.
-> this list shows all abstracts submitted to your session.
-> each line shows one abstract
To get to the review section, please click on the “eye” symbol: of the abstract.
-> the abstract expands and new sections (First author, Co-author(s) and description) appear.
-> additional, the abstract review area appears below the abstract content.
The review area gives you now a new panel to adjust: FOR CO-CHAIRS
-> dropdown menu to set a review recommendation (you can overwrite this recommendation as often as you want)
-> optional: comments to share with your chair-colleagues and the organizing committee (max. 50 characters, not visible for the authors of the abstract) INFO: You can change your review (incl. comments) for an abstract as often as you want until the chair makes the final decision. Changes are overwritten and not archived.
FOR CHAIRS
-> checkbox to set your final review (when activated, you confirm your final choice and will close the review process of this abstract)
-> optional: comments to share with your co-chair(s) and the organizing committee (max. 50 characters, not visible for the authors of the abstract) INFO: You can leave comments without making your final review as often as you want. Changes are overwritten and not archived. When activating the checkbox, you make your final review and close the review process for this abstract. In case of an erroneous review, you can of course contact us via contact form (please provide the abstract number). You can do the review no matter if your co-chair(s) have already submitted a review recommendation or not.
Details of the used icons/symbols
Once the review of the abstract is completed by the chair, this icon appears.
If at least one review/comment has been provided by the co-chair, this icon appears.
If at least one comment has been provided by the (co-)chair(s), this icon appears.
IMPORTANT: The review result (of the chair) is a general recommendation to the organizing committee, which finally decides on the review. In most cases, we will follow your decisions and in case changes are needed due to organizational issues (e.g. not enough contributions for an individual session), we would contact you. The authors of the abstracts will not be informed immediately after you completed the review but after the end of the review phase.
We are processing your request…Just a few seconds — thanks for your patience…Almost done — preparing everything for you…Huuuh… this seems to be a difficult thing 🤔I’m not sure if I can manage this right now…
Please refresh the page — I think something went wrong.
If this happens again, please get in touch with us.
