IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i4p1189-d141147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying Habitat Type Conservation Priorities under the Habitats Directive: Application to Two Italian Biogeographical Regions

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Campagnaro

    (Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, Università degli Studi di Padova, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy)

  • Giovanni Trentanovi

    (Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, Università degli Studi di Padova, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy)

  • Tommaso Sitzia

    (Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, Università degli Studi di Padova, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy)

Abstract

The ongoing biodiversity crisis necessitates greater efforts to ensure the adequate conservation of critical habitat types. Even though the identification of protected areas is still required in Europe, conservation efforts are now focusing on management requirements for protected areas and habitat types. Establishing effective management approaches is important for the conservation of the natural and semi-natural habitat types that are identified under the Habitats Directive framework. In this study, we propose a methodology for determining priorities in the conservation management of habitat types based on readily available data. This method relies on four simple criteria to rank habitat types, which includes: conservation condition, biodiversity value, pressure factor, and the cover relevance of habitat types (indicating regional responsibility in terms of area covered). After ranking the habitat types based on the sum of the scores given to all of the criteria, the 25% top-ranking habitat types were prioritized. The pressure factors are analyzed using cluster analysis to better convey information regarding the management needs of groups of habitat types. This prioritization method was tested in habitat types occurring within the Italian Alpine and Continental biogeographical regions. From this analysis, forests, bogs and fens, and dry grasslands were identified as conservation priorities for the Alpine region; meanwhile, a wider variety of habitat types were identified for the Continental region. Important pressure factors were identified (e.g., roads and motorways) for these two biogeographical regions of Italy, which could be used to suggest specific conservation measures. The proposed approach represents a transparent and reliable method for outlining habitat-type priorities based on conservation, biodiversity, pressure, and cover factors, which can be applied to identifying conservation measures that can help achieve biodiversity targets.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Campagnaro & Giovanni Trentanovi & Tommaso Sitzia, 2018. "Identifying Habitat Type Conservation Priorities under the Habitats Directive: Application to Two Italian Biogeographical Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1189-:d:141147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1189/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1189/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tommaso Sitzia & Thomas Campagnaro & Stefano Grigolato, 2016. "Ecological risk and accessibility analysis to assess the impact of roads under Habitats Directive," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(12), pages 2251-2271, December.
    2. James E. M. Watson & Nigel Dudley & Daniel B. Segan & Marc Hockings, 2014. "The performance and potential of protected areas," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7525), pages 67-73, November.
    3. Fontana, Veronika & Radtke, Anna & Bossi Fedrigotti, Valérie & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Tasser, Erich & Zerbe, Stefan & Buchholz, Thomas, 2013. "Comparing land-use alternatives: Using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 128-136.
    4. Favretto, N. & Stringer, L.C. & Dougill, A.J. & Dallimer, M. & Perkins, J.S. & Reed, M.S. & Atlhopheng, J.R. & Mulale, K., 2016. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to identify dryland ecosystem service trade-offs under different rangeland land uses," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 142-151.
    5. Viorel D Popescu & Laurentiu Rozylowicz & Iulian M Niculae & Adina L Cucu & Tibor Hartel, 2014. "Species, Habitats, Society: An Evaluation of Research Supporting EU's Natura 2000 Network," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-22, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jacqueline Loos & Tibor-Csaba Vizauer & Agnes Kastal & Martin Davies & Hans Hedrich & Matthias Dolek, 2020. "A highly endangered species on the edge: distribution, habitat use and outlook for Colias myrmidone in newly established Natura 2000 areas in Romania," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2399-2414, March.
    2. Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Belton, Valerie & Hjerppe, Turo & Marttunen, Mika, 2020. "Utilizing ecosystem service classifications in multi-criteria decision analysis – Experiences of peat extraction case in Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Chunrong Mi & Liang Ma & Mengyuan Yang & Xinhai Li & Shai Meiri & Uri Roll & Oleksandra Oskyrko & Daniel Pincheira-Donoso & Lilly P. Harvey & Daniel Jablonski & Barbod Safaei-Mahroo & Hanyeh Ghaffari , 2023. "Global Protected Areas as refuges for amphibians and reptiles under climate change," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Ming-Kuang Chung & Dau-Jye Lu & Bor-Wen Tsai & Kuei-Tien Chou, 2019. "Assessing Effectiveness of PPGIS on Protected Areas by Governance Quality: A Case Study of Community-Based Monitoring in Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-20, August.
    5. Tingting Zhang & Dan He & Tian Kuang & Ke Chen, 2022. "Effect of Rural Human Settlement Environment around Nature Reserves on Farmers’ Well-Being: A Field Survey Based on 1002 Farmer Households around Six Nature Reserves in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-18, May.
    6. Nicolás Ruiz, Néstor & Suárez Alonso, María Luisa & Vidal-Abarca, María Rosario, 2021. "Contributions of dry rivers to human well-being: A global review for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    7. Adam Pawlewicz & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Katarzyna Brodzińska & Katarzyna Pawlewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Paweł Kluczek, 2022. "Organic Farming as an Alternative Maintenance Strategy in the Opinion of Farmers from Natura 2000 Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, March.
    8. Kadi Padur & Anna-Helena Purre, 2022. "Optimizing post-mining land-use decision making in cooperation with stakeholders," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 4875-4900, April.
    9. Chilombo, Andrew & Van Der Horst, Dan, 2021. "Livelihoods and coping strategies of local communities on previous customary land in limbo of commercial agricultural development: Lessons from the farm block program in Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    10. Qiaoqiao Zhan & Katsunori Furuya & Xiaolan Tang & Zhehui Li, 2024. "Policy Development in China’s Protected Scenic and Historic Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, February.
    11. Jacqueline Loos & Henrik Von Wehrden, 2018. "Beyond Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing Constitutes Sustainable Agriculture in European Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
    12. Minh-Hoang Nguyen & Thomas E. Jones, 2022. "Building eco-surplus culture among urban residents as a novel strategy to improve finance for conservation in protected areas," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    13. Alexandra Jiricka-Pürrer & Valeria Tadini & Boris Salak & Karolina Taczanowska & Andrzej Tucki & Giulio Senes, 2019. "Do Protected Areas Contribute to Health and Well-Being? A Cross-Cultural Comparison," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-18, April.
    14. Esther Reith & Elizabeth Gosling & Thomas Knoke & Carola Paul, 2020. "How Much Agroforestry Is Needed to Achieve Multifunctional Landscapes at the Forest Frontier?—Coupling Expert Opinion with Robust Goal Programming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-27, July.
    15. Changjun Gu & Pei Zhao & Qiong Chen & Shicheng Li & Lanhui Li & Linshan Liu & Yili Zhang, 2020. "Forest Cover Change and the Effectiveness of Protected Areas in the Himalaya since 1998," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-24, July.
    16. Jane Musole Kwenye & Xiaoting Hou Jones & Alan Renwick, 2023. "Understanding Land-Use Trade-off Decision Making Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process: Insights from Agricultural Land Managers in Zambia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, February.
    17. Erik Aschenbrand & Thomas Michler, 2021. "Why Do UNESCO Biosphere Reserves Get Less Recognition than National Parks? A Landscape Research Perspective on Protected Area Narratives in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-18, December.
    18. Bernadetta Zawilińska & Patrycja Brańka & Karol Majewski & Marcin Semczuk, 2021. "National Parks—Areas of Economic Development or Stagnation? Evidence from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-24, October.
    19. Marta Lisiak-Zielińska & Arlinda Cakaj & Anna Budka & Maria Drapikowska & Klaudia Borowiak & Jolanta Kanclerz & Ewelina Janicka, 2021. "Natura 2000 Network vs. Tourism and Investment Potential of Communes—A Case Study of Czarnkowsko-Trzcianecki County," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    20. Lijing Tang & Yuanyuan Yang & Dongyan Wang & Qing Wei, 2022. "Optimizing County-Level Land-Use Structure Method: Case Study of W County, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-26, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1189-:d:141147. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.