Trond Aalvik Simensen

• Naas, Adam Eindride; Keetz, Lasse Torben; Halvorsen, Rune; Horvath, Peter; Mienna, Ida Marielle & Simensen, Trond [Vis alle 7 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2024). Choice of predictors and complexity for ecosystem distribution models: effects on performance and transferability. Ecography. ISSN 0906-7590. doi: 10.1111/ecog.07269.
• Naas, Adam Eindride; Keetz, Lasse Torben; Halvorsen, Rune; Horvath, Peter; Mienna, Ida Marielle & Simensen, Trond [Vis alle 7 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2024). Choice of predictors and complexity for ecosystem distribution models: effects on performance and transferability. Ecography. ISSN 0906-7590. s. 1–14. doi: 10.1111/ecog.07269.
• Venter, Zander; Czúcz, Bálint; Stange, Erik; Nowell, Megan Sara; Simensen, Trond & Immerzeel, Bart [Vis alle 7 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2024). ‘Uncertainty audit’ for ecosystem accounting: Satellite-based ecosystem extent is biased without design-based area estimation and accuracy assessment. Ecosystem Services. ISSN 2212-0416. 66. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101599. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  There are currently no guidelines in the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) for quantifying and disclosing uncertainty. However, without quantifying uncertainty, it is unclear whether or not accounting tables contain biased (erroneous) area estimates which do not reflect real land cover changes. We use Oslo municipality in Norway as a case study to illustrate best practices in quantifying unbiased area estimates using design-based statistical methods. As input for ecosystem extent accounts, we compared a custom Sentinel-2 land cover map with a globally available one called Dynamic World for 2015, 2018 and 2021. The design-based area estimation involved (i) generating a stratified probability sample of locations using the satellite-based maps to define strata, (ii) assigning ecosystem type labels to the samples using photointerpretation according to a response design protocol, and (iii) applying a stratified area estimator to produce 95% confidence intervals around opening, closing and change stocks in the extent accounting table. We found that pixel counting practices, currently adopted by the SEEA EA community, led to biased extent accounts, particularly for ecosystem conversions, with biases averaging 195% of the true change value derived from design-based methods. We found that the uncertainty inherent in state-of-the-art satellite-based maps exceeded the ability to detect real change in extent for some ecosystem types including water and bare/artificial surfaces. In general, uncertainty in extent accounts is higher for ecosystem type conversion classes compared to stable classes, and higher for 3-yr compared to 6-yr accounting periods. Custom, locally calibrated satellite-based maps of ecosystem extent changes were more accurate (81% overall accuracy) than globally available Dynamic World maps (75%). We suggest that rigorous accuracy assessment in SEEA EA will ensure that ecosystem extent (and consequently condition and service) accounts are credible. A standard for auditing uncertainty in ecosystem accounts is needed. Uncertainty audit Ecosystem service Stratification Remote sensing Earth observation Sampling

• Erikstad, Lars; Hagen, Dagmar & Simensen, Trond (2023). Working with Natural Processes: Restoring a Mining Landscape in the High Arctic, Svalbard, Norway. Geoheritage. ISSN 1867-2477. 15(3). doi: 10.1007/s12371-023-00855-4. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Naas, Adam Eindride; Halvorsen, Rune; Horvath, Peter; Wollan, Anders Kvalvåg; Bratli, Harald & Brynildsrud, Katrine Marie [Vis alle 16 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). What explains inconsistencies in field-based ecosystem mapping? Applied Vegetation Science. ISSN 1402-2001. 26(1). doi: 10.1111/avsc.12715. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Questions Field-based ecosystem mapping is prone to observer bias, typically resulting in a mismatch between maps made by different mappers, that is, inconsistency. Experimental studies testing the influence of site, mapping scale, and differences in experience level on inconsistency in field-based ecosystem mapping are lacking. Here, we study how inconsistencies in field-based ecosystem maps depend on these factors. Location Iškoras and Guollemuorsuolu, northeastern Norway, and Landsvik and Lygra, western Norway. Methods In a balanced experiment, four sites were field-mapped wall-to-wall to scales 1:5000 and 1:20,000 by 12 mappers, representing three experience levels. Thematic inconsistency was calculated by overlay analysis of map pairs from the same site, mapped to the same scale. We tested for significant differences between sites, scales, and experience-level groups. Principal components analysis was used in an analysis of additional map inconsistencies and their relationships with site, scale and differences in experience level and time consumption were analysed with redundancy analysis. Results On average, thematic inconsistency was 51%. The most important predictor for thematic inconsistency, and for all map inconsistencies, was site. Scale and its interaction with site predicted map inconsistencies, but only the latter were important for thematic inconsistency. The only experience-level group that differed significantly from the mean thematic inconsistency was that of the most experienced mappers, with nine percentage points. Experience had no significant effect on map inconsistency as a whole. Conclusion Thematic inconsistency was high for all but the dominant thematic units, with potentially adverse consequences for mapping ecosystems that are fragmented or have low coverage. Interactions between site and mapping system properties are considered the main reasons why no relationships between scale and thematic inconsistency were observed. More controlled experiments are needed to quantify the effect of other factors on inconsistency in field-based mapping.

• Erikstad, Lars; Simensen, Trond; Bakkestuen, Vegar & Halvorsen, Rune (2023). Index Measuring Land Use Intensity—A Gradient‐Based Approach. Geomatics. ISSN 2673-7418. 3, s. 188–204. doi: 10.3390/geomatics3010010. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  To monitor the changes in the landscape, and to relate these to ecological processes, we need robust and reproducible methods for quantifying the changes in landscape patterns. The main aim of this study is to present, exemplify and discuss a gradient‐based index of land use intensity. This index can easily be calculated from spatial data that are available for most areas and may therefore have a wide applicability. Further, the index is adapted for use based on official data sets and can thus be used directly in decision‐making at different levels. The index in its basic form consists of two parts where the first is based on the data of buildings and roads and the second of infrastructure land cover. We compared the index with two frequently used ‘wilderness indices’ in Norway called INON and the Human Footprint Index. Our index captures important elements of infrastructure in more detailed scales than the other indices. A particularly attractive feature of the index is that it is based on map databases that are updated regularly. The index has the potential to serve as an important tool in land use planning as well as a basis for monitoring, the assessment of ecological state and ecological integrity and for ecological accounting as well as strategic environmental assessments. infrastructure; land use; index; landscape; planning; monitoring

• Simensen, Trond; Halvorsen, Rune & Erikstad, Lars (2022). Gradient analysis of landscape variation in Norway. Sommerfeltia. ISSN 0800-6865. 40(1), s. 1–193. doi: 10.2478/som-2022-0001. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv
• Simensen, Trond (2022). Biologen som revolusjonerte byplanleggingen. Patrick Geddes' teorier om byplanlegging og regional utvikling. I Clemetsen, Morten & Asmervik, Sigmund (Red.), Sted, fellesskap og framtid. Erik Loranges idealer og dagens samfunnsplanlegging. Universitetsforlaget. ISSN 978-82-15-037288. s. 53–79.
• Venter, Zander; Barton, David Nicholas; Chakraborty, Tirthankar; Simensen, Trond & Singh, Geethen (2022). Global 10 m Land Use Land Cover Datasets: A Comparison of Dynamic World, World Cover and Esri Land Cover. Remote Sensing. ISSN 2072-4292. 14(16). doi: 10.3390/rs14164101. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  The European Space Agency’s Sentinel satellites have laid the foundation for global land use land cover (LULC) mapping with unprecedented detail at 10 m resolution. We present a cross-comparison and accuracy assessment of Google’s Dynamic World (DW), ESA’s World Cover (WC) and Esri’s Land Cover (Esri) products for the first time in order to inform the adoption and application of these maps going forward. For the year 2020, the three global LULC maps show strong spatial correspondence (i.e., near-equal area estimates) for water, built area, trees and crop LULC classes. However, relative to one another, WC is biased towards over-estimating grass cover, Esri towards shrub and scrub cover and DW towards snow and ice. Using global ground truth data with a minimum mapping unit of 250 m2 , we found that Esri had the highest overall accuracy (75%) compared to DW (72%) and WC (65%). Across all global maps, water was the most accurately mapped class (92%), followed by built area (83%), tree cover (81%) and crops (78%), particularly in biomes characterized by temperate and boreal forests. The classes with the lowest accuracies, particularly in the tundra biome, included shrub and scrub (47%), grass (34%), bare ground (57%) and flooded vegetation (53%). When using European ground truth data from LUCAS (Land Use/Cover Area Frame Survey) with a minimum mapping unit of <100 m2 , we found that WC had the highest accuracy (71%) compared to DW (66%) and Esri (63%), highlighting the ability of WC to resolve landscape elements with more detail compared to DW and Esri. Although not analyzed in our study, we discuss the relative advantages of DW due to its frequent and near real-time data delivery of both categorical predictions and class probability scores. We recommend that the use of global LULC products should involve critical evaluation of their suitability with respect to the application purpose, such as aggregate changes in ecosystem accounting versus site-specific change detection in monitoring, considering trade-offs between thematic resolution, global versus. local accuracy, class-specific biases and whether change analysis is necessary. We also emphasize the importance of not estimating areas from pixel-counting alone but adopting best practices in design-based inference and area estimation that quantify uncertainty for a given study area. accuracy; deep learning; Earth observation; Sentinel-2; validation

• Horvath, Peter; Halvorsen, Rune; Simensen, Trond & Bryn, Anders (2021). A comparison of three ways to assemble wall-to-wall maps from distribution models of vegetation types. GIScience & Remote Sensing. ISSN 1548-1603. 58(8), s. 1458–1476. doi: 10.1080/15481603.2021.1996313. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Distribution modeling methods are used to provide occurrence probability surfaces for modeled targets. While most often used for modeling species, distribution modeling methods can also be applied to vegetation types. However, surfaces provided by distribution modeling need to be transformed into classified wall-to-wall maps of vegetation types to be useful for practical purposes, such as nature management and environmental planning. The paper compares the performance of three methods for assembling predictions for multiple vegetation types, modeled individually, into a wall-to-wall map. The authors used grid-cell based probability surfaces from distribution models of 31 vegetation types to test the three assembly methods. The first, a probability-based method, selected for each grid cell the vegetation type with the highest predicted probability of occurrence in that cell. The second, a performance-based method, assigned the vegetation types, ordered from high to low model performance, to a fraction of the grid cells given by the vegetation type’s prevalence in the study area. The third, a prevalence-based method, differed from the performance-based method by assigning vegetation types in the order from low to high prevalence. Thus the assembly methods worked in two principally different ways: the probability-based method assigned vegetation types to grid cells in a cell-by-cell manner, and both the performance-based method and prevalence-based method assigned them in a type-by-type manner. All methods were evaluated by use of reference data collected in the field, more or less independently of the data used to parameterize the vegetation-type models. Quantity, allocation, and total disagreement, as well as proportional dissimilarity metrics, were used for evaluation of assembly methods. Overlay analysis showed 38.1% agreement between all three assembly methods. The probability-based method had the lowest total disagreement with, and proportional dissimilarity from, the reference datasets, but the differences between the three methods were small. The three assembly methods differed strongly with respect to the distribution of the total disagreement on its quantity and allocation components: the cell-by-cell assignment method strongly favored allocation disagreement and the type-by-type methods strongly favored quantity disagreement. The probability-based method best reproduced the general pattern of variation across the study area, but at the cost of many rare vegetation types, which were left out of the assembled map. By contrast, the prevalence-based and performance-based methods represented vegetation types in accordance with nationwide area statistics. The results show that maps of vegetation types with wall-to-wall coverage can be assembled from individual distribution models with a quality acceptable for indicative purposes, but all the three tested methods currently also have shortcomings. The results also indicate specific points in the methodology for map assembly that may be improved. area frame survey, assembly strategies, distribution modeling, spatial probabilities, vegetation mapping, vegetation types

• Simensen, Trond; Erikstad, Lars & Halvorsen, Rune (2021). Diversity and distribution of landscape types in Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift. ISSN 0029-1951. s. 1–23. doi: 10.1080/00291951.2021.1892177. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Norwegian landscapes are changing at an increasingly rapid rate and therefore systematically structured information about observable landscape variation is required for knowledge-based management of landscape diversity. The purpose of the article is to present the first version of a complete, area covering, evidence-based, landscape type map of Norway, simultaneously addressing geoecological, bioecological and land use related variations. The type system used for the mapping is supported by systematically structured empirical evidence. The results of the mapping procedure, including the geographical distribution and descriptive statistics (abundance and areal coverage), are presented for each of the nine identified major landscape types identified based on coarse-scale landform variation. Within six inland and coastal major types, a large number of minor landscape types are defined based on the composition of geoecological, bioecological, and land use related landscape properties. The results provide new insights into the geography of Norwegian marine, coastal and inland landscapes. The authors discuss potential errors, uncertainties and limitations of the landscape type maps, and address the potential value of the new tool for research, management and planning purposes. They conclude that the results of the study might contribute to knowledge-based spatial planning and management of the unique landscape diversity of Norway.landscape diversity, landscape mapping, landscape type, Norway

• Halvorsen, Rune; Skarpaas, Olav; Bryn, Anders; Bratli, Harald; Erikstad, Lars & Simensen, Trond [Vis alle 7 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2020). Towards a systematics of ecodiversity: the Ecosyst framework. Global Ecology and Biogeography. ISSN 1466-822X. 29(11), s. 1887–1906. doi: 10.1111/geb.13164. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Background Although a standard taxonomy of organisms has existed for nearly 300 years, no consensus has yet been reached on principles for systematization of ecological diversity (i.e., the co‐ordinated variation of abiotic and biotic components of natural diversity). In a rapidly changing world, where nature is under constant pressure, standardized terms and methods for characterization of ecological diversity are urgently needed (e.g., to enhance precision and credibility of global change assessments). Aim The aim is to present the EcoSyst framework, a set of general principles and methods for systematization of natural diversity that simultaneously addresses biotic and abiotic variation, and to discuss perspectives opened by this framework. Innovation EcoSyst provides a framework for systematizing natural variation in a consistent manner across different levels of organization. At each ecodiversity level, EcoSyst principles can be used to establish: (a) an extensive attribute system with descriptive variables that cover all relevant sources of variation; (b) a hierarchical‐type system; and (c) a set of guidelines for land‐cover mapping that is consistent across spatial scales. EcoSyst type systems can be conceptualized as multidimensional models, by which a key characteristic (the response) is related to variation in one or more key sources of variation (predictors). EcoSyst type hierarchies are developed by a gradient‐based iterative procedure, by which the “ecodiversity distance” (i.e., the extent to which the key characteristic differs between adjacent candidate types) is standardized and the ecological processes behind observed patterns are explicitly taken into account. Application We present “Nature in Norway” (NiN), an implementation of the EcoSyst framework for Norway for the ecosystem and landscape levels of ecodiversity. Examples of applications to research and management are given. Conclusion The EcoSyst framework provides a theoretical platform, principles and methods that can complement and enhance initiatives towards a global‐scale systematics of ecodiversity. iodiversity complex gradient continuum theory ecodiversity ecosystem geodiversity gradient landscape mapping typology

• Simensen, Trond; Horvath, Peter; Vollering, Julien; Erikstad, Lars; Halvorsen, Rune & Bryn, Anders (2020). Composite landscape predictors improve distribution models of ecosystem types. Diversity and Distributions: A Journal of Conservation Biogeography. ISSN 1366-9516. 26(8), s. 928–943. doi: 10.1111/ddi.13060. Fulltekst i vitenarkiv Vis sammendrag

  Aim: Distribution modelling is a useful approach to obtain knowledge about the spatial distribution of biodiversity, required for, for example, red-list assessments. While distribution modelling methods have been applied mostly to single species, modelling of communities and ecosystems (EDM; ecosystem-level distribution modelling) produces results that are more directly relevant for management and decision-making. Although the choice of predictors is a pivotal part of the modelling process, few studies have compared the suitability of different sets of predictors for EDM. In this study, we compare the performance of 50 single environmental variables with that of 11 composite landscape gradients (CLGs) for prediction of ecosystem types. The CLGs represent gradients in landscape element composition derived from multivariate analyses, for example “inner-outer coast” and “land use intensity.” Location: Norway. Methods: We used data from field-based ecosystem-type mapping of nine ecosystem types, and environmental variables with a resolution of 100 × 100 m. We built nine models for each ecosystem type with variables from different predictor sets. Logistic regression with forward selection of variables was used for EDM. Models were evaluated with independently collected data. Results: Most ecosystem types could be predicted reliably, although model performance differed among ecosystem types. We identified significant differences in predictive power and model parsimony across models built from different predictor sets. Climatic variables alone performed poorly, indicating that the current climate alone is not sufficient to predict the current distribution of ecosystems. Used alone, the CLGs resulted in parsimonious models with relatively high predictive power. Used together with other variables, they consistently improved the models. Main conclusions: Our study highlights the importance of variable selection in EDM. We argue that the use of composite variables as proxies for complex environmental gradients has the potential to improve predictions from EDMs and thus to inform conservation planning as well as improve the precision and credibility of red lists and global change assessments.conservation planning, distribution modelling, ecosystem classification, ecosystem types, IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, landscape gradients, spatial prediction, species response curves

Se alle arbeider i Cristin

• Edvardsen, Anette; Halvorsen, Rune; Bratli, Harald; Bryn, Anders; Dervo, Børre Kind & Erikstad, Lars [Vis alle 11 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2024). Natur i Norge. Variasjon satt i system. Universitetsforlaget. ISBN 978-82-15-06986-9. 434 s.

