# A framework for assessing the environmental effectiveness of management at the scale of a Natura 2000 site

Louise Barbeau, Paul Rouveyrol, Camille Bernard, Maya Leroy

► To cite this version:

Louise Barbeau, Paul Rouveyrol, Camille Bernard, Maya Leroy. A framework for assessing the environmental effectiveness of management at the scale of a Natura 2000 site. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, In press, pp.1-29. 10.1080/09640568.2025.2562846. hal-05375999

HAL Id: hal-05375999

https://hal.science/hal-05375999v1

Submitted on 21 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# A framework for assessing the environmental effectiveness of management at the scale of a Natura 2000 site

Louise Barbeau, Paul Rouveyrol, Camille Bernard & Maya Leroy

**To cite this article:** Louise Barbeau, Paul Rouveyrol, Camille Bernard & Maya Leroy (10 Oct 2025): A framework for assessing the environmental effectiveness of management at the scale of a Natura 2000 site, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2025.2562846

**To link to this article:** https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2025.2562846

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Published online: 10 Oct 2025.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Submit your article to this journal

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Article views: 484

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

View related articles

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

View Crossmark data

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

CrossMark
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

# A framework for assessing the environmental effectiveness of management at the scale of a Natura 2000 site

Louise Barbeau<sup>a*</sup>, Paul Rouveyrol<sup>a</sup>, Camille Bernard<sup>a</sup> and Maya Leroy<sup>b</sup>

<sup>a</sup>PatriNat (UAR – Research and Support Unit), Office Français de la Biodiversité, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, CNRS, IRD, Paris, France; <sup>b</sup>Strategic Management Group, Montpellier Research in Management (MRM), Université de Montpellier, AgroParisTech, Université de Perpignan, Montpellier, France

*(Received 3 February 2025; final version received 9 September 2025)*

Assessing the effectiveness of protected area network policies meets two objectives: measuring changes in biodiversity state relative to the objectives set, and providing managers with tools to guide their actions. For Natura 2000 network, few studies link conservation status to the effectiveness of the network, particularly at site-level. This article proposes an operationalisation at the site-level of the “Strategic Environmental Management Analysis” (SEMA), concern-focused evaluation framework, based on an emblematic case study of French Special Areas of Conservation, maintenance of open environments. Although methods for evaluating N2000 sites exist, they do not sufficiently explain the strategic importance of prioritising biodiversity issues to be targeted, and the actions to be taken accordingly inside and outside the site, as the SEMA framework allows. This article addresses this gap by providing managers with the means to assess whether their measures improve the conservation status of habitats and species targeted by Natura 2000.

**Keywords:** ecological effectiveness assessment; Natura 2000; protected areas management; concern-focused evaluation

## 1. Introduction

The worldwide decline in biodiversity has been extensively documented in international scientific literature, with protected areas recognised as the cornerstone of conservation policy. In this context, assessing the effectiveness of protected areas is a key element for success (Whittaker *et al.* 2005; Williams, Balmford, and Wilcove 2020) as it allows identification of limitations in designation, implementation, and management. Thus, such works contribute to improving conservation strategies (Ervin 2003; Hockings 2003; Nolte *et al.* 2010; Pomeroy, Parks, and Watson 2004).

The EU Birds and Habitats Directives (Directive 2009/147/EC and Council Directive 92/43/EEC, respectively) are based on the Natura 2000 (N2000) sites, which constitute a significant part of the European protected areas network (European Commission 2015). This network covers 18% of the terrestrial area and 10% of the

<footnote>*Corresponding author. Email: louise.barbeau@mnhn.fr</footnote>
marine area in the EU (European Environment Agency 2020). In line with the EU's aim of ensuring the participation of various actors in the management of the Natura 2000 network, France has favoured a contractual policy at the site level, involving local stakeholders in governance (Alphandéry and Fortier 2010; Deverre et al. 2007; McCauley 2008). The extensive spatial coverage of this network, along with its ambitious goal of expanded governance for site management, justifies the need for an enhanced evaluation of its effectiveness.

To measure the effectiveness of the N2000 policy, the European Commission requires reporting based on ecological results (goal-attainment evaluation). While the Natura 2000 policy is based on a network of sites, the expected effect must be assessed across the whole of Europe, in different biogeographical regions. Member States are committed to improving the conservation status of habitats and species of Community interest at this level. To this end, every six years, they must report on the conservation status of the species and habitats targeted (whether they are inside or outside the network of sites), including the pressures threatening them and the measures taken to address them. These assessments have so far painted a generally negative picture. The latest report for the period 2013–2018 indicates a trend towards deterioration in the conservation status of species and habitats (European Environment Agency 2020). In France, only 20% of habitats and 28% of species are in a favourable state (Bensettiti and Gazay 2019).

However, this essential information, provided by the assessment on the conservation status at the biogeographical region level, does not allow for a link to be made with management practices implemented within the network, let alone for individual sites. Consequently, it appeared necessary to assess the effectiveness of management by the network and within the network (Portaccio, Campagnaro, and Sitzia 2023; Pullin et al. 2009; Rouveyrol 2016), especially as management effectiveness evaluation has been integrated into the Programme of Work of Protected Areas, adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2004 (Leverington et al. 2010).

Several studies have assessed the decision-making process or participatory dimensions in the management of the Natura 2000 sites (Apostolopoulou, Drakou, and Pediaditi 2012; Dupont et al. 2016; Huber, Newig, and Loos 2023; Kovács et al. 2017; Manolache et al. 2018), but without focusing in this case on the ecological impacts of these site management processes or the ecological objectives of the policy for these sites. In contrast, studies focusing on ecological results do not necessarily address the contribution of management to this ecological status (Grošelj and Zadnik Stirn 2015; Horceamilcu et al. 2018; Lanzas et al. 2024; Mingarro, Aguilera-Benavente, and Lobo 2021; Mörtberg, Balfors, and Knol 2007; Tang et al. 2023). Some authors, such as Lanzas et al. (2024) have tackled management gaps by questioning management relevance to conservation issues, but without providing any guidance for a comprehensive assessment. Others have focused on specific ecological pressures such as climate change or urbanisation, using predictive models to measure their impacts on protected areas (Mingarro, Aguilera-Benavente, and Lobo 2021; Mörtberg, Balfors, and Knol 2007). Although instructive to understand the pressures on this network and their consequences, these studies do not allow us to disentangle the causal relationships that emerge from management actions. Going beyond this division, some works used multi-criteria analysis (Cortina and Boggia 2014; Grilli et al. 2017; Huber, Newig, and Loos 2023; Mardy, Waaub, and Weissenberger 2024). It allows both social and ecological aspects to be integrated. However, these approaches dealt more with the ecological and social
consequences of the protected area, without offering an in-depth analysis of the underlying processes. Specifically, they compared indices such as the Biodiversity Index across multiple sites within a region, which provides valuable insights. Nonetheless, they did not propose a framework for understanding the interactions between these ecological results and the management practices implemented at the sites. Moreover, these assessments are rarely conducted at the site level and tend to focus more on regional or national scales. These counterfactual-centred approaches did not offer a framework for understanding the interactions between the ecological outcomes and the management practices implemented at the sites. Moreover, these assessments are rarely conducted at the site level and tend to focus more on regional or national scales. Specifically, site-level counterfactual approaches may be limited by the difficulty of identifying appropriate control areas. However, since the management plan is defined and measures are implemented at site level, a specific methodology for this scale is required.

Crabbé and Leroy (2008) have detailed numerous approaches to an environmental policy evaluation framework. In line with other works on the evaluation of public policies (Alkin and Christie 2004; Monnier and Duran 1992), they distinguish different perspectives, ranging from rational approaches such as goal-oriented and evidence-based evaluation to participatory evaluation and even utilisation-focused evaluation. One of the most widely used frameworks for management effectiveness evaluation is the Stufflebeam “CIPP Evaluation Model” (Crabbé and Leroy 2008; Stufflebeam 2000). This approach divides the policy evaluation into four steps: Context, Input, Process, and Product. It aims to help policy-makers to improve their management through a systemic process. Stufflebeam’s work has been used by the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) in order to develop a framework to assess Protected Areas Management Effectiveness (PAME) (Hockings, Stolton, and Leverington 2006) to the attention of site managers. These management-oriented approaches are standard project management approaches and are increasingly being integrated into protected area management planning through the mandatory drafting of management documents and their periodic evaluation. IUCN-WCPA framework provides global guidelines for PAME assessment, with a standard grid for conducting the assessment (Ganatsas, Tsakaldimi, and Katsaros 2013). The process is robustly implemented in different continents (Coad et al. 2015) and it has been declined in more than forty tools (Leverington et al. 2008). Among them, the *Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management* (RAPPAM) is widely used for protected area network evaluation, while the *Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool* (METT) is the most widespread for site-based evaluation (Stoll-Kleemann 2010). Such tools are designed to provide a rapid and operational evaluation for management, notably for management structures with a limited budget (Coad et al. 2015). However, they tend to focus more on processes and inputs rather than outcomes (Carranza et al. 2014; Geldmann et al. 2015; Mascia et al. 2014). As pointed out by some authors (Anthony 2014; Nicolle 2014), the premise supported by PAME is that the environmental effectiveness of a protected area depends on the quality of planning, management implementation, and the human and financial resources available. This was illustrated by Nolte and Agrawal (2013) who examined whether METT scores are associated with success in reducing fire occurrence in Amazon rainforest. They found that protected areas with a high METT score did not perform better than those with a low score in reducing forest fire occurrence. Ultimately, these PAME methodologies do little to evaluate the concrete results of management on ecosystems. They are based on indirect quantitative
indicators and the expertise of managers. Although very useful for analysing the degree of formalisation of protected area management at different scales, they do not really provide the means to assess the effectiveness of these areas from a very concrete ecosystem preservation perspective, let alone to identify specific gaps. These conclusions underscore the need to develop assessment methods that are able to link ecological results and management context.

To this end, we have chosen to use a policy evaluation framework from management science: concern-focused evaluation (Mermet, Billé, and Leroy 2010) based on a strategic environmental management analysis (SEMA) (Mermet et al. 2005; Mermet 2011). This is an assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of a policy based on ecological results, focusing on the environmental performance of the management measures deployed and the strategies to achieve these ecological results. The SEMA framework provides four central axes to guide the analysis of management situations. First, the normative concern of the policy must be defined using precise criteria. Then, two types of management are analysed separately: the first is “actual management”, referring to all actions – whether deliberate or unintentional – that impact the normative concern. Since distal drivers of pressures affect the ecological concern, they are included in the analysis. The approach follows the causal chain upstream, from the observed degradation to the underlying drivers, providing an in-depth understanding of the process. The second is “intentional management”, which includes actions specifically aimed at improving ecosystem conditions. Finally, this dual analysis of management dimensions helps identify strategic levers to improve the situation and reduce the gap between the desired and actual states of the targeted concern.

The SEMA framework has previously been utilised to assess several policies: the management policies of the Senegal River (Leroy 2006), the action of an environmental non-governmental organisation such as the Tour du Valat in France (Guillet, Mermet, and Leroy 2011) or integrated coastal zone management (Billé 2004). Although these studies have already demonstrated the value of the SEMA framework, but they concern contexts that differ significantly from that of a protected area assessment.

A program launched in 2017 by PatriNat was conducted to evaluate the N2000 policy in France at several levels (national, terrestrial network, sites, plots) in order to measure more precisely how the establishment and management of this network of sites enables, and under what conditions, results to be achieved in terms of the conservation of targeted species and habitats. The first phase of this research, conducted at the national level, assessed the effectiveness of the N2000 terrestrial network in France, demonstrating the relevance of this evaluation framework for the N2000 policy (Rouveyrol and Leroy 2021). The SEMA enabled identification of the challenges to be addressed in terms of ecosystems (wetlands, grasslands, etc.) that are more or less degraded in relation to biogeographical areas, according to a hierarchy of pressures (agricultural intensification, urbanisation, etc.) that need to be curbed. The relevance of the network has also been assessed, as have the management tools and mechanisms implemented in relation to the issues at stake. Nevertheless, the results only concern the national level and do not provide tools for site-level assessment. To enable its use as a tool in practical management contexts, it is essential to test the method through concrete case studies and translate it into a more detailed and operational methodology, specifically designed for site managers. Lavaud (2017) first applied the SEMA framework at site level without this aim of operationalisation for this scale.
To this end, we assessed the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) "Lande de la Borie" located in Aveyron, which is a fairly typical Natura 2000 site in France, often focused on maintaining open environments. In fact, in France, 68% of management contracts (agri-environmental schemes, N2000 contracts, etc.) for N2000 sites are intended for the maintenance of open environments (Rouveyrol and Leroy 2021). This case study presents an example of a site-level evaluation using the SEMA framework, in order to test its relevance in this context and to develop an alternative tool for assessing management in terms of its ecological effectiveness. As previously explained, the need to assess the effectiveness of the N2000 network justified our choice to develop and apply our alternative methodology using a N2000 case study. Nevertheless, this methodology was not specifically designed for this network and is applicable to site-level assessments of other protected areas.

## 2. Methods

### 2.1. Study site

#### 2.1.1. Location and description of the study site

We studied the N2000 site "Lande de la Borie", located in La Rouquette municipality, southwest of France, in the Atlantic bioregion (see Figure 1). It comprises four small cores spread over the hills on the banks of the Assou River, covering a total of 116 hectares. The site consists of a mosaic of woody vegetation, mesophilic and xerophilic calcareous grasslands as well as some hay meadows and wet meadows, dry heaths, scrub, *Quercus pubescens* forests and petrifying springs with Travertine formation.

This site offered several advantages for our study. First, the management plan was under revision. Therefore, the site manager was very involved in the assessment process and was sufficiently experienced to give a precise overview of the site issues. Second, the site is small enough for an in-depth study to be conducted in a short period.

#### 2.1.2. The French Natura 2000 network system and management tools

The Natura 2000 network is made up of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Directive. A steering committee chaired by the bearing structure is set up for each site. Then a management structure is appointed. They produce a management plan called the "Document d'Objectifs" (DOCOB), which defines the site's objectives and the measures and actions to be undertaken on the site.

The Natura 2000 site managers can mobilise several tools to achieve the site objectives defined in the DOCOB (see Table 1.). First, contractual measures such as N2000 contracts, agri-environment schemes, and N2000 charter. N2000 contracts are signed between the site management structure and an owner or land manager to implement environmental management measures for five years. Similarly, local agri-environmental schemes are established with farmers. The voluntary N2000 charter can exempt landowners whose management complies with N2000 objectives from taxes on undeveloped land. Finally, "site animation" measures include awareness-raising, communication, education tools, and consultation with local stakeholders. In addition, some plans or projects, in or near the site, may require a specific impact assessment if listed on national, regional, and local registers.
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. The location of the site in France is on the left. The SAC "Lande de la Borie" perimeter divided into different cores is on the right.</figcaption></figure>

## 2.2. Evaluation process

We operationalised the SEMA framework for the site-level into a six-step tool instead of the four axes presented in the Introduction, as described in Figure 2a. The first step
<table><caption>Table 1. Main actions implemented as part of the French N2000 policy (adapted from Rouveyrol and Leroy (2021)).</caption><thead><tr><th>Measure</th><th>Type of measure</th><th>Major actions</th><th>Main pressures addressed</th><th>Budget share</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Agri-environment schemes (AES)</td><td>Contractual</td><td>Maintaining favourable farming practices in grassland areas</td><td>Fertilization of meadows, Land abandonment</td><td>61%</td></tr><tr><td>N2000 contracts ("neither-nor" and forestry)</td><td>Contractual</td><td>Reopening and maintaining open habitats</td><td>Land abandonment</td><td>7%</td></tr><tr><td>N2000-specific impact assessment</td><td>Regulation</td><td>Regulation of plans, projects, and programs on and off-site</td><td>Destruction of meadows and hedges, urbanisation, sea fishing, sporting events</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>N2000 charter</td><td>Contractual</td><td>Promotion of favourable practices that do not generate additional costs</td><td>Negative impact of forestry, human disturbance (tourism, sporting events)</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Site animation</td><td>Animation</td><td>Communication/ consultation (including participation in local bodies), contracting, monitoring and improving knowledge</td><td>Unknown</td><td>28%</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. (a) Conceptual diagram of our methodology based on the SEMA framework. (b) Conceptual diagram of the IUCN-WCPA PAME framework (based on Hockings et al. (2006)).</figcaption></figure>

is to define the ecological concern of the N2000 site. This definition must be clear, including precise criteria to describe it. The second step involves describing both the current status of the ecological concern and the targeted status intended to be achieved with the policy. Thanks to this step, one can identify the target deviation, i.e. the gap between the current and targeted statuses. The third step consists of analysing the structure and dynamics of the actual management, in order to identify all the actions taking place on the site that contribute to the target deviation. Then, the fourth step analyses how the intentional management, i.e. actions taken by the site manager and other environmental actors, addresses the actual management or the conservation status. The fifth step aims to assess the respective contributions of intentional management and actual practices, in relation to the targeted evolution and the observed changes. Finally, the sixth and final step uses the results of the analysis to identify potential levers for improving ecological management. Figure 2b presents an overview
of the six steps of the IUCN-WCPA PAME methodology, as outlined in the
Introduction. Our method is specifically designed for assessment carried out by the site
managers themselves. We strived to prevent possible biases and limits of expert opin-
ion by integrating quantitative assessment into the method. The aim was to support the
triangulation of management analysis. Nevertheless, this method would not be suitable
for direct comparison between various Natura 2000 sites with different managers.

2.2.1. First and second step: focal concern and criteria for evaluation to identify the target deviation

The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) explicitly gave the cornerstone concern of the N2000 policy which “shall enable the natural habitat types and the species’ habitats concerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favorable conservation status in their natural range”. The concern to consider in evaluation is therefore the status of conservation of habitats and species the site was designed for. N2000 site managers have a limited time to carry out the management evaluation. Consequently, it has been decided to focus the assessment on the conservation status of crucial habitats and species: those prioritised by the DOCOB and identified as the most threatened according to the reporting data, to the manager’s expertise and the available data. For our case study, calcareous grasslands have been identified as critical habitat to focus on. The Habitat Directive requires the maintenance of open habitats of community interest, particularly with regard to their surface area, which is threatened by agricultural abandonment leading to habitat regression. This requirement is essential to achieve a favourable conservation status under the Directive, which is why we focused on this ecological issue. The strategic evaluation question is therefore: To what extent does the N2000 policy on this site enable the maintenance or restoration of a favourable conservation status for the calcareous grasslands?

On this basis, criteria can be defined using the national handbook for assessing the conservation status of habitats at a site level or, in the case of species, based on the criteria defined for national reporting (Bensettiti et al. 2012; Maciejewski et al. 2015). It is essential in this step not to increase the number of assessment criteria, but to focus on the most relevant criteria for measuring changes in ecological status, which is linked to the type of pressure being exerted on the ecosystem (Leroy and Mermet 2012). Based on the expertise of the management team, both the current and the target conservation status were estimated. Reporting results at the biogeographic scale and consulting additional experts supported the assessment of the deviation from the target status for calcareous grasslands.

2.2.2. Third and fourth steps: “actual” an “intentional” management structure and process

The SEMA framework then focuses on the analysis of the management system of the N2000 site, i.e. all actions, whether voluntary or not, affecting the focal concern. We initiated our analysis by degradation observed on conservation status and we linked them to the pressures exerted on calcareous grasslands. Then we explored the activities, policies, and stakeholders responsible for generating these pressures. For the pressure typology, we based our choices on the site-level tool developed by the Museum to support the conservation status assessment of habitats of Community interest.
This “actual management” in the N2000 site has been first outlined with the site manager, whose experience constituted the primary basis for constructing the analysis of the actual management. We enriched it through visits to the site and interviews with some key stakeholders (mayor of La Rouquette, president of the steering committee, a geography researcher involved in a local naturalist association, and the main farmer on the site). We also used management data (annual reporting of the site management, ecological monitoring, etc.), and several geographical databases: The 2010 and 2020 agricultural national census (Service de la Statistique et de la Prospective (SSP) 2011, 2022), the French administrative database (IGN 2019a), orthophotos (IGN 2008a, 2019b), the French land parcel identification system (IGN 2008b, 2019c), and aerial pictures (IGN 2024).

Then, we described the management specifically aimed to meet the ecological concern, the “intentional” management. This management voluntarily offsets pressures impacting the ecological concern, regardless it comes from the N2000 policy or not. We identified the various tools used by the manager and their impact on the actual management. This first qualitative part of the evaluation provides a relevance assessment of the N2000 management which is a crucial first step in evaluating management as it allows identification of the potential management gaps. Indeed, pressure without any dedicated management is already a significant barrier to efficiency.

### 2.2.3. Fifth step: assessment of the N2000 management effects using quantitative indicators

The aim of this step is to measure the distance to the goal attainments of the N2000 policy that is, on one hand, the extent of the target deviation resulting from actual management, and on the other hand the effect of intentional management actions aimed at reducing this deviation. We quantified the evolution of the conservation status of the key habitat of the site, calcareous grasslands, based on a specific criterion. Among the criteria outlined, we decided to focus on the criterion most relevant to reflect the effect of the pressures affecting agro-pastoral habitats, namely agricultural land abandonment (Briske 2017). The evaluation criterion used is therefore the surface of grassland colonised by woody plants, classified into 4 classes presented in Table 2. The evolution of woody plant encroachment was quantified for the different entities of the site (i.e. the core areas shown in Figure 1). Building on the information collected in the previous step, this leads to integrate a counterfactual approach in the evaluation. Indeed, we were able to compare for each core area woody plant colonisation and management approaches and draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the intentional one.

#### 2.2.3.1. *Photo-interpretation method*
This monitoring has been led by photointerpretation with aerial pictures and orthophotos from National Institute of Geographic and Forest Information (IGN), taken before the start of N2000 management (1957, 1971, 1990, and 2008) and after (in 2019). Aerial pictures from 1957, 1971, and 1990 have been georeferenced using the GDAL library through QGIS software (QGIS Development Team 2009). Photointerpretation and remote sensing have been identified as key methods to monitor woody plant encroachment (Kowalski et al. 2022). A similar method has been used by Pic et al. (2020) to quantify woody plant encroachment in vineyards.
<table><caption>Table 2. Typology used to classify grassland encroachment level within the N2000 site.</caption><thead><tr><th>Code</th><th>Meta-class name</th><th>Class name</th><th>Class description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>0</td><td>Open grassland</td><td>Pure grassland</td><td>Grassland without woody plants, except rare mature trees</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td></td><td>Spotted grassland</td><td>Grassland with less than 50% of its surface covered by woody plants</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Closed grassland</td><td>Colonised grassland</td><td>Grassland with more than 50% of its surface covered by woody plants, but still with only visible areas</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td></td><td>Wooded grassland</td><td>Grassland completely covered with woody plants, with no visible herbaceous stratum</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 3. Standard deviation for the area in different classes, for the three types of pictures (Black and white for 1957 and 1971, coloured picture for 1990, and pictures in colour for 2008 and 2019).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Black and white picture</th><th>Coloured picture</th><th>In colour picture</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Standard deviation for surface in Class 0 (ha)</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Standard deviation for surface in Class 1 (ha)</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Standard deviation for surface in Class 2 (ha)</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td>Standard deviation for surface in Class 3 (ha)</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.02</td></tr></tbody></table>

We used a specific tool from the QGIS software which provides various mathematical formulas depending on the characteristics of each image. For our purposes, we chose to perform a linear transformation using a first-order polynomial equation. We identified five ground control points based on georeferenced images. The residual error was limited to a maximum value of ten pixels, which allows for satisfactory georeferencing and enables accurate photo-interpretation (Bakis and Bonin 2000).

First, we intersected the La Rouquette land register and site habitat mapping updated in 2018 by the National Botanical Conservatory (CBN) to extract parcels with calcareous grasslands (6210 N2000's habitat code). We decided to exclude parcels integrating less than 0.05 ha of grasslands due to the resolution limit for the use of habitat mapping. For each year, we classified the parcel level of woody colonisation according to the typology presented in Table 2. The classification was made manually, at a fixed resolution of 1:2500 by examining pictures. After classifying all parcels for each year of observation, we extracted the corresponding layers and quantified the temporal evolution of these surfaces.

### 2.2.3.2. Statistical analysis.
To carry out statistical analyses of results, we rasterised the vector layer of classified parcels. We obtained a grid per year of georeferenced entities with a homogeneous surface area (10 × 10 m), the cell value of which corresponds to the class assigned. We then quantified the total surface in each class, for the different years of observation, on the entire site, and for each core (see the site's cores in Figure 1). All analyses were performed in R (R Core Team 2022).

The measurement error was estimated by randomly selecting 10 plots out of the 306 studied, then carrying out the classification five times for the years 1957, 1990,
and 2008. As three types of photos were used for the five years of observation: black and white photos (1957 and 1971), coloured photos (1990), and colour photos (2008 and 2019), a year was randomly selected for each type to carry out the five classification repetitions, leading to this three-year selection. Table 3. shows the standard deviations obtained, for total surface per class, for the different types of pictures. We used these standard errors for Histograms visible in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

#### 2.2.4. Sixth step: levers to improve the policy

This final step comprises drawing conclusions from both qualitative and quantitative assessments to identify potential levers to support better site management. At this stage, the site manager's expertise is essential to formulate effective strategies.

### 3. Results

#### 3.1. Focal concern and criteria for the evaluation

The main habitat of the SAC is calcareous grasslands (code 6210) reaching nearly 80% of habitats of Community interest (see Table 4.). According to the standard data form, the main source of vulnerability is the abandonment of pastoral activities. Among species registered (see Table 5.), *Euphydryas aurinia* is dependent on grasslands and meadows and its degraded conservation status in the Atlantic biogeographical region justifies particular consideration. *Lucanus cervus* and *Cerambyx cerdo* occupy forest habitats, representing a smaller site area.

Habitats have been prioritised in the DOCOB, according to several criteria: the responsibility of the site for the habitat, the typicity of the habitat, the vulnerability depending on conservation status and the dynamics observed, the area proportion within the site area, and the heritage value. This heritage value must be considered cautiously as it is inherently subjective. Calcareous grasslands (*Festuco-Brometalia*, code 6210) are the top priority for the site as they represent a large area of the site and are a privileged habitat for outstanding orchids. Furthermore, the unfavourable evolution of their conservation status in the biogeographical region (see Table 2.) has confirmed this status.

#### 3.2. The SAC “lande de la borie” actual and intentional management system

The bearing structure of the SAC “Lande de la Borie” is the municipality of La Rouquette. The management structure is a local association focused on environmental and agricultural development, planning, and services (ADASEA d'Oc). The management of the site started in 2008, the DOCOB was released in 2009 and is still the only existing management plan. Concerning actual management, agricultural loss has been identified as the major pressure. Agropastoral habitats have been maintained through grazing and mowing. Livestock farm depletion led to a progressive encroachment of brush and trees. Tree and/or shrub development transforms herbaceous layer composition and leads eventually to calcareous grasslands disappearing (Dutoit 1996). Some minor pressures have been identified, such as disturbance and erosion linked to outdoor activities, but the intensity is very low so the impact is limited.

Causes of land abandonment have to be found in local agriculture history during the twentieth century. In the post-war years, agricultural policies were set up to modernise farming in France, to increase food production through productivity
<table><caption>Table 4. List of habitats recorded in the SAC Lande de la Borie (extract from the standard data form for site level and the reporting result for biogeographical level).</caption><thead><tr><th>Natura<br>2000<br>code</th><th>Scientific name</th><th>Area (ha) of<br>habitat on the<br>site (% cover<br>associated)</th><th>Area (ha) of habitat for<br>the biogeographical<br>region (% cover<br>associated)</th><th>Conservation status<br>at the biogeographical<br>region level</th><th>Overall assessment of<br>the site (excellent,<br>good, significant)</th><th>General trend at<br>the biogeographical<br>level</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3140</td><td>Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with<br>benthic vegetation of Chara spp</td><td>0.03<br>(0.02 %)</td><td>3,746 ha<br>(0.0008 %)</td><td>Unfavourable<br>-Inadequate</td><td>Good</td><td>Not available</td></tr><tr><td>5110</td><td>Stable xero-thermophilous formations<br>with Buxus sempervirens on rock<br>slopes (Berberidion pp)</td><td>1.33<br>(1.14 %)</td><td>2,750 ha<br>(0.0011 %)</td><td>Unfavourable<br>-Inadequate</td><td>Good</td><td>Net loss</td></tr><tr><td>5130</td><td>Juniperus communis formations on<br>heaths or calcareous grasslands</td><td>6.5<br>(5.55 %)</td><td>4,500 ha<br>(0.0007 %)</td><td>Unfavourable<br>-Inadequate</td><td>Good</td><td>Stable</td></tr><tr><td>6210</td><td>Semi-natural dry grasslands and<br>scrubland facies on calcareous<br>substrates (Festuco-Brometalia)</td><td>91.42<br>(78.13 %)</td><td>84,729 ha<br>(0.4. e-4 %)</td><td>Unfavourable - Bad</td><td>Good</td><td>Net loss</td></tr><tr><td>6220</td><td>Pseudo-steppe with grasses and<br>annuals of the Thero-<br>Brachypodietea</td><td>0.25<br>(0.21 %)</td><td>600 ha<br>(0.005 %)</td><td>Unfavourable - Bad</td><td>Excellent</td><td>Net loss</td></tr><tr><td>6410</td><td>Molina meadows on calcareous,<br>peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils<br>(Molinion caeruleae)</td><td>0.18<br>(0.15 %)</td><td>83,000 ha<br>(0.4. e-4 %)</td><td>Unfavourable - Bad</td><td>Good</td><td>Net loss</td></tr><tr><td>6510</td><td>Lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus<br>pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis)</td><td>6.02<br>(5.15 %)</td><td>330,000 ha<br>(0.1. e-4 %)</td><td>Unfavourable - Bad</td><td>Good</td><td>Net loss</td></tr><tr><td>7220</td><td>Petrifying springs with tufa<br>formation (Cratoneurion)</td><td>0.03<br>(0.02 %)</td><td>500 ha<br>(0.006 %)</td><td>Unfavourable - Bad</td><td>Good</td><td>Not available</td></tr><tr><td>8210</td><td>Calcareous rocky slopes with<br>chasmophytic vegetation</td><td>0.17<br>(0.14 %)</td><td>6,500 ha<br>(0.0004 %)</td><td>Unfavourable<br>-Inadequate</td><td>Excellent</td><td>Stable</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 5. List of species recorded in the SAC Lande de la Borie (extract from the standard data form for site level and the reporting result for biogeographical level).</caption><thead><tr><th>Natura 2000 code</th><th>Scientific name</th><th>Abundance (common, present, rare or very rare)</th><th>Quality of the data</th><th>Overall assessment of the site (excellent, good, significant)</th><th>Conservation status at biogeographical region level</th><th>General trend at the biogeographical level</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1065</td><td><i>Euphydryas aurinia</i></td><td>Present</td><td>Poor</td><td>Excellent</td><td>Unfavourable- Bad</td><td>Net loss</td></tr><tr><td>1083</td><td><i>Lucanus cervus</i></td><td>Present</td><td>Poor</td><td>Good</td><td>Favourable</td><td>Stable</td></tr><tr><td>1088</td><td><i>Cerambyx cerdo</i></td><td>Present</td><td>Poor</td><td>Good</td><td>Unfavourable-Inadequate</td><td>Net loss</td></tr></tbody></table>
improvement (Devienne 2020; Mazoyer 1982). Mechanisation and development of synthetic inputs and agro-industrial chains from seed to processing have led to a high degree of specialisation on farms, allowing farming intensification. The level of agri-cultural specialisation of French regions has strongly increased, uncoupling crops and livestock production (Domingues et al. 2018; Jussiau, Montméas, and Parot 1999). This generated a loss of resilience on farms (Peyraud, Taboada, and Delaby 2014), exacerbated by climate change (Seguin 2003) which eventually resulted in the disappearance of farms. In the small agricultural region of "Bas Quercy d'Aveyron" which encompasses the site, 18% of farms disappeared between 2010 and 2020, while the average utilised agricultural area (UAA) per farm increased by 20% (SSP 2011, 2022). The 2020 agricultural census provides information on the number of animals by age group in the municipality. For cattle production (8 out of 12 farms declared for the CAP in 2020 in the municipality), all farms taken together count 98 males in the 8-12 months age bracket and only 10 in the 1-2 years age bracket. The suckler breeder farming is the main system in the municipality. The farmer we interviewed, for instance, breeds and rears calves on grass before selling them to a fattening facility in Italy. Farms selling calves at the grazer or bull calf stage are more affected by the decapitalisation of farms than those selling a finished product, due to a lack of added value in production (Aubron et al. 2011; Pouch and Raffray 2023). This factor comes on top of the decline in the value of the land, leading to a significant loss of agricultural activity on the site.

Intentional management led by Natura 2000 is mainly based on contracts with land-
owners on the site. One contract supported the installation of livestock infrastructure (fenc-
ing, watering points) and habitat maintenance (clearing brush) in 2018. Agri-
environmental schemes were developed on the site but only one plot of 7 hectares was
engaged from 2010 to 2015, and since 2015 no agri-environmental plan has been devel-
oped for the territory, preventing the implementation of agri-environmental schemes. The
second component of intentional management corresponds to the animation carried out by
the site manager. Since the site management began, the only action of this type aiming at
addressing land abandonment was a collective pastoral management project which eventu-
ally failed. Numerous meetings and plans were made but produced no effects due to a
lack of support on the part of stakeholders. Other actions do not address this pressure.

Another protected area, ownership of the local department council, is located within the N2000 site but its management is mainly merged with the site. Specific awareness and communication actions occasionally led on the site do not target land abandonment and associated woody plant encroachment. There is no other protection status for agro-pastoral habitats in the site perimeter, and there are no stakeholders such as environmental associations likely to carry out actions to protect agropastoral habitats in the area.

Figure 3 provides a synthesis of the results 3.1 and 3.2. This schematic representa-
tion highlights the main results of the assessment by comparing the pressures experi-
enced by the focal concern and the responses provided by intentional management. It
allows us to assess the relevance of intentional management.

3.4. Use of quantitative indicators to assess the effectiveness of Natura 2000 in conserving agro-pastoral habitats

In order to analyse the global trend in the woody plant encroachment on 6210 grass-
land parcels on the site, we quantified the surface of encroachment for the years 1957,
1971, 1990, 2008 and 2019. Figure 4. illustrates the results obtained.
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3. Synthetic diagram of the management system for the Natura 2000 site “Lande de la Borie”.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4. Histograms of the total surface (in hectares) of 6210 habitats of the SAC “Lande de la Borie” per class for each year of analysis (five replicates: 1957, 1971, 1990, 2008, and 2019).</figcaption></figure>

Surface in Class 0 (cleared grassland) has been divided by two from 1957 to 2008 whereas surface in Class 2 (i.e. grasslands being colonised) gained around 12 hectares in the same period, which shows a progression of woody plant coverage. In 2019, after around 10 years of site management, total surface in Classes 0 and 1 remains stable compared with 2008, but class 3 gained around 60% while Class 2 lost 60% of the total surface. Globally on the site, the surface of open grasslands (i.e. classes 0 and 1) is stable, but the condition of the grasslands already in a closed state (classes 2 and 3) deteriorated during the management period.
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5. Histograms of the surface (in hectares) of different classes of 6210 encroachment for each year of analysis (five replicates: 1957, 1971, 1990, 2008, and 2019) of cores 1, 2, 3, and 4.</figcaption></figure>

We then analysed these data for each core (see Figure 1), calculating the total area by class, for the different years of analysis. The result is in Figure 5.

For Core 1 (Figure 5), open grasslands, i.e. classes 0 and 1, decreased from 100% of grassland surface in 1957 to 75% in 2008. Then, 8% of those open grasslands were lost between 2008 and 2019 in favour of closed grasslands, i.e. classes 2 and 3. The annual loss rate of grassland seems to be the same before and after N2000 management. On Core 3, the closure rate was fairly the same before the N2000 management began, with 35% of the Class 1 area present in 1957 having disappeared by 2008. Then, after 10 years of management, the surface in Class 1 gained 12% at the cost of closed grasslands.

This evolution can be related to our conclusions concerning intentional management. These cores benefited only from animation by the site manager. This management is sufficient to maintain grasslands on Core 3 whereas on Core 1 the situation has deteriorated.

With regard to Core 2, there was no visible difference in encroachment dynamics before and after the site was put under management. In 2019, 60% of the surface habitat was in “closed grasslands.” This statement is coherent with the information we obtained about management: no action was taken on Core 2 by the manager, who rarely visits it and makes no animation on this core.

On Core 4, before the Natura 2000 designation, grasslands had undergone a global trend of woody plant encroachment: “closed grasslands”, which were almost absent in 1957, reached almost 31% of the total grassland area in 2008, thus reflecting a 71% reduction of open grassland area during the 1957–2008 period. Then, the dynamic completely changed as grassland has risen to 78% of this surface since the designation. Correlation between this trend reversal and site designation can be related to intentional management which is the most active on this core. Contractual measures have been implemented to maintain open grasslands which has led to the stabilisation of these grasslands.

## 4. Discussion

The first part of the method provided a detailed understanding of actual and intentional management based on a qualitative analysis. It allowed us to assess the relevance of
the N2000 policy at the site level, emphasising the extent to which it addresses the pressures exerted on ecological values. In our case study, agricultural land abandonment has been identified as the main pressure on calcareous grassland conservation, making us focus on this issue. The agricultural decapitalisation of pastoral livestock farms, such as suckling cows, due to agricultural intensification observed on this site is a widespread phenomenon in France (Pflimlin, Faverdin, and Béranger 2009; Pouch and Raffray 2023) and Europe (Leal Filho et al. 2017). Consequences, such as the conversion of agro-pastoral areas to wooded areas, are also well documented (Bergmeier, Petermann, and Schröder 2010; Brossard, Joly, and Pierret 1993; Moreno and Rolo 2019). However, a significant part of management time is spent focusing on minor pressures, such as those arising from recreational use, whereas only one contract has addressed the issue of the loss of agro-pastoral areas, the main factor in the loss of calcareous grasslands.

Consequently, the agri-environmental schemes (AES), which have been abandoned since 2015, appear as a more interesting lever for combating abandonment. Indeed, payments for environmental services have been singled out by Rey Benayas et al. (2007) as the best policy lever to face agricultural abandonment. Rational decision-making and profit maximization by landowners have been identified as frequent drivers of land abandonment (Prishchepov 2020), which would justify the implementation of such a financial incentive. Permanent grasslands are the ecosystem most targeted by AES in Europe (Rouveyrol and Prima 2024; Wool et al. 2023), though AES are generally correlated with a higher biodiversity level on farmlands (Arnott et al. 2022; Batáry et al. 2015; Berg et al. 2019) even if, according to Batáry et al. (2015), more studies would be needed to draw general conclusions about their effectiveness in agri-culturally marginal areas at a global scale.

Likewise, the Pastoral Land Association (PLA), whose implementation failed after consultations at the start of the site management, would justify a greater investment as it is another appropriate tool for responding to agricultural land abandonment. In fact, exchanges with the manager highlighted that a large number of grassland parcels are owned by people who do not carry out any agricultural activities, and let them become abandoned. Consequently, a PLA would be beneficial to manage those parcels, as shown by Lorenzi (2013). According to Eychenne (2019), PLA would be a great tool to support former pastoral areas, even in non-mountainous areas, where the social and environmental value is now more widely recognised. It allows farmers to access new plots previously unused and increases the self-sufficiency of farms, thus counteracting land abandonment (Bataille et al. 2016; Harleux 2021; Mathieu and Brunet 1991; Mertz 2010). PLA is sometimes described as difficult to promote within a territory, particularly when it comes to generating interest among landowners who are physically distant from the plots in question (Harleux 2021). Yet, site managers play a crucial role in site animation, and their connection with stakeholders would be an asset for implementing such a scheme.

Our strategic evaluation has shown the need to implement actions targeting the agricultural sector to achieve environmental objectives. This sector is not always adequately or effectively aimed. Within N2000 networks, there is generally a spatial mismatch between the distribution of AES and ecological needs, even though this measure is widely used by the Natura 2000 policy (ref. Table 1), weakening policy effectiveness (Früh-Müller et al. 2019; Rouveyrol and Prima 2024). The need for
greater synergy between conservation policies and the agricultural sector has also been noted by Hossu *et al.* (2017) in Romania, and more generally in Europe (Pe’er *et al.* 2020). Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge the responsibility of agricultural policy in curbing land abandonment. The common agricultural policy (CAP) system has been identified as a driver of land abandonment by promoting intensive production, making pastoral land and farms less competitive (Eychenne 2021; Ortyl, Kasprzyk, and Jadczyszyn 2024). While the N2000 policy can support certain agricultural activities maintaining open environments, it cannot replace agricultural policy or compensate alone for the issues generated by the agricultural sector.

As we concluded in the results, the assessment underscored a lack of relevance in targeting the agricultural context to face the main pressure occurring on the site. Lack of relevance in the implementation of management measures has already been noted at the regional level by Lanzas *et al.* (2024) in Catalonia or at the European scale by Hermoso *et al.* (2022). Both notably highlighted that most threatened species are the less targeted by conservation measures. Our method integrates this kind of management gap analysis, on a smaller scale, allowing the site manager to improve the relevance of its management by refocusing management efforts on measures that actually respond to the pressures.

Our assessment also provides quantitative measurement using a photo-interpretation method to assess encroachment. This key stage, which involves measuring the gap between the desired state and the actual situation, was examined in the light of the analysis work described above. Global results within the site showed that, after ten years of management, more open grasslands increased in area compared to the period before Natura 2000, in part of the site where N2000 contracts have been implemented. On cores where no contracts have been made, the open grassland surface decreased. The phenomenon was limited on Core 3, which can be explained by the topographic conditions of these areas. Indeed, it is composed of *xerobromion* type, maintained by the stressful conditions caused by shallow soil and hillside habitat drainage. In contrast, Core 1 is composed of grasslands located on a deeper soil more suitable for faster establishment of ligneous plants. This is a limitation of the indicator chosen for our method, which does not account for the biotopes studied. Since Core 2 was already heavily degraded before the site designation, the manager choose not to actively manage it. Largely covered by Class 3, the management of these grasslands would need more restoration than maintenance. It would be interesting to continue this monitoring by photo interpretation to compare the state of woody plant encroachment over a longer management period. An analysis of the long-term effects of contract-based measures would be beneficial to fully assess the effectiveness of these measures. Indeed, in Core 2, we analysed the consequences of very recent contracts (2018) but the limitations of such conservation measures can often become apparent a few years after the contract is signed: regrowth of woody plants, lack of continuity in the contract with the farmer or landowner, etc. Hence, our method may be used as an on-board tool to continue the management assessment.

The photo-interpretation method was designed to be accessible by site managers. To this end, we utilised a freely available database provided by the Geographical National Institute and conducted the picture analysis manually, without relying on specialised software or automated classification techniques which may pose accessibility and reproducibility constraints in field-based management contexts. Since the site manager is responsible for analysing all the pictures from the site, the effect of observation
biases on comparison of the results may be limited. Estimating the measurement uncertainty, as done in this study, would help strengthen the reliability of the method as well as its generalisability. Thus, this comparative analysis of the various management measures enables us to identify which one is most effective in curbing woody plant encroachment. In our case study, as the first qualitative result has shown us, measures targeting the agricultural sector (AES and LPA) would be the main lever to conserve grasslands and should play a central role in their management. The differences in global trends of woody plant encroachment shown by the quantitative results confirm the effectiveness of contractual measures. On a larger scale, Hermoso, Morán-Ordóñez, and Brotons (2018) evaluated the role of N2000 in maintaining a dynamic landscape in Europe. They showed that more than 20% of the area within N2000 sites changed, especially driven by the agriculture intensification process causing the abandonment of the less productive areas and intensification in more productive ones. They identified as a keystone issue the socio-economic effects causing agricultural abandonment, confirming the potential of tools based on land control and financial compensation to maintain ecosystem services.

The ecological result-focused evaluation provided by this method is complementary to the N2000 reporting required by the Habitat Directive, as it is not established at the same scale and is directly linked to the management of the site. The N2000 reporting provides quantitative results about the conservation status of species and habitats. This bioregional level assessment must be made operational by translating it to the scale of the site so that the results can be linked back to the impact of management. In our case, the Atlantic bioregion, calcareous grasslands are in the lowest conservation status, with a trend toward deterioration. This result helps to contextualise the trend observed on the site regarding encroachment and therefore enables the site managers to better adjust their management strategy.

Besides, the qualitative part of our results is adapted to an in-depth understanding, particularly useful for the site manager, thanks to an expressiveness that is not limited to numbers, as a quantitative scoring system like METT assessment might be (Stoll-Kleemann 2010). This tool, specifically designed to implement the IUCN-WCPA assessment framework at the site level showed limitations in assessing ecological results. According to Nugraha et al. (2024) et Chen et al. (2023) who implemented it in Indonesia and in national Marine Protected Areas of China, the added value of the METT was to identify key pressures affecting concern. First, compared to the IUCN-WCPA PAME methodology (see Figure 2), we propose to inverse the order of some steps, which is crucial for understanding the differences in the assessment logics. In our method, criteria to define the ecological concern, and the actual and targeted status of this concern, are established in the first and second stages, whereas this is the final stage in the IUCN-WCPA PAME assessment. Our early definition allows us to evaluate management on the basis of the result of the first stages concerning ecological concern, without the risk of defining ecological outcomes as an extension of the management process. Then, distinguishing between actual and intentional management allows us to understand how the protected area functions and what the manager is truly controlling compared to all the other actions taking place on the site, not only elements benefiting from management measures. Finally, and most importantly, it enables the comparison of these two managements and therefore the identification of imbalances with other policies. More globally, while IUCN-WCPA PAME mainly helps the manager to identify and list the information the manager has to gather in order to make his
evaluation, our methodology provides a precise rationale to analyse and interpret this information, with a precise progression from defining concern to assessing effectiveness thanks to management analysis.

Counterfactual approaches, as we used in quantitative analysis, are based on correlation analysis and therefore they poorly perform in explaining the nature of causalities, whereas such information is crucial for site managers. Furthermore, they need to have a control site for comparison with the protected one, which is often nearly impossible. That is why we use this tool only in the second phase of our methodology, to complement qualitative analysis, and only when it is relevant to compare different management practices inside the site: as we showed in the results, the comparison of Core 1, managed with contracts, with the other cores of the site showing the effectiveness of this measure thanks to the quantification of woody plant encroachment. This triangulation of qualitative analysis, based largely on expert opinion, with counterfactual quantitative analysis helps to limit the bias.

Since contractual measures have been identified as a key management lever on this site, it is important to acknowledge the challenges that managers may face in developing them. As their implementation depends on the goodwill of the landowners, the use may be limited. A heavy workload is also required to contact and involve these owners (Rivière 2021). A lack of financial resources in the network limits contracting and, more generally, the implementation of the measures (Geitzenauer et al. 2017; Pellegrino, Schirpke, and Marino 2016; Vanpeene-Bruhier and Pacyna 2005; Wätzold et al. 2010). For forest habitats specifically, cost-effectiveness studies of forest contracts proved to be low (Heshmatol Vaezin, Marage, and Garcia 2022) which can discourage the forest owners. As demonstrated by Rouveyrol and Leroy (2021), open environments concentrate a significant share of the conservation efforts under the N2000 policy. However, this focus should not overshadow the need to conserve other habitats and species of Community interest that are also facing significant threats such as soil sealing or the use of agricultural inputs.

Finally, it should be noted that N2000 measures are complementary to each other, including spatial and temporal association. For instance, an AES can succeed a N2000 contract, or a PLA can be implemented alongside an AES, increasing the sustainability of the farms covered by these schemes. Likewise, N2000 measures can be combined with external measures such as Life programs, or even by contributing to external intentional management projects (i.e. research projects, land acquisition, etc.), generating co-benefits in favour of N2000 objectives (Trovato, Micalizzi, and Giuffrida 2021), especially within sites with more intersectoral conflicts than our study site.

## 5. Conclusion

Our study confirmed that the concern-focused approach based on the SEMA framework represents a valuable methodology for assessing the management effectiveness of protected areas such as Natura 2000 at the site-level. The results demonstrated that the specificities of the method represent a compelling alternative to other approaches, such as the PAME assessment. First, it provides an accurate understanding and a step back from the management system. Our method goes beyond the simple analysis of the manager's actions, providing them with a rational and comprehensive understanding of what is impacting the site and its ecological values. The knowledge and understanding of the manager about the site are crucial for conducting this assessment. Then, by
requiring the evaluator to describe and quantify the state of the ecological issues at hand, this method enables us to position ourselves regarding the objectives set for the site.

By analysing these specific ecological results in relation to their understanding of the management system, managers can identify the strengths and weaknesses of the actions they are implementing. This work will allow them to strategically readjust their management to achieve the objectives they have set themselves if they have identified a gap with their target. These features make it particularly well-suited to the Natura 2000 network, which aims to reconcile species and habitats and socio-economic issues through collaboration with local stakeholders. Additionally, we believe that this strategic approach, which goes beyond Natura 2000 actions only, is essential if we want to meet the ambitious challenges inherent in Natura 2000, i.e. to achieve a favourable conservation status for species and habitats of Community Interest. Finally, the case study has facilitated the presentation of our operationalised method for N2000 management effectiveness assessment, by enriching evaluation experiences using the SEMA framework and proving its suitability. More broadly, developing tools to collect key indicators for the quantitative monitoring of pressures – such as agricultural intensification, urbanisation, or over-tourism – would be beneficial for implementing our method across various Natura 2000 sites and other protected areas, ultimately contributing to the achievement of favourable conservation status for ecosystems.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the site manager Emmanuel Gilhodes for his contribution to the research, as well as the stakeholders of the site we met during our work. We would also like to acknowledge all the other site managers who participated in the development of the method. Finally, we thank the PatriNat team members who helped improve our method, enhance the quality of our research, and contribute to the drafting of the manuscript.

## Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

## Funding

This work was supported by the European Union through the project LIFE BIODIV'France [Grant Number 101104846 - LIFE22-IPN-FR-LIFE BIODIVFr].

## References

* Alkin, Marvin, and Christina Christie. 2004. *Evaluation Roots: Tracing Theorists' Views and Influences*. Illustrated ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 91320.

* Alphandéry, Pierre, and Agnès Fortier. 2010. "Local Settings and Biodiversity: A Sociological Approach to the Implementation of the EC Habitats Directive in France." *Current Sociology* 58 (5): 755-776. doi:10.1177/0011392110372737.

* Anthony, Brandon. 2014. *Review of International Protected Area Management Effectiveness (PAME) Experience. Technical Report. Hoedspruit*. South Africa: Association for Water and Rural Development (AWARD).

* Apostolopoulou, Evangelia, Evangelia G. Drakou, and Kalliope Pediaditi. 2012. "Participation in the Management of Greek Natura 2000 Sites: Evidence from a Cross-Level Analysis." *Journal of Environmental Management* 113: 308-318. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.006.
Arnott, Amy, Gillian Riddell, Mark Emmerson, and Neil Reid. 2022. "Agri-Environment Schemes Are Associated with Greater Terrestrial Invertebrate Abundance and Richness in Upland Grasslands." *Agronomy for Sustainable Development* 42 (1): 6. doi:10.1007/s13593-021-00738-4.

Aubron, Claire, Marie-Odile Nozieres, Charles-Henri Moulin, and Jean-Pierre Boutonnet. 2011. "Livestock Farms Diversity in Aveyron Territory: Historical Approach and Compared Economical Results." *Rencontres Autour Des Recherches Sur Les Ruminants* 18: 387. http://www.journees3r.fr/spip.php?article3267.

Bataille, J. F., F. Launay, Guilhem Aussibal, Charles-Henri Moulin, Marie-Odile Nozières-Petit, Jacques Lasseur, and Edmond Tchakérian. 2016. "Des Scénarios de Futurs Possibles Pour Des Systèmes d'élevage Pastoraux Méditerranéens." *Innovations Agronomiques* 49: 309–325. doi:10.15454/1.462286181269462E12.

Batáry, Péter, Lynn V. Dicks, David Kleijn, and William J. Sutherland. 2015. "The Role of Agri-Environment Schemes in Conservation and Environmental Management." *Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology* 29 (4): 1006–1016. doi:10.1111/cobi.12536.

Bakis, Henry, and Muriel Bonin. 2000. *La Photographie Aérienne et Spatiale. Presses Universitaires de France. Que Sais-Je?: Le Point Des Connaissances Actuelles*. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Bensettiti, Farid, and Camille Gazay. 2019. *Résultats de la Troisième Évaluation Des Habitats et Espèces de la DHFF (2013–2018)*. Paris: UMS Patrinat (AFB/CNRS/MNHN).

Bensettiti, Farid, Renaud Puissauve, Fanny Lepareur, Julien Touroult, and Lise Maciejewski. 2012. *Evaluation de L'état de Conservation Des Habitats et Des Espèces D'intérêt Communautaire – Guide Méthodologique – DHFF Article 17, 2007–2012. Version 1*. Paris: Service du patrimoine naturel, Muséum national d'histoire naturelle.

Berg, Åke, Erik Cronvall, Åsa Eriksson, Anders Glimskär, Matthew Hiron, Jonas Knape, Tomas Pärt, Jörgen Wissman, Michal Žmihorski, and Erik Öckinger. 2019. "Assessing Agri-Environmental Schemes for Semi-Natural Grasslands during a 5-Year Period: Can We See Positive Effects for Vascular Plants and Pollinators?" *Biodiversity and Conservation* 28 (14): 3989–4005. doi:10.1007/s10531-019-01861-1.

Bergmeier, Erwin, Jörg Petermann, and Eckhard Schröder. 2010. "Geobotanical Survey of Wood-Pasture Habitats in Europe: Diversity, Threats and Conservation." *Biodiversity and Conservation* 19 (11): 2995–3014. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9872-3.

Billé, Raphaël. 2004. "La Gestion Intégrée Du Littoral Se Décrète-t-Elle?: Une Analyse Stratégique de La Mise En Œuvre, Entre Approche Programme et Cadre Normatif." PhD diss., Ecole nationale du génie rural, des eaux et des forêts (Paris ; Nancy ; 1968-2006). https://theses.fr/2004ENGR0016.

Briske, David D., ed. 2017. "Rangeland Systems: Processes, Management and Challenges." *Springer Series on Environmental Management*. College Station, TX: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46709-2.

Brossard, Thierry, Daniel Joly, and Pascal Pierret. 1993. "Déprise Agricole et Fermeture Des Paysages." *Mappemonde* 31 (3): 17–21. doi:10.3406/mappe.1993.1079.

Carranza, Tharsila, Andrea Manica, Valerie Kapos, and Andrew Balmford. 2014. "Mismatches between Conservation Outcomes and Management Evaluation in Protected Areas: A Case Study in the Brazilian Cerrado." *Biological Conservation* 173: 10–16. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.03.004.

Chen, Mingyang, Cong Zeng, Xu Zeng, Yue Liu, Zihan Wang, Xiaojing Shi, and Ling Cao. 2023. "Assessment of Marine Protected Areas in the East China Sea Using a Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool." *Frontiers in Marine Science* 10. doi:10.3389/fmars.2023.1081036.

Coad, Lauren, Fiona Leverington, Kathryn Knights, Jonas Geldmann, April Eassom, Valerie Kapos, Naomi Kingston, et al. 2015. "Measuring Impact of Protected Area Management Interventions: Current and Future Use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness." *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences* 370 (1681): 20140281. doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0281.

Cortina, Carla, and Antonio Boggia. 2014. "Development of Policies for Natura 2000 Sites: A Multi-Criteria Approach to Support Decision Makers." *Journal of Environmental Management* 141 (August): 138–145. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.039.
Crabbé, Ann, and Pieter Leroy. 2008. *The Handbook of Environmental Policy Evaluation*. London: Earthscan.

Deverre, Christian, Agnès Fortier, Pierre Alphandéry, and Catherine Lefebvre. 2007. "Les 'Scènes Locales' de La Biodiversité: La Construction Du Réseau Natura 2000, En France." *INRA Sciences Sociales* 2007 (26): 4.

Devienne, Sophie. 2020. "Les Révolutions Agricoles Contemporaines en France." In *Les Mutations Rêcentes du Foncier et Des Agricultures en Europe*, edited by Gérard Chouquer and Marie-Claude Maurel, 25-52. Les Cahiers de la MSHE Ledoux 34. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. doi:10.4000/books.pufc.5643.

Domingues, J. P., J. Ryschawy, T. Bonaudo, B. Gabrielle, and M. Tichit. 2018. "Unravelling the Physical, Technological and Economic Factors Driving the Intensification Trajectories of Livestock Systems." *Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience* 12 (8): 1652-1661. doi:10.1017/S1751731117003123.

Dupont, Hélène, Françoise Gourmelon, Mathias Rouan, Isabelle Le Viol, and Christian Kerbiriou. 2016. "The Contribution of Agent-Based Simulations to Conservation Management on a Natura 2000 Site." *Journal of Environmental Management* 168: 27-35. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman. 2015.11.056.

Dutoit, Thierry. 1996. "Chapitre Second. Mécanisme D'une Succession Végétale Secondaire en Pelouse Calcicole: Une Approche Historique." In *Dynamique et Gestion Des Pelouses Calcaires de Haute-Normandie*, 91-108. Hors collection. Mont-Saint-Aignan: Presses universitaires de Rouen et du Havre. doi:10.4000/books.purh.8094.

Ervin, Jamison. 2003. "Protected Area Assessments in Perspective." *BioScience* 53 (9): 819-822. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053%255B0819;PAAIP%255D2.0.CO;2.

European Commission. 2015. *The EU Birds and Habitats Directives: For Nature and People in Europe*. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/49288.

European Environment Agency. 2020. *State of Nature in the EU: Results from Reporting under the Nature Directives 2013 2018. No. 10*. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2800/705440.

Eychenne, Corinne. 2019. "L'association Foncière Pastorale: Un Outil de Gestion Collective du Foncier en Montagne à Fort Potentiel D'innovation." *Sud-Ouest Européen* 47: 129-143. doi: 10.4000/soe.5539.

Eychenne, Corinne. 2021. "Les Gestionnaires Collectifs D'espaces Pastoraux Entre Reconnaissance et Fragilisation: Un Angle Mort de la Politique Agricole Commune?" In *Les Communaux au XXIe Siècle: Une Propriété collective entre histoire et modernité. Chambéry: Presses universitaires Savoie Mont Blanc*.

Früh-Müller, Andrea, Martin Bach, Lutz Breuer, Stefan Hotes, Thomas Koellner, Christian Krippes, and Volkmar Wolters. 2019. "The Use of Agri-Environmental Measures to Address Environmental Pressures in Germany: Spatial Mismatches and Options for Improvement." *Land Use Policy* 84: 347-362. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.049.

Ganatsas, Petros, Marianthi Tsakaldimi, and Dimitrios Katsaros. 2013. "Natural Resource Management in National Parks: A Management Assessment of a Natura 2000 Wetlands Site in Kotychi-Strofylia, Southern Greece." *International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology* 20 (2): 152-165. doi:10.1080/13504509.2012.761657.

Geitzenauer, Maria, Marieke Blondet, Jessica de Koning, Francesca Ferranti, Metodi Sotirov, Gerhard Weiss, and Georg Winkel. 2017. "The Challenge of Financing the Implementation of Natura 2000 – Empirical Evidence from Six European Union Member States." *Forest Policy and Economics, Implementation of Forest Policies: Challenges, Deficits and Failures in European Multi-Level Systems* 82: 3-13. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.008.

