IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v69y2017icp408-416.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Natura 2000 network of the European Union the key land use policy tool for preserving Europe’s biodiversity heritage?

Author

Listed:
  • Zisenis, Marcus

Abstract

The Natura 2000 network of protected areas is considered by the European Commission to be the centrepiece of the European Union’s nature and biodiversity policy. This paper reviews the European Environment Agency’s public Natura 2000 database. It comprises data for birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates and plants submitted by the 28 EU Member States. For each Natura 2000 site a calculation was made of the conservation value of each species, together with an assessment of population isolation in relation to natural range and global conservation value. The results show that the great majority of national species populations of Community interest and birds are just covered by each Natura 2000 site up to only 2% at maximum. The most frequently reported high negative impacts on Natura 2000 sites are human induced changes in hydraulic conditions, hunting and collection of wild animals, and grazing. Natura 2000 sites alone are unlikely to safeguard Europe's biodiversity heritage, because most species occur predominantly outside Natura 2000 protected areas. Recommendations are made for improved reporting by EU Member States to provide quantifiable data based on monitoring and comparable indicators. Reform of the Natura 2000 network is needed for an integrated ecosystem approach to allow natural and human induced fluctuations of structures and functions of species habitats. 100% landscape management of the wider countryside should be enforced as a result of the limited coverage of Natura 2000 sites for Europe's biodiversity heritage.

Suggested Citation

  • Zisenis, Marcus, 2017. "Is the Natura 2000 network of the European Union the key land use policy tool for preserving Europe’s biodiversity heritage?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 408-416.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:69:y:2017:i:c:p:408-416
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716300369
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.045?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luke Shoo & Ary Hoffmann & Stephen Garnett & Robert Pressey & Yvette Williams & Martin Taylor & Lorena Falconi & Colin Yates & John Scott & Diogo Alagador & Stephen Williams, 2013. "Making decisions to conserve species under climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 239-246, July.
    2. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    3. D. Pellegrino & U. Schirpke & D. Marino, 2017. "How to support the effective management of Natura 2000 sites?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(3), pages 383-398, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Álvarez, Fernando Allende & Mediavilla, Gillian Gómez & Estébanez, Nieves López, 2021. "Environmental, demographic and policy drivers of change in mediterranean hedgerow landscape (Central Spain)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    2. Alessandra Rigo & Elena Andriollo & Elena Pisani, 2022. "Intermediary Organizations in Nature Conservation Initiatives: The Case of the EU-Funded LIFE Programme," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-28, June.
    3. Mugurel I. Jitea & Valentin C. Mihai & Felix H. Arion & Iulia C. Muresan & Diana E. Dumitras, 2021. "Innovation Gaps and Barriers in Alternative Innovative Solutions for Sustainable High Nature Value Grasslands. Evidence from Romania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Carroll, Carlos & Rohlf, Daniel J & Epstein, Yaffa, 2022. "Mainstreaming the Ambition, Coherence, and Comprehensiveness of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework into Conservation Policy," SocArXiv ugqx2, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marta Bottero & Elena Comino & Federico Dell’Anna & Laura Dominici & Maurizio Rosso, 2019. "Strategic Assessment and Economic Evaluation: The Case Study of Yanzhou Island (China)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Schirpke, Uta & Marino, Davide & Marucci, Angelo & Palmieri, Margherita & Scolozzi, Rocco, 2017. "Operationalising ecosystem services for effective management of protected areas: Experiences and challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 105-114.
    3. Merica Slišković & Katja Božić & Jelena Žanić Mikuličić & Ines Kolanović, 2024. "Addressing the Significance of the Union List with a Focus on Marine Invasive Alien Species Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-25, October.
    4. Comino, E. & Ferretti, V., 2016. "Indicators-based spatial SWOT analysis: supporting the strategic planning and management of complex territorial systems," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64142, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Daniela D’Alessandro & Andrea Rebecchi & Letizia Appolloni & Andrea Brambilla & Silvio Brusaferro & Maddalena Buffoli & Maurizio Carta & Alessandra Casuccio & Liliana Coppola & Maria Vittoria Corazza , 2023. "Re-Thinking the Environment, Cities, and Living Spaces for Public Health Purposes, According with the COVID-19 Lesson: The LVII Erice Charter," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, September.
    6. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    7. Johann Audrain & Mateo Cordier & Sylvie Faucheux & Martin O’Connor, 2013. "Écologie territoriale et indicateurs pour un développement durable de la métropole parisienne," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 523-559.
    8. Wang, Shifeng & Wang, Sicong & Smith, Pete, 2015. "Quantifying impacts of onshore wind farms on ecosystem services at local and global scales," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1424-1428.
    9. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    10. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    11. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    12. Newbold, Stephen C. & Johnston, Robert J., 2020. "Valuing non-market valuation studies using meta-analysis: A demonstration using estimates of willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    13. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    14. Jean-François Ruault & Alice Dupré La Tour & André Evette & Sandrine Allain & Jean-Marc Callois, 2022. "A biodiversity-employment framework to protect biodiversity," Post-Print hal-03365820, HAL.
    15. Malte Grossmann & Ottfried Dietrich, 2012. "Integrated Economic-Hydrologic Assessment of Water Management Options for Regulated Wetlands Under Conditions of Climate Change: A Case Study from the Spreewald (Germany)," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(7), pages 2081-2108, May.
    16. Sean Burkholder, 2012. "The New Ecology of Vacancy: Rethinking Land Use in Shrinking Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-19, June.
    17. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    18. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Hattam, Caroline & Broszeit, Stefanie & Langmead, Olivia & Praptiwi, Radisti A. & Ching Lim, Voon & Creencia, Lota A. & Duc Hau, Tran & Maharja, Carya & Wulandari, Prawesti & Mitra Setia, Tatang & Sug, 2021. "A matrix approach to tropical marine ecosystem service assessments in South east Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    20. Rao, Nalini S. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Portela, Rosimeiry & Wang, Xuanwen, 2015. "Global values of coastal ecosystem services: A spatial economic analysis of shoreline protection values," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 11(C), pages 95-105.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:69:y:2017:i:c:p:408-416. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.