Potential of cultural ecosystem services in postglacial landscape from the beneficiaries’ perspective

• Autorzy: Kowalska A. , Affek A. , Solon J. , Degórski M. , Grabińska B. , Kołaczkowska E. , Kruczkowska B. , Regulska E. , Roo-Zielińska E. , Wolski J. , Zawiska I.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The paper presents the results of a questionnaire carried out among landscape users in Suwałki and Augustów Region concerning the perception of goods of nature. Respondents were asked to assign services to 7 ecosystem types (deciduous forest, coniferous forest, swamp forest, grasslands, croplands, wetlands, water bodies) and rank them in order of importance. Our intention was to show the potential/capacity of each ecosystem type to deliver four cultural ecosystem services: sport and recreation, inspiration for creative work, education and science and spiritual experience in the view of local community and tourists.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

door-to-door survey; ecosystem potential; mapping ecosystem capacities; relative ranks

PL

badanie door-to-door; potencjał ekosystemu; mapowanie zdolności ekosystemu

• Wydawca: Polskie Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistów Środowiska i Zasobów Naturalnych
• Czasopismo: Ekonomia i Środowisko
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: nr 1
• Strony: 236--245
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 26 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Kowalska A.

• Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Department of Geoecology and Climatology Twarda 51/55, 00–818 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Affek A.

• Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Department of Geoecology and Climatology Twarda 51/55, 00–818 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Solon J.

• Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Department of Geoecology and Climatology Twarda 51/55, 00–818 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Degórski M.

• Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Department of Geoecology and Climatology Twarda 51/55, 00–818 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Grabińska B.

• Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Department of Geoecology and Climatology Twarda 51/55, 00–818 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Kołaczkowska E.

• Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Department of Geoecology and Climatology Twarda 51/55, 00–818 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Kruczkowska B.

• Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Department of Geoecology and Climatology Twarda 51/55, 00–818 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Regulska E.

• Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Department of Geoecology and Climatology Twarda 51/55, 00–818 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Roo-Zielińska E.

• Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Department of Geoecology and Climatology Twarda 51/55, 00–818 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Wolski J.

• Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Department of Geoecology and Climatology Twarda 51/55, 00–818 Warsaw, Poland

autor

Zawiska I.

• Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Department of Geoecology and Climatology Twarda 51/55, 00–818 Warsaw, Poland

Bibliografia

• Affek A., Kowalska A. (2014), Benefits of nature. A pilot study on the perception of ecosystem services, “Ekonomia i Środowisko” No. 4(51), p. 154–160
• Central Statistical Office (2016), Local Data Bank, available from http://bdl.stat.gov.pl
• Bastian O. et al. (2013), The five pillar EPPS framework for quantifying, mapping and managing ecosystem services, “Ecosystem Services” No. 4, p. 15–24
• Brown G. (2005), Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: methods and applications, “Society and Natural Resources” No. 18, p. 1–23
• Burkhard B. et al. (2012), Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets, “Ecological Indicators“ No. 21, p. 17–29
• Butler C.D., Oluoch-Kosura W. (2006), Linking future ecosystem services and future human well-being, “Ecology and Society” No. 11(1), 30
• Crossman N.D. et al. (2013), A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services, “Ecosystem Services” No. 4, p. 4–14
• Daniel T.C. et al. (2012), Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” No. 109(23), p. 8812– 8819
• de Groot R.S. et al. (2002), A typology for classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services, “Ecological Economics” No. 41, p. 393–408
• de Groot R.S. et al. (2010), Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making, “Ecological Complexity” No. 7, p. 260–272
• European Commission (2013), Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. Technical Report – 2013–067
• Gould R.K. et al. (2014), The forest has a story: cultural ecosystem services in Kona, Hawaii, “Ecology and Society” No. 19(3), p. 55
• Heines-Young R., Potschin M. (2013), Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on version 4, August-December 2012, EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003
• Hernández-Morcillo M. et al. (2013), An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators, “Ecological Indicators“ No. 29, p. 434–444
• Lamarque P. et al. (2011), Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity, “Regional Environmental Change” No. 11, p. 791–804
• Meli P. et al. (2014), Restoration enhances wetland biodiversity and ecosystem service supply, but results are context-dependent: a meta-analysis, “PLoS One” No. 9(4), e93507
• Menzel S., Teng J. (2009), Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science, “Conservation Biology” No. 24, p. 907–909
• Norton L.R. et al. (2012), Trialling a method to quantify the ‘cultural services’ of the English landscape using Countryside Survey data, “Land Use Policy” No. 29, p. 449–455
• Plieninger T. et al. (2013), Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level, “Land Use Policy” No. 33, p. 118–129
• Raymond C.M. et al. (2009), Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services, “Ecological Economics” No. 68(5), p. 1301–1315
• Scholte S.S.K. et al. (2015), Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods, “Ecological Economics” No. 114, p. 67–78
• Sodhi N.S. et al. (2010), Local people value environmental services provided by forested parks, “Biodiversity and Conservation” No. 19, p. 1175–1188
• Soini K. et al. (2012), Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural-urban interface, “Landscape and Urban Planning” No. 104, p. 124–134
• Soroka A. et al. (2016), Znaczenie zasobów leśnych w turystyce zdrowotnej na przykładzie Wigierskiego Parku Narodowego (Importance of forest resources in health tourism – Wigry National Park case study), “Sylwan” No. 160(1), p. 64–70
• Suckall N. et al. (2009), Visitor perceptions of rural landscapes: a case study of the Peak District National Park, England, “Journal of Environmental Management” No. 90, p. 1195–1203
• van Berkel D.B., Verburg P.H. (2014), Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape, “Ecological Indicators” No. 37, p. 163–174

Uwagi

Opracowanie ze środków MNiSW w ramach umowy 812/P-DUN/2016 na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (zadania 2017).