A bird’s eye view over ecosystem services in Natura 2000 sites across Europe

Abstract

Recent 'New Conservation' approaches called for more ecosystem services (ES) emphasis in conservation. We analysed data from 3,757 Natura 2000 special protection areas (SPAs) and translated positive and negative impacts listed by conservation managers into indicators of the use of nine provisioning, regulating and cultural ES. Overall, the use of ES is considered by SPA managers to affect conservation goals more negatively than positively. ES associated with livestock keeping and fodder production are recorded as having the highest fraction of positive impacts on SPAs, ranging from 88% and 78% in the Boreal biogeographic region to 20% and 6% in the Mediterranean. The use of ES varied according to dominant habitat type, highlighting the dependence of specific ES on associated ecosystem functions. For instance, fibre production was the predominant ES throughout forest habitats while crop, fodder and livestock exhibit similar patterns of dominance across agricultural landscapes. In contrast, the use of wild food and recreation activities are seen as causing mainly negative effects across all habitats. Our analysis suggests that most uses of ES result in negative effects on conservation goals. These outcomes should be considered when implementing future conservation strategies.

Expert-Based Assessment and Mapping of Ecosystem Services Potential in the Nemunas Delta and Curonian Lagoon Region, Lithuania

“…Most of the grassland is located in the poldered areas; therefore, the grassland's existence crucially depends on land use and on polder management, i.e., ground water table maintenance to access the area for mowing or grazing. Grazing by livestock maintains open habitats, essential for many bird species, whereas coastal fields also are important stop-over sites for migrating birds [11]. As elsewhere in Europe, these habitats have become endangered due to abandonment, the spread of weeds and succession to woodland, nitrogen deposition and other threats [48].…”

“…To deal with the high degrees of uncertainty, the systematic approaches require tools to assess the state of the landscape, to indicate trends and to develop suitable management strategies [9]. The ecosystem services concept could be helpful in this regard, bridging research and management and providing a common language for local stakeholders and interest groups, while also assessing management scenarios [10] and harmonizing the use of ecosystem services and conservation goals [11].…”

“…It is acknowledged that ecosystems with higher biodiversity can provide a greater diversity and, in many cases, a higher supply of ES [12]. The importance of conservation areas and biodiversity in stabilizing ecosystem functions (i.e., the provision of ES) has been increasingly recognized and recommended for use in ES assessment in Natura 2000 sites [11,13]. Introduced in 2011, the European Union Biodiversity Strategy for actions moving towards 2020 called upon Member States to assess and map ES in their national territory as a supporting action to maintain and enhance ecosystems [14].…”

The Network of Green Infrastructure Based on Ecosystem Services Supply in Central Europe

“…Therefore, in integrated planning for GI, usually only ES with a neutral or positive relationship with biodiversity are considered (e.g., [14,17,19]). Habitats of favourable conservation status have higher potential to supply regulating and cultural ES [35] and management of those ES is also reported to impact protected areas least often [36].…”

“…Even though the N2k network is designed to meet a specific list of conservation objectives, it delivers a considerable amount of ES of all groups as a by-product [25,36,45]. In contrast to traditionally remotely located protected areas [46], N2k sites are in general more exposed to human activities [47,48] and the provided ES meet people's demands.…”