Suchergebnisse

The European Union (EU) is committed to conserving biodiversity, both in terms of natural and cultural legacies, and also to limiting biodiversity loss. Relevant policies have underlined the importance of considering ecological and social issues, as well as the complex relations between the two spheres in conservation of biodiversity. These policies have clear implications for all sectors responsible for planning for biodiversity conservation. In order to be consistent with international legislation, it is necessary to move beyond protected areas and include biodiversity conservation considerations in planning activities of various sectors, and also to involve relevant stakeholders in the planning process. This is in line with the landscape approach to planning that has recently been advocated in research and practical planning. The landscape approach has a holistic perspective that encompasses both ecological and social considerations. This thesis focuses on the implementation of policies regarding biodiversity conservation and public participation; that is, the ecological and social dimensions of spatial planning in landscapes. In particular, I examine the role of people, such as planners implementing policies and other stakeholders who might influence biodiversity conservation. The studies within this thesis concern Poland and Sweden, and three sectors: regional, road and forestry planning. The thesis is comprised of four papers. Paper I deals with planners working to implement biodiversity and public participation policies. Paper II concentrates on the issues of stakeholder involvement in the Environmental Impact Assessment of road planning. Paper III investigates a specific conflict that influenced the conservation of biodiversity in an important biodiversity hotspot. Paper IV is a conceptual paper that discusses the tools used to integrate ecological and social dimensions when implementing the European Landscape Convention. The studies included in this thesis reveal that successfully implementing biodiversity conservation and public participation policies may require more than just ecological knowledge about how biodiversity should be maintained, and more than just formal guidelines regarding how the public should be treated in the planning process. In addition, the role of people who may influence the planning and decision making processes is crucial. Accordingly, there is a need for two key developments. Firstly, planners and the general public should be properly educated about conservation-related issues. Secondly, various incentives should be introduced that influence the behaviour and, in the longer term, the attitudes of the people who may affect biodiversity.

Biodiversity conservation is an important contemporary issue on global, EU and national policy agendas. However, in the face of human economic development, the important question is how to protect, maintain and restore biodiversity, without compromising economic and social dimensions of sustainability. Two sectors that can to a large extent influence biodiversity are forestry and road infrastructure development. Forestry is a sector very important for biodiversity conservation, since a large amount of protected and threatened species resides in forest ecosystems and many natural processes crucial for biodiversity occur in the forest. In addition, forests and woodlands form a network of habitats for many area-demanding species. Due to intensive forest management and fragmentation of forest and woodlands many elements of biodiversity are threatened, including species, habitats and processes. Road infrastructure development is another process that can negatively influence biodiversity. A growing network of transport infrastructure without doubt affects the functionality of the forest habitat networks. Negative effects include traffic mortality due to road collisions and barrier effect for individuals caused by high traffic volume, noise, wide roads and fencing. Cumulative effects of the infrastructure development can also lead to a loss of different elements of biodiversity at the landscape scale. Poland, with a legacy of less intensive forest management and still without a well-developed road infrastructure, is fortunate in terms of biodiversity maintenance. Due to economic underdevelopment of some regions of the country, Poland is rich in natural values including specialized species, functional habitat networks and ecological processes. However, after entering the European Union, Poland has started a process of rapid economic development, mainly with the help of EU funding. Enhancing road infrastructure is presently a key issue of economic development in this country. Dramatic growth in the amount of new roads can have large scale consequences for the biodiversity of the country, and can even influence biodiversity at the European scale. Policies aiming at biodiversity maintenance underline the need for implementing sustainability ideas in the planning and management for biodiversity. Traditionally, economic, environmental and social pillars of sustainability are identified. To be able to balance these three dimensions in the efforts for biodiversity conservation, there is a need to incorporate social dimensions in the nature science research concerning biodiversity. Especially, consideration of local attitudes is necessary in planning for biodiversity conservation. The aim of this thesis is to examine actors' attitudes and underlying values in two situations of conflict related to biodiversity conservation in Poland. One case concerns forest management in a biodiversity hot-spot, Białowieża forest and the other is about a development of a controversial road project of Augustów bypass. The results show that differences in attitudes may have various sources. The knowledge possessed by actors, their values, as well as scale at which they perceived biodiversity issues were identified as the main reasons for different attitudes. It was observed that in general, the actors whose attitudes were more "ecologically oriented" had to a large extent a cognitive view, that is their attitudes were mainly based on cognition (ecological knowledge) while "socially" or "economically oriented" actors' attitudes were more connected to emotions. In addition to differing attitudes, lack of trust was recognized in both cases as a factor escalating the conflict. The results showed also that legal issues are crucial to consider when biodiversity conservation is at stake. The results may have implications for the practical biodiversity conservation, since they show that both learning and legal incentives would be beneficial for the biodiversity conservation in controversial planning cases. This calls for the need for neutral forum for efficient public participation, communication and trust building between the actors and learning about important issues

