Maintaining Cultural and Natural Biodiversity in the Carpathian Mountain Ecoregion: Need for an Integrated Landscape Approach

  • Per AngelstamEmail author
  • Marine Elbakidze
  • Robert Axelsson
  • Peter Čupa
  • L’uboš Halada
  • Zsolt Molnar
  • Ileana Pătru-Stupariu
  • Kajetan Perzanowski
  • Laurentiu Rozulowicz
  • Tibor Standovar
  • Miroslav Svoboda
  • Johan Törnblom
Part of the Environmental Science and Engineering book series (ESE)


Landscapes located in the periphery of economic development, such as in parts of the Carpathian ecoregion, host remnants of both near-natural ecosystems and traditional agricultural land use systems. Such landscapes are important both for in situ conservation of natural and cultural biodiversity, and as references for biodiversity restoration elsewhere in Europe. This paper first reviews the contemporary understanding of benchmarks for biodiversity conservation in terms of ecosystems with natural disturbance regimes and pre-industrial cultural landscapes. Second, after providing a historical background, we review the challenges to natural and cultural biodiversity conservation and discuss current development trajectories. Third, we provide concrete examples from six Carpathian areas with different proportions of natural and cultural biodiversity. Fourth, we discuss the need for a diversity of management systems toward protection, management and restoration, spatial planning, and multi-sector governance for conservation of natural and cultural landscapes’ biodiversity. Finally, we stress the need to encourage integration of management, planning and governance of social and ecological systems to maintain natural and cultural biodiversity. The natural vegetation of the Carpathian Mountains is mostly forests and woodlands. Natural disturbances as wind, snow, frost, fire and flooding as well as insects and fungi resulted in forests characterized by old and large trees, diverse horizontal and vertical structures, and large amounts of dead wood in various stages of decay. While some near-natural forests remain, in most of the Carpathian ecoregion pre-industrial cultural landscapes evolved. Human use created traditional village system with infield houses, gardens, fields, meadows and outfield meadows and pastures, and woodlands which not only provide ecosystem services but also represent cultural heritage. The maintenance of natural and cultural biodiversity may require active management of species, habitats and processes. However, designing management systems that emulate natural and cultural landscape’s disturbance regimes is a major challenge requiring collaboration of private, public and civic sector stakeholders, and integration of social and ecological systems. Maintaining and restoring the traditional village system’s social capital as well as functional networks of protected areas and implementing sustainable forest management in managed forests are thus crucial. The Carpathian ecoregion forms a quasi-experiment with new country borders that have created stark contrasts among regions regarding natural and cultural biodiversity. This ecoregion can therefore be seen as a landscape-scale laboratory for systematic studies of interactions between ecological and social systems to support the development of an integrated landscape approach to biodiversity conservation and cultural heritage.


Biodiversity Conservation Dead Wood Cultural Landscape Carpathian Mountain Landscape History 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abrudan I, Turnock D (1999) A rural development strategy for the Apuseni Mountains, Romania. Geo J 46:319–336Google Scholar
  2. Agnoletti M (2000) Introduction: the development of forest history research. In: Agnoletti M, Anderson S (eds) Methods and approaches in forest history. CABI Publishing, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Angelstam P (1997) Landscape analysis as a tool for the scientific management of biodiversity. Ecol Bull 46:140–170Google Scholar
  4. Angelstam P (2003) Reconciling the linkages of land management with natural disturbance regimes to maintain forest biodiversity in Europe. In: Bissonette JA, Storch I (eds) Landscape ecology and resource management: linking theory with practice. Island Press, Covelo and WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. Angelstam P (2004) Habitat thresholds and effects of forest landscape change on the distribution and abundance of black grouse and capercaillie. Ecol Bull 5:173–187Google Scholar
  6. Angelstam P (2006) Maintaining cultural and natural biodiversity in Europe’s economic centre and periphery. In: Agnoletti M (ed) The conservation of cultural landscapes. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Angelstam P, Andersson L (2001) Estimates of the needs for forest reserves in Sweden. Scand J For Res Suppl 3:38–51Google Scholar
  8. Angelstam P, Andersson K, Axelsson K, Elbakidze M, Jonsson BG, Roberge JM (2011) Protecting forest areas for biodiversity in Sweden 1991–2010: the policy implementation process and outcomes on the ground. Silva Fenn 45(5):1111–1133Google Scholar
  9. Angelstam P, Boresjö-Bronge L, Mikusinski G, Sporrong U, Wästfelt A (2003a) Assessing village authenticity with satellite images—a method to identify intact cultural landscapes in Europe. Ambio 33(8):594–604Google Scholar
  10. Angelstam P, Bütler R, Lazdinis M, Mikusinski G, Roberge JM (2003b) Habitat thresholds for focal species at multiple scales and forest biodiversity conservation—dead wood as an example. Ann Zool Fenn 40:473–482Google Scholar
  11. Angelstam P, Dönz-Breuss M (2004) Measuring forest biodiversity at the stand scale—an evaluation of indicators in European forest history gradients. Ecol Bull 51:305–332Google Scholar
  12. Angelstam P, Dönz-Breuss M, Roberge J-M (2004a) Targets and tools for the maintenance of forest biodiversity. Ecol Bull 51:1–510Google Scholar
  13. Angelstam P, Edman T, Dönz-Breuss M, Wallis deVries M (2004b) Land management data and terrestrial vertebrates as indicators of forest biodiversity at the landscape scale. Ecol Bull 51:333–349Google Scholar
  14. Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Axelsson R, Törnblom J (2009) Sustainable forest management from policy to practice, and back again: landscapes as laboratories for knowledge production and learning in the Carpathian Mountains. In: Soloviy IP, Keeton WS (eds) Ecological economics and sustainable forest management: developing a trans-disciplinary approach for the Carpathian Mountains. Ukrainian National Forestry University Press, LvivGoogle Scholar
  15. Angelstam P, Kuuluvainen T (2004) Boreal forest disturbance regimes, successional dynamics and landscape structures—a European perspective. Ecol Bull 51:117–136Google Scholar
  16. Angelstam P, Kopylova E, Korn H, Lazdinis M, Sayer JA, Teplyakov V, Törnblom J (2005) Changing forest values in Europe. In: Sayer JA, Maginnis S (eds) Forests in landscapes. Ecosystem approaches to sustainability. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Angelstam P, Mikusiński G, Rönnbäck B et al (2003c) Two-dimensional gap analysis: a tool for efficient conservation planning and biodiversity policy implementation. Ambio 33:527–534Google Scholar
  18. Angelstam P, Persson R, Schlaepfer R (2004c) The sustainable forest management vision and biodiversity—barriers and bridges for implementation in actual landscapes. Ecol Bull 51:29–49Google Scholar
  19. Angelstam P, Roberge JM, Lõhmus A et al (2004d) Habitat modelling as a tool for landscape-scale conservation—a review of parameters for focal forest birds. Ecol Bull 51:427–453Google Scholar
  20. Anon (2000) European landscape convention. European treaty series No. 176, Council of EuropeGoogle Scholar
  21. Anon (2004) New perspectives for EU rural development. The European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  22. Anon (2007) Handbook on the Carpathian convention. The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe, SzentendreGoogle Scholar
  23. Antrop M (1997) The concept of traditional landscapes as a base for landscape evaluation and planning. The example of the Flanders region. Landsc Urban Plan 38:105–117Google Scholar
  24. Antrop M (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc Urban Plan 70:21–34Google Scholar
  25. Augustyn M (2004) Anthropogenic changes in the environmental parameters of Bieszczady Mountains. Biosph Conserv 6:43–53Google Scholar
  26. Augustyn M (2006) Monografia rozwoju przemysłu drzewnego, jako podstawowego czynnika przekształceń środowiska leśnego Bieszczadów Zachodnich w XIX i pierwszej połowie XX wieku. PAN MiIZ, Ustrzyki DolneGoogle Scholar
  27. Augustyn M, Kozak I (1997) The trends of anthropogenic pressure in Polish and Ukrainian Carpathians. In: Perzanowski K, Augustyn M (eds) Proceedings of 2nd annual meeting of ICE PAS, BieszczadyGoogle Scholar
  28. Axelsson R (2010) Integrative research and transdisciplinary knowledge production: a review of barriers and bridges. J Landsc Ecol 4(2):14–40Google Scholar
  29. Axelsson R, Angelstam P (2006) Biosphere reserve and model forest: a study of two concepts for integrated natural resource management. In: Proceedings from the 1st VHU conference on Science for sustainable development: starting points and critical reflections, Uppsala, VHUGoogle Scholar
  30. Axelsson R, Angelstam P, Elbakidze M (2008) Landscape approaches to sustainability. In: Frostell B et al (eds) Science for sustainable development—the social challenge with emphasis on the conditions for change. Uppsala, VHUGoogle Scholar
  31. Axelsson R, Angelstam P, Elbakidze M, Stryamets N, Johansson K-E (2011) Landscape approach for sustainable development and sustainability: a practical interpretation. J Landsc Ecol 4(3):5–30Google Scholar
  32. Babai D, Zs Molnár (2009) Népi növényzetismeret Gyimesben II.: termőhely- és élőhelyismeret. Bot Közl 96:145–173Google Scholar
  33. Bache I, Flinders M (eds) (2004) Multi-level governance. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Baker S (2006) Sustainable development. Routledge, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Baker S, Jehlicka P (eds) (1998) Dilemmas of transition. The environment, democracy and economic reform in east central Europe. Frank Cass, London and PortlandGoogle Scholar
  36. Baranyi B, G-Fekete E, Koncz G (2003) A roma-szegregáció kutatásának területi szempontjai a halmozottan hátrányos helyzetű encsi és a sellyei–siklósi kistérségekben. Kisebbs Kut 2:344–362Google Scholar
