IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlswr/v11y2016i1id109-2015-swr.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An approach to mapping the potential of cultural agroecosystem services

Author

Listed:
  • Jarmila MAKOVNÍKOVÁ

    (National Agricultural and Food Centre, Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute Bratislava, Regional Station Banská Bystrica, Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic)

  • Jozef KOBZA

    (National Agricultural and Food Centre, Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute Bratislava, Regional Station Banská Bystrica, Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic)

  • Boris PÁLKA

    (National Agricultural and Food Centre, Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute Bratislava, Regional Station Banská Bystrica, Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic)

  • Jozef MALIŠ

    (National Agricultural and Food Centre, Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute Bratislava, Regional Station Banská Bystrica, Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic)

  • Radoslava KANIANSKA

    (Department of Environment, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Matej Bel University Banská Bystrica, Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic)

  • Miriam KIZEKOVÁ

    (National Agricultural and Food Centre, Grassland and Mountain Agriculture Research Institute Banská Bystrica, Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic)

Abstract

A system for evaluating outdoor recreation as a cultural agroecosystem service is presented. Every agroecosystem presumably has the potential for providing some kind of outdoor recreation. Two approaches to mapping the recreation potential were used and compared - the Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) model and the regional model (RegMOD). From the possibilities of recreation activities, hiking, biking, and cross-country skiing were chosen. The comparison of the two approaches showed that the RegMOD incorporates a wider range of categories than the SolVES model, particularly for hiking. The robust character of the SolVES model is reflected by narrowing the spectrum of categories of this recreation activity. The differences in the map view are marked in the case of biking and cross-country skiing. Overall, the grasslands of the study area in Slovakia offer mainly medium relevant capacity (53.90% by the results of the SolVES, 64.90% by the results of the RegMOD) for providing selected outdoor recreation activities. The less productive (53.88% of all non-productive grasslands by the results of the SolVES, 48.00% by the results of the RegMOD) and non-productive grasslands represent a higher relevant capacity (41.18% of all non-productive grasslands by the results of the SolVES, 54.40% by the results of the RegMOD) for providing outdoor recreation activities. This brings about a new view of their management as well as use. The RegMOD developed in this paper is replicable and could be applied by managers mainly at the regional level on condition of their proficiency in geographical information systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Jarmila MAKOVNÍKOVÁ & Jozef KOBZA & Boris PÁLKA & Jozef MALIŠ & Radoslava KANIANSKA & Miriam KIZEKOVÁ, 2016. "An approach to mapping the potential of cultural agroecosystem services," Soil and Water Research, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 44-52.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlswr:v:11:y:2016:i:1:id:109-2015-swr
    DOI: 10.17221/109/2015-SWR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://swr.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/109/2015-SWR.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://swr.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/109/2015-SWR.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/109/2015-SWR?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kareiva, Peter & Tallis, Heather & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Daily, Gretchen C. & Polasky, Stephen (ed.), 2011. "Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199589005, Decembrie.
    2. 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.
    3. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
    4. Hauck, Jennifer & Görg, Christoph & Varjopuro, Riku & Ratamäki, Outi & Maes, Joachim & Wittmer, Heidi & Jax, Kurt, 2013. "“Maps have an air of authority”: Potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 25-32.
    5. 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.
    6. Frélichová, Jana & Vačkář, David & Pártl, Adam & Loučková, Blanka & Harmáčková, Zuzana V. & Lorencová, Eliška, 2014. "Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 110-117.
    7. Patrick Reed & Gregory Brown, 2003. "Values Suitability Analysis: A Methodology for Identifying and Integrating Public Perceptions of Ecosystem Values in Forest Planning," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(5), pages 643-658.
    8. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Waage, Sissel & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 27-39.
    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. Jana Poláková & Anna Maroušková & Josef Holec & Michaela Kolářová & Jaroslava Janků, . "Changes in grassland area in lowlands and marginal uplands: Medium-term differences and potential for carbon farming," Soil and Water Research, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 0.
    2. Jana Poláková & Anna Maroušková & Josef Holec & Michaela Kolářová & Jaroslava Janků, 2023. "Changes in grassland area in lowlands and marginal uplands: Medium-term differences and potential for carbon farming," Soil and Water Research, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 18(4), pages 236-245.

    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. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    2. Ferdinando Villa & Kenneth J Bagstad & Brian Voigt & Gary W Johnson & Rosimeiry Portela & Miroslav Honzák & David Batker, 2014. "A Methodology for Adaptable and Robust Ecosystem Services Assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Davide Geneletti, 2015. "A Conceptual Approach to Promote the Integration of Ecosystem Services in Strategic Environmental Assessment," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1-27, December.
    4. Pandeya, B. & Buytaert, W. & Zulkafli, Z. & Karpouzoglou, T. & Mao, F. & Hannah, D.M., 2016. "A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 250-259.
    5. Madleina Gerecke & Oskar Hagen & Janine Bolliger & Anna M. Hersperger & Felix Kienast & Bronwyn Price & Loïc Pellissier, 2019. "Assessing potential landscape service trade-offs driven by urbanization in Switzerland," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    7. Forio, Marie Anne Eurie & Villa-Cox, Gonzalo & Van Echelpoel, Wout & Ryckebusch, Helena & Lock, Koen & Spanoghe, Pieter & Deknock, Arne & De Troyer, Niels & Nolivos-Alvarez, Indira & Dominguez-Granda,, 2020. "Bayesian Belief Network models as trade-off tools of ecosystem services in the Guayas River Basin in Ecuador," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    8. Marina Bravi & Marta Bottero & Federico Dell’Anna, 2024. "An Application of the Life Satisfaction Approach (LSA) to Value the Land Consumption and Ecosystem Services," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 2988-3013, March.
    9. Jane Turpie & Gwyneth Letley & Robynne Chyrstal & Stefan Corbella & Derek Stretch, 2017. "A Spatial Valuation of the Natural and Semi-Natural Open Space Areas in eThekwini Municipality," World Bank Publications - Reports 26765, The World Bank Group.
    10. Frélichová, Jana & Vačkář, David & Pártl, Adam & Loučková, Blanka & Harmáčková, Zuzana V. & Lorencová, Eliška, 2014. "Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 110-117.
    11. Barton, D.N. & Kelemen, E. & Dick, J. & Martin-Lopez, B. & Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Jacobs, S. & Hendriks, C.M.A. & Termansen, M. & García- Llorente, M. & Primmer, E. & Dunford, R. & Harrison, P.A. & Tur, 2018. "(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 529-541.
    12. Pickard, Brian R. & Daniel, Jessica & Mehaffey, Megan & Jackson, Laura E. & Neale, Anne, 2015. "EnviroAtlas: A new geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services science and resource management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 45-55.
    13. Liu, Peng & Jiang, Shiwei & Zhao, Lianjun & Li, Yunxi & Zhang, Pingping & Zhang, Li, 2017. "What are the benefits of strictly protected nature reserves? Rapid assessment of ecosystem service values in Wanglang Nature Reserve, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 70-78.
    14. 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.
    15. Jarmila Makovníková & Stanislav Kološta & Filip Flaška & Boris Pálka, 2023. "Potential of Regulating Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital in Model Regions of Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-22, January.
    16. Brown, Greg, 2013. "The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: An empirical analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 58-68.
    17. Rasmussen, Laura Vang & Mertz, Ole & Christensen, Andreas E. & Danielsen, Finn & Dawson, Neil & Xaydongvanh, Pheang, 2016. "A combination of methods needed to assess the actual use of provisioning ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 75-86.
    18. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    19. Shoyama, Kikuko & Yamagata, Yoshiki, 2016. "Local perception of ecosystem service bundles in the Kushiro watershed, Northern Japan – Application of a public participation GIS tool," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 139-149.
    20. Shuxiang Li & Shuhua Ma, 2024. "A Quantitative Analysis on the Coordination of Regional Ecological and Economic Development Based on the Ecosystem Service Evaluation," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:caa:jnlswr:v:11:y:2016:i:1:id:109-2015-swr. 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: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    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.