181Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195.DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.71.2.6 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 2022 (2) 181–195. Introduction Global biodiversity loss remains one of the leading environmental challenges, not only for the environment but also for human so- cieties worldwide (World Economic Forum 2022). The conservation of nature often re- quires the protection of vast areas of land. These protected areas (PAs) have been made part of numerous international and EU poli- cies, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), as well as EU Birds and Habitats Directives (Natura 2000 Directives), among others. It is undisputed that nature provides a wide array of ecosystem services indispensable to humanity’s survival. Yet, na- ture conservation is often seen as a hindrance to economic development (Houdet, J. et al. 1 Slovenia Forest Service, Central Office, Večna pot 2, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Corresponding author’s e-mail: tina.simoncic@zgs.si 2 University of St Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development, Irvine Building, North Street, St. Andrews, KY16 9AL United Kingdom. 3 Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Ecology and Botany, Karolina út 29. H-1113 Budapest, Hungary. 4 Institute of Geography, Geoeconomy and Sustainable Development, Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8. H-1093 Budapest, Hungary. 5 RNP Romsilva – Apuseni Nature Park Administration R.A., Loc. Sudrigiu, nr 136. Comuna Rieni, Jud. Bihor, 417419 Romania. 6 Global Nature Fund Fritz-Reichle-Ring 4. 78315 Radolfzell am Bodensee, Germany. A new ecosystem services approach to enable identification of pro-biodiversity businesses of protected karst areas in Central and South-Eastern Europe Sašo GORJANC1,2, Tina SIMONČIČ1, Aleš POLJANEC1, Béla KUSLITS3,4, Ildikó ARANY3, Eszter TANÁCS3, Ágnes VÁRI3, Réka ASZALÓS3, Anghel DRASOVEAN5, Alin MOS5, Laura MAESO VELASCO6, Andrea REUTER6 and Udo GATTENLOHNER6 Abstract Protected areas are a leading conservation tool for preserving biodiversity. However, the restrictions on human uses often engender resistance of local communities to the idea of living in protected environment. This paper describes the preparation of Biodiversity Investment Opportunities (BIO) maps for seven case areas in Central and South-Eastern Europe, using participatory methods. BIO maps have been further developed with the in- volvement of local stakeholders to define areas that can support economic activities while achieving a no net loss or even benefits for nature. The BIO maps can then be used to foster the development of Pro-Biodiversity Businesses (PBBs). PBBs are enterprises that generate financial returns without compromising the natural envi- ronments they depend on. PBBs were found to be a viable solution, effective in changing the perceptions of both the park managers and the local people towards the protected areas. Moreover, these enterprises can improve the local livelihoods, as well as actively protect nature and biodiversity. Therefore, the approach presented in this paper can be adopted as a model for managing any protected area and conserving cultural landscapes. Keywords: biodiversity, conservation, pro-biodiversity business, ecosystem services, protected areas, cultural landscapes, local populations Received January 2022, accepted May 2022. mailto:tina.simoncic@zgs.si Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195.182 2012). Particularly, PAs are often perceived as severely limiting human economic growth and wellbeing, thus creating a potent sectoral conflict (Mariki, S.B. et al. 2015). Addition- ally, the history of PAs is often associated with mistreatment of local inhabitants (Han, F. 2008; Duffy, R. 2014), lacking stakeholder involvement, and consequently mistrust of local inhabitants towards nature conserva- tion, thus introducing further challenges for PA managers. Different approaches exist to conserve bio- diversity: setting aside PAs (i.e. land spar- ing) or integrating nature conservation and economic development (i.e. land sharing, Fischer, J. et al. 2013). While land sparing (large PAs, entirely devoid of human activi- ties) is often seen as being more effective in terms of biodiversity benefits (Phalan, B. et al. 2011; Nagel, T.A. et al. 2017), such an approach also leads to substantial social and economic drawbacks and has been linked to humanitarian disasters (Duffy, R. 2014). Additionally, some of the most recent lit- erature points towards utilising a matrix of land sparing and sharing approaches to produce the greatest benefits (Grass, I. et al. 2019; Batáry, P. et al. 2020). Moreover, in European contexts, land sparing is even more challenging to implement due to thou- sands of years of human alterations of the natural environments and high population density (Fischer, J. et al. 2013). The European Environment Agency (EEA) reports that Europe is one of the places where such cul- tural landscapes are widely protected, both through the EU Natura 2000 network and national designations (EEA 2019, 2020). It is therefore imperative to find solutions that reconcile local economic development, needs of local inhabitants, and nature conservation. Recently, farmland and especially tradi- tional land-use practices are increasingly disappearing in Europe. A gradient within Europe can be observed; towards the East and South-East of the continent, remnants of the traditional land management persist, while in the Western parts they have almost completely disappeared (Filho, W.L. et al. 2016; Van der Zanden, E.H. et al. 2017). This gradient has considerable environmen- tal, socio-economic, and landscape impli- cations (Lasanta, T. et al. 2017). Significant biodiversity loss and reduced populations of adapted species have also been observed in abandoned agricultural areas, as well as in areas experiencing agricultural intensifica- tion (Guerrero, I. et al. 2012). It is therefore urgent to find ways to protect biodiversity and revive traditional agricultural land- scapes (Munroe, D.K. et al. 2013). European environmental policies and regu- lations often clash with both local communities and other sectoral policies, due to the complex and sometimes contradictory nature of the legislation used to manage and protect the en- vironment (EEA 2019). Despite the concerted efforts of European states, the biodiversity targets on land and sea were not met by 2020 (European Commission 2020). Additionally, the new EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 sets the EU Member States on the road to still increase the PAs until they cover 30 percent of the EU (European Commission 2020). This will likely introduce further tensions in the social and economic realms. Some areas in Europe, particularly in South- Eastern Europe, which are recovering from recent civil unrest and war, are classified by the World Bank as developing countries (The World Bank 2020). Economic development is particularly important in those countries since most of the population cannot afford comfort- able living (Golusin, M. et al. 2011). This is also one of the reasons the care for the surrounding environment cannot yet be prioritised, there- fore the natural environment is often overex- ploited. Incidentally, it is also in this part of Europe where karst phenomena are wide- spread, which due to their surface and under- ground phenomena produce unique, rich, and often very fragile biodiversity, which needs to be protected (Golusin, M. et al. 2011; Tanács, E. 2016). Therefore, the development of local economies that take advantage of the natural features and preserve them and improve their status at the same time is even more impor- tant in these regions (Leone, F. and Zoppi, C. 183Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195. 2019). These challenges introduce a number of problems for PA managers (Defries, R. and Nagendra, H. 2017). If PAs are seen as social- ecological systems, integrating both ecosystem resilience and the social systems which have evolved in the same areas (Cumming, G. and Allen, R. 2017) and they are to be managed effectively, it is vital to overcome the conflicts between nature conservation and development. The increasing complexity of the PA manage- ment situations has often led to widening the gap between the managers, experts, public au- thorities, and the local populations (Andrade, G.S.M. and Rhodes, J.R. 2012). The ecosystem services (ES) concept has been developed as an approach to reconcile human aspects with nature conservation (MEA 2005). The ES concept aims to represent the multi-faceted interdependence of ecologi- cal and socio-economic systems in a simpli- fied way (Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. 2010). As such ES have often been used to quantify the benefits that ecosystems pro- vide in monetary terms in order to gener- ate a wider and economic rationale for their protection (Houdet, T. et al. 2012). However, the financial evaluations of nature have not been perfected yet and the ways of how to integrate economic valuation into nature conservation remain problematic and often serve as a basis for distrust towards the whole ES approach (Ellis, E.C. et al. 2019, Vári, Á. et al. 2022). Additionally, the ES approach is usually used by managers, public authorities in decision-making and for communication of conservation or sustainable development rationales; however, it has been rarely em- ployed in order to foster better cooperation between the PAs and their local stakeholders. In this paper, we present a new way to rec- oncile seemingly contradictory targets of de- velopment by using the ES mapping concept as a basis for the creation of pro-biodiversity businesses (PBBs) in PAs. The approach was developed within ECO KARST Interreg pro- ject (2017–2019) that aimed to contribute to the protection and sustainable development of karst bio-regions in the Danube region based on their valued ecosystem services. A PBB is an enterprise that generates financial returns and at the same time makes a positive contribution to preserving biodiversity, such as for example eco-tourism (Houdet, T. et al. 2012). While the concept of a PBB is not new (Keesstra, S. et al. 2018), PBBs have mainly been utilised within the context of solely green entrepreneurship. This paper presents a way to develop PBBs based on ES that PAs provide in a particular area. This is a novel approach, which sidesteps the often critiqued monetary evaluations of ES, and uses the en- tire ES approach to build connections with PAs’ local communities and directly identifies possibilities for biodiversity-friendly business and development opportunities. Thus, PBBs contribute to both the preservation of biodi- versity and improvement of living standards of local people and are fully in line with regu- lations of the PAs (Lindsey, P.A. et al. 2005). Moreover, since the proposed approach closely follows the principles of adaptive and participatory management, local stakehold- ers, PA managers, and experts are all equally involved in the process of identifying both the ES and PBBs. Although even PBBs can have unknown effects on the environment or can become damaging if not appropriate- ly controlled (e.g. Lescuyer, G. et al. 2016), we argue that PBBs that are based on the ES maps generate good opportunities to pro- vide benefits for people and protect nature. We demonstrate on the example of Central and South-Eastern European Karst PAs (1) how ES maps can be used in a participatory approach to create Biodiversity Investment Opportunity (BIO) maps; (2) how to use ES and BIO maps to identify opportunities for the development of PBBs; (3) which ES are most commonly used by the local communi- ties for the creation of PBBs. Study area The study area included seven karst PAs in the Danube region in seven countries (Figure 1). Karst means the terrain with dis- tinctive landforms and underground drain- https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/landform Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195.184 age systems that form as a consequence of the solubility of certain rock types, particu- larly limestone, in water (Simms, M.J. 2005). The selected PAs, despite having different so- cio-economic backgrounds, were chosen due to their karstic nature, similar nature con- servation challenges, and the prevalence of traditional land uses. The selection ensured that a wide variety of societal concerns and different protection regimes could be con- sidered. The PAs were also selected for their diversity of designations, protected habitats, and different management regimes. The se- lected countries, despite some weaker social indicators, score quite highly in the 2019 United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Index Rank- ings, ranging from 20th place (Austria, 0.914) to 75th place (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 0.769) out of 189 countries assessed (UNDP, 2019). All selected PAs have designated manage- ments, however the level of detail in their management plans, as well as the capacity of individual PA managers varied. All the pilot PAs are characterised by karst features. One of the areas (Kalkalpen National Park) lies in the Alps, four in the Dinarides (Notranjska Regional Park, Žumberak-Samoborsko gorje Nature Park, Bijambare Protected Landscape, and Tara National Park), and two in the Carpathian Mountain Range (Bükk National Park and Apuseni Nature Park). All of the pilot PAs are also part of Natura 2000 or the Natura 2000 equivalent Emerald networks, attest- ing to their high and varied biodiversity and European importance, as defined by Habitats and Birds Directives and the Bern Convention. Materials and methods In each pilot area, ES were identified, mapped, and used to produce local action plans that incorporated both nature protec- tion and its use, as well as ideas for PBBs. The entire process was done in constant collabo- ration between ES experts, sectorial experts (e.g. foresters, nature conservationists, water management experts), park managers, and local stakeholders. Ecosystem services mapping ES mapping was carried out in line with the European Commission’s methodologi- Fig. 1. Map of pilot PAs. 1 = Notranjska Regional Park (Slovenia); 2 = Žumberak-Samoborsko gorje Nature Park (Croatia); 3 = Kalkalpen National Park (Austria); 4 = Bükk National Park (Hungary); 5 = Apuseni Nature Park (Romania); 6 = Bijambare Protected Landscape (Bosnia and Herzegovina); 7 = Tara National Park (Serbia) 185Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195. cal guidance on how to map and assess ES, as required by Action 5 of the EU Biodiver- sity Strategy to 2020. These guidelines were elaborated in comprehensive European co- operation projects such as the ESMERALDA project (Burkhard, B. et al. 2018). For each pilot PA, precise boundaries were delineat- ed to define the area to be considered when mapping ES (see below). In cases of strictly protected PAs, the mapped areas were ex- tended to the surrounding buffer zones with local villages to represent more of the rele- vant social-ecological system. The bounda- ries of buffer zones were set in collaboration between the PA managers and local stake- holders. They were based on the criteria of either people living there who can influence the conditions within the specific pilot area, or people using the proximity of a PA as a marketing strategy for their businesses. After the delineation of the pilot areas, the ES mapping started with the identification of ecosystem types and creation of ecosys- tem type maps. These maps provide the spatial units and basic input necessary for the ES assessment and mapping. We used the EUNIS (European Nature Information System) habitat classification (Davies, C.E. et al. 2004) as standard, mainly relying on lev- el 3. The EUNIS-based ecosystem type map was produced by compiling and transform- ing already existing datasets (e.g. vegetation/ habitat maps). Some of these original maps used local classification systems, others the CORINE (Coordination of Information on the Environment) Biotope and Palaearctic habitat classifications, or Annex I of the Habitats Directive. These were converted into EUNIS categories and maps with the use of crosswalks. In some cases, the underlying data only allowed the use of EUNIS level 2 categories. In others, a few customised cat- egories had to be included to adapt to the regional and geological (karst) specificities of the selected pilot areas. The ES mapping started by overviewing the scientific literature to identify karst- specific and potentially important ES. At the same time, a series of semi-structured interviews were held with experts from each pilot area. The Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES v5.1, www.cices.eu, Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. 2013) was used as a foundation for the identification of ES categories and for establishing the conceptual basis of the work with ES. Based on this, an adjusted list of ES was provided (Supplement), which were sub- sequently mapped in each pilot PA. For the actual mapping of ES, we mainly used rule-based extended matrix models (Tier 2 models, see also Arany, I. et al. 2019). The mapping process followed four general steps (Figure 2): 1. Customising the ecosystem typology and creating an appropriate ecosystem type map; 2. Creating a simple matrix model by as- signing base scores (relative values) to the ecosystem types based on expert decision (with the participation of locals and other experts, through stakeholder workshops, see the next chapter on stakeholder involvement); Fig. 2. Workflow of modelling and mapping of ecosystem services https://ojs.mtak.hu/index.php/hungeobull/article/view/8086/7201 Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195.186 3. Extending the model: identifying ad- ditional spatial variables relevant for the ES and integrating these into the ES model in the form of rules that modify the base scores; 4. Validating the draft maps at the next stakeholder workshop. Besides the ecosystem type and the maps of ESs, the assessment process included the mapping of ecosystem condition. Data avail- ability was a crucial point throughout the pro- cess, as the existing databases and data qual- ity varied widely between participating areas. Stakeholder identification and involvement A series of three workshops for the elaboration of ES and BIO maps were carried out in each pilot area. Each workshop aimed to involve the highest possible diversity of stakeholders, which were identified using various databases, partnerships and NGO networks, supplement- ed with a survey among local stakeholders. Involved land users were categorised accord- ing to their influence and dependence on ES (Felipe-Lucia, M.R. et al. 2015). This approach enabled park managers to take