Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRadomska, Marharyta Myroslavivna-
dc.contributor.authorTykhenko, Oksana Mykolaivna-
dc.contributor.authorNazarkov, Тaras Ihorovych-
dc.contributor.authorРадомська, Маргарита Мирославівна-
dc.contributor.authorТихенко, Оксана Миколаївна-
dc.contributor.authorНазарков, Тарас Ігорович-
dc.identifier.citationRadomska M. М., Tykhenko O. M., Nazarkov Т.I. Economic valuation of ecosystem services of natural plant associations of the Pluzhne forestry. Екологічна безпека та природокористування. 2023. № 45(1). P. 43–58.uk_UA
dc.identifier.otherUDC 330.15:502.33-
dc.description1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being. Island Press, Washington. 2. Jenkins, M., & Schaapm B. (2018). Forest Ecosystem Services: Background Analytical Study. Background study prepared for the thirteenth session of the United Nations Forum on Forests. 3. Martín-López, B., Oteros-Rozas, E., Cohen-Shacham, E., Santos-Martín, F., Nieto-Romero, M., Carvalho-Santos, C., ... & Cramer, W. (2016). Ecosystem services supplied by Mediterranean Basin ecosystems. In Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services (pp. 405–414). Routledge. 4. Aznar-Sánchez, J. A., Belmonte-Ureña, L. J., López-Serrano, M. J., & VelascoMuñoz, J. F. (2018). Forest ecosystem services: An analysis of worldwide research. Forests, 9(8), 453. 5. 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, 387–397. 6. Havrylenko, O., & Tsyhanok, E. (2018). Degradation of ecosystem services of protected areas in urbanized zones. Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 4(73), 10–14. 7. Soloviy, I. P., Nijnik, M.S., Deyneka, A.M., & Melnykovych, M.P. (2017). Reimagining forest policy, institutions and instruments through concepts of ecosystem services and social innovations: Ukraine in the focus. Scientific bulletin of UNFU, 27(8), 82-87. 8. Holubchak, O., Korol, S., Melnychuk, I., & Prykhodko, M. (2019, October). Optimization of forest ecosystem recreational services formation in conditions of decentralization in Ukraine. In 2019 7th International Conference on Modeling, Development and Strategic Management of Economic System (MDSMES 2019) (pp. 227–231). Atlantis Press. 9. Drebot, O., Shvydenko, I., Raіchuk, L., Yaremko, O., Symochko, L., Vysochanska, M., ... & Kuchma, М. (2022). Rehabilitation of forest ecosystems taking into account modern international ecological trends in the context of the European green deal. International Journal of Ecosystems and Ecology Science, 12(2), 575–584. 10. Zhyla, T., Soloviy, I., Zhyla, A., & Volosyanchuk, R. (2018). Mountain communities’ households dependency on provisioning forest ecosystem services: the case of Ukrainian Carpathians. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov. Series II: Forestry, Wood Industry, Agricultural Food Engineering, 11 (2), 63–80. 11. Dankevych, S. (2021). Development potential of forest ecosystem services in Ukraine as a financial tool to ensure balanced land use. Agrosvit, 11, 45–56. 12. Mori, A. S., Lertzman, K. P., & Gustafsson, L. (2017). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in forest ecosystems: a research agenda for applied forest ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54(1), 12–27. 13. Isbell, F., Calcagno, V., Hector, A. et al. (2011). High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature, 477, 199–202. 14. Gamfeldt, L., Snäll, T., Bagchi, R., Jonsson, M., Gustafsson, L., Kjellander, P., ... & Bengtsson, J. (2013). Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nature communications, 4(1), 1340. 15. Brockerhoff, E. G., Barbaro, L., Castagneyrol, B., Forrester, D. I., Gardiner, B., González-Olabarria, J. R., ... & Jactel, H. (2017). Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation, 26(13), 3005–3035. 16. Jonsson, M., Bengtsson, J., Gamfeldt, L., Moen, J., & Snäll, T. (2019). Levels of forest ecosystem services depend on specific mixtures of commercial tree species. Nature plants, 5(2), 141–147. 17. Felipe-Lucia, M. R., Soliveres, S., Penone, C., Manning, P., van der Plas, F., Boch, S., ... & Allan, E. (2018). Multiple forest attributes underpin the supply of multiple ecosystem services. Nature communications, 9(1), 4839. 18. Le Provost, G., Schenk, N. V., Penone, C., Thiele, J., Westphal, C., Allan, E., ... & Manning, P. (2022). The supply of multiple ecosystem services requires biodiversity across spatial scales. Nature ecology & evolution, 7, 236–249. 01918-5. 19. Ajrhough, S., Maanan, M., Alaoui, H. M., Rhinane, H., & El Arabi, E. H. (2019). Mapping Forest Ecosystem Services: A Review. The International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 42, 17–22. 20. García-Nieto, A. P., García-Llorente, M., Iniesta-Arandia, I., & Martín-López, B. (2013). Mapping forest ecosystem services: from providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosystem Services, 4, 126-138. 21. Olosutean, H. (2015). Methods for Modeling Ecosystem Services: A Review. Management of Sustainable Development, 7(1), 5-12. 22. Alix-Garcia, J., & Wolff, H. (2014). Payment for ecosystem services from forests. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 6(1), 361–380. Vol. 6:361–380 23. Bishop, J., Brink, P. T., Gundimeda, H., Kumar, P., Nesshöver, C., Schröter-Schlaack, C., ... & Wittmer, H. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. (No. 333.95 E19). UNEP, Ginebra (Suiza). 24. Acharya, R. P., Maraseni, T., & Cockfield, G. (2019). Global trend of forest ecosystem services valuation–An analysis of publications. Ecosystem Services, 39, 100979. 25. Shashula, L.O., Sakal, O.V., & Tretiak, N.A. (2019). Payment for Ecosystem Services in Ukraine: Priority Direction of Revitalization. Mechanism of Economic Regulation, 2, 6–16. 26. Dankevych, S. (2021). Development potential of forest ecosystem services in Ukraine as a financial tool to ensure balanced land use. Agrosvit, 11, 45–56. 27. Zahvoyska, L. (2014). Theoretical approaches to determining economic value of forest ecosystems services: benefits of pure stands transformation into mixed stands. Proceedings of the Forestry Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 12, 201–209. 28. Vysotska, N., Kalashnikov, A., Sydorenko, S., & Yurchenko, V. (2021). Ecosystem services of shelterbelts as the basis of compensatory mechanisms of their creation and maintenance. Proceedings of the Forestry Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 22, 199–208. 29. Shyshchenko, P. H., Havrylenko O. P., & Tsyhanok, Ye. Yu. (2019). Ecosystem value of Holosiyivskyi forest as an urban protected area: causes and consequences of degradation. Ukrainian geographical journal, 4(108), 40–49. ( 30. Andreieva, V., Voitiuk, V., Kychyliuk, Shepeliuk, M., Hetmanchuk, A., & Derkach, V. (2021). Еconomic estimation of Сheremsky swamp on the basis of ecosystem services. Notes in Current Biology, 1(1), 15–24. 31. Anisimova, S., & Okovyta, Y. (2022). Ecological and economic assessment of forest ecosystem services on the example of SE "Vovchanske forestry". Bulletin of Kharkiv National Autоmobile And Highway University, 97, 114–121. 32. Almeida, I., Rösch, C., & Saha, S. (2018). Comparison of Ecosystem Services from Mixed and Monospecific Forests in Southwest Germany: A Survey on Public Perception. Forests, 9(10), 627. 33. Bengtsson, J., Bullock, J. M., Egoh, B., Everson, C., Everson, T., O'Connor, T., O'Farrell, P. J., Smith, H. G., & Lindborg, R. (2019). Grasslands – more important for ecosystem services than you might think. Ecosphere, 10(2), e02582. 34. McGrath, M. J., Luyssaert, S., Meyfroidt, P., Kaplan, J. O., Bürgi, M., Chen, Y., Erb, K., Gimmi, U., McInerney, D., Naudts, K., Otto, J., Pasztor, F., Ryder, J., Schelhaas, M.-J., & Valade, A. (2015). Reconstructing European forest management from 1600 to 2010. Biogeosciences, 12, 4291–4316. 35. Richards, K. R., & Stokes, C. A. (2004). Review of Forest Carbon Sequestration Cost Studies: A Dozen Years of Research. Climatic Change, 63, 1–48. 36. Fuller, M., & Dwivedi, P. (2021) The Cost of Carbon Stored on Afforested Lands in the Southern United States. Trees, Forests and People, 6, 100129. 37. Krieger, D. J. (2001). The economic values of forest ecosystem services: a review. The Wilderness Society. Washington, DC, USA. 38. Barth, N.-C., & Döll, P. (2016). Assessing the ecosystem service flood protection of a riparian forest by applying a cascade approach. Ecosystem Services, 21(A), 39–52. 39. Monson, R. K. (2014). Ecology of Temperate Forests. In Ecology and the Environment, the Plant Sciences (pp. 273–296). Springer: New York, NY, USA. 40. Vesna, V., Maes, J., Petersen, J.E., La Notte, A., Vallecillo, S., Aizpurua, N., Ivits, E., Teller, A. Accounting for ecosystems and their services in the European Union (INCA). (2021). Final report from phase II of the INCA project aiming to develop a pilot for an integrated system of ecosystem accounts for the EU. Statistical report. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 41. Czajkowski, M., Buszko-Briggs, M., & Hanley, N. (2009). Valuing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 68(12), 2910–2917. ecolecon.2009.06.016. 42. Garcia, S., Harou, P., Montagné, C., & Stenger, A. (2011). Valuing forest biodiversity through a national survey in France: a dichotomous choice contingent valuation. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 7(2), 84–97. 43. Hirons, M., Comberti, C., & Dunford, R. (2016). Valuing cultural ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), 545–574. annurev-environ-110615-085831. 44. Myers, N., & Goreau, T. J. (1991). Tropical forests and the greenhouse effect: a management response. Climatic Change, 19(1-2), 215–225. 94-017-3608-4_22. 45. Paustian, K., Larson, E., Kent, J., Marx, E., & Swan, A. (2019). Soil C sequestration as a biological negative emission strategy. Frontiers in Climate, 1, 8. 46. Barrio, M., & Loureiro, M. L. (2010). A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies. Ecological Economics, 69(5), 1023–1030. 2009.11.016. 47. Grammatikopoulou, I., & Vačkářová, D. (2021). The value of forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis at the European scale and application to national ecosystem accounting. Ecosystem Services, 48, 101262. 48. National Natural Park “Holosiivsky”. Kyiv, Environment. People. Law, 2018. 49. Shyshchenko, P. H., Havrylenko, O. P., & Tsyhanok, Y. Y. (2019). Ecosystem value of holosiyivskyi forest as an urban protected area: Causes and consequences of degradation. Ukrainian Geographical Journal, 4(108), 40–49.
dc.description.abstractEcosystem services are the basis of human development and existence. The resilience and balance of ecosystems is the key to the well-being and comfort of the human race, but their role and value of services provided is often underestimated. The aim of the given research is to conduct economic assessment of ecosystem services of natural plant associations of the selected area – Pluzhne forestry. Forests are known to provide the most diverse and comprehensive complex of ecosystem services and thus represent complicated object for assessment. The first step of the assessment included formulation of the list of ecosystem services to be included into the assessment procedure, giving priority to the most well-studied. The second step was aimed at determination of the unit prices for the chosen services. They were elaborated based on similar valuations, sufficiently supported by research data. The resulted cost of ecosystem services provided were compared to the assessments, performed for forest ecosystems in Ukraine and European countries, which is an element of novelty and originality. Although there are noticeable deviations in specific value of ecosystem services per unit of forest area, the general trend in consistent with European experience. The reasons of differences could be explained by the choice of approaches to unit prices evaluation and list of services included into assessment. The obtained data are important for raising awareness of local population and authorities about the importance of ecosystems functioning and need to invest resources in their support and protection. Research works of such kind are still rare in Ukrainian academic sphere despite their high importance for efficient management of environment quality and use. Thus, there is a clear need develop this research field and the given research contributes theoretical and applied provisions for further assessments of such kinduk_UA
dc.description.abstractЕкосистемні послуги є основою безпечного середовища існування людини та забезпечення потреб суспільства. Разом з цим роль і цінність послуг, що надаються природними екосистемами, часто недооцінюють. Метою даного дослідження є проведення економічної оцінки екосистемних послуг природних рослинних угруповань обраної території – Плужненського лісництва. Відомо, що ліси надають найрізноманітніший комплекс екосистемних послуг і тому є складним об'єктом оцінки. На першому етапі дослідження було сформульовано перелік екосистемних послуг лісів, що підлягали наступній оцінці, віддаючи пріоритет найбільш добре вивченим. Другий етап був спрямований на визначення одиничних цін на обрані послуги. Вони були розроблені на основі аналогічних оцінок, достатньо підтверджених даними досліджень. Отриману вартість наданих екосистемних послуг порівнювали з результатами інших авторів, виконаними для лісових екосистем України та країн Європи, що є елементом новизни та оригінальності роботи. Хоча є помітні відхилення в питомій вартості екосистемних послуг на одиницю лісової площі, загальна тенденція узгоджується з європейським досвідом. Причини відмінностей можна пояснити вибором підходів до оцінки одиничних цін та переліку послуг, що були враховані в оцінці. Отримані дані є важливими для підвищення обізнаності місцевого населення та органів влади про важливість функціонування екосистем та необхідність вкладення ресурсів у їх підтримку та захист. Дослідження такого роду все ще є рідкістю в українському науковому середовищі, незважаючи на їх велике значення для ефективного управління якістю та використанням навколишнього середовища. Таким чином, існує очевидна потреба розвивати цю область досліджень, і дане дослідження вносить теоретичні та прикладні положення для подальших оцінок такого родуuk_UA
dc.publisherТОВ «Видавництво «Юстон»uk_UA
dc.subjectforest ecosystemuk_UA
dc.subjectecosystem servicesuk_UA
dc.subjectunit service priceuk_UA
dc.subjectdirect valuationuk_UA
dc.subjectindirect valuationuk_UA
dc.subjectmonetary valueuk_UA
dc.subjectлісова екосистемаuk_UA
dc.subjectекосистемні послугиuk_UA
dc.subjectціна за одиницю послугиuk_UA
dc.subjectпряма оцінкаuk_UA
dc.subjectнепряма оцінкаuk_UA
dc.subjectгрошова вартістьuk_UA
dc.titleEconomic valuation of ecosystem services of natural plant associations of the Pluzhne forestryuk_UA
dc.title.alternativeЕкономічна оцінка екосистемних послуг природних рослинних асоціацій Плужненського лісгоспуuk_UA
Appears in Collections:Публікації у наукових виданнях співробітників кафедри екології

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Radomska_2.pdfСтаття979.73 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.