Experience in evaluation and mapping of ecosystem services
The first national assessment of ecosystem services of Russia was done (Report 1 and Report 2).
Possibilities for assessing and mapping 31 ecosystem services using open data currently available were analyzed. The classification of terrestrial ES adopted in the TEEB‐Russia project combines international ES classifications (SEEA‐EA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, CICES) and the National Strategy of Biodiversity Conservation in Russia (2001).
We assessed ES in the following indicators (Report 1):
– provided/potential ES (Vprovided), i.e., potential ES produced by ecosystems, regardless of the presence or absence of consumers of ES;
– required/demanded ES (Vrequired), i.e., ES volume needed to meet the needs of the population and the economy of regions; required ES were only estimated for the removal of pollutants from the environment as the volume of pollutants that must be neutralized by ecosystems (annual pollutant emissions were used as a proxy);
– consumed/used ES (Vconsumed), i.e., ES volume that is materially or intangibly used by the population or from which people currently benefit.
Examples see below
The following relative indices were derived from ratios of above indicators (Report 1):
– the degree of ES use (Vconsumed/Vprovided or Vprovided–Vconsumed);
– the potential satisfaction of demand for ES (Vprovided/Vrequired or Vrequired–Vprovided);
– the actual satisfaction of demand for ES (Vconsumed/Vrequired or Vrequired–Vconsumed);
– the deficit or excess of the service (Vdemanded–Vsupplied).
Depending on the completeness of currently available datasets, ES were evaluated by one of the following three methods or were not assessed.
1) Direct quantitative valuation in biophysical terms—when values of supplied, consumed, and demanded ES were given in available statistics. See examples: wood production, game production →
2) Indirect quantitative valuation in biophysical terms—when direct statistical data were
lacking but available cartographic and scientific data allow us to evaluate ES based on simple calculations or GIS modeling. See examples: production of natural fodder, runoff regulation by terrestrial ecosystems →
3) ES valuation by scores. ES were assigned a score of 1–10 if there were no data to evaluate the ES themselves, and it was only possible to assess natural factors affecting provided/potential ES as well as socio‐economic factors impacting required and consumed ES. The difference in the scores of provided and consumed ES reflects the ratio of natural and socioeconomic factors in a region. Negative values indicate that socio‐economic factors linked to a high demand for ES and their intensive consumption outweigh natural factors that determine the provision of ES by ecosystems. Positive values indicate that natural factors outweigh socio‐economic factors. Zero values indicate a relative balance of factors that determine the provision and use of ES. See examples: cognitive and educational significance of nature, storage of genetic resources in nature, formation of natural conditions for tourism in nature →
4) Not assessed ES due to lack of data.
In total, 14 ES were quantified, 6 ES were scored, and 11 ES were not valuated (also see the first table in this page)
Results of valuation of provisioning ES: wood, mushroom, berry, fodder production, game production →
Results of valuation of cultural ES: recreational and informational →