into account not just various strategies of land use, but also power relations, which play a crucial role in decision-making on every level. Three posi- tions needed special attention in the participa- tory process (see also Kuslits, B. et al. 2021): (1) Administration: usually high power and low dependence on ES. These actors usually make decisions in themselves, while their con- nection with the landscape is rather abstract. (2) Major land users: forestry, water manage- ment authorities etc. These stakeholders usu- ally control significant ESs, which highly influ- ence the whole landscape. Given their high leverage in decision-making and direct impact both on the regulatory and the ecological level, these players sometimes tend to ignore other smaller players. (3) Small-scale farmers: this was a diverse group with high dependence on ES while having virtually no formal decision- making power. They had the highest stakes in the participatory process but limited chances to enforce their will. During Stakeholder Net- work Analysis), four main steps of data collec- tion and analysis were followed: A. Identifying stakeholder groups during a participatory workshop. Following the frame- work of Felipe-Lucia, M.R. et al. (2015), stake- holders were categorised into groups based on their decision-making power and dependence on ESs (Figure 3). B. Designing a questionnaire survey to re- veal relationships within and among stake- holder groups. As recommended by Prell, C. et al. (2011), we used predefined groups in the questionnaire and set a limit in the number of possible answers in each section. Example: ”Who do you communicate with regularly from restaurant owners in the study. D. Data collection was done partly in person with paper-based surveys and partly online. Paper-based surveys provide higher quality responses, especially in communities where the basic idea of SNA may be strange or suspi- cious for respondents. Online surveys, on the other hand, make data analysis much easier, while also hiding misunderstandings, as ques- tions and options may be more easily misun- derstood. Analysis. SNA has a broad literature focus- ing on cases and methodologies (e.g. Bodin, O. and Prell, C. 2011). In our case, analy- sis was done at an individual level: looking at positions, such as centrality measures. In a communication network, the in-degree of a node may indicate its power in the network or the trust in his views. Betweenness central- ity may highlight players with a high ability to connect distant others, bridging groups in case of conflicts etc. Besides analysing indi- vidual nodes in the network, the structure as a whole can be analysed as well. Subgroups, strength of connections between groups, and external factors influencing the likelihood of a connection (such as the role of geographical or ecological features) can be all indications of in- teresting features both for research and policy- making. The analysis was done by Gephi, an open-source software. The resulting networks were used in identi- fying and involving the right stakeholders at every workshop (see Figure 3). 187Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195. Each pilot PA carried out three workshops, thus totaling 21 workshops across the region. The first workshops focussed on validation of ES maps, the second ones on preparation and validation of BIO maps, and the last series of workshops focussed on PBB iden- tification and preparation of inputs for lo- cal action plans. The workshops altogether involved 277 people representing a variety of different interests (see Supplement), with numerous participants engaging repeatedly and attending numerous workshops (these have been counted only once). Creation of BIO maps Based on the finalised ES maps, an additional workshop with local stakeholders was organ- ised in each pilot area. The participants (PA managers, experts and local stakeholders) dis- cussed which ES were available to them, which ones they already utilise, and where they see the potential for future development. The BIO maps were then created as future development potential of the area, by using the ES maps and delineating areas where nature-friendly businesses – PBBs – could be implemented. These newly delineated areas were later dig- itised, and in this manner, the BIO maps were produced. The experts were present at these workshops and ensured that the future de- velopments proposed by the local stakehold- ers remained within the recognised carrying capacity of the area and that they would not endanger the long-term and sustainable pro- vision of ES. For delineating areas for PBBs, the zonation of PAs was taken into account, as well as special features/species needed to be protected, as well as vulnerability as assessed by the experts and some aspects of business suitability (e.g. closeness to settlements). Fig. 3. Example for identification of major stakeholder groups and the most important ESs they interact with https://ojs.mtak.hu/index.php/hungeobull/article/view/8086/7201 Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195.188 Creation of local action plans and identification of PBBs Taking into account the produced ES and BIO maps, inputs from stakeholders, and knowl- edge of experts, as well as pilot area managers, local action plans for every pilot area were pre- pared by PA managers and then finalised with their local stakeholders. These action plans in- cluded a list of measures and activities each PA and its stakeholders could implement, in addition to their existing management plans. A number of PBBs were identified by the PA managers and their stakeholders through the above-mentioned workshops, as well as through the process of additional gap analy- ses. These were included in the action plans. Results All seven PAs considered touristic attractive- ness and hay production as important ES (Figure 4). Timber production was also rec- ognised as essential in all but one PA, where all logging activities are prohibited. Given that all areas are situated on limestone and dolomite substrate, it is not surprising that most water-related ES were not recognised as important, apart from water quality regula- tion and pollutant removal (57%). Figure 5 demonstrates a set of BIO maps created for Apuseni Nature Park, Romania. The maps show the areas where the use of the identified ES would be both profitable and not harmful to nature. Special PAs or most sensitive areas were not considered for any kind of economic development. Among the PBBs (Figure 6), the develop- ment of eco-tourism products was identi- fied in all PAs as important, thus creating a bridge between park management and local stakeholders. While not a PBB on its own, it has been widely recognised that the brand- ing and marketing of any local product need to be improved (86%) in all but one park area. Since all of the PAs in this study are predominantly forested, it is not surprising that sustainable forestry practices (71%) and wood processing (43%) were often found to be viable economic options for PBB develop- ment. Similarly, most PAs (57%) identified honey production and the development of various agribusinesses as important sustain- able development options. Figure 7 shows the proportions of individ- ual local action plans devoted to particular topics. The largest parts of the action plans were devoted to measures encouraging tour- istic activities, which followed the sustain- able tourism guidelines (43.0%). Measures linked to sustainable forestry and agricul- Fig. 4. Number of pilot areas where a particular ES was selected from the suggested list and mapped 189Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195. Fig. 5. BIO maps from Apuseni Nature Park, Romania, showing the areas’ potential for pro- visioning timber (a), medicinal plants (b) and their touristic attractive- ness (c) together with the areas available for devel- oping business without harming conservation goals (featuring in the legend as business loca- tion). Intense colours: available/accessible areas of high potential; faded colours: areas with po- tential ES (according to colour scale in legends), but not PBB-compatible Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195.190 tural activities followed with 19.0 percent and 22.7 percent of action plans devoted to them, respectively. One PA focused most of their action plan on agricultural activities, in order to reverse depopulation trends, while the others focused more on nature conserva- tion aspects. To better illustrate the types of measures included in the local action plans, Table 1 presents examples of the measures for the three most commonly addressed themes. Discussion Ecosystem services for supporting development of PBBs We suggested and tested a method to com- bine ES maps with BIO maps and develop a set of PBBs together with local communities in karst PAs in Central and South-Eastern Europe. These maps and planned measures make the first step towards reconciling two aspects that often collide: regional (economic) development and nature conservation. In- volving stakeholders and putting together the plans on a basis that shows potential ES de- livery of the areas in a spatially explicit way enhances the understanding and commit- ment to keep economic development within a sustainable range (Wood, S.L.R. et al. 2018). Our results demonstrate that the manag- ers of the karst PAs and the local commu- nities value their natural environments for a diversity of ES they obtain from nature. It seems that they recognise that the intactness of these natural areas holds significant tour- istic attractiveness and potential for develop- Fig. 6. Most commonly identified PBBs in seven pilot PAs Fig. 7. Average proportion of measures including in the individual local action plans from all pilot PAs related to a particular topic 191Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195. ment. This is clearly reflected in the fact that the PA managers decided to map touristic attractiveness as part of ES, and that they dedicated the largest proportions of their lo- cal action plans to this topic. New eco-tour- ism products and different agri-businesses, linked with touristic offers, are amongst the most prospective PBBs to be developed in these areas. However, while the develop- ment of eco-tourism can provide significant economic returns, and if planned correctly, it can have a minimal footprint on nature, extreme caution still has to be exerted (Han, F.L. and Li, C.T. 2019). Overcrowding, even in well managed PAs, is particularly danger- ous (Stronza, A.L. et al. 2019). This is why local action plans following sustainable tour- ism guidelines and coordination of activities between park management and local stake- holders can more effectively address this issue, than if tourism management is left to develop sporadically and by individual stakeholders living within the parks. The hay and fodder production ES was also considered important in all PAs. Given that the meadows are of anthropogenic na- ture in most of Europe, conserving this ES will require continued human management in terms of mowing or pasturing. However, due to rural depopulation and abandonment trends in Europe (Lasanta, T. et al. 2017), the habitat mosaics typical for traditional exten- sive land use are gradually disappearing, with their outstanding, valuable biodiver- sity (Babai, D. and Molnár, Z. 2014). The conservation of open meadows in the Alps (Lasen, C. et al. 2018), as well as dry karst meadows, has gained prominence in recent years and encouraging hay production in these areas has the potential to both conserve biodiversity and generate some economic benefits (Lasanta, T. et al. 2015; Akeroyd, J. and Page, N. 2020). However, these bene- fits were not widely recognised by the local stakeholders, as extensive agricultural land uses did not feature so prominently within the suggested PBBs. Carbon sequestration was also not rec- ognised as highly important. Given that a Ta bl e 1 . E xa m pl es o f p la nn ed m ea su re s f ro m ea ch o f t he p ilo t p ro te ct ed a re as fo r t he th re e m os t c om m on th em es co ve re d by th e l oc al a ct io n pl an s N am e of p ro te ct ed a re a To ur is m Su st ai na bl e fo re st ry A gr ic ul tu re N ot ra nj sk a Re gi on al P ar k (S lo ve ni a) Es ta bl is hm en t o f a n ew n at ur e- fr ie nd ly gl am pi ng s ite D es ig na tio n of fo re st re se rv es (o n st at e- ow ne d la nd p lo ts ) Es ta bl is hm en t o f a n et w or k of lo ca l p ro - du ce rs o f ( se as on al ) f oo d an d pr od uc ts w ith r es ta ur an ts a nd to ur is m s ec to r Ž u m be ra k- Sa m ob or sk o go rj e N at ur e Pa rk (C ro at ia ) Es ta bl is hm en t o f a n ec o- ca m pi ng s ite N /A (N ot c on si de re d a re le va nt a ct iv - ity ) Pr od uc tio n of c os m et ic a nd m ed ic in al pr od uc ts K al ka lp en N at io na l P ar k (A us tr ia ) C re at e ne w si gn po st co nc ep t a nd in fr a- st ru ct ur e to im pr ov e vi si to rs e xp er ie nc e N /A ( A ny f or es tr y in te rv en tio ns a re pr oh ib ite d w ith in th e pa rk ) Es ta bl is h a w oo de d pa st ur e w ith la rc h Bü kk N at io na l P ar k (H un ga ry ) Es ta bl is h th e Bü kk R eg io n G eo pa rk (n om in at io n an d ra ti fi ca ti on o f th e ge op ar k st at us b y U N ES C O ) In iti at e th e ad ju st m en t o f l og gi ng in th e pr ot ec te d ar ea fo re st s (b y in tr od uc in g co nt in uo us c ov er fo re st ry ) M on ito r t he in te re st o f t he lo ca ls fo r t he PB B de ve lo pm en t (e .g . m ow in g, h er b co lle ct io n or li nk to to ur is m ) A pu se ni N at ur e Pa rk (R om an ia ) C re at e th re e bi cy cl e tr ai ls ( on e pe r co un ty ) Su pp or t fo re st er s to o bt ai n FS C c er - tifi ca te Es ta bl is h lo ca l co lle ct io n ce nt re s fo r m ilk a nd m ea t Bi ja m ba re P ro te ct ed L an ds ca pe (B os ni a an d H er ze go vi na ) C re at io n of a n ed uc at io na l-r ec re at io na l ec o- ca m p Es ta bl is hm en t of a n as so ci at io n fo r be tte r re pr es en ta tio n on th e m ar ke t Es ta bl is hm en t of a l oc al ’ ‘p ro du ce rs ’ cl us te r or a c oo pe ra tiv e Ta ra N at io na l P ar k (S er bi a) Es ta bl is h de st in at io n m an ag em en t f or th e w id er a re a of th e N P Ta ra Eff ec tiv e m an ag em en t w ith fo re st s a nd pr im ar y an d fin al p ro du ct io n of ti m be r In cr ea si ng th e fu nd s fo r su pp or tin g of ex te ns iv e pa st ur es Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195.192 number of pilot areas are in a developing part of Europe, the action on the climate crisis might not have been prioritised yet. Additionally, there could be a widespread perception that local action has little meaning when addressing global threats. Our results also show that apart from the most-developed (Austrian) PA, none of the others included any measures related to carbon sequestration in their action plans. Carbon sequestration is not one of the ES that can be exploited di- rectly by the local population, and therefore it was expected that PBBs linked to it would be few and the interest low. However, it is more troubling that the PA managers and other national or regional-level stakeholders (who were expected to have a more extensive overview) that took part in these activities did not discuss it in more depth. The vast forests that cover much of the Dinarides, the Carpathians and the Alps of- fer large quantities of timber, which can gen- erate significant profits. All but two PAs in this study recognised forestry to be one of the topics that they have to address with their ac- tion plans. In Croatia, Hungary, and Romania many forests are still managed in a conven- tional rotation system, often even in the pro- tected parts. As clear-cutting has a temporal but strong impact on the local provision of the other ESs and the ecological condition of the forests, this is a major source of conflict between sectors (e.g. between forestry and nature conservation). Close to nature forest management seems to be the most appropri- ate way to support biodiversity conservation goals and the multi-purpose use of forests in karst PAs. Close to nature forest management emphasises minimal altering of natural pro- cesses, while the financial profitability and ecological suitability of forest management are maintained or even increased through other ES (Diaci, J. 2006; Bončina, A. 2011). That enables the preservation of the forest as a natural ecosystem with all its diverse life forms and the relations between them. This is particularly true for karstic PAs where for- ests have important protective functions (see e.g. Tanács, E. 2016) and provide a number of other ES and marketable products beyond timber and firewood. More focus should also be directed to the use of non-timber forest products, forest fruits, and mushrooms, as well as medicinal plants. The results suggest that while the po- tential is somewhat recognised in some PAs, there is more that could be done, particular- ly at a time when consumers are demanding more organic, wild, local, and seasonal prod- ucts (Vári, Á. et al. 2017, 2020; Keesstra, S. et al. 2018). For example, the production of more organic forest honey, the sustainable use of wild vegetables and wild fruits such as berries, chesnuts, mushrooms would all contribute to the better coexistence of nature and people, while minimising the anthropo- genic disturbance of natural processes in the forests (Simončič, T. and Matijašič, D. 2013; Shackleton, C.M. et al. 2015; Affandi, O. et al. 2017). The boutique production of wood- en products especially from more exclusive/ minority tree species could be also an im- portant PBB. On the other hand, if PAs wish to conserve and strictly protect larger parts of their areas, a firm strategy of concentrat- ing gathering activities, similar to the visitor management for eco-touristic use is needed. Conclusions Due to the increasing pressure to preserved natural environment, tools that would allow both nature and people to thrive together are urgently needed. While the approach in this paper was applied in karst PAs in Central and South-Eastern Europe, the ES mapping and subsequent PBB identification can be used more widely in any protected area that provides diverse ES. The presented approach has been shown to be useful in a variety of different PAs with different stake- holder profiles. Through the proposed pro- cedure, it is possible, in a participatory and open manner, to protect nature, generate eco- nomic returns (through PBBs), and support effective participation of local communities in the conservation efforts, increasing their 193Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195. effectiveness. Therefore, this method could be widely used in developing countries, as well as developed countries to improve the status of biodiversity and foster local, sus- tainable, and nature-friendly development endorsed by local people. Acknowledgement: This study was completed in the frame of the project ECO KARST – Ecosystem services of karst protected areas – driving force of local sustainable development, funded by Interreg Danube Transnational Programme. REFERENCES Affandi, O., Zaitunah, A. and Batubara, R. 2017. Potential economic and development prospects of non timber forest products in community agrofor- estry land around Sibolangit Tourism Park. Forest and Society 1. 68–77. Akeroyd, J. and Page, N. 2020. Beef cattle as grass- land management tool and economic resource in Transylvania, Romania. Oryx 54. (1): 9–10. Andrade, G.S.M. and Rhodes, J.R. 2012. Protected areas and local communities: an inevitable partner- ship towards successful conservation strategies? Ecology and Society 17. (4): 14. Arany, I., Vári, Á., Kalóczkai, Á., Aszalós, R., Blik, P. et al. 2019. Diversity of flower rich habitats can provide persistent source of healthy diet for honey bees. European Journal of Geography 10. (2): 89–106. Babai, D. and Molnár, Z. 2014. Small-scale traditional management of highly species-rich grasslands in the Carpathians. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 182. 123–130. Batáry, P., Báldi, A., Ekroos, J., Gallé, R., Grass, I. and Tscharntke, T. 2020. Biologia futura: landscape perspectives on farmland biodiversity conserva- tion. Biologia Futura 71. 9–18. Bodin, O. and Prell, C. 2011. Social Networks and Natural Resource Management. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bončina, A. 2011. History, current status and future prospects of uneven-aged forest management in the Dinaric region: an overview. Forestry 84. (5): 467–478. Burkhard, B., Maes, J., Potschin-Young, M., Santos- Martín, F., Geneletti, D. et al. 2018. Mapping and assessing ecosystem services in the EU. Lessons learned from the ESMERALDA approach of integration. One Ecosystem 3. Doi:10.3897/ oneeco.3.e29153 Cumming, G. and Allen, R. 2017. Protected areas as social-ecological systems: perspectives from resilience and social-ecological systems theory. Ecological Applications 27. (6): 1709–1717. Davies, C.E., Moss, D. and Hill, M.O. 2004. EUNIS Habitat Classification Revised 2004. Report to: European Environment Agency-European Topic Centre on Nature Protection and Biodiversity. Available at https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and- maps/data/eunis-habitat-classification-1/documen- tation/eunis-2004-report.pdf Defries, R. and Nagendra, H. 2017. Ecosystem man- agement as a wicked problem. Science 356. 265–270. Diaci, J. 2006. Nature-based Forestry in Central Europe: Alternatives to Industrial Forestry and Strict Preservation. Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana. Duffy, R. 2014. Waging a war to save biodiversity: the rise of militarized conservation. International Affairs 90. (4): 819–834. Ellis, E.C., Pascual, U. and Mertz, O. 2019. Ecosystem services and nature’s contribution to people: negotiating diverse values and trade-offs in land systems. Current Opinions in Environmental Sustainability 38. 86–94. EEA 2019. The European Environment: State and Outlook 2020: Knowledge for Transition to a Sustainable Europe. European Environmental Agency. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. EEA 2020. State of Nature in the EU: Results from Reporting Under the Nature Directives 2013–2018. European Environmental Agency. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back into our lives. European Commission. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/en- vironment/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Martín-López, B., Lavorel, S., Berraquero-Díaz, L., Escalera-Reyes, J. and Comín, F.A. 2015. Ecosystem services flows: Why ‘stakeholders’ power relationships matter. PLoS One 10. 1–21. Filho, W.L., Mandel, M., Al-Amin, A.Q., Feher, A. and Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J. 2016. Review: An assessment of the causes and c onsequences of agricultural land abandonment in Europe. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 24. (6): 554–560. Fischer, J., Abson, D.J., Butsic, V., Chappell, M.J., Ekross, J. et al. 2013. Land sparing versus land sharing: moving forward. Conservation Letters 7. (3): 149–157. Golusin, M., Munitlak Ivanovic, O. and Teodorovic, N. 2011. The review of the achieved degree of sustainable development in South Eastern Europe – The use of linear regression method. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15. (1): 766–772. http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e29153 http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e29153 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/eunis-habitat-classification-1/documentation/eunis-2004-report.pdf https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/eunis-habitat-classification-1/documentation/eunis-2004-report.pdf https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/eunis-habitat-classification-1/documentation/eunis-2004-report.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195.194 Grass, I., Loos, J., Baensch, S., Batáry, P., Librán- Embid, F. et al. 2019. Land-sharing/-sparing con- nectivity landscapes for ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. People and Nature 1. (2): 262–272. Guerrero, I., Morales, M.B., Oñate, J.J., Geiger, F., Berendse, F. et al. 2012. Response of ground-nesting farmland birds to agricultural intensification across Europe: Landscape and field level management factors. Biological Conservation 152. 74–80. Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In Ecosystem Ecology. Eds.: Raffaelli, D.G. and Frid, C.L.J., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 110–139. Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), Version 4.3. Report to the European Environment Agency EEA/BSS/07/007. Retrieved from: www.cices.eu. Han, F. 2008. Cross-cultural confusion: Application of World Heritage concepts in scenic and historic in- terest areas of China. In The Great Wilderness Debate Rages On: Continuing the Great New Wilderness Debate. Eds.: Nelson, M.P. and Callicott, J.B., Athens–London, The University of Georgia Press, 252–263. Han, F.L. and Li, C.T. 2019. Environmental impact of tourism activities on ecological nature reserves. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 17. (4): 9483–9492. Houdet, J., Trommetter, M. and Weber, J. 2012. Understanding changes in business strategies regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 73. 37–46. Keesstra, S., Nunes, J., Novara, A., Finger, D., Avelar, D., Kalantari, Z. and Cerdà, A. 2018. The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Science of the Total Environment 610. 997–1009. Kuslits, B., Vári, Á., Tanács, E., Aszalós, R., Drasovean, A. et al. 2021. Ecosystem services be- coming political: How ecological processes shape local resource-management networks. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9. Available at https://doi. org/10.3389/fevo.2021.635988 Lasanta, T., Nadal-Romero, E. and Arnáez, J. 2015. Managing abandoned farmland to control the impact of re-vegetation on the environment. The state of the art in Europe. Environmental Science & Policy 52. 99–109. Lasanta, T., Arnáez, J., Pascual, N., Ruiz-Flaño, P., Errea, M.P. and Lana-Renault, N. 2017. Space- time process and drivers of land abandonment in Europe. Catena 149. 810–823. Lasen, C., Tomaselli, M., Scariot, A., Garlato, A. and Carbognani, M. 2018. Floristic composition, site conditions and diversity of poet’s daffodil (Narcissus radiiflorus Salisb.) hay meadows in the Venetian Pre-Alps and outer Dolomites (N-Italy): Implications for conservation and restoration. Plant Biosystems – An Interational Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology 152. (6): 1236–1247. Leone, F. and Zoppi, C. 2019. Local development and protection onf nature in coastal zones: A planning study for the Sulcis area (Sardinia, Italy). Sustainability 11. (18): 5095. Lescuyer, G., Ngouhouo Poufoun, J., Defo, L., Bastin, D. and Scholte, P. 2016. Does trophy hunting remain a profitable business model for conserving biodiver- sity in Cameroon? International Forestry Review 18. (1): 108–118. Lindsey, P.A., Alexander, R.R., du Toit, J.T. and Mills, M.G.L. 2005. The potential contribution of ecotour- ism to African wild dog Lycaon pictus conservation in South Africa. Biological Conservation 123. (3): 339–348. Mariki, S.B., Svarstad, H. and Benjaminsen, T.A. 2015. Elephants over the cliff: explaining wildlife killings in Tanzania. Land Use Policy 44. 19–30. MEA 2005. Ecosystems & Human Well-Being: Synthesis (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). Washington DC, Island Press. Munroe, D.K., van Berkel, D.B., Verburg, P.H. and Olson, J.L. 2013. Alternative trajectories of land aban- donment: causes, consequences and research chal- lenges. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5. (5): 471–476. Nagel, T.A., Firm, D., Mihelic, T., Hladnik, D., de Groot, M. and Rozenbergar, D. 2017. Evaluating the influence of integrative forest management on old-growth habitat structures in a temperate forest region. Biological Conservation 216. 101–107. Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A. and Green, R.E. 2011. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing com- pared. Science 333. 1289–1291. Prell, C., Reed, M.S. and Hubacek, K. 2011. Social network analysis for stakeholder selection and the links to social learning and adaptive co-management. In Social Networks and Natural Resource Management. Eds.: Bodin, Ö. and Prell, C., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 95–118. Shackleton, C.M., Pandey, A.K. and Ticktin, T. (eds.) 2015. Ecological Sustainability for Non-Timber Forest Products: Dynamics and Case Studies of Harvesting. London, Routledge. Simms, M.J. 2005. Sedimentary processes, karst and pa- laeokarst. In Encyclopedia of Geology. Eds.: Selley, R.C., Cocks, L.R.M. and Plimer, I.R., Oxford UK, Elsevier Academic Press, 678–687. Simončič, T. and Matijašič, D. (eds.) 2013. Green Book on Payment for Environmental Services from Mediterranean Forests. Ljubljana, Slovenia Forest Service. Stronza, A.L., Hunt, C.A. and Fitzgerald, L.A. 2019. Ecotourism for conservation? Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44. 229–253. http://www.cices.eu/ https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.635988 https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.635988 195Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195. Tanács, E. 2016. Modern resource use and its impact in karst areas–agriculture, forestry and grazing. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supplementary Issues 60. (2): 175–198. The World Bank 2020. World Bank County and Lending Groups. Available at he https://da- tahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/ articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending- groups UNDP 2019. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2019. Beyond Income, beyond Averages, beyond Today: Inequalities in Human Development in the 21st Century. New York, United Nations Development Programme. Van der Zanden, E.H., Verburg, P.H., Schulp, C.J.E. and Verkerk, P.J. 2017. Trade-offs of European agricultural abandonment. Land Use Policy 62. 290–301. Vári, Á., Arany, I., Aszalós, R., Bóné, G., Blik, P. et al. 2017. Mapping and modelling ecosystem ser- vices in the Niraj- Târnava Mică region. In Mapping and assessing ecosystem services in Natura 2000 sites of the Niraj-Târnava Mică region. Eds.: Vári, Á., Czúcz, B. and Kelemen, K., Tirgu Mures, Romania, Milvus Group; MTA Ökológiai Kutatóközpont; CEEweb, 85–126. Vári, Á., Arany, I., Kalóczkai, Á., Kelemen, K., Papp, J. and Czúcz, B. 2020. Berries, greens, and medicinal herbs – mapping and assessing wild plants as an ecosystem service in Transylvania (Romania). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 16. (1): 13. Vári, Á., Podschun, S.A., Erős, T., Hein, T., Pataki, B. et al. 2022. Freshwater systems and ecosystem ser- vices: Challenges and chances for cross-fertilization of disciplines. Ambio 51. (1): 135–151. Wood, S.L.R., Jones, S.K., Johnson, J.A., Brauman, K.A., Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. 2018. Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the sustainable de- velopment goals. Ecosystem Services 29. (A): 70–82. World Economic Forum 2022. The Global Risks Report 2022. 17th Edition. World Economic Forum. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups Gorjanc, S. et al. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 71 (2022) (2) 181–195.196