Nature Policies and Landscape Policies pp 315-322

Part of the Urban and Landscape Perspectives book series (URBANLAND, volume 18) | Cite as

An Assessment of the Role of Protected Landscapes in Conserving Biodiversity in Europe

Chapter

Abstract

Protected landscapes (IUCN category V) make up over half the area of protected areas in Europe and are thus a critical part of Europe’s conservation strategy, but critics have raised serious challenges about their usefulness to conservation. We present information on existing research into their conservation effectiveness. This is used, along with additional case studies from Spain, Germany and Croatia, to provide an initial assessment of biodiversity conservation within category V. Our research suggests that protected landscapes can be effective tools for conservation, but that this is not invariably the case and depends to a large extent on whether they are well planned and effectively managed. This management approach will work better for some species and ecosystems than for others and is not suitable for all conservation tasks. The contribution reviews the available evidence, makes some recommendations about what is needed to increase the effectiveness of conservation within protected landscapes and outlines areas requiring further research.

Keywords

Protected area Category V Biodiversity Spain Croatia Germany 

References

  1. Alba J (2012) Spain: Somiedo Natural Park “Bringing everything to life”. In: Dudley N, Stolton S (eds) Protected landscapes and wild biodiversity. Values of protected landscapes and seascapes, vol 3. IUCN/GIZ/BMZ, GlandGoogle Scholar
  2. Álvarez MA (2006) Elaboración de un sistema de indicadores de desarrollo sostenible para la Reserva de la Biosfera de Somiedo. INDUROT Consejería de Medio AmbienteGoogle Scholar
  3. Atauri JA, De Lucio JV (2001) The role of landscape heterogeneity in species richness distribution of birds, amphibians, reptiles and lepidopterans in Mediterranean landscapes. Landsc Ecol 16:147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brigić A, Vujčić-Karlo S, Stančić Z (2003) Carabidae fauna in different terrestrial habitats of Krapje Đol. Lonjsko Polje Nat Park Bull 5:1–2Google Scholar
  5. Canova L (2006) Protected areas and landscape conservation in the Lombardy plain (northern Italy): an appraisal. Landsc Urban Plan 74:102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dudley N (2007) Tracking progress in managing protected areas around the world: an analysis of two applications of the management effectiveness tracking tool developed by WWF and the World Bank. WWF, GlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Dudley N (ed) (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  8. Dudley N, Stolton S (eds) (2012) Protected landscapes and wild biodiversity. Values of protected landscapes and seascapes, vol 3. IUCN/GIZ/BMZ, GlandGoogle Scholar
  9. Dumbović V (2003) The corncrake (Crex crex), a globally endangered bird species continues to nest successfully in Lonjsko Polje Nature Park. Lonjsko Polje Nat Park Bull 5:27–35Google Scholar
  10. Fernández-Gil A, Ordiz A, Naves J (2010) Are Cantabrian brown bears recovering? URSUS 21(1):121–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gambino R, Talamo D, Thomasset F (eds) (2008) Parchi d’Europa. Verso una politica europea per le aree protette. ETS Edizioni, PisaGoogle Scholar
  12. González Bernáldez F (1992) Ecological consequences of the abandonment of traditional land use systems in central Spain. Options Méditerr 15:23–29Google Scholar
  13. Gugíc G, Zupan D, Zupan I (2012) Croatia: the floodplain ecosystem of the Central Sava River Basin. In: Dudley N, Stolton S (eds) Protected landscapes and wild biodiversity. Values of protected landscapes and seascapes, vol 3. IUCN/GIZ/BMZ, GlandGoogle Scholar
  14. IAE Instituto Asturiano de Estadística – SADEI (2011) Datos básicos de Asturias 2011. IAEGoogle Scholar
  15. Liesen J (2008) Wärme für Wilsede schützt Birkhuhn und Ziegenmelker. Land in Form – Magazin für Ländliche Räume 3:32Google Scholar
  16. Locke H, Deardon P (2005) Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm. Environ Conserv 32(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mallarach JM (ed) (2008) Protected landscapes and cultural and spiritual values, vol 2, Values of protected landscapes and seascapes. IUCN/GTZ/Obra Caixa Social Catalunya, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  18. Marquínez J et al (1986) Estudio ambiental del Concejo de Somiedo. Universidad de Oviedo, OviedoGoogle Scholar
  19. Mrakovčić M, Mustafić P, Ćaleta M et al (2002) Characteristic of fish communities in Lonjsko Polje Nature Park. Lonjsko Polje Nat Park Bull 4(1–2):9–56Google Scholar
  20. Nagendra H (2008) Do parks work? Impact of protected areas on land cover clearing. Ambio 37(5):330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nelson A, Chomitz KM (2011) Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 6(8):e22722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nolte C, Leverington F, Kettner A et al (2010) Protected area management effectiveness in Europe: a review of application, methods and results. BfN Skripten 271a, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BonnGoogle Scholar
  23. Phillips A (2002) Management guidelines for IUCN category V protected areas: protected landscapes/seascapes. Best practice protected area guidelines series no. 9. IUCN, Gland/CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Porzelt M, Liesen J (2012) Germany: managing biodiversity in nature parks. In: Dudley N, Stolton S (eds) Protected landscapes and wild biodiversity. Values of protected landscapes and seascapes, vol 3. IUCN/GIZ/BMZ, GlandGoogle Scholar
  25. Robins M (2008) Protected landscapes: sleeping giants of English biodiversity. Ecos 29(1):74–86Google Scholar
  26. Schneider-Jacoby M (2002) Croatia, home of the last Central European Spoonbill population in alluvial wetlands. In: Report of the 68th EUROSITE workshop 19–22 Apr 2002, Texel, Wetland Management for Spoonbills and Associated Waterbirds, vol 68, pp 17–21Google Scholar
  27. Stiftung Naturschutzpark Lüneburger Heide (ed) (2009) Artenschutzprojekt zum Schutz des Birkhuhns im Naturschutzgebiet Lüneburger Heide. Stiftung Naturschutzpark Lüneburger Heide, BispingenGoogle Scholar
  28. Wormanns S (2010) Projekt zum Schutz des Birkhuhns im Naturschutzgebiet Lüneburger Heide. Stiftung Naturschutzpark Lüneburger Heide, BispingenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Geography, Planning and Environmental ManagementUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas and Equilibrium ResearchBristolUK

Personalised recommendations