Europes ecological backbone.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Integrated approaches to understanding mountain regions Table 10.2 Distribution of the FARO-EU classes inside and outside the mountain massifs per country Country Peri-urban Rural Deep rural Inside mountains Outside mountains Inside mountains Outside mountains Inside mountains Outside mountains Austria 10.4 % 44.2 % 53.8 % 40.0 % 34.3 % 11.2 % Belgium 11.2 % 33.6 % 60.2 % 43.7 % 27.1 % 9.5 % Bulgaria 0.9 % 1.8 % 17.2 % 27.8 % 80.5 % 66.3 % Cyprus No data No data No data No data No data No data Czech Republic 6.0 % 8.2 % 50.1 % 53.3 % 42.5 % 35.6 % Denmark No mountains 7.1 % No mountains 62.3 % No mountains 26.4 % Estonia No mountains 1.0 % No mountains 18.7 % No mountains 79.3 % Finland 0.0 % 3.1 % 0.1 % 23.4 % 99.9 % 72.6 % France 8.0 % 8.8 % 41.1 % 38.3 % 50.0 % 49.7 % Germany 20.1 % 26.4 % 63.8 % 56.8 % 13.7 % 11.5 % Greece 1.4 % 9.6 % 24.5 % 55.8 % 73.8 % 31.7 % Hungary 6.1 % 9.1 % 43.9 % 54.1 % 48.6 % 33.5 % Ireland 0.6 % 1.6 % 5.1 % 15.9 % 94.2 % 81.3 % Italy 14.4 % 53.0 % 55.8 % 36.7 % 29.0 % 4.8 % Latvia No mountains 0.6 % No mountains 20.5 % No mountains 78.2 % Lithuania No mountains 1.4 % No mountains 52.2 % No mountains 44.9 % Luxembourg 2.8 % 9.1 % 84.3 % 79.7 % 9.2 % 6.2 % Malta 26.9 % 32.1 % 61.5 % 28.1 % 7.7 % 9.0 % Netherlands No mountains 28.4 % No mountains 57.7 % No mountains 4.6 % Poland 9.7 % 3.5 % 40.9 % 48.2 % 48.2 % 46.6 % Portugal 3.6 % 8.4 % 21.8 % 26.2 % 74.3 % 63.4 % Romania 0.7 % 2.4 % 15.0 % 36.2 % 82.5 % 57.3 % Slovakia 0.6 % 7.8 % 14.8 % 48.6 % 83.6 % 38.9 % Slovenia 29.4 % 41.2 % 59.9 % 51.1 % 10.1 % 4.5 % Spain 3.9 % 10.4 % 27.2 % 38.5 % 68.6 % 49.5 % Sweden 0.0 % 4.6 % 1.5 % 27.6 % 98.4 % 66.8 % United Kingdom 2.6 % 17.3 % 13.4 % 48.6 % 83.5 % 27.0 % 10.2 Natural and environmental assets of mountain areas The Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion (EC, 2008) has noted the need to coordinate and integrate different policy actions for specific territories that are functionally defined. One way of doing this is to develop 'new geographies' that support the identity of such territories through the identification of particular assets. One such set is represented by natural and environmental assets; described in the context of spatial planning by the European Commission (EC, 1999) as 'characteristics of ecosystems and other natural areas — their relative importance, sensitivity, size and rarity … (to) supply a basis for the assessment of related functions of different natural assets across Europe'. This section describes the characterisation of regions according to the set of assets listed in Table 10.3. These were selected from a wider range of possible assets because 1) data were available for all EU‐27 Member States; 2) they were not significantly correlated with each other. All the data sets were re-sampled to 10 x 10 km grid cells, and standardised to five classes, as shown in Table 10.4, and assumed to represent a gradient of assets for each cell. Scores were attributed to each class as follows: • very low assets: average > – 1.5 standard deviations: score = 1 • low assets: average – 0.5 to – 1.5 standard deviations: score = 3 • average assets: average +/– 0.5 standard deviations: score = 6 • high assets: average + 0.5 to 1.5 standard deviations: score = 10 190 Europe's ecological backbone: recognising the true value of our mountains
