IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v9y2020i6p195-d370471.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception of Ecosystem Services in Constituting Multi-Functional Landscapes in Slovakia

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Bezák

    (Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Branch Nitra, Akademická 2, 949 01 Nitra, Slovakia)

  • Peter Mederly

    (Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Science, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 1, 949 74 Nitra, Slovakia)

  • Zita Izakovičová

    (Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 254, Štefánikova 3, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia)

  • Milena Moyzeová

    (Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 254, Štefánikova 3, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia)

  • Magdaléna Bezáková

    (Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Branch Nitra, Akademická 2, 949 01 Nitra, Slovakia)

Abstract

Landscape provides many services for human wellbeing through its mosaic of ecosystems. Although different landscape spatial structures limit some access to these services for local residents, their demand for landscape benefits creates a crucial component in landscape planning. Herein, we evaluate the ecosystem service supply from landscape structures in four different areas of Slovakia and we identify the public preferences for these services. This evaluation was assisted by expert-based ecosystem services (ES) matrix assessment and feedback from experts and key local stakeholders. The associated land cover assessment revealed that although forests are the most important for ES delivery, followed by extensive agricultural mosaics, cultural services have the highest average supply value. In contrast, the experts and local stakeholders considered that provisioning services were the most important of all ES groups because of products available from arable land. The overall public awareness of benefits provided by nature proved relatively high, and this is a good sign for the development of multi-functional landscapes. The comparison of study sites revealed that even stakeholders living in intensively used land, with its overall low ES supply, assessed ES as very important in general. The general public could therefore be included in environmental planning to promote a more multi-functional landscape. In addition, the analysis herein will communicate gained insights to the local planners and decision-makers and confirm the importance of this ES participatory approach using top-down methodology. This may require the following measures in Slovakia: establishing an interdisciplinary group of experts for regular assessment of strategic landscape planning documents and regulatory instruments, developing key directives which establish well-balanced participatory procedures, improving open local government, and supporting down-scaled implementation of integrated landscape planning in cooperation with local action groups.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Bezák & Peter Mederly & Zita Izakovičová & Milena Moyzeová & Magdaléna Bezáková, 2020. "Perception of Ecosystem Services in Constituting Multi-Functional Landscapes in Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-18, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:6:p:195-:d:370471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/6/195/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/6/195/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bouwma, Irene & Schleyer, Christian & Primmer, Eeva & Winkler, Klara Johanna & Berry, Pam & Young, Juliette & Carmen, Esther & Špulerová, Jana & Bezák, Peter & Preda, Elena & Vadineanu, Angheluta, 2018. "Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 213-222.
    2. Lewan, Lillemor & Soderqvist, Tore, 2002. "Knowledge and recognition of ecosystem services among the general public in a drainage basin in Scania, Southern Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 459-467, September.
    3. Monika Kopecká & Daniel Szatmári & Konštantín Rosina, 2017. "Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Roger Keller & Mélanie Clivaz & Emmanuel Reynard & Norman Backhaus, 2019. "Increasing Landscape Appreciation through the Landscape Services Approach. A Case Study from Switzerland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-11, October.
    5. Katarína Melichová & Lukáš Varecha, 2020. "Endogenous Political, Institutional, Cultural, and Geographic Determinants of Intermunicipal Cooperation—Evidence from Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-25, January.
    6. Tasser, Erich & Schirpke, Uta & Zoderer, Brenda Maria & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2020. "Towards an integrative assessment of land-use type values from the perspective of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    7. Erb, Karl-Heinz & Haberl, Helmut & Jepsen, Martin Rudbeck & Kuemmerle, Tobias & Lindner, Marcus & Müller, Daniel & Verburg, Peter H & Reenberg, Anette, 2013. "A conceptual framework for analysing and measuring land-use intensity," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 5(5), pages 464-470.
    8. Jana Špulerová & František Petrovič & Peter Mederly & Matej Mojses & Zita Izakovičová, 2018. "Contribution of Traditional Farming to Ecosystem Services Provision: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-24, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ivan Laco, 2021. "Assessment of the Selected Regulating Ecosystem Services Using Ecosystem Services Matrix in Two Model Areas: Special Nature Reserve Obedska Bara (Serbia) and Protected Landscape Area Dunajske Luhy (Sl," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Dehghani Pour, Milad & Barati, Ali Akbar & Azadi, Hossein & Scheffran, Jürgen & Shirkhani, Mehdi, 2023. "Analyzing forest residents' perception and knowledge of forest ecosystem services to guide forest management and biodiversity conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Uta Schirpke & Erich Tasser, 2021. "Trends in Ecosystem Services across Europe Due to Land-Use/Cover Changes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-22, June.
    2. Lucie Kupková & Ivan Bičík & Leoš Jeleček, 2021. "At the Crossroads of European Landscape Changes: Major Processes of Landscape Change in Czechia since the Middle of the 19th Century and Their Driving Forces," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, January.
    3. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    4. Neier, Thomas, 2023. "The green divide: A spatial analysis of segregation-based environmental inequality in Vienna," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    5. Sander Jacobs & Fernando Santos-Martín & Eeva Primmer & Fanny Boeraeve & Alejandra Morán-Ordóñez & Vânia Proença & Martin Schlaepfer & Lluis Brotons & Robert Dunford & Sandra Lavorel & Antoine Guisan , 2022. "Transformative Change Needs Direction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-9, November.
    6. Stephanie D. Maier & Jan Paul Lindner & Javier Francisco, 2019. "Conceptual Framework for Biodiversity Assessments in Global Value Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-34, March.
    7. Ahammad, Ronju & Stacey, Natasha & Sunderland, Terry, 2021. "Analysis of forest-related policies for supporting ecosystem services-based forest management in Bangladesh," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    8. Dai, Xuhuan & Li, Bo & Zheng, Hua & Yang, Yanzheng & Yang, Zihan & Peng, Chenchen, 2023. "Can sedentarization decrease the dependence of pastoral livelihoods on ecosystem services?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    9. Stephen C. L. Watson & Adrian C. Newton, 2018. "Dependency of Businesses on Flows of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from the County of Dorset, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, April.
    10. Elena Cervelli & Stefania Pindozzi & Emilia Allevato & Luigi Saulino & Roberto Silvestro & Ester Scotto di Perta & Antonio Saracino, 2022. "Landscape Planning Integrated Approaches to Support Post-Wildfire Restoration in Natural Protected Areas: The Vesuvius National Park Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-25, July.
    11. Simoncini, Riccardo & Ring, Irene & Sandström, Camilla & Albert, Christian & Kasymov, Ulan & Arlettaz, Raphael, 2019. "Constraints and opportunities for mainstreaming biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy: Insights from the IPBES assessment for Europe and Central Asia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    12. Mihai-Razvan Niță & Ana-Maria Anghel & Cristina Bănescu & Ana-Maria Munteanu & Sabina-Stella Pesamosca & Mihuț Zețu & Ana-Maria Popa, 2018. "Are Romanian urban strategies planning for green?," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 158-173, January.
    13. Egarter Vigl, Lukas & Marsoner, Thomas & Schirpke, Uta & Tscholl, Simon & Candiago, Sebastian & Depellegrin, Daniel, 2021. "A multi-pressure analysis of ecosystem services for conservation planning in the Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    14. Thomas Panagopoulos & Stilianos Tampakis & Paraskevi Karanikola & Aikaterini Karipidou-Kanari & Apostolos Kantartzis, 2018. "The Usage and Perception of Pedestrian and Cycling Streets on Residents’ Well-being in Kalamaria, Greece," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-17, August.
    15. Kuifeng Wang & Paul Liu & Fengsheng Sun & Shengwen Wang & Gong Zhang & Taiping Zhang & Guodong Chen & Jinqiu Liu & Gangchao Wang & Songkun Cao, 2023. "Progress in Realizing the Value of Ecological Products in China and Its Practice in Shandong Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-30, June.
    16. Blattert, Clemens & Eyvindson, Kyle & Hartikainen, Markus & Burgas, Daniel & Potterf, Maria & Lukkarinen, Jani & Snäll, Tord & Toraño-Caicoya, Astor & Mönkkönen, Mikko, 2022. "Sectoral policies cause incoherence in forest management and ecosystem service provisioning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    17. Pritchard, Rose & Ryan, Casey M. & Grundy, Isla & van der Horst, Dan, 2018. "Human Appropriation of Net Primary Productivity and Rural Livelihoods: Findings From Six Villages in Zimbabwe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 115-124.
    18. Powe, N.A. & Garrod, G.D. & McMahon, P.L., 2005. "Mixing methods within stated preference environmental valuation: choice experiments and post-questionnaire qualitative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 513-526, March.
    19. Marie Balková & Lucie Kubalíková & Marcela Prokopová & Petr Sedlák & Aleš Bajer, 2021. "Ecosystem Services of Vegetation Features as the Multifunction Anti-Erosion Measures in the Czech Republic in 2019 and Its 30-Year Prediction," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    20. Song, Min & Yi, Luping & Hu, Can, 2023. "Building up a compensation-oriented transferable development right mechanism: A theoretical and empirical exploration in Hubei, China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:6:p:195-:d:370471. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.