Valuation of Ecosystem Services

in Carpathian Protected Areas with focus on Slovakia

- Guidelines for rapid assessment -
May 2014

Prepared by
Radoslav Povaan (Pronatur) & Jn Kadlek (SNC SR)
Draft commented and reviewed by
Michael Getzner (Vienna University of Technology)
1
Contents
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Guidelines ........................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4
1 Valuing the ecosystem services of protected areas ............................................................................... 8
2 Valuation techniques ........................................................................................................................... 12
3 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Overview of the applied methodologies ...................................................................................... 14
3.2 Relevant ecosystem services/values ............................................................................................. 17
3.3 Applied valuation techniques/calculation .................................................................................... 19
3.4 Total Economic Value.................................................................................................................. 27
4 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 28
4.1 Legal arrangement options for the ecosystem services evaluation in Slovakia ........................... 28
4.2 An approach to assessing the values ............................................................................................ 29
4.3 National challenges ...................................................................................................................... 29
5 Use of valuation results for designing Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) ............................... 32
References .............................................................................................................................................. 34

2
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Hildegard Meyer (WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme) for her kind allowance of
using guidelines developed by WWF-DCP (BUCUR, Costel; STROBEL, David: Valuation of
Ecosystem Services in Carpathian Protected Areas - Guidelines for rapid assessment / Costel
Bucur, David Strobel - Braov: Green Steps, 2012. ISBN 978-606-93042-2-8). The guidelines were
taken as a base and adapted to Slovak conditions.

Purpose of the Guidelines

These guidelines are intended as a supporting document to be used by staff working for the protected
areas administrations of the State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic and other institutions
from the field of nature conservation, for planning and carrying out a rough assessment of the values
of ecosystem services related to protected areas.
There are many interpretations, approaches and statements on the topic of valuation of ecosystem
services. These guidelines are not aiming to analyze the existing theories and methodologies, but try to
present a simple methodology for a rapid assessment and rough valuation, and for clarifying some
basic principles and approaches in terms of a value of ecosystem services valued in money terms by
protected areas. The results of the rough valuation done by protected area managers using the
methodology should help protected area practitioners to convince others and themselves about the
tremendous value of protected areas, including their market and non-market value and should help
when negotiating with decision makers against investments harmful to the ecology of the park, or for
policies in favor of the sustainable use of these resources.
The main purpose for carrying out a rough valuation of ecosystem services is to provide reasonably
accurate information on the economic value of the protected area and use it to convince and
demonstrate stakeholders and decision makers about their importance, especially why it is worth to
establish and manage protected areas. This exercise should be a useful tool to convince people that
protected areas are offering more than space for researchers or for the people enjoying nature. They are
offering real services which everyone is benefiting from and we can asses them. As such, a rough
estimation of the values of protected areas only results in a first approximation of these values; in order
to derive specific and more founded values, more comprehensive and detailed scientific economic
studies have to be commissioned. Thus, the current guidelines should enable protected area managers
to commission such studies, and to communicate effectively with scientists and economists dealing
with values of protected areas.

3
Introduction
Protected areas management is currently understood as a new science, which integrates the knowledge
of other sciences with the aim of optimal management of these areas (GETZNER & JUNGMEIER 2009).
Assessment of the ecosystem services in protected areas belongs to modern approaches of the
protected areas management. Its aim is to ascertain the ecological, social and economic values of the
area and to conserve, improve and extend the ecosystem services of the area. This assessment can be
used for the development of schemes of ecosystem services payments (PES), in the process of
environmental impact assessment (EIA), or for the calculation of ecological loss.
The introduction of new economic tools into nature conservation policies as well as the gradual
introduction of ecosystem services payments is currently a challenge for nature conservation in
Slovakia and the whole Central-European region. A newly prepared draft act on nature conservation
includes the application of these tools. Realising the value of ecosystem services and using the
ecosystem services payments is one of the most important aims of the updated National Biodiversity
Strategy 2012 2020.
The need for valuing ecosystems has gained significant importance in recent years: decision-makers
are often lacking data or approximations on the values and benefits created and maintained by
functional ecosystems. In consequence, decisions are made too often in favour of development projects
negatively affecting ecosystems, which may yield high short-term revenues, but definitely miss the
goal of ensuring benefits in the long term. This gap in environmental-economic studies was addressed,
starting especially from the mid 1990s, by conservation organizations and economic experts, who
contributed substantially to more comprehensive and more balanced views on the opportunities and
risks linked to the impact of projects on the environment and natural resources and thus on their
implications for human well-being in the longer prospect.
The overarching EU Biodiversity Strategy, adopted by the EU Heads of State (European Council),
aims to halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and
to restore them as far as possible as a major contribution by the EU to combat global biodiversity loss.
The mapping and assessment of ecosystems and ecosystem services is one of the keystones of EU
Biodiversity Strategy. The initial methodological work on biophysical mapping and assessment is
expected to be delivered by 2014. The work carried out by the European Union and its Member States
will also contribute to the assessment of the economic value of ecosystem services, and promote the
integration of these values into the accounting and reporting systems at an EU and a national level by
2020 (MANDATE EU, 2012).
Besides the manifold direct and indirect use values of protected areas in terms of provisioning,
supporting and regulating services, the intrinsic value of preserving nature in terms of cultural services
(e.g., existence and bequest values) is still a major motivating factor for setting up protected areas
(PA). There are many other benefits of protected areas besides protecting biodiversity. For instance,
Natura 2000 sites count between 1.2 and 2.2 billion visitor days every year, generating additional
revenue and regional income of EUR 50 to 85 billion (EEA REPORT No 5/2012). Protected areas can
also provide health benefits, education opportunities, clean water and air, and tourism. Protected areas
thus generate considerable economic value. Consequently, there are many reasons for public
investment in PAs (GEF/UNDP 2011). A recent study by the European Commission estimated that the

4
benefits of the Natura 2000 network would at least be 3 to 7 times the cost of setting it up (EEA
REPORT No 5/2012; GANTIOLER et al. 2014).
Currently, there are many economic valuation approaches used to determine and assess environmental
goods and assets. The classification of these approaches is based on the type of value being
investigated. The valuation of ecosystem services in protected areas is still in a pioneering stage in
Slovakia and in the Carpathian eco-region. Previous valuations were done in Central Europe in two
national parks, Tatra National Park (Slovak side; cf. FZYOV et al. 2009, BREZOVSK & HOLCY
2009), Tatra National Park (Polish side) and Slovensk raj National Park (Slovakia; cf. GETZNER
2009). The Tatra National Park (Poland) was also subject to a study with special emphasis on
valuation and regional development (GETZNER 2010). Last studies have been carried out in Vek
Fatra National Park (POVAAN 2011, POVAAN 2013) and Tatra National Park (Slovakia; cf. VAJDA
et al. 2013).

Whereas numerous valuation studies provide already good reference for facilitating decision-making,
the current challenge is to further refine indicators and the quantitative methods behind them. Ideally,
this process leads to a generally accepted valuation scheme which incorporates as many relevant
services as possible, while at the same time leaving flexibility to integrate area-specific variables.

Protected areas not only have become refuges for wildlife, but these areas cover also some of the most
important source areas for provisioning services such as clean water and air. In many cases, they
represent carbon sinks and contribute substantially to soil stabilization (erosion control, water
retention) and provide natural solutions for avoiding and mitigating damages from extreme hazardous
events, solutions that would otherwise be very costly (flood control).
Notwithstanding the fact that globally the total number and surface of protected areas have risen
continually, the degree of fragmentation of ecologically valuable habitat has also increased, making
the need for ecological networks of protected areas linked through functional corridors more and more
essential. Given this divide between the benefits protected areas provide to locals and the society, and
the continuing pressure they face from unsustainable practices in management, infrastructure and
spatial (landscape) planning, ecosystem valuation is an important tool to argue for the responsible use
of natural assets and sustainable approaches in regional development.
For example, in the TEEB study (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity), the value of
ecosystems and biodiversity has been demonstrated in various case studies from around the world. The
majority of these case studies addresses the values of larger areas beyond protected area boundaries,
up to country or regional level, and includes a wide range of different types of ecosystems. The TEEB
findings, brought into context with the results of the present study, suggest that many of the values
which people are benefiting from outside protected areas, are ultimately derived from either protected
areas or unprotected areas which are nevertheless managed in responsible ways. This constitutes a
major added value represented by protected areas, and at the same time poses the demand for
effectively and efficiently managed protected areas and other critical sites for ecosystem services and
natural resources that are not part of the protected area system.
The objective of these guidelines is to provide a framework for assessing the economic value of
ecosystem services of forested protected areas as they represent most of the cover of the protected

5
areas in the country. In a broader view, they also constitute an information source on different
valuation approaches, and represent a call for the establishment of more harmonized valuation
schemes.
Another contribution is a completion of missing socio-economic information from the protected areas
in Slovakia. These data will help in elaboration of the protected areas management plans and various
reports, obligatory due to membership of Slovakia in the EU and various international treaties.
Another contribution is a development of conditions for the proposal of ecosystem services payments
(Payments for Ecosystem Services PES) or a calculation of ecological loss according to an example
in the Czech Republic.
The assessment supports or is in accordance with many national and international nature protection
strategic documents:
The fundamental strategic document of the Slovak Government The Strategy, Principles and
Priorities of the State Environmental Policy - Sector G Economics of the environment (e.g. Aim
No. 2. Elaboration of the environmental financial policy concept, harmonisation of the socio-economic
and environmental interests, application of the sustainable development philosophy, and especially
Aim No. 8. Introduction and application of the protection and reasonable use of natural resources
evaluated also according to their environmental value and public function);
National Environmental Action Programme II One of the aims of the Economics of the
environment (Sector G) is an introduction and application of the protection and reasonable use of
natural resources evaluated also according to their environmental value and public function;
National Strategy of Biodiversity Protection in Slovakia Aim No. 16. To develop a widely
applicable system of stimulating measures for the biodiversity protection and its sustainable use
(strategic directions: to set up a nationwide policy for the stimulating measures, that would support the
biodiversity protection and its sustainable use; to assess the biological resources as soon as possible
and to evaluate their value for national economy; to assess the value of non-productive ecosystem
functions and to express it in financial terms; to introduce the biological resources value and the value
of non productive ecosystem functions to the planning processes at all levels ... to determine the
structures for the management of incentive measures for biodiversity protection and its sustainable use,
including the safeguarding their provision and evaluation of their impact; to develop the new and
sufficient mechanisms for financial support provision, to support a decentralised approach in their
creation and to safeguard the involvement of a non-governmental sector;
Updated National Strategy of Biodiversity Protection for 2012 2020 (draft) contains so called
long-term vision of biodiversity and ecosystem services protection for sustainable development of
socially and environmentally orientated market economy; Aim No. 2. The preservation of and
strengthening of ecosystems and their functions;
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Our life insurance, our natural capital: an
EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (COM(2011) 244)
Action 5: Improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services in the EU
5) Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will map and assess the state of ecosystems
and their services in their national territory by 2014, assess the economic value of such services, and

6
promote the integration of these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national level
by 2020.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011 2020 includes
commitments to raise awareness of the value of biodiversity and to integrate them into plans, strategies
and accounts; it contains so called Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Strategic Goal D: Enhance the benefits
to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services.

7
1 Valuing the ecosystem services of protected areas
Whereas ecosystem services and their values are present in almost any landscape, one of the most
important challenges is to assess the quality and quantity of the services provided in key natural areas
such as protected areas, since these are often the source area of environmental services characterized
by an exceptionally high productivity, and a great resilience towards external (and internal) shocks.
The task of quantifying the value of ecosystem services is very complex. On one hand, the amount of
scientific data needed, e.g. in the assessment of carbon sequestration or flood mitigation / erosion
control of a given area would be enormous if it would be conducted in a comprehensive manner for
larger areas. This is practically not realistic given the time and budget constraints of national
authorities; therefore, scientific/primary data usually stems from relatively small plots, and is
afterwards extrapolated based on assumptions and evaluating probabilities. On the other hand, another
critical aspect is that there are different approaches possible for the mathematical assessment of some
of the criteria. Consequently, depending on the approach, there are differences in the resulting value.
Moreover, the valuation of non-use values (see below), is conducted with auxiliary calculation
methods, making this assessment cluster very much subject of interpretation and discussion. In some
cases, further impediments for more detailed assessments derive from uncertainties from an
incomplete understanding of ecosystem dynamics.
It is very important to understand that biodiversity and ecosystem services have high intrinsic
values that can not be realistically measured and quantified. Whenever presenting economic
values of protected areas, managers should emphasise that those values are only representing a
small percentage of the benefits deriving from nature, natural resources and protected areas. In
this sense, presenting money values of protected areas aims at providing an understanding of the
enormous significance of ecosystem services, and thus should illustrate this importance.
While it is commonly acknowledged, that no calculation scheme results in an exact value on
ecosystems there is an equally common understanding that a range of valuation techniques, if properly
applied, provide sound approximations. In any case, though, money values are presented based on the
understanding that there might exist a wide range of values for ecosystem services.
Therefore, in monetary terms, approximations constitute valid references e.g. for protected area
administrations or landscape planners from regional councils, in order to argue for pursuing or
dismissing specific management options, particularly where investments and revenues have to be
weighed against the continuous flow of ecosystem functions and services. The guidelines can be used
as a supporting document for the employees of the State Nature Conservancy of the SR, protected
areas administrations, or the Ministry of Environment of the SR, non-governmental organisations,
which deal with the environmental issues or when planning and realising the rapid (rough) ecosystem
services assessment in the protected areas. The results of this sort of assessment should help the nature
conservation employees to convince themselves as well as others of a huge value that the protected
areas have, and to help in discussions with the decision-makers and stakeholders who might aim at
realising harmful developments (e.g., investments) in the protected areas.
The main aim of this assessment is safeguarding of adequately precise information on the economic
value of the protected areas and their use when influencing stakeholders and decision-makers by
demonstrating the importance of the area, especially when it comes to establishment and management
8
of the protected areas. They provide more than just the space for scientists or nature fans. They provide
real functions that we all use and these can be evaluated.

The most widely used approach to classify ecosystem services is presented in the following scheme.

Figure 1: Ecosystems value classification (PEARCE & WARFORD 1993)

The concept of total economic value (TEV) is a widely used framework for ascertaining the
(utilitarian) value of ecosystems (PEARCE & WARFORD 1993). This framework typically disaggregates
the TEV into two categories: use values and non-use values.
Use value refers to the value of ecosystem services that are used by humans for consumption or
production purposes. It includes tangible and intangible services of ecosystems that are either currently
used directly or indirectly, or that have a potential to provide future use values. The TEV separates use
values as follows:
Direct use values
Some ecosystem services are directly used for consumptive (when the users actually take away or
remove certain quantities of the available good) or non-consumptive purposes (no reduction/removal
of resources). Harvesting of food products, timber for fuel or construction, medicinal plants, and
hunting of animals for consumption from natural or managed ecosystems are examples of consumptive
use. Non-consumptive uses of ecosystem services include enjoying recreational and cultural amenities
for example through wildlife and bird-watching and photo safaris, water sports, and spiritual and social
utilities that do not require harvesting/collecting.
Indirect use values
A wide range of ecosystem services are used as intermediate inputs for production of final goods and
services to humans such as water, soil nutrients, and pollination and biological control services for
food production. Other ecosystem services contribute indirectly to the enjoyment of other final
consumption amenities, such as water purification, waste assimilation, and other regulation services
leading to clean air and water supplies and thus recycling essential parts of the life support system and
reducing health risks.

9
Option values
Despite the fact that people may not currently be deriving any utility from them, many ecosystem
services still hold value for preserving the option to use such services in the future either by the
individual (option value) or by others or heirs (bequest value). Quasi-option value is a related kind of
value: it represents the value of avoiding irreversible decisions until new information reveals whether
certain ecosystem services have values that are currently unknown. (Note that some analysts place
option value as a subset of non-use value rather than of use value, but they do not otherwise treat it
differently.) This category of benefits also includes provisioning, regulating, and cultural services to
the extent that they are not used now but may be used in the future.
Non-use values are also usually known as existence value (or, sometimes, conservation value or
passive use value). Humans ascribe value to knowing that a resource exists, even if they never use that
resource directly.
The sum of all use and non-use values constitutes the total economic value (TEV). The total
economic value is sometimes also seen as total economic benefit which is counterbalanced by the total
economic costs (figure 2):

Figure 2: Total economic benefit vs. total economic cost of protected areas.
(http://www.mekong-protected-areas.org/mekong/docs/tlp-05.pdf)

Nature conservationists should count in all relevant aspects from both categories of values, in order to
guarantee a sound information base for decision-making.

10
For valuing the TEV, it is important to understand that the total economics value presents an
approximation to the value of flows of goods and services; it does, however, not represent the value of
the stock of the ecological capital (species and ecosystems as main elements) which cannot be
measured. Furthermore, most valuation techniques account for changes in the quantity and/or quality
of ecosystem services, and not in the level (total sum) of these ecosystem services.

11
2 Valuation techniques
Although each of the existing techniques has earned its justification among economists, there are still,
at least in some cases, disputes e.g. on which technique is more appropriate, which reference values
are closer to the actual conditions, or on how detailed the criteria have to or can be, in order to achieve
results which are supposed to reflect benefits and costs as realistically as possible. Furthermore,
debates still arise with respect to the concrete application and the design of some of the applied
valuation methods. In addition, careful consideration should be given to avoid overlapping information
in the calculation of a value. How to apply the valuation techniques described below is presented in
chapter 3.2.
The common and most widely used valuation techniques are:
Indirect valuation methods (revealed preferences)
Market prices: A simple and direct way of valuing protected area goods and services is to look
at their market prices: how much does it cost to buy or what they are worth to sell. Typical
examples for applying the market price method are the valuation of timber and non-timber
products, etc.
Travel costs: Protected areas typically hold a high value as a recreational resource or
destination. Although in many cases there are no charges for viewing or enjoying natural
ecosystems and species, people still spend time and money to reach protected areas. This
spending for transport, food, equipment, accommodation, time, etc. can be calculated, and
visitation rates can be compared to expenditures. Travel costs reflect the value that people place
on leisure and recreational aspects of tourism; benefits are derived from travel costs by linking
the frequency of trips and travel costs in order to calculate the consumer surplus (benefits, total
and/or net of travel costs).
Hedonic pricing: The method of hedonic pricing in the context of protected areas is used mainly
for providing a value to environmental attributes by correlating them to housing and real estate
prices within or close to protected areas. This method may be relevant in particular for protected
areas of IUCN categories V and VI with considerable or substantial human activity within PA
borders, or in the buffer areas and/or vicinity of IUCN category II protected areas. This method
combines aspects from market pricing, the consideration of air and water quality, noise pollution,
as well as aesthetic values.
Replacement costs: Replacement costs refer to the amount necessary for the restoration of
ecosystems and their services, or the amount necessary to generate substitute services (like for
e.g. investing in infrastructure in protecting river banks instead of maintaining the natural
riparian vegetation).
Avoided costs: Avoided costs refer to the amount that would be saved by not carrying out
activities which lead to the degradation or loss of ecosystem services. They reflect economic
losses that can be forestalled by effective conservation. These methods can be applied
particularly where reference values from past experiences (under comparable circumstances)
exist (investment and maintenance cost saved to avoid flood risks).

12
Direct valuation methods (revealed preferences)
The contingent valuation (WTP Willingness to pay) involves directly asking people, in a
survey, how much they would be willing to pay for plant and/or animals, or another specific
biodiversity component (e.g. habitats, landscape, etc). In some cases, people are asked for the
amount of compensation they would be willing to accept to give up habitats of high diversity. It
is called contingent valuation, because people are asked to state their willingness to pay,
contingent on a specific hypothetical scenario and description of the aspects of biodiversity under
focus.
Choice experiments ask respondents to choose between conservation programmes which can be
described by a small number of attributes, in order to compute the marginal willingness-to-pay.
These attributes may consist of water quality, biodiversity conservation, flood risks etc., in
combination with a cost price for the programmes offered to respondents.

13
 3 Methodology

3.1 Overview of the applied methodologies

There are two basic categories of benefits of protected areas such as national parks; use (direct,
indirect, and option values) and non-use values (existence and bequest values). These kinds of values
represent the concept of Total Economic Value (TEV; cf. MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT,
2005).
Various methods for valuing ecosystem services and benefits of the protected areas making up the
TEV have been developed. One major approach is the valuation of the ecological dimensions of nature
and the landscape (habitat valuation) which has been used, for instance, in the Czech Republic (SEJK
et al. 2010). Nevertheless, most methods are based on deriving environmental values depending on the
preferences of private households and/or companies. These methods can be divided into methods of
deriving values from markets (revealed preferences elicited, e.g., by means of hedonic prices or travel
costs, or avoided costs) and direct surveys (stated preferences) based on the willingness to pay or
accept (WTP/WTA; contingent valuation, choice experiments, or contingent behavior).
The current guidelines take up the methodology that was used for valuing the ecosystem services of
the Tatra and Slovensk raj national parks (GETZNER 2009, 2009), as well as new guidelines
developed by WWF (BUCUR & STROBEL 2012). Wetland ecosystem services and valuation described
recently in The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for water and wetlands (RUSSI et al. 2013)
was also taken into account. The first step of ascertaining use and non-use values consists of a
collection and assessment (quantification) of the existing ecological data on ecosystem services of the
protected area, and on a geographical (spatial) assignment of the relevant protected area region.
Table 1 presents a rough outline of information requirements for a comprehensive assessment of the
ecosystem services of a national park. The following sections take up this framework and provide an
empirical assessment of these ecosystem services on this list with respect to the importance of these
services in the current context.
Tab. 1: Overview of specific ecosystem services provided by national parks, and information
requirements for a comprehensive assessment
Description of ecosystem Quantity Prices**
services in situ
1. Ecosystem services Before* After* EUR/unit
1.1 Forest products
1.1.1 Timber
1.1.2 Non-timber products
1.1.3 Water provision, supply
1.1.4 Water retention / flood protection
1.1.5 Carbon sink, climate regulation, CO2
sequestration
1.1.6 Erosion control
1.1.7 Medicinal resources
1.2 Agricultural products
1.2.1 Cattle, grazing

14
1.2.2 Grains, food production
1.3 Fishing
1.4 Hunting
1.5 Recreation
1.5.1 Tourists for a day / no., expenditure, origin,
motive to stay
1.5.2 Overnight stays / no., expenditure, origin,
motive to stay
1.6 Recreation opportunities (national park
policies)
1.6.1 Education, information
1.6.2 Hiking
1.6.3 Climbing
1.6.4 Others (e.g. rafting, mountain biking)
1.7 Biodiversity conservation values
1.7.1 Habitats, ecosystems, species, landscapes
1.7.2 Existence values
1.7.3 Option / quasi-option values
1.7.4 Bequest values
1.8 Cultural values
1.8.1 Traditions, traditional landscapes
1.8.2 Culture, artistic benefits
2. Other information
2.1 Land cover / land use
2.2 Economic structure of the region
2.3 Development concepts / strategies
2.4 PA management plan
2.5 PA Management strategies / frameworks
2.6 PA budget, decision autonomy (including all
transactions)
2.7 PA Networks with the region
2.8 Stakeholder(s) (involvement)
2.9 Socio-economic development of the region
2.9.1 Municipalities, residents, age/education, jobs,
unemployment
* This overview provides a selection of the potential full range of ecosystem services relevant for and adapted to protected
areas in Slovakia, taking into account the national frameworks and information basis. Before/after indicates that the
change in the quality and/or quantity of ecosystem services provided by a park is the focus of the valuation exercise, e.g.,
before/after a conservation programme has been established, or before/after a certain category of protected area is
introduced. It is thus important to assess the change in ecosystem services both before and after management measures and
policies are undertaken since the valuation of ecosystem services relies on differences in quality and quantity. In many
cases, though, a direct comparison might not be feasible due to lack of data.
** In order to value differences in ecosystem services, standardized prices might be used; a reliable, and in many cases,
feasible method in this respect is the transfer of benefits, for instance, by taking values of the TEEB study (KUMAR 2010).
Source: GETZNER (2010)

Tab. 1 lists all relevant ecosystem services provided by the protected area with the focus on forest
ecosystems, and includes empty cells for providing more detailed information (description of
regional/local specificities of ecosystem services), quantification of ecosystem services provision
before and after the establishment of the national park (or the change of management policies). After
collection of the data available, the second step consists of linking the quantitative information to
15
prices. The value and benefits in monetary terms which may exist for a certain study have to be
adapted to local/national circumstances and transferred to the policy site (benefits transfer). Adaptation
may include a wide range of variables influencing the value of ecosystems services and the
willingness-to-pay to conserve these (income, GDP, other information regarding preferences or socio-
demographics, ecological and site-specific characteristics, if necessary and feasible). In addition, data
can also be collected by a visitor survey on individuals WTP for specific ecosystem services. In
particular, the recreation value and non-use values (existence values) of the parks services (species
and habitat conservation) are to be addressed. Other data collection methods include primary study
investigating hedonic values, or the assessment of replacement and/or avoided costs.

Summary of the (indicative) monetary values of wetlands was provided in the publication of RUSSI et
al. (2013) based on different research across the globe. For our conditions are relevant examples from
two wetland categories: inland wetlands and rivers and lakes.

Tab. 2: Monetary value of services provided by inland vegetated wetlands (floodplains,

swamps/marshes and peatlands), and by rivers and lakes [Int.$/ha/year 2007 values] (RUSSI et al. 2013)

Minimum values Maximum values

A - Inland vegetated wetlands /
(Int.$/ha/y) (Int.$/ha/y)
B - Rivers and lakes
A B A B
TOTAL: 981 1779 44.597 13.488
PROVISIONING SERVICES 34 1169 9709 5776
1. Food 16 27 2090 196
2. (Fresh) water supply 6 1141 5189 5580
3. Raw materials 12 2430
4. Genetic resources
5. Medicinal resources
6. Ornamental resources
REGULATING SERVICES 321 305 23.018 4978
7. Influence on air quality ?
8. Climate regulation 5 351
9. Moderation of extreme events 7 4430
10. Regulation of water flows 4 9369
11. Waste treatment / water purification 9 305 4280 4978
12. Erosion prevention
13. Nutrient cycling / maintenance of soil fertility 5 4588
14. Pollination
15. Biological control
HABITAT SERVICES 10 0 3471 0
16. Lifecycle maintenance (esp. nursery service) 2 917
17. Gene pool protection (conservation) 7 2554
CULTURAL SERVICES 648 305 8399 2733
18. Aesthetic information 2 3906
19. Opportunities for recreation and tourism 9 305 3700 2733
20. Inspiration for culture, art and design 2 793
21. Spiritual experience ?
22. Cognitive information (education and science) ?

16
The recommended methodology for valuing ecosystem services provided by the protected area
considered two main aspects:
- Data availability most of data should be already present in the descriptive part of the management
plan or readily available at the land/resource managers. In this case, the ecosystem services assessment
in the Slovak protected areas is a bit more complicated as the large-scale protected areas lack the
management plans and the needed information are not systematically stored, sometimes even non
accessible;
- Relevance and the effectiveness of the assessment the process should be very simple but not
simplistic and a strong instrument for awareness, fundraising and negotiations.
As mentioned before, this methodology should be considered as a rapid assessment or rough
evaluation, providing basic information for protected area managers, helping them in communicating
the need to efficiently manage protected areas, for awareness raising and lobbying decision makers to
support protected area management, for informed decisions about investments and so on.

3.2 Relevant ecosystem services/values

From the range of ecosystem services that protected areas provide, valuation is not equally applicable
to all of them. Valuation is relatively easily applicable to the following ecosystem services in the most
of the Slovak (mountainous) protected areas, services grouped according to the classification presented
above:

Direct use values

Timber products
Non timber forest products
Fishing and hunting
Recreation and tourism

Indirect use values

Water provision
Water retention/flood prevention/erosion control
Carbon sequestration

As indicated above (from RUSSI et al. 2013), in wetland protected areas for assessing and
demonstrating the value of water and wetlands can be used:

17
Provisioning services
Food: sustainably produced/harvested wild berries, fungi, nuts, game, fish, and other aquatic
resources;
Water quantity
Raw materials: sustainably produced/harvested timber, firewood, reed, plant fibre, biomass etc.
Regulating services
Climate/climate change regulation: carbon sequestration, maintaining and controlling temperature
and precipitation;
Moderation of extreme events: flood control, drought mitigation;
Water regulation: regulating surface water runoff, aquifer recharge etc.;
Water purification: decomposition/capture of nutrients and contaminants, prevention of eutrophisation
of water bodies etc.;
Erosion control: maintenance of nutrients and soil cover and preventing negative effects of erosion;
Cultural and social services
Landscape and amenity values: amenity of the ecosystem, spiritual values, cultural heritage values
etc.;
Ecotourism and recreation: hiking, nature walks, canoeing, rafting, recreational fishing, animal
watching etc.;
Cultural values and inspirational services: e.g. education, art and research.

Timber and non-timber forest products can be evaluated (as an added value of the PA), if they are
coming from a sustainably managed area and only if the PA (status and/or management) is ensuring
proper management of these resources. Otherwise, it can be considered that all forests in Europe and
not only are managed and logged based on sustainable principles, so, no difference from a PA. It is
important to consider that timber production is even in its sustainable form an extractive use of
ecological resources. Many categories of protected areas (e.g. national park, Natura 2000) exclude
even such sustainable use of resources, and prescribe forest management in order to fulfill ecological
(biodiversity) conservation goals.
It is necessary to mention that the protected areas administrations are not the real managers of the
forests in the protected areas, as forest management is done by other entities and authorities in
Slovakia (e.g. State Forest Enterprise, Municipal forests, urbariats). The forests in the protected areas
make no difference to the economy forests if they have no sustainable management and therefore the
evaluation of the value of the wood harvested in the protected area is very sensitive issue. Application
of certain restrictions or a good practice in the forest by the protected area administration, which
supports the long-term quality of the forest products and services, serves as a good argument for

18
including these values in the assessment.1 In the case of Slovakia there is a possibility of commenting
on forest management plans by the protected area administrations. However, as VAJDA & FENICHEL
(2011) has shown, the effective ecological management of protected areas in Slovakia is certainly
hindered by the lack of management authority and power of the administration of protected areas.
If some restrictions or good practices imposed by the PA administration or its status (legal status
mainly) are providing security of long term access to quality goods and services provided by forest,
then this is a real argument for including these values in the assessment.

3.3 Applied valuation techniques/calculation

In wetland protected areas different approaches and tools can help assess the benefits that flow from
water and wetlands by providing different and complementary information, including qualitative,
quantitative, spatial and monetary approaches (RUSSI et al. 2013).
Qualitative analysis is based on non-numerical information, which describes values and benefits that
are not easily translated into quantitative information (e.g. landscape beauty, impacts on security and
wellbeing, cultural and spiritual values).
Quantitative data are used to represent the state of, and the changes in, the ecosystems and the
services they provide using numerical units of measurement (e.g. groundwater availability in a
watershed in cubic metres, nitrogen and phosphorous in a water body in micrograms per litre; carbon
annually sequestered in peatlands in tonnes per hectare per year; number of people who benefit from
access to clean water from wetlands).
Geospatial mapping allows the quantitative data to be linked with geographical information (e.g.
which community benefits from clean water provision from a given wetland).
Monetary valuation can build on biophysical information on the services provided by ecosystems to
derive values (e.g. carbon storage). It can be of help to inform a specific decision, management tool or
policy instrument, e.g. the strategies of using wetlands for carbon sequestration, ecosystem based
adaptation to climate change, flood mitigation etc.
In many cases, provisioning ecosystem services (such as timber) are more visible and are favoured in
the policy-making processes because they have a market price, but there are many other ecosystem
services that are less visible and often overlooked or underrepresented in the policy-making policies.
The calculation of the economic value of traditionally less well covered provisioning services (e.g. the
value of some genetic materials or of water provision from wetlands) and non-provisioning ecosystem
services (e.g. water purification, erosion control) contribute to the arguments for conservation, wise
use and restoration.

For the identified ecosystem services, the following calculation schemes have been applied. Unless
otherwise indicated, variables and values are "per year".
a1) Timber products
1
In fact, the reduction of timber production owing to the establishment of a protected area is rather a cost of the PA than a
benefit.
19
Valuation technique: market prices
The value of timber production can be calculated by the following equation:
,

where Vta denotes the value of timber (EUR) produced in year a, Sta is the size of the area (ha) which
is used for harvesting timber in year a, Ha is the average of timber harvesting (m/ha), and Pta is the
price of timber (EUR/m) in year a.

Data sources: data from the PA administrations, forest districts, national statistics (Green Report).
Uses the attached excel spreadsheet according to available data.

Due to partly insufficient resources for in-depth investigation on the timber quantities and prices
logged and sold, an average harvest amount and a mean value of the national timber price can be taken
as reference for the calculation. However, if the PA managers have access to more detailed, area
specific information, a more accurate calculation should be made for this value.

a2) Non-timber products

Valuation technique: market prices

Typical products of this category are herbs, berries, mushrooms and natural fibres. The assessment of
these products is worth doing only in the landscape protected areas, as picking of the forest fruits and
plants is forbidden in the national parks (according to the Nature and Landscape Protection Act it is a
third degree of protection). It is usually allowed to pick up the forest fruits and mushrooms for a direct
use in the area which is within the reach of the tourist trail. In the whole scope of the ecosystem
services this is only a marginal issue, though.
The value will be considered only if the management plan ensures long term existence of all these
plants through specific provisions. The permission for harvesting has to be issued only to locals and
the price represents the amount received by locals when they sell them to tourists or processing
companies.
Variables and units:
- Harvest amount per year from species i Ai (kg).
- Mean value of product price based on local market Pi (EUR/kg).
- i - species no. i

Value of non timber products:

VNT = Ai * Pi
Data sources: data from the PA administrations, forest districts, national statistics. Use the
attached excel spreadsheet according to available data.

20
a3) Fishing and hunting
Valuation technique: market prices
If there is no added value to hunting or fishing in a PA, it could be even tricky to consider these
services as values of PA. In fact, what are we protecting?
If and only if fishing and hunting are controlled by the PA staff (or with supervision of the PA staff) as
active management measures for balancing disturbed ecosystems, then we can offer these services for
higher prices (because we are in a PA) and consider them as values. This issue is questionable in
Slovakia. The right to fishing and hunting is not dealt with by PA administrations, but by the regional
forestry authorities, land users and organizations such as the Slovak Fishing Association or the Slovak
Hunting Association and their organizational units. PA administration representatives are members of
Advisory Boards for hunting on regional level, but in practice can not influence game management
much.
The value of fishing and hunting VFH usually contains two major components: the value of the sold
product (determined by market prices) and the value of the license (determined by national or local
price levels).
Variables:
- Number of licenses for fishing or hunting (including wildlife photo/video shooting) for I
species NFHi
- Price per license PFHi (EUR)
- Number of sold units from I species NPi
- Price per sold unit from I species VPi (EUR)
VFH = NFHi * PFHi + NPi + VPi

Data sources: data from the PA administrations, regional forestry authorities, hunters associations,
angling associations, national statistics. Use the attached Excel spreadsheet according to available data.
If photo/video shooting is making a difference and is important to communicate as a profitable and
sustainable alternative to hunting and fishing it is important to highlight separately the associated
values in your valuation, reports and presentations.
Fishing and hunting certainly does not only provide certain usable products (fish, deer meat) but also
serves as an important recreation activity, which is dealt with in the next section.

a4) Recreation and tourism

Valuation technique: travel costs
The value of recreation/tourism VRT is based on contingent assessment and statistical data on protected
areas visitors. The average expenditure per person and day and the average length of the visitor's stay
is calculated from the visitors survey questionnaires. The questionnaires point out that people visit the

21
protected area because of its values. Basic version of the questionnaire (see Annex 2) needs to be
adjusted to the specifics of a particular protected area. It is made of 30 questions aimed especially at
finding out the visitors' preferences their willingness to pay for the nature protection (WTP) and the
willingness to accept the restrictions related to the nature protection (WTA). Unlike in other countries,
there is no entrance fee introduced for visiting the protected area so far in Slovakia, therefore this entry
(question No. 18) was replaced by a parking fee. The offer of various facilities and activities within
the protected areas by nature conservation organisations is very limited in Slovakia; therefore it is
necessary to include also the activities, which are not carried out by the PA administration (questions
No. 9 and 10). The questions related to demographic statistics have also been amended to the
conditions in Slovakia (questions No. 28 30).
The average number of visitors is calculated from the statistical data (estimations) of the PA
administrations. It is necessary to stress that the knowledge of the PA administrations on the number of
visitors is very poor in Slovakia. There are no employees who would deal specifically with the issue of
tourism. The necessary information can be obtained in cooperation with the local tourism
organisations, or in cooperation with the Institute of High Mountain Biology of University in ilina.
Some of the PA administrations partly gather the data on number of visitors in some valleys; however,
detailed survey is still not a certainty. It will be necessary to use a qualified estimation in most cases.
In some cases, it may be advisable to use primary data collection on the number of tourists, for
instance, counting tourists over a certain period at the entry points of the park, and then reasonably
aggregating to total numbers of visitors.
The values are based on the level of the expenditures spent by the visitors in the area and do not
include the travel costs from their home to the place of visit. Travel costs can be included into the
calculation; however, they do not present direct benefits for local inhabitants. They, however, indicate
the effort made to visit the favourite area. Especially in case of remote and difficult to reach area. If
such an estimate is available, it can be used to show the PA contribution to the regional or national
economy.
Total travel can be calculated by the following equation:
,
with TCa denoting total travel costs of visitors in year a; Na is the number of visitors at the national
park in year a, Di is the mean duration of stay of visitor i, TCi,1 are travel expenses based solely on
transport costs, TCi,2 denotes other costs of the visit (e.g. expenses for accommodation or souvenirs),
and Ma is the average share of visitors who visit solely for the purpose of seeing the park.
Travel costs in general only give a first (but nevertheless important) indication of the recreation
benefits; more reliable and consistent with economic theory and applications is the consumer surplus.
Usually, the relation between the frequency of trips and the travel costs are explored and estimated by
statistical-econometric analysis (e.g. regression analysis) which results in a demand curve for visits
to the park. The consumer surplus (benefits) can then be calculated easily.2

2
For some steps of the analysis, it may be advisable to commission parts of the environmental/ecological economists
dealing with these issues.
22
Data sources: data from the PA administrations, Institute of High Mountain Biology University of
ilina, tour operators, national/regional statistics. Uses the attached excel spreadsheet according to
available data.

Willingness-to-pay for a national parks policies and environmental values

In order to derive an indication of potential value in terms of existence, of the (quasi-) optional and
bequest value of biodiversity conservation, and to facilitate a comparison with other studies in
national parks, the willingness-to-pay (WTP) question was formulated as concretely as possible. The
policy program offered consists of maintaining species conservation programs in the PA by an annual
(hypothetical) earmarked payment. The question also explains that the funds provided by the
government may be insecure, and that citizens might have to pay directly for PA policies.
Respondents are also warned that their stated WTP comes on top of their expenses during the visit
(GETZNER 2010).
The individual WTP elicited in the visitor survey may be aggregated to account for the total
willingness-to-pay for the existence, option and bequest values (non-use values) of the PA in terms of
the value of the whole population of Slovakia. Total WTP for each of the separate payment motives
can be summed up by the following equation:
,
with WTPj,a denoting total WTP in year a for payment j (j = 1 to 3, for the existence, bequest, and
optional values, respectively); NPa is the total population of Slovakia in year a, WTPi is the total
willingness-to-pay of respondent i (EUR), and PMj,i denotes the share of respondents stating that their
main payment motive would fall under category j. WTPi is the mean value of willingness-to-pay of all
respondents (times the population of Slovakia total WTP).

b1) Freshwater provision

Valuation technique: market prices
For the water use per person per year the respective national averages can be taken as reference. The
water prices indicated in the calculation must reflect the regional water price level of the district to
which the protected areas belong, at the time of the research. Usually, the watershed is properly
managed due to a large extent to the protected area.
Water courses are not managed by the PA administrations in Slovakia. Smaller rivers and brooks are
usually managed by the Slovak Forest Enterprise. Economically important watercourses are managed
by the Slovak water management enterprise. Drinking water supply is provided by water supply
companies, which also determine the price of the drinking water.
The management plan has to include an important goal to maintain the watershed in a way that no
other investments will be needed to ensure quality water on the long term for domestic use and
industrial purposes in the local communities.
Variables and units:
- Average number of persons receiving water from the protected area - Nm

23
 - Average water use per person per year Uaw (m3)
- Average regional water price Pmw (EUR/m3)

Value of water provision:

VWP = Nm * Uaw * Pmw

In order to value this ecosystem service, market prices are used according to equ. (2):
,
with Vwa denoting the annual value of fresh water provision, Ra is the number of residents using water
originating from the ecosystem, Uwa is the average water consumption per resident, and Pwa is the
current price of water in year a.
Data sources: regional and national statistics. Uses the attached excel spreadsheet according to
available data.
It should be noted that determining the value of water and wetland ecosystem services is different from
the concept of the price paid by consumers for water supply. The price of water supply can be
determined by factors such as infrastructure and treatment cost, which may be subsidised and take into
account other factors. This is different from the value of water as an ecosystem service.

b2) Water retention / flood protection / erosion control

Valuation technique: reference values related to replacement/avoided costs
On-site scientific assessments on the water retention capacity and corresponding values might not
exist, therefore mean values had to be taken as a reference (in this case from the EU27 countries).
These have to be then brought into the national context by multiplying them with the respective
income differentials for respective country. Average GDP in Slovakia is approximately 75 % of the
EU 27 average (year 2012).
If, in this context, the cost side is also taken into consideration, there might arise differences in overall
investment and maintenance costs, e.g. in cases where water is drained for consumption. This depends
largely on the individual topographic conditions which determine the water flow regime and soil
stability, and requires a separate analysis.
Variables and units:
- Protected area surface - A (ha)
- Mean value of water retention (for EU27; as for unmanaged forests) - Vmwr (EUR/ha)
- Income differential ID which is GDP per inhabitant minus PPP (purchasing power
parity) EU statistics, EUROSTAT.

VWR = A * Vmwr * ID
24
Ecosystem services of water retention and flood control (including erosion control) are valued
according to the following equation (3):
;
VFCSK,a denotes the value of flood control (water retention, erosion control) of the PA (at Slovak price
levels; EUR/ha), VfcuEU,a denotes the value of these ecosystem services taken as an EU average value
from different studies (benefit transfer; see below) for unmanaged forests (EUR 90 per ha per year),
while the corresponding value for managed (used) forests is denoted by VfcmEU,a (EUR 36 per ha per
year). Sua is the relevant area of unmanaged forest ecosystems providing flood protection and erosion
control; while Sma denotes the managed forest areas. Ida is the income differential between the EU
average and the Slovak economy (GDP differential 75 %, year 2012).
Data sources: data from the PA administrations, EU statistics. Uses the attached excel spreadsheet
according to available data.

b3) Carbon sequestration

Valuation technique: market prices
Forests and other ecosystem types store carbon, but there might be also either human-induced or
natural carbon release. Carbon release rates have to be taken into consideration as well for a
comprehensive view on the matter. The issue of relative importance of carbon release versus carbon
storage is probably one of the most controversial one within the broader theme of carbon
sequestration. Primary studies may reveal a clearer picture on individual sites, however, there is still
potential to develop more generally valid reference values for particular ecosystems. The lack of
primary studies leads to extrapolations, average values and different sets of assumptions.
The value generated by carbon sequestration depends on several criteria. Some of the most important
ones are: tree species, tree age, annual growth, wood density, root structure, soil type.
The ideal case is when primary studies are available providing a good set of data on the assessed site.
Often however, first-hand data is lacking, making reference values or extrapolations from data of sites
with comparable characteristics the best calculation option.
The most important two elements related to carbon sequestration are the annual growth, indicating the
biomass produced by the ecosystem, and the use of the biomass, since fuel wood for instance has to be
taken out in this balance. In this respect, the most valuable forest ecosystems are the ones incorporated
in core areas where the natural balance of CO2 is still positive, as more CO2 is captured than released.
Roughly, but precise enough for our purpose, we calculate the carbon following the next algorithm:
Biomass Divide by 2 (organic matter is c. 50 % water, varies by site and season) = Dry biomass
Dry biomass Divide by 2 (dry biomass is 42 52 % C) = Carbon (C)
Carbon (C) Multiply by 3,668 (3.668 t of CO2 includes 1 t of C because of the atomic mass of
the elements) = CO2
So, considering the carbon credit as one tone of CO2 sequestered, we will calculate only the CO2
captured and stored since it has to be sold to someone. Carbon storage is mainly ensured in the core

25
area of any protected area, so non-intervention management is considered as Improved Forest
Management and really counts for carbon projects.
Other basic underlying questions which may have to be considered are:
(1) How much carbon is sequestered above-ground and how much below-ground, and
(2) What are the carbon release rates in relation to the carbon sequestration rates?
In most cases only above-ground carbon sequestration is measured. Below-ground carbon
sequestration is more difficult to determine, and therefore more rarely included in studies. There is still
a need to more clearly elaborate reference values: what is the share of above-ground carbon
sequestration to below-ground carbon sequestration in different forest biomes: temperate mixed
forests, boreal coniferous forests or tropical broadleaf forests? Furthermore, the role of climate change
and its effects on carbon sequestration has to be better analysed and included in future assessments, in
particular with regard to how much carbon is sequestered/released considering on average higher
temperatures, as well as locally and regionally changing climatic conditions.
Variables and units:
- Forest surface of the protected area - A (ha)
- Annual growth Gy (m3/ha)
- Mass density - Md (tones/m3)
- Unit price for 1 tone of CO2 Pco2(euro)

VCS = [(A * Gy * Md)/2]*3.668*Pco2

Data sources: data from the PA administrations, statistics, for updated value of the carbon credits, the
quotations from www.ecosystemmarketplace.com can be used. Uses the attached excel spreadsheet
according to available data.
Below-ground biomass can be estimated using the function described by CAIRNS et al. (1997) for
temperate forests:
BBD (t/ha) = exp(-1.0587 + 0.8836 x ln ABD + 0.2840),
where BBD is belowground biomass density in tons per hectare (t/ha) and ABD is aboveground
biomass density in t/ha. Since ABD can be easily calculated as it was described before, we have the
underground biomass as well.
ABD = A * Gy * Md
The most important carbon storage on land represents peatlands (RUSSI et al. 2013). The peatland
equilibrium between production and decay is, however, delicate and can easily be disturbed by human
activities. Drainage turns peatlands from a carbon sink to a carbon source. For this reason, restoration
and conservation of peatlands represent a key strategy for climate change mitigation (along with
protection of other peatland ecosystem services).

26
Examples of ecosystem service indicators in wetlands useful as quantitative measures of value of
nature (RUSSI et al. 2013) are in Table 3. It is important to identify and use indicators that capture the
different dimensions of values of water and wetlands and are useful in practical decision making.

Table 3.
Ecosystem service Ecosystem service indicator
PROVISIONING SERVICES
Food e.g. Fish production from sustainable sources in kg/t live weight
Water quantity Total freshwater resources in m3
Raw materials Timber in m3 from sustainably managed forests
REGULATING SERVICES
Climate/climate change regulation Total amount of carbon sequestered / stored = sequestration / storage
capacity per ha x total area (t CO2)
Moderation of extreme events Trends in number of damaging natural disasters; probability of incident
Water regulation Infiltration capacity/rate of an ecosystem (e.g. amount of water / surface
area) volume through unit area/per time;
Soil water storage capacity in mm/m;
Floodplain water storage capacity in mm/m
Water purification Removal of nutrients by wetlands (t or percentage);
Water quality in aquatic ecosystems (sediment, turbidity, phosphorous
nutrients etc.)
Erosion control Soil erosion rate by land use type
CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Ecotourism and recreation Number of visitors to sites per year;
Amount of nature tourism
Culture values and inspirational services Total number of educational excursions at a site;
Number of TV programmes, studies, books, etc. featuring sites and the
surrounding area;
Number of scientific publications

It is important to note that the ecosystem services that wetlands provide are not always synergistic with
each other. In protected areas it is important to be clear on priorities for wetland management and,
therefore, which trade-offs are acceptable.

3.4 Total Economic Value

For all ecosystem services, the indicated resulting
values of the reference study represent mean values,
which are framed by a lower and an upper bound
value. These alternative values were calculated with
the same calculation method, however using lower
respectively higher reference values.
Summing up all the values we obtained in this
exercise we will get the total economic value of the
protected area for one year timeframe. We considered only the direct and indirect use values since they
are easier to calculate. Nevertheless we have to keep in mind the bigger picture of TEV, as presented
in the figure.
27
4 Recommendations
The use of ecosystem valuation makes arguments that have a chance of informing decisions for the
conservation of important ecosystems. It enhances in many cases the social visibility of the benefits
brought about by environmental protection and restoration. By doing so, it can act as a counterweight
to the pressures causing environmental degradation, which are driven by economic activities where
market prices do not take into account negative impacts on health and the environment (externalities).
In these cases, economic assessments can help address this imbalance by demonstrating the
importance of protecting and restoring our natural heritage to policy-makers, managers, and the
general public (TEEB 2010, TEEB 2011).

4.1 Legal arrangement options for the ecosystem services evaluation in Slovakia

The aim of ecosystem services evaluation is to realise the value of nature and to propose the measures
that would prevent its decrease.

According to SEJK (2010), the concept of ecosystem functions is based on nature sciences only, while
the services that ecosystems provide to humankind reach to human sciences. Simple conversion term
change would not be possible without substantial simplification and without a loss. Neither classical,
nor neoliberal economy theory takes the concept of ecosystem services into account. Current
understanding was established by COSTANZA et al. (1997) and DAILY et al. (1997). Thanks to
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) report, the approach using the term ecosystem services
was accepted and widely publicised. Despite many problems, the introduction of routine ecosystem
services evaluation can be a distinct contribution to the protection of (or a restriction of decrease of)
these services and functions, that support these services. The European Union understands the need to
develop the tools and policies towards the ecosystem services evaluation and encourages the
improvement of economic stimulus towards sustainable use of ecosystem services. A basic role of the
proposed tools is to safeguard more effective information sharing before decision making. First step is
to evaluate the chosen ecosystem services, which will help to quantify not only a potential loss, but
also the benefits. Only after this evaluation is done, it will be possible to determine the loss and
reimbursements.

The term ecological loss was introduced to a Slovak legal system in the Act on Environment No.
17/1992 Coll., and it was defined as a loss or weakening of ecosystem natural functions caused by
derogation of its components or by invasion of internal links and processes as a result of human
activities. Basic definition of the term relating to ecosystem services is done. In the Czech Republic,
there was an Act on ecological loss accepted, that evaluates the loss of certain areas ecosystem
services provision expressed as a percentage of the decreased provision compared to original status
before the planned intervention; the cost of site revitalisation to the status before the intervention is
added to it. It would be useful to have a similar law in Slovakia. The term ecosystem services is
defined in the prepared new act on nature conservation and landscape management. A codification of
the institute (and methodology) of ecosystem services evaluation alone is necessary first of all. Only

28
after that it is possible to compare the loss of ecosystem services (ecological loss) and to propose the
ecosystem services payments, or to deal with ecosystem accounting.

4.2 An approach to assessing the values

Bringing together all information on the values of protected areas into a coherent decision making
framework, which is focused on the key management objectives and integrates stakeholder inputs, can
be a complex challenge. TEEB has sought to help decision makers through the development of a
stepwise approach to navigate through the available options for integrating ecosystem services in local
and regional management (RUSSI et al. 2013).
The six-steps approach was developed for providing some basic guidance on how to identify
ecosystem service opportunities in ecosystem management (the order of the steps is flexible and can be
adapted to the specific circumstances of the investigated site):
Step 1: Specify and agree on the problem with stakeholders
Step 2: Identify which ecosystem services are most relevant (to the decision to be made and covering
the key stakeholders)
Step 3: Identify the information needs and select appropriate methods, as the study design determines
what kind of information you get
Step 4: Assess expected changes in availability and distribution of ecosystem services
Step 5: Identify and appraise policy options based on the analysis of expected changes in ecosystem
services
Step 6: Assess social and environmental impacts of policy options, as changes in ecosystem services
affect people differently.
In any case, it is important to note that if the values of ecosystem services are not conveyed in terms
understandable and acceptable to those who make decisions, there is a serious risk that these services
will be degraded. In order to fulfil the objectives and aims of the evaluation study, it is highly advised
to commission parts of the study to national or international experts, or at least to consult these in the
various steps of the evaluation process.

4.3 National challenges

Protected areas in Slovakia face a number of problems which are also hindering local and regional
development. Most importantly, our protected areas are acknowledged only by national law; however
they do not pass any assessment regarding the fulfilment of internationally recognised IUCN
management criteria for protected areas of category II national parks. The two most compromising
factors in this context are:
1. The number of protected areas and their size is rather high, however, effective and efficient nature
conservation is more-or-less poor.

29
2. The primary problem of the national parks is an increasing dominance of commercial forest use.
Due to its economic profit-driven background in particular, it is practically perpetually in conflict with
national park priorities from the IUCN standards (internationally recognised) point of view. The next
problem is that the ownership of the land within the parks is in private and corporation hands as well
as private forest associations. The complexity of property rights has an influence on the way costs and
benefits of ecosystem services are distributed and shared across societies and thereby have an
important influence on the way priorities on ecosystem services are generated, managed and trade-offs
negotiated (RUSSI et al. 2013). It can result in conflicts, non-cooperative behavior, and inefficient
management. Other problem is a very weak political support for effective and efficient nature
conservation and national park management policy from the Slovak government and the Ministry of
Environment. The root causes of this are in bad environmental policy after the velvet revolution in
1989. In Slovakia, unlike other countries (e.g. the Czech Republic), the land was restituted to private
hands also in national parks. The better solution would have been to offer the land owners an adequate
land out side of the national parks. This land would have been also better for their commercial
purposes. Currently, the long term solution is only step-by-step purchasing of the land in national
parks and other priority PA categories by the state or environmental NGOs. Small country, as Slovakia
is, will never have enough funds for compensation payments for all landowners within so large
protected areas. Whereas the Slovak Nature Protection system has received adequate or nearly
adequate national funding in the past (1990s and beginning of 2000s), the situation has worsened
significantly and continuously from 2006 onwards, both in terms of reductions in national funding, as
well as in a series of institutional and personnel changes, initiated by high political levels, which
affected the replacement of experienced staff with persons who are not from the field or are
inexperienced.
3. The park administrations do not have an appropriate authority within the park borders: although
informative and counselling meetings with stakeholders are held, there are other key players who
determine the management activities in some areas of the park (e.g. Forests of the Slovak Republic,
and especially private land owners and land users, co-operative farms or local farmers, etc.). The
decision making body is in a structure different from the administration of a protected area, sometimes
with lack of knowledge, relevant education and interest, under political and small interest group
influence (including corruption).
4. Given this unsupportive political-institutional situation at national level, it is a big challenge for
international nature conservation organisations to help to overcome the current deficiencies. This
would only be possible in a joint effort with intensive national and international conservation and
policy work. Parallel to this, protected area administrations in Slovakia should increase their access to
non-state funds through European Union or other international funding opportunities, and intensify
their work with foreign partner organisations or through networks in order to compensate the drastic
cuts in their budgets.
Moreover, the role of the forestry company active in the parks has to be defined in a new way. The
most optimal option would be to compensate the private owners by changing their land inside
protected areas for more productive land lying outside protected areas. Another option would be that
the forestry companies are allowed to continue their activities, however under the strong supervision
by the park administration, which should enforce substantially stricter rules for logging (e.g. only in
the case of windfall events or threats to human life).

30
5. There is a need for substantially improved law enforcement and information and awareness policy
not only on the side of national park administration, but also better environmental education in schools
and cooperation with tourist business companies in common promotion of the national parks/protected
areas values and ecosystem services they provide. The huge disadvantage of Slovak national parks
comparing to situation in many other countries is a poor information service of protected areas
administrations. The key challenge is to improve communication with all the stakeholders, especially
the land owners. Their support is a corner-stone of the functional national park system. Environmental
awareness is very low compared to other countries. Moral devastation of the society during 40-years of
socialism has met with western consumer society. In that situation nature conservation plays only a
very minor role. This is a deeper problem which will take years of daily work to be dealt with. It has
been critically undervalued so far in the work of the nature conservation organisations in Slovakia.
Improving awareness on the importance and values of nature is however crucial for better governance
as a way to support conservation, sustainable use and restoration of ecosystems, while helping achieve
development objectives.

31
5 Use of valuation results for designing Payments for Ecosystem Services
(PES)
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) can be a useful instrument to finance conservation of
ecosystems and to involve new stakeholder (e.g. companies).
The rough valuation presented in this guide could be a good start for assessing the possibility and the
opportunity to set up PES schemes. However it is important to understand that PES schemes can be
efficient mostly on large areas (regional and/or national level).
Ecosystems provide services that sustain life food, fuel, climate regulation, water and nutrient
cycling, habitat provision, and so much more. Replicating even a fraction of the services that are freely
provided by well-functioning ecosystems would cost billions of dollars, if it could be done at all.
Payments for ecosystem services (PES) represent one approach to enabling investments into
preserving and enhancing ecosystems and associated ecosystem services. PES programmes allow for
the translation of the ecosystem services into financial incentives for their conservation, targeted at the
local actors who own or manage the natural resources. They can be funded by the ecosystem service
users or by foundations, or governmental agencies, when the ecosystem user is the society as a whole
or a very broad category of stakeholders.
The amount of payment in a PES programme can be established through monetary valuation of the
remunerated ecosystem services, negotiating among the involved stakeholders, or reverse auctions. In
most cases, the price is determined through a negotiation process based on the opportunity costs
because monetary valuation is generally a lengthy and expensive process and reverse auctions involve
high transaction costs and uncertainties (RUSSI et al. 2013).
In practice, the success of PES depends in large part on the legal and institutional framework in a
particular place. As yet, however, there are few resources for understanding legal and institutional
readiness for PES. A new booklet from the Katoomba Group, created with funding from UNDP
South Africa, attempts to address this gap by outlining a framework for assessing PES legal and
institutional readiness in a particular jurisdiction. It identifies threshold conditions for PES, essential
aspects to be developed in parallel with PES transactions, and legal and institutional elements that can
facilitate greater efficacy and efficiency.
http://www.forest-trends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=3014

New Online Resource Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Contract Clauses Library
As private and public payments for ecosystem services (PES) transactions gain wider acceptance as a
tool for addressing ecosystem degradation and loss, guidance around negotiating and drafting PES
agreements becomes increasingly important. In general, drafting a contract consists of adapting and
modifying an existing contract, rather than beginning from scratch. Few examples exist, however, of
payments for ecosystem services (PES) contracts. The lack of precedents in contracting for PES makes
negotiating and drafting these agreements much more costly and time-consuming. It is also likely to
put sellers, who may have little commercial experience and limited resources, at a disadvantage
relative to commercially-savvy PES buyers or brokers.

32
With the support of UNDP South Africa, the Katoomba Groups Legal Initiative, which is part of
Forest Trends, has put together online Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Contract Clauses
Library to help address this gap. This web-based resource provides background information about PES
contracting and the structure of a PES agreement, as well as basic information about 20 different types
of clauses that are likely to be used in these contracts, and 33 example clauses. We hope that this
resource will continue to grow and will help PES participants to negotiate and draft effective and
equitable PES agreements.
http://www.katoombagroup.org/regions/international/clauses/

In general, it has to be said that PES schemes are prominent in developing countries where the
international community transfers significant funds for conserving biodiversity, e.g., in terms of
carbon credits. In Europe, PES are generally not very prominent since most protected areas are funded
by the central governments. Mostly, payments for ecosystem services play a marginal role in
conservation policies in Europe.

33
References

BISHOP J., SUKHDEV, P., ten BRINK, P. et al. 2010. Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature - A
Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB (The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity.
BRAINARD J., BATEMAN K. & LOVETT A. 2009. The Social Value of Carbon Sequestered in Great
Britain's Woodlands, Ecological Economics 68 (4), p. 1257-1267, Norwich.
BREZOVSK K. & HOLCY J. (2009). Ocenenie rekreanej funkcie lesov Vysokch Tatier metdou
cestovnch nkladov. In: Acta Facultatis Forestalis Zvolen, LI, 2009, Suppl. 1. p. 151 162.
CERONI M. & DRAGOI M. 2008. Assessing and capturing ecosystem benefits in Macin Mountains
National Park, Romania - Green Compass, University of Suceava.
CERONI M. 2007. Ecosystem services and the local economy in Maramures Mountains Natural Park,
Romania - Final Report, Viseu de Sus.
CONSTANZA R., DARGE R., DE GROOT R., FARBER S., GRASSO M., HANNON B., LIMBURG K.,
NAEMM S., ONEILL R. V., PARUELO J., RASKIN R. G., SUTTON P. & VAN DE BELT M. 1997. The
value of the worlds ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253 260.
CHIABAI A., TRAVISI C., DING H., MARKANDYA A. & NUNES P. 2009. Economic valuation of forest
ecosystem services: Methodology and monetary estimates - Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Nota di
Lavoro, 12.2009, Milano.
DAILY G. et al. 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Publisher:
Island Press.
DUDLEY N., STOLTON S., BELOKUROV A., KRUEGER L., LOPOUKHINE N., MACKINNON K., SANDWITH
T. & SEKHRAN N. 2010. Natural Solutions - Protected areas helping people cope with climate change
WWF.
EEA REPORT No 5/2012 [online]. cit. 2013-02-20, URL:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/protected-areas-have-increased-to?&utm_campaign=protected-
areas-have-increased-to&utm_medium=email&utm_source=EEASubscriptions

FZYOV ., LNIKOV D. & NOVOROLSK M. 2009. Economic Valuation of Tatras National park
and Regional Environmental Policy. Polish J. of Environ. Stud. Vol. 18, No. 5 (2009), s. 811 818.

GANTIOLER S., RAYMENT M., ten BRINK P., MCCONVILLE A., KETTUNEN M. & BASSI S. (2014). The
costs and socio-economic benefits associated with the Natura 2000 network. International Journal of
Sustainable Society (forthcoming).

GEF/UNDP (2011). Catalyzing Financial Sustainability of Protected Areas in Montenegro: The

Economic Value of Protected Areas in Montenegro. 31 pp.

GETZNER M. (2009). Economic and cultural values related to Protected Areas Part A: Valuation of
Ecosystem Services in Tatra (PL) and Slovensky Raj (SK) national parks. Department of Economics
34
(Klagenfurt University) Research Report to WWF International (World Wide Funds for Nature),
Vienna.
GETZNER M. 2010. Valuation of ecosystem services in the Tatra (Poland) and Slovensky Raj
(Slovakia) National Park - University of Klagenfurt, WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme, Vienna.
GETZNER M. & JUNGMEIER M. 2009. Improving Protected Areas. Klagenfurt: Heyn, 2009. 104 p.
ISBN: 9783708403564.
HENSEL K. - Current status of recreational fishing in Slovakia - Mimeo, Katedra zoolgie Prif UK,
Bratislava.
KEETON W. S., CHERNYAVSKYY M., GRATZER G., MAIN-KNORN M., SHPYLCHAK M. & BIHUN Y.
2010. Structural characteristics and aboveground biomass of old-growth spruce-fir stands in the
eastern Carpathian mountains, Ukraine - Plant Biosystems, 1-12, First Article
KEITH H., MACKEY B. G. & LINDENMAYER D. B. 2009. Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks
and lessons from the worlds most carbon-dense forests, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (PNAS), Journal vol. 106 no. 28, July 14, 2009.
KUMAR, P. (ed.) (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic
Foundations. Earthscan, London.
MANDATE EU (2012). Working group on Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services
(MAES) (final version: December 2012). European Commission Directorate-General Environment
Directorate B - Nature, Biodiversity & Land Use ENV.B.2 Biodiversity
MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
Island Press, Washington. 155 pp.
PEARCE D. W. & WARFORD J. J. 1993. World Without End: Economics, Environment and Sustainable
Development. Oxford University Press.
RUSSI D., TEN BRINK P., FARMER A., BADURA T., COATES D., FRSTER J., KUMAR R. & DAVIDSON N.
2013. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands. IEEP, London and
Brussels; Ramsar Secretariat, Gland.
POVAAN R. 2011. Economic and Cultural Values Related to the Vek Fatra national park (Slovakia).
Thesis, Klagenfurt, 72 p.
POVAAN R. 2013: Rekrean hodnoty NP Vek Fatra. In Acta Universitatis Matthiae Belii, Sekcia
environmentlne manarstvo. ro. 15, . 1, 82 94.
SEJK J. & DEJMAL I. et al. 2003. Hodnocen a oceovn biotop esk republiky. esk ekologick
stav, 422 p. ISBN 80-85087-54-5.
VAJDA J. & FENICHEL E. P. 2011: Evaluation of Integrated Protected Area Management in Slovakian
National Parks. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies. Volume 20, number 4, 1053 1060.
VAJDA J., GETZNER M. & POVAAN R. 2013. Visitors perceptions and economic effects of the Tatra
National Parks in Poland and Slovakia. In AUER P., VIHLOV D., DVOK A., LISA A. (eds.):
Visegrad Countries: Environmental Problems and Policies. Cenia Praha, 2013 (in press). 118 133.

35
TEEB 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations.
Editor: KUMAR P. Earthscan, London and Washington.
TEEB 2011. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy
Making. Editor: TEN BRINK P. Earthscan, London.
WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, 2009. Business and Ecosystems - A
Scoping Report.

36
 Annex I

Visitor Questionnaire (basic version) for Protected Area

Protected area Visitor Questionnaire

01. How well do you feel informed about

- the aims of the protected area
- species and nature conservation programmes of the protected area
- recreation activities and possibilities
- cultural and educational offers of the protected area
(1 = very well, 5 = not at all)

02. According to international definition, the protected area has a number of aims. Please select the three aims that you consider
most important for a protected area.
Education and information on nature conservation
Conservation of natural habitats and species
Enlargement of recreation possibilities
Scientific research
Extension of infrastructure
Production and marketing of regional products
Area for hunting and fishing
Sustainable regional development

03. How long do you stay during your current visit?

______ (number of days)

04. How often have you visited the protected area (including the current stay)?
______ (times)

05. What are your main activities in the protected area? Please select three of the six options.
Hiking
Nature and wildlife observation
Sports activities
Visit of protected area facilities and exhibitions
Cultural activities and buying of souvenirs
Visit of restaurants and huts

06. What was your main motive for visiting the region? Please select only one of the two options.
I came solely for the purpose of visiting the protected area.
I had other motives to visit the region and took the chance to visit the protected area.

07. Which is your home town?

________________ (city/town)
________________ (postal code)
________________ (country)

08. Which transport means did you use to travel to the protected area? Multiple selection if appropriate.
car/camper
train
bus
bicycle
airplane
motorcycle

09. Where do you stay overnight during your stay?

_______________ (name of town/settlement)
37
10. Please give an approximation of how much money you spend per day on:
accommodation ______ EUR
meals ______ EUR
fees for entrance and educational activities ______ EUR
fees for sports activities ______ EUR
cultural events ______ EUR
shopping ______ EUR

11. Assumed that the government would reduce its contribution to financing the protected area, which amount of money would you
be willing to pay per year, so that the protected area administration can ensure the efficient management of the protected area?
Please think of your other expenses during your holidays, so this amount would be an additional contribution. Please select only one
of the five options.
0-10 EUR
10-20 EUR
20-50 EUR
50-100 EUR
>100 EUR

12. What would be your principal motive for making an additional financial contribution in order to ensure efficient protected area
management, in case government financing would be reduced (question 11.)? Please select only one of the three options.
I donate because nature and wildlife have a right to exist.
I donate because I would like my children to live in a healthy environment.
I donate because I might benefit from nature and wildlife protection in the future.

13. How important is nature and wildlife conservation in your opinion?

(1 = very important, 5 = not important at all)

14. Protecting nature and wildlife in protected areas may require temporal or spatial restrictions regarding access to the area. What
would you do in such a case? Please select only one of the four options.
I would in any case visit the protected area, heeding the temporal or spatial restrictions.
I would abstain from visiting the protected area until the restrictions are lifted.
I would abstain from visiting the protected area and visit instead another protected area in the country or abroad.
I would not like to visit the protected area anymore.

Statistical information Please provide some brief statistical data about yourself.

15. Gender male female

16. Age ______ (years)

17. Education: What is your highest education? Please select only one of the six options.
High school
Trade school
Bachelor
Master
PhD
Post-Doc

Date of interview: (__/__/____) (day/month/year)

Location of interview: _______________________

Thank you very much for the interview.

All your answers and data are treated entirely confidential, and are only used in aggregated and anonymous form.
We wish you all the best for your stay at the protected area.

38