Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2025, 71(10):564-578 | DOI: 10.17221/497/2024-AGRICECON

Assessment of the difference in ecosystem services between ecologically and conventionally managed ponds: An empirical study from the South Bohemia region, Czech RepublicOriginal Paper

Jiří Schneider ORCID...1, Gabriela Chmelíková ORCID...2
1 Department of Environmental Science and Natural Resources, Faculty of Regional Development and International Studies, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic
2 Department of Regional and Business Economics, Faculty of Regional Development and International Studies, Mendel University in Brno, Brno, Czech Republic

The aim of this article is to demonstrate the difference in the production of ecosystem services depending on the management method using a selected sample of fishponds from the South Bohemian region of the Czech Republic and subsequently monetarily to assess this difference. Using 16 fishponds over a 10-year period, the research evaluates key services such as biodiversity conservation, water purification, and fish production, employing the opportunity cost of foregone profits methodology. The results reveal that ecologically managed fishponds provide enhanced ecosystem services at a financial trade-off, with an average annual profit difference of EUR 142 per hectare compared to conventional management. This trade-off translates to a present value of EUR 1 288 per hectare over a decade, reflecting the additional societal value of ecosystem services from ecological management. The findings underscore the economic and ecological challenges faced by stakeholders, particularly fish farmers, in balancing conservation goals with economic viability.

Keywords: biodiversity conservation; ecosystem services; fishpond management intensity; nature's contributions to people; opportunity costs

Received: December 30, 2024; Revised: June 4, 2025; Accepted: July 10, 2025; Prepublished online: October 29, 2025; Published: October 30, 2025  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Schneider J, Chmelíková G. Assessment of the difference in ecosystem services between ecologically and conventionally managed ponds: An empirical study from the South Bohemia region, Czech Republic. Agric. Econ. - Czech. 2025;71(10):564-578. doi: 10.17221/497/2024-AGRICECON.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Alves A., Vojinovic Z., Kapelan Z., Sanchez A., Gersonius B. (2020): Exploring trade-offs among the multiple benefits of green-blue-grey infrastructure for urban flood mitigation. Science of the Total Environment, 703: 134980. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    2. Bekefi E., Varadi L. (2007): Multifunctional pond fish farms in Hungary. Aquaculture international, 15: 227-233. Go to original source...
    3. Biggs J., Von Fumetti S., Kelly-Quinn M. (2017): The importance of small waterbodies for biodiversity and ecosystem services: implications for policy makers. Hydrobiologia, 793: 3-39. Go to original source...
    4. Bosma R.H., Verdegem M.C. (2011): Sustainable aquaculture in ponds: Principles, practices and limits. Livestock Science 139: 58-68. Go to original source...
    5. Brealey R.A., Myers S.C., Marcus A.J. (2023): Fundamentals of Corporate Finance. 11th Ed. Columbus, McGraw-Hill: 27-33.
    6. Chmelíková G. (2008): Economic value added versus traditional performance metrics in the Czech food-processing sector. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 11: 49-66.
    7. Costanza R., d'Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Neill R.V., Paruelo J., Raskin R.G., Sutton P., van den Belt M. (1997): The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387: 253-260. Go to original source...
    8. Cuenca-Cambronero M., Blicharska M., Perrin J.A., Davidson T.A., Oertli B., Lago M., Beklioglu M., Meerhoff M., Arim M., Teixeira J., De Meester L., Biggs J., Robin J., Martin B., Greaves H.M., Sayer C.D., Lemmens P., Boix D., Mehner T., Bartrons M., Brucet S. (2023): Challenges and opportunities in the use of ponds and pondscapes as nature-based solutions. Hydrobiologia, 850: 3257-3271. Go to original source...
    9. Diaz S., Pascual U., Stenseke M., Martin-Lopez B., Watson R.T., Molnar Z., Hill R., Chan K.M.A., Baste I.A., Brauman K.A., Polasky S., Church A., Lonsdale M., Larigauderie A., Leadley P.W., van Oudenhoven A.P.E., van der Plaat F., Schroter M., Lavorel S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y., Bukvareva E., Davies K., Demissew S., Erpul G., Failler P., Guerra C.A., Hewitt C.L., Keune H., Lindley S., Shirayama Y. (2018). Assessing nature's contributions to people. Science, 359: 270-272. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. Fu B., Xu P., Wang Y., Yan K., Chaudhary S. (2018): Assessment of the ecosystem services provided by ponds in hilly areas. Science of the Total Environment, 642: 979-987. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. Hambäck P.A., Dawson L., Geranmayeh P., Jarsjö J., Kačergytė I., Peacock M., Collentine D., Destouni G., Futter M., Hugelius G., Hedman S., Jonsson S., Klatt B.K., Lindström A., Nilsson J.E., Pärt T., Shneider L.D., Strand J.A., Urrutia-Cordero P., Åhlén D., Åhlén I., Blicharska M. (2023): Tradeoffs and synergies in wetland multifunctionality: A scaling issue. Science of the Total Environment, 862: 160746. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Hassall C., Hill M., Gledhill D. (2016): The ecology and management of urban pondscapes. In: Francis R.A., Millington J.D.A., Chadwick M.A. (eds): Urban Landscape Ecology. London, Routledge: 129-147.
    13. Higgins S.L., Thomas F., Goldsmith B., Brooks S.J., Hassall C., Harlow J., Stone D., Völker S., White P. (2019): Urban freshwaters, biodiversity, and human health and well-being: Setting an interdisciplinary research agenda. WIREs Water, 6: e1339. Go to original source...
    14. Hill M.J., Biggs J., Thornhill I., Briers R.A., Gledhill D.G., White J.C., Wood P.J., Hassall C. (2017): Urban ponds as an aquatic biodiversity resource in modified landscapes. Global Change Biology, 23: 986-999. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Hill M.J., Greaves H.M., Sayer C.D., Hassall C., Milin M., Milner V.S., Marazzi L., Hall R., Harper L.R., Thornhill I., Walton R., Biggs J., Ewald N., Law A., Willby N., White J.C., Briers R.A., Mathers K.L., Jeffries M.J., Wood P.J. (2021): Pond ecology and conservation: research priorities and knowledge gaps. Ecosphere, 12: e03853. Go to original source...
    16. Holgerson M. A., Raymond P.A. (2016): Large contribution to inland water CO2 and CH4 emissions from very small ponds. Nature Geoscience 9: 222-226. Go to original source...
    17. IPBES (2018): The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia. In: Rounsevell M., Fischer M., Torre-Marin Rando A., Mader A. (Eds): Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Bonn, 1 Online Resource.
    18. Ickowitz A., Sills E., de Sassi C. (2017): Estimating smallholder opportunity costs of REDD+: A pantropical analysis from households to carbon and back. World Development, 95: 15-26. Go to original source...
    19. Kaczkowski Z., Zalewski M. (2010): Traditional carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) culture - linking sustainable development with integrated water management - ecohydrologically sound perspective for small catchments. In: M. Cieśla & M. Kuczyński (eds). Multifunctionality in Pond Aquaculture in Poland. Perspectives and Prospects. Warsaw. University of Life Sciences. Editorial House Wieś Jutra: 30-37.
    20. Krivtsov V., Birkinshaw S., Olive V., Lomax J., Christie D., Arthur S. (2021): Multiple benefits of blue-green infrastructure and the reduction of environmental risks: Case study of ecosystem services provided by a SuDS pond. In: Kolathayar S., Pal I., Chian S.C., Mondal A. (eds): Civil Engineering for Disaster Risk Reduction. Singapore, Springer: 247-262. Go to original source...
    21. Landuyt D., Lemmens P., D'hondt R., Broekx S., Liekens I., De Bie T., Declerck S.A.J., De Meester L., Goethals P.L. (2014): An ecosystem service approach to support integrated pond management: A case study using Bayesian belief networks - Highlighting opportunities and risks. Journal of Environmental Management, 145: 79-87. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    22. Pascual U., Balvanera P., Diaz S., Pataki G., Roth E., Stenseke M., Watson R.T., Başak Dessane E., Islar M., Kelemen E., Maris V., Quaas M., Subramanian S.M., Wittmer H., Adlan A., Ahn S., Al-Hafedh Y.S., Amankwah E., Asah S.T., Berry P., Bilgin A., Breslow S.J., Bullock C., Caceres D., Daly-Hassen H., Figueroa E., Golden C.D., Gomez-Baggethun E., Gonzalez-Jimenez D., Houdet J., Keune H., Kumar R., Ma K., May P.H., Mead A., O'Farrell P., Pandit R., Pengue W., Pichis-Madruga R., Popa F., Preston S., Pacheco-Balanza D., Saarikoski H., Strassburg B.B., van den Belt M., Verma M., Wickson F., Yagi N. (2017): Valuing nature's contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27: 7-16. Go to original source...
    23. Spurný P., Mareš J., Kopp R., Řezníčková P. (2015): Hydrobiologie a rybářství. Brno, Mendelova univerzita v Brně.: 254 .
    24. Popp J., Békefi E., Duleba S., Oláh J. (2019): Multifunctionality of pond fish farms in the opinion of the farm managers: The case of Hungary. Reviews in Aquaculture, 11: 830-847. Go to original source...
    25. Pechar L., Musil M., Baxa M., Petrů A., Benedová Z., Kröpfelová L., Šulcová J. (2000): Tři roky bez kapra na rybníce Rod (Třeboňsko)-aneb, jak reálná je možnost zlepšit kvalitu vody rybničního biotopu absencí obsádky kapra? Sborník referátů: 55.
    26. Ruijs A. (2017): Valuing ecosystem services by applying the opportunity cost approach: A case study. Environmental and Resource Economics, 68: 605-620. Go to original source...
    27. Schneider J., Pechancová E., Zourková I. (2024): Cultural ecosystem services of the traditional South Bohemian landscape on the example of LAG Třeboňsko. In: Fialová J. (ed.): Public recreation and landscape protection-with environment hand in hand! Proceedings of the 15th conference. Křtiny, May 13-15, 2024: 34-40. Go to original source...
    28. Silva F.F., Perrin R.K., Fulginiti L.E. (2019): The opportunity cost of preserving the Brazilian Amazon forest. Agricultural Economics, 50: 219-227. Go to original source...
    29. SustainAqua (2009): A handbook for Sustainable aquaculture, EU FP6 project, Integrated approach for a sustainable and healthy freshwater aquaculture. Project N: COLL-CT-2006-030384.
    30. Turkowski K. (2021): Fish farmers' perception of ecosystem services and diversification of carp pond aquaculture: A case study from Warmia and Mazury, Poland. Sustainability, 13: 2797. Go to original source...
    31. Turkowski K., Lirski A. (2010): The economics of carp farms in Poland. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria, 40: 137-143. Go to original source...
    32. Turkowski K., Lirski. A. (2011): Non-productive functions of fish ponds and their possible economic evaluation. In: Lirski A., Pyć A. (eds): Carp culture in Europe. Current Status, Problems, Perspective. Olsztyn, IRŚ Olsztyn: 25-42.
    33. Turner K.G., Anderson S., Gonzales-Chang M., Costanza R., Courville S., Dalgaard T., Dominati E., Kubiszewski I., Ogilvy S., Porfirio L., Ratna N., Sandhu H., Sutton P.C., Svenning J.C., Turner G.M., Varennes Y.D., Voinov A., Wratten S. (2016): A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration. Ecological Modelling, 319: 190-207. Go to original source...
    34. Vačkář D., Frélichová J., Lorencová E., Pártl A., Harmáčková Z., Loučková B. (2019): Methodological Framework of Integrated Assessment of Ecosystem Services in the Czech Republic (Metodologický rámec integrovaného hodnocení ekosystémových služeb v České republice). (in Czech)
    35. Vo H.T., Vrachioli M., Frick F., Sauer J., Balmana Brucet S., Vidal L.B., Mehner T., Lemmens P., Oertli B., Boissezon A., Beklioğlu M., Dolcerocca A., Meerhoff M. (2023): Socio-economic or environmental benefits from pondscapes? Deriving stakeholder preferences using analytic hierarchy process and compositional data analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 342: 118298. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    36. VUV (2025): Hydroekologický informační systém VÚV TGM. TGM WRI Hydroecological Information System. Available at https://heis.vuv.cz/ (accessed Dec 17, 2024).
    37. Walton R.E., Sayer C.D., Bennion H., Axmacher J.C. (2021): Open canopy ponds benefit diurnal pollinator communities in an agricultural landscape: implications for farmland pond management. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 14: 307-324. Go to original source...
    38. Weitzman J. (2019): Applying the ecosystem services concept to aquaculture: A review of approaches, definitions, and uses. Ecosystem Services, 35: 194-206. Go to original source...
    39. Zourková I., Hromková L., Schneider J., Fialová J. (2024): Identification and evaluation of cultural ecosystem service resources in the territory of the local action group Lednice-Valtice area. Sustainability, 17: 13. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content