Rapid linear transport infrastructure development in the Carpathians: A major threat to the integrity of ecological connectivity for large carnivores

Abstract

The development of sustainable transport is a key challenge in societies where there is an accelerated need for socio-economic development. This is the case for seven countries from central and south-eastern Europe that share the Carpathian Mountains. The challenge of developing sustainable transport requires transdisciplinary, or at least cross-sectoral cooperation, between the transport development and nature conservation sectors. Such cooperation is not in the culture of the Carpathian countries, which together host some of the most remarkable biodiversity values in Europe, including the largest populations of brown bear, grey wolf and Eurasian lynx. The overall length of motorways in these countries more than quintupled in the last 30 years and the rapid expansion of Linear Transport Infrastructure (LTI) continues at exacerbating rates. The rich biodiversity habitats are being fragmented and the concept of ecological connectivity is poorly understood and implemented by the national authorities. Ecological networks for large carnivores are not defined nor officially recognised in the Carpathian countries, with little exceptions. The legislation is not consistent across the strands of ecological connectivity and is not harmonised between the countries to effectively support transnational conservation efforts. Thus, the critical intersections between planned or even existing LTI and ecological corridors for large carnivores cannot be identified, in most cases leading to increasing habitat fragmentation and isolation of wildlife populations in the region. We summarised all this key context-related information for the Carpathians in relation to LTI development and ecological connectivity. To counteract this trend in the Carpathian ecoregion, we propose a set of recommendations to: improve and harmonise the legislation; develop and endorse methodologies for designating ecological corridors; address the cumulative impact on ecological connectivity; define other threats on landscape permeability; improve stakeholder engagement, cooperation and communication; develop comprehensive and transparent biodiversity and transport databases; monitor wildlife and transport for implementing most appropriate mitigation measures and strategies; build capacity to address the issue of sustainable transportation; and foster transnational cooperation and dialogue. Bringing these elements together will support the design of ecological networks in a way that considers the needs and location of both current and future habitats and contribute to efforts to address the climate crisis. These specific recommendations are relevant also for other areas of the world facing similar problems as the Carpathians.

Investigating Local Resources and Wisdom in Partner Regions Surrounding the Nation's Capital for Road Network Development

“…Historically, the capital was founded as a result of a conquest or merger. As the primary economic hub of a region, the capital is also used as a central point of political authority [2]. Therefore, it has its own draw for legal specialists, journalists, and public policy academics, all of whom are required for the effectiveness of government administration.…”

Planning for fauna-sensitive road design: A review

“…These infrastructures fragment and degrade landscapes and disrupt natural habitats over considerable distances, an outcome known as the road effect zone (Forman and Deblinger, 2000;van der Ree et al, 2015b). This can have significant negative consequences for wildlife within affected landscapes (Pell and Jones, 2015;Johnson et al, 2017;Johnson et al, 2022;Papp et al, 2022). Habitat fragmentation and degradation are recognised as the greatest threats to species survival worldwide (Benítez-López et al, 2010;Papp et al, 2022).…”

“…This can have significant negative consequences for wildlife within affected landscapes (Pell and Jones, 2015;Johnson et al, 2017;Johnson et al, 2022;Papp et al, 2022). Habitat fragmentation and degradation are recognised as the greatest threats to species survival worldwide (Benítez-López et al, 2010;Papp et al, 2022). LTI must incorporate solutions that address this if the sustainable development goals (SDGs), especially 9.4 and 11.6, are to achieve the 2030 agenda for sustainable development (United Nations, 2015).…”

“…These nation-specific policies, however, do not necessarily reflect those at the supra-national level. Several authors regard the transposition of supranational (EU) level legislation and policy to have been highly heterogeneous, made difficult by the multitude of national and administrative systems that occur between each of the fifteen Member States (Ledoux et al, 2000;Diaz, 2001;Morris, 2011;Papp et al, 2022). Continued urban sprawl and grey infrastructure development, including transport infrastructure, contributed significantly to the EU's ambitious, yet failed attempt to halt biodiversity loss by 2020 (EHF, 2019).…”

“…There is a significant body of research into the environmental aspects of transport planning and policy. Research effort within this field was most heavily focused on European countries (see Damarad and Bekker, 2003;Trocmé 2005;Pettersson 2013;Emberger 2017;Sobolewska-Mikulska, 2019;Papp et al, 2022). This may be attributed to two key interrelated factors.…”