Planning Effective Conservation Landscapes for Nature and People: What Have We Learned?

A special issue of Land (ISSN 2073-445X). This special issue belongs to the section "Landscape Ecology".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (15 January 2022) | Viewed by 36785

Special Issue Editors


E-Mail Website1 Website2
Guest Editor
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749, 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
Interests: conservation planning; landscape ecology; protected areas; management effectiveness; world heritage; nature–culture linkages

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22202, USA
Interests: indigenous and local governance of conservation areas; marine connectivity; social science; protected areas effectiveness; conservation leadership
School of Wildlife Conservation, African Leadership University (ALU), Kigali Heights, 2nd floor, KG 7 Ave, Kigali, Rwanda
Interests: wildlife economy; community development; management effectiveness; conservation finance; transfrontier conservation areas

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Our planet is in the midst of several interrelated global crises caused by humankind: biodiversity loss, climate change, and the COVID-19 pandemic. These crises, their impacts on nature and people, and our responses have profound implications for how we plan and manage our environment and the use of land available for conservation. Protected areas have long been promoted as a key instrument to counter biodiversity loss and climate change, provide critical ecosystem goods and services, and generate human health and wellbeing benefits. As a result, protected areas already cover around 15% of the global land surface. However, while many protected areas have been shown to deliver certain benefits for nature and people, they have not yet, overall, turned the tide on the global environmental crises and, at the same time, have often caused conflicts with indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) who depend on natural resources for their living. Moreover, many if not most protected areas are too underfunded and understaffed to achieve their objectives, resulting in so-called ‘paper parks’.

At the same time, increasingly ambitious, area-based conservation targets (e.g., 30% or 50% of all land) are being promoted globally to stem the rising tide of biodiversity loss. New, global, or continental blueprints for conservation are published almost weekly. In addition, many governments continue to establish new protected areas in places where they are of limited benefit for nature and/or they meet the resistance of local people whose support is critical for the long-term success of any conservation action. In most cases, these coarse-scale, top-down approaches have not helped to design effective conservation landscapes that meet the multiple objectives of conservation, restoration, and sustainable use to support food security and local livelihoods.

Hence, it is time to review what has and hasn’t worked in planning, implementing, and financing functioning conservation landscapes that deliver both measurable conservation outcomes alongside critical goods and services for the local people that depend on them. The planning, management, and governance of such landscapes inevitably has to involve IPCLs and has to make use of a wide range of instruments such as effectively managed and equitably governed protected and conserved areas (PACAs), connectivity conservation areas (CCAs), transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs), indigenous peoples’ and community conserved territories and areas (ICCAs), and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). The success of all these approaches will ultimately depend on governments and other conservation actors and donors upholding human rights, social safeguards, good governance, and equity. Holistic, landscape-level planning approaches that involve all relevant rights holders and stakeholders, from the onset, are needed to design the multifunctional, self-sustaining conservation landscapes that we need to address the key planetary challenges of our time.

We therefore invite contributions covering, for example, the following topics:

  • Innovative approaches for planning and managing multifunctional conservation landscapes;
  • Holistic, landscape-level approaches to conservation planning and management;
  • Lessons learned from multi-stakeholder planning approaches and/or collaborative management approaches;
  • Examples of functioning conservation landscapes, including biosphere reserves, involving instruments such as PACAs, CCAs, TFCAs, ICCAs, and/or OECMs;
  • Strategies and examples for achieving long-term financial sustainability in conservation landscapes, including through sustainable wildlife economies; and
  • New tools and technologies to support multi-stakeholder planning approaches and/or collaborative management approaches.

Mr. Bastian Bertzky
Dr. Colleen Corrigan
Dr. Susan Snyman
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Land is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • multifunctional conservation landscapes
  • multi-stakeholder planning approaches
  • collaborative management approaches
  • innovative financing approaches
  • protected and conserved areas (PACAs)
  • connectivity conservation areas (CCAs)
  • transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs)
  • indigenous peoples’ and community conserved territories and areas (ICCAs)
  • other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs)
  • Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Published Papers (12 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Editorial

Jump to: Research, Review

4 pages, 189 KiB  
Editorial
Planning Effective Conservation Landscapes for Nature and People: An Editorial Overview
by Bastian Bertzky, Colleen Corrigan and Susan Snyman
Land 2022, 11(7), 1028; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11071028 - 7 Jul 2022
Viewed by 1151
Abstract
The interrelated global crises of biodiversity loss, climate change, disease, and war are all caused and experienced by humankind [...] Full article

Research

Jump to: Editorial, Review

16 pages, 951 KiB  
Article
Getting Blended Finance to Where It’s Needed: The Case of CBNRM Enterprises in Southern Africa
by Jessica Smith, Mikael Samuelson, Benedict Moore Libanda, Dilys Roe and Latif Alhassan
Land 2022, 11(5), 637; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050637 - 26 Apr 2022
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 4190
Abstract
Blended finance aims to unlock additional private finance for the sustainable development goals (SDGs), however, it has not yet reached the anticipated scale to deliver on SDG 15: Life on Land. So far, blended finance approaches have not been fully adapted to the [...] Read more.
Blended finance aims to unlock additional private finance for the sustainable development goals (SDGs), however, it has not yet reached the anticipated scale to deliver on SDG 15: Life on Land. So far, blended finance approaches have not been fully adapted to the context where conservation activities take place, for example on communal lands—a common tenure arrangement for conservation in southern Africa. This study identifies opportunities, barriers, and risks to up-scaling private finance for nature in the context of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) in southern Africa. It considers the feasibility and desirability of relevant revenue streams towards achieving long-term financial sustainability in conservation landscapes, including sustainable wildlife economies and payment for ecosystem services (PES), and involving indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) particularly within CBNRM tenure arrangements. It concludes that a ‘CBNRM investment guarantee’ or similar would be transformational for hundreds of thousands of conservation enterprises and their beneficiaries regionally, but currently no such tailored de-risking mechanism exists. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 226 KiB  
Article
Namibian Experiences Establishing Community Fish Reserves
by Britta Hackenberg, Clinton Hay, Jamie Robertsen and Caitlin Blaser Mapitsa
Land 2022, 11(3), 420; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11030420 - 14 Mar 2022
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 2201
Abstract
Inland fisheries play a critical role in the ecology of the Okavango Delta, but their conservation is particularly complex. For nearly a decade, communities, conservancies, policy makers, and partner organisations have worked to establish fish reserves across the Kavango and Zambezi. Guidelines on [...] Read more.
Inland fisheries play a critical role in the ecology of the Okavango Delta, but their conservation is particularly complex. For nearly a decade, communities, conservancies, policy makers, and partner organisations have worked to establish fish reserves across the Kavango and Zambezi. Guidelines on the establishment of fish reserves have been developed to delineate the process through which these protected areas are established, and a structured learning process has unpacked knowledge held by different stakeholders to better understand the opportunities and limitations of fish reserves and to subsequently revise these guidelines. This article aims to share these lessons and to contribute to the debate on the most effective institutional arrangements for this unique space of conservation. Full article
22 pages, 1732 KiB  
Article
Diversity in Protected Area Governance and Its Implications for Management: An Institutional Analysis of Selected Parks in Iceland
by Jukka Siltanen, Jon Geir Petursson, David Cook and Brynhildur Davidsdottir
Land 2022, 11(2), 315; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020315 - 21 Feb 2022
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 3382
Abstract
A protected area (PA) is essentially a governance system, a spatially defined area encompassing natural and/or cultural attributes, governed by a set of actors with different roles and institutional frameworks. There are many types of PA governance systems, guided by historical-, site-specific- and [...] Read more.
A protected area (PA) is essentially a governance system, a spatially defined area encompassing natural and/or cultural attributes, governed by a set of actors with different roles and institutional frameworks. There are many types of PA governance systems, guided by historical-, site-specific- and context-dependent factors. This study has the objective to advance understanding of PA governance systems, their diversity and the implications for management. We take the case of Iceland and five of its major PAs. We develop an analytical framework for the study of PA governance systems, investigating their evolutionary trajectories, conducting a comparative institutional analysis of their environmental governance systems (EGS), and assessing their management implications using nature-based tourism as a key variable. We find this framework effective and applicable beyond this study. We find great diversity in the five PA governance systems that has not come by chance but deliberately negotiated in their protracted establishment trajectories. At the individual park level, such PA diversity can be embraced as a sign of an adaptive approach to governance instead of a one-size-fits-all solution while at the national level, however, such fragmentation constitutes coordination challenges. Our analysis of the current portfolio of PA governance systems reveals they accommodate most of the needed management measures, but a problem remains concerning scattered and locked-in individual governance systems that do not support coordinated action and sharing of expertise and resources. This calls upon policy guidance with more formal coordination, such as a legal and national policy framework embracing PA governance diversity, but also securing more coordinated measures for day-to-day management. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 309 KiB  
Article
How Might World Heritage Status Support the Protection of Sacred Natural Sites? An Analysis of Nomination Files, Management, and Governance Contexts
by Bas Verschuuren, Alison Ormsby and Wendy Jackson
Land 2022, 11(1), 97; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11010097 - 7 Jan 2022
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 2588
Abstract
This study provides an overview of how sacred natural sites are given recognition within the World Heritage system. It offers an analysis of the extent to which sacred natural sites that are part of nine World Heritage sites are recognised in site nomination [...] Read more.
This study provides an overview of how sacred natural sites are given recognition within the World Heritage system. It offers an analysis of the extent to which sacred natural sites that are part of nine World Heritage sites are recognised in site nomination files, management plans, and governance of these sites. The World Heritage sites are located across all continents except for Antarctica. We analysed sites in Australia, Greece, Guatemala, India, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, New Zealand and the Russian Federation. We found that the cultural and spiritual significance of sacred natural sites is under-recognised, especially in natural World Heritage sites. In addition, Indigenous and religious custodians are frequently excluded from site management and governance. We make four recommendations for improving the recognition of sacred natural sites and the involvement of their custodians in the World Heritage process and in site nomination, governance, and management: (1) identification and recognition of sacred natural sites including their associated cultural and spiritual values; (2) recognition of, and articulated roles for custodians of sacred natural sites in the governance and management of World Heritage sites; (3) increased uptake of religious groups and Indigenous Peoples’ conservation approaches to the joint management of World Heritage sites that contain sacred natural sites, and (4) prevention of exclusion of custodians and ecological migration by applying inclusive conservation practices through rights-based approaches. Full article
20 pages, 9601 KiB  
Article
Mapping Landscape Values and Conflicts through the Optics of Different User Groups
by Hana Vavrouchová, Petra Fukalová, Hana Svobodová, Jan Oulehla and Pavla Pokorná
Land 2021, 10(12), 1306; https://doi.org/10.3390/land10121306 - 26 Nov 2021
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 1938
Abstract
The paper presents the results of the study on participative mapping of landscape values and conflicts and a subsequent interpretation of the indicated localities from respondents’ point of view. The study focused on younger groups of landscape users—lower-secondary-school students (aged 11–15) and university [...] Read more.
The paper presents the results of the study on participative mapping of landscape values and conflicts and a subsequent interpretation of the indicated localities from respondents’ point of view. The study focused on younger groups of landscape users—lower-secondary-school students (aged 11–15) and university students (aged 20–25)—in comparison with experts’ points of view. The research presumed that the perception of landscape values and issues are determined by age, level of education and by experience in the field. The study was conducted in the southeastern area of the Czech Republic (49° N, 16° E) via online data collection. Based on the obtained records, we conclude that, in terms of the typology of the valuable and problematic locations, the individual groups of respondents did not differ significantly and the selection of location types was similar across all groups. Lower-secondary-school students rather identified cultural values associated with everyday activities, and the descriptions contained emotional overtones. University students preferred natural values associated with formal values based on general consensus or conflicts associated with society-wide impacts. The experts base served as the benchmark for other groups. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

34 pages, 1222 KiB  
Article
Socio-Economic Effects of National Park Governance and Management: Lessons from Post-Socialist Era Estonia
by Henri Järv, Raymond D. Ward, Janar Raet and Kalev Sepp
Land 2021, 10(11), 1257; https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111257 - 17 Nov 2021
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2871
Abstract
Despite the significant increase in protected territory globally, there is a common understanding that the designation of protected areas alone does not guarantee their effectiveness nor halt the loss of biodiversity. In addition to biodiversity conservation, protected areas are expected to perform a [...] Read more.
Despite the significant increase in protected territory globally, there is a common understanding that the designation of protected areas alone does not guarantee their effectiveness nor halt the loss of biodiversity. In addition to biodiversity conservation, protected areas are expected to perform a number of other functions, such as provide ecosystem services and improve local socio-economic conditions. Therefore, the need to strive towards mixed, decentralized conservation management and stakeholder involvement is increasingly emphasized. Although there is limited research, it has been noted that protected areas have not served wider objectives effectively enough. The current study provides insight concerning socio-economic effects of different governance and management practices of protected areas based on perceptions of residents and stakeholders of five national parks of Estonia. It was found that conservation status has an important impact on local socio-economic conditions largely depending on governance and management practices, resulting in both, positive and negative effects. It was concluded that the centralization of nature conservation and the abolition of protected area administrations have led to a gradual distancing of nature conservation from local conditions and the population, causing concern about the preservation of the living environment. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 5766 KiB  
Article
Identifying Potential Cropland Losses When Conserving 30% and 50% Earth with Different Approaches and Spatial Scales
by Jianqiao Zhao, Yue Cao, Le Yu, Xiaoxuan Liu, Yichuan Shi, Xiaoping Liu, Rui Yang and Peng Gong
Land 2021, 10(7), 704; https://doi.org/10.3390/land10070704 - 4 Jul 2021
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2811
Abstract
Biodiversity conservation is the cornerstone for sustainable development. Bold conservation targets provide the last opportunities to halt the human-driven mass extinction. Recently, bold conservation targets have been proposed to protect 30% or 50% of Earth. However, little is known about its potential impacts [...] Read more.
Biodiversity conservation is the cornerstone for sustainable development. Bold conservation targets provide the last opportunities to halt the human-driven mass extinction. Recently, bold conservation targets have been proposed to protect 30% or 50% of Earth. However, little is known about its potential impacts on cropland. We identify potential cropland losses when 30% and 50% of global terrestrial area is given back to nature by 2030/2050, at three spatial scales (global, biome and country) and using two approaches (“nature-only landscapes” and “shared landscapes”). We find that different targets, applied scales and approaches will lead to different cropland losses: (1) At the global scale, it is possible to protect 50% of the Earth while having minimum cropland losses. (2) At biome scale, 0.64% and 8.54% cropland will be lost globally in 2030 and 2050 under the nature-only approach while by contrast, the shared approach substantially reduces the number of countries confronted by cropland losses, demanding only 0% and 2.59% of global cropland losses in 2030 and 2050. (3) At the national scale, the nature-only approach causes losses of 3.58% and 10.73% of global cropland in 2030 and 2050, while the shared approach requires 0.77% and 7.55% cropland in 2030 and 2050. Our results indicate that bold conservation targets could be considered, especially when adopting the shared approach, and we suggest adopting ambitious targets (protecting at least 30% by 2030) at the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP 15) to ensure a sustainable future for Earth. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

29 pages, 9124 KiB  
Article
Effects of Forestry Intensification and Conservation on Green Infrastructures: A Spatio-Temporal Evaluation in Sweden
by Per Angelstam and Michael Manton
Land 2021, 10(5), 531; https://doi.org/10.3390/land10050531 - 17 May 2021
Cited by 13 | Viewed by 4695
Abstract
There is a rivalry between policies on intensification of forest management to meet the demands of a growing bioeconomy, and policies on green infrastructure functionality. Evaluation of the net effects of different policy instruments on real-world outcomes is crucial. First, we present data [...] Read more.
There is a rivalry between policies on intensification of forest management to meet the demands of a growing bioeconomy, and policies on green infrastructure functionality. Evaluation of the net effects of different policy instruments on real-world outcomes is crucial. First, we present data on final felling rates in wood production landscapes and stand age distribution dynamic in two case study regions, and changes in dead wood amounts in Sweden. Second, the growth of formally protected areas was compiled and changes in functional connectivity analysed in these regions, and the development of dead wood and green tree retention in Sweden was described. The case studies were the counties Dalarna and Jämtland (77,000 km2) representing an expanding frontier of boreal forest transformation. In the wood production landscape, official final felling rates averaged 0.84%/year, extending the regional timber frontier. The amount of forest <60 years old increased from 27–34% in 1955 to 60–65% in 2017. The amounts of dead wood, a key forest naturalness indicator, declined from 1994 to 2016 in north Sweden, and increased in the south, albeit both at levels far below evidence-based biodiversity targets. Formal forest protection grew rapidly in the two counties from 1968 to 2020 but reached only 4% of productive forests. From 2000 to 2019, habitat network functionality for old Scots pine declined by 15–41%, and Norway spruce by 15–88%. There were mixed trends for dead wood and tree retention at the stand scale. The net result of the continued transformation of near-natural forest remnants and conservation efforts was negative at the regional and landscape levels, but partly positive at the stand scale. However, at all three scales, habitat amounts were far below critical thresholds for the maintenance of viable populations of species, let alone ecological integrity. Collaboration among stakeholder categories should reject opinionated narratives, and instead rely on evidence-based knowledge about green infrastructure pressures, responses, and states. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Editorial, Research

22 pages, 4994 KiB  
Review
Horizon Scan of Transboundary Concerns Impacting Snow Leopard Landscapes in Asia
by Hameeda Sultan, Wajid Rashid, Jianbin Shi, Inam ur Rahim, Mohammad Nafees, Eve Bohnett, Sajid Rashid, Muhammad Tariq Khan, Izaz Ali Shah, Heesup Han and Antonio Ariza-Montes
Land 2022, 11(2), 248; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020248 - 7 Feb 2022
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 3418
Abstract
The high-altitude region of Asia is prone to natural resource degradation caused by a variety of natural and anthropogenic factors that also threaten the habitat of critical top predator species, the snow leopard (Panthera uncia). The snow leopard’s landscape encompasses parts [...] Read more.
The high-altitude region of Asia is prone to natural resource degradation caused by a variety of natural and anthropogenic factors that also threaten the habitat of critical top predator species, the snow leopard (Panthera uncia). The snow leopard’s landscape encompasses parts of the twelve Asian countries and is dominated by pastoral societies within arid mountainous terrain. However, no investigation has assessed the vulnerability and pathways towards long-term sustainability on the global snow leopard landscape scale. Thus, the current study reviewed 123 peer-reviewed scientific publications on the existing knowledge, identified gaps, and proposed sustainable mitigation options for the longer term and on larger landscape levels in the range countries. The natural resource degradation in this region is caused by various social, economic, and ecological threats that negatively affect its biodiversity. The factors that make the snow leopard landscapes vulnerable include habitat fragmentation through border fencing, trade corridor infrastructure, non-uniform conservation policies, human–snow leopard conflict, the increasing human population, climatic change, land use and cover changes, and unsustainable tourism. Thus, conservation of the integrated Socio-Ecological System (SES) prevailing in this region requires a multi-pronged approach. This paper proposes solutions and identifies the pathways through which to implement these solutions. The prerequisite to implementing such solutions is the adoption of cross-border collaboration (regional cooperation), the creation of peace parks, readiness to integrate transnational and cross-sectoral conservation policies, a focus on improving livestock management practices, a preparedness to control human population growth, a readiness to mitigate climate change, initiating transboundary landscape-level habitat conservation, adopting environment-friendly trade corridors, and promoting sustainable tourism. Sustainable development in this region encompasses the political, social, economic, and ecological landscapes across the borders. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 3255 KiB  
Review
Dilemma Faced by Management Staff in China’s Protected Areas
by Liang Chang and Teiji Watanabe
Land 2021, 10(12), 1299; https://doi.org/10.3390/land10121299 - 25 Nov 2021
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1869
Abstract
Protected areas (PAs) are designated to safeguard specific areas with natural and cultural values. Importantly, appropriate management is vital for PAs to achieve their conservation goals. Therefore, the management staff is essential for guaranteeing the successful management of PAs and delivering outstanding organizational [...] Read more.
Protected areas (PAs) are designated to safeguard specific areas with natural and cultural values. Importantly, appropriate management is vital for PAs to achieve their conservation goals. Therefore, the management staff is essential for guaranteeing the successful management of PAs and delivering outstanding organizational performance. In China, staff faces many difficulties when conducting conservation activities because of an inefficient management system, and the lack of relevant laws and regulations. Recently, the Chinese government has been attempting institutional reforms and developing a pilot national park system to address these problems. We reviewed international and Chinese literature to examine how various aspects of these proposed changes can impact management staff’s activities. Furthermore, we analyzed the aspects of current institutional reforms related to management staff. The results revealed that the National Park Administration’s establishment is a potential solution to China’s cross-sectional management. We suggest that the country should formulate relevant laws and funding systems that are fundamental for the success of both management staff’s conservation activities and PAs. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

24 pages, 1008 KiB  
Review
Spatial Scale Mismatches in the EU Agri-Biodiversity Conservation Policy. The Case for a Shift to Landscape-Scale Design
by Francesca L. Falco, Eran Feitelson and Tamar Dayan
Land 2021, 10(8), 846; https://doi.org/10.3390/land10080846 - 13 Aug 2021
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 2778
Abstract
Agriculture is a major driver of the ongoing biodiversity decline, demanding an urgent transition towards a system that reconciles productivity and profitability with nature conservation; however, where public policies promoting such transitions are in place, their design often poorly fits the relevant biogeophysical [...] Read more.
Agriculture is a major driver of the ongoing biodiversity decline, demanding an urgent transition towards a system that reconciles productivity and profitability with nature conservation; however, where public policies promoting such transitions are in place, their design often poorly fits the relevant biogeophysical systems, decreasing the policies’ expected effectiveness. Spatial scale mismatches are a primary example in this regard. The literature reviewed in this paper, drawing from both ecology and policy studies, suggests to foster policy implementation at the landscape scale, where most functional ecological processes—and the delivery of related ecosystem services—occur on farmland. Two strategies are identified for coordinating policy implementation at the landscape scale: the promotion of farmers’ collective action and the partition of space on an ecologically sound basis through spatial planning. As the new European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) post-2023 is currently being defined, we assess if and how the draft agri-biodiversity legislation includes any of the strategies above. We find no comprehensive uptake of the landscape-scale perspective at the EU level, thereby suggesting that a powerful tool to overcome the CAP underperformance on biodiversity is being overlooked. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop