Rohetaristu kui elurikkuse korraldamise vahend maastikul

EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline report of the European Environment Agency1 andmetel on maakasutuse muutustest tingitud elupaikade killustumine, vaesustumine ja hävimine põhilisi elurikkuse kao käivitajaid Euroopas. Viimastel kümnenditel on suured maaalad asustatud linnadena või läbi lõigatud transporditaristute poolt. Samas traditsioonilised maakasutuse viisid, eriti põllumajanduses ja metsanduses, on asendatud intensiivsemate, mehhaniseeritud ja tööstuslike tegevustega. Umbes 8000 km² e 5 % EL maast on võetud tehiskasutusse ainult viimase kümne aastaga. Aastast 1990 aastani 2003 on rajatud 15000 km uusi maanteid. Selle tulemusena loetakse ligikaudu 30 % Euroopa territooriumist väga killustunuks. Kõrge killustumus on tõstunud ökosüsteemide haavatavust hajusate välissurvetele nagu kuivendamine, toitainete rohkenemine ja hapestumine. Peale selle, takistunud rände- ja levivõimaluste tõttu loomade ja taimede isoleeritud asurkonnad on enam haavatavad kohalike väljasuremiste tõttu. Nende ilmingute vastutoimena on Euroopas algatatud mitmeid tegevusi, mis püüavad lahendada elupaikade killustumise ja sidususe probleeme pakkudes välja kõrge elurikkusega alade ökoloogiliselt sidusaid võrgustikke. Kolmandal „Keskkond Euroopale“ ministrite konverentsil 1995 Sofias otsustasid 54 Euroopa maad rajada 2005. aastaks Üle-euroopalise ökoloogilise võrgustiku (Pan-European Ecological Network – PEEN). Selle võrgustiku eesmärk oli raamida nii füüslist võrgustikku kui ka ühiseid sellesuunalisi üle-euroopalisi tegevusi. Tugipunktideks võeti erinevaid olemasolevaid algatusi, eriti aga Berni konventsiooni Emerald võrgustikku ning linnu- ja loodusdirektiivi Natura 2000 võrgustikku. 1995. a alates laienes Euroopa Liit 27 liikmesmaani, tänu sellele on Natura aladega (arvestuslikult 26000 tk) kaetud ligikaudu 18 % ühenduse pindalast. Seega on EL olemas ühine nurgakivi elurikkuse ja looduspärandi kaitseks. EL natura-seadustik püüab saavutada Natura-alade ökoloogilist sidusust ja lõimumist ruumilise planeerimisega, praegu küll ilma seadusepõhise kohustuseta. Loodusdirektiivi 10. artikli kohaselt peavad liikmesmaad ergutama oma maakasutuse ja arengupoliitikas loodusliku loomastiku ja taimestiku jaoks enim oluliste maastikutunnuste korraldamist (nt rände, levi ja geneetilise informatsiooni vahetamise jaoks vältimatud maastiku joon- ja pidevstruktuurid ning astmekivid), et parandada ökoloogilise võrgustiku sidusust. Sarnasetl linnudirektiivi 3. artikkel kohustab liikmesmaid võtma meetmeid, et kaitsta, alal hoida või taastada direktiivi lisa 1 liikide elupaikade piisav mitmekesisus ja suurus. Vaatamata ülanimetatud regulatsioonidele jätkub elurikkuse kadumine ja ökosüsteemide allakäik. Rohetaristu kontseptsioon on käige värskem EL looduskaitsepoliitika vastus ülalkirjeldatud trendide muutmiseks ning hiljuti seatud EL Elurikkuse strateegia aastani 2020 seatud eesmärkide saavutamiseks. See idee põhineb olemasolevate instrumentide (nt Natura 2000) kasutamisele, omades siiski laiemat haaret kuna sisaldab elurikkust ja ökosüsteeme ka väljaspool kaitsealasid. See arendab erinevate maakasutust mõjutavate majandussektorite integreerumist, et tagada ökosüsteemide elastsus ja ökosüsteemi hüviste jätkuv pakkumine.Materjal on valminud Euroopa Liidu programmi INTERREG IVC projekti „Regionaalne poliitika ja infovahetus elurikkuse ja maastikulise mitmekesisuse kaitseks ja väärtustamiseks Euroopas (REVERSE)“ raames 2012. aastal. Projekti toetas Keskkonnainvesteeringute Keskus

Deconstructing landscape pattern : applications of remote sensing to physiognomic landscape mapping

Funding Information: This research was supported by European Social Fund?s Dora Plus Programme (Grant No. 4-12/89). Authors are grateful to Ms Joanna Storie (Estonian University of Life Sciences) for English editing and proofreading, applied to the text. Publisher Copyright: © 2019, Springer Nature B.V.In 1939, Carl Troll pointed out that “air photo interpretation is to a large extent landscape ecology”. From that time forward, remote sensing has been applied across different disciplines to comprehend the holistic and dynamic spatial layout of the visual Earth environment. However, its applicability in the domain of landscape character assessment, landscape design and planning is still questionable. The purpose of this paper was to synthesise some historical and current applications of remote sensing for the decomposition of the continual visual landscape from a bird’s eye perspective and to explore the potential for bridging geographic processes with visual perception and an appreciation of the landscape pattern. From the point of view of landscape ecology, the organisation of the landscape pattern [namely, the size, shape (form), number, density and diversity, the complexity of landscape elements, and colours and textures of the land cover] is crucial for the cognition of both the visual landscape experience and the geographic processes. There are numerous pieces of evidence from the literature that remote sensing data are widely implemented in the modelling of physiognomic landscape. The synthesis of the literature concludes with perspective directions of remote sensing applications, such as mapping the status of the ecosystem (landscape) services provision, the delineation of the boundaries of the protected areas based on the quality of the visual environment, and the assessment of the sustainability of the land use practices, regarding their impact on landscape aesthetics extent.Peer reviewe

ECOLOGICAL NETWORK AS A MULTI-LEVEL SPATIAL PLANNING TOOL FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: ANALYSIS OF AN ESTONIAN CASE STUDY

The Estonian concept of ecological networks (the Green Network) is implemented at different administrative levels by including multiple stakeholders. Building ecologically coherent Green Infrastructure is also one strategic aim of the European Union’s environmental policy. An embedded case study shows that contradictions between governance levels and ineffective stakeholder involvement measures have caused negative influence on land use decision-making processes on a local level. We further identified that the process of integrating the ecological network concept into the land use planning system has characteristics of vertical decentralisation, but the lack of relevant coordination have precluded achieving satisfactory results regarding stakeholder involvement and co-operation.KEY WORDS: ecological networks, green infrastructure, multi-level governance, stakeholder participation, spatial planning.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15181/tbb.v69i1.105

Natura 2000 and spatial planning

Spatial planning which reconciles nature conservation with other policies' objectives can be a useful tool for implementing the EU nature legislation. However, a thorough exploration of the potential role of spatial planning and its instruments for the implementation of Natura 2000 has not yet been made either at EU or Member State level. In order to bridge this knowledge gap, this study provides an insight into the role and functions of spatial planning policies at EU and Member State level in relation to Natura 2000 and Nature Directives more generally. The key areas of analysis in this study are the notion and rationale of spatial planning, its instruments and governance processes, the mechanisms for integration of Natura 2000 in spatial planning processes and in sectoral policies, the EU-legal frameworks, cross border-cooperation and relevant spatial planning technologies

Learning and the transformative potential of citizen science

The number of collaborative initiatives between scientists and volunteers (i.e., citizen science) is increasing across many research fields. The promise of societal transformation together with scientific breakthroughs contributes to the current popularity of citizen science (CS) in the policy domain. We examined the transformative capacity of citizen science in particular learning through environmental CS as conservation tool. We reviewed the CS and social-learning literature and examined 14 conservation projects across Europe that involved collaborative CS. We also developed a template that can be used to explore learning arrangements (i.e., learning events and materials) in CS projects and to explain how the desired outcomes can be achieved through CS learning. We found that recent studies aiming to define CS for analytical purposes often fail to improve the conceptual clarity of CS; CS programs may have transformative potential, especially for the development of individual skills, but such transformation is not necessarily occurring at the organizational and institutional levels; empirical evidence on simple learning outcomes, but the assertion of transformative effects of CS learning is often based on assumptions rather than empirical observation; and it is unanimous that learning in CS is considered important, but in practice it often goes unreported or unevaluated. In conclusion, we point to the need for reliable and transparent measurement of transformative effects for democratization of knowledge production

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