IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v14y2025i2p402-d1591749.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landscape–Ecological Problems Resulting from Spatial Conflicts of Interest in the Poľana Biosphere Reserve

Author

Listed:
  • Zita Izakovičová

    (Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 254, Štefániková 3, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia)

  • Jakub Melicher

    (Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 254, Štefániková 3, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia
    Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Informatics, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Tr. A. Hlinku 1, 949 01 Nitra, Slovakia)

  • Jana Špulerová

    (Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 254, Štefániková 3, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia)

  • Marta Dobrovodská

    (Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 254, Štefániková 3, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia)

  • Veronika Piscová

    (Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 254, Štefániková 3, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia)

Abstract

This paper is focused on presenting a methodological procedure for assessing landscape–ecological problems resulting from conflicts of interest and its application in the Poľana Biosphere Reserve. The approach is grounded in the concept of the landscape as a geosystem. It examines natural and socio-economic phenomena, classifying them as either threatened or threatening. By intersecting these phenomena, spatial delineation of the conflicts of interest has been achieved. Within the Poľana Biosphere Reserve, three groups of problems resulting from spatial conflicts of interest were identified: threats to biodiversity and ecological stability; threats to natural resources; and threats to the environment of human society. A total of 121 specific threats were identified in the area. This approach is applicable to other biosphere reserves for identifying areas with conflicts of interest as the identification of spatial conflicts is crucial for the effective and targeted design of measures aimed at their mitigation or elimination, aligning with the overarching objective of biosphere reserves—sustainable development. An indispensable condition is to bridge the sectoral approach in landscape management and ensure effective communication and cooperation between individual stakeholder groups in the territory.

Suggested Citation

  • Zita Izakovičová & Jakub Melicher & Jana Špulerová & Marta Dobrovodská & Veronika Piscová, 2025. "Landscape–Ecological Problems Resulting from Spatial Conflicts of Interest in the Poľana Biosphere Reserve," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-32, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:2:p:402-:d:1591749
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/2/402/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/2/402/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saarikoski, Heli & Primmer, Eeva & Saarela, Sanna-Riikka & Antunes, Paula & Aszalós, Réka & Baró, Francesc & Berry, Pam & Blanko, Gemma Garcia & Goméz-Baggethun, Erik & Carvalho, Laurence & Dick, Jan , 2018. "Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 579-598.
    2. Alessandro Scuderi & Luisa Sturiale & Giuseppe Timpanaro & Agata Matarazzo & Silvia Zingale & Paolo Guarnaccia, 2022. "A Model to Support Sustainable Resource Management in the “Etna River Valleys” Biosphere Reserve: The Dominance-Based Rough Set Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Dick, Jan & Turkelboom, Francis & Woods, Helen & Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & Primmer, Eeva & Saarela, Sanna-Riikka & Bezák, Peter & Mederly, Peter & Leone, Michael & Verheyden, Wim & Kelemen, Eszter & Ha, 2018. "Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: Results from 27 case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 552-565.
    4. Johan Svensson & Wiebke Neumann & Therese Bjärstig & Anna Zachrisson & Camilla Thellbro, 2020. "Landscape Approaches to Sustainability—Aspects of Conflict, Integration, and Synergy in National Public Land-Use Interests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-23, June.
    5. Måns Nilsson & Dave Griggs & Martin Visbeck, 2016. "Policy: Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals," Nature, Nature, vol. 534(7607), pages 320-322, June.
    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. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    2. repec:eee:ecoser:v:36:y:2019:i:c:p:- is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Dick, Jan & Andrews, Chris & Orenstein, Daniel E. & Teff-Seker, Yael & Zulian, Grazia, 2022. "A mixed-methods approach to analyse recreational values and implications for management of protected areas: A case study of Cairngorms National Park, UK," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    4. Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Krause, Torsten & Orsi, Francesco & Geneletti, Davide & Brogaard, Sara & Aukes, Ewert & Ciolli, Marco & Grossmann, Carol & Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica & Kister, Jutta & , 2021. "Mapping Europe’s institutional landscape for forest ecosystem service provision, innovations and governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    5. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    6. Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2022. "Benefits of Stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    7. Jax, Kurt & Furman, Eeva & Saarikoski, Heli & Barton, David N. & Delbaere, Ben & Dick, Jan & Duke, Guy & Görg, Christoph & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Harrison, Paula A. & Maes, Joachim & Pérez-Soba, Mart, 2018. "Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 415-427.
    8. László Miklós & Anna Špinerová & Ingrid Belčáková & Monika Offertálerová & Viktória Miklósová, 2020. "Ecosystem Services: The Landscape-Ecological Base and Examples," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    9. Lars Högbom & Dalia Abbas & Kęstutis Armolaitis & Endijs Baders & Martyn Futter & Aris Jansons & Kalev Jõgiste & Andis Lazdins & Diana Lukminė & Mika Mustonen & Knut Øistad & Anneli Poska & Pasi Rauti, 2021. "Trilemma of Nordic–Baltic Forestry—How to Implement UN Sustainable Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-12, May.
    10. Srivardhini K. Jha & E. Richard Gold & Laurette Dubé, 2021. "Modular Interorganizational Network Governance: A Conceptual Framework for Addressing Complex Social Problems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-21, September.
    11. Henrik Skaug Sætra, 2021. "AI in Context and the Sustainable Development Goals: Factoring in the Unsustainability of the Sociotechnical System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    12. Preetha Kizhakkekara Vannadil & Chitra Karunakaran Prasanna, 2023. "Integrating sustainable development goals into environment impact assessment in India: A conceptual analysis," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(6), pages 3993-4006, December.
    13. Joyeeta Gupta & Louis Lebel, 0. "Access and allocation in earth system governance: lessons learnt in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-18.
    14. Prashamsa Thapa & Brijesh Mainali & Shobhakar Dhakal, 2023. "Focus on Climate Action: What Level of Synergy and Trade-Off Is There between SDG 13; Climate Action and Other SDGs in Nepal?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-32, January.
    15. Adams, Clare & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Moglia, Magnus, 2023. "Mainstreaming nature-based solutions in cities: A systematic literature review and a proposal for facilitating urban transitions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    16. Lucia de Strasser, 2017. "Calling for Nexus Thinking in Africa’s Energy Planning," ESP: Energy Scenarios and Policy 263161, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    17. Ida Kubiszewski & Kenneth Mulder & Diane Jarvis & Robert Costanza, 2022. "Toward better measurement of sustainable development and wellbeing: A small number of SDG indicators reliably predict life satisfaction," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 139-148, February.
    18. 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).
    19. Padala Raja Shekar & Aneesh Mathew & Fahdah Falah Ben Hasher & Kaleem Mehmood & Mohamed Zhran, 2025. "Towards Sustainable Development: Ranking of Soil Erosion-Prone Areas Using Morphometric Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-28, March.
    20. David Tremblay & François Fortier & Jean‐François Boucher & Olivier Riffon & Claude Villeneuve, 2020. "Sustainable development goal interactions: An analysis based on the five pillars of the 2030 agenda," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1584-1596, November.
    21. Jan Anton van Zanten & Rob van Tulder, 2020. "Beyond COVID-19: Applying “SDG logics” for resilient transformations," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 3(4), pages 451-464, December.

    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:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:2:p:402-:d:1591749. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.