Development of indicators for assessment of green infrastructure for a territorial network of ecological stability

Landscape structure and biotic indicators have a significant role in assessing the green infrastructure of a landscape and design of a territorial ecological network. In this contribution, a methodological approach has been developed for assessing and defining indicators of current land use and biota that can be used for designing a territorial network of ecological stability. We used the assessment of ecological stability of the elements of the current landscape structure, an index of the ecological stability of a representative geo-ecosystem, the cumulative effect of high ecological stability landscape elements, and the Shannon Diversity Index (SHDI) to measure the degree of entropy, or landscape diversity. The assessment of biota was based on qualitative habitat field data and an evaluation of their overall nature conservation importance based on the type of land cover and habitats, the importance of habitats, their current conservation status, how many rare habitats are in a region, and how many vulnerable species are present in habitats. The assessment was applied on a local level, using the example of the Dolný Lopašov study area. The spatial distribution of green infrastructure is not balanced within the study area. The most significant elements of the ecological network consist of natural and semi-natural habitats that have a favourable conservation status. The Malé Karpaty Mountains, situated in the northern region, are forest-covered and have the highest ecological stability. Intensively cultivated fields are dominant in the central and southern parts of the study areas and are characterised by a low proportion of green infrastructure and low ecological stability. The results of the modelling of the cumulative impact of landscape elements on ecological stability by distance show that the cumulative impact of woodland elements positively affects the ecological stability of the area, especially in the area of intensively cultivated fields, an element with a low degree of ecological stability. Using selected indicators of current landscape structure and biota helps to assess the overall ecological stability of the area, identify the most stable areas, as well as areas with the lowest ecological stability, where it is necessary to complete and design new elements of green infrastructure to increase the function of the ecological network

Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation : Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?

Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: however, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri-Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the environment is managed and monitored across Europe. We use a comparative approach to examine what is monitored, how monitoring is carried out, and how results are used to update management, based on publicly available documentation across nine regional and national cases. The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive management. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interventions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and processes, especially social components; and limited attention to how context affects systems, though this is sometimes considered via secondary data. The resulting data are sometimes publicly-accessible, but it is rarely clear if and how these influence decisions at any level, whether this be in the original policy itself or at the level of measures such as site management plans. Adjustments to policy-driven M&E could better enable learning for adaptive management, by reconsidering what supports a balanced understanding of socio-ecological systems and decision-making. Useful strategies include making more use of secondary data, and more transparency in data-sharing and decision-making. Several countries and policy areas already offer useful examples. Such changes are essential given the influence of policy, and the urgency of enabling adaptive management to safeguard socio-ecological systems. Highlights • Policy strongly influences Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) of socio-ecological systems. • We examine M&E of 3 major European policies in 9 regional and national cases. • Policy-driven M&E is imperfect versus ideals of M&E to support adaptive management. • Attention needed to systems, social issues, sharing data, and sharing intended uses. • Examples from across Europe and different policies offer ideas for improvement

Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies

The concept of ecosystem services has gained a strong political profile during the last 15 years. However, there is no specific EU policy devoted to the governing of ecosystem services. This article shows that the ecosystem services concept is already embedded in recent EU (environmentally-related) policies, such as the Biodiversity Strategy 2020 and the Invasive Alien Species Regulation. A review of 12 policies shows that, overall, the coherence between existing policies and the ecosystem services concept is moderate. Policies showing very high coherence are confined to the policy arenas that address natural ecosystems, forestry, or agriculture. Given the sectoral nature of most EU policies and the limited options for revision in the near future, opportunities for improving coherence are mostly expected in improving the integration of the ecosystem services concept in the implementation of existing EU policies at national and regional levels

Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation : Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?

Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: however, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri-Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the environment is managed and monitored across Europe. We use a comparative approach to examine what is monitored, how monitoring is carried out, and how results are used to update management, based on publicly available documentation across nine regional and national cases. The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive management. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interventions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and processes, especially social components; and limited attention to how context affects systems, though this is sometimes considered via secondary data. The resulting data are sometimes publicly-accessible, but it is rarely clear if and how these influence decisions at any level, whether this be in the original policy itself or at the level of measures such as site management plans. Adjustments to policy-driven M&E could better enable learning for adaptive management, by reconsidering what supports a balanced understanding of socio-ecological systems and decision-making. Useful strategies include making more use of secondary data, and more transparency in data-sharing and decision-making. Several countries and policy areas already offer useful examples. Such changes are essential given the influence of policy, and the urgency of enabling adaptive management to safeguard socio-ecological systems