Search

A Felső-kiskunsági szikes tavakat látogatók körében 2015–2016-ban végeztünk kérdőíves felmérést a területen zajló LIFE Nature projekt szocio-ökonómiai vizsgálatának keretében. Célunk a felméréssel az volt, hogy feltárjuk a területre érkezők látogatási szokásait és ismereteit a szikes tavakról és azok élővilágáról, felmérjük hozzáállásukat a lehetséges korlátozásokhoz, és megismerjük ökoturisztikai fejlesztési igényeiket is. Vizsgálataink azt mutatták, hogy a látogatók a környező településekről kirándulás és kikapcsolódás céljából érkeztek, kevesebb mint egynapos időtartamra, és évente többször látogatták a területet. A szikes tavak értékeinek ismerete változó volt. A nem túl erős korlátozásokat a kitöltők nagy százaléka el tudta fogadni kellő irányított alternatíva esetén, de a fotózás térbeli korlátozásával kapcsolatban hezitálást mutattak a válaszok. A turisztikai programokban a természetvédelmi irányultságú programlehetőségeket támogatták, a fejlesztésekben a tanösvény és a madármegfigyelő torony volt a legnépszerűbb, de a komfortérzetet növelő alapinfrastruktúra kiépítését is preferálták. A projektben megvalósult és tervezett fejlesztések a válaszokban megfogalmazott igényekkel összhangban vannak, s megvalósításuk során a természetvédelmi és ökoturisztikai célok harmonizálása is biztosított. A program- és az infrastruktúra-fejlesztés ös - szeköthető a környezeti neveléssel, hogy e szép és különleges természeti értékeinkkel kapcsolatos ismeretek is bővüljenek, segítve ezzel a tavak megőrzését is. A kérdőívezés hasznos eszköznek bizonyult az ökoturisztikai fejlesztések tervezéséhez. A vizsgálatot érdemes megismételni a fejlesztések megvalósulása után is.

Mapping and assessing ecosystem services (ES) projects at the national level have been implemented recently in the European Union in order to comply with the targets set out in the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 and later in the Strategy for 2030. In Hungary this work has just been accomplished in a large-scale six-year project. The Hungarian assessment was structured along the ES cascade with each level described by a set of indicators. We present the selected and quantified indicators for 12 ES. For the assessment of cascade level 4, human well-being, a set of relevant well-being dimensions were selected. The whole process was supported by several forms of involvement, interviews, consultations and workshops and in thematic working groups performing the ES quantifications, followed by building scenarios and synthesizing maps and results. Here we give an overview of the main steps and results of the assessment, discuss related conceptual issues and recommend solutions that may be of international relevance. We refine some definitions of the cascade levels and suggest theoretical extensions to the cascade model. By finding a common basis for ES assessments and especially for national ones, we can ensure better comparability of results and better adoption in decision making.

Az Europai Unio 2020-ig megvalositando Biodiverzitas Strategiajanak egyik fő celkitűzese az okoszisztema-szolgaltatasok (OSz-ek) minel teljesebb megőrzese es helyreallitasa. Ennek erdekeben a tagorszagok szamara előirjak, hogy terkepezzek es ertekeljek a teruletukon talalhato okoszisztemak allapotat (OA), valamint az altaluk nyujtott OSz-ek helyzetet es gazdasagi erteket. Magyarorszagon a 2016 őszen indult, Agrarminiszterium altal koordinalt KEHOP-4.3.0- VEKOP-15-2016-00001 szamu kiemelt projekt kereteben az „Okoszisztema-szolgaltatasok” fejlesztesi elem egyik fő feladata a hazai viszonyok kozott kiemelt fontossaggal biro OSz-ek orszagos terkepezese es ertekelese (Nemzeti Okoszisztema-szolgaltatas Terkepezes es Ertekeles; NOSZTEP). Az ertekeles az un. kaszkad-modell menten vegig halad az OSz-eket meghatarozo OA jellemzőktől, az OSz kapacitasokon es az ebből tenylegesen igenybe vett szolgaltatasokon at az emberi jollet fenntartasaban vagy noveleseben jatszott szerepukig. A projekt eredmenyei a tervek szerint segitik majd a termeszeti tőkenkkel valo fenntarthato gazdalkodast, a zoldinfrastruktura-halozat fejleszteset, az egyes agazatok kozti hatekonyabb kommunikaciot es a termeszetvedelmi es mas agazati donteshozatalt.