Se alle arbeider i Cristin

• Riise, Heine Nygard; Honningdalsnes, Erlend Hustad; Hagen, Dagmar; Sydenham, Markus A. K.; Melhoop, Anne Catriona & Simensen, Trond Aalvik [Vis alle 8 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2024). Envisol – Presenting a Cross-Disciplinary Project on How PV Power Plants Influence Nature.
• May, Roelof Frans; van Dijk, Jiska Joanneke; Simensen, Trond Aalvik; Spielhofer, Reto & Engen, Sigrid (2024). Arbeidsseminar om arealbasert bevaring, 30x30 målet og naturavtalen.
• Simensen, Trond (2024). Arealbruksdilemmaer frem mot år 2050.
• Simensen, Trond (2024). Planer og scenarier for framtidig arealbruk i kommune-Norge.
• Simensen, Trond (2024). Landskapsnivået i Natur i Norge (NiN).
• Jansson, Ulrika; Skrindo, Astrid Brekke & Simensen, Trond (2024). Restaurerbar natur – hvordan få mer natur i en kommune?
• Simensen, Trond (2024). Natur i Norge – landskap.
• Simensen, Trond (2024). Arealbruk og natur.
• Engen, Sigrid; Simensen, Trond Aalvik; Spielhofer, Reto & May, Roelof Frans (2024). Arbeidsseminar om arealbaserte bevaringstiltak med regionale myndigheter i Trøndelag.
• Simensen, Trond (2024). Naturavtalen. Hva vil den kunne bety for kommunene og fylkeskommunene? .
• Tvedt, Kristian; Simensen, Trond & Indset, Marthe (2024). Bærekraftig arealforvaltning i norske kommuner: Hva påvirker arealreservene?
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Arealbruksdilemmaer fram mot år 2050.
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Arealreserver for utbygging – status og kunnskapsbehov .
• A'Campo, Willeke Anna Josephina & Simensen, Trond (2023). Arealreserver for bolig, fritidsbolig og næring i kommunenes arealplaner .
• Svenn Arne, Lie & Simensen, Trond (2023). Hva vil vi med arealene våre? Seks ganger mer areal til hytter enn bolig. [Avis]. Gudbrandsdølen Dagningen.
• Simensen, Trond (2023). PLanvask - en magisk form for naturrestaurering.
• Hagen, Dagmar; Erikstad, Lars & Simensen, Trond (2023). Svea-prosjektet på Svalbard, Norges villeste restaureringsprosjekt. Mellom geopolitikk, naturavtale og lokalsamfunn.
• Hagen, Dagmar; Erikstad, Lars & Simensen, Trond (2023). Restoring high arctic wilderness in the interface between geopolitics, COP15, and local communities. The Svea, Svalbard, case.
• Aarvig, Einar & Simensen, Trond (2023). Planlagt utbyggingsareal i Norge. Ingen har sett den samlede summen. Plan: Tidsskrift for samfunnsplanlegging, byplan og regional utvikling. ISSN 0805-083X. s. 28–31. doi: 10.18261/plan.55.3.5.
• Nyhus, Håvard & Simensen, Trond (2023). Riksrevisjonen kritiserer at matjord blir bygd ned. [Internett]. NRK Vestland.
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Tracking changes in Norwegian Ecosystems: Distribution, State, and Implications for Policy and Land Use Planning.
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Introduksjon til landskapsøkologi for by- og regionplanleggere.
• Simensen, Trond & Lindaas, Gunnar Ogwyn (2023). Arealreserver for bolig, fritidsbolig og næring i Norge.
• Våge, Martha; Jørgensen, Finn Arne; Simensen, Trond & Winther, Rikke (2023). Spørretime om bærekraftig hyttebygging. Ekko, NRK P2. [Radio]. NRK.
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Planlagt arealbruk i Norge.
• Bergskaug, Elisabeth & Simensen, Trond (2023). Kommunenes utbyggingsplaner strider mot regjeringens politikk. [Internett]. Altinget.
• Fransson, Line & Simensen, Trond (2023). Planlegger hytte-dobling: - Helt vanvittig. [Avis]. Dagbladet.
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Planlagt utbyggingsareal i Norge.
• Høyås, Frida Synnøve & Simensen, Trond (2023). Flyttar frå hyttekommune i protest. [Internett]. NRK.
• Setsaas, Trine Hay; Simensen, Trond; Hagen, Dagmar; Kyrkjeeide, Magni Olsen; White, Lajla Tunaal & Forseth, Torbjørn [Vis alle 8 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). Naturavtalen er signert. Hva nå Norge? Sesong 5 episode 1. . [Internett]. Naturligvis : en podcast om natur fra NINA. Vis sammendrag

  40 min

• Simensen, Trond (2023). Utfordringer for morgendagens by- og regionplanleggere.
• Simensen, Trond & Skrindo, Astrid Brekke (2023). Metodisk tilnærming til naturkartlegging. Eksempel Eiktyr i Orkland.
• Simensen, Trond; Stange, Erik; Rusch, Graciela Monica & Ruud, Audun (2023). Fra naturregnskap til naturbudsjett og arealplanlegging.
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Landscape ecology in planning and management .
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Hyttebygging i går, i dag og i morgen.
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Landskapstyper. Forelesning i emnet BIOS4120 – Norsk naturvariasjon - typeinndeling, beskrivelse og kartlegging av natur basert på Natur i Norge (NiN).
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Kunnskapsbehov i arealforvaltningen – Trond Simensen .
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Status for planlagt hyttebygging i kommune-Norge.
• Simensen, Trond; Stange, Erik; Rusch, Graciela Monica & Ruud, Audun (2023). Landskap i endring, naturregnskap og begrepsavklaringer.
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Kommunene må rydde i utdaterte hytteplaner. Kommunal rapport. ISSN 0801-6410.
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Natur i Norge, landskapstyper.
• Nilsen, Torbjørn Tumyr & Simensen, Trond (2023). Naturen etter turbinene. [Fagblad]. Arkitektur.no.
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Planlagt hyttebygging i norske kommuner.
• Simensen, Trond & Lie, Svenn Arne (2023). Har nok tomter til 10.000 hytter: – Bør virkelig ta en fot i bakken. [Internett]. Gudbrandsdølen Dagningen.
• Skrindo, Astrid Brekke; Simensen, Trond & Sørheim, Maja Dineh (2023). Nordre Follo: Unikt prosjekt skal vise vei ut av naturkrisen. [Avis]. Morgenbladet.
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Rekordmange nye hytter i 2022. [Internett]. NRK.
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Naturregnskap og arealendringer.
• Simensen, Trond (2023). Mulige tiltak for en bærekraftig arealpolitikk i kommunene. Inledning til diskusjon rundt natur og arealpolitikk.
• Winge, Nikolai Kristoffersen; Holth, Fredrik; Hanssen, Gro Sandkjær & Simensen, Trond (2023). Bryt båndene mellom utbygger og utreder. Alltinget.
• Simensen, Trond; Venter, Zander & Barton, David Nicholas (2022). NINAs kompetanse i naturregnskap med fokus på arealregnskap for økosystemerArealregnskap.
• Reitan, Andreas & Simensen, Trond (2022). Planer for hyttebygging i Trøndelag. [Radio]. Nea Radio.
• Simensen, Trond (2022). Kartlegging av tomtereserver for fritidsbebyggelse.
• Simensen, Trond (2022). Presentasjon av KS-rapporten «bærekraftig arealbruk innenfor rammen av lokalt selvstyre».
• Simensen, Trond & Nylenna, Mathias (2022). Store hyttebyggeplaner i Norge. [Radio]. NRK P1 Dagens.
• Simensen, Trond (2022). Naturregnskap supplerer brutto nasjonalprodukt og viser naturens verdi.
• Simensen, Trond (2022). Hva er naturregnskap og hva kan det brukes til.
• Simensen, Trond; Nowell, Megan Sara & Blumentrath, Stefan (2022). Kartlegging av tomtereserver for fritidsbolig i Norge.
• Simensen, Trond; Hagen, Dagmar & Erikstad, Lars (2022). Naturrestaurering – Anbefalte målsetninger og tiltak for Gruve 7 på Svalbard.
• Simensen, Trond (2022). Bærekraftig arealbruk i Kommune-Norge - faglunsj for Klima- og miljødepartementet.
• Simensen, Trond (2022). Bærekraftig arealbruk i Kommune-Norge.
• Simensen, Trond (2022). Introduksjon til landskapsøkologi for by- og regionplanleggere.
• Skrindo, Astrid Brekke; Kolstad, Anders Lorentzen; Hagen, Dagmar; Evju, Marianne; Nybø, Signe & Simensen, Trond (2022). Presentasjon av rapporten «Nye virkemidler i arealforvaltningen – naturrestaurering, arealregnskap og naturavgift».
• Simensen, Trond; Hagen, Dagmar & Erikstad, Lars (2022). Avslutningsplan for Gruve 7 – skisse til overordnede grep.
• Fadnes, Astrid & Simensen, Trond (2022). Norsk status i naturrestaureringens tiår. [Fagblad]. Arkitektnytt 6/2022.
• Landrø, Juliet; Stokke, Bård Gunnar; Forseth, Torbjørn; Sundt-Hansen, Line Elisabeth Breivik; Hagen, Dagmar & Fossøy, Frode [Vis alle 8 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2022). Lure løsninger! Episode 4 om bærekraft. Sesong 4 episode 5. [Internett]. Naturligvis : en podcast om natur fra NINA. Vis sammendrag

  Hva kan vi gjøre for å både ha natur og bruke natur? Hele poenget med bærekraftig samfunnsutvikling er at vi fortsatt skal ha det vi trenger, men at ungene våre og andre som kommer etter oss på denne kloden også får dekket sine behov for mat, kraft, byggematerialer og så videre. Og det finnes allerede mange metoder for å bruke naturen på en mer bærekraftig måte, så her får du 9 lure løsninger som det går an å gjennomføre allerede i dag! 36 min

• Erikstad, Lars; Hagen, Dagmar & Simensen, Trond (2022). Avslutningsplan for Svea fase 2b. Tilbakeføring av veger og anlegg. Grønt kurs.
• Simensen, Trond (2022). Naturregnskap som verktøy for arealplanlegging.
• Panzacchi, Manuela; Van Moorter, Bram; Teien, Kristin Thorsrud; Simensen, Trond; Stange, Erik & Chipperfield, Joseph (2022). GreenPlan: Launching the "Norwegian Green Infrastructure Network” and decision-support tools for Land Prioritization, Scenario & Impact Assessment .
• Simensen, Trond; Panzacchi, Manuela; Van Moorter, Bram & Stange, Erik (2022). GreenPlan – The Norwegian Green Infrastructure Network & decision-support tools for Land Prioritization, Scenario, and Impact assessment.
• Stange, Erik & Simensen, Trond (2022). Forslag til nye og forsterkede virkemidler for en bærekraftig arealbruk innenfor rammene av lokalt selvstyre.
• Panzacchi, Manuela; Van Moorter, Bram; Stange, Erik; Simensen, Trond & Teien, Kristin Thorsrud (2022). GreenPlan - Launching the Norwegian Green Infrastructure Network & decision-support tools for Land Prioritization, Scenario and Impact assessment.
• Kyrkjeeide, Magni Olsen & Simensen, Trond (2022). Planer som tar hensyn til naturmangfold og klima.
• Simensen, Trond (2022). Bærekraftig arealbruk innenfor rammene av lokalt selvstyre.
• Teien, Kristin Thorsrud; Barton, David Nicholas; Simensen, Trond; Venter, Zander; Sydenham, Markus A. K. & Kolstad, Anders Lorentzen (2021). Hva er naturregnskap og hvordan kan det brukes?
• Simensen, Trond (2021). Hva er arealregnskap og hvordan kan det utvikles?
• Simensen, Trond Aalvik (2021). History, state of art and future of landscape ecological research.
• Simensen, Trond ; Skrindo, Astrid Brekke; Kolstad, Anders Lorentzen; Stange, Erik & Czúcz, Bálint (2024). Naturregnskap på prosjektnivå. En sammenligning mellom metoder for naturregnskap i fin skala og tradisjonelle miljøkonsekvensutredninger som kunnskapsgrunnlag for utbygging av fornybar energi. Norsk institutt for naturforskning (NINA). ISSN 978-82-426-5129-7.
• Framstad, Erik; Czúcz, Bálint; Schartau, Ann Kristin; Simensen, Trond; Nybø, Signe & Sandvik, Hanno (2023). Naturregnskap og økologisk tilstand. Samsvar mellom fagsystemet for økologisk tilstand, vannforskriften, FNs rammeverk og EUs forslag til naturregnskap. Norsk institutt for naturforskning (NINA). ISSN 978-82-426-5126-6. Vis sammendrag

  Naturregnskap, tilstandsregnskap, SEEA EA, EU-metodikk, vannforskriften, fagsystem for økologisk tilstand

• Lyngstad, Anders; Simensen, Trond & Kyrkjeeide, Magni Olsen (2023). Naturrekneskap for ei hyttegrend. Otrosåsen på Hovden i Bykle kommune . Norsk institutt for naturforskning (NINA). ISSN 978-82-426-5155-6. Vis sammendrag

  - Karbonkalkulator - Hytteutbygging - Noreg, Agder, Setesdal - NiN-kartlegging - Myr - Restaurering - Torvdjup - Torvmark

• Simensen, Trond; A'Campo, Willeke Anna Josephina; Atakan, Andreas; Heggdal, Jan Eirik; Aune-Lundberg, Linda & Vagnildhaug, Andreas [Vis alle 8 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). Planlagt utbyggingsareal i Norge. Identifisering av mulig framtidig utbyggingsareal i kommunale arealplaner etter plan- og bygningsloven. Norsk institutt for naturforskning (NINA). ISSN 978-82-426-5108-2. Vis sammendrag

  Arealplanlegging, planlagt utbygging, konsekvensutredning, Norge

• Skrindo, Astrid Brekke; Simensen, Trond; Jansson, Ulrika; Bakkestuen, Vegar; Dervo, Børre Kind & Hagen, Dagmar [Vis alle 9 forfattere av denne artikkelen] (2023). Restaurerbar natur i Nordre Follo. Norsk institutt for naturforskning (NINA). ISSN 978-82-426-5112-9. Vis sammendrag

  - Nordre Follo kommune, Akershus, Norge - Naturrestaurering - Økologisk restaurering - Restaurerbar natur - Geografiske analyser - Terrestriske økosystem - Dammer - Bekker

• Gundersen, Vegard; Singsaas, Marianne; Grønn, Jenny Fossum; Köhler, Berit & Simensen, Trond (2023). Tradisjon og destinasjon - en studie av fritidsboliger, ferdsel og fremtidsbilder på Hardangervidda . Norsk institutt for naturforskning (NINA). ISSN 978-82-426-5111-2.
• Blumentrath, Stefan; Simensen, Trond & Nowell, Megan Sara (2022). Kartlegging av tomtereserver for fritidsbolig i Norge. Norsk institutt for naturforskning (NINA). ISSN 978-82-426-4964-5. Vis sammendrag

  Kommuneplan, reguleringsplan, plandata, fritidsbolig, hytte, kartlegging, GIS, arealkonflikt, miljøhensyn, plankrav

• Simensen, Trond; Winge, Nikolai Kristoffersen; Holth, Fredrik; Stange, Erik; Barton, David Nicholas & Hanssen, Gro Sandkjær (2022). Bærekraftig arealbruk innenfor rammen av lokalt selvstyre. KS FOU-rapport. KS. Vis sammendrag

  Bærekraftig arealbruk innenfor rammene av lokalt selvstyre Målet med dette prosjektet har vært å bidra til en diskusjon om hvilke utfordringer for bærekraftig arealbruk som særlig gjør seg gjeldende innenfor kommunal arealforvaltning. I prosjektet er det gjennomført to samlinger i regi av KS, med deltakere fra kommunene og andre sentrale aktører i arealplanleggingen. Det utarbeidet et notat der en faggruppe med bidragsytere fra Norsk institutt for naturforskning, OsloMet og Holth & Winge oppsummerer utfordringer ved dagens arealforvaltning og gir råd om tiltak og virkemidler som kan bidra til å løse utfordringene. I notatet gjengis sentrale funn fra FNs klimapanel og det internasjonale naturpanelet IPBES, sammen med en drøfting av hva funnene betyr for kommunesektoren i Norge. Pågående landskapsendringer og arealutviklingstrekk i Norge beskrives kort. Utfordringer ved dagens praksis innenfor arealplanlegging drøftes på bakgrunn av nylig gjennomførte forskningsprosjekt og evalueringer. På bakgrunn av beskrivelsen av dagens situasjon, foreslår forfatterne mulige nye eller forsterkede tiltak og virkemidler som kan bidra til en mer bærekraftig arealbruk innenfor rammene av kommunalt selvstyre. Tiltakene er sortert i tre kategorier: 1) tiltak for bedre kunnskap og kompetanse; 2) økonomiske virkemidler; og 3) juridiske virkemidler. Forslagene skal fungere som et diskusjonsgrunnlag, og de ulike foreslåtte tiltakene er ikke utredet i detalj. Noen av tiltakene vil være mest aktuelle områder med høyt press på arealene, mens andre vil være relevante i alle kommuner. I et videre arbeid vil det være avgjørende å vurdere et godt samvirke mellom foreslåtte tiltak.

• Hagen, Dagmar; Skrindo, Astrid Brekke; Evju, Marianne; Nybø, Signe; Simensen, Trond & Kolstad, Anders Lorentzen (2022). Nye virkemidler i arealforvaltningen – naturrestaurering, arealregnskap og naturavgift. Norsk institutt for naturforskning (NINA). ISSN 978-82-426-4885-3. Vis sammendrag

  naturregnskap, restaureringsbehov, restaureringskostnader, arealregnskap, økologisk tilstand, naturnøytralitet

• Simensen, Trond (2021). Mapping and analysis of landscape diversity. Thesis for the degree for Philosophiae Doctor (PhD). Universitetet i Oslo.

Se alle arbeider i Cristin