METHODS OF ECONOMIC VALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES GENERATED BY AGRICULTURAL ECOSYSTEMS IN POST-CONFLICT TERRITORIES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25806/uu-4573Статья поступила в редакцию: 03.09.2024
Статья принята к публикации: 03.09.2024
Статья опубликована: 10.09.2024
Keywords:
ecosystem services, armed conflict, post-conflict restoration, agrarian ecosystems, economic assessment of ecosystem services, post-conflict territories.Abstract
In the last decade, there has been a sharp increase in the number and intensity of armed conflicts, which have led to the degradation of agrarian ecosystems and the agricultural sector. The degradation of agrarian ecosystems in areas of armed conflict is the result of both tactics and strategies of armed struggle carried out by the warring parties. The economic value of agrarian ecosystems is linked to their ability to generate flows of ecosystem services, which are a key element of the natural capital used by the agricultural sector and other sectors of the economy. In the period of post-conflict reconstruction, the key element in achieving environmental sustainability and sustainable development is the restoration of natural ecosystems that generate flows of ecosystem services. The economic assessment of ecosystem services generated by agrarian ecosystems in areas affected by armed struggle in the post-conflict period contributes to improving the effectiveness of post-conflict reconstruction programs. methods of economic valuation of ecosystem services generated by agrarian ecosystems, which can be applied in the development and implementation of programs for the post-conflict restoration of agrarian ecosystems affected by armed struggle. The author presents a matrix of the impact of various methods and consequences of armed struggle on the process of providing ecosystem services by agrarian ecosystems.
Информация о публикации
Финансирование: Исследование выполнено без привлечения внешнего финансирования, если иное не указано авторами.
Вклад авторов: Все авторы внесли существенный вклад в подготовку статьи, ознакомились с окончательной версией рукописи и одобрили ее к публикации.
Конфликт интересов: Авторы заявляют об отсутствии конфликта интересов, если иное не указано в публикации.
Правообладатель: Издательский дом «Академический».
Лицензия: Статья распространяется на условиях лицензии Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
Машиночитаемый файл метаданных: JATS XML
References
Walsh M.R., Walsh M.E., Voie O.A. Presence and persistence of white phosphorus on military training ranges // Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics. 2014. Vol. 39. № 6. Р. 922-931. DOI: 10.1002/prep.201400107.
Marler T.E., Moore A. Military threats to terrestrial resources not restricted to wartime: a case study from Guam // Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering. 2011. № 5. Р. 1198-1214.
Kenter J.O., Raymond C., van Riper C.J., Azzopardi E., Brear M.R., Calcagni F., et al. Loving the mess: Navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability // Sustainability Science. 2019. Vol. 14. Р. 1439-1461.
Bennett E.M., Cramer W., Begossi A., Cundill G., Diaz S. et al. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability // Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2015. Vol. 14. P. 76-85.
Maes J., Liquete C., Teller A., Erhard M., Paracchini M.L., Barredo J.I. et al. An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 // Ecosystem Services. 2016. Vol. 17. P. 14-23.
Tancoigne E., Barbier M., Cointet J. P., Richard G. The place of agricultural sciences in the literature on ecosystem services // Ecosystem Services. 2014. Vol. 10. P. 35-48.
Duru M., Therond O., Martin G., Martin-Clouaire R., Magne M.A. et al. How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review // Agronomy for sustainable development. 2015. Vol. 35 (4). P. 1259-1281.
Maes J., Liquete C., Teller A., Erhard M., Paracchini M.L., Barredo J.I. et al. An in¬dicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 // Ecosystem Services. 2016. № 17. Р.14-23.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, 2005. р.155.
TEEB, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Business and Enterprise. Edited by Joshua Bishop. Earthscan: London and New York, 2012. р. 27.
Haines-Young R., Potschin M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure, 2018. р. 53.
Bachev H. Defining, analyzing and improving the governance of agroecosystem services // Economic Thought. 2020. № 4. Р. 31-55.
Gao H., Fu T., Liu J., Liang H., Han L. Ecosystem services management based on differentiation and regionalization along vertical gradient // Sustainability. 2018. Vol. 10. № 4. Р. е.986. DOI: 10.3390/su10040986.
Gemmill-Herren B. Pollination services to agriculture sustaining and enhancing a key ecosystem service. Routledge, London, 2016. р. 310. DOI: 10.4324/978131569635.
Marta-Pedroso C., Laporta L., Gama I., Domingo T. Economic valuation and mapping of ecosystem services in the context of protected area management // One Ecosystem. 2018. № 3. Р. e26722.
Power A.G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies // Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences. 2010. Vol. 365. №1554. Р. 2959-2971. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0143.
Wei Y., Davidson B., Chen D., White R. Balancing the economic, social and environmental dimensions of agro-ecosystems: An integrated modeling approach // Agriculture. Ecosystems & Environment. 2009. Vol. 131. № 3-4. Р. 263-273.
Pearce D.W. Paradoxes in biodiversity conservation // World Economics. 2005. Vol. 6. № 3. Р. 57-69.
