Next Article in Journal
Temporal and Spatial Differentiation of Cultivated Land and Its Response to Climatic Factors in Complex Geomorphic Areas—A Case Study of Sichuan Province of China
Previous Article in Journal
The Managing and Restoring of Degraded Land in Post-Mining Areas
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/land11020270
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Regional Differentiations of the Potential of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital—A Case Study in Selected Regions of the Slovak Republic

by
Jarmila Makovníková
1,
Stanislav Kološta
2,*,
Filip Flaška
2 and
Boris Pálka
1
1
National Agricultural and Food Centre—Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute, Bratislava, Regional Station, Mládežnícka 36, 974 04 Banská Bystica, Slovakia
2
Faculty of Ecomonics, Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Tajovského 10, 975 90 Banská Bystrica, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2022, 11(2), 270; https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020270
Submission received: 17 January 2022 / Revised: 4 February 2022 / Accepted: 8 February 2022 / Published: 10 February 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cultural ecosystem services (ES) require a multidisciplinary approach. The aim of the study was to evaluate regional differences in the values of cultural ES in relation to natural capital in four small pilot regions of the Slovak Republic using a matrix system. The article is an approximation of the connection of the biophysical method of evaluation (matrix system) of cultural ES of natural capital with geospatial data at the regional level in the Slovak Republic. Within the natural potential of the ES cultural categories, we evaluated recreation and tourism, landscape character and aesthetics, natural and cultural heritage, knowledge base, and regional significance for the given region. The highest values of indices in all categories were found in the Brezno region. The results of the pilot regions of the Slovak Republic indicated that the terrain fragmentation in combination with a higher altitude and a larger area of forests and protected areas may represent significant factors influencing the potential of the area to provide the various benefits resulting from cultural ES. Even though there is significant monetary potential of cultural ES in the region, its intensive utilization is not readily apparent.

1. Introduction

Cultural ecosystem services (ES) were defined by Costanza et al. [1] as the aesthetic, artistic, educational, spiritual, and scientific values of ecosystems. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [2] extended this definition to the intangible benefits gained by people from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, recreation, and aesthetic experience [3,4]. Recreation as an ES is defined as “the restoration and stimulation of the human body and soul through the study and interaction with living organisms in their natural environment” [5] or as the “pleasure that humans derive from natural and cultural ecosystems” [6]. An overview of the benefits of cultural ES is provided in Table 1.
Each natural or semi-natural ecosystem can provide several cultural ES. From a social and cultural point of view, for example, grasslands (meadows and pastures) help maintain the viability of rural communities as an important source of employment, improving rural tourism and recreation [7]. They offer suitable conditions for ecotourism and education (nature trails, hiking with expert interpretation of the guide). In the natural as well as in the man-made landscape, rivers and water resources have an important aesthetic value and can be intensively used for recreational purposes [4]. Mountain ecosystems are of year-round importance for the development of recreation and tourism. The degree of attractiveness of these sites increases with the development of ecotourism, which aims to explore and protect nature [8]. In addition to its primary production function, the agricultural landscape has become a tourist destination in recent years. It offers opportunities to learn about the historical, cultural, and natural potential of the landscape. An example of the intersection of agriculture and tourism is agro-tourism [10]. Educational services are already being used by a wide group; in addition to research and pedagogical staff, they are also used by nature conservationists as well as amateurs with an interest in knowing the secrets of the landscape and its components and elements [15].
In terms of the use of cultural ES, all types of ecosystems and all types of landscapes have a certain value. The most attractive and most sought-after areas within the natural potential of the landscape are natural types of ecosystems (sites of protected areas, NATURA 2000, important habitats, etc.). Cultural and historical landscape elements are also important, such as UNESCO World Natural and Cultural Heritage sites, protected settlements in territorial or landscape units with concentrations of monuments or archaeological finds, traditional forms of landscape management, etc. Ecosystems and landscapes in protected areas demand new multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and inclusive approaches. Interest in culture ES helps promote these areas’ sustainability as “protected area institutions” supporting natural and cultural values [19]. However, the real use of many cultural ES is often limited by the need to protect nature, biodiversity, and landscape stability and the need to protect natural resources (protection of water management areas, protection of the highest-quality soils, protection of forest ecosystems with special functions, etc.). These factors affect the use of natural capital within cultural ES [20]. At the EU level, there is a lack of policy support mechanisms regarding cultural ES. Some reasons for this include a lack of shared and distributed competencies between the EU and member states relating to policy sectors dealing with land management [21] and power asymmetries between economic-oriented policy stakeholders relating to cultural ES [22]. Harmonizing the promotion of cultural ES with the enormous diversity in a national and regional context would be challenging [21].
Cultural ecosystem services require a multidisciplinary approach. Nevertheless, it is in industrialized societies that the growing demand for cultural ES is expected [23]. Most cultural ES are relatively difficult to measure, monitor, model, and evaluate due to their weightlessness and high degree of subjectivity [24]. Sociocultural methods are most often used for their evaluation, where participatory methods are used, such as workshops with the participation of stakeholders, questionnaires, personnel interviews, etc., in order to discover people’s opinions, requirements, and attitudes in relation to the use of ecosystems [25]. Contingent assessments, which consist of directly assessing people’s willingness to pay or accept compensation for ES change in a hypothetical market, are increasingly used in the economic evaluation of cultural ES [26], e.g., a willingness to pay for entrance to protected areas, a willingness to pay for the revitalization of ecosystems and degraded land, etc. Travel cost methods are also used (real consumer costs associated with accommodation, meals, transport, and entrance fees). The simple methods of evaluation include the so-called matrix method [27] using mapping systems based on the use of GIS (e.g., ESTIMAP method [28,29]).
The matrix approach is proving to be one of the appropriate approaches in landscape planning and nature protection at the regional and national level [30]. It is an open system, based on an expert system for estimating ES potentials and for linking the matrix with geospatial data, which makes it possible to prepare interesting data for the process of planning and sustainable management at the regional and national level. The matrix system for the evaluation and appreciation of the potential of cultural ES represents a suitable basis for their integration into planning the use of natural capital in a sustainable way. The ES matrix approach is a tool for supporting decisions in sustainable resource management and it is highly adaptable to various socio-ecological system settings [31].
The EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 for EU countries and regions strongly supports the improvement of knowledge and the monitoring of ecosystems and their services within the EU nature restoration targets that should lead to a better balance between nature and economic activities [32]. There is a research gap in the literature on the sustainable functioning of society in terms of interactions between cultural ES, their potential, and use in regions in the context of maintaining a balance between the use of ecosystem services and maintaining ecosystem health in the context of small regions, and not only in Slovakia.
The aim of the study was to map and evaluate the potential of cultural ES in four pilot regions (NUTS 4, district level) using a modified ES matrix ([15,27,30]; expert estimation of NPPC and NLC), and to evaluate regional differentiations of cultural ES potential and its use with regard to diverse natural-geographical and demographic conditions of regions. This article is organized as follows: methodology and study locations are described in Section 2; interpretations of results and discussion in Section 3; and concluding remarks in Section 4.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Theoretical and Methodological Baselines

As the concept of ES has become widely popular, the demand for sound and applicable ES assessment methodologies has also increased. A wide variety of methods for ES evaluation and mapping are currently reported [31,32,33]. Biophysical methods that use spatial data include the “matrix method” [15,27]. Its advantage is an open matrix system regarding the detail and level of evaluation of ES. The ES matrix interconnects the types of ecosystems with geospatial units with the ES in easy-to-use tables [31,34]. According to Burkhard et al. [27,35], it is a highly flexible method of assessment linked to ES mapping based on different data sources and methods and can be used in all types of study area settings at the local, regional, and national level. In this study, we proceeded as follows: (1) selected model areas regarding the diverse natural-geographical conditions; (2) used the available geospatial datasets in model regions for specifying the area distribution of ecosystems at the regional level; (3) applied a matrix method for cultural ES non-monetary assessment; (4) the results of the non-monetary valuation formed the basis for the monetary valuation of cultural ES.

2.2. Study Area

The model areas were chosen with regard to the diverse natural-geographical conditions. The four regions selected represent four basic natural-geographical areas within Slovakia—the west, east, south, and north-central parts of the country (Figure 1). This made it possible to perform pilot regional evaluations of cultural ES in diverse climatic conditions, altitude, and pedological conditions, taking into account the diversity of natural capital and socio-economic potential of the regions.
Michalovce region—part of the East Slovak Lowland, is homogeneous in height, formed by the flow of numerous rivers, bordered on the north by the Vihorlat Hills with an area of 1019 km2. In total, 96% of the area has an altitude up to 300 m above sea level and 92% of the area is on the plain, with a predominantly warm (99.4% of the area) to moderately warm climate.
Piešťany region—is located in the northern edge of the Danubian Lowland in the part of the Trnava Uplands with an area of 381 km2. It is bordered by the Little Carpathians in the west and stretches to the northeast and Považský Inovec in the east. In total, 83.5% of the territory is located up to an altitude of 300 m above sea level and 95.7% of the area has a very warm climate.
Krupina region—located in the south of central Slovakia, its area is 548 km2. The region is bounded on the northwest by the Štiavnica Mountains, on the northeast by the Krupina plain, and on the south by the Ipeľ Uplands. It is rugged, with 60% of the terrain being between 300 and 600 m above sea level. In total, 26% of the area is on the plains and half is on the areas with a graduating slope. The climate is very warm (58.9%) and moderately warm (36.6%) in most areas.
Brezno region—with an area of 1265 km2, it is the district with the largest area in Slovakia. The territory is formed on the northern side along the entire length by the southern slopes of the Low Tatras ridge, on the southern side by the Poľana massif and the Veporské Hills and in the central part by the Horehronské Valley. The Spiš-Gemer karst partially extends from the east. The majority of the district is located at an altitude of over 600 m above sea level (88.6% of the area) with the lowest point at 406 m above sea level, which is related to the predominance of a cold climate in most areas (86.9% of the area).
In the model regions, there is a relatively wide network of roads, mainly second- and third-class roads, and thus with good accessibility to individual ecosystems (Table 2). The lowest road density measured in km/km2 is in the Brezno region, where part of the territory is made up of high mountains, but their accessibility is sufficiently ensured due to the attractiveness of the alpine environment. The spa region Piešťany has the highest density of roads. The term “1st class roads” in fact denotes two-lane roadways that contain minimum shoulders and bisect local communities creating pedestrian and environmental issues for municipalities. Piešťany is the only region where the 1st class road is a limited-access divided four-lane highway (the D1-E75).

Geospatial Datasets Used for Specifying the Area Distribution of Ecosystems at the Regional Level

The cartographic basis for the evaluation of cultural ES was the layer of the ecosystem category Corine Land Cover (CLC), the layer of land cover LPIS (Land Parcel Identification System), and the geodatabase NFC (National Forest Center). The basic spatial unit for the representation of geospatial data was a raster with a size of 100 m. CORINE Land Cover is part of the Pan-European component of the COPERNICUS activity. One of the tasks is to map the state and changes in the landscape of European countries using remote sensing materials—from satellite images. The activities are coordinated by the European Environment Agency (EEA). The Slovak Environment Agency (SEA) coordinates the mapping of landscape cover at the national level. The data are available via the SEA server for free use and are available in the form of services such as WMS and WFS in various formats—e.g., SHP, GML, KML, and others. We used the provided data in SHP format. The LPIS database—the register of agricultural land—is an important source of data on the use of agricultural land. Based on the attribute culture (type of land), which LPIS contains, we created a reclassified raster layer with two categories (arable land and grassland). The LPIS geodatabase also contains a register of protected areas. Within the forest ecosystem category, we did not use the CLC forest category breakdown. For local evaluation, we have chosen a more precise categorization of forests according to the characteristics of basic mission and the fulfillment of forest functions, which significantly limits and also affects the principles and objectives of forest management and thus the potential of the forest ecosystem to provide cultural ES. We have divided forests into three categories: commercial forest, protective forest (protection of natural habitats), and special purpose forest (public benefit functions). The basis for the categorization of forests in the model regions was the NFC (National Forest Center) database. The resulting spatial unit for the representation of geospatial data was a raster with a size of 100 m, which allowed us to more accurately map and evaluate the potential of natural capital at the regional level. The resulting layer was processed for model regions using the methods and tools offered by geographic information systems (GIS; ArcGIS for Desktop Advanced version 10.3 from ESRI).
The area representation of individual ecosystems in the model regions is given in Table 3. The largest area of forests, protected areas, and permanent grasslands is in the Brezno region in central Slovakia. Michalovce in eastern Slovakia contains the largest area of arable land and water bodies, including wetlands of national importance. The Krupina region in southern Slovakia has the largest area of vineyards and fast-growing trees. The Piešťany region of western Slovakia has by far the largest area of fruit orchards. The distribution of ecosystems mainly reflects the influence of climatic factors, the current use of agricultural land in model regions (arable land, grassland) as well as their historical development (formation of national parks).

2.3. Cultural Ecosystem Services Assessment

2.3.1. Cultural Ecosystem Services Non-Monetary Assessment

A general characteristic of cultural ES is their weightlessness and subjectivity. Within the study, we evaluated recreation and tourism, landscape and aesthetics, natural and cultural heritage, knowledge base, and regional significance for the given region within the natural potential of cultural ES categories based on the International Classification of Cultural ES [36]. Evaluation of the potential of cultural ES in model regions located in different climatic regions of Slovakia was carried out using a modified matrix of the potential of cultural ecosystem services (Table 3) based on a matrix of Burkhard et al. [27], Černecký et al. [15], and Müller et al. [30], which is mainly used in the subsequent ES economic valuation. The ES matrix approach [27] is based on a matrix table where the capacity of each geospatial unit (ecosystem types) to supply ES is quantified. In this study, we assessed the ES potential, but we did not evaluate the actual use or flow of ES. ES potentials are scored on a scale from zero (no relevant potential) to five (very high relevant potential). A matrix with a score range of 0 to 100 was proposed by Müller et al. [30], also mentioned in Černecký et al. [15], in the absence of ecosystem values, was supplemented by values from matrix valuations from 2014 [27], which have been transferred into a 0–100 scoring system by simple multiplications. The proposed values of cultural ES (Table 4) ranged from 30 (lowest potential) to 80 (largest potential).
The resulting matrix for the evaluation of cultural ES is shown in Table 4 (modified matrix according to [15,27,30] and expert estimation of NPPC and NLC). This matrix can be generally used in the evaluation of cultural ES for different regions or countries. Within the category of ecosystems, we did not use the division of forest categories according to CLC; we chose the categorization of forests according to the characteristics of their basic mission and fulfillment of forest functions, which significantly limits and also affects management principles and objectives. We have divided forests into economic forest, protective forest (protection of natural habitats) and special purpose forest (public benefit functions; National Forestry Center, Decree No. 453/2006 Coll. Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Slovak Republic on economic regulation of forests and protection). The values of the potential of the new forest categories were added to the matrix using the methodology described by Burkhard and Maes [29]. We followed the following recommended steps: (1) identification of the relevant ES and ecosystems to be assessed, (2) selection of a panel (based on an estimate of a team of experts from NPPC and NLC), (3) collection of expert scorings and (4) compilation of the final matrix values. Forests and protected landscape areas are clearly the most important in the ES cultural assessment of all examined categories; the average value of the index score was determined for the knowledge base for vineyards, orchards and fast-growing woody plants as well as for the cultural heritage of wetlands of national importance. Other ecosystems have a lower score in terms of the ES cultural categories examined.
The individual variables entering the evaluation of cultural ES were available to us in 2016. The sources of data for ecosystems entering the assessment were the Statistical Yearbook of the Slovak Republic 2016, and the socio-economic characteristics of the regions were drawn from the database of the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic RegDat.
The total rating value was calculated on the basis of the potential matrix of individual cultural ES for the model region as follows:
IR = (∑ IRe . Pe),
where IR is the average index score of the potential of the evaluated service, IRe is the index score of the potential of the evaluated service of a particular ecosystem, Pe is the area of a particular ecosystem in a given region and P is the total area of ecosystems in a given region.
The weighted average potential (IR) of individual cultural ES for the model regions was calculated as follows:
IR = (∑ IRe . Pe)/P,
where IR is the average index score of the potential of the evaluated service, IRe is the index score of the potential of the evaluated service of a particular ecosystem, Pe is the area of a particular ecosystem in a given region, and P is the total area of ecosystems in a given region.

2.3.2. Cultural Ecosystem Services Monetary Assessment

We used the value transfer method [33] to determine the monetary value of the potential of individual cultural ES. The evaluation of the recreation potential was based on the work of Frélichová et al. [37] and Černecký et al. [15]. The value of score 1 was assigned an amount of EUR 36.294 per hectare. The original value of EUR 36.586 per hectare stated in the study by Frélichová et al. [37] for 2014 was adjusted for negative inflation in the Slovak Republic, −0.3% and −0.5% in 2015 and 2016 (the index scores in the study by Frélichová et al. [37] ranging from 1 to 5 were recalculated to the range of values from 1 to 100). Based on this, the values of cultural ES for individual ecosystems were subsequently calculated according to the matrix of indices.
The assessment of the potential of a specific cultural service (CR) for the model region was as follows:
CRx = ∑ CRxe . Pxe,
where CRx is the value of the potential of a specific cultural service in EUR in the model region, CRxe is the value of the potential of the evaluated service of a specific ecosystem in EUR, and Pxe is the area representation of a specific ecosystem in a given region.
The average value per hectare of individual cultural ES was calculated as the ratio of the value of the total service and the area in hectares occupied by ecosystems in a given region.

2.4. Statistical Model Regions Comparison

Statistical processing of databases and measured data, as well as evaluation of results, was performed in the program Statgraphics Centurion XVI. Multivariate methods (cluster analysis) and multivariate visualization (sunray plots) were used to compare regions.

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 2 shows the average value of the index score per hectare for individual categories of cultural ES in the model regions. The highest values of indices in all categories are in the Brezno region, which has the largest areas of forest stands and protected areas, which in themselves have the highest values of indices in relation to the examined ES cultural categories, such as recreation and tourism, aesthetic values, regional importance, natural heritage, knowledge base and cultural heritage; it is also a region with the highest altitude and rugged, mostly mountainous terrain. The second highest potential of cultural categories of ES is achieved by the Krupina region, which also has the second highest average altitude. Following are the regions of Piešťany and Michalovce with index scores similar to those of the Krupina region. However, it surpasses both regions in the examined categories of cultural ES, most clearly in the “knowledge base” and “natural heritage.” The measured values for the examined categories of cultural ES indicate the importance of the altitude and area of forest stands in relation to the potential of the area to provide a wide range of cultural ES.
The spatial distribution of the index scores of cultural ES and road infrastructure in the model regions is shown in Figure 3a–d, from which it is evident that the Brezno region has the largest values of the index score of cultural ES in terms of their overall potential; these areas are in relative proximity to the inhabited localities stretching from the centre of the region from west to east, which indicates their high potential for all activities using the benefits of cultural ES. In the other regions examined, their peripheral parts have the highest potential of cultural ES, which means less availability of activities using cultural ES as well as greater demands on time and travel for them. Functional asymmetry in the regional context of the ES can be the subject of separate research [38].
The use of the potential of natural capital for recreation and tourism as well as for other cultural ES is influenced by the natural, economic and demographic conditions of the model regions.Similar to Crouzat et al. [39], our study confirms the significant impact of forests and protected areas based on the value of cultural ES. The highest average score of the index per hectare in the evaluation of individual services is in the Brezno region, where there is also the highest area of ecosystems suitable for recreation and tourism, with high aesthetic value (Low Tatras National Park), knowledge base and natural heritage (Figure 3a). Wetland habitats are also attractive sites for recreation and tourism, but their contribution to the overall potential of cultural ES is low due to their very low area in the studied regions (in Slovakia, these ecosystems occupy only 0.43% of the area; [15]; the highest representation of this ecosystem among the evaluated regions is in the Michalovce region).
Cultural ES, especially recreation and tourism, are an important part of the economy and, in addition to their economic importance, they also contribute to improving the quality of life [40]. As the optimal value of the recreation score for Slovakia, Černecký et al. [15] stated value 3.13 (in the range of values from 0 to 5), which represents a value of 62.60 when converted to the proposed rating in the range of values from 0 to 100. This value is higher only in the Brezno region, similar to the optimal value for landscape character, aesthetics and spiritual inspiration, where Černecký et al. [15] state as the optimal value of the score of these categories of cultural ES for the Slovak Republic a value of 3.27, which when recalculated represents a value of 65.4. Müller et al. [30] state in Northern Germany lower average values of cultural ES than Černecký [15], namely the average value for the whole group of cultural ES is 43. In the model regions, we obtained higher average values of cultural ES—with 68.61 for the Brezno region, 48.82 for the Michalovce region, 21.40 for the Piešťany region, and 55.98 for the Krupina region.
An important role for the provision of the ES, such as aesthetic values, cultural heritage, natural heritage as well as the knowledge base, is played by protected areas, which are declared for the preservation of specific natural and semi-natural ecosystems in the landscape. Mederly et al. [41,42] confirm this statement with a positive correlation, i.e., the higher the degree of protection of the territory, the higher the landscape’s capacity to provide cultural ES. Although these cultural ES are not directly tradable, people use them for free and they are indirectly beneficial for recreational and tourism facilities.
According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report [43], exploiting the potential of ecosystem cultural services may increase due to increased populations, greater leisure opportunities as well as infrastructure development. Both the Brezno and Krupina regions have a predominantly rural character, which is a prerequisite for the development of rural tourism [44], which, together with agro-tourism, is becoming a relatively new form of tourism in Slovakia; for example, Parente and Bovolenta [45] state that in England, 23% of farmers do business not only in food production but also in agro-tourism. In the Brezno region with a higher proportion of protected ecosystems, it is possible to increase the attractiveness of tourism in the form of ecotourism based on sustainable use of natural potential [46], which is primarily focused on experiences and study of nature, which is ethically driven towards a low impact on nature, zero consumption, and which is locally oriented [4].
The geographical assessment of the potential of cultural ES in the examined regions formed the basis for their monetary appreciation. The value of 1 was assigned an amount of EUR 36.294, based on prices of the potential of individual cultural services for ecosystems; monetary values of individual cultural ES were subsequently calculated according to the matrix of indices (Table 4). The average value of the potential of cultural ES in euros per hectare in the model regions as well as the total monetary value of individual cultural services of natural capital are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. The highest value of individual categories of cultural ES per hectare is achieved by the Brezno region (on average over 2490 euros per hectare), which also has a significantly higher total value of the potential of individual cultural ES (on average more than 263,052,868 euros) compared to the other regions examined. The total value of the potential of cultural ES of the natural capital in the model regions decreases in the following order: the Brezno region (1,578,317,208 EUR) > Michalovce region (804,943,092 EUR) > Krupina region (577,752,194 EUR) > Piešťany region (340,640,262 EUR).
The total economic potential for the provision of ES for recreation and tourism in the Slovak Republic is estimated at EUR 11,346,479,255 11 per year, but due to the degradation of Slovak ecosystems it loses a potential EUR 1.3 billion annually [15]. According to Černecký et al. [15], forest and aquatic ecosystems have the highest value, which was reflected in the total value of cultural services of natural capital in the monitored regions; the highest area was in the Brezno region (especially forest ecosystem and protected areas) and in the Michalovce region (especially aquatic ecosystem).
Comparison of model regions using average values in EUR per hectare using cluster analysis (Figure 6) showed the most significant regional differences between pairs of regions, namely Brezno and Krupina (rural regions at an altitude of mainly above 300 m above sea level) and Michalovce and Piešťany (regions in the area with a warm climate at an altitude of up to 300 m above sea level). The resulting values of the interconnection of the area distribution of the total capacity scores of cultural ES with the cartographic layer of altitude are given in Table 5. The total values of cultural ES (scoring per hectare) at an altitude of up to 300 m above sea level in the monitored regions range from 313 (Michalovce region) to 340 (Krupina region), at an altitude above 300 m above sea level from 370 (Krupina region) to 445 (Piešťany region). The impact of altitude on the value of cultural ES is obvious regardless of the geographical location of the monitored region.
Similar results are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8 showing the visual similarity of the Brezno-Krupina and Michalovce-Piešťany regions using scoring per hectare of individual cultural ES and economic indicators such as the number of visitors, number of overnight stays and number of accommodation facilities (Figure 7, first SunRay plot) and only using scoring per hectare of individual cultural ES (Figure 8, second SunRay plot).
Recreation and tourism are the most tradable items from the group of cultural ES. Figure 9 shows the monetary contribution of individual ecosystems to the value of recreation and tourism within the cultural ES in the model regions. In the Brezno region, where there is a higher representation of ecosystems with a higher potential for recreation and tourism, the conditions for recreation and tourism are more advantageous compared to other regions. An important factor of success in the sustainable use of the potential of cultural ES is to build the trust of local entrepreneurs, landowners, and local governments in relation to the qualitative change of growth parameters of the economy as recreational services are the most promising area of the Slovak services [47], while it is appropriate to support regional potential by qualified landscaping [4], or compensatory measures to mitigate the negative effects on the natural values of ecosystems.
After a monetary expression of the value of the potential of individual cultural ES in the examined regions, we found out whether the most economically valued potential for recreational services and tourism is actually used in the regions where the best conditions are available. We compared the potential of natural capital for recreation and tourism with the number of accommodation facilities (Figure 10), the number of visitors, and the number of overnight stays (Figure 11) in 2016.
The Brezno region has a greater potential for cultural ES for recreation and tourism (in monetary units) than the statistically reported number of visitors and overnight stays. Compared to the Brezno region, facilities focused on recreation and tourism in the Michalovce region have a lower number of visitors and overnight stays; the Michalovce region has a significantly lower recreation potential, which, together with low socio-economic performance, places it among the lagging regions of the Slovak Republic [48]. The Krupina region uses the recreational potential in proportion to the number of visitors and overnight stays. The Piešťany region had significantly higher capacities for the development of recreation and tourism to its recreation potential; this disproportion arose due to the long-term development of spa tourism, which was not included among the ecosystems. From the data in Table 6, we can read that the number of accommodation facilities in 2016 decreased compared to the average for the previous decade in all regions with the exception of the Krupina region. The Brezno region with the greatest potential of individual cultural ES recorded an increase in visitors and the number of overnight stays compared to average values, but far below the values of the Piešťany region, where the spa tourism tradition played a more important role than the researched potential of cultural ES.
In all regions, there has been a decrease in population over the last decade (Piešťany −0.8%, Krupina −3.9%, Brezno −5.2%, Michalovce −0.2%); the highest decline was in the Brezno region, where the local population could be employed in the recreational sector; this creates space for the use of untapped natural potential in mountain areas suitable for recreation in order to prevent rural depopulation [49]. Negatives resulting from demographic development do not fundamentally concern the Piešťany region with an international spa clientele, which creates preconditions for the development of this segment of tourism and recreation. Another factor in the insufficient use of the recreational potential of the Brezno region may be the insufficient infrastructure and availability of sites suitable for recreation (similar results in mountain areas were shown in a study by Schirpke et al. [50]), which should be improved by the completion of the R1 expressway and the Brezno bypass. The best preconditions for infrastructure are in the Piešťany region, due to its location in relative proximity to the most developed regions of the Slovak Republic [51]. In any case, sustainable forms of recreational services in relation to the preservation and enhancement of ecosystems in the regions represent a challenge for land management [52].

4. Conclusions

Our study provides an alternative view of the method of evaluation and assessment of the recreational potential of cultural ecosystem services in small pilot regions of the Slovak Republic. We can assume that in the near future the interest in evaluating the recreational potential of the ES in the regions of the Slovak Republic will increase due to the ambitions of the EU in the field of circular economy, recreation, tourism, and leisure activities. Our study helps to fulfill the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 (and the updated National Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 as a key document in the field of biodiversity protection in the Slovak Republic) where assessment and mapping of the value of different ES become the most important targets. It is difficult to clearly determine the optimal value of the natural potential of cultural ES as it is a specific area for each country or region, its conditions, infrastructure, customs, etc. Therefore, evaluation and assessment of cultural ES is valuable for national accounting improvement. Case studies in model regions are the first step to the subsequent ES evaluation at the national level. The European Union is supporting these actions through the European Environmental Agency. Recent EU policies are also supporting sustainable management strategies aimed at the conservation and maintenance of European landscapes [53]; however, within EU policies, cultural heritage and recreation receive little attention [54].
We used a modified matrix approach as one of the suitable methods usable in landscape planning and nature protection at the regional and national levels [30]. It is an open expert system, based on the estimation of the potentials of ES. The connection of the matrix with geospatial data makes it possible to prepare materials usable in the process of planning and sustainable management at different spatial levels in connection with maintaining a balance between the use of ES and maintaining their health. The matrix system for the evaluation and assessment of the potential of cultural ES is the basis for their integration into the planning of sustainable use of natural capital. This type of matrix is constantly evolving due to professional discussion, new knowledge, or criticism in order to better integrate the matrix approach within the applied ES evaluation [30]. Matrix assessment of cultural ES can be used alone or incorporated into other analyses, such as cost-benefit analysis, economic impact analysis, and other causal modeling techniques that provide a higher level of context needed for integrated decision-making [55]. The use of higher spatial resolution data helped us to reduce data uncertainties, so in this respect the refinement of the LPIS data sets were more reliable than the CLC data set. The categorization of the forests according to the characteristics of its basic mission and the fulfillment of its functions (which also limits the potential of their cultural ES), enabled us to specify the assessment of natural capital at the regional level. The results of this study show that expert-based methods combined with geospatial local data on ecosystem distribution can be a feasible and effective method for a local assessment of the capacity of a landscape potential to provide a cultural ES, and could be tested in other countries. The results can provide feedback to guide the zonal design and management of large-scale ecological restoration.
The results in the small pilot regions of the Slovak Republic indicated that the terrain fragmentation in combination with a higher altitude and a larger area of forests and protected areas may represent significant factors influencing the potential of the area to provide various benefits resulting from cultural ES. The relationship that the greater the monetary potential of cultural ES represented in the region, the more intensively it is used (e.g., in the form of a larger number of visitors or overnight stays) has not been shown. Possible causes may be the negative demographic trend in the studied regions as well as insufficiently built transport infrastructure, which, on the one hand, causes isolation of valuable areas and, on the other hand, saves the country’s natural potential to provide cultural ES in the future. This fact in the researched regions of Slovakia raises the question of sustainable management of the country, i.e., how to make more sustainable use of natural potential in relation to the health of ecosystems. This applies in particular to entrepreneurship in the field of recreation and tourism in forests and protected areas, which in combination with forestry is a topical issue due to the ongoing intensive political discussion in the Slovak Republic related to the zoning of national parks, which in our case concerns the Brezno region.
Using the untapped potential of the area to provide cultural ES also highly depends on local management of stakeholders. An understanding of the potential of cultural ES of individual ecosystems can be used to create space that warrants public attention and minimizes conflicts about the future of landscape protection [56]; it could also be an influential motivator for local land management alternative solutions, which are often more important than traditional production drivers [57]. Sustainable management and protection of ecosystems is a basic precondition for maintaining the capacity of cultural ES. Our results can be used as a basis for the subsequent management of natural capital for key stakeholders in the regions based on how they can guide the development of the region in a sustainable manner. Such designed case studies could provide useful information about the value of natural capital in European countries and its importance for human well-being. Not only European countries solve problems with deforestation, increased use of chemicals, habitat fragmentation, climate changes, etc., which negatively impact on landscape capacity to provide ES. This leads to the degradation of landscape values and its highly uncertain future [58]. Therefore, it is appropriate to evaluate different types of ES in different world areas to pay more attention to practical sustainable land management (e.g., agronomy, organic fertilization, minimum soil disturbance, water management, agro-forestry; [59]), where possible win-win scenarios between production, regulatory and cultural ES can be expected [60]. Diverse views among landowners in Europe also suggest the need for different strategies and perspectives to support cultural ES [21].
The potential of cultural ES is positively influenced by financial investments in the construction of a suitable infrastructure, as well as compensatory measures to mitigate the negative effects of human activities on the natural value of ecosystems; these aspects, together with actions targeting reduction in outmigration of young people, should be mainstreamed within a place based on regional strategies in areas with high as well as low natural potential of cultural ES. The potential of cultural ES is negatively affected by intensive consumption of natural resources, waste production, an increase in tourist traffic, and an increase in the intensity of the use of available tourist infrastructure [61].
The limitations of this type of research are in expert estimation in determining the matrix values [30] of the potential of individual cultural ES, which also influence their monetary expressions. The matrix approach applications include a range of uncertainties, e.g., due to ecosystem and landscape dynamics (e.g., climate), modeling methodologies (e.g., input data), valuation methodologies (e.g., subjectivity of valuation or political circumstances), limited regional knowledge, technical problems, scaling mismatches, and others [62]. Focusing on a specific regional environment makes it difficult to generalize the results. Despite these limitations, applications of the matrix approach are beneficial as a tool for sustainable land management, which can be further developed, especially to facilitate the practical use of the ES concept [30]. Our findings provide such results for the evaluation of cultural ES, respecting the specific regional environment and data availability.
Future research could focus on estimating the extent of structural change in regional economies in terms of the long-term sustainable functioning of cultural ES, including the impact on employment, disposable income, energy sector, or food security, including forecasts and alternative scenarios. Such designed research supports interdisciplinary views on the long-term sustainable flow of benefits from cultural ES. Deeper insights into stakeholders’ preferences could also be beneficial to find a balance between different types of individual cultural ES. The quality, regular collection, and availability of data will be very important for future research in the assessment of culture ES in relation to nature capital.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.M. and S.K.; methodology, J.M. and B.P.; validation, J.M.; investigation, J.M. and B.P.; resources, J.M., S.K., and F.F.; data curation, J.M. and B.P.; writing—original draft preparation, J.M., S.K., F.F., and B.P.; writing—review and editing; J.M. and S.K.; visualization, B.P. and J.M.; supervision, J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Operational program Integrated Infrastructure within the project: “Sustainable smart farming systems taking into account the future challenges,” 313011W112, co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund and the Slovak Research and Development via contract no. APVV-18-0035, “Valuing ecosystem services of natural capital as a tool for assessing the socio-economic potential of the area”.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

LPIS raw data were generated from our NPPC geodataset (accessed data 20 October 2021), viewed on this link: https://portal.vupop.sk/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=818d652513e5488d98577bb59ea339b7 (accessed date 27 October 2021). Layer CLC 2012 was accessed at https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc-2012?tab=download (accessed date 25 October 2021). Raw data about forest management (year 2016) were purchased from the National Forest Center. Data about recreation were generated from the Statistical office of Slovak republic, RegDat, confirmation of the annual inflation rate in the Slovak Republic: https://slovak.statistics.sk/wps/portal/ext/services/infoservis/confirmation/!ut/p/z0/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8ziw3wCLJycDB0NDMwszA0c_V0dLcwDPQy83U31C7IdFQHp6c-x/ (accessed date 11 October 2021). We confirm that the data, models, and methodology used in the research are proprietary, and the derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the first author on request.

Acknowledgments

This publication was supported by the operational program Integrated Infrastructure within the project: “Sustainable smart farming systems taking into account the future challenges,” 313011W112, co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund and the Slovak Research and Development via contract no. APVV-18-0035, “Valuing ecosystem services of natural capital as a tool for assessing the socio-economic potential of the area.” We are grateful to David Cole for the English language editing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 25, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Our Human Planet; Summary for Decision Makers, The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lankia, T.; Kopperoinen, L.; Pouta, E.; Neuvonen, M. Valuing Recreational Ecosystem Service Flow in Finland. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2015, 10, 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kanianska, R.; Jadudová, J.; Makovníková, J.; Kizeková, M.; Tomaškin, J. Ecosystem Services; Belianum: Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, 2016; ISBN 978-80-557-1129-4. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  5. Beaumont, N.J.; Mongruel, R.; Hooper, T. Practical Application of the Ecosystem Service Approach (ESA): Lessons Learned and Recommendations for the Future. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2017, 13, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Nahuelhual, L.; Carmona, A.; Lozada, P.; Jaramillo, A.; Aguayo, M. Mapping Recreation and Ecotourism as a Cultural Ecosystem Service: An Application at the Local Level in Southern Chile. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 40, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kemp, D.R.; Michalk, D.L. Towards Sustainable Grassland and Livestock Management. J. Agric. Sci. 2007, 145, 543–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Vandewalle, M.; Sykes, M.T.; Harrison, P.A.; Luck, G.W.; Berry, P.; Bugter, R.; Dawson, T.P.; Feld, C.K.; Harrington, R.; Haslett, J.R.; et al. Review Paper on Concepts of Dynamic Ecosystems and Their Services. The Rubicode Project Rationalising Biodiversity Conservation in Dynamic Ecosystems. 2009. Available online: http://www.rubicode.net/rubicode/RUBICODE_Review_on_Drivers.pdf (accessed on 9 September 2020).
  9. Daniel, T.C.; Muhar, A.; Arnberger, A.; Aznar, O.; Boyd, J.W.; Chan, K.M.; Costanza, R.; Elmqvist, T.; Flint, C.G.; Gobster, P.H.; et al. Contributions of Cultural Services to the Ecosystem Services Agenda. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 8812–8819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Palkechová, L.; Kozáková, J. Economics of agrotourism establishments in selected agribusiness units of the Slovak Republic. Econ. Agric. 2015, 15, 69–85. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  11. Pueyo-Ros, J. The Role of Tourism in the Ecosystem Services Framework. Land 2018, 7, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Cooper, N.; Brady, E.; Steen, H.; Bryce, R. Aesthetic and Spiritual Values of Ecosystems: Recognizing the Ontological and Axiological Plurality of Cultural Ecosystem ‘Services’. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 21, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Figueroa-Alfaro, R.W.; Tang, Z. Evaluating the Aesthetic Value of Cultural Ecosystem Services by Mapping Geo-Tagged Photographs from Social Media Data on Panoramio and Flickr. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2016, 60, 266–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fish, R.; Church, A.; Winter, M. Conceptualising Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Novel Framework for Research and Critical Engagement. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 21, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Černecký, J.; Gajdoš, P.; Ďuricová, V.; Špulerová, J.; Černecká, L.; Švajda, J.; Andráš, P.; Ulrych, L.; Rybanič, R.; Považan, R. The Value of Ecosystems and Their Services in Slovakia; ŠOP SR: Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, 2020; p. 166. ISBN 978-80-8184-078-4. (In Slovak)
  16. Hølleland, H.; Skrede, J.; Holmgaard, S.B. Cultural Heritage and Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2017, 19, 210–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sánchez, L.M.; Tejedor Cabrera, A.; Linares Gómez del Pulgar, M. The Potential Role of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Heritage Research through a Set of Indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tengberg, A.; Fredholm, S.; Eliasson, I.; Knez, I.; Saltzman, K.; Wetterberg, O. Cultural Ecosystem Services Provided by Landscapes: Assessment of Heritage Values and Identity. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 2, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vlami, V.; Kokkoris, I.P.; Zogaris, S.; Kehayias, G.; Dimopoulos, P. Cultural Ecosystem Services in the Natura 2000 Network: Introducing Proxy Indicators and Conflict Risk in Greece. Land 2021, 10, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Guerry, A.D.; Polasky, S.; Lubchenco, J.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Daily, G.C.; Griffin, R.; Ruckelshaus, M.; Bateman, I.J.; Duraiappah, A.; Elmqvist, T.; et al. Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services Informing Decisions: From Promise to Practice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 7348–7355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Torralba, M.; Lovrić, M.; Roux, J.L.; Budniok, M.A.; Mulier, A.S.; Winkel, G.; Plieninger, T. Examining the relevance of cultural ecosystem services in forest management in Europe. Ecol. Soc. 2020, 25, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bouwma, I.; Schleyer, C.; Primmer, E.; Winkler, K.J.; Berry, P.; Young, J.; Carmen, E.; Špulerová, J.; Bezák, P.; Preda, E.; et al. Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hönigová, I.; Vačkář, D.; Lorencová, E.; Melichar, J.; Götzl, M.; Sonderegger, G.; Oušková, V.; Hošek, M.; Chobot, K. Survey on Grassland Ecosystem Services: Report to the EEA—European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity; Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic: Prague, Czech Republic, 2012; pp. 4–78. ISBN 978-80-87457-25-2. [Google Scholar]
  24. Schröter, M.; Bonn, A.; Klotz, S.; Seppelt, R.; Baessler, C. (Eds.) Atlas of Ecosystem Services Drivers, Risks, and Societal Responses; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; ISBN 978-3-319-96228-3. [Google Scholar]
  25. De Groot, R.S.; Fisher, B.; Christie, M.; Aronson, J.; Braat, L.; Haines-Young, R.; Gowdy, J.; Maltby, E.; Neuville, A.; Polasky, S.; et al. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Ecological and Economic Foundations; Kumar, P., Ed.; Earthscan from Routledge: London, UK, 2010; pp. 9–40. [Google Scholar]
  26. Farber, S.; Costanza, R.; Childers, D.L.; Erickson, J.; Gross, K.; Grove, M.; Hopkinson, C.S.; Kahn, J.; Pincetl, S.; Troy, A.; et al. Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. BioScience 2006, 56, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Burkhard, B.; Kandziora, M.; Hou, Y.; Müller, F. Ecosystem Service Potentials, Flows and Demands-Concepts for Spatial Localisation, Indication and Quantification. Landsc. Online 2014, 34, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zulian, G.; Maes, J.; Paracchini, M. Linking Land Cover Data and Crop Yields for Mapping and Assessment of Pollination Services in Europe. Land 2013, 2, 472–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Zulian, G.; Stange, E.; Woods, H.; Carvalho, L.; Dick, J.; Andrews, C.; Baró, F.; Vizcaino, P.; Barton, D.N.; Nowel, M.; et al. Practical Application of Spatial Ecosystem Service Models to Aid Decision Support. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 465–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Müller, F.; Bicking, S.; Ahrendt, K.; Kinh Bac, D.; Blindow, I.; Fürst, C.; Haase, P.; Kruse, M.; Kruse, T.; Ma, L.; et al. Assessing Ecosystem Service Potentials to Evaluate Terrestrial, Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Types in Northern Germany—An Expert-Based Matrix Approach. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 112, 106116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Perennes, M.; Campagne, C.S.; Müller, F.; Roche, P.; Burkhard, B. Refining the Tiered Approach for Mapping and Assessing Ecosystem Services at the Local Scale: A Case Study in a Rural Landscape in Northern Germany. Land 2020, 9, 348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Directorate-General for Environment (European Commission). EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing Nature Back into Our Lives. 2021. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/31e4609f-b91e-11eb-8aca-01aa75ed71a1 (accessed on 9 August 2021).
  33. Burkhard, B.; Maes, J. Mapping Ecosystem Services; Pensoft Publishers: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Campagne, C.S.; Roche, P.; Müller, F.; Burkhard, B. Ten Years of Ecosystem Services Matrix: Review of a (r)Evolution. One Ecosyst. 2020, 5, e51103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Nedkov, S.; Müller, F. Mapping Ecosystem Service Supply, Demand and Budgets. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Maes, J. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services: An Analytical Framework for Ecosystem Assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020: Discussion Paper—Final, April 2013. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c09a570b-e189-4a92-82ff-9897ab49a6b1/language-en (accessed on 10 September 2020).
  37. Frélichová, J.; Vačkář, D.; Pártl, A.; Loučková, B.; Harmáčková, Z.V.; Lorencová, E. Integrated Assessment of Ecosystem Services in the Czech Republic. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 8, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Spyra, M. Ecosystem Services and Border Regions. Case Study from Czech–Polish Borderland. TeMA J. Land Use Mobil. Environ. 2014, 921–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Crouzat, E.; Zawada, M.; Grigulis, K.; Lavorel, S. Design and Implementation of a National Ecosystem Assessment—Insights from the French Mountain Systems’ Experience. Ecosyst. People 2019, 15, 288–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Bratman, G.N.; Anderson, C.B.; Berman, M.G.; Cochran, B.; de Vries, S.; Flanders, J.; Folke, C.; Frumkin, H.; Gross, J.J.; Hartig, T.; et al. Nature and Mental Health: An Ecosystem Service Perspective. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, 6510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Mederly, P.; Černecký, J. Katalóg ekosystémových služieb Slovenska. In Catalogue of Ecosystem Services in Slovakia; State Nature Conservancy of Slovak Republic: Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, 2019; ISBN 978-80-8184-067-8. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  42. Mederly, P.; Černecký, J.; Špulerová, J.; Izakovičová, Z.; Ďuricová, V.; Považan, R.; Švajda, J.; Močko, M.; Jančovič, M.; Gusejnov, S.; et al. National Ecosystem Services Assessment in Slovakia—Meeting Old Liabilities and Introducing New Methods. One Ecosyst. 2020, 5, 53677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Reid, W.V.; Mooney, H.A.; Cropper, A.; Capistrano, D.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chopra, K.; Dasgupta, P.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Hassan, R.; et al. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  44. Tomaškin, J.; Krišková, Z. Natural and Cultural Heritage in the Country; Matej Bel University Publishing House—Belianum: Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, 2008; ISBN 978-80-8083-687-0. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  45. Parente, G.; Bovolenta, S. The role of grassland in rural tourism and recreation in Europe. In Grassland—A European Resource? Proceedings of the 24th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Lublin, Poland, 3–7 June 2012; Garmond Oficyna Wydawnicza: Poznań, Poland, 2012; pp. 733–743. ISBN 9788389250773. [Google Scholar]
  46. Page, J.S.; Dowling, R.K. Ecotourism; Themes in Tourism; Prentice Hall, Pearson Education: Harlow, UK, 2002; ISBN 9780582356580. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ministry of Economy of the Slovak Republic. Sectoral Operational Program Industry and Services. Bratislava. 2009. Available online: https://www.economy.gov.sk/eu-a-fondy/eurofondy/po-2004-2006-a-2007-2013/sektorovy-operacny-program-priemysel-a-sluzby-sop-ps/sektorovy-operacny-program-priemysel-a-sluzby-zakladne-dokumenty/operacny-program (accessed on 19 August 2021). (In Slovak)
  48. Rigová, Z.; Flaška, F.; Kološta, S. Regional differencies in Slovak local governments property tax revenues by NUTS III and LAU1 regions. In Interpolis ‘20; Belianum: Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, 2020; pp. 389–399. ISBN 978-80-557-1804-0. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  49. Huber, L.; Schirpke, U.; Marsoner, T.; Tasser, E.; Leitinger, G. Does Socioeconomic Diversification Enhance Multifunctionality of Mountain Landscapes? Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 44, 101122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Schirpke, U.; Scolozzi, R.; Dean, G.; Haller, A.; Jäger, H.; Kister, J.; Kovács, B.; Sarmiento, F.O.; Sattler, B.; Schleyer, C. Cultural Ecosystem Services in Mountain Regions: Conceptualising Conflicts among Users and Limitations of Use. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 46, 101210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kološta, S. Formation and Shapes of Learning Regions; Belianum: Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, 2019; ISBN 978-80-557-1537-7. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  52. Makovníková, J.; Pálka, B.; Kološta, S.; Orságová, K. Application of Matrix Approach for Evaluation and Assessment the Potential of Recreational Ecosystem Service in Model Regions in Slovakia. Open J. Ecol. 2021, 11, 437–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bidegain, Í.; López-Santiago, C.A.; González, J.A.; Martínez-Sastre, R.; Ravera, F.; Cerda, C. Social Valuation of Mediterranean Cultural Landscapes: Exploring Landscape Preferences and Ecosystem Services Perceptions through a Visual Approach. Land 2020, 9, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Primmer, E.; Varumo, L.; Krause, T.; Orsi, F.; Geneletti, D.; Brogaard, S.; Aukes, E.; Ciolli, M.; Grossmann, C.; Hernández-Morcillo, M.; et al. Mapping Europe’s institutional landscape for forest ecosystem service provision, innovations and governance. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 47, 101225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bateman, I.J.; Mace, G.M. The Natural Capital Framework for Sustainably Efficient and Equitable Decision Making. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 776–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Maczka, K.; Chmielewski, P.; Jeran, A.; Matczak, P.; Van Riper, C.J. The ecosystem services concept as a tool for public participation in management of Poland’s Natura 2000 network. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 35, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hirons, M.; Comberti, C.; Dunford, R. Valuing Cultural Ecosystem Services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2016, 41, 545–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Plieninger, T.; Bieling, C.; Ohnesorge, B.; Schaich, H.; Schleyer, C.; Wolff, F. Exploring futures of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes through participatory scenario development in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Branca, G.; Lipper, L.; McCarthy, N.; Jolejole, M.C. Food security, climate change, and sustainable land management: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 635–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Power Alison, G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2959–2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Taff, B.D.; Benfield, J.; Miller, Z.D.; D’Antonio, A.; Schwartz, F. The Role of Tourism Impacts on Cultural Ecosystem Services. Environments 2019, 6, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Hou, Y.; Burkhard, B.; Müller, F. Uncertainties in Landscape Analysis and Ecosystem Service Assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 127, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 11 00270 g001 550
Figure 1. Geographical localization of model regions within Slovakia.
Figure 1. Geographical localization of model regions within Slovakia.
Land 11 00270 g001
Land 11 00270 g002 550
Figure 2. Capacity scores of cultural ecosystem services in model regions (weighted average value per hectare).
Figure 2. Capacity scores of cultural ecosystem services in model regions (weighted average value per hectare).
Land 11 00270 g002
Land 11 00270 g003 550
Figure 3. (a–d) Scores of cultural ecosystem services (area distribution of total potential) and road infrastructure in model regions.
Figure 3. (a–d) Scores of cultural ecosystem services (area distribution of total potential) and road infrastructure in model regions.
Land 11 00270 g003
Land 11 00270 g004 550
Figure 4. Value of potential of cultural ecosystem services in model regions (weighted average; value in euros per hectare).
Figure 4. Value of potential of cultural ecosystem services in model regions (weighted average; value in euros per hectare).
Land 11 00270 g004
Land 11 00270 g005 550
Figure 5. Total value of the potential of cultural ecosystem services in model regions (in euros).
Figure 5. Total value of the potential of cultural ecosystem services in model regions (in euros).
Land 11 00270 g005
Land 11 00270 g006 550
Figure 6. Comparison of model regions (average values of cultural ES scores per hectare; cluster analysis).
Figure 6. Comparison of model regions (average values of cultural ES scores per hectare; cluster analysis).
Land 11 00270 g006
Land 11 00270 g007 550
Figure 7. Comparison of model regions in average values of cultural ES scores per hectare (multivariate visualization; SunRay plots).
Figure 7. Comparison of model regions in average values of cultural ES scores per hectare (multivariate visualization; SunRay plots).
Land 11 00270 g007
Land 11 00270 g008 550
Figure 8. Comparison of model regions in average values of cultural ES scores per hectare (multivariate visualization; SunRay plots).
Figure 8. Comparison of model regions in average values of cultural ES scores per hectare (multivariate visualization; SunRay plots).
Land 11 00270 g008
Land 11 00270 g009 550
Figure 9. Monetary expression of the share of individual ecosystems on the value of recreation and tourism within the cultural ES in model regions.
Figure 9. Monetary expression of the share of individual ecosystems on the value of recreation and tourism within the cultural ES in model regions.
Land 11 00270 g009
Land 11 00270 g010 550
Figure 10. Monetary potential for recreation in relation to the number of accommodation facilities in model regions.
Figure 10. Monetary potential for recreation in relation to the number of accommodation facilities in model regions.
Land 11 00270 g010
Land 11 00270 g011 550
Figure 11. Monetary potential of recreation in relation to the number of visitors and the number of overnight stays in model regions.
Figure 11. Monetary potential of recreation in relation to the number of visitors and the number of overnight stays in model regions.
Land 11 00270 g011
Table
Table 1. Brief characteristics of the benefits of cultural ecosystem services.
Table 1. Brief characteristics of the benefits of cultural ecosystem services.
Benefit of Cultural ESBrief Characteristics
Recreation, ecotourism, and geo-tourismEcosystems as places for leisure and regeneration [6,7].
Recreation and tourismPhysical use of nature and landscape [8,9,10,11].
Aesthetic valuesPerception of the beauty of ecosystems; their components and elements [4,12,13].
Knowledge systemNatural ecosystems provide unlimited opportunities for natural sciences, environmental education, and training, act as “field laboratories” for scientific research, and serve as important reference areas for the monitoring of environmental change [14,15].
Cultural heritageCreated by the influence of ecosystems; their components and elements [9,16,17].
Natural heritageConsequence of ecosystem diversity (environmental diversity, biological diversity, and landscape diversity) [9,18].
Table
Table 2. Road infrastructure in model regions.
Table 2. Road infrastructure in model regions.
Roads/RegionBreznoMichalovcePiešťanyKrupina
1st class roads (km)117.248.1917.2358.26
2nd class roads (km)40.32114.6172.1623.9
3rd class roads (km)77.89223.453.23138.56
road network density (km/km2)0.1860.3790.4250.38
Table
Table 3. Area representation of ecosystems in model regions using the CLC database, LPIS database, and NLC database (area in hectares).
Table 3. Area representation of ecosystems in model regions using the CLC database, LPIS database, and NLC database (area in hectares).
Ecosystem/RegionKrupinaBreznoMichalovcePiešťany
Arable land15,266.63221.700150,260.821,022.1
Grassland9362.117,455.611,295.5726.9
Vineyards73.2062.343
Fruit trees and berries30.50.564.5179
Agro-forestry areas: fast-growing woody plants163.7013.91
Water bodies60.120.23618.8403
Wetlands0.33.2186.74.1
Natural protected areas5725.931,528.736243.74050.9
Productive forest8019.0618,027.92081.6813.57
Protective forest2156.710,608.459.9234.79
Special purpose forest4561.0524,759.31831.13150.4
Table
Table 4. Modified matrix for evaluating the potential of cultural ecosystem services according to the authors [15,24,27]; expert estimation of NPPC and NLC.
Table 4. Modified matrix for evaluating the potential of cultural ecosystem services according to the authors [15,24,27]; expert estimation of NPPC and NLC.
Capacity Scores
EcosystemRecreation ValuesAesthetic ValuesKnowledge SystemCultural HeritageRegional SignificanceNatural Heritage
Arable land405040505030
Grassland405040505060
Vineyards505060505040
Fruit trees and berries505060505040
Agro-forestry areas: fast-growing woody plants505060355030
Water bodies564949565649
Wetlands406050605080
Natural protected areas808070708080
Productive forest808070708080
Protective forest808070708080
Special purpose forest707070608050
Table
Table 5. Capacity scores of cultural ecosystem services per hectare depending on altitude.
Table 5. Capacity scores of cultural ecosystem services per hectare depending on altitude.
Region/Altitude0–300 m above Sea Level300 < m above Sea Level
Brezno0428
Krupina340370
Michalovce313430
Piestany317445
Table
Table 6. Capacity scores of the potential of individual cultural ecosystem services and indicators of recreation in model regions.
Table 6. Capacity scores of the potential of individual cultural ecosystem services and indicators of recreation in model regions.
Indicator/RegionBreznoMichalovcePiešťanyKrupina
Potential of cultural ES recreation and tourism (score)69.8245.9449.8341.17
Potential of cultural ES aesthetic values (score)71.7853.7856.8957.10
Potential of cultural ES knowledge system (score)64.1244.5448.2062.51
Potential of cultural ES cultural heritage (score)63.7452.7754.3453.65
Potential of cultural ES regional significance (score)74.1254.3358.0257.96
Potential of cultural ES natural heritage (score)68.1341.5441.1763.52
Number of visitors 201676,33946,027117,85463,358
Average number of visitors 2006–201665,29439,134112,05247,250
Number of accommodation facilities 201686445327
Average number of accommodation facilities 2006–201694.4549.4555.7225
Number of stays 2016191,521115,824654,083347,836
Average number of stays 2006–2016168,601103,52165,657298,054
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Makovníková, J.; Kološta, S.; Flaška, F.; Pálka, B. Regional Differentiations of the Potential of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital—A Case Study in Selected Regions of the Slovak Republic. Land 2022, 11, 270. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020270

AMA Style

Makovníková J, Kološta S, Flaška F, Pálka B. Regional Differentiations of the Potential of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital—A Case Study in Selected Regions of the Slovak Republic. Land. 2022; 11(2):270. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020270

Chicago/Turabian Style

Makovníková, Jarmila, Stanislav Kološta, Filip Flaška, and Boris Pálka. 2022. "Regional Differentiations of the Potential of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital—A Case Study in Selected Regions of the Slovak Republic" Land 11, no. 2: 270. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020270

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop