{"title":"Mapping and assessing ecosystem services: Methods and practical applications","authors":"F. Santos-Martín, D. Geneletti, Benjamin Burkhard","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.4.E35904","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.4.E35904","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:p />","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41402137","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In Western Europe, ecosystems have been shaped to maximise the supply of one specific biomass provisioning ecosystem service (ES), such as food or timber, with detrimental impacts on other ES. The ES approach has therefore been established to better understand the multiple interactions between human society and ecosystems. A variety of methods have been developed to assess ES and their relationships, for instance the ES matrix model based on land cover classes. This popular, flexible and simple method allows combining different data sources and easily comparing ES. However, in general, this method poorly takes into account landscape heterogeneity while abiotic factors and human activities seem to play an important role in ES supply. The objective of this paper is twofold: (1) to extent the methodology based on the ES matrix model by including abiotic factors and human activities and (2) to test the impacts of these two types of factors on ES supply and their relationships. The assessment focused on the capacity of the forest to supply six ES depending on six types of soil ranging from productive soils to more constraining or less productive soils (i.e. abiotic factors) and two contrasting forest management strategies (i.e. human activities). This amended ES matrix was applied on one hand, to map the supply of ES and their relationships in four municipalities in the Ardenne ecoregion (Southern Belgium) and on the other hand, to investigate the impacts of three scenarios (i.e. three different management strategies) on ES supply and their relationships. The amended ES matrix shows large differences in ES supply between the two forest management strategies on the more constraining and less productive soils, creating differences in the spatial pattern of ES. The changes in ES supply amongst the three scenarios and the current supply were quantified to identify the best management options. In conclusion, one particular forest is not like another in terms of ES supply and their relationships. To capture this heterogeneity, we propose an amended ES matrix including abiotic factors and human activities. The maps, based on this matrix, allow identifying the hotspots (i.e. high capacity to supply different ES) and coldspots (i.e. low capacity to supply different ES or strong trade-offs between provisioning ES and regulating/cultural ES). Forest management should be adapted to the abiotic conditions, in particular in the coldspots, to ensure a more balanced supply of ES.
{"title":"The critical role of abiotic factors and human activities in the supply of ecosystem services in the ES matrix","authors":"Laura Maebe, H. Claessens, M. Dufrêne","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.4.E34769","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.4.E34769","url":null,"abstract":"In Western Europe, ecosystems have been shaped to maximise the supply of one specific biomass provisioning ecosystem service (ES), such as food or timber, with detrimental impacts on other ES. The ES approach has therefore been established to better understand the multiple interactions between human society and ecosystems. A variety of methods have been developed to assess ES and their relationships, for instance the ES matrix model based on land cover classes. This popular, flexible and simple method allows combining different data sources and easily comparing ES. However, in general, this method poorly takes into account landscape heterogeneity while abiotic factors and human activities seem to play an important role in ES supply. The objective of this paper is twofold: (1) to extent the methodology based on the ES matrix model by including abiotic factors and human activities and (2) to test the impacts of these two types of factors on ES supply and their relationships.\u0000 The assessment focused on the capacity of the forest to supply six ES depending on six types of soil ranging from productive soils to more constraining or less productive soils (i.e. abiotic factors) and two contrasting forest management strategies (i.e. human activities). This amended ES matrix was applied on one hand, to map the supply of ES and their relationships in four municipalities in the Ardenne ecoregion (Southern Belgium) and on the other hand, to investigate the impacts of three scenarios (i.e. three different management strategies) on ES supply and their relationships.\u0000 The amended ES matrix shows large differences in ES supply between the two forest management strategies on the more constraining and less productive soils, creating differences in the spatial pattern of ES. The changes in ES supply amongst the three scenarios and the current supply were quantified to identify the best management options.\u0000 In conclusion, one particular forest is not like another in terms of ES supply and their relationships. To capture this heterogeneity, we propose an amended ES matrix including abiotic factors and human activities. The maps, based on this matrix, allow identifying the hotspots (i.e. high capacity to supply different ES) and coldspots (i.e. low capacity to supply different ES or strong trade-offs between provisioning ES and regulating/cultural ES). Forest management should be adapted to the abiotic conditions, in particular in the coldspots, to ensure a more balanced supply of ES.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49373080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
For ecosystem measurement frameworks to be accepted, operationalised and implemented by diverse international communities, clear and agreeable concepts and classifications are essential. This paper analyses and develops two foundational typology challenges within ecosystem measurement: the classification of ecosystems and the classification of their services. Our aