ars.els-cdn.com€¦ · Web viewNot all conservation strategies have the same effect on natural capital. Recognising the natural value of the site, as N2000 policy does, is not

Online Appendix – short summaries of all the publications in the review

Category No Publication Subcategory Summary

Conservation conflicts

1 Hiedanpää (2002) Conservation versus use

The study describes grassroots resistance against introduction of N2000 in rural municipality in Finland. The conflict was related to local well-being linked to forest economy. Environmental administrative actions of authorities influence local people in many ways that can be seen by the locals as harmful and immoral. The study proposes transactive planning that operates at local level to address such conflicts.

2 Freitag et al. (2008) Conservation versus use

This paper describes conflicts in N2000 in the Elbe estuary area between conservation and necessity to conduct dredging to commercial obligation to maintain certain depths of water for navigation. It introduces a concept of future sustainable development of the area combining economic and conservation needs.

3 Gonzales et al. (2009)

Conservation versus use

The paper studies the human–nature relationship in relation to Mediterranean streams within a N2000 site. The main conflict is related to ownership of land, as most of area is private and main socioeconomic activities (particularly farming) are not in line with conservation objectives. Well-established riparian vegetation cover play important role in the dialogue between conflicted actors. Particularly, three stratum may be a conciliation factor as both sectors want to maintain it; but shrub stratum is a source of conflicts that needs further work.

4 Oana (2006) Conservation versus use

The paper discusses the N2000 requirements with regard to CAP that includes a set of agri-environmental measures that need to be adapted to N2000 requirements. N2000 is opportunity for Romania, but can face a lot of problems related to the fit with agri-environmental measures. Farm holding will have to co-exist with N2000 and to achieve that there is a need to support connection between argi-environmental measures and N2000. Ideally, each site should have particular actions, allowing neighbouring farmers to understand the benefits of the site.

5 Pecurul-Botines et al. (2014)


The study investigates the development of conflict and collaboration in the implementation of the HD in a region in Spain, comparing two cases, and one with conflict, one with collaboration developed. Local institutional context and discourses were key determinants of the implementation outcome – where local institutions and discourses were threatened by HD due to dependency on forest resources, conflict emerged; where local institutions and counter-discourses were weak, and conservation was seen as opportunity, collaboration emerged.

6 Pedersen et al. (2009)


The study investigates potential threats from fishing activities on conservation within N2000 sites in Germany and investigates which management measures would reduce them. It describes the potential effects of different fishing gear and bycatch and fine-scale distribution of fisheries. It is suggested that cooperation with fishers can lead to valuable knowledge that shed light on the fishing impacts.

7 Visser et al. (2007) Conservation versus use

The study analyses the conflict between turloughs habitats (protected within N2000) conservation and use in Ireland. It shows that farmers’ and conservationists’ perspectives are not that opposed than expected. This rather an opposition is better described as mutual ignorance of each other’s expertise. A better communication strategy is needed to turn conflict into compromise.

8 Zaharia et al. (2012)


The paper examines how the fisheries interact with protected by N2000 marine areas in Romania. Fisheries have potentially numerous types of impact on N2000 sites and there is a need for estimating the critical levels of fishing possible within N2000 requirements. Also, all relevant actors need to be included in planning environmental protection of these areas.

9 Zaharia et al. (2014)


The paper focuses on conflict between fisheries and N2000 in coastal areas in Romania, examining how the fisheries interact with the marine environment. The resource use restrictions in the PAs, can influence particular groups of stakeholders in different ways This needs to be taken into account when planning a PA.

10 Andrulewicz et al. (2010)

Conservation versus development

The paper presents an overview of technical activities and conservation measures in spatial planning in Polish marine areas. It recognises that there are potential conflicts with established N2000 areas, particularly with regard to new technical developments (e.g. navigation channel, wind farms, extraction of mineral resources) and traditional uses of the sea (e.g. tourism, fishery, transport).

11 Bielecka and Różyński (2014)


The paper describes management conflicts in the Vistula Lagoon area. N2000 hampers development of many investments and poses problems to fishermen and spatial development investors, which has large consequences for this relatively poor region. Interviewed local community members pointed to bad quality of lagoon water, poor tourism and harbor infrastructure and bureaucratic difficulties linked to N2000.

1

Restrictive nature of this tool was underlined. However, the area was seen to have large economic potential.

12 Mikulcak et al. (2013)


The study analyses potential of integrating rural development and BDIV conservation in Romania, with focus on N2000. It reveals that EU policies are often not well aligned with local conditions. EU rural development policy is so far focused on economic development, neglecting conservation. There is weak communication about relevant EU funding opportunities.

13 Vikolainen et al. (2013)


The paper analyses effects of N2000 policy on planning of local water infrastructure projects and a shift towards “Building with Nature” (BwN) approach. BwN is concluded to be resorted to both at the EU and local level as it helps to balance conflicting interests. If ecological goals are placed at the beginning of the process, conflicts of interests can be avoided and N2000 implementation in estuaries could be speeded up.

14 Vikolainen et al. (2012)


The paper takes as a starting point the negative experiences with implementation of N2000 that has shown that it is important to consider environmental issues at the very early stage of the project design. This hypothesis is tested in a case study of a coastal development project in N2000 area in the Netherlands. It sis demonstrated that there is greater chance to success of such projects if its designs integrates considerations for nature, provided favourable administration and scientific findings.

15 Vikolainen et al. (2013b)


The study investigates the effects of implementing the Building with Nature approach in the water development projects and its relation to implementation of N2000 policies. Adopting Building with Nature approach should be done with considerations to N2000 requitrements from the early stage of any project development.

16 Wszołek et al. (2014)


The study explores the investment processes of wind power plants construction. There was absence of clear standardized procedures for determining environmental impact of wind turbines. In case of power plan in vicinity of N2000 site projects are often obstructed by unclear criteria concerning e.g. acoustic phenomena on different species. A consistent system of procedures and criteria is necessary

17 Ciapala et al. (2014) Threats to N2000 sites (tourism)

The study estimates the influence of tourism on PAs within N2000 in Slovakian part of the Alpine Bioregion. Almost a third of activities within a region were related to tourism and recreation, and their influence on N2000 was most often negative or neutral. It is suggested that tourism, as inherent part of PAs, should be taken into account in managing and planning N2000 areas.

18 de Noronha Vaz et al. (2012)

Threats to N2000 sites (tourism)

The study analyses the impacts of human introduced changes on coastal areas in Portugal, with the focus on wetland N2000 site and shows that the ongoing increase in leisure facilities for tourism leads to decrease in agricultural and forest land and in the coastal areas and, as a result, increase in erosion.

19 Muntean et al. (2013)

Threats to N2000 sites

The study analysed conservation status and socioeconomic constraints of a newly protected PA, included in N2000, and identified human related environmental impacts on the area using Rapid Impact assessment Matrix. Main threats were uncontrolled disposal of waste, forest management, erosion and traditional activities such as limestone exploitation, overgrazing and logging.

20 Pîrvu and Petrovici (2013)

Threats to N2000 sites

The study identifies existing threats towards aquatic systems in N2000 site in Romania in relation to different species of caddisflies. Study area was characterised by relatively low diversity of caddisflies, due to economic, social and environmental pressures that were amplified by the way aquatic BDIV was perceived and implementation of inefficient management measures at local level. Sustainable control program management is proposed, including awareness raising, coordination of agencies, and proper management measures.

21 Brandt et al. (2012) Combining tourism and conservation

The study analyses the concept and practice of carrying capacity and relate it to an empirical study of sustainable tourism in 8 PAs (7 of them covered with N2000), with focus on accessibility, related conflicts and possibilities for sustainable tourism in and around PAs.

The most important way to regulate visitor flow to protect nature was found to be wise planning and management of tracks for hiking and biking. Carrying capacity concept was useful analytical tool but needs to be considered at variety of spatial scales. Considerations for accessibility were found to be of key importance.

22 Parolo et al. (2009) Combining tourism and conservation

The study proposes a model for optimizing the allocation of tourist infrastructure so it can be balanced with conservation of PA (N2000). The model is based on genetic algorithms so that solutions can be evaluated interactively. The study proposes optimized scenarios for allocating tourist infrastructure that is as optimal as possible also for conservation.

23 Ecke et al. (2010) Policy The study evaluates how the assessment of ecological status according to WFD relates to assessment of lakes according to HD. 78 , 47 and 29 % of lakes in Sweden, Norway and Finland, respectively, that had red-listed species were classified as lakes of moderate or worse status based on

2

the macrophyte classification. It is suggested that national assessment standards should be revisited to incorporate nature conservation aspects.

Implementation challenges and solutions

24 Alphandery and Fortier (2010)

Challenges and solutions

The study analyses the implementation of N2000 network and the period of consultations and discussions on the management of sites in France, attempting to characterise local settings and to explain how they can be understood from sociological point of view. It shows that necessary conditions for implementing the HD are provisionality and proliferation of procedures.

25 Alphandéry and Fortier (2001)


The study analyses the first phases of N2000 implementation in France, i.e. identification of sites at a national level and describes numerous difficulties encountered. Particularly, the scientific work (with regard to methods and use), and the legitimacy of the process were questioned. Especially, the separation of the scientific standards from those of the social debate was problematic.

26 Apostolopoulou and Pantis (2009)


The study evaluates effectiveness of the Greek state’s policy response to HD. The national strategy was compromised by lack of 1) conservation policy history, 2) state capacity, 3) communicated biological knowledge, and 4) public participation. Moreover, lack of clear goals and discrepancy between stated and actual goals caused different bureaucratic interpretations and bias of decision processes towards satisfying economic and development interests.

27 Beunen et al. (2013) Challenges and solutions

The study analyses practical implementation of N2000 in the Netherlands. Only few actors embraced positive narrative of N2000 and there were few channels to promote such positive narrative. Particularly the dominant legalist interpretation of Natura 2000 was an obstacle for more pragmatic and deliberative approach to conservation through N2000. The increased emphasis on legal procedures reduced the quality of deliberation of interests in spatial planning for conservation. The need for social support of formal rules is underlined.

28 Beunen and van Assche (2013)


The study analyses debates in the interpretation and implementation of the HD and BD in the practice of delineation and potential planning of PAs in the Netherlands. Dutch legalistic interpretation of the directives and irreducible differences between the economic, political, and legal perspectives led to reduced role of planning and difficulties in implementing new forms of planning.

29 Beunen and de Vries (2011)


The study analyses the process of deliberation in two N2000 cases in England and the Netherlands and shows that initial choices about the organisation of this process can create solid basis for future co-operation. Specific design of the process can either increase possibilities to develop social capital, trust and reciprocity or lead to conflicts.

30 Borrass (2014) Challenges and solutions

The study analyses implementation of HD in the UK and Germany, looking into differences in implementation resulting from the spatially and temporally specific interplay of structure and agency. It underlines the crucial role of local administrations for specific operationalisations of ambiguous requirements.

31 Bryan (2012) Challenges and solutions

The paper analyses implementation of N2000 network in Ireland with a focus on attempts to devise and manage conceptual and spatial-geographic boundaries between nature and society. It discusses the boundaries between nature and society and the challenges they pose to nature conservationism.

32 Ferranti et al. (2010) Challenges and solutions

The study analyses and compares experiences from implementing N2000 in the Netherlands and Denmark. By looking at differences and similarities, the authors identify obstacles to implementation and outline the most important challenges to the realization of N2000 network, such as the need to educate and train local authorities, need for stakeholder involvement and sufficient funding of N2000.

33 Hiedanpää (2005) Challenges and solutions

By contracting two cases of development and environmental planning from Finland – of implementation N2000 network and Regional Forest Programme, the paper discusses elements that make the former case conflictual, while the latter consensual. The results suggest the need for transactive approach, i.e. participatory, discursive, engagingly organized, sensitively operated, and decisively powerful approach.

34 Hochkirch et al. (2013)


The paper outlines main problems in the current implementation of HD. There is a need for 1) basing prioritization on comprehensive scientific knowledge, to focus on sites with highest conservation value; 2) strategic conservation plans for most threatened species and adaptive management plans for each reserve; 3) improved monitoring system on the ground, feeding back to management plans; 4) for substantial financial resources, for implementation, including public education to increase awareness on the need for conservation

35 Iojă et al. (2010) Challenges and solutions

The study investigates efficacy of the PAs network in Romania in conserving BDIV. N2000 overlapped in ca. 96 % with existing PAs network. Some sites had up to three protection status. With the focus shifted towards protection of species and habitats of EU concern, the conservation goals were often unclear. Planning for conservation did not involve local communities and did not follow principles of spatial prioritisation.

3

Administrative bodies were poorly funded and under-staffed.

36 Louette et al. (2011)


The paper proposes improvements in implementation of the N2000 through starting the implementation from regional conservation objectives. The aim is to bridge the gap the need to achieve favourable conservation status of species at Member States level and the need for conservation objectives formulated at the PA level. This approach is shown by the example of Flanders (northern Belgium).

37 Marot et al. (2013) Challenges and solutions

The paper presents how the participatory process can be used in the assessment of the effects of HD. The study illustrates “a process more open to the public, brings more knowledge, a mutual exchange of information, understanding, and sound solutions” and suggests that, as the implementation of HD impacts the land very directly, including local level stakeholders is crucial from the point of view of effective governance.

38 Papageorgiou and Vogiatzakis (2006)


The study evaluates the factors that can contribute to policy effectiveness, using N2000 implementation process in Greece. Major procedural elements of integrative management – public involvement and inter-sectoral coordination – and their influences on implementation of integrated nature conservation are evaluated. Many sites were superimposed on existing system leading to duplication of administration and legislation and complex, confusing system of PAs in the country.

39 Prazan et al. (2005) Challenges and solutions

The paper describes the evolution of nature conservation policy in Czech Republic, focusing on White Carpatians (WC). EU accession raised many challenges but also provided opportunities for participation of local actors and better cooperation of different governmental institutions. Implementation of EU conservation rules in WC will not be easy; agricultural support in form of agri-environmental measures will not be sufficient. There is a need for Ministers of Agriculture and Environment to cooperate and for convincing farmers about benefits of conservation.

40 Rojas-Briales (2000) Challenges and solutions

The paper analyses N2000 implementation in Spain, focusing on socio-economics of nature protection policies and distribution of costs and benefits of these policies. It proposes socio-economic solutions for improved PAs policies. Financial instruments established at EU are necessary, as costs of conservation usually exceed potential revenues.

41 Sarvasova et al. (2013)


The paper analyses mechanisms and modes of coordination between nature conservation and forestry sectors in the process of N2000 formulation in Slovakia. Adequate cross-sectoral coordination is missing and different policy beliefs of nature conservation and forestry coalitions of actors lead to deficits in the N2000 formulation.

42 Stancioiu et al. (2010)


The paper describes implementation of N2000 in Romania. This implementation started rather late in relation to Romania’s accession to EU, thus the time for designation and data analysis at national level was very short. Because of that it was difficult to conduct good process of stakeholders’ consultation and public awareness raising. There was also no clear correspondence between Romanian and EU habitat classifications. Impacts of these implementation issues on forest management and administration are discussed.

43 Welch-Devine (2012)


The study investigates the perceptions of stakeholders of the implementation of N2000 in south-western France, to reveal the ways in which they define success of emerging co-management of the sites. The emphasis at local level was on process, not the outcome due to 1) farmers’ fears of potential limitations imposed by N2000; 2) potential compromise of shepherds’ identity linked to place and practice through dilution of their management role; and 3) history of political marginalisation of Basque farmers, leading to increased need of locals to influence the process.

44 Mauerhofer (2009) Challenges and solutions

The paper analyses different EU policies (including Nature Conservation Policy, based mainly on N2000) using SEPO approach (successes, failures, potentials and obstacles) to see if individuals can contribute to EU reserve policy enforcement. The N2000 policy based on science and precautionary principle provides basis for linkages between science, individuals and the European Commission. These linkages, If maintained and strengthened, are crucial to the ability of NGOs and individuals to contribute to the enforcement of European policy on nature conservation.

Management 45 Cortina and Boggia (2014)

Tools, methods, approaches

This study develops an approach to support decisions concerning conservation and management of particular N2000 sites. The methodology uses two multicriteria indexes: BDIV index and human activities index. Areas where both indexes have high values are in most urgent need for an appropriate management.

46 Bots et al. (2011) Tools, methods, approaches

The study proposes an approach for how the existing hydrological models can be used to support water management decisions in participatory settings and test it in a case study of developing water management plan in N2000 site in the Netherlands. General rules are proposed for agenda management and information sharing and more specific rules for shaping interactions between actors, when using the model and developing

4

options. The rules favour openness, protection of core values of actors and use of relevant knowledge.

47 Ernoul et al. (2011) Tools, methods, approaches

The paper describes Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (OS) for adaptive management and its application in N2000. OS are compatible and complementary to Natura 2000 sites. Their advantages are e.g. promotion of participatory processes, and prioritization of strategies and actions. OS management plans are anchored in biological targets and thus allow Natura 2000 sites to move beyond considerations for habitats or species, and include ecological process and habitat fragmentation. Obstacles in OS implementation include the lack of qualified facilitators, lack of training materials and software in local languages and not sufficient time/human resources.

48 Gil et al. (2011) Tools, methods, approaches

The paper proposes recommendations for the development of management plans in N2000 sites. The success of methodology used in plan development in SPA in Portugal proved that effective conservation within N2000 depends on fundamental practices such as the production and sharing of accurate thematic geographic data on securing participation and co-responsibility of all relevant stakeholders.

49 Graziano et al. (2008)


This paper proposes a rapid, cost-effective and science based decision tool for managing N2000 sites, using multi-criteria evaluation to select indicators and weights. It is illustrated with and example from Italian Alps. The tool enables assessment of the level of existing threats, (b) suggesting urgent conservation strategies, and (c) suggesting future monitoring activities.

50 Oikonomou et al. (2011)


The paper proposes a conceptual framework that links ecosystem function analysis, multi-criteria assessment and social research methods for an ecosystem function-based planning and management approach. The framework is tested in N2000 site in Greece. It is based on a participative decision making process and allows for development and evaluation of scenarios in relation to the impacts they may have on ecosystem services, and considering the social value judgements of different actors.

51 Russo et al. (2011) Tools, methods, approaches

The paper presents a method, based on a visual cognitive analysis for identifying landscapes, tested when drafting management plans for several N2000 sites on Sicilia, Italy. The method proved to provide a satisfactory level of information about the landscape, in line with the ELC. The Landscape Units identified with this method provided support for geographically referencing the management actions for the sites.

52 Soane et al. (2012) Tools, methods, approaches

The study applies resilience perspective on selected N2000 sites in Italy. It uses adaptive cycle model to describe the socio-ecological system of managed mountain/alpine grasslands and then adds governance issues related to the pastures using panarchy perspective. It is suggested that resilience thinking may support adaptive management of N2000 sites and is particularly relevant for cultural landscapes of alpine pastures.

53 Scolozzi et al. (2014)


The study presents SWOT analysis to identify and quantify factors that affect effectiveness of conservation in PAs (included in N2000) in Italy, applying ES perspective. Strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat factors are based on both ecological and economic indicators. Such analysis is a useful tool for identifying areas of priority and defining management strategies aimed at maintaining BDIV and ES.

54 Teofili and Battisti (2011)


The study compares two frameworks – a standardised management tool “Open Standard for the Practice of Conservation” (OSPC) and N2000 framework. It concludes that the management of N2000 sites could benefit from methodological guidance of OSPC, but should be adapted to the local context of each site.

55 Zacharias et al. (2008)


The study uses DPSIR model to assess conditions of several Mediterranean Temporary Ponds (MTP) sites (N2000 habitats) to propose management practices for their restoration. The model allows for investigating the impacts of human socioeconomic pressures. The paper also compares Greek and European MTP sites using DPSIR.

56 de Koning et al. (2014a)

Management and CC

The paper investigates interface between science and management in forest management under CC and compare this with the debates about CC in the context of beech forest management under N2000. Uncertainty that surrounds CC influences the CC debates and the role of knowledge in them. This results on either passive or pro-active attitudes among forest managers. Scientific knowledge is found to have limitations for practical management. It is suggested that there is need for knowledge that is produced and situated in management practice itself.

57 Malatinszky et al. (2014)

Management and CC

The study suggests management measures for N2000 sites representing different habitats (with example from Hungary) that would take into account both conservation needs and respond to the influences of CC. Based on problems identified by stakeholders and drivers and pressures identified by sensitivity maps, the authors suggest the need for setting priority order of conservation aim at early stage of management planning, based both on science and the needs and interests of relevant stakeholders.

58 Fock (2011) Management and policy

The paper identifies four key issues linked to relationship between fisheries and N2000 and discusses potential role of Common Fisheries Policy in standardisation of procedures regarding fisheries with an aim of creating comprehensive approach to manage protection. It recommends:

5

participation of all relevant stakeholders in the management process, creation of common methodology to prioritise conservation objectives, creation of framework to assess fisheries impacts, defining spatial properties for fisheries.

59 Ganatsas et al. (2013)

Management evaluation

The study assesses the natural resource management (process, outputs and outcomes) applied in a national park in Greece (N2000 site). The management of the area is oriented towards BDIV conservation and lies within the scope of the N2000 network. The framework and methodological approach applied can be used for management assessment and the results can be used to improve management.

60 Morris et al. (2014) Management evaluation

The paper analyses effectiveness of N2000 “management schemes” (in the marine sites) in the UK. It underlines the importance of strong local commitment and leadership in the effective performance of the management schemes, and the need for secure funding (to minimise staff turnover). It also reveals weakness in the feedback from monitoring to assessments of corrective actions.

61 Vokou et al. (2014) Management evaluation

The study evaluates co-management framework applied in Greece for management of PAs, including N2000 sites. Co-management framework contributed significantly to the conservation of environmental values in Greece; however there were also weaknesses. Support and commitment to conservation as often missing, active involvement of local communities was addressed only to some degree and the responsibilities of main actors were not always clearly defined.

62 Winter et al. (2014) N2000 impact on management

The study investigates impact of N2000 on management of beech forest in 3 countries, based on interviews on management practices with local stakeholders and analysis of N2000 management plans. Implementation of N2000 has had little impact on forest management. The network is known among stakeholders, but the objectives for beech management are usually vaguely defined in the plans, leading to disregard of the plans. When plans include ecological thresholds, they are often lower than those suggested by science.

63 Morsing et al. (2013)

Restoration management

The study investigates how well different management projects within LIFE Nature programme (including projects on habitat management in N2000 sites) fit with the principles of ecological restoration. None of the project fulfilled all attributes for ecological restoration. General result was that nature policy in Denmark and the LIFE Nature program are based on a control paradigm, with the focus on structures rather than on processes. The differences between different categories of projects were not investigated, so no separate results for N2000 projects exist.

64 Ostermann (1998) Need for management

The paper describes which habitats of HD require management. Out of 198 habitats types listed in HD, 14 % (28) need low intensity agricultural management and would be threatened if these practices ceased. Low intensity agriculture is important both for conservation and socio-economic reasons.

Perceptions/ attitudes/ values

65 Andrea et al. (2013) Local attitudes; management

The study investigates opinion of local people and visitors on effectiveness of administration and management of a national park in Greece (included in N2000). The local people were not satisfied with the work of local authorities, and the visitors were not well informed about the relevant bodies and management of the park. Staff deficiencies and irregular funding were identified as main obstacles of effective management.

66 Dimitrakopoulos et al. (2010)

Local attitudes The study explores perceptions of local people on environmental issues and alternative management scenarios in three N2000 wetland sites in Greece. Respondents were in general supportive towards PAs and had relatively high knowledge on environmental issues; but they did not actively take part in resolution of environmental problems. Local authorities were most accepted management actors while there was negative perception of governmental management. Environmental tax was least accepted mean of financing PAs. Respondents shown preferences for more participatory management.

67 Grodzinska-Jurczak and Cent (2011)

Local attitudes The study assessed public acceptance of the expansion of N2000 network in Poland. Polish people had generally favourable attitudes towards conservation, but N2000 was seen as unnecessary additional tool for conservation and a hindrance for economic development. Lack of acceptance was a result of historic, social and economic factors. Lack of information and bad communication (particularly between local and national authorities) were also contributing factors.

68 Kamal and Grodzinska-Jurczak (2014)

Local attitudes The study explores attitudes of local people in Poland towards conservation on private land, including N2000 site. Three primary attitudes emerged: sceptics, uncertain and supporters. Both sceptics and uncertain viewed themselves as good managers of land, perceived top-down management of private PAs as questioning their capability to manage land, and distrusted authorities. Protection on private land is top-down but should recognize landowners willingness to participate.

69 Kosmopoulos et al. (2005)

Local attitudes; management

The study explores environmental perceptions with regard to management of a N2000 site. Citizens were well informed about the environmental problems of the area, their understood its importance for tourism and contribution to life quality and sustainable development of the area (as important wetland and fishery place). The local community accepted the planned management and proposed own measures such as e.g.

6

wastewater treatment plan and cleaning of the lake.

70 Mouro and Castro (2009)

Local attitudes The paper described how rural communities living within N2000 sites receive goals of BDIV conservation and explores the role of psycho-social variables as moderating that. Local communities generally support designation of PAs, but both positive and negative attitudes can co-exist. Support for conservation practices was linked to vested interests, institutional trust and place identification.

71 Pavasars (2013) Local attitudes The study investigated the problem of negative reactions towards N2000 in Latvia and concluded that the conflict was related to the existence of two “parallel realities” – official environmentalism (scientific truth and official policies on environment) and everyday life of people on the countryside. A contributing factor was the difference between the condition of BDIV in Latvia and the Western countries, combined with the official norms of BDIV protection (as in N2000).

72 Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska et al. (2012)

Local attitudes The study describes knowledge and attitudes towards N2000 of inhabitants of municipalities included in the network in southern Poland. Majority of respondents thought N2000 is a good legal tool to protect nature. But the knowledge on the network and the attitudes depended on different factors. Respondents with higher education and who moved to area in adulthood were more positive. Ownership of business was linked to higher awareness of N2000 but lower satisfaction with the designation of the sites in the region.

73 Sumares and Fidelis (2009)

Local attitudes The study surveyed opinions of key politicians and employees of municipalities sharing important wetland SPA in Portugal. Although N2000 was seen as generally positive concept, local perceptions were not very favourable towards it, as it was associated with ban on development and impediment for local economic sustainability. N2000 was also perceived as dictatorial legal instrument due to the ways it was implemented. This was linked to weak tradition of participation.

74 Tonder and Jurvelius (2004)

Local attitudes The study investigated basis of conflicts concerning protection of the Saimaa ringed seal and fishing in Finland. In general conservation was widely accepted, but if it impinged on local life, it was rejected, seen as antagonistic to traditional lifestyle. Personal attitudes towards conservation were determined by socio-economic position. Culture and social backgrounds also influenced attitudes, through different vision of nature.

75 Marmureanu and Geamana (2012)

Awareness The study investigated attitudes, values and knowledge of local population before and after designation of N2000 site. Respondents’ knowledge and attitudes did not change over time, indicating that the awareness raising campaign organized by authorities was not adequate. Further need for education and public awareness campaign was indicated.

76 Fliervoet et al. (2013)

Perceptions of management

The study investigates perceptions of stakeholders on river and nature management along the Waal River, areas classified as N2000, in the Netherlands. It found that “static” N2000 regulations are not compatible with new innovative management strategies. The stakeholders preferred dynamic vision of floodplains and thus more flexibility in policies.

77 Young et al. (2013b) Perceptions of management

The paper investigated stakeholder perceptions on BDIV management in three case studies to understand the effect of framing management responses with regard to particular scale on participatory process and the outcomes of management. The highest success was perceived for cases where stakeholders’ involvement reflected the perceived ecological scale of the management problem.

78 Rosa and Da Silva (2005)

Ethical This paper assesses moral assumptions of N2000 stakeholders. The N2000 network itself and positions of environmentalists mirrored weak (intergenerational) anthropocentrism, while economic developers represented strong (traditional) anthropocentrism.

79 Vanden Borre et al. (2011)

Experts attitudes

The study investigates attitudes and expectations of monitoring experts towards remote sensing for N2000 habitat monitoring. The experts are not unwilling to use remote sensing data but are not sure if it could suit their needs cost-effectively.

80 Torbidoni (2011) Recreation and tourism

The study investigates motivations of hikers in three N2000 sites in Spain and identifies three types of hikers: nature-minded, sporting and general-purpose hikers. It finds a positive link between the degree of sympathy for nature and the degree of satisfaction with the recreational experience.

81 Kafyri et al. (2012) Recreation and tourism

The study investigates perceptions of visitors of two Greek islands (N2000 sites), their satisfaction, their pro-environmental intentions and their environmental knowledge. Visitors’ satisfaction was high, but they reported rather low level of environmental knowledge. Still, the level of visitors’ pro-environmental intentions was high and may be supportive for development of ecotourism in the future

Valuation and 82 Jones et al. (2011) Preferences and The study investigates visitors perceptions on the management of sites (N2000) important for loggerhead sea turtle. Awareness of the existence

7

economics WTP of the N2000 site was low among the visitors. The accommodation tax was seen as more effective policy compared to the entrance fee. People were willing to pay more for coastal protection if it is done in the form of accommodation tax, than in form of entrance fee to the beach and their preferences dependent of the social trust (that correlated with perceived level of effectiveness of the entrance fee).

83 Grammatikopoulou and Olsen (2013)

Preferences and WTP

The study uses Contingent Valuation method aiming to reveal the WTP for conservation ofa N2000 wetland area in Greece and show the importance of taking into account protest and warm glow motives when modeling WTP. It reveals that people in general have positive attitudes towards policies aimed at conservation.

84 Li et al. (2004) Preferences and WTP

The study investigating WTP of Finnish households for different preservation levels of Natura 2000. Mean WTA decrease in preservation area was much (four times) larger than WTP for the increase by the same amount. The marginal value (WTP) of nature preservation became zero after initial increase in protection of 3 %.

85 Pouta et al. (2000) Preferences and WTP

The study analyses preferences of Finnish households for N2000 programme. Socio-demographics were important predictors of WTP, as young, high-income and urban populations supported conservation more. People attitudes towards N2000 also depended on different factors, such as ability of the conservation programme to take into account rights of landowners, respondents’ opinion about the importance of preserving species and biotopes.

86 Rekola et al. (2000) Preferences and WTP

The study investigated reasons for incommensurable preferences with regard to nature conservation. Respondents with lexicographic preferences for nature rights are willing to pay much more for conservation than respondents with lexicographic preferences for property rights.

