Opportunities for Ecosystem Services in the Protected Areas in the Coastal–Rural Area of the Nemunas Delta and the Curonian Lagoon (Lithuania)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Ecosystems and the Services they Provide in Protected Areas
2.2. Links between Agricultural Activities and Agritourism
3. Research Setting, Materials and Methods
3.1. Research Setting
3.2. Materials and Methods
4. Results
4.1. Opinions about Ecosystem Services
Indicators | Year | Priekulė | Saugos | Kintai | Rusnė | Šilutė | Juknaičiai | Usėnai |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of farms | 2003 | 899 | 843 | 513 | 325 | 889 | 668 | 383 |
2010 | 506 | 699 | 477 | 256 | 934 | 557 | 260 | |
2020 | 332 | 466 | 317 | 186 | 619 | 392 | 194 | |
Utilised agricultural land, ha | 2003 | 5578 | 6869 | 4016 | 1876 | 6324 | 7159 | 3995 |
2010 | 5488 | 7293 | 4574 | 2356 | 7964 | 8414 | 5445 | |
2020 | 5809 | 8814 | 6308 | 2361 | 7715 | 9226 | 7415 | |
Arable land, ha | 2003 | 2790 | 1983 | 866 | 436 | 2011 | 2957 | 2051 |
2010 | 4724 | 4050 | 1162 | 605 | 2918 | 6546 | 3394 | |
2020 | 3797 | 4761 | 2092 | 422 | 3307 | 4421 | 2399 | |
Meadows and pastures, ha | 2003 | 2739 | 4847 | 3084 | 1434 | 4270 | 4170 | 1921 |
2010 | 705 | 3230 | 3363 | 1658 | 5004 | 1837 | 2050 | |
2020 | 1970 | 4040 | 4155 | 1935 | 4383 | 4713 | 2341 | |
Share of cereals in total sown crop area, % | 2003 | 59.4 | 46.1 | 55.9 | 32.8 | 50.7 | 58.5 | 77.2 |
2010 | 32.8 | 33.7 | 49.3 | 39.4 | 50.0 | 43.5 | 34.9 | |
2020 | 67.4 | 64.3 | 65.0 | 54.7 | 50.3 | 56.3 | 43.8 | |
Share of potatoes in total sown crop area, % | 2003 | 15.4 | 21.4 | 20.2 | 50.5 | 21.5 | 25.3 | 12.9 |
2010 | 7.1 | 3.7 | 4.2 | 31.3 | 6.1 | 5.0 | 1.8 | |
2020 | 9.2 | 4.4 | 0.8 | 19.0 | 2.2 | 3.9 | 0.9 | |
Share of perennial grasses in total sown crop area, % | 2003 | 13.2 | 18.2 | 6.7 | 2.1 | 15.2 | 3.9 | 2.5 |
2010 | 42.3 | 54.2 | 34.8 | 16.3 | 34.0 | 46.6 | 55.9 | |
2020 | 12.5 | 14.3 | 23.0 | 15.6 | 27.1 | 24.3 | 35.7 | |
Wooded area, ha | 2003 | 67 | 266 | 7 | 12 | 305 | 117 | 32 |
2010 | 28 | 104 | 7 | 60 | 159 | 69 | 24 | |
2020 | 46 | 161 | 12 | 42 | 237 | 98 | 9 | |
Cattle | 2003 | 2092 | 3063 | 2891 | 1036 | 3371 | 3323 | 1421 |
2010 | 1099 | 3457 | 3005 | 1063 | 3419 | 3654 | 1548 | |
2020 | 1000 | 3590 | 3036 | 1295 | 4286 | 4571 | 3091 |
4.2. Opinions on Agritourism
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Xu, W.; Xiao, Y.; Zhang, J.; Yang, W.U.; Zhang, L.U.; Hull, V.; Wang, Z.; Zheng, H.; Liu, J.; Polasky, S.; et al. Strengthening protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services in China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 1601–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costanza, R.; D’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.S.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; van der Ploeg, S.; Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, R.K. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 26, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.; Diop, S. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; p. 137. Available online: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2022).
- TEEB. TEEB—The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers—Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature; Welzel+Hardt: Wesseling, Germany, 2009; p. 40. ISBN 978-3-9813410-0-3. [Google Scholar]
- TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB; Welzel+Hardt: Wesseling, Germany, 2010; p. 36. [Google Scholar]
- Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Nedkov, S.; Müller, F. Mapping supply, demand and budgets of ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burkhard, B.; de Groot, R.; Costanza, R.; Seppelt, R.; Jørgensen, S.E.; Potschin, M. Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burkhard, B.; Kandziora, M.; Hou, Y.; Müller, F. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demand–concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landsc. Online 2014, 34, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burkhard, B.; Maes, J. (Eds.) Mapping Ecosystem Services; Pensoft Publishers: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2017; p. 374. [Google Scholar]
- Briner, S.; Elkin, C.; Huber, R.; Grêt-Regamey, A. Assessing the impacts of economic and climate changes on land-use in mountain regions: A spatial dynamic modeling approach. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 149, 50–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowl, T.A.; Crist, T.O.; Parmenter, R.R.; Belovsky, G.; Lugo, A.E. The spread of invasive species and infectious disease as drivers of ecosystem change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2008, 6, 238–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kienast, F.; Helfenstein, J. Modelling ecosystem services. In Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services; Potschin, M., Young, R.H., Fish, R., Turner, R.K., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016; pp. 144–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fürst, C.; Luque, S.; Geneletti, D. Nexus thinking—How ecosystem services can contribute to enhancing the cross-scale and cross-sectoral coherence between land use, spatial planning and policy-making. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2017, 13, 412–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marcinkevičiūtė, L.; Vilkevičiūtė, J.; Žukovskis, J.; Pranskūnienė, R. Social Dimensions of Projected Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystem Services in the Coastal-Rural Area of Nemunas River Reaches and Curonian Lagoon (Lithuania). Water 2021, 13, 1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcinkevičiūtė, L.; Pranskūnienė, R. Cultural Ecosystem Services: The Case of Coastal-Rural Area (Nemunas Delta and Curonian Lagoon, Lithuania). Sustainability 2021, 13, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehrlich, P.; Ehrlich, A. Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearances of Species; Random House: New York, NY, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Ehrlich, P.R.; Mooney, H.A. Extinction, Substitution, and Ecosystem Services. BioScience 1983, 33, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hølleland, H.; Joar Skrede, J.; Sanne Bech Holmgaard, S.B. Cultural Heritage and Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review. Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 2017, 19, 210–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz-Gerro, T.; Orenstein, D.E. Environmental tastes, opinions and behaviors: Social sciences in the service of cultural ecosystem service assessment. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Margaryan, L.; Soléne, P.; Ioannides, D.; Röslmaier, M. Dancing with cranes: A humanist perspective on cultural ecosystem services of wetlands. Tour. Geogr. 2018, 20, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gould, R.K.; Adams, A.; Vivanco, L. Looking into the dragons of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst. People 2020, 16, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makovníková, J.; Kološta, S.; Flaška, F.; Pálka, B. Regional Differentiations of the Potential of Cultural Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital—A Case Study in Selected Regions of the Slovak Republic. Land 2022, 11, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ordóñez-Barona, C. How different ethno-cultural groups value urban forests and its implications for managing urban nature in a multicultural landscape: A systematic review of the literature. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 26, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evaluation of the Impact of the CAP on Habitats, Landscapes, Biodiversity Final Report. Alliance Environnement November 2019. Available online: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/documents_en (accessed on 14 January 2022).
- European Commission. Voluntary Coupled Support, Notification of the Revised Decisions Taken by Member States by 1 August 2016 (‘the review’). 2017. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/voluntary-coupled-support-note-revised-aug2016_en.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2022).
- OECD. Lithuania—OECD. 2022. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/countries/lithuania/ (accessed on 15 May 2022).
