WP5: Testing the practical suitability and matching of methods and policy instruments
(John Pantis, Co-ordinator)
The overall aim of this WP is to test and evaluate combinations of assessment methods and policy instruments developed in WP1-4 regarding their scale matching and practicability to support the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity across scales under applied constraints. More specifically, it has the goal to collect and prepare the existing data for cross-scale testing in relation to three major conservation needs:
Analysing and ensuring coherence and ecological sufficiency of networks of protected areas across administrative levels in terms of sufficiency and efficiency;
Improving regional connectivity of habitats for various species dispersal distances and landscapes;
Monitoring of conservation status and trends of biodiversity across scales.
Description of work
The testing will be carried out across 4 geographic scales (local-regional, national, biogeographic, and EU). Five countries are selected for case studies based on biogeographic, socio-economic, and conservation history criteria (UK, Finland, Poland, Greece, and France). Testing on the local-regional scale will be carried out within the five case study countries and the selection of the specific case regions will depend on the results of WPs1-4 and the specific assumptions of the methodological approaches that need to be tested. It is envisaged that within each case study country, regional testing may involve comparison of contrasting regions in terms of both ecological and socio-economic parameters in order to test the general applicability of the methods (e.g. rural-urban regions, upland-lowland areas - islands, etc.). The work is structured into four interacting sub-workpackages. WP5.1 will collate existing datasets for the testing and evaluation and assess the degree of their standardization. WP5.2 will test combinations of methods and policy instruments in relation to the coherence and ecological sufficiency of networks of protected areas across administrative levels, WP5.3 in relation to regional connectivity, and WP5.4 in relation to monitoring biodiversity across scales. The practical suitability of and matching of methods and policy instruments will be evaluated against the following criteria:
a) Direct applicability to existing maps and datasets;
b) Potential to deal with non-standardized datasets and maps;
c) Needs and potential for future data standardization and collection;
d) Depth and uncertainty of insights gained;
e) Effort, skills, and training required;
f) Acceptance by practitioners in applied conservation;
g) Matching of scale between methods and policy instruments.