Spatial planning has to deal with trade-offs between various stakeholders’ wishes and needs as part of planning and management of landscapes, natural resources and/or biodiversity. To make ecosystem services (ES) trade-off research more relevant for spatial planning, we propose an analytical framework, which puts stakeholders, their land-use/management choices, their impact on ES and responses at the centre. Based on 24 cases from around the world, we used this framing to analyse the appearance and diversity of real-world ES trade-offs. They cover a wide range of trade-offs related to ecosystem use, including: land-use change, management regimes, technical versus nature-based solutions, natural resource use, and management of species. The ES trade-offs studied featured a complexity that was far greater than what is often described in the ES literature. Influential users and context setters are at the core of the trade-off decision-making, but most of the impact is felt by non-influential users. Provisioning and cultural ES were the most targeted in the studied trade-offs, but regulating ES were the most impacted. Stakeholders’ characteristics, such as influence, impact faced, and concerns can partially explain their position and response in relation to trade-offs. Based on the research findings, we formulate recommendations for spatial planning. Fil: Turkelboom, Francis. Research Institute For Nature And Forest; Bélgica Fil: Leone, Michael. Research Institute For Nature And Forest, Brussels; Fil: Jacobs, Sander. Research Institute For Nature And Forest, Brussels; Fil: Kelemen, Eszter. Environmental Social Science Research Group; Hungría. Corvinus University of Budapest; Hungría Fil: García Llorente, Marina. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid; España Fil: Baró, Francesc. Hospital del Mar; España. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; España Fil: Termansen, Mette. University Aarhus; Dinamarca Fil: Barton, David N.. Norwegian Institute For Nature Research; Noruega Fil: Berry, Pam. University of Oxford; Reino Unido Fil: Stange, Erik. Norwegian Institute For Nature Research; Noruega Fil: Thoonen, Marijke. Research Institute For Nature And Forest; Bélgica Fil: Kalóczkai, Ágnes. Hungarian Academy Of Sciences. Institute Of Ecology And Botany; Hungría Fil: Vadineanu, Angheluta. Universitatea Din Bucuresti; Rumania Fil: Castro, Antonio J.. Idaho State University; Estados Unidos. Universidad de Almeria; España Fil: Czúcz, Bálint. Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle; Francia. Hungarian Academy Of Sciences. Institute Of Ecology And Botany; Hungría Fil: Röckmann, Christine. Wageningen University And Research Centre; Países Bajos Fil: Wurbs, Daniel. Geoflux; Alemania Fil: Odee, David. Kenya Forestry Research Institute; Kenia Fil: Preda, Elena. Universitatea Din Bucuresti; Rumania Fil: Gómez Baggethun, Erik. University of Oxford; Reino Unido Fil: Rusch, Graciela M.. Norwegian Institute For Nature Research; Noruega Fil: Martínez Pastur, Guillermo José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas; Argentina Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid; España Fil: Dick, Jan. Center for Ecology and Hydrology; Reino Unido Fil: Casaer, Jim. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; Bélgica Fil: van Dijk, Jiska. Norwegian Institute For Nature Research; Noruega Fil: Priess, Joerg A.. Helmholtz Zentrum Für Umweltforschung; Alemania Fil: Langemeyer, Johannes. Hospital del Mar; España. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; España Fil: Mustajoki, Jyri. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Kopperoinen, Leena. Finnish Environment Institute; Finlandia Fil: Baptist, Martin J.. Wageningen University And Research Centre; Países Bajos Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Buenos Aires; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina Fil: Mukhopadhyay, Raktima. Indian Institute Of Bio Social Research And Development; India Fil: Aszalós, Réka. Hungarian Academy Of Sciences. Institute of Ecology and Botany; Argentina Fil: Roy, S. B.. Indian Institute Of Bio Social Research And Development; India Fil: Luque, Sandra. Territoires, Environnement, Télédétection Et Information Spatiale; Francia Fil: Rusch, Verónica. Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria Bariloche; Argentina

State-financed financial incentives are an increasingly popular tool for conservation on private lands. From policy and conservation perspectives, questions remain around the sustainability and longevity of behavioural changes associated with undertaking conservation work in exchange for payment. Further under-examined factors include inquiry into the role of the state as regulating agency, primary negotiator and enforcer, and how its politics and street-level relations influence participation. During 2015–6 a unique opportunity arose to investigate these issues as the Hungarian government unexpectedly cancelled its national agri-environmental programme to farmers. Through agricultural land use data, interviews and surveys (n = 260), we analysed the consequences of the cancellation of cash payments on i) land use change, ii) farmers' maintenance of conservation activities and iii) farmers' relations with conservation actors. We demonstrate that withdrawal of conservation payments resulted in farmers cropping more intensively, with consequences for conservation agencies' relationships with farmers. Many farmers maintained a number of individual conservation rules despite not receiving payment. Measures associated with highest financial burdens and least apparent benefits were most likely to be broken, and several socio-ecological factors, including land use type (grassland or arable), farm size, and additional legal obligations (other subsidies and land leases) influenced farmers who desisted with specific conservation rules. Adherence arose from technological lock-in, perceived surveillance by state agencies, fear of retrospective sanction, and intention to re-apply. The Hungarian context underscores the relevance of accounting for the ways in which multi-level politics influence farmer-public agency relations in the day-to-day management of conservation incentive schemes.

The prevention and management of invasive alien species (IAS) has become a high priority in European environmental policy. At the same time, ways of evaluating IAS continue to be a topic of lively debate. In particular, it is far from clear how directly policy makers’ value judgements are linked to the European (EU) policy against IAS. We examine the arguments used to support value judgements of both alien species and invasive alien species as well as the relation between these value judgements and the policy against IAS being developed at European level. Our study is based on 17 semi-structured interviews with experts from EU policy making and from the EU member states Austria, Belgium, Germany and Hungary. We found that our interviewees conceived of IAS in very different ways, expressed a variety of visions of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and adhered to widely different values expressed in their perceptions of IAS and the impacts of IAS. However, only some of these conceptualizations and value judgements are actually addressed in the rationale given in the preamble to the European IAS Regulation. Although value judgements about IAS differed, there was considerable agreement regarding the kind of action to be taken against them.

Conflicts often arise in relation to the conservation of protected predator species. If stakeholders are well defined and involved in participatory processes, their views and perceptions can be incorporated and steps can be made towards resolving such conflicts. In this paper, a case from Hungary is presented. In this case, a participatory management planning process was initiated in the Jaszsag Special Protection Area of European importance (SPA), within the frame of a LIFE+ project focusing on the conservation of the Eastern Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca). It provided a good opportunity to address a complex conflict situation between nature conservationists, game managers and farmers. We identified structural conflicts such as contradictions between direct agricultural payments and nature conservation goals, conflicts related to different views of the main influencing factors, relational problems between various stakeholders, and even differences in value orientation. The participatory management planning process was successful in clarifying the conflict situation and making productive steps toward a common understanding and resolution. Besides the mutually agreed conservation measures, the establishment of an administrative and financial incentive such as the high nature value area (HNVA) scheme proved to be an especially important factor for mitigating the conflict. It also contributed to a more successful realisation of nature conservation objectives in an area dominated by private land owners. However, continued interaction and cooperation are needed to stabilise this progress. Our paper also shows that stakeholder involvement in conservation management planning can transcend the strategic dimension of participation, and address broader common values besides the interests of land user groups.

In constantly changing complex social-ecological systems conservation organisations need to take steps toward adaptive co-management if they want to be effective in their conservation activities. In the surroundings of the soda pans of the Kiskunsag region in Hungary, a participatory process was initiated with the local national park directorate to understand the socio-economic context of the sodic wetland area, reveal the perceptions of local stakeholders about the current and preferable management of the area and start discussions with them about certain priority management issues related to sustainable use (grazing and ecotourism). In this article, we show how this process helped in taking the first steps toward adaptive co-management. For the assessment, criteria of effective adaptive co-management were derived from the literature. The results show that most conditions for adaptive co-management have already been fulfilled (e.g. identified set of stakeholders, sense of place shared or incentives for participation) and some social outcomes were achieved. The participatory process assisted the collaboration of stakeholders, which can contribute to positive economic and ecological outcomes in the future. Through the engagement of local stakeholders some conflicting management issues were resolved (e.g. accepting a wider range of grazing animal species and allowing flexible time for mowing) and collaboration started on ecotourism issues (e.g. information sharing with the assistance of the national park directorate). This process can be seen as the ‘formulation’ phase of adaptive co-management but more efforts are needed to move toward the ‘conjoint’ phase with more actions, monitoring and social learning. Our case also shows that ACM can be a good method for both conservation and rural development but supporting policy environment as well as financial resources assisting the participatory process and nature-friendly farming activities can be important for its long term success.

Land use changes induced by nature conservation regulation and management practices, especially in protected areas, often result in trade-offs between ecosystem services (ESs). Exploring trade-offs between ESs and linking them with stakeholders can help reveal the potential losers and winners of land use changes. In this paper, we demonstrate that ES trade-offs do not always go hand in hand with conflicts. The perception of local stakeholders about trade-offs between ESs at three protected sites in the Great Hungarian Plain were assessed through qualitative methods. In all areas significant conservation measures had been introduced since the 1990s resulting in land use changes. Locals (farmers at each site and inhabitants at one site) were the main ‘losers’ of the land use changes and related ES trade-offs, while there were many winners at different spatial and temporal scales. Conflicts appeared only between locals and the national park directorates, and not between locals and other beneficiaries of the new ESs. Due to scale mismatch, locals might not be in direct contact with other stakeholders, and vice versa, and therefore there is no interface between them for confrontation and negotiation. Integrating scale into the analysis also helps in advising policy instruments to minimise local-level conflicts.

Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-11T17:15:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018-02-01 The ecosystem service (ES) concept is becoming mainstream in policy and planning, but operational influence on practice is seldom reported. Here, we report the practitioners’ perspectives on the practical implementation of the ES concept in 27 case studies. A standardised anonymous survey (n = 246), was used, focusing on the science-practice interaction process, perceived impact and expected use of the case study assessments. Operationalisation of the concept was shown to achieve a gradual change in practices: 13% of the case studies reported a change in action (e.g. management or policy change), and a further 40% anticipated that a change would result from the work. To a large extent the impact was attributed to a well conducted science-practice interaction process (>70%). The main reported advantages of the concept included: increased concept awareness and communication; enhanced participation and collaboration; production of comprehensive science-based knowledge; and production of spatially referenced knowledge for input to planning (91% indicated they had acquired new knowledge). The limitations were mostly case-specific and centred on methodology, data, and challenges with result implementation. The survey highlighted the crucial role of communication, participation and collaboration across different stakeholders, to implement the ES concept and enhance the democratisation of nature and landscape planning. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25 Social-ecological Systems Lab Department of Ecology Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Darwin no. 2, Campus de Cantoblanco Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Akademická 2 Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University, Trieda A. Hlinku 1 Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG Ltd.), Rómer Flóris u. 38. Department of Decision Sciences Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8. Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstraße 15 CoKnow Consulting – Coproducing Knowledge for Sustainability, Jesewitz CENSE – Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica Institute of Ecology and Botany MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Alkotmány u. 2-4. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Edifici Z (ICTA-ICP), Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Gaustadalléen 21 Environmental Change Institute, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road Wageningen University and Research Environmental Research (Alterra), P.O. Box 47 European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, FR-75231 Paris Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford Urban Environment and Territorial Sustainability Area Energy and Environment Dividision Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia C/Geldo, Edificio 700 University of Bucharest - Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability, Splaiul Independentei 91-95 European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Štefánikova 3 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av. 24-A, 1515 CEP: 13506-900, Rio Claro IRSTEA National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture UMR TETIS, 500 rue JF BRETON Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC CONICET), Houssay 200 Leuphana University of Lüneburg Faculty of Sustainability Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Scharnhorststraβe 1 IBRAD (Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development), VIP Road, Kestopur, Prafulla Kanan Department of Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014 University of Helsinki Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), P.O. Box 20412-0200 Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), CC 332 (9400), Río Gallegos Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral (UNPA) Río Gallegos Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) INCLINE – Interdisciplinary Climate Change Research Group Instituto de Astronomia e Geofísica USP – Universidade de São Paulo, R. do Matão, 1226 - Butantã Wageningen University & Research – Marine (WUR), P.O. Box 57 National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Dracea”, Eroilor Blvd 128 Institute of Nature Conservation and Landscape Management Szent István University, Páter Károly u. 1. Norwegian University of Life Science (NMBU), Universitetstunet 3 Department of Applied Research and Agricultural Extension Madrid Institute for Rural Agricultural and Food Research and Development (IMIDRA), Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona (N-II), KM. 38.200, 28802 Alcalá De Henares Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), P.O. Box 5003 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Fakkelgården VISTA Analyse A/S, Meltzers gate 4 University of Girona, Plaça de Sant Domènec, 3 Basque Centre for Climate Change, Alameda de Urquijo 4 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Postboks 5685 Sluppen De Økonomiske Råd, Amaliegade 44 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av. 24-A, 1515 CEP: 13506-900, Rio Claro