- Hung-Hao, C.; Richard, N. Boisvert. Are farmers’ decisions to work off the farm related to their decisions to participate in the conservation reserve program? Agric. Econ. 2011, 41, 71–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doucha, T.; Foltyn, I. Modelling the Multifunctionality of Czech Agriculture. Working Paper. Thematic Network on Trade Agreements and European Agriculture. Dok. Rob. 2006, 17, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Rural Development Programme for Lithuania 2007–2013. Consolidated version as of 18th September, 2009. Available online: https://zum.lrv.lt/uploads/zum/documents/files/EN_versija/Information/Rural_development_programme_2007%20-%202013/Rural%20Development%20Programme%20for%20Lithuania%202007-2013%20(GENERAL%20PART).pdf (accessed on 5 January 2022).
- Flanigan, S.; Blackstock, K.; Hunter, C. Agritourism from the perspective of providers and visitors: A typology-based study. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 394–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Artuğer, S.; Kendir, H. Agritourist motivations: The case of Turkey. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2013, 8, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arroyo, C.G.; Barbieri, C.; Rich, S.R. Defining agritourism: A comparative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina. Tour. Manag. 2013, 37, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucha, C.; Ferreira, G.; Walker, M.; Groover, G. Profitability of Virginia’s Agritourism Industry: A Regression Analysis. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2016, 45, 173–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Sandt, A.; Low, S.; Thilmany, D. Exploring Regional Patterns of Agritourism in the U.S.: What’s Driving Clusters of Enterprises? Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2018, 47, 592–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barbieri, C.; Xu, S.; Gil-Arroyo, C.; Rich, S.R. Agritourism, farm visit, or…? a branding assessment for recreation on farms. J. Travel Res. 2015, 54, 1094–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Winkle, C.; Bueddefeld, J. Free-choice learning in agritourism. World Leis. J. 2021, 63, 182–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montefrio, J.F.; Sin, H.L. Elite governance of agritourism in the Philippines. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 1338–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Addinsall, C.; Scherrer, P.; Weiler, B.; Glencross, K. An ecologically and socially inclusive model of agritourism to support smallholder livelihoods in the South Pacific. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2017, 22, 301–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liang, A.R. Considering the role of agritourism co-creation from a service-dominant logic perspective. Tour. Manag. 2017, 61, 354–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Back, R.M.; Tasci, A.D.; Milman, A. Experiential consumption of a South African wine farm destination as an agritourism attraction. J. Vacat. Mark. 2020, 26, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grey, T.; Hurdle, N.; Rucker, K.; Basinger, N. Blueberry and blackberry are tolerant to repeated indaziflam applications. Weed Technol. 2021, 35, 560–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbieri, C.; Sotomayor, S.; Aguilar, F.X. Perceived benefits of agricultural lands offering agritourism. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2017, 16, 43–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šilutė District Municipality. Available online: https://www.silute.lt/ (accessed on 5 May 2022).
- Silutes Tourism Information Centre. Šilutė District Municipality (Silute.lt). Available online: https://siluteinfo.lt/ (accessed on 15 May 2022).
- Nemunas Delta Regional Park. Available online: http://siluteinfo.lt/silutes-krastas/parkai/ (accessed on 2 May 2022).
- LR Official Statistics Portal. Available online: https://osp.stat.gov.lt/lietuvos-regionai-2020/aplinka/gamta (accessed on 23 May 2022).
- Department of Statistics to the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. Results of the Census of Agriculture 2003 in Lithuania by Ward. 2005. Available online: https://osp.stat.gov.lt/documents/10180/204989/2003_ZUS_rezultatai.pdf/c895b871-20f9-435a-8b04-651d9fac1504 (accessed on 14 April 2022).
- Department of Statistics to the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. Results of the Agricultural Census of the Republic of Lithuania 2010 by Ward. 2012. Available online: https://osp.stat.gov.lt/documents/10180/204989/2010_ZUS_rezultatai.pdf/47181188-ad5c-4c7c-9b4f-2cd542714007 (accessed on 14 May 2022).
- Implementing EU Birds and Habitats Directives. Natura 2000 Network. Available online: http://www.natura2000info.lt/lt/apie-natura-2000/natura2000-tinklas.html (accessed on 4 May 2022).
- Barbieri, C.; Stevenson, K.T.; Knollenberg, W. Broadening the utilitarian epistemology of agritourism research through children and families. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 22, 2333–2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubois, C.; Cawley, M.; Schmitz, S. The tourist on the farm: A ‘muddled’ image. Tour. Manag. 2017, 59, 298–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melstrom, R.T.; Murphy, C. Do agritourism visitors care about landscapes? An examination with producer-level data. J. Travel Res. 2018, 57, 360–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauniyar, S.; Kant Awasthi, M.; Kapoor, S.; Ashok, K. Agritourism: Structured literature review and bibliometric analysis. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2021, 46, 52–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paniccia, P.M.; Baiocco, S. Interpreting sustainable agritourism through co-evolution of social organizations. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 87–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montefrio, M.J.F.; Sin, H.L. Between food and spectacle: The complex reconfigurations of rural production in agritourism. Geoforum 2021, 126, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vlasova, N.Y.; Kurilova, E.V.; Petrovic, M. Agritourism and Nature-Based Tourism in the Strategy of an Industrial Region Development. Izv. Ufim. Nauchnogo Tsentra 2018, 1, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- South Baltic Nature Guide Network. Projekt—Nature Guide Network. Available online: Nature-guide-network.eu (accessed on 15 April 2022).
- Curonian Spit National Park. Available online: https://www.lithuania.travel/en/place/curonian-spit-national-park-2 (accessed on 15 May 2022).
- Description of the Procedure for the Use of Protected Species. 2010. Available online: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.378575 (accessed on 25 April 2022).
- EC Strategy. EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. 2011. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/biodiversity_2020/2020%20Biodiversity%20Factsheet_LT.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2022).
- Šilutė District Municipality Strategic Development Plan for 2015–2024. 2013. Available online: https://www.silute.lt/-1/strateginis-pletros-planas/4855 (accessed on 6 March 2022).
- EC Strategy. EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. 2009. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/cooperate/baltic/factsheet_eusbr_en.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2022).
- Communication from the Commission. A Policy Framework for Climate and Energy in the Period from 2020 to 2030. 2014. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0015 (accessed on 22 March 2022).
- The EP and the European Council. Programme, The 7th EU Environment Action Programme to 2020. Available online: http://am.lrv.lt/uploads/am/documents/files/ES_ir_tarptautinis_bendradarbiavimas/ES_klausimai/CELEX_32013D1386_LT_.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2022).
- Honore, C. Praise of Slow: How a Worldwide Movement Is Challenging the Cult of Speed; Orion: London, UK, 2004; 272p. [Google Scholar]
- Purwaningsih, M.; Purwandari, B.; Prinastiti Sunarso, F.; Setiadi Harnessing, F. E-Collaboration for Rural Tourism Recovery after COVID-19: Dual Analysis using SWOT and Porter’s Diamond Model. Emerg. Sci. J. 2021, 5, 559–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazarnia, H.; Nazarnia, M.; Sarmasti, H.; Wills, W.O. A Systematic Review of Civil and Environmental Infrastructures for Coastal Adaptation to Sea Level Rise. Civ. Eng. J. 2020, 6, 1375–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristics of the Eldership | Activities of Tourism Centres and Branches |
---|---|
Rusnė: 5 villages, 3 sub-elderships: 1600 residents. Notable landmarks: the old fisher house, ethnographic farmstead-museum of a fisher/farmer, the old post office, the Uostadvaris Lighthouse (1876), the first water lifting station (1907), exposition of the Nemunas Delta Regional Park. | Rusnė Island Ethnocultural and Information Centre—to create the conditions to research, record and promote ethnocultural values; to adapt them for the needs of the modern life; to gather researchers, ethnographers, amateur art collectives, cultural and education employees, artists, and public organisations that aim to protect and promote the culture of this region. |
Juknaičiai: 26 villages, 3348 residents. Notable landmarks: Alka Mound, Pašyšiai Evangelical Lutheran Church. The western territory of Juknaičiai is owned by the Nemunas Delta Regional Park. In 1999, the area was added to the local register of cultural values. In 2009, the area-park was registered in the Register of Values of Cultural Heritage. In 2010, it was granted the status of a state park. | |
Usėnai: 19 villages, 1350 residents. Notable landmarks: memorial Verpsčiai ensemble, Galzdonai Botanical Reserve, Pleinė Thermological Reserve, 24 old cemeteries of evangelical Lutherans, natural monuments: Kavoliai and Stremeniai oaks. | |
Šilutė Rural: 26 villages, 25,000 residents. Notable landmarks: H. Zuderman’s house-museum, Evangelical Lutheran Church built by K. Gutknecht (1926), Šilutė’s “secrets”: unique spaces covered by glass and embedded in the sidewalk that rebuild the life of the past, Hugo Šojus’ Manor-Museum and scientific archive: library, restoration centre. | Šilutė Tourism Information Centre—provides free-of-charge information services on tourism infrastructure, museums, parks, sightseeing routes, ship rent, ferry schedules. Mediates in the ordering of accommodation and catering services for tourist groups and individuals. Represents Šilutė city in international exhibitions, conferences, and other events. |
Saugos: 33 villages, 3624 residents. Notable landmarks: Evangelical Lutheran Church (1857), Church of St. Casimir, buildings of Saugos Care Home, Saugos Sawmill (1908) and its technical equipment, Kukorai Railway Station’s building, Sakūčiai Bridge over Minija, Veiviržis Landscape Reserve, Veiviržis Ichthyological Reserve, Begėdžiai Botanical Reserve, and Minija Ichthyological Reserve. | |
Kintai: 25 villages, 1884 residents. Notable landmarks: Evangelical Lutheran Church built in 1705, the parish’s elementary school, second-largest western red cedar in Europe, the Nemunas Delta Regional Park—Aukštumala Bog, Kintai Forest District’s Recreational Path, Minija village—old fisher settlement whose main street is the Minija River, Ventė Cape Ornithological Station, Ventė Cape Lighthouse built in 1863, Kniaupas Bay, and other bird-watching spots. | Kintai Vydūnas Cultural Centre—protection of historical heritage and landscape, practical promotion of ethnical culture and professional art promotion, artistic education of children and youths (educational programs, regional and international art symposiums, and open-air festivals for professional artists). |
Priekulė: 44 villages, 8930 residents. Notable landmarks: Minija Ichthyological Reserve, Tyrai Botanical Reserve of Bogs, Svencelė Botanical-Zoological Reserve, Museum of History of Struggles for Freedom and Exile, Priekulė Royal Manor, Vingis Park, Kliošai Park, Lūžija Botanical Reserve, pedestrian suspension bridges. | Branch of Klaipėda District Information Centre—collects, structures, and provides data on tourism services and resources, manages tourism events and seminars, themed tours of the district, presents the heritage of Lithuania Minor. |
Stages of the Research, Period and Location of the Study | Research Methods |
---|---|
Stage 1. January–June 2018 | Secondary document analysis. Given the object of the research (ES), the aims and objectives of the research, this method is considered to be the most important method of data collection (acquisition). Sources of collected data: national, EU and international legislation, scientific books and journals, press publications; official statistics (information provided by the Department of Statistics, municipalities, elderships, departments of protected areas); official government publications; documents of private, state, professional, and other non-governmental organisations. In the introductory construction of the research instruments, the analysis of primary and secondary information sources was performed, and methodological tools were developed. In order to solve the existing problems of ecosystem protection and their services, 4 variant questionnaires were prepared for farmers, entrepreneurs, eldership employees (in Lithuanian) and tourists (in Lithuanian, Russian and English languages). |
Stage 2. July–August 2019 (The research was carried out in Priekulė, Saugai, Kintai, Rusnė, Šilutė, Juknaičiai, and Usėnai elderships) | Standardized direct survey. In order to assess the existing problems of ecosystem protection and services provided by them, a survey of respondents (farmers, entrepreneurs, eldership employees) was conducted and their opinions on ecosystem conservation and possible related problem areas were examined, and the peculiarities of ES regulation and implementation were revealed. The advantages and disadvantages of social conditions (related to ongoing or potential ES) were investigated using questionnaires. The surveys provide insights into the management of ES. Consumer choice experiments. ES consumers (farmers, entrepreneurs) had to choose potential (in their view) policy alternatives related to the preservation of ecosystems until 2030. |
Stage 3. July–September 2020 (Kintai, Rusnė, Šilutė and Dreverna information centres) | Stated preference. It was based on the hypothetical choices of the respondents (tourists) as to how much they would agree to pay for one or another natural attribute, product, or service (quantity or quality), or a change in their condition. The tourist information centres in the study areas were contacted and staff were asked to distribute questionnaires to tourists who would visit the centres. The aim was to assess the awareness of elderships and their centres of attraction, the desire and opportunities for tourists to visit the above-mentioned areas, and the strategic potential of eldership tourism, as rural residents want to diversify their economic activities by creating additional sources of income. |
Ecosystem Services | Benefit to the Ecosystem | Benefit to the Location/Residents | Benefit to Tourists |
---|---|---|---|
Meadow ecosystem | |||
Fodder, habitats of plants and animals, honey, cosmetics materials, medicinal plants, plant pollination, water quality, prevention of soil erosion, CO2 absorption, flood regulation, aesthetical enjoyment of nature, recreation, educational possibilities, etc. | New financial possibilities to maintain valuable meadow habitats. Increasing amounts of diversity of species of insects, birds, and animals. Decrease in soil erosion. | Production of biofuel granules, animal litter, compost, food products and other local goods. Additional income for utilised biomass, organizing of animal and bird watching from hiding spots and life in small houses in the wilderness without any comforts. | Possibilities to become acquainted with medicinal plants and the benefit they provide, meadow therapy, observation of plants, birds and insects and recognition of their habitats. |
Bog ecosystem | |||
Peat, soil formation, flood regulation, CO2 absorption, water cleaning, berries, plant and aquatic animals’ habitats, soil erosion prevention, aesthetical enjoyment of nature, recreation, educational possibilities, etc. | New financial possibilities to maintain valuable bog habitats. Increasing amounts of diversity of species of insects, birds, and aquatic animals. Decrease in soil erosion | Production of fuel, additional income for collection and sales of bog plants and berries. | Possibilities to become acquainted with the bog, to find out about its typical plants and animals, see the landscape, experience the unique beauty of the bog. Observation of plants, birds and insects and recognition of their habitats |
Forest ecosystem | |||
Microclimate regulation, CO2 absorption, drinking water, timber, fuel, medicinal plants, mushrooms, plant and animal habitats, soil erosion prevention, aesthetical enjoyment of nature, recreation, educational possibilities, etc. | New financial possibilities to maintain valuable forest habitats. Increasing amounts of diversity of species of insects, birds, and animals. Decrease in soil erosion. | Production of fuel, additional income for collection and sales of plants, berries, and mushrooms; for pathfinding, listening to the sounds of deer, cranes, and owls; organizing of educational survival in the wilderness (during various seasons). | Possibilities to become acquainted with and collect edible mushrooms and berries, find out about medicinal plants and the benefit they provide, forest therapy. Observation of plants, birds, insects and animals and recognition of their habitats. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Marcinkevičiūtė, L.; Pranskūnienė, R.; Makutėnienė, D. Opportunities for Ecosystem Services in the Protected Areas in the Coastal–Rural Area of the Nemunas Delta and the Curonian Lagoon (Lithuania). Sustainability 2022, 14, 9647. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159647
Marcinkevičiūtė L, Pranskūnienė R, Makutėnienė D. Opportunities for Ecosystem Services in the Protected Areas in the Coastal–Rural Area of the Nemunas Delta and the Curonian Lagoon (Lithuania). Sustainability. 2022; 14(15):9647. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159647
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarcinkevičiūtė, Lina, Rasa Pranskūnienė, and Daiva Makutėnienė. 2022. "Opportunities for Ecosystem Services in the Protected Areas in the Coastal–Rural Area of the Nemunas Delta and the Curonian Lagoon (Lithuania)" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 9647. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159647