Scaling in territorial ecological networks

Territorial ecological networks are coherent assemblages of areas representing natural and semi-natural landscape elements that need to be conserved, managed or, where appropriate, enriched or restored in order to ensure the favourable conservation status of ecosystems, habitats, species and landscapes of regional importance across their traditional range (Bennett, 1998). In this study we demonstrate the hierarchical character of territorial ecological networks, recognize common elements and functional differences between hierarchical levels, and analyze the downscaling and upscaling of the functions of ecological networks. Emerging from the examples of ecological networks at different hierarchical levels, we highlighted following common principles: connectivity, multifunctionality, continuity, and plenipotentiality

Urban agriculture as a keystone contribution towards securing sustainable and healthy development for cities in the future

esearch and practice during the last 20 years has shown that urban agriculture can contribute to minimising the effects of climate change by, at the same time, improving quality of life in urban areas. In order to do so most effectively, land use and spatial planning are crucial so as to obtain and maintain a supportive green infrastructure and to secure citizens' healthy living conditions. As people today trend more towards living in green and sustainable city centres that can offer fresh and locally produced food, cities become again places for growing food. The scope of urban agriculture thereby is to establish food production sites within the city's sphere; for example, through building-integrated agriculture including concepts such as aquaponics, indoor agriculture, vertical farming, rooftop production, edible walls, as well as through urban farms, edible landscapes, school gardens and community gardens. Embedded in changing urban food systems, the contribution of urban agriculture to creating sustainable and climate-friendly cities is pivotal as it has the capacity to integrate other resource streams such as water, waste and energy. This article describes some of the current aspects of the circular city debate where urban agriculture is pushing forward the development of material and resource cycling in cities.European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST): CA17133; EU Horizon 2020 Programmeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Data summarizing monitoring and evaluation for three European environmental policies in 9 cases across Europe

Subject area: Environmental policy. More specific subject area: Monitoring; evaluation; European Policy; Water Framework Directive; Natura 2000; Agri-Environment Schemes. Type of data: Tables and text. How data was acquired: Review and analysis of any publicly-available information on monitoring programs. Data format: Summarized, analyzed. Experimental factors: In 2017 the authors searched for publicly available about monitoring programs associated with 3 policy areas: the Water Framework Directive, Natura 2000 and Agri-Environment Schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy. Authors from each organization searched for information about monitoring in the country or region of the organization where they are based: Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Scotland (UK), Sweden. Internet searches of grey and academic literature were used: some authors also contacted policy contacts for advice about where this information could be found, but did not use any information that was not already publicly available. Experimental features: Bibliographic information on the information sources was recorded (see reference list below), and each author team searched for and summarized information about monitoring and evaluation according to a standard template (see below). Data source location: Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Scotland (UK), Sweden. Data accessibility: All of the data are within this article. Related research article: Companion paper to: Waylen, K.A.; Blackstock, K.L.; van Hulst. F.; Damian, C.; Horváth, F.; Johnson, R.; Kanka, R.; Külvik, M.; Macleod, C.; Meissner, C.; Oprina-Pavelescu, M.; Pino, J.; Primmer, E.; Rîșnoveanu, G.; Šatalová, B.; Silander, J.; Špulerová, J.; Suškevičs, M.; Van Uytvanck, J. 2019. Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems? Science of the Total Environment, 662: 373–384 [2].Value of the data • The data provide the first overview of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices carried out by a selection European member states and regions, under 3 European environmental policies (the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, and Agri-Environment Schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy). • The data permit comparison across cases as well as across policies, and so provide a baseline for comparative studies. • The source of information used to describe monitoring in each case are provided, thus providing a baseline for researchers seeking more in-depth analyses.The data presented in this DiB article provide an overview of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) carried out for 3 European environmental policies (the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, and Agri-Environment Schemes implemented under the Common Agricultural Policy), as implemented in 9 cases (Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Scotland (UK), Sweden). These data are derived from reports and documents about monitoring programs that were publicly-available online in 2017. The literature on M&E to support adaptive management structured the issues that have been extracted and summarized. The data is related to the research article entitled “Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?” [Stem et al., 2005]. The information provides a first overview of monitoring and evaluation that has been implemented in response to key European environmental policies. It provides a structured overview that permits a comparison of cases and policies and can assist other scholars and practitioners working on monitoring and evaluation

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

European Biodiversity Observation Network: D1.1 The Selection of Biodiversity indicators for EBONE Development Work

The main aim of this report is to assess which biodiversity indicators should be selected as the basis for developing new EBONE methodologies for assessing biodiversity. These methodologies will combine different types and scales of biodiversity relevant observations and form the basis of recommendations on the design and implementation of the European Biodiversity Observation Network. 2. The development of EBONE and the choice of these test indicators is set in the context of the emerging goal to develop a GEO (global) Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) and its implementation within an institutional framework operating at the European level. One of the main requirements from EBONE will be to provide continued access to data for CBD reporting against the 2010 target at national and European levels. Hence, the indicator selection process began with a brief overview of biodiversity indicators used (or proposed) in large scale (national, continental or global ) programmes. It covered indicators in the GEO Global Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), the European CBD indicators (SEBI), composite indicators and indicator taxa. It also made use of results and ongoing efforts of European research projects. 3. The lack of data is probably the biggest constraint on the development and use of indicators for large-scale (national, European and global) biodiversity assessments. Two of the key questions EBONE is addressing are: (i) can we make better use of the existing biodiversity observation data (e.g. to produce indicators) by combining them in novel ways and making better use of remote sensing technologies; and (ii) are there some simple observations that could be used across Europe within existing programmes that would give added value to existing data? The types of data we are looking to combine in this process are collected at different scales and with different methodologies and levels of sampling intensity. They include: (i) in-situ biodiversity survey and monitoring data on species or habitats i.e from field observations or samples; (ii) in-situ biodiversity data from Long-term Ecosystem Research Sites (LTER) in Europe; and (iii) remote sensing data, from both satellite and airborne data sources. 4. The EuMon database has shown that there are major gaps in the coverage of biodiversity data at the European level. Some of the most significant gaps for the delivery of biodiversity indicators are in relation to systems for monitoring changes in the extent and quality of habitats and the lack of systems and models for combining in situ observations with remotely sensed data to provide reliable European statistics and “wall to wall” assessments of a broader range of biodiversity indicators. 5. A habitat monitoring system (BioHab) has been developed that enables consistent recording and monitoring of habitats across Europe, and potentially, globally. The habitat monitoring system that EBONE is using is based on BioHab and has 154 General Habitat Categories (GHCs) derived from 16 easily identifiable Life-Forms and 18 Non Life Forms. BioHab provides an easily repeatable system for use in the field that can be cross-related to other habitat classification schemes such as Habitat Derective Annex I and EUNIS. The GHCs can be easily identified on the ground, because they are based on life forms. They may provide the lowest common denominator linking to other sources of data required for assessing biodiversity e.g. phytosociology, birds and butterflies. They may also be more easily discriminated from the air or space using remote sensing methods because of the system is based on habitat structure The BioHab approach provides an extremely powerful assessment tool for biodiversity, providing a missing link between detailed site-based species, population and community level measures and extensive assessments of habitats from remote sensing. 6. One of the main aims of EBONE is to develop and test methods aimed at realising the potential of BioHab as a core component of a European Biodiversity Observation system. To identify appropriate indicators for this development work we undertook an expert assessment of the SEBI “Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators” set of 26 indicators taking account of: the availability of data; and the potential added value of combining data from different sources (including BioHab) to produce a more cost-effective set of indicators. 7. The conclusion of this assessment was that EBONE would focus its initial development work on three main headline indicators covering: (i) habitats of European interest in the context of a broad habitat assessment; (ii) abundance and distribution of selected species (birds, butterflies and plants); and (iii) fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas. 8. Two additional indicators were also identified that might fill key gaps in the SEBI set. These were related to: (i) indicators of climate change impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems; and (ii) assessments of ecosystem services. These two areas may be considered again later in the project as methodologies for combining data from different sources are developed. 9. Work will now focus on the statistical aspects of inter-calibration and the development of criteria for assessing the added value of combining data from different sources

The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions : An interdisciplinary perspective

In this paper, we reflect on the implications for science, policy and practice of the recently introduced concept of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), with a focus on the European context. First, we analyse NBS in relation to similar concepts, and reflect on its relationship to sustainability as an overarching framework. From this, we derive a set of questions to be addressed and propose a general framework for how these might be addressed in NBS projects by funders, researchers, policy-makers and practitioners. We conclude that: (1) NBS need to be developed and discussed in relation to existing concepts to clarify their added value;(2) When considering and implementing NBS, the ‘relabelling’ of related concepts and the misuse of the concept have to be prevented in order to avoid misunderstanding, duplication and unintended consequences;(3) NBS as currently framed by the European Commission provides an opportunity for: a) transdisciplinary research into the design and implementation of solutions based on nature; and b) overcoming a bias towards development alternatives with narrow perspectives that focus on short-term economic gains and effectiveness;(4) The strength of the NBS concept is its integrative, systemic approach which prevents it from becoming just another “green communication tool” that provides justification for a classical model of natural resource exploitation and management measures.To realise their full potential, NBS must be developed by including the experience of all relevant stakeholders such that ‘solutions’ contribute to achieving all dimensions of sustainability. As NBS are developed, we must also moderate the expectations placed on them since the precedent provided by other initiatives whose aim was to manage nature sustainably demonstrates that we should not expect NBS to be cheap and easy, at least not in the short-term

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