Editorial: Conservation of Bio- and Geodiversity and Landscape Changes

1. Introduction

The Rio Convention on Biological Diversity has established biodiversity as a key concept governing the development policies of most countries towards assuming responsibility for the environment [1]. Many scientists tie biodiversity (as well as geo- and ecodiversity) to the ecological infrastructure of our planet [2]. The Convention includes recommended measures dealing with the conservation of biodiversity, as well as measures that are needed to ensure that future development is achieved in a way that does not affect biodiversity [3]. At the same time, as part of “global changes” [4], land use and land cover changes are a major threat to biodiversity. This Special Issue deals with the relationship between the two, and with the factors that can affect it, such as its drivers and possibilities of controlling it.

We initially thought that the relationship between the conservation of bio- and geodiversity and landscape changes could be best described by a collection of contributions focused on both pure and applied research, as well as comparative studies. Examples of possible topics included the impact of land use and land cover change on bio-, geo-, and ecodiversity, including the drivers and means of controlling or mitigating it; the impacts of land use and land cover changes on natural protected areas, i.e., its drivers and means of controlling or mitigating it; spatial planning tools for preventing land use and land cover changes within and around natural protected areas at different spatial scales; natural hazards and bio-, geo-, and ecodiversity and human influences on their relationship; and local development challenges in natural protected areas. The result is a collection of contributions analyzing direct human activity, policy decisions, and climatic factors that are changing ecosystems significantly worldwide.

2. Synopsis of Contributions

The contributions forming this collection can be grouped around several interconnected themes: urbanization, biodiversity loss, habitat quality, and the role of planning and technology in environmental management.

2.1. Impact of Urbanization on Biodiversity and Habitat Quality

A major recurring finding revealed by the contributions is that urbanization acts as a major driver of biodiversity loss and habitat degradation [5]. This finding is common to studies dealing with avian and plant diversity. In more detail, in North African urban environments, bird diversity was found to decrease significantly along an urbanization gradient, highlighting that urban green spaces are critical biodiversity hotspots that need to be interconnected [5]. Similarly, in the Yangtze River Floodplain, habitat fragmentation caused by human activities like aquaculture negatively affects goose population trends [6]. In Sabah, Borneo, the conversion of intact forests into industrial oil palm plantations has caused a severe and statistically significant decline in plant functional diversity. This decline proves that direct land use change, driven by agricultural expansion and built-up development, is causing measurable degradation of ecosystems, confirming findings from smaller field studies and showcasing the potential of satellite observation for monitoring biodiversity in critical hotspots [7]. Furthermore, built-up development drivers such as population density and GDP are generally negatively correlated with habitat quality in regions like the Hung River Valley [8].

In addition, quantitative analyses of Polish and Romanian cities show generalized loss and fragmentation of urban green infrastructure between 2006 and 2018. The decline of urban green infrastructure in post-socialist Europe is driven by mechanisms of urban sprawl and weak planning enforcement. The loss is attributed to “derogatory planning”, where economic interests lead to exemptions from urban regulations, resulting in built-up densification at the expense of nature [9].

2.2. Drivers of Species Composition and Population Trends

Some articles identified specific landscape and historical factors that determine how species are distributed, including historical continuity, environmental heterogeneity, and landscape attributes. Historical continuity is illustrated by a study carried out in two Central European national parks: the Podyjí and Thayatal National Parks (Czech Republic/Austria). The study revealed a fundamental shift in the primary drivers determining plant species richness, showing that historical land cover (dating back to the 1950s) had a larger impact on current plant species composition than present-day land cover. Even in highly protected areas, insidious, long-term environmental pressures are dominant drivers of ecological change, altering the fundamental drivers of biodiversity. This finding indicates that the widespread, chronic issue of nitrogen deposition has become a more powerful influence on biodiversity than the inherent physical characteristics of the landscape. These results suggest that even well-preserved areas are not immune to large-scale, diffuse environmental threats that require broader policy solutions [10]. In the same study, the “river phenomenon”, characterized by deep valleys with high geomorphological and meso-climatic diversity—which is a primary driver of species richness in these regions—illustrates environmental heterogeneity [8].

A 24-year study carried in Shengjin Lake in China’s Yangtze Floodplain found that an increasing population trend was driven primarily by habitat and landscape attributes, not climate. For wintering geese, the availability of suitable habitat and landscape attributes (such as connectivity and patch size) are the key forces affecting population trends, while climatic factors have a much weaker influence. Larger herbivores can modify vegetation in a way that creates more suitable foraging conditions for smaller geese. These findings contrast with the decreasing population trends reported in other regional wetlands, suggesting that well-intentioned policies can have unforeseen negative effects and indicating the critical role of landscape structure and history in determining biodiversity. The physical configuration and historical context of a landscape appear to be primary determinants of species population trends and community composition, often outweighing the immediate effects of climatic factors. Altogether, these findings highlight the need for adaptive management strategies that consider complex ecological interactions [6].

2.3. Coastal and Wetland Degradation

The studies dealing with this topic, particularly with land reclamation and hydrological changes and drought, emphasize the vulnerability of wetlands and coastal ecosystems to human intervention and climate extremes. A study carried out in China’s northern Yellow Sea shows that land reclamation for industry and aquaculture is the main cause of a 63% decline in Suaeda salsa saltmarshes over the last three decades [11].

Hydrological changes and drought are illustrated by a study on wetland birds’ assemblages in Nuntași and Tuzla Lakes (Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve). The findings indicate that an ecosystem’s resilience to natural stressors like drought is critically linked to human management. Extreme weather, such as the severe droughts in Romania in 2013 and 2020, can lead to the total drying of lakes, causing piscivorous birds like pelicans and swans to abandon the area while creating temporary feeding grounds for waders and gulls in the mudflats. Inadequate oversight can amplify the impacts of climate, while targeted interventions can provide rapid and effective remedies. Altogether, these results underline the interplay of climate stress and human management [12].

2.4. Socio-Economic Sustainability and Planning Challenges

Two studies carried out in Romania—one dealing with residential satisfaction and another with niche agriculture—show that socio-economic needs often conflict with environmental preservation, but some niche solutions exist. The rapid, developer-led expansion of residential areas in Bucharest and its surroundings, often on former agricultural or industrial land and offering modern dwellings at affordable prices, has created a paradox of residential satisfaction. While residents are pleased with the modernity of their new dwellings, they are highly dissatisfied with the inadequate infrastructure, as the new developments fall short in providing essential facilities like centralized sewerage, public transport, and paved roads. Residents often hold local authorities responsible for allowing development without first establishing the necessary utility networks [13]. Lavender farming is identified as a sustainable economic and ecological solution for small Romanian farms. It offers high profits per hectare, supports beekeeping and biodiversity, and requires low maintenance, although it faces barriers such as a lack of labor and dedicated markets [14].

2.5. Methodologies: Remote Sensing and Geo-Statistical Approaches

So far, we have analyzed the theoretical contributions of the collected studies. However, this presentation would be incomplete without looking at their methodologies. From this standpoint, a cross-cutting theme is the utility of technology in monitoring environmental changes. Satellite remote sensing proved to be a critical tool for quantifying the studied impacts over large and often inaccessible areas. More exactly, remote sensing (using Landsat and Sentinel-2) allows for “wall-to-wall” mapping of plant functional diversity and the monitoring of rapid land cover changes over large, inaccessible regions like Sabah or the Yellow Sea [7]. Similarly, the use of analytical models like InVEST for assessing habitat quality and GWR (Geographically Weighted Regression) for identifying its drivers provided a scientific basis for developing sustainable land use policies [8].

In a nutshell, we can think of a regional ecosystem as a complex puzzle. Urbanization and land reclamation are like removing pieces from the edge, causing the overall picture of biodiversity to shrink [5]. Planning and green infrastructure act as the glue between pieces; if the glue is weak (derogatory planning), the puzzle is fragmented [5]. Finally, technologies like remote sensing are the magnifying glasses that allow scientists to see exactly where pieces are missing or fading before the whole picture is lost [7,12].

3. Conclusions

Overall, the key findings of all the studies included in this Special Issue indicate that landscape structure and historical land use are often more significant drivers of biodiversity than broad climatic variables. Advanced remote sensing technologies are proving indispensable for monitoring these large-scale transformations, from the loss of functional diversity in Bornean forests to hydrological stress in Romanian wetlands. In post-socialist European cities, a generalized loss of urban green infrastructure is underway, fueled by poorly regulated urban sprawl and real estate development that consumes agricultural and natural lands. Concurrently, studies from natural protected areas in Central Europe highlight the emergence of long-term, diffuse threats, such as atmospheric nitrogen deposition, which are becoming primary drivers of biodiversity loss and are overriding traditional landscape-based ecological factors. These studies underscore the critical role of effective, science-informed human management. Case studies demonstrate that while inadequate oversight can exacerbate natural stressors like drought, targeted interventions can rapidly restore ecosystem functions. However, policies can also yield unintended negative consequences, which highlights the complexity of managing interconnected natural systems.