Europes ecological backbone.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mountain people: status and trends Table 2.8 Population density change (%) per country, within and outside mountain massifs, between 1990 and 2005 Percentage of population density change between 1990-2005 within mountains Percentage of population density change between 1990-2005 outside mountains Austria 4.1 % 2.4 % Belgium 10.3 % 3.4 % Bulgaria – 14.8 % – 16.7 % Croatia 11.1 % 11.1 % Cyprus 19.3 % 19.9 % Czech Republic – 1.0 % – 2.3 % Finland – 24.0 % 3.3 % France 7.2 % 6.3 % Germany 0.8 % 0.4 % Greece 0.7 % 9.5 % Hungary – 6.3 % – 5.0 % Iceland 5.6 % 19.6 % Ireland 12.7 % 16.9 % Italy – 0.5 % 1.3 % Luxembourg 17.3 % 20.8 % Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 7.9 % 7.5 % Malta 11.6 % 9.0 % Moldova – 3.2 % – 2.0 % Montenegro 6.0 % 5.5 % Norway 3.7 % 11.2 % Poland 1.1 % – 1.2 % Portugal – 4.5 % 0.9 % Romania – 4.5 % – 2.9 % Serbia 5.9 % – 2.8 % Slovakia 11.8 % 7.4 % Slovenia 1.2 % – 3.9 % Spain 0.7 % 3.6 % Sweden – 14.5 % 0.2 % Switzerland 2.5 % – 2.0 % Turkey 20.1 % 37.9 % Ukraine – 0.8 % – 8.3 % United Kingdom 3.7 % 6.8 % All Europe 10.6 % 7.5 % Note: Contrasting trends are highlighted in italics, increases are marked in white and decreases in blue. Source: Gridded Population of the World Version 3 (GPWv3), CIESIN. 44 Europe's ecological backbone: recognising the true value of our mountains
Mountain economies and accessibility 3 Mountain economies and accessibility 3.1 Economic structures There is a great diversity in economic structures across the mountains of Europe (Map 3.1), and many of these have been changing rapidly in recent years, especially in the new Member States (UNEP, 2007). The cultural identity and external image of many mountain areas remains tied to the primary sector (i.e. agriculture and forestry) and cultural landscapes are very important elements of the attractiveness of mountain areas for tourism. Today, the primary sector remains particularly important as a source of employment in southern and Eastern Europe, but is often experiencing significant internal change as the result of factors such as land reform and abandonment in areas further from settlements, and intensification nearer to settlements (see Chapter 7 and Box 3.1). However, the tertiary sector is the greatest source of employment in the mountains of all members of the EU‐27 as well as Switzerland and Norway, except for the Czech Republic (European Commission, 2004) and Romania (UNEP, 2007). The public sector accounts for a particularly high proportion of this employment in the mountains of the Nordic countries and the French Alps (Borsdorf, 2008). A number of mountain areas have had relatively high employment in the secondary sector for decades or longer, usually due to the availability of specific geological and energy resources and also, historically, of labour in the form of agricultural workers in winter (Box 3.2). 3.2 Economic density and accessibility Previous work on the mountains of Europe, including all states that are now members of the EU, states of the former Yugoslavia, Albania, Moldova, Norway and Switzerland (Copus and Price 2002), has focused on the interactions between economic performance (in terms of GDP per capita) and peripherality (as defined by Schurmann and Talaat, 2000). This work used data at the NUTS 3 level and suggested that economic performance declined with increasing peripherality for NUTS 3 regions with at least 40 % of their area defined as mountainous, but that the impact of the presence of mountains 'is very entangled with that of peripherality, and can be improved by the presence of a large town or city' (Copus and Price, 2002: 33). The authors also concluded that 'NUTS 3 geography is clearly inadequate for such as exercise' (Copus and Price, 2002) because most NUTS 3 regions are large in area and have both mountain and lowland areas, usually with most of the population and economic activity in the latter. This conclusion has been borne out by subsequent analysis, for example for the Alps (Tappeiner et al., 2008). For the present report, economic performance is expressed in terms of economic density, defined as the income generated per square kilometre (EUR km 2 ). This can be considered as an integrative indicator of economic power and population density, which has been used to rank countries by their level of development (Gallup et al., 1999). Economic density is defined in terms of GDP PPP (i.e. domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita, the value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year divided by the average (or mid-year population for the same year) per capita, and is derived from CLC and EEA population density map. This work could only be done for the EU‐27. Accessibility through transportation and communication networks is a significant determinant of access of people to markets and other services. Accessibility is frequently used as a proxy for urban influence in rural areas; its converse is peripherality, as examined for Europe's mountain areas in European Commission (2004). A time‐cost model was used, based on the cost-distance algorithms (ESRI 2006), to avoid interference with the economic density dataset and to use a comparable spatial unit and resolution. This approach calculates, for each square kilometre in Europe, the travel time to the nearest destination of interest given the transportation network. Since cities and towns of different sizes offer different opportunities and facilities, the travel time was calculated separately to towns and cities of more than 25 000, 60 000, 100 000, 250 000, 500 000 and 750 000 inhabitants. The final measure of accessibility is based on the average time‐cost to these different Europe's ecological backbone: recognising the true value of our mountains 45
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 48 and 49: Mountain economies and accessibilit
Page 62 and 63: Ecosystem services from Europe's mo
Page 76 and 77: Climate change and Europe's mountai
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: The water towers of Europe Box 6.2
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:
The water towers of Europe Box 6.5
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
The water towers of Europe Figure 6
Page 106 and 107:
The water towers of Europe (Livings
Page 108 and 109:
The water towers of Europe Figure 6
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 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
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:
Page 244 and 245:
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?