IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i24p16825-d1004089.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping Freshwater Aquaculture’s Diverse Ecosystem Services with Participatory Techniques: A Case Study from White Lake, Hungary

Author

Listed:
  • Péter Palásti

    (Department of Climatology and Landscape Ecology, Faculty of Science and Informatics, University of Szeged, 2. Egyetem Utca, 6722 Szeged, Hungary
    Department of Hydrobiology, Research Center of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Institute of Aquaculture and Environmental Safety, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 35. Anna-Liget, 5540 Szarvas, Hungary)

  • Ágnes Gulyás

    (Department of Climatology and Landscape Ecology, Faculty of Science and Informatics, University of Szeged, 2. Egyetem Utca, 6722 Szeged, Hungary)

  • Márton Kiss

    (Department of Climatology and Landscape Ecology, Faculty of Science and Informatics, University of Szeged, 2. Egyetem Utca, 6722 Szeged, Hungary
    Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Ecology, 2-4. Alkotmány út, 2163 Vacratot, Hungary)

Abstract

Freshwater aquaculture has a significant role in fish production and biodiversity conservation. Due to climate change, however, the sustenance of fish farms became more challenging, endangering both people and natural values. The establishment of multi-purpose fishpond systems, utilizing ecosystem services besides fish production, could serve as a long-term solution for this problem. However, the lack of knowledge about fishponds’ ecosystem services creates an obstacle in the process. We would like to lower this barrier by mapping 13 different ecosystem services of White Lake, one of the most prominent fishpond systems in Hungary. The results of two different participatory mapping techniques indicated that standing waters, reedy areas, and canals, possessed the highest potential values in the provision of the listed ecosystem services, marking them as the most important areas for future developments. In the case of current sources, local experts linked the highest values to reedy areas and lookout towers. Participatory mapping also indicated that microclimate regulation and bird watching were the most widely used ecosystem services after fish production. By collecting and visualizing experts’ spatial data about White Lakes’ ecosystem services, our unique paper has the potential to serve future decision-making and provide a basis for further studies on this topic.

Suggested Citation

  • Péter Palásti & Ágnes Gulyás & Márton Kiss, 2022. "Mapping Freshwater Aquaculture’s Diverse Ecosystem Services with Participatory Techniques: A Case Study from White Lake, Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16825-:d:1004089
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16825/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16825/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    2. William W. L. Cheung & Jorge L. Sarmiento & John Dunne & Thomas L. Frölicher & Vicky W. Y. Lam & M. L. Deng Palomares & Reg Watson & Daniel Pauly, 2013. "Shrinking of fishes exacerbates impacts of global ocean changes on marine ecosystems," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 254-258, March.
    3. Rosamond L. Naylor & Rebecca J. Goldburg & Jurgenne H. Primavera & Nils Kautsky & Malcolm C. M. Beveridge & Jason Clay & Carl Folke & Jane Lubchenco & Harold Mooney & Max Troell, 2000. "Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6790), pages 1017-1024, June.
    4. Blayac, Thierry & Mathé, Syndhia & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Fontaine, Pascal, 2014. "Perceptions of the services provided by pond fish farming in Lorraine (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 115-123.
    5. Pierre Alexandre Willot & Joël Aubin & Jean-Michel A Salles & Aurélie Wilfart, 2019. "Ecosystem service framework and typology for an ecosystem approach to aquaculture," Post-Print halshs-02172389, HAL.
    6. Jacobs, Sander & Burkhard, Benjamin & Van Daele, Toon & Staes, Jan & Schneiders, Anik, 2015. "‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 21-30.
    7. Yang, Wu & Chang, Jie & Xu, Bin & Peng, Changhui & Ge, Ying, 2008. "Ecosystem service value assessment for constructed wetlands: A case study in Hangzhou, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 116-125, December.
    8. Klain, Sarah C. & Chan, Kai M.A., 2012. "Navigating coastal values: Participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 104-113.
    9. Raymond, Christopher M. & Bryan, Brett A. & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Cast, Andrea & Strathearn, Sarah & Grandgirard, Agnes & Kalivas, Tina, 2009. "Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1301-1315, March.
    10. Weitzman, Jenny, 2019. "Applying the ecosystem services concept to aquaculture: A review of approaches, definitions, and uses," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 194-206.
    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. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    2. Loc, Ho Huu & Park, Edward & Thu, Tran Ngoc & Diep, Nguyen Thi Hong & Can, Nguyen Trong, 2021. "An enhanced analytical framework of participatory GIS for ecosystem services assessment applied to a Ramsar wetland site in the Vietnam Mekong Delta," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    3. Jennifer Hodbod & Emma Tebbs & Kristofer Chan & Shubhechchha Sharma, 2019. "Integrating Participatory Methods and Remote Sensing to Enhance Understanding of Ecosystem Service Dynamics Across Scales," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-30, August.
    4. Burdon, D. & Potts, T. & McKinley, E. & Lew, S. & Shilland, R. & Gormley, K. & Thomson, S. & Forster, R., 2019. "Expanding the role of participatory mapping to assess ecosystem service provision in local coastal environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. 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).
    6. Garcia, Xavier & Benages-Albert, Marta & Vall-Casas, Pere, 2018. "Landscape conflict assessment based on a mixed methods analysis of qualitative PPGIS data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 112-124.
    7. Depietri, Yaella & Ghermandi, Andrea & Campisi-Pinto, Salvatore & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2021. "Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: Instances of complementarity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    8. Pingarroni, Aline & Castro, Antonio J. & Gambi, Marcos & Bongers, Frans & Kolb, Melanie & García-Frapolli, Eduardo & Balvanera, Patricia, 2022. "Uncovering spatial patterns of ecosystem services and biodiversity through local communities' preferences and perceptions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    9. Raymond, Christopher M. & Kenter, Jasper O. & Plieninger, Tobias & Turner, Nancy J. & Alexander, Karen A., 2014. "Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 145-156.
    10. van Oort, Bob & Bhatta, Laxmi Dutt & Baral, Himlal & Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Dhakal, Madhav & Rucevska, Ieva & Adhikari, Ramesh, 2015. "Assessing community values to support mapping of ecosystem services in the Koshi river basin, Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 70-80.
    11. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    12. Wubante Fetene Admasu & Annelies Boerema & Jan Nyssen & Amare Sewnet Minale & Enyew Adgo Tsegaye & Steven Van Passel, 2020. "Uncovering Ecosystem Services of Expropriated Land: The Case of Urban Expansion in Bahir Dar, Northwest Ethiopia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-20, October.
    13. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    14. Weitzman, Jenny, 2019. "Applying the ecosystem services concept to aquaculture: A review of approaches, definitions, and uses," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 194-206.
    15. 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.
    16. Matthew R. Sloggy & Francisco J. Escobedo & José J. Sánchez, 2022. "The Role of Spatial Information in Peri-Urban Ecosystem Service Valuation and Policy Investment Preferences," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, August.
    17. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Keenan, Rodney John, 2018. "Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 67-81.
    18. Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Weibel, Bettina & Kienast, Felix & Rabe, Sven-Erik & Zulian, Grazia, 2015. "A tiered approach for mapping ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 16-27.
    19. Ping Zhang & Liang He & Xin Fan & Peishu Huo & Yunhui Liu & Tao Zhang & Ying Pan & Zhenrong Yu, 2015. "Ecosystem Service Value Assessment and Contribution Factor Analysis of Land Use Change in Miyun County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-24, June.
    20. Maria Beatrice Andreucci, 2018. "Economic valuation of urban green infrastructure. Principles and evidence," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(2), pages 63-84.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:24:p:16825-:d:1004089. 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.