Research Article |
Corresponding author: Tomáš Janík ( janikt@natur.cuni.cz ) Academic editor: Cyrus Samimi
© 2024 Tomáš Janík, Dušan Romportl, Zdenka Křenová.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Janík T, Romportl D, Křenová Z (2024) Applying landscape ecological principles in comprehensive landscape protection: Šumava National Park as a case study. Nature Conservation 55: 297-320. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.55.119797
|
In the face of ongoing anthropogenic pressure and biodiversity loss, there is a need to protect nature more effectively. Therefore, we propose a comprehensive and consecutive approach utilising landscape ecological principles and methods for effective landscape protection and spatial nature conservation. Methods applicable in various conditions are exemplified through case studies from the Šumava National Park, the largest NP in Czechia. Using a set of spatial environmental, landscape ecological and geographical data we can:
Characterise the area of interest from the physical-geographical, socioeconomic, and management point of view to create the concept´s framework and review important background information for analysis of the area. Therefore, the key factors for landscape protection and biodiversity conservation are defined.
Analyse trends and processes of landscape dynamics in terms of land cover, landscape structure and habitat fragmentation and connectivity, which helps us to set main objectives of landscape protection and nature conservation.
Use data about environment conditions and key species and habitat occurrence to model habitat suitability, identify their suitable areas, and thus improve their protection. As a result, areas of high conservation value are distinguished.
Synthetize outputs of the above-mentioned steps and prioritise the target goals of landscape protection and biodiversity conservation in the area of interest. This leads to the effective zonation, which is a necessary condition for the application of appropriate management measures.
Conservation planning, landscape ecology, nature conservation
Territorial nature protection is a well-known and widely used approach to preserve landscape and biodiversity (
PAs are recognized as the best tool to preserve endangered species populations and their habitats; more generally, biodiversity, and ecological functions of the area (
The oldest PAs have protected mainly iconic species and landscapes (Martín-López et al. 2011); later, biodiversity and ecosystem services became the subjects and, more recently, also human activities such as tourism and sustainability of local communities with social and economic aims are also included as parts of the mission of PAs (
Yellowstone National Park, the first national park in the world, was founded in 1872. Roughly, one hundred years later the number and area of PAs started to grow quickly as a response to degradation of the environment (
Therefore, facing biodiversity loss and ongoing anthropogenic pressure, the effective prioritisation of conservation goals in naturally valuable areas, as well as the delimitation of PAs and their zonation and management, are crucial tasks for contemporary nature conservation. In the context of the above-mentioned problems, we are persuaded that the general approach and methods presented within this paper can help to bridge the gaps and help to manage PAs more properly. In this paper, we propose adopting methods of geography and landscape ecology for effective nature conservation planning and appropriate management of PAs. We stressed issues of delimiting the PAs, integrating biodiversity and natural processes and dealing with spatial features affecting the management of PAs.
Our aim is to bridge the gap of various approaches dealing with conservation planning and prioritisation with easy, innovative and objective data-driven four-steps methods especially based on landscape ecology approaches using appropriate data and tools. We considered dilemmas of social-ecological systems (
Landscape ecology deals with space and its development, dynamics, patterns, and how all these aspects together influence relationships between natural elements (energy, material, species). Furthermore, landscape ecology is a science on the edge of several scientific disciplines, from which ecology and geography are the nearest ones (
In this paper, we use our large experience and results of long-term research conducted in Šumava National Park (ŠNP), Czechia, to introduce this new LEP (landscape ecological principles) approach and discuss opportunities, challenges, and potential of its use in a common overview.
Landscape ecological principle) are defined here in accordance with three main aims on landscape ecological studies (in sensu
Diagram of relationships between steps within proposed LEP approach: The first step in our LEP approach is a blue part; conditions of the area influencing each other. Conditions as management, physical-geographical framework and human activities influence the second step (purple part, landscape dynamics). Blue and purple parts are inputs for interaction between landscape, human and species. This third step (green) consists of modelling biodiversity (habitat suitability models). All three steps together are inputs for synthesis – a yellow fourth step for prioritisation regarding the protected areas. It, again, influences management of the area and starts another circle of processes.
Steps | Used LEP | Used data | Used methods | Solved concerns | Integration with other steps | References (regarding ŠNP) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Step 1: study area conditions | Landscape function | Physical-geographical characteristics (topography and climate) Socioeconomic data (inhabitants, visitors, GDP) Management of the PA | Typology Literature and data review and comparison | SWOT analysis of the PA Differentiation of the PA (within the area and also with neighbourhood) Management | Inputs: |
|
• information on typology of the areas | ||||||
• management of the area | ||||||
• wildlife management | ||||||
• use of the area by human (recreation) | ||||||
Outputs: | ||||||
• typology of PA | ||||||
• human use of the PA | ||||||
Step 2: landscape dynamics | Landscape structure Land cover changes | Land cover data | Land cover change analysis | Land cover change and stability facing natural disturbances and anthropogenic activities | Inputs: |
|
• typology of PA | ||||||
• human use of the PA | ||||||
Outputs: | ||||||
• stability of the land cover | ||||||
• naturalness of land cover | ||||||
Step 3: protecting species and enhancing biodiversity | Landscape function Landscape structure | Environmental variables Anthropogenic structures Occurrence data | Habitat suitability modelling | Detection of valuable habitats for selected species | Inputs: |
|
• land cover data (stability, naturalness) | ||||||
Outputs: | ||||||
• habitat suitability models | ||||||
• anthropogenic risks for biodiversity (e g. landscape fragmentation) | ||||||
Step 4: landscape ecology in practise | Integration of all these steps | Land cover data Habitat suitability models Anthropogenic structures Management and zonation of the PA | Synthesis of data from previous steps (land cover, habitat suitability models) Prioritisation software (e.g. ZONATION) | Synthesis of previous steps and prioritisation of nature protection, comparison with current state | Inputs: |
|
• land cover data | ||||||
• habitat suitability models | ||||||
• human use of the PA | ||||||
Outputs: | ||||||
• prioritisation | ||||||
• comparison to management of the area from step 1 |
All four steps, further in this chapter, are described generally in detail and in the Results chapter as a case study from our model area. These steps are imprinted to nature protection and management of PAs. We propose integrating all these perspectives, bridge the gap between science and practical conservation (
Šumava National Park was established in 1991, after the fall of communism, in the south-western part of Czechia. ŠNP was demarcated within Šumava Protected Landscape Area (ŠPLA), which now creates the surroundings of ŠNP (
Case study area; Šumava and Bavarian Forest NPs in Central European landscape. Data sources: Corine Land Cover (European Environment Agency), Open Street map.
Scientists criticised these changes of zonation and forest management (
To understand processes within a certain area, it is necessary to know how its geographical and environmental conditions vary in space. Therefore, GIS software enables using objective data and deploys analysis of abiotic environment or/and landscape parameters resulting in a typology of a study area from one (and a small) PA to national or even continental or worldwide scale, and helps to understand differences within the landscape on various scales (
Moreover, other drivers of PA management are economic and social conditions. After abiotic and landscape conditions, which can be investigated through typology like our frameworks, anthropogenic presence and management is the next layer. PAs can be beneficial for the local community and can bring economic activities, such as tourism (
The above-mentioned abiotic conditions and anthropogenic activities imply characteristics of landscape changes that are crucial for ecosystem services and biodiversity (
Information on history, regarding nature protection, stability and instability, persistence and change of the landscape, from a temporal-historical view are a key for biodiversity conservation and nature protection (
The stability of natural development is crucial for biodiversity, however, in some parts of the area, the main value of landscape to protect can be heterogeneity of landscape structure (e.g., caused by natural disturbances) supporting biodiversity (
Based on our results and literature review, this step should specify main drivers and types of landscape change regarding the conservation concern.
Generally, mapping biodiversity is a proper and effective conservation tool and it is an inherent part of management of spatial nature protection (
In addition to models, there is a necessity to evaluate anthropogenic activities and pressure negatively affecting dispersal of animals, which were gathered in the first step. Fragmentation of landscape and connectivity is, therefore, another topic of landscape ecology with practical impacts on spatial nature protection (
The last step of this proposed concept of LEP used for landscape protection is to integrate all the previous steps and give recommendations to PAs administrations on how to manage their area in the most appropriate way. By using both species and ecosystem data, with local knowledge on values and qualities for protection and threats and costs to consider, we can maximise the benefit for effective spatial protection prioritisation (
Fortunately, a prioritisation bringing complexity can consider nature protection as well as other activities within a target area to delimit appropriate land-use management (
For an unquestionable clarification of the presented concept and a better illustration of its use in PA management, in this chapter we present experiences with the implementation of this concept in the Šumava National Park.
Typology of ŠNP and neighbouring BFNP was created using topography and climate data. It shows several different physical landscapes in the study area (
ŠNP and BFNP, a transboundary area with two national parks, is a very suitable site for investigation of this layer. These two NPs share the same ecosystems, key species, and very similar conservation targets (
Using this detailed knowledge on the specific PA (here ŠNP), its attributes, qualities, and values, as well as the threats and costs, can be determined for further steps (
General trends show extensification and abandonment of agricultural activities in peripheral mountainous regions, coupled with forest growth across Europe and in Central Europe and Czechia as well (
In the case of ŠNP, a clear trend of land use extensification is evident, with agricultural practices shifting from intensive, such as arable land, to more extensive forms like permanent grassland, pastures, and meadows, resulting in an increase in forest cover (
However, in the geographical context of ŠNP, as one the largest Central European relatively natural and forested area, we can analyse also the dynamics after disturbance and subsequent natural and anthropogenic reactions (
The second step provided us with data on landscape and its change as a key information for understanding ecosystems and their dynamics. In NPŠ, forest dynamics is primarily driven by natural disturbance. But human intervention, such as management practices, still plays a significant role, varying according to ownership (
In the case of ŠNP, there are suitable habitats for some species. Therefore, we selected fifty key species and developed habitat suitability models as inputs for the fourth step to capture priority areas of their occurrence (
The region of our study and its core area of BFNP and ŠNP is a significant area for harbouring large mammals, because migration from the source population is impossible due to surroundings of the ŠNP with open cultural and inhabited landscape (
The suitability of this area for these species is high due to the presence of large forested areas and lower anthropogenic pressure (
Habitat suitability index for moose (Alces alces) within the Bohemian Forest Ecosystem (
Mapping anthropogenic activities and fragmentation of landscape by anthropogenic structures is another task crucial for preserving viable populations of target species regarding fragmentation of population or additional mortality. From this point of view, illegal hunting and wildlife-vehicle collisions pose serious threats to the lynx and moose populations in BFNP and ŠNP (
In a case of ŠNP, after comprehensive analyses and based on knowledge and results from previous steps: 1a) typology (
However, in the geographical reality of Central Europe, with high human population density, human activities and social and economic interests must also be included into consideration (
The result shows a prioritisation map suitable for finding core areas for protection and also highlights the differences between the model and current management zonation of ŠNP. It can be used by the ŠNP administration as material for management of the PA to fill the gaps (
There is an urgent need to protect key areas for biodiversity, supporting ecosystem services and landscape functions, as well as human wellbeing (
We propose applying a comprehensive approach using LEP and producing a final output – a model for prioritisation of spatial nature protection goals in the area of interest.
Our LEP approach incorporates all relevant features for protected areas’ planning and designation. In the first step, we dealt with society and its relationship to ecosystems and protection of the area (
Therefore, species and ecosystem data are used to cover relevant factors as much as possible (
In the face of today´s anthropogenic transformation, protected areas (PAs) hardly reach the spatial and temporal requirements for delimiting good quality PAs (
In addition, some activities, e.g. tourism and its intensity influencing negatively PAs, are hardly detectable (
Our proposed LEP approach can be widely used as a methodological framework in a diverse range of PAs, including NATURA 2000 sites, as well as in the fulfilment of other European objectives, such as the Biodiversity Strategy (
Moreover, the process of prioritisation can be used in the process of new PAs designation, but also in the expansion or reorganisation of existing ones. In our case, it is a supportive material for the zonation of ŠNP. Zones differ according to their management and values (
Due to their complementarity and complexity, these steps can be used for a wide range of tasks and generally wherever around the World with various types of available data: from prioritisation and delimitation of new PAs (
This study shows a newly and clearly organised approach using landscape ecological principles to prioritise nature protection. We tested it on the largest national park in Czechia (ŠNP) as a pilot site. Despite the good database, we would like to improve our approach in the next steps, e.g. to use modern technology and more detailed data, which can capture anthropogenic pressures such as intensity of tourism or biotope structure. Our aim was to propose a scientific, evidence-based approach, based on objective data and – above all – not influenced by the subjective view of the author, one that was needed as a methodological framework for spatial designing and prioritising of PAs. We hope that such an approach, consisting of several steps described above, can help to manage PAs and protect nature with regard to all relevant factors.
We would like to thank Václav Tichý for his help with graphical work on Fig.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
No ethical statement was reported.
This work was supported by the SVV grant 244-260694 of the Faculty of Science, Charles University, by institutional support from the Silva Tarouca Research Institute for Landscape and Ornamental Gardening (VUKOZ-IP-8025) and by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of Czech Republic within the CzeCOS programme, grant number LM2023048.
Conceptualization: DR, TJ. Data curation: TJ. Funding acquisition: DR. Methodology: TJ. Supervision: DR. Validation: ZK. Writing - original draft: TJ. Writing - review and editing: TJ, ZK, DR.
Tomáš Janík https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0111-9754
Dušan Romportl https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3533-5623
Zdenka Křenová https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3539-601X
All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the text and original articles cited in this paper.