Research Article |
Corresponding author: Ivo Machar ( ivo.machar@upol.cz ) Academic editor: Chris Margules
© 2018 Vilém Pechanec, Ivo Machar, Tomáš Pohanka, Zdeněk Opršal, Frantisek Petrovič, Juraj Švajda, Lubomír Šálek, Karel Chobot, Jarmila Filippovová, Pavel Cudlín, Jitka Málková.
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:
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. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.24.21608
|
In conservation biology, there is a general consensus that protected areas (PAs) are one of the most effective tools for biodiversity protection. Worldwide, the area of PAs is continually increasing. But is the effectiveness of biodiversity protection improving with it? Since many PAs only exist as “paper parks” (i.e. they exist on maps and in legislation but offer little actual protection), the answer is uncertain. Moreover, it has long been known that, not only an increase in the extent of PAs, but also the efficiency of their management is fundamentally important for effective nature conservation. Therefore, there is a wide-ranging discussion about the actual effectiveness of PAs and factors that influence it.
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 (SACs) as part of the Natura 2000 network.
In this study, the aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of this newly created system of SACs for protection of biodiversity represented by the mapped natural habitats. The NCEI index (Nature Conservation Effectiveness Index) was applied, calculated as the total area of a particular habitat type in all SACs in the Czech Republic divided by the total area of that same natural habitat in the entire Czech Republic. 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 SACs provides protection to a total of 4,491.68 km2 of natural habitats. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the overall effectiveness of the SAC system in the Czech Republic, which is specifically aimed at protecting natural habitats, is low (NCEI = 0.36). Nevertheless, the critically endangered habitats receive maximum protection (NCEI = 1).
Conservation effectiveness, natural habitats, mapping, Nature Conservation Effectiveness Index, Special Areas of Conservation
The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), managed since 1981 by the UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre based in Cambridge, UK, also included World Heritage sites such as the historic centre of Prague (
The extent of PAs worldwide is slowly but steadily increasing. More than 80% of today’s PAs have been established after 1962, when the 1st World Congress on National Parks was held in Seattle (
In 2010, the 10th COP to the CBD in Nagoya resulted in ambitious targets: to increase the area of the world PAs to 17% on land and 10% in the sea (including coastlines) by 2020, while ensuring that the applied conservation management is effective and the system of PAs is representative, interconnected and integrated into the surrounding unprotected landscape. In the context of ongoing climate changes, the importance of PAs for preserving biodiversity is further increasing and brings even more ambitious proposals. One of them suggests protecting a minimum of 25% of land and 15% of sea in order to maintain global priority areas for the conservation of global biodiversity and ecosystem services, particularly carbon sequestration (
In the strongly anthropogenically altered Europe, nearly all PAs (90%) are smaller than 10 km2 (
Although the percentage limits for the total minimum extent of PAs on land and sea may be relatively good indicators of conservation effectiveness, it is obvious that these figures say nothing about whether the individual PAs are large enough, whether they are appropriately spatially arranged and whether they host key species and resources (
Worldwide, the area of PAs is continually increasing. But is the effectiveness of biodiversity protection improving with it? Since many PAs only exist as “paper parks” (i.e. they exist on maps and in legislation but offer little actual protection), the answer is uncertain. Moreover, it has long been known that not only an increase in the extent of PAs, but also the efficiency of their management is fundamentally important for effective nature conservation. Therefore, there is a wide-ranging discussion about the actual effectiveness of PAs and factors that influence them (
In the post-World War II Czech Republic, the effectiveness of PAs has been addressed within the national framework of PAs with the aim of including all rare habitat types. This effort, however, had not been successful until the end of the 20th century (
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 SACs that are primarily designated to protect natural habitats. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat conservation for all mapped natural habitats in the territory of the Czech Republic in the context of the Natura 2000 conservation objectives, i.e. preserving the existing character of the natural habitat types.
To evaluate the effectiveness of SACs in the Czech Republic, data collected during a national habitat field survey conducted in the period 2001−2004 were used. The survey under the Habitats Directive, formally known as the Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, was carried out over the entire territory of the Czech Republic on a scale of 1:10,000. The survey results were summarised in the Habitat Catalogue of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the “Catalogue”) (
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 (RBH) was produced in 2005 (
Habitat type | Natura 2000 habitat code | Habitat code (Chytrý et al. 2010) | Total area of habitat in Czech Republic [km2] |
Code of vulnerability ( |
Number of habitat segments in SAC | Total area of habitat in the SAC [km2] | NCEI |
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 Vaccinium vegetation | 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 |
Pinus mugo scrub | 4070 | A7 | 12.17 | VU | 376 | 12.17 | 1 |
Salix lapponum subalpine scrub | 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 Prunus tenella | 40A0 | K4B | 0.01 | CR | 6 | 0.01 | 1 |
Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus | 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 Myricaria germanica | 3230 | M4.2 | 0.13 | CR | 1 | 0.13 | 1 |
River gravel banks with Calamagrostis pseudophragmites | 3220 | M4.3 | 0.07 | EN | 47 | 0.07 | 1 |
Subalpine springs | – | R1.5 | 0.07 | VU | 113 | 0.07 | 1 |
Peat soils with Rhynchospora alba | 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 Nardus grasslands | 6230 | T2.1 | 1.5 | VU | 296 | 1.5 | 1 |
Macrophyte vegetation of naturally eutrophic and mesotrophic still waters with Salvinia natans | 3150 | V1D | 0.05 | EN | 6 | 0.05 | 1 |
Isoëtes vegetation | 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 Nardus grasslands with alpine species | 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 Jovibarba globifera | 6110 | T6.2A | 1.11 | EN | 36 | 1.07 | 0.96 |
Pinus rotundata bog forests | 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 Pinus mugo | 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 Genista pilosa | 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 Juniperus communis | 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 Calamagrostis spruce forests | 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 |
Sesleria grasslands | 6190 | T3.2 | 0.38 | VU | 144 | 0.3 | 0.79 |
Dry lowland and colline heaths with occurrence of Juniperus communis | 5130 | T8.1A | 0.14 | VU | 26 | 0.11 | 0.79 |
Montane Athyrium spruce forests | 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 Nardus grasslands with scattered Juniperus communis vegetation | 5130 | T2.3A | 3.32 | VU | 461 | 2.27 | 0.68 |
Ribes alpinum scrub on cliffs and boulder screes | – | 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 Juniperus communis | 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 Hydrocharis morsusranae | 3150 | V1A | 0.13 | VU | 59 | 0.08 | 0.62 |
Basiphilous vegetation of vernal therophytes and succulents without dominance of Jovibarba globifera | 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 Juniperus communis | 5130 | T8.2A | 0.63 | VU | 60 | 0.37 | 0.59 |
Macrophyte vegetation of shallow still waters with dominant Hottonia palustris | – | 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 Festuca pallens | 6190 | T3.1 | 3.15 | NT | 603 | 1.77 | 0.56 |
Broad-leaved dry grasslands without significant occurrence of orchids and with Juniperus communis | 5310 | T3.4B | 1.25 | VU | 56 | 0.69 | 0.55 |
Vaccinium vegetation of cliffs and boulder screes | 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 Juniperus communis | 6210 | T3.4D | 110.76 | NT | 3476 | 57.76 | 0.52 |
Low xeric scrub, primary vegetation on rock outcrops with Cotoneaster spp. | 40A0 | K4A | 0.7 | VU | 220 | 0.36 | 0.51 |
Pine forests of continental mires with Eriophorum | 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 Nardus grasslands without Juniperus communis | 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 Juniperus communis | 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 Trisetum meadows | 6520 | T1.2 | 160.31 | NT | 4979 | 70.52 | 0.44 |
Acidophilous vegetation of vernal therophytes and succulents without dominance of Jovibarba globifera | 8230 | T6.1B | 1.3 | VU | 266 | 0.57 | 0.44 |
Macrophyte vegetation of naturally eutrophic and mesotrophic still waters with Stratiotes aloides | 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 |
Petasites fringes of montane brooks | 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 Genista pilosa | 91I0 | L6.5B | 66.13 | NT | 1441 | 24.66 | 0.37 |
Alder carrs | – | L1 | 37.47 | VU | 1171 | 13.44 | 0.36 |
Intermittently wet Molinia meadows | 6410 | T1.9 | 84.15 | VU | 2500 | 30.15 | 0.36 |
Dry lowland and colline heaths without occurrence of Juniperus communis | 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 Vaccinium | 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 |
Charophyceae vegetation | 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 Jovibarba globifera | 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 Alopecurus meadows | – | T1.4 | 159.57 | VU | 1628 | 44.04 | 0.28 |
Open sand grasslands with Corynephorus canescens | 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 Filipendula grasslands | 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 Cirsium meadows | – | 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 Batrachium spp. | – | 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 Arrhenatherum meadows | 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 Utricularia australis or U. vulgaris | 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 |
Cynosurus pastures | – | 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 Aldrovanda vesiculosa | 3150 | V1E | 0.03 | CR | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total of natural habitats | – | --- | 12445.49 | 255244 | 4491.68 | 0.36 | |
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 |
Total of non-natural habitats | – | – | 9373.36 | 139788 | 3486.98 | 0.37 |
The NCEI index (Nature Conservation Effectiveness Index) was applied to measure the effectiveness of habitat conservation. The NCEI is calculated for specific habitat types as the total area of a particular habitat type in all SACs in the Czech Republic (TANHSAC) divided by the total area of that same natural habitat in the entire Czech Republic (TANHcz):
NCEI = TANHSAC / TANHcz
The NCEI index ranges from 0 (absence of protection) to 1 (totally effective protection). The calculated value of NCEI > 0.75 indicates a highly effective habitat protection (more than 75% of the total area of all identified natural habitats are protected by means of SACs), values between 0.74–0.50 indicate intermediate habitat protection (more than 50% of the total area of natural habitats are integrated in SACs) and values NCEI ≤ 0.49 indicate low habitat protection (SACs cover less than 50% of the total area of a particular natural habitat). To determine the NCEI index, two GIS datasets, administered by the Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic, were used: 1) the habitat mapping layer and 2) the SAC border layer. All data (in vector format − Esri geodatabase and national coordinate system − epsg: 5514) were processed in ArcGIS 10.4. GIS technologies represent a very effective tool for deriving both primary and entirely new values that are applicable in the decision support process (
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 Select by Attributes function in order to identify individual habitat codes. After identifying all habitat codes, the proportion of each habitat using the Field Calculator tool was determined. The unique values used for the identification were the habitat codes as listed in the Catalogue. To summarise the selected segments and calculate their areas, the Summarise and Calculate Geometry functions, respectively, were used. In the second phase, the habitat types in individual SACs were determined. The SAC border layer was then used to clip the national layer of habitats using the Clip function. The process of identifying, summarising and updating the selection was then repeated for the segments located within the SACs. Using the Field Calculator, the NCEI index was calculated and these figures were exported to the resulting table (Table
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 (NCEI = 1) in the form of PAs applies to 22 types of natural habitats (Fig.
The highly effective habitat protection (NCEI = 0.99-0.75) is provided to 19 non-forest habitat types (Fig.
Thirty-two natural habitats are associated with the intermediate effectiveness of habitat protection (NCEI = 0.74-0.50) (Fig.
The majority (n = 73, Fig.
The Czech national system of SACs protects a total of 4,491.68 km2 of natural habitats. Based on the NCEI value of 0.36, it can be concluded that the overall effectiveness of the SAC system in the Czech Republic (specifically aimed at protecting natural habitats) is low (Table
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 WDPA is currently a comprehensive global inventory of the world’s PAs that 1) comply with the above mentioned IUCN definition from 2008, 2) for which exact spatial data (and designated boundaries) are known, 3) that have an assigned protected area category based on relevant national legislation, 4) for which year of designation or establishment is known and 5) all the data sources are appropriately quoted. As not all PAs meet these requirements, it is clear that even this most reputable database on PAs does not encompass all PAs worldwide (
It was not possible to focus on all of PAs categories in the Czech Republic (there are: national parks, protected landscape areas (PLAs), nature reserves, nature monuments, see in detail
It is generally evident that the data on the total number and extent of PAs do not adequately reflect the effectiveness of the global system of PAs in protecting biodiversity (
Alongside the process of searching answers to the questions “how much and what kind of biodiversity is actually comprised in PAs?” or “are PAs managed to fulfil their role in protecting biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem services?” a new field has emerged, called conservation planning (
When trying to assess the effectiveness of PAs, some studies have focused on determining the species richness of wild plants and animals living in the PAs. For this purpose, gap analyses have been used at different scales – for example
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 SACs provides protection to a total of 4,491.68 km2 of natural habitats. Based on the presented results, it can be concluded that the overall effectiveness of the SAC system (a part of Natura 2000 network) in the Czech Republic, which is specifically aimed at protecting natural habitats, is low (NCEI = 0.36). Nevertheless, the critically endangered habitats receive a maximum protection (NCEI = 1). Methods used in this study can be applied in other European countries which have similar datasets from habitat mapping under Natura 2000 network establishment. Comparison of Natura 2000 network effectiveness both at national and European scale seems to be an important future conservation research challenge.
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.