PROTECTED AREAS IN SWEDEN - IS NATURAL VARIETY ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED

被引:62
作者
NILSSON, C
GOTMARK, F
机构
[1] Department of Ecological Botany, University of Umeå, Umeå
[2] Department of Zoology, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, S-413 90
关键词
D O I
10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.620232.x
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Representation of all ecosystems and species in protected areas is a major goal of nature conservation, but few countries have assessed the degree to which it bas been fulfilled We analyzed the extent to which landscape and habitat types in Sweden are represented in areas protected by the Nature Conservation Act A total of 1175 national parks, nature reserves, and nature conservation areas comprised 4.7% of the total Swedish territory on 31 December 1986 (the proportion increased to 5.9% in 1990). Among landscape types, a very large area of alpine landscape was protected, but only a small area of river landscape Among habitat types, subalpine birch forest and alpine heaths showed the highest degree of representation in protected areas (32% and 30%, respectively, of the total area of each habitat type). Less than 1% of the farmland and less than 2% of the coniferous forests were represented in protected areas. During an early (1969-66) and a late (1967-86) conservation Period, 30% and 70%, respectively, of the protected area was established During the early period protection of alpine areas predominated; during the late period higher proportions of the other habitat types were protected, suggesting that representation was considered increasingly important. We discuss three factors that influence the goal of representation: (1) threat to and amount of remaining habitat type, (2) cost and opportunity, and (3) evaluation criteria and history. Further inventory of communities and species as well as understanding of ecological processes, in and outside of protected areas, are necessary in future conservation work.
引用
收藏
页码:232 / 242
页数:11
相关论文
共 71 条
  • [1] Andersson L., T, The influence of the pleistocene megafauna on the nemoral and the boreonemoral ecosystems: a hypothesis with implications for nature conservation strategy, Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift, 84, pp. 355-368, (1990)
  • [2] Austin M., Margules C.R., Assessing representativeness, Wildlife conservation evaluation, pp. 45-67, (1986)
  • [3] Baker W.L., Landscape ecology and nature reserve design in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota, Ecology, 70, pp. 23-35, (1989)
  • [4] Boecklen W.J., Optimal design of nature reserves: consequences of genetic drift, Biological Conservation, 38, pp. 323-338, (1986)
  • [5] Broberg G., (1978)
  • [6] Buechner M., Conservation in insular parks: simulation models of factors affecting the movement of animals across park boundaries, Biological Conservation, 41, pp. 57-76, (1987)
  • [7] Crumpacker D.W., Hodge S.W., Friedley D., Gregg W.P., A preliminary assessment of the status of major terrestrial and wetland ecosystems on federal and Indian lands in the United States, Conservation Biology, 2, pp. 103-115, (1988)
  • [8] DeVelice R.L., DeVelice J.W., Park G.N., Gradient analysis in nature reserve design: a New Zealand example, Conservation Biology, 2, pp. 206-217, (1988)
  • [9] Diamond J., The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves, Biological Conservation, 7, pp. 129-146, (1975)
  • [10] Eckerberg K., Clear felling and environmental protection—results from an investigation in Swedish forests, Journal of Environmental Management, 27, pp. 237-256, (1988)