Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- Summary -- Ecological restoration needs better prioritizing to protect biodiversity and enhance Green Infrastructure -- Preface -- 1. Introduction -- 1.1 Restoration calls for priority setting -- 1.2 Ecological restoration in conservation policy -- 1.3 Green Infrastructure -- 1.4 Objectives and content of the current report -- 2. Ongoing policies for restoration priority in the Nordic countries -- 2.1 Priority work at the EU and Nordic national levels -- 2.2 Restoration prioritization work in Finland -- 2.3 Green Infrastructure in Nordic policy -- 2.4 Prioritization and the Water Framework Directive -- 3. Nordic priority case examples -- 3.1 From quantitative analyses to pragmatic opportunities -- 3.2 Diversity of approaches - from politics and policy to ecological attributes -- 3.2.1 Objectives and targets of the projects -- 3.2.2 Approaches building on EU commitments -- 3.2.3 Approaches building on national conservation priorities, including red lists -- 3.2.4 Approaches to specific habitats or ecosystems -- 3.2.5 Landscape consideration -- 3.3 Involved stakeholders -- 3.4 Strengths and weaknesses in the case examples -- 4. Theoretical background of restoration prioritization -- 4.1 A need for resource allocation -- 4.2 Targets, costs and benefits in restoration priorities -- 4.2.1 Costeffectiveness and tradeoffs -- 4.2.2 Targets, reference state and baseline -- 4.3 The interplay of quantitative approaches with qualitative and opportunistic priorities -- 4.4 A matter of scale -- 4.4.1 Setting priorities with a spatial perspective -- Single large or several small plans -- Priority and time -- Prioritization and deciding what not to do -- 5. Conclusions and takehome messages -- Literature -- Sammendrag -- Appendix: 14 case examples -- Case 1: Prioritized Action Framework (PAF) for Natura 2000 -- Semi-natural grasslands.

Coordinating and implementing ecosystem restoration projects can be challenging when the professions involved have differing perceptions of ecological restoration and implementation in practice. To overcome these barriers in complex restoration projects, we suggest analysing ecosystem restoration as a boundary object, a concept drawn from the field of science and technology studies. We use a large scale restoration project in the Dovre Mountains of Norway to demonstrate the validity of using the boundary object concept in this context. The restoration involves a former military training area where the goal of the project was to protect and restore the environment and allow for civilian use. We examine how the different professions developed sufficient mutual understanding to make the project work. In particular, we explore the extent to which the perceptions of different professions overlap, the diversity of the perceptions in the project and how this might influence the outcome of the restoration. The boundary object concept offers potential to help improve restoration quality and reduce conflicts.

Coordinating and implementing ecosystem restoration projects can be challenging when the professions involved have differing perceptions of ecological restoration and implementation in practice. To overcome these barriers in complex restoration projects, we suggest analysing ecosystem restoration as a boundary object, a concept drawn from the field of science and technology studies. We use a large scale restoration project in the Dovre Mountains of Norway to demonstrate the validity of using the boundary object concept in this context. The restoration involves a former military training area where the goal of the project was to protect and restore the environment and allow for civilian use. We examine how the different professions developed sufficient mutual understanding to make the project work. In particular, we explore the extent to which the perceptions of different professions overlap, the diversity of the perceptions in the project and how this might influence the outcome of the restoration. The boundary object concept offers potential to help improve restoration quality and reduce conflicts. ; publishedVersion

The Convention of Biological Diversity commits the parties to halt the loss of biodiversity within 2020. For accomplishing this task, the Aichi targets have been established. Aichi target 15 aims at restoring 15% of damaged ecosystems by 2020. The Nordic countries are parties to CBD, and committed to the Aichi targets. This project will establish a basis that may be used by the management and political authorities in the Nordic countries for achieving Aichi target 15 on restoration of degraded ecosystems. The report explores the possibilities, limitations and challenges on how ecological restoration can contribute to the Aichi target, based on available knowledge and existing statistics on degraded land and restoration experiences in the Nordic countries and Estonia. This is intended as a contribution for future work at the national level and in local communities.

An international overview of the extent and type of ecological restoration can offer new perspectives for understanding, planning, and implementation. The Nordic countries, with a great range of natural conditions but historically similar social and political structures, provide an opportunity to compare restoration approaches and efforts across borders. The aim of this study was to explore variation in ecological restoration using the Nordic countries as an example. We used recent national assessments and expert evaluations of ecological restoration. Restoration efforts differed among countries: forest and peatland restoration was most common in Finland, freshwater restoration was most common in Sweden, restoration of natural heathlands and grasslands was most common in Iceland, restoration of natural and semi-cultural heathlands was most common in Norway, and restoration of cultural ecosystems, mainly abandoned agricultural land, was most common in Denmark. Ecological restoration currently does not occur on the Faroe Islands. Economic incentives influence ecological restoration and depend on laws and policies in each country. Our analyses suggest that habitat types determine the methods of ecological restoration, whereas socio-economic drivers are more important for the decisions concerning the timing and location of restoration. To improve the understanding, planning, and implementation of ecological restoration, we advocate increased cooperation and knowledge sharing across disciplines and among countries, both in the Nordic countries and internationally. An obvious advantage of such cooperation is that a wider range of experiences from different habitats and different socio-economic conditions becomes available and thus provides a more solid basis for developing practical solutions for restoration methods and policies.

An international overview of the extent and type of ecological restoration can offer new perspectives for understanding, planning, and implementation. The Nordic countries, with a great range of natural conditions but historically similar social and political structures, provide an opportunity to compare restoration approaches and efforts across borders. The aim of this study was to explore variation in ecological restoration using the Nordic countries as an example. We used recent national assessments and expert evaluations of ecological restoration. Restoration efforts differed among countries: forest and peatland restoration was most common in Finland, freshwater restoration was most common in Sweden, restoration of natural heathlands and grasslands was most common in Iceland, restoration of natural and semi-cultural heathlands was most common in Norway, and restoration of cultural ecosystems, mainly abandoned agricultural land, was most common in Denmark. Ecological restoration currently does not occur on the Faroe Islands. Economic incentives influence ecological restoration and depend on laws and policies in each country. Our analyses suggest that habitat types determine the methods of ecological restoration, whereas socio-economic drivers are more important for the decisions concerning the timing and location of restoration. To improve the understanding, planning, and implementation of ecological restoration, we advocate increased cooperation and knowledge sharing across disciplines and among countries, both in the Nordic countries and internationally. An obvious advantage of such cooperation is that a wider range of experiences from different habitats and different socio-economic conditions becomes available and thus provides a more solid basis for developing practical solutions for restoration methods and policies.