8.4 Conclusions
In HABIT-CHANGE the assessment of climate-induced impacts on habitats
focused on a framework consisting of the sensitivity and the exposure which
defined the potential impacts. The framework needs at least the following input
data for the assessment of climate induced impacts on habitats:
• First of all, a list of all important habitat types per biogeographical region for
which the assessment should be done. In the project the participating regional
partners provided such lists of habitats.
• Regional expert-knowledge to evaluate the sensitivity criteria for the regional
occurrence of the habitats. Within the project the evaluation was done by experts
for the Alpine, Continental and Pannonian region covering all habitats occurring
within the scope of the project.
• A localised plant species list to evaluate the ecological envelope for each
habitat type which should be assessed. The participating investigation areas
provided such species lists for their habitats.
• Climate scenarios to compare the conditions of the past with projected changes
in the future subdivided into the four time segments (1/3, 2/3, 3/3 of the
vegetation period and dormant period; see Chaps. 2 and 3).
The framework used categories and rules for the assessment instead of modelling approaches. This has the advantage of a simple framework that is transferrable
to other biogeographical regions and can be understood and applied by regional
partners. Moreover, just a minimum of local data (e.g. species list per habitat type)
is required to yield a result representative to the supplying region or nature
conservation area. With this minimum input information it is still possible to derive
detailed maps of sensitivity and potential impact per season (see Fig. 8.12 for the
example of the Biebrza National Park). Furthermore, studies concentrating on a
broader range of habitats are less widespread. For example Renetzeder et al. (2010)
used Ellenberg’s indicator scheme to characterise the ecological envelope of
habitats in a landscape and to compare them with climate scenarios using regression
analysis. They concluded that natural habitats are more sensitive than strongly
managed (e.g. agricultural) ones. Another example uses species distribution models
to predict the sensitivity of habitats by using the range occupancy of the characteristic plant species (Normand et al. 2007). The authors project the highest sensitivity
of bogs, mires and fens followed by forests leaving rocky habitats on the last
position also indicated by the results of this chapter. However promising the results
of the framework are, it does not incorporate the adaptive capacity of habitats into
its approach like spatial planning studies try to do (e.g. Holsten and Kropp 2012;
Rannow et al. 2010). Nevertheless, such studies focus on political boundaries in
which habitats with high conservation values are only one part of the assessment.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the presented approach can be a valuable tool by
using this simple framework to assess the climate induced impacts on habitats.
8 Assessment of Climate-Induced Impacts on Habitats
131
In HABIT-CHANGE the assessment of climate-induced impacts on habitats
focused on a framework consisting of the sensitivity and the exposure which
defined the potential impacts. The framework needs at least the following input
data for the assessment of climate induced impacts on habitats:
• First of all, a list of all important habitat types per biogeographical region for
which the assessment should be done. In the project the participating regional
partners provided such lists of habitats.
• Regional expert-knowledge to evaluate the sensitivity criteria for the regional
occurrence of the habitats. Within the project the evaluation was done by experts
for the Alpine, Continental and Pannonian region covering all habitats occurring
within the scope of the project.
• A localised plant species list to evaluate the ecological envelope for each
habitat type which should be assessed. The participating investigation areas
provided such species lists for their habitats.
• Climate scenarios to compare the conditions of the past with projected changes
in the future subdivided into the four time segments (1/3, 2/3, 3/3 of the
vegetation period and dormant period; see Chaps. 2 and 3).
The framework used categories and rules for the assessment instead of modelling approaches. This has the advantage of a simple framework that is transferrable
to other biogeographical regions and can be understood and applied by regional
partners. Moreover, just a minimum of local data (e.g. species list per habitat type)
is required to yield a result representative to the supplying region or nature
conservation area. With this minimum input information it is still possible to derive
detailed maps of sensitivity and potential impact per season (see Fig. 8.12 for the
example of the Biebrza National Park). Furthermore, studies concentrating on a
broader range of habitats are less widespread. For example Renetzeder et al. (2010)
used Ellenberg’s indicator scheme to characterise the ecological envelope of
habitats in a landscape and to compare them with climate scenarios using regression
analysis. They concluded that natural habitats are more sensitive than strongly
managed (e.g. agricultural) ones. Another example uses species distribution models
to predict the sensitivity of habitats by using the range occupancy of the characteristic plant species (Normand et al. 2007). The authors project the highest sensitivity
of bogs, mires and fens followed by forests leaving rocky habitats on the last
position also indicated by the results of this chapter. However promising the results
of the framework are, it does not incorporate the adaptive capacity of habitats into
its approach like spatial planning studies try to do (e.g. Holsten and Kropp 2012;
Rannow et al. 2010). Nevertheless, such studies focus on political boundaries in
which habitats with high conservation values are only one part of the assessment.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the presented approach can be a valuable tool by
using this simple framework to assess the climate induced impacts on habitats.
8 Assessment of Climate-Induced Impacts on Habitats
131