Studia i Prace WNEiZ US

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Studia i Prace WNEiZ

ISSN: 2450-7733     eISSN: 2300-4096    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/sip.2016.46/2-12
CC BY-SA   Open Access   CEEOL

Issue archive / nr 46/2 2016
WYKORZYSTANIE USŁUG EKOSYSTEMÓW W ZARZĄDZANIU ZASOBAMI NATURALNYMI W ROLNICTWIE
(Applying ecosystem services in natural resource management in agriculture)

Authors: Barbara Wieliczko
Instytut Ekonomiki Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy
Keywords: ecosystem services agriculture management of natural resources
Data publikacji całości:2016
Page range:10 (135-144)
Klasyfikacja JEL: Q10 Q20 Q30
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

Ecosystem services generated by agriculture have are fundamental to human existence. However, only some of them are priced by the market and directly influence management of natural resources. Currently attempts are made to assess the value of other services and reward them within agricultural policy as they are considered to be a tool for managing natural resources in agriculture. The paper is aimed at presenting the concept of ecosystem services (ES) and the possibility of its application in the management of natural resources in agriculture. The results show that the assessment and compensated for ESs are a difficult task given the need of taking into account numerous factors.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Braat, L.C., de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services, 1, 4–15.
2.Bull, J.W., Jobstvogt, N., Böhnke-Henrichs, A., Mascarenhas, A., Sitas, N., Baulcomb, C., Lambini, C.K., Rawlins, M., Baral, H., Zähringer, J., Carter-Silk, E., Balzan M.V., Kenterm, J.O., Häyhä, T., Petz, K., Koss, R. (2016). Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework. Ecosystem Services, 17, 99–111.
3.Derissen, S., Latacz-Lohmann, U. (2013). What are PES? A review of definitions and an extension. Ecosystem Services, 6, 12–15.
4.Ervin, D., Vickerman, S., Ngawhika, S., Beaudoin, F., Hamlin, S., Dietrich, E., Manson, P., Schoenen, J. (2014).
5.Principles to Guide Assessments of Ecosystem Service Values, first revised edition. Portland, Oregon.
6.Cascadia Ecosystem Services Partnership, Institute for Sustainable Solutions, Portland State University.
7.FAO (2016). Baza danych statystycznych. Pobrane z: http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E.
8.Mackelworth, C., Carić, H. (2010). Gatekeepers of island communities: exploring the pillars of sustainable Development. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 12, 463–480.
9.Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethunb, E., García-Llorentea, M., Montesa, C. (2014). Tradeoffs across value- domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators, 37, 220–228.
10.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
11.Plieninger, T., Schleyer, Ch., Schaich, H., Ohnesorge, B., Gerdes, H., Hernández-Morcillo, M., Bieling, C. (2012). Mainstreaming ecosystem services through reformed European agricultural policies. Conservation Letters, 5, 281–288.
12.Power, A.G. (2010). Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society B, 365, 2959–2971.
13.Primmer, E., Jokinen, P., Blicharska, M., Barton, D.N., Bugter, R., Potschin M. (2015). Governance of Ecosystem Services: A framework for empirical analysis. Ecosystem Services, 16, 158–166.
14.Schleyer, Ch., Görg, Ch., Hauck, J., Winkler, K.J. (2015). Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming the ecosystem services concept in the multi-level policy-making within the EU. Ecosystem Services, 16, 174–181.
15.Schomers, S., Matzdorf, B. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services, 6, 16–30.
16.Sutherland, L.-A., Gabriel, D., Hathaway-Jenkins, L., Pascual, U., Schmutz, U., Rigby, D., Godwin, R., Sait, S.M., Sakrabani, R., Kunin, W.E., Benton, T.G., Stagl, S. (2012). The ‘neighbourhood effect’: a multidisciplinary assessment of the case for farmer coordination in agri-environmental programmes. Land Use Policy, 29, 502–512.
17.Uthes, S., Matzdorf, B. (2016). Budgeting for government-financed PES: Does ecosystem service demand equal ecosystem service supply? Ecosystem Services, 17, 255–264.
18.Wezel, A., Casagrande, M., Celette, F., Vian, J-F., Ferrer, A., Peigné, J. (2014). Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34,1–20.
19.Wieland, R., Ravensbergen, S., Gregr, E.J., Satterfield, T., Chan K. (2016). Debunking trickle- down ecosystem services: The fallacy of omnipotent, homogeneous beneficiaries. Ecological Economics, 121, 175–180.
20.Wieliczko, B. (2015). Współpraca gospodarstw rodzinnych we wdrażaniu działań prośrodowiskowych – dotychczasowe doświadczenia wybranych państw i wnioski dla Polski. W: A. Chlebicka (red.), Ekonomiczne mechanizmy wspierania i ochrony rolnictwa
21.rodzinnego w Polsce i innych państwach Unii Europejskiej (s. 271–280). Warszawa:
22.Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi.