Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Assessment of the demand for cultural ecosystem services in Local Action Group association of municipalities: a case study from Slovakia Cover

Assessment of the demand for cultural ecosystem services in Local Action Group association of municipalities: a case study from Slovakia

Open Access
|Dec 2024

References

  1. Barbu I, (2013), The factors appearance and development of rural tourism. The Annals of the University of Oradea. Economic Sciences, 22:750–758.
  2. Barral MP, Oscar MN, (2012), Land-use planning based on ecosystem service assessment: A case study in the Southeast Pampas of Argentina. Agriculture, Ecosystems Environment, 154:34–43.
  3. Beichler SA, (2015), Exploring the link between supply and demand of cultural ecosystem services – towards an integrated vulnerability assessment. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services Management, 11:250–263.
  4. Belčáková I, (2021), A cultural and Environmentla Assessment of a Landscape Archetype with Dispersed Settlements in Cadca cadastral District, Slovakia. Sustainability, 13, (1200).
  5. Billgren C, Holmén H, (2008), Approaching reality: Comparing stakeholder analysis and cultural theory in the context of natural resource management. Land Use Policy, 25:550–562.
  6. Bond A, (2004), Public participation in EIA of nuclear power plant decommissioning projects: a case study analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24:617–641.
  7. Boyd J, Banzhaf S, (2007), What are ecosystem services? The need for standarnized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economy, 63:616–626.
  8. Brennan-Horley C, Gibson B, (2009), Where is Creativity in the City? Integrating Qualitative and GIS Methods. Environmental and Planning A, 41:2595–2614.
  9. Brown G, Montag JM, Lyon K, (2012), Public participation GIS: a method for identifying ecosystem services. Society natural resources, 25:633–651.
  10. Bryan BA, Crossman ND, (2008), Systematic regional planning for multiple objective natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 88:1175–1189.
  11. Burkhard B, (2012), Mapping ecosystem services supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21:17–29.
  12. Catney C, Frost D, Vaughn L, (2018), Residents’ perspectives on defining neighbourhood: mental mapping as a tool for participatory neighbourhood research. Qualitative Research, 19: 735–752.
  13. Chan K, Satterfield T, Goldstein J, (2012), Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74:8–18.
  14. Clemente P, (2019), Combining social media photographs and species distribution models to map cultural ecosystem services: The case of a Natural Park in Portugal. Ecological Indicators, 96:59–68.
  15. CLLD Strategy, (2022), Stratégia miestneho rozvoja vedeného komunitou CLLD Verejno - súkromného partnerstva Združenie obcí Bielokarpatsko - trenčianskeho mikroregiónu a Mikroregiónu Bošáčka. Available online: https://www.btmmb.sk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/FINAL_BTMMB_Strategia-CLLD-verzia-2.1-v-zneni-dodatkuc.1-bez-SZ.pdf.
  16. Costanza R, (1997), The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387:253–260.
  17. Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH, Grêt- Regamey A, Lave R, Muhar S, Penker M, Ribe RG, Schauppenlehner T, Sikor T, Soloviy I, Spierenburg M, Taczanowska K, Tam J, von der Dunk A, (May 2012), Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, (23):8812–8819. ISSN 1091-6490. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1114773109.
  18. Denwood T, Huck JJ, Lindley S, (2022), Participatory Mapping: A Systematic Review and Open Science Framework for Future Research. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 112:2469–4452.
  19. Dunlap RE, (2000), New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56: 425–442.
  20. Faith DP, Walker PA, (2002), The role of trade-offs in biodiversity conservation planning: Linking local management, regional planning and global conservation efforts. Journal of Biosciences, 27:393–407.
  21. Freemapsk, (2024), Freemap.sk. Available at: https://qms.nextgis.com/.
  22. Gao J, (2019), Suitability of regional development based on ecosystem service benefits and losses: A case study of the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration, China. Ecological Indicators, 107, (105579).
  23. GC D, (1992), Natureʹs services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  24. Grêt-Regamey A, Walz A, Bebi P, (2008), Valuing Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Landscape Planning in Alpine Regions. Mountain Research and Development, 28, (2):156 – 165. doi: 10.1659/mrd.0951.
  25. Groot RS, (2010), Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7:260–272.
  26. Guckian ML, (2018), Cognitive Mapping as Participatory Engagement in Social Science Research on Sustainability. Handbook of Sustainability and Social Science Research, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
  27. Haase D, Schwarz N, Strohbach M, Kroll F, Seppelt R, (2012), Synergies, Trade-offs, and Losses of Ecosystem Services in Urban Regions: an Integrated Multiscale Framework Applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany. Ecology and Society, 17, (3). ISSN 17083087.
  28. Haines-Young R, Potschin M, (2011), Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES. Available online: https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/1_116.pdf.
  29. IPBES, (2017), Update on the classification of nature’s contributions to people by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Available online: https://seea.un.org/content/update-classification-nature
  30. Kaiser FG, (2005), Contrasting the Theory of Planned Behavior With the Value-Belief-Norm Model in Explaining Conservation Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35:2150–2170.
  31. Kandziora M, (2013), Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecological Indicators, 28:54–78.
  32. Kellstedt PM, (2008), Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States. Risk Analysis, 28:113–126.
  33. Kenderessy P, (2018), Status and outlook of hiking trails in the central part of the Low Tatra Mountains in Slovakia between 1980–1981 and 2013–2014. Journal of Mountain Science, 15: 1615–1632.
  34. Kumar P, (2010), TEEB: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Available online: teebweb.org/publications/teeb-for/research-andacademia/ (2023-11-29.
  35. Kurz T, (2005), Utilizing a Social-Ecological Framework to Promote Water and Energy Conservation: A Field Experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35:1281–1300.
  36. Lehnert M, (2021), Comparison between mental mapping and land surface temperature in two Czech cities: A new perspective on indication of locations prone to heat stress. Building and Environment, 203, (108090).
  37. Lidskog R, Soneryd L, (2000), Transport Infrastructure Investment and Environmental Impact Assessment in Sweden: Public Involvement or Exclusion? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 32:1465–1479.
  38. Maes J, (2012), Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services, 1:31–39.
  39. Mapycz, (2024), Mapy.cz. Available online: https://mapserver.mapy.cz/turist-m/.
  40. MEA, (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  41. Mederly P, (2020), National ecosystem services assessment in slovakia – meeting old liabilities and introducing new methods. One Ecosystem, 5:1–31,. e53677.
  42. Mederly P, Černecký J, (2020), A Catalogue of Ecosystem Services in Slovakia. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland.
  43. Milligan J, (2009), Nature conservation for future sustainable shorelines: Lessons from seeking to involve the public. Land Use Policy, 26:203–213.
  44. Mostafa MM, (2007), Gender differences in Egyptian consumers’ green purchase behaviour: the effects of environmental knowledge, concern and attitude. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31:220–229.
  45. Peterson NA, (2008), Validation of A brief sense of community scale: Confirmation of the principal theory of sense of community. Journal Community Psycholgy, 36:61–73.
  46. Petrovič F, Petrikovičová L, (2021), Landscape transformation of small rural settlements with dispersed type of settlement in Slovakia. European Countryside, 13, 2:455–478.
  47. Pfeiffer C, (2008), Facilitating participatory multilevel decisionmaking by using interactive mental maps. Geospatial Health, 3:103–112.
  48. Plieninger T, (2013), Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33:118–129.
  49. Polizzi C, (2015), Is ecosystem restoration worth the effort? The rehabilitation of a Finnish river affects recreational ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 14:158–169.
  50. Pánek J, (2014), GeoParticipace: Jak používat prostorové nástroje v rozhodování o lokalitách, ve kterých žijeme?. Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc.
  51. Pánek J, (2016), From Mental Maps to GeoParticipation. The Cartographic Journal, 53:300–307.
  52. Ruff LC, Olson MA, (2009), The attitudes of interior design students towards sustainability. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19:67–77.
  53. Schröter M, (2014), Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecological Indicators, 36:539–551.
  54. Schultz PW, Zelezny LC, (1998), Values and Proenvironmental Behaviour: A Five-Country Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29:540–558.
  55. Schägner JP, (2013), Mapping ecosystem services’ values: Current practice and future prospects. Ecosystem Services, 4: 33–46.
  56. Seppelt R, (2012), Form follows function? Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies. Ecological Indicators, 21:145–154.
  57. Sevenant M, Antrop M, (2010), Transdisciplinary landscape planning: Does the public have aspirations? Experiences from a case study in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium. Land Use Policy, 27: 373–386.
  58. Small N, Munday M, Durance I, (2017), The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Global Environmental Change, 44:57–67.
  59. Ståhle A, (2013), Sociotope mapping-exploring public open space and its multiple use values in urban and landscape planning practice. Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 19:59–71.
  60. Tammi I, Mustajärvi K, Rasinmäki J, (2017), Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development. Ecosystem Services, 26:329–344.
  61. Thompson M, (2020), Mental mapping and multinational migrations: A geographical imaginations approach. Geographical Research, 58:388–402.
  62. van Oudenhoven APE, (2012), Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 21:110–122.
  63. Villamagna A, Angermeier P, Bennett E, (2013), Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analysing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity, 15:114–121.
  64. Špulerová J, (2013), Developing a strategy for the protection of traditional agricultural landscapes based an a complex landscape-ecological evaluation (the case of a mountain landscape in Slovakia. Moravian Geographical Report, 21, 4: 15–26.
  65. Špulerová J, (2018), Contribution of traditional farming to ecosystem services provision: Case studies from Slovakia. Land, 7, (2):74.
  66. Švoňavová K, (2024), A detailed assessment of the land cover development in a territory with dispersed settlement area (case study Hrinova - Snohy, Slovakia. Nature Conservation – Bulgaria, 55:41–65.
Language: English
Page range: 173 - 188
Submitted on: Mar 19, 2024
|
Accepted on: Sep 7, 2024
|
Published on: Dec 21, 2024
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2024 Alexandra Hladká, Zita Izakovičová, František Petrovič, published by Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.