Using Multi-Criteria Analysis Method for Assessment the Impacts of Integrated Land-use/cover Management on the Provision of Ecosystem Services in Protected Area of Lakes Prespa

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 4, 299 - 307, 30.12.2017

Dorina Grazhdani

Öz

There is a growing need of integrating ecosystem services into
management strategies of protected areas. The objective of this study was to develop a framework for assessment the effects of integrated
land-use/cover management on the provision of ecosystem services in a protected
area. The framework was tested in Prespa Park, a watershed with fragile environments. Within this framework,
first to provide ecosystem services were used a
modified approach compared to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Then was
employed a “benefit transfer” and “expert-based assessment” approach to assess
contribution of the land cover classes in case study region to the provision of
ecosystem services. In a subsequent step, the services were combined to
ecosystem services groups that were designed together with regional
stakeholders, considering their ideas, concerns and experiences in regional
decision making. The latter was analyzed in a weighting experiment, in which
different weighting approaches were tested. For the case study, were identified
16 CORINE land cover classes, 13 ecosystem services and related ecosystem
services indicators? Based upon this, was
analyzed the performance of the case study region to provide ecosystem
services. It was concluded that land-use/cover management was found to
affect ecosystem services directly. Results showed that the different data
gathering methods: “benefit transfer” and “expert-based assessment” have a
considerable impact on the evaluation outcomes, and that the combination of
selected services and land cover data can contribute to regional planning by
communicating the effect of land cover change on ecosystem services groups. Finally,
the results revealed that the proposed framework can be used to determine
qualitative estimation of regional potentials to provide ecosystem services as
a prerequisite to support regional development planning.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Multi-criteria assessment, benefit transfer, expert-based assessment, stakeholder weighting, ecosystem services, landscape planning

Kaynakça

• Balvanera P, Kremen C, MartÃnez-Ramos M, (2005) Applying community structure analysis to ecosystem function: examples from pollination and carbon storage. Ecological Applications, 15, 360-375.
• Bolliger J, Kienast F, (2010) Landscape functions in a changing environment. Landsc. Online, 2, 1-5.
• Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W, (2009) Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services-a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape Online, 15, 1–22.
• Costanza R, (2000) Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystems, 3, 4–10.
• Daily GC, Matson PA, (2008). Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105(28), 9455–9456.
• Dale VH, Polasky S, (2007) Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 64, 286–296.
• de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L, (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260–272.
• Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A, Gillings S, Ro DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ, (2010) Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-based mapping of ecosystem services. Biological Conservation, 143, 2487–2493.
• Farber SC, Costanza R, Wilson MA, (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41, 375–392.
• Fisher B, Turner KR, (2008) Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biological Conservation, 141, 1167–1169. Foley JA, De Fries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK, (2005) Global Consequences of Land Use. Science, 309(5734), 570–574.
• Grazhdani D, (2014a) Integrating ecosystem services into assessment of different management options in a protected area: a deliberate multi-criteria decision analysis approach. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci., 20, 1311-1319.
• Grazhdani D, (2014b) An approach for assessing ecosystem services with application in Albanian part of Prespa Park. Albanian journal. agric. sci., 13(3), 9-14.
• Haines-Young R & Potschin M, (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli D, Frid C (eds.), Ecosystem Ecology: a New Synthesis, 110–139. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. A report of the millennium ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington.
• Meersmans J, De Ridder F, Canters F, De Baets S, Van Molle M, (2008) A multiple regression approach to assess the spatial distribution of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) at the regional scale (Flanders, Belgium). Geoderma, 143, 1–13.
• Pert PL, Butler JRA, Brodie JE, Bruce C, Honzák M, Kroon FJ, Metcalfe D, Mitchell D, Wong G, (2010) A catchment-based approach to mapping hydrological ecosystem services using riparian habitat: a case study from the Wet Tropics, Australia. Ecological Complexity, 7, 378–388.
• Plummer ML, (2009) Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 38–45.
• Posthumus H, Rouquette JR, Morris J, Gowing DJG, Hess TM, (2010) A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England. Ecological Economics, 69, 1510-1523.
• Saaty TL, (2005) The Analytic hierarchy and analytic network process for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision-making. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, 345–407. Springer.
• Sandhu HS, Wratten SD, Cullen R, Case B, (2008) The future of farming: the value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land, an experimental approach. Ecological Economics, 64, 835–848.
• TEEB, (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB.
• Troy A, Wilson MA, (2006) Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics, 60, 435–449.