Suchergebnisse

Habitat loss is a global issue that affects land cover patterns, ecological processes and the distribution and abundance of species. As a result, many conservation approaches have appeared, such as the European Union's green infrastructure (GI) policy and UNESCO's Biosphere Reserve (BR) concept. Both are being applied in southern Sweden's Kristianstad Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve (KVBR). Despite concentrated conservation efforts at a local scale to conserve biodiversity, focal grasslands and waders have declined. This calls for the assessment of outputs within the KVBR in terms of both knowledge production and its dissemination, as well as the consequences of management on the ground (Paper I). Focusing on supporting the KVBRs' work and wader conservation in general, this thesis studied how anthropogenic factors affect the land cover patterns and processes of wet grasslands for waders. Over the past two centuries land use and land cover change have reduced the KVBR's area of functional grassland habitat by >98% (Paper II). Whilst loss and degradation of wet grassland habitats is considered a primary reason of wader decline in Europe, predator–prey relationships have been proposed as a secondary reason. Using several wet grassland landscapes across Northern Europe, predator-prey relationships were explored (Paper III, IV & V). Firstly, the distribution and abundance of avian predators is determined by resource diversity and anthropogenic factors of a landscape at multiple spatial scales. Secondly, predator abundance and predation pressure were positively correlated, and linked to different wet grassland developmental stages in Northern Europe. Thus, based on the studies contained in this thesis, changes to both land cover patterns and ecological processes play a vital role for the maintenance of wet grasslands as functional GI. Finally, the multiple landscape case study approach employed in this thesis is a novel macroecological tool that encourages knowledge production and learning for functional GI.

Commissioned by the Intergovernmental Meeting (IGM) of the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN), this book offers a detailed survey of the current status of climate change and climate variability in the Asia-Pacific region, a thorough and thoughtful assessment of climate and security and clear recommendations on the best paths of climate research in the future.

Research Highlights: The European Union's last large intact forest landscapes along the Scandinavian Mountain range in Sweden offer unique opportunities for conservation of biodiversity, ecological integrity and resilience. However, these forests are at a crossroad between intensified wood production aimed at bio-economy, and rural development based on multi-functional forest landscapes for future-oriented forest value chains. Background and Objectives:We (1) estimate the area of near-natural forests potentially remaining for forest harvesting and wood production, or as green infrastructure for biodiversity conservation and human well-being in rural areas, (2) review how forest and conservation policies have so far succeeded to reduce the loss of mountain forests, and (3) discuss what economic, socio-cultural and ecological values that are at stake, as well as different governance and management solutions.Materials andMethods: First, we estimated the remaining amount of intact mountain forests using (1) the Swedish National Forest Inventory, (2) protected area statistics, (3) forest harvest permit applications and actually harvested forests, (4) remote sensing wall-to-wall data on forests not subject to clear-felling since the mid-1950s, (5) mapping of productive and non-productive forestland, and (6) estimates of mean annual final felling rate. Second, we review policy documents related to the emergence of land use regulation in north Sweden, including the mountain forest border, and illustrate this with an actual case that has had significant policy implementation importance. Results: There is a clear difference between the proportions of formally protected productive forestland above the mountain forest border (52.5%) and north Sweden in general (6.3%). A total of 300,000 ha of previously not clear-felled mountain forest outside protected areas remain, which can support novel value chains that are not achievable elsewhere. Conclusions: The mountain forests in Sweden provide unique conservation values in the European Union. Since the beginning of the 1990s, policy regulations have been successful in limiting forest harvesting. Currently, however, mountain forests are a battle ground regarding intensification of forest use, including logging of forests that have never been subject to clear-felling systems vs. nature conservation and wilderness as a base for rural development. The ability of mountain municipalities to encourage sustainable rural forest landscapes must be strengthened.

The policy term green infrastructure highlights the need to maintain functional ecosystems as a foundation for sustainable societies. Because forests are the main natural ecosystems in Europe, it is crucial to understand the extent to which forest landscape management delivers functional green infrastructures. We used the steep west-east gradient in forest landscape history, land ownership, and political culture within northern Europe's Baltic Sea Region to assess regional profiles of benefits delivered by forest landscapes. The aim was to support policy-makers and planners with evidence-based knowledge about the current conditions for effective wood production and biodiversity conservation. We developed and modeled four regional-level indicators for sustained yield wood production and four for biodiversity conservation using public spatial data. The western case study regions in Sweden and Latvia had high forest management intensity with balanced forest losses and gains which was spatially correlated, thus indicating an even stand age class distribution at the local scale and therefore long-term sustained yields. In contrast, the eastern case study regions in Belarus and Russia showed spatial segregation of areas with forest losses and gains. Regarding biodiversity conservation indicators, the west-east gradient was reversed. In the Russian, Belarusian, and Latvian case study regions, tree species composition was more natural than in Sweden, and the size of contiguous areas without forest loss was larger. In all four case study regions, 54-85% of the total land base consisted of forest cover, which is above critical fragmentation thresholds for forest landscape fragmentation. The results show that green infrastructures for wood production and biodiversity conservation are inversely related among the four case study regions, and thus rival. While restoration for biodiversity conservation is needed in the west, intensified use of wood and biomass is possible in the east. However, a cautious approach should be applied because intensification of wood production threatens biodiversity. We discuss the barriers and bridges for spatial planning in countries with different types of land ownership and political cultures and stress the need for a landscape approach based on evidence-based collaborative learning processes that include both different academic disciplines and stakeholders that represent different sectors and levels of governance.

Context: Place-based transdisciplinary research involves multiple academic disciplines and non-academic actors. Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) platform is one concept with ~ 80 initiatives globally. Objectives: As an exercise in learning through evaluation we audited (1) the siting, construction and maintenance of individual LTSER platforms, and (2) them as a distributed infrastructure for place-based transdisciplinary research with focus on the European continent. Methods: First, we defined a normative model for ideal performance at both platform and network levels. Second, four surveys were sent out to the 67 self-reported LTSER platforms officially listed at the end of 2016. Third, with a focus on the network level, we analyzed the spatial distribution of both long-term ecological monitoring sites within LTSER platforms, and LTSER platforms across the European continent. Fourth, narrative biographies of 18 platforms in different stages of development were analyzed. Results: While the siting ofLTSER platforms represented biogeographical regions well, variations in land use history and democratic governance were not well represented. Platform construction was based on 2.1 ecological monitoring sites, with 72% ecosystem and 28% social system research. Maintenance of a platform required three to five staff members, focused mostly on ecosystem research, was based mainly on national funding, and had 1–2 years of future funding secured. Networking with other landscape approach concepts was common. Conclusions: Individually, and as a network, LTSER platforms have good potential for transdisciplinary knowledge production and learning about sustainability challenges. To improve the range of variation of Pan-European social–ecological systems we encourage interfacing with other landscape approach concepts. ; Peer reviewed

Context Place-based transdisciplinary research involves multiple academic disciplines and non-academic actors. Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) platform is one concept with similar to 80 initiatives globally.Objectives As an exercise in learning through evaluation we audited (1) the siting, construction and maintenance of individual LTSER platforms, and (2) them as a distributed infrastructure for place-based transdisciplinary research with focus on the European continent.MethodsFirst, we defined a normative model for ideal performance at both platform and network levels. Second, four surveys were sent out to the 67 self-reported LTSER platforms officially listed at the end of 2016. Third, with a focus on the network level, we analyzed the spatial distribution of both long-term ecological monitoring sites within LTSER platforms, and LTSER platforms across the European continent. Fourth, narrative biographies of 18 platforms in different stages of development were analyzed.ResultsWhile the siting of LTSER platforms represented biogeographical regions well, variations in land use history and democratic governance were not well represented. Platform construction was based on 2.1 ecological monitoring sites, with 72% ecosystem and 28% social system research. Maintenance of a platform required three to five staff members, focused mostly on ecosystem research, was based mainly on national funding, and had 1-2years of future funding secured. Networking with other landscape approach concepts was common.ConclusionsIndividually, and as a network, LTSER platforms have good potential for transdisciplinary knowledge production and learning about sustainability challenges. To improve the range of variation of Pan-European social-ecological systems we encourage interfacing with other landscape approach concepts. ; Peer reviewed

Context Place-based transdisciplinary research involves multiple academic disciplines and non-academic actors. Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) platform is one concept with similar to 80 initiatives globally.Objectives As an exercise in learning through evaluation we audited (1) the siting, construction and maintenance of individual LTSER platforms, and (2) them as a distributed infrastructure for place-based transdisciplinary research with focus on the European continent.MethodsFirst, we defined a normative model for ideal performance at both platform and network levels. Second, four surveys were sent out to the 67 self-reported LTSER platforms officially listed at the end of 2016. Third, with a focus on the network level, we analyzed the spatial distribution of both long-term ecological monitoring sites within LTSER platforms, and LTSER platforms across the European continent. Fourth, narrative biographies of 18 platforms in different stages of development were analyzed.ResultsWhile the siting of LTSER platforms represented biogeographical regions well, variations in land use history and democratic governance were not well represented. Platform construction was based on 2.1 ecological monitoring sites, with 72% ecosystem and 28% social system research. Maintenance of a platform required three to five staff members, focused mostly on ecosystem research, was based mainly on national funding, and had 1-2years of future funding secured. Networking with other landscape approach concepts was common.ConclusionsIndividually, and as a network, LTSER platforms have good potential for transdisciplinary knowledge production and learning about sustainability challenges. To improve the range of variation of Pan-European social-ecological systems we encourage interfacing with other landscape approach concepts.

Due to the multiplicity of challenges facing all societies at the beginning of the twenty-first century, agricultural systems and rural landscapes are under pressure. Solutions for their optimization towards sustainability at high productivity are required. We address the majority of current agricultural systems and discuss approaches for assessing their sustainability. Life cycle analyses and footprint methods have experienced much progress but require further qualification. Some alternative farming systems such as organic agriculture, agroecology, regenerative agriculture, ecological intensification, and sustainable intensification, which are based on landscape approaches and direct farmer–consumer interactions have potential for significant improvements towards the sustainability of global agriculture and need further attention and promotion in research and practice. Technology-driven smart farming technologies can be implemented in all these kinds of farming systems. A key to preventing the degradation of agricultural landscapes and improving ecology and economics lies in their better structural development and design, adapted to geosystem settings, legacies of local cultural history and opportunities presented by urban–rural interactions. For achieving better landscape design, it is worth thinking about reforming and strengthening land consolidation as a planned participatory process involving the rural community. Further, scientifically sound and policy relevant rules and steering instruments have to be developed for the design and cultural evolution of rural landscapes. The European Union (EU) and other wealthy economic zones, federations, countries, and regions have developed funding systems for agriculture. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU is a powerful tool promoting both the possession and ownership of agricultural land (pillar I, main pillar) and rural development (pillar II). This system should be better balanced by shifting towards pillar II to promote further ecosystem services in agricultural regions. Novel solutions should be aimed at for maintaining landscape diversity and heritage, developing local food cultures and agritourism, and strengthening rural communities and their societal image. Transdisciplinary international model projects are useful contributions to making innovations operable.