Conclusions and possible further steps

Earlier we presented a matrix for assessing ecosystem services applied to a Hungarian pilot site. Of course, this method is strongly arti-ficial, since the values of the individual services cannot be transposed to Hungarian habitats without modifications. Yet they still provide approxi-mate results. Natural and semi-natural habitats are mostly fragmented because deeper laying areas are also ploughed up or used as agricultural productive land. This has numerous harmful effects: the quality of habitat decreases, invasive species spread, and the genetic deterioration of in-vertebrate species as a result of isolation. In order to eliminate constant damages, we must fit land use patterns to the natural boundaries of the landscape. Additionally, this process would facilitate the development of ecological network in accordance with principles laid down in the Natura 2000 programme.

The following actions should be taken as next steps:

1) the preparation of a uniform typology for ecosystem services, which is accepted by every stakeholder

2) “translation” of CORINE land cover categories to set up a typology bet-ter suited to the value of ecosystem services and habitat types

3) creation of a matrix developed specially for the valuation of ecosystem services and completion of it by experts based on domestic case stud-ies and investigations

4) determination of additional steps in order to make the matrix more accurate.

7. Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Márton Kiss, Béla Borsos who provided valuable comments to the study. We also would like to thank Nóra Lovas and Veronika Kiss who translated this article into English. Our investigations moves on within the frame of “Integrated land development (ILD) program to improve land use and water management effi ciency in the Tisza basin “ with the support of the WateRisk projects. The general assessment of landscape ecological indicators was completed within the „TAMOP-4.2.1/B-09/1/KMR-2010-0005” project.

8. Literature

Balogh, P. (2004): Ártéri tájgazdálkodás a nagykörűi tározóban. I. rész: A közép-tiszai táj eredendő működéséről és fenntartható működtetéséről. A puszta 21, p. 241-270.

Balogh, P (2001): A korszerűsített ártéri gazdálkodás, mint a Tisza vidékfejlesztési kon-cepciója). Falu, Város, Régió 3, p. 34-38.

Bellon, T, (2004): Living together with nature - Farming on the river fl ats in the valley of the Tisza. Acta Etnographica Hungarica 49, p. 243-256.

Bender, J., Phillips, P. (1994): Implementation of microbial mats for bioremediation. In Means, J. L., Hinchee, R. E. (eds.): Emerging technology for bioremediation of met-als. Lewis Publisher, Florida, p. 85-98.

Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., Windhorst, W. (2009): Landscapes’ Capacities to Pro-vide Ecosystem Services – a Concept for Cover Based Assessments. Land-scape Online 15, p. 1-22.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M.

(1997): The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, p. 253-260.

Csemez, A. (1996): Tájtervezés-tájrendezés. Mezőgazda kiadó, Budapest, 296 p.

de Groot, R. (2006): Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use con-fl icts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape and Ur-ban Planning 75, p. 175-186.

de Groot, R. (1992): Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Plan-ning, Management and Decision Making. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen, 315 p.

Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R., van Ireland, E. C. (2006): Spatial scales, stake-holders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57, p. 209-228.

Kelemen, E., Málovics, Gy., Margóczi, K. (2009): Ökoszisztéma szolgáltatások felmérése során feltárt konfl iktusok az Alpári-öblözetben. Természetvédelmi Közlemények 15, p. 119-133.

Kettunen, M., Bassi, S., Gantioler, S., ten Brink, P. (2009): Assessing Socio-Economic Benefi ts of Nature 2000. – A Toolkit for Practitioners. 210 p.

Luyssaert, S., Schulze, E. D., Börner A., Knohl, A., Hessenmöller, D., Law, B. E., Ciais, P., Grace, J. (2008): Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 455, p. 213-215.

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005): Ecosystems and human well-being:

Biodiversity synthesis. World Resource Institue, Washington D.C., 86 p.

Molnár, G. (2004): A Tiszánál. Ekvilibrium Kft., Budapest, 192 p.

Nagy, D. (2008): A történeti felszínborítás térképezése a Tisza-völgyben. In Flachner, Zs., Kovács, A., Kelemen, É. (szerk.): A történeti felszínborítás térképezése a Tisza-völgyben. SZÖVET, Nagykörű-Eger-Budapest, p. 40-58.

Oláh, J. (2002): Természetes folyógazdálkodás. Magyar Tudomány 47(9), p. 1219-1226.

Oláh, J., Oláh, M., Vigh, Gy., Lakatos, Gy. (1991): Folyóink nitrátosodása. Magyar Tu-domány 11, p. 1351-1363.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, III F. S., Lambin, E., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liver-man, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J. (2009): Planetary Boundaries: Explor-ing the Safe OperatExplor-ing Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2), [online] URL:

(http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/)

Sendzimir, J., Magnuszewski, P., Flachner, Zs., Balogh, P., Molnar, G., Sarvari, A., Nagy, Zs. (2008): Assessing the resilience of a river management regime: informal learn-ing in a shadow network in the Tisza River Basin. Ecology and Society 13(1), [online]

URL: (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art11/)

Somlyódi, L. (2002): A hazai vízgazdálkodás stratégiai pillérei. In Somlyódi, L., Glatz, F. (szerk.): A hazai vízgazdálkodás stratégiai kérdései. Magyar Tudományos Aka-démia, Budapest, p. 23-45.

Török, K. (2009): A Föld ökológiai állapota és perspektívái (a Millennium Ecosystem As-sessment alapján). Magyar Tudomány 170(1), p. 48-53.

Turner, R. K., van den Bergh J. C. J. M., Söderqvist, T., Barendregt, A., van der Straaten, J., Maltby, E., van Ierland, E. C. (2000): The values of wetlands: landscape and insti-tutional perspectives. Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientifi c integra-tion for management and policy. Ecological Economics 35, p. 7-23.

Turner, R. K., Dent, D., Hey, R. D., (1983): Valuation of the environmental impact of wet-land fl ood protection and drainage schemes. Enviroment and Planning A 15, p.

871–888.

Vida, G. (2008): A civilizáció kihívása: fenntarthatóság vagy összeomlás. Természet-BÚVÁR 63(3), p. 10-12.

Walpole, M., Almond, R. E. A., Besancon, C., Butchart, S. H. M., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Carr, G. M., Collen, B., Collette, L., Davidson, N. C., Dulloo, E., Fazel, A. M., Galloway, J. N., Gill, M., Goverse, T., Hockings, M., Leaman, D. J., Morgan, D. H. W., Eevenga, C., Rickwood, C. J., Schutyser, F., Simons, S., Stattersfi eld, A. J., Tyrell, T. D., Vie, J-C., Zimsky, M. (2009): Tracking Progress Toward the 2010 Biodiversity Target and Beyond. Science 325, p. 1503-1504.

World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. (2007): United Nations Publication. 793 p.

EMPIRICAL RESULTS RELATED TO THE