Corresponding author: Ivo Machar (
Academic editor: C. Margules
In conservation biology, there is a general consensus that protected areas (
In the course of the EU pre-accession phase, a comprehensive field mapping of natural habitats took place in the Czech Republic in years 2001−2004. The mapping results were used to designate Special Areas of Conservation (
In this study, the aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of this newly created system of
Pechanec V, Machar I, Pohanka T, Opršal Z, Petrovič F, Švajda J, Šálek L, Chobot K, Filippovová J, Cudlín P, Málková J (2018) Effectiveness of Natura 2000 system for habitat types protection: A case study from the Czech Republic. Nature Conservation 24: 21–41.
The World Database on Protected Areas (
The extent of
In 2010, the 10th COP to the CBD in Nagoya resulted in ambitious targets: to increase the area of the world
In the strongly anthropogenically altered Europe, nearly all
Although the percentage limits for the total minimum extent of
Worldwide, the area of
In the post-World War II Czech Republic, the effectiveness of
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network (
In this study, the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network was analysed with a special focus on the
To evaluate the effectiveness of
Species rarity is usually evaluated based on three criteria: geographic distribution, habitat requirements and abundance. Species conservation efforts predominantly focus on habitat specialists with restricted distribution (e.g. endemic species or isolated relict populations of rare species) or species with a broad geographic range but strong ties to rare habitats. A similar approach is being applied to habitat protection. Particular attention is paid to unique habitats tied to geographically or ecologically rare phenomena (e.g. serpentinites or glacial corries). With more widespread habitats, conservation efforts focus on those that can only be found on very small areas with specific natural conditions (springs, salt marshes etc.). Therefore, data on abundance and distribution may provide sufficient guidance needed to assess the degree of vulnerability of individual habitat types. Following the publication of the Catalogue, the Red Book of Habitats of the Czech Republic (
Conservation effectiveness of natural habitats in the Czech Republic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Wind-swept alpine grasslands | 6150 | A1.1 | 1.65 | VU | 107 | 1.65 | 1 |
Closed alpine grasslands | 6150 | A1.2 | 7.59 | VU | 355 | 7.59 | 1 |
Alpine heathlands | 4060 | A2.1 | 1.26 | VU | 121 | 1.26 | 1 |
Subalpine |
4060 | A2.2 | 4.8 | VU | 455 | 4.8 | 1 |
Snow beds | 6150 | A3 | 0.02 | CR | 12 | 0.02 | 1 |
Subalpine tall grasslands | 6430 | A4.1 | 7.28 | NT | 821 | 7.28 | 1 |
Cliff vegetation in the Sudeten cirques | 8220 | A5 | 0.03 | CR | 11 | 0.03 | 1 |
Acidophilous vegetation of alpine cliffs | 8220 | A6B | 0.41 | NT | 116 | 0.41 | 1 |
4070 | A7 | 12.17 | VU | 376 | 12.17 | 1 | |
4080 | A8.1 | 0.04 | CR | 5 | 0.04 | 1 | |
Subalpine deciduous tall scrub | 4080 | A8.2 | 0.29 | NT | 39 | 0.29 | 1 |
Low xeric scrub, secondary vegetation with |
40A0 | K4B | 0.01 | CR | 6 | 0.01 | 1 |
Calcareous fens with |
7210 | M1.8 | 0.04 | CR | 7 | 0.04 | 1 |
