Landscape protection

What

Protected areas or conservation areas are clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature. As a NbS, landscape protection requires the least amount of human intervention because the landscape is not yet degraded by human activity. However, protected areas may still be impacted by human activities and need active management to retain their protected status. 

Where

Protected areas can be located anywhere where natural, ecological or cultural values have been recognized (i.e. not degraded landscapes), on land, water or at sea. For example, an area may be protected to preserve, maintain or support a species or group of species, vegetation type, ecological function or process, or an area that has natural beauty which is appreciated by society. 

Why

Any societal problem can be addressed by landscape protection, and the degree to which the societal problem is addressed depends on the main goals for the protection of the area. When protected areas are well managed and governed, they can be important refuges for natural and cultural resources. For example, intact nature will be able to support biodiversity enhancement, sustainable economic development, social justice and capacity building and human health and well-being. The buffering capacity that natural areas have for water in the form of natural filtration and storage, temperature, and carbon storage can also support climate change adaptation and mitigation, disaster risk and preparedness, food security and water management. 

How

The IUCN defines protected areas in seven categories:

Ia – Strict nature reserve: managed mainly for science

Ib – Wilderness area: mainly for wilderness protection 

II – National Park: mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation 

III – Natural monument: mainly for conservation of specific natural features 

IV – Habitat/species management area: mainly conservation through management intervention 

V – Protected landscape/ seascape: mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation 

VI – Managed resource protected area: mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems  

Since the right to roam (“Allemannsretten”) is common in the Nordic countries, the approach to landscape protection is often approached differently than in other parts of the world. For example, strict nature reserves (with strictly controlled human visitation) and wilderness areas are uncommon. 

Due to the unique policy landscapes within the Nordic countries, landscape protection is also regulated at different levels of governance. The short descriptions below outline these policy landscapes: 

Denmark

Environmental regulation and spatial planning are governed from three levels; state, regional and municipal. The Ministry of Environment is responsible for environmental and nature concerns in spatial planning. This is implemented using different governing documents, including the Danish Strategy on Biodiversity. Several laws make up the regulations related to biodiversity in Denmark, e.g. the Environmental Protection Act, the Nature Protection Act, the Watercourse Act, the Forestry Act and the Planning Act. Municipalities are responsible for the planning and operational tasks of nature management, including biodiversity protection, within the framework conditions defined by the national government.  

Faroe Islands

In the Faroe Islands, Umhvørvisstovan (the Environment Agency) oversees environmental protection under the Ministry of Environment, Industry, and Trade. Although the islands are self-governed, aspects of environmental regulation are influenced by Danish law. The Lóg um náttúruvernd focuses on preserving biodiversity and landscapes. While there is growing recognition of the need to protect the islands' natural landscapes, the extent of designated protected areas remains small, and land-use practices like sheep grazing shape much of the terrain. Ongoing projects aim to focus on conservation, especially through the Ramsar Convention, to which the Faroe Islands are committed. 

Finland

Governance is divided into national, regional, and municipal levels. The regional councils have limited self-governing power. Responsibilities are divided between six regional state administrative agencies and 15 centres for economic development, transport, and the environment. The latter are responsible for the regional implementation of environmental and nature protection. The environmental protection act from 2014 is still in force and was amended in 2019. 

Iceland

The Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Climate is responsible for most issues concerning environmental protection and nature conservation. The main act for nature protection is the Act on Nature Conservation No44/1999. 

Norway

There are three levels of public administration in Norway - national, regional comprised of the county governor, the county council and the county municipality (“Fylkeskommune”), and local level (municipalities, or “kommune”). The county municipalities and the county governor have key responsibilities in environmental management, and the municipalities have the main responsibility for land-use planning. The Norwegian Act on Biodiversity Management (2009) is still in effect and is the legal foundation for better protection and designation of new protected areas.

Sweden

Municipalities are responsible for executing and providing environmental protection. The three main authorities for the environment are the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket), The Swedish Chemical Agency (Kemikalieinspektionen) and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (Havs och Vattenmyndigheten). 

You can read more about the policy landscape in the Nordic countries here, and on our page on standards, policies and laws. 

ATTENTION

Protected areas are a relatively effective measure for slowing biodiversity loss. A global study showed that vertebrate population declines are five times lower within protected areas compared to non-protected areas – yet they still show a decline. Unfortunately, conservation status is no guarantee for a complete absence of habitat loss at the global scale, although very little habitat loss has been recorded within protected land in the Nordic countries.  

Within the Nordic countries, the current total area of protected land and water, excluding marine areas, varies between 10 – 22%.

To increase the effectiveness of protected areas, some challenges need to be considered:

  • Ecological representativeness: protected areas should cover a representative sample of ecological diversity within a region. To date, many threatened species are not or insufficiently “covered” by protected areas. Protected areas may be biased towards certain ecosystem types. For example, the largest protected areas in Scandinavia are typically located above the tree line whereas fewer and smaller protected areas exist in the lowlands. Within forests, protected areas tend to be skewed towards unproductive forest compared to forests with higher productivity.  

  • Areas with particular importance for biodiversity (biodiversity hotspots) should be prioritized.  

  • Coverage of ecosystem services: Protected areas can contribute to maintain ecosystem functions. An important example is the storage of CO2 in mires and old growth forests.   

  • Connectedness of protected areas: Protected areas need to be well-connected for maintaining ecological processes and sustaining biodiversity. The effectiveness of protective areas is also determined by the degree to which the surrounding areas are subjected to habitat loss and degradation. A high degree of habitat loss directly outside protected areas may limit species’ abilities to move from one protected area to another.  

  • Effective and equitable management: Many protected areas suffer from inadequate funding or staffing. In addition, protective areas reduce, but do not completely stop human influence. For example, outdoor activities such as hiking and skiing may impact the migratory behavior of wild reindeer which may require more effective segregation of tourists and wildlife. 

Costs

The initial costs linked to landscape protection are small if the area being chosen for protection does not have to be purchased from a landowner. Any initial costs will largely be linked to governance processes required to reach a protection status. When a landscape has received its protection status, there may be a need for policing and governance to prevent misuse of the area. There will also be costs linked to monitoring and evaluation of the protected area, which are needed to make sure that the area maintains the natural or cultural values that resulted in protection. 

Specific location: Østmarka nasjonalpark, near Oslo 

Which ecosystem type(s): lowland forest 

Title/ name of the Nbs: Landscape protection 

Summary: protect 54 km2 of a lowland, productive forest area with large biodiversity and recreational value. 

Relevant links to documentation: https://www.norgesnasjonalparker.no/nasjonalparker/ostmarka/  

Gundersen, V., Vistad, O. I., Panzacchi, M., Strand, O., & van Moorter, B. (2019). Large-scale segregation of tourists and wild reindeer in three Norwegian national parks: Management implications. Tourism Management, 75, 22-33.  

Justin Nowakowski, A., Watling, J.I., Murray, A. et al. Protected areas slow declines unevenly across the tetrapod tree of life. Nature 622, 101–106 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06562-y 

Kubacka, M., Żywica, P., Subirós, J. V., Bródka, S., & Macias, A. (2022). How do the surrounding areas of national parks work in the context of landscape fragmentation? A case study of 159 protected areas selected in 11 EU countries. Land Use Policy, 113, 105910.  

Li, G., Fang, C., Watson, J.E.M. et al. Mixed effectiveness of global protected areas in resisting habitat loss. Nat Commun 15, 8389 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-52693-9 

Maxwell, S.L., Cazalis, V., Dudley, N. et al. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature 586, 217–227 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2773-z