A carregar...
Publicação
Integração da abordagem dos serviços dos Ecossistemas no planeamento territorial. Caso de estudo no município de Monchique
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.63 MB | Adobe PDF |
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
Nas últimas décadas, tem-se assistido a uma crescente integração das preocupações ambientais nas políticas de desenvolvimento e planeamento territorial. Em particular, o conceito dos Serviços dos Ecossistemas (SE) é central em diversas diretivas e estratégias europeias e a nível nacional faz parte da estratégia do Programa Nacional da Política do Ordenamento do Território (PNPOT, 2019). O conceito de SE tem sido muito debatido na literatura científica e diversas definições têm sido propostas. A definição proposta pelo Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) refere que os SE “são os benefícios diretos ou indiretos que as pessoas obtêm dos ecossistemas” e tem sido amplamente utilizada a n’nível Europeu (políticas e legislação). As implicações práticas do conceito de SE prendem-se com a quantificação deste “benefícios diretos ou indiretos que as pessoas obtêm dos ecossistemas”. Um dos métodos de quantificação de SE mais frequentemente utilizados passa pelo seu mapeamento. O mapeamento dos SE ‘é um dos objetivos da União Europeia a todos os estadosmembros e paralelamente diversos modelos e softwares específicos têm sido aplicados e desenvolvidos para o efeito (modelos InVEST; Aires; MIMES). O principal objetivo deste estudo, foi desenvolver uma metodologia simples para a integração da abordagem dos SE no planeamento do território, nomeadamente ao nível do PDM. A metodologia proposta foi desenvolvida aplicada ao Concelho de Monchique e, para tal, a) identificou-se os principais ecossistemas da área de estudo com base na Carta de Ocupação e Uso do Solo (COSv.2. 2018); b) selecionaram-se quatro SE para mapear, nomeadamente, armazenamento de carbono; controlo da erosão; recreação e turismo; regulação do fogo; c) utilizaram-se metodologias distintas para o seu mapeamento; c) identificou-se trade-offs e sinergias entre os SE selecionados através de analises de correlações; e d) determinou-se ‘áreas que se podem considerar hotspots de SE através de álgebra de mapas. Os valores de cada SE foram transformados para uma escala de 1 a 5 de forma a gerar figuras comparáveis. Os resultados do mapeamento dos SE demonstram que o armazenamento de carbono é relativamente uniforme a nível municipal; o controlo da erosão é relativamente moderado; os resultados são muito baixos para a regulação do fogo e que o serviço de recreio e turismo se encontra concentrado na zona central do concelho. Os resultados das análises de correlação demonstram a inexistência de correlações importantes e verificou-se que 4% por cento do município pode ser considerado um hotspot de SE (para os 4 serviços selecionados). As principais limitações identificadas associadas à metodologia utilizada são: a) Limitações relativas ao mapeamento dos SE; b) O estudo está limitado apenas a quatro SE; c) Foi atribuído o mesmo peso para os todos os SE deste estudo. No entanto, a metodologia proposta representa uma forma simples de quantificar o fornecimento de SE ao nível municipal, utilizando-se um mapa base existente e modelos de fácil aplicação e sem custos. A integração desta metodologia pode ajudar a identificar áreas que devem ser protegidas não só pelo seu valor de conservação para a biodiversidade e/ou valor económico, mas também pela sua capacidade de produzir outros SE que não são diretamente quantificados (controlo da erosão, regulação do fogo, etc.; qualidade do ar, etc.).
In recent decades, there has been a growing integration of environmental concerns into development policies and territorial negotiation. In particular, the concept of Ecosystem Services (ES) is central to several European directives and strategies and at national level, i tis a parto f the stratagy of the National Program for Spatial Planning Policy (PNPOT). The SE concept has been much debated in the scientific literature and several definitions have been proposed. The definition proposed by the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) states that ES “are the direct or indirect benefits that people obtain from ecosystems” and has been widely used at European level (policies and legislation). The pratical implications of the ES concept are concerned with the quantification of these “direct or indirect benefits that people obtain from ecosystems”. One of the most commonly used ES quantification methods goes through its mapping. ES mapping is one of the objectives of the European Union to all member states and several specific models and software have been implemented and implemented for this purpose (InVEST models; Aires; MIMES). The main objective of this study was to develop a simple methodology for the integration of the ES approach in the understanding of the territory, namely at the PDM level. The proposed methodology was developed and applied to the Municipality of Monchique and, for this purpose, a) the main ecosystems of the study area were identified based on the Land Use and Land Cover Map (COS 2018); b) four ES were selected to map, namely carbon storage; erosion control; recreation and tourism; fire regulation; c) different methodologies were used for its mapping; c) trade-offs and synergies between the selected SEs were identified through correlation analysis; and d) areas that can be considered ES hotspots were determined through map algebra. The values of each ES were transformed to a scale of 1 to 5 in order to generate comparable figures. The ES mapping results demonstrate that carbon storage is relatively uniform in the municipal level; erosion control is relatively moderate; the results are very low for fire regulation and that recreation and tourism services are very concentrated in the central area of the the municipality. The results of the correlation analyzes demonstrate the inexistence of important correlations and it was verified that 4% of the municipality can be considered an SE hotspot (for the 4 selected services). The main limitations identified associated with the used methodology are: a) Limitations related to the mapping of ES; b) The study is limited to only four SEs; c) The same weight was assigned to all ES in this study. However, the proposed methodology represents a simple way of quantifying the supply of ES at the municipal level, using an existing map as base and models that are easy to apply and cost-free. The integration of this methodology can help identify areas that should be protected not only for their conservation value for biodiversity and/or economic value, but also for their ability to produce other ES that are not directly quantified (erosion control, regulation of fire, etc.).
In recent decades, there has been a growing integration of environmental concerns into development policies and territorial negotiation. In particular, the concept of Ecosystem Services (ES) is central to several European directives and strategies and at national level, i tis a parto f the stratagy of the National Program for Spatial Planning Policy (PNPOT). The SE concept has been much debated in the scientific literature and several definitions have been proposed. The definition proposed by the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) states that ES “are the direct or indirect benefits that people obtain from ecosystems” and has been widely used at European level (policies and legislation). The pratical implications of the ES concept are concerned with the quantification of these “direct or indirect benefits that people obtain from ecosystems”. One of the most commonly used ES quantification methods goes through its mapping. ES mapping is one of the objectives of the European Union to all member states and several specific models and software have been implemented and implemented for this purpose (InVEST models; Aires; MIMES). The main objective of this study was to develop a simple methodology for the integration of the ES approach in the understanding of the territory, namely at the PDM level. The proposed methodology was developed and applied to the Municipality of Monchique and, for this purpose, a) the main ecosystems of the study area were identified based on the Land Use and Land Cover Map (COS 2018); b) four ES were selected to map, namely carbon storage; erosion control; recreation and tourism; fire regulation; c) different methodologies were used for its mapping; c) trade-offs and synergies between the selected SEs were identified through correlation analysis; and d) areas that can be considered ES hotspots were determined through map algebra. The values of each ES were transformed to a scale of 1 to 5 in order to generate comparable figures. The ES mapping results demonstrate that carbon storage is relatively uniform in the municipal level; erosion control is relatively moderate; the results are very low for fire regulation and that recreation and tourism services are very concentrated in the central area of the the municipality. The results of the correlation analyzes demonstrate the inexistence of important correlations and it was verified that 4% of the municipality can be considered an SE hotspot (for the 4 selected services). The main limitations identified associated with the used methodology are: a) Limitations related to the mapping of ES; b) The study is limited to only four SEs; c) The same weight was assigned to all ES in this study. However, the proposed methodology represents a simple way of quantifying the supply of ES at the municipal level, using an existing map as base and models that are easy to apply and cost-free. The integration of this methodology can help identify areas that should be protected not only for their conservation value for biodiversity and/or economic value, but also for their ability to produce other ES that are not directly quantified (erosion control, regulation of fire, etc.).
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Serviços dos Ecossistemas Planeamento territorial Hotspots de serviços dos Sinergias e trade-off’s entre serviços dos ecossistemas Mapeamento dos serviços dos ecossistemas Ecosystem Services Spatial planning Service Hotspots Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services Mapping of ecosystem services