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 search 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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Brady, Mark & Hedlund, Katarina & Cong, Rong-Gang & Hemerik, Lia & Hotes, Stefan & Machado, Stephen & Mattsson, Lennart & Schulz, Elke & Thomsen, Ingrid K., 2015. "Valuing Supporting Soil Ecosystem Services in Agriculture: a Natural Capital Approach," MPRA Paper 112303, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. You Zuo & Lin Zhang, 2023. "Research on Local Ecosystem Cultural Services in the Jiangnan Water Network Rural Areas: A Case Study of the Ecological Green Integration Demonstration Zone in the Yangtze River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, July.
    12. Klimanova, O.A. & Bukvareva, E.N. & Yu, Kolbowsky E. & Illarionova, O.A., 2023. "Assessing ecosystem services in Russia: Case studies from four municipal districts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    13. Cabral, Pedro & Feger, Clément & Levrel, Harold & Chambolle, Mélodie & Basque, Damien, 2016. "Assessing the impact of land-cover changes on ecosystem services: A first step toward integrative planning in Bordeaux, France," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 318-327.
    14. 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).
    15. Gaglio, M. & Aschonitis, V. & Pieretti, L. & Santos, L. & Gissi, E. & Castaldelli, G. & Fano, E.A., 2019. "Modelling past, present and future Ecosystem Services supply in a protected floodplain under land use and climate changes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 403(C), pages 23-34.
    16. Alicja Krzemień & Juan José Álvarez Fernández & Pedro Riesgo Fernández & Gregorio Fidalgo Valverde & Silverio Garcia-Cortes, 2022. "Valuation of Ecosystem Services Based on EU Carbon Allowances—Optimal Recovery for a Coal Mining Area," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-21, December.
    17. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    18. 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).
    19. Calzolari, C. & Tarocco, P. & Lombardo, N. & Marchi, N. & Ungaro, F., 2020. "Assessing soil ecosystem services in urban and peri-urban areas: From urban soils survey to providing support tool for urban planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    20. Winthrop, Robert H., 2014. "The strange case of cultural services: Limits of the ecosystem services paradigm," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 208-214.

    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.