FOLIA GEOGRAPHICA

Menu

Folia Geographica 2021, 63/1, pp. 110-122

AGRICULTURAL SOIL AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN SLOVAKIA – OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR THEIR PRACTICAL APPLICATION

Radoslav BUJNOVSKÝ A, Jozef VILČEK B*, Monika LÖRINCOVÁ C, Miroslav KUDLA D

Received: February 19, 2021 | Revised: April 25, 2021 | Accepted: April 27, 2021

Paper No. 21-63/1-586

A Water Research Institute, Nabr. Arm. Gen. L. Svobodu 5, 812 49 Bratislava, Slovakia

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4117-6072
bujnovsky@vuvh.sk

B* University of Presov, 17. novembra 1, Prešov; National Agriculture and Food Centre – Soil Science & Conservation Research Institute, Raymanova 1, 080 01 Prešov, Slovakia

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5971-0726
jozef.vilcek@unipo.sk (corresponding author)

C University of Presov, 17. novembra 1, 080 01 Prešov, Slovakia

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1204-3254
monika.lorincova@smail.unipo.sk

D University of Presov, 17. novembra 1, 080 01 Prešov, Slovakia

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3130-6382
miroslav.kudla@smail.unipo.sk

 



FULL TEXT

Abstract
Water and soil belong to natural resources which are essential for the existence and development of human civilization. Ecosystem services (ESS) provide various benefits to people. In Slovakia, mapping and valuation of ecosystem services of agricultural soil and freshwater, driven by the development of soil functions concept and later by nature and biodiversity protection, have been focused especially on provisioning and regulation & maintenance sections. The integration of the ESS concept into decision-making remains a challenging issue in both soil and water policy areas, as well as in the creation of new and useful information on the total and sustainable capacity of individual ecosystem services in space and time. Regarding the quality of the existing ESS-related information, the immediate use of the ESS concept in land area management can be seen in spatial planning to decrease irreversible soil losses caused by urban sprawl, industry, and infrastructure development. In the area of freshwater, the valuation of related ESS can be considered for selecting cost-effective measures, provided that the assessment of the ESS will be specified for the conditions of a particular water body and/or related watershed. To achieve unambiguous and lasting improvement of the environment and related ecosystem services, which clearly includes the sustainable use of agricultural soils and freshwaters, it is necessary to address deeper causes closely related to human thinking and activities that are not punishable or solvable solely by the ESS concept.

Key words Ecosystem services, soil functions, agricultural soil, freshwater.

REFERENCES

  1. BARTÍK, M., JANČO, M., STŘELCOVÁ, K. et al. (2016). Rainfall interception in a disturbed montane spruce (Picea abies) stand in the West Tatra Mountains. Biologia, 71(9), 1002-1008
  2. BATEMAN, I., HARWOOD, A.R., MACE, G.M. et al. (2013). Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science, 341, 45-50.
  3. BAVEYE, P.C., BAVEYE, J., GOWDY, J. (2016). Soil “ecosystem” services and natural capital: Critical appraisal of research on uncertain ground. Fontiers in Environmental Science, 4, 41.
  4. BIRKHOFER, K., DIEHL, E., ANDERSSON, J. ET AL. (2015). Ecosystem services – current challenges and opportunities for ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 2, 87, 1-12.
  5. BLUM, W.E.H. (1990). The challenge of soil protection in Europe. Environmental Conservation 17, 1, 72-74.
  6. BOUWMA, I., SCHLEYER, CH., PRIMMER, E. et al. (2018). Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosystem Services, 29, 213-222.
  7. BOYD, J., BANZHAF, S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63, 2-3, 616-626.
  8. BUJNOVSKÝ, R., VILČEK, J. (2011). Soil degradation and soil value in Slovakia – two problems with common denominator. Agriculturae Conspectus Scientificus, 76, 1, 9-14.
  9. BUJNOVSKÝ, R., BALKOVIČ, J., BARANČÍKOVÁ, G. et al. (2009). Hodnotenie a oceňovanie ekologických funkcií poľnohospodárskych pôd Slovenska. VÚPOP: Bratislava.
  10. BUJNOVSKÝ, R. (2018). Estimation of benefits from the actual use of inland water ecosystem services in the Slovak Republic. Ekológia (Bratislava), 37, 3, 201-218. 
  11. CONSTANZA, R., DE GROOT, R., BRAAT, L. et al. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28, 1-16.
  12. COWI (2014). Support Policy Development for integration of an ecosystem services approach with WFD and FD implementation. Towards practical guidelines to support River Basin Planners. Kongens Lyngby: COWI A/S.
  13. COYLE, C., CREAMER, R.E., SCHULTE, R.P.O. et al. (2016). A functional land management conceptual framework under soil drainage and land use scenarios. Environmental science and Policy, 56, 39-48.
  14. DOMINATI, E., MACKAY, A., GREEN, S., PATTERSON, M. (2014). A soil change-based methodology for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services from agro-ecosystems: A case study of pastoral agriculture in New Zealand. Ecological Economics, 100, 119-129.
  15. EEA, (2019). The European environment – state and outlook 2020. Knowledge for transition to a sustainable Europe. Copenhagen: EEA.
  16. EKINS, P., GUPTA, J, BOILEAU, P. (2019). Global environmental outlook 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, (2006). Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC. COM(2006) 232 final.
  18. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, (2019). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 final.  
  19. EVERARD, M. (2012). Why does ”good ecological status” matter? Water and Environmental Journal, 26, 165-174.
  20. FAIBRASS, A., MACE, G., EKINS, P., MILLIGAN, B. (2020). The natural capital indicator framework (NCIF) for improved national natural capital reporting. Ecosystem Services, 46, 101198.
  21. FLEISCHER, P., PICHLER, V., FLEISCHER, P. JR., HOLKO, L., MÁLIŠ, F., GÖMÖRYOVÁ, E., CUDLÍN, P., HOLEKSA, J., MICHALOVÁ, M., HOMOLOVA, Z., SKVARENINA, J., STŘELCOVÁ, K., HLAVÁ, P. 2017. Forest ecosystem services affected by natural disturbances, climate and land-use changes in the Tatra Mountains. Climate Research, 73, 57-71.
  22. FRANCESCONI, W., SRINIVASAN, R., PEREZ-MINANA, E. et al. (2016). Using the Soiô and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to model ecosystem services: a systematic review. Journal of Hydrology, 535, 625-636.
  23. GIAKOUMIS, T., VOULVOULIS, N. (2018). A participatory ecosystem services approach for pressure prioritisation in support of the Water Framework Directive. Ecosystem Services, 34, 126-135. 
  24. GÖMÖRYOVÁ, E., STŘELCOVÁ, K., ŠKVARENINA, J., GÖMÖRY, D. (2013). Responses of soil microorganisms and water content in forest floor horizons to environmental factors. European journal of soil biology, 55, 71-76.
  25. GREENHALGH, S., SAMARASINGHE, O., CURRAN-COURNANE, F. et al. (2017). Using ecosystem services to underpin cost–benefit analysis: Is it a way to protect finite soil resources? Ecosystem Services, 27, 1-14.
  26. GRÊT-REGAMEY, A., SIRÉN, E., BRUNNER, S.H., WEIBEL, B. (2017). Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept. Ecosystem Services, 26, 306-315.
  27. GRIZZETTI, B., LANZANOVA, D., LIQUETE, C. et al. (2016). Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. Environmental Science and Policy, 61, 194-203.
  28. HAINES-YOUNG, R.H., POTSCHIN, M.B. (2018). Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the application of the revised structure. Fabis Consulting Ltd.: Nottingham.
  29. KARABULUT, A., EGOH, B.N., LANZANOVA, D. et al. (2016). Mapping water provisioning services to support the ecosystem–water–food–energy nexus in the Danube river basin. Ecosystem Services, 17, 278-292.
  30. LAURANS, Y., MERMET, L. (2014). Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy? Ecosystem Services, 7, 98-105.
  31. LEACH, K., GRIGG, A., O’CONNOR, B. ET al. (2019). A common framework of natural capital assets for use in public and private sector decision making. Ecosystem Services, 36, 100899.
  32. MACZKA, K., CHMIELEWSKI, P., JERAN, A. ET al. (2019). The ecosystem services concept as a tool for public participation in management of Poland’s Natura 2000 network.  Ecosystem Services, 35, 173-183.
  33. MAES, J., TELLER, A., ERHARD, M. ET al. (2013). Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union.
  34. MAES, J., LIQUETE, C., TELLER, A. et al. (2016). An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosystem Services, 17, 14-23.
  35. MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment), (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
  36. MEDERLY, P., ČERNECKÝ, J., ŠPULEROVÁ, J. et al. (2020). National ecosystem services assessment in Slovakia – meeting old liabilities and introducing new methods. One Ecosystem, 5, e53677.
  37. MINDAŠ, J., BARTÍK, M., ŠKVARENINOVÁ, J., REPISKÝ, R. (2018). Functional effects of forest ecosystems on water cycle–Slovakia case study. Journal of Forest Science, 64(8), 331-339.
  38. NRC (National Research Council), (2004). Valuing ecosystem services: toward better environmental decision-making. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  39. OECD, (2017). Tackling environmental problems with the help of behavioural insights. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  40. POTSCHIN, M.B., HAINES-YOUNG, R.H. (2011). Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Progress in Physical Geography, 35, 5, 575–594.
  41. PRIMMER, E., JOKINEN, P., BLICHARSKA, M. et al. (2015). Governance of ecosystem services: A framework for empirical analysis. Ecosystem Services, 16, 158-166.
  42. ROBINSON, D.A., FRASER, I., DOMINATI, E.J. et al. (2014). On the value of soil resources in the context of natural capital and ecosystem service delivery. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 78, 3, 685-700.
  43. ROY A. K., GHOSH, P.K., DATTA, D. (2020). Typological inventorization and rapid ecological health assessment of the wetlands of Medinipur Coastal Plain, India. Folia Geographica, 62(2), 22-47.
  44. SEIFERT-DÄHNN, I., BARKVED, L.J., INTERWIES, E. (2015). Implementation of the ecosystem service concept in water management – Challenges and ways forward. Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology, 5, 3-8.
  45. SCHÄGNER, J.P., BRANDER, L., MAES, J., HARTJE, V. (2013). Mapping ecosystem services‘ values: current practice and future prospects. Ecosystem Services, 4, 33-46.
  46. SCHRÖTER, M., STUMPF, K.H., LOOS, J. et al. (2017). Refocusing ecosystem services towards sustainability. Ecosystem Services, 25, 35-43.
  47. SIDEMO-HOLM, W., SMITH, H.G., BRADY, M.V. (2018). Improving agricultural pollution abatement through result-based payment schemes. Land Use Policy, 77, 209-219.
  48. TALBERTH, J., SELMAN, M., WALKER, S., GRAY, E. (2015). Pay for performance: Optimizing public investments in agricultural best management practices in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Ecological Economics, 118, 252-261.
  49. TAMMI, I., MUSTAJÄRVI, K., RASINMÄKI, J. (2017). Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development. Ecosystem Services, 26, 329-344.
  50. VILČEK, J., BUJNOVSKÝ, R. 2014. Soil environmental index for Slovak agricultural land. Pedosphere, 24, 1, 137-144.
  51. VILČEK, J., KOCO, Š. 2018. Integrated index of agricultural soil quality in Slovakia. Journal of maps, 14, 2, ‏ 68-76.
  52. VILČEK, J., KOCO, Š., LITAVCOVÁ, E., TORMA, S.  2020. Characteristics of Soil Parameters of Agricultural Land Use Types, Their Location and Development Forecast. Land, 9, 6, 197.
  53. VLACHOPOULOU, M., COUGHLIN, D., FORROW, D. et al. (2014). The potential of using the ecosystem approach in the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Science of the Total Environment,  470-471, 684-694.
  54. WOLFF, S., SCHULP, C.J.E., VERBURG, P.H. (2015). Mapping ecosystem services demand: a review of current research and future perspectives. Ecological Indicators, 55, 159-171.