IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i2p234-d742356.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Online Environment as a Tool to Push Forward the Research: An Example for Landscape Disservices

Author

Listed:
  • Ileana Pătru-Stupariu

    (Institute of Research of University of Bucharest, ICUB, Transdisciplinary Research Centre Landscape-Territory-Information Systems, CeLTIS, Splaiul Independenţei No. 91-95, 050095 Bucharest, Romania
    Department of Regional Geography and Environment, Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest, Bd. N. Bălcescu, 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Andreea Ionescu

    (Faculty of Geography, Doctoral School Simion Mehedinti, University of Bucharest, Bd. N. Bălcescu, 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Radu Tudor

    (Department of Regional Geography and Environment, Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest, Bd. N. Bălcescu, 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Alin-Ionuț Pleșoianu

    (Institute of Research of University of Bucharest, ICUB, Transdisciplinary Research Centre Landscape-Territory-Information Systems, CeLTIS, Splaiul Independenţei No. 91-95, 050095 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Mioara Clius

    (Department of Regional Geography and Environment, Faculty of Geography, University of Bucharest, Bd. N. Bălcescu, 1, 010041 Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have had to find different resources in order to continue their research and the use of online information can represent a temporary solution. Our research is mainly focusing on a landscape which offers services and disservices. Recently, numerous studies that rely on landscape disservices have appeared. We associate wildlife-human-interactions (WHI) and human-wildlife-interactions (HWI) as part of landscape disservices. More precisely, in the first category (WHI) we have included the interaction of the wild animals with human and in the second category (HWI) we have created a database with animals attacked or/and killed by human. In order to sustain this analysis, we have selected data from local newspapers and Facebook groups, which supports our hypothesis that online resources could provide valuable data. The study area is represented by the Southern and Eastern Carpathians. The most affected mammals for this type of interactions (HWI) are bears, followed by wild boars and red deer, while WHI has intensified in the last five years. Based on the analysed data we can conclude that the animals who generate the most disservices to humans are bears and wild boars. The solutions we have identified, which also include online sources, for both HWI and WHI are relocation, rescue, capturing of the animals in reservations or, as a last resort, euthanasia. In order to reduce these types of interactions it is important to promote ecological education, development and promoting of certain attitudes and behaviour that have a visible impact upon HWI and WHI.

Suggested Citation

  • Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Andreea Ionescu & Radu Tudor & Alin-Ionuț Pleșoianu & Mioara Clius, 2022. "Online Environment as a Tool to Push Forward the Research: An Example for Landscape Disservices," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-10, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:234-:d:742356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/234/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/2/234/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Ileana Pătru-Stupariu & Constantina Alina Hossu & Simona Raluca Grădinaru & Andreea Nita & Mihai-Sorin Stupariu & Alina Huzui-Stoiculescu & Athanasios-Alexandru Gavrilidis, 2020. "A Review of Changes in Mountain Land Use and Ecosystem Services: From Theory to Practice," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Ancuta Fedorca & Mihai Fedorca & Ovidiu Ionescu & Ramon Jurj & Georgeta Ionescu & Marius Popa, 2021. "Sustainable Landscape Planning to Mitigate Wildlife–Vehicle Collisions," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    4. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    5. Pătru-Stupariu, Ileana & Nita, Andreea & Mustăţea, Mihai & Huzui-Stoiculescu, Alina & Fürst, Christine, 2020. "Using social network methodological approach to better understand human–wildlife interactions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Posthumus, H. & Rouquette, J.R. & Morris, J. & Gowing, D.J.G. & Hess, T.M., 2010. "A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1510-1523, May.
    2. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    3. Song, Xiaoqing & Wang, Xiong & Hu, Shougeng & Xiao, Renbin & Scheffran, Jürgen, 2022. "Functional transition of cultivated ecosystems: Underlying mechanisms and policy implications in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    4. Pacini, Gaio Cesare & Bruschi, Piero & Ferretti, Lorenzo & Santoni, Margherita & Serafini, Francesco & Gaifami, Tommaso, 2023. "FunBies, a model for integrated assessment of functional biodiversity of weed communities in agro-ecosystem," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 486(C).
    5. Dominati, Estelle & Patterson, Murray & Mackay, Alec, 2010. "A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1858-1868, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Calvet-Mir, Laura & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Reyes-García, Victoria, 2012. "Beyond food production: Ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 153-160.
    8. Marcondes G. Coelho-Junior & Athila L. de Oliveira & Eduardo C. da Silva-Neto & Thayanne C. Castor-Neto & Ana A. de O. Tavares & Vanessa M. Basso & Ana P. D. Turetta & Patricia E. Perkins & Acacio G. , 2021. "Exploring Plural Values of Ecosystem Services: Local Peoples’ Perceptions and Implications for Protected Area Management in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    9. Ando Fahda Aulia & Harpinder Sandhu & Andrew C. Millington, 2020. "Quantifying the Economic Value of Ecosystem Services in Oil Palm Dominated Landscapes in Riau Province in Sumatra, Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-23, June.
    10. Baba, S.H. & Wani, S.A., 2018. "Ecosystem Management Approach for Agricultural Growth in Mountains: Farmers Perception of Ecosystem Services and Dis-Services in Kashmir-India," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277556, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur, 2016. "Classification and valuation of soil ecosystem services," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 24-38.
    12. Lin, Yi-Hsing & Hong, Chun-Fu & Lee, Chun-Hung & Chen, Chih-Cheng, 2020. "Integrating Aspects of Ecosystem Dimensions into Sorghum and Wheat Production Areas in Kinmen, Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    13. Stilianos Tampakis & Veronika Andrea & Thomas Panagopoulos & Paraskevi Karanikola & Rallou Gkarmiri & Theodora Georgoula, 2023. "Managing the Conflict of Human–Wildlife Coexistence: A Community-Based Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, April.
    14. Uta Schirpke & Lukas Egarter Vigl & Erich Tasser & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2019. "Analyzing Spatial Congruencies and Mismatches between Supply, Demand and Flow of Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, April.
    15. Peer von Döhren & Dagmar Haase, 2023. "Ecosystem Services for Planning Post-Mining Landscapes Using the DPSIR Framework," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, May.
    16. Francesca Assennato & Daniela Smiraglia & Alice Cavalli & Luca Congedo & Chiara Giuliani & Nicola Riitano & Andrea Strollo & Michele Munafò, 2022. "The Impact of Urbanization on Land: A Biophysical-Based Assessment of Ecosystem Services Loss Supported by Remote Sensed Indicators," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    17. Annie Ouin & Émilie Andrieu & Gerard Balent & Romain Carrié & Jean-Philippe Choisis & Jean-François Dejoux & Jean-Pierre del Corso & James Desaegher & Mathieu Fauvel & Nicola Gallai & Sylvie Ladet & J, 2022. "PSDR4 Sebioref - Une approche paysagère et territorialisée des services écosystémiques et des valeurs attachées pour guider les décideurs publics," Post-Print hal-03645000, HAL.
    18. Jean-Michel Salles, 2011. "Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: why linking economic values with Nature?," Working Papers 11-24, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Dec 2011.
    19. Jessica Cockburn & Georgina Cundill & Sheona Shackleton & Mathieu Rouget, 2018. "Towards Place-Based Research to Support Social–Ecological Stewardship," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    20. Amélie Yvonne Davis & Andrew Freund & Sarah Lynn Dumyahn & Ryan Mendoza & Aura Muniz Torres & Michelle Dawn Boone, 2021. "Parcel Management and Perceived Ecosystem Services and Disservices in the Exurbs of a Midwestern County in the United States," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, April.

    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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:2:p:234-:d:742356. 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.