IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i19p12847-d936714.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

National Ecosystem Services Assessment in Hungary: Framework, Process and Conceptual Questions

Author

Listed:
  • Ágnes Vári

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary)

  • Eszter Tanács

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary)

  • Eszter Tormáné Kovács

    (Institute for Wildlife Management and Nature Conservation, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter Károly u. 1., H-2100 Gödöllő, Hungary)

  • Ágnes Kalóczkai

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary)

  • Ildikó Arany

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary)

  • Bálint Czúcz

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary)

  • Krisztina Bereczki

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary)

  • Márta Belényesi

    (Lechner Knowledge Center, Bosnyák tér 5., H-1149 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Edina Csákvári

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Restoration Ecology Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary)

  • Márton Kiss

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary
    Department of Climatology and Landscape Ecology, University of Szeged, Egyetem utca 2., H-6722 Szeged, Hungary)

  • Veronika Fabók

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary)

  • Lívia Kisné Fodor

    (Department of Nature Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture, Apáczai Csere János u. 9., H-1052 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Péter Koncz

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary)

  • Róbert Lehoczki

    (Lechner Knowledge Center, Bosnyák tér 5., H-1149 Budapest, Hungary)

  • László Pásztor

    (Institute for Soil Sciences, Centre for Agricultural Research, H-1022 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Róbert Pataki

    (Lechner Knowledge Center, Bosnyák tér 5., H-1149 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Rita Rezneki

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary)

  • Zsuzsanna Szerényi

    (Institute of Sustainable Development, Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8., H-1093 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Katalin Török

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Restoration Ecology Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary)

  • Anikó Zölei

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary)

  • Zita Zsembery

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary)

  • Anikó Kovács-Hostyánszki

    (Centre for Ecological Research, Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group, Alkotmány út 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary)

Abstract

Mapping and assessing ecosystem services (ES) projects at the national level have been implemented recently in the European Union in order to comply with the targets set out in the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 and later in the Strategy for 2030. In Hungary this work has just been accomplished in a large-scale six-year project. The Hungarian assessment was structured along the ES cascade with each level described by a set of indicators. We present the selected and quantified indicators for 12 ES. For the assessment of cascade level 4, human well-being, a set of relevant well-being dimensions were selected. The whole process was supported by several forms of involvement, interviews, consultations and workshops and in thematic working groups performing the ES quantifications, followed by building scenarios and synthesizing maps and results. Here we give an overview of the main steps and results of the assessment, discuss related conceptual issues and recommend solutions that may be of international relevance. We refine some definitions of the cascade levels and suggest theoretical extensions to the cascade model. By finding a common basis for ES assessments and especially for national ones, we can ensure better comparability of results and better adoption in decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Ágnes Vári & Eszter Tanács & Eszter Tormáné Kovács & Ágnes Kalóczkai & Ildikó Arany & Bálint Czúcz & Krisztina Bereczki & Márta Belényesi & Edina Csákvári & Márton Kiss & Veronika Fabók & Lívia Kisné , 2022. "National Ecosystem Services Assessment in Hungary: Framework, Process and Conceptual Questions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-22, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12847-:d:936714
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12847/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12847/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacobs, Sander & Burkhard, Benjamin & Van Daele, Toon & Staes, Jan & Schneiders, Anik, 2015. "‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 21-30.
    2. Frélichová, Jana & Vačkář, David & Pártl, Adam & Loučková, Blanka & Harmáčková, Zuzana V. & Lorencová, Eliška, 2014. "Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 110-117.
    3. Staton, Tom & Walters, Richard J. & Smith, Jo & Girling, Robbie D., 2019. "Evaluating the effects of integrating trees into temperate arable systems on pest control and pollination," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    5. Lia Laporta & Tiago Domingos & Cristina Marta-Pedroso, 2021. "Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems Services under the Proposed MAES European Common Framework: Methodological Challenges and Opportunities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-28, October.
    6. Jäger, Hieronymus & Peratoner, Giovanni & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Tasser, Erich, 2020. "Grassland biomass balance in the European Alps: current and future ecosystem service perspectives," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    7. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    8. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & von Haaren, Christina & Settele, Josef, 2014. "The ecosystem service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 22-32.
    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. Eszter Tanács & Ágnes Vári & Ákos Bede-Fazekas & András Báldi & Edina Csákvári & Anett Endrédi & Veronika Fabók & Lívia Kisné Fodor & Márton Kiss & Péter Koncz & Anikó Kovács-Hostyánszki & János Mészá, 2023. "Finding the Green Grass in the Haystack? Integrated National Assessment of Ecosystem Services and Condition in Hungary, in Support of Conservation and Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-28, May.
    2. Anna Széchy & Zsuzsanna Szerényi, 2023. "Valuing the Recreational Services Provided by Hungary’s Forest Ecosystems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-16, February.

    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. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Vári, Ágnes & Adamescu, Cristian Mihai & Balzan, Mario & Gocheva, Kremena & Götzl, Martin & Grunewald, Karsten & Inácio, Miguel & Linder, Madli & Obiang-Ndong, Grégory & Pereira, Paulo & Santos-Martin, 2024. "National mapping and assessment of ecosystem services projects in Europe – Participants’ experiences, state of the art and lessons learned," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    3. Wei, Hejie & Fan, Weiguo & Wang, Xuechao & Lu, Nachuan & Dong, Xiaobin & Zhao, Yanan & Ya, Xijia & Zhao, Yifei, 2017. "Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: A review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 15-27.
    4. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.
    5. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    6. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Spatial dynamics of biophysical trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services in the Himalayas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    7. Maia de Souza, Danielle & Lopes, Gabriela Russo & Hansson, Julia & Hansen, Karin, 2018. "Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: A synthesis of knowledge and recommendations for biofuels," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 200-210.
    8. Jarmila Makovníková & Stanislav Kološta & Filip Flaška & Boris Pálka, 2023. "Potential of Regulating Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital in Model Regions of Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-22, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Wang, Zhuangzhuang & Fu, Bojie & Zhang, Liwei & Wu, Xutong & Li, Yingjie, 2022. "Ecosystem service assessments across cascade levels: typology and an evidence map," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    11. Thomas Elliot & Javier Babí Almenar & Samuel Niza & Vânia Proença & Benedetto Rugani, 2019. "Pathways to Modelling Ecosystem Services within an Urban Metabolism Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-22, May.
    12. De Vreese, R. & Leys, M. & Dendoncker, N. & Van Herzele, A. & Fontaine, C.M., 2016. "Images of nature as a boundary object in social and integrated ecosystem services assessments. Reflections from a Belgian case study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 269-279.
    13. Shah, Arpit & Garg, Amit, 2017. "Urban commons service generation, delivery, and management: A conceptual framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 280-287.
    14. Cornelis Leeuwen & Jos Frijns & Annemarie Wezel & Frans Ven, 2012. "City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2177-2197, June.
    15. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    16. Yanzi Wang & Chunming Wu & Yongfeng Gong & Zhen Zhu, 2021. "Can Adaptive Governance Promote Coupling Social-Ecological Systems? Evidence from the Vulnerable Ecological Region of Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-19, October.
    17. Balzan, Mario V & Caruana, Julio & Zammit, Annrica, 2018. "Assessing the capacity and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small island state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 711-725.
    18. Brunet, Lucas & Tuomisaari, Johanna & Lavorel, Sandra & Crouzat, Emilie & Bierry, Adeline & Peltola, Taru & Arpin, Isabelle, 2018. "Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-34.
    19. Gerd Lupp & Bernhard Förster & Valerie Kantelberg & Tim Markmann & Johannes Naumann & Carolina Honert & Marc Koch & Stephan Pauleit, 2016. "Assessing the Recreation Value of Urban Woodland Using the Ecosystem Service Approach in Two Forests in the Munich Metropolitan Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-14, November.
    20. Ping Shen & Lijuan Wu & Ziwen Huo & Jiaying Zhang, 2023. "A Study on the Spatial Pattern of the Ecological Product Value of China’s County-Level Regions Based on GEP Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, February.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12847-:d:936714. 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.