Concept of ecosystem services and its implementation in Ukraine


Keywords: concept, ecosystem services, ecosystem, landscape, natural capital, ecosystems in Ukraine, landscapes in Ukraine

Abstract

Development in harmony with nature is a fundamental social paradigm, the realisation of which depends on fulfilment of basic conditions, namely preservation and restoration of the the natural environment as well as ensuring the ecologically safe functioning of ecosystems. There is a need to find a compromise between the social and economic needs of mankind and the potential of the biosphere to satisfy them. At the present stage of development of society, the tools based on economic interest are the most efficient for the effective use, preservation and restoration of ecosystem functions. The economic contributions of ecosystems are not fully taken into account in the modern economy. This is largely explained by the lack of a coherent scientific approach to defining their nature and lack of methodological tools for their economic evaluation. In this regard, the need arises for undertaking appropriate scientific research and the inclusion of ecosystem services in the activities of business entities. The concept of ecosystem services is based on the need for co-evolutionary development of environmental and economic components. There is no single approach to implementing the concept of ecosystem services that would meet the environmental conditions of every geographical site. Generalisation and systematisation of the provisions of the concept of ecosystem services, verification of the basic mechanisms and their adaptation to the legal and regulatory framework in Ukraine, examination of the conditions of ecosystems and their economic value are necessary for the implementation of the ecosystem approach in the sectors of the Ukrainian economy. The objective of the study is to characterise the progress of development and implementation of the concept of ecosystem services in Ukraine; to define and characterise the ecosystems in Ukraine that are particularly important for the provision of ecosystem services. Scientific principles and consistent patterns in the field of ecology, geography and landscape science provided the methodological basis of the study, which was based on a systematic approach. The cartographic method (based on GIS-technologies), the method of expert estimations and the statistical method were used. ArcGis and Mapinfo Professional software products as well as Google satellite images and electronic vector layers of a topographic map of Ukraine with a scale of 1:200,000 were used to calculate the area of ecosystems within landscapes and create cartographic material. Statistical and cartographic materials, reports from research institutions, regulatory and reference materials, scientific papers written by domestic and foreign scholars provided the information basis of the study. Scientific papers on the classification of ecosystems, ecosystem services and the implementation of the concept of ecosystem services in Ukraine have been analysed. The categories, size and area of ecosystems in Ukraine that are of particular importance for the provision of ecosystem services have been defined, their ecological condition has been assessed and the prevailing ecosystem services have been identified.

Author Biographies

Mykola M. Prykhodko
Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas
Liudmyla M. Arkhypova
Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas
Liliana T. Horal
Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas
Svitlana P. Kozhushko
Alfred Nobel University, Dnipro

References

1. Aloshkina, U. M., 2011. Poshyrennja ta harakterystyka ridkisnyh biotopiv m. Kyjeva [Distribution and characterization of rare biotopes in Kyiv]. Ukrai’ns’kyj botanichnyj zhurnal. 68(1), 76-90 (in Ukrainian).
2. Bobylev, S. N., Bukvarjova, E. N., Grabovskij, V. I., Danilkin, A. A., Dgebuadze, Ju. Ju., Drozdov, A. V., Zamolodchikov, D. G., Kraev, G. N., Perelet, R. A., Smeljanskij, I. Je., Striganova, B. R., Tishkov, A. A., Filenko, O. F., Horoshev, A. V., 2016. Jekosistemnye uslugi Rossii: Prototip nacional›nogo doklada. T. 1. Uslugi nazemnyh jekosistem [Ecosystem services of Russia: Prototype of the national report. Vol. 1. Terrestrial ecosystem services]. Izd-vo Centra ohrany dikoj prirody, Moscow (in Russian). http://www.biodiversity.ru/programs/ecoservices/ first-steps/Ecosystem-Services-Russia_V1_web. pdf
3. Brown, T., Веrgstrom, J., Loomis, J., 2007. Ecosystem Goods and Services: Definition, Valuation and Provision. Natural Resources. 47, 329-369.
4. Burkynskyi, B. V,. Horiachuk, V. F., 2013. Ocinka pryrodnogo kapitalu regioniv Ukrai’ny jak umova formuvannja zelenoi’ ekonomiky [Assessment of the natural capital of the regions of Ukraine as a condition for the formation of green economy]. Ekonomichni innovacii’. 52, 9-20 (in Ukrainian).
5. Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., Goldstein, J., 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol. Econ. 74, 8-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
6. Cili rozvytku tysjacholittja Ukrai’na: 2000-2015. (2015). [Objectives of millennium development of Ukraine: 2000-2015] (in Ukrainian). Retrieved from http://un.org.ua/images/stories/docs/2015_ MDGs_Ukraine_Report_ukr.pdf
7. Costanza, R., 2012. Ecosystem health and ecological engineering. Ecol. Eng. 45, 24-29. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.03.023
8. Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National Academy of of the United States of America Sciences 109 (23), 8812-8819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1114773109.
9. Davies C. E., Moss D., 2002. EUNIS Habitat Classification. Final Report to the European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity.
10. De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., Boumans, R. M. J., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics. 41, 393-408.
11. Didukh, Ya. P., 2005. Teoretychni pidhody do stvorennja klasyfikacii’ ekosystem [Theoretical approaches to the development of ecosystems classification]. Ukrai’ns’kyj fitocenotychnyj zbirnyk, Ser. C. 1(23), 3-14 (in Ukrainian).
12. Didukh, Ya. P., Aloshkina, U. M., 2012. Biotopy m. Kyjeva [Biotopes in Kyiv]. NaUKMA, Agrar Media Grup, Kyiv (in Ukrainian).
13. Didukh, Ya. P., Fitsailo, T. V., Korotchenko, I. A., Yakushenko, D. M., Pashkevych, N. A., Aloshkina, U. M., 2011. Biotopy lisovoi’ ta lisostepovoi’ zon Ukrai’ny [Biotopes of forest and forest-steppe zones of Ukraine]. TOV «Makros», Kyiv (in Ukrainian).
14. Didukh, Ya. P., Kuzemko, A. A., 2005. Klasyfikacija ekosystem Galyc’ko-Slobozhans’koi’ ekomerezhi [Classification of ecosystems of Halych-Slobozhanshchyna econet]. Ukrai’ns’kyj fitocenotychnyj zbirnyk, Ser. C. 1(23), 38-61 (in Ukrainian).
15. Dykson, D., Skura, L., Karpenter, R., Sherman, P., 2000. Jekosistemnye uslugi Rossii: Prototip nacional’nogo doklada. T. 1. Jekonomicheskij analiz vozdejstvij na okruzhajushhuju sredu [Economic analysis of environmental impacts]. Vita-Press, Moscow (in Russian).
16. Egoh, B., Drakou, G., Dunbar, M. B., Maes, J., Willemen, L., 2012. Indicators for Mapping Ecosystem Services: A Review. EU Publications Office, Luxembourg. http://dx.doi.org/10.2788/41823
17. Englund, O., Berndes, G., Cederberg, C., 2017. How to analyse ecosystem services in landscapes – a systematic review. Ecol. Indic. 73 (Supplement C), 492-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2016.10.009
18. Förster, J., Barkmann, J., Fricke, R., Hotes, S., Kleyer, M., Kobbe, S., Wittmer, H., 2015. Assessing ecosystem services for informing land-use decisions: a problemoriented approach. Ecol. Soc. 20(3):31. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07804-200331
19. Haines-Young, R. H., Potschin, M. B., 2018. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Fabis Consulting Ltd. Retrieved from https://cices.eu/content/uploads/ sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf
20. Holubchak, O., Korol S., Melnychuk I., Prykhodko M., 2019. Optimization of forest ecosystem recreational services formation in conditions of decentralization in Ukraine. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research: 2019 7th International Conference on Modeling, Development and Strategic Management of Economic System (MDSMES 2019). Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine, 5 p. https://doi.org/10.2991/mdsmes-19.2019.43
21. Holubets, M. A., 2000. Ekosystemologija [Ecosystemology]. Polli, Lviv (in Ukrainian).
22. Hrodzynskyi, D. M., 1993. Osnovy landshaftnoi› ekologii› [Fundamentals of landscape ecology]. Lybid›, Kyiv (in Ukrainian).
23. Jiang, W., 2017. Ecosystem services research in China: a critical review. Ecosyst. Serv. 26 (Part A), 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.012
24. Klimov, O. V., Klimov, D. O., Haidrikh, I. M., 2014. Vodno-bolotni ugiddja ta klasyfikacija ekologichnyh system Ukrai’ny [Problems of environmental protection and ecological safety]. Problemy ohorony navkolyshn’ogo pryrodnogo seredovyshha ta ekologichnoi’ bezpeky. 36, 67-82 (in Ukrainian).
25. Korchemlyuk, M., Arkhypova, L., 2016. Environmental audit of Ukrainian basin ecosystem of the Prut River. Scientific bulletin of National Mining University. 5, 98-106. URL: http://nvngu.in.ua/index.php/ en/component/jdownloads/finish/63-05/855105-2016-korchemlyuk/0
26. Kozak, O. M., Didukh, Ya. P., 2015. Klasyfikacija ta sozologichna ocinka biotopiv basejnu r. Latorycja (Zakarpats’ka obl.) [Classification and sootological assessment of biotopes of the basin of river Latorytsia (Zakarpattia region)]. Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA. Biologija ta ekologija. 171, 38-46 (in Ukrainian).
27. Landers, D., Nahlik, A. M., Rhodes, C. R., 2016. The beneficiary perspective – benefits and beyond. In: Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, R.K. (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services. Routledge, London and New York. 7488. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315775302-4
28. Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Grizzetti, B., Barredo, J. I., Paracchini, M. L., Condé, S., Somma, F., Orgiazzi, A., Jones, A., Zulian, A., Petersen, J. E., Marquardt, D., Kovacevic, V., Abdul Malak, D., Marin, A. I., Czúcz, B., Mauri, A., Loffler, P., Bastrup-Birk, A., Biala, K., Christiansen, T., Werner, B., 2018. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: An Analytical Framework for Ecosystem Condition. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2779/055584 29. Malinga, R., Gordon, L. J., Jewitt, G., Lindborg, R., 2015. Mapping ecosystem services across scales and continents – a review. Ecosyst. Serv. 13, 57-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.006
30. Martinez-Harms, M. J., Bryan, B. A., Balvanera, P., Law, E. A., Rhodes, J. R., Possingham, H. P., Wilson, K. A., 2015. Making decisions for managing ecosystem services. Biol. Conserv. 184 (Supplement C), 229-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.024
31. McDonough, K., Hutchinson, S., Moore, T., Hutchinson, J. M. S., 2017. Analysis of publication trends in ecosystem services research. Ecosyst. Serv. 25, 82-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.022
32. Mishenin, Ye. V., Dehtiar N. V., 2015. Ekonomika ekosystemnyh poslug: teoretyko-metodologichni osnovy [Economics of ecosystem services: theoretical and methodological fundamentals]. Marketyng i menedzhment innovacij. 2, 243-257 62 (in Ukrainian).
33. Nykyforov, V. V., Nykyforova, O. O., Sakun, O. A., 2011. Ogljad suchasnyh klasyfikacij ekosystem [Overview of modern ecosystem classifications]. Ekologichna bezpeka. 1, 44-49 (in Ukrainian).
34. Olander, L., Polasky, S., Kagan, J.S., Johnston, R. J., Wainger, L., Saah, D., Maguire, L., Boyd, J., Yoskowitz, D., 2017. So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 26 (Part A), 170-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.003
35. Onyshchenko, V. A., 2016. Oselyshha Ukrai’ny za klasyfikacijeju EUNIS [Settlements of Ukraine according to EUNIS classification]. Fitosociocentr, Kyiv (in Ukrainian).
36. Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, Gy., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Dessane, E. B., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S., Al-Hafedh, Y. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., Berry, P., Bilgin, A., Breslow, S. J., Bullock, C., Cáceres, D., Daly-Hassen, H., Figueroa, E., Golden, C. D., GómezBaggethun, E., González-Jiménez, D., Houdet, J., Keune, H., Kumar, R., Ma, K., May, P. H., Mead, A., O’Farrell, P., Pandit, R., Pengue, W., Pichis-Mdruga, R., Ppopa, F., Preston, S., Pacheco-Balanza, D., Saarikoski, H., Strassburg, B. B., Van den Belt, M., Verma, M., Wickson, F., Yagi, N., 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. . Opin. Environ. Sustainability. 26-27, 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
37. Plieninger, T., van der Horst, D., Schleyer, C., Bieling, C., 2014. Sustaining ecosystem services in cultural landscapes. Ecology and Society 19(2):59. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06159-190259
38. Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Reyers, B., 2015. Setting the bar: standards for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112 (24), 7356-7361. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1406490112
39. Prykhodko, M., Havadzyn, N., Horal, L., Melnychuk, I., Berlous, M., 2019. Ecosystem Services in the Management System of Ecological Safety of Territorial Units. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research: 2019 7th International Conference on Modeling, Development and Strategic Management of Economic System (MDSMES 2019). Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine, 6 p. https://doi.org/10.2991/mdsmes-19.2019.18
40. Prykhodko, M. M., Romaniuk, V. V., Kukhtar, D. V., Bodnaruk, I. L., Khmil, N. L., 2019. Application of the geographic information system technologies in the geosystem planning process. 18th International Conference on Geoinformatics - Theoretical and Applied Aspects. Kiev, Ukraine, 5 p. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.201902041
41. Prykhodko, M. M., 2017. Floods and their management in the Carpathian region of Ukraine. Scientific bulletin of National Mining University. 2, 113117. URL: http://www.nvngu.in.ua/index.php/ uk/component/jdownloads/finish/67-02/8627-022017-prykhodko/0
42. Roche, P. K., Campagne, C. S., 2017. From ecosystem integrity to ecosystem condition: a continuity of concepts supporting different aspects of ecosystem sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain (Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability). 29, 63-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.009
43. Rudenko, L. H. at al., 2007. Nacional›nyj atlas Ukrai›ny [National Atlas of Ukraine]. DNVP «Kartografija», Kyiv (in Ukrainian).
44. Solovii, I., 2016. Ocinka poslug ekosystem, zabezpechuvanyh lisamy Ukrai’ny, ta propozycii’ shhodo mehanizmiv platy za poslugy ekosystem. Zvit. [Assessment of ecosystem services provided by Ukraine’s forests and proposals for ecosystem services payment mechanisms. Report.] (in Ukrainian). Retrieved from http://sfmu.org.ua/ files/Soloviy_2016b.pdf
45. Wright, W. C. C., Eppink, F. V., Greenhalgh, S., 2017. Are ecosystem service studies presenting the right information for decision making? Ecosyst. Serv. 25, 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.002
Published
2020-07-09
How to Cite
Prykhodko, M., Arkhypova, L., Horal, L., & Kozhushko, S. (2020). Concept of ecosystem services and its implementation in Ukraine. Journal of Geology, Geography and Geoecology, 29(2), 387-397. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15421/112034