IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v97y2020ics0264837718312109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived importance of ecosystem services in the Białowieża Forest for local communities – Does proximity matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Mikusiński, Grzegorz
  • Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof

Abstract

Effective protection of biodiversity in areas of high conservation value requires trade-offs between local use of natural resources and conservation restrictions. The compromise is often difficult to reach, which causes conflicts over the management priorities of existing and potential protected areas. Ecosystem services (ES) perspective offers a promising avenue for diagnosing and reconciling contrasting interests concerning the use of benefits from ecosystems. We examined how the spatial proximity to the Białowieża Forest (BF), a European biodiversity hotspot, affects the perceived use of ES by local communities. We performed a survey among 719 respondents from 35 villages situated within BF and in its vicinity. We found that both the declared use of ES and the perceived influence of ES on household’s economy was declining with the distance from BF with particularly high differences between areas not further than 3 km from BF and areas located 3-15 km from BF. Different zones varied in terms of benefits from tourism and costs connected with a potential limited access to ES due to conservation. Broadening the perspective, we argue that the trade-offs linked to ES may vary depending on the location in relation to the protected area and that local communities should not be treated as a homogenous group when considering benefits from the forest. Awareness of common patterns of ES use over space and local specificity may enhance effective management of even highly contested conservation areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikusiński, Grzegorz & Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof, 2020. "Perceived importance of ecosystem services in the Białowieża Forest for local communities – Does proximity matter?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:97:y:2020:i:c:s0264837718312109
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104667
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718312109
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104667?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. Blicharska, Malgorzata & Smithers, Richard J. & Hedblom, Marcus & Hedenås, Henrik & Mikusiński, Grzegorz & Pedersen, Eja & Sandström, Per & Svensson, Johan, 2017. "Shades of grey challenge practical application of the cultural ecosystem services concept," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 55-70.
    2. Palomo, Ignacio & Martín-López, Berta & Potschin, Marion & Haines-Young, Roy & Montes, Carlos, 2013. "National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 104-116.
    3. Przemysław Chylarecki & Nuria Selva, 2016. "Ancient forest: spare it from clearance," Nature, Nature, vol. 530(7591), pages 419-419, February.
    4. Schirpke, Uta & Scolozzi, Rocco & De Marco, Claudio & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2014. "Mapping beneficiaries of ecosystem services flows from Natura 2000 sites," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 170-179.
    5. Blicharska, Malgorzata & Van Herzele, Ann, 2015. "What a forest? Whose forest? Struggles over concepts and meanings in the debate about the conservation of the Białowieża Forest in Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 22-30.
    6. Ziv, Guy & Hassall, Christopher & Bartkowski, Bartosz & Cord, Anna F. & Kaim, Andrea & Kalamandeen, Michelle & Landaverde-González, Patricia & Melo, Joana L.B. & Seppelt, Ralf & Shannon, Caitriona & , 2018. "A bird’s eye view over ecosystem services in Natura 2000 sites across Europe," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 287-298.
    7. Halkos, George E. & Jones, Nikoleta, 2012. "Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 90-99.
    8. Ninan, K.N. & Inoue, Makoto, 2013. "Valuing forest ecosystem services: What we know and what we don't," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 137-149.
    9. Laura Nahuelhual & Pablo Donoso & Antonio Lara & Daisy Núñez & Carlos Oyarzún & Eduardo Neira, 2007. "Valuing Ecosystem Services Of Chilean Temperate Rainforests," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 481-499, November.
    10. García-Nieto, Ana P. & García-Llorente, Marina & Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & Martín-López, Berta, 2013. "Mapping forest ecosystem services: From providing units to beneficiaries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 126-138.
    11. Dasgupta, Partha, 2001. "Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199247882, Decembrie.
    12. Trevor Mules, 2005. "Economic Impacts of National Park Tourism on Gateway Communities: The Case of Kosciuszko National Park," Tourism Economics, , vol. 11(2), pages 247-259, June.
    13. Stuart Franklin, 2002. "Białowieża Forest, Poland: Representation, Myth, and the Politics of Dispossession," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 34(8), pages 1459-1485, August.
    14. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    15. Susanne Stoll-Kleemann, 2001. "Opposition to the Designation of Protected Areas in Germany," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(1), pages 109-128.
    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. Xiao, Lan & Haiping, Tang & Haoguang, Liang, 2017. "A theoretical framework for researching cultural ecosystem service flows in urban agglomerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 95-104.
    2. Vassiliki Vlami & Ioannis P. Kokkoris & Stamatis Zogaris & George Kehayias & Panayotis Dimopoulos, 2020. "Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Natura 2000 Network: Introducing Proxy Indicators and Conflict Risk in Greece," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-27, December.
    3. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    4. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    5. Charles, Michael & Ziv, Guy & Bohrer, Gil & Bakshi, Bhavik R., 2020. "Connecting air quality regulating ecosystem services with beneficiaries through quantitative serviceshed analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    6. Mörtberg, Ulla & Goldenberg, Romain & Kalantari, Zahra & Kordas, Olga & Deal, Brian & Balfors, Berit & Cvetkovic, Vladimir, 2017. "Integrating ecosystem services in the assessment of urban energy trajectories – A study of the Stockholm Region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 338-349.
    7. 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.
    8. Richter, Franziska & Jan, Pierrick & El Benni, Nadja & Lüscher, Andreas & Buchmann, Nina & Klaus, Valentin H., 2021. "A guide to assess and value ecosystem services of grasslands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Uta Schirpke & Rocco Scolozzi & Benedetta Concetti & Bruna Comini & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2017. "Supporting the Management of Ecosystem Services in Protected Areas: Trade-Offs Between Effort and Accuracy in Evaluation," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(02), pages 1-30, June.
    11. García-Nieto, Ana P. & Quintas-Soriano, Cristina & García-Llorente, Marina & Palomo, Ignacio & Montes, Carlos & Martín-López, Berta, 2015. "Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: The role of stakeholders׳ profiles," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 141-152.
    12. Malinga, Rebecka & Gordon, Line J. & Jewitt, Graham & Lindborg, Regina, 2015. "Mapping ecosystem services across scales and continents – A review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 57-63.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Stoll, Stefan & Frenzel, Mark & Burkhard, Benjamin & Adamescu, Mihai & Augustaitis, Algirdas & Baeßler, Cornelia & Bonet, Francisco J. & Carranza, Maria Laura & Cazacu, Constantin & Cosor, Georgia L. , 2015. "Assessment of ecosystem integrity and service gradients across Europe using the LTER Europe network," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 75-87.
    16. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    17. Yamaguchi, Rintaro & Shah, Payal, 2020. "Spatial discounting of ecosystem services," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    18. 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.
    19. Tavárez, Héctor & Elbakidze, Levan, 2019. "Valuing recreational enhancements in the San Patricio Urban Forest of Puerto Rico: A choice experiment approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Kovács, Eszter & Kelemen, Eszter & Kalóczkai, à gnes & Margóczi, Katalin & Pataki, György & Gébert, Judit & Málovics, György & Balázs, Bálint & Roboz, à gnes & Krasznai Kovács, Eszter & MihÃ, 2015. "Understanding the links between ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 117-127.

    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:lauspo:v:97:y:2020:i:c:s0264837718312109. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.