Published February 25, 2026 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Environmental awareness influences the perception of ecosystem services values at Lake Balaton, Hungary

  • 1. HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research, Vácrátót, Hungary|Department of Natural Resource Sciences & Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
  • 2. PAD Foundation for Environmental Justice, Budapest, Hungary|National Laboratory for Water Science and Water Security, Budapest, Hungary
  • 3. National Laboratory for Water Science and Water Security, Budapest, Hungary|Institute of Applied Water Science, Budapest, Hungary
  • 4. HUN-REN–BME Water Research Group, Budapest, Hungary|National Laboratory for Water Science and Water Security, Budapest, Hungary|Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Department of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, Budapest, Hungary
  • 5. National Laboratory for Water Science and Water Security, Tihany, Hungary|HUN-REN Balaton Limnological Research Institute, Tihany, Hungary

Description

Knowing people's perceptions on the importance and value of ecosystem services (ES) is an important step towards sustainable management and recognised as essential for successful conservation. We assessed societal preferences, i.e. value perceptions for ecosystem services (ES), recreational activities, shore types and acceptance of shore modifications for Lake Balaton along with socio-demographic factors and environmental awareness. We surveyed 1500 respondents (tourists, vacation homeowners and lake shore residents) online and in person. Survey results show that the greatest importance was assigned to regulating and cultural ES, in line with the prevailing use as a place of recreation. Greatest differences were between residents and tourists, with environmental awareness as the strongest explanatory factor. The most frequent activities were close-to-nature (e.g. swimming, walking), but high-profile activities like sailing, yachting were less common, just as well as angling. This pattern aligned well with the preference for more natural shore types (24% of respondents preferred 'close to natural' type). More pressure in terms of development of tourism infrastructure, specifically of hotels and marinas, were disliked by 58% and 61% of the respondents, respectively. Preferences were most strongly influenced by participants' environmental awareness. We identified trade-offs between cultural ES as different recreational uses, linked to shore types with differing built and natural features. Some of these trade-offs can be solved with targeted spatial planning, but mass recreation might nevertheless impact conservation. We discuss the results of this survey in relation to present trends in investments to tourism at the Lake.

Files

OE_article_174192.pdf

Files (1.2 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:2570430eaf0a72ddcb067614a581b8cc
918.1 kB Preview Download
md5:cf8029b39ef1d6db2252f21156fd7fa6
279.6 kB Preview Download

Linked records

Additional details

References

  • Acreman M, Hughes K, Arthington A, Tickner D, Dueñas M (2020) Protected areas and freshwater biodiversity: a novel systematic review distils eight lessons for effective conservation. Conservation Letters 13 (1). https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12684
  • Albun D, Racoma A (2017) Environmental Attitude and Environmental Behavior of Catholic Colleges' Employees in Ilocos Sur, Philippines. Texila International Journal of Academic Research 4 (1). https://doi.org/10.21522/TIJAR.2014.04.01.Art003
  • Angradi T, Launspach J, Bolgrien D, Bellinger B, Starry M, Hoffman J, Trebitz A, Sierszen M, Hollenhorst T (2016) Mapping ecosystem service indicators in a Great Lakes estuarine Area of Concern. Journal of Great Lakes Research 42 (3): 717‑727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2016.03.012
  • An S, Verhoeven JA (2019) Wetlands: Ecosystem Services, Restoration and Wise Use. Springer International Publishing, Cham. URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-14861-4
  • Arnstein S (1969) A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216‑224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
  • Aylward B, Bandyopadhyay J, Belausteguigotia J, Borkey P, Cassar AZ, Meadors L, Saade L, Siebentritt M, Stein R, Tognetti S, others (2005) Freshwater ecosystem services. In: Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (Ed.) Ecosystems and human well-being: policy responses. 3. URL: http://www.unep.org/maweb/documents/document.312.aspx.pdf
  • Borics G, Ács É, Boda P, Boros E, Erős T, Grigorszky I, Kiss KT, Lengyel S, Re NM (2016) Water bodies in Hungary – an overview of their management and present state. Hungarian Journal of Hydrology 96 (3).
  • Brauns M, Garcia X, Walz N, Pusch MT (2007) Effects of human shoreline development on littoral macroinvertebrates in lowland lakes. Journal of Applied Ecology 44 (6): 1138‑1144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01376.x
  • Bryer J, Speerschneider K (2016) likert: Analysis and Visualization Likert Items. R package version 1.3.5. URL: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=likert
  • Campagne CS, Roche P (2018) May the matrix be with you! Guidelines for the application of expert-based matrix approach for ecosystem services assessment and mapping. One Ecosystem 3 https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e24134
  • Carifio J, Perla R (2007) Ten Common Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Persistent Myths and Urban Legends about Likert Scales and Likert Response Formats and their Antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences 3 (3): 106‑116. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2007.106.116
  • Cheval S, Popa A, Șandric I, Iojă I (2020) Exploratory analysis of cooling effect of urban lakes on land surface temperature in Bucharest (Romania) using Landsat imagery. Urban Climate 34 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100696
  • Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation 141 (2): 350‑352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020
  • Culhane F, Teixeira H, Nogueira AA, Borgwardt F, Trauner D, Lillebø A, Piet G, Kuemmerlen M, McDonald H, O'Higgins T, Barbosa AL, van der Wal JT, Iglesias-Campos A, Arevalo-Torres J, Barbière J, Robinson L (2019) Risk to the supply of ecosystem services across aquatic ecosystems. Science of The Total Environment 660: 611‑621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.346
  • de Groot RS, Ramakrishnan PS, Berg AEvd, Kulenthran T, Muller S, Pitt D, Wascher DM, Wijesuriya G (2006) Cultural and amenity services. In: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series (Ed.) Ecosystems and human well-being; Volume 1 current state and trends. URL: https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/cultural-and-amenity-services
  • Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, Bartuska A, Baste IA, Bilgin A, Brondizio E, Chan KM, Figueroa VE, Duraiappah A, Fischer M, Hill R, Koetz T, Leadley P, Lyver P, Mace GM, Martin-Lopez B, Okumura M, Pacheco D, Pascual U, Pérez ES, Reyers B, Roth E, Saito O, Scholes RJ, Sharma N, Tallis H, Thaman R, Watson R, Yahara T, Hamid ZA, Akosim C, Al-Hafedh Y, Allahverdiyev R, Amankwah E, Asah ST, Asfaw Z, Bartus G, Brooks LA, Caillaux J, Dalle G, Darnaedi D, Driver A, Erpul G, Escobar-Eyzaguirre P, Failler P, Fouda AMM, Fu B, Gundimeda H, Hashimoto S, Homer F, Lavorel S, Lichtenstein G, Mala WA, Mandivenyi W, Matczak P, Mbizvo C, Mehrdadi M, Metzger JP, Mikissa JB, Moller H, Mooney HA, Mumby P, Nagendra H, Nesshover C, Oteng-Yeboah AA, Pataki G, Roué M, Rubis J, Schultz M, Smith P, Sumaila R, Takeuchi K, Thomas S, Verma M, Yeo-Chang Y, Zlatanova D (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 1‑16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
  • Drius M, Bongiorni L, Depellegrin D, Menegon S, Pugnetti A, Stifter S (2019) Tackling challenges for Mediterranean sustainable coastal tourism: An ecosystem service perspective. Science of The Total Environment 652: 1302‑1317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.121
  • Dunlap R, Van Liere K, Mertig A, Jones RE (2000) New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 425‑442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
  • Ebner M, Fontana V, Schirpke U, Tappeiner U (2022) Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps. Ecosystem Services 53 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101386
  • EC (European Commission) (2020) EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 - Bringing nature back into our lives. COM/2020/380.
  • EC (European Commission) (2025) The nature restoration regulation. 1st edition. Publications Office, Luxembourg.
  • Elwell T, Gelcich S, Gaines S, Lopez-Carr D (2018) Using people's perceptions of ecosystem services to guide modeling and management efforts. The Science of the total environment 637-638: 1014‑1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.052
  • Erős T, Specziár A (2024) Unraveling Temporal Shifts in Drivers and Ecosystem Services in a Large Lake Ecosystem. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 10 https://doi.org/10.34133/ehs.0216
  • Faccioli M, Czajkowski M, Glenk K, Martin-Ortega J (2020) Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106600
  • Felipe-Lucia M, Martín-López B, Lavorel S, Berraquero-Díaz L, Escalera-Reyes J, Comín F (2015) Ecosystem Services Flows: Why Stakeholders' Power Relationships Matter. PLoS ONE 10 (7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132232
  • Fujitani M, McFall A, Randler C, Arlinghaus R (2017) Participatory adaptive management leads to environmental learning outcomes extending beyond the sphere of science. Science Advances 3 (6). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602516
  • Geneletti D, Esmail BA, Cortinovis C, Arany I, Balzan M, Beukering Pv, Bicking S, Borges P, Borisova B, Broekx S, Burkhard B, Gil A, Inghe O, Kopperoinen L, Kruse M, Liekens I, Lowicki D, Mizgajski A, Mulder S, Nedkov S, Ostergard H, Picanço A, Ruskule A, Santos-Martín F, Sieber I, Svensson J, Vačkářů D, Veidemane K (2020) Ecosystem services mapping and assessment for policy- and decision-making: Lessons learned from a comparative analysis of European case studies. One Ecosystem 5 https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.5.e53111
  • Gerner N, Nafo I, Winking C, Wencki K, Strehl C, Wortberg T, Niemann A, Anzaldua G, Lago M, Birk S (2018) Large-scale river restoration pays off: A case study of ecosystem service valuation for the Emscher restoration generation project. Ecosystem Services 30: 327‑338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.020
  • Gómez-Baggethun E, Tudor M, Doroftei M, Covaliov S, Năstase A, Onără D, Mierlă M, Marinov M, Doroșencu A, Lupu G, Teodorof L, Tudor I, Köhler B, Museth J, Aronsen E, Ivar Johnsen S, Ibram O, Marin E, Crăciun A, Cioacă E (2019) Changes in ecosystem services from wetland loss and restoration: An ecosystem assessment of the Danube Delta (1960–2010). Ecosystem Services 39 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100965
  • Gozlan RE, Karimov BK, Zadereev E, Kuznetsova D, Brucet S (2019) Status, trends, and future dynamics of freshwater ecosystems in Europe and Central Asia. Inland Waters 9 (1): 78‑94. https://doi.org/10.1080/20442041.2018.1510271
  • Graffelman J, Aluja-Banet T (2003) Optimal Representation of Supplementary Variables in Biplots from Principal Component Analysis and Correspondence Analysis. Biometrical Journal 45 (4): 491‑509. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200390027
  • Grizzetti B, Lanzanova D, Liquete C, Reynaud A (2015) Cook-book for water ecosystem service assessment and valuation. URL: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC94681/lbna27141enn.pdf
  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2018) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Available from www.cices.eu.
  • Hanna DL, Tomscha S, Ouellet Dallaire C, Bennett E (2018) A review of riverine ecosystem service quantification: Research gaps and recommendations. Journal of Applied Ecology 55 (3): 1299‑1311. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13045
  • Hickey G, Pouliot M, Smith-Hall C, Wunder S, Nielsen M (2016) Quantifying the economic contribution of wild food harvests to rural livelihoods: A global-comparative analysis. Food Policy 62: 122‑132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.06.001
  • Hossu CA, Iojă I, Onose DA, Niță MR, Popa A, Talabă O, Inostroza L (2019) Ecosystem services appreciation of urban lakes in Romania. Synergies and trade-offs between multiple users. Ecosystem Services 37 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100937
  • Hrafnkelsdóttir H (2010) Public Access to Lakeshores in Iceland. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden..
  • Iannucci G, Martellozzo F, Randelli F (2022) Sustainable development of rural areas: a dynamic model in between tourism exploitation and landscape decline. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 32 (3): 991‑1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-022-00785-4
  • Inácio M, Das M, Barceló D, Pereira P (2023) Frameworks for mapping lake ecosystem services. An example from Lithuania. MethodsX 10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2023.102015
  • Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Aguilera P, Montes C, Martín-López B (2014) Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecological Economics 108: 36‑48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.028
  • IPBES (2018) The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany.
  • IPBES (2022) Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Zenodo. Version Number: 1.2 DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.6522392. URL: https://zenodo.org/record/6522392
  • Istvánovics V, Clement A, Somlyódy L, Specziár A, G.-Tóth L, Padisák J (2007) Updating water quality targets for shallow Lake Balaton (Hungary), recovering from eutrophication. Hydrobiologia 581: 305‑318. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6158-5_31
  • Istvánovics V, Honti M, Torma P, Kousal J (2022) Record-setting algal bloom in polymictic Lake Balaton (Hungary): A synergistic impact of climate change and (mis)management. Freshwater Biology 67 (6): 1091‑1106. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13903
  • Istvánovics V, Erős T, Nagy L, Padisák J, Petrovszki J, Szilassi P (2025) Changing biodiversity in Lake Balaton—A long-term, catchment-scale perspective. In: Demolin-Leite GL (Ed.) Aquatic Biomes. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com:5037/science/chapter/edited-volume/abs/pii/B9780443157264000207
  • Janssen AG, Hilt S, Kosten S, de Klein JM, Paerl H, Van de Waal D (2021) Shifting states, shifting services: Linking regime shifts to changes in ecosystem services of shallow lakes. Freshwater Biology 66 (1): 1‑12. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13582
  • Jorda-Capdevila D, Iniesta-Arandia I, Quintas-Soriano C, Basdeki A, Calleja E, DeGirolamo AM, Gilvear D, Ilhéu M, Kriaučiūniene J, Logar I, Loures L, Padło T (2021) Disentangling the complexity of socio-cultural values of temporary rivers. Ecosystems and People 17 (1): 235‑247. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1912186
  • Kaltenborn B, Wold LC, Keller R, Krange O, Aas Ø (2021) The NINA Scale – A New Approach to Measuring Environmental Attitudes. NINA Report 2008. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research..
  • Kassambara A, Mundt F (2020) factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. R package version 1.0.7. URL: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra
  • Keeler B, Polasky S, Brauman K, Johnson K, Finlay J, O'Neill A, Kovacs K, Dalzell B (2012) Linking water quality and well-being for improved assessment and valuation of ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (45): 18619‑18624. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215991109
  • Koschke L, Meulen Svd, Frank S, Schneidergruber A, Kruse M, Fürst C, Neubert E, Ohnesorge B, Schröder C, Müller F, Bastian O (2014) Do you have 5 minutes to spare? -The challenges of stakeholder processes in ecosystem services studies. Landscape Online37‑37. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201437
  • Kovács E, Kelemen E, Kalóczkai Á, Margóczi K, Pataki G, Gébert J, Málovics G, Balázs B, Roboz Á, Krasznai Kovács E, Mihók B (2015) Understanding the links between ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas. Ecosystem Services 12: 117‑127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.012
  • Kovalenko K, Bini LM, Johnson L, Wick M (2023) Inequality in aquatic ecosystem services. Hydrobiologia https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-023-05165-y
  • Kummu M, Moel Hd, Ward P, Varis O (2011) How Close Do We Live to Water? A Global Analysis of Population Distance to Freshwater Bodies. PLOS ONE 6 (6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020578
  • Kuslits B, Vári Á, Tanács E, Aszalós R, Drasovean A, Buchriegler R, Laufer Z, Krsic D, Milanovic R, Arany I (2021) Ecosystem Services Becoming Political: How Ecological Processes Shape Local Resource-Management Networks. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9 https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.635988
  • Lê S, Josse J, Husson F (2008) FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25 (1): 1‑18. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01
  • Liquete C, Piroddi C, Drakou E, Gurney L, Katsanevakis S, Charef A, Egoh B (2013) Current Status and Future Prospects for the Assessment of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review. PLOS ONE 8 (7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067737
  • Livingstone S, Cadotte M, Isaac M (2018) Ecological engagement determines ecosystem service valuation: A case study from Rouge National Urban Park in Toronto, Canada. Ecosystem Services 30: 86‑97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.006
  • Martín-López B, Montes C, Benayas J (2007) The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 139 (1): 67‑82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.005
  • Meyer N, Schafft M, Wegner B, Wolter C, Arlinghaus R, Venohr M, von Oheimb G (2021) A day on the shore: Ecological impacts of non-motorised recreational activities in and around inland water bodies. Journal for Nature Conservation 64 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2021.126073
  • Mulvaney T, Weeks B (2007) Waterlocked: Public Access to New Jersey's Coastline Symposium: Litigating Takings. Ecology Law Quarterly 34 (2): 579‑618. URL: https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/eclawq34&i=583
  • Nagendra H, Ostrom E (2014) Applying the social-ecological system framework to the diagnosis of urban lake commons in Bangalore, India. Ecology and Society 19 (2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06582-190267
  • Nations) U( (2020) Post-2020 global biodiversity framework: scientific and technical information to support the review of the updated goals and targets, and related indicators and baselines. CBD/SBSTTA/24/3.
  • Navarro N (2019) Community Perceptions of Tourism Impacts on Coastal Protected Areas. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 7 (8). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse7080274
  • Nielsen A, Trolle D, Søndergaard M, Lauridsen T, Bjerring R, Olesen J, Jeppesen E (2012) Watershed land use effects on lake water quality in Denmark. Ecological Applications 22 (4): 1187‑1200. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1831.1
  • Orr B, Pickens J (2003) Public Access to Lake Superior and Attribute Values of Proximate Non-Shoreline Property. Journal of Great Lakes Research 29 (4): 616‑629. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0380-1330(03)70465-1
  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ; New York. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
  • Ostrom E (2000) Reformulating the Commons. Swiss Political Science Review 6 (1): 29‑52. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2000.tb00285.x
  • Pascual U, Balvanera P, Anderson C, Chaplin-Kramer R, Christie M, González-Jiménez D, Martin A, Raymond C, Termansen M, Vatn A, Athayde S, Baptiste B, Barton D, Jacobs S, Kelemen E, Kumar R, Lazos E, Mwampamba T, Nakangu B, O'Farrell P, Subramanian S, van Noordwijk M, Ahn S, Amaruzaman S, Amin A, Arias-Arévalo P, Arroyo-Robles G, Cantú-Fernández M, Castro A, Contreras V, De Vos A, Dendoncker N, Engel S, Eser U, Faith D, Filyushkina A, Ghazi H, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gould R, Guibrunet L, Gundimeda H, Hahn T, Harmáčková Z, Hernández-Blanco M, Horcea-Milcu A, Huambachano M, Wicher NLH, Aydın Cİ, Islar M, Koessler A, Kenter J, Kosmus M, Lee H, Leimona B, Lele S, Lenzi D, Lliso B, Mannetti L, Merçon J, Monroy-Sais AS, Mukherjee N, Muraca B, Muradian R, Murali R, Nelson S, Nemogá-Soto G, Ngouhouo-Poufoun J, Niamir A, Nuesiri E, Nyumba T, Özkaynak B, Palomo I, Pandit R, Pawłowska-Mainville A, Porter-Bolland L, Quaas M, Rode J, Rozzi R, Sachdeva S, Samakov A, Schaafsma M, Sitas N, Ungar P, Yiu E, Yoshida Y, Zent E (2023) Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature1‑11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9
  • Paudyal K, Baral H, Keenan RJ (2018) Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 90: 67‑81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.011
  • Petrovszki J, Szilassi P, Erős T (2024) Mass tourism generated urban land expansion in the catchment of Lake Balaton, Hungary – analysis of long-term changes in characteristic socio-political periods. Land Use Policy 142 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107185
  • Plieninger T, Thapa P, Bhaskar D, Nagendra H, Torralba M, Zoderer BM (2022) Disentangling ecosystem services perceptions from blue infrastructure around a rapidly expanding megacity. Landscape and Urban Planning 222 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104399
  • Posit Software P (2023) RStudi. RStudio 2023.06.1.
  • Raffay Z (2022) A horgászturizmus pozíciójának erősítése Magyarorság turizmusában. (Strengthening the position of angling tourism in the tourism sector of Hungary). TVT Turisztikai és Vidékfejlesztési Tanulmányok 1 https://doi.org/10.15170/TVT.2022.07.01.07.
  • R Core Team (2023) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. URL: https://www.R-project.org
  • Reyes-García V, Menendez-Baceta G, Aceituno-Mata L, Acosta-Naranjo R, Calvet-Mir L, Domínguez P, Garnatje T, Gómez-Baggethun E, Molina-Bustamante M, Molina M, Rodríguez-Franco R, Serrasolses G, Vallès J, Pardo-de-Santayana M (2015) From famine foods to delicatessen: Interpreting trends in the use of wild edible plants through cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 120: 303‑311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.003
  • Reynaud A, Lanzanova D (2017) A Global Meta-Analysis of the Value of Ecosystem Services Provided by Lakes. Ecological Economics 137: 184‑194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.001
  • Riechers M, Barkmann J, Tscharntke T (2018) Diverging perceptions by social groups on cultural ecosystem services provided by urban green. Landscape and Urban Planning 175: 161‑168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.017
  • Rinke K, Keller PS, Kong X, Borchardt D, Weitere M (2019) Ecosystem Services from Inland Waters and Their Aquatic Ecosystems. In: al. Se (Ed.) Atlas of Ecosystem Services: Drivers, Risks, and Societal Responses. [ISBN 978-3-319-96229-0]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96229-0_30
  • Rodríguez-Morales B, Roces-Díaz J, Kelemen E, Pataki G, Díaz-Varela E (2020) Perception of ecosystem services and disservices on a peri-urban communal forest: Are landowners' and visitors' perspectives dissimilar? Ecosystem Services 43 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101089
  • Schirpke U, Meisch C, Marsoner T, Tappeiner U (2018) Revealing spatial and temporal patterns of outdoor recreation in the European Alps and their surroundings. Ecosystem Services 31: 336‑350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.017
  • Schirpke U, Tasser E, Ebner M, Tappeiner U (2021a) What can geotagged photographs tell us about cultural ecosystem services of lakes? Ecosystem Services 51 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101354
  • Schirpke U, Ebner M, Pritsch H, Fontana V, Kurmayer R (2021b) Quantifying Ecosystem Services of High Mountain Lakes across Different Socio-Ecological Contexts. Sustainability 13 (11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116051
  • Smith AC, Harrison PA, Pérez Soba M, Archaux F, Blicharska M, Egoh BN, Erős T, Fabrega Domenech N, György áI, Haines-Young R, Li S, Lommelen E, Meiresonne L, Miguel Ayala L, Mononen L, Simpson G, Stange E, Turkelboom F, Uiterwijk M, Veerkamp CJ, Wyllie de Echeverria V (2017) How natural capital delivers ecosystem services: A typology derived from a systematic review. Ecosystem Services 26: 111‑126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.006
  • Sterner R, Keeler B, Polasky S, Poudel R, Rhude K, Rogers M (2020) Ecosystem services of Earth's largest freshwater lakes. Ecosystem Services 41 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101046
  • Strazzera E, Atzori R, Meleddu D, Statzu V (2021) Assessment of renaturation measures for improvements in ecosystem services and flood risk mitigation. Journal of Environmental Management 292 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112743
  • Thiele J, Albert C, Hermes J, von Haaren C (2020) Assessing and quantifying offered cultural ecosystem services of German river landscapes. Ecosystem Services 42 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101080
  • Thiemann M, Riebl R, Haensel M, Schmitt T, Steinbauer M, Landwehr T, Fricke U, Redlich S, Koellner T (2022) Perceptions of ecosystem services: Comparing socio-cultural and environmental influences. PLOS ONE 17 (10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276432
  • Tomscha S, Gergel S, Tomlinson M (2017) The spatial organization of ecosystem services in river-floodplains. Ecosphere 8 (3). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1728
  • Tudor CA, Iojă IC, Pǎtru-Stupariu I, Nită MR, Hersperger A (2014) How successful is the resolution of land-use conflicts? A comparison of cases from Switzerland and Romania. Applied Geography 47: 125‑136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.12.008
  • Turkelboom F, Leone M, Jacobs S, Kelemen E, García-Llorente M, Baró F, Termansen M, Barton D, Berry P, Stange E, Thoonen M, Kalóczkai Á, Vadineanu A, Castro A, Czúcz B, Röckmann C, Wurbs D, Odee D, Preda E, Gómez-Baggethun E, Rusch G, Pastur GM, Palomo I, Dick J, Casaer J, van Dijk J, Priess J, Langemeyer J, Mustajoki J, Kopperoinen L, Baptist M, Peri PL, Mukhopadhyay R, Aszalós R, Roy SB, Luque S, Rusch V (2018) When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosystem Services 29: 566‑578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011
  • Turner N, Łuczaj ŁJ, Migliorini P, Pieroni A, Dreon AL, Sacchetti LE, Paoletti M (2011) Edible and Tended Wild Plants, Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Agroecology. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30 (1-2): 198‑225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2011.554492
  • UN (United Nations) (2015) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. URL: https://sdgs.un.org/publications/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustainable-development-17981
  • Vallecillo Rodriguez S, La Notte A, Polce C, Zulian G, Alexandris N, Ferrini S, Maes J (2018) Ecosystem services accounting: Part I - Outdoor recreation and crop pollination. JRC Publications Repository URL: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC110321
  • Vári Á, Kozma Z, Pataki B, Jolánkai Z, Kardos M, Decsi B, Pinke Z, Jolánkai G, Pásztor L, Condé S, Sonderegger G, Czúcz B (2022a) Disentangling the ecosystem service 'flood regulation': Mechanisms and relevant ecosystem condition characteristics. Ambio 51: 1855‑1870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01708-0
  • Vári Á, Tanács E, Tormáné Kovács E, Kalóczkai Á, Arany I, Czúcz B, Bereczki K, Belényesi M, Csákvári E, Kiss M, Fabók V, Kisné Fodor L, Koncz P, Lehoczki R, Pásztor L, Pataki R, Rezneki R, Szerényi Z, Török K, Zölei A, Zsembery Z, Kovács-Hostyánszki A (2022b) National Ecosystem Services Assessment in Hungary: Framework, Process and Conceptual Questions. Sustainability 14 (19). https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912847
  • Venohr M, Langhans S, Peters O, Hölker F, Arlinghaus R, Mitchell L, Wolter C (2018) The underestimated dynamics and impacts of water-based recreational activities on freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Reviews 26 (2): 199‑213. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2017-0024
  • Vermaat J, Immerzeel B, Pouta E, Juutinen A (2020) Applying ecosystem services as a framework to analyze the effects of alternative bio-economy scenarios in Nordic catchments. Ambio 49 (11): 1784‑1796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01348-2
  • Vilbaste S, Järvalt A, Kalpus K, Nõges T, Pall P, Piirsoo K, Tuvikene L, Nõges P (2016) Ecosystem services of Lake Võrtsjärv under multiple stress: a case study. Hydrobiologia 780 (1): 145‑159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2871-y
  • Xia Z, Yuan C, Gao Y, Shen Z, Liu K, Huang Y, Wei X, Liu L (2023) Integrating perceptions of ecosystem services in adaptive management of country parks: A case study in peri-urban Shanghai, China. Ecosystem Services 60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101522
  • Zlinszky A, Timár G (2013) Historic maps as a data source for socio-hydrology: a case study of the Lake Balaton wetland system, Hungary. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17 (11): 4589‑4606. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4589-2013
  • Zlinszky A, Prager K, Koma Z (2017) A multi-sensor method for in-situ quantification of multiple biodiversity and ecosystem service indicators in wetland vegetation. 19. Geophysical Research Abstracts.