Modelling with stakeholders to integrate biodiversity into land-use planning - Lessons learned in Réunion Island (Western Indian Ocean)

International audienceThis paper considers participatory modelling to integrate biodiversity Conservation into land use planning and to facilitate the incorporation of ecological knowledge into public decision making for spatial planning. Réunion Island has experienced rapid urban and agricultural expansion, which threaten its unique biodiversity. In this context, we designed three participatory modelling sequences, involving overall multidisciplinary researchers and stakeholders. The sequences aimed 1) to map land-use and biodiversity, 2) to develop a conservation plan following systematic conservation planning principles using a spatial optimization tool MARXAN) and 3) to simulate coupled land-use/conservation scenarios using a multi-agent system (MAS). The conservation plan confirms that priority areas for biodiversity protection are located on the coast where rapid land-use changes occur. Nevertheless, stakeholders from the urban and agricultural sector didn‟t participate to this sequence. Indeed, conservation planning tools are useful to locate conservation priorities but they have to be designed with stakeholders to be accepted as negotiation tool. Besides, the researchers engaged in this second equence were perceived as conservation stakeholders rather than holders of scientific knowledge. In the third sequence, the researchers involved adopted the stance of facilitating the elicitation of each stake and gathered trust from stakeholders. Overall, we conclude that the participatory development of land-use simulation models should be promoted to explore alternative scenarios for biodiversity conservation with stakeholders. In a situation of land-use conflict, a gradual and sequential participatory modelling approach should be implemented to fit into public decision-making processes

Applying an integrated landscape characterization and evaluation tool to small islands (Pico, Azores, Portugal)

Each landscape is determined and can be characterised by two types of environmental factors: stable biophysical characteristics and manageable land use patterns. The consideration of both these characterisation domains allows the definition of a homogeneous system of reference (the stable characteristics) with which every possible land use pattern can be compared through the use of common evaluation algorithms. The Integrated Landscape Assessment (ILA) concept builds a framework for data retrieval and evaluation processing that maximizes the following advantages: through the use of a stable reference system, it allows the comparative simulation of different land use scenarios, as well as the permanent availability of the same reference system, independently from the intensity of land use changes throughout the years. It also allows the use of different evaluation algorithms according to different evaluation contexts or paradigms, without having to repeat or adapt the characterisation process. The present paper illustrates the basic concepts on which ILA is based and developed as well as its application to ecological planning and systematic conservation planning in the Pico Island (Azores Archipelago)

Spatial Conservation Prioritization of the Green Infrastructure of the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Using the Zonation Method

Biotopes and biodiversity within the Metropolitan Area of Helsinki (cities of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa and Kauniainen) were prioritized with a spatial conservation prioritization software called Zonation. The aim of the thesis was to examine how different, largely urban or semi-urban, areas supported biodiversity and thus, indirectly, ecosystem services provisioning. Furthermore, the effects of the new City of Helsinki Strategic Plan 2050 on the prioritization were examined. The analyses were based on expert elicitations, in which different urban biotopes were evaluated in terms of how well they supported species richness and the occurrence of specialist species of 8 taxonomic groups. Following the biotope classification, an urban biotope map was compiled from various GIS sources. Based on the expert answers, these biotope maps were then converted to suitability maps for each of the eight taxonomic groups. The urban biotope map, as well as the suitability maps, were made according to two land-use versions: current land-use in the research area, and a scenario describing the actual City of Helsinki Strategic Plan 2050. Separate Zonation prioritizations were then made for both scenarios. Urban biotopes a-priori evaluated as important for biodiversity, such as lakes and their shores, ruderal areas, dry meadows, manor yards, shoreline meadows and herb-rich forests, became emphasized in Zonation prioritizations as well, whereas the currently heavily built areas received lowest conservation priority in the analysis. Thus, according to this study, densification of the current residential and built-up areas does not threaten the urban biodiversity or ecosystem services of the Metropolitan Area of Helsinki. According to the present analysis, the new Helsinki Strategic Plan would have some relatively small effects on biodiversity in the research area. While the plan proposes development in some top-value biodiversity areas, the estimated effects of the plan were on average only a 3.3% loss of biotopes across taxonomic groups. Nevertheless, the plans of Helsinki could influence biodiversity priority areas in neighboring cities, and I recommend that the broader Metropolitan Area should be treated as a whole from the perspective of urban biodiversity. Rather than preserving sets of defined species, multi-functionality and ecosystem services provided by urban biodiversity should be emphasized when planning for urban nature conservation. As biodiversity ultimately underlies and supports both of these objectives, it should be central in the urban planning as well. Spatial conservation prioritization can well be used for ecologically sustainable urban planning, as long as the quality of the input data is taken care of and different uncertainties and limitations of the analyses are recognized in interpretation.Työssä arvotettiin pääkaupunkiseudun (Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen) alueet Zonation-nimisellä, ekologiaan pohjaavaan maankäytön suunnitteluun tarkoitetulla ohjelmistolla. Työn tarkoituksena oli tutkia, miten eri alueet tukivat biodiversiteettiä ja välillisesti myös ekosysteemipalveluja. Lisäksi tutkittiin, miten Helsingin yleiskaavaehdotus muuttaisi tärkeimpien luontoarvojen sijainteja ja esiintymistasoja koko pääkaupunkiseudun tasolla. Lähtöaineistoina käytettiin kahdeksaa eri eliöryhmää koskevia asiantuntija-arviointeja, joissa erilaisia kaupunkibiotooppeja oli arvotettu sen mukaan, kuinka hyvin biotoopit tukevat eliöryhmien lajirikkautta ja vaateliaita lajeja. Erilaisia paikkatietoaineistoja yhdistelemällä luotiin asiantuntija-arvioinnin biotooppiluokittelua vastaava kaupunkibiotooppikartta, josta muokattiin eri eliöryhmiä tukevien alueiden soveltuvuuskartat asiantuntijavastausten perusteella. Soveltuvuuskartat tehtiin kuvaamaan erikseen nykytilaa sekä tilannetta, jossa Helsingin yleiskaava 2050 -ehdotuksen mukainen maankäyttö on toteutunut. Soveltuvuuskarttojen perusteella suoritettiin Zonation-priorisointianalyysit. Ennakkoon laadukkaiksi arvioidut kaupunkibiotoopit, kuten järvet rantavyöhykkeineen, ruderaatit, kedot, kartanopuistot, merenrantaniityt ja lehdot, korostuivat myös Zonation-priorisoinnin jälkeen pääkaupunkiseudun kaikkein arvokkaimpina alueina. Sen sijaan nykyiset asuin- ja muut tehokkaasti rakennetut alueet olivat vähiten arvokkaita alueita, eikä niiden tiivistäminen juuri uhkaa tämän työn tulosten mukaan pääkaupunkiseudun biodiversiteettiä tai ekosysteemipalveluita. Helsingin yleiskaavaehdotus vaikuttaa jonkin verran luontoarvoihin pääkaupunkiseudulla. Kaavaehdotus ei kuitenkaan tuhoa merkittävässä määrin eri eliöryhmille soveltuvia alueita, vaikka ehdotuksessa esitetään rakentamista myös pääkaupunkiseudun arvokkaimmille alueille: eliöryhmiä tukevia alueita menetettiin keskimäärin 3,3 %. Helsingin maankäytön muutokset heijastuivat myös muiden pääkaupunkiseudun kaupunkien luontoarvojen sijoittumiseen, joten seutua tulisi käsitellä kokonaisuutena biodiversiteettikysymyksissä. Kaupunkiluonnon suojelussa korostuvat yksittäisten lajien suojelun sijasta kaupunkiluonnon monitoiminnallisuuden ja ekosysteemipalvelujen turvaaminen. Näiden asioiden tarjoamisessa biodiversiteetillä on kuitenkin kriittinen rooli, joten se tulisi huomioida maankäytössä mahdollisimman kattavasti. Spatiaalinen suojelupriorisointi soveltuu hyvin osaksi kaupunkiseutujen ekologisesti kestävän maankäytön suunnittelua, kunhan lähtöaineistojen laatuun kiinnitetään huomiota ja priorisoinnin erilaiset epävarmuudet ja rajoitteet tunnistetaan riittävän ajoissa

Evaluating and systematically improving the European Union’s nature protection network towards current and potential ecoregion representation targets

In October 2020, the signatories of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) need to adopt a new global strategy for biodiversity protection. With biodiversity loss ongoing, scientists demand ambitious targets for the CBD’s post-2020 biodiversity strategy. Simultaneously, the European Union’s (EU’s) national biodiversity strategy runs out in 2020. Policymakers need assessments of the progress towards the current biodiversity strategy but also scenarios investigating the implications of potential post- 2020 targets for well-informed decision-making. The aim of this thesis was therefore to develop a framework for evaluating and improving the ecological representation of the EU’s protected area (PA) network based on systematic conservation planning principles. This framework was applied in two studies: First, to evaluate the Natura 2000 network’s progress towards Aichi Target 11, which signatory parties to the CBD should accomplish until 2020. Second, to explore three scenarios illustrating how the EU could expand its PA network systematically to achieve potential higher 30% or 50% ecoregion coverage targets. The presented framework is the first that enables the evaluation and improvement of non-species biodiversity surrogates’ representation for the EU’s full PA extent including all 28 member states. It provides a gap analysis based on recently developed representation metrics and introduces a linear programming modeling system to simulate cost-efficient network expansion. The first study revealed that the coverage of six ecoregions falls short of the 10% representation target defined by the technical rationale to Aichi Target 11. 15 187 km² (0.35% of the European Union’s land territory) would be required to close these existing coverage gaps. The second study showed that to realize 30% and 50% ecoregion coverage, the EU would need to add 6.6% and 24.2% of its terrestrial area to its PA network, respectively. For all three scenarios, the EU could designate most recommended new PAs in semi‐ or natural ecosystems. However, some ecoregions did not have enough natural areas left to implement the ecoregion coverage targets. Therefore, some member states would also need to establish new PAs on productive land. Overall, the results of the first study show that the Natura 2000 network might be the world’s largest PA network, but it is still not ecologically representative and should therefore not be considered complete. The findings of the second study illustrate that more than half of all European ecoregions already reach 30% PA coverage and the remaining gap towards fully achieving that goal could be closed in the majority of ecoregions by protecting the remaining semi- or natural area. However, much greater effort would be needed to implement the Half-Earth vision in the EU. Both studies offer valuable information for the EU’s post-2020 biodiversity strategy debate and can support discussions on the future of European biodiversity conservation.Die aktuelle Strategie der Biodiversitätskonvention läuft im Jahr 2020 aus, ohne dass der weltweite Biodiversitätsverlust bislang gestoppt werden konnte. Wissenschaftler fordern nun deutlich ambitioniertere Schutzziele für die neu zu verhandelnde Strategie der nächsten Dekade. Gleichzeitig muss die Europäische Union (EU) eine neue Biodiversitätsstrategie formulieren. Um dazu gute Entscheidungen auf politischer Ebene treffen zu können braucht es fundiertes Wissen zum Umsetzungsstand der aktuellen Schutzziele und Szenarien, die die Auswirkungen potentieller neuer Schutzziele evaluieren. Ziel dieser Thesis war es, das europäische Naturschutzgebietsnetzwerk hinsichtlich seiner ökologischen Repräsentanz zu evaluieren und aufzuzeigen, wie gegebenenfalls vorhandene Schutzlücken basierend auf Prinzipien der systematischen Naturschutzplanung geschlossen werden könnten. Dazu wurden zwei Studien verfasst. Für die erste Studie wurde untersucht, ob das Natura 2000 Netzwerk der EU ökologisch repräsentativ im Sinne von Aichi Ziel 11 der aktuellen Strategie der Biodiversitätskonvention ist. Die zweite Studie zeigt mit drei verschiedenen Szenarien auf, wie das gesamte Schutzgebietsnetzwerk der EU systematisch erweitert werden könnte um deutlich ambitioniertere 30% oder 50% Schutzziele für jede Ökoregion in der EU umzusetzen. Die Methodik, die beiden Studien zugrunde liegt, ermöglicht es, das gesamte Schutzgebietsnetzwerk aller 28 EUMitgliedsstaaten hinsichtlich des Schutzstatus von Ökoregionen und Habitaten zu evaluieren. Dazu werden kürzlich entwickelte Repräsentanz-Maßzahlen verwendet, um noch vorhandene Schutzlücken aufzuzeigen. Um diese Lücken möglichst systematisch und kosteneffizient zu schließen, wurde zudem ein auf linearer Optimierung basierendes Modellsystem entwickelt. Die Ergebnisse der ersten Studie zeigen, dass das Natura 2000 Netzwerk von sechs europäischen Ökoregionen weniger als 10% schützt und damit nicht das Schutzniveau realisiert hat, dass notwendig wäre, damit es als ökologisch repräsentativ im Sinne von Aichi Ziel 11 gelten kann. Um diese Lücke zu schließen müsste die EU auf zusätzlich 15 187 km² (0.35% der Landfläche der EU) neue Schutzgebiete ausweisen. Die zweite Studie zeigt auf, dass die EU noch 6.6% ihrer Landfläche schützen müsste um das 30% Schutzziel für alle Ökoregionen zu verwirklichen und 24.2%, wenn das 50% Schutzziel realisiert werden sollte. Für alle getesteten Szenarien könnten die Schutzziele in den meisten Ökoregionen durch das Unterschutzstellen von naturnahen Flächen erreicht werden. In manchen Ökoregionen ist jedoch nicht mehr ausreichend naturnahe Fläche vorhanden. Dort müssten Mitgliedsstaaten auch intensiv land- und forstwirtschaftlich genutzte Flächen extensivieren um Schutzziele zu erreichen. Die Ergebnisse der ersten Studie zeigen, dass das Natura 2000 Netzwerk, obwohl es das weltweit größte Naturschutznetzwerk ist, nicht ökologisch repräsentativ ist und daher nicht als fertiggestellt betrachtet werden sollte. EU Mitgliedsstaaten sollten vielmehr weiter daran arbeiten noch vorhandene Schutzlücken zu schließen. Wie die zweite Studie zeigt, hat mehr als die Hälfte der europäischen Ökoregionen das 30% Schutzziel bereits erreicht und die noch vorhandenen Lücken könnten in fast allen Ökoregionen durch den zusätzlichen Schutz naturnaher Flächen geschlossen werden. Deutlich größere Anstrengungen müssten unternommen werden um die „Half-Earth“ Vision in der EU umzusetzen. Die Ergebnisse beider Studien können die Debatte um mögliche Ziele für die neue Biodiversitätsstrategie der EU nach 2020 unterstützen und Diskussionen über die Zukunft des Biodiversitätsschutzes innerhalb der EU anregen

Relevant data and information for a comprehensive conservation planning in small islands

The present report analyses the problematic of conservation planning and management in small central Atlantic islands, developing Conservation planning and management approaches that can bring to this particular context. Particular attention is given to the ways of development of feasible governance systems, particularly trough the development of comprehensible environmental characterization and evaluation tolls, able to compare and display alternative development scenarios and model their relative advantages and disadvantages, and base processes of contratualization and trade-offs involving all stakeholders in an active participatory way. An application to the island of Pico (Azores) is presented

Mapping, modelling and discussing rural development options

Verburg, P.H. [Promotor