Spatial analysis Sample Clauses

Spatial analysis. The distribution of the ecosystem service value of recreational hunting was approached similarly to the provisioning of game/hunting. We used top-down approach for calculating the ecosystem service value for different ecosystem types as it was difficult to distinguish which ecosystem type provides the service as different game species roam in a wide area and often prefer mosaic landscape where different ecosystem types are present as a habitat. First we calculated the value of the hunting service for the whole country by hunting districts. Then by overlaying the ecosystem unit map and hunting district map (does not cover 100% of the area of Estonia, excluding settlements for example) we obtained the share (in area units) of each ecosystem type in the hunting district. Including all natural and vegetated ecosystems (excluding waterbodies, rocky slopes and artificial landscapes), we divided the service value per hunting district between ecosystem types according to the area of ecosystem type (service value per hunting district*area of the ecosystem type/area of all ecosystem types present in the hunting district). From the spatial analyses (overlaying) obtained dataset of ecosystem service values for ecosystem types it was possible to derive the values of the ecosystem service of recreational hunting for different grassland types which are shown in Table 35. The contribution of the grassland ecosystems to the hunting ecosystem service is 2.2 million €/year of which 1.1 million €/year is provided by semi-natural grasslands. Visualization of the service provisioning areas and values of hunting ecosystem service of Estonian grasslands can be seen in Figure 10. Boreal baltic coastal ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 110 982 Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”) 1 460 Dry sand heaths with Calluna and Empetrum nigrum 220 Inland dunes with open Corynephorus and Agrostis 122 European dry heaths 2 095 Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands 24 256 Xeric sand calcareous grasslands 166 Calaminarian grasslands of the Violetaliacalaminariae 2 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (* important orchid sites) 28 434 Fennoscandian lowland species-rich dry to mesic grasslands 24 326 Nordic alvar and precambrian calcareous flatrocks 97 956 Molinia ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) 15 350 Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montan...

Spatial analysis. It is problematic to distinguish which ecosystem type provides the service as different game species roam in a wide area and often prefer mosaic landscape where different ecosystem types are present. Therefore, in the current assessment the service value for different ecosystem types was calculated using top-down approach. First we calculated the value for the whole country by hunting districts. Then by merging the ecosystem unit map and hunting district map, we obtained the share (in area units) of each ecosystem type in the hunting district. Including all natural and vegetated ecosystems (excluding waterbodies, rocky slopes and artificial landscapes), we divided the service value per hunting district between ecosystem types according to the area of ecosystem type (service value per hunting district*area of the ecosystem type/area of all ecosystem types present in the hunting district). From the obtained dataset of ecosystem service values for ecosystem types it was possible to derive the values of the ecosystem service of providing game for grasslands which are shown in Table 19. The contribution of the grassland ecosystems to the ecosystem service is 1.2 million €/year of which 557 thousand €/year is provided by semi-natural grasslands.

Spatial analysis. The calculated monetary value of the ecosystem service of providing medicinal herbs was distributed among grassland types depending on the habitat requirements of the plant species. If several grassland types were suitable habitat for the species then the contribution of the ecosystem type was calculated by weighting the area of the grassland type to all contributing grasslands. The average unit value of providing medicinal herbs for grasslands was calculated to be 0.08 €/ha. The values of the ecosystem service of providing medicinal herbs by grassland ecosystem types is shown in Table 21. Boreal baltic coastal ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 0.140 16716 Fixed coastal dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”) 0.110 87 Inland dunes with open Corynephorus and Agrostis 0.167 18 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (* important orchid sites) 0.099 9010 Fennoscandian lowland species-rich dry to mesic grasslands 0.056 3085 Nordic alvar and precambrian calcareous flatrocks 0.085 11117 Molinia ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) 0.035 392 Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels 0.035 386 Northern boreal alluvial ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 0.035 2737 Lowland hay ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis) 0.198 3169 Fennoscandian wooded ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 0.099 6002 Fennoscandian wooded pastures 0.138 2053 Environmental sensitive permanent grassland 0.029 144 Environmental non-sensitive permanent grassland 0.029 66348 Other natural grassland 0.040 69769 Visualization of the service provisioning areas and values of provisioning medicinal herbs as ecosystem service of Estonian grasslands can be seen in Figure 6.

Spatial analysis. The monetary values of grassland carbon storage by different type of grasslands are given in Table 23. These values were obtained by first overlaying the map of grassland types with the map layer of soil types in Estonia. The carbon storage value of grassland type depends on whether it is on organic or mineral soil. The greatest value of carbon storage, over € 17 million, was found in cultivated grasslands which are on organic soils. For semi-natural grasslands, the most valuable is unclassified “grassland” class on organic soils (6 million €). For the semi-natural grasslands which are situated on Natura sites, the highest carbon storage value,