87 Cruz et al. (2011) Benefits from N2000

The study evaluates socio-economic benefits and ecosystem services provided by a SPA in Azores Islands, using both qualitative methods and monetary valuation. They outline services such as those related to water provision, quality and regulation, but they also underline the role of N2000 in job provision.

88 Hoyos et al. (2012) Benefits from N2000

The study evaluates the social preferences for key attributes of N2000 site. WTP of individuals was higher for attributes linked to non-use values than for those associated with use values. It is recommended that non-use values (e.g. BDIV conservation or native tree species) should be taken into account more in policies on N2000 network.

89 Strange et al. (2007) Benefits from N2000

The study estimates the welfare economic cost of habitat restoration and maintenance in N2000. It is suggested that non-use values should be, as use values, taken into account by policy makers when prioritizing conservation objectives “because declines in species and habitats are largely the result of socio-economic and political forces”.

90 Jantke et al. (2010) Cost-effectiveness

The study conducted gap analysis of European wetland species, concluding that current reserve system do not cover well all endangered wetland vertebrate species. They estimated that additional 3 million hectares of reserve area would be required to achieve coverage of all important species and estimated cost of it of being a 107 million Euro per year.

91 Lung et al. (2014) Cost-effectiveness

The study analyses BDIV funding and conservation needs with regards to CC and concludes that the distribution of EU BDIV funding is generally well aligned with the existing N2000 network, but not aligned with the future needs linked to CC.

92 Santana et al. (2014)

Cost-effectiveness

The study analyses long term effects of conservation investment in N2000 bird protection area. It shows that there are positive effects of investments on flagship species, but the overall species richness suffer from such approach.

93 Wätzold et al. (2010)

Cost-effectiveness

The study assessed cost-effectiveness of the N2000 design and implementation of management measures for four European countries. Key issues that negatively impacted cost-effectiveness were lack of long-term funding, wrong allocation of funds between different tasks when designing and implementing management plans, or costly EU requirements on monitoring (preventing land users’ participation in management schemes). These challenges differed, however, among particular countries, and were very context dependent.

94 Wätzold and Schwerdtner (2005)

Cost-effectiveness; Review

The paper reviews studies on cost-effectiveness of European BDIV conservation policies. According to the authors issues linked to the implementation problems related to N2000 have been so far neglected in research. It is suggested that it is crucial to improve our knowledge on what creates these problems and how to reduce costs of decision failure.

95 Jacobsen et al. (2013)

Costs of N2000 The study scrutinizes economic consequences of management restrictions in continuous cover beech forest in Denmark leading to less intensive management of N2000 sites, concluding that the costs may be as high as 10 % of the mature stand value.

8

96 Lee (2001) Costs of N2000 The study provides an overview of potential nature and extent of habitat changes related to coastal defense policies within SAC, SPA and Ramsar areas in the UK. It estimates the costs of likely replacement of freshwater and brackish habitats to be in order of £ 50-60 million.

97 Anthon et al. (2010) Implementation incentives

The paper presents theoretical justification of using contracts in N2000 implementation in forest areas, and develops optimal contract design. Also, it compares and discusses different mechanism of payments used in N2000 contracts. These mechanisms result in overcompensation and under-performance since they do not take the problem of moral hazard and natural variability into account.

Legal 98 Christensen (2006) National level enforcement; EIA

The study evaluates EIA in livestock projects showing that while initially many EIAs for these projects did not estimate the impacts on neighborhood N2000 sites, with time (until 2004) the legislation was adjusted to require such an assessment in case of potential impacts on the sites.

99 Marandi et al. (2014)

National level enforcement

The study analyses situation of a potential N2000 that would be impacted by a mining project by comparing it with relevant EC court cases and concludes that “protection must actually commence as soon as the area is suggested for the Natura 2000 network”.

100 Slepcevic (2009) National level enforcement

The paper discusses that the national level enforcement of N2000 legislation can be more effective through litigation in national courts in countries where specific socio-legal conditions are fulfilled. These are the level of capacity of the public interest groups and their access to national courts, the way in which European provisions are interpreted by national courts and the way in which the competent authorities react to litigation before national courts.

101 Vaiškūnaitė et al. (2012)

National level enforcement; EIA;

The study finds that in Lithuania legislation on EIA covers some issues related to BDIV. While impact assessment of economic activities on N2000 is clarified in legislation, little attention is given to assessing the impacts of road construction on BDIV of N2000 sites. Procedures for road construction do not comply with international requirements concerning impact on BDIV.

102 Leone and Lovreglio (2004)

Legislation effectiveness

The study describes N2000 as one of the most important building blocks contributing to an approach in conservation of creation of large ecological networks encompassing different land uses, instead on solely protecting separate sites or threatened species.

103 Mallard and François (2013)


The study analyses legal instruments of natural areas protection and environmental assessments relevant for road planning in France and concludes that N2000 is the most effective instrument for conservation. Particularly the necessity for EIA for the projects that have potential impact on N2000 sites makes it difficult to obtain authorization for the project that would mean violation of the N2000 conservation principles. Still, evaluations of the impacts on the Natura 2000 site within EIAs at national level are limited and the fact that the permit can be issued for “imperative reason of major public interest”, limits the conservation value of N2000.

104 Metcalfe et al. (2013)


The paper reviews combined impact of different conservation policies on marine conservation in Europe. It criticizes the lack of proper evaluation of the N2000 implementation leading to lack of updated information on the status of important species and habitats and the changes relating to CC and other risks, which may compromise conservation efforts. HD is criticized as being not well-suited for marine conservation.

105 Rees et al. (2013) Legislation effectiveness

The study conducts legal analysis of HD and claims that “site integrity” and “favourable conservation status” are powerful legal terms that can facilitate effective marine conservation if fully transposed into the legislation of Member States.

106 Cliquet (2014) CC in N2000 legislation

The study scrutinizes international legislation, including BD and HD to check if they are able to address CC. Although the directives do not explicitly mention CC, they “contain sufficient tools to deal with the effects of CC”, but have been so far insufficiently implemented. Their implementation needs to establish qualitative conservation objectives for PAs that would allow for shifts in the ranges of species and habitats. There is need for designation of refuge areas, and robust corridor areas and protection of elements assuring landscape connectivity.

107 Jackson (2011) CC in N2000 legislation

The study has found that N2000 law challenges many renewable energy projects, potentially undermining CC mitigation efforts. This does not mean that EU should depart from its strict protection rules, as it would be damaging for the credibility of these regulations. It is proposed, while acknowledging that the hierarchy between conservation and CC policies cannot be justified, to broaden the consideration of alternatives that can be accepted, giving consideration for lower impact renewable energy projects.

108 Kistenkas (2014) ES in N2000 legislation

The study advocates incorporation of the ES concept into EU nature conservation law. Present N2000 regulations are too rigid to enable proper assessment of important services. Particularly Article 6 of the HD about the habitat assessment is too rigid and static. ES concept could be helpful to direct EU legislation towards broader ecosystem approach, where traditional conservation objectives are balanced with other

9

objectives, leading to equilibrium of “people, planet and profit” of the sustainable development.

Governance 109 Börzel and Buzogány (2010)

n/a The study analyses how the implementation of EU BDIV policies (N2000 network) influenced agendas and actions of environmental NGOs in 3 EU countries. The implementation enhanced professionalisation and institutionalisation of civil society groups. It also benefitted from the expertise of professional NGOs. However, it did not lead to development of sustainable cooperative state–society relations in Central and Eastern Europe due to weakness of both state actors and civil society. It is suggested that implementation of EU policies requires departure from top-down centralized steering and demands meaningful inclusion of non-state stakeholders.

110 Cent et al. (2013) n/a The study analyses the differences between involvement of NGOs in N2000 implementation in Poland and Hungary and shows importance of NGOs in N2000 site selection. In both countries NGOs’ influence increased during N2000 implementation. In Hungary NGOs worked closely with the state actors and contributed to site selection, while in Poland NGOs first opposed the government but then started cooperation, leading to increase in number and area of N2000 sites.

111 Ferranti et al. (2014) n/a The study analyses N2000 implementation with regard to the shift towards participation that has happened in Europe in the environmental policy and governance. In case of N2000 the initial science-based technocratic approach empowering scientists and experts developed into wider inclusion of other types of stakeholders and a larger openness of participation process in general. Still, the stakeholders holding the scientific knowledge maintain a central role leading to risk that important societal values represented by the other stakeholders, particularly general public, can be marginalized.

112 Niedziałkowski et al. (2012)

n/a The study analyses changes in governance in Poland due to implementation of EU rules (concerning N2000 and EIA) after accession to the EU. The formal rules of N2000, supported by powerful coalition of different stakeholders (supranational bodies, NGOs and scientists) led to shift towards multilevel governance and increased capacity and legitimacy in implementation of EU nature conservation policy.

113 Rauschmayer et al. (2009)

n/a The study evaluates European biodiversity and water governance, paying attention to both 1) the process and 2) outcome of governance and explores challenges linked to the different focus of evaluation. It is argued that evaluation of governance should combine the two approaches.

114 Rauschmayer (2009) n/a The paper analyses the practice of participation in EU governance focusing on implementation of BD and HD in Germany and France. It reveals shifts in EU biodiversity governance leading to increased participatory processes but also induced by these processes. A gap is identified between on the ground participatory processes and the rhetoric of participation.

115 Stringer and Paavola (2013)

n/a The paper presents changing approaches in environmental conservation and governance of PAs in Romania, from the era of pre-communism, to today’s era of the EU, in the case studies of three N2000 sites. Inclusive and integrated approach to environmental governance is still not present and faces many challenges due to lack of historical involvement of the society in decision making and thus low experience of stakeholders in participation, reluctance of government to shift approach to governance and lack of NGOs that would focus on environmental conservation.

116 Weber and Christophersen (2002)

n/a The paper analyses aims, strategies and activities of different actors in implementation of HD and describes advocacy coalitions that emerged in the process. New possibilities created by the EU conservation policy to influence the process were utilized by the environmental NGOs successfully through production of “shadow lists” and demand for cross-compliance.

Policy integration

117 Koutseris (2006) n/a This paper discusses European protection policies in relation to the new CAP. As the new European policies incorporate environmental concerns into the economic development, “regions of controlled activities” are promoted.

118 Votsi et al. (2014b) n/a The study identifies potential spatial overlaps between N2000 sites and Quiet Areas (based on EU Environmental Noise Directive) in Greece. The established N2000 sites overlaps with more than 30 % of Quiet Areas of the open countryside. Flagship species reveal a preference for sites containing Quiet Areas. Protected and quiet areas appear to be mutually beneficial, thus it may be possible to combine these two policies.

119 de Koning et al. (2014b)

n/a This study analyses how the debate on CC adaptation affects forest conservation and management under N2000. The nexus between CC adaptation and forest conservation policy is conceptualised differently by different stakeholders at different levels. Three major discourses pragmatic, dynamics and threat discourse) exist, which are partially overlapping. They are used by four discourse coalitions (environmental, forest users’, expert, and grass root). Debates on CC are more polarized at European level, while vague at local level.

120 Roggema (2009) n/a This study analyses the spatial possibilities to improve possibilities to deal with CC through the system of conservation areas and illustrates it with example from the Netherlands. It is concluded that the protection system based on EU and national directives is definitely established and

10

therefore difficult to change. The ecological system needs to be strengthened through increased connectivity to better deal with future CC.

121 Christensen and Kornov (2011)

n/a The paper analyses the demands in the guidelines of local authorities introduced due to increased focus on groundwater protection and N2000 in Denmark. The implementation of Natura 2000 in has increased the demands on many farms. Due to positive role of N2000 implementation, the level of protection has improved, however formulation of demands differed a lot among particular counties.

Conservation priority setting

122 Gaston et al. (2008) n/a The study evaluates nature conservation in Europe (with focus on N2000) against the steps of systematic conservation planning and derives a set of challenges nature conservation in Europe faces. It presents opportunities with regard to N2000 approach but underlines the constrains such as, e.g. insufficient data on BDIV, lack of considering systematic conservation planning thinking, failure to determine explicit quantitative targets for conservation across Europe.

123 Giakoumi et al. (2011)

n/a The study focuses on determining priorities for the location of marine reserves using spatial prioritization software in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, including innovative socio-economic cost indices, accounting for fisheries and tourists. It also compares results of this systematic conservation planning with non-systematic planning of N2000 or sites proposed for protection by fishermen, concluding that only a few sites selected by the systematic approach were the same as those identified before (in unsystematic way).

124 Giakoumi et al. (2012)

n/a The study uses systematic conservation planning approach to identify priority areas for conservation of coastal and offshore BDIV in Greek Ionian Sea. This approach delivered results that required less area and less costs to achieve the set conservation goals. Existing N2000 network failed to achieve the goals for some priority habitat and species.

125 Tsianou et al. (2013) n/a The study applies multi-criteria approach to assess the potential criteria of decision-making and principles which underlie the process of selection of a set of N2000 sites in Greece. While management history and ecological factors criteria were close to optimal, respectively better than random, in the prioritization process, human activities, population density and land value were undervalued.

Participation evaluation

126 Apostolopoulou et al. (2012)

n/a The study investigates the role of participation in relation to the Greek Natura 2000 network and concludes that participation of stakeholders exists mainly on paper. Greek stakeholders get engaged mainly through administrational documentation, or at the local level through personal contacts and initiatives, and in general very few representatives of local communities take part in the process.

127 Cent et al. (2014) n/a The study evaluates participatory process of N2000 site selection in Malopolska region in Poland and evidences limited success of this process. Not all relevant stakeholders were enabled to participate, there was little possibility to influence the final decisions, the main aim of the process was to provide information and improve the public image of N2000 among the local communities, but not to give power to them. The function of participation was only “therapeutic”, i.e. enabled participant to express their dissatisfaction about N2000, express emotions and be listened to.

128 Enengel et al. (2014) n/a The study looks into participation in the Natura 2000 management groups in Austria. The participation allowed the participant to contribute with their own knowledge and experiences. However, although the participation process was in principle open to everyone, there was expressed need for broader involvement of local people. Lack of precise information and trust was indicated as a barrier to more effective participation process.

129 Young et al. (2013a) n/a The study investigated if involvement of local actors in the management of PAs contributes to the conservation of BDIV. It concludes that social outcomes of increased stakeholder involvement (e.g. increased trust) increased the perceived likelihood of positive future BDIV outcomes. It shows that early inclusion of relevant local stakeholders is important and underlines the need of being open and clear about the aims of the stakeholder involvement, the importance of “independency” of the process allowing for inclusion of values represented by local stakeholders, and the importance of trust between stakeholders.

Other 130 Castro (2012) N2000 in media The study analyses how the press presents a legal innovation of laws governing N2000 network. National press presented N2000 law in positive way, stressing the benefits of conservation and calling for the respect for the law, while regional press focused on problems linked to implementation of the new legislation, e.g. obstacles to business.

131 Fischer-Kowalski et al. (2011)

Biosphere Reserve

The study investigated the feasibility of transforming the island of Samothraki, Greece, into a UNESCO biosphere reserve (BR). The island is an attractive hotspot of nature and culture and deserves the status of BR. N2000 area may constitute the core area of it without requiring additional legal measures. The assessment showed that that the BR would be welcomed by majority of stakeholders.

132 Gurskiene and Natura 2000 The paper analyses the establishment and describes current state of N2000 in Lithuania. It presents quantitative data about the N2000 sites and

11

Ivaviciute (2009) status compares it with other EU countries. It discusses support measures provided by the N2000 sites of land users.

133 Hasanagas (2001) Europeanization The paper analyses the interplay between forest and environmental groups in relation to EU policy making. The N2000 network represents sectoral corporatism, as particular environmental interest groups get involved in policy implementation and acquire some power. The forest groups do not possess such a power. Organizational factors, which can favour the power development and allow actors to enter a corporatist network are interest setting, interest nature and association level.

134 Jones-Walters and Çil (2011)

Participation and BD conservation

The paper reviews stakeholder participation in BDIV governance. It describes the process of N2000 designation as characterized by low involvement of relevant stakeholders (people who live and work within the sites). According to the authors, such process led to numerous conflicts across Europe.

135 Koutseris (2007) Implementation status

The paper describes implementation of HD in a set of case studies in Greece. It presents protection and management problems in the region and presents the application of delimitation-zoning models.

136 McKenney and Kiesecker (2010)

Biodiversity offsets

The study reviews and compares a set of offset policy frameworks, including N2000. It identifies aspects that require further policy guidance, such as how to ensure conformance with mitigation hierarchy, how to identify the most environmentally preferable offsets within a landscape, and how to determine appropriate mitigation replacement ratios.

137 Opdam et al. (2009) Scientific uncertainty

The paper identifies uncertainties in judging the significance of human impact son N2000 sites. It shows that science can never rule out uncertainty and it is unrealistic to claim that science can provide certainty. The sources of uncertainty are: ignorance, unpredictability and ambiguity in the interface between science and policy. European precautionary principle should take all three into account.

138 Petrosillo et al. (2010)

Natural capital The study analyses the effects of conservation policies on the flow of natural capital. Not all conservation strategies have the same effect on natural capital. Recognising the natural value of the site, as N2000 policy does, is not sufficient for the effective maintenance of natural capital. To support natural capital there is a need for local management authority that would manage interactions between human and natural systems.

139 Petrosillo et al. (2009)

Natural capital This paper assesses temporal dynamics of land-use and the natural capital it provides for and analysis if the environmental policies in place have helps to maintain the natural capital. Policies that merely recognise natural value of particular areas (like N2000 policy) are not sufficient for maintaining natural capital. There is a need for local level measures that would take into account and mitigate human impacts.

140 Rakonczay (2005) Forest restoration

The paper describes opportunities provided by EU policies (including conservation policy) for providing opportunities for forest restoration. One of the goals of HD is to ensure restoration of habitats and LIFE, the most important instrument linked to N2000 has founded many projects on forest restoration. However, it is Member State’s priorities and policies that influence how these instruments are used.

141 Söderman (2009) Ecological Impact Assessment

The study analyses 73 Appropriate Assessments for plans and projects potentially having negative effects on N2000 sites, in Finland, and reveals main shortcomings as being 1) weak information basis for the assessments; 2) lack of proper cumulative impact assessment. The study suggests that a proper process of planning should be an iterative one that goes hand in hand with impact assessment based on adequate data.

142 Tsiafouli et al. (2013)

Human activities

The paper analyses 111,269 records of human activity in N2000 sites in 20 European countries. More than 86 % of sites was subject to agriculture or forestry. Hunting, fishing, urbanization, transportation, and tourism were most common in southern sites, compared to northern sites. It is concluded that human activities are very heterogeneous in the Member States. The paper suggests need for integration of different policies and combining social and ecological considerations.

143 Bastian (2013) Ecosystem services

This study aims at revealing the relation between BDIV and ES in selected N2000 in Germany and Czech Republic. It relates particular habitat types of N2000 to particular ES and calculates costs of management or restoration of selected habitat types. Information on the links between ES and BDIV is crucial for better integration of conservation into broader policies, strategies or programmes and for strengthening nature conservation arguments.

144 Maes et al. (2012) Ecosystem services

This study assesses spatial relationship between BDIV, ES and conservation status of protected habitats in Europe. Habitats in favourable conservation status had higher BDIV and thus higher potential to provide ES, particularly regulating and cultural, than habitats with unfavourable status.

145 Cantarello and Indicators The study identifies potential indicators for assessment of forested habitats in N2000 sites and assesses cost-effectiveness of different

12

Newton (2008a) monitoring methods. Different methods in different sites gained contrasting results, indicating the need for adapting the methods to the particular needs and characteristics of particular sites, as a generalised approach to monitoring of N2000 sites may not be possible.

146 Cantarello and Newton (2008b)

Indicators The study aims at identifying indicators of favourable conservation status of N2000 habitats. It also evaluates the relative cost-effectiveness of these indicators for two selected Natura 2000 sites (in Italy and the UK). It is suggested that a most efficient approach to monitoring of the conservation status of forested habitats at a local scale would be surveying a subset of indicators using transect methods.

147 Selva et al. (2011) Roadless areas The study presents roadless areas in Europe as conservation targets. It exemplifies their value by a case study of Germany where N2000 covers 16 % of the area, but the sites are highly fragmented by roads and as much as 75 % of the low traffic areas is located outside the network

148 Sumares and Fidelis (2011)

Discourses in implementation

This article suggests that more attention should be paid to local discourses within the implementation of N2000. Discourse is element of social life and is important for sense-making and thus can have transformative effect on other elements. In creating PAs for N2000 network, there is a particular tension between “artificially preserving landscapes or ecosystems that corresponded to specific socio-economic systems and the naturally evolving trajectories of actual human stories”

149 Veen et al. (2010) Natura 2000 status

The paper presents a framework for identifying virgin forests and identifies such forests for Bulgaria and Romania. Such data can be very useful when designing networks of PAs. In the EU accession procedure more than 97 % in Bulgaria and more than 80 % in Romania of the area of identified virgin forest sites were included in N2000.

Abbreviations: N2000 = Natura 2000; BD = Birds Directive; BDIV = biodiversity; CAP = Common Agriculture Policy; CC = climate change; DPSIR = Drivers Pressures States Impacts Responses [model]; EIA = Environmental Impact Assessment; ELC = European Landscape Convention; ES = ecosystem services; EU = European Union; HD = Habitat Directive; NGO = Non-governmental organisation; PA = protected area; SAC = Special Areas of Conservation; SFM = Sustainable Forest Management; SPA = Special Protection Areas; WTA = Willingness To Accept; WTP = Willingness To Pay; Reference in bold = interdisciplinary publicationn/a – not applicable, as small categories (with not many papers) do not have sub-categories

References

Alphandery, P., Fortier, A., 2010. Local settings and biodiversity: a sociological approach to the implementation of the EC Habitats Directive in France. Current Sociology 58, 755-776.Alphandéry, P., Fortier, A., 2001. Can a territorial policy be based on science alone? The system for creating the Natura 2000 network in France. . Soc. Ruralis 41, 311-328.Andrea, V., Tampakis, S., Tsantopoulos, G., Arabatzis, G., 2013. Administration and management effectiveness of protected areas: stakeholders’ views of Dadia National Park, Greece. Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research 5, 23-34.Andrulewicz, E., Otremba, S., Kaminska, K., 2010. Ongoing technical activities and conservation. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 19, 553-563.Anthon, S., Garcia, S., Stenger, A., 2010. Incentive contracts for Natura 2000 implementation in forest areas. Environmental and Resource Economics 46, 281-302.Apostolopoulou, E., Drakou, E.G., Pediaditi, K., 2012. Participation in the management of Greek Natura 2000 sites: evidence from a cross-level analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 113, 308-318.Apostolopoulou, E., Pantis, J.D., 2009. Conceptual gaps in the national strategy for the implementation of the European Natura 2000 conservation policy in Greece. Biol. Conserv. 142, 221-237.Bastian, O., 2013. The role of biodiversity in supporting ecosystem services in Natura 2000 sites. Ecol. Indicators 24, 12-22.

13

Beunen, R., de Vries, J.R., 2011. The governance of Natura 2000 sites: the importance of initial choices in the organisation of planning processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 54, 1041-1059.Beunen, R., van Assche, K., 2013. Contested delineations: planning, law, and the governance of protected areas. Environment and Planning A 45, 1285-1301.Beunen, R., Van Assche, K., Duineveld, M., 2013. Performing failure in conservation policy: The implementation of European Union directives in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy 31, 280-288.Bielecka, M., Różyński, G., 2014. Management conflicts in the Vistula Lagoon area. Ocean Coast. Manage. 101, 24-34.Borrass, L., 2014. Varying practices of implementing the Habitats Directive in German and British forests. Forest Policy and Economics 38, 151-160.Bots, P.W.G., Bijlsma, R., von Korff, Y., Van der Fluit, N., Wolters, H., 2011. Supporting the Constructive Use of Existing Hydrological Models in Participatory Settings: a Set of “Rules of the Game”. Ecol. Soc. 16, 16.Brandt, J., Christensen, A.A., Svenningsen, S.R., Holmes, E., 2012. Landscape practise and key concepts for landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecol. 28, 1125-1137.Bryan, S., 2012. Contested boundaries, contested places: The Natura 2000 network in Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies 28, 80-94.Börzel, T., Buzogány, A., 2010. Environmental organisations and the Europeanisation of public policy in Central and Eastern Europe: the case of biodiversity governance. Environmental Politics 19, 708-735.Cantarello, E., Newton, A., 2008a. Identifying cost-effective indicators to assess the conservation status of forested habitats in Natura 2000 sites. For. Ecol. Manage. 256, 815-826.Cantarello, E., Newton, A., 2008b. Towards cost-effective indicators to maintain Natura 2000 sites in favourable conservation status. Preliminary results from Cansiglio and New Forest. iForest 1.Castro, P., 2012. Legal innovation for social change: exploring change and resistance to different types of sustainability laws. Polit. Psychol. 33, 105-121.Cent, J., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A., 2014. Emerging multilevel environmental governance – A case of public participation in Poland. J. Nat. Conserv. 22, 93-102.Cent, J., Mertens, C., Niedziałkowski, K., 2013. Roles and impacts of non-governmental organizations in Natura 2000 implementation in Hungary and Poland. Environ. Conserv. 40, 119-128.Christensen, P., 2006. Danish experiences on EIA of livestock projects. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 26, 468-480.Christensen, P., Kornov, L., 2011. EIA screening and nature protection in Denmark. J. Environ. Manage. 92, 1097-1103.Ciapala, S., Adamski, P., Mroczka, A., Svajda, J., Witkowski, Z., 2014. Threats related to tourism and recreation in Natura 2000 areas, based on the analysis of the standard data forms (SDF) from the Alpine Bioregion of Slovakia. Eco Mont-Journal on Protected Mountain Areas Research 6, 55-60.Cliquet, A., 2014. International and European law on protected areas and climate change: need for adaptation or implementation? Environ. Manage. 54, 720-731.Cortina, C., Boggia, A., 2014. Development of policies for Natura 2000 sites: A multi-criteria approach to support decision makers. J. Environ. Manage. 141, 138-145.Cruz, A., Benedicto, J., Gil, A., 2011. Socio-economic benefits of Natura 2000 in Azores Islands – a case study approach on ecosystem services provided by a Special Protected Area. J. Coast. Res. 64, 1955-1959.

14

de Koning, J., Turnhout, E., Winkel, G., Blondet, M., Borras, L., Ferranti, F., Geitzenauer, M., Sotirov, M., Jump, A., 2014a. Managing climate change in conservation practice: an exploration of the science–management interface in beech forest management. Biodivers. Conserv. 23, 3657-3671.de Koning, J., Winkel, G., Sotirov, M., Blondet, M., Borras, L., Ferranti, F., Geitzenauer, M., 2014b. Natura 2000 and climate change—Polarisation, uncertainty, and pragmatism in discourses on forest conservation and management in Europe. Environmental Science & Policy 39, 129-138.de Noronha Vaz, E., Walczynska, A., Nijkamp, P., 2012. Regional challenges in tourist wetland systems: an integrated approach to the Ria Formosa in the Algarve, Portugal. Regional Environmental Change 13, 33-42.Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., Jones, N., Iosifides, T., Florokapi, I., Lasda, O., Paliouras, F., Evangelinos, K.I., 2010. Local attitudes on protected areas: evidence from three Natura 2000 wetland sites in Greece. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 1847-1854.Ecke, F., Hellsten, S., Mjelde, M., Kuoppala, M., Schlacke, S., 2010. Potential conflicts between environmental legislation and conservation exemplified by aquatic macrophytes. Hydrobiologia 656, 107-115.Enengel, B., Penker, M., Muhar, A., 2014. Landscape co-management in Austria: The stakeholder's perspective on efforts, benefits and risks. Journal of Rural Studies 34, 223-234.Ernoul, L., Vareltzidou, S., Teofili, C., Gasulla, X.E., Tilders, I., 2011. Adaptive management of coastal areas: using the Open Standards approach, In Medcoast 11, Vols 1 and 2. ed. E. Ozhan, pp. 123-133. Mediterranean Coastal Foundation-Medcoast Foundation, Akyaka.Ferranti, F., Beunen, R., Speranza, M., 2010. Natura 2000 Network: A Comparison of the Italian and Dutch Implementation Experiences. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 12, 293-314.Ferranti, F., Turnhout, E., Beunen, R., Behagel, J.H., 2014. Shifting nature conservation approaches in Natura 2000 and the implications for the roles of stakeholders. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 57, 1642-1657.Fischer-Kowalski, M., Xenidis, L., Singh, S.J., Pallua, I., 2011. Transforming the Greek Island of Samothraki into a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. An experience in transdisciplinarity. GAIA 2, 181-190.Fliervoet, J.M., Van den Born, R.J., Smits, A.J., Knippenberg, L., 2013. Combining safety and nature: a multi-stakeholder perspective on integrated floodplain management. J. Environ. Manage. 128, 1033-1042.Fock, H.O., 2011. Natura 2000 and the European Common Fisheries Policy. Mar. Policy 35, 181-188.Freitag, C., Ohle, N., Strotmann, T., Glindemann, H., 2008. Concept of sustainable development of the Elbe Estuary, pp. 1085-1092.Ganatsas, P., Tsakaldimi, M., Katsaros, D., 2013. Natural resource management in national parks: a management assessment of a Natura 2000 wetlands site in Kotychi-Strofylia, southern Greece. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 20, 152-165.Gaston, K.J., Jackson, S.F., Nagy, A., Cantu-Salazar, L., Johnson, M., 2008. Protected areas in Europe: principle and practice. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1134, 97-119.Giakoumi, S., Grantham, H.S., Kokkoris, G.D., Possingham, H.P., 2011. Designing a network of marine reserves in the Mediterranean Sea with limited socio-economic data. Biol. Conserv. 144, 753-763.Giakoumi, S., Katsanevakis, S., Vassilopoulou, V., Panayotidis, P., Kavadas, S., Issaris, Y., Kokkali, A., Frantzis, A., Panou, A., Mavrommati, G., 2012. Could European marine conservation policy benefit from systematic conservation planning? Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 22, 762-775.

15

Gil, A., Calado, H., Costa, A.C., Bentz, J., Fonseca, C., Lobo, A., Vergilio, M., Benedicto, J., 2011. A methodological proposal for the development of Natura 2000 sites management plans. J. Coast. Res. 64, 1326 - 1330.Gonzales, C., Clemente, A., Nielsen, K.A., Branquinho, C., Dos Santos, R.F., 2009. Human–nature relationship in Mediterranean streams: integrating different types of knowledge to improve water. Ecol. Soc. 14, 35.Grammatikopoulou, I., Olsen, S.B., 2013. Accounting protesting and warm glow bidding in Contingent Valuation surveys considering the management of environmental goods--an empirical case study assessing the value of protecting a Natura 2000 wetland area in Greece. J. Environ. Manage. 130, 232-241.Graziano, R., Gilberto, P., Alessandro, F., 2008. A rapid and cost-effective tool for managing habitats of the European Natura 2000 network: a case study in the Italian Alps. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 1375-1388.Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., Cent, J., 2011. Expansion of nature conservation areas: problems with Natura 2000 implementation in Poland? Environ. Manage. 47, 11-27.Gurskiene, V., Ivaviciute, G., 2009. Establishment of the Natura 2000 sites, In Rural Development 2009, Proceedings, Vol 4, Book 2. pp. 111-116. Lithuanian University of Agriculture, Kauno Raj.Hasanagas, N.D., 2001. Implications of the Europeanization in transsectoral environmental policy areas. Case study: forestry-nature conservation. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review - Proceedings 2001, 3, 118-133.Hiedanpää, J., 2002. European-wide conservation versus local well-being: the reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland. Landscape Urban Plann. 61, 113-123.Hiedanpää, J., 2005. The edges of conflict and consensus: a case for creativity in regional forest policy in Southwest Finland. Ecol. Econ. 55, 485-498.Hochkirch, A., Schmitt, T., Beninde, J., Hiery, M., Kinitz, T., Kirschey, J., Matenaar, D., Rohde, K., Stoefen, A., Wagner, N., Zink, A., Lötters, S., Veith, M., Proelss, A., 2013. Europe needs a new vision for a Natura 2020 network. Conservation Letters 6, 462-467.Hoyos, D., Mariel, P., Pascual, U., Etxano, I., 2012. Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country. Journal of Forest Economics 18, 329-344.Iojă, C.I., Pătroescu, M., Rozylowicz, L., Popescu, V.D., Vergheleţ, M., Zotta, M.I., Felciuc, M., 2010. The efficacy of Romania’s protected areas network in conserving biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2468-2476.Jackson, A.L.R., 2011. Renewable energy vs. biodiversity: Policy conflicts and the future of nature conservation. Global Environ. Change 21, 1195-1208.Jacobsen, J.B., Vedel, S.E., Thorsen, B.J., 2013. Assessing costs of multifunctional Natura 2000 management restrictions in continuous cover beech forest management. Forestry 86, 575-582.Jantke, K., Schleupner, C., Schneider, U.A., 2010. Gap analysis of European wetland species: priority regions for expanding the Natura 2000 network. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 581-605.Jones-Walters, L., Çil, A., 2011. Biodiversity and stakeholder participation. J. Nat. Conserv. 19, 327-329.Jones, N., Panagiotidou, K., Spilanis, I., Evangelinos, K.I., Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., 2011. Visitors’ perceptions on the management of an important nesting site for loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta L.): The case of Rethymno coastal area in Greece. Ocean Coast. Manage. 54, 577-584.Kafyri, A., Hovardas, T., Poirazidis, K., 2012. Determinants of visitor pro-environmental intentions on two small Greek islands: is ecotourism possible at coastal protected areas? Environ. Manage. 50, 64-76.

16

Kamal, S., Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., 2014. Should conservation of biodiversity involve private land? A Q methodological study in Poland to assess stakeholders' attitude. Biodivers. Conserv. 23, 2689-2704.Kistenkas, F., 2014. Innovating European nature conservation law by introducing ecosystem services. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 2, 88-92.Kosmopoulos, P., Manoliadis, O., Baronos, A., Zafeiriadis, K., Georgi, J., 2005. Environmental perceptions of landscape values around the Lake Kastoria Western Macedonia Greece, In Ninth International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology. pp. 823-828, Rhodes Island Greece.Koutseris, E., 2006. Sustainable resources management in the context of agro-environmental EU policies: novel paradigms in Thessaly, Greece. I, 197-207.Koutseris, E., 2007. Zoning protection models and eco-development areas of Karla, Trikala and the Sporades Islands in Thessaly, Greece. II, 559-572.Lee, M., 2001. Coastal defence and Habitat Directive: predictions of habitat change in England and Wales. The Geographical Journal 167.Leone, V., Lovreglio, R., 2004. Conservation of Mediterranean pine woodlands: scenarios and legislative tools. Plant Ecol. 171, 221-235.Li, C.Z., Kuuluvainen, J., Pouta, E., Rekola, M., Tahvonen, O., 2004. Using choice experiments to value the Natura 2000 nature conservation programs in Finland. Environ. Resour. Econ. 29, 361-374.Louette, G., Adriaens, D., Adriaens, P., Anselin, A., Devos, K., Sannen, K., Van Landuyt, W., Paelinckx, D., Hoffmann, M., 2011. Bridging the gap between the Natura 2000 regional conservation status and local conservation objectives. J. Nat. Conserv. 19, 224-235.Lung, T., Meller, L., van Teeffelen, A.J.A., Thuiller, W., Cabeza, M., 2014. Biodiversity funds and conservation needs in the EU under climate change. Conservation Letters 7, 390-400.Maes, J., Paracchini, M.L., Zulian, G., Dunbar, M.B., Alkemade, R., 2012. Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 155, 1-12.Malatinszky, A., Ádám, S., Falusi, E., Saláta, D., Penksza, K., 2014. Suggested management measures for Natura 2000 habitats in Körös- Maros National Park, Hungary. Advances in Global Change Research 58, 197-207.Mallard, F., François, D., 2013. Effectiveness of the legal framework for natural areas protection relative to French road projects. Land Use Policy 30, 582-591.Marandi, A., Veinla, H., Karro, E., 2014. Legal aspects related to the effect of underground mining close to the site entered into the list of potential Natura 2000 network areas. Environmental Science & Policy 38, 217-224.Marmureanu, L., Geamana, N.A., 2012. The need for education and public awareness campaign in Natura 2000 sites Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 13, 2423-2432.Marot, N., Kolarič, Š., Golobič, M., 2013. Slovenia as the Natural Park of Europe? Territorial Impact Assessment in the case of Natura 2000. Acta geographica Slovenica 53, 91-116.Mauerhofer, V., 2009. Missing links: how individual’s can contribute to reserve policy enforcement on the example of the European Union. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 601-618.McKenney, B.A., Kiesecker, J.M., 2010. Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environ. Manage. 45, 165-176.Metcalfe, K., Roberts, T., Smith, R.J., Harrop, S.R., 2013. Marine conservation science and governance in North–West Europe: Conservation planning and international law and policy. Mar. Policy 39, 289-295.

17

Mikulcak, F., Newig, J., Milcu, A.I., Hartel, T., Fischer, J., 2013. Integrating rural development and biodiversity conservation in Central Romania. Environ. Conserv. 40, 129-137.Morris, R.K.A., Bennett, T., Blyth-Skyrme, R., Barham, P.J., Ball, A., 2014. Managing Natura 2000 in the marine environment – An evaluation of the effectiveness of ‘management schemes’ in England. Ocean Coast. Manage. 87, 40-51.Morsing, J., Frandsen, S.I., Vejre, H., Raulund-Rasmussen, K., 2013. Do the principles of ecological restoration cover EU LIFE Nature cofunded projects in Denmark? Ecol. Soc. 18.Mouro, C., Castro, P., 2009. Local communities responding to ecological challenges-A psycho-social approach to the natura 2000 network. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 20, 139-155.Muntean, O.-L., Buzila, L., Mihaiescu, R., Malos, C., Baciu, N., 2013. Assessment of environmental vulnerabilities and constraints in the Vascau Plateau (Natura 2000 Protected Area, Romania). Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 14, 1860–1870.Niedziałkowski, K., Paavola, J., Jędrzejewska, B., 2012. Governance of biodiversity in Poland before and after the accession to the EU: the tale of two roads. Environ. Conserv. 40, 108-118.Oana, B., 2006. Natura 2000 network an opportunity for rural space sustainable development. Buletin USAMV-CN 62, 179-183.Oikonomou, V., Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., Troumbis, A.Y., 2011. Incorporating ecosystem function concept in environmental planning and decision making by means of multi-criteria evaluation: the case-study of Kalloni, Lesbos, Greece. Environ. Manage. 47, 77-92.Opdam, P.F.M., Broekmeyer, M.E.A., Kistenkas, F.H., 2009. Identifying uncertainties in judging the significance of human impacts on Natura 2000 sites. Environmental Science & Policy 12, 912-921.Ostermann, O.P., 1998. The need for management of nature conservation sites designated under Natura 2000. J. Appl. Ecol. 35, 968-973.Papageorgiou, K., Vogiatzakis, I.N., 2006. Nature protection in Greece: an appraisal of the factors shaping integrative conservation and policy effectiveness. Environmental Science & Policy 9, 476-486.Parolo, G., Ferrarini, A., Rossi, G., 2009. Optimization of tourism impacts within protected areas by means of genetic algorithms. Ecol. Model. 220, 1138-1147.Pavasars, I., 2013. Environmentalism in Latvia: two realities. Journal of Baltic Studies 45, 39-55.Pecurul-Botines, M., Di Gregorio, M., Paavola, J., 2014. Discourses of conflict and collaboration and institutional context in the implementation of forest conservation policies in Soria, Spain. Biodivers. Conserv. 23, 3483-3499.Pedersen, S.A., Fock, H., Krause, J., Pusch, C., Sell, A.L., Böttcher, U., Rogers, S.I., Sköld, M., Skov, H., Podolska, M., Piet, G.J., Rice, J.C., 2009. Natura 2000 sites and fisheries in German offshore waters. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66, 155-169.Petrosillo, I., Semeraro, T., Zurlini, G., 2010. Detecting the ‘conservation effect’ on the maintenance of natural capital flow in different natural parks. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1115-1123.Petrosillo, I., Zaccarelli, N., Semeraro, T., Zurlini, G., 2009. The effectiveness of different conservation policies on the security of natural capital. Landscape Urban Plann. 89, 49-56.Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A., Cent, J., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., Szymańska, M., 2012. Factors influencing perception of protected areas—The case of Natura 2000 in Polish Carpathian communities. J. Nat. Conserv. 20, 284-292.

18

Pîrvu, M., Petrovici, M., 2013. DPSIR conceptual framework role: a case study regarding the threats and conservation measures for caddisflies (Insecta: Trichoptera) in Romania. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems, 11.Pouta, E., Rekola, M., Kuuluvainen, J., Tahvonen, O., Li, C.Z., 2000. Contingent valuation of the Natura 2000 natureconservation programme in Finland. Forestry 73, 119-128.Prazan, J., Ratinger, T., Krumalova, V., 2005. The evolution of nature conservation policy in the Czech Republic—challenges of Europeanisation in the White Carpathians Protected Landscape Area. Land Use Policy 22, 235-243.Rakonczay, Z., 2005. Towards cost-effective indicators to maintain Natura 2000 sites in favourable conservation status. Preliminary results from Cansiglio and New Forest, In Forest landscape restoration in Central and Northern Europe. eds T. Veltheim, B. Pajari, pp. 91-94. European Forest Institute, Hämeenlinna.Rauschmayer, F., 2009. Participation in EU biodiversity governance: how far beyond rhetoric. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 27, 42-58.Rauschmayer, F., Berghöfer, A., Omann, I., Zikos, D., 2009. Examining processes or/and outcomes? Evaluation concepts in European governance of natural resources. Environmental Policy and Governance 19, 159-173.Rees, S.E., Sheehan, E.V., Jackson, E.L., Gall, S.C., Cousens, S.L., Solandt, J.L., Boyer, M., Attrill, M.J., 2013. A legal and ecological perspective of 'site integrity' to inform policy development and management of Special Areas of Conservation in Europe. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 72, 14-21.Rekola, M., Pouta, E., Kuuluvainen, J., Tahvonen, O., Li, C.Z., 2000. Incommensurable preferences in contingent valuation: the case of Natura 2000 Network in Finland. Environ. Conserv. 27, 260-268.Roggema, R., 2009. Ecology, In Adaptation to climate change: a spatial challenge. pp. 211-251. Springer, Netherlands.Rojas-Briales, E., 2000. Socio-economics of nature protection policies in the perspective of the implementation of Natura 2000 network: the Spanish case. Forestry 72, 199-207.Rosa, H.D., Da Silva, J.M., 2005. From environmental ethics to nature conservation policy: Natura 2000 and the burden of proof. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18, 107-130.Russo, P., Carullo, L., Riguccio, L., Tomaselli, G., 2011. Identification of landscapes for drafting Natura 2000 network Management Plans: A case study in Sicily. Landscape Urban Plann. 101, 228-243.Santana, J., Reino, L., Stoate, C., Borralho, R., Carvalho, C.R., Schindler, S., Moreira, F., Bugalho, M.N., Ribeiro, P.F., Santos, J.L., Vaz, A., Morgado, R., Porto, M., Beja, P., 2014. Mixed effects of long-term conservation investment in Natura 2000 farmland. Conservation Letters 7, 467-477.Sarvasova, Z., Salka, J., Dobsinska, Z., 2013. Mechanism of cross-sectoral coordination between nature protection and forestry in the Natura 2000 formulation process in Slovakia. J. Environ. Manage. 127 Suppl, S65-72.Scolozzi, R., Schirpke, U., Morri, E., D'Amato, D., Santolini, R., 2014. Ecosystem services-based SWOT analysis of protected areas for conservation strategies. J. Environ. Manage. 146, 543-551.Selva, N., Kreft, S., Kati, V., Schluck, M., Jonsson, B.G., Mihok, B., Okarma, H., Ibisch, P.L., 2011. Roadless and low-traffic areas as conservation targets in Europe. Environ. Manage. 48, 865-877.Slepcevic, R., 2009. The judicial enforcement of EU law through national courts: possibilities and limits. Journal of European Public Policy 16, 378-394.

19

Soane, I.D., Scolozzi, R., Gretter, A., Hubacek, K., 2012. Exploring panarchy in alpine grasslands: an application of adaptive cycle concepts to the conservation of a cultural landscape. Ecol. Soc. 17.Stancioiu, P.T., Abrudan, I.V., Dutca, I., 2010. The Natura 2000 ecological network and forests in Romania: implications on management and administration. International Forestry Review 12, 106-113.Strange, N., Jacobsen, J.B., Thorsen, B.J., Tarp, P., 2007. Value for money: protecting endangered species on Danish heathland. Environ. Manage. 40, 761-774.Stringer, L.C., Paavola, J., 2013. Participation in environmental conservation and protected area management in Romania: A review of three case studies. Environ. Conserv. 40, 138-146.Sumares, D., Fidelis, T., 2009. Local perceptions and postures towards the SPA “Ria de Aveiro”. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 6, 121-137.Sumares, D., Fidelis, T., 2011. Natura 2000 and the narrative nature of nature: a case for critical discourse analysis. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 8, 53-68.Söderman, T., 2009. Natura 2000 appropriate assessment: Shortcomings and improvements in Finnish practice. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 29, 79-86.Teofili, C., Battisti, C., 2011. May the conservation measures partnership open standards framework improve the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 European network? A comparative analysis. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 8, 7-21.Tonder, M., Jurvelius, J., 2004. Attitudes towards fishery and conservation of the Saimaa ringed seal in Lake Pihlajavesi, Finland. Environ. Conserv. 31, 122-129.Torbidoni, F.E.I., 2011. Managing for recreational experience opportunities: the case of hikers in protected areas in Catalonia, Spain. Environ. Manage. 47, 482-496.Tsiafouli, M.A., Apostolopoulou, E., Mazaris, A.D., Kallimanis, A.S., Drakou, E.G., Pantis, J.D., 2013. Human activities in Natura 2000 sites: a highly diversified conservation network. Environ. Manage. 51, 1025-1033.Tsianou, M.A., Mazaris, A.D., Kallimanis, A.S., Deligioridi, P.-S.K., Apostolopoulou, E., Pantis, J.D., 2013. Identifying the criteria underlying the political decision for the prioritization of the Greek Natura 2000 conservation network. Biol. Conserv. 166, 103-110.Vaiškūnaitė, R., Mierauskas, P., Špakauskas, V., 2012. Biodiversity impact assessment in road development in Lithuania. Transport 27, 187-195.Vanden Borre, J., Paelinckx, D., Mücher, C.A., Kooistra, L., Haest, B., De Blust, G., Schmidt, A.M., 2011. Integrating remote sensing in Natura 2000 habitat monitoring: Prospects on the way forward. J. Nat. Conserv. 19, 116-125.Weber, N., Christophersen, T., 2002. The influence of non-governmental organisations on the creation of Natura 2000 during the European Policy process. Forest Policy and Economics 4, 1-12.Veen, P., Fanta, J., Raev, I., Biriş, I.A., De Smidt, J., Maes, B., 2010. Virgin forests in Romania and Bulgaria: results of two national inventory projects and their implications for protection. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 1805-1819.Welch-Devine, M., 2012. Searching for success: defining sucess in co-management. Human Organization 71, 358-368.Vikolainen, V., Bressers, H., Lulofs, K., 2012. Implementing Eu Natura 2000 at the project level: lessons from the Veluwe border lakes in the Netherlands. Publ. Admin. 90, 1016-1031.

20

Vikolainen, V., Bressers, H., Lulofs, K., 2013. The role of Natura 2000 and project design in implementing flood defence projects in the Scheldt estuary. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 56, 1359-1379.Vikolainen, V., Lulofs, K., Bressers, H., 2013b. The transfer of building with nature approach in the context of EU Natura 2000, In Water Governance, Policy and Knowledge Transfer: International Studies on Contextual Water Management. eds C. DeBoer, J. VinkeDeKruijf, G. Ozerol, H. Bressers, pp. 242-262.Winter, S., Borrass, L., Geitzenauer, M., Blondet, M., Breibeck, R., Weiss, G., Winkel, G., 2014. The impact of Natura 2000 on forest management: a socio-ecological analysis in the continental region of the European Union. Biodivers. Conserv. 23, 3451-3482.Visser, M., Moran, J., Regan, E., Gormally, M., Skeffington, M.S., 2007. The Irish agri-environment: how turlough users and non-users view converging EU agendas of Natura 2000 and CAP. Land Use Policy 24, 362-373.Vokou, D., Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., Jones, N., Damialis, A., Monokrousos, N., Pantis, J.D., Mazaris, A.D., Natura, C., 2014. Ten years of co-management in Greek protected areas: an evaluation. Biodivers. Conserv. 23, 2833-2855.Votsi, N.E.P., Kallimanis, A.S., Mazaris, A.D., Pantis, J.D., 2014b. Integrating environmental policies towards a network of protected and quiet areas. Environ. Conserv. 41, 321-329.Wszołek, T., Klaczynski, M., Mleczko, D., Ozga, A., 2014. On certain problems concerning Environmental Impact Assessment of wind turbines in scope of acoustic effects. Acta Physica Polonica A 125, 39-44.Wätzold, F., Mewes, M., van Apeldoorn, R., Varjopuro, R., Chmielewski, T.J., Veeneklaas, F., Kosola, M.-L., 2010. Cost-effectiveness of managing Natura 2000 sites: an exploratory study for Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 2053-2069.Wätzold, F., Schwerdtner, K., 2005. Why be wasteful when preserving a valuable resource? A review article on the cost-effectiveness of European biodiversity conservation policy. Biol. Conserv. 123, 327-338.Young, J.C., Jordan, A., R. Searle, K., Butler, A., S. Chapman, D., Simmons, P., Watt, A.D., 2013a. Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation? Biol. Conserv. 158, 359-370.Young, J.C., Jordan, A., Searle, K.R., Butler, A., Simmons, P., Watt, A.D., 2013b. Framing scale in participatory biodiversity management may contribute to more sustainable solutions. Conservation Letters, n/a-n/a.Zacharias, I., Parasidoy, A., Bergmeier, E., Kehayias, G., Dimitriou, E., Dimopoulos, P., 2008. A “DPSIR” model for Mediterranean temporary ponds : European, national and local scale comparisons. Annales de Limnologie - International Journal of Limnology 44, 253-266.Zaharia, T., Maximov, V., Radu, G., Anton, E., Spinu, A., Nenciu, M., 2014. Reconciling fisheries and habitat protection in Romanian coastal marine protected areas. Scientia Marina 78, 95-101.Zaharia, T., Micu, D., Nedelcu, M., Ganea, G., Ursache, C.M., Golumbeanu, M., Nenciu, M., 2012. Romanian marine fisheries and Natura 2000 network. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 13, 1792-1798.

21

Documents

ars.els-cdn.com€¦ · Web viewNot all conservation strategies have the same effect on natural capital. Recognising the natural value of the site, as N2000 policy does, is not