  37. Baudry J, Bunce RGH, Burel F (2000) Hedgerows: an international perspective on their origin, function and management. J Environ Manag 60:7–22Google Scholar
  38. Baur B, Cremene C, Groza G, Rakosy L, Schileyko A, Bau A, Stoll P, Erhardt A (2006) Effects of abandonment of subalpine hay meadows on plant and invertebrate diversity in Transylvania, Romania. Biol Conserv 132:261–273Google Scholar
  39. Bender O, Boehmer HJ, Jens D, Schumacher KP (2005) Using GIS to analyse long-term cultural landscape change in southern Germany. Landsc Urban Plan 70:111–125Google Scholar
  40. Bengtsson J, Nilsson SG, Franc A, Menozzi P (2003) Biodiversity disturbances, ecosystem function and management of European forests. For Ecol Manag 132:39–50Google Scholar
  41. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds) (2003) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Besseau P, Dansou K, Johnson F (2002) The international model forest network (IMFN): elements of success. The For Chronic 78:648–654Google Scholar
  43. Bezák P, Halada L (2010) Sustainable management recommendations to reduce the loss of agricultural biodiversity in the Mountain Regions of NE Slovakia. Mt Res Dev 30:192–204Google Scholar
  44. Blicharska M, Angelstam P, Antonson H, Elbakidze M, Axelsson R (2011) Road, forestry and regional planners’ work for biodiversity conservation and public participation: a case study in Poland’s hotspots regions. J Environ Plan Manag 54(10):1373–1395Google Scholar
  45. Bodnariuc A, Bouchette A, Dedoubat JJ, Otto T, Fontugue M, Jalut G (2002) Holocene vegetational history of the Apuseni Mountains, central Romania. Quat Sci Rev 21:1465–1488Google Scholar
  46. Bohn U, Neuhäusl R (2000/2003) Karte der naturlichen Vegetation Europas. Maßstab 1:2,500,000. Teil 1: Erlauterungstext mit CD-ROM; Teil 2: Legende; Teil 3: Karten. Landwirtschaftsverlag, MunsterGoogle Scholar
  47. Borrini-Feyerabend G, Pimbert M, Farvar MT, Kothari A, Renard Y (2004) Sharing power. Learning by doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the World. IIED and IUCN/CEESP/CMWG, Cenesta, TehranGoogle Scholar
  48. Borsa M, Chifelea C, Egerer H et al (2009) Visions and strategies. In: The Carpathian Area (VASICA). Protection and sustainable spatial development of the Carpathians in a transnational framework. The Carpathian project, Druckwerker, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  49. Boutin S et al. (2002) The active adaptive management experimental team: a collaborative approach to sustainable forest management. In: Veeman TS et al. (eds) Advances in forest management: from knowledge to practice. Proceedings from the 2002 sustainable forest management network conference, University of Alberta, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  50. Brang P (2005) Virgin forests as a knowledge source for central European silviculture: reality or myth? For Snow Landsc Res 79(1/2):19–32Google Scholar
  51. Breitenmoser U (1998) Large predators in the Alps: the fall and rise of Man’s competitors. Biol Conserv 83:279–289Google Scholar
  52. Brinkmann K, Reif A (2006) Vegetation, landuse and landscape in the Apuseni Mountains, Romania. Bull Univ Agric Sci Vet Med 62:1–13Google Scholar
  53. Busch DE, Trexler JC (2003) The importance of monitoring in regional ecosystem initiatives. In: Busch DE, Trexler JC (eds) Monitoring ecosystems. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  54. Buza M, Dimen L, Pop G, Turnock D (2001) Environmental protection in the Apuseni Mountains: the role of environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs). Geo J 54:631–653Google Scholar
  55. Buza M, Turnock D (2004) A research note: planning for the Carpathians. Geo J 60:135–142Google Scholar
  56. Bütler R, Angelstam P, Ekelund P, Schlaepfer R (2004) Dead wood threshold values for the three-toed woodpecker in boreal and sub-alpine forest. Biol Conserv 119:305–318Google Scholar
  57. Carpathian Convention (2003) Framework convention on the protection and sustainable development of the Carpathians. KyivGoogle Scholar
  58. Clark TW (2002) The policy process. A practical guide for natural resource professionals. Yale University Press, New Haven and LondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Daniels SE, Walker GB (2001) Working through environmental conflict- the collaborative learning approach. Praeger, Westport and LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. Darby HC (1956) The clearing of woodlands in Europe. In: Thomas WL (ed) Man’s role in changing the face of the Earth. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  61. Deodatus FD, Protsenko L (eds) (2010) Creation of ecological corridors in Ukraine. State agency for protected areas of the Ministry of environmental protection of Ukraine, Altenburg & Wymenga Ecological Consultants, Interecocentre, KyivGoogle Scholar
  62. Dogaru D, Zobrist J, Balteanu D, Popescu C, Sima M, Amini M, Yang H (2009) Community perception of water quality in a mining-affected area: a case study for the Certej catchment in the Apuseni Mountains in Romania. Environ Manag 43:1131–1145Google Scholar
  63. Dudley N, Schlaepfer R, Jackson W, Jeanrenaud JP, Stolton S (2006) Forest quality. Assessing forests at a landscape scale. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  64. Dyakonov KN, Kasimov NS, Khoroshev AV, Kushlin AV (2007) Landscape analysis for sustainable development: theory and application of landscape science in Russia. Alex Publishers, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  65. Edman T, Angelstam P, Mikusiński G, Roberge J-M, Sikora A (2011) Spatial planning for biodiversity conservation: assessment of forest landscapes’ conservation value using umbrella species requirements in Poland. Landsc Urban Plan 102:16–23Google Scholar
  66. Egan D, Howell EA (2001) The historical ecology handbook. Island Press, CoveloGoogle Scholar
  67. Elbakidze M, Angelstam P (2007) Implementing sustainable forest management in Ukraine’s Carpathian Mountains: the role of traditional village systems. For Ecol Manag 249:28–38Google Scholar
  68. Elbakidze M, Angelstam P (2009) Cross-border cooperation along the eastern border of European union: a review and approach to learning for sustainable landscapes. Cent Eur J Spat Landsc Plan 20(1):33–42Google Scholar
  69. Elbakidze M, Angelstam P, Sandström C, Axelsson R (2010) Multi-stakeholder collaboration in Russian and Swedish model forest initiatives: adaptive governance towards sustainable forest management? Ecol Soc 15(2):14Google Scholar
  70. Elbakidze M, Angelstam P (2013) Sustainable forest management from policy to landscape, and back again: a case study in the Ukrainian Carpathian Mountains. In: Kozak J, Ostapowicz K, Bytnerowicz A, Wyżga B (eds) The Carpathians: Integrating Nature and Society Towards Sustainability, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  71. European Environmental Agency (2010) Europe’s ecological backbone: recognising the true value of our mountains. EEA report 6Google Scholar
  72. Fanta J (1997) Rehabilitating degraded forests in Central Europe into self–sustaining forest ecosystems. Ecol Eng 8:289–297Google Scholar
  73. Fearne A (1997) The history and development of the CAP 1945–1990. In: Ritson C, Harvey DR (eds) The common agricultural policy. CAB International, LondonGoogle Scholar
  74. Feurdean A (2010) Forest conservation in a changing world: natural or cultural? Example from the Western Carpathians forests, Romania. Stud Univ Babeş-Bolyai Geol 55(1):45–48Google Scholar
  75. Feurdean A, Willis KJ (2008) The usefulness of a longterm perspective in assessing current forest conservation management in the Apuseni Natural Park, (Romania). For Ecol Manag 256:421–430Google Scholar
  76. Fleischer P, Godzik B, Bicarova S, Bytnerowicz A (2005) Effects of air pollution and climate change on forests of the Tatra Mountains, Central Europe. In: Omasa K, Nouchi I, De Kok L (eds) Plant responses to air pollution and global change. Springer, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  77. Fröhlich J (1954) Urwaldpraxis. Neumann Verlag, Radebeul and BerlinGoogle Scholar
  78. Gayer K (1886) Der gemischte Wald, seine Begründung und Pflege, insbesondere durch Horst und Gruppenwirtschaft. Verlag von Paul Parey, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  79. Gąsienica-Byrcyn W (1992) The history and present role of the Tatra National Park. Mt Res Dev 12(9):205–210Google Scholar
  80. G-Fekete E (2007) Aprófalvaink átalakulóban. In: Zs Kocsis, T Csapó (eds) A kistelepülések helyzete és településföldrajza Magyarországon. Savaria University Press, SzombathelyGoogle Scholar
  81. Gibbons M (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402:11–17Google Scholar
  82. Gilbert B (2007) Collaborative synergy in resource and environmental management. Doctoral dissertation, Dalhousie University, Nova ScotiaGoogle Scholar
  83. Good DF (1994) The economic lag of Central and Eastern Europe: income estimates for the Habsburg successor states, 1870–1910. J Econ Hist 54:869–891Google Scholar
  84. Grabherr G, Koch G, Kirchmeir H, Reiter K (1998) Hemerobie österreichischer Waldökosysteme. Universitätsverlag Wagner, InnsbruckGoogle Scholar
  85. Gunst P (1989) Agrarian systems of Central and Eastern Europe. In: Chirot D (ed) The origins of backwardness in Eastern Europe: economics and politics from the middle ages until the early twentieth century. University of California Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  86. Gurnell A, Surian N, Zanoni L (2009) Multi-thread river channels: a perspective on changing European alpine river systems. Aquat Sci 71:253–265Google Scholar
  87. Gutzwiller KJ (2002) Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation: principles, constraints and prospects. In: Gutzwiller KJ (ed) Applying landscape ecology in biological conservation. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  88. von Haaren C (2002) Landscape planning facing the challenge of the development of cultural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 60:73–80Google Scholar
  89. Hais M, Jonasova M, Langhammer J, Kucera T (2009) Comparison of two types of forest disturbance using multitemporal Landsat TM/ETM plus imagery and field vegetation data. Remote Sens Environ 113:835–845Google Scholar
  90. Hensiruk S (1992) Lisy. Naukova dumka, KyivGoogle Scholar
  91. Heurich M (2009) Progress of forest regeneration after a large-scale Ips typographus outbreak in the subalpine Picea abies forests of the Bavarian Forest National Park. Silva Gabreta 15:49–66Google Scholar
  92. Hodge I (2001) Beyond agri-environmental policy: towards an alternative model for rural environmental governance. Land Policy 18:99–111Google Scholar
  93. Holling CS (1995) What barriers? What bridges? In: Gunderson LH, Holling CS, Light SS (eds) Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecoystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  94. Hunter ML (ed) (1999) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  95. Imreh I (1993) A természeti környezet oltalmazása a székely rendtartásokban. In: Várkonyi R, Kósa L (eds) Európa híres kertje, Történeti ökológiai tanulmányok Magyarországról. Orpheusz, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  96. Innes JL, Nitschke CR (2005) The application of forest zoning as an alternative to multiple-use forestry. In: Innes JL, Hoen HF, Hickey G (eds) Forestry and environmental change: Socioeconomic and political dimensions. Report No. 5 of the IUFRO task force on environmental change. CABI Publishing, OxfordshireGoogle Scholar
  97. Ioja IC, Pătroescu M, Rozylowicz L, Popescu DV, Vergheleţ M, Zotta MI, Felciuc M (2010) The efficacy of Romania’s protected areas network in conserving biodiversity. Biol Conserv 143(11):2468–2476Google Scholar
  98. Ioras F (2003) Trends in Romanian biodiversity conservation policy. Biodivers Conserv 12:9–23Google Scholar
  99. Jędrzejewski W, Nowak S, Stachura K et al (2005) Project of ecological corridors linking Natura 2000 sites in Poland. Mammals Research Institute Polish Academy of Science, BiałowieżaGoogle Scholar
  100. Jonasova M, Prach K (2004) Central-European Mountain spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) forests: regeneration of tree species after a bark beetle outbreak. Ecol Eng 23:15–27Google Scholar
  101. Jonasova M, Prach K (2008) The influence of bark beetles outbreak vs. salvage logging on ground layer vegetation in Central European mountain spruce forests. Biol Conserv 141:1525–1535Google Scholar
  102. Jongman RHG (2002) Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European landscape: ecological consequences and solutions. Landsc Urban Plan 58:211–221Google Scholar
  103. Jonsson BG, Kruys N (eds) (2001) Ecology of woody debris in boreal forests. Ecol Bull 49Google Scholar
  104. Kann RA (1974) A history of the Habsburg Empire 1526–1918. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  105. Keeton WS, Chernyavskyy M, Gratzer G, Main-Knorn M, Shpylchak M, Bihun Y (2010) Structural characteristics and aboveground biomass of old-growth spruce–fir stands in the eastern Carpathian Mountains, Ukraine. Plant Biosyst 144(1):148–159Google Scholar
  106. Kenderes K, Aszalós R, Ruff J, Barton Z, Standovár T (2007) Effects of topography and tree stand characteristics on susceptibility of forests to natural disturbances (ice and wind) in the Börzsöny Mountains (Hungary). Community Ecol 8(2):209–220Google Scholar
  107. Kenk G, Guehne S (2001) Management of transformation in central Europe. For Ecol Manag 151:107–119Google Scholar
  108. Konvicka M, Fric Z, Benes J (2006) Butterfly extinctions in European states: do socioeconomic conditions matter more than physical geography? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:82–92Google Scholar
  109. Kopecká M, Nováček J (2009) Forest fragmentation in the Tatra region in the period 2000–2006. Landf Anal 10:58–63Google Scholar
  110. Kubikova J (1991) Forest dieback in Czechoslovakia. Vegetatio 93:101–108Google Scholar
  111. Kuemmerle T, Hostert P, Radeloff VC, Perzanowski K, Kruhlov I (2007) Post-socialist forest disturbance in the Carpathian border region of Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine. Ecol Appl 17(5):1279–1295Google Scholar
  112. Kuemmerle T, Hostert P, Radeloff VC, van der Linden S, Perzanowski K, Kruhlov I (2008) Cross-border comparison of post-socialist farmland abandonment in the Carpathians. Ecosystem 11:614–628. doi: 1007/s10021-008-9146-z Google Scholar
  113. Kuemmerle T, Chaskovskyy O, Knorn J, Radeloff VC, Kruhlov I, Keeton WS, Hostert P (2009a) Forest cover change and illegal logging in the Ukrainian Carpathians in the transition period from 1988 to 2007. Remote Sens Environ 113:1194–1207Google Scholar
  114. Kuemmerle T, Müller D, Griffiths P, Rusu M (2009b) Land use change in Southern Romania after the collapse of socialism. Reg Environ Change 9:1–12Google Scholar
  115. Kuemmerle T, Perzanowski K, Akcakaya HR, Beaudry F, Van Deelen TR, Parnikoza I, Khoyetskyy P, Waller DM, Radeloff VC (2011) Cost-effectiveness of strategies to establish a European bison metapopulation in the Carpathians. J Appl Ecol 48(2):317–329Google Scholar
  116. Lammerts van Buren EM, Blom EM (1997) Hierarchical framework for the formulation of sustainable forest management standards. Principles, criteria, indicators. Tropenbos Foundation, Backhuys Publishers, AH LeidenGoogle Scholar
  117. Larsson A (2004) Landskapsplanering inom jordbrukspolitik. Agraria 442, Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesGoogle Scholar
  118. Lawrence A (2009) Forestry in transition: imperial legacy and negotiated expertise in Romania and Poland. Policy Econ 11(5–6):429–436Google Scholar
