A Quantitative Analysis of Biodiversity and the Recreational Value of Potential National Parks in Denmark

Denmark has committed itself to the European 2010 target to halt the loss of biodiversity. Currently, Denmark is in the process of designating larger areas as national parks, and 7 areas (of a possible 32 larger nature areas) have been selected for pilot projects to test the feasibility of establishing national parks. In this article, we first evaluate the effectiveness of the a priori network of national parks proposed through expert and political consensus versus a network chosen specifically for biodiversity through quantitative analysis. Second, we analyze the potential synergy between preserving biodiversity in terms of species representation and recreational values in selecting a network of national parks. We use the actual distribution of 973 species within these 32 areas and 4 quantitative measures of recreational value. Our results show that the 7 pilot project areas are not significantly more effective in representing species than expected by chance and that considerably more efficient networks can be selected. Moreover, it is possible to select more-effective networks of areas that combine high representation of species with high ranking in terms of recreational values. Therefore, our findings suggest possible synergies between outdoor recreation and biodiversity conservation when selecting networks of national parks. Overall, this Danish case illustrates that data-driven analysis can not only provide valuable information to guide the decision-making process of designating national parks, but it can also be a means to identify solutions that simultaneously fulfill several goals (biodiversity preservation and recreational values).

[1]  Alexander Moffett,et al.  Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendations , 2006 .

[2]  Carsten Rahbek,et al.  Cross‐taxon congruence in complementarity and conservation of temperate biodiversity , 2002 .

[3]  Paul H. Williams,et al.  Biodiversity conservation planning tools , 2006 .

[4]  Gretchen C Daily,et al.  Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services , 2006, PLoS biology.

[5]  Andrew Balmford,et al.  Conservation planning in the real world: South Africa shows the way , 2003 .

[6]  Georgina M. Mace,et al.  Conservation in a Changing World , 1999 .

[7]  Neil D. Burgess,et al.  Integrating costs into conservation planning across Africa , 2004 .

[8]  Mette Palitzsch Lund.  Performance of the species listed in the European Community ‘Habitats’ Directive as indicators of species richness in Denmark , 2002 .

[9]  Richard L. Church,et al.  Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem , 1996 .

[10]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  Practical application of biodiversity surrogates and percentage targets for conservation in Papua New Guinea , 2000 .

[11]  K. Williams,et al.  Research needs and challenges for the “systematic conservation planning” approach to the 2010 biodiversity target , 2006 .

[12]  S. Sarkar,et al.  Systematic conservation planning , 2000, Nature.

[13]  A. O. Nicholls,et al.  Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity , 1988 .

[14]  C. Rahbek,et al.  Flagship species, ecological complementarity and conserving the diversity of mammals and birds in sub‐Saharan Africa , 2000 .

[15]  R L Pressey,et al.  Beyond opportunism: Key principles for systematic reserve selection. , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[16]  Juliette Young,et al.  Towards sustainable land use: identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe , 2005, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[17]  Naeem,et al.  Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis , 2005 .

[18]  J. L. Gittleman,et al.  The Future of Biodiversity , 1995, Science.