Ecosystem management criterion
1
|
Long-term sustainability is a
fundamental value (Strategic scales)
|
| |
|
Analysis questions
|
§ What is the main aim of
management?
§ Is the goal of
long-term sustainability explicit in the management
documents?
|
+
|
-
|
National Urban Park
|
- to preserve natural, cultural, and recreational values in
the vicinity of Stockholm within the legal framework of a National Urban
Park
- explicit in some management documents (from 2/7
managers) *
|
- implicit in the formal protection as a National Urban
Park
- the Municipalities use Agenda 21 sustainability
framework for management *
|
- not explicit in most of the practical management
documents (5/7) *
|
Stockholm Woodland
Cemetery
|
- to preserve the design and functions of the cemetery in
perpetuity, as a UNESCO World Heritage
Area
- no
|
- preservation in perpetuity is an explicit goal in the World
Heritage appointment
|
- not explicit in the practical management
documents
|
Flaten Nature Reserve
|
- to restore and develop natural, recreational, and cultural
values, using the legal framework of a nature reserve
- no
|
- implicit in the aim of preservation by protection as a
nature reserve
|
- not explicit in the practical management
documents
|
Tyresta Forest
|
- to preserve nature in its natural condition and
facilitate public experiences, using the legal framework of a nature reserve and
national park
- no
|
- implicit in the aim of preservation by protection as a
national park and nature reserve
|
- not explicit in the practical management
documents
|
Tyresån Watershed
|
- to preserve and develop the natural values despite
urbanization in the watershed
-no
|
- implicit in the preservation aim of the
project
|
- not explicit in the practical management documents
- no formal protection as a whole
|
|
|
|
|
Ecosystem management criterion
2
|
Attention to context and
scale (Operational to strategic scales and their
interactions)
|
|
Analysis questions
|
§ What levels of biological organization are
managed?
§ How are the boundaries of
the area decided upon?
§ What are
the short-term goals?
§ What are the
time perspectives in management?
§How is practical
management evaluated?
§ Is management adjusted to management of neighboring areas and the regional context?
|
+
|
-
|
National Urban Park
|
- management levels: species (oaks), biotope, and
landscape.*
- boundaries are decided by land ownership
and administrative divisions
-examples of short-term
goals are regeneration of oaks, leave forests for free development, garden
management in the parks, improving water quality, and meadow
restoration*
- practical management is on an annual
basis* (not all managers have an active management)
-
some management plans (from the 1990s) are under revision, whereas other managers are
still developing their first plans*
- current
management plans lack priorities in
time.
- historical material is used in management
planning*
- monitoring is very limited, except for the
lake management*
- there is no evaluation of practical
management in relation to the management plans, except for the lake
management*
- neighboring formal stakeholders are part
of the management cooperative forum.
- limited
communication between managers within the area despite the existing cooperative
forum (the lake manager is not part of the cooperative
forum)
- the regional green structure is mentioned in
some management plans*
|
- multiple biological levels are
managed
- historical material is used in management
planning
- short-term goals seem to be in line with
main aim of the management
- the practical lake
management is connected to the management plan and long-term goals by continuous
evaluation procedures
- neighboring managers are
involved in management*
- the regional scale context is
mentioned in plans*
|
- boundaries are not based on ecological
considerations
- meso-term goals are not defined in the
management plans*
- evaluation procedures are missing,
indicating a potential gap between practical management and the management plan
and long-term goals*
- limited communication between
managers within the area
|
Stockholm Woodland
Cemetery
|
- management levels: species (pines), biotope, and
cemetery
- boundaries are decided by land ownership
- short-term goals concern satisfying the
visitor’s expectations of the cemetery, e.g., watering lawns and
cleaning dead wood from the area, and also regenerating the pine forest
- historical material is used in management planning
- practical management is on an annual
basis
- the first plan from 1994 has not been revised
and lacks priorities in time
- there is no
monitoring
- there is no evaluation of practical
management in relation to the management plan
- no
communication with neighboring stakeholders
- the
regional green structure is not mentioned in the management
documents
|
- multiple biological levels are
managed
- historical material is used in management
planning
- short-term goals seem to be in line with
main aim of the management
|
- boundaries are not based on ecological
considerations
- meso-term goals are not defined in the
management plans
- evaluation procedures are missing,
indicating a potential gap between practical management and the management plan
and long-term goals
- no communication with neighboring
stakeholders
- the regional scale context is not
mentioned in the management plans
|
Flaten Nature Reserve
|
-management level: biotopes, e.g., forest, meadow,
lake
- boundaries are decided by land ownership and
administrative divisions
- short-term goals concern
restoring meadows by clearing and grazing, leaving forests for free
development, cleaning the nutrient-overloaded inflow to the lake, and developing
public access
- historical material is used in
management planning
- practical management is on an
annual basis
- the first plan from late 1990s has not
been revised and lacks priorities in time
- there is
very limited monitoring in the terrestrial biotope
- the
lake is monitored and evaluated by water quality indicators on an annual basis
- the terrestrial practical management is not evaluated
in relation to the management plan
- very limited
communication with neighboring stakeholders
- the
managers are aware of the regional green structure but it’s not mentioned
in the management documents
|
- historical material is used in management planning
- short-term goals seem to be in line with main aim
of the management
- the practical lake management is
connected to the management plan and long-term goals by continuous evaluation
procedures
|
- one biological level is managed
- boundaries are not based on ecological
considerations
- meso-term goals are not defined in the
management plans
- evaluation procedures are missing
for the terrestrial management, indicating a potential gap between practical
management and the management plan and long-term goals
- limited communication between managers in the area,
e.g., division between meadow creation and lake
management
- limited communication with neighboring
stakeholders
- the regional-scale context is not
mentioned in the management plans
|
Tyresta Forest
|
-management levels: species (endangered) and biotopes, e.g.,
forests and lakes
- boundaries are decided by land
ownership for the forest as a whole, the division between the national park and
the nature reserve has an ecological basis
- short-term
goals concern enhancing accessibility, leaving the forest for free development
and keeping the meadows open by clearing and grazing
-
practical management is on an annual basis
- the first
plans for the whole forest from 1993 have just been
revised
- the current plan lacks priorities in
time
- frequent monitoring, but not primary for
management evaluation purposes
- there is an annual
revision of the management in relation to the management plan
- limited communication with neighboring
stakeholders
- the importance of the forest as a core
area in relation to the regional green structure is mentioned in the management
plans
|
- multiple biological levels are managed
- the inner boundaries of national park/nature
reserve are based on ecological considerations
- short-term goals seem to be in line with main aim of the management
- the practical management is connected to
the management plan and long-term goals by continuous evaluation
procedures
- the regional-scale context is mentioned in
the plan
|
- no time priorities in the current
plan
- the outer boundaries are not based on ecological
considerations
- limited communication with neighboring
stakeholders
|
Tyresån Watershed
|
- management levels: watershed and biotopes, e.g., lakes and
forests
- boundaries are set by the
watershed
- short-term goals concern gathering more
knowledge, informing about the watershed and developing the cooperation between
stakeholders
- historical material is used in management
planning
- planning is done in 6-year periods, a new
plan has recently been developed
- monitoring
constitutes a large part of management for adaptation to current and potential
status of the watershed
- the current management was
evaluated during the creation of the new
plan
- neighboring stakeholders are part of the
project
- the starting point for the project is to
manage a part of the regional blue structure
|
- multiple biological levels are managed
- ecological considerations are the basis for the
boundaries
- historical material is used in management
planning
- short-term goals seem to be in line with
main aim of the management
- the plan is divided into
priorities in time.
- monitoring and evaluation is
prioritized in management
- cooperation between
stakeholders in and surrounding the watershed is one of the main goals of the
project
- the regional scale constitutes the starting
point for the project
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ecosystem management criteria
3 and 4
|
Management efforts recognize
the complexity, interconnections, and dynamic character of ecological
systems (Functional scales)
|
|
Analysis questions
|
§ What critical ecological processes and
functions are recognized in
management?
§ How are changes and
disturbances handled?
§ Does
management vary over the area?
§ Is
management intensive?
|
+
|
-
|
National Urban Park
|
- recognized: clearing and grazing for meadow biodiversity,
dead wood and tree age diversification as important for forests, and biochemical
cycles as important in the lakes*
- ecological core
areas and links are identified within and outside the area
*
- in some parts no ecological functions and processes
have been identified and aesthetical values are prioritized
*
- management varies according to manager/biotope/use/value
priorities *
- lake management is separated from other types of
management
- management is intensive in some parts, e.g.,
in parks, gardens, meadows
|
- several processes and functions are identified by some
managers and cover several scales *
- variation in
management by biotope *
|
- some managers have not identified ecological processes and
functions, e.g., removal of dead wood*
- the interactions of biotopes are not recognized, e.g., lakes with other areas in the watershed
- recognized processes and functions only
at biotope scale, e.g., dead wood in forest biotopes *
|
Stockholm Woodland
Cemetery
|
- recognized: age diversity of pine trees for long-term
preservation, the importance of old pines (but dead wood is removed), the
grass-covered ground and shade as problematic for regeneration of
pines
- disturbances, e.g., thinning by storms and fires,
are seen as part of the forest dynamics, but compromised by other (not strictly ecological) purposes of the area
- management is divided
by and varies according to biotope
- management is intensive
in some biotopes, e.g., grassland
|
- several processes and functions are identified and
managed
- variation in management by
biotope
|
- interactions between biotopes are not recognized, e.g.,
grassland and pine forest
- the recognized processes
and functions concern only the pine forest
-
compromises between values result in suppression of ecological functions, e.g.,
removal of dead wood
|
Flaten Nature Reserve
|
- recognized: the phosphorous cycle and the water inflow in
the lake, clearing and grazing for sustained and enhanced meadow biodiversity,
leaving dead wood for biodiversity
- algal blooms
forced chemical treatment management of the sediments in the
lake
- management is divided by and varies according to biotope,
and is intensive at meadow restoration sites and in the lake
|
- several key processes and functions are identified and
managed
- variation in management by
biotope
|
-interactions between biotopes are not recognized, e.g., the
lake, the meadows, and the forests
- recognized
processes and functions only at biotope scale, e.g., lake management not
watershed management
|
Tyresta Forest
|
- recognized: leaving dead wood as important for
biodiversity, fires as part of the forest dynamics (but fighting large fires,
e.g., 1999), clearing and grazing for sustained meadow biodiversity, and sustained
pH levels in the lakes
- acidification and fires are
seen as disturbances that are fought
- management is
divided by and varies according to biotope, and is intensive in some biotopes, e.g.,
meadows and lakes
|
- several key processes and functions are identified and
managed
- variation in management by
biotope
|
-interactions between biotopes are not recognized, e.g.,
meadows and forests
- recognized processes and
functions only at biotope scale, e.g, lake alkalinity but not watershed
alkalinity
- compromises between values result in
suppression of ecological functions, e.g., forest fires are
suppressed
|
Tyresån Watershed
|
- hydrological and biochemical cycles and alkalinity are
recognized as important processes
- water level
variations are regulated to secure settlements and other land uses from
flooding
- nutrient load is recognized as a disturbance
to be fought
- the watershed is one management unit,
besides the biotopes
- management varies according to biotope
status, potential values, and anticipated impact in the rest of the
watershed
- management is intensive at some biotopes,
e.g., wetland restoration sites
|
- several processes and functions are identified and
managed
- the watershed approach indicates a priority to
cross-scale interactions
|
- compromises by multiple values result in suppression of
ecological functions, e.g., water-level variations
|