European Environment Agency's home page

Write to us

For the public:

For media and journalists:

Contact EEA staff

Contact the web team

FAQ

Biodiversity — key message 3: Land-use change and intensification are causing further fragmentation and homogenisation of forests and agro-ecosystems. Although some decline in freshwater nutrients has been observed, eutrophication of terrestrial ecosystems continues to be a matter of concern as shown by excess atmospheric nitrogen deposition in all EU countries.
Located in The European environment – state and outlook 2010 › … › Biodiversity — SOER 2010 thematic assessment › Key messages
Land use — key message 3: Land uptake by urban development and transport infrastructure has been slightly faster than in the previous decade. This continues the trend of landscape fragmentation and increases other environmental impacts. Urbanisation rates vary substantially, with coastal and mountain areas among the most affected regions in Europe.
Located in The European environment – state and outlook 2010 › … › Land use — SOER 2010 thematic assessment › Key messages
Migrating fishes — river fragmentation by obstacles for year 1700 and 2005, salmon adult, downstream to upstream: Migrating fishes — river fragmentation by obstacles for year 1700 and 2005, salmon adult, downstream to upstream
Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs
Footprint of transport infrastructure: Most areas of the EU area highly fragmented and this has negative implications for biodiversity
Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs
Data availability in EU for hot spots analysis: Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs
Urban sprawl around Padua and Venice: Notes: Example of urban sprawl in rural landscapes.
Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs
Illustration of the behaviour of five landscape metrics in the phases of shrinkage and attrition of the remaining parcels of open landscape due to the growth of an urban area: First row: change of the landscape over time (black lines = highways, black area = residential or commercial area; size of the landscape: 4 km × 4 km = 16 km2). Only the effective mesh size behaves in a suitable way (bottom diagram). APS and n both exhibit a jump in their values (even though the process in the landscape is continuous); DTL and nUDA100 do not respond to the increase in fragmentation. (meff = effective mesh size, n = number of patches, APS = average patch size, nUDA100 = number of large undissected low-traffic areas > 100 km2, DTL = density of transportation lines).
Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs
Example illustrating the relationship between effective mesh size and effective: In this hypothetical example, the trend remains constant. A linear rise in effective mesh density (right) corresponds to a 1/x curve in the graph of the effective mesh size (left). A slower increase in fragmentation results in a flatter curve for effective mesh size, and a more rapid increase produces a steeper curve. It is therefore easier to read trends off the graph of effective mesh density (right).
Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs
Landscape fragmentation per 1 km² grid in 2009: Map shows the patterns of fragmentation in the 29 countries investigated based on a grid of cells size of 1 km2
Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs
Regional predominant pressures on wet grassland: Located in Data and maps › Maps and graphs