Evaluation of the Ecosystem Services of Inland Waters in the Slovak Republic - To Date Findings

Radoslav Bujnovský 1
  • 1 Water Research Institute, Nábr. arm. gen. L. Svobodu 5, 812 49 Bratislava, Slovak Republic

Abstract

Ecosystem services (ES) (goods and services) represent the outputs of natural systems from which people can have benefits. Evaluation of the benefits resulting from ES of inland waters or the benefits, which are lost when the necessary measures are not implemented, is one of the methods of evaluating the external costs of environmental damage - environmental and resource costs. Evaluation of ES is based on the CICES classification v. 4.3, which defines provision, regulation/ maintenance and cultural services. In the assessment of ES also enters groundwater, although in comparison with surface waters in lesser extent. At present, the evaluation is performed at the level of sub-basins of the Slovak Republic. In this paper, evaluation of selected ES is presented. Use of evaluation in practice is also discussed.

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

  • Austin, D., Cerman, G., Heywood, T., Marshall, R., Refling, K. & Van Patter L. (2012). Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services. Ontario: University of Guelph.

  • Barbier, E.B. (2007). Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Economic Policy, 22, 177-229. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0327.2007.00174.x.

  • Boyd, J. & Banzhaf S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2-3), 616-626. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002.

  • Brouwer, R. (2004). The concept of environmental and resource costs. Lessons learned from ECO2. In R. Brouwer & P. Strosser (Eds.), Environmental and resource costs and the Water Framework Directive. An overview of European practices (pp. 3-12). Workshop Proc. RIZA, Lelystad.

  • Brouwer, R. (2008). The potential role of stated preference methods in the water framework directive to assess disproportionate costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(5), 597-614. DOI: 10.1080/09640560802207860.

  • Chee, Y.E. (2004). An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biol. Conserv., 120, 549-565. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.03.028.

  • COWI (2014). Support policy development for integration of an ecosystem services approach with WFD and FD implementation. Towards practical guidelines to support River Basin Planners. Kongens Lyngby: COWI A/S.

  • DeGroot, R., Brander, L., Van der Ploeg, S., Constanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., Christie, M., Crossman, N., Ghermandi, A., Hein, L., Hussain, S., Kumar, P., McVittie, A., Portela, R., Rodriguez, L.C., ten Brink, P. & Van Beukering P. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services. Ecosystem Services, 1, 50-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005.

  • Everard, M. (2012). Why does “good ecological status” matter? Water and Environment Journal, 26, 165-174. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-6593.2011.00273.x.

  • Farber, S., Constanza, R., Childers, D.L., Erickson, J., Gross, K., Grove, M., Hopkinson, Ch.S., Kahn, J., Pincetl, S., Troy, A., Warren, P. & Wilson M. (2006). Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. Bioscience, 56(2), 121-133. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2006)056[0121:LEAEFE]2.0.CO;2.

  • Fisher, B. & Turner R.K. (2008). Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol. Conserv., 141(5), 1167-1169. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.02.019.

  • Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Ruiz-Pérez M. (2011). Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography, 35, 613-628. DOI: 10.1177/0309133311421708.

  • Haines-Young, R. & Potschin M. (2013). CICES V4.3 - Revised report prepared following consultation on CICES Version 4. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. University of Nottingham: Centre for Environmental Management.

  • Kroiss, H. (2014). A quest for quality. Water, 21, 12-13.

  • Landdsberg, F., Ozment, S., Stickler, M., Henninger, N., Treweek, J., Venn, O. & Mock G. (2011). Ecosystem services review for impact assessment. Introduction and guide to scoping. WRI Working Paper. Washington D.C.: World Resources Institute.

  • Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Liquete, C., Braat, L., Berry, P., Egoh, B., Puydarrieux, P., Fiorina, C., Santos, F., Paracchini, M.L., Keune, H., Wittmer, H., Hauck, J., Fiala, I., Verburg, P.H., Condé, S., Schägner, J.P., San Miguel, J., Estreguil, C., Ostermann, O., Barredo, J.I., Pereira, H.M., Stott, A., Laporte, V., Meiner, A., Olah, B., Royo Gelabert, E., Spyropoulou, R., Petersen, J.E., Maguire, C., Zal, N., Achilleos, E., Rubin, A., Ledoux, L., Brown, C., Raes, C., Jacobs, S., Vandewalle, M., Connor, D. & Bidoglio G. (2013). Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • MoE (Ministry of Environment) (2010). Water plan of the Slovak Republic. Abbreviated version. Banská Bystrica: SAŽP.

  • Morris, J. & Camino M. (2011). Economic assessment of freshwater, wetland and floodplain (FWF) ecosystem services. UK NEA Economics analysis report. Bedford: School of Applied Sciences, Ceanfield University.

  • NRC (National Research Council) (2005). Valuing ecosystem services. Toward better environmental decision-making. Washington, D.C.: The National Academic Press.

  • Norgaard, R.B. (2010). Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics, 69, 1219-1227. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009. POST (2011). Living with environmental limits. Postnote, 370, 4.

  • Rohani, M. (2013). Freshwater values framework. A review of water valuation methods utilized within total economic valuation. Auckland Council working report WR2013/001. Auckland: Auckland Council.

  • Salles, J.M. (2011). Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: Why put economic values on nature? C. R. Biol., 334, 469-482. DOI: 10.1016/j.crvi.2011.03.008.

  • Seják, J., Pokorný, J. & Cudlín P. (2010). Možnosti hodnocení ekosystémových služeb. Životné Prostredie, 44(2), 74-77.

  • Viscusi, W.K., Huber, J. & Bell J. (2008). The economic value of water quality. Environmental and Resource Economics, 41, 169-187. DOI: 10.1007/s10640-007-9186-4.

  • Vlachopoulou, M., Coughlin, D., Forrow, D., Kirk, S., Logan, P. & Voulvoulis N. (2014): The potential of using the ecosystem approach in the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Sci. Total Environ., 470-471, 684-694. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.09.072.

  • Waigner, L.A., King, D.M., Mack, R.N., Price, E.W. & Maslin T. (2010). Can the concept of ecosystem services be practically applied to improve natural resource management decisions? Ecological Economics, 69, 978-987. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.12.011.

  • Waigner, L. & Mazzotta M. (2011). Realizing the potential of ecosystem services: A framework for relating ecological changes to economic benefits. Environ. Manag., 48, 710-733. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-011-9726-0.

  • Wallis, C., Séon-Massin, N., Martini, F. & Schouppe M. (2011). Implementation of the Water Framework Directive when ecosystem services come into play. 2nd “Water Science Meets Policy” event. Brussels, 29-30th September 2011.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search