Protected Area as an Indicator of Ecological Sustainability? A Century of Development in Europe’s Boreal Forest
- 1.4k Downloads
- 11 Citations
Abstract
Protected area (PA) is an indicator linked to policies on ecological sustainability. We analyzed area, size, and categories of PAs in the European boreal forest biome in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia from 1900 to 2010. The PA increased from 1.5 × 103 ha in 1909 to 2.3 × 107 ha in 2010. While the total PA in the boreal biome was 10.8 %, the figures ranged from 17.2 % in the northern, 7.9 % of the middle, and 8.7 % of the southern boreal sub-regions. The median size of PAs varied from 10 to 124 ha among countries. The categories of less strictly PAs increased over time. The proportion of area occupied by PAs is an important response indicator for conservation efforts. However, the use of PA as an indicator of ecological sustainability needs to consider ecosystem representation, functional connectivity and management categories.
Keywords
Biodiversity Conservation Norway Sweden Finland North West RussiaIntroduction
One tool to safeguard ecosystem services, thus addressing biodiversity conservation for ecological sustainability as expressed in international policies, is to establish effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative, and well connected systems of protected areas (PAs) (CBD 2010a, b). The areal proportion of PAs is often used as one of the indicators to monitor the implementation of policies on ecological sustainability (Frank et al. 2007; Butchart et al. 2010). Three policy areas that exemplify this are biodiversity conservation (CBD 2011), sustainable forest management (Forest Europe 2011), and ecosystem services (Kumar 2010). In 2010, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Targets were adopted at the meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 2010a, b, 2011). The 11th Aichi target aims at protecting by 2020 at least 17 % of terrestrial and inland water areas as functional habitat networks for biodiversity and ecosystem services, and 10 % of coastal and marine areas (CBD 2011).
In spite of many efforts globally, actions to reduce pressure on biodiversity have not been sufficient, and integration of biodiversity issues into broader policies, strategies, and actions as a response have not been appropriate (CBD 2010a, b). This is also reflected in many empirical studies looking at the impacts of policy implementation on ecological sustainability. For example, Butchart et al. (2010) showed that neither is the rate of biodiversity loss being reduced, nor is the pressure on biodiversity decreasing. Although the total area of PAs grows, little is known of the extent to which the current global PA network fulfills its goal of protecting biodiversity. The premise that a higher percentage of protected land is evidence for improved conservation is thus being questioned (Rodrigues et al. 2004).
The conservation of ecosystems’ composition, structure, and function (Noss 1990)—the foundation for delivery of ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation—involves the establishment, management, and restoration of functional habitat networks, including both PAs and their matrix (Craig et al. 2000). While biodiversity conservation has been monitored using comparisons among countries, ecoregions, or biomes of PAs expressed in percentages or as total area (Parviainen and Frank 2003), there have been only a few attempts to compare the relative conservation efforts made by different nations over time (e.g., Frank et al. 2007). This kind of evaluation requires a historical perspective on the development of PA in different countries located in the same ecoregion or biome using different indicators. Measurement of any indicator may relate to pressure upon biodiversity (resource consumption, overexploitation, and climate change impacts), state (extinction risk, habitat extent and condition, and community composition) or response (coverage of PAs, sustainable forest management, policy responses) (Rapport and Friend 1979; Butchart et al. 2010).
The aim of this paper is to analyze and compare the development over time of PA as one of the response indicators of ecological sustainability in Europe’s boreal forest regions and countries. Conservation of the boreal forest, the second largest biome in the world, has received limited attention from the international community (Dudley et al. 1998; Bradshaw et al. 2009). Being relatively remote from centers of economic development, the boreal forest is the least affected by exploitation and use among the European ecoregions (Hannah et al. 1995; Angelstam et al. 2013). There is therefore still an opportunity to achieve high levels of conservation for boreal ecosystems, which address ecological integrity and resilience (Angelstam et al. 2004a). Recently, also the global importance of boreal forest protection for mitigation and adaptation to climate change has been highlighted (Bradshaw et al. 2009; Carlson et al. 2009; Dise 2009). Currently, however, the pressure on boreal ecosystems is growing due to increasing interests in using wood, non-wood goods, and other ecosystem services for economic development (Olsen 1993; Dudley et al. 1995; Korpilahti et al. 1996). This use leads to an accelerating loss of intact forest landscapes (Yaroshenko et al. 2001), habitat fragmentation (Elbakidze et al. 2011), and altered ecosystem processes, all of which affect species and forest functions (Burnett et al. 2003; Bradshaw et al. 2009). Additionally, climate change creates new challenges for biodiversity conservation (Heller and Zavaleta 2009) in the boreal regions, where the climate warming will be globally most profound (Ruckstuhl et al. 2008).
While informal PAs have a long history in the forms of spiritual and sacred natural areas and forests managed for hunting, Sweden became the first country on the European continent to establish PAs by law (in 1909, see Wramner and Nygård 2010). This was in the boreal forest. We describe the development of PAs, in terms of size and management of PAs between 1909 and 2010 in the northern, middle, and southern boreal forest sub-regions in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and NW Russia, which together encompass Europe’s boreal forest. This comparative analysis can provide important input to a collaborative learning process within and among countries towards the implementation of internationally agreed policies on ecological sustainability. Finally, we discuss the need to complement the PA as a response indicator with indicators that also reflect the state of ecological sustainability.
Materials and Methods
Study Area
This study focuses on the European boreal forest, of which 99 % is located in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the Russian Federation, and with the remainder in Scotland. As pointed out by Tukhanen (1980) climate is a key driver for the location of different ecoregions and biomes, which make them suitable as units for ecological monitoring. However, there are different schools of thought about the geographical location of the boreal forest biome (Tishkov 2002). For example, some scholars (Vorovyev 1953) include the hemiboreal transition zone between the boreal forest (sensu Ahti et al. 1968) and temperate deciduous forests within the boreal biome. The most common division of the boreal forest in Europe, however, excludes the hemiboreal sub-region, and divides the boreal forest into northern, middle, and southern sub-regions (Ahti et al. 1968; Mayer 1984; Bohn et al. 2004).
We chose Bohn’s et al. (2004) map of natural vegetation of Europe to define the borders of the boreal forest and its sub-regions as our study area. This map was produced by a team of international experts for the entire European continent at a scale of 1:2 500 000. A unified definition of the natural vegetation types, means for processing and designating the mapping units, and a systematic general legend for their classification were developed.
The location of the northern, middle, and southern boreal forest sub-regions in northern Europe
Analyses of PAs Over Time and in Space
Our analyses focused on terrestrial and inland water areas in the boreal forest biome formally protected during the period 1909–2010. We define PAs as those designated and managed under national nature conservation legislation and governmental conservation programs, including nature conservation acts of the entities of the Russian Federation (e.g., decrees, decisions, rules, regulations, orders, etc.) (Table S1). All selected PAs in each country were grouped based on their location in the northern, middle, and southern boreal forest sub-regions as defined by Bohn et al. (2004). The analysis of the development of PAs over time included two parts.
Correlation between IUCN management categories and national categories of protected areas: Ia strict nature reserve, Ib wilderness area, II national park, III natural monument or feature, IV habitat/species management area, V protected landscape/seascape, VI protected area with sustainable use of natural resources (Dudley 2008)
| IUCN | Norway | Sweden | Finland | Russian Federation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ia | Nature reserve | Nature protection area | Strict nature reserve | Strict nature reserve |
| Nature reserve | ||||
| Ib | Nature reserve | Wilderness reserve, | ||
| Old-growth forest reserve | ||||
| Mire conservation reserve | ||||
| Wilderness reserve | ||||
| Nature conservation program | ||||
| Nature conservation program site | ||||
| II | National park | National park | National park | Natural park |
| Nature reserve | National hiking area | National park | ||
| Nature conservation program | ||||
| III | Natural monument | National park | Natural and cultural area | |
| Nature reserve | Natural monument | |||
| IV | Botanical conservation area | National park | Herb-rich forest reserve | Nature reserve (federal and municipal) |
| Nature reserve | Nature reserve (MH) | |||
| Wildlife conservation area | Nature protection area | Nature conservation program site | Municipal landscape reserve | |
| Municipal botanic reserve | ||||
| Peat deposit | ||||
| Protected landscape | Area designated in land use plan | Protected natural complex | ||
| Protected bog | ||||
| Protected forest | Protected landscape | |||
| Reserved sites | Natural monument | |||
| Regional nature reserve | ||||
| Protected historic and natural complex | ||||
| Regional nature reserve | ||||
| V | Protected landscape | Nature reserve | Recreation site (MH) | Regional nature reserve |
| Nature protection area | Tourist and recreational area | |||
| Recourse reserve | ||||
| Garden art monument | ||||
| Protected landscape | ||||
| Natural monument | ||||
| VI | Regional nature reserve | |||
| Natural monument | ||||
| Green zone | ||||
| Recreational area | ||||
| Hunting resource protection zone | ||||
| Therapeutic area | ||||
| Forest genetic reserve | ||||
| High value cranberry bog | ||||
| Crayfish nursery | ||||
| Protected historic and natural complex |
Second, we compared PA development over time in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and NW Russia. The comparison included a statistical description of the average annual change in area proportion of PAs and PA sizes in different sub-regions of boreal forest in each of the four countries. The former was completed using linear regression of area proportion versus time with decade resolution, and the average annual change was expressed as the slope of the regression line. When comparing sizes of PAs using statistical analyses we transformed data using log10 to avoid a skewed data set.
Materials
All PA data used in this study are official and provided to us by the responsible governmental organization for nature conservation in each country, or was extracted by us from the official web-sites of those organizations. The data on PAs in Norway was extracted from the Directorate for Nature Management in Norway (Table S1). For Sweden, the staff at the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency provided the complete data set on PAs located in the country’s boreal forest biome. The data about PAs in the northern and middle boreal sub-regions in Finland was provided by the Finnish Forestry and Natural Heritage Service (Metsähallitus in Finnish). For the southern boreal forest sub-region in Finland we extracted data from European Common Database on Nationally Designated Areas (National CDDA) (Table S2). The data on PAs in NW Russia was gathered using a broad range of sources. First, the legal and official documents on PA’s designation found on the web-sites of federal, regional, and municipal authorities and PA administrations were analyzed. Second, we used reviews on territorial conservation history and development in the Russian Empire and the former USSR (Table S1).
The collected data on PAs in Europe’s boreal forest biome were organized into a database that included name; national designation to a particular category as defined in Table 1; location (northern, middle, or southern boreal sub-region); size in hectares; year of designation, and year of conversion of a PA to other type of PA or unprotected area; and IUCN management category. For this study we identified a total of 17 086 PAs.
Results
Protected Areas Over Time in Europe’s Boreal Forest
Cumulative growth of PAs in Europe’s northern, middle, and southern boreal forest sub-regions by decade
The area proportion (%) of PAs in northern (N), middle (M), and southern (S) boreal sub-regions in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and NW Russia, and in the four countries together during different decades since the 1990s
| Norway | Sweden | Finland | NW Russia | Total | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | M | S | N | M | S | N | M | S | N | M | S | N | M | S | |
| 1900– | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 00 | |||||||||||
| 1910– | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||||||||
| 1920– | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||||||||
| 1930– | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||||||
| 1940– | 0.1 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.2 | |||||||
| 1950– | 0.1 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 3.1 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | |||
| 1960– | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 3.1 | 0.1 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 1.8 | ||
| 1970– | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 3.3 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 3.1 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 2.1 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 2.4 | 3.2 | 3.7 |
| 1980– | 1.1 | 3.9 | 1.1 | 7.9 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 9.0 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 6.9 | 6.6 | 6.6 | 7.2 | 4.9 | 5.0 |
| 1990– | 1.9 | 4.3 | 1.8 | 13.0 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 18.1 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 12.4 | 9.3 | 9.5 | 13.0 | 7.0 | 7.3 |
| 2000– | 16.3 | 12.7 | 4.4 | 25.2 | 2.9 | 2.2 | 21.3 | 2.6 | 4.4 | 13.3 | 8.1 | 9.7 | 16.2 | 6.5 | 7.6 |
| 2010– | 18.9 | 13.7 | 5.3 | 25.4 | 3.2 | 2.4 | 21.3 | 2.6 | 4.4 | 14.6 | 10.1 | 11.9 | 17.2 | 7.9 | 8.7 |
Cumulative growth of the area proportion of PAs in northern, middle, and southern boreal forest sub-regions in Europe
Dynamics of IUCN protected area management categories in Europe’s boreal forest over time: a total area of IUCN management categories over time; b dynamics of area proportion of each IUCN management category (for the names of IUCN management categories see Table 1)
Dynamics of area proportion of IUCN management category in the northern, middle, and southern boreal forest sub-regions in Europe (for the names of IUCN management categories see Table 1)
Comparisons Among Countries
The four countries included in this study began their PA development in different decades. Sweden was the first country to establish PAs in Europe’s boreal forest biome. This took place in the northern sub-region, and during the following four decades it was the only sub-region where PAs were established. From the 1960s, PAs appeared in all three boreal sub-regions in Sweden.
Norway and the Russia Federation were the next two countries to establish PAs in the European boreal forest. This process began in the 1930s. In Norway, PAs were created first in the middle boreal forest and their area proportion was stable during the next two decades. In the 1960s PAs appeared in the northern sub-region, and since the 1970s PAs have been established in all Norwegian boreal forest sub-regions (Fig. 3; Table 2). The middle boreal sub-region had the largest area proportion of PAs between 1980 and 2000. Northern boreal sub-region has come into focus for PAs’ development since the 2000s, after which the total area of PAs increased faster (Table 2; Fig. 3).
In NW Russia, PA development began in the northern boreal sub-region, and in the 1940s PAs appeared in the southern sub-region. By the 1950s PAs had been established in all boreal sub-regions. The southern boreal sub-region was in focus for PAs’ development during three decades since the 1960s. From the 1990s onward, the focus shifted to the northern forests where the area proportion of PAs subsequently became higher than in the other two sub-regions.
In Finland (within the country’s present border), the PA development began in all three sub-regions in the 1950s. After almost three status quo decades, since the 1980s the cover of PAs had increased in the northern boreal forest and this sub-region was favored during the next decades.
In conclusion, while the area of PAs has grown steadily in each country over the past century, at the same time three different patterns of PA development can be distinguished since the 1950s: (1) Rapid growth when the area proportion of PAs increased more than three times from one decade to the next. This happened once in Sweden and Norway in the northern and middle sub-regions, respectively. (2) No change in the area proportion of PAs for several decades. This occurred once in Norway in the middle sub-region; three times in Sweden (one time in northern, and twice in the southern sub-region); six times in Finland (twice in each sub-region in different decades). (3) Decrease in the area extent of PAs from one decade to the next. This happened once only in Russia in the middle boreal sub-region (Table 2).
The annual change (in %) of the increase of total proportion of PAs in the boreal forests in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the European part of the Russian Federation
| Country | Boreal forests | Total area proportion (%) of PAs | Average annual change (%) of total PAs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In 1909 | In 1950 | In 2010 | 1909–1950 | 1950–2010 | ||
| Norway | Northern | 0 | 0.0 | 18.9 | <0.001 | 0.3 |
| Middle | 0 | 0.1 | 13.7 | 0.003 | 0.6 | |
| Southern | 0 | 0.0 | 5.3 | <0.001 | 0.1 | |
| Sweden | Northern | 0.3 | 1.0 | 32.6 | 0.015 | 0.6 |
| Middle | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.1 | <0.001 | 0.1 | |
| Southern | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.5 | <0.001 | 0.1 | |
| Finland | Northern | 0 | 3.1 | 21.3 | 0.045 | 0.4 |
| Middle | 0 | 0.1 | 2.6 | 0.003 | 0.1 | |
| Southern | 0 | 0.7 | 4.4 | 0.010 | 0.1 | |
| Russia | Northern | 0 | 1.1 | 14.6 | 0.028 | 0.3 |
| Middle | 0 | 0.2 | 10.3 | 0.003 | 0.2 | |
| Southern | 0 | 0.3 | 11.9 | 0.007 | 0.2 | |
The average size of PAs (log10, hectares) in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and NW Russia and in northern, middle, and southern boreal forests during 1900–2010 (decades)
Average size of PAs (log10, hectares) with 95 % confidence intervals in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and NW Russia and in northern, middle, and southern boreal forests during 1900–2010 (decades)
Discussion
Protected Area as a Response Indicator
This study demonstrates that the areal extent of PAs in the boreal forest biome increased from approximately 0.0015 million ha in 1909 to 23 million ha in 2010. Most of this increase took place since the 1980s onward. We also show that the area proportion, size, and management profiles of PAs were very different over time among boreal sub-regions and countries.
Throughout this 100-year study period, the northern boreal forest sub-region with the least productive forest ecosystems was preferentially protected. As a result, while in the four studied European countries by the end of 2010 the overall area proportion of PAs was 10.8 % of the total boreal forest biome, the figures ranged from 17.2 % of the northern, 7.9 % of the middle, and 8.7 % of the southern boreal forest sub-regions. Our study thus confirms the conclusion made by Gaston et al. (2008) that PA development has resulted in ‘a bias towards including large, contiguous areas of land of limited economic value in PA systems’. The uneven representation of PAs among Europe’s boreal forest sub-regions, and among the studied countries that was maintained during almost the entire previous century presents a big challenge for boreal forest conservation (e.g., Hanski 2011; Uotila et al. 2002; Virkkala and Rajasärkkä 2007).
Another challenge for ecological sustainability is that the vast majority of boreal PAs are small, with the smallest areas in the southern boreal sub-region. According to many studies concerning the requirements of species with different life histories (McNab 1963; Belovsky 1987; Menges 1991; Meffe and Carroll 1994; Edenius and Sjöberg 1997; Jansson and Angelstam 1999; Biedermann 2003; Jansson and Andrén 2003; Angelstam et al. 2004b; Roberge and Angelstam 2004; Linnell et al. 2005), it is evident that the sizes of the many of PAs have not been and are not sufficient for focal and umbrella species such as specialized birds and area-demanding mammals.
Regarding PA management, this study shows that the PAs belong to several different categories. However, the extent to which these categories are adapted to the regional context in Europe’s boreal biome in order to deliver desired ecosystem services remains to be studied. At present there is limited correspondence among the national categories of PAs and IUCN management categories in the four studied countries. There is no clear and globally consistent alignment between the IUCN categories and their application (Leroux et al. 2010).
Summing up, the area proportion of PAs is an important response indicator for conservation efforts. However, obviously, it needs to be combined with other relevant indicators, because the area proportion of protection of a region does not necessarily mean that PA networks are in place in terms of providing functional habitat networks for different ecosystems, or for other dimensions of ecological sustainability. We thus agree with Chape et al. (2005) who wrote ‘the setting of minimum percentage targets for biodiversity conservation of biomes or ecoregions may create political comfort but does not provide a basis for realistic assessment’, and ‘measurements of numbers and extent must be combined with assessment of conservation effectiveness to achieve meaningful results’.
Protected Area as an Indicator for Ecological Sustainability?
To improve the use of PA as an indicator for ecological sustainability representation of boreal forest ecosystems, functionality of the network of PAs, the management of PAs, and the qualities of the surrounding matrix have to be considered.
First, one has to consider that the ecosystems and habitats vary among different boreal forest sub-regions and countries (Shorohova et al. 2011). Sufficient representation of ecosystems with different disturbance regimes in PA networks (Angelstam and Kuuluvainen 2004; Shorohova et al. 2011) is thus crucial for the conservation of species, habitats, and processes (Brumelis et al. 2011).
Second, for the conservation of species in the boreal forest biome, the functionality of the network of PAs of a particular ecosystem type needs to be assessed individually. The use of spatial modeling of the size, quality, and juxtaposition of PAs can be used to assess of the functionality of different networks (Andersson et al. 2012). Several studies show that the functionality of small set-asides is often unfavorable in relation to contemporary policies about ecological sustainability (Aune et al. 2005; Angelstam et al. 2011a; Elbakidze et al. 2011). This also means that the majority of PAs in the middle and southern boreal sub-regions are not able to maintain ecological process (Gaston et al. 2008), which are important for biodiversity and other ecosystem services.
Third, the management of the boreal forest landscape needs to be understood. To ensure sufficient habitat quality in the landscape it is crucial to reintroduce natural processes such as forest fire and flooding where appropriate. Conservation management towards landscape restoration can thus contribute to filling the gap between present amounts of habitat and what is needed to satisfy policy goals (Hanski 2011; Mansourian et al. 2006).
Finally, the land-use in the matrix composition around PAs matters. To understand the role of PAs for ecological sustainability, other set-asides at different spatial scales also need to be mapped, and their duration and management regimes understood. First, trees, groups, and strips of trees are left from harvesting within stands (the so-called retention forestry, Vanha-Majamaa and Jalonen 2001; Gustafsson et al. 2012). Second, some stands with high conservation values are considered as woodland key biotopes and are voluntarily set aside, for example, in the context of forest certification schemes (Timonen et al. 2010; Elbakidze et al. 2011). Finally, clusters of stands or entire landscapes are managed for the benefit of different species (Angelstam and Bergman 2004). Key challenges are to measure, aggregate, and assess these efforts in a landscape or an ecoregion so that it is possible to communicate the consequences of the conservation efforts at different spatial scales to different stakeholders (Angelstam and Bergman 2004; Schmitt et al. 2009).
