Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 173, Issue 1–4, pp 579–595 | Cite as

National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS)—scope, design, and experiences from establishing a multiscale biodiversity monitoring system

  • Göran Ståhl
  • Anna Allard
  • Per-Anders Esseen
  • Anders Glimskär
  • Anna Ringvall
  • Johan Svensson
  • Sture Sundquist
  • Pernilla Christensen
  • Åsa Gallegos Torell
  • Mats Högström
  • Kjell Lagerqvist
  • Liselott Marklund
  • Björn Nilsson
  • Ola Inghe
Article

Abstract

The landscape-level and multiscale biodiversity monitoring program National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden (NILS) was launched in 2003. NILS is conducted as a sample-based stratified inventory that acquires data across several spatial scales, which is accomplished by combining aerial photo interpretation with field inventory. A total of 631 sample units are distributed across the land base of Sweden, of which 20% are surveyed each year. By 2007 NILS completed the first 5-year inventory phase. As the reinventory in the second 5-year phase (2008–2012) proceeds, experiences and insights accumulate and reflections are made on the setup and accomplishment of the monitoring scheme. In this article, the emphasis is placed on background, scope, objectives, design, and experiences of the NILS program. The main objective to collect data for and perform analyses of natural landscape changes, degree of anthropogenic impact, prerequisites for natural biological diversity and ecological processes at landscape scale. Different environmental conditions that can have direct or indirect effects on biological diversity are monitored. The program provides data for national and international policy and offers an infrastructure for other monitoring program and research projects. NILS has attracted significant national and international interest during its relatively short time of existence; the number of stakeholders and cooperation partners steadily increases. This is constructive and strengthens the incentive for the multiscale monitoring approach.

Keywords

Aerial photo interpretation Field survey Land cover Landscape changes Landscape pattern 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahlqvist, O. (2008). In search of classification that supports the dynamics of science: The FAO land cover classification system and proposed modifications. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35, 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allard, A. (2003). Vegetation changes in mountainous areas—A monitoring methodology based on interpretation of aerial photos, high-resolution satellite images and on field investigations (no. 27, p. 111). Ph.D. thesis in Geography, With Emphasis on Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  3. Allard, A., Nilsson, B., Pramborg, K., Ståhl, G., & Sundquist, S. (2005). Manual for aerial photo interpretation in the National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden, NILS, year 2003 (p. 96). Technical Report, Department of Forest Resource Management, SLU, Umeå, Sweden.Google Scholar
  4. Allard, A., Esseen, P.-A., Holm, S., Högström, M., Marklund, L., Nilsson, B., et al. (2007). Fångst av vegetationsdata och Natura 2000-habitat i fjällen genom flygbildstolkning med punktgittermetodik (in Swedish) (p. 47). [Capture of vegetation data and Natura 2000 habitats in the mountainous areas using aerial photo interpretation and point grid methodology]. Work report 171, Department of Forest Resource Management, SLU, Umeå, Sweden.Google Scholar
  5. Anonymous (2000). Skogsdata 2000. Aktuella uppgifter om de svenska skogarna från Riksskogstaxeringen (in Swedish) (110 pp.). [Forest data 2000. Current information on the Swedish forests from the National Forest Inventory]. Department of Forest Resource Management, SLU, Umeå, Sweden.Google Scholar
  6. Anonymous (2008). Seventh framework programme, Theme 6. European biodiversity observation network: Design of a plan for an integrated biodiversity observing system in space and time, EBONE (p. 84). Annex I—“Description of Work”, A collaborative project for Environment (Including Climate Change).Google Scholar
  7. Barr, C. J., Bunce, R. G. H., Clarke, R. T., Firbank, L. G., Gillespie, M. K., Howard, D. C., et al. (2003). Methodology of countryside survey 2000 module 1: Survey of broad habitats and landscape features, final report (p. 117). Contract report to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Cumbria, England.Google Scholar
  8. Brandt, J., Holmes, E., & Agger, P. (2001). Integrated monitoring on a landscape scale—Lessons from Denmark. In G. Groom & T. Reed (Eds.), Strategic landscape for the Nordic countries, Nordic Council of Ministers (chapter 4, p. 128). TemaNord Environment.Google Scholar
  9. Brandt, J., Bunce, R. G. H., Howard, D. C., & Petit, S. (2002). General principles of monitoring land cover change based on two case studies in Britain and Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62, 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunce, R. G. H., Groom, G. B., Jongman, R. H. G., & Padoa-Schioppa, E. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook for surveillance and monitoring of European habitats (1st ed., p. 107). Alterra-rapport 1219, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  11. Bunce, R. G. H., Pérez-Soba, M., Gómez-Sanz, V., García del Barrio, J. M., & Elena-Rosselló, R. (2006). European framework for surveillance and monitoring of habitats: A methodological approach for Spain. Investigación Agraria: Sistemas y Recursos Forestales, 15(3), 249–261.Google Scholar
  12. Bunce, R. G. H., Metzger, M. J., Jongman, R. H. G., Brandt, J., de Blust, G., Elena-Rossello, R., et al. (2008). A standardized procedure for surveillance and monitoring European habitats and provision of spatial data. Landscape Ecology, 23, 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bühler, C. (2006). Biodiversity monitoring in Switzerland: What can we learn for general surveillance of GM crops? J Verbr Lebensm, 1(1), 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Christensen, P., Glimskär, A., Hedblom, M., & Ringvall, A. (2008). Myrarnas areal och vegetation: Skattningar från provytedata i NILS 2003–2007 (in Swedish) (p. 32). [Area and vegetation of mires: Estimations from permanent plot data in NILS 2003–2007]. Work Report 237, Department of Forest Resource management, SLU, Umeå, Sweden.Google Scholar
  15. Christensen, P., & Ringvall, A. (in preparation). Evaluation of a large-scale environmental programme in Sweden: How small environmental changes are detectable.Google Scholar
  16. Commission of the European Communities (1994). Corine land cover. Retrieved from http://reports.eea.europa.eu/COR0-landcover/en.
  17. Council of Europe (2000). European landscape convention (p. 8). European Treaty Series No. 176, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
  18. Davies, C. E., Moss, D., & Hill M. O. (2004). EUNIS habitat classification revised 2004 (307 pp.). European Environmental Agency, European Topic Centre for Nature Protection and Biodiversity. Retrieved from http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/upload/EUNIS_2004_report.pdf.
  19. De Vries, P. G. (1986). Sampling theory for forest inventory (p. 399). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Di Gregorio, A., & Janssen, L. J. M. (2005). Land Cover Classification System (LCCS), version 2. Classification concepts and user manual (p. 208). FAO, Environmental and Natural Resources Series, No. 8. Rome.Google Scholar
  21. Esseen, P.-A., Glimskär, A., Moen, J., Söderström, B., & Weibull, A.-C. (2004). Analys av informationsbehov för Stickprovsvis Landskapsövervakning (SLÖ) (in Swedish) (p. 73). [Analysis of information needs for Sample-based Landscape Monitoring (SLÖ)]. Work Report 132, Department of Forest Resource Management, SLU, Umeå, Sweden.Google Scholar
  22. Esseen, P. A., Glimskär, A., Ståhl, G., & Sundquist, S. (2007a). Field instruction for National Inventory of Landscapes in Sweden, NILS, year 2007 (p. 194). Umeå: SLU, Department of Forest Resource Management.Google Scholar
  23. Esseen, P-A., Nilsson, B., Allard, A., Gardfjell, H., & Högström, M. (2007b). Landskapsdata från Nationell Inventering av Landskapet i Sverige (NILS)—Flygbildstolkning av 1 km x 1 km rutan för år 2003 (in Swedish) (p. 63). [Landscape data from the National inventory of landscape in Sweden (NILS)—Inventory of aerial photo interpretation of the 1 km x 1 km square for the year 2003]. Work Report 169, Department of Forest Resource Management, SLU, Umeå, Sweden.Google Scholar
  24. European Commission (2008). The habitats directive. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm.
  25. Fjellstad, W., Mathiesen, H., & Stokland, J. (2001). Monitoring Norwegian agricultural landscapes: The 3Q program. In G. Groom & T. Reed (Eds.), Strategic landscape monitoring for the Nordic countries. TemaNord 2001:523. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  26. Fridman, J., & Walheim, M. (2000). Amount, structure and dynamics of dead wood on managed forests in Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management, 131, 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gallegos Torell, Å., & Glimskär, A. (2009). Computer-aided calibration for visual estimation of vegetation cover. Journal of Vegetation Science, 20, 973–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Geoghegan, J., Wainger, L. A., & Bockstael, N. E. (1997). Analysis, spatial landscape indices in a hedonic framework: An ecological economics analysis using GIS. Ecological Economics, 23, 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glimskär, A., Esseen, P.-A., Moen, J., Söderström, B., & Weibull, A-C. (2001). Contents of a Swedish landscape monitoring program. In Ü, Mander, A. Printsmann, & H. Palang (Eds.). Development of European Landscapes (Vol. 92, pp. 276–280). Conference Proceedings, IALE 2001. Publ. Inst. Geogr. Univ. Tartuensis.Google Scholar
  30. Glimskär, A., Wikberg, J., Marklund, L., & Christensen, P. (2007). Linjära landskapselement i NILS fältinventering 2003–2006 (in Swedish) (p. 122). [Linear landscape elements in the NILS field inventory 2003–2006]. Work Report 199. Department of Forest Resource Management, SLU, Umeå, Sweden.Google Scholar
  31. Green, R. H. (1989). Power analysis and practical strategies for environmental monitoring. Environmental Research, 50, 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gunnarsson, U., & Löfroth, M. (2009). Våtmarksinventeringen (VMI)—Resultat från 25 års inventeringar. Slutrapport (in Swedish). [The National Wetland Inventory of Sweden (VMI)—Results from 25 years of inventory. Final report.]. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  33. Haines-Young, R., Barr, C. J., Firbank, L. G., Furse, M., Howard, D. C., McGowan, G. et al. (2003). Changing landscapes, habitats and vegetation diversity across Great Britain. Journal of Environmental Management, 67, 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hedblom, M., & Gyllin, M. (2009). Övervakning av biologisk mångfald och friluftsliv i tätorter—en metodstudie (in Swedish) (p. 76). [Monitoring biodiversity and recreation in urban areas—A method analysis]. Naturvårdsverket. Rapport 5974.Google Scholar
  35. Hånell, B. (1990). Torvtäckta marker, dikning och sumpskogar i Sverige (in Swedish). [Peatlands, ditching and swamp forests in Sweden]. Skogsfakta, Inventering och ekonomi, nr 22., SLU Umeå.Google Scholar
  36. Ihse, M. (2007). Colour infrared aerial photography as a tool for vegetation mapping and change detection in environmental studies of Nordic ecosystems: A review. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift—Norwegian Journal of Geography, 61(4), 170–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ihse, M., & Blom, G. (2000). Monitoring changes in land-use, landscape features, biodiversity and cultural heritage in Sweden—The LIM project. In R. H. G. Jongman & U. Mander (Eds.), Consequences of land use changes, advances in ecology series (pp. 39–74). Boston: WITT.Google Scholar
  38. Inghe, O. (2001). The Swedish landscape monitoring program—Current status and prospects for the near future. In G. Groom & T. Reed (Eds.), Strategic landscape monitoring for the Nordic countries. TemaNord 2001:523. Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  39. Lindenmayer, D. B., & Likens, G. E. (2009). Adaptive monitoring: A new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24, 482–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lovett, G. M., Burns, D. A., Driscoll, C. T., Jenkins, J. C., Mitchell, M. J., Rustad, L., et al. (2007). Who needs environmental monitoring? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Löfvenhaft, K. (2002). Spatial and temporal perspectives on biodiversity for physical planning—Examples from Urban Stockholm, Sweden. PhD thesis in Geography, With Emphasis on Physical Geography, Stockholm University, No 26. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  42. Metzger, J. P. (2008). Landscape ecology: Perspectives based on the 2007 IALE world congress. Landscape Ecology, 23, 501–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ministry of the Environment, Sweden (2001). The Swedish Environmental Objectives—Interim targets and action strategies (p. 80). Summary of Gov. Bill 2000/01:130, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  44. Ministry of the Environment, Sweden (2004). Sweden’s Environmental Policy. A brief overview. Ref. no. M 2004.03. Retrieved from http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/574/a/25800.
  45. Nassauer, J. I., & Opdam, P. (2008). Design in science: Extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology, 23, 633–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Noss, R. F. (1990). Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, 4, 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Noss, R. F., Cline, S. P., Csuti, B., & Scott, J. M. (1992). Monitoring and assessing biodiversity. In E. Lykke (Ed.), Achieving environmental goals (pp. 67–85). London: Belhaven. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): Environmental Indicators. OECD core set. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  48. Olsson, B. (2002). Beräkning av sankmarksareal från topografiska kartan per län och biogeografisk region (in Swedish) (p. 11). [Estimates of peatland areas from topographic maps, for provinces and biogeographic regions]. Technical report, Metria Miljöanalys. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  49. Peterseil, J., Wrbka, T., Plutzar, C., Schmitzberger, I., Kiss, A., Szerencsits, E., et al. (2004). Evaluating the ecological sustainability of Austrian agricultural landscapes—The SINUS approach. Land Use Policy, 21(3), 307–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Petit, S. (2009). The dimensions of land use change in rural landscapes: Lessons learnt from the GB Countryside survey. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 2851–2856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rydin, H., & Jeglum, J. (2006). The biology of peatlands (p. 343). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Shao, G., & Wu, J. (2008). On the accuracy of landscape pattern analysis using remote sensing data. Landscape Ecology, 23, 505–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schmeller, D. S., Henry, P.-Y., Julliard, R., Gruber, B., Clobert, J., Dziock, F., et al. (2008). Advantages of volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Conservation Biology, 23(2), 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schreuder, H. T., Gregoire, T. G., & Wood, G. B. (1993). Sampling methods for multiresource forest inventory (p. 446). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  55. Schreuder, H. T., Gregoire, T. G., & Weyer, J. P. (2001). For what applications can probability and non-probability sampling be used? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 66, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skånes, H. (1996). Landscape change and grassland dynamics—Retrospective studies based on aerial photographs and old cadastral maps during 200 years in South Sweden (p. 125). Ph.D. thesis in Geography, with a major in Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, No 8.Google Scholar
  57. Sohlman, A. (ed.). (2008). Arter och naturtyper i Habitatdirektivet—tillståndet i Sverige 2007 (in Swedish) (p. 73). [Species and nature types in the habitat directive—The status in Sweden 2007]. ArtDatabanken, SLU, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  58. Stadt, J. J., Schieck, J., & Stelfox, H. A. (2006). Alberta biodiversity monitoring program—Monitoring effectiveness of sustainable forest management planning. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 121, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Svensson, J. (2009). NILS—Översyn av verksamheten 2003–2008 (in Swedish) (p. 34). [NILS—Evaluation of activities 2003–2008]. Work Report 254, Department of Forest Resource Management, SLU, Umeå, Sweden.Google Scholar
  60. Svensson, J., Allard, A., Christensen, P., Eriksson, Å., Esseen, P.-A., Glimskär, A. et al. (2009). Landscape biodiversity monitoring in the Swedish NILS program (p. 8) . Conference proceedings, XIII World Forestry Congress, Buenos Aires, Argentina.Google Scholar
  61. Takács, G., & Molnár, Z. (eds.) (2009). National biodiversity monitoring system XI. Habitat mapping (2nd modified ed., p. 54). Ministry of Environment and Water, Budapest.Google Scholar
  62. Thompson, S. K. (1992). Sampling (p. 343). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  63. United Nations (1992). United Nations framework convention on climate change (25 pp.). FCCC/Informal/84. Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
  64. UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme (1993). Convention on biological diversity (with annexes) (p. 83). Concluded at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992. UNEP, Convention No. 30619. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/convention/convention.shtml.
  65. Vos, P., Meelis, E., & ter Keurs, W. J. (2000). A framework for the design of ecological monitoring programs as a tool for environmental and nature management. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 61, 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Westerberg, S., & Rynbäck Andersson, L. (2004). Våtmarker i Norrbottens län (in Swedish) (p. 217). [Peatlands in the province of Norrbotten, Sweden]. Technical report, Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län, Luleå.Google Scholar
  67. Wiens, J. A. (2008). Allerton Park 1983: The beginning of a paradigm for landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology, 23, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yli-Viikari, A., Risku-Norja, H., Nuutinen, V., Heinonen, E., Hietala-Koivu, R., Huusela-Veistola, E., et al. (2002). Agri-environmental and rural development indicators: A proposal (p. 114). Agrifood Research Reports 5. MIT Agrifood Research, Finland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Göran Ståhl
    • 1
  • Anna Allard
    • 1
  • Per-Anders Esseen
    • 2
  • Anders Glimskär
    • 3
  • Anna Ringvall
    • 1
  • Johan Svensson
    • 1
  • Sture Sundquist
    • 1
  • Pernilla Christensen
    • 1
  • Åsa Gallegos Torell
    • 1
  • Mats Högström
    • 1
  • Kjell Lagerqvist
    • 1
  • Liselott Marklund
    • 1
  • Björn Nilsson
    • 1
  • Ola Inghe
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Forest Resource ManagementSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Environmental ScienceUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Department of EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  4. 4.Swedish Environmental Protection AgencyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations