Suchergebnisse

Recent actions to mitigate biodiversity loss in agricultural environments appear insufficient despite the considerable efforts channeled via the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy. One likely reason for this failure is the limited attention paid to the regional and landscape level ecological characteristics in farmland conservation planning. We demonstrate how to obtain conservation prioritization solutions that would address simultaneously three goals, including two landscape level targets: minimizing local habitat quality loss, maximizing habitat connectivity, and incorporating landscape heterogeneity. As these goals may be contradictory, we investigate the potential trade-offs between them. We used the Zonation prioritization tool to examine how our three goals could be implemented in the agricultural landscapes of southwest Finland. We used measures of (i) biodiversity value of grasslands, (ii) connectivity between grasslands, and (iii) landscape heterogeneity which comprised of (land cover type based) compositional heterogeneity and (field margin based) configurational heterogeneity. Integration of landscape heterogeneity measures and habitat connectivity resulted in some tradeoffs with local habitat quality, the most prominent observation being that landscape heterogeneity co-varied with grassland connectivity. Among the two landscape heterogeneity parameters, inclusion of compositional heterogeneity resulted in more clustered prioritization solutions than configurational heterogeneity, which had a spatially more balanced impact. Concordance among landscape scale factors implies high potential for reconstruction of a functioning network of semi-natural grasslands in areas under intensive agricultural use. Broader scale multi-objective planning approaches can thus importantly support targeting biodiversity conservation planning and mediating the implementation of Common Agricultural Policy objectives. ; Peer reviewed

Funding Information: The shares of financing of the investigated TSCs are reported in Table S9. The differences in financing illustrate the absence of a systematic nationwide approach for financing TSCs. The farmers' share of the costs was rather low in the six pilot studies, averaging less than 10%. Most financing has been arranged through individual, externally funded research and development projects. Currently, in Finland, a TSC project may obtain state financial support in the form of either a drainage subsidy from Agrifood Research and Development Fund (MAKERA) managed by the ELY Centers (Regional State Authority) or from CAP-AES's non-productive investments as wetland investment and maintenance allowance. However, overlapping subsidies cannot be received for the same drainage area. Support can cover no more than 40% of the costs, but environmentally friendly (i.e., nature-based) solutions, and particularly expensive structures, may increase the support percentage. In recent years, MAKERA has granted approximately 2.5 million €/year of state support for about 50 dredging projects. Funding Information: Funding: This research was funded by the Joint Research Centre of European Commission (contract no. 939642), Academy of Finland (grant no. 330217), the Finnish Cultural Foundation (grant no. 00201229) and by the Valumavesi project. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. ; Conventional dredging of ditches and streams to ensure agricultural drainage and flood mitigation can have severe environmental impacts. The aim of this paper is to investigate the potential benefits of an alternative, nature-based two-stage channel (TSC) design with floodplains excavated along the main channel. Through a literature survey, investigations at Finnish field sites and expert interviews, we assessed the performance, costs, and monetary environmental benefits of TSCs in comparison to conventional dredging, as well as the bottlenecks in their financing and governance. We found evidence supporting the expected longer-term functioning of drainage as well as larger plant and fish biodiversity in TSCs compared to conventional dredging. The TSC design likely improves water quality since the floodplains retain suspended sediment and phosphorus and remove nitrogen. In the investigated case, the additional value of phosphorus retention and conservation of protected species through the TSC design was 2.4 times higher than the total costs. We demonstrate how TSCs can be made eligible for the obligatory vegetated riparian buffer of the European Union agri-environmental subsidy scheme (CAP-AES) by optimising their spatial application with respect to other buffer measures, and recommend to publicly finance their additional costs compared to conventional dredging at priority sites. Further studies on biodiversity impacts and long-term performance of two-stage channels are required. ; Peer reviewed

Conventional dredging of ditches and streams to ensure agricultural drainage and flood mitigation can have severe environmental impacts. The aim of this paper is to investigate the potential benefits of an alternative, nature-based two-stage channel (TSC) design with floodplains excavated along the main channel. Through a literature survey, investigations at Finnish field sites and expert interviews, we assessed the performance, costs, and monetary environmental benefits of TSCs in comparison to conventional dredging, as well as the bottlenecks in their financing and governance. We found evidence supporting the expected longer-term functioning of drainage as well as larger plant and fish biodiversity in TSCs compared to conventional dredging. The TSC design likely improves water quality since the floodplains retain suspended sediment and phosphorus and remove nitrogen. In the investigated case, the additional value of phosphorus retention and conservation of protected species through the TSC design was 2.4 times higher than the total costs. We demonstrate how TSCs can be made eligible for the obligatory vegetated riparian buffer of the European Union agri-environmental subsidy scheme (CAP-AES) by optimising their spatial application with respect to other buffer measures, and recommend to publicly finance their additional costs compared to conventional dredging at priority sites. Further studies on biodiversity impacts and long-term performance of two-stage channels are required.

Mainstreaming ecosystem services in EU decision making processes requires a solid conceptual and methodological framework for mapping and assessing ecosystem services that serve the multiple objectives addressed by policies. The PRESS-2 study (PEER Research on Ecosystem Service – Phase 2) provides such an analytical framework which enables the operationalization of the present scientific knowledge base of environmental data and models for application by the EU and Member States for mapping and assessment of ecosystem services. This study was structured along three strands of work: policy and scenario analysis, mapping and valuation. Linking the maps of ecosystem service supply to monetary valuation allowed an analysis of the expected impact of policy measures on benefits derived from ecosystem services. The recreation case, which Marianne participated in, presents evidence that millions of people visited forests several times per year and they expressed their willingness to pay to continue doing so. The visitor statistics that were used in this study confirmed the usefulness of the ROS approach (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum) to identify areas in terms of their accessibility and potential to provide recreation services. In addition, PRESS-2 presents a spatial analysis of city population density and green urban areas.