IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlswr/v17y2022i1id136-2021-swr.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An overview of a land evaluation in the context of ecosystem services

Author

Listed:
  • Jaroslava Janků

    (Department of Soil Science and Soil Protection, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Jan Jehlička

    (Department of Environmental Geosciences, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Kristina Heřmanová

    (Department of Soil Science and Soil Protection, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Daniel Toth

    (Department of Economics, University College of Business in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Mansoor Maitah

    (Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Josef Kozák

    (Department of Soil Science and Soil Protection, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Jan Vopravil

    (Research Institute for Soil and Water Conservation, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Radim Vácha

    (Research Institute for Soil and Water Conservation, Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Karel Jacko

    (Agrio ZS, Limited Liability Company, Hovorčovice, Czech Republic)

  • Tomáš Herza

    (Hydrosoft Veleslavín, Limited Liability Company, Prague, Czech Republic)

Abstract

The environment is changing quickly and it is ever more burdened in connection with the greater needs of human society. This fact has increased efforts to improve the management of land and natural resources and the necessity to evaluate them. Land valuations become more important as the land consumption increases. Soil needs to be evaluated in the whole context of how its quality is affected and the values it provides. The concept of ecosystem services offers this holistic view. This paper defines ecosystem services (ES), the various linkages between soil properties, their functions and benefits, the assessment of soil quality using indicators and then briefly mentions EU environmental assessment methods and terms used in the context of ES. The article also mentions frameworks with which to assess and evaluate the soil quality that can be divided into two groups. The first group is comprised of a framework of indicators that describe the current state of the soil system assessment for evaluating the quality of the agricultural land. This is based on a detailed measurement of the terrain, a statistical analysis of soil databases or processing the status of specific threats to the soil. The second group is comprised of a framework of indicators focused on changes in the soil quality and applied soil management. These frameworks deal with the productivity of the soil in various systems of farming, compare agricultural systems or discuss the advantages of soil biota as indicators of soil quality in detail. Many of the designs of the soil quality indicators focus on the soil management in the context of a single discipline such as agriculture or water pollution. There are concepts for considering the soil quality in regional planning.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaroslava Janků & Jan Jehlička & Kristina Heřmanová & Daniel Toth & Mansoor Maitah & Josef Kozák & Jan Vopravil & Radim Vácha & Karel Jacko & Tomáš Herza, 2022. "An overview of a land evaluation in the context of ecosystem services," Soil and Water Research, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 17(1), pages 1-14.
  • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlswr:v:17:y:2022:i:1:id:136-2021-swr
    DOI: 10.17221/136/2021-SWR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://swr.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/136/2021-SWR.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: http://swr.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/136/2021-SWR.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/136/2021-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. Ephraim Nkonya & Alisher Mirzabaev & Joachim von Braun (ed.), 2016. "Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-19168-3, November.
    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. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    4. Weber, Jean-Louis, 2007. "Implementation of land and ecosystem accounts at the European Environment Agency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 695-707, March.
    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. Edens, Bram & Hein, Lars, 2013. "Towards a consistent approach for ecosystem accounting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 41-52.
    2. Comte, Adrien & Sylvie Campagne, C. & Lange, Sabine & Bruzón, Adrián García & Hein, Lars & Santos-Martín, Fernando & Levrel, Harold, 2022. "Ecosystem accounting: Past scientific developments and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    3. Yudha Kristanto & Suria Tarigan & Tania June & Bambang Sulistyantara & Pini Wijayanti, . "Indirect use value of improved soil health as natural capital that supports essential ecosystem services: A case study of cacao agroforestry," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 0.
    4. Dardonville, Manon & Legrand, Baptiste & Clivot, Hugues & Bernardin, Claire & Bockstaller, Christian & Therond, Olivier, 2022. "Assessment of ecosystem services and natural capital dynamics in agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    5. Syndhia Mathé & Helene Rey-Valette, 2018. "Perceptions of the role played by aquaculture and the services it provides for territories: complementarity of survey types," Post-Print hal-01950060, HAL.
    6. Dominati, E. & Mackay, A. & Green, S. & Patterson, M., 2014. "A soil change-based methodology for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services from agro-ecosystems: A case study of pastoral agriculture in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 119-129.
    7. van den Belt, Marjan & Blake, Daniella, 2014. "Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 115-132.
    8. Choquet, Pauline & Gabrielle, Benoit & Chalhoub, Maha & Michelin, Joël & Sauzet, Ophélie & Scammacca, Ottone & Garnier, Patricia & Baveye, Philippe C. & Montagne, David, 2021. "Comparison of empirical and process-based modelling to quantify soil-supported ecosystem services on the Saclay plateau (France)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    9. Fengjiao Ma & A. Egrinya Eneji & Jintong Liu, 2014. "Understanding Relationships among Agro-Ecosystem Services Based on Emergy Analysis in Luancheng County, North China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-20, November.
    10. Bartosz Bartkowski & Bernd Hansjürgens & Stefan Möckel & Stephan Bartke, 2018. "Institutional Economics of Agricultural Soil Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    11. Johannes Rüdisser & Erich Tasser & Thomas Peham & Erwin Meyer & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2020. "Hidden Engineers and Service Providers: Earthworms in Agricultural Land-Use Types of South Tyrol, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Moriah Bostian & Tommy Lundgren, 2022. "Valuing Ecosystem Services for Agricultural TFP: A Review of Best Practices, Challenges, and Recommendations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, March.
    13. Clément Feger & Laurent Mermet, 2017. "A blueprint towards accounting for the management of ecosystems," Post-Print hal-01930913, HAL.
    14. Pascual, Unai & Termansen, Mette & Hedlund, Katarina & Brussaard, Lijbert & Faber, Jack H. & Foudi, Sébastien & Lemanceau, Philippe & Jørgensen, Sisse Liv, 2015. "On the value of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 11-18.
    15. Syndhia Mathé & Hélène Rey-Valette, 2015. "Local Knowledge of Pond Fish-Farming Ecosystem Services: Management Implications of Stakeholders’ Perceptions in Three Different Contexts (Brazil, France and Indonesia)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-23, June.
    16. Hearnshaw, Edward J.S. & Cullen, Ross, 2010. "The Sustainability and Cost-Effectiveness of Water Storage Projects on Canterbury Rivers: The Opihi River Case," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 97265, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Andrea Koch & Alex McBratney & Mark Adams & Damien Field & Robert Hill & John Crawford & Budiman Minasny & Rattan Lal & Lynette Abbott & Anthony O'Donnell & Denis Angers & Jeffrey Baldock & Edward Bar, 2013. "Soil Security: Solving the Global Soil Crisis," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 4(4), pages 434-441, November.
    18. Jansson, Åsa, 2013. "Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 285-291.
    19. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    20. Schon, N.L. & Dominati, E.J., 2020. "Valuing earthworm contribution to ecosystem services delivery," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).

    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:17:y:2022:i:1:id:136-2021-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.