'Grand round'-like approach to nature conservation management planning based on iterative ecological conceptualization, knowledge co-production and recurring field consultations
Abstract
The conservation of our semi-natural habitats faces numerous challenges in the current climatic, invasion, and land management context. Over the past decade, the Körös–Maros National Park Directorate has increasingly focused on developing internally consistent, scientifically grounded habitat management practices. In this study, we present the so-called 'grand round' (Hungarian: „nagyvizit”) habitat management methodology, which is aimed at institutionalizing nature conservation based habitat management and enhancing the effectiveness of preserving semi-natural habitats. The most important elements of this methodology are an iteratively developing ecological model (concept) of the site, the collaborative knowledge production, and the regular on-site consultations. The first step of the 'grand round'-like methodology is getting to know the area (e.g., ecological characteristics, historical context, vegetation dynamics). Based on the site's attributes, the preparation of the management concept begins. The first field consultation ('grand round') takes place during the concept development phase, where the plan is discussed in detail, refined, and approved collectively, and the initial interventions are also defined, aligned with the concept. Before any interventions, further, detailed ecological consultations take place. After an intervention, its effects are monitored. During the so-called “follow-up grand rounds”, interventions are jointly evaluated, future action is planned, and the concept is revised if necessary. Based on our experience with the application of this methodology, we believe that the effectiveness of conserving our natural assets can be significantly enhanced if, in the case of habitat management issues deemed particularly important (e.g., the management of highly valuable areas or the implementation of restorative interventions), an ecologically grounded concept is developed through collaborative knowledge production. We also consider it essential for the planning and implementation of interventions to be accompanied by regular field consultations focusing on ecological aspects.
References
Báldi, A., Batáry, P. (2011): The past and future of farmland birds in Hungary. Bird Study 58(3): 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063657.2011.588685
Biró M., Molnár Á. (2016): A Kis-Sárrét törzsterület tájtörténeti elemzése. In: Biró M. & Molnár Á.: A KMNP Kis-Sárrét országos jelentőségű természeti terület Kisgyantéi-gyep élőhely-térképezése és a teljes védett terület tájtörténeti elemzése. Kutatási jelentés, Körös–Maros Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság, Szarvas. 197 p.
Biró, M., Bölöni, J., Molnár, Zs. (2018): Use of long-term data to evaluate loss and endangerment status of Natura 2000 habitats and effects of protected areas. Conservation Biology 32(3): 660–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13038
European Commission (2023): Assessment of the measures established in special protection areas and their effectiveness – Final report, Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/488430
Gameiro, J., Franco, A. M., Catry, T., Palmeirim, J. M., Catry, I. (2020): Long-term persistence of conservation-reliant species: Challenges and opportunities. Biological Conservation 243: 108452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108452
Haraszthy, L. (2014): Natura 2000 fajok és élőhelyek Magyarországon. Pro Vértes Közalapítvány. 956 p.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., Courrau, J. (2006): Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. 2nd edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 105 p.
Holling, C. S. (1978): Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley & Sons. 402 p.
IPBES (2019): Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn: IPBES secretariat, 56 p.
Keith, D. A., Rodríguez, J. P., Brooks, T. M., Burgman, M. A., Barrow, E. G., Bland, L., et al., Spalding, M. D. (2015): The IUCN red list of ecosystems: Motivations, challenges, and applications. Conservation Letters 8(3): 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12167
Máté, K., Bánfi, P. (2023): Kiemelt élőhelyek lehatárolása. Kézirat, Körös–Maros Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság, Szarvas. 8 p.
Molnár Á. (2018): A Körös–Maros Nemzeti Park területhasználati feltárása. Kutatási jelentés, Körös–Maros Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság, Szarvas. 153 p.
Molnár Á. P. (2020): Élőhelykezelések növényzetalapú nyomon követése I. Kutatási jelentés, Körös–Maros Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság, Szarvas.
Molnár Á. P., Demeter L. (2020): Egy Kárpát-medencei síkság–hegység flóragrádiens – A Tisza és a Bihar-csúcs közötti gyepek jellemzése, zonációs és vegetációtörténeti kontextusba helyezése. Crisicum 11: 7–39.
Molnár, Zs. (2014): Élőhelyek. In: Haraszthy, L. (szerk.): Natura 2000 fajok és élőhelyek Magyarországon. Pro Vértes Közalapítvány. pp. 749–934.
Pievani, T. (2014): The sixth mass extinction: Anthropocene and the human impact on biodiversity. Rendiconti Lincei 25: 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-013-0258-9
Rands, M. R., Adams, W. M., Bennun, L., Butchart, S. H., Clements, A., Coomes, D., et al., Vira, B. (2010): Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science 329(5997): 1298–1303. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1189138
