Vladimir Naumov

Measurement, Collaborative Learning and Research for Sustainable Use of Ecosystem Services: Landscape Concepts and Europe as Laboratory

Policies at multiple levels pronounce the need to encompass both social and ecological systems in governance and management of natural capital in terms of resources and ecosystems. One approach to knowledge production and learning about landscapes as social–ecological systems is to compare multiple case studies consisting of large spaces and places. We first review the landscape concepts’ biophysical, anthropogenic, and intangible dimensions. Second, we exemplify how the different landscape concepts can be used to derive measurable variables for different sustainability indicators. Third, we review gradients in the three dimensions of the term landscape on the European continent, and propose to use them for the stratification of multiple case studies of social–ecological systems. We stress the benefits of the landscape concepts to measure sustainability, and how this can improve collaborative learning about development toward sustainability in social–ecological systems. Finally, analyses of multiple landscapes improve the understanding of context for governance and management.

Green infrastructure development at European Union's eastern border: Effects of road infrastructure and forest habitat loss

The functionality of forest patches and networks as green infrastructure may be affected negatively both by expanding road networks and forestry intensification. We assessed the effects of (1) the current and planned road infrastructure, and (2) forest loss and gain, on the remaining large forest landscape massifs as green infrastructure at the EUs eastern border region in post-socialistic transition. First, habitat patch and network functionality in 1996-98 was assessed using habitat suitability index modelling. Second, we made expert interviews about road development with planners in 10 administrative regions in Poland, Belarus and Ukraine. Third, forest loss and gain inside the forest massifs, and gain outside them during the period 2001-14 were measured. This EU cross-border region hosts four remaining forest massifs as regional green infrastructure hotspots. While Polands road network is developing fast in terms of new freeways, city bypasses and upgrades of road quality, in Belarus and Ukraine the focus is on maintenance of existing roads, and no new corridors. We conclude that economic support from the EU, and thus rapid development of roads in Poland, is likely to reduce the permeability for wildlife of the urban and agricultural matrix around existing forest massifs. However, the four identified forest massifs themselves, forming the forest landscape green infrastructure at the EUs east border, were little affected by road development plans. In contrast, forest loss inside massifs was high, especially in Ukraine. Only in Poland forest loss was balanced by gain. Forest gain outside forest massifs was low. To conclude, pro-active and collaborative spatial planning across different sectors and countries is needed to secure functional forest green infrastructure as base for biodiversity conservation and human well-being.

How to reconcile wood production and biodiversity conservation? The Pan-European boreal forest history gradient as an “experiment”

There are currently competing demands on Europes forests and the finite resources and services that they can offer. Forestry intensification that aims at mitigating climate change and biodiversity conservation is one example. Whether or not these two objectives compete can be evaluated by comparative studies of forest landscapes with different histories. We test the hypothesis that indicators of wood production and biodiversity conservation are inversely related in a gradient of long to short forestry intensification histories. Forest management data containing stand age, volume and tree species were used to model the opportunity for wood production and biodiversity conservation in five north European forest regions representing a gradient in landscape history from very long in the West and short in the East. Wood production indicators captured the supply of coniferous wood and total biomass, as well as current accessibility by transport infrastructure. Biodiversity conservation indicators were based on modelling habitat network functionality for focal bird species dependent on different combinations of stand age and tree species composition representing naturally dynamic forests. In each region we randomly sampled 25 individual 100-km2 areas with contiguous forest cover. Regarding wood production, Swedens Bergslagen region had the largest areas of coniferous wood, followed by Vitebsk in Belarus and Zemgale in Latvia. NW Russias case study regions in Pskov and Komi had the lowest values, except for the biomass indicator. The addition of forest accessibility for transportation made the Belarusian and Swedish study region most suitable for wood and biomass production, followed by Latvia and two study regions in NW Russian. Regarding biodiversity conservation, the overall rank among regions was opposite. Mixed and deciduous habitats were functional in Russia, Belarus and Latvia. Old Scots pine and Norway spruce habitats were only functional in Komi. Thus, different regional forest histories provide different challenges in terms of satisfying both wood production and biodiversity conservation objectives in a forest management unit. These regional differences in northern Europe create opportunities for exchanging experiences among different regional contexts about how to achieve both objectives. We discuss this in the context of land-sharing versus land-sparing.

Towards Functional Green Infrastructure in the Baltic Sea Region: Knowledge Production and Learning Across Borders

Natural capital is the foundation for delivering multiple ecosystem services important for biodiversity and human wellbeing. Functional green infrastructure (GI) is one of the land management approaches to secure the sustainable use of natural capital. This chapter presents the outcomes of a integrative research for knowledge production and learning towards functional GI in the Baltic Sea Region. The overview of attempts to develop functional GI in Sweden, Latvia, Belarus and the Russian Federation, the countries with different contexts, illustrates similar sets of challenges in the maintenance of GI functions for both biodiversity and human wellbeing. The main challenges are (1) sustaining sufficient amounts of representative ecosystems with functional connectivity, (2) maintaining land management practices that support natural and seminatural areas important for human wellbeing and (3) development of stakeholder cross-sectoral collaboration laboratories towards a sustainable use of ecosystem services across the Baltic Sea Region. To deal with these challenges, there are at least five main sets of opportunities: (1) favourable international policies towards functional GI, (2) the abundance of applied knowledge in biodiversity conservation needed for GI’s integrated spatial planning, (3) existing landscape approach initiatives with rich experience in sustainable management and governance of landscapes, (4) the potential of landscape restoration projects and (5) transdisciplinary research projects that have been practised in the Baltic Sea Region. Stakeholders have much to gain from increased multilateral, learning-based collaborations regarding all aspects of sustainable forest landscapes. Such collaborations could serve as laboratories for cross-border governance and management in the Baltic Sea Region.