National ecosystem services assessment in Slovakia – meeting old liabilities and introducing new methods

Abstract

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.

Comparison of Methodological Approaches for the Evaluation of Ecosystem Services for Options to Develop Sustainable Tourism Forms (Ecotourism) (Example: Bratislava IV)

“…Most currently available spatial ecosystem service studies focus on ecosystem service supply (see Russi et al, 2013;Sandler, 2012;Martínez-Harms, Balvanera, 2012;Mederly et al, 2020; for reviews), whereas the demand side has not been sufficiently considered. The integration of societal needs for goods and services enhances currently applied function-oriented landscape planning approaches, as well as environmental management strategies.…”

“…An improved version was published in 2012, including ecosystem service requirements and budget estimates for ecosystem services using the same method (Burkhard et al, 2012). This method has also been used in various case studies (e.g., Kroll et al, 2012;Getzner, Jungmeier, 2009;Getzner, 2009Getzner, , 2010Burkhard et al, 2012Burkhard et al, , 2014Mederly et al, 2020) and has been improving further.…”

Finding the Green Grass in the Haystack? Integrated National Assessment of Ecosystem Services and Condition in Hungary, in Support of Conservation and Planning

“…In the "land management" group of research papers on ecosystem service multifunctionality, indicators of ecosystem condition are also often incorporated in multifunctionality indices. Sometimes they appear as indicators of supporting services (e.g., [37,53,54]) or are interpreted as a potential measure of ecosystem capacity [55]. Some studies use the framework designed in the MAES process [56], which separates the two [34,56].…”

“…Native forests were found to show an outstanding performance in terms of ecosystem service multifunctionality. Numerous studies on forests identified them as being of paramount importance for multiple functions in terms of ecosystem services (as well as for biodiversity) from local to global scales [8,37,42]. The term 'forest' is often used to cover tree plantations as well as more natural forests.…”

“…The interrelations between ecosystem services within these bundles can be positive or negative, resulting in synergies or tradeoffs [30]. There are numerous studies analysing tradeoffs, synergies and bundles of ecosystem services [18,[31][32][33][34], some at the national level [29,[35][36][37] and even at a global scale [38]. However, examples of policy-driven applications at the national scale, such as integrative national MAES assessments, are still not common in the literature [11,39] even though they can be considered the capstone and, at the same time, one of the most significant challenges of a MAES process.…”