Abstract
Relevance of research topic. Assessing ecosystems in terms of their contribution to the human well-being is one of the ways to achieve the goals of sustainable development, namely within the implementation of goals 14 and 15, therefore, it is an extremely important task in developing strategies for the development of local communities. Formulation of the problem. There is no official methodology for assessing ecosystem services and their integration into the management system in Ukraine. Analysis of recent research and publications. Currently, approaches to the assessment of ecosystems and their services are being developed, which are presented in the leading international documents: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting. Final Draft. Version 5. Selection of unexplored parts of the general problem. The issues of forming methodological approaches to the assessment of ecosystem services of protected areas of communities remain little studied. Setting the task, the purpose of the study. In this study, the task is to assess the ecosystem services of the protected area of the community basing on the example of cultural services (recreation and tourіsm) and services for biodiversity conservation. Method or methodology for conducting research. To assess the cost of ecosystem services in the protected area, a methodological approach to estimating the overall economic value of ecosystems is used. Presentation of the main material (results of work). On the example of the protected area of NPP "Bug Guard" within Blagodatnenskaya OTG Pervomaisky district of Mykolayiv region calculated the cost of direct and indirect use of ecosystem services (considered cultural services) and the cost of its existence (considered services to preserve biodiversity), as well as the total economic value. The field of application of results. The calculations are of great practical importance for territorial management. Conclusions according to the article The paper proves that the cost of indirect use of ecosystem services of the protected area and the cost of its existence significantly outweigh the cost of direct use.
Keywords
ecosystem services, assessment, biodiversity, protected areas, territorial community
References
1. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2019), The Law of Ukraine “About the Basic Principles (Strategy) of the State Environmental Policy of Ukraine for the period up to 2030”, URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2697-19 [in Ukr.].
2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. URL: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/ru/Reports.html. [in Eng.]
3. United Nations (2021), “System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting. Final Draft. Version 5”, URL: //http://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/52nd-session/documents/BG-3f-SEEA-EA_Final_draft-E.pdf.
4. TEEB. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. URL: http://teebweb.org/publications/teeb-for/synthesis/ [in Eng.]
5. Vallecillo, S., La Notte, A., Zulian, G., Ferrini, S., & Maes, J. (2019). Ecosystem services accounts: Valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people. Ecological Modelling, 392. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.09.023 [in Eng.]
6. Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J. R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I. A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan,., … Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual Framework – connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 [in Eng.]
7. United Nations (2014), “System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting”, URL: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaRev/eea_final_en.pdf [in Eng.]
8. de Groot, R., Fisher, B., Christie, M. et al. (2010). Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation, Ch. 1., March 2010, URL: http://www.teebweb.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2013/04/D0Chapter 1 Integrating the ecological and economic dimen sions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation.pdf. [in Eng.]
9. Neverov, A. V., Varapaeva, O. A. (2013). Stoimostnaya otsenka ekosistemnykh uslug i biologiche skogo raznoobraziya [Valuation of ecosystem services and biodiversity]. Trudy BGTU. Seriya: Ekonomika i upravlenie – Proceedings of BSTU. Ser.: Economics and Management, 7. 95–100, URL: https://elib.belstu.by/handle/123456789/3484 [in Rus.].
10. Yurak, V. V. (2017). Teoretikometodicheskii podkhod k otsenke obshchestvennoi tsennosti prirodnykh resursov [Theoretical and methodical approach to assessing the social value of natural resources]. Candidate’s thesis. Ekaterinburg, Ural Federal University named after First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin. URL: http://elar.urfu.ru/bit stream/10995/44976/1/urfu1661_d.pdf [in Rus.].
