GIS-based Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Mountain Regions: A Case Study of the Karlovo Municipality in Bulgaria

Abstract

This study aims to apply approaches, methods, and indicators from the conceptual framework of ecosystem services valuation to a real world, local level case study. It tests a GIS-based mapping and valuation of ecosystem services model in a typical mountain municipality in Bulgaria. Investigation results address opportunities, challenges and limitations in the practical application of the ecosystem services concept. They include an integrated assessment of the ecosystem services in a specific administrative territorial unit and suggest its Total Economic Value. The introduction of the term "ecosystem services dysergy" should contribute to valuation theory and practice. The study upgrades the currently available knowledge base that supports geospatial planning and sustainable development of the Karlovo Municipality and offers recommendations for improvement of the municipal ecosystem services utilization, which include identification, analysis, and visualization of hotspots and dysergy areas.

Towards integrated mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in Bulgaria: The Central Balkan case study

“…Such advantages are expected to represent a significant step towards balanced and sustainable governance of the respective administrative unit. In the same context, Koulov and Borisova (2018) offer a critical view of the current experience with the Ecosystem Services' concept in Bulgaria with the accent on the terminology and geographic scales, as well as the opportunities and limitations it presents to the practice of sustainable governance at this time. Tomova and Borisova 2018 use the example of the newly established post-Seville "Central Balkan" Biosphere Reserve in Bulgaria to discuss the opportunities for its use as a tool for long-term landscape planning and, thus, facilitate the understanding of the full potential for ecosystem services by turning the reserve into a practical learning lab for sustainable development.…”

“…One helpful result has been the introduction of the term "ecosystem services dysergy" in the valuation's theoretical framework. Koulov et al 2017 consider ES dysergy, as opposed to the widely used term "ES synergy", to be the negative effect, which is produced by the interdependencies and interactions amongst ecosystems; it subtracts from the total value added for the produced services. The geospatial identification, analysis and visualisation of hotspots, synergy and dysergy areas should exhibit much more informative results in the many and diverse cases of simultaneous utilisation of ES.…”

“…The studies cover various topics including multi-criteria analyses and biophysical assessment approaches (Bratanova-Doncheva et al 2014, mapping challenges , Boyanova et al 2016, Boyanova 2015, Markov and Nedkov 2016, studies focusing on different geographic scales , Pehlivanov et al 2014, Dimitrov et al 2018) and diverse geospatial areas , Avetisyan et al 2016, Borisova et al 2015, Nedkov 2011) and local population surveys Borisova 2016, Borisova et al 2015) that result in a rich collection of scientific ideas and practical know-how related to ecosystem services governance (Dimitrova et al 2015, Koulov et al 2017.…”

“…Several targeted areas test the practical application of a GIS-based mapping, assessment and valuation of ecosystem services model in real world administrative territorial units at the local level in Bulgaria (Ivanova et al 2016, Koulov et al 2017, Boyanova et al 2016. The idea has been to identify, test and, to the greatest possible extent, overcome the challenges in the application of the model at the smallest and, hopefully, simplest, possible scale of practical importance to geospatial statistics, accounting and governance and improve its analytical and valuation potential.…”

“…integration of scientific knowledge in civic affairs governance practice; continuous planning process with in-built policy alternatives coupled with respective impact assessments; continuous education, proper motivation and constant involvement of the stakeholders and the public (Burkhard et al 2010,Primmer and Furman 2012, Rosenthal et al 2014, Koulov et al 2017, Guerry et al 2015. The research activities related to sustainable development and mapping and assessment of ES have proven able to smooth out some of the tensions that often arise between the protection and conservation functions of the protected areas in mountain regions and the municipal administrations, which are usually more focused on securing local economic opportunities and short-term improvement of social wellbeing.…”