Many sectors in society are involved in nature conservation issues, like agriculture, forestry and land-use planning. Coherence on a political level between these sectors is getting more and more important, not only to avoid conflict, but also to discover and develop synergies between the sectors. In our study, we see that nature conservation could be a tool for strengthening other sectors. ; EU SIM4NEXUS

Here, we present an application of systems thinking to controlling Baltic Sea eutrophication-a wicked environmental problem characterized by multiple stakeholder perspectives and no single, agreed upon solution. The Baltic Sea is one of the most polluted waterbodies in the world. More than 40 years of land-based (linear) measures have failed to adequately control eutrophication, yet internal (circular) measures are rarely used. Farming native blue mussels for nutrient capture has been proposed as one measure for eutrophication control, but the relevant stakeholders disagree as to its environmental, social and economic benefits. Here, we present the views of four Swedish stakeholder groups-academics, entrepreneurs, municipal government employees and representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)-on the sustainability of native blue mussel farming, a circular measure for eutrophication control. Using semi-structured interviews, we elicited stakeholder perspectives on the environmental, economic and social dimensions of blue mussel farming. The interviewees generally agreed that blue mussel farming is not currently economically sustainable, but that it can contribute to the social sustainability of coastal regions. Academics were skeptical of the environmental benefits, claiming that farms could reinforce eutrophication, whereas the remaining stakeholder groups argued for its potential to mitigate eutrophication. In a roundtable discussion conducted one year after the original interviews, all stakeholder groups agreed that blue mussel farming alone will not fix Baltic Sea eutrophication, but can be part of the solution together with land-based measures. All groups also agreed on the need for cautious upscaling, continuous environmental monitoring and constant improvement if blue mussel farms are to be part of a "toolkit" for eutrophication control. Our results highlight the fact that wicked environmental problems can be addressed when multiple stakeholder groups with differing perspectives have the opportunity to achieve consensus through dialog.

Here, we present an application of systems thinking to controlling Baltic Sea eutrophication-a wicked environmental problem characterized by multiple stakeholder perspectives and no single, agreed upon solution. The Baltic Sea is one of the most polluted waterbodies in the world. More than 40 years of land-based (linear) measures have failed to adequately control eutrophication, yet internal (circular) measures are rarely used. Farming native blue mussels for nutrient capture has been proposed as one measure for eutrophication control, but the relevant stakeholders disagree as to its environmental, social and economic benefits. Here, we present the views of four Swedish stakeholder groups-academics, entrepreneurs, municipal government employees and representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)-on the sustainability of native blue mussel farming, a circular measure for eutrophication control. Using semi-structured interviews, we elicited stakeholder perspectives on the environmental, economic and social dimensions of blue mussel farming. The interviewees generally agreed that blue mussel farming is not currently economically sustainable, but that it can contribute to the social sustainability of coastal regions. Academics were skeptical of the environmental benefits, claiming that farms could reinforce eutrophication, whereas the remaining stakeholder groups argued for its potential to mitigate eutrophication. In a roundtable discussion conducted one year after the original interviews, all stakeholder groups agreed that blue mussel farming alone will not fix Baltic Sea eutrophication, but can be part of the solution together with land-based measures. All groups also agreed on the need for cautious upscaling, continuous environmental monitoring and constant improvement if blue mussel farms are to be part of a "toolkit" for eutrophication control. Our results highlight the fact that wicked environmental problems can be addressed when multiple stakeholder groups with differing perspectives have the opportunity to achieve consensus through dialog.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development gives equal emphasis to developed ("Northern") countries and developing ("Southern") countries. Thus, implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) demands coherent collaboration to transform society across all countries. Yet, there has been little research published on SDG partnerships and this is the first study to explore the extent to which partners from Northern and Southern countries are involved in them and their focus. It identifies that involvement is unequally distributed and may perpetuate the North–South divide in countries' resources, including access to data and scientific capacities. Most notably, partners from low-income countries are involved in far fewer partnerships than partners from countries in all other World Bank income categories, although the former are least able to develop sustainably. As such, all those promoting sustainable development from governmental, private and third-sector organisations need to address global inequalities in establishing and implementing SDG partnerships if, collectively, they are to facilitate delivery of Agenda 2030.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development gives equal emphasis to developed ("Northern") countries and developing ("Southern") countries. Thus, implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) demands coherent collaboration to transform society across all countries. Yet, there has been little research published on SDG partnerships and this is the first study to explore the extent to which partners from Northern and Southern countries are involved in them and their focus. It identifies that involvement is unequally distributed and may perpetuate the North–South divide in countries' resources, including access to data and scientific capacities. Most notably, partners from low-income countries are involved in far fewer partnerships than partners from countries in all other World Bank income categories, although the former are least able to develop sustainably. As such, all those promoting sustainable development from governmental, private and third-sector organisations need to address global inequalities in establishing and implementing SDG partnerships if, collectively, they are to facilitate delivery of Agenda 2030.

Ecological compensation (EC) has been proposed as an important tool for stopping the loss of biodiversity and natural values. However, there are few studies on its actual operationalisation and there is high uncertainty about how it should be designed and implemented to be an effective way of performing nature conservation. In this study we focus on ecological compensation in Sweden, a country where it is in the process of being implemented more broadly. Using interviews and a workshop we investigate how the work with the implementation is carried out and what challenges exist. The results show that implementation of EC is at an early stage of development and there are many practical obstacles, linked to both legislation and routines in the planning processes. There is a lack of holistic perspective and large-scale thinking, a quite strong focus on a small number of individual species, and an overall attitude that anything is better than nothing, all of which can have negative consequences for biodiversity conservation overall. Based on the results we discuss the need for better integration of EC into the entire decision-making process and for a holistic approach to preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, by increasing the focus on landscape perspective and considering delays in compensation outcomes. There is also a need for a national level standard for EC, making good and worse examples of compensation measures available and systematic monitoring of EC projects. Finally, a spatially explicit database to document all EC areas should be introduced both to ensure consistency in protection from future development plans and to enable long-term monitoring of EC outcomes.

Successful conservation needs to be informed by social science because it is closely linked to socio-economic processesand human behaviour. Limited knowledge about ecosystems' interactions with these processes currentlyundermines conservation efforts. This review provides a comprehensive synthesis of social science concerningthe world's largest multinationally-coordinated conservation infrastructure: the European Ecological Network- 'Natura 2000'. Based on a review of 149 publications, we analyse and discuss the main findings and outlinekey social-science research gapswith regard to the Natura 2000 network. The review shows that human dimensionof the Natura 2000 network is complex and variesamong EUMember States. In general, lowlevel and qualityof public participation in implementation of the Natura 2000 network and its management, negative public perceptionsof the network, lack of flexibility of responsible authorities and insufficient consideration of the localcontext pose the greatest challenges to the network's functioning. Important but hitherto little studied researchtopics include: evaluation of participation; effects of education on potential to raise public awareness; effects ofpotential financing mechanisms for compensating private land-owners; economic studies on cost-effectiveness;and benefits from conservation and ecosystem services. These knowledge gaps will need to be filled for theNatura 2000 network to reach its goals.

Ecological compensation (EC) has been proposed as an important tool for stopping the loss of biodiversity and natural values. However, there are few studies on its actual operationalisation and there is high uncertainty about how it should be designed and implemented to be an effective way of performing nature conservation. In this study we focus on ecological compensation in Sweden, a country where it is in the process of being implemented more broadly. Using interviews and a workshop we investigate how the work with the implementation is carried out and what challenges exist. The results show that implementation of EC is at an early stage of development and there are many practical obstacles, linked to both legislation and routines in the planning processes. There is a lack of holistic perspective and large-scale thinking, a quite strong focus on a small number of individual species, and an overall attitude that anything is better than nothing, all of which can have negative consequences for biodiversity conservation overall. Based on the results we discuss the need for better integration of EC into the entire decision-making process and for a holistic approach to preservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, by increasing the focus on landscape perspective and considering delays in compensation outcomes. There is also a need for a national level standard for EC, making good and worse examples of compensation measures available and systematic monitoring of EC projects. Finally, a spatially explicit database to document all EC areas should be introduced both to ensure consistency in protection from future development plans and to enable long-term monitoring of EC outcomes. ; These authors contributed equally to this work: Malgorzata Blicharska and Lina A. Widenfalk

Key words: Monitoring, perception, indicators Globally, land-use and climate change has resulted in a number of landscape transformations. At the same time, how humans use and perceive landscapes has changed and is changing. People's landscape perception depends on many different factors such as gender, age, sense of place, ownership and actual land-use interest. Despite the growing number of studies suggesting that certain biophysical landscape properties are perceived by humans in similar ways, independently of cultural background and personal preferences, few studies have determined the interactions between sense of place, demography and preferences for these landscape properties. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential of linking perceived landscape features to biophysical landscape property data sampled in the NILS (National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden) monitoring program. "Features" are e.g. descriptions of perceived things such as an open landscape and "properties" are measured field data such as cover of spruce. In doing that we aim at enabling the use of monitoring data as a proxy for evaluate landscape perception changes over time. We used the Swedish national environmental objectives as a framework policy, since those objectives include targets that are linked to landscape perception. So far, however, no indicators have been defined to follow them up. We collected information on how people with a professional background linked to mountain areas, such as officials at governmental organisations and business companies, perceive the Swedish mountains. In an enquiry the respondent's rated pre-defined attributes linked to perceptions of mountain landscapes, as well as described the perceptions with their own words. The output data were later subjectively linked to physical landscape properties monitored in the NILS program. The landscape feature primarily associated to Swedish mountains were "view", "openness" and "open landscapes", whereas "spruce" and "pine" that contradict openness were much lower rated. We suggest that by assessing physical landscape properties using monitoring data, it is possible to evaluate people's potentially positive or negative perceptions of landscapes, as well as changes in perceptions that may occur when the landscape change. These linkages could be used to evaluate the potential of a landscape to provide restoratives or aesthetical values of landscapes over time. Results from the evaluations could also be used for guiding landscape management to increase certain perception values and address negative impacts of land-use decisions on other values. ; peerReviewed

This report provides a synthesis of argumentation analysis in real-world cases in "multi-level biodiversity governance", investigated within the BESAFE project. The following broad research questions guided the synthesis of argumentation analysis in the case studies: • Which (different types of) arguments can be identified at different levels and units of biodiversity governance? • How are these arguments exchanged and put to work in multi-level and networked interactions (i.e. within and across different levels and units of biodiversity governance)? • How are these arguments rooted in and how do they feed into different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups or institutions at the different levels and units of biodiversity governance? The study's approach to answering these questions is guided by a three layer analytical framework. This framework comprises three different perspectives to argument-making practice. Together these enable a comprehensive understanding of the role of argumentation in multi-level biodiversity governance. The first layer takes the perspective that arguments are "products" of communication. The analysis focuses on the verbal content of arguments, i.e. what these arguments "say". By comparing argument contents between global, European, national, regional and local governance levels, it was revealed that at both global and regional level, social arguments were most dominant, while at the European level economic arguments were more prominent. Comparison between European and national governance levels revealed little differences. Comparison between types of actors showed some differences of emphasis. Whereas most actors use the argument that biodiversity should be protected because of its inherent value, regional authorities more often referred to social wellbeing and national authorities to legal obligation. The analysis also considered variety of arguments. In general, variety was very limited. Politicians used the smallest variety of arguments, while the largest variety was found in the science actors. Furthermore, variety depended on communication channels (e.g. internet forums showed much variety). Lastly, arguments do change over time. Arguments on ecosystem services, for instance, became prominent at both global and European levels, but they often do not reach or persist at local levels of governance. The second layer of the framework uses the perspective of arguments being transactions between arguers and audiences. The focus here is on what actors "do" D3.1 Final report synthesising the analysis of argumentation in multi-level governance interactions in case studies with arguments, that is, what they aim to achieve with the arguments and what strategies they use. Plenty of strategies were identified, such as particularisation (e.g. stressing the uniqueness of a natural area to increase policy attention), upscaling (e.g. situating a biodiversity problem at a higher level of space or time to make it more important), dichotomisation (e.g. polarising between two alternatives to exclude the possibility of an intermediate solution) and aligning arguments to the goals and interests of others to affect policy outcomes in a way that suits own interests. Finally, actors used various channels to transmit argument. Main examples were local politicians, NGOs and mass media. The third layer takes the perspective of arguments as being conditioned by the social-institutional networks in which they are transmitted. The analysis focuses on how the arguments and the reasoning they communicate "fit" into the different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups and institutions. It was shown that argumentation was highly conditioned by law and regulations, institutional roles and established practices. International obligation, in particular, empowered member states to implement biodiversity policy and to finish disputes. But legislation (and uncertainty about it) also hampered conservation efforts. Furthermore, established criteria used in conservation practice (e.g. rarity, threat and species richness) supported justification of the need for implementing biodiversity conservation measures. Finally, what actors considered as their interests and what they valued as a legitimate policy process (democratic, science-based and sufficient societal support) conditioned the argumentation.

The tension between biodiversity conservation and multipurpose forest management may lead to conflicts. An internationally prominent example is the Bialowieza Forest Massif (BFM), an extensive forest complex with high levels of naturalness. We apply a systematic, multidisciplinary assessment process to review empirical evidence on different dimensions of the BFM conflict. While there is broad consensus that this forest massif is an exceptional place worth conserving and that a way forward is a zonation system combining conservation with management, exactly how this should be done has yet to be agreed upon. Our assessment shows that the key reasons for the BFM controversy go beyond the availability of knowledge on the ecological status of the BFM and include: 1) evidence stemming from different sources, which is often contradictory and prone to different interpretations; 2) knowledge gaps, particularly with regard to socio-economic drivers and beneficiaries as well as uncertainties about future trends; 3) fundamentally different values and priorities among stakeholder groups, resulting in power struggles, and an overall lack of trust. We conclude that evidence-based knowledge alone is insufficient to cope with complex conservation conflicts. While more evidence may help assess the consequences of decisions, the actual management decisions depend on different actors' worldviews, which are rooted in their professional identities and power, and their political and legal realities. This calls for conflict management through a well-organized participatory process organized and supervised by a body deemed legitimate by the groups involved.