IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v295y2015icp196-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the potential supply of landscape services to support ecological restoration of degraded landscapes: A case study in the Austrian-Hungarian trans-boundary region of Lake Neusiedl

Author

Listed:
  • Hainz-Renetzeder, C.
  • Schneidergruber, A.
  • Kuttner, M.
  • Wrbka, T.

Abstract

The concept of ecosystem functions and services has increasingly gained attention in the scientific and political community in the last decade. Lot of work has been performed to assess the actual delivery of different services for society. Still, the reference of the landscape's potential to supply these actual services has not been investigated satisfactory so far. We thus aimed at assess the potential supply of landscape services in the study area of Lake Neusiedl in Austria – a region of acknowledged diversity and environmental quality – and compared these to the actual ones. We did this by setting up a map of constructed vegetation type where physiographic site conditions were used to calculate potential land cover in the area in GIS. These constructed vegetation types were linked to landscape services within a capacity matrix giving a weight between 0 (no supply) and 5 (high supply) to which amount one type can provide each single service. The resulting map showed large differences in areal extent of the different vegetation types reflecting the different landscapes in the region such as the dominance of forest steppe in the terraced landscapes or the occurrence of halophytic vegetation only in the lake basin. The same is true for the different landscape services. Some services like ‘nursery’ and ‘raw materials’ were quite highly provided throughout the area with values between 2.12 and 4.84, whereas ‘genetic resources’ and ‘pollination’ were only little provided (all values <2). On the other hand, functions like ‘nutrient regulation’ or ‘refugium’ exhibited their large potential with values >4 in the study area. The aggregation of the services by averaging values to finally derive three main service groups gave the highest values always to habitat (values between 3.1 and 4.8), followed by regulation (2.5–4.2) and then provision (1.9–3.2). Comparing the potential with the actual service supply, nearly all landscapes in the study area resulted in higher potential than the actual service supply. We further discuss possibilities to use the potential supply as a leitbild where restoration projects might be settled in the study area even though more detailed local data will be needed to set these projects up.

Suggested Citation

  • Hainz-Renetzeder, C. & Schneidergruber, A. & Kuttner, M. & Wrbka, T., 2015. "Assessing the potential supply of landscape services to support ecological restoration of degraded landscapes: A case study in the Austrian-Hungarian trans-boundary region of Lake Neusiedl," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 196-206.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:295:y:2015:i:c:p:196-206
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.07.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014003287
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.07.001?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. 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. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & , 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    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. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.
    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. Toma, Tiago Shizen Pacheco & Buisson, Elise, 2022. "Taking cultural landscapes into account: Implications for scaling up ecological restoration," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    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. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    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. Johnston, Robert J. & Segerson, Kathleen & Schultz, Eric T. & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2011. "Indices of biotic integrity in stated preference valuation of aquatic ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1946-1956, September.
    4. Johnston, Robert J. & Russell, Marc, 2011. "An operational structure for clarity in ecosystem service values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2243-2249.
    5. Remme, Roy P. & Schröter, Matthias & Hein, Lars, 2014. "Developing spatial biophysical accounting for multiple ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 6-18.
    6. Bianchi, Ettore & Accastello, Cristian & Trappmann, Daniel & Blanc, Simone & Brun, Filippo, 2018. "The Economic Evaluation of Forest Protection Service Against Rockfall: A Review of Experiences and Approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 409-418.
    7. Uchida, Emi & Swallow, Stephen K. & Gold, Arthur J. & Opaluch, James & Kafle, Achyut & Merrill, Nathaniel H. & Michaud, Clayton & Gill, Carrie Anne, 2018. "Integrating Watershed Hydrology and Economics to Establish a Local Market for Water Quality Improvement: A Field Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 17-25.
    8. 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.
    9. Tadaki, Marc & Allen, Will & Sinner, Jim, 2015. "Revealing ecological processes or imposing social rationalities? The politics of bounding and measuring ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 168-176.
    10. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & , 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    11. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François &, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    12. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    13. 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.
    14. Saarikoski, Heli & Jax, Kurt & Harrison, Paula A. & Primmer, Eeva & Barton, David N. & Mononen, Laura & Vihervaara, Petteri & Furman, Eeva, 2015. "Exploring operational ecosystem service definitions: The case of boreal forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 144-157.
    15. 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.
    16. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    17. 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.
    18. Gerner, Nadine V. & Nafo, Issa & Winking, Caroline & Wencki, Kristina & Strehl, Clemens & Wortberg, Timo & Niemann, André & Anzaldua, Gerardo & Lago, Manuel & Birk, Sebastian, 2018. "Large-scale river restoration pays off: A case study of ecosystem service valuation for the Emscher restoration generation project," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 327-338.
    19. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    20. Pistorius, Till & Schaich, Harald & Winkel, Georg & Plieninger, Tobias & Bieling, Claudia & Konold, Werner & Volz, Karl-Reinhard, 2012. "Lessons for REDDplus: A comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 4-12.

    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:eee:ecomod:v:295:y:2015:i:c:p:196-206. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    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.