Additionally, we stress that the Aichi target of 17 % PAs refers to the areas that “are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of PAs and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape” (CBD 2011). Thus, while a response indicator such as PA may seem favorable, the pressure on PAs and the surrounding matrix may still be high. In order to fulfill the Aichi target for Europe’s boreal forest it would be useful to formulate biodiversity conservation targets based on analyses of indicators relating to the state of biodiversity, pressures on biodiversity, policy and management responses, and the state of ecosystem services that people derive from biodiversity. Based on these indicators the PA targets are likely to be different for each sub-region and for different countries, and thus the need for landscape and habitat restoration (Angelstam et al. 2011a). Finally, we argue that the development over time of different PA categories in different countries located in the same ecoregion can provide important input to a collaborative learning process within and among countries towards the implementation of internationally agreed policies on ecological sustainability (Angelstam et al. 2011b).
Notes
Acknowledgments
We thank Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Minnesfond, the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas) and the Swedish Ministry of Environment for funding that enabled us to carry out this study. This paper has benefited greatly from the constructive comments of four anonymous referees. We highly appreciate help which we got from different organizations in collecting all needed data.
Supplementary material
References
- Ahti, T., L. Hämet-Ahti, and J. Jalas. 1968. Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Annales Botanici Fennici 5: 169–211.Google Scholar
- Andersson, K., P. Angelstam, M. Elbakidze, R. Axelsson, and E. Degerman. 2012. Green infrastructures and intensive forestry: Need and opportunity for spatial planning in a Swedish rural–urban gradient. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2012.723740.
- Angelstam, P., and P. Bergman. 2004. Assessing actual landscapes for the maintenance of forest biodiversity—A pilot study using forest management data. Ecological Bulletins 51: 413–425.Google Scholar
- Angelstam, P., and T. Kuuluvainen. 2004. Boreal forest disturbance regimes, successional dynamics and landscape structures—A European perspective. Ecological Bulletins 51: 117–136.Google Scholar
- Angelstam, P., S. Boutin, F. Schmiegelow, M.-A. Villard, P. Drapeau, G. Host, J. Innes, G. Isachenko, et al. 2004a. Targets for boreal forest biodiversity conservation—A rationale for macroecological research and adaptive management. Ecological Bulletins 51: 487–509.Google Scholar
- Angelstam, P., J.-M. Roberge, A. Lõhmus, M. Bergmanis, G. Brazaitis, M. Dönz-Breuss, L. Edenius, Z. Kosinski, et al. 2004b. Habitat modelling as a tool for landscape-scale conservation—A review of parameters for focal forest birds. Ecological Bulletins 51: 427–453.Google Scholar
- Angelstam, P., K. Andersson, R. Axelsson, M. Elbakidze, B.-G. Jonsson, and J.-M. Roberge. 2011a. Protecting forest areas for biodiversity in Sweden 1991–2010: Policy implementation process and outcomes on the ground. Silva Fennica 45: 1111–1133.Google Scholar
- Angelstam, P., R. Axelsson, M. Elbakidze, L. Laestadius, M. Lazdinis, M. Nordberg, I. Pătru-Stupariu, and M. Smith. 2011b. Knowledge production and learning for sustainable forest management: European regions as a time machine. Forestry 84: 581–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Angelstam, P., M. Grodzynskyi, K. Andersson, R. Axelsson, M. Elbakidze, A. Khoroshev, I. Kruhlov, and V. Naumov. 2013. Measurement, collaborative learning and research for sustainable use of ecosystem services: Landscape concepts and Europe as laboratory. AMBIO. doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0368-0.Google Scholar
- Aune, K., B.-G. Jonsson, and J. Moen. 2005. Isolation and edge effects among woodland key habitats in Sweden: Making fragmentation into forest policy? Biological Conservation 124: 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Belovsky, G. 1987. Extinction models and mammalian persistence. In Viable populations for conservation, ed. M. Soulé, 35–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Biedermann, R. 2003. Body size and area–incidence relationships: Is there a general pattern? Global Ecology and Biogeography 12: 381–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bohn, U., G. Gollub, C. Hettwer, Z. Neuhäuslová, T. Raus, H. Schlüter, and H. Weber. 2004. Map of the natural vegetation of Europe. Scale 1: 2500000. Bonn: Federal Agency for nature conservation.Google Scholar
- Bradshaw, C., I. Warkentin, and N. Sodhi. 2009. Urgent preservation of boreal carbon stock and biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 541–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brumelis, G., B.G. Jonsson, J. Kouki, T. Kuuluvainen, and E. Shorohova. 2011. Forest naturalness in northern Europe: Perspectives on processes, structures and species diversity. Silva Fennica 45: 807–821.Google Scholar
- Burnett, C., A. Fall, E. Tomppo, and R. Kalliola. 2003. Monitoring current status of and trends in boreal forest land use in Russian Karelia. Conservation Ecology 7: 8.Google Scholar
- Butchart, S., M. Walpole, B. Collen, A. van Strien, J. Scharlemann, R. Almond, J. Baillie, B. Bomhard, et al. 2010. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science 328: 1164–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Carlson, M., J. Wells, and D. Roberts. 2009. The carbon the world forgot: Conserving the capacity of Canada’s boreal forests region to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Canada: Boreal Songbird Initiative.Google Scholar
- CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2010a. Updating and revision of the strategic plan for the post-2010 period. Target 11. COP decision X/4.2.Google Scholar
- CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2010b. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Convention on biological diversity, 29 October 2010, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2.Google Scholar
- CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2011. Explanatory guide on target 11 of the strategic plan for biodiversity. Convention on biological diversity.Google Scholar
- Chape, S., J. Harrison, M. Spalding, and I. Lysenko. 2005. Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 360: 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Craig, J.L., N.D. Mitchell, and D.A. Saunders. 2000. Nature Conservation 5. Nature conservation in production environments: Managing the matrix. Chipping Norton: Surrey Beatty.Google Scholar
- Dise, N. 2009. Peatland response to global change. Science 326: 810–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dudley, N. 2008. Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Gland: IUCN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dudley, N., J.-P. Jeanrenaud, and F. Sullivan. 1995. Bad harvest? The timber trade and the degradation of the world’s forests. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
- Dudley, N., D. Gilmour, and J.-P. Jeanrenaud. 1998. Boreal forests: Policy challenge for the future. Gland: IUCN.Google Scholar
- Edenius, L., and K. Sjöberg. 1997. Distribution of birds in natural landscape mosaics of old-growth forests in northern Sweden, relations to habitat area and landscape context. Ecography 20: 425–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Elbakidze, M., P. Angelstam, K. Andersson, M. Nordberg, and Yu. Pautov. 2011. How does forest certification contribute to boreal biodiversity conservation? Standards and outcomes in Sweden and NW Russia? Forest Ecology and Management 262: 1983–1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Forest Europe. 2011. State of Europe’s Forests. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Oslo: Liaison Unit.Google Scholar
- Frank, G., J. Parviainen, K. Vandekerhove, J. Latham, A. Schuck, and D. Little. 2007. Protected forest areas in Europe—Analysis and harmonization (PROFOR): Results, conclusions and recommendations. COST Action E 27. Vienna: PROFOR.Google Scholar
- Gaston, K., S. Jackson, A. Nagy, L. Cantu-Salazar, and M. Jonson. 2008. Protected areas in Europe: Principle and practice. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134: 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gustafsson, L., S.C. Baker, J. Bauhus, W.J. Beese, A. Brodie, J. Kouki, D.B. Lindenmayer, A. Lõhmus, et al. 2012. Retention forestry. BioScience 62: 633–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hannah, L., J.L. Carr, and A. Lankerani. 1995. Human disturbance and natural habitat: A biome level analysis of a global data set. Biodiversity and Conservation 4: 128–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hanski, I. 2011. Habitat loss, the dynamics of biodiversity, and a perspective on conservation. AMBIO 40: 248–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Heller, N., and E. Zavaleta. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation 142: 14–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jansson, G., and H. Andrén. 2003. Habitat composition and bird diversity in managed boreal forests. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 18: 225–236.Google Scholar
- Jansson, G., and P. Angelstam. 1999. Thresholds of landscape composition for the presence of the long-tailed tit in a boreal landscape. Landscape Ecology 14: 283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Korpilahti, E., S. Kellomki, and T. Karjalainen. 1996. Climate Change, Biodiversity and Boreal Forest Ecosystems, International Boreal Forest Research Association reprinted from. Silva Fennica 30: 1996.Google Scholar
- Kumar, P. 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Ecological and economic foundations. London and Washington, DC: Earthscan.Google Scholar
