Effectiveness of Natura 2000 network in Romanian Alpine Biogeographical Region: an assessment based on forest landscape connectivity

Abstract

Abstract. Maintaining and increasing landscape connectivity, especially of forest landscapes, are some of the main concerns regarding biodiversity conservation. The connectivity of protected areas for different species represents an indicator for evaluating the effectiveness of the Natura 2000 network. Our research aims to evaluate the connectivity of forest landscapes in the Romanian Alpine Biogeographical Region (ABR) for various terrestrial species. We analysed the distribution of forest patches and Sites of Community Importance (SCI), as part of Natura 2000 network, in the Romanian ABR. We evaluated the connectivity of forest patches for terrestrial species with different dispersal distances, identifying those patches with significant contribution to maintain the forest landscape connectivity, through the graph theory approach. To quantify the importance of each node, we evaluated the dPCconnector fraction derived from the dPC index. Of the 125 SCIs in the Romanian ABR, 71 protected areas have over 1000 ha, four of them have more than 100,000 ha. The total protected surfaces cover ~35% of the Romanian ABR, and the forest surfaces, protected in SCIs, cover 26% of the total Romanian ABR. Regarding the connectivity scores, we found that the forest surfaces across the ABR are well connected (0.89 or 1 for different dispersal distances) in comparison with the Natura 2000 forest patches. The forest patches are well connected especially for the species with large dispersal distance in both cases (d = 25 km). For the species characterized by a small dispersion distance, the connectivity is lower (0.46) in the case of protected forests. Our results evidence that the connectivity objective of the forest surfaces protected through the Nature 2000 network is not totally achieved. Furthermore new protected areas are needed where the forest are still present for increasing landscape connectivity for species.

Assessing the Potential Conflict Occurrence Due to Metropolitan Transportation Planning: A Proposed Quantitative Approach

“…Assessments of the collaboration degree of different actors have proved to be a useful approach in analyzing the flows of knowledge in developing planning strategies and in the decision-making process. Social network analysis was used in various studies leading to valuable information about the governance of natural protected areas [58][59][60] or urban settings [61]. The network analysis used in our study revealed that enhancing the accessibility of metropolitan residents towards the transportation network is among the top priorities of different stakeholders and public institutions.…”

Limited reciprocal surrogacy of bird and habitat diversity and inconsistencies in their representation in Romanian protected areas

“…The Natura 2000 network is an important biodiversity conservation measure [11], and consists of different types of protected areas: the terrestrial Special Protection Areas (SPA, for bird protection only), the terrestrial Sites of Community Importance, and Special Areas of Conservation (SCI and SAC, for habitats and/or species) [59]). In addition to, but partly overlapping with the Natura 2000 network, Romania also implemented protected areas designated as natural and national parks as well as biosphere reserves [48].…”

“…It is important to stress, however, that our evaluations by no means suggest that the current network of PAs is sufficient. Around 23% of Romania's land surface area is currently under protection, and improvements to the protected area network may be necessary [48,49]. Large ecoregions and several widespread bird and mammal species may be protected sufficiently well, but smaller ecoregions, as well as invertebrate and plant species are for example underrepresented in the existing Natura 2000 network [49].…”

“…We implemented this analysis for Romania, a country within the European Union exhibiting high bird species and habitat diversity, likely caused by the variety of biogeographic regions it comprises [46,47]. While 23% of Romania is protected, either under the pan-European Natura 2000 network or as natural or national parks or biosphere reserves [48], and despite its high levels of biodiversity, efforts to identify conservation priorities and evaluate the efficacy of the network of reserves to protect biodiversity have been sparse [mentioned by 11 but not examined, 21,[48][49][50][51]. One reason for this disparity is that species distribution data have only recently become widely available.…”

“…One reason for this disparity is that species distribution data have only recently become widely available. As such, PA management could greatly benefit from prioritization efforts using systematic conservation planning principles and the latest available data, particularly when establishing new PAs [48,49]. The implementation of such scientific research in the establishment and governance process of PAs is, however, often limited [52,53].…”