Landscape Capacity for Ecosystem Services Provision Based on Expert Knowledge and Public Perception (Case Study from the Northwest Slovakia)

Open access


Landscape represents appropriate spatial dimension for a study of ecosystems, especially due to ability to translate scientific knowledge into proper guidance for land use practice and enhancing the inclusion of local stakeholders in decision-making procedures. We tested social preferences method to reach initial and raw overview of the ecosystem services (ES) distribution and their values in the study areas. Perception of experts and local residents about capacities of relevant CORINE land cover (CLC) types to provide various ES was linked with Geographic Information System databases. We quantified the results on the basis of the mean values for each CLC type and the ES groups and these were interpreted also in spatial context. The expectation about perceptible capacities of forest to provide goods and services was fulfilled by responses of the experts, as was the expected difficulty to assess capacities of transitional woodland shrub or complex cultivation patterns. However, additional land cover types in question are meadows and pastures or discon-tinuous urban fabric. Mostly middle ranking values prevail in responses of local residents and uncertainty in the background is much greater comparing to the experts. On the other hand, rural people may better recognise diversified fow of services due to their everyday close connection to more ES. Large variation in the scores of some valued CLC classes in responses of the local residents and also experts seems resulting from lack of knowledge in the background and differences in viewpoint and appreciation. We understand the gaps in evaluating ES by the experts and resident population as good experience and key challenge for the further steps and fine-tuning of the research methods.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Agbenyega O. Burgess P.J. Cook M. & Morris J. (2009). Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy 26 551-557. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.08.011.

  • Ayumi Y. & Chanhda H. (2009). Ecosystem Service Values and Land Use Change in Trans-Boundary National Bio- diversity Conservation Areas (NBCA): A Case study of Phou Dean Din NBCA Lao PDR. http://www.esee2009. si/ESEE2009.html.

  • Burkhard B. Kroll F. Müller F. & Windhorst W. (2009). Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services—a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape Online 15 1-22. DOI: 10.3097/LO.200915.

  • Burkhard B. Kroll F. Nedkov S. & Müller F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators 21 17-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019.

  • Costanza R. DArge R. de Groot R.S. Farber S. Grasso M. Hannon B. Limburg K. Naeem S. O'Neill R.V. Paruelo J. Raskin R.G. Sutton P. & van den Belt M. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630) 253-260.

  • Daily G.C. Söderqvist T Aniyar S. Arrow K. Dasgupta P. Ehrlich P.R. Folke C. Jansson A. Jansson B. Kaut- sky N. Levin S. Lubchenco J. Mäler K. Simpson D. Starrett D. Tilman D. & Walker B. (2000). The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289 395-396. DOI: 10.1126/science.289.5478.395.

  • de Groot R.S. Wilson M. & Boumans R. (2002). A typology for the description classification and valuation 352 of ecosystem functions goods and services. Ecological Economics 41(3) 393-408. DOI: 10.1016/S0921- 8009(02)00089-7.

  • García-Llorente M. Martín-López B. Iniesta-Arandia I. López-Santiago C.A. Aguilera P.A. & Montes C. (2012). The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: An ecosystem service approach. Environmental Science & Policy 19-20 136-146. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.006.

  • Hartter J. (2010). Resource use and ecosystem services in a forest park landscape. Society and Natural Resources 23 207-223. DOI: 10.1080/08941920903360372.

  • HreŠko J. Mederly P. & PetroviČ F. (2003). Landscape-ecological research with support of GIS tools in preparation of landscape-ecological plan (model area of the Považská Bystrica city). Ekológia (Bratislava) 22(Suppl. 2) 195-212.

  • Iverson L. Echeverria C Nahuelhual L. & Luque S. (2014). Ecosystem services in changing landscapes: An intro- duction. Landsc. Ecol. 29(2) 181-186. DOI: 10.1007/s10980-014-9993-2.

  • Kelemen E. Nguyen G. Gomiero T. Kovács E. Choisis J.P. Choisis N. Paoletti M.G. Podmaniczky L. Ry- schawy J. Sarthou J.P. Herzog F. Dennis P. & Balázs K. (2013). Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity: Lessons from a discourse-based deliberative valuation study Land Use Policy 35 318-328. DOI: 10.1016/j.landuse- pol.2013.06.005.

  • Konarska K.M. Sutton PC. & Castellon M. (2002). Evaluating scale dependence of ecosystem service valuation: a comparison of NOAA-AVHRR and Landsat TM datasets. Ecological Economics 41 491-507. DOI: 10.1016/ S0921-8009(02)00096-4.

  • Kopperoinen L. Itkonen P. & Niemelä J. (2014). Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into a new place-based methodology Landsc. Ecol. 29(8) 1361-1375. DOI: 10.1007/s10980-014-0014-2.

  • Lewan L. & Söderqvist T (2002). Knowledge and recognition of ecosystem services among the general public in a drainage basin in Scania Southern Sweden. Ecological Economics 42 459-467. DOI: 10.1016/S0921- 8009(02)00127-1. Limburg K.E. & Folke C. (1999). The ecology of ecosystem services: introduction to the special issue. Ecological Economics 29 179-182. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00008-7.

  • Martín-López B. Iniesta-Arandia I. García-Llorente M. Palomo I. Casado-Arzuaga I. García Del Amo D. Gómez-Baggethun E. Oteros-Rozas E. Palacios-Agundez I. Willaarts B. González J.A. Santos-Martín F. Onaindia M. López-Santiago C.A. & Montes C. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem services bun-dles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7 e38970. DOI: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0038970.

  • Maynard S. James D. & Davidson A. (2010). The development of an ecosystem services framework for South East Queensland. Environ. Manag. 45(5) 881-895. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-010-9428-z.

  • Metzger M.J. Rounsevell M.D.A. Acosta-Michlik L. Leemans R. & Schröter D. (2006). The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114 69-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.025.

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2003). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well- Being; A Framework for Assessment. Washington: World Resources Institute.

  • PetroviČ F. & Muchová Z. (2013). The potential of the landscape with dispersed settlement: Case study Čadca town. In J. Fialová & H. KubíČková (Eds.) Public recreation and landscape protection - with man hand in hand (pp. 199-204). Proceedings from Scientific Conference May 1-3 2013 Brno. Brno: Mendelova Univerzita.

  • Schröter D. Cramer W Leemans R. Prentice I.C. Araújo M.B. Arnell N.W Bondeau A. Bugmann H. Carter T.R. Gracia C.A. de la Vega-Leinert A.C. Erhard M. Ewert F. Glendining M. House J.I. Kankaanpää S. Klein R.J.T. Lavorel S. Lindner M. Metzger M.J. Meyer J. Mitchell T.D. Reginster I. Rounsevell M. Sabaté S. Sitch S. Smith B. Smith J. Smith P. Sykes M.T. Tonicke K. Tuiller W Tuck G. Zae-hle S. & Zierl B. (2005). Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 310 1333-1337. DOI: 10.1126/science.1115233.

  • Seják J. Cudlín P. Pokorný J. Zapletal M. PetŘíČek V. Guth J. Chuman T Romportl D. SkoŘepová I. Vacek V. Vyskot I. Černý K. Hesslerová P. BureŠová R. Prokopová M. Plch R. Engstová B. & Stará L. (2010). Hodnocení funkcí a služeb ekosystémě České republiky. Ústí nad Labem: Fakulta životního prostŘedí UJEP.

  • Wilson M.A. & Howarth R.B. (2002). Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecological Economics 41 431-443. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00092-7.

  • Yapp G. Walker J. & Tackway R. (2010). Linking vegetation type and condition to ecosystem goods and services. Ecological Complexity 7(3) 292-301. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.04.008.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.77

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.283
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.534

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 247 154 12
PDF Downloads 115 76 6