Ecosystem Service Potentials and Their Indicators in Postglacial Landscapes: Assessment and Mapping

Ecosystem Service Potentials and Their Indicators in Postglacial Landscapes

Assessment and Mapping

Andrzej Affek

Marek Degórski

Jacek Wolski

Jerzy Solon

Anna Kowalska

Ewa Roo-Zielińska

Bożenna Grabińska

BogusŁawa Kruczkowska

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1. Theoretical assumptions, objectives, and scope of the study

1.2. Development of ES concept - state of the art

Chapter 2. Postglacial landscape

2.1. European overview

2.2. Case study area

Chapter 3. Methods

3.1. Assessment of single ecosystem service potentials

3.2. Analysis of assessment matrix

3.3. Spatial analysis of ecosystem service potentials

3.4. Assessment of ecosystem service usage

3.5. Analysis of links between ES usage, user characteristics, and perceived ES potentials

Chapter 4. CICES V5.1 classification

Chapter 5. Spatial reference units

5.1. Ecosystems in the narrow sense

5.2. MAES-derived ecosystems

5.3. Hunting units

5.4. Landscapes

Chapter 6. Potentials to provide ecosystem services - analytical approach

6.1. Potentials to provide ecosystem service - expert assessment

6.2. Potentials to provide ecosystem services - social assessment

Chapter 7. Ecosystem potentials to provide ecosystem services - synthetic approach

7.1. Assessment matrix of ecosystem potentials

7.2. Aggregated potential of ecosystems

7.3. Bundles of ecosystem services, synergies, and trade-offs

7.4. Similarities among ecosystem types

7.5. Spatial patterns of ecosystem potentials

Chapter 8. Use of ecosystem services and its impact on the perceived ecosystem potentials

8.1. Actual use of services

8.2. The frequency of using ecosystem services and user characteristics as factors modifying the assessment of ecosystem potentials

8.3. Conclusions

Chapter 9. Summing up and conclusions

9.1. Summary of the book content

9.2. Potential approach

9.3. Expert assessment

9.4. Social assessment

9.5. Study outcomes and possible applications

Index

Copyright

Elsevier

Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-12-816134-0

For information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Candice Janco

Acquisition Editor: Candice Janco

Editorial Project Manager: Lena Sparks

Production Project Manager: Kamesh Ramajogi

Cover Designer: Matthew Limbert

Front cover photo credit: Andrzej Affek

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract

In Section 1.1, the conceptual framework of the book is outlined and the scope of the study and the research objectives presented. These are (1) development of methods for estimating the nature potential to provide ecosystem services (ES), (2) multifaceted assessment and mapping of ES potential in the postglacial test area, (3) determination of ES similarities among ecosystems, and (4) determination of the impact of selected factors on the social assessment of ES potential. The second part discusses the current developments in the ES concept, its origins, and evolution. Based on the broad review of scientific papers, books, and initiatives related to ecosystem services, the following issues have been addressed: ES terminology, classifications, indicators, spatiotemporal dimension and mapping, social perception, synergies and trade-offs, and links with nature potential and biodiversity.

Keywords

Ecosystem potential; Ecosystem services (ES); Indicators; International initiatives; Literature review; Mapping; Research framework; Social perception; State of art; Synergies and trade-offs

1.1 Theoretical assumptions, objectives, and scope of the study

1.2 Development of ES concept - state of the art

1.2.1 History of the concept and terminology of ecosystem services

1.2.2 Classification of ecosystem services

1.2.3 Potential of the natural environment and ecosystem services

1.2.4 Biodiversity and ecosystem services

1.2.5 Measures and indicators of ecosystem services

1.2.6 Spatial and temporal dimension of ecosystem services

1.2.7 Mapping ecosystem services

1.2.8 Social perception of ecosystem services

1.2.9 Synergies and trade-offs among ecosystem services

1.2.10 Major initiatives related to ecosystem services

1.1. Theoretical assumptions, objectives, and scope of the study

The concept of ecosystem services (ES) describes the relations linking ecological systems with social systems by adopting the anthropocentric approach. In particular, it focuses on the benefits that man draws from nature. Although the concept originated in economic sciences, now it is definitely interdisciplinary, taking over the terminology and research methods from both the natural as well as the social and economic sciences. It was developed so that the inclusion of services provided by natural ecosystems into the global economic calculation was possible, in other words, to assess the value of nature in monetary terms.

After the first very general and widely criticized estimates provided by Costanza et al. (1997), it became clear that before final monetary valuation not only the concept itself needs to be clarified, but also the multifaceted, reliable, detailed, and region-specific recognition of service supply, use, and demand needs to be conducted. This study is a response to this expectation.

The theoretical and methodological basis for the research is the assumption that ecosystem services should be considered from both ecological and social perspective (Fig. 1.1). The ecological perspective focuses on the condition of ecosystems understood as specific dynamic structural and functional spatial systems composed of biocoenosis (the living world - plants, animals, and microorganisms) and biotope (a set of abiotic environmental conditions) (see Matuszkiewicz, 2001). Social perspective focuses on the benefits derived from ecosystem services and their impact on human well-being (physical, mental, and spiritual) (Fig. 1.1). Nowadays, the biggest challenge for the ES ecological-oriented research is to propose reliable tools to assess the potential of natural systems to provide services for humans. In turn, determining the demand and the actual use (flow) of services belongs to the domain of social and economic sciences.

Figure 1.1 The relationships between nature and society within the ecosystem services concept.

In this book, particular emphasis was placed on investigating the potential of nature to provide ecosystem services, while the issues of demand and actual use were considered only in their impact on ES potential and its assessment. Hence, the key research objectives were as follows:

• review of current knowledge regarding ecosystem services;

• development of methodical solutions for estimating the potential of ecosystems to provide ecosystem services (definitions, typologies, indicators, methods of analysis and data synthesis);

• multifaceted assessment and mapping of nature potential to provide services in the test area; representative for the postglacial landscape;

• determination of ES bundles and similarities among ecosystems;

• determination of the impact of selected factors on the social assessment of ES potential.

It has been assumed that the monetary valuation of services and economic calculation will not be part of our research.

As part of the preparatory work, due to the remarkable dynamics of the concept development in recent years and the resulting conceptual and terminological chaos, we aimed to systematize the current knowledge on ecosystem services (Section 1.2). A review of scientific papers, books, and projects referring to ecosystem services was carried out. Key concepts have been clarified, often very inconsistently used in the literature. In the absence of satisfactory definitions, we introduced new ones.

Among various ES classification systems used in the literature (Section 1.2.2), we selected the most recent version of the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES V5.1) (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2018) as the framework of our research. In contrast to many other classification systems, it includes only three main sections (provisioning, regulation and maintenance, and cultural) and relates only to final ecosystem services (details in Chapter 4).

Among numerous available definitions of the potential of ecosystems (Section 1.2.3), we followed the one proposed by Burkhard et al. (2012), referring strictly to the potential to provide ecosystem services. It states that the potential of ecosystems is the ability to provide services conditioned by natural factors (climate, terrain, habitat, and potential vegetation) and human activity (land use, pollution, etc.). However, for the purposes of assessment and mapping of services, it was often necessary to develop more detailed, operational definitions of the potential of ecosystems, for example, regarding services provided by bees - pollination and honey production (Affek, 2018).

To determine the potential of ecosystems to provide a whole range of ecosystem services, it was necessary to propose adequate and informative measures. To this end, a set of 35 indicators has been developed. All of them were characterized in the adopted theoretical assumptions, methods of construction, necessary source data, and measurement properties (including unit, scale, value range, and interpretation) (Chapter 6). As a rule, one indicator corresponds to one service. However, two exceptions were introduced: one in the case of provisioning service edible biomass of wild animals (separate indicators related to fish and game animals), and another in the case of regulating service nursery habitat maintenance, where due to inherent service complexity six different indicators were proposed.

Based on the developed indicators, a comprehensive assessment of the potential of ecosystems to provide services in the test area was carried out (Fig. 1.2). The selected area, representing the postglacial landscape, comprised three gminas (Nowinka, Giby and Suwałki) located in Poland in the Podlaskie Voivodeship, near the Wigry National Park (details in Section 2.2). The purposeful selection of the study area was made according to two basic criteria: (1) good representation of the rural postglacial landscape, and (2) high functional and structural diversity.

To determine the potential of nature for the provision of ecosystem services, two types of assessment were applied - expert and social. The former refers to direct measurements or estimations carried out by experts with the use of scientific knowledge (Sections 3.1.1 and 6.1), while the latter was based on the opinions expressed by service beneficiaries (residents and tourists) through questionnaire survey (Sections 3.1.2 and 6.2).

The basic spatial unit of assessment, both in our study and in the concept of ecosystem services, is the ecosystem. For the purposes of our study, we developed an extended typology of rural postglacial ecosystems, including 35 terrestrial and 7 lake ecosystem types. When distinguishing ecosystems account was taken not only of land cover, but also habitat conditions (fertility and humidity) and forest succession stage (Section 5.1). To investigate spatial interrelations between indicator values (ecosystem potentials for particular services), a map of ecosystems was developed for the study area. On this basis, all assessed service potentials were mapped and their spatial patterns were thoroughly analyzed.

Figure 1.2 The scope of research.

As part of expert assessment, the values of indicators for individual types of ecosystem have been calculated, or in the absence of such possibility estimates were made based on the available literature sources. If the type of data did not give such a possibility, the potential of nature was estimated for spatial units other than ecosystems (i.e., hunting units, landscape units).

The already existing databases collected by various institutions in a standardized way were the main source of data. However, those databases were created for other needs than the analysis of ecosystem services, therefore required significant processing. Materials collected by the authors in the field (Section 3.1.1) served only as the complementary data source and were usually used for reference and calibration. The social assessment of the potential of nature carried out by direct ES beneficiaries covered seven basic types of ecosystem, which were determined through hierarchical aggregation of the detailed typology.

In the synthetic chapter, the results of expert and social assessment performed on the ecosystem level were summarized in the single assessment matrix and confronted with each other (Chapter 7). Then, spatial patterns of ES potentials were analyzed in line with the determination of ES bundles, synergies and trade-offs. We searched also for factors differentiating the level of potentials by applying the principal component analysis. By analyzing the distribution of values of the considered ES potentials, we aimed to show also the similarities among ecosystems and ecosystem clusters of comparable potentials. In the next step, an attempt was made to determine the overall aggregated potential of a given ecosystem. To estimate it, a dedicated method was applied adequate for the situation when not all possible single services had been assessed.

In the next chapter, we investigated the impact of various factors on the social assessment of ES potentials (Chapter 8). The considered factors include the actual use of ecosystem services, sociodemographic variables, and proximity to particular ecosystems. The data on the frequency of ES use, as well as sociodemographic characteristics of beneficiaries (e.g., age, gender, place of residence, and level of education) were obtained through questionnaire survey.

Based on the goals set and the literature review, as well as taking into account the scope of research outlined earlier, the authors formulated the following research hypotheses:

• ecosystems in postglacial landscape differ in their potentials to provide services;

• the results of the assessment depend on the method used (expert vs. beneficiaries);

• the more broadly the ecosystem service is defined, the less likely it is that the values obtained on the basis of various indicators will be consistent;

• distribution of ES potentials reflect the functional and structural diversity of ecosystems;

• social perception of ecosystem potential is determined by the way people interact with nature.

The authors hope that the methodological solutions presented in the book along with the verification of the formulated hypotheses will bring an original contribution to the development of the concept of ecosystem services.

1.2. Development of ES concept - state of the art

1.2.1. History of the concept and terminology of ecosystem services

Although the idea that human existence is highly dependent on Earth ecosystems dates back to the beginning of Homo sapiens, and the recognition of the way in which ecosystems provide complex services appeared already in the works of Plato about 400 BC (who knew, e.g., that deforestation can lead to soil erosion or drying up of water sources), the term natural capital was first used by Schumacher only in 1973.

The roots of the modern ES concept probably date back to the 19th century, when Marsh (1864) questioned the view that the Earth's natural resources are unlimited by pointing to changes in soil fertility in the Mediterranean. At the end of the 1940s, three authors: Leopold (1949), Osborn (1948) and Vogt (1948) began to promote the view of the close dependence of man on the environment. Several years later, Sears (1956) pointed out the key role of ecosystems in waste treatment and cycling of nutrients. In turn, Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1970) in their textbook drew attention to ecological systems and to a significant threat to human existence - the destruction of those systems by humans.

In the report Analysis of key environmental problems (Wilson and Matthews, 1970) the term environmental services was introduced for the first time. The authors listed services related to insect pollination, fisheries, climate regulation and flood protection. The term ecosystem services, which eventually gained the widest acceptance of the scientific community, appeared for the first time in the context of extinction and replacement of populations and species resulting in the loss of benefits for humans (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1981; Ehrlich and Mooney, 1983).

Nevertheless, many authors of earlier works in the field of ecology and geoecology in the considerations regarding the basic components of the natural environment, especially soil and vegetation, as well as connections between these components and humans, included information about de facto ecosystem services, without using this term (e.g., Helliwell, 1969; Hueting, 1970; King, 1966; Odum, 1953).

The history of concept and terminology of ecosystem services until 1997 can be found in the excellent, multiauthor book edited by Daily (1997) Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. This is one of the first synthetic studies that reviewed many of the benefits and services offered to man by the natural environment and the close dependence of man on the natural systems. In particular, it presents a synthesis of the approach to ecosystem services and the preliminary valuation of their economic value consistent with the state of knowledge at the end of the 20th century. In subsequent chapters, services such as climate regulation, soil fertility, pollination, or pest control were considered, and the philosophical and economic valuation issues were addressed, referring to specific case studies of specific ecosystems and services they provide. The book also includes recommendations on actions that should be taken to solve the most urgent problems related to the natural environment and ES.

A very interesting description of the development of ES concept was published in 2010 (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010). This work focuses on the analysis of the development of economic theories, taking into account the growing role of the environment - from the classical economy (in which the land is only a factor of production) to the so-called ecological economics, in which natural capital supplements and complements human-generated capital. Against this background, the development of ES concept is presented and the most important, key publications and economic views are discussed.

The growing awareness of the benefits that ecosystems bring to society makes the ES concept worth spreading and developing (Foley et al., 2005). The major role in popularizing the idea of ecosystem services was played by Robert Costanza, an American scientist, specialist in the field of ecological economics and sustainable development (Costanza, 2008; Costanza et al., 1997). Also in European countries, including Poland, many works in this field have been created in recent years (e.g., Roo-Zielińska and Grabińska, 2012; Solon, 2008). The purpose of these publications is primarily to assess the impact of human activity on ES supply. However, they have different theoretical and practical value (Degórski, 2010). The biggest problem that arose because of the rapid development of the ES concept is the terminological chaos and freedom in defining the very concept (Degórski and Solon, 2014), as well as various ES classifications (Wallace, 2008). Despite the relatively long history of the concept, so far in the literature there were few attempts to clearly define ecosystem services (Barbier, 2007; Boyd, 2007).

For instance, Daily (1997) defined ecosystem services as the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfil human life. In this understanding, maintaining biodiversity and production of ecosystem goods, such as seafood, food, wood, biofuels, cellulose, substances of pharmaceutical value, or industrial raw materials, is an ecosystem service. Functions that support life processes, such as absorption and processing of waste, regeneration processes, and those which contribute to the provision of intangible (aesthetic and cultural) benefits to humans are also recognized as ecosystem services.

In recent years, further attempts have been made to standardize both terminology and methodology of ES research (EEA, 2013; Maes et al., 2013; TEEB, 2010; UK NEA, 2014), which resulted in better understanding and operationalization of the ES concept.

Ecosystem services in the general sense comprise all ecosystem outputs (e.g., wood, forest fruits, game animals) and functions (e.g., purification of water and air, oxygen production, providing space for recreation) used by the society (Costanza et al., 1997; Solon, 2008). In the widely cited reports of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), ES were simply defined as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems (MEA, 2005), which later led to difficulties in separating services from benefits. Ecosystem services are also defined as follows:

• components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human well-being¹ (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007);

• the aspects of ecosystems utilized (actively or passively) to produce human well-being² (Fisher et al., 2008);

• direct and indirect contributions of ecological phenomena (functions) to human welfare³ (TEEB, 2010).

According to the widely accepted cascade model (which is the conceptual framework for CICES approach), final ecosystem services are clearly distinguished from ecosystem goods and benefits (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2018, 2013). Final ecosystem services are the contributions that ecosystems (i.e., living systems) make to human well-being. They are the outputs of ecosystems (whether natural, seminatural, or highly modified) that most directly affect the well-being of people, but they still retain a connection to the underlying ecosystem functions, processes, and structures that generate them. In turn, ecosystem goods and benefits are things that people create or derive from final ecosystem services, and which ultimately have value for them. They are no longer functionally related to the systems from which they come.

Research on ES focuses mainly on services derived solely from narrowly defined ecosystems (Moser et al., 2011). However, more and more authors (e.g., Bastian et al., 2014; Solon, 2008) extend the ES concept to the entire landscape and understand it as a set of landscape outputs and functions that are useful for the society.

1.2.2. Classification of ecosystem services

Ecosystem services are grouped and ordered in various classification systems. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the TEEB initiative adopted and popularized the division into four major ES categories: (1) provisioning, describing the material outputs from ecosystems such as food, raw materials, fresh water, and medicinal resources, (2) regulating, resulting from the capacity of ecosystems to regulate climate, hydrological and biochemical cycles, earth surface processes, and a variety of biological processes, (3) supporting, representing the ecological processes that underlie the functioning of the ecosystem, such as the formation of soils and the circulation of elements, primary production, habitat function, and hydrological cycle, and (4) cultural, related to the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from contact with ecosystems through recreation, cognitive development, relaxation, and spiritual reflection (Maes et al., 2014, 2013; MEA, 2005, 2003; TEEB, 2010).

According to the classification proposed by Green et al. (1994), only two categories of services (provisioning and cultural) include outputs and structures directly useful for humans. The other two categories (regulating and supporting services) create a structural and functional framework affecting the overall integrity of the landscape system and the possibility of providing final services.

Costanza et al. (1997) proposed the classification of ecosystem services together with ecosystem functions underlying them. The scheme includes the following 17 types:

• Gas regulation (regulation of atmospheric chemical composition);

• Climate regulation (regulation of global temperature, precipitation, and other biologically mediated climatic processes at global or local levels);

• Disturbance regulation (capacitance, damping, and integrity of ecosystem response to environmental fluctuations);

• Water regulation (regulation of hydrological flows);

• Water supply (storage and retention of water);

• Erosion control and sediment retention (retention of soil within an ecosystem);

• Soil formation (soil formation processes);

• Nutrient cycling (storage, internal cycling, processing, and acquisition of nutrients);

• Waste treatment (recovery of mobile nutrients and removal or breakdown of excess or xenic nutrients and compounds);

• Pollination (movement of floral gametes);

• Biological control (trophic-dynamic regulations of populations);

• Refugia (habitat for resident and transient populations);

• Food production (that portion of gross primary production extractable as food);

• Raw materials (that portion of gross primary production extractable as raw materials);

• Genetic resources (sources of unique biological materials and products);

• Recreation (providing opportunities for recreational activities);

• Cultural (providing opportunities for noncommercial uses).

Although this classification is only of a historical relevance nowadays, it influenced for many years the way of thinking about services and their typologies.

Rudolf S. de Groot from the Wageningen University and Research Center, one of the leading theoreticians on the ES issues, presented a detailed ES classification and definitions dedicated for spatial planning and landscape management (de Groot, 1992; de Groot et al., 2010b, 2002). The classification covers 23 ecosystem services combined into four basic groups: (1) provisioning, (2) regulating, (3) habitat/supporting and (4) cultural. Ecological processes responsible for providing particular services were also identified, and indicators defining the efficiency of a given ES developed.

Other important and widely discussed classifications are as follows:

• MEA classification (MEA, 2005) - the most often cited, developed as part of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; aimed to help assess changes in human well-being (especially in the last 50 years) caused by the degradation of ecosystems; comprises four main categories: provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural.

• TEEB classification (TEEB, 2010) - developed within The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project and published in the report TEEB Ecological and Economic Foundations, replaces MEA supporting services with habitat services, emphasizes the role of ecosystems in providing nesting places for migratory species and protecting the gene pool.

• CICES (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2018) - recently most widely used Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) developed by the European Environment Agency (EEA); first version presented in 2010 (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010a) and published 3years later (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013). It is a strictly hierarchical system (four levels: section, division, group, and class), based on previous MEA and TEEB classifications, introduced for assessment purposes, there are three categories on the highest section level: provisioning, regulation and maintenance (R&M), and cultural; TEEB habitat services were included into R&M section. The most recent version of CICES (V5.1) (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2018) serves as a framework for ES analysis in this study (see Chapter 4 for details).

All the mentioned systems, although directly or indirectly based on the cascade: ecosystem structure   →   ecosystem function   →   ecosystem service   →   human benefits   →   value, are focused on categorization of outputs obtained from ecosystems. Recipients of these outputs are not taken into account in classification schemes.

Different approach has been developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The main idea of the two proposed classification systems is based on the combination of two independent dimensions: environmental types and beneficiary categories. In this approach, the final ecosystem good/service is identified through the intersection of the two dimensions. The first classification system identifies Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) (Landers and Nahlik, 2013). The theoretical and methodical framework of this system is organized around the definition of FEGS ⁴ and two crucial questions: Which ecosystems produce ecosystem services? (environmental dimension) and Who is the beneficiary and what are the FEGS? (beneficiary dimension). For the purpose of the classification, beneficiaries are defined as follows: the interests of an individual (i.e., a person, organization, household, or company) that drive active or passive consumption and/or ES appreciation resulting in an impact (positive or negative) on their welfare. The system identifies the following environmental classes and subclasses:

(1) AQUATIC - Rivers and Streams, Wetlands, Lakes and Ponds, Estuaries and Near Coastal and Marine, Open Oceans and Seas, Groundwater;

(2) TERRESTRIAL - Forests, Agroecosystems, Created Greenspace, Grasslands, Scrubland Barren/Rock and Sand, Tundra, Ice and Snow;

(3) ATMOSPHERIC - Atmosphere.

The second dimension (beneficiary categories) includes the following: (1) agricultural, (2) commercial/industrial, (3) government, municipal, and residential, (4) commercial/military transportation, (5) subsistence, (6) recreational, (7) inspirational, (8) learning, (9) nonuse, and (10) humanity. The 10 mentioned categories are further divided into 38 subcategories.

Through the combination and intersection process, 338 unique FEGS can be identified. The system is open in this sense that each environmental and/or beneficiary category might be further divided into categories on the lower level, giving as a result a greater number of FEGS understood in much narrower sense.

Similar, but not identical, and more sophisticated classification scheme is presented by the National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) (US EPA, 2015). It is based on the same theoretical background as the system described earlier, but the key concept of this approach is focused on identification and classification of Flows of Final Ecosystem Services (FFES). ⁵

The NESCS structure consists of four groups divided into two classification systems:

• supply side (NESCS-S) covering (1) environmental classes that together cover the earth's surface, (2) classes of ecological end products, which are the biophysical components of nature directly used or appreciated by humans;

• demand side (NESCS-D) covering (3) classes of direct human use or nonuse appreciation of end products, and (4) classes of direct human users of end products.

According to the idea explicitly stated in the system description (US EPA, 2015), combinations across these four groups define FFES and can depict unique pathways that link changes in ecosystems with human welfare. Within each of these four groups, the system adopts a nested hierarchical structure so that each group can be represented at multiple levels of aggregation or detail. On the highest level of aggregation, main categories are generally very simple. Within NESCS-S, environmental classes and subclasses are taken from Landers and Nahlik (2013), while ecological end products cover water, flora, fauna, other biotic components, atmospheric components, soil, other abiotic components, composite end products, and other end products. Within NESCS-D, direct use/nonuse class distinguishes between extractive use, in situ use, and nonuse. Direct users are grouped into industries, households, and the government.

In the discussed two US EPA approaches services are not grouped into categories known from other classifications: provisioning, regulating (supporting), and cultural services. However, this division is partly reflected in detailed descriptions of each of FEGS or FFES.

1.2.3. Potential of the natural environment and ecosystem services

The term potential was introduced to landscape research already in 1949 by Bobek and Schmithüsen (1949), at first understood as the spatial arrangement of natural development possibilities (see Bastian, 2008). Neef (1966) defined a complex gebietswirtschaftliches Potenzial as an all-embracing economic capacity of the landscape or as the sum of all landscape features that create conditions for economic appreciation of the landscape with its materials and energy forming its structure. Haase (1978) defined natural (natural-space) potential as a natural content of the landscape with its material properties, latent energies and processes, i.e. using its structure and dynamics the landscape has the ability to meet the needs of society (see Kunáková, 2016). The proposed approach, although interesting from the theoretical point of view, was not fully applicable for practical solutions. Hence, for these purposes, Haase (1978, 1976) distinguished several specific partial natural potentials (germ. Partielle Naturraumpotenziale): biotic yield potential, water supply potential, waste disposal potential, biotic regulation potential, geoenergetic potential, and recreation potential. This concept has been further enhanced by different authors, so presently at least three additional partial potentials can be distinguished: raw material potential, construction potential, and climate regenerative potential (Kunáková, 2016).

For further refining practical application of the concept of partial potentials, Kolejka (2001) proposed to evaluate possibilities of actual utilization of the detected potential in a given region. He introduced the concept of the free landscape potential as a part of the detected potential that represents an actual territorial reserve in further development of the concerned activity, and fixed landscape potential understood as a proportion of the detected potential, which is already being utilized for the concerned activity. This distinction seemed to be very helpful in ecologically based spatial planning (Kunáková, 2016 and literature cited herein).

Similar to the idea of landscape potential was the concept of the so-called benefits from nature, that is, all resources and forces of nature, which Bartkowski (1977) divided into two main groups: systems and subsystems of the epigeosphere mega-system and human-nature mega-system (including ecosystems). The author included favorable geographical location (e.g., the beauty of the landscape) to the group of substantial and energetic features of space, and natural conditions - to the group of relations and interactions occurring between them in the geographical space.

Przewoźniak (1991), referring to the concepts of Neef and Haase, distinguished three groups of potentials: self-regulatory resistant, resource utility, and perceptual behavioral. However, many authors pointed to large subjectivism of simple ranking of diagnostic features - especially in the case of a qualitative, intuitive - a priori approach (Pietrzak, 1998). Methodical attempt to objectify this problem was made by Kistowski (1996) who developed and modified the previously mentioned Przewoźniak's classification of potential. One step further in the perception of potentials was made by Solon (2004b). He suggested that the concept of landscape potential should not be limited to human–landscape relations, but should designate all resources a given population (including human) is willing to exploit. In his view, assuming any group of organisms, there are the following partial potentials of the landscape: self-regulating resistance, buffering, environment forming, and resource utilizing.

In the early 1990s, attention was drawn to the need to clarify the terminology: the landscape potential was