  119. Lee KN (1993) Compass and gyroscope. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  120. Lickers HF, Story PA (1997) Partnership building for sustainable development: a first Nation’s perspective from Ontario. In: Bouman OT, Brand DG (eds) Sustainable forests: global challenges and local solutions. Food Products Press, BinghamptonGoogle Scholar
  121. Liro A (1998) Strategia wdrażania Krajowej Sieci Ekologicznej—ECONET. Fundacja IUCN, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  122. Maanen E van, Predoiu G, Klaver R, Soulé M, Popa M. Ionescu O, Jurj R, Neguş ş, Ionescu G, Altenburg W (2005) Safeguarding the Romanian Carpathian ecological network. A vision for large carnivores and biodiversity in Eastern Europe. A&W ecological consultants, Veenwouden, The Netherlands. ICAS Wildlife Unit, BrasovGoogle Scholar
  123. Magosci PR (2002) Historical atlas of Central Europe. University of Washington Press, Seattle Revised and expanded editionGoogle Scholar
  124. Main-Knorn M, Hostert P, Kozak J, Kuemmerle T (2009) How pollution legacies and land use histories shape post-communist forest cover trends in the Western Carpathians. For Ecol Manag 258(2):60–70Google Scholar
  125. Marcucci DJ (2000) Landscape history as planning tool. Landsc Urban Plan 49:67–81Google Scholar
  126. Mason WL (2003) Continuous cover forestry: developing close to nature forest management in conifer plantations in upland Britain. Scott For 57(3):141–149Google Scholar
  127. Matthews JD (1989) Silvicultural systems. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  128. Mayer H (1984) Die Wälder Europas. Gustav Fischer Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  129. Mayers J, Bass S (2004) Policy that works for forests and people. Real prospects for governance and livelihoods. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  130. Merlo M, Croitoru L (2005) Concepts and methodology: a first attempt towards quantification. In: Merlo M, Croitoru L (eds) Valuing Mediterranean forests. Towards total economic value. CABI Publishing, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  131. Mikusiński G, Angelstam P (1998) Economic geography, forest distribution and woodpecker diversity in central Europe. Conserv Biol 12:200–208Google Scholar
  132. Mikusiński G, Angelstam P (2004) Occurrence of mammals and birds with different ecological characteristics in relation to forest cover in Europe—do macroecological data make sense? Ecol Bull 51:265–275Google Scholar
  133. Mikusiński G, Angelstam P, Sporrong U (2003) Distribution of deciduous stands in villages located in coniferous forest landscapes in Sweden. Ambio 33:519–525Google Scholar
  134. Miya K (2000) Maramuresh. Humanitas, BucarestGoogle Scholar
  135. Zs Molnár, Babai D (2009) Népi növényzetismeret Gyimesben I.:növénynevek, népi taxonómia, az egyéni és közösségi növényismeret. Bot Közl 96:117–143Google Scholar
  136. Muller J, Bussler H, Gossner M, Rettelbach T, Duelli P (2008) The European spruce bark beetle Ips typographus in a national park: from pest to keystone species. Biodivers Conserv 17:2979–3001Google Scholar
  137. Müller J, Bütler R (2010) A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests. Eur J Res 129:981–992Google Scholar
  138. Norton BG (2005) Sustainability a philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. The University of Chicago press, Chicago and LondonGoogle Scholar
  139. Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355–364Google Scholar
  140. Opelz M (2004) Towards a Carpathian network of protected areas. Final report. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  141. Oszlányi J, Grodzińska K, Badea O, Shparyk Y (2004) Nature conservation in Central and Eastern Europe with a special emphasis on the Carpathian Mountains. Environ Pollut 130:27–134Google Scholar
  142. Palang H, Printsmann A, Gyuro EK, Urbanc M, Skowronek E, Woloszyn W (2006) The forgotten rural landscapes of Central and Eastern Europe. Landsc Ecol 21:347–357Google Scholar
  143. Parrotta J, Agnoletti M, Johan E (eds) (2006) Cultural heritage and sustainable forest management: the role of traditional knowledge. MCPFE, WarsawGoogle Scholar
  144. Patroescu M, Ioja IC, Patroescu-Klotz I, Necsuliu, R (2006) Umweltqualitat in Rumänien. In: Kahl T, Metzeltin M, Ungureanu R (eds) Rumänien. Raum und Bevölkerung. Geschichte und Geschichtsbilder. Kultur. Gesellschaft und Politik heute. Wirtschaft. Recht und Verfassung. Historische Regionen. LIT Verlag, Münster-Hamburg-Berlin-Wien-London-ZürichGoogle Scholar
  145. Pauleit S, Breuste J, Qureshi S, Sauerwein M (2010) Transformation of rural-urban cultural landscapes in Europe: Integrating approaches from ecological, socio-economic and planning perspectives. Landsc Online 20:1–10Google Scholar
  146. Perzanowski K, Olech W, Kozak I (2004) Constraints for re-establishing a meta-population of the European bison in Ukraine. Biol Conserv 120:345–353Google Scholar
  147. Perzanowski K, Wołoszyn-Gałęza A, Januszczak M (2008) Założenia do wyznaczenia ostoi żubra w Bieszczadach. Eur Bison Conserv Newsl 1:79–86Google Scholar
  148. Peterken G (1996) Natural woodland: ecology and conservation in northern temperate regions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  149. Peterken G (1999) Applying natural forestry concepts in an intensively managed landscape. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 8(5):321–328Google Scholar
  150. Pirot J-Y, Meynell PJ, Elder D (2000) Ecosystem management: lessons from around the world. A guide for development and conservation practitioners. IUCN, Gland and CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  151. Powelson JP (1994) Centuries of economic endeavor, 4th edn. University of Michigan Press, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  152. Primdahl J, Brandt J (1997) CAP, nature conservation and physical planning. In: Laurent C, Bowler I (eds) CAP and the regions: building a multidisciplinary framework for the analysis of the EU agricultural space. Institute National de la Recherche agronomique, ParisGoogle Scholar
  153. Puettmann KJ, Coates KD, Messier C (2009) A critique of silviculture. Island Press, Washington (Managing for complexity)Google Scholar
  154. Puumalainen J, Kennedy P, Folving S (2003) Monitoring of forest biodiversity: a European perspective with reference to temperate and boreal forest zone. J Environ Manag 67:5–14Google Scholar
  155. Rauschmayer F, Berghöfer A, Omann I, Zikos D (2009) Examining processe or/and outcomes? Evaluation concepts in European governance of natural resources. Environ Policy Gov 19:159–173Google Scholar
  156. Reif A, Rusdea E, Pacurar F, Rotar I, Brinkmann K, Auch E, Goia A, Bühler J (2008) A traditional cultural landscape in transformation the quest for sustainable development in the Apuseni Mountains, Romania. Mt Res Dev 28:18–22Google Scholar
  157. Rey V, Groza O, Ianos I, Patroescu M (2007) Atlas de la Roumanie. Reclus, Montpelier and ParisGoogle Scholar
  158. Roberge JM, Angelstam P (2004) Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv Biol 18(1):76–85Google Scholar
  159. Roberge J-M, Angelstam P (2009) Selecting species to be used as tools in the development of forest conservation targets. In: Villard M-A, Jonsson BG (eds) Setting conservation targets for managed forest landscapes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  160. Rozylowicz L, Popescu VD, Patroescu M, Chisamera G (2011) The potential of large carnivores as conservation surrogates in the Romanian Carpathians. Biodivers Conserv 20(3):561–579Google Scholar
  161. Sandström UG, Angelstam P, Khakee A (2006) Urban comprehensive planning—identifying barriers for the maintenance of functional habitat networks. Landsc Urban Plan 75:43–57Google Scholar
  162. Sauberer N, Zulka KP, Abensperg-Traun M et al (2004) Surrogate taxa for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes of eastern Austria. Biol Conserv 117(2):181–190Google Scholar
  163. Sauer CO (1925) The morphology of landscape. Univ Calif Publ Geogr 2(2):19–53Google Scholar
  164. Sayer JA, Campbell BM (2004) The science of sustainable development: local livelihoods and the global environment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  165. Schmitt T, Rákosy L (2007) Changes of traditional agrarian landscapes and their conservation implications: a case study of butterflies in Romania. Divers Distrib 13:855–862Google Scholar
  166. Schnitzler A, Borlea F (1998) Lessons from natural forests as keys for sustainable management and improvement of naturalness in managed broadleaved forests. For Ecol Manag 109:293–303Google Scholar
  167. Singer B (2007) How useful is the landscape approach? In: Patry M, Ripley S (eds) World Heritage forests. Leveraging conservation and the landscape level. Proceedings of the 2nd World Heritage forests meeting, March 9-11, 2005, Nancy, France. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, ParisGoogle Scholar
  168. Soloviy IP, Keeton WS (eds) (2009) Ecological Economics and Sustainable Forest Management: Developing a trans-disciplinary approach for the Carpathian Mountains. Ukrainian National Forestry University Press, LvivGoogle Scholar
  169. Soran V, Biro J, Moldovan O, Ardelean A (2000) Conservation of biodiversity in Romania. Biodivers Conserv 9:1187–1198Google Scholar
  170. Stancioiu PT, Abrudan IV, Dutca I (2010) The Natura 2000 ecological network and forests in Romania: implications on management and administration. Int Rev 12(1):106–113Google Scholar
  171. Surd V, Turnock D (2000) Romania’s Apuseni Mountains: Safeguarding a cultural heritage. GeoJ 50:285–304Google Scholar
  172. Svancara LK, Brannon R, Scott JM, Groves CR, Noss RF, Pressey RL (2005) Policy-driven versus evidence-based conservation: a review of political targets and biological needs. Biosci 55(11):989–995Google Scholar
  173. Svoboda M, Pouska V (2008) Structure of a Central-European mountain spruce old-growth forest with respect to historical development. For Ecol Manag 255:2177–2188Google Scholar
  174. Svoboda M, Fraver S, Janda P, Bače R, Zenáhliková J (2010) Natural development and regeneration of a Central European montane spruce forest. For Ecol Manag 260(5):707–714Google Scholar
  175. van Swaay CAM, Warren M (1999) Red data book of European butterflies (Rhopalocera). Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg (Nature and Environment 99)Google Scholar
  176. Szaro RC, Bytnerowicz A, Oszlányi J (2002) Effects of air pollution on forest health and biodiversity in forests of the Carpathian Mountains. NATO Sci Ser 1: Life Behav Sci 345Google Scholar
  177. Taylor P, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68(3):571–572Google Scholar
  178. Tear TH, Kareiva P, Angermeier PL et al (2005) How much is enough? The recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives in conservation. Biosci 55(10):836–849Google Scholar
  179. von Thünen JH (1875) Der isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nationalökonomie. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  180. Tucker GM, Heath MF (1994) Birds in Europe: their conservation status. BirdLife international, BirdLife conservation series 3, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  181. Turner BL, Clark WC, Kates RW, Richards JF, Mathews JF, Meyer WB (1995) The earth as transformed by human action. Global and regional changes in the biosphere over the past 300 years. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  182. Turnock D (2001) Railways and economic development in Romania before 1918. J Trans Geogr 9:137–150Google Scholar
  183. Turnock D (2002) Ecoregion-based conservation in the Carpathians and the land-use implications. Land Use Policy 19:47–63Google Scholar
  184. Turnock D (2007) Aspects of independent Romania’s economic history with particular reference to transition for EU accession. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  185. Törnblom J, Angelstam P, Degerman E, Henrikson L, Edman T, Temnerud J (2011a) Catchment land cover as a proxy for macroinvertebrate assemblage structure in Carpathian Mountain streams. Hydrobiol Online. doi: 10.1007/s10750-011-0769-2 Google Scholar
  186. Törnblom J, Degerman E, Angelstam P (2011b) Forest proportion as indicator of ecological integrity in streams using Plecoptera as a proxy. Ecol Indic 11:1366–1374Google Scholar
  187. Törnblom J, Roberge J-M, Angelstam P (2011c) Rapid assessment of headwater stream macroinvertebrate diversity: an evaluation of surrogates across a land-use gradient. Fundam Appl Limnol 178:287–300Google Scholar
  188. UNESCO (2002) Biosphere reserves. Special places for people and nature. UNESCO workshops, Paris Google Scholar
  189. Villard MA, Jonsson BG (2009) Putting conservation target science to work. In: Villard MA, Jonsson BG (eds) Setting conservation targets for managed forest landscapes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  190. Vera FWM (2000) Grazing ecology and forest history. CABI Publishing, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  191. Vos W, Meekes H (1999) Trends in European cultural landscape development: perspectives for a sustainable future. Landsc Urban Plan 46:3–14Google Scholar
  192. Vucetich JA, Nelson MP (2010) Sustainability: virtuous or vulgar? Biosci 60(7):539–544Google Scholar
  193. Water Framework Directive (2000) 2000/60/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 23rd October 2000. Establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  194. Weaver PM, Jordan A (2008) What roles are there for sustainability assessment in the policy process? Int J Innov Sustain Dev 3(1/2):9–32Google Scholar
  195. Webster R, Holt S, Avis C (eds) (2001) The status of the Carpathians. WWF-The Carpathian ecoregion initiative report. WWF International, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  196. Whyte ID (1998) Rural Europe since 1500: areas of retardation and tradition. In: Butlin RA, Dodgshon RA (eds) An historical geography of Europe. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  197. World Forestry Congress (2009) XIII World forestry congress, Buenos Aires, Argentina forest development: a vital balance, findings and strategic actions. Accessed 2 Sep 2012
  198. Young J, Richards C, Fischer A et al (2007) Conflicts between biodiversity conservation and human activities in the Central and Eastern European countries. Ambio 36(7):545–550Google Scholar
  199. Zechmeister HG, Tribsch A, Moser D, Peterseil J, Wrbka T (2003) Biodiversity ‘hot spots’ for bryophytes in landscapes dominated by agriculture in Austria. Agric Ecosyst Environ 94(2):159–167Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Per Angelstam
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marine Elbakidze
    • 1
  • Robert Axelsson
    • 1
  • Peter Čupa
    • 2
  • L’uboš Halada
    • 3
  • Zsolt Molnar
    • 4
  • Ileana Pătru-Stupariu
    • 5
  • Kajetan Perzanowski
    • 6
  • Laurentiu Rozulowicz
    • 5
  • Tibor Standovar
    • 7
  • Miroslav Svoboda
    • 8
  • Johan Törnblom
    • 1
  1. 1.School for Forest ManagementSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesSkinnskattebergSweden
  2. 2.Lower Morava Biosphere ReserveLedniceCzech Republic
  3. 3.Institute of Landscape Ecology SASBranch NitraNitraSlovakia
  4. 4.Institute of Ecology and Botany of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesVácrátótHungary
  5. 5.Faculty of GeographyUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania
  6. 6.Carpathian Wildlife Research Station, Museum and Institute of Zoology, PAS, Ogrodowa 10, 38-700 Ustrzyki DolnePoland; and Catholic University of LublinLublinPoland
  7. 7.Department of Plant Taxonomy and EcologyEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  8. 8.Faculty of Forestry and Wood SciencesCzech University of Life SciencesPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations