Habitat monitoring in Europe: A description of current practices

S. Lengyel, Eszter Déri, Z. Varga, Roland Horváth, B. Tóthmérész, Pierre Yves Henry, Andrej Kobler, Lado Kutnar, Valerija Babij, Andrej Seliškar, Chysoula Christia, Eva Papastergiadou, Bernd Gruber, Klaus Henle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

65 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Monitoring of biodiversity at the level of habitats is becoming increasingly common. Here we describe current practices in habitat monitoring based on 150 schemes in Europe. Most schemes were initiated after 1990 in response to EU nature directives or habitat management/restoration actions, with funding mostly from European or national sources. Schemes usually monitor both the spatial distribution and the quality of the habitats, and they frequently collect data on environmental parameters and potential causes of changes. Many schemes are local or regional rather than national or international in scope, and sampling effort varies greatly across spatial and temporal scales. Experimental design is used in half of the schemes, however, data are rarely analysed by advanced statistics. Most schemes require two months or less per year in manpower and are typically run by professionals rather than by volunteers. Estimated salaries plus equipment costs average 650,000 Euro per year per scheme, and add up to 80 million Euros annually. Costs are particularly high for schemes based on European or international law and for schemes funded by European or national sources. Costs are also high in schemes in which sampling sites are selected subjectively rather than based on sampling theory, and in schemes that do not use field mapping or remote sensing to document spatial variation in habitats. Our survey demonstrates promising developments in European habitat monitoring but also underlines the need for better spatial coverage, documentation of spatial variaton, improved sampling design and advanced data analysis. Such improvements are essential if we are to judge progress towards the 2010 biodiversity targets.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3327-3339
Number of pages13
JournalBiodiversity and Conservation
Volume17
Issue number14
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2008

Fingerprint

monitoring
habitat
habitats
sampling
international law
cost
biodiversity
habitat management
habitat conservation
funding
experimental design
volunteers
remote sensing
spatial variation
data analysis
statistics
Europe
spatial distribution
manpower
need

Keywords

  • 2010 target
  • Biodiversity research
  • Ecosystem monitoring
  • Habitats directive
  • Nature conservation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

Habitat monitoring in Europe : A description of current practices. / Lengyel, S.; Déri, Eszter; Varga, Z.; Horváth, Roland; Tóthmérész, B.; Henry, Pierre Yves; Kobler, Andrej; Kutnar, Lado; Babij, Valerija; Seliškar, Andrej; Christia, Chysoula; Papastergiadou, Eva; Gruber, Bernd; Henle, Klaus.

In: Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 17, No. 14, 12.2008, p. 3327-3339.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lengyel, S, Déri, E, Varga, Z, Horváth, R, Tóthmérész, B, Henry, PY, Kobler, A, Kutnar, L, Babij, V, Seliškar, A, Christia, C, Papastergiadou, E, Gruber, B & Henle, K 2008, 'Habitat monitoring in Europe: A description of current practices', Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 17, no. 14, pp. 3327-3339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3
Lengyel, S. ; Déri, Eszter ; Varga, Z. ; Horváth, Roland ; Tóthmérész, B. ; Henry, Pierre Yves ; Kobler, Andrej ; Kutnar, Lado ; Babij, Valerija ; Seliškar, Andrej ; Christia, Chysoula ; Papastergiadou, Eva ; Gruber, Bernd ; Henle, Klaus. / Habitat monitoring in Europe : A description of current practices. In: Biodiversity and Conservation. 2008 ; Vol. 17, No. 14. pp. 3327-3339.
@article{56db7ca3506e4fe4ae02e6d31e77945e,
title = "Habitat monitoring in Europe: A description of current practices",
abstract = "Monitoring of biodiversity at the level of habitats is becoming increasingly common. Here we describe current practices in habitat monitoring based on 150 schemes in Europe. Most schemes were initiated after 1990 in response to EU nature directives or habitat management/restoration actions, with funding mostly from European or national sources. Schemes usually monitor both the spatial distribution and the quality of the habitats, and they frequently collect data on environmental parameters and potential causes of changes. Many schemes are local or regional rather than national or international in scope, and sampling effort varies greatly across spatial and temporal scales. Experimental design is used in half of the schemes, however, data are rarely analysed by advanced statistics. Most schemes require two months or less per year in manpower and are typically run by professionals rather than by volunteers. Estimated salaries plus equipment costs average 650,000 Euro per year per scheme, and add up to 80 million Euros annually. Costs are particularly high for schemes based on European or international law and for schemes funded by European or national sources. Costs are also high in schemes in which sampling sites are selected subjectively rather than based on sampling theory, and in schemes that do not use field mapping or remote sensing to document spatial variation in habitats. Our survey demonstrates promising developments in European habitat monitoring but also underlines the need for better spatial coverage, documentation of spatial variaton, improved sampling design and advanced data analysis. Such improvements are essential if we are to judge progress towards the 2010 biodiversity targets.",
keywords = "2010 target, Biodiversity research, Ecosystem monitoring, Habitats directive, Nature conservation",
author = "S. Lengyel and Eszter D{\'e}ri and Z. Varga and Roland Horv{\'a}th and B. T{\'o}thm{\'e}r{\'e}sz and Henry, {Pierre Yves} and Andrej Kobler and Lado Kutnar and Valerija Babij and Andrej Seliškar and Chysoula Christia and Eva Papastergiadou and Bernd Gruber and Klaus Henle",
year = "2008",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "3327--3339",
journal = "Biodiversity and Conservation",
issn = "0960-3115",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "14",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Habitat monitoring in Europe

T2 - A description of current practices

AU - Lengyel, S.

AU - Déri, Eszter

AU - Varga, Z.

AU - Horváth, Roland

AU - Tóthmérész, B.

AU - Henry, Pierre Yves

AU - Kobler, Andrej

AU - Kutnar, Lado

AU - Babij, Valerija

AU - Seliškar, Andrej

AU - Christia, Chysoula

AU - Papastergiadou, Eva

AU - Gruber, Bernd

AU - Henle, Klaus

PY - 2008/12

Y1 - 2008/12

N2 - Monitoring of biodiversity at the level of habitats is becoming increasingly common. Here we describe current practices in habitat monitoring based on 150 schemes in Europe. Most schemes were initiated after 1990 in response to EU nature directives or habitat management/restoration actions, with funding mostly from European or national sources. Schemes usually monitor both the spatial distribution and the quality of the habitats, and they frequently collect data on environmental parameters and potential causes of changes. Many schemes are local or regional rather than national or international in scope, and sampling effort varies greatly across spatial and temporal scales. Experimental design is used in half of the schemes, however, data are rarely analysed by advanced statistics. Most schemes require two months or less per year in manpower and are typically run by professionals rather than by volunteers. Estimated salaries plus equipment costs average 650,000 Euro per year per scheme, and add up to 80 million Euros annually. Costs are particularly high for schemes based on European or international law and for schemes funded by European or national sources. Costs are also high in schemes in which sampling sites are selected subjectively rather than based on sampling theory, and in schemes that do not use field mapping or remote sensing to document spatial variation in habitats. Our survey demonstrates promising developments in European habitat monitoring but also underlines the need for better spatial coverage, documentation of spatial variaton, improved sampling design and advanced data analysis. Such improvements are essential if we are to judge progress towards the 2010 biodiversity targets.

AB - Monitoring of biodiversity at the level of habitats is becoming increasingly common. Here we describe current practices in habitat monitoring based on 150 schemes in Europe. Most schemes were initiated after 1990 in response to EU nature directives or habitat management/restoration actions, with funding mostly from European or national sources. Schemes usually monitor both the spatial distribution and the quality of the habitats, and they frequently collect data on environmental parameters and potential causes of changes. Many schemes are local or regional rather than national or international in scope, and sampling effort varies greatly across spatial and temporal scales. Experimental design is used in half of the schemes, however, data are rarely analysed by advanced statistics. Most schemes require two months or less per year in manpower and are typically run by professionals rather than by volunteers. Estimated salaries plus equipment costs average 650,000 Euro per year per scheme, and add up to 80 million Euros annually. Costs are particularly high for schemes based on European or international law and for schemes funded by European or national sources. Costs are also high in schemes in which sampling sites are selected subjectively rather than based on sampling theory, and in schemes that do not use field mapping or remote sensing to document spatial variation in habitats. Our survey demonstrates promising developments in European habitat monitoring but also underlines the need for better spatial coverage, documentation of spatial variaton, improved sampling design and advanced data analysis. Such improvements are essential if we are to judge progress towards the 2010 biodiversity targets.

KW - 2010 target

KW - Biodiversity research

KW - Ecosystem monitoring

KW - Habitats directive

KW - Nature conservation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=56549084982&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=56549084982&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3

DO - 10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:56549084982

VL - 17

SP - 3327

EP - 3339

JO - Biodiversity and Conservation

JF - Biodiversity and Conservation

SN - 0960-3115

IS - 14

ER -