Proceedings

Integration of Requirements of Nature Management Plans into Spatial
Planning: Methods and GIS Tools
JOLANTA BĀRA, KRISTĪNA AKSJUTA, DAINIS LAZDĀNS, MĀRIS NITCIS 1
Introduction
Latvia has about 15 years experience of the development
of nature management plans for Specially Protected
Nature Territories (SPNTs). This process is currently
regulated by several legal acts (laws and regulations
of the Cabinet of Ministers). Nevertheless, it is still
challenging to achieve integration of the requirements
of nature management plans (NMPs) into spatial
planning (SP).
The article provides an analysis of the tools and
methods for integration of nature conservation issues
into spatial planning. This includes using GIS tools,
Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) and
other methods.
Applying GIS tools in nature management plans
and during their implementation helps to assess
environmental impact and pressures of several activities
to vulnerable habitats and species, as well as serves as an
easily accessible source of information. It is necessary
to accumulate data of various characteristics and from
a range of sources for the creation of management plans
for Specially Protected Nature Territories. This includes
geographic, geological, biological, and ecological
data as well as economic and legal analysis referring
to SPNTs, structural zoning, encountered specially
protected species and biotopes, land cadastre, forms
of cadastre-registered property and land owners, etc.
This vast expanse of information is best organized
when thematically structured with electronic data bases
accompanying each constituent component, which will
facilitate its further use in the GIS setting for sampling,
splitting or merging, and thematic restructuring of
information (e.g. areas exposed to erosion or biologically
valuable areas) (Lazdāns, Nitcis, 2008).
Most of the habitats in SPNTs are vulnerable to
recreational pressure and commercial activities. These
habitats are not mapped and evaluated in all SPNTs.
Therefore, the activities of lake owners, renters, water
users, landowners and municipalities threaten these
habitats. For example, houses, car parking places
and camping sites can be accidentally built into the
areas of endangered habitats. GIS mapping with the
information identified above would allow managers to
select less valuable habitats for building, thus leaving the
endangered habitats untouched.
All SPNTs contain habitats and species of EU and
international importance, but they are not inventoried or
mapped fully. Only the most important and immediate
threats to such habitats are identified. There are no
detailed habitat maps in municipalities. Due to incomplete
information, further management and building activities
can threaten the habitats.
The GIS-based methods are one of the possibilities to
achieve incorporation of nature conservation measures
into spatial planning documents.
Examples: 3-D modeling and erosion risk assessment
(Lazdāns, Nitcis, 2008); 3-D modeling and planning of
tourism infrastructure and build-up areas, and digital
databases and interactive maps of nature values.
Nevertheless, there are still gaps and limitations.
The main gaps in transferring information from nature
management plans to spatial plans can be linked to the
low awareness of nature conservation among spatial
planning specialists, as well as the limited knowledge
among developers of nature management plans for
SPNTs (Bāra, 2007).
Other limitations are differences in procedures and
contents of both planning documents (Table). Most
influencing factors are the different aims of these
planning documents (nature conservation in case of
NMPs, and the regional development in case of SPs),
and different procedures and structures of both planning
documents, which can confuse and make suspicious
spatial planners, municipality staff members and local
people alike. The difference in administrative borders
of SPNTs and municipalities/regions can be rated
dually – both an advantage and challenge, because there
is the opportunity to gather together more people from
different municipalities and get more information and
opinions, as well as the risk of more unsurfaced ambitions
and personal/historical disagreements among people
1
Daugavpils University, Vienības iela 13, Daugavpils, LV-5400 Latvia, e-mail: jolanta.bara@biology.lv,
kristina.aksjuta@biology.lv, dainis.lazdans@du.lv, maris.nitcis@biology.lv
15