- Leroux, S., M. Krawchuk, F. Schmiegelow, S. Cumming, K. Lisgo, L. Anderson, and M. Petkova. 2010. Global protected areas and IUCN designations: Do the categories match the conditions? Biological Conservation 143: 609–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Linnell, J., C. Promberger, L. Boitani, J.E. Swenson, U. Breitenmoser, and R. Andersen. 2005. The linkage between conservation strategies for large carnivores and biodiversity: The view from the “half-full” forests of Europe. In Large carnivores and biodiversity conservation, ed. J. Ray, K. Redford, R. Steneck, and J. Berger, 381–399. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Mansourian, S., D. Vallauri, and N. Dudley (eds.). 2006. Forest restoration in landscapes, beyond planting trees. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Mayer, H. 1984. Wälder Europas [Forest of Europe]. Stuttgart and New York: Gustav Fischer Verlag (in German).Google Scholar
- McNab, B.K. 1963. Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. American Naturalist 97: 133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Meffe, G., and C. Carroll. 1994. Principles of conservation biology. Massachusetts: Sinauer.Google Scholar
- Menges, E.S. 1991. The application of minimum viable population theory to plants. In Genetics and conservation of rare plants, ed. D.A.I. Falk, and K.E. Holsinger, 45–61. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4: 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Olsen, R. 1993. The Taiga: A treasure—Or timber and trash?. Jokkmokk: Taiga Rescue Network.Google Scholar
- Parviainen, J., and G. Frank. 2003. Protected forests in Europe approaches—Harmonising the definitions for international comparison and forest policy making. Journal of Environmental Management 67: 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rapport, D.J., and A.M. Friend. 1979. Towards a comprehensive framework for environmental statistics: A stress-response approach. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
- Roberge, J.-M., and P. Angelstam. 2004. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conservation Biology 18: 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rodrigues, A., S. Andelman, M. Bakarr, L. Boitani, Th Brooks, R. Cowling, L. Fishpool, G. da Fonseca, et al. 2004. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428: 640–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ruckstuhl, K.E., E. Johnson, and K. Miyanishi. 2008. Introduction. The boreal forest and global change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences 363: 2245–2249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schmitt, C., N. Burgess, L. Coad, A. Belokurov, Ch. Besançon, L. Boisrobert, A. Campbell, L. Fish, et al. 2009. Global analysis of the protection status of the world’s forests. Biological Conservation 142: 2122–2130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Shorohova, E., D. Kneeshaw, T. Kuuluvainen, and S. Gauthier. 2011. Variability and dynamics of old-growth forests in the circumboreal zone: Implications for conservation, restoration and management. Silva Fennica 45: 785–806.Google Scholar
- Timonen, J., J. Siitonen, L. Gustafsson, J.S. Kotiaho, J.N. Stokland, A. Sverdrup-Thygeson, and M. Mönkkönen. 2010. Woodland key habitats in northern Europe: Concepts, inventory and protection. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 25: 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tishkov, A. 2002. Boreal forests. In The physical geography of Northern Eurasia, ed. M. Shahgedanova, 216–234. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Tukhanen, S. 1980. Climatic parameters and indices in plant geography. Acta Phytogeographica Suecica 67: 1–105.Google Scholar
- Uotila, A., J. Kouki, H. Kontkanen, and P. Pulkkinen. 2002. Assessing the naturalness of boreal forests in eastern Fennoscandia. Forest Ecology and Management 161: 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vanha-Majamaa, I., and J. Jalonen. 2001. Green tree retention in Fennoscandian forestry. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 3: 79–90.Google Scholar
- Virkkala, R., and A. Rajasärkkä. 2007. Uneven regional distribution of protected areas in Finland: Consequences for boreal forest bird populations. Biological Conservation 134: 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vorovyev, D.V. 1953. Tипи лicoв Євpoпeйcькoї чacтини CPCP [Forest types of the European part of the USSR]. Kiev: Ukrainian Soviet Socialistic Republic printing house (in Ukrainian).Google Scholar
- Wramner, P., and O. Nygård. 2010. Från naturskydd till bevarande av biologisk mångfald [From nature protection to conservation of biological diversity]. Stockholm: COMREC Studies in Environment and Development No. 2 (in Swedish).Google Scholar
- Yaroshenko, AYu., P.V. Potapov, and S.A. Turubanova. 2001. The intact forest landscapes of Northern European Russia. Moscow: Greenpeace Russia and the Global Forest Watch.Google Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.