IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2021i2p105-d488901.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem Services of Vegetation Features as the Multifunction Anti-Erosion Measures in the Czech Republic in 2019 and Its 30-Year Prediction

Author

Listed:
  • Marie Balková

    (Department of Geology and Soil Science, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Lucie Kubalíková

    (Department of Geology and Soil Science, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Marcela Prokopová

    (Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Lipová 1789, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech Republic)

  • Petr Sedlák

    (Department of Forest Protection and Wildlife Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Aleš Bajer

    (Department of Geology and Soil Science, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

Abstract

The communication presents the pieces of information of the ecosystem services estimation of the four research localities transformed from an arable land to vegetation features—bosks. These bosks should dispose several ecological functions, primarily anti-erosion measures, additionally the local biodiversity increase, unfavorable microclimate mitigation, shelter provision for small game, birds and insects, or wood and fruit production, etc. One of these benefits, the biodiversity increase, can be evaluated using the Habitat Valuation Method (HVM) and expressed by the financial value obtained on the basis of a combination of expert valuation and cost replacement method. The various combinations of local woody plants and bushes within the project Multifunction anti-erosion measures as a part of adaptable landscape were planted or sown at the project localities (South Moravia and Žďárské vrchy, Czech Republic) in March 2019. Ecosystem services evaluation was one of the fundamental outcomes of the project. The most important result was the calculated value increase of the service termed “environment for the species life providing and genetic diversity conserving”. The increase means the difference between the state prior to planting and the expected target state after 30 years as specified in HVM. In total, the increase of this ecosystem service of the four bosks was valued at 2,633,809.64 CZK (97,206.48 EUR/114,399.06 USD).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:2:p:105-:d:488901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/2/105/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/2/105/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Ree, C.C.D.F. & van Beukering, P.J.H. & Boekestijn, J., 2017. "Geosystem services: A hidden link in ecosystem management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 58-69.
    2. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    3. Jan Brus & Jan Deutscher & Aleš Bajer & Petr Kupec & Lucie Olišarová, 2020. "Monetary Assessment of Restored Habitats as a Support Tool for Sustainable Landscape Management in Lowland Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, February.
    4. Costanza, Robert & de Groot, Rudolf & Braat, Leon & Kubiszewski, Ida & Fioramonti, Lorenzo & Sutton, Paul & Farber, Steve & Grasso, Monica, 2017. "Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 1-16.
    5. Van Ree, C.C.D.F. & van Beukering, P.J.H., 2016. "Geosystem services: A concept in support of sustainable development of the subsurface," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 30-36.
    6. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    7. Stålhammar, Sanna & Pedersen, Eja, 2017. "Recreational cultural ecosystem services: How do people describe the value?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 1-9.
    8. van der Meulen, E.S. & Braat, L.C. & Brils, J.M., 2016. "Abiotic flows should be inherent part of ecosystem services classification," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 1-5.
    9. 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.
    10. Timothy E. Crews & Brian E. Rumsey, 2017. "What Agriculture Can Learn from Native Ecosystems in Building Soil Organic Matter: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-18, April.
    11. Scherr, Sara J. & Yadav, Satya N., 1996. "Land degradation in the developing world: implications for food, agriculture, and the environment to 2020," 2020 vision discussion papers 14, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    12. Bryce, Rosalind & Irvine, Katherine N. & Church, Andrew & Fish, Robert & Ranger, Sue & Kenter, Jasper O., 2016. "Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 258-269.
    13. Fish, Robert & Church, Andrew & Winter, Michael, 2016. "Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 208-217.
    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. Petra Oppeltová & Pavel Kasal & František Krátký & Jana Hajšlová, 2021. "Analysis of Selected Water Quality Indicators from Runoff during Potato Cultivation after Natural Precipitation," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-24, December.
    2. Jarmila Makovníková & Stanislav Kološta & Filip Flaška & Boris Pálka, 2023. "Factors Influencing the Spatial Distribution of Regulating Agro-Ecosystem Services in Agriculture Soils: A Case Study of Slovakia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, April.

    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. Lucie Kubalíková, 2020. "Cultural Ecosystem Services of Geodiversity: A Case Study from Stránská skála (Brno, Czech Republic)," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    3. 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).
    4. Neill, Andrew M. & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Stout, Jane C., 2022. "Conceptual integration of ecosystem services and natural capital within Irish national policy: An analysis over time and between policy sectors," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    5. van Ree, C.C.D.F. & van Beukering, P.J.H. & Boekestijn, J., 2017. "Geosystem services: A hidden link in ecosystem management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 58-69.
    6. Breyne, Johanna & Dufrêne, Marc & Maréchal, Kevin, 2021. "How integrating 'socio-cultural values' into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    7. Ľuboš Slovák & Jan Daněk & Tomáš Daněk, 2023. "The use of focus groups in cultural ecosystem services research: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    9. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    10. Katayama, Naoki & Baba, Yuki G., 2020. "Measuring artistic inspiration drawn from ecosystems and biodiversity: A case study of old children’s songs in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    11. Fish, Robert & Church, Andrew & Willis, Cheryl & Winter, Michael & Tratalos, Jamie A. & Haines-Young, Roy & Potschin, Marion, 2016. "Making space for cultural ecosystem services: Insights from a study of the UK nature improvement initiative," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 329-343.
    12. Maund, Phoebe R. & Irvine, Katherine N. & Dallimer, Martin & Fish, Robert & Austen, Gail E. & Davies, Zoe G., 2020. "Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people’s values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    13. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    14. Stępniewska, Małgorzata & Lupa, Piotr & Mizgajski, Andrzej, 2018. "Drivers of the ecosystem services approach in Poland and perception by practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 59-67.
    15. Uehara, Takuro & Hidaka, Takeshi & Tsuge, Takahiro & Sakurai, Ryo & Cordier, Mateo, 2021. "An adaptive social-ecological system management matrix for guiding ecosystem service improvements," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    16. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    17. Volchko, Yevheniya & Norrman, Jenny & Ericsson, Lars O. & Nilsson, Kristina L. & Markstedt, Anders & Öberg, Maria & Mossmark, Fredrik & Bobylev, Nikolai & Tengborg, Per, 2020. "Subsurface planning: Towards a common understanding of the subsurface as a multifunctional resource," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    18. Frisk, Emrik Lundin & Volchko, Yevheniya & Sandström, Olof Taromi & Söderqvist, Tore & Ericsson, Lars O. & Mossmark, Fredrik & Lindhe, Andreas & Blom, Göran & Lång, Lars-Ove & Carlsson, Christel &, 2022. "The geosystem services concept – What is it and can it support subsurface planning?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    19. Ingrid Nesheim & Line Barkved, 2019. "The Suitability of the Ecosystem Services Framework for Guiding Benefit Assessments in Human-Modified Landscapes Exemplified by Regulated Watersheds—Implications for a Sustainable Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, March.
    20. Marie Hubatova & James McGinlay & David J. Parsons & Joe Morris & Anil R. Graves, 2023. "Assessing Preferences for Cultural Ecosystem Services in the English Countryside Using Q Methodology," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-25, January.

    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:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:2:p:105-:d:488901. 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.