J. For. Sci., 2024, 70(5):235-248 | DOI: 10.17221/13/2024-JFS

Innovations in the methodological approach to quantifying and evaluating the supported effects of forests for recreational and educational ecosystem servicesOriginal Paper

Zdeněk Odvárka ORCID..., Jitka Meňházová ORCID...
Department of Forest and Wood Product Economics and Policy, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic

The paper deals with a new method of innovative assessment of the supported effects and ecosystem services of forests using the actual amount of their increased costs. Among the most important research findings and significance of the new method is that it contributes to the body of knowledge on valuation and payment for ecosystem services. The focus of the research task is to help address the current difficult economic situation of forest owners resulting from the impacts of climate change. The study aims to determine what work quantifies the amount of compensation for the provision of supported ecosystem services that is sufficient for owners by using hypothesis testing. The evaluation of the supported effects was carried out in a case study in the area of the Chrudim-Podhůra Recreational Forests in the Czech Republic. The results of the evaluation were quantified in two experimental spreadsheets of the results, a comparative analysis of the evaluation results was performed, and hypothesis testing was conducted. The innovative methodological approach to the assessment of supported effects can be easily modified and used to assess the actual amount of increased costs of other ecosystem services of the forest.

Keywords: comparative analysis; compensation for increased costs; forest valuation methods; payments; special-purpose forests; subsidies

Received: February 12, 2024; Revised: April 2, 2024; Accepted: April 3, 2024; Prepublished online: May 21, 2024; Published: May 24, 2024  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Odvárka Z, Meňházová J. Innovations in the methodological approach to quantifying and evaluating the supported effects of forests for recreational and educational ecosystem services. J. For. Sci. 2024;70(5):235-248. doi: 10.17221/13/2024-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Anikwe M.A.N., Ife K. (2023): The role of soil ecosystem services in the circular bioeconomy. Frontiers in Soil Science, 3: 1209100. Go to original source...
    2. Baciu G.E., Dobrotă C.E., Apostol E.N. (2021): Valuing forest ecosystem services. Why is an integrative approach needed? Forests, 12: 677. Go to original source...
    3. Boyd J., Banzhaf S. (2007): What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63: 616-626. Go to original source...
    4. Brockerhoff E.G., Barbaro L., Castagneyrol B., Forrester D.I., Gardiner B., González-Olabarria J.R., Lyver P.B., Meurisse N., Oxbrough A., Taki H., Thompson I.D., van der Plas F., Jactel H. (2017): Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation, 26: 3005-3035. Go to original source...
    5. Coscieme L., Stout J.C. (2019): Ecosystem services evaluation. In: Fath B. (ed.): Encyclopedia of Ecology. 2nd Ed. Oxford, Elsevier: 288-293. Go to original source...
    6. ČÚZK (2010): Base Map of the Czech Republic, 1 : 250 000. [Map] Prague, Český úřad zeměměřický a katastrální. Available at: https://ags.cuzk.cz/geoprohlizec/ (accessed Dec 2, 2023; in Czech).
    7. Eigenbrod F., Armsworth P.R., Anderson B.J., Heinemeyer A., Gillings S., Roy D.B., Thomas C.D., Gaston K.J. (2010): The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47: 377-385. Go to original source...
    8. European Commission (2019): EU Guidance on Integrating Ecosystems and Their Services into Decision-Making. Brussels, European Commission: 174. Available at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/eu-guidance-document-integrating-ecosystems-and-their-services-decision-making_en
    9. Fisher B., Turner R.K. (2008): Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation. Biological Conservation, 141: 1167-1169. Go to original source...
    10. Frank D., Reichstein M., Bahn M., Thonicke K., Frank D., Mahecha M.D., Smith P., van der Velde M., Vicca S., Babst F., Beer C., Buchmann N., Canadell J.G., Ciais P., Cramer W., Ibrom A., Miglietta F., Poulter B., Rammig A., Seneviratne S.I., Walz A., Wattenbach M., Zavala M.A., Zscheischler J. (2015): Effects of climate extremes on the terrestrial carbon cycle: Concepts, processes and potential future impacts. Global Change Biology, 21: 2861-2880. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. García-Nieto A.P., García-Llorente M., Iniesta-Arandia I., Martín-López B. (2013): Mapping forest ecosystem services: From providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosystem Services, 4: 126-138. Go to original source...
    12. Häyhä T., Franzese P.P., Paletto A., Fath B.D. (2015): Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests. Ecosystem Services, 14: 12-23. Go to original source...
    13. Hort L., Vrška T., Jagoš B., Horal D., Plisková D., Koutecký B. (1995): Lesní porosty v připravovaném národním parku České Švýcarsko. Závěrečná zpráva projektu 'Management lesních ekosystémů v připravovaném NP České Švýcarsko'. Brno, AOPK ČR: 242. (in Czech)
    14. Hou D., He H., Huang P., Zhang G., Loaiciga H. (2013): Detection of water-quality contamination events based on multi-sensor fusion using an extented Dempster-Shafer method. Measurement Science and Technology, 24: 055801. Go to original source...
    15. Lesprojekt (2020): Lesní hospodářský plán pro LHC Městské lesy Chrudim, Textová část, platnost 1.1.2020 - 31.12.2029. Hradec Králové, Lesprojekt: 127. (in Czech)
    16. Lockwood M., Worboys G., Kothari A. (2006): Managing Protected Areas: A Global Guide. London, Earthscan: 802.
    17. Loorbach D., van Bakel J.C., Whiteman G., Rotmans J. (2010): Business strategies for transitions towards sustainable systems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19: 133-146. Go to original source...
    18. Notaro S., Paletto A., Raffaelli R. (2008): The economic valuation of non-productive forest functions as an instrument toward integrated forest management. In: The Multifunctional Role of Forests: Policies, Methods and Case Studies. Vol. 55. Joensuu, European Forest Institute: 301-312.
    19. Peña L., Casado-Arzuaga I., Onaindia M. (2015): Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach. Ecosystem Services, 13: 108-118. Go to original source...
    20. Plieninger T., Dijks S., Oteros-Rozas E., Bieling C. (2013): Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33: 118-129. Go to original source...
    21. Potschin M.B., Haines-Young R.H. (2011): Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Progress in Physical Geography, 35: 575-594. Go to original source...
    22. Primmer E., Varumo L., Krause T., Orsi F., Geneletti D., Brogaard S., Aukes E., Ciolli M., Grossmann C., Hernández-Morcillo M., Kister J., Kluvánková T., Loft L., Maier C., Meyer C., Schleyer C., Spacek M., Mann C. (2021): Mapping Europe's institutional landscape for forest ecosystem service provision, innovations and governance. Ecosystem Services, 47: 101225. Go to original source...
    23. Pülzl H., Wydra D., Hogl K. (2018): Piecemeal integration: Explaining and understanding 60 years of European Union forest policy-making. Forests, 9: 719. Go to original source...
    24. Reid W.V., Mooney H.A., Cropper A., Capistrano D., Carpenter S.R., Chopra K., Dasgupta P., Dietz T., Duraiappah A.K., Hassan R., Kasperson R., Leemans R., May R.M., McMichael T.A.J., Pingali P., Samper C., Scholes C., Watson R.T., Zakri A.H., Shidong Z., Ash N.J., Bennett E., Kumar P., Lee M.J., Raudsepp-Hearne C., Simons H., Thonell J., Zurek M.B. (2005): Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, D.C., Island Press: 155.
    25. Saarikoski H., Jax K., Harrison P.A., Primmer E., Barton D.N., Mononen L., Vihervaara P., Furman E. (2015): Exploring operational ecosystem service definitions: The case of boreal forests. Ecosystem Services, 14: 144-157. Go to original source...
    26. Saarikoski H., Primmer E., Saarela S.R., Antunes P., Aszalós R., Baró F., Berry P., Blanko G.G., Goméz-Baggethun E., Carvalho L., Dick J., Dunford R., Hanzu M., Harrison P.A., Izakovicova Z., Kertész M., Kopperoinen L., Köhler B., Langemeyer J., Lapola D., Liquete C., Luque S., Mederly P., Niemelä J., Palomo I., Pastur G.M., Peri P.L., Preda E., Priess J.A., Santos R., Schleyer C., Turkelboom F., Vadineanu A., Verheyden W., Vikström S., Young J. (2018): Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice. Ecosystem Services, 29: 579-598. Go to original source...
    27. Schaefer M., Goldman E., Bartuska A.M., Sutton-Grier A., Lubchenco J. (2015): Nature as capital: Advancing and incorporating ecosystem services in United States federal policies and programs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112: 7383-7389. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    28. Segura M., Maroto C., Belton V., Ginestar C. (2015): A new collaborative methodology for assessment and management of ecosystem services. Forests, 6: 1696-1720. Go to original source...
    29. Sergiacomi C. (2022): Quali-quantitative models for the analysis of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Investigation on the recreational functions of the agro-forestry territory. [Ph.D. Thesis.] Florence, Università degli Studi di Firenze.
    30. Šišák L., Šach F., Švihla V., Pulkrab K., Černohous V., Dudík R. (2017): Metodika hodnocení společenské sociálně-ekonomické významnosti ekosystémových služeb lesa v České republice. Certifikovaná metodika. Prague, Česká zemědělská univerzita v Praze: 33. (in Czech)
    31. Taye F.A., Folkersen M.V., Fleming C.M., Buckwell A., Mackey B., Diwakar K.C., Le D., Hasan S., Ange C.S. (2021): The economic values of global forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 189: 107145. Go to original source...
    32. Van der Biest K., Vrebos D., Staes J., Boerema A., Bodí M.B., Fransen E., Meire P. (2015): Evaluation of the accuracy of land-use based ecosystem service assessments for different thematic resolutions. Journal of Environmental Management, 156: 41-51. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    33. Vasiljevic N., Gavrilovic S. (2019): Cultural ecosystem services. In: Filho W.L., Azul A.M., Brandli L., Salvia A.L. (eds): Life on Land. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Cham, Springer: 209-218. Go to original source...
    34. Winkel G., Sotirov M., Moseley C. (2021): Forest environmental frontiers around the globe: Old patterns and new trends in forest governance. Ambio, 50: 2129-2137. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content