IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0113648.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Species, Habitats, Society: An Evaluation of Research Supporting EU's Natura 2000 Network

Author

Listed:
  • Viorel D Popescu
  • Laurentiu Rozylowicz
  • Iulian M Niculae
  • Adina L Cucu
  • Tibor Hartel

Abstract

The Natura 2000 network is regarded as one of the conservation success stories in the global effort to protect biodiversity. However, significant challenges remain in Natura 2000 implementation, owing to its rapid expansion, and lack of a coherent vision for its future. Scientific research is critical for identifying conservation priorities, setting management goals, and reconciling biodiversity protection and society in the complex political European landscape. Thus, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive evaluation of published Natura 2000 research to highlight prevalent research themes, disciplinary approaches, and spatial entities. We conducted a systematic review of 572 scientific articles and conference proceedings focused on Natura 2000 research, published between 1996 and 2014. We grouped these articles into ‘ecological’ and ‘social and policy’ categories. Using a novel application of network analysis of article keywords, we found that Natura 2000 research forms a cohesive small-world network, owing to the emphasis on ecological research (79% of studies, with a strong focus on spatial conservation planning), and the underrepresentation of studies addressing ‘social and policy’ issues (typically focused on environmental impact assessment, multi-level governance, agri-environment policy, and ecosystem services valuation). ‘Ecological’ and ‘social and policy’ research shared only general concepts (e.g., Natura 2000, Habitats Directive) suggesting a disconnection between these disciplines. The UK and the Mediterranean basin countries dominated Natura 2000 research, and there was a weak correlation between number of studies and proportion of national territory protected. Approximately 40% of ‘social and policy’ research and 26% of ‘ecological’ studies highlighted negative implications of Natura 2000, while 21% of studies found positive social and biodiversity effects. We emphasize the need for designing inter- and transdisciplinary research in order to promote a social-ecological understanding of Natura 2000, and advance EU conservation policies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0113648
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113648
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113648
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0113648&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0113648?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abson, D.J. & von Wehrden, H. & Baumgärtner, S. & Fischer, J. & Hanspach, J. & Härdtle, W. & Heinrichs, H. & Klein, A.M. & Lang, D.J. & Martens, P. & Walmsley, D., 2014. "Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 29-37.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Indré Ruškyté & Gediminas Brazaitis & Michael Manton & Žydrunas Preikša, 2021. "Woodland key habitat contribution to preserve biological diversity in Lithuania: assessing the difference between 2005 and 2017," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(9), pages 436-448.
    2. Beunen, Raoul & Kole, Sander, 2021. "Institutional innovation in conservation law: Experiences from the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    3. Bacău, Simona & Grădinaru, Simona R. & Hersperger, Anna M., 2020. "Spatial plans as relational data: Using social network analysis to assess consistency among Bucharest’s planning instruments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    4. 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).
    5. Masiero, Mauro & Franceschinis, Cristiano & Mattea, Stefania & Thiene, Mara & Pettenella, Davide & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2018. "Ecosystem services’ values and improved revenue collection for regional protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 136-153.
    6. Sorin Avram & Irina Ontel & Carmen Gheorghe & Steliana Rodino & Sanda Roșca, 2021. "Applying a Complex Integrated Method for Mapping and Assessment of the Degraded Ecosystem Hotspots from Romania," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-23, October.
    7. Pettenella, Davide & Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Masiero, Mauro & Mattea, Stefania & Franceschinis, Cristiano, 2016. "First economic assessment of ecosystem services from Natura 2000 network in Lombardy (Northern Italy)," 2016 Fifth AIEAA Congress, June 16-17, 2016, Bologna, Italy 242326, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    8. 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.
    9. Sabrina Lai, 2020. "Hindrances to Effective Implementation of the Habitats Directive in Italy: Regional Differences in Designating Special Areas of Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Francesco Zullo & Cristina Montaldi & Gianni Di Pietro & Bernardino Romano, 2022. "Urban Growth and Habitat Connectivity: A Study on European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-13, November.
    12. Shackleton, Ross T. & Angelstam, Per & van der Waal, Benjamin & Elbakidze, Marine, 2017. "Progress made in managing and valuing ecosystem services: a horizon scan of gaps in research, management and governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PB), pages 232-241.
    13. 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.
    14. Ziv, Guy & Hassall, Christopher & Bartkowski, Bartosz & Cord, Anna F. & Kaim, Andrea & Kalamandeen, Michelle & Landaverde-González, Patricia & Melo, Joana L.B. & Seppelt, Ralf & Shannon, Caitriona & , 2018. "A bird’s eye view over ecosystem services in Natura 2000 sites across Europe," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 287-298.

    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. Bordt, Michael, 2018. "Discourses in Ecosystem Accounting: A Survey of the Expert Community," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 82-99.
    2. Jens Koehrsen, 2017. "Boundary Bridging Arrangements: A Boundary Work Approach to Local Energy Transitions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-23, March.
    3. John, Beatrice & Luederitz, Christopher & Lang, Daniel J. & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2019. "Toward Sustainable Urban Metabolisms. From System Understanding to System Transformation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 402-414.
    4. Sophie Urmetzer & Michael P. Schlaile & Kristina B. Bogner & Matthias Mueller & Andreas Pyka, 2018. "Exploring the Dedicated Knowledge Base of a Transformation towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, May.
    5. Rau, Anna-Lena & von Wehrden, Henrik & Abson, David J., 2018. "Temporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 122-130.
    6. Honeck, Erica & Gallagher, Louise & von Arx, Bertrand & Lehmann, Anthony & Wyler, Nicolas & Villarrubia, Olga & Guinaudeau, Benjamin & Schlaepfer, Martin A., 2021. "Integrating ecosystem services into policymaking – A case study on the use of boundary organizations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    7. Suich, Helen & Howe, Caroline & Mace, Georgina, 2015. "Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: A review of the empirical links," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 137-147.
    8. Jacobs, Sander & Burkhard, Benjamin & Van Daele, Toon & Staes, Jan & Schneiders, Anik, 2015. "‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 21-30.
    9. Ruijs, Arjan & van Egmond, Petra, 2017. "Natural capital in practice: How to include its value in Dutch decision-making processes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 106-116.
    10. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    11. Luederitz, Christopher & Brink, Ebba & Gralla, Fabienne & Hermelingmeier, Verena & Meyer, Moritz & Niven, Lisa & Panzer, Lars & Partelow, Stefan & Rau, Anna-Lena & Sasaki, Ryuei & Abson, David J. & La, 2015. "A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 98-112.
    12. Sattler, Claudia & Schröter, Barbara, 2022. "Collective action across boundaries: Collaborative network initiatives as boundary organizations to improve ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    13. Schmidt, Stefan & Seppelt, Ralf, 2018. "Information content of global ecosystem service databases and their suitability for decision advice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 22-40.
    14. María D. López-Rodríguez & Javier Cabello & Hermelindo Castro & Jaime Rodríguez, 2019. "Social Learning for Facilitating Dialogue and Understanding of the Ecosystem Services Approach: Lessons from a Cross-Border Experience in the Alboran Marine Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-23, September.
    15. Verburg, René & Selnes, Trond & Verweij, Pita, 2016. "Governing ecosystem services: National and local lessons from policy appraisal and implementation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 186-197.
    16. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    17. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    18. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    19. Mascarenhas, André & Ramos, Tomás B. & Haase, Dagmar & Santos, Rui, 2016. "Participatory selection of ecosystem services for spatial planning: Insights from the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 87-99.
    20. Dennis Junior Choruma & Oghenekaro Nelson Odume, 2019. "Exploring Farmers’ Management Practices and Values of Ecosystem Services in an Agroecosystem Context—A Case Study from the Eastern Cape, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0113648. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.