1. bookVolume 40 (2021): Issue 3 (September 2021)
Journal Details
First Published
24 Aug 2013
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
access type Open Access

Capacity and flow of selected cultural ecosystem services: Case study of microregion Terchovská valley

Published Online: 22 Oct 2021
Page range: 276 - 285
Received: 25 Jul 2021
Accepted: 14 Aug 2021
Journal Details
First Published
24 Aug 2013
Publication timeframe
4 times per year

Cultural ecosystem services (ESs) are assessed less often than other ES; however, their importance for human well-being is crucial. In this article, we focused on an assessment of capacity and flow of three selected cultural ES – Recreation and tourism, Natural and cultural heritage and Aesthetics and landscape character. The capacity in terms of cultural ES focuses on the potential of landscape features to provide cultural ES, while flow provides us with data about areas where these cultural ES are consumed by people. We can assume that in areas with higher capacity to provide cultural ES, there is also a higher flow of these services. The areas with the highest capacity to provide selected cultural ES are natural areas, such as natural and semi-natural meadows, pastures, alpine areas and wetlands, and cultural-historical sites. Such areas in our study area are the Malá Fatra National Park and areas with dispersed settlement, which we rank as the most valuable parts of the microregion Terchovská Valley. There are also areas with the highest flow of cultural ES. To know the relationship between the capacity of the landscape to provide cultural ES and the flow of cultural ES in this study area could be useful in terms of landscape protection and management.


Bagstad, K.J., Johnson, G.W., Voigt, B. & Villa F. (2013). Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services, 4, 117−125. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012. Search in Google Scholar

Barral, M.P., Rey Benayas, J.M., Meli, P. & Maceira N.O. (2015). Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 202, 223–231. DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2015. Search in Google Scholar

Brown, G., Montag, J.M. & Lyon K. (2011). Public participation GIS: a method for identifying ecosystem services. Society and Natural Resources, 25(7), 633−651. DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2011.621511.10.1080/08941920.2011.621511 Search in Google Scholar

Burkhard, B., Kandziora, M., Hou, Y. & Műller E. (2014). Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands – concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landscape Online, 34. DOI: 10.3097/LO.201434.10.3097/LO.201434 Search in Google Scholar

Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S. & Műller F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand, and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011. Search in Google Scholar

Bushell, R. & Eagles P.F. (Eds). (2007). Tourism and protected areas: benefits be yond boundaries: the 5th IUCN World Parks Congress. Oxfordshire: CABI. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/styles/publication/public/book_covers/BC-2007-027.jpg Search in Google Scholar

Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B., Hannahs, B., Levine, J., Norton, B., Ruckelshaus, M., Russell, R., Tam, J. & Woodside U. (2012a). Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience, 62(8), 744−756. DOI: 10.1525/bio.2012. Search in Google Scholar

Chan, K.M.A., Satterfield, T. & Goldstein J. (2012b). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8−18. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011. Search in Google Scholar

Clemente, P., Calvache, M., Antunes, P., Santos, R., Cerdeira, J.O. & Martin M.J. (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(1), 59−68. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.08.043. Search in Google Scholar

Daniel, T.C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J.W., Chan, K.M.A., Constanza, R., Elmquist, T., Flint, C.G., Gobster, P.H., Gret-Regamey, A., Lave, R., Muhar, S., Penker, M., Ribe, R.G., Schauppenlehner, T., Sikor T., Soloviy, I., Spierenburg., M., Taczanowska,K., Tam, J. & Von Der Dunk A. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. PNAS, 109(23), 8812–8819. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1114773109.10.1073/pnas.1114773109 Search in Google Scholar

Dobrovodská, M., Kanka, R., David, S., Kollár, J., Špulerová, J., Štefunková, D., Mojses, M., Petrovič, F., Krištín, A., Stašiov, S., Halada, Ľ. & Gajdoš P. (2019). Assessment of the biocultural value of traditional agricultural landscape on a plot-by-plot level: case studies from Slovakia. Biodivers. Conserv., 28(10), 2615−2645. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-019-01784-x.10.1007/s10531-019-01784-x Search in Google Scholar

Dudley, N. & Stolton S. (2010). Arguments for protected areas: Multiple benefits for conservation and use. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781849774888 Search in Google Scholar

Eagles, P.F.J., Mccool, S.F. & Haynes CH.D.A. (2002). Sustainable tourism in protected areas: Guidelines for planning and management. Switzerland and Cambridge: IUCN Gland. Search in Google Scholar

Google Maps (2019). https://www.google.sk/maps Search in Google Scholar

Hanley, N., Wright, R.E. & Koop G. (2002). Modelling recreation demand using choice experiments: climbing in Scotland. Environmental and Resource Economics, 22(3), 449−466. DOI: 10.1023/A:1016077425039.10.1023/A:1016077425039 Search in Google Scholar

Hermes, J., Albert, CH. & Von Haaren Ch. (2018). Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany. Ecosystem Services, 31, 296−307. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018. Search in Google Scholar

Huang, J., Tichit, M., Poulot, M., Darly, S., Li, S., Petit, C. & Aubry C. (2015). Comparative review of multifunctionality and ecosystem services in sustainable agriculture. J. Environ. Manag., 149, 138–147. DOI: 10.1016/j. jenvman.2014.10.020. Search in Google Scholar

IUCN (2017). Protected areas. https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about. Search in Google Scholar

Izakovičová, Z., Špulerová, J. & Petrovič F. (2018). Integrated approach to sus-Špulerová, J. & Petrovič F. (2018). Integrated approach to sus-, J. & Petrovič F. (2018). Integrated approach to sustainable land use management. Environments MDPI, 5(3), 1−16. DOI: 10.3390/environments5030037.10.3390/environments5030037 Search in Google Scholar

Jančura, P. & Bohálová I. (2010). Methodology of identification and evaluation of the characteristic appearance of the landscape (in Slovak). Enviromaga zín, 15(6), 18−19. Search in Google Scholar

Kemp, D.R. & Michalk D.L. (2007). Towards sustainable grassland and livestock management. J. Agric. Sci., 145(6), 543−564. DOI: 10.1017/ S0021859607007253. Search in Google Scholar

Koschke, L., Fürst, C., Frank, S. & Makeschin F. (2012). A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecological Indicators, 21, 54−66. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.010. Search in Google Scholar

Kubinský, D., Weis, K., Fuska, J., Lehotský, M. & Petrovič F. (2015). Changes in retention characteristics of 9 historical artificial water reservoirs near Banská Štiavnica, Slovakia. Open Geosciences, 7(1), 880−887. DOI: 10.1515/ geo-2015-0056. Search in Google Scholar

Lieskovský, J., Rusňák, T., Klimantová, A., Izsóff, M. & Gašparovičová P. (2017). Appreciation of landscape aesthetic values in Slovakia assessed by social media photographs. Open Geosciences, 9(1). DOI: 10.1515/geo-2017-0044.10.1515/geo-2017-0044 Search in Google Scholar

Linnell, J.D.C., Kaczensky, P., Wotschikowsky, U., Lescureux, N. & Boitani L. (2015). Framing the relationship between people and nature in the context of European conservation. Conserv. Biol., 29(4), 978−985. DOI: 10.1111/ cobi.12534. Search in Google Scholar

Manning, R.E., Anderson, L.E. & Pettengill P. (2017). Managing outdoor recrea tion: Case studies in the national parks. CABI. Search in Google Scholar

Mapy CZ (2019). https://sk.mapy.cz/zakladni?x=19.0729779&y=49.2571053&z=9 Search in Google Scholar

Mederly, P., Černecký, J., Špulerová, J., Izakovičová, Z., Jančovič, M., Ďuricová, V., Stašová, S., Hreško, J., Petrovič, F., Štefunková, D., Šatalová, B., Močko, M., Vrbičanová, G., Kaisová, D., Turanovičová, M., Kováč, T. & Laco I. (2019). Catalog of ecosystem services (in Slovak). Bratislava: State Nature Protection of the Slovak Republic, Nitra: Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Bratislava: Institute of Landscape Ecology SAS. Search in Google Scholar

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well being: multiscale assessments. Washington: Island Press. Search in Google Scholar

Moyle, B.D., Scherrer, P., Weiler, B., Wilson, E., Caldicott, R. & Nielsen N. (2017). Assessing preferences of potential visitors for nature-based experiences in protected areas. Tourism Management, 62, 29–41. DOI: 10.1016/j. tourman.2017.03.010. Search in Google Scholar

Muñoz, L., Hausner, V., Browm, G., Runge, C. & Fauchald P. (2019). Identifying spatial overlap in the values of locals, domestic - and international tourists to protected areas. Tourism Management, 71, 259−271. DOI: 10.1016/j. tourman.2018.07.015. Search in Google Scholar

OpenStreetMaps (2019). https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/49.2821/18.9112 Search in Google Scholar

Othman, N., Mohamed, N. & Ariffin M.H. (2015). Landscape aesthetic values and visiting performance in natural outdoor environment. Proce dia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 202, 330−339. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015. Search in Google Scholar

Palkechová, L. & Kozáková J. (2015). Ekonomika agroturistických prevádzok vo vybraných agrosubjektoch SR. Ekonomika Poľnohospodárstva, 15, 69−85. Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, C. (1999). Tourism and the symbols of identity. Tourism Management, 20(3), 313−321. DOI: 10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00120-4.10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00120-4 Search in Google Scholar

Petrovič, F. (2006). Changes of the landscape with dispersed settlement. Ekoló gia (Bratislava), 25(Suppl. 1), 201−211. Search in Google Scholar

Petrovič, F., Bugár, G. & Hreško J. (2009). List of landscape elements mapped in Slovakia (in Slovak). GeoInformation, 5, 112−124. Search in Google Scholar

Petrovič, F. & Muchová Z. (2013). The potential of the landscape with dispersed settlement (Case Study Čadca Town). In J. Fialová & H. Kubíčková (Eds.), Public Recreation and Landscape Protection With Man Hand in Hand? (pp. 199−204). Brno: Mendel University. Search in Google Scholar

Petrovič, F. & Petrikovičová L. (2021). Landscape transformation of small rural settlements with dispersed type of settlement in Slovakia. European Coun tryside, 13(2), 455–478. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-019-01784-x.10.2478/euco-2021-0027 Search in Google Scholar

Petrovič, F., Stránovský, P., Muchová, Z., Falťan, V., Skokanová, H., Havlíček, M., Gábor, M. & Špulerová J. (2017). Landscape-ecological optimization of hydric potential in foothills region with dispersed settlements - a case study of Nová Bošáca, Slovakia. Applied Ecology and Environmental Re search, 15(1), 379−400. DOI: 10.15666/aeer/1501_379400. Search in Google Scholar

Plieninger, T, Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E. & Bieling C. (2013). Assessing, mapping and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118−129. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012. Search in Google Scholar

Schneider, J., Holušová, K., Buchtová, M., Konečný, O., Kozumplíková, A., Lacina, D., Lampartová, I., Lorencová, H., Miškolci, S., Redlichová, R., Venzlů, M. & Vyskot I. (2016). Ecosystem services and forest functions (in Czech). Brno: Mendelova Univerzita. Search in Google Scholar

Smiraglia, D., Ceccarelli, T., Bajocco, S., Perini, L. & Salvati L. (2015). Unraveling landscape complexity: Land use/land cover changes and landscape pattern dynamics (1954-2008) in contrasting peri-urban and agro-forest regions of Northern Italy. Environ. Manag., 56(4), 916−932. DOI: 10.1007/ s00267-015-0533-x. Search in Google Scholar

Špulerová, J., Petrovič, F., Mederly, P., Mojses, M. & Izakovičová Z. (2018). Contribution of traditional farming to ecosystem services provision: Case studies from Slovakia. Land, 7(2), 74. DOI: 10.3390/land7020074.10.3390/land7020074 Search in Google Scholar

Štefunková, D., Špulerová, J., Dobrovodská, M., Mojses, M. & Petrovič F. (2013). Traditional agricultural Landscapes - A model of detailed land use mapping. Tájökológiai Lapok, 11(1), 1−21. Search in Google Scholar

Torland, M., Weiler, B., Moyle, B.D. & Wolf I.D. (2015). Are your ducks in a row? External and internal stakeholder perceptions of the benefits of parks in New South Wales, Australia. Managing Sport and Leisure, 20(4), 211−237. DOI: 10.1080/23750472.2015.1028428.10.1080/23750472.2015.1028428 Search in Google Scholar

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., Hering, D., Jones, K.B., Jongamn, R. & Lavorel S. (2009). Review paper on concepts of dy namic ecosystems and their services. The Rubicode Project Rationalising Biodiversity Conservation in Dynamic Ecosystems. http://www.rubicode.net/rubicode/RUBICODE. Search in Google Scholar

Vološčuk, I. (2013). Theoretical principles of ecological processes, functions, and services of ecosystems (in Slovak). Banská Bystrica: Belianum. Search in Google Scholar

Vrbičanová, G., Kaisová, D., Močko, M., Petrovič, F. & Mederly P. (2020). Map- P. (2020). Map- Mapping cultural ecosystem services enables better informed nature protection and landscape management. Sustainability, 12(5), 2138. DOI: 10.3390/ su12052138. Search in Google Scholar

ZBGIS (2019). https://zbgis.skgeodesy.sk/mkzbgis/sk/zakladna-mapa?bm=zbgis&z=14&c=19.024839,49.285714&sc=n#/meta/base-map/204 Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo