DIGITALNA ARHIVA ŠUMARSKOG LISTA
prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu



ŠUMARSKI LIST 5-6/2017 str. 66     <-- 66 -->        PDF

Zahvala
aCKNOWLEDGEMENT
Rezultati ovoga rada dobiveni su zahvaljujući potpori Udruge za prirodu, okoliš i održivi razvoj Sunce iz Splita, te se autori zahvaljuju na potpori.
Literatura
rEFERENCES
Anderson, L.M. and Cordell, H.K., 1988. Influence of Trees on Residential Property Values in Athens, Georgia, (USA): A Survey of Actual Sales Prices. Landscape and Urban Planning, 15, pp. 153-164.
Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63 (2-3), 616-626.
Brauman, K.A., Daily, G.C., Duarte, T.K. and Mooney, H.A., 2007. The Nature and Value of Ecosystem Services: Highlighting Hydrologic Service. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, pp. 67-98.
Brouwer, R., Brander, L., Kuik, O., Papyrakis, E. and Bateman, I., 2013. A Synthesis of Approaches to Assess and Value Ecosystem Services in the EU in the Context of TEEB. Final Report. TEEB Follow-up Study for Europe, University Amsterdam, Institute for Enviromental Studies, pp. 1-144.
Costanza, R.R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, G., Sutton, P. and Van den Belt, M., 1997. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature, 387, pp. 253-260.
Daily, G.C., Alexandr, S., Ehrlich, P.R., Goulder, L., Lubchenco, J., Matson, P.A., Mooney, H.A., Postel, S., Schneider, S.H., Tilman, D. and Woodwell, G.M., 1997. Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems. Issues in Ecology, No. 2, Ecological Society of America, pp. 1-18.
Dwyer, J.F., Mcpherson, E.G., Schroeder, H.W. and Rowntree, R.A., 1992. Assessing the Benefits and Costs of the Urban Forest. Journal of Abroriculture, (18)5, pp. 227-234.
European Comminssion, 2011. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Our Life Insurance, Our Natural Capital: an EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. COM(2011)244 finals. Brussels.
Fisher, B., Turenr, K.R., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifiyng ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 68 (3), 643-653.
Forest Europe Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Liaison Unit Madrid. Expert Group and Workshop on a Pan-european Approach to Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services, 2014. Belgrade Workshop, Final Report, pp. 1-98.
Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M., 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consulation on Version 4, August-December 2012. Report to the European Environment Agency. Centre for Environmental Management, University of Nottingham, UK.
Jellesmark Thorsen, B., Mavsar, R., Tyrvalnen, L., Prokofieva, I. and Stenger, A., 2014. The Provision of Forest Ecosystem Services. Volume I: Quantifying and Valuing Non-marketed Ecosystem Services. European Forest Institute, pp. 1-76.
Kartiranje i procjena ekosustava i njihovih usluga u Hrvatskoj, 2015. Agencija za zaštitu okoliša, str. 1-108.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. (Online). Available at: http://www.unep.org/maweb/documents/document.765.aspx.pdf. Accessed: 10/10/2011.
Program gospodarenja za šume s posebnom namjenom g. j. Park šumu Marjan, 2008. Šumarski fakultet Sveučilište u Zagrebu.
Prpić B., 1992. Ekološka i gospodarska vrijednost šuma u Hrvatskoj. Šume u Hrvatskoj, „Hrvatske šume“ p.o. Zagreb, str. 237-256, Zagreb.
Prpić, B., Seletković, Z., Tikvić, I., 2009. Prašuma Čorkova uvala u svjetlu pružanja općekorisnih funkcija šuma. Zbornik radova znanstvenog skupa „Prašumski ekosustavi dinarskog krša i prirodno gospodarnje šumama u Hrvatskoj“, HAZU, Znanstveno vijeće za poljoprivredu i šumarstvo, Sekcija za šumarstvo, str. 125-133.
Prpić, B., Pernar, R., Jurjević, P., Milković, I., Vrebčević, M., Petreš, S., 2011. Kartiranje općekorisnih funkcija šuma u Sredozemlju, u: Šume hrvatskog Sredozemlja, Matić, Slavko (ur.), Akademija šumarskih znanosti, str. 288-294., Zagreb.
Strategija razvoja urbane aglomeracije Split, 2016, str. 1-138.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB, 2010. pp. 1-39.
UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessmen: Synthesis of the Key Findings, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
Wallace, K.J., 2007. Clasification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological Consevation 139 (3-4), 235-246.
Summary
Forest ecosystem services and forest functions have similar meaning with partial differences. Forest functions refer to forests’ purposes beneficial to people, while ecosystem services are results of forest functions and still present the benefits of ecosystems to people and environment. Ecosystem services cover all forest functions, whereas non-market forest functions are those which are used by all people. Park forest Marjan with its many ecosystems offers many services and benefits to the inhabitants of Split, park forest visitors and other organisms. Of the 300 ha area of park forest Marjan, forest ecosystems are most prevalent and account for 2/3 of the park forest area. In this paper, 28 forest ecosystem services of park forest Marjan were defined for the first time based on the international ecosystem services classification and other non-market forest function