204‘Where are Cultural and Social in Ecosystem Services? A Framework for ConstructiveEngagement’, BioScience, 62: 744-56.• yChan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom, A.,Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B.S., Hannahs, N., Levine, J., Norton, B., Ruckelshaus,M., Russell, R., Tam, J., Woodside, U., 2012. Where are Cultural and Social in EcosystemServices? A Framework for Constructive Engagement. Bioscience 62, 744-756.• yChan, Kai MA, Patricia Balvanera, Karina Benessaiah, Mollie Chapman, Sandra Díaz,Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Rachelle Gould, Neil Hannahs, Kurt Jax, and Sarah Klain. 2016.‘Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment’, Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences, 113: 1462-65.• yClark, Colin. 2010. Mathematical Bioeconomics. The Mathematics of Conservation. 3 ed.(Wiley: New York ).• yCORINE biotopes Published by the COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 1991;• yCORINE Biotopes Manual – Habitats of the European Community, 1991;• yDaly, Herman E. 1992. ‘Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that isefficient, just, and sustainable’, Ecological Economics, 6: 185-93.• yDavies, C. E., Moss, D., & Hill, M. O., 2004, EUNIS habitat classification revised 2004,European Environment Agency — European Topic Centre on Nature Protection andBiodiversity, http://eunis.eea. europa.eu/upload/EUNIS_2004_report.pdf;• yDe Groot RS, Blignaut J, Van Der Ploeg S, Aronson J, Elmqvist T, Farley J, 2015. Benefitsof investing in ecosystem restoration. Conservation Biolology 27:1286-1293.Chan 2012.• yDeveloping conceptual framework for ecosystem mapping and ecosystem status indicator,EEA Report, 2013;• yDíaz, Sandra, Sebsebe Demissew, Julia Carabias, Carlos Joly, Mark Lonsdale, Neville Ash,Anne Larigauderie, Jay Ram Adhikari, Salvatore Arico, András Báldi, Ann Bartuska, IvarAndreas Baste, Adem Bilgin, Eduardo Brondizio, Kai M. A. Chan, Viviana Elsa Figueroa,Anantha Duraiappah, Markus Fischer, Rosemary Hill, Thomas Koetz, Paul Leadley, PhilipLyver, Georgina M. Mace, Berta Martin-Lopez, Michiko Okumura, Diego Pacheco, UnaiPascual, Edgar Selvin Pérez, Belinda Reyers, Eva Roth, Osamu Saito, Robert John Scholes,Nalini Sharma, Heather Tallis, Randolph Thaman, Robert Watson, Tetsukazu Yahara, ZakriAbdul Hamid, Callistus Akosim, Yousef Al-Hafedh, Rashad Allahverdiyev, Edward Amankwah,Stanley T. Asah, Zemede Asfaw, Gabor Bartus, L. Anathea Brooks, Jorge Caillaux, GemedoDalle, Dedy Darnaedi, Amanda Driver, Gunay Erpul, Pablo Escobar-Eyzaguirre, PierreFailler, Ali Moustafa Mokhtar Fouda, Bojie Fu, Haripriya Gundimeda, Shizuka Hashimoto,Floyd Homer, Sandra Lavorel, Gabriela Lichtenstein, William Armand Mala, WadzanayiMandivenyi, Piotr Matczak, Carmel Mbizvo, Mehrasa Mehrdadi, Jean Paul Metzger, JeanBruno Mikissa, Henrik Moller, Harold A. Mooney, Peter Mumby, Harini Nagendra, CarstenNesshover, Alfred Apau Oteng-Yeboah, György Pataki, Marie Roué, Jennifer Rubis, MariaSchultz, Peggy Smith, Rashid Sumaila, Kazuhiko Takeuchi, Spencer Thomas, MadhuVerma, Youn Yeo-Chang, and Diana Zlatanova. 2015. ‘The IPBES Conceptual Framework —connecting nature and people’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14: 1-16.• yDorian Moss, EUNIS habitat classification – a guide for users, 2008;• yDumitras, D.E., F. Ariton, and E. Merce. 2011. ‘A Brief Economic Assessment of the Valuationof National and Natural Parks: the case of Romania.’, Notulae Botanici Horti Agrobotanici, 39.• yDumitras, D.E., and S. Dragoi. 2006. ‘Estimation of the recreation values of some Romanianparks by travel cost method.’, Bulletin of University of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine,Bucharest, CN 63.• yEcosystem Services Valuation in Different Management Scenarios: a Case Study of theMaramures Mountains.’, Baltic Forestry, 22: 327-40• yEconomy of Romania. (2017). Retrieved 2017, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Romania• yEUNIS – European Nature Information System, http://eunis.eea.eu.int;• yEuropean Commision. (2013). MAES An analytical framework for ecosystem assessmentsunder Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.• yEuropean Commision. (2013). MAES An analytical framework for ecosystem assessmentsunder Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.• yEuropean ecosystem assessment-concept, data and implementation, EEA Tehnical Report,no 6/2015;• yEU 2010 biodiversity baseline-adapted to the MAES typology, EEA Tehnical report, no 9/2015.• yFAO. 2014. “Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015, Country Report Romania.” In.• yGetzner, 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. WorldWide Fund for Nature Danube Carpathian Programme, Vienna.” In.
• yGómez-Baggethun, E., D. Barton, P. Berry, R. Dunford, and P. Harrison. 2016. ‘Conceptsand Methods in Ecosystem Services Valuation. .’ in M. Potschin, R. Haines-Young, R. Fishand K Turner (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services. (Routledge).• yGómez-Baggethun, E., and B. Martín-López. 2015. ‘Ecological Economics perspectives onecosystem services valuationn.’ in J. Martínez-Alier and R Muradian (eds.), Handbook ofEcological Economics. (Edward Elgar).• yGómez-Baggethun, Erik, and David N. Barton. 2013. ‘Classifying and valuing ecosystemservices for urban planning’, Ecological Economics, 86: 235-45.• yGómez-Baggethun, Erik, Berta Martín-López, David Barton, L Braat, H Saarikoski, EKelemen, M García-Llorente, Jaren van den Bergh, P Arias, and P Berry. 2014. ‘State-ofthe-artreport on integrated valuation of ecosystem services’, EU FP7 OpenNESS ProjectDeliverable, 4.• yHaines-Young, Roy, and Marion Potschin. 2010. ‘The links between biodiversity, ecosystemservices and human well-being’, Ecosystem Ecology: a new synthesis: 110-39.• yHaines-Young, R., and M. Potschin. 2013. “CICES V4.3-Revised report prepared followingconsultation on CICES Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract NoEEA/IEA/09/003.” In.• yHarrison, P. A., P. M. Berry, G. Simpson, J. R. Haslett, M. Blicharska, M. Bucur, R. Dunford,B. Egoh, M. Garcia-Llorente, N. Geamănă, W. Geertsema, E. Lommelen, L. Meiresonne, andF. Turkelboom. 2014. ‘Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: Asystematic review’, Ecosystem Services, 9: 191-203.• yHayek, F. 1948. Individualism and Economic Order (Routledge (UK), University of ChicagoPress (US): London, New York).• yHabitats Directive 92/43/EEC – Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of naturalhabitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.92);• yInterpretation manual of european union habitats, EUROPEAN COMMISSION DGENVIRONMENT, 2007;• yIoras, F., and I. V. Abrudan. 2006. ‘The Romanian Forestry Sector: Privatisation Facts’,International Forestry Review, 8: 361-67.• yJacobs, Sander, Nicolas Dendoncker, Berta Martín-López, David Nicholas Barton, ErikGomez-Baggethun, Fanny Boeraeve, Francesca L. McGrath, Kati Vierikko, Davide Geneletti,Katharina J Sevecke, Nathalie Pipart, Eeva Primmer, Peter Mederly, Stefan Schmidt,Alexandra Aragão, Himlal Baral, Rosalind H Bark, Tania Briceno, Delphine Brogna, PedroCabral, Rik De Vreese, Camino Liquete, Hannah Mueller, Kelvin S. H. Peh, Anna Phelan,Alexander R Rincón, Shannon H. Rogers, Francis Turkelboom, Wouter Van Reeth, Boris T.van Zanten, Hilde Karine Wam, and Carla-Leanne Washbourne. 2016. ‘A new valuationschool: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions’, EcosystemServices, 22, Part B: 213-20.• yKettunen, M. and ten Brink, P. (IEEP) Towards a framework for assessing current level of andfuture opportunities for ES/NC integration at different levels of governance, OPERAs D3.3• yKnorn, JAN, Tobias Kuemmerle, Volker C Radeloff, William S Keeton, Vladimir Gancz, IOVU-ADRIAN BIRIŞ, Miroslav Svoboda, Patrick Griffiths, Adrian Hagatis, and Patrick Hostert.2013. ‘Continued loss of temperate old-growth forests in the Romanian Carpathians despitean increasing protected area network’, Environmental Conservation, 40: 182-93.• yKahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York).• yKahneman, Daniel, and Jack L Knetsch. 1992. ‘Valuing public goods: the purchase of moralsatisfaction’, Journal of environmental economics and management, 22: 57-70.• yKallis, Giorgos, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, and Christos Zografos. 2015. ‘The limits ofmonetization in valuing the environment’, Ecological Economics, 112: 170-73.• yKallis, Giorgos, and Richard B. Norgaard. 2010. ‘Coevolutionary ecological economics’,Ecological Economics, 69: 690-99.• yKnopf, Brigitte, B. J. Bakken, xd, Rn, Samuel Carrara, Amit Kanudia, Ilkka Keppo, TiinaKoljonen, Silvana Mima, E. V. A. Schmid, and Detlef P. Van Vuuren. 2013. ‘TRANSFORMINGTHE EUROPEAN ENERGY SYSTEM: MEMBER STATES’ PROSPECTS WITHIN THE EUFRAMEWORK’, Climate Change Economics, 4: 1-26.• yKnorn, JAN, Tobias Kuemmerle, Volker C Radeloff, William S Keeton, Vladimir Gancz, IOVU-ADRIAN BIRIŞ, Miroslav Svoboda, Patrick Griffiths, Adrian Hagatis, and Patrick Hostert.2013. ‘Continued loss of temperate old-growth forests in the Romanian Carpathians despitean increasing protected area network’, Environmental Conservation, 40: 182-93.• yKrutilla, John V. 1967. ‘Conservation Reconsidered’, The American Economic Review, 57:777-86.• yLaurans, Yann, and Laurent Mermet. 2014. ‘Ecosystem services economic valuation,decision-support system or advocacy?’, Ecosystem Services, 7: 98-105.Evaluarea ecosistemelor și a serviciilor ecosistemice din România205Granturile SEE 2009-2014
- Page 1 and 2:
Evaluarea ecosistemelorși a servic
- Page 3 and 4:
Evaluarea ecosistemelorși a servic
- Page 5 and 6:
1. Introducere 41.1. Obiectivele ra
- Page 7 and 8:
Complexitatea și amploarea problem
- Page 9 and 10:
schimbare” furnizând o foaie de
- Page 11 and 12:
Granturile SEE 2009-2014Evaluarea e
- Page 13 and 14:
2.1. Metodologia de analizăa polit
- Page 15 and 16:
Sectorde politiciSchimbăriclimatic
- Page 17 and 18:
Tabelul 4. Ciclul de evaluare a pol
- Page 19 and 20:
Conceptul de „habitat natural”
- Page 21 and 22:
Sector depoliticiSchimbăriclimatic
- Page 23 and 24:
Figura 3. Formular pentru evaluarea
- Page 25 and 26:
MarinSil viculturăBiodiversitateSe
- Page 27 and 28:
PescuitșiacvaculturăAgricultură
- Page 29 and 30:
EnergieSectordepoliticiResursenatur
- Page 31 and 32:
PlanificareteritorialăSectordepoli
- Page 33 and 34:
Sil vicultură - Planurile demanage
- Page 35 and 36:
(5) Reziliența.Conserva reastructu
- Page 37 and 38:
PlanificareteritorialăTurism16Sect
- Page 39 and 40:
BiodiversitateSilviculturăTerenuri
- Page 41 and 42:
TransportEnergieDezvoltareregional
- Page 43 and 44:
ecosistemelor și a serviciilor eco
- Page 45 and 46:
Sec torde politiciSilviculturăBiod
- Page 47 and 48:
angajare au fost actualizate prin O
- Page 49 and 50:
RelevanțapoliticiiUtilizarea/impac
- Page 51 and 52:
Date fiind cunoștințele actuale p
- Page 53 and 54:
Per ansamblu, în procesul de impli
- Page 55 and 56:
Granturile SEE 2009-2014Evaluarea e
- Page 57 and 58:
3.1. Cartarea ecosistemelorÎn aces
- Page 59 and 60:
se încearcă identificarea tipuril
- Page 61 and 62:
Figura 5. Tipologia MAES pentru cla
- Page 63 and 64:
Aceste sisteme de clasificare (tabe
- Page 65 and 66:
clasificării și cartării ecosist
- Page 67 and 68:
Figura 8. Tabel de relaționare în
- Page 69 and 70:
Temă spațială Sursă DescriereCN
- Page 71 and 72:
Figura 11. Suprapuneri ale claselor
- Page 73 and 74:
Principalii paşi realizaţi în ca
- Page 75 and 76:
EUNIS nivel 2, categoria E1 - Paji
- Page 77 and 78:
Tabelul. 16 Parametrii utilizaţi p
- Page 79 and 80:
Figura 16. Clasele CLC nivel 3 defi
- Page 81 and 82:
Indicator Furnizare - Apă potabil
- Page 83 and 84:
Indicator Furnizare - Apă potabil
- Page 85 and 86:
Indicator Furnizare - Apă potabil
- Page 87 and 88:
IndicatorModelul digital al terenul
- Page 89 and 90:
Indicator5. ValoareCostul controlul
- Page 91 and 92:
IndicatorCantitatea medie consumat
- Page 93 and 94:
Materiale - Fibre materiale proveni
- Page 95 and 96:
IndicatorCantitatea de volum lemnos
- Page 97 and 98:
Indicator4. BeneficiuNumărul de pe
- Page 99 and 100:
Servicii de reglare și mentenanț
- Page 101 and 102:
Indicator3. Evaluare -Harta intensi
- Page 103 and 104:
IndicatorEmisiile gazelor cu efect
- Page 105 and 106:
Servicii culturaleUtilizarea fizic
- Page 107 and 108:
Indicator4. BeneficiuNumăr de pers
- Page 109 and 110:
IndicatorTendința națională este
- Page 111 and 112:
Indicator2. Funcțional - Biomasă
- Page 113 and 114:
IndicatorProducția totală de răd
- Page 115 and 116:
Indicator5. ValoareValoarea produc
- Page 117 and 118:
IndicatorEfectivele de păsări sun
- Page 119 and 120:
Indicator3. Evaluare -Cantități d
- Page 121 and 122:
IndicatorBeneficiul realizat de pro
- Page 123 and 124:
Indicator2. Funcțional -Capacitate
- Page 125 and 126:
Indicator2. Funcțional -Numărul d
- Page 127 and 128:
Indicator5. ValoareValoarea program
- Page 129 and 130:
IndicatorCantitatea de apă infiltr
- Page 131 and 132:
Servicii de reglareControlul mirosu
- Page 133 and 134:
Indicator3. Evaluare -Raportul de s
- Page 135 and 136:
IndicatorDate meteo (precipitații,
- Page 137 and 138:
IndicatorReglarea climei globale pr
- Page 139 and 140:
Indicator3. Evaluare -Zonele cu inf
- Page 141 and 142:
Ecosisteme agricoleCod EUNIS Număr
- Page 143 and 144:
Ecosisteme urbaneCod EUNIS Număr S
- Page 145 and 146:
Figura 20. Harta de evaluare agrega
- Page 147 and 148:
Figura 22. Evaluarea pierderii de s
- Page 149 and 150:
Contextul pentru proiectul N4D, din
- Page 151 and 152:
Conform oricărui manual introducti
- Page 153 and 154:
teoria VAI sugerează așadar că a
- Page 155 and 156: și beneficiarilor care să fie inc
- Page 157 and 158: poate fi mai ieftină decât o cas
- Page 159 and 160: cu prețurile acestora trebuie să
- Page 161 and 162: În același timp, silvicultura est
- Page 163 and 164: Tabelul 20. Principalele servicii e
- Page 165 and 166: Anuale de Tăiere viitoare. Potrivi
- Page 167 and 168: Figura 27. Volumul de lemn recoltat
- Page 169 and 170: Capacitatea pădurilor seculare de
- Page 171 and 172: De asemenea este important de remar
- Page 173 and 174: valoare de aproximativ 68% din valo
- Page 175 and 176: naturale importante. În România
- Page 177 and 178: Sosiri în stațiunile montane 1993
- Page 179 and 180: Indicatorii valorii economice a tur
- Page 181 and 182: generală de turiști, luând în c
- Page 183 and 184: ar fi producția de lemn. Când ari
- Page 185 and 186: Granturile SEE 2009-2014Evaluarea e
- Page 187 and 188: Dezvoltarea componentei DSS este pa
- Page 189 and 190: Având în vedere stadiul de implem
- Page 191 and 192: Soluția arhitecturală și mediul
- Page 193 and 194: • y vizualizarea detaliilor alfan
- Page 195 and 196: Pentru a stimula tranziția către
- Page 197 and 198: Granturile SEE 2009-2014Evaluarea e
- Page 199 and 200: Active: Resurse economice (TEEB, 20
- Page 201 and 202: Anexa 1Zonarea funcțională a păd
- Page 203 and 204: •yEvaluarea ecosistemelor și a s
- Page 205: • yArias-Arévalo, P., E. Gómez-
- Page 209: • yPotschin, Marion B., Eeva Prim