Publications
NIBIOs employees contribute to several hundred scientific articles and research reports every year. You can browse or search in our collection which contains references and links to these publications as well as other research and dissemination activities. The collection is continously updated with new and historical material.
2017
Abstract
Mountain tourism depends intensively on the quality of the landscape. In recent years, the Norwegian Trekking Association has focused on local food products at their staffed lodges and it uses the slogan “eat the view.” Such a strategy raises the focus on the agricultural use of the land and the quality of the products. Several Norwegian studies were carried out to investigate the quality of different mountain products and connections with vegetation types and grazing behavior. The results show that milk and meat products from animals grazing on alpine rangelands have improved quality compared to “normal” products. A healthier fatty acid composition and a higher content of secondary plant metabolites were characteristic of mountain products. Furthermore, grazing is of the utmost importance for the maintenance of open mountain landscapes and the biodiversity that is dependent on such landscapes. Maintaining traditional grazing systems also secures the preservation of traditional ecological knowledge about utilizing natural resources. Mountain tourism experiences could be improved and enhanced by documenting and telling the unique story of these complex connections between mountain landscapes, biodiversity, agricultural traditions, and local food products.
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
2016
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Wenche Dramstad Vibeke Stærkebye Nørstebø Svein Olav Krøgli Misganu Debella-Gilo Gerardo A Pérez-ValdésAbstract
Aim: Identify where bioeconomic development would best be located to maximise both local resources and the reusable waste from potentially collaborating sectors. We seek to answer the questions like Where are the best locations for bioeconomic clusters and how should this be assessed? What are the tradeoffs, how can they be mapped and described, and are there any general major obstacles? What are the conditions that would aid in developing a smart bioeconomy and what are the spatial implications of different developments?
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Gisela Lüscher Youssef Ammari Aljona Andriets Siyka Angelova Michaela Arndorfer Debra Bailey Katalin Balázs Marion Bogers R.G.H. Bunce Jean-Philippe Choisis Peter Dennis Mario Díaz Tetyana Dyman Sebastian Eiter Wendy FjellstadAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Ilse R. Geijzendorffer Stefano Targetti Manuel K. Schneider Dick J. Brus Philippe Jeanneret Robert H.G. Jongman Martin Knotters Davide Viaggi Siyka Angelova Michaela Arndorfer Debra Bailey Katalin Balázs András Báldi Marion M.B. Bogers Robert G.H. Bunce Jean-Philippe Choisis Peter Dennis Sebastian Eiter Wendy Fjellstad Jürgen K. Friedel Tiziano Gomiero Arjan Griffioen Max Kainz Anikó Kovács-Hostyánszki Gisela Lüscher Gerardo Moreno Juri Nascimbene Maurizio G. Paoletti Philippe Pointereau Jean-Pierre Sarthou Norman Siebrecht Igor Staritsky Siyka Stoyanova Sebastian Wolfrum Felix HerzogAbstract
1.To evaluate progress on political biodiversity objectives, biodiversity monitoring provides information on whether intended results are being achieved. Despite scientific proof that monitoring and evaluation increase the (cost) efficiency of policy measures, cost estimates for monitoring schemes are seldom available, hampering their inclusion in policy programme budgets. 2.Empirical data collected from 12 case studies across Europe were used in a power analysis to estimate the number of farms that would need to be sampled per major farm type to detect changes in species richness over time for four taxa (vascular plants, earthworms, spiders and bees). A sampling design was developed to allocate spatially, across Europe, the farms that should be sampled. 3.Cost estimates are provided for nine monitoring scenarios with differing robustness for detecting temporal changes in species numbers. These cost estimates are compared with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget (2014–2020) to determine the budget allocation required for the proposed farmland biodiversity monitoring. 4.Results show that the bee indicator requires the highest number of farms to be sampled and the vascular plant indicator the lowest. The costs for the nine farmland biodiversity monitoring scenarios corresponded to 0·01%–0·74% of the total CAP budget and to 0·04%–2·48% of the CAP budget specifically allocated to environmental targets. 5.Synthesis and applications. The results of the cost scenarios demonstrate that, based on the taxa and methods used in this study, a Europe-wide farmland biodiversity monitoring scheme would require a modest share of the Common Agricultural Policy budget. The monitoring scenarios are flexible and can be adapted or complemented with alternate data collection options (e.g. at national scale or voluntary efforts), data mobilization, data integration or modelling efforts.
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered