Ecosystem-Based Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction: Costs and Benefits of Participatory Ecosystem Services Scenarios for Šumava National Park, Czech Republic

Part of the Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research book series (NTHR, volume 42)


The aim of the study was to analyse economic costs and benefits of stakeholder-defined adaptation scenarios for the Šumava National Park, the Czech Republic, and to evaluate their impact on the provision of ecosystem services, primarily focusing on ecosystem-based adaptation options which support disaster risk reduction in a broader region. The study utilised an array of approaches, including participatory scenario building, GIS modelling and economic evaluation. Based on a participatory input by local stakeholders, four adaptation scenarios were created, formulating various possibilities of future development in the area as well as potential vulnerabilities and adaptation needs. The scenarios subsequently served as the basis for biophysical modelling of the impacts of adaptation and disaster risk reduction measures on the provision of ecosystem services with the InVEST modelling suite, focusing on climate regulation, water quality and hydropower production. Finally, a cost-benefit analysis was conducted, quantifying management and investment costs of each adaptation scenario, and benefits originating from the provision of previously modelled regulating ecosystem services, together with a supplementary selection of provisioning services. This study serves as an example of combining stakeholder views, biophysical modelling and economic valuation in the cost-benefit analysis of ecosystem-based adaptation and disaster risk reduction, which provides the opportunity to find shared solutions for the adaptation of social-ecological systems to global change.


Climate change Ecosystem-based adaptation Participatory scenarios Ecosystem services Cost-benefit analysis 



The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement No. 308337 (Project BASE). The text reflects only the authors’ views and the EU is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.


  1. ANPS (2005–2008) Annual reports of the Administration of the NP and PLA of Šumava 2005–2008 [in Czech]. Accessed 3 Sep 2014
  2. Beniston M, Stephenson DB, Christensen OB et al (2007) Future extreme events in European climate: an exploration of regional climate model projections. Clim Chang 81:71–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bláha J, Romportl D, Křenová Z (2012) Can Natura 2000 mapping be used to zone the Šumava National Park? Eur J Environ Sci 3:57–64Google Scholar
  4. Campbell A, Kapos V, Scharlemann JPW et al (2009) Review of the literature on the links between biodiversity and climate change: impacts, adaptation and mitigation. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  5. CBD (2009) Connecting biodiversity and climate change mitigation and adaptation: report of the second ad hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change. Technical series no. 41, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  6. De Simon G, Alberti G, Delle Vedove G et al (2012) Carbon stocks and net ecosystem production changes with time in two Italian forest chronosequences. Eur J For Res 131:1297–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dendoncker N, Bogaert P, Rounsevell M (2006) A statistical method to downscale aggregated land use data and scenarios. J Land Use Sci 1:63–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EEA (2007) CLC2006 technical guidelines. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  9. EEA (2010) The European environment – State and Outlook 2010: Czech Republic Country Assessment. Accessed 3 Sept 2014
  10. EIA Servis (2011) Regulatory plan: Connecting Klápa – Hraničník [in Czech]. Environmental Impact Assessment Documentation. EIA Servis s.r.o., České Budějovice. Accessed 10 Oct 2014
  11. ERO CR (2014) Price decision 1/2014, specifying subsidies for selected sources of energy [in Czech]. Energy Regulatory Office of the Czech Republic. Accessed 16 Nov 2014
  12. ESRI (2013) ArcGIS10.2. Environmental System Research Institute, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldstein JH, Caldarone G, Duarte TK et al (2012) Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. PNAS 109:7565–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grêt-Regamey A, Bishop ID, Bebi P (2007) Predicting the scenic beauty value of mapped landscape changes in a mountainous region through the use of GIS. Environ Plan B Plan Des 34:50–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanel M, Vizina A, Máca P et al (2012) A multi-model assessment of climate change impact on hydrological regime in the Czech Republic. J Hydrol Hydromech 60:152–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanley N, Barbier EB (2009) Pricing nature: cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  17. Harmáčková ZV, Vačkář D (2015) Modelling regulating ecosystem services trade-offs across landscape scenarios in Třeboňsko Wetlands Biosphere Reserve, Czech Republic. Ecol Model 295:207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison PA, Vandewalle M, Sykes MT et al (2010) Identifying and prioritising services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Biodivers Conserv 19:2791–2821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hönigová I, Vačkář D, Lorencová E et al (2012) Survey on grassland ecosystem services. Report to the EEA – European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity. Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic, PragueGoogle Scholar
  20. IFER (2010) Inventorying of landscape – CzechTerra [in Czech]. Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic, PragueGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones HP, Hole DG, Zavaleta ES (2012) Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate change. Nat Clim Chang 2:504–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH et al (2011) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kindlmann P, Matějka K, Doležal P (2012) The Šumava forests, bark beetla and nature conservation [in Czech]. Karolinum, PragueGoogle Scholar
  24. Koomen E, Stillwell J (2007) Modelling land-use change: theories and methods. In: Koomen E, Stillwell J, Bakema A et al (eds) Modelling land-use change: progress and applications. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Křenová Z, Hruška J (2012) Proper zonation – an essential tool for the future conservation of the Šumava National Park. Eur J Environ Sci 2:62–72Google Scholar
  26. Krupnick A, Mclaughlin D (2012) Valuing the impacts of climate change on terrestrial ecosystem services. Clim Chang Econ 3:1250021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lange GM, Dasgupta S, Thomas T et al (2010) Economics of adaptation to climate change – ecosystem services. The World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindsay R (2010) Peatbogs and carbon: a critical synthesis to inform policy development in oceanic peat bog conservation and restoration in the context of climate change (Technical report). University of East London, Environmental Research Group. Accessed 3 Sept 2014
  29. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. MD CR (2014) The database of public procurement [in Czech]. Ministry of Regional Development of the Czech Republic, Prague, Accessed 15 Oct 2014
  31. ME CR (2013) Sixth national communication of the Czech Republic under the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change. Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic, PragueGoogle Scholar
  32. Mooney H, Larigauderie A, Cesario M et al (2009) Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 1:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Munang R, Thiaw I, Alverson K et al (2013a) The role of ecosystem services in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Munang R, Thiaw I, Alverson K et al (2013b) Climate change and ecosystem-based adaptation: a new pragmatic approach to buffering climate change impacts. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:67–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Naumann S, Anzaldua G, Berry P, Burch S, McKenna D, Frelih-Larsen A, Gerdes H, Sanders M (2011) Assessment of the potential of ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation in Europe. Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment, Contract no. 070307/2010/580412/SER/B2. Ecologic institute and Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Centre for the EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  36. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J et al (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. NIR (2012) National greenhouse gas inventory report of the Czech Republic. Prague – Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic. Accessed 3 Sept 2014
  38. Novotná M, Kopp J (2010) Migration trends in the Bohemian Forest region after 1990 [in Czech]. Silva Gabreta 16:187–206Google Scholar
  39. O’Halloran LR, Borer ET, Seabloom EW et al (2013) Regional contingencies in the relationship between aboveground biomass and litter in the world’s grasslands. PLoS ONE 8:e54988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. OECD (2013) Czech Republic Country Profile. In: Water and climate change adaptation – policies to navigate uncharted waters. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  41. Perlín R, Bičík I (2010) Local development in the Šumava region: Final report to the project analysis of the development of the Šumava National Park in last 15 years [in Czech]. Administration of the NP and PLA of ŠumavaGoogle Scholar
  42. Reckhow KH, Beaulac MN, Simpson JT (1980) Modeling phosphorus loading and lake response under uncertainty: a manual and compilation of export coefficients. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Reed MS, Kenter J, Bonn A (2013) Participatory scenario development for environmental management: a methodological framework illustrated with experience from the UK uplands. J Environ Manag 128:345–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Renaud FG, Sudmeier-Rieux K, Estrella M (eds) (2013) The role of ecosystems in disaster risk reduction. United Nations University Press, New York/Tokyo/ParisGoogle Scholar
  45. Rounsevell MDA, Metzger MJ (2010) Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1:606–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rounsevell MDA, Reginster I, Araújo MB (2006) A coherent set of future land use change scenarios for Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rybanič R, Šeffer J, Čierna M (1999) Economic valuation of benefits from conservation and restoration of floodplain meadows. In: Šeffer J, Stanová V (eds) Morava River floodplain meadows – importance, restoration and management. DAPHNE – Centre for Applied Ecology, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  48. Schumacher J, Roscher C (2009) Differential effects of functional traits on aboveground biomass in semi-natural grasslands. Oikos 118:1659–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Settele J, Hammen V, Hulme P et al (2005) ALARM: assessing Large-scale environmental risks for biodiversity with tested methods. Gaia 14:69–72Google Scholar
  50. Sharp R, Tallis HT, Ricketts T et al (2014) InVEST user’s guide. The Natural Capital Project, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  51. Spangenberg J (2007) Integrated scenarios for assessing biodiversity risks. Sustain Dev 15:343–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tallis H, Polasky S (2009) Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1162:265–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Kumar P (ed). Earthscan, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  54. TGM WRI (2014) DIBAVOD hydrological database. T. G. Masaryk Water Research Institute, v.v.i. Accessed 3 Sept 2014
  55. Tolasz R (ed) (2007) Climate atlas of the Czech Republic [in Czech]. Czech Hydrometeorological Institute, Palacky University, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  56. Truus L (2011) Estimation of above-ground biomass of wetlands. In: Atazadeh I (ed) Biomass and remote sensing of biomass., InTech, Accessed 3 Sept 2014Google Scholar
  57. USGCRP (2008) Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. Julius SH, West JM (eds) US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  58. Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM (2013) Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol Complex 15:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. VÚMOP (2014) SOWAC-GIS Geoportal. Research Institute for soil and water conservation, v.v.i. Accessed 3 Sept 2014

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human Dimensions of Global ChangeGlobal Change Research Centre, Academy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Faculty of HumanitiesCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations