ArticlePDF Available

Economic value of ecosystem services in Protected Landscape Areas in the Czech Republic

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This study aims to explore spatially explicit economic values of ecosystem services provided by ecosystems and habitats in 25 Protected Landscape Areas (PLAs) in the Czech Republic, with a more detailed overview of three selected PLAs (Beskids Mountains, Český les Mountains and Odra River Basin). In the methodology, combination of the Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems of the Czech Republic (CLES) and the EKOSERV database allowed us to utilize the ecosystem and economic valuation data in a specific geographic context using a GIS-based approach. The total value of ecosystem services in all 25 PLAs reached € 51 billion/year, with the surface area significantly influencing the total average value of a particular PLA. When transformed to value per unit area, the values varied from €1.2 to €6.5 million/km ² /year. The results suggest a dominant role of forest ecosystems in the composition of the economic value provided by ecosystem services in the PLAs. Economic valuation of benefits provided by protected areas can help to realize the social importance of these sites and to support policy and decision-making processes.
Content may be subject to copyright.
99
Beskydy, 2017, 10 (1, 2): 99–112
© Mendelova univerzita v Brně
ISSN: 1805-9538 (Online)
http://dx.doi.org/10.11118/beskyd201710010099
Economic value of ecosystem services in Protected Landscape Areas
in the Czech Republic
*Jan Daněk1, David Vačkář1, Eliška Krkoška Lorencová1
1) Global Change Research Institute, Czech Academy of Sciences, Bělidla 986/4a, 603 00 Brno, Czech Republic,
Department of Human Dimensions of Global Change, V Jirchářích 149/6, 110 00 Praha 1 email: danek.j@czech-
globe.cz
Abstract: Daněk J., Vačkář D., Krkoška Lorencová E. 2017: Value of ecosystem services in Protected
Landscape Areas in the Czech Republic – Beskydy, 10 (1, 2): 99–112
This study aims to explore spatially explicit economic values of ecosystem services
provided by ecosystems and habitats in 25 Protected Landscape Areas (PLAs) in the Czech
Republic, with a more detailed overview of three selected PLAs (Beskids Mountains,
Český les Mountains and Odra River Basin). In the methodology, combination of the
Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems of the Czech Republic (CLES) and the EKOSERV
database allowed us to utilize the ecosystem and economic valuation data in a specific
geographic context using a GIS-based approach. The total value of ecosystem services
in all 25 PLAs reached € 51 billion/year, with the surface area significantly influencing
the total average value of a particular PLA. When transformed to value per unit area, the
values varied from €1.2 to €6.5 million/km2/year. The results suggest a dominant role
of forest ecosystems in the composition of the economic value provided by ecosystem
services in the PLAs. Economic valuation of benefits provided by protected areas can
help to realize the social importance of these sites and to support policy and decision-
making processes.
Keywords: ecosystem services, economic valuation, Protected Landscape Areas, forest ecosystems
Introduction
1 “Ecosystem diss ervices (E DS) are functions or properties of ecosys tems that cause effec ts that are perce ived as harmful,
unplea sant or unwante d. Example s of EDS include pe st damages to a griculture , pollen caus ing allergi c reactions o r fear
relat ed to night-tim e urban parks .” (Ly yt imä ki 2 015)
Protected areas and their ecosystems provide
people and society with vital ecosystem ser-
vices. However, the ecosystems might be sub-
ject to degradation, which has been mentioned
on numerous occasions both in policy and
scientific discourses (Costanza et al. 2017; Stef-
fen et al. 2011; MA 2005). Some authors suggest
the process can be influenced by expressing,
unhiding or making visible the multiple values
and benefits provided by nature to people (Fré-
lichová et al. 2014; Daily et al. 2009).
The concept of ecosystem services has suc-
cessfully made its way into an increasingly
popular research topic over the last decades
(Kull et al. 2015). It has also become an impor-
tant framework describing values of nature,
oen in monetary terms (Costanza et al. 2017;
Bennett et al. 2015). Nonetheless, it is arguably
an anthropocentric concept, and as such it has
been the butt of criticism as well as counter-ar-
guments (Schröter et al. 2014; McCauley 2006).
However, it cannot be denied that this concept
offers us a unique framework, allowing us to
assess and communicate oen invisible or over-
looked values and benefits (but also some dis-
services1, see Lyytimäki 2015) provided by na-
ture to society or individuals. Various outcomes
of ecosystem service research provide support
100 J. Daně k, D. Vačkář, E . Krkoš ka Lorenc ová
tools for policy and decision-making processes,
such as ecosystem assessments, economic valu-
ation, mapping of ecosystems and ecosystem
services.
In the European context, few countries have
completed a national ecosystem assessment in
its broad sense (Schröter et al. 2016). However,
some countries are conducting related activities
or have at least done some mapping of ecosys-
tems or undertaken a pilot study on ecosystem
assessment (MAES 2016). In the Czech Repub-
lic, two studies on ecosystem services assess-
ment have been carried out at national level
(Frélichová et al. 2014; Hönigová et al. 2012).
Both studies included estimations of economic
value of ecosystem services. The prime focus of
the study by Frélichová et al. (2014) is on assess-
ment of six ecosystem types (aquatic ecosystems,
agricultural ecosystems, forests, grasslands, ur-
ban areas, wetlands) and 17 ecosystem services
across the territory of the country. The study by
Hönigová et al. (2012) focuses on a single ecosys-
tem type – grasslands.
Protected areas have been traditionally de-
clared to conserve natural values, based on
the distributions of threatened and important
species and habitats or features of geomorpho-
logical significance. However, it is widely recog-
nized that protected areas are contributing to
the maintenance of vital ecosystem processes
which translate into the ecosystem services
value for society (Durán et al. 2013). Despite the
recent efforts in ecosystem services valuation,
there are few studies on the economic value of
ecosystem services in specially protected areas
(Whitham et al. 2014; Ingraham & Foster 2008).
Exploring, assessing and showing the economic
value of ecosystems and the benefits they pro-
vide to society or individuals is one of the ways
to express and quantify the extent to which
nature contributes (directly or indirectly) to
human well-being (MA 2005). Valuation of eco-
system services can be a useful starting point to
highlight benefits provided by ecosystems in or-
der to inform environmental management and
related policies for nature protection and local
development.
Research objectives
This study draws on the results from previous re-
search by Frélichová et al. (2014), which provide
an integrated assessment of ecosystem services
in the Czech Republic. While having a different
research subject, protected areas, it further ex-
pands the usability of previously gathered data
and databases. This paper applies the ecosystem
assessment data in a new, more detailed context
in order to expand the body of knowledge about
ecosystem services in protected areas and their
societal benefits, expressed as an estimation of
economic value. Generally, the goal is to explore
spatially explicit economic values provided by
ecosystems and habitats in large-scale protected
areas.
The primary task was to identify the factors re-
garding ecosystem and habitat structure which
play a major role in estimating the economic
value of Protected Landscape Areas (PLAs) in
the Czech Republic. Ecosystem types and values
were extracted using a previously developed
methodology and valuation database by Fréli-
chová et al. (2014) and applied in a new context.
Selected PLAs were further analysed in order to
answer the question whether the highest value
of a single ecosystem relates to ecosystems with
the largest surface area and which habitats con-
tribute the most to the overall value of a particu-
lar PLA.
Material and Methods
Study sites
According to Act No. 114/1992 Coll. on Nature
and Landscape Protection, there are six types of
Specially Protected Areas in the Czech Repub-
lic – two large scale categories – National Park
and Protected Landscape Area; and four small
scale categories – National Nature Reserve,
Nature Reserve, National Nature Monument,
and Nature Monument. This study examines
specifically PLAs which Act No. 114/1992 Coll.
defines as extensive areas with a harmonic
landscape, a specific relief, a significant share of
natural ecosystems of forest and natural grass-
lands, and an abundance of woody species. The
PLAs might also include some historical settle-
ment relics. The management of the PLAs must
be carried out according to specific 3–4 zones of
protection in order to preserve and improve the
natural state of the PLAs and to create and pro-
tect optimal ecological functions in these areas.
Recreational use of the PLAs is allowed only if it
does not damage their natural values.
Currently, there are 26 PLAs in the territory
of the Czech Republic, covering 14.39 % of the
country’s surface area. This study includes 25
Econom ic value of ecos ystem ser vices in P rotected L andscape A reas
in t he Czech Republic 101
PLAs, because the latest PLA, Brdy Highlands,
was created only recently (in 2016) and was not
included in the CLES at the time of the research.
The total area of the 25 PLAs covered in this
study is 13.78 % of the country’s surface area.
Based on the results, three PLAs were selected
for a further analysis.
Spatial data
Since ecosystem services are inherently linked
to and depended on ecosystems, the first es-
sential step is to identify relevant ecosystems,
habitats or land-use, in order to assign to them
relevant ecosystem services and value them. The
source of the spatial ecosystem data for the PLAs
was from the Consolidated Layer of Ecosystems
of the Czech Republic (CLES), which has been
made by CzechGlobe together with Nature Con-
servation Agency of the Czech Republic in 2012.
The CLES utilizes Habitat Mapping Layer (origi-
nally made to identify the Natura 2000 sites), Co-
rine Land Cover (2006), Urban Atlas, ZABAGED
geographic data, and other specific data for wa-
ter bodies (DIBAVOD) (Frélichová et al. 2014).
The CLES consists of 41 habitat/land-use cat-
egories, hierarchically classified at four levels
(Table 1 in the supplementary material). The
highest level comprises seven ecosystem types:
aquatic ecosystems, agricultural ecosystems,
bare land, forests, grasslands, urban areas, and
wetlands. For example, the lowest level of For-
ests ecosystem type contains 13 habitat types:
e.g. intensive mixed forests, alluvial forests,
spruce forests or natural shrub vegetation. Fig.
1 provides an overview of 38 relevant habitat/
land-use categories presented in three selected
PLAs.
Classification of ecosystem services
Ecosystem services are classified into three basic
categories, regulating, provisioning and cultural,
in line with the most globally used classifica-
tions – MA (2005), TEEB (2013), and CICES v4.3
(Haines-Young & Potschin 2013). The fourth
category of supporting services is not included
as it might cause double counting errors (Fré-
lichová et al. 2014; Bateman et al. 2011). Based
on the existing ecosystems and environmental
conditions in the Czech Republic, a selection of
18 relevant services was made (Frélichová et al.
2014). The complete list with the relevant eco-
systems, where the economic valuation was ap-
plied, is presented in Tab. 1.
Fig. 1: 38 relevant habitat/land-use categories by CLES presented in three selected PLAs (A – Český les Mountains; B –
Odra River Basin; C – Beskids Mountains). Data source: CLES.
102 J. Daně k, D. Vačkář, E . Krkoš ka Lorenc ová
Economic valuation
Data from the EKOSERV database were used
for a monetary valuation of ecosystem services
in the PLAs. The database was set up by Czech-
Globe in 2012–2013 as part of a project sup-
ported by the Technology Agency of the Czech
Republic “Integrated assessment of ecosystem
services in the Czech Republic” (EKOSERV), fo-
cused on quantification, mapping and economic
valuation of ecosystem services in the Czech
Republic. Outputs from this integrated applica-
tion of the concept of ecosystem services were
intended to support decision-making processes
in the Czech Republic, e.g. by estimating the to-
tal monetary value of ecosystem services, which
equals 150 % of the annual Czech gross domes-
tic product (Frélichová et al. 2014). The method
for estimating the monetary values of ecosys-
tem services used when creating the EKOSERV
database was benefit transfer, oen regarded
as a relatively fast and least data demanding
method for ecosystem service value assess-
ment (Frélichová et al. 2014; Wilson & Hoehn
2006). Generally, the benefit transfer makes use
of available data for ecosystem service valua-
tion and applies them in a new, similar context
(Liu et al. 2010). The benefit transfer method can
provide relatively appropriate indicative value
estimates.
Based on a systematic (scientific) review of the
literature, the benefit transfer method was ap-
plied and resulted in a database with nearly 200
monetary values for various ecosystem services.
For a more detailed description of the process of
the EKOSERV database creation including the
valuation methods, see the full paper by Fréli-
chová et al. (2014).
Results
Total value
The total value of ecosystem services in all 25
PLAs reached € 51 billion/year. The PLA with
the highest total monetary value of ecosystem
services was Beskids Mountains, totalling € 7.3
billion/year. Beskids Mountains are also the
Tab. 1: Ecosystem services (ES) researched and applied for economic valuation, adapted
from Fr élichová et a l. (2014)
Ecosystem service category Service/benefit Relevant ecosystems
Provisioning
Crop A
Biomas s A, F, G, W, WET
Fish W, W ET
Timber F
Non-timber F
Game F
Water W, W ET
Regulating
Air quality F
Climate A , F, G, U, W ET
Disturbance W, W ET
Erosion A, F, G, WET
Nutr ient A, G, W, WET
Pest control A, F, G, WET
Pollination A
Water cycle A, F, G , U, W ET
Wate r qua lit y G, F, WET
Cultural Aesthetic v alue A, F, W, WET
Recreation A, F, G, U, W, WET
Explanation of acronyms: A – agricultural, F – forests, G – grasslands, U – urban,
W – water, W ET - wetlands
Econom ic value of ecos ystem ser vices in P rotected L andscape A reas
in t he Czech Republic 103
PLA with the largest surface area (1,205 km2),
and therefore, it was expected that the area
might significantly affect the total value. An-
other important variable is the share of the most
valuable ecosystems, which is further described
in a relevant subsection. On the other hand, the
PLA with the lowest total monetary value of eco-
system services was Odra River Basin, amount-
ing to € 102 million/year. Similar to the previ-
ous one, Odra River Basin is the second smallest
PLA with regard to the surface area (80 km2) and
therefore, it was expected that the total value
would stay on the lower end of the scale. Fig. 2
presents the total value of the ecosystem ser-
vices in all the PLAs considered in this study,
their spatial distribution in the Czech Republic
and their classification into 5 categories regard-
ing the total value of the ecosystem services pro-
vided in EUR per year.
Value per unit area
To facilitate the comparability between the
PLAs, the monetary values were transformed
and expressed as values per unit area (km2).
As a result, this step regulates the influence of
PLA size on the outcome value. The PLA with
the highest monetary value per unit area was
Český les Mountains, totalling €6.5 million/
km2/year. On the other hand, the lowest value
per unit area was that of Odra River Basin with
€1.2 million/km2/year, which scored the lowest
total value as well. The possible reasons and im-
plications of this are discussed in the respective
subchapter. A complete list of the PLAs and the
value of ecosystem services in EUR/km2/year is
shown in Fig. 3.
Exploring ecosystems with the highest
value
To further explore the composition of the total
value per PLA, the following analysis is focused
on decoding which ecosystems have the high-
est share in the value, in other words, how it
relates to actual habitat/ecosystem structure of
the PLA. Of a total number of 25 PLAs, three
were selected for this analysis, based on the re-
sults from the previous section (total value and
value per unit area). The first detailed overview
is given for Beskids Mountains, which scored
number one for the total monetary value of ES,
possibly due to its largest surface area. Second
was Odra River Basin, which scored the lowest
number for the total value and, at the same time,
for the value per unit area of the PLA. Third PLA
for a deeper analysis is Český les Mountains,
which scored highest in the value per unit area.
Fig. 2: Total monetary value of ES in PLAs per year.
104 J. Daně k, D. Vačkář, E . Krkoš ka Lorenc ová
Fig. 3: Average monetary value of ES in PLAs per unit area (EUR/km2) per year.
Fig. 4: Value per unit area in three selected PLAs (A – Český les Mountains; B – Odra River Basin; C – Beskids Mountains).
Econom ic value of ecos ystem ser vices in P rotected L andscape A reas
in t he Czech Republic 105
The Fig. 4 presents the three selected PLAs; the
values per unit area are graphically divided into
5 categories to capture the whole gradient from
very low to very high values.
Beskids Mountains
The largest PLA in the Czech Republic, Beskids
Mountains, is a dominantly forested mountain-
ous area bordering Slovakia in the western part
of the Carpathian mountain range. It has a sur-
face area of approximately 1,205 km2 and ranges
from 326 to 1,319 metres above sea level (AOPK
2015).
In Beskids Mountains PLA, the value of eco-
system services from forest ecosystems covers
nearly 100 % of the total monetary value, pos-
sibly due to the high share (76 %) of areas with
forests in the total surface area. To investigate
what habitats contribute the most to the esti-
mated economic value, the value of the forest
ecosystems was broken down to the lowest level
of habitat categories. From a total of 13 forest
habitat types considered in the CLES, 9 of them
contribute to the economic value of ecosystem
services in Beskids Mountains. The highest
value is brought by intensive coniferous forests
(67 %), followed by beech forests (21 %), and in-
tensive mixed forests (8 %). A full list of relevant
forest habitats and their share in the total value
of ecosystem services from forest ecosystems is
presented in Fig. 5.
Odra River Basin
Odra River Basin is among the smallest PLAs
in the Czech Republic, with approximately
80 km2 (AOPK 2015). The PLA is nested around
the Odra River and its natural meanders with
a number of tributaries, cut-off meanders, ox-
bows, periodical or temporary pools, ponds and
other water bodies. It lays in a lowland land-
scape, ranging from 212 to 309 metres above sea
level (AOPK 2015).
In Odra River Basin PLA, the value of the
ecosystem services from forest ecosystems cov-
ers about 92 % of the total value, compared with
the share of the afforested area – 16 % of the total
surface area. Other considerable shares on total
average value are those of agricultural ecosys-
tems (4 %) and wetlands (3 %). Grasslands and
aquatic ecosystems have both 1 % and urban
ecosystems almost zero.
As forest ecosystems contribute the most to
the overall value, the interesting part was to un-
hide what particular habitats are behind those
values. Seven forest habitat categories contrib-
ute to the economic value of ecosystem services
in Odra River Basin. Most of the value is cre-
ated by alluvial forests (70 %), followed by oak
and oak-hornbeam forests (13 %) and intensive
mixed forests (9 %). A full list of relevant forest
habitats and their share in the total value of eco-
system services from forest ecosystems is shown
in Fig. 6.
Fig. 5: Share of forest habitats on the mone tary value of ES in the forests, Beskids Mountains PLA.
106 J. Daně k, D. Vačkář, E . Krkoš ka Lorenc ová
Český les Mountains
Český les Mountains, as its name suggests
2, is
an extensively afforested highland and moun-
tain landscape area bordering Germany in the
western part of the Czech Republic. It has an
elevation between 442 and 1,039 metres above
sea level and has a surface area of approximately
466 km2 (AOPK 2015).
In Český les Mountains PLA, the value of the
ecosystem services from forest ecosystems ac-
counts for nearly 100 % of the total monetary
value and the share of the afforested area ac-
counts for 80 % of the total surface area. This
suggests that the forest ecosystem services are
dominant regarding the monetary value in this
PLA. To investigate what habitats contribute the
2 “les” means forest in the Czech language.
most to the total average economic value, the
value of forest ecosystems was broken down to
the lowest level of habitat categories. Similar to
the results in Beskids Mountains, 9 forest habi-
tat types contribute to the economic value, but
the composition is slightly different. The high-
est value is brought by intensive coniferous
forests (75 %), followed by beech forests (12 %)
and intensive mixed forests (7 %). Two more
habitats have a considerable share in the value –
alluvial forests and spruce forests, both with 3 %.
All other forest habitats account for 1 % or less.
A full list of relevant forest habitats and their
share in the total value of ecosystem services
from forest ecosystems is presented in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7: Share of forest habitats in the mone tary value of ES in the forests, Český les Mountains PLA .
Fig. 6: Share of forest habitats on the mone tary value of ES in the forests, Odra River Basin PLA.
Econom ic value of ecos ystem ser vices in P rotected L andscape A reas
in t he Czech Republic 107
Discussion
Regarding the study sites covered in this study,
Brdy PLA was excluded from the assessment
because the data were not available due to the
recent creation of this site. Therefore, the total
value of ecosystem services in the PLAs would
be higher if all PLAs were considered in this
assessment. Concerning the figures, it is im-
portant to note the varying precision of the
benefit transfer method used for the economic
valuation (Eigenbrod et al. 2010; Plummer
2009; Troy & Wilson 2006). However, the ac-
curacy and validity of values can be refined by
following certain guidelines, established by
economists (Plummer 2009). Nevertheless, this
method provides convenient flexibility in cases
where data and time are limited resources, and
a rapid ecosystem services evaluation affords us
important inputs for environmental manage-
ment (Jadhav et al. 2017).
The total value of ecosystem services in the
PLAs was significantly influenced by the surface
area, though this was not the only determinative
variable. To evaluate the role of ecosystem type
composition or particular habitats on a finer
scale, three PLAs served as case studies. Český
les Mountains as well as Beskids Mountains
had nearly 100 % of their total economic value
generated by forest ecosystems. Aer the role of
surface area was dismissed using the value per
unit area ratio, Český les Mountains had an av-
erage value of ecosystems services totalling €6.5
million/km2/year (the highest score for unit area
assessment), and Beskids Mountains had €6.1
million/km2/year (third highest score for unit
area assessment). The third case study, the Odra
River Basin PLA had “only” €1.2 million/km2/
year which resulted in the lowest value in both
analyses, because of its relatively small area (sec-
ond smallest surface area), and a relatively small
share (16 %) of forest ecosystems in its surface
area. These results suggest a dominant role of
forest ecosystem services in the estimated eco-
nomic value.
A similar study conducted by Hein (2011)
on economic benefits of protected areas in the
Netherlands showed a conservative estimate of
€0.2 million/km2/year for eight ecosystem ser-
vices researched, compared with the 18 ecosys-
tem services included in this study. A study from
Central European region by Getzner (2009) esti-
mates a mean value of €3.5 million/km2/year for
seven ecosystem services provided by the Tatra
National Park in Poland, and €1.1 million/km2/
year for nine ecosystem services provided by the
Slovak Paradise National Park in Slovakia.
Conclusion
The total economic value of ecosystem services
in the PLAs in the Czech Republic varied from
€ 102 million/year to €7.3 billion/year and from
€1.2 to €6.5 million/km2/year in the value per
unit area assessment. Forest ecosystems create
from 92 % to nearly 100 % of the total monetary
value in the three case studies.
In the history of creating of the protected areas
in the European region, arguments and justifi-
cations have varied to a great extent – from creat-
ing hunting grounds to conserving biodiversity
and acknowledging the intrinsic value of nature
(Jones-Walters & Čivić 2013). Nowadays, even
the PLAs are facing economic challenges, which
are generally omnipresent for institutions of any
type (Jones-Walters & Čivić 2013). In order to
explore possible arguments for protected areas,
their monetary valuation may be a useful tool,
translating the multiple benefits of ecosystems
and their services for people and society into
a common language. Nevertheless, an economic
valuation or “putting a price on nature” should
be treated with care to avoid a senseless com-
modification of nature (Hansjurgens et al. 2016;
Schröter et al. 2014), which is certainly not the
goal (Costanza et al. 2014). It should be largely
considered as an informative argument and
a communication tool for supporting nature
protection, e.g. by establishing and maintain-
ing protected areas. It is important to stress that
a monetary valuation provides extra informa-
tion in addition to the basic conservation goals:
protecting biodiversity and natural habitats.
This study expands the body of information
on the economic benefits delivered by the pro-
tected areas. Furthermore, it can also help to
identify and realize the social importance of
these sites in other than conservation language.
These results can be used to support policy and
decision-making processes, even though it is
still rather difficult to achieve outcomes posi-
tive both for human well-being and biodiversity
(Pullin et al. 2013). Another example of applica-
bility of such economic valuation might be an
assessment of cost-benefit analysis for various
objectives in the management of PLAs.
108 J. Daně k, D. Vačkář, E . Krkoš ka Lorenc ová
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Ministry of Ed-
ucation, Youth and Sports of the Czech Repub-
lic as part of the National Sustainability Program
I (NPU I), grant number LO1415. We thank P.
Bašta for help with data processing in GIS.
References
AOPK 2015: Protected Landscape Areas of the
Czech Republic. Nature Conservation Agency
of the Czech Republic, Prague. http://www.
ochranaprirody.cz/res/archive/300/036901.
pdf?seek=1465902968
AbsOn, D. J., VOn WehrDen, h., bAumgärtner, s.,
Fischer, J., hAnsPAch, J., härDtle, W., hein-
richs, h. 2014: Ecosystem services as a bound-
ary object for sustainability. Ecological Econom-
ics, 103: 29–37.
bAtemAn, i.J., mAce, g.m., Fezzi, c., AtKinsOn, g.,
turner, K. 2011: Economic analysis for eco-
system service assessments. Environmental and
Resource Economics, 48: 177–218.
bennett, e.m., crAmer, W., begOssi, A., cunDill,
g., DíAz, s., WOODWArD, b.n. 2015: Linking
biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human
well-being: Three challenges for designing
research for sustainability. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 14: 76–85.
cOstAnzA, r., De grOOt, r., brAAt, l., Kubisze-
WsKi, i., FiOrAmOnti, l., suttOn, P., FArber, s.,
grAssO, m. 2017: Twenty years of ecosystem
services: How far have we come and how far
do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28:
1–16.
cOstAnzA, r., De grOOt, r., suttOn, P., VAn Der
PlOeg, s., AnDersOn, s.J., KubiszeWsKi, i., FAr-
ber, s., turner, r .K. 2014: Changes in the
global value of ecosystem services. Global En-
vironmental Change, 26(1): 152–158.
DAily, g. c., POlAsKy, s., gOlDstein, J., KAreiVA,
P. m., mOOney, h. A ., PeJchAr, l., ricKetts, t.
h., sAlzmAn, J., shAllenberger, r. 2009: Eco-
system services in decision making: Time to
deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
7(1): 21–28.
Durán, A. P., cAsAlegnO, s., mArquet, P. A., gAs-
tOn, K. J. 2013: Representation of Ecosystem
Services by Terrestrial Protected Areas: Chile
as a Case Study. PLoS ONE, 8(12): e82643.
eigenbrOD, F., ArmsWOrth, P.r., AnDersOn, b.J.,
heinemeyer, A., gillings, s., rOy, D.b., thOmAs,
c.D., gAstOn, K.J. 2010: Error propagation
associated with benefits transfer- based map-
ping of ecosystem services. Biological Conserva-
tion, 143: 2487–2493.
FrélichOVá, J., VAčKář, D., Pártl, A., lOučKOVá,
b., hArmáčKOVá, z.V., lOrencOVá, e. 2014: In-
tegrated Assessment of Ecosystem Services
in the Czech Republic. Ecosystem Services, 8:
110–117.
getzner, m. 2009: Economic and Cultural Values Re-
lated to Protected Areas – Valuation of Ecosystem Ser-
vices in Tatra (PL) and Slovensky Raj (SK) National
Parks. Department of Economics (Klagenfurt
University) Research Report to WWF (World
Wildlife Fund) International, Vienna.
hAines-yOung, r., POtschin, m. 2013: Common
International Classification of Ecosystem
Services (CICES): Consultation on Version
4, August-December 2012. Report to the Eu-
ropean Environment Agency. https://cices.
eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2012/07/CICES-
V43_Revised-Final_Report_29012013.pdf
hAnsJurgens, J., Kehl, c., lOFt, l. 2016: The eco-
nomic approach to ecosystem services and
biodiversity: Policy design and institutions
matter. GAIA, 25(3): 174–181.
hein, l . 2011: Economic Benefits Generated by
Protected Areas: the Case of the Hoge Veluwe
Forest, the Netherlands. Ecology and Society,
16(2):13.
hönigOVá, i., VAčKář, D., lOrencOVá, e., meli-
chAr, J., götzl, m., sOnDeregger, g., OušKOVá,
V., hOšeK, m., chObOt, K. 2012: Survey on grass-
land ecosystem services. Report to the EEA – Eu-
ropean Topic Centre on Biological Diversity.
