Assessment of Ecosystem Services at the Municipal Level and Its Possible Integration into Spatial Planning

Within the framework of the TEEB-Russia project methodological approaches have already been developed and, partly, an information base has been created for assessing ecosystem services at the Russian federal subjects’ level, but the large federal subjects’ area and their geographical heterogeneity determine the need for such work at the municipal level. The article discusses the methodology and results of the assessment of ecosystem services on the example of 4 rural municipal districts with different natural conditions and types of economy (Kiznersky district of the Udmurt Republic, Yelizovsky district of Kamchatka krai, Maykopsky district of the Republic of Adygea, and Bobrovsky district of Voronezh oblast). The evaluation algorithm is focused on the use of publicly available geospatial data, open thematic data, municipal statistics, as well as literary and stock data. The evaluation procedure includes: (1) analysis and mapping of the main types of ecosystems; (2) calculation of the proposed (potential) volume of productive, environmental and recreational services in natural science indicators; (3) calculation of the volume of these services used (depends on the population and consumption pattern); (4) analysis of the relationship between them. The low exploitation rate of certain types of production services was noted in all districts, however, the reasons for this situation are different in each of them, and a number of services require adjustment of the calculation methodology. In terms of the volume of runoff accumulation services by terrestrial ecosystems, the maximum indicators were noted in the Yelizovsky and Maykopsky districts, however, signs of its deficiency have already been noted in the latter. The calculation of the volume of recreational services used can be unified to the least extent and cannot be carried out with the existing information base for each municipal district. Based on the results of the work, methodological difficulties were identified in the transition from the regional level of calculation to the municipal level of calculation, difficulties and prospects for integrating the value of ecosystem services into strategic and territorial planning documents were identified, priorities for assessing ecosystem services for different types of territories were proposed.

1. Bagstad K.J., Semmens D.J., Winthrop R. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv., 2013, vol. 5, pp. 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.004

2. Bartalev S.A., Egorov V.A., Zharko V.O., Lupyan E.A., Plotnikov D.E., Hvostikov S.A., Shabanov N.V. Sputnikovoe kartografirovanie rastitel’nogo pokrova Rossii [Remote Sensing Mapping of Vegetation Cover of Russia]. Moscow: IKI RAN, 2016. 208 p.

3. Bateman I.J., Harwood A.R., Termansen M. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: Land use in the United Kingdom. Sci., 2013, vol. 341, pp. 45– 50. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1234379

4. Bobylev C.H., Zakharov V.M. Ekosistemnye uslugi i ekonomika [Ecosystem Services and Economy]. Moscow: Inst. Ustoichivogo Razvitiya. Tsentr Ekol. Politiki Rossii, 2009. 72 p.

5. Bol’shakov B.M. Status and prospects for the use of nontimber forest resources. In Sb. statei Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf., Kostroma, 10–11 sentyabrya 2014 [Proc. Int. Sci. Conf., Kostroma, September 10–11, 2014]. Pushkino: VNIILM, 2014, pp. 7–11. (In Russ.).

6. Bouwma I., Schleyer C., Primmer E., Winkler K.J., Berry P., Young J., Carmen E., Špulerová J., Bezák P., Preda E., Vadineanui A. Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosyst. Serv., 2018, vol. 29, pp. 213–222.

7. Braat L.C., de Groot R. The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv., 2012, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 4–15.

8. Bukvareva E., Zamolodchikov D., Narykov A. Supplied, demanded and consumed ecosystem services: Prospects for national assessment in Russia. Ecol. Indicators, 2017, vol. 78, pp. 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.034

9. Bukvareva E., Zamolodchikov D., Grunewald K. National assessment of ecosystem services in Russia: Methodology and main problems. Sci. Total Env., 2019, vol. 655, pp. 1181–1196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.286

10. Bukvareva E.N., Grunewald K., Bastian O. The current state of knowledge of ecosystems and ecosystem services in Russia: A status report. Ambio, 2015, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0674-4

11. Burkhard B., Kroll F., Müller F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indicators, 2012, vol. 21, pp. 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019

12. Daily G.C., Polasky S., Shallenberger R. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ., 2009, vol. 105, no. 28, pp. 9455–9456. https://doi.org/10.1890/080025

13. De Groot R.S., Alkemade R., Braat L., Hein L., Willemen L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complexity, 2010, vol. 7, pp. 260–272.

14. Egoh B., Reyers B., van Jaarsveld A.S. Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture, Ecosyst. Environ., 2008, vol. 127, pp. 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.03.013

15. Egorov V.A., Bartalev S.A., Kolbudaev P.A., Plotnikov D.E., Khvostikov S.A. Vegetation map of Russia obtained from the data of the Proba-V satellite system. Sovremennye Probl. Distantsionnogo Zondirovaniya Zemli iz Kosmosa, 2018, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 282–286. (In Russ.).

16. Ekosistemnye uslugi Rossii: Prototip natsional’nogo doklada [Ecosystem Services of Russia: Prototype of National Report]. Vol. 1: Uslugi nazemnykh ekosistem [Terrestrial Ecosystems Services]. Bukvaryova D.G., Zamolodchikov E.N., Eds. Moscow: Tsentr Okhrany Dikoi Prirody, 2016. 148 p.

17. Ekosistemnye uslugi Rossii: Prototip natsional’nogo doklada [Ecosystem Services of Russia: Prototype of National Report]. Vol. 2: Bioraznoobrazie i ekosistemnye uslugi: printsipy ucheta v Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Accounting Principles in Russia]. Bukvareva E.N., Sviridova T.V., Eds. Moscow: Tsentr Okhrany Dikoi Prirody, 2020. 220 p.

18. Farber S.C., Costanza R., Wilson M.A. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ., 2002, vol. 41, pp. 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00088-5

19. Frank S., Fürst C., Makeschin F.A. Contribution towards a transfer of the ecosystem service concept to landscape planning using landscape metrics. Ecol. Indicators, 2012, vol. 21, pp. 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.027

20. Haines-Young R., Potschin M.B. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Nottingham: Centre for Environmental Management, 2018.

21. Hansen M.C., Potapov P.V., Moore R. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 2013, vol. 342, no. 6160, pp. 850–853.

22. IPBES. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Brondizio E.S., Settele J., Díaz S., Ngo H.T., Eds. Bonn: IPBES, 2019. 300 p.

23. Klimanova O.A., Kolbovskii E.Yu., Illarionova O.A., Zemlyanskii D.Yu. The concept of ecological capacity: the modern idea and algorithm of touristic territories assessment. Vestn. SPbGU. Nauki o Zemle, 2021, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 806–830. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu07.2021.409

24. Maes J., Egoh B., Bidoglio G. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv., 2012, vol. 201, no. 21, pp. 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004

25. Malinga R., Gordon L.J., Lindborg R. Mapping ecosystem services across scales and continents–A review. Ecosyst. Serv., 2015, vol. 13, pp. 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.006

26. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington DC, US: Island Press, 2005. 137 p.

27. Natsional’nyi atlas Rossii [National Atlas of Russia]. Moscow: Roskartografia, 2007. 331 p.

28. Nowak D.J., Hirabayashi S., Doyle M. Air pollution removal by urban forests in Canada and its effect on air quality and human health. Urban For. Urban Green., 2018, vol. 29, pp. 40–48.

29. Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation. Version 2 (RUSLE2) (for the model with release date of May 20, 2008) Science Documentation. Washington DC, US: USDA-Agricultural Research Service, 2013. 330 p.

30. Radchenko L.M. Otsenka sostoyaniya rastitel'nosti: luga i tundry [Vegetation assessment: meadows and tundra]. Ekaterinburg: Izd-vo Ural. Univ., 2016. 86 p.

31. Soldatova I.E., Soldatov E.D., Hairbekov S.U. State and rational use of mountain meadows-pasture lands of the North Caucasu. Gornoe sel'skoe khozyaistvo, 2017, no. 3, pp. 44–49.

32. Saarikoski H., Primmer E., Young J. Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice. Ecosyst. Serv., 2018, vol. 29, pp. 579–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019

33. Sherrouse B.C., Clement J.M., Semmens D.J. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl. Geogr., 2011, vol. 31, pp. 748–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.08.002

34. Spangenberg J.H., Settele J. Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services. Ecol. Complexity, 2010, vol. 7, pp. 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.04.007

35. Syrbe R.-U., Schorcht M., Grunewald K., Meinel G. Indicators for a nationwide monitoring of ecosystem services in Germany exemplified by the mitigation of soil erosion by water // Ecol. Indicators. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.035

36. Kumar P. TEEB: Foundations, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. London, UK: Earthscan, 2012. 456 p.

37. D’yakonov K.N., Khoroshev A.V. Teoriya i metodologiya landshaftnogo planirovaniya [Theory and Methodology of Landscape Planning]. Moscow: KMK Publ., 2019. 444 p.

38. Tishkov A.A. Biosfernye funktsii prirodnykh ekosistem Rossii [Biosphere Functions of the Natural Ecosystems of Russia]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 2005. 309 p.

39. Turnpenny J., Russel D., Jordan A. The challenge of embedding an ecosystem services approach: patterns of knowledge utilisation in public policy appraisal. Environ. Plann. C: Government Policy, 2014, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 247–262.

40. Verhagen W., Verburg P., Schulp N., Stürck, J. Mapping ecosystem services. In Ecosystem Services: From Concept to Practice. Bouma J., Van Beukering P., Eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015, pp. 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107477612.006

41. Vrebos D., Staes J., Meire P. Mapping ecosystem service f lows with land cover scoring maps for data-scarce regions. Ecosyst. Serv., 2015, vol. 13, pp. 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.005