DOI - Mendel University Press

DOI identifiers

DOI: 10.11118/978-80-7701-087-0-0177

GEOSYSTEM SERVICES AND DISSERVICES: AN APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT ON ABANDONED QUARRIES

Lucie Kubalíková1,2
1 Institute of Geonics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Drobného 28, 602 00 Brno, Czechia
2 Department of Geology and Soil Science, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 3, 613 00 Brno, Czechia


The geosystem services concept is, despite certain controversies, widely accepted and reflected in scientific literature with a notable overreach to nature conservation, management, and policies already for several decades.
In contrast, the geosystem disservices approach has not yet received enough attention and is relatively new to the field. Geosystem disservices may be considered as results and outcomes of functions, structures, and aspects related to abiotic entities, processes and interactions that may impact human well-being and are assessed as damaging under a relevant value system at a particular moment. Nevertheless, it is necessary to mention that the attitudes to geodiversity depend on the societal context, time and space; the same entity can be valued as a geosystem service or disservice, depending on the lifestyle, culture, age, experience, or historical period. In this contribution, possible classification frameworks of geosystem disservices are presented and discussed. The qualitative evaluation of both geosystem services and disservices is applied on several examples of abandoned quarries in Czechia, which are usually perceived as important sites with high geoheritage (and eventually ecological, cultural and aesthetic) values. Based on this assessment, management proposals and conservation measures for these specific sites are outlined.

Keywords: geoheritage, geohazards, degradation risk, nature conservation, Czechia

pages: 177-180, Published: 2026, online: 2026



References

  1. Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., Grasso, M. (2017). Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008 Go to original source...
  2. Czech Geological Survey (2026). Panská skála u Habrovan. Available at: https://lokality.geology.cz/3023 (2nd April 2026)
  3. Garcia, M. da G. M., Kubalíková, L., Fox, N., Gray, M. (2025). Geodiversity and ecosystem services. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-443-28997-2.00031-5 Go to original source...
  4. Gray, M. (2018). The confused position of the geosciences within the "natural capital" and "ecosystem services" approaches. Ecosystem Services, 34, 106-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.10.010 Go to original source...
  5. Gray, M., Fox, N. (2026). Historical perspective and proposal for a comprehensive framework for valuing all environmental services including ecosystem and geosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 79, 101835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2026.101835 Go to original source...
  6. Haines-Young, R. (2023). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.2 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Available at: www.cices.eu (2nd April 2026)
  7. Hardaker, A., Pagella, T., Rayment, M. (2020). Integrated assessment, valuation and mapping of ecosystem services and dis-services from upland land use in Wales. Ecosystem Services, 43, 101098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101098 Go to original source...
  8. Jurek, V. (2020). Plán péče o přírodní památku Panská skála na období 2021-2030 (Care plan for Panská skála NM). Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic. Available at: https://drusop.nature.cz/portal/ (2nd April 2026)
  9. Kubalíková, L. (2024). Risk assessment on dynamic geomorphosites: A case study of selected abandoned pits in South-Moravian Region (Czech Republic). Geomorphology 458:109249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2024.109249 Go to original source...
  10. Kubalíková, L. (2026). Geosystem services and disservices: possible links to geomorphological processes and landforms. Book of abstracts, 11th International Conference on Geomorphology, 2-6th February, Christchurch, New Zealand. Available at: https://shorturl.at/1j9Gq (2nd April 2026)
  11. Lyytimäki, J., Sipilä, M. (2009). Hopping on one leg - The challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(4), 309-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.003 Go to original source...
  12. Rackelmann, F., Sebesvari, Z., Bell, R. (2023). Synergies and trade-offs in the management objectives forest health and flood risk reduction. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1208032 Go to original source...
  13. Saunders, M. E. (2020). Conceptual ambiguity hinders measurement and management of ecosystem disservices. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(9), 1840-1846. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13665 Go to original source...
  14. Vaz, A. S., Kueffer, C., Kull, C. A., Richardson, D. M., Vicente, J. R., Kühn, I., Schröter, M., Hauck, J., Bonn, A., Honrado, J. P. (2017). Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions. Ecosystem Services, 23, 94-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.017 Go to original source...
  15. Veibiakkim, R., Shkaruba, A., Sepp, K. (2025). A systematic review of urban ecosystem disservices and its evaluation: Key findings and implications. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 26, 100612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2025.100612 Go to original source...
  16. Von Döhren, P., Haase, D. (2015). Ecosystem disservices research: A review of the state of the art with a focus on cities. Ecological Indicators, 52, 490-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.027 Go to original source...
Return