Vegetation of annual halophilous grasses | – | M2.4 | 0.04 | CR | 1 | 0.04 | 1 |
River gravel banks with |
3230 | M4.2 | 0.13 | CR | 1 | 0.13 | 1 |
River gravel banks with |
3220 | M4.3 | 0.07 | EN | 47 | 0.07 | 1 |
Subalpine springs | – | R1.5 | 0.07 | VU | 113 | 0.07 | 1 |
Peat soils with |
7150 | R2.4 | 0.14 | EN | 48 | 0.14 | 1 |
Tall-forb vegetation of fine-soil-rich boulder screes | – | S1.4 | 0.06 | VU | 35 | 0.06 | 1 |
Subalpine |
6230 | T2.1 | 1.5 | VU | 296 | 1.5 | 1 |
Macrophyte vegetation of naturally eutrophic and mesotrophic still waters with |
3150 | V1D | 0.05 | EN | 6 | 0.05 | 1 |
3130 | V6 | 0.25 | CR | 2 | 0.25 | 1 | |
Acidophilous vegetation of alpine boulder screes | 8110 | A6A | 1.84 | NT | 417 | 1.83 | 0.99 |
Montane |
6230 | T2.2 | 7.86 | VU | 1293 | 7.8 | 0.99 |
Subalpine tall-fern vegetation | 6430 | A4.3 | 0.54 | NT | 123 | 0.53 | 0.98 |
Bog hollows | 7110 | R3.3 | 0.84 | EN | 253 | 0.81 | 0.96 |
Basiphilous vegetation of vernal therophytes and succulents with dominance of |
6110 | T6.2A | 1.11 | EN | 36 | 1.07 | 0.96 |
91D0 | L10.4 | 10.01 | EN | 119 | 9.54 | 0.95 | |
Open raised bogs | 7110 | R3.1 | 6.31 | EN | 732 | 5.98 | 0.95 |
Raised bogs with |
91D0 | R3.2 | 17.04 | EN | 616 | 16.11 | 0.95 |
Vegetation of exposed bottoms in warm areas | 3130 | M2.3 | 0.32 | EN | 8 | 0.29 | 0.91 |
Pannonian sand steppe grasslands | 6260 | T5.4 | 0.98 | VU | 62 | 0.89 | 0.91 |
Acidophilous thermophilous oak forests with |
91I0 | L6.5A | 2.17 | VU | 187 | 1.93 | 0.89 |
Narrow-leaved dry grasslands with significant occurrence of orchids | 6210 | T3.3C | 0.35 | VU | 12 | 0.31 | 0.89 |
Broad-leaved dry grasslands with significant occurrence of orchids and without |
6210 | T3.4C | 9.74 | VU | 259 | 8.6 | 0.88 |
Peri-Alpidic serpentine pine forests | – | L8.3 | 0.45 | EN | 33 | 0.39 | 0.87 |
Pannonian thermophilous oak forests on loess | 91I0 | L6.2 | 16.54 | VU | 371 | 13.98 | 0.85 |
Degraded raised bogs | 7120 | R3.4 | 7.85 | NT | 377 | 6.65 | 0.85 |
Montane sycamore-beech forests | 9140 | L5.2 | 9.21 | VU | 686 | 7.73 | 0.84 |
Montane |
9410 | L9.1 | 438.81 | VU | 6485 | 366.79 | 0.84 |
Montane grey alder galleries | 91E0. | L2.1 | 5.56 | VU | 671 | 4.64 | 0.83 |
Calcareous fens | 7230 | R2.1 | 0.4 | VU | 77 | 0.33 | 0.83 |
Boreo-continental pine forests with lichens on sand | 91T0 | L8.1A | 11.73 | VU | 718 | 9.53 | 0.81 |
Willow scrub of river gravel banks | 3240 | K2.2 | 0.76 | VU | 153 | 0.61 | 0.8 |
6190 | T3.2 | 0.38 | VU | 144 | 0.3 | 0.79 | |
Dry lowland and colline heaths with occurrence of |
5130 | T8.1A | 0.14 | VU | 26 | 0.11 | 0.79 |
Montane |
9410 | L9.3 | 9.44 | EN | 355 | 7.25 | 0.77 |
Peri-Alpidic basiphilous thermophilous oak forests | 91H0 | L6.1 | 9.11 | VU | 468 | 6.91 | 0.76 |
Sub-Pannonian steppic grasslands | 6240 | T3.3A | 3.46 | VU | 293 | 2.62 | 0.76 |
Unvegetated river gravel banks | – | M4.1 | 1.82 | VU | 438 | 1.37 | 0.75 |
Pannonian loess steppic grasslands | 6250 | T3.3B | 0.76 | EN | 46 | 0.57 | 0.75 |
Continental inundated meadows | 6440 | T1.7 | 11.56 | EN | 319 | 8.49 | 0.73 |
Bog spruce forests | 91D0 | L9.2A | 60.02 | EN | 1935 | 43.05 | 0.72 |
Continental tall-forb vegetation | 6430 | T1.8 | 0.07 | CR | 6 | 0.05 | 0.71 |
Hardwood forests of lowland rivers | 91F0 | L2.3 | 241.38 | EN/VU | 6140 | 170.07 | 0.7 |
Transitional mires | 7140 | R2.3 | 29.81 | EN | 2971 | 20.97 | 0.7 |
Macrophyte vegetation of water streams with currently present aquatic macrophytes | 3260 | V4A | 29.71 | NT | 738 | 20.73 | 0.7 |
Pannonian thermophilous oak forests on sand | 91I0 | L6.3 | 13.73 | VU | 384 | 9.54 | 0.69 |
Submontane and montane |
5130 | T2.3A | 3.32 | VU | 461 | 2.27 | 0.68 |
– | S1.5 | 0.36 | VU | 193 | 0.24 | 0.67 | |
Mobile screes of basic rocks | 8160 | S2A | 0.24 | VU | 67 | 0.16 | 0.67 |
Subalpine tall-forb vegetation | 6430 | A4.2 | 0.41 | NT | 169 | 0.27 | 0.66 |
Broad-leaved dry grasslands with significant occurrence of orchids and with |
6210 | T3.4A | 0.6 | EN | 21 | 0.39 | 0.65 |
Pannonian-Carpathian oak-hornbeam forests | 91G0 | L3.3A | 42.59 | --- | 794 | 27.12 | 0.64 |
Limestone beech forests | 9150 | L5.3 | 9.6 | VU | 362 | 6.19 | 0.64 |
Annual vegetation on wet sand | 3130 | M2.2 | 0.11 | VU | 14 | 0.07 | 0.64 |
Acidic moss-rich fens | 7140 | R2.2 | 20.83 | VU | 1887 | 13.08 | 0.63 |
Macrophyte vegetation of naturally eutrophic and mesotrophic still waters with |
3150 | V1A | 0.13 | VU | 59 | 0.08 | 0.62 |
Basiphilous vegetation of vernal therophytes and succulents without dominance of |
6110 | T6.2B | 0.41 | VU | 129 | 0.25 | 0.61 |
Waterlogged spruce forests | 9410 | L9.2B | 298.13 | VU | 6799 | 178.49 | 0.6 |
Pannonian oak-hornbeam forests | 91G0 | L3.4 | 57.05 | VU | 1284 | 33.6 | 0.59 |
Secondary submontane and montane heaths with occurrence of |
5130 | T8.2A | 0.63 | VU | 60 | 0.37 | 0.59 |
Macrophyte vegetation of shallow still waters with dominant |
– | V2B | 0.29 | EN | 128 | 0.17 | 0.59 |
Birch mire forests | 91D0 | L10.1 | 14.48 | EN | 469 | 8.23 | 0.57 |
Rock-outcrop vegetation with |
6190 | T3.1 | 3.15 | NT | 603 | 1.77 | 0.56 |
Broad-leaved dry grasslands without significant occurrence of orchids and with |
5310 | T3.4B | 1.25 | VU | 56 | 0.69 | 0.55 |
4030 | T8.3 | 3.12 | VU | 689 | 1.68 | 0.54 | |
Forest springs with tufa formation | 7220 | R1.3 | 0.19 | VU | 264 | 0.1 | 0.53 |
Broad-leaved dry grasslands without significant occurrence of orchids and without |
6210 | T3.4D | 110.76 | NT | 3476 | 57.76 | 0.52 |
Low xeric scrub, primary vegetation on rock outcrops with |
40A0 | K4A | 0.7 | VU | 220 | 0.36 | 0.51 |
Pine forests of continental mires with |
91D0 | L10.3 | 0.73 | EN | 20 | 0.37 | 0.51 |
Chasmophytic vegetation of calcareous cliffs and boulder screes | 8210 | S1.1 | 1.85 | VU | 533 | 0.95 | 0.51 |
Dry herbaceous fringes | – | T4.1 | 2.04 | NT | 381 | 1.03 | 0.5 |
Herb-rich beech forests | 9130 | L5.1 | 1229.3 | LC | 20798 | 607.61 | 0.49 |
Acidophilous beech forests | 9110 | L5.4 | 1473.99 | LC | 24203 | 726.52 | 0.49 |
Riverine reed vegetation | – | M1.4 | 12.88 | VU | 1665 | 6.17 | 0.48 |
Submontane and montane |
6230 | T2.3B | 88.12 | NT | 5285 | 42.64 | 0.48 |
Narrow-leaved dry grasslands without significant occurrence of orchids | 6210 | T3.3D | 16.13 | VU | 766 | 7.65 | 0.47 |
Macrophyte vegetation of oligotrophic lakes and pools | 3160 | V3 | 0.3 | EN | 88 | 0.14 | 0.47 |
Forest-steppe pine forests | 91U0 | L8.2 | 3.84 | VU | 110 | 1.76 | 0.46 |
Acidophilous dry grasslands with significant occurrence of orchids | 6210 | T3.5A | 0.26 | VU | 12 | 0.12 | 0.46 |
Secondary submontane and montane heaths without occurrence of |
4030 | T8.2B | 12.47 | NT | 749 | 5.69 | 0.46 |
Muddy river banks | 3270 | M6 | 0.66 | NT | 103 | 0.29 | 0.44 |
Montane |
6520 | T1.2 | 160.31 | NT | 4979 | 70.52 | 0.44 |
Acidophilous vegetation of vernal therophytes and succulents without dominance of |
8230 | T6.1B | 1.3 | VU | 266 | 0.57 | 0.44 |
Macrophyte vegetation of naturally eutrophic and mesotrophic still waters with |
3150 | V1B | 0.09 | EN | 10 | 0.04 | 0.44 |
Chasmophytic vegetation of siliceous cliffs and boulder screes | 8220 | S1.2 | 54.92 | NT | 7946 | 23.49 | 0.43 |
Mobile screes of acidic rocks | 8150 | S2B | 0.83 | VU | 107 | 0.35 | 0.42 |
Macrophyte vegetation of water streams with potential occurrence of aquatic macrophytes or with natural or semi-natural bed | 3260 | V4B | 66.56 | LC | 1719 | 27.94 | 0.42 |
6430 | M5 | 3.67 | VU | 787 | 1.46 | 0.4 | |
Willow-poplar forests of lowland rivers | 91E0. | L2.4 | 26.5 | VU | 1134 | 10.41 | 0.39 |
Central European basiphilous thermophilous oak forests | 91I0 | L6.4 | 39.18 | NT | 677 | 15.38 | 0.39 |
Low xeric scrub, other stands | – | K4C | 0.21 | VU | 97 | 0.08 | 0.38 |
Vegetation of perennial amphibious herbs | 3130 | M3 | 0.32 | NT | 44 | 0.12 | 0.38 |
Acidophilous thermophilous oak forests without |
91I0 | L6.5B | 66.13 | NT | 1441 | 24.66 | 0.37 |
Alder carrs | – | L1 | 37.47 | VU | 1171 | 13.44 | 0.36 |
Intermittently wet |
6410 | T1.9 | 84.15 | VU | 2500 | 30.15 | 0.36 |
Dry lowland and colline heaths without occurrence of |
4030 | T8.1B | 1.79 | VU | 246 | 0.64 | 0.36 |
Forest springs without tufa formation | – | R1.4 | 8.6 | NT | 4078 | 3.02 | 0.35 |
Pine mire forests with |
91D0 | L10.2 | 43.73 | VU | 419 | 15.04 | 0.34 |
West Carpathian oak-hornbeam forests | 9170 | L3.3B | 394.98 | --- | 4913 | 134.5 | 0.34 |
Ravine forests | 9180 | L4 | 209.34 | VU | 5237 | 71.5 | 0.34 |
Herbaceous fringes of lowland rivers | 6430 | M7 | 1.46 | NT | 99 | 0.49 | 0.34 |
Meadow springs with tufa formation | 7220 | R1.1 | 0.12 | VU | 76 | 0.04 | 0.33 |
Caves not open to the public | 8310 | S3B | 0.03 | NT | 106 | 0.01 | 0.33 |
3140 | V5 | 0.3 | NT | 60 | 0.1 | 0.33 | |
Willow carrs | – | K1 | 59.64 | VU | 3849 | 18.8 | 0.32 |
Halophilous reed and sedge beds | – | M1.2 | 0.89 | EN | 31 | 0.27 | 0.3 |
Subcontinental pine-oak forests | – | L7.3 | 259.27 | NT | 3201 | 76.46 | 0.29 |
Tall-sedge beds | – | M1.7 | 76.81 | VU | 3788 | 22.55 | 0.29 |
Meadow springs without tufa formation | – | R1.2 | 0.89 | VU | 360 | 0.26 | 0.29 |
Acidophilous vegetation of vernal therophytes and succulents with dominance of |
8230 | T6.1A | 0.07 | VU | 16 | 0.02 | 0.29 |
Mesotrophic vegetation of muddy substrata | 7140 | M1.6 | 0.64 | EN | 74 | 0.18 | 0.28 |
Alluvial |
– | T1.4 | 159.57 | VU | 1628 | 44.04 | 0.28 |
Open sand grasslands with |
2330 | T5.2 | 1.56 | EN | 81 | 0.44 | 0.28 |
Tall mesic and xeric scrub | – | K3 | 351.9 | LC | 12146 | 92.46 | 0.26 |
Hercynian oak-hornbeam forests | 9170 | L3.1 | 1010.61 | NT | 11806 | 263.77 | 0.26 |
Tall grasslands on rock ledges | – | S1.3 | 1.1 | VU | 165 | 0.29 | 0.26 |
Acidophilous dry grasslands without significant occurrence of orchids | 6210 | T3.5B | 17.43 | NT | 595 | 4.59 | 0.26 |
Macrophyte vegetation of naturally eutrophic and mesotrophic still waters without species specific to V1A–V1E | 3150 | V1F | 70.05 | VU | 1316 | 18.54 | 0.26 |
Macrophyte vegetation of shallow still waters, other stands | – | V2C | 1.6 | NT | 189 | 0.41 | 0.26 |
Reed beds of eutrophic still waters | – | M1.1 | 102.05 | NT | 3108 | 25.73 | 0.25 |
Wet |
6430 | T1.6 | 129.65 | LC | 4736 | 32.4 | 0.25 |
Willow scrub of loamy and sandy river banks | – | K2.1 | 35.93 | NT | 1691 | 8.64 | 0.24 |
Mesic herbaceous fringes | – | T4.2 | 9.79 | VU | 916 | 2.37 | 0.24 |
Inland salt marshes | 1340 | T7 | 1.18 | EN | 34 | 0.28 | 0.24 |
Wet |
– | T1.5 | 416.78 | NT | 11645 | 90.46 | 0.22 |
Macrophyte vegetation of naturally eutrophic and mesotrophic still waters without macrophyte species valuable for nature conservation | – | V1G | 203.02 | VU | 1577 | 44.44 | 0.22 |
Macrophyte vegetation of shallow still waters with dominant |
– | V2A | 1.74 | NT | 49 | 0.39 | 0.22 |
Boreo-continental pine forests, other stands | – | L8.1B | 135.64 | NT | 2173 | 28.45 | 0.21 |
Vegetation of exposed fishpond bottoms | 3130 | M2.1 | 7.79 | VU | 233 | 1.66 | 0.21 |
Mesic |
6510 | T1.1 | 1907.16 | LC | 22692 | 407.23 | 0.21 |
Vegetation of wet disturbed soils | – | T1.10 | 6.68 | NT | 1044 | 1.38 | 0.21 |
Macrophyte vegetation of naturally eutrophic and mesotrophic still waters with |
3150 | V1C | 3.1 | VU | 133 | 0.65 | 0.21 |
Eutrophic vegetation of muddy substrata | – | M1.3 | 3.75 | VU | 473 | 0.74 | 0.2 |
– | T1.3 | 408.56 | NT | 3920 | 81.16 | 0.2 | |
Ash-alder alluvial forests | 91E0. | L2.2 | 796.06 | VU/LC | 13814 | 149.47 | 0.19 |
Reed vegetation of brooks | – | M1.5 | 3.97 | VU | 505 | 0.7 | 0.18 |
Wet acidophilous oak forests | 9190 | L7.2 | 104.14 | VU | 842 | 18.15 | 0.17 |
Polonian oak-hornbeam forests | 9170 | L3.2 | 112.58 | VU | 864 | 17.69 | 0.16 |
Annual vegetation on sandy soils | 2330 | T5.1 | 0.55 | EN | 31 | 0.09 | 0.16 |
Dry acidophilous oak forests | – | L7.1 | 397.53 | NT | 2967 | 59.03 | 0.15 |
Acidophilous grasslands on shallow soils | – | T5.5 | 15.57 | NT | 397 | 1.8 | 0.12 |
Festucas and grasslands | 2330 | T5.3 | 6.75 | VU | 151 | 0.67 | 0.1 |
Acidophilous oak forests on sand | – | L7.4 | 10.86 | NT | 21 | 0.52 | 0.05 |
Caves open to the public | – | S3A | 0.01 | NT | 23 | 0 | 0 |
Macrophyte vegetation of naturally eutrophic and mesotrophic still waters with |
3150 | V1E | 0.03 | CR | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
– | --- |
|
|
|
|
|
Forest clearings | – | X10 | 318.01 | --- | 9976 | 150.9 | 0.47 |
Stands of early successional woody species valuable for nature conservation | – | X12A | 167.19 | --- | 6778 | 79.29 | 0.47 |
Forest plantations of allochtonous coniferous trees | – | X9A | 4867.39 | --- | 47318 | 2022.37 | 0.42 |
Anthropogenic areas with sparse vegetation outside human settlements | – | X6 | 52.85 | --- | 3198 | 20.52 | 0.39 |
Other stands of early successional woody species | – | X12B | 103.83 | --- | 5996 | 39.54 | 0.38 |
Herbaceous ruderal vegetation outside human settlements, stands valuable for nature conservation | – | X7A | 81.02 | --- | 2338 | 30.29 | 0.37 |
Forest clearings | – | X11 | 244.3 | --- | 7476 | 86.79 | 0.36 |
Streams and water-bodies without vegetation valuable for nature conservation | – | X14 | 125.3 | --- | 1452 | 43.25 | 0.35 |
Herbaceous ruderal vegetation outside human settlements, other stands | – | X7B | 115.38 | --- | 4718 | 39.36 | 0.34 |
Forest plantations of allochtonous deciduous trees | – | X9B | 184.04 | --- | 4197 | 61.05 | 0.33 |
Urbanised areas | – | X1 | 537.07 | --- | 12675 | 173.41 | 0.32 |
Intensively managed meadows | – | X5 | 1212.39 | --- | 8924 | 361.09 | 0.3 |
Stands of early successional woody species | – | X12 | 203.76 | --- | 9585 | 59.69 | 0.29 |
Extensively managed fields | – | X3 | 104.72 | --- | 1947 | 30.09 | 0.29 |
Scrub with ruderal or alien species | – | X8 | 14.3 | --- | 774 | 4.2 | 0.29 |
Intensively managed fields | – | X2 | 738.66 | --- | 1336 | 208.85 | 0.28 |
Woody vegetation outside forest and human settlements | – | X13 | 124.66 | --- | 5405 | 32.84 | 0.26 |
Herbaceous ruderal vegetation outside human settlements | – | X7 | 159.3 | --- | 5592 | 39.78 | 0.25 |
Permanent agricultural crops | – | X4 | 19.19 | --- | 103 | 3.67 | 0.19 |
|
– | – |
|
|
|
|
The
The
First, the total area of individual habitats in the entire Czech Republic was determined.
As the GIS layer of mapped habitats included habitat mosaics (i.e. areas for which one GIS feature is associated with several habitat types recorded in one data row), these mosaics had to be broken down into individual parts using a string of functions in Python language: a mosaic broken down into 2−6 items (i.e. separate attribute columns) was iteratively scanned using the
Natural habitats (156 types) cover 15.8% of the area of the Czech Republic (Table
There are 55 (mostly non-forest) habitat types in the Czech Republic with a total area smaller than 1 km2 (Table
Habitat protection in the Czech Republic is concentrated primarily on these smallest types of rare habitats. The maximum protection (
The highly effective habitat protection (
Thirty-two natural habitats are associated with the intermediate effectiveness of habitat protection (
The majority (n = 73, Fig.
The Czech national system of
Area of natural habitats in the Czech Republic.
A large part of the territory of the Czech Republic, similarly to other Central European countries, is covered by human-altered land (
To maintain a stable habitat character as defined by the Catalogue, the majority of the habitat types in the Czech Republic require various levels of anthropogenic interventions or extensive farming, respecting the principles of ecosystem management (
The habitat threat classification list used in this paper (Table
The
It was not possible to focus on all of
It is generally evident that the data on the total number and extent of
Alongside the process of searching answers to the questions “how much and what kind of biodiversity is actually comprised in
When trying to assess the effectiveness of
The study presented from the Czech Republic should be considered as a special type of gap analyses based on detailed habitat mapping. As was indicated, natural habitat protection in the Czech Republic is focused primarily on the smallest types of rare habitats, many of which are classified as critically endangered. The Czech national system of
This study was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic within the National Sustainability Program I (NPU I), grant number LO1415.