Short Communication |
Corresponding author: Ioannis N. Vogiatzakis ( ioannis.vogiatzakis@ouc.ac.cy ) Academic editor: Joseph Tzanopoulos
© 2017 Paraskevi Manolaki, Ioannis N. Vogiatzakis.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Manolaki P, Vogiatzakis IN (2017) Ecosystem services in a peri-urban protected area in Cyprus: a rapid appraisal. Nature Conservation 22: 129-146. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.22.13840
|
Protected areas around the world are increasingly being recognized for their potential to protect various ecosystem services in addition to biodiversity. We carried out an ecosystem services (ES) assessment at the Rizoelia National Forest Park, a biodiversity hotspot in Cyprus. For ES assessment we used TESSA v.1.1 and an ES matrix-approach to map the capacity of habitat types in the area. According to TESSA the most important ES provided by the study area are aesthetic benefits, recreation/ tourism, biodiversity, global climate regulation, and environmental education. Total Carbon stock was estimated to 14247.327 tonnes and the total number of annual visits was 14471. There were no statistically significant differences in the number of visits among visitation periods but there were statistically significant differences among National Holidays, Weekends and Weekdays. We identified that plantations had the highest capacity for most groups of services particularly where their understory comprises semi-natural habitat types rich in biodiversity. This is the first study in Cyprus which provides a preliminary quantification of ES in a protected area context using widely employed tools. The paper discusses how these findings can help decision-makers to plan direct future restoration and management actions to the benefit of a wide range of stakeholders.
ES matrix-approach, island, mapping, Natura 2000, TESSA
Worldwide the designation of protected areas aims to separate the components of biodiversity from natural or anthropogenic processes that threaten their persistence (
ES have been defined differently by many authors (
PA management is practised at the site-scale and thus requires practical inexpensive tools that can provide baseline information for biodiversity and ES assessment and monitoring. Although lately there has been a proliferation of ES assessment tools , site-based assessments, which are more useful to managers and practitioners, usually rely on theoretical scenarios or extrapolations from global models or require much greater technical skill and resources and are designed more for the academic user (
a) the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA) (
Rizoelia National Forest Park (RNFP), a peri-urban Natura 2000 site close to the city of Larnaca, Cyprus (Fig.
For ecosystem services (ES) assessment we used TESSA v.1.1 (
Main habitat types at Rizoelia N.F.P, the corresponding habitat classification proposed by the TESSA toolkit and their extent in hectares.
Habitat type | TESSA habitat classification | Area (ha) | |
---|---|---|---|
Tree-dominated habitat | Needleleaf Plantation | Temperate scrub/woodland | 14.57 |
Broadleaf Plantation | 14.09 | ||
Shrub-dominated habitat | Sarcopoterium spinosum phrygana (5420) | 14.48 | |
Arborescent matorrals with Ziziphus (5220) | 0.38 | ||
Grass Dominated | Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals of the Thero - Brachypodietea (6220) | Temperate grassland | 0.19 |
Potential ecosystem services at the current state of the site.
ES category (according to |
ES | Benefits | Current state (score 0-5) 5= highly important |
Top five services in the current state |
---|---|---|---|---|
Regulating | Global climate regulation | carbon storage in trees | 4 | √ |
Local climate and air quality regulation | Providing shade, removing pollutants, influence rainfall | 2 | ||
Water-related services | Water for human use | 0 | ||
Water flow regulation | 0 | |||
Water quality improvement | 3 | |||
Erosion control | Avoiding landslides | 2 | ||
Provisioning | Harvesting wild goods | Foods | 2 | √ |
Fibre | 0 | |||
Natural medicines | 0 | |||
Energy | 0 | |||
Cultivated goods | Food | 1 | ||
Fibre | 0 | |||
Energy | 0 | |||
Supporting | Biodiversity | 5 | √ | |
Cultural | Cultural/intellectual and representatives interactions | Scientific | 5 | |
Educational | √ | |||
Entertainment | ||||
Aesthetic | √ |
Different habitats and land uses/cover have different potential influences on service of global climate regulation i.e. the exchange of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases between the atmosphere and the plants, animals and soils within ecosystems. Therefore, we treated separately each habitat type that was identified during the rapid appraisal stage. Field-based measurements were not possible due to lack of resources, as well as due to the protection/management regime of the area, which restricts interventions as required by the TESSA measurements. Therefore, we relied on the estimates provided in the TESSA manual for the study area which they were derived from credible values from similar sites or reliable sources mainly from the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Table
Summary of TESSA methods used for the estimation of carbon stock components.
Habitats | Decision tree | Relevant Section | Climate section 6 Estimating total carbon stock |
TESSA method | Method description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tree-dominated habitats | Climate section 2 | Trees were planted-Complete Climate sections 6-10 | Above-Ground live Biomass (AGB) carbon stock | IPCC- tier 1 - Method climate method 2 Estimating above-ground live biomass carbon stock using IPCC tier 1 estimates | To calculate the total above-ground live biomass of each habitat at the site, multiply above-ground live biomass by the area (ha) of the habitat. To calculate the total above-ground live biomass of each habitat at the site, multiply above-ground live biomass by the area (ha) of the habitat. To calculate the total above-ground live biomass carbon stock (t C) of your habitat, multiply the total above-ground live biomass by a conversion factor of 0.5 for tree-dominated, forest plantations, woody savannahs, perennial crop-dominated habitats and urban parks, or by 0.47 for grass dominated habitats, wetlands and urban lawn. |
Below-Ground Biomass (BGB) carbon stock | IPCC conversion factors – Climate Method 5: Estimating below-ground biomass carbon stock using IPCC conversion factors |
Below-ground biomass carbon stock was estimated using a ratio of below ground-ground biomass to above ground biomass (R) for particular vegetation types (IPCC 2006): Temperate conifers (TC; 0.40), Temperate Eucalyptus spp., (TE; 0.44), semi-arid grassland (SAG; 2.8) and Shrubland (S; 2.8). | |||
dead organic matter carbon stock | IPCC tier 1 estimates-Climate Method 6. Estimating dead organic matter (litter and dead wood) carbon stock using IPCC tier 1 estimates. | The default value for the Needle leaf evergreen plantation is 20.3. To calculate the total litter carbon stock of each habitat, this value is multiplied by the area (in ha) of the habitat (14.566). | |||
soil organic carbon stock in mineral and organic soils – | Climate Method 7: Estimating soil organic carbon stock in mineral and organic soils. This section provides information on how to calculate soil carbon stocks in either organic or mineral soils. | Soil on the Rizoelia site is mineral. The default mineral soil classification should be used with Tier 1 methods because default reference C stock and stock change factors were derived according to these soil types. Therefore the IPCC (2006), for the default reference soil organic carbon stock = 38 tonnes C ha-1.Total area size = 47.8632ha | |||
Grass-dominated habitats | Climate section 3 | Complete Climate sections 6,7,9,10 | Above-Ground live Biomass (AGB) carbon stock | IPCC- tier 1 - Method climate method 2 Estimating above-ground live biomass carbon stock using IPCC tier 1 estimates | To calculate the total above-ground live biomass of each habitat at the site, multiply above-ground live biomass by the area (ha) of the habitat. To calculate the total above-ground live biomass of each habitat at the site, multiply above-ground live biomass by the area (ha) of the habitat. To calculate the total above-ground live biomass carbon stock (t C) of your habitat, multiply the total above-ground live biomass by a conversion factor of 0.5 for tree-dominated, forest plantations, woody savannahs, perennial crop-dominated habitats and urban parks, or by 0.47 for grass dominated habitats, wetlands and urban lawn. |
Below-Ground Biomass (BGB) carbon stock | IPCC conversion factors – Climate Method 5 Estimating below-ground biomass carbon stock using IPCC conversion factors | Below-ground biomass carbon stock was estimated using a ratio of below ground-ground biomass to above ground biomass (R) for particular vegetation types (IPCC 2006): Temperate conifers (TC; 0.40), Temperate Eucalyptus spp., (TE; 0.44), semi-arid grassland (SAG; 2.8) and Shrubland (S; 2.8). | |||
dead organic matter carbon stock | IPCC tier 1 estimates-Climate Method 6. Estimating dead organic matter (litter and dead wood) carbon stock using IPCC tier 1 estimates | No existing tabulated data from IPPC (2006). It is assumed that there are no significant litter and dead wood carbon pools for grass-dominated habitats. | |||
soil organic carbon stock in mineral and organic soils – | Climate Method 7: Estimating soil organic carbon stock in mineral and organic soils. This section provides information on how to calculate soil carbon stocks in either organic or mineral soils. | ||||
Soil Organic Carbon Stock in Mineral soils | IPCC Tier 1 soil carbon inventory method: | The first step is the definition of the climate domain of the sites. According to the Annex 3A.5 in Chapter 3 of IPCC (2006), for the default climate classification scheme maps, Cyprus is classified as warm temperate dry. The second step concerns the soil type of each habitat type. The FAO Soils Map of the World was used to identify the soil types on the site as cambisols. Next step is the definition of the habitat types in the area and to multiply the area of each habitat type with the default reference soil organic carbon stock for the area, which is 38 tonnes C ha-1. |
Summary of TESSA methods used for the estimation of greenhouse gasses emissions and results.
Estimation of the greenhouse gases (CO2, N2O, CH4) emitted by the plants, soil and animals over time (positive flux). | TESSA method | Results |
---|---|---|
1. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions | Climate Method 9 | CO2 soil emissions from the site can be considered insignificant because the Rizoelia site has mineral soils. Therefore the emission of carbon dioxide from the Rizoelia site is negligible. |
2. Methane emissions | Climate Section 10 | Methane emissions from the site can be considered insignificant because the Rizoelia site has no grazing. |
3. Nitrous oxide emissions | Climate Section 11 | Nitrous oxide emissions from the site can be considered insignificant because the Rizoelia site has no fertilisers added, is not a drained peatland and is not grazed. |
The carbon sequestered (taken in from the atmosphere) over time by the plants and soil (negative flux) | Climate section 6 | Represented as C sequestered in above ground biomass vegetation over 1 year. |
Summary of total carbon estimation results per habitat type.
RNFP Habitat Type | TESSA Habitat Classification | Area (ha) | C_AGB | C_BGB | C_Soil | C_dead | Total Carbon stocks (tC) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Needle-leaf Plantation | Temperate scrub/woodland | 14.56 | 349.58 | 139.83 | 295.69 | |||
Other Trees Plantation | Temperate scrub/woodland | 14.08 | 338.05 | 148.74 | no data | |||
5420 | Temperate scrub/woodland | 14.47 | 347.47 | 972.92 | no data | |||
5220 | Temperate scrub/woodland | 0.38 | 9.19 | 25.73 | no data | |||
6220 | Grass- Dominated/Temperate grassland | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.57 | 0 | |||
Non-vegetated | n/a | 45.60 | no data | no data | no data | |||
Synanthropic | n/a | 1.42 | no data | no data | no data | |||
Total | 90.73 | 1044.51 | 1287.81 | 11619.30 | 295.69 | 14247.32 |
TESSA methodology takes into account two different aspects of recreation and nature-based tourism ecosystem services delivery i.e., the total number of visits to the site, and the associated expenditure. Census Recreation Method 1, is given as a means to measure the volume of nature-based tourism and recreation, while Recreation Method 2 for the economic value.
Recreation Method 1 was used to measure the volume of nature-based tourism and recreation, (
We used the ES ‘matrix’ approach (
The scores assigned to each habitat and function were derived through brainstorming sessions (experts judgement) between local experts from the Department of Forests (DF) and the Department of Environment (DE), experts from two national Universities and literature searches. Scores retained represent the consensus of these sessions. We did not evaluate provisioning services since activities related to these services are not allowed or in the area encouraged. However, we have accounted for occasional biomass resulting from fuel wood extracted during invasive species removal.
In order to map the spatial extent of carbon related components at the RNFP, we used the habitat types as spatial units within which we attributed the values for each of the four carbon components and the total carbon stock, as derived from TESSA estimates (Fig.
The most important habitat types at the site and their current extent are given in Table
Global climate regulation
The total carbon stock at the RNFP was calculated by adding the carbon stocks for each habitat at the site [Above-Ground Biomass (C_ABG), Below-Ground Biomass (C_BGB), Soil (C_Soil) and Dead organic matter (C_dead)] to derive the total carbon stock at the site (expressed as tonnes of carbon) (Table
Nature-based recreation - tourism and recreation economic value
The total number of annual visits (TANV) in RNFP was 14471. Particularly, TANV for periods A (March-May), B (June-October) and C (November-February) was 3834, 4734 and 5903 respectively. There were no statistically significant differences (One-way ANOVA; Sig. = 0.459) in the number of visits among visitation periods (March-May, June-October, and November-February). On the contrary, there were statistically significant differences (one way ANOVA; Sig.= 0.009) among National Holidays, Weekends and Weekdays. Specifically, multiple comparisons using Least Significant Difference t test (LSD) showed that the highest differences in the mean number of visitors are between National Holidays and Weekdays. There were also significant differences between National Holidays and Weekends. The results indicated that the number of visits increased significantly during public holidays. The economic survey revealed that 75.4% of the respondents spent less than 5 euros (mainly for fuel) during their trip to the study area. However, most of the respondents stated that there would be willing to spend more should there be facilities provided in the park.
In terms of supporting ES we identified that plantations, despite considered of low biodiversity value, (Needle-leaf Plantation, Temperate scrub/woodland) have the highest capacity (compared to the natural and semi-natural habitats of the site) to provide ES, particularly in places with priority habitat types to their understory. Mapping regulating services capacity corroborated the importance of plantations compared to other habitat types due to the dominant life-form. Apart from roads, habitats comprising exclusively synanthropic vegetation communities scored low in general, except for the cases that these occur in mixture with the Ziziphus lotus habitat type (higher score). In addition, the conifer plantations of RNFP were perceived more important for recreation in a peri-urban setting; hence, scored higher at the cultural services compared to other habitat types (Fig.
This is the first study of a complete site-based ES assessment in a protected area setting in Cyprus and as such, it has the potential to support environmental management and policy. The results corroborated the importance of RNFP for ES provision, in addition to biodiversity support, with direct and indirect benefits to the local community. Among the most important findings of this study are the results on recreation as a service in the study area, since it is higher than ever recorded in the past with annual visits (TANV) reaching a total number of 14471, with most of them during days off work in the period November to February. Recreation activities in the study area are less associated with nature-based activities like wildlife and forest appreciation. Only 21% of the respondents gave as main reason of their visit the appreciation of nature.
High visitor numbers may result in conflict between nature conservation and recreation in peri-urban parks (
In the study area, apart from the Mediterranean grass-dominated habitat (6220*), the above-ground carbon stock measurements did not show variability. On the other hand, the highest below-ground carbon biomass was estimated in the Mediterranean scrub habitats (5220* and 5420). The lack of tabulated data for scrubs or broadleaf evergreen woodland was the main limitation for the implementation of the TESSA approach, which led to the underestimation of litter and dead organic material carbon stocks for all habitat types, except the Needle-leaf plantation. Another underestimation refers to the contribution of the extensive root systems, particularly in the cases of known phreatophytes like Ziziphus lotus (
The second part of this assessment included an expert-based evaluation and mapping of the capacity of various habitat types to support a range of services which is now widely accepted in ES science (
The study demonstrated the importance of site-based assessment for ecosystem services delivered in protected areas, pointing out a gap at the national level for a rigorous approach in such assessments in parallel to other national studies at the European level and in accordance with the obligations of Cyprus under the EU biodiversity strategy for 2020. These types of assessments are precursors to economic valuation of ecosystems services and the identification of their direct financial benefits to the local communities (
The study was funded by the LIFE+ program of the European Union as part of the project entitled ‘Improving the conservation status of the priority habitat types *1520 and *5220 at the Rizoelia National Forest Park’ (LIFE12 NAT/CY/000758). We would like to thank the project’s Scientific Committee and Stakeholder Committee for the valuable assistance during this study. We would also like to thank Vassilis Trigkas, Louise Sutherland, Yannakis Zavou, Kyriaki Panteli, for their help in data collection.
Matrix for the assessment of the different habitat types capacities to deliver selected ecosystem goods and services (adapted from
Equivalent Land Cover Types | Habitat Types / Land cover types | Supporting Services | Abiotic heterogeneity | Biodiversity | Biotic waterflows | Metabolic Efficiency | Exercy Capture (Radiation) | Reduction of nutrient loss | Capacity Storage | Provisioning Services | Crops | Livestock | Fodder | Wild Food | Timber | Fuel Wood | Energy (Biomass) | Biochemical/Medicine | Regulating Services | Local climate | Global climate | Flood protection | Groundwater recharge | Air quality | Erosion | Nutrients | Water Purification | Pollution | Cultural services | Recreation &Aesthetic values | Intrinsic Biodiversity Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Industrial or commercial units | Buildings | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Road and rail networks | Roads | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Green urban areas | Plantations | 21 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 1 |
Plantations+ 1520 | 24 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 5 | 4 | |
Plantations+ 5420 | 23 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 3 | |
Plantations+6220 | 24 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 5 | 4 | |
Plantations+ synanthropic | 22 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 2 | |
Non-irrigated arable land | Cultivation | 17 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Natural grassland | 1520 | 24 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 5 |
6220+1520 | 20 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 5 | |
6220+5420 | 20 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 5 | |
Sclerophyllous vegetation | 5420 | 21 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 4 |
5420+1520 | 20 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 5 | |
5420+5220 | 22 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 5 | |
5420+6220 | 18 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | |
5420+ Plantation | 22 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | |
6220+1520 | 19 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 4 | |
5420+ synanthropic | 17 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | |
Sparsely vegetated areas | Synanthropic | 10 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Synanthropic+ 5220 | 20 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 5 | |
Synanthropic+ 5420 | 18 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | |
Synanthropic+ 6220 | 18 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 16 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | |
0 | no relevant capacity of the habitat type to provide this particular ecosystem service | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | grey green = low relevant capacity, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | light green = relevant capacity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | yellow green = medium relevant capacity, | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | blue green = high relevant capacity and | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | dark green = very high relevant capacity |