Managing the current and future supply of ecosystem services in the Hungarian and Romanian Tisza River Basin

Abstract

Ecosystem services that sustain human wellbeing depend on the continued functioning of ecosystems, proper management and supporting institutions. However, the interaction between these factors and ecosystem services is poorly understood. Therefore, we assessed how ecosystem services are represented in policy measures, recognized by local population and affected by weather extremes. We studied the Hungarian and Romanian parts of the flood-exposed Tisza River Basin, where all these factors are relevant for regional land and water management. Our qualitative assessment shows that, although the two regions share similar environmental conditions, the different social and institutional settings of the two countries cause a divergence in ecosystem services. Locally produced provisioning services are better recognized in Romania, while regulating (particularly water-regulation) and cultural services are better recognized in Hungary. Food supply is most affected by climate-related weather extremes and most strongly controlled by policy measures in both countries. However, especially in Romania, policy measures support medicinal and genetic resources, and some regulating (e.g. pest regulation) and cultural services, only weakly or indirectly. We conclude that the analysis of ecosystem services in relation to climate-related weather extremes, policy measures and people's recognition can contribute to a better management of the Tisza River Basin. We suggest that a better incorporation of ecosystem services in policy and management strategies could enhance and diversify the ecosystem service supply. A further quantification of ecosystem services can, therefore, provide a base for targeted and integrated planning and improved regional policy making.

Recent changes in ecosystem services and human well-being in the Bangladesh coastal zone

“…primary production). However, ecosystem processes are increasingly discriminated from ecosystem services in order to avoid double counting (Petz et al 2012;de Groot et al 2010). Ecosystem services indicators (Table 1) have been selected based on the study framework, data availability, measurability and current Human well-being is the subset of economic and social conditions (OECD 2001), such as security, health, social freedom and choice, which are essential elements for life (MA 2005).…”

Shades of grey challenge practical application of the cultural ecosystem services concept

“…Kerr and Swaffield, 2012), or simply "local people" (e.g. Gee and Burkhard, 2010;Petz et al, 2012;Sousa et al, 2013). However, most studies did not explicitly state who was the actual beneficiary of the CES investigated.…”

Berries, greens, and medicinal herbs—mapping and assessing wild plants as an ecosystem service in Transylvania (Romania)

“…In rural Transylvania despite a decline in recent years, many interactions between people and nature are still strongly embedded in the culture and form part of everyday life [59]. As in rural areas in general, here too, the use of provisioning services directly from nature is still a more integral part of life [16,60,61].…”

“…Most studies dealing with wild food in a nonethnobotanical context consider only on one (or few) key species, which are the most important for the regional economy (e.g. berries in Scandinavian forest: [5,34], assess habitats and capacities in a qualitative way [61], or focus on one ecosystem, especially on forests [87]).…”