Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices

Szabolcs Lengyel, Eszter Déri, Zoltan Varga, Roland Horvath, Bela Tóthmérész, Pierre-Yves Henry, Andrej Kobler, Lado Kutnar, Valerija Babij, Andrey Seliskar, 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 eVort 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 Weld 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
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 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
    parameter
    directive

    Cite this

    Lengyel, S., Déri, E., Varga, Z., Horvath, R., Tóthmérész, B., Henry, P-Y., ... Henle, K. (2008). Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 3327-3339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3
    Lengyel, Szabolcs ; Déri, Eszter ; Varga, Zoltan ; Horvath, Roland ; Tóthmérész, Bela ; Henry, Pierre-Yves ; Kobler, Andrej ; Kutnar, Lado ; Babij, Valerija ; Seliskar, Andrey ; Christia, Chysoula ; Papastergiadou, Eva ; Gruber, Bernd ; Henle, Klaus. / Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices. In: Biodiversity and Conservation. 2008 ; Vol. 17. pp. 3327-3339.
    @article{e173f775994e48a697fd77234bdcf98c,
    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 eVort 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 Weld 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 = "Szabolcs Lengyel and Eszter D{\'e}ri and Zoltan Varga and Roland Horvath and Bela T{\'o}thm{\'e}r{\'e}sz and Pierre-Yves Henry and Andrej Kobler and Lado Kutnar and Valerija Babij and Andrey Seliskar and Chysoula Christia and Eva Papastergiadou and Bernd Gruber and Klaus Henle",
    year = "2008",
    doi = "10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3",
    language = "English",
    volume = "17",
    pages = "3327--3339",
    journal = "Biodiversity and Conservation",
    issn = "0960-3115",
    publisher = "Springer",

    }

    Lengyel, S, Déri, E, Varga, Z, Horvath, R, Tóthmérész, B, Henry, P-Y, Kobler, A, Kutnar, L, Babij, V, Seliskar, A, Christia, C, Papastergiadou, E, Gruber, B & Henle, K 2008, 'Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices', Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 17, pp. 3327-3339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3

    Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices. / Lengyel, Szabolcs; Déri, Eszter; Varga, Zoltan; Horvath, Roland; Tóthmérész, Bela; Henry, Pierre-Yves; Kobler, Andrej; Kutnar, Lado; Babij, Valerija; Seliskar, Andrey; Christia, Chysoula; Papastergiadou, Eva; Gruber, Bernd; Henle, Klaus.

    In: Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 17, 2008, p. 3327-3339.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices

    AU - Lengyel, Szabolcs

    AU - Déri, Eszter

    AU - Varga, Zoltan

    AU - Horvath, Roland

    AU - Tóthmérész, Bela

    AU - Henry, Pierre-Yves

    AU - Kobler, Andrej

    AU - Kutnar, Lado

    AU - Babij, Valerija

    AU - Seliskar, Andrey

    AU - Christia, Chysoula

    AU - Papastergiadou, Eva

    AU - Gruber, Bernd

    AU - Henle, Klaus

    PY - 2008

    Y1 - 2008

    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 eVort 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 Weld 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 eVort 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 Weld 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

    KW - Directive

    KW - Nature conservation.

    U2 - 10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3

    DO - 10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3

    M3 - Article

    VL - 17

    SP - 3327

    EP - 3339

    JO - Biodiversity and Conservation

    JF - Biodiversity and Conservation

    SN - 0960-3115

    ER -

    Lengyel S, Déri E, Varga Z, Horvath R, Tóthmérész B, Henry P-Y et al. Habitat monitoring in Europe: a description of current practices. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2008;17:3327-3339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9395-3