Template Bachelorarbeit Universität Für Bodenkultur Wien
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecosystem Management Ecosystem Services on River Landscapes: A case study River Enns from Mandling to Hieflau Master Thesis of Jan Oberdiek, Bachelor of Science to obtain the academic degree “Diplom Ingenieur” Vienna, August 13, 2013 Advisors: Ao.Univ.Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr.nat.techn. Susanne Muhar Dipl.-Ing. Kerstin Böck Declaration of Academic Honesty I hereby declare that I have written this master thesis on my own, having used no other than the stated sources and aids. All contributions from published as well as unpublished sources are marked as such. This thesis, in same or similar form, has so far not been submitted to this or any other examination board. I declare my consent to the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, that I agree that the university may open this thesis to the public. Vienna, August 13th 2013 _________________ (Jan Oberdiek) Acknowledgement I’m thankful to everyone, who supported me during the work on this thesis. I especially acknowledge and express my gratitude to my supervisors, Ao. Univ. Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Dr. nat. techn. Susanne Muhar and Dipl.-Ing. Kerstin Böck without whom the development and final completion of this thesis would have been impossible. I also would like to thank my college Renate Polt with whom I had a great time in the field during the interviews and who I enjoyed working with on our related theses. For support regarding corrections I would like to thank my friend Jennie Franks. In the end, but not less unimportant, I would like to thank my friends, my girlfriend Tabea and of course my family who have been there for me whenever I needed help and who have always been supporting me. Thank you guys! Abstract Up to now the issue of “ecosystem services” on river landscapes is a rather unknown field of research in Austria. Different human impacts are leading to changes of riverine landscapes and affect the river’s ecological, physicochemical and hydromorphological status. This has an effect on the availability of river landscape functions as basis for “ecosystem services” that are provided by the river. The aim of the ongoing PhD thesis “Perception and assessment of ecosystem services on river landscapes” (Kerstin Böck) is to gain insights into this topic. The present diploma thesis is to be understood as an integrative part of this project. Qualitative and quantitative surveys with representatives of different stakeholder groups and river users were carried out at the river Enns (Austria/Styria).The goal was to analyze the perception of availability as well as of importance of ecosystem services and of possible conflicts that may arise between different services. The results of the surveys showed that many interviewees perceived the availability of supporting, cultural and regulating services higher than the availability of provisioning services in the study area. This could be found independent of the stakeholders’ age, gender and educational attainment. These results could also be determined for the perceived importance. The biggest part of perceived conflicts was found between “provisioning services” and “supporting services” followed by the conflicts between “provisioning services” and “cultural services”. It is suggested that stakeholders and river users should be integrated more in river management. They do have a wide perception of the availability of ecosystem services and have an insight into their importance for the region. Moreover they can improve management decisions through their perception of possible conflicts. Further research will be necessary to determine whether the results of this study can be transferred to other river landscapes as well. Kurzfassung Bis heute ist die Thematik der „Ökosystemdienstleistungen“ am Beispiel Flusslandschaften ein eher unerforschtes Thema in Österreich. Das derzeit laufende Dissertationsprojekt: „Wahrnehmung und Ermittlung von Ökosystemdienstleistungen an Flusslandschaften“ (Kerstin Böck), welches im Rahmen des „Doktoratskolleg Nachhaltige Entwicklung (DOKNE)“ durchgeführt wird, zielt darauf ab diese Lücke zu schließen. Die vorliegende Diplomarbeit versteht sich als integrativer Teil dieses Projektes. Qualitative und quantitative Umfragen mit VertreterInnen verschiedener Stakeholdergruppen und FlussnutzerInnen wurden an der Steirischen Enns (Österreich) durchgeführt. Das Ziel dabei war es, die Wahrnehmung der Verfügbarkeit und die Bedeutung von Ökosystemdienstleistungen zu analysieren, sowie das Konfliktpotenzial zwischen den einzelnen Dienstleistungen zu identifizieren. Die Ergebnisse der Umfragen zeigten, dass viele der im Untersuchungsgebiet befragten Personen die derzeitige Verfügbarkeit von Basisleistungen der Enns-Flusslandschaft höher einschätzten als die der kulturellen und Regulierungsleistungen. Die Versorgungsleistungen wurden am wenigsten wahrgenommen. Die seitens der Befragten eingestufte Bedeutung der Leistungen ergab ähnliche Ergebnisse. Konfliktpotentiale wurden am häufigsten zwischen Versorgungs- und Basisleistungen genannt, gefolgt von Konflikten zwischen Versorgungs- und kulturellen Leistungen. Es wird empfohlen, betroffene Stakeholder und FlussnutzerInnen vermehrt in Entscheidungsfindungsprozesse im Fließgewässermanagement mit einzubeziehen, da diese über relevantes regionsspezifisches Wissen verfügen. Weitere Studien sollten durchgeführt werden, um zu überprüfen, ob die gewonnen Ergebnisse auch auf andere Fließgewässer übertragbar sind. Table of Content 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Research questions ............................................................................................... 10 2 Ecosystem Services ...................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Basic concept of ecosystem services ..................................................................... 11 2.2 Human impacts on ecosystems and their services ................................................. 14 2.3 Identification of ecosystem services ....................................................................... 15 2.4 Assessment and valuation of ecosystem services ................................................. 18 2.5 Trade-offs and ecosystem services ........................................................................ 21 2.6 Ecosystem services in political strategies .............................................................. 25 3 Study Area .................................................................................................................... 27 3.1 The Enns ............................................................................................................... 27 3.2 The four sections of the study area ........................................................................ 30 3.2.1 The first section from Mandling to Aich ............................................................... 30 3.2.2 The second section from Aich to Stainach .......................................................... 31 3.2.3 The third section from Stainach to the entrance of the national park Gesäuse .... 32 3.2.4 The fourth section from the entrance of the national park Gesäuse to Hieflau .... 33 4 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 35 4.1 Qualitative interviews ............................................................................................. 35 4.2 Standardized questionnaires .................................................................................. 38 4.3 Software and analyzes ........................................................................................... 42 5 Results .......................................................................................................................... 43 5.1 Socio-demographic data of the quantitative interviews ........................................... 43 5.1.1 Age distribution ................................................................................................... 43 5.1.2 Gender distribution ............................................................................................. 44 5.1.3 Highest educational attainment ........................................................................... 44 5.1.4 Main residence ................................................................................................... 45 5.2 Socio-demographic data of the qualitative interviews ............................................. 45 5.2.1 Age distribution ................................................................................................... 45 5.2.2 Gender distribution ............................................................................................. 46 5.2.3 Highest educational attainment ........................................................................... 46 5.2.4 Main residence ................................................................................................... 47 5.3 Perception of ecosystem services .......................................................................... 48 5.3.1 Perception of ecosystem services ...................................................................... 48 5.3.2 Perception of ecosystem services compared with the age distribution ................ 49 5.3.3 Perception of ecosystem services