Integrated approaches to understanding mountain regions Table 10.3 Natural and environmental assets used for characterisation Dataset Description Source Rural typologies Economic density and accessibility FARO-EU project (see above) High Nature Value Presence of HNV farmlands Paracchini et al. (2008) farmlands Proximity to natural areas Proximity to natural areas (Natura 2000, CLC semi-natural classes, water) Air quality Inverse distance weighted availability of natural areas on an area of 10 km radius, expressed as percentage of the theoretical maximum PM 10 emissions µg/m 3 for the year 2004 Annex to Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion : European Commission (EC, 2008) AirBase 4.0 data (EEA, 2010a) EEA Fast Track Service Precursor on Land Monitoring — Degree of soil sealing 100 m Extrapolation of measured values to surface areas Percentage of sealed (artificial) area per grid cell EEA data service (EEA, 2010b) • very high assets: average > 1.5 standard deviations: score = 15 The input data are classified according to their inherent differences, without a subjective rating of 'good' or 'bad'. For example, areas in northern Scandinavia with a low proportion of farmland also score low with regard to HNV farmland, but this does not mean that these areas have few natural assets. Maps 10.2 and 10.3 present the natural and environmental assets for the EU‐27, and mountain massifs within these countries, respectively. Even in Map 10.2 it can be seen that mountain massifs generally stand out; but it should also be noted that there are significant areas with high levels of natural and environmental assets in other parts of the EU‐27, including much of Sweden, Finland and Estonia. Table 10.5 permits a comparison of the relative proportions of natural and environmental assets across the massifs, though considering only the parts within EU Member States. As can be seen in column 2 (data for class 0), large areas in the Nordic mountains (Norway) and the Balkans/South-east Europe are not considered and are not discussed further below; no results are shown for Turkey. The massifs that have very high assets (class 5) over particularly high proportions of their area are those of the British Isles (59 %), western Mediterranean islands (25 %) and Iberian mountains (22 %). Many more massifs have high assets (class 4) over particularly high proportions of their area: Pyrenees (44 %), Iberian mountains (31 %), Alps (29 %), French/Swiss middle Table 10.4 Thresholds for the definition of classes of natural and environmental assets Class 1 2 3 4 5 Asset level Very low Low Average High Very high Score 1 3 6 10 15 Rural typologies Urban Peri-urban – Rural Deep rural High Nature Value 0 0–25 25–50 50–75 75–100 farmland (%) Proximity to 0–4 4–34 34–65 65–95 95–100 natural areas (%) Air quality (PM 10 > 56 50–64 30–49 20–29 0–19 emissions, µg/m 3 ) Degree of soil sealing (%) 51–100 37–51 23–37 9–23 0–9 Europe's ecological backbone: recognising the true value of our mountains 191
Page 1:
EEA Report No 6/2010 Europe's ecolo
Page 4 and 5:
Cover design: EEA Cover photo © Ca
Page 6 and 7:
Contents 7 Land cover and uses.....
Page 8 and 9:
Acknowledgements Box 1.5: Maja Vasi
Page 10 and 11:
Acknowledgements Chapter 8 Mountain
Page 12 and 13:
Executive summary general, populati
Page 14 and 15:
Executive summary Among all Europe'
Page 16 and 17:
Introduction and background Interna
Page 18 and 19:
Introduction and background same co
Page 20 and 21:
Introduction and background instrum
Page 22 and 23:
Introduction and background coopera
Page 24 and 25:
Introduction and background instrum
Page 26 and 27:
Introduction and background Box 1.4
Page 28 and 29:
Introduction and background made. W
Page 30 and 31:
Introduction and background Map 1.2
Page 32 and 33:
Introduction and background require
Page 34 and 35:
Introduction and background Map 1.3
Page 36 and 37:
Mountain people: status and trends
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Mountain economies and accessibilit
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Ecosystem services from Europe's mo
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Climate change and Europe's mountai
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
The water towers of Europe lowland
Page 90 and 91:
The water towers of Europe Box 6.1
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
The water towers of Europe Figure 6
Page 96 and 97:
The water towers of Europe • Navi
Page 98 and 99:
The water towers of Europe in the a
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
The water towers of Europe (Livings
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Land cover and uses 7 Land cover an
Page 114 and 115:
Land cover and uses Map 7.2 Dominan
Page 116 and 117:
Land cover and uses Table 7.1 Distr
Page 118 and 119:
Land cover and uses Figure 7.3 Land
Page 120 and 121:
Land cover and uses Table 7.2 Chang
Page 122 and 123:
Land cover and uses Box 7.1 Land us
Page 124 and 125:
Land cover and uses Box 7.1 Land us
Page 126 and 127:
Land cover and uses Figure 7.7 Aver
Page 128 and 129:
Land cover and uses Box 7.3 Land re
Page 130 and 131:
Land cover and uses Box 7.4 Land-us
Page 132 and 133:
Land cover and uses Figure 7.11 Con
Page 134 and 135:
Land cover and uses country before
Page 136 and 137:
Land cover and uses Table 7.8 Natio
Page 138 and 139:
Land cover and uses Map 7.6 Area cl
Page 140 and 141:
Land cover and uses Box 7.6 Identif
Page 142 and 143: Land cover and uses Table 7.10 Tota
Page 144 and 145: Biodiversity 8 Biodiversity At the
Page 146 and 147: Biodiversity The geographic scope o
Page 148 and 149: Biodiversity Recognising that not a
Page 150 and 151: Biodiversity Figure 8.1 Number of m
Page 152 and 153: Biodiversity Figure 8.3 Habitats in
Page 154 and 155: Biodiversity For each habitat type,
Page 156 and 157: Biodiversity Box 8.2 Alien plants i
Page 158 and 159: Biodiversity Box 8.3 Climate change
Page 160 and 161: Biodiversity The pattern of success
Page 162 and 163: Biodiversity Box 8.4 Recent changes
Page 164 and 165: Protected areas Box 9.1 Sharr Mount
Page 166 and 167: Protected areas 9.1 Natura 2000 sit
Page 168 and 169: Protected areas Table 9.1 Area of N
Page 170 and 171: Protected areas the mountains of th
Page 172 and 173: Protected areas Figure 9.3 Distribu
Page 174 and 175: Protected areas Figure 9.7 Distribu
Page 176 and 177: Protected areas Figure 9.10 Changes
Page 178 and 179: Protected areas Box 9.3 Land use de
Page 180 and 181: Protected areas Figure 9.12 Percent
Page 182 and 183: Protected areas Box 9.4 Kaçkar Mou
Page 184 and 185: Protected areas Table 9.7 Area of n
Page 186 and 187: Protected areas scale. Overlaps are
Page 188 and 189: Protected areas Box 9.5 Cantabrian
Page 190 and 191: Integrated approaches to understand
Page 204 and 205: References References Chapter 1 All
Page 206 and 207: References European Union, 2010. Pr
Page 208 and 209: References European Commission, 200
Page 210 and 211: References Yoshino, M., 2005. Mount
Page 212 and 213: References World Resources Institut
Page 214 and 215: References Faggian, P. and Giorgi,
Page 216 and 217: References Lopez-Moreno, J.I.; Goye
Page 218 and 219: References Ambrosetti, W. and Barba
Page 220 and 221: References characteristics of the l
Page 222 and 223: References Rogora, M., 2007. 'Synch
Page 224 and 225: References Chapter 7 Aitchison, J.
Page 226 and 227: References Williamson, T., 2002. Th
Page 228 and 229: References Lelek, A., 1987. The fre
Page 230 and 231: References Berthold, P., 2000: Voge
Page 232 and 233: References years of simulated clima
Page 234 and 235: References Konstanz, erschienen 199
Page 236 and 237: References EEA/UNEP, 2004. High nat
Page 238 and 239: References Innovations in GIS 7. Ta
Page 240 and 241: Appendix 1 Species Annex Endemic to
Page 242 and 243:
Appendix 1 Species Annex Endemic to
Page 244 and 245:
Appendix 1 Species Annex Endemic to
Page 246 and 247:
Appendix 2 Appendix 2 Mountain habi
Page 248 and 249:
Appendix 2 Code ( a ) Name Category
Page 250 and 251:
Appendix 2 Code ( a ) Name Category
Page 252:
TH-AL-10-006-EN-C doi:10.2800/43450
show all

Europes ecological backbone.pdf

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?