One Ecosystem :
Research Article
|
Corresponding author: Peter Mederly (pmederly@ukf.sk)
Academic editor: Javier Martínez-López
Received: 27 Apr 2020 | Accepted: 17 Jul 2020 | Published: 29 Jul 2020
© 2020 Peter Mederly, Ján Černecký, Jana Špulerová, Zita Izakovičová, Viktória Ďuricová, Radoslav Považan, Juraj Švajda, Matej Močko, Martin Jančovič, Simona Gusejnov, Juraj Hreško, František Petrovič, Dagmar Štefunková, Barbora Šatalová, Gréta Vrbičanová, Dominika Kaisová, Martina Turanovičová, Tomáš Kováč, Ivan Laco
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Mederly P, Černecký J, Špulerová J, Izakovičová Z, Ďuricová V, Považan R, Švajda J, Močko M, Jančovič M, Gusejnov S, Hreško J, Petrovič F, Štefunková D, Šatalová B, Vrbičanová G, Kaisová D, Turanovičová M, Kováč T, Laco I (2020) National ecosystem services assessment in Slovakia – meeting old liabilities and introducing new methods. One Ecosystem 5: e53677. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.5.e53677
|
|
This article provides an overview and results of the pilot national ecosystem services assessment in Slovakia. It follows the MAES process and past ecosystem services (ES) research in Slovakia and is based on original research methodology using spatial and statistical data. The initial step of national ES assessment resulted in the selection of significant ES for the evaluation process, where 18 ES in three groups were selected (five provisioning, 10 regulatory/maintenance and three cultural ES). An original assessment model provided the theoretical and methodological framework for national ES evaluation. The principal result is an assessment of the national landscape’s capacity for ES provision, based on evaluation of the landscape units and selected properties and indicators at the ecosystem level. These inputs included habitat types and watersheds, administrative units, natural topology, geology, soils, climate, water and biota. The ES capacity models were created and evaluated for each ES, for the main groups and, finally, for overall ES provision. The highest capacity to provide ES in Slovakia comes from natural and semi-natural ecosystems, mainly deciduous, mixed and coniferous forests which cover over 38% of Slovak territory. The water ecosystems and wetlands are also significant, followed by grasslands and permanent crops. The research highlights the crucial importance of the mountainous and sub-mountainous areas in Slovakia and confirms the significant contribution of the natural and semi-natural ecosystems for ensuring ES provision.
ecosystem services, MAES process, national assessment, valuation methods, Slovakia
Although the ecosystem services (ES) concept was introduced in the early 1980, it has received most attention within the last twenty years. The ES issue progressively interweaves various fields of the natural sciences and touches on practical and political areas as well and, although it is gradually incorporating considerations of global economics, its level of practical application remains insufficient (
The basic definition states that "ecosystem services include all direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being" (
The mapping and assessment of ecosystems and ecosystem services (MAES) process in the EU countries (
Slovakia created a MAES expert working group of representatives from various governing and administration institutions and academia in 2014, to map and assess ecosystems and their services. The Ministry of the Environment also prepared two strategic policy frameworks at the national level. In 2014, "Biodiversity Protection Strategy for 2012-2020" set targets for 2020, highlighting the preservation and enhancement of ecosystems and their services through the establishment of green infrastructure and the restoration of at least 15% of degraded ecosystems. This target has, however, not been fulfilled so far. In 2018, the "Environmental Policy Strategy" defined goals for 2030 stating that “ES are evaluated and quantified and they will be considered for investments and policy-making, as well as for environmental impact assessment”. Nevertheless, Slovakia currently has one of the lowest ES implementation rates in Europe. The MAES assessment records only 20% implementation for the Slovak Republic, which puts it at the lowest ranking together with Cyprus (
To address the issues mentioned above, the main aim of this research is to prepare and present a pilot national ES assessment for the Slovak Republic. This goal partly addresses the policy targets of both of the above-mentioned national framework documents. Our research also supports the Ministry of Environment‘s MAES expert working group mission, which focuses on Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Furthermore, the scientific goal of our research is to establish a comprehensive biophysical approach for national ES assessment based on a development of unique computational procedures of ES assessment, drawing on a complex database of natural and partly socio-economic features.
Our research covers the entire 49,034 km² territory of the Slovak Republic, which is a land-locked country in Central Europe. The December 2019 national census identified 5,457,873 inhabitants in a dense settlement network administered by 2,890 municipalities. These include 140 cities with 53.5% of the population; there are only two cities with over 100,000 inhabitants and 10 more with over 50,000 (
For the ES assessment, we followed a straightforward path: specifying which ES were to be addressed of ES addressed, gathering data and setting the assessment process and finally proceeding to the computation, standardisation and interpretation of the results. Fig.
The assessment process employs the standard ES classification with three main groups, from which 18 ES were selected - five provisioning, 10 regulatory/maintenance and three cultural ES. This selection resulted from expert determination of significant Slovak ES in the MAES process – in total, more than 20 experts from 14 governmental and scientific institutions (Ministries and their research institutions, universities and other academic institutes) were involved in this process. In addition, existing national assessment studies and review research (
List of relevant ecosystem services, their definition and primary data for assessment.
Ecosystem service (ES) |
Definition ( |
CICES v 4.3 classification
( |
Essential input landscape properties |
|
Provisioning ES |
||||
P1 |
Crops & Fodder |
Plants usable for human nutrition. Nutritional substances for domestic animals. |
Nutrition - biomass: Cultivated crops/ Wild plants |
Land use types Soil fertility Slope inclination Climate suitability Water availability |
P2 |
Timber & Fibre |
Wood usable for human purposes (e.g. construction). Natural fibre (e.g. cotton, silk, cellulose) usable for clothes, fabric, paper etc. |
Materials - biomass: Fibres and other materials from plants, algae and animals for direct use or processing |
Land use types Forest productivity Soil fertility Slope inclination Climate suitability Water availability |
P3 |
Drinking water |
Fresh and process water available for drinking & domestic use. |
Nutrition - water: Surface and groundwater for drinking |
Drinking water sources & protected zones Water reservoirs & watersheds |
P4 |
Freshwater |
Fresh and process water available for industrial use, irrigation etc. |
Materials - water: Surface and groundwater for non-drinking purposes |
Hydrogeological regions Important watercourses Water reservoirs |
P5 |
Fish & Game & Wildfood |
Berries, mushrooms, edible plants, wild animals, fish for recreational fishing, hunting or collection; semi-domestic animal husbandry. |
Nutrition - biomass: Reared animals/ Wild animals and their outputs |
Land use Forest structure & categories Game reserves Fishing grounds |
Regulatory & Maintenance ES |
||||
R1 |
Air quality regulation |
Capturing/filtering of dust, chemicals and gases from air. |
Mediation of air flows: Storm protection, ventilation and transpiration Mediation by ecosystems: smell/noise/visual impacts |
Land use Forest structure and quality Biomass volume - Leaf area index |
R2 |
Water quality regulation |
Ecosystem ability to purify water, for example, from sediments, pollutants, nutrients, pesticides, disease-causing microbes and pathogens. |
Maintenance: Water conditions (chemical condition of freshwater) |
Land use Forest structure and quality Soil permeability Slope inclination |
R3 |
Erosion & natural hazard regulation |
Soil retention and the ability to prevent and mitigate soil erosion and landslides. |
Mediation of mass flows: Mass stabilisation and control of erosion rates, buffering and attenuation of mass flows |
Land use Forest and biotopes structure and quality Slope inclination & Aspect Soil properties Rainfall intensity |
R4 |
Water flow regulation |
Water cycle feature maintenance (e.g. water storage and buffer, natural drainage, irrigation and drought prevention). |
Mediation of liquid flows: Hydrological cycle and water flow maintenance, flood protection |
Land use, structure and quality of biotopes Slope inclination Soil permeability Water flow distribution - watersheds |
R5 |
Local climate regulation |
Changes in local climate components like wind, precipitation, temperature, radiation due to ecosystem properties. |
Maintenance: Atmospheric composition and climate regulation: Micro and regional climate regulation |
Land use Forest structure and quality Biomass volume - Leaf area index Solar radiation & Temperature |
R6 |
Global climate regulation |
Long-term storage of potential greenhouse gases in ecosystems |
Maintenance: Atmospheric composition and climate regulation: Global climate regulation by reduction of greenhouse gas concentrations |
Land use Forest structure and quality Biomass volume - Leaf area index Photosynthesis capacity Soil properties - depth, C-content |
R7 |
Biodiversity promotion |
Species and ecosystem diversity promotion, habitat protection |
Maintenance: Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection: Maintaining nursery populations and habitats |
Biotopes naturalness & state Species & ecosystem diversity and uniqueness Spatial diversity of landscape |
R8 |
Pollination |
Bees, birds, bats, moths, flies, wind, non-flying animals contributing to pollen transfer and reproduction of plants |
Maintenance: Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection: Pollination and seed dispersal |
Land-use suitability for pollinators Species & ecosystem diversity Spatial diversity of landscape |
R9 |
Pest and disease control |
Ecosystem ability to control pests and diseases due to genetic variations of plants and animals making them less prone to diseases and actions of predators and parasites |
Maintenance: Pest and disease control |
Biotopes naturalness & state Spatial diversity of landscape |
R10 |
Soil formation |
Ecosystem ability to recycle nutrients, for example, N, P. |
Maintenance: Soil formation and composition: Weathering, decomposition and fixing processes |
Soil productivity Soil storing and filtering capacity Moisture balance |
Cultural ES |
||||
C1 |
Recreation & tourism |
Outdoor activities and tourism relating to the local environment or landscape, including forms of sports, leisure and outdoor pursuit. |
Physical and experiential interactions: Physical and experiential use of plants, animals and landscapes |
Land use capacity for recreation Recreational infrastructure Forest types Nature protection Attraction of relief forms |
C2 |
Landscape aesthetics |
The visual quality of the landscape/ecosystems or parts of them influencing human well-being and the need to create something as well as the sense of beauty people obtain from looking at landscapes/ecosystems. |
Representative interactions: Heritage, cultural, entertainment, aesthetic |
Land use types aesthetical quality Forest and biotopes aesthetics Attraction of relief forms |
C3 |
Natural & cultural heritage |
The existence value of nature and species themselves, beyond economic or direct human benefits. Values that humans place on the maintenance of historically significant (cultural) landscapes and forms of land use (cultural heritage) |
Intellectual interactions: Scientific, educational |
Importance of land use types Natural heritage sites & Nature protection importance Cultural heritage sites & Cultural values |
For the assessment of individual ES, we mainly used data from available spatial and information datasets. We initially prepared all spatial layers and database information in a unified form, relying primarily on the internal datasets of organisations involved in this research. We also added available data from environmental agencies and specialised institutions and open data from Slovak and European cartographic and remote sensing resources. Table
List of map layers used for assessment of ecosystem services in Slovakia.
Content (theme) of the map layer |
Source of data |
Data scale |
Prod. |
Reg. |
Cult. |
Digital elevation model - slope and other parameters |
Database of CP Univ. Nitra |
1:25,000 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Morphological-positional type of relief |
Database of ILE SAS |
1:25,000 |
* |
1 |
2 |
Hydrogeological regionalisation |
Database of ILE SAS |
1:50,000 |
1 |
* |
* |
Average annual temperature |
SR Climate Atlas |
1:50,000 |
* |
1 |
* |
Rainfall intensity (max 1-day totals) |
SR Climate Atlas |
1:50,000 |
* |
1 |
* |
Moisture balance indicator |
SR Climate Atlas |
1:50,000 |
* |
1 |
* |
Avg. annual amount of solar radiation |
SR Climate Atlas |
1:50,000 |
* |
1 |
* |
Territorial climate classification |
SR Climate Atlas |
1:50,000 |
2 |
* |
* |
Hydrological basins (watersheds) |
Slovak Water Mng. Map |
1:50,000 |
* |
1 |
* |
Watercourses and water bodies |
Slovak Water Mng. Map |
1:50,000 |
1 |
* |
* |
Significant watercourses |
Slovak Water Mng. Map |
1:50,000 |
1 |
* |
2 |
Water resources used |
Slovak Water Mng. Map |
1:50,000 |
1 |
* |
* |
Water resources protection zones |
Slovak Water Mng. Map |
1:50,000 |
1 |
* |
* |
Water reservoirs |
Slovak Water Mng. Map |
1:50,000 |
1 |
* |
* |
Basins of watercourses used for drinking purposes |
Slovak Water Mng. Map |
1:50,000 |
1 |
* |
* |
Natural medicinal resources protection zones |
Slovak Water Mng. Map |
1:50,000 |
1 |
* |
1 |
Protected water management areas |
Slovak Water Mng. Map |
1:50,000 |
1 |
* |
* |
Avg. groundwater depth |
Database of ILE SAS |
1:25,000 |
2 |
* |
* |
Soil subtype |
Soil Portal, Database of ILE SAS |
1:25,000 |
2 |
2 |
* |
Soil texture |
Database of ILE SAS |
1:25,000 |
2 |
2 |
* |
Soil depth |
Database of ILE SAS |
1:25,000 |
2 |
1 |
* |
Current landscape structure/land use |
State ZB GIS, Corine Land Cover |
1:25,000 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Spatial diversity of landscape structure |
Database of CP Univ. Nitra |
1:25,000 |
* |
2 |
* |
Classification and use of forest spatial units |
State Nature Conserv., Forest Portal |
1:10,000 |
2 |
* |
2 |
Forest types |
State Nature Conserv., Forest Portal |
1:10,000 |
* |
3 |
* |
Forest age classes |
State Nature Conserv., Forest Portal |
1:10,000 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
Significant ecosystems (habitats) |
State Nature Conservancy of SR |
1:25,000 |
* |
2 |
* |
Naturalness of ecosystems |
Database of CP Univ. Nitra |
1:25,000 |
* |
2 |
* |
State of ecosystems |
State Nature Conservancy of SR |
1:25,000 |
* |
1 |
* |
Categorisation of protected areas |
State Nature Conservancy of SR |
1:25,000 |
* |
1 |
2 |
Natural conservation significance of a territory |
Database of CP Univ. Nitra |
1:25,000 |
* |
1 |
2 |
Leaf area index (LAI) |
Copernicus Global Land Survey |
1:50,000 |
* |
2 |
* |
Photosynthetically active radiation (FAPAR) |
Copernicus Global Land Survey |
1:50,000 |
* |
1 |
* |
Normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) |
Copernicus Global Land Survey |
1:50,000 |
* |
1 |
* |
Potential for geothermal energy |
SR Landscape Atlas |
1:100,000> |
* |
* |
1 |
Fishing and hunting areas |
SR Landscape Atlas |
1:100,000> |
1 |
* |
* |
Areas of traditional (historical) land use |
SR Landscape Atlas |
1:100,000> |
* |
* |
3 |
Significant natural sites |
SR Landscape Atlas |
1:100,000> |
* |
* |
2 |
Historical parks and gardens |
SR Landscape Atlas |
1:100,000> |
* |
* |
2 |
Cultural and historical attractions and monuments |
SR Landscape Atlas |
1:100,000> |
* |
* |
2 |
Recreation and tourism objects |
SR Landscape Atlas |
1:100,000> |
* |
* |
1 |
3 most important layers for ES assessment 2 important layers for ES assessment 1 complementary layers for ES assessment* not included in the ES assessment
The essential layers, used in the assessment of most ES, include the following: a map of current land use/landscape structure and its interpretation; a map of ecosystems and selected derived features (
Our next step was to standardise the data. We converted all used layers from different sources to the same shape - a raster format with a pixel size of 25 m, in the S-JTSK coordinate system. During the assessment process, we kept all calculations in this format.
Table
To express the landscape’s relative capacity to provide all valued ES, we employed a coordinated procedure, based mainly on spatially-expressed biophysical and environmental data (see previous point).
For this purpose, we used a qualitative expression of the landscape capacity for ES provision on a dimensionless relative scale (0 to n points). A computational algorithm was developed for each ES in consultation with team members with expertise in that ES, based on the different input layers. Computational procedures consisted of the reclassification and overlay of different data layers. The approach used could be considered one of the main innovations of our research. The essential landscape properties entering the computation of given ES are provided in Table 1; Table 2 gives a full overview of the data. For the data used and the computational algorithms for all ES, see Suppl. material
By using this procedure, we produced 18 detailed ES landscape capacity maps on a 25 x 25 m grid, with different numeric values (generally from 0 to n points). The rough ES maps then went through a process of results standardisation (see next subsection).
For standardisation of the ES results, better display value and in preparation for further statistical analysis, we recalculated the basic ES capacity values on a 1 km grid. Each value for a 1 x 1 km pixel was calculated as the arithmetic average (mean values) of 1600 original 25 x 25 m pixels. Finally, we converted the obtained values to a 0-100 range, using a simple transformation algorithm
Xitransf = (Xi-Xmin/Xmax – Xmin)*100 , where
Xitransf = new transformed value of ES capacity within the range 0-100
Xi = value of ES capacity within the original range
Xmin = minimal value of ES capacity within the original range
Xmax = maximal value of ES capacity within the original range.
The final ES values use a relative 0-100 scale, where 0 indicates the minimum current capacity of any area in Slovakia for the provision of the given ES and a value of 100 represents maximum current capacity. Since the distribution of the majority of the ES capacity values was highly asymmetric and did not meet the preconditions for a statistically normal distribution, before the final transformation of the maps into the 0-100 scale, we proceeded to remove data outliers (those within 2% of the minimum and maximum values).
The final values, in a dimensionless scale, can be interpreted as a suitability scale from minimum (0%) to maximum (100%) landscape capacity for providing ES. Additionally, classification into several degrees of suitability is possible, for example, below average, average, above average and high to very high capacity, based on the percentile distribution of values.
The resulting ES maps for the territory of Slovakia contain about 49 000 pixels with individual values for each ES. They represent a basic statistical set suitable for further assessment of the interactions and factors affecting the provision of the ES.
For the graphical presentation of the ES maps, we chose a unified form: maps show the relative capacity of a landscape to provide a given ES in a 5-degree legend (every 20% of the scale is represented by one shade of a colour scale). Suppl. material
The main goal of our research is to introduce and assess those ES significant for the territory of Slovakia. Of course, staying only at the individual ES level without the assessment of ES groups and the overall ES would be insufficient. For this reason, we also decided to carry out assessments of the three main ES groups and a map of the landscape’s overall capacity for ES provision.
For the computation of the landscape capacity for provisioning, regulatory/maintenance and cultural ES, we used a simple arithmetic average of the value of all ES in a given group (five ES, 10 ES and three ES). Evaluating the landscape’s overall capacity to provide the ES required us to determine the weight (importance) of three main ES groups. Due to varying opinions about the importance of the ES groups in the research community, we decided to handle this problem in a relatively simple, but (in our opinion) sufficiently representative and “fair” way. In our approach, provisioning ES as a whole is weighted at 25% of the total weight, the same weight being applied for cultural ES. Regulatory/maintenance ES constitute 50% of the total value. Finally, we calculated the resulting value as the sum of the capacity values for each ES group multiplied by the given weight. The theoretical value of the capacity ranges (as in the case of individual ES) from 0 to 100, where 0 means no capacity and 100 the maximum possible landscape capacity for ES provision.
An overview of the results for all ES groups is provided in the result section.
Our ES assessment aims to cover the territory of Slovakia and, thus, is fundamentally orientated towards giving a national overview. In addition to this objective, we also tried to explain two ES spatial distribution factors: (1) the relationships between the main landscapes types and ES provision and (2) the importance of land use classes for ES provision. We used basic methods of spatial statistics for this interpretation; the last results subsection briefly summarises the findings.
In the discussion section, we seek to compare our approach to other national assessment studies and try to highlight some advantages and disadvantages of our methodology and discuss challenges for future research.
In this section, we provide an overview of the results obtained for the three main analysed ES groups and overall ES assessment, together with interpretation of the results. Tables, charts and maps are used to illustrate the results.
Provisioning ES are perceived and directly appreciated by most people. These include physical products and goods from ecosystems which provide the following: nutrition, materials and energy, biomass for food, drinking water and water for other purposes, useful biomass, abiotic materials and substances and energy resources (
For the five assessed provisioning ES, the mean capacity values range from 13.2 (P3) to 34.5 (P5) - see Fig.
Basic statistics |
PROVISIONING ES |
P1 |
P2 |
P3 |
P4 |
P5 |
Minimum |
2.93 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
Maximum |
78.44 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
Range |
75.51 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
Mean value |
34.17 |
24.77 |
26.16 |
13.17 |
14.72 |
34.50 |
Median value |
33.68 |
16.00 |
18.00 |
5.00 |
12.00 |
33.00 |
1st Quartile |
26.33 |
5.00 |
12.00 |
1.00 |
6.00 |
25.00 |
3rd Quartile |
41.25 |
43.00 |
40.00 |
21.00 |
20.00 |
47.00 |
St. deviation |
10.79 |
Fig.
Regulation ecosystem functions and services should be considered critical, because many natural processes have a positive influence on the environment and all living species’ health and well-being. For the assessed regulatory/maintenance ES (Fig.
Basic statistics |
REGULATORY / MAINTENANCE ES |
R01 |
R02 |
R03 |
R04 |
R05 |
R06 |
R07 |
R08 |
R09 |
R10 |
Minimum |
3.94 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Maximum |
82.57 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Range |
78.62 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Mean value |
38.93 |
38.47 |
31.03 |
5.64 |
49.74 |
30.41 |
38.06 |
23.00 |
42.76 |
43.95 |
33.14 |
Median value |
36.67 |
24.00 |
21.00 |
1.00 |
50.00 |
19.00 |
31.00 |
20.00 |
42.00 |
47.00 |
27.00 |
1st Quartile |
20.69 |
12.00 |
12.00 |
0.00 |
44.00 |
10.00 |
21.00 |
7.00 |
28.00 |
26.00 |
20.00 |
3rd Quartile |
55.68 |
64.00 |
50.00 |
6.00 |
55.00 |
49.00 |
55.00 |
35.00 |
54.00 |
59.00 |
47.00 |
St. deviation |
19.23 |
Fig.
Most cultural ES are challenging to measure, monitor and model and other authors assert that the value assigned to natural and cultural heritage often depends on individual and cultural assessment of their contribution to human well-being (
We have, therefore, used the most recent available biophysical methods in assessing the landscape capacity for cultural ES provision based on available datasets. For the assessed cultural ES (Fig.
Basic statistics |
CULTURAL ES |
C1 |
C2 |
C3 |
Minimum |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
Maximum |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
Range |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
Mean value |
35.15 |
22.10 |
27.46 |
17.11 |
Median value |
33.76 |
21.00 |
24.00 |
15.00 |
1st Quartile |
14.20 |
7.00 |
15.00 |
5.00 |
3rd Quartile |
52.70 |
33.00 |
37.00 |
26.00 |
St. deviation |
23.34 |
We expressed the landscape’s overall capacity for cultural ES provision as the average of the three assessed ES (Fig.
As a synthesis of the first stage of our national ES assessment, we compiled the landscape's overall capacity for ES provision and calculated this value as the weighted average of values for the three assessed provisioning, regulatory/maintenance and cultural ES groups (see section Material and methods). Table
Basic statistics |
OVERALL ES ASSESSMENT |
Minimum |
5.51 |
Maximum |
78.41 |
Range |
72.90 |
Mean value |
36.80 |
Median value |
35.17 |
1st Quartile |
21.19 |
3rd Quartile |
51.59 |
St. deviation |
16.56 |
Fig.
Ecosystem functions and related services are substantially based on the natural structure of the landscape and it is, therefore, useful to assess the main spatial units’ capacity for ES provision. These basic Slovak landscape types are classified as the combination of the main Pannonian and Carpathians biogeographical regions and the geomorphological landscape types found in the area, which include the lowlands, river basins, the low and sub-mountainous regions and the mid-altitude and high mountain areas. Table
The capacity of the main landscape types of Slovakia for providing ecosystem services *
Main landscape types |
Area (km2) |
% of area |
PROVISIONING ES |
REGULATORY/ MAINTENANCE ES |
CULTURAL ES |
OVERALL CAPACITY FOR ES PROVISION |
Lowlands and open river basins (Pannonian) |
16,955 |
34.58 |
31.2 |
24.2 |
15.5 |
23.8 |
Intra-mountain river basins (Carpathians) |
5,001 |
10.20 |
29.7 |
27.6 |
28.1 |
28.3 |
Low altitude mountains and sub-mountainous areas (Carpathians + Matricum) |
15,078 |
30.75 |
37.2 |
49.2 |
42.6 |
44.5 |
Middle altitude mountains (Carpathians) |
8,598 |
17.53 |
34.6 |
50.6 |
50.7 |
46.6 |
High altitude mountains (Carpathians) |
3,403 |
6.94 |
40.5 |
52.6 |
69.8 |
53.9 |
Slovak Republic - average values |
49,035 |
100.0 |
34.2 |
38.9 |
35.1 |
36.8 |
Fig.
Fig.
The highest landscape capacity value for ES provision (1.5 times the average Slovak value) is found for deciduous forests, followed by mixed and coniferous forests. Rocks and screes have a very high capacity for cultural ES provision, while water bodies and wetlands have a high capacity for all ES groups. In contrast, permanent grasslands, orchards and vineyards have an average capacity for ES provision and arable land and urbanised areas have low to very low capacity.
ES mapping and assessment has developed into a very mature scientific field in recent years (
Analysis of national ES assessments (NEAs) finds that full implementation of ES in decision-making is still uncommon and
Several countries have made significant progress in NEA research using a wide variety of approaches.
As in other research, our results also point to existing trade-offs and some negative consequences of using different ES. The use of provisioning ES is tied to the consumption of matter and energy from the ecosystems. It is therefore very important to consider their recovery capacity and supply-demand balance while using ES (
The capacity to provide regulatory/maintenance ES depends mainly on the quality of a given ecosystem and its associated land use. In Slovakia, the frequent occurrence of wind- and bark-calamities and subsequent large-scale harvesting in the last 10-15 years have had negative impacts on the stability of forest ecosystems and this is undermining provision of the forest regulatory ES. Investigation of forests in Slovakia, affected by natural disturbances and changes in climate and land-use (e.g.
The importance of the agricultural and urban landscape in the provision of cultural ES has increased in recent years. This is mainly due to the development of agri-tourism and the current emphasis on healthy lifestyles which makes use of, for example, urban parks and vegetation for leisure activities (
Our results also confirm the importance of mountains for ES delivery, as has been found by other NEA (e.g.
It is apparent from our assessment process that we have not tried to evaluate the capacity of the landscape for ES provision in biophysical or monetary values. Instead, we have employed a relative scale which provides the percentages of maximum capacity and suitability value for the area. The advantage of this method is that these values can then be further processed, based on available data from relevant research and studies. The minimum and maximum values can then be replaced by specific biophysical units and monetary values using advanced analysis or the value-benefit transfer method from relevant ES valuation studies. This approach is most promising for further assessment of the capacity of the landscape to provide ES and the detailed mapping of ecosystem and habitat types which we have also prepared (
Most other national ES assessment studies have focused on identifying ecosystems, assessing their state and then assigning a monetary value to ES (e.g.
We consider the expression of the landscape’s overall capacity for ES provision a particular problem. Most studies at a national or regional scale remain at the level of individual ES or their groups. Within this context, they evaluate synergies and trade-offs and rarely consider the overall capacity of the main ES groups (e.g.
It is clear, that our approach is "science-driven" and not "policy-driven" because the views and attitudes of different stakeholders are not considered. This is a shortcoming compared to certain other national studies (e.g. Spain, Finland, Norway, Flanders and the United Kingdom) which, according to the review by
Spatial ES flows and their inter-relationships in different scales also offer an interesting direction for future research. These topics cover ES flows from the mountains to the lowlands (
The main aim of our research was to conduct a pilot assessment of those ES, which are most relevant for the territory of Slovakia. While other national studies have inspired our research, we have herein introduced an original methodology, based on an individual computational algorithm for assessment of the ES using a database of 41 natural and societal landscape parameters. Evaluation of the 18 individual ES is followed by assessment of provisioning, regulatory/maintenance and cultural ES.
The highest capacity to provide ES comes from natural and semi-natural ecosystems, especially the deciduous, coniferous and mixed forests which cover more than 38% of Slovak territory. Other ecosystems, particularly those in the Carpathians, proved very valuable for the provision of many different ES. Moreover, this paper highlights the crucial importance of the high mountain areas of Slovakia for ES provision.
The results of the Slovak national ES assessment have been published as a comprehensive scientific publication (
This work was supported by the projects „Monitoring of species and habitats of European importance within the Habitats and Birds Directives“, ITMS 310011P170 (implemented within the Operational Programme Quality of the Environment); and Scientific Grant Agency of Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic (No. 1/0706/20 „Urban sustainable development in the 21st century - Assessment of key factors, planning approaches and environmental relationships“ and No. 2/0078/18 "Research of biocultural values of landscape”). We would also like to thank Raymond Marshall and James Asher for English proofreading.
This paper was designed and implemented as a result of collaborative research by the State Nature Conservancy of Slovakia, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra and the Institute of Landscape Ecology of SAS. All co-authors prepared and analysed the data concerning individual ecosystem services and their ES assessment; Peter Mederly and Ján Černecký edited the results; P.M., J.Č., J.Šp., V.Ď., Z.I., R.P. and J.Šv. wrote the final paper.
The authors reported no potential conflict of interest.
Full description of data layers used for ES assessment - Data source, Accuracy, Units, Min/Max values, Legend.
Computational algorithms for all 18 ES - data sources, values, formulas
Box plots, histograms and maps of 18 individual ES
P1-P5 – Individual provisioning ES: P1 Biomass - Agricultural crops; P2 Timber and fibre; P3 Drinking water; P4 Freshwater; P5 Fish & Game/Wildfood. The values are in the 0– 100 range; where 0 is the minimum value and 100 is the maximum for ES provision.
R1-R10 – Individual regulatory/maintenance ES: R1 Air quality regulation; R2 Water quality regulation; R3 Erosion & natural hazard regulation; R4 Water flow regulation; R5 Local climate regulation; R6 Global climate regulation; R7 Biodiversity promotion; R8 Pollination; R9 Pest and disease control; R10 Soil formation. T he values are in the 0– 100 range; where 0 is the minimum value and 100 is the maximum for ES provision.
C1-C3 – Individual cultural ES: C1 Recreation and tourism; C2 Landscape aesthetics; C3 Natural and cultural heritage. The values are in the 0– 100 range; where 0 is the minimum value and 100 is the maximum for ES provision.
The values are in the 0 – 100 range, where 0 is the minimum value for the provision of individual ES categories and 100 is the maximum.