Estimation of benefits from the actual use of inland water ecosystem services in the Slovak Republic

Radoslav Bujnovský 1
  • 1 Water Research Institute, , 812 49, Bratislava


The primary aim of the article is to obtain an overview of benefits from the actual use of inland water ecosystem services (ESSs) in Slovakia. The evaluation, which includes both surface water and groundwater, is primarily focused on demand side. Methods for assessing the benefits of the most prevalent ESSs, designated by Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES classification) v. 4.3, are described and discussed. The evaluation is performed at the level of 10 sub-basins to which available data are allocated. In the absence of necessary data or the impossibility of allocating them to sub-basins, the benefit from the use of some ESSs is estimated at the level of whole Slovak territory. The use of ESSs valuation in practice, especially with regard to water protection of surface water and groundwater, is discussed. The evaluation of benefits from ESSs of inland waters in Slovakia so far does not allow direct use of obtained results for proposal of measures within river basin management plans as suggested by several authors. Main reason is the input data availability and quality. At the present time, the significance of the ESSs evaluation may rather lie in the awareness of the value that human society gains from the use of inland waters. It becomes more evident that increase in environmental awareness alone is not sufficient in terms of the protection of ecosystems and their services. To achieve unambiguous and lasting improvement in this area, it is necessary to address the deeper causes, closely related to human thinking and behaviour.

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.

  • Bechtel, R.B. & Churchman A. (Eds.) (2002). Handbook of environmental psychology. New York: J. Wiley & Sons, Inc.

  • Boyd, J. & Banzhaf S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63, 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.

  • Bujnovský, R. (2015). Evaluation the ecosystem services of inland waters in the Slovak Republic – to date findings. Ekológia (Bratislava), 34(1), 19–25. DOI: 10.1515/eko-2015-0003.

  • Bujnovský, R. & Vilček J. (2011). Soil degradation and soil value in Slovakia – Two problems with common denominator. Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus, 76(1), 9–14.

  • 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.

  • Cooper, N., Brady, E., Steen, H. & Bryce R. (2016). Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 21, 218–229. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.014.

  • COWI (2014a). Support policy development for integration of an ecosystem services approach with WFD and FD implementation. Resource document. Kongens Lyngby: COWI A/S.

  • COWI (2014b). Support policy development for integration of an ecosystem services approach with WFD and FD implementation. Resource document – Annex report. Kongens Lyngby: COWI A/S.

  • DeGroot, R., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L. & Willemen L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260–272. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.

  • 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.

  • De Miranda Coelha, J.-A.P., Gouveira, V.V., de Souza, G.H.S., Milfont, T.L. & Barros B.N.R (2016). Emotions toward water consumption: Conservation and wastage. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 48, 117–126. DOI: 10.1016/j.rlp.2015.09.006.

  • EEA (2015). The European environmentstate and outlook 2015: synthesis report. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

  • Elsin, Y.K., Kramer, R.A. & Jenkins W.A. (2010). Valuing drinking water provision as an ecosystem service in the Neuse river basin. Journal of Water Research, Planning and Management, 136, 474–482. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000058

  • 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

  • Gomez-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.

  • Grizzetti, B., Lanzanova, D., Liquete, C., Reynauld, A., Rankinen, K., Hellsten, S., Forsius, M. & Cardoso A.C. (2015a). Cook-book for water ecosystem service assessment and valuation. JRC science and policy report. Ispra: JRC.

  • Grizzetti, B., Passy, P., Billen, G., Bouraoui, F., Garnier, J. & Lassaletta L. (2015b). The role of water nitrogen retention in integrated nutrient management: assessment in a large basin using different modelling approaches. Environmental Research Letters, 10, 065008.

  • Grizzetti, B., Lanzanova, D., Liquete, C., Reynaud, A. & Cardoso A.C. (2016). Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. Environmental Science and Policy, 61, 194–203. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.008.

  • Grossmann, M. (2012). Economic value of the nutrient retention function of restored floodplain wetlands in the Elbe river basin. Ecological Economics, 83, 108–117. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.03.008

  • Gunkel, G., Lima, D., Selge, F., Sobral, M. & Calado S. (2015). Aquatic ecosystem services of reservoirs in semiarid areas: sustainability and reservoir management. In WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment (River Basin Management VIII), 197, 187−200.

  • Hahn, T., McDermott, C., Ituarte-Lima, C., Schultz, M., Green, T. & Tuvendal M. (2015). Purposes and degrees of commodification: Economic instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services need not rely on markets or monetary valuation. Ecosystem Services, 16, 74–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.012.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Keeler, B.L., Polasky, S., Brauman, K., Johnson, K.A., Finlay, J.C., O´Neil, A., Kovacs, K. & Danzell B. (2012). Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Pro. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109(45), 18619–18624.

  • La Note, A., Maes, J., Grizzetti, B., Bouraoui, F. & Zulian G. (2012). Spatially explicit monetary valuation of water purification services in the Mediterranean bio-physical region. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management, 8(1−2), 26–34. DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2011.645557

  • La Note, A., Maes, J., Dalmazzone, S., Crossman, N.D., Grizzetti, B. & Bidoglio G. (2017). Physical and monetary ecosystem service accounts for Europe: A case study for in-stream nitrogen retention. Ecosystem Services, 23, 18–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.002.

  • Maes, J., Braat, L., Jax, K., Hutchins, M., Furman, E., Termansen, M., Luque, S., Paracchini, M.L., Chauvin, Ch., Williams, R., Volk, M., Lautenbach, S., Kopperoinen, L., Schelhaas, M.-J., Weinert, J., Goossen, M., Dumont, E., Strauch, M., Görg, Ch., Dormann, C., Katwinkel, M., Zulian, G., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., Hauck, J., Forsius, M., Hengeveld, G., Perez-Soba, M., Bouraoui, F., Scholz, M., Schulz-Zunkel, Ch., Lepistö, A., Polishchuk, Y. & Bidoglio G. (2011). A spatial assessment of ecosystem services in Europe: methods, case studies and policy analysis - phase 1. PEER Report No 3. Ispra: Partnership for European Environmental Research.

  • Maes, J., Liquete, C., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Paracchini, L.M., Barredo, J.I., Grizzetti, B., Cardoso, A., Somma, F., Petersen, J.E., Meiner, A., Gelabert, E.R., Zal, N., Kristensen, P., Bastrup-Birk, A., Biala, K., Piroddi, Ch., Egoh, B., Degeorges, P., Fiorina, Ch., Santos-Martín, F., Naruševičius, V., Verboven, J., Pereira, H.M., Bengsson, J., Gocheva, K., Marta-Pedroso, C., Snäll, T., Estreguil, Ch., San-Miguewl-Ayanz, J., Péres-Soba, M., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lillebø, A.I., Malak, D.A., Condré, S., Moen, J., Czúcz, B., Drakou, E.G., Zulian, G. & Lavalle C. (2016). An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosystem Services, 17, 14–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023.

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

  • Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoA & RD) (2013). Multiannual National Strategic Plan for the Development of Aquaculture of the Slovak Republic for period 2014-2020 (in Slovak). Bratislava: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.

  • Ministry of Environment (2011). Concept of utilization of hydropower potential of watercourses of the Slovak Republic by 2030 (in Slovak). Bratislava: Ministry of Environment.

  • 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, Cranfield University.

  • Morvay, K., Frank, K., Gabrielová, H., Hudcovský, M., Hvozdíková, V., Jeck, T. & Šikulová I. (2014). Economic development of Slovakia in 2013 and outlook to 2015 (in Slovak). Bratislava: Ekonomický ústav SAV.

  • National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training (NCGRT) (2013). Economic value of groundwater in Australia. Kingston : Deloitte Access Economics.

  • OECD (2017). Tackling environmental problems with the help of behavioural insights. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • Rode, M., Hartwig, M., Wagenschein, D., Kebede, T. & Borchardt D. (2015). The importance of hyporheic zone processes on ecological functioning and solute transport of streams and rivers. In L. Chicharo, F. Müller & N. Fohrer (Eds.), Ecosystem services and river basin ecohydrology. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Media B.V.

  • 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.

  • Seifert-Dähnn, I., Barkved, L.J. & Interwies E. (2015). Implementation of the ecosystem service concept in water management – Challenges and ways forward. Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology, 5, 3–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.swaqe.2015.01.007.

  • Seitzinger, S., Harrison, J.A., Böhlke, J.K., Bouwman, A.F., Lowrance, R., Peterson, B., Tobias, C. & van Drecht, G. (2006). Denitrification across landscapes and waterscapes: a synthesis. Ecol. Appl., 16(6), 2064−2090. DOI: 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2064:DALAWA]2.0.CO;2

  • 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). Evaluation of ecosystem functions and services in Czech Republic (in Czech). Ústí nad Labem: Fakulta životního prostředí UJEP.

  • Schröter, M., Van der Zanden, E., Van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Remme, R.P., Serna-Chavez, H.M., de Groot, R.S. & Opdam P. (2014). Ecosystem services as a contested concept: A synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conservation Letters, 7(6), 514−523. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12091.

  • Stern P.C. (2000). Psychology and the science of human-environment interactions. American Psychologist, 55, 523−530. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.523.

  • 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.

  • Ward, F.A. & Michelsen A. (2002). The economic value of water in agriculture: concepts and policy applications. Water Policy, 4, 423−446.

  • Wollheim, W.M., Vörösmarty, C.J., Peterson, B.J., Seitzinger, S.P. & Hopkinson C.S. (2006). Relationship between river size and nutrient removal. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L06410. DOI: 10.1029/2006GL025845.

  • WWAP - United Nations World Water Assessment Programme (2014). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2014. Water and energy. Paris: UNESCO.


Journal + Issues