Advertisement

Ecosystem Services and Disservices of Watercourses and Water Areas

  • J. SchneiderEmail author
  • Ž. Kalasová
  • J. Fialová
Chapter
Part of the Springer Water book series (SPWA)

Abstract

Ecosystem services and disservices of the watercourse network in the Czech Republic are not systemized in detail yet. It is a pity for the Czech Republic operates long-term monitoring of physical, chemical and biological characteristics of watercourses of all orders. A large part of these data is publicly accessible and serves as the basis for water management planning and management measures. These data are also used for the work of numerous major governmental institutions—the catchment area management establishments, the Czech Hydro-Meteorological Institute, the T. G. Masaryk Water Research Institute, the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic and academic research sites. Tow complex and general assessments of ecosystem services on the national level have already been made by Seják et al. and Vačkář et al. However, a complex system already developing on the international scene allowing for practical applicability of the approach is missing in our country. This chapter, therefore, offers a brief cross-sectional view of the application of ecosystem services in water management and options of application of this system in the Czech Republic.

Keywords

Ecosystem function Ecosystem services Ecosystem disservices Blue infrastructure 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This chapter has been worked out under the project no. EHP-CZ02-OV-1-032-2015 raising awareness and publicity of the importance of forest functions in the landscape and near-natural watercourses in urban areas as a part of basin ecosystem services.

References

  1. 1.
    Shapiro J, Báldi A (2014) Accurate accounting: how to balance ecosystem services and disservices. Ecosyst Serv 7:201–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.01.002. ISSN 22120416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sandbrook ChG, Burgess ND (2015) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: not all positive. Ecosyst Serv 12:29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.006. ISSN 22120416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shackleton CM, Ruwanza S et al (2016) Unpacking Pandora’s box: understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing. Ecosystems 19(4):587–600.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9952-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ango TGL, Börjeson L, Senbeta F, Hylander K (2014) Balancing ecosystem services and disservices: smallholder farmers’ use and management of forest and trees in an agricultural landscape in Southwestern Ethiopia. Ecol Soc 19(1).  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-06279-190130. ISSN 1708-3087
  5. 5.
    Löe J, Röskaf E (2004) Large carnivores and human safety: a review. AMBIO J Hum Environ 33:283–288.  https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-33.6.283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seják J, Dejmal I et al (2003) Hodnocení a oceňování biotopů České republiky. Praha. Available via: http://fzp.ujep.cz/projekty/vav-610-5-01/hodnocenibiotopucr.pdf
  7. 7.
    Seják J et al (2010) Hodnocení funkcí a služeb ekosystémů České republiky. Ústí nad Labem: Univerzita J.E. Purkyně v Ústí nad Labem, Fakulta životního prostředí. ISBN 978-80-7414-235-2Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frélichová J et al (2014) Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic. Ecosyst Serv 8:110–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vačkář D et al (2014) Metodologický rámec integrovaného hodnocení ekosystémových služeb v České republice (online). Available via: http://www.ecosystemservices.cz/userfiles/page/246/72fc39cc8d8e7f501934794636059d8c.pdf
  10. 10.
    Lampartová I (2016) Význam úprav vodních toků v urbanizovaném území pro rozvoj rekreace v regionech. Mendelova univerzita v Brně, Brno. ISBN 978-80-7509-463-6Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kristensen P, Globevnik L (2014) European small water bodies. Biol Environ: Proc R Irish Acad 114B(3):281–287.  https://doi.org/10.3318/bioe.2014.13. ISSN 07917945Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin-Ortega J (2015) Water ecosystem services: a global perspective. International hydrology series. Cambridge University Press, New York. ISBN 978-1-107-10037-4Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Costanza R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grizzetti B, Lanzanova D, Liquete C, Reynaud A, Cardoso AC (2016) Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. Environ Sci 61:194–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.008. ISSN 14629011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Environment Agency (2012) European waters assessment of status and pressures. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. ISBN 978-929-2133-399Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maes J et al (2016) Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. Urban ecosystems. Publication Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Covich AP, Austen MC, Bärlocher F et al (2004) The role of biodiversity in the functioning of freshwater and marine benthic ecosystems. BioScience 54(8):767–775.  https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054%5b0767:trobit%5d2.0.co;2. ISSN 0006-3568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giller S, Jillebrand PH, Berninger UG et al (2004) Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: emerging issues and their experimental test in aquatic environments. Oikos 104(3):423–436.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.13253.x. ISSN 00301299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hamfeldt L, Hillebrand H (2008) Biodiversity effects on aquatic ecosystem functioning—maturation of a new paradigm. Int Rev Hydrobiol 93(4–5):550–564.  https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.200711022. ISSN 14342944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stendera S, Adrian R, Bonada N, Cañedo-Argüelles M et al (2012) Drivers and stressors of freshwater biodiversity patterns across different ecosystems and scales: a review. Hydrobiologia 696(1), 1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1183-0. ISSN 0018-8158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith M et al (2006) Pay: establishing payments for watershed services. IUCNGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Adamus PR et al (1991) Wetland evaluation technique WET, I. Literature review and evaluation rationale. Technical report WRP-DE-2 US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vickburg, Mississippi, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis JC, Muhlberg GA (2002) The evaluation of wetland and Riparian restoration projects. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division, Technical report no DRAFT. Anchorage, AlaskaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Escobedo FJ, Kroeger T, Wagner JE (2011) Urban forests and pollution mitigation: Analyzing ecosystem services and disservices. Environ Pollut 159(8–9):2078–2087.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.01.010. ISSN 02697491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Von Döhren P, Haase D (2015) Ecosystem disservices research: a review of the state of the art with a focus on cities.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Malan HL, Appleton CC, Day JA, Dini J (2009) Review: wetlands and invertebrate disease hosts. Water SA 35(5).  https://doi.org/10.4314/wsa.v35i5.49202. ISSN 0378-4738
  27. 27.
    Lyytimäki J, Petersen LK, Normander B, Bezák P (2008) Nature as a nuisance? Ecosystem services and disservices to urban lifestyle. Environ Sci 5(3):161–172.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15693430802055524. ISSN 1569-3430CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmentalistics and Natural Resources, Faculty of Regional Development and International StudiesMendel University in BrnoBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Landscape Management, Faculty of Forestry and Wood TechnologyMendel University in BrnoBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations