ECOSYSTEMS AND HUMAN WELL-BEING A FRAMEWORK … · FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY HEATHLAND AND ... Subtype 501 Subtype 502 ... because the subtype 501
Post on 23-Mar-2019
225 Views
Preview:
Transcript
ECOSYSTEMS AND HUMAN WELL-BEING – A
FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY HEATHLAND AND SHRUB
ECOSYSTEMS
6-7 February 2017
Sofia, Bulgaria
Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services – Science in Action
Rosen Tsonev, V. Bogoev, S. Boteva, K. Dimitrov, Ts. Dimitrova, A. Kenarova,
Ts. Komitova, G. Nachev, M. Nikolov, K. Pachedjieva, N. Parleva, D.
Simeonovska, V. Stefanov, I. Traykov, R. Tsekova
Project Framework
• Project promoters:
Sofia University “St. Kl. Ohridski” – Department of Ecology and
Nature Protection
Epsilon Bulgaria LTD
KartGeo LTD
• The project covers around 65% of Bulgaria’s territory (outside NATURA
2000);
• Approach of mapping and assessment - biophysical assessment of ESs
and ECs based on MAES working documents and adapted for Bulgaria
(coordinates by the MetEcoSMap project (promoter – the Ministry of
Environment and Water));
• The results of the project will be available via the Bulgarian Biodiversity
Information System (BBIS), maintained by the Executive Environment
Agency.
Subtypes of shrub and heathland ecosystems
F2. Arctic, alpine and
subalpine shrubs
(mostly in Natura 2000
sites) - 501
F9. Riverine and fen
shrubs (very rare and
normally with small size)
- 503.
F3. Temperate and
Mediterranean-montane
shrubs (the most
widespread) - 502
Territorial scope
65% of whole territory of the country, outside NATURA 2000 ;
primary selection of physical blocks determined as “shrubs and heathlands” covers about 96000 polygons with area about 5697 km2 (5.13% from the territory of Bulgaria).
Indicators and parameters
for evaluation the ecosystem conditions
Ecosystem structure Biodiversity
Vegetation cover
Plant species richness
Animal species richness
Red list species (animals and plants)
Alien and invasive species presence
Soil heterogeneity and disturbance
Soil quality
Soil organic matter
Soil erosion risk
Concentration of pollutants in soil from surrounding areas – number of
landfills
Fires
Ecosystem processes Matter budget
Matter storage
Provisioning
Biomass for food
Biomass for processing
Regulating and Maintenance
Regulating – soil and air quality
Maintenance – habitats for pollinators and nursery populations
Cultural
Physical interactions with the environment
Intellectual interactions with the environment
Spiritual (religious/sacral) interactions with the environment
Others (bequest - conservation significance)
Indicators and parameters for ecosystem services’ evaluation
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0
97.7
2.3
%
Score of IP index for Biotic diversity
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0.5
83.3
16.2
%
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 2.2
89.8
8.0
%
Subtype 501 Subtype 502
Subtype 503
Most of HSEs are in good
ecosystem condition
Score of IP index for Abiotic heterogeneity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5
0 0
20.4
68.1
11.5
%
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 2.1
92.6
5.3
%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0.2
99.1
0.6
% Subtype 501
Subtype 503
Subtype 502
Most of HSEs are in good
ecosystem condition as
subtype 501 has more diverse
distribution ranging from
moderate to very good.
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
1 2 3 4 5
91.7
3.8 0.7 1.7 2
%
Score of IP index for Matter budget
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
1 2 3 4 5
23.5
12.3 8.5
6.1
49.7 %
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1 2 3 4 5
18.6
9.8 9.2 4.8
57.6 % Subtype 501
Subtype 503
Subtype 502
Most of 501
subtype HSEs are
scored with very
bad EC, while the
other subtypes
with very good.
Score of IP index for ecosystem conditions
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0.1
96
3.8
%
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0.43
96.4
3.2
%
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0.4
91.3
8.4
%
Subtype 501 Subtype 502
Subtype 503
Most of HSEs are in good
ecosystem condition
Provisioning Ecosystem Services
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1 2 3 4 5
34.5
54.4
11.1
0.08 0
%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
1 2 3 4 5
0.1
10.8
44.8
30.6
13.7
%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5
0 5.9
32
51.6
10.5
%
Subtype 501 Subtype 502
Subtype 503
501 subtype provides
low relevant and relevant
ESs
502 and 503 subtypes
provide medium and high
relevant ESs but in
different proportion
Regulating and Maintenance Ecosystem Services
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5
0 0
66.7
33.3
0
%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5
0 0
30.7
69.3
0.05
%
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0
13.3
86.7
0
%
Subtype 501 Subtype 502
Subtype 503
Most of HSEs provide
medium and high
relevant ESs
Cultural Ecosystem Services
Subtype 501 Subtype 502
Subtype 503
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
1 2 3 4 5
16.5
83.5
0.00 0 0
%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1 2 3 4 5
42.8
55.4
1.8 0 0
%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
1 2 3 4 5
72.0
28.0
0 0 0
%
HSEs provide low relevant and
relevant cultural ESs
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0
91.6
8.4 0 0
%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5
0
38.5
61.5
0.06 0
%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5
0
42.6
57.4
0.00 0
%
Average Score for Ecosystem Services
Subtype 501 Subtype 502
Subtype 503
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
NE SC SE SW
% % number
% area
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
NC NE NW SC SE SW
% % number
% area
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
NC NE NW SC SE SW
% % number
% area
Distribution of ecosystem types by regions of planning
Type 501 Type 502
Type 503
Distribution of HSEs referring to the state of their
ecosystem conditions by regions for planning
Subtype 501
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0
100
0
%
NE
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 5.9
93.9
0.2
%
SC
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0
100
0
%
SE
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0.03
93.7
6.2
%
SW
Distribution of HSEs referring to the state of their
ecosystem conditions by regions for planning
Subtype 502
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0.4
98.4
1.2
% NC
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 1
98
1
% NE
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0.7
97.2
2.1
% NW
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0.6
97.5
1.9
% SC
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0.1
97.1
2.8
% SE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 1.1
57.9
41.1
% SW
Distribution of HSEs referring to the state of their
ecosystem conditions by regions for planning
Subtype 503
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0
100
0
% NC
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 3.8
96.2
0
% NE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0
94.1
5.9
% NW
0102030405060708090
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0.6
99.4
0
%
SC
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0
90.6
9.4
% SE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5
0 0 0
12
88 % SW
Distribution of SHEs referring to the values of ecosystem
services by regions of planning
Subtype 501
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0
100
0 0 0
%
NE
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0
90.9
9.1 0 0
%
SC
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5
0
100
0 0 0
%
SE
SW
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5
0
91.9
8.1
0 0
%
Distribution of SHEs referring to the values of
ecosystem services by regions of planning
Subtype 502
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5
0
31.5
68.5
0 0
% NC
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5
0
31.7
68.3
0 0
% NE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5
0
32.3
67.7
0.0 0
%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5
0
38.6
61.4
0 0
% SC
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5
0
23
76.6
0.4 0
%
SE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5
0
55.6
44.4
0 0
% SW
NW
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5
0
29.6
70.4
0 0
%
NC
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5
0
38.3
61.7
0 0
%
NE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5
0
29.5
70.5
0 0
%
NW
Distribution of SHEs referring to the values of
ecosystem services by regions of planning
Subtype 503
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5
0
56.8
43.2
0 0
% SC
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5
0
19.8
80.2
0 0
% SE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4 5
0
81.1
18.9
0 0
% SW
Distribution of HSEs by Regions of Planning
Subtype 501
Dis
trib
utio
n o
f H
SE
are
a (
%)
by s
co
res
Ecosystem condition and service
Distribution of HSEs by Regions of Planning
Subtype 502
Dis
trib
utio
n o
f H
SE
are
a (
%)
by s
co
res
Ecosystem condition and service
Distribution of HSEs by Regions of Planning
Subtype 503
Conclusions
• The dominant subtype HSE is 502 because the subtype 501 is
distributed mostly inside the Nature 2000 sites, whereas the 503
subtype HSEs is restricted like narrow stripes (till 20-30 m wide) along
the rivers or water bodies.
• The average score of EC is moderate and of ES is medium.
• Comparing the HSEs’ condition and services – higher potential of HSEs
to provide ESs than that calculated by the Real ESs Capacity (RESsC).
• Lack of knowledge and underestimated value of ESs provided by
HSEs, especially some cultural ESs.
• All RP show similar values for EC as the national, except SW region.
• Highly developed ESs in South-East RP.
Thank you for your attention!
valentin.bogoev@abv.bg
office@epsilon-bulgaria.com
top related