Fig. 7.1
Tree species distribution of the Biosphere Reserve Vessertal
based on RapidEye satellite images from 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 98
Fig. 7.2
Map of the percentage of natural tree types as an example
indicator for the determination of conservation status . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Fig. 7.3
Hierarchical classification approach for mapping of potential
occurrence of inland marshes ........................................ 102
Fig. 7.4
Habitat probability map for the potential occurrence of inland
marshes . . . . . . .......................................................... 103
Fig. 7.5
Final habitat map Rieserferner-Ahrn Nature Park according
to the Natura 2000 habitat codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Fig. 7.6
Example for an evaluation of conservation status for the
disturbance indicator “shrub encroachment” . . . .................... 108
Fig. 8.1
The biogeographical regions of Central and Eastern Europe,
modified after EEA (2011) . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 116
Fig. 8.2
Framework for the assessment . . ....... ...... ...... ...... ....... .... 117
Fig. 8.3
Framework for the sensitivity assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Fig. 8.4
Framework for the exposure assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Fig. 8.5
Framework for the impact assessment . . . ........................... 123
Fig. 8.6
Proportional distribution of the indicator values per habitats
in the Alpine region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Fig. 8.7
Difference in exposure between periods 1971–2000
and 2036–2065 for parameters used in the Alpine
impact assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Fig. 8.8
Proportional distribution of the indicator values per habitats
in the Continental region ............................................. 127
Fig. 8.9
Difference in exposure between periods 1971–2000
and 2036–2065 for parameters used in the Continental
impact assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Fig. 8.10 Proportional distribution of the indicator values per habitats
in the Pannonian region .............................................. 129
Fig. 8.11 Difference in exposure between periods 1971–2000
and 2036–2065 for parameters used in the Pannonian
impact assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Fig. 8.12 Exemplary set of maps for sensitivity and potential impact
for the Biebrza National Park (Continental Region) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Fig. 11.1 The position of Triglav National Park in Slovenia . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 176
Fig. 11.2 S ˇ ijec peat bog in Pokljuka plateau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Fig. 11.3 Stratified habitat types in peat bog S ˇ ijec with randomly selected
sampling plots (A1-D10). As a basis a net from Slovenian Forest
Service is used, and modulated by size 25 Â 25 m. Different
letters indicate different habitat types with maximum
ten samples per spatially separate habitat type ....................... 179
List of Figures
xix
Tree species distribution of the Biosphere Reserve Vessertal
based on RapidEye satellite images from 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 98
Fig. 7.2
Map of the percentage of natural tree types as an example
indicator for the determination of conservation status . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Fig. 7.3
Hierarchical classification approach for mapping of potential
occurrence of inland marshes ........................................ 102
Fig. 7.4
Habitat probability map for the potential occurrence of inland
marshes . . . . . . .......................................................... 103
Fig. 7.5
Final habitat map Rieserferner-Ahrn Nature Park according
to the Natura 2000 habitat codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Fig. 7.6
Example for an evaluation of conservation status for the
disturbance indicator “shrub encroachment” . . . .................... 108
Fig. 8.1
The biogeographical regions of Central and Eastern Europe,
modified after EEA (2011) . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 116
Fig. 8.2
Framework for the assessment . . ....... ...... ...... ...... ....... .... 117
Fig. 8.3
Framework for the sensitivity assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Fig. 8.4
Framework for the exposure assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Fig. 8.5
Framework for the impact assessment . . . ........................... 123
Fig. 8.6
Proportional distribution of the indicator values per habitats
in the Alpine region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Fig. 8.7
Difference in exposure between periods 1971–2000
and 2036–2065 for parameters used in the Alpine
impact assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Fig. 8.8
Proportional distribution of the indicator values per habitats
in the Continental region ............................................. 127
Fig. 8.9
Difference in exposure between periods 1971–2000
and 2036–2065 for parameters used in the Continental
impact assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Fig. 8.10 Proportional distribution of the indicator values per habitats
in the Pannonian region .............................................. 129
Fig. 8.11 Difference in exposure between periods 1971–2000
and 2036–2065 for parameters used in the Pannonian
impact assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Fig. 8.12 Exemplary set of maps for sensitivity and potential impact
for the Biebrza National Park (Continental Region) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Fig. 11.1 The position of Triglav National Park in Slovenia . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 176
Fig. 11.2 S ˇ ijec peat bog in Pokljuka plateau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Fig. 11.3 Stratified habitat types in peat bog S ˇ ijec with randomly selected
sampling plots (A1-D10). As a basis a net from Slovenian Forest
Service is used, and modulated by size 25 Â 25 m. Different
letters indicate different habitat types with maximum
ten samples per spatially separate habitat type ....................... 179
List of Figures
xix