Geldmann, Jonas, Lauren Coad, Megan Barnes, Ian D. Craigie, Marc Hockings, Kathryn Knights, Fiona Leverington, et al. 2015. "Changes in Protected Area Management Effectiveness over Time: A Global Analysis." *Biological Conservation* 191: 692-699. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.029.

Grilli, Gianluca, Isabella De Meo, Giulia Garegnani, and Alessandro Paletto. 2017. "A Multi-Criteria Framework to Assess the Sustainability of Renewable Energy Development in the Alps." *Journal of Environmental Planning and Management* 60 (7): 1276-1295. doi:10.1080/09640568.2016.1216398.
Grošelj, Petra, and Lidija Zadnik Stirn. 2015. "The Environmental Management Problem of Pohorje, Slovenia: A New Group Approach within ANP – SWOT Framework." *Journal of Environmental Management* 161: 106–112. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.038.

Guillet, Fanny, Laurent Mermet, and Maya Leroy. 2011. "Une analyse stratégique pour l'organisation à finalité environnementale." PhD diss., University of Cergy-Pontoise.

Harleux, Sacha. 2021. "Les Associations Foncières Pastorales: Une Réponse à la Déprise Rurale Des Territoires de Montagne ou Comment Inventer du Commun." *Géographie. Pour* 239 (1): 127–137. doi:10.3917/pour.239.0127.

Hermoso, Virgilio, Alejandra Morán-Ordóñez, and Lluís Brotons. 2018. "Assessing the Role of Natura 2000 at Maintaining Dynamic Landscapes in Europe over the Last Two Decades: Implications for Conservation." *Landscape Ecology* 33 (8): 1447–1460. doi:10.1007/s10980-018-0683-3.

Hermoso, Virgilio, José Salgado-Rojas, Mónica Lanzas, and Eduardo Álvarez-Miranda. 2022. "Spatial Prioritisation of Management for Biodiversity Conservation across the EU." *Biological Conservation* 272: 109638. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109638.

Heshmatol Vaezin, Seyed Mahdi, Damien Marage, and Serge Garcia. 2022. "Cost-Effectiveness of Natura 2000 Forest Contracts for Biodiversity Conservation." *Canadian Journal of Forest Research* 52 (12): 1527–1542. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2021-0204.

Hockings, Marc. 2003. "Systems for Assessing the Effectiveness of Management in Protected Areas." *BioScience* 53 (9): 823–832. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053%255B0823:SFATEO%255D2.0. CO:2.

Hockings, Mark, Sue Stolton, and Fiona Leverington. 2006. *Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas*. 2nd ed. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2006.PAG.14.en.

Horcea-Milcu, Andra I., David J. Abson, Ine Dorrestijn, Jacqueline Loos, Jan Hanspach, and Joern Fischer. 2018. "The Role of Co-Evolutionary Development and Value Change Debt in Navigating Transitioning Cultural Landscapes: The Case of Southern Transylvania." *Journal of Environmental Planning and Management* 61 (5-6): 800–817. doi:10.1080/09640568. 2017.1332985.

Hossu, Constantina Alina, Ioan Cristian Ioja, Mihai R. Nita, Tibor Hartel, Denisa L. Badiu, and Anna M. Hersperger. 2017. "Need for a Cross-Sector Approach in Protected Area Management." *Land Use Policy* 69: 586–597. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.012.

Huber, Jule Marie, Jens Newig, and Jacqueline Loos. 2023. "Participation in Protected Area Governance: A Systematic Case Survey of the Evidence on Ecological and Social Outcomes." *Journal of Environmental Management* 336: 117593. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman. 2023.117593.

IGN. 2008a. "BD ORTHO." Accessed July 23, 2024. https://geoservices.ign.fr/bdortho.

IGN. 2008b. "Registre Parcellaire Graphique." Accessed October 7, 2024. https://geoservices. ign.fr/rpg.

IGN. 2019a. "Admin Express." Accessed October 7, 2024. https://geoservices.ign.fr/adminexpress.

IGN. 2019b. "BD ORTHO." Accessed July 23, 2024. https://geoservices.ign.fr/bdortho.

IGN. 2019c. "Registre Parcellaire Graphique." Accessed October 7, 2024. https://geoservices. ign.fr/rpg.

IGN. 2024. "Photos Aériennes." Accessed July 22, 2024. https://remonterletemps.ign.fr/.

Jussiau, Roland, Louis Montméas, and Jean-Claude Parot. 1999. *L'élevage en France: 10 000 Ans D'histoire*. Dijon: Educagri Editions.

Kovács, Eszter, Eszter Kelemen, Gabriella Kiss, Ágnes Kalóczkai, Veronika Fabók, Barbara Mihók, Boldizsár Megyesi, et al. 2017. "Evaluation of Participatory Planning: Lessons from Hungarian Natura 2000 Management Planning Processes." *Journal of Environmental Management* 204 (Pt 1): 540–550. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.028.

Kowalski, Katja, Akpona Okujeni, Maximilian Brell, and Patrick Hostert. 2022. "Quantifying Drought Effects in Central European Grasslands through Regression-Based Unmixing of Intra-Annual Sentinel-2 Time Series." *Remote Sensing of Environment* 268: 112781. doi:10. 1016/j.rse.2021.112781.

Lanzas, Mónica, Nuria Pou, Gerard Bota, Magda Pla, Dani Villero, Lluís Brotons, Pau Sainz de la Maza, et al. 2024. "Detecting Management Gaps for Biodiversity Conservation: An
Integrated Assessment.” *Journal of Environmental Management* 354: 120247. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120247.

Lavaud, Coralie. 2017. *Evaluation de L'efficacité Des Mesures Natura 2000 à L'échelle de Sites à Enjeux Agropastoraux*. Paris: UMS 2006 Patrimoine Naturel – AFB.CNRS.MNHN.

Leal Filho, Walter, Merit Mandel, Abul Quasem Al-Amin, Alexander Feher, and Charbel José Chiappetta Jabbour. 2017. "An Assessment of the Causes and Consequences of Agricultural Land Abandonment in Europe." *International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology* 24 (6): 554–560. doi:10.1080/13504509.2016.1240113.

Leroy, Maya. 2006. *Gestion stratégique des écosystèmes du fleuve Sénégal: actions et inactions publiques internationales. Études africaines*. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Leroy, Maya, and Laurent Mermet. 2012. "Delivering on Environmental Commitments? Guidelines and Evaluation Framework for an ‘on-Board’ Approach." *Sécheresse* 23 (3): 185–195. doi:10.1684/sec.2012.0352.

Leverington, Fiona, Katia Lemos Costa, Helena Pavese, Allan Lisle, and Marc Hockings. 2010. "A Global Analysis of Protected Area Management Effectiveness." *Environmental Management* 46 (5): 685–698. doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9564-5.

Leverington, Fiona, Marc Hockings, Helena Pavese, Katia Lemos Costa, and José Courrau. 2008. *Management Effectiveness Evaluation in Protected Areas - A Global Study*. Supplementary Report No. 1. Gatton, Australia: The University of Queensland, The Nature Conservancy, WWF, IUCN-WCPA.

Lorenzi, Frédérique. 2013. "Gestion Foncière de Type « Bien Commun » en Montagne. Bilan de la Loi Pastorale." *Géographie*. *Pour* 220 (4): 127–134. doi:10.3917/pour.220.0127.

Maciejewski, Lise, Laurent Seytre, Jérémie Van Es, and Pascal Dupont. 2015. "État de Conservation Des Habitats Agropastoraux D'intérêt Communautaire, Méthode D'évaluation à L'échelle du Site. Guide D'application." *Version 3 Service du Patrimoine Naturel, Muséum National D'Histoire Naturelle*.

Manolache, Steluta, Andreea Nita, Cristiana M. Ciocanea, Viorel D. Popescu, and Laurentiu Rozylowicz. 2018. "Power, Influence and Structure in Natura 2000 Governance Networks. A Comparative Analysis of Two Protected Areas in Romania." *Journal of Environmental Management* 212: 54–64. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.076.

Mardy, Zurcher, Jean-Philippe Waaub, and Sebastian Weissenberger. 2024. "Évaluation Participative de la Performance Des Mesures de Conservation et de Restauration du Bassin Versant de la Rivière Mulet (Roche-à-Bateau, Haïti)." *VertigO - la Revue Électronique en Sciences de L'environnement* 24 (1): 1. doi:10.4000/11pdg.

Mascia, Michael B., Sharon Pailler, Michele L. Thieme, Andy Rowe, Madeleine C. Bottrill, Finn Danielsen, Jonas Geldmann, Robin Naidoo, Andrew S. Pullin, and Neil D. Burgess. 2014. "Commonalities and Complementarities among Approaches to Conservation Monitoring and Evaluation." *Biological Conservation* 169: 258–267. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.017.

Mathieu, P., and C. Bernard Brunet. 1991. "L'utilisation de Pâturages d'altitude Par Des Génisses Un Atout Pour Des Exploitations de Plaine." Paper presented at 4ème congrès international des terres à parcours, Montpellier. April 22, 1991. https://agris.fao.org/search/en/providers/122439/records/64747209bf943c8c79823c41.

Mazoyer, Marcel. 1982. "Origines et Mécanismes de Reproduction Des Inégalités Régionales de Développement Agricole en Europe." *Économie Rurale* 150 (1): 25–33. doi:10.3406/ecoru.1982.2879.

McCauley, Darren. 2008. "Sustainable Development and the ‘Governance Challenge’: The French Experience with Natura 2000." *European Environment* 18 (3): 152–167. doi:10.1002/eet.478.

Mmet, Laurent. 2011. *Strategic Environmental Management Analysis: Addressing the Blind Spots of Collaborative Approaches*. Idées Pour Le Débat. Paris: Institut du développement durable et des relations internationales.

Mmet, Laurent, Raphaël Billé, and Maya Leroy. 2010. "Concern-Focused Evaluation for Ambiguous and Conflicting Policies: An Approach From the Environmental Field." *American Journal of Evaluation* 31 (2): 180–198. doi:10.1177/1098214010366047.

Mmet, Laurent, Raphaël Billé, Maya Leroy, Jean-Baptiste Narcy, and Xavier Poux. 2005. "Strategic Environmental Management Analysis: A Framework for Assessing Effectiveness
in the Pursuit of Ecological Goals.” *Natures Sciences Sociétés* 13 (2): 127–137. doi:10.1051/nss:2005018.

Mertz, Gwenaëlle. 2010. "FRANCELes associations foncières pastorales (AFP). Un exemple dans le département du Lot." AGTER Ressources, September. https://www.agter.org/bdf/fr/corpus_chemin/fiche-chemin-140.html.

Mingarro, M., F. Aguilera-Benavente, and J. M. Lobo. 2021. "A Methodology to Assess the Future Connectivity of Protected Areas by Combining Climatic Representativeness and Land-Cover Change Simulations: The Case of the Guadarrama National Park (Madrid, Spain)." *Journal of Environmental Planning and Management* 64 (4): 734–753. doi:10.1080/09640568.2020.1782859.

Monnier, Éric, and Patrice Duran. 1992. "Le Développement de L'évaluation en France. Nécessités Techniques et Exigences Politiques." *Revue Française de Science Politique* 42 (2): 235–262. doi:10.3406/rfsp.1992.404295.

Moreno, Gerardo, and Victor Rolo. 2019. "Agroforestry Practices: Silvopastoralism." In *Agroforestry for Sustainable Agriculture*, 1st ed. Extremadura, Spain: Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing. doi:10.19103/AS.2018.0041.05.

Mörtberg, U. M., B. Balfors, and W. C. Knol. 2007. "Landscape Ecological Assessment: A Tool for Integrating Biodiversity Issues in Strategic Environmental Assessment and Planning." *Journal of Environmental Management* 82 (4): 457–470. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.01.005.

Nicolle, Sandra. 2014. "Les Espaces Naturels Protégés En Forêt Amazonienne. Des Doctrines de Gestion Aux Dispositifs: Quelle Efficacité Pour La Protection de L'environnement?: Étude Comparative France (Guyane)/Brésil (Amapa)." PhD diss., Antilles-Guyane. https://theses.fr/2014AGUY0744.

Nolte, Christoph, and Arun Agrawal. 2013. "Linking Management Effectiveness Indicators to Observed Effects of Protected Areas on Fire Occurrence in the Amazon Rainforest." *Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology* 27 (1): 155–165. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01930.x.

Nolte, Christoph, Fiona Leverington, Anne Kettner, Melitta Marr, Greta Nielsen, Sue Stolton, Susanne Stoll-Kleemann, and Marc Hockings. 2010. *Protected Area Management Effectiveness Assessments in Europe*. Bonn: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.

Nugraha, Rudijanta Tjahja, Wenda Yandra Komara, Peggy Awanti Nila Krisna, Oktafa Rini Puspita, Muhamad Muslich, Ulfah Mardhiah, and William Marthy. 2024. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Protected Area Management in Indonesia." *Oryx* 58 (4): 474–484. doi:10.1017/S003060532300145X.

Ortyl, Bernadetta, Idalia Kasprzyk, and Jan Jadczyszyn. 2024. "Trends and Drivers of Land Abandonment in Poland under Common Agricultural Policy." *Land Use Policy* 147: 107353. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107353.

Pe'er, Guy, Aletta Bonn, Helge Bruelheide, Petra Dieker, Nico Eisenhauer, Peter H. Feindt, Gregor Hagedorn, et al. 2020. "Action Needed for the EU Common Agricultural Policy to Address Sustainability Challenges." *People and Nature* 2 (2): 305–316. doi:10.1002/pan3.10080.

Pellegrino, D., U. Schirpke, and D. Marino. 2016. "How to Support the Effective Management of Natura 2000 Sites?" *Journal of Environmental Planning and Management* 60 (3): 383–398. doi:10.1080/09640568.2016.1159183.

Peyraud, Jean-Louis, Miguel Taboada, and Luc Delaby. 2014. "Integrated Crop and Livestock Systems in Western Europe and South America: A Review." *European Journal of Agronomy* 57: 31–42. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2014.02.005.

Pflimlin, André, Philippe Faverdin, and Claude Béranger. 2009. "Un Demi-Siècle D'évolution de L'élevage Bovin. Bilan et Perspectives." *Fourrages* 200: 429–464.

Pic, Jessica, Yoann Le Guen, Étienne Cossart, and Mathieu Fressard. 2020. "La Dynamique D'enfrichement, Ses Expressions Paysagères et Ses Significations: Le Cas du Beaujolais Viticole." *VertigO - la Revue Électronique en Sciences de L'environnement [En Ligne]* 20: 2. doi:10.4000/vertigo.28393.

Pomeroy, Robert, John Parks, and Lani Watson. 2004. "How is Your MPA Doing?" In *A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness*. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN. doi:10.2305/IUCN.CH.2004.PAPS.1.en.
Portaccio, Alessia, Thomas Campagnaro, and Tommaso Sitzia. 2023. "Birds and Natura 2000: A Review of the Scientific Literature." *Bird Conservation International* 33: E20. doi:10.1017/S0959270922000156.

Pouch, Thierry, and Marine Raffray. 2023. "Considérations Sur la Crise et le Devenir de L'élevage en France." *Paysans & Société* 402 (6): 48-55. doi:10.3917/pes.402.0048.

Prishchepov, Alexander. 2020. *Agricultural Land Abandonment*. Preprint, Oxford Bibliographies. Environmental Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/OBO/9780199363445-0129.

Pullin, Andrew S., András Báldi, Ozgun Emre Can, Martin Dieterich, Vassiliki Kati, Barbara Livoreil, Gabor Lövei, et al. 2009. "Conservation Focus on Europe: Major Conservation Policy Issues That Need to Be Informed by Conservation Science." *Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology* 23 (4): 818-824. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01283.x.

QGIS Development Team. 2009. "QGIS Geographic Information System. V. 3.28.4-Firenze." Released. http://qgis.org/.

R Core Team. 2022. "R A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical." *Computing*. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1370298755636824325.

Rey Benayas, J. M., A. Martins, J. M. Nicolau, and J. J. Schulz. 2007. "Abandonment of Agricultural Land: An Overview of Drivers and Consequences." *CABI Reviews* 14. doi:10.1079/PAVSNNR20072057.

Rivière, Camille. 2021. "Le Gouvernement de la Biodiversité Européenne: expertise, Contractualisation et Infrastructure de Financement. Natura 2000 en France (1988-2016)." PhD diss., EHESS. https://theses.fr/2021EHES0025.

Rouveyrol, Paul. 2016. *Evaluer L'efficacité de La Mise En Œuvre Des Directives Nature En France: Synthèse Bibliographique et Perspectives de Travail*. Paris: MNHN-SPN. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.27423.82080.

Rouveyrol, Paul, and Maya Leroy. 2021. *L'efficacité du Réseau Natura 2000 Terrestre en France*. Paris: UMS PatriNat (OFB/CNRS/MNHN).

Rouveyrol, Paul, and Marie-Caroline Prima. 2024. "Do Agri-Environmental Schemes Target Effectively Species, Habitats and Pressures in French Natura 2000 Network?" *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment* 373: 109114. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2024.109114.

Seguin, Bernard. 2003. "Adaptation Des Systèmes de Production Agricole au Changement Climatique." *Comptes Rendus. Géoscience* 335 (6-7): 569-575. doi:10.1016/S1631-0713(03)00098-1.

SSP. 2011. "Recensement Agricole 2010: Résultats Détaillés." Accessed October 7, 2024. https://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/agreste-web/methodon/S-RA%202010/methodon/.

SSP. 2022. "Recensement Agricole 2020: Résultats Détaillés." Accessed October 7, 2024. https://agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/agreste-web/methodon/S-RA%202020/methodon/.

Stoll-Kleemann, Susanne. 2010. "Evaluation of Management Effectiveness in Protected Areas: Methodologies and Results." *Basic and Applied Ecology* 11 (5): 377-382. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2010.06.004.

Stufflebeam, Daniel L. 2000. "The CIPP Model for Evaluation." In *Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation*, edited by Daniel L. Stufflebeam, George F. Madaus, and Thomas Kellaghan, 279-317. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/0-306-47559-6_16.

Tang, Junfeng, Ronald R. Swaisgood, Megan A. Owen, Xuzhe Zhao, Wei Wei, Mingsheng Hong, Hong Zhou, and Zejun Zhang. 2023. "Assessing the Effectiveness of Protected Areas for Panda Conservation under Future Climate and Land Use Change Scenarios." *Journal of Environmental Management* 342: 118319. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118319.

Trovato, Maria Rosa, Paolo Micalizzi, and Salvatore Giuffrida. 2021. "Assessment of Landscape Co-Benefits in Natura 2000 Site Management Plans." *Sustainability* 13 (10): 5707. doi:10.3390/su13105707.

Vanpeene-Bruhier, S., and S. Pacyna. 2005. "État Des Lieux de la Procédure Natura 2000 en France et Analyse de L'importance de la Gestion Par L'agriculture et la Sylviculture." *Sciences Eaux & Territoires Ingénieries* EAT (44): 63-79.

Wätzold, Frank, Melanie Mewes, Rob van Apeldoorn, Riku Varjopuro, Tadeusz Jan Chmielewski, Frank Veeneklaas, and Marja-Leena Kosola. 2010. "Cost-Effectiveness of Managing Natura 2000 Sites: An Exploratory Study for Finland, Germany, The Netherlands
and Poland.” *Biodiversity and Conservation* 19 (7): 2053–2069. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9825-x.

Whittaker, Robert, Miguel Araújo, Paul Jepson, Richard Ladle, James Watson, and Katherine Willis. 2005. “Conservation Biogeography: Assessment and Prospect.” *Diversity and Distributions* 11 (1): 3–23. doi:10.1111/j.1366-9516.2005.00143.x.

Williams, David R., Andrew Balmford, and David S. Wilcove. 2020. “The Past and Future Role of Conservation Science in Saving Biodiversity.” *Conservation Letters* 13 (4): e12720. doi: 10.1111/conl.12720.

Wool, Rosemary, George Breckenridge, Guy Ziv, and Arjan S. Gosal. 2023. “Delineating the Spatial Drivers of Agri-Environment Scheme Adoption at Field and Farm Levels.” *Journal of Environmental Management* 348: 119407. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119407.