1,721,000 research outputs found
Green infrastructure: an integrating concept for regional climate change
No full textThe concept of Green Infrastructure (Benedict & McMahon 2002) emphasizes the importance of ensuring the provision of ecosystem goods and services for society and the value of functionally and spatially connected, healthy ecosystems. It is being recognized that Green Infrastructure can contribute to the functional connectivity of the Natura 2000 network by improving landscape permeability and thus could also add to the resilience of ecological networks to climate change (Heller & Zavaleta 2009). In return resilient ecosystems provide many benefits to society e.g. biodiversity, climate change mitigation and adaptation, water management, pest control, pollination, etc.. There is no standard definition of Green Infrastructure and the description is often broad. A broad multifunctional definition has the advantage that many coalitions can be found between nature and other land uses and functions, such as agriculture, forestry and water management. The multifunctional nature of green infrastructure, providing multiple benefits for society, will help the support for and implementation of green infrastructure. Examples of the potentials of green infrastructure as a regional planning tool are given from the CARE project (Climate Adaptation for Rural Areas, part of the Dutch Climate for Knowledge Programme). It is illustrated how the concept of multifunctional green infrastructure on the one hand is important to increase the resilience of the ecological network but at the same time provides opportunities to achieve synergy in regional climate adaptation. We show the strong potentials of the green infrastructure as a unifying concept in regional stakeholder negotiations, as it forms, as part of the ecological network, the spatial main structure for the sustainable provision of ecosystem services
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Species viability in dynamic landscapes: Seeking robust spatial-temporal habitat configurations to guide land-use change
No full textTop predators: hot or not? A call for systematic assessment of biodiversity surrogates
No full textargue that top predators are justified conservation surrogates based on a case study where raptor presence is associated with high species richness of birds, butterflies and trees. 2. We question the methodology as well as the applicability of their results, and clarify differences between surrogates for biodiversity hotspots and surrogates for complementarity. We show that the results from Sergio et al. related to richness hotspots are not fully reliable and that the ability of top predators to identify complementary areas is not demonstrated. Given that complementarity-based surrogate studies have produced mixed results for a variety of reasons, we clarify some methodological misunderstandings while encouraging further testing of functional groups as biodiversity surrogates. 3. Synthesis and applications. We call for caution in making generalizations, and emphasize that case studies on the use of surrogates should be conducted in a systematic manner. This will facilitate robust assessment across studies regarding the usefulness of particular species groups as biodiversity surrogates
Green infrastructure as a regional climate change adaptation strategy for dispersal-limited species
No full textGreen Infrastructure has been frequently named as a strategy for making ecological networks robust against climate change. In the CARE Project (Climate Adaptation for Rural arEas, part of the Dutch Knowledge for Climate Programme), we seek integral adaptation strategies, to cope with climate change from the perspective of agriculture, water management and biodiversity simultaneously, at a regional level. Green (and blue) infrastructure has the potential to provide multiple benefits in this context. For example, it could provide habitat for species, reduce nutrient runoff from fields, improve natural pest control and increase the water retention capacity of the landscape. However, knowledge gaps exist with respect to the design of green infrastructure (in terms of amount and density for example), to bring these benefits about. In this study we first assess the biodiversity benefits in relation to design criteria for green infrastructure. Using the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus) as one of our model species, we ask to what extent green infrastructure improves the capacity of species to cope with effects of climate change (i.e. increasing frequency of weather extremes and spatial shifts in climate suitability). We developed multiple landscape scenarios for a case study area in the east of the Netherlands, varying the amount and location of green infrastructure. Next we assessed the viability of species in these different landscapes, under three scenarios of climate change, using a population dynamic simulation model. The model will also be applied to other species that differ in area requirements, dispersal capacity and habitat fidelity during dispersal. The outcomes lead to design criteria of green infrastructure for a range of species living in multifunctional landscapes
Natuurcompensatie: slim beleid begint op tijd
No full textNatuurcompensatie is de plicht om verliezen aan natuurwaarden die ontstaan door menselijke activiteiten te compenseren. Ook in de Ecologische Hoofdstructuur is compensatie vereist, maar de uitvoering ervan blijft achter en de effectiviteit is onduidelijk. Op basis van een studie naar compensatiebeginselen en rekenregels voor natuurwaardering, pleiten de auteurs ervoor om bij de EHS het tijdigheidsbeginsel toe te passen
Natuurcompensatie : kansen, knelpunten en rekenregels
No full textNatuurcompensatie is verplicht vanuit beleid en wetgeving. In de praktijk loopt men aan tegen knelpunten in regelgeving en uitvoering. Een interdepartementale Stuurgroep Natuurcompensatie werkt aan een verbeterde werking van het compensatie-beginsel. Daarvoor is twee maal onderzoek uitgezet bij Alterra. De eerste opdracht was het in beeld brengen van knelpunten en kansen natuurcompensatie op basis van een (inter)nationale literatuurstudie. De tweede opdracht was gericht op het achterhalen van rekenregels voor natuurcompensatie, omdat men de regelgeving wil vereenvoudigen door mogelijk twee compensatie-beginselen los te laten. Opdracht was om te onderzoeken of er methodieken zijn die ‘geen netto verlies aan natuurwaarden’ kunnen vaststellen. Dit rapport bevat de resultaten van beide onderzoeke
EcoTRADE : Investigating the suitability of tradable permits for biodiversity conservation in changing landscapes
No full textHabitat restoration has been employed in the context of ecological compensation, to offset negative impacts on ecosystems as a result of development projects. Compensation measures are aimed at maintaining the size and quality of ecological networks. These measures are decided on a case-by-case basis, as a response to development. Traditionally, there is a preference to restore the same type of habitat near the location of impact. This practice ignores three main issues however: 1) the current spatial configuration of ecological networks may not be sufficient to maintain species at the long term, given ecosystem dynamics and climate change, 2) conservation budgets are perhaps more effectively spent on restoration of other, scarcer habitat types, and 3) restoration costs and potential differ per location, for which there is scope to achieve conservation targets more cost-efficiently. Furthermore, the current reactive nature of compensation practice does not stimulate a strategic approach to conservation that is flexible in response to ongoing changes
- …