Prague: Nature Conservation Agency of the
Czech Republic, p. 78.
ingrAhAm, m. W., FOster, s. g. 2008: The value of
ecosystem services provided by the U.S. Na-
tional Wildlife Refuge System in the contigu-
ous U.S. Ecological Economics, 67: 608–618.
JADhAV, A., AnDersOn, s., Dyer, m.J.b., suttOn,
P.c. 2017: Revisiting ecosystem services: As-
sessment and valuation as starting points for
environmental politics. Sustainability, 9(10):
1755.
JOnes-WAlters, l., čiVić, K. 2013: European pro-
tected areas: Past, present and future. Journal
for Nature Conservation, 21(2): 122–124.
Econom ic value of ecos ystem ser vices in P rotected L andscape A reas
in t he Czech Republic 109
Kull, ch.A., De sArtre, X. A., cAstrO-lArrAňAgA,
m. 2015: The political ecology of ecosystem
services. Geoforum, 61: 122–134.
liu, s., cOstAnzA, r., trOy, A., D’AgOstinO, J.D.,
mAtes, W. 2010: Valuing New Jersey’s ecosys-
tem services and natural capital: a spatially ex-
plicit benefit transfer approach. Environmental
Management, 45: 1271–1285.
lyytimäKi, J. 2015: Ecosystem disservices: Em-
brace the catchword. Ecosystem Services, 12: 136.
mA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) 2005:
Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Frame-
work for Assessment. Report of the Conceptual
Framework Working Group of the Millen-
nium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press,
Washington, DC.
mAes (Mapping and Assessment of Ecosys-
tems and their Services) 2016: Mapping and
assessing the condition of Europe’s ecosystems: Prog-
ress and challenges. 3rd Report – Final, March
2016. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/
pdf/3rdMAESReport_Condition.pdf
mccAuley, D.J. 2006: Selling out on nature. Na-
ture, 443: 27–28.
Plummer, m.l. 2009: Assessing benefit transfer
for the valuation of ecosystem services. Fron-
tiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1): 38–45.
Pullin, A.s., bAngPAn, m., DAlrymPle, s., DicKsOn,
K., hADDAWAy, n.r., heAley, J.r., hAuAri, h.,
hOcKley, n., JOnes, J.P.g., Knight, t., Vigurs,
c., OliVer, s. 2013: Human well-b eing impacts
of terrestrial protected areas. Environmental
Evidence, 2: 19.
rinne, J., Primmer, e. 2016: A Case Study of Eco-
system Services in Urban Planning in Finland:
Benefits, Rights and Responsibilities. Jour-
nal of Environmental Policy and Planning,18(3):
286–305.
schröter, m., VAn Der zAnDen, e.h., VAn OuDen-
hOVen, A.P.e., remme, r.P., sernA-chAVez,
h.m., De grOOt, r.s., OPDAm, P. 2014: Ecosys-
tem Services as a Contested Concept: A Syn-
thesis of Critique and Counter-Arguments.
Conservation Letters, 7(6): 514–523.
schröter, m., Albert, ch., mArques, A., tObOn,
W., lAVOrel, s., mAes, J., brOWn, c., KlOtz, s.,
bOnn, A . 2016: National Ecosystem Assess-
ments in Europe: A Review, BioScience, 66(10):
813–828.steFFen, W., PerssOn, Å., Deutsch, l .,
zelAsieWicz, J., WilliAms, m., richArDsOn, K.,
crumley, c., crutzen, P., FOlKe, c., gOrDOn,
l., mOlinA, m., rAmAnAthAn, V., rOcKström,
J., scheFFer, m., schellnhuber, h.J., sVeDin,
u. 2011: The anthropocene: From global
change to planetary stewardship. Ambio, 40(7):
739–761.
teeb (The Economics of Ecosystems and Bio-
diversity) 2013: Guidance Manual for TEEB
Country Studies. Version 1. 0. http://www.tee-
bweb.org/media/2013/10/TEEB_Guidance-
Manual_2013_1. 0. pdf
trOy, A., WilsOn, m.A. 2006: Mapping ecosys-
tem services: Practical challenges and op-
portunities in linking GIS and value transfer.
Ecological Economics, 60: 435–449.
WilsOn, m.A., hOehn, J.P. 2006: Valuing environ-
mental goods and services using benefit trans-
fer: the state-of-the art and science. Ecological
Economics, 60: 335–342.
WhithAm, c. e. l., shi, K., riOrDAn, P. 2015:
Ecosystem Service Valuation Assessments
for Protected Area Management: A Case
Study Comparing Methods Using Different
Land Cover Classification and Valuation Ap-
proaches. PLoS ONE, 10(6): e0129748.
110 J. Daně k, D. Vačkář, E . Krkoš ka Lorenc ová
Supplementary material
Tab. 1: Hierarchica l classifica tion of the Consol idated Laye r of Ecosyste ms of the Czech R epublic.
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Urban
areas
Conti nuous urban fabric Conti nuous urban fabric Conti nuous urban fabric
Disconti nuous urban fabric Discont inuous urba n fabric Discontinuous u rban fabric
Indus trial a nd commerci al
units
Indus trial a nd commerci al
units
Indus trial a nd commerci al
units
Transport units Transport units Transport units
Dump a nd constr uction
units
Dump a nd constr uction
units
Dump a nd constr uction
units
Green urban a reas Natural u rban green a reas Urban nature
Ar tificia l urban green areas Park s, gardens, cemeter ies
Recreation a nd sport areas
Agricultu-
ral land
Arable land Arable land Arable land
Permanent cultures Orchards and gardens Orchards and gardens
Hop fields Hop fields
Vineyards Vineyards
Permanent gras slands Intensive grassland s Intensive grasslands
Grasslands Natural grasslands Natura l meadows Alluv ial meadows
Dry grasslands
Mesic meadows
Alpine g rasslands
Heaths
Forests Forested areas Intensive forests Inten sive mixed forests
Intensive broad-leaved
forests
Intensive coniferous forests
Natural forests Alluvial forests
Oak and oak-hornbeam
forests
Ravine forests
Beech forests
Dry pine forests
Spruce forests
Bog forests
Scrub Areas with no forest cover
naturally Natural P inus mugo scr ub
Natural sh rub vegetation
Areas with i ntroduced no
forest cover Introduce d Pinus mugo scr ub
Introduced shr ub
vegetation
Econom ic value of ecos ystem ser vices in P rotected L andscape A reas
in t he Czech Republic 111
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Wet lands Wet lands Natural wetlands Wetla nds and litor al
vegetation
Natural peatbogs Peatbog s and sprin gs
Anthropogenic swamps Swamps
Aquat ic
ecosystems
Water bodie s Natural water bod ies Lakes
Ant hropogenic w ater
bodies Ponds
Water courses Natur al water cour ses Natural water courses
Anthropogenically
influenced water courses
Anthropogenically
influenced water courses
Bare land Bare rock Artificial rocks Qua rries and mining sites
Natural ro cks Rocks a nd stones
... Europe (with the exemption of a few existing studies, e. g. . In terms of time and resource constraints, transfer of values from published studies to different natural sites (e. g. Daněk et al., 2018;Melichar et al., 2016;Frélichová et al., 2014) remain the most feasible way to express the value of a natural site for which the primary valuation study is not available; which actually encompasses most natural sites in the post-transition countries. The magnitude of the perceived recreation value of a specific natural area is affected by the characteristics of the population of recreationists and their preferences regarding leisure and landscape (as the values are "co-created by visitors" - and also depends on the context of the landscape involved (the character of the area, the abundance of different types of recreation sites, their accessibility). ...
... Previous European metaanalyses on recreation values suggest that there is no difference in recreation values of protected sites or sites with enhanced presence of endangered species and the other natural areas Sen et al., 2011;. There exist several other recent studies that cannot contribute to the issue, as they either focus on protected areas only, but do not compare the result with the baseline of the nonprotected sites (Schägner et al., 2016), or studies the methodology of which is broader and does not allow to distinguish that for the recreation function Frélichová et al. 2014;Daněk et al., 2018). Many other studies do not distinguish the protection status of the sites in the analysis . ...
Thesis
Full-text available
The dissertation thesis focuses on the investigation and synthesis of recreation welfare benefits associated with natural areas in the Czech Republic and in Europe. The dissertation thesis consists of five case studies. These represent various geographic levels of analysis: the level of one single recreation locality, the national level that takes into account large natural recreation sites in the Czech Republic (including protected areas), and a synthesis of results of studies on the European level. The methodological approach is based on the theory of environmental economics and employs non-market valuation techniques based on methods of revealed preferences, namely the hedonic pricing method and two types of travel cost modelling. In Study I, we examine how the presence and characteristics of urban greenery affect property prices in Prague. The results confirm that proximity to greenery and its area are important determinants of housing prices in Prague, which means that residents realize the positive values provided by urban greenery, including recreational ecosystem service. Benefits to residents differ with the type of greenery. Urban forests have the largest effect on property prices. Specially protected areas also affect property price positively, but the effect is smaller. The study also suggests that Prague residents prefer smaller units of urban greenery to large parks. In the subsequent two studies, I focus on the recreational values of the Šumava National Park. In a single site travel cost model, I estimate the recreation use value of this natural area and discuss how the result may be further employed. I also find that the methodological approach (the definition of the shadow price of recreation and endogenous sampling) significantly affects both the modelling results and the estimates of recreation use value. In Study IV, we apply a travel cost model based on random utility framework to disentangle the determinants of demand for Czech large-scale natural recreation areas. The outcomes propose that visitors prefer larger recreation areas for their trips, and have a significant preference for natural areas where the dominant forest is broadleaved or coniferous rather than sites with mixed forest stands. Among Czech large-scale natural recreational areas, national parks are more probably chosen for a trip than protected landscape areas, and unprotected sites have the lowest probability of visitation. Study V is based on a meta-analysis of the previous travel cost studies in Europe. The scope of this study is twofold: i) to disentangle the effect of environmental and methodological variables on the recreation value, and ii) to derive a model appropriate for a benefit transfer of forest recreation values in Europe, including Central and Eastern European natural sites. The key results from our meta-analysis of European forest recreation values are that higher recreation values are associated with remote forests in sparsely populated areas consisting of broadleaved forest stands and that protected sites are not associated with significantly different recreation values. All studies covered in the thesis prove that natural areas are associated with positive recreation values. Based on discussion of the evidence from the Studies I to V and other recent scientific evidence, the thesis brings a set of recommendations for benefit transfers of recreation values to natural areas in the Czech Republic.
... PAs worldwide comprise a large range of designations with different management regimes, ranging from highly to minimally protected sites. When appropriately designed and successfully managed, PAs can be effective in conserving native biodiversity (including species of conservation concern), maintaining ecosystem function and keeping ecosystem services intact (Chape et al. 2005;Foxcroft et al. 2011;Geldmann et al. 2013;Daněk et al. 2017;Ziller et al. 2020). Effectiveness of PAs for biodiversity conservation can be measured in many different ways, depending on the conservation goals in place. ...
Article
Full-text available
Biological invasions are one of the main threats to biodiversity within protected areas (PAs) worldwide. Meanwhile, the resilience of PAs to invasions remains largely unknown. Consequently, providing a better understanding of how they are impacted by invasions is critical for informing policy responses and optimally allocating resources to prevention and control strategies. Here we use the InvaCost database to address this gap from three perspectives: (i) characterizing the total reported costs of invasive alien species (IAS) in PAs; (ii) comparing mean observed costs of IAS in PAs and non-PAs; and (iii) evaluating factors affecting mean observed costs of IAS in PAs. Our results first show that, overall, the reported economic costs of IAS in PAs amounted to US$ 22.24 billion between 1975 and 2020, of which US$ 930.61 million were observed costs (already incurred) and US$ 21.31 billion were potential costs (extrapolated or predicted). Expectedly, most of the observed costs were reported for management (73%) but damages were still much higher than expected for PAs (24%); in addition, the vast majority of management costs were reported for reactive, post-invasion actions (84% of management costs, focused on eradication and control). Second, differences between costs in PAs and non-PAs varied among continents and environments. We found significantly higher IAS costs in terrestrial PA environments compared to non-PAs, while regionally, Europe incurred higher costs in PAs and Africa and Temperate Asia incurred higher costs in non-PAs. Third, characterization of drivers of IAS costs within PAs showed an effect of environments (higher costs in terrestrial environments), continents (higher in Africa and South America), taxa (higher in invertebrates and vertebrates than plants) and Human Development Index (higher in more developed countries). Globally, our findings indicate that, counterintuitively, PAs are subject to very high costs from biological invasions. This highlights the need for more resources to be invested in the management of IAS to achieve the role of PAs in ensuring the long term conservation of nature. Accordingly, more spatially-balanced and integrative studies involving both scientists and stakeholders are required.
... In addition, the European Union plans to protect 30% of its land and sea territory by 2030 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0380). When appropriately designed and successfully managed, PAs can be effective in conserving native biodiversity (including species of conservation concern), maintaining ecosystem function and keeping ecosystem services intact (Chape et al. 2005;Foxcroft et al. 2011;Geldmann et al. 2013;Daněk et al. 2017;Ziller et al. 2020). Effectiveness of PAs for biodiversity conservation can be measured in many different ways, depending on the conservation goals in place. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Biological invasions are one of the main threats to biodiversity within protected areas (PAs) worldwide. Meanwhile, the resilience of PAs along with their capacity to mitigate impacts from invasions remains largely unknown. Filling this knowledge gap is therefore critical for informing policy responses and optimally allocating resources invested in prevention and control strategies. Here we use the InvaCost database to address this gap from three perspectives: (i) characterizing the total cost of invasive alien species (IAS) in PAs; (ii) examining differences in mean observed costs of IAS between PAs and non-PAs; and (iii) evaluating factors affecting mean observed costs of IAS in PAs. Our results show that reported economic costs of IAS in PAs amounted to US$ 22.13 billion between 1976 and 2020, of which US$ 802.47 million were observed costs (incurred) and US$ 21.18 billion were potential costs (expected). The highest observed total costs were reported for Africa and South America; mainly caused by mammals, plants and insects; and predominantly impacted the finances of government agencies. Most of the observed total costs were reported for management (69%) versus damage (27%), however, the vast majority of management costs were reported for post-invasion actions (US$ 453 million; focused on control and eradication). PAs incurred on average higher costs than non-PAs, however, this was dependent on the environment and the continent. When analyzing costs of IAS within PAs, observed mean costs significantly differed with the environment (higher in terrestrial environments), continent (higher in Pacific islands), taxon (higher for vertebrates and invertebrates than in plants) and the human development index (developed countries incur higher costs). Managers of selected PAs surveyed acknowledged IAS as the most threatening factor, concurred on the necessity of reporting costs in PAs, and pointed to insufficient budget allocation for pre-invasion actions. Our findings highlight the need for a deeper understanding of the economic costs caused by invasions across PAs, direct driving factors and management challenges.
Technical Report
Full-text available
Veřejně dostupná technická zpráva detailně popisuje inovovaný metodický postup. Zatímco inovovaná metodika oceňování dřevin AOPK ČR ve verzi k roku 2021 obsahuje především aktualizovaný postup ocenění, který je pro zachování přehlednosti textu pro uživatele komentován pouze stručně, komplexní podklady k metodice a inovaci metodického postupu pro rok 2021 jsou shrnuty ve veřejně dostupné Technické zprávě k Metodice oceňování dřevin rostoucích mimo les (verze 2021), která metodiku AOPK ČR (verze 2021) v tomto směru doplňuje. Technická zpráva je určena pro pokročilejší uživatele i širší odbornou veřejnost v oborech ochrany přírody, územního plánování, ekosystémových služeb, ekonomických nástrojů či environmentálního vzdělávání. Obsahuje informace nezbytné pro možné budoucí aktualizace metodiky. Text technické zprávy není zaměřen úzce pouze na metodiku AOPK ČR, ale zabývá se i tématy, která jsou řešena napříč ochranou životního prostředí, i napříč vědeckými obory a obory z praxe - tato témata tvoří rámec pro samotný metodický postup. ENG: Technical report accompanying the Methodology for non-forest woody plants appraisal including calculation of compensatory measures for felled or damaged woody plants NCA CR (version 2021); The publicly available technical report describes the updated methodological procedure in detail. While the updated methodology NCA CR on tree assessment (version 2021) contains mainly the updated valuation procedure, which is only briefly commented so that the text retains clarity, the comprehensive background to the methodology and the innovation of the methodological procedure for 2021 is summarised in the publicly available Technical Report on the Methodology for Valuation of Woody Plants Growing Outside Forests (version 2021), which complements the AOPK CR methodology (version 2021) in this respect. The Technical Report is intended for more advanced users and for the wider professional public in the fields of nature conservation, spatial planning, ecosystem services, economic instruments and environmental education. It contains information necessary for potential future updates of the methodology. The text of the technical report is not narrowly limited to the methodology itself, but addresses also broader topics relevant across environmental protection, as well as across various scientific and practitioner disciplines - these topics form the framework for the methodology itself.
Article
Full-text available
Pro oceňování dřevin rostoucích mimo les se v ČR velmi často využívá tzv. Metodika oceňování dřevin rostoucích mimo les AOPK ČR, a to zejména za účelem kompenzace ekologické újmy vzniklé při kácení či poškození dřevin. Příspěvek v úvodu shrnuje východiska této metodiky, která je založena na nákladovém ocenění. Podstatná část textu příspěvku představuje výsledky revize a aktualizace cen výpěstků stromů používaných v nákladovém způsobu oceňování. Diskutujeme vývoj charakteristických cen rostlinného materiálu pro různé skupiny taxonů a velikostní kategorie stromů. Výsledky revize cen budou využity pro úpravu nastavení cenové úrovně dřevin v příští aktualizaci Metodiky AOPK ČR. Development of prices of tree nursery products in the context of woody plants appraisal Summary The Methodology of woody plants appraisal by Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic is a tool frequently used for assessment of plants growing out of forest, and in particular for compensation of environmental damage in case of plant felling or plant damage. The article briefly explains the foundation in cost-based assessment, and presents the results of revision of selected cost items in detail. We discuss the development of characteristic prices of plant material for taxon groups and size categories of trees. The results will be applied in the next revision of Methodology of NCA CR.
Article
Full-text available
The paradigm of ecosystem services (ES) and the methods of monetary valuation have become boundary objects, spanning disciplines and earning particular purchase in policy circles. However, the notion of ES and ES valuation have also been subjected to multiple critiques, ranging from their varying precision to the potential for neoliberalization of nature. This paper does not attempt to refute such critiques but rather revisits the potentials of the ES paradigm and the specific method of benefit transfer valuation for their utility as a form of environmental politics and sustainability practice. We find they have particular relevance in contexts where “data” are not readily available or are not legible to policy makers as well as where the imperative of “development” remains ideological. We argue for ES assessment and, specifically, rapid ES valuation as a first-pass tactic to inform evaluation of potentially environmentally degrading projects or environmental management. We demonstrate this using a simple benefit transfer analysis to offer an initial evaluation of (wet) landscape ES in a lightly touched estuary in Karnataka, India, where a state-backed proposal to develop an industrial shipping port is gathering steam. While we recognize and do not categorically reject critiques of the ES paradigm, we nonetheless argue for valuation as a starting point for politics that highlight and make visible ES benefits and users implicated by “development” and other kinds of environmental change.
Article
Full-text available
Accurate and spatially-appropriate ecosystem service valuations are vital for decision-makers and land managers. Many approaches for estimating ecosystem service value (ESV) exist, but their appropriateness under specific conditions or logistical limitations is not uniform. The most accurate techniques are therefore not always adopted. Six different assessment approaches were used to estimate ESV for a National Nature Reserve in southwest China, across different management zones. These approaches incorporated two different land-use land cover (LULC) maps and development of three economic valuation techniques, using globally or locally-derived data. The differences in ESV across management zones for the six approaches were largely influenced by the classifications of forest and farmland and how they corresponded with valuation coefficients. With realistic limits on access to time, data, skills and resources, and using acquired estimates from globally-relevant sources, the Buffer zone was estimated as the most valuable (2.494 million ± 1.371 million CNY yr-1 km-2) and the Non-protected zone as the least valuable (770,000 ± 4,600 CNY yr-1 km-2). However, for both LULC maps, when using the locally-based and more time and skill-intensive valuation approaches, this pattern was generally reversed. This paper provides a detailed practical example of how ESV can differ widely depending on the availability and appropriateness of LULC maps and valuation approaches used, highlighting pitfalls for the managers of protected areas.
Article
Full-text available
Protected areas are increasingly considered to play a key role in the global maintenance of ecosystem processes and the ecosystem services they provide. It is thus vital to assess the extent to which existing protected area systems represent those services. Here, for the first time, we document the effectiveness of the current Chilean protected area system and its planned extensions in representing both ecosystem services (plant productivity, carbon storage and agricultural production) and biodiversity. Additionally, we evaluate the effectiveness of protected areas based on their respective management objectives. Our results show that existing protected areas in Chile do not contain an unusually high proportion of carbon storage (14.9%), agricultural production (0.2%) or biodiversity (11.8%), and also represent a low level of plant productivity (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index of 0.38). Proposed additional priority sites enhance the representation of ecosystem services and biodiversity, but not sufficiently to attain levels of representation higher than would be expected for their area of coverage. Moreover, when the species groups were assessed separately, amphibians was the only one well represented. Suggested priority sites for biodiversity conservation, without formal protection yet, was the only protected area category that over-represents carbon storage, agricultural production and biodiversity. The low representation of ecosystem services and species' distribution ranges by the current protected area system is because these protected areas are heavily biased toward southern Chile, and contain large extents of ice and bare rock. The designation and management of proposed priority sites needs to be addressed in order to increase the representation of ecosystem services within the Chilean protected area system.
Article
Full-text available
Background Establishing Protected Areas (PAs) is among the most common conservation interventions. Protecting areas from the threats posed by human activity will by definition inhibit some human actions. However, adverse impacts could be balanced by maintaining ecosystem services or introducing new livelihood options. Consequently there is an ongoing debate on whether the net impact of PAs on human well-being at local or regional scales is positive or negative. We report here on a systematic review of evidence for impacts on human well-being arising from the establishment and maintenance of terrestrial PAs. Methods Following an a priori protocol, systematic searches were conducted for evidence of impacts of PAs post 1992. After article title screening, the review was divided into two separate processes; a qualitative synthesis of explanations and meaning of impact and a review of quantitative evidence of impact. Abstracts and full texts were assessed using inclusion criteria and conceptual models of potential impacts. Relevant studies were critically appraised and data extracted and sorted according to type of impact reported. No quantitative synthesis was possible with the evidence available. Two narrative syntheses were produced and their outputs compared in a metasynthesis. Results The qualitative evidence review mapped 306 articles and synthesised 34 that were scored as high quality. The quantitative evidence review critically appraised 79 studies and included 14 of low/medium susceptibility to bias. The meta-synthesis reveals that a range of factors can lead to reports of positive and negative impacts of PA establishment, and therefore might enable hypothesis generation regarding cause and effect relationships, but resulting hypotheses cannot be tested with the current available evidence. Conclusions The evidence base provides a range of possible pathways of impact, both positive and negative, of PAs on human well-being but provides very little support for decision making on how to maximise positive impacts. The nature of the research reported to date forms a diverse and fragmented body of evidence unsuitable for the purpose of informing policy formation on how to achieve win-win outcomes for biodiversity and human well-being. To better assess the impacts of PAs on human well-being we make recommendations for improving research study design and reporting.
Article
It has been 20 years since two seminal publications about ecosystem services came out: an edited book by Gretchen Daily and an article in Nature by a group of ecologists and economists on the value of the world's ecosystem services. Both of these have been very highly cited and kicked off an explosion of research, policy, and applications of the idea, including the establishment of this journal. This article traces the history leading up to these publications and the subsequent debates, research, institutions, policies, on-the-ground actions, and controversies they triggered. It also explores what we have learned during this period about the key issues: from definitions to classification to valuation, from integrated modelling to public participation and communication, and the evolution of institutions and governance innovation. Finally, it provides recommendations for the future. In particular, it points to the weakness of the mainstream economic approaches to valuation, growth, and development. It concludes that the substantial contributions of ecosystem services to the sustainable wellbeing of humans and the rest of nature should be at the core of the fundamental change needed in economic theory and practice if we are to achieve a societal transformation to a sustainable and desirable future.
Article
The concept of ecosystem services is entering the agenda of land-use planning and scientists optimistically expect it to inform planners and decision-makers about the benefits that ecosystems provide. While tools and methods have been developed for mapping and valuing ecosystem services, only little attention has been paid to the practical application of the approach or its institutional preconditions and implications. We empirically analysed two urban planning processes for building residential areas in the outskirts of growing population centres in Finland. Our analysis of documents and interviews with planners focused on the benefits provided by ecosystems as well as the associated rights and responsibilities. We found that the concept ‘ecosystem service’ was not used, yet various benefits were identified. The rights of different stakeholders to ecosystem services were not explicitly identified, but many ecosystem services were perceived as public goods and particularly access to recreation was highlighted as an important justification for green areas. The results show that while the ecosystem services approach introduces new insights to land-use planning, it is still not embedded in the current practices or institutions. Operationalizing ecosystem services requires institutional adaptation, case-specific tailoring of methods, and deliberation among practitioners and stakeholders.
Article
The dominance of “ecosystem services” as a guiding concept for environmental management – where it appears as a neutral, obvious, taken-for-granted concept – hides the fact that there are choices implicit in its framing and in its application. In other words, it is a highly political concept, and its utility depends on the arena in which it is used and what it is used for. Following a political ecology framework, and based on a literature review, bibliometric analyses, and brief examples from two tropical rainforest countries, this review investigates four moments in the construction and application of the ecosystem services idea: socio-historical (the emergence of the discourse), ontological (what knowledge does the concept allow?), scientific (difficulties in its practical application), and political (who wins, who loses?). We show how the concept is a boundary object with widespread appeal, trace the discursive and institutional context within which it gained traction, and argue that choices of scale, definition, and method in measuring ecosystem services frustrate its straightforward application. As a result, it is used in diverse ways by different interests to justify different kinds of interventions that at times might be totally opposed. In Madagascar, the ecosystem services idea is mainly used to justify forest conservation in ways open to critique for its neoliberalization of nature or disempowerment of communities. In contrast, in the Brazilian Amazon, the discourse of ecosystem services has served the agendas of traditional populations and family farm lobbies. Ecosystem services, as an idea and tool, are mobilized by diverse actors in real-life situations that lead to complex, regionally particular and fundamentally political outcomes.