Research Article |
Corresponding author: Jan Olof Helldin ( j-o.helldin@slu.se ) Academic editor: Jochen A.G. Jaeger
© 2019 Jan Olof Helldin.
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:
Helldin JO (2019) Predicted impacts of transport infrastructure and traffic on bird conservation in Swedish Special Protection Areas. Nature Conservation 36: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.36.31826
|
The ecological impacts of roads and railways extend into the surrounding landscape, leading to habitat degradation and reduced wildlife densities within an area that is considerably larger than the actual road or railway corridor. For birds, an extensive meta-analysis has identified an average of 20% density reduction within 1 km from the infrastructure. I investigated to what extent this density reduction can be expected to compromise the habitat quality and conservation value of Swedish Natura 2000 areas designated for the protection of birds (Special Protection Areas; SPAs). The majority (63%) of Swedish SPAs are, to some extent, found within this 1 km road/railway effect zone (REZ). The total overlap between SPA and REZ is approximately 126,000 ha or 4.2% of the country’s SPA area. There are, however, large differences amongst bio-geographical regions. In the southern (continental) and coastal regions combined, 25.8% of the total SPA area fall within REZ, representing an estimated 4–7% reduction in bird abundance within SPAs. The probability of overlap with REZ is higher for larger SPAs. However, the proportion of overlap is higher for smaller SPAs and, accordingly, smaller sites can be assumed to experience a greater impact from transport infrastructure and traffic. The impacts on Natura 2000 sites are particularly concerning as this network of protected areas is a cornerstone for maintenance and restoration of biodiversity within the EU. I recommend placing a stronger emphasis in the management of Natura 2000 sites on the threats to wildlife conservation caused by transport infrastructure and traffic. Special attention should be paid to sites with a large overlap with the REZ and sites hosting particularly vulnerable taxa or habitats. Infrastructure owners and managers should make their best efforts to minimise and compensate for the negative impacts of roads and railways and associated traffic in SPAs and other protected areas.
Effect zone, Natura 2000, railway, road, Sweden
Infrastructure development is recognised as one of the significant drivers of global biodiversity loss and, with increasing traffic and expanding infrastructure networks worldwide, the pressure on biodiversity is expected to increase in coming decades (
Due to these impacts, the population densities of many wildlife species are reduced within a distance from larger infrastructures (
Mean species abundance (MSA) of birds as a function of distance to infrastructure (logistic regression). Open dots represent the pooled results of a meta-analysis per distance interval ±SE. The solid black line denotes the estimated curve for the decline of MSA in proximity to infrastructure; dashed lines are the 95% upper and lower limits of the confidence bands of the curve. Figure from
Accordingly, in regions with dense infrastructure networks, large natural areas may be situated within this effect zone and therefore may be impoverished in species sensitive to traffic and transport infrastructure. For example, in the United States, the road effect zone covers 15–22% of the total land area and more than 60% of some particularly exposed biomes, such as coastal regions and river basins (
The Natura 2000 network of protected areas is a key tool in the maintenance and restoration of biodiversity within the European Union (EU). The network consists of Special Protection Areas (SPAs), designated according to the Birds Directive and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), designated according to the Habitats Directive (
The network is, however, biased toward highland areas, and lowland areas are under-represented (
Though many assessments for the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network in protecting species have been reported in recent years, a vast majority of these relied on rather static population data, such as species’ geographic distribution, species presence/absence or habitat suitability (e.g.
Frequency of transport infrastructure within Natura 2000 sites was investigated by
Sweden is one of the European countries that is least fragmented by transport infrastructure and built-up areas (
In order to illustrate and highlight the impacts of infrastructure on protected areas in particular, I estimated the frequency and proportion of Swedish SPAs situated within the predicted effect zone for birds around existing larger transport infrastructure (roads and railways) and hence cannot be expected to reach their full conservation potential due to infrastructure impacts. I included only SPAs in the estimation, i.e. areas designated specifically for the protection of birds, because the effects of roads and railways on birds are well described in literature and apparently can impact the majority of bird species (
A map of the effect zone for birds around the existing larger Swedish roads and railways (REZ in the following) was produced. I used a standardised effect distance of 1 km from the infrastructure, following the results from a meta-analysis presented by
The REZ map was overlaid with all Swedish SPAs to calculate the area and proportion of each site situated within REZ. The area and habitat distribution of SPAs were obtained in December 2015 from European Environment Agency’s Natura 2000 database (http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/natura-2000-eunis-database). SPAs were separated depending on biome (based on a combination of the Natura 2000 database and Global Biomes data from the CIESIN; http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/nagdc-population-landscape-climate-estimates-v3/maps?facets=theme:climate) and proximity to coast (data on coastline obtained in December 2015 from Open Street Map; http://openstreetmapdata.com) on the following terms:
continental region: sites with >50% of the area within EU continental region,
mixed-forest region: sites with >50% of the area within EU boreal region and in CIESIN broadleaf and mixed-forest region,
boreal region: rest of sites within EU boreal region but with no part within EU alpine region or
alpine region: sites with at least some part of the area within EU alpine region
in combination with
coastal: mainland sites with at least some part within 20 km from coast of mainland Sweden (including mainland islands Öland and Gotland) or
inland: the rest of mainland sites.
The alpine region in Sweden is only inland, i.e. no alpine coastal sites exist. As only two continental sites are inland, all continental sites were pooled in one region. In addition, an off-coastal region was formed including all sites with no contact with mainland Sweden, irrespective of terrestrial biome. Hereby, a total of seven biogeographical regions were obtained (Table
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in Sweden divided by biogeographical region (left map) and larger roads and railways with predicted effect zone (REZ; right map).
Predicted impacts on SPAs. Number, area and proportion of Swedish SPAs within an effect zone of 1 km from larger transport infrastructure (REZ) and predicted total reduction in bird abundance (with 95% confidence interval) due to the effects. Results are given for the entire country and by biogeographical region. Detailed results for each SPA are provided in appendix available online at http://triekol.se/earlier-work/infrastructure-impacts-on-protected-areas/.
Region | Total no. of SPAs | Total area of SPA (ha) | No. of SPAs affected to | Total area of SPA in REZ (ha) | Proportion of total SPA in REZ (%) | Reduction in bird abundance (% with C.I.) | |
>0% | >50% | ||||||
Continental | 41 | 53,331 | 41 | 18 | 19,202 | 36.0 | 7.2 (4.3–11.9) |
Mixed-forest coastal | 94 | 103,064 | 71 | 24 | 20,865 | 20.2 | 4.0 (2.4–6.7) |
Mixed-forest inland | 161 | 258,804 | 119 | 43 | 34,622 | 13.4 | 2.7 (1.6–4.4) |
Boreal coastal | 22 | 21,712 | 15 | 8 | 5,968 | 27.5 | 5.5 (3.3–9.1) |
Boreal inland | 130 | 162,924 | 63 | 30 | 13,122 | 8.1 | 1.6 (1.0–2.7) |
Alpine (only inland) | 26 | 1,984,005 | 16 | 0 | 28,242 | 1.4 | 0.3 (0.2–0.5) |
Off-coastal | 64 | 415,308 | 14 | 0 | 3,913 | 1.0 | 0.2 (0.1–0.3) |
All Sweden | 538 | 2,999,149 | 339 | 123 | 125,946 | 4.2 | 0.8 (0.5–1.4) |
To assess the bird conservation value of SPAs that is lost due to infrastructure, I used an average of 20% (C.I. 12–33%) reduction of bird abundance within the 1 km effect distance from the infrastructure, as indicated by the results presented by
The overlay of SPAs and REZ showed that 339 of Sweden´s 538 SPAs (63%) have at least some part and 123 (23%) have most of their area within REZ (Table
However, national level figures on the impacted area give a crude picture, as the results pointed to large differences amongst the biogeographical regions (Table
The overlap models with the lowest AIC included SPA size or habitat composition in all regions except the continental (Table
Variables associated with road/railway effect zone (REZ) overlap with Swedish SPAs divided by biogeographical region. Values given are mean estimates of coefficients of logistic regressions and beta-regressions with standard errors (SE) and probabilities (P). Values are only given for variables that were included in the final model. The right column gives the variation explained by the final model.
Region | Log(size) | Forested area | Wetland | Agri & grassland | |||||
Estimate (SE) | P | Estimate (SE) | P | Estimate (SE) | P | Estimate (SE) | P | ||
Logistic regression (probability of overlap) | Explained deviance | ||||||||
Continental † | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Mixed-forest coastal | 0.45(0.27) | 0.094 | 0.03 | ||||||
Mixed-forest inland | 0.49(0.21) | 0.019 | 0.91(0.38) | 0.016 | 0.07 | ||||
Boreal coastal | -1.06(0.57) | 0.065 | 0.16 | ||||||
Boreal inland | -2.61(0.75) | <0.001 | -2.06(0.70) | <0.001 | 0.21 | ||||
Alpine (only inland) | 1.31(0.64) | 0.039 | 1.23(0.64) | 0.056 | 0.23 | ||||
Off-coastal | 1.07(0.40) | 0.008 | 0.79(0.32) | 0.015 | 0.18 | ||||
Beta-regression (proportion of overlap) | Pseudo R2 | ||||||||
Continental ‡ | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Mixed-forest coastal | -0.56(0.15) | <0.001 | 0.44(0.15) | 0.002 | 0.26 | ||||
Mixed-forest inland | -0.64(0.12) | <0.001 | 0.47(0.11) | <0.001 | 0.40 | ||||
Boreal coastal | -0.85(0.34) | 0.013 | 0.36 | ||||||
Boreal inland | -0.56(0.16) | <0.001 | -0.48(0.16) | 0.004 | 0.43(0.16) | 0.009 | 0.41 | ||
Alpine (only inland) | -0.78(0.11) | <0.001 | -0.38(0.17) | 0.022 | 0.50 | ||||
Off-coastal | -1.09(0.24) | <0.001 | 0.40(0.19) | 0.036 | 0.38 |
The results indicate that a significant proportion of Swedish SPAs, both in terms of area and number of sites, lies within a predicted effect zone for birds around present larger transport infrastructure (REZ) and therefore can be expected not to reach their full potential as a bird habitat. The reduction due to transport infrastructure impacts may not be dramatic when seen in the country as a whole, with only around 4% of the total SPA area affected, corresponding to ca. 1% reduction in predicted bird abundance within SPAs. However, for more urbanised parts of the country, with a denser infrastructure network, the predicted impact and reduction is nearly an order of magnitude larger and may well be one of the main factors determining bird abundance in protected areas. This is the case in the southern (continental) and coastal regions of the country, where the urbanisation and landscape fragmentation is at a similar level to that of most western and central European countries (
At the level of individual SPAs, smaller sites tend to have a higher proportion of overlap with REZ and, accordingly, can be assumed to experience a greater impact than larger sites. This pattern emerges in all biogeographical regions, except the continental where most SPAs are small and indeed impacted to a large degree. In effect, the larger impact on smaller sites amplifies the bias against area protection in the lowlands, i.e. the southern and coastal regions. This is in line with general concerns previously expressed about the small size of many protected areas in Europe and about the impacts from transport infrastructure, traffic and other urban development in the landscape surrounding them (
The functions of predicted bird abundance and distance to infrastructure described by
The assessment was aimed at providing a general picture and was therefore simplified in several respects. A fixed-width REZ is less realistic, as the actual effect depends on the local context, such as the habitat distribution, topography, species and ecological processes involved (
Furthermore, the analysis of impacts on different habitats within SPAs was rather coarse, since the Natura 2000 database does not provide habitat maps. Therefore, I could not explore to what degree EU priority habitats (habitat types of community interest;
Because the study was focused on transport infrastructures in terrestrial environments (roads and railways), the low predicted impact on off-coastal protected areas is not surprising. A corresponding analysis of the frequency of shipping and proximity to marine fairways would be of relevance to assess traffic impacts in marine reserves. Such an analysis would, however, need a different approach than the one here described, as the ecological effects of shipping are not yet comprehensively described and effect distances are less well established (
The present study underlines the concern about the impact of transport infrastructure on wildlife in protected areas in general (
Management plans for Natura 2000 sites should better acknowledge and consider the threats to wildlife conservation caused by both present transport infrastructure and new development projects in and near sites (
In order to correctly address the impacts from transport infrastructure, managers of Natura 2000 sites should conduct more detailed assessments of REZ in the respective site, based on habitat maps, species occurrences, and local road or railway characteristics (traffic, corridor width, etc.), to serve as a basis for setting priorities in conservation planning and action. Such site specific assessments could take into account the greater reduction in population density in close proximity to the transport infrastructure, and impacts on some wildlife species extending further than the 1 km used in the current study (
Conservation authorities should ensure that infrastructure owners and managers make their best efforts to minimise the negative impact of nearby roads and railways and related traffic. Technical mitigation of impacts of transport infrastructure on birds could include preventing bird-vehicle collisions (e.g. with flight diverters), planning the timing of infrastructure maintenance and construction work to avoid particularly sensitive periods, providing crossing structures, and reducing noise and visual impacts through walls, berms or adapted paving. Such road mitigation measures for birds have been implemented on a few sites in Sweden, but are still lacking over the vast majority of roads and railways (
I am grateful to Vadym Sokol for assisting in GIS data retrieval and GIS analyses, and to Victor Johansson for assisting in the statistical analyses. I am also grateful to Lars Nilsson, Mårten Karlson, Jochen Jaeger and an anonymous reviewer for providing helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I thank Ana Benítez-López and her co-workers for kind permission to reproduce their published figure. The study was financed by the Swedish Transport Administration as part of the research programme TRIEKOL (http://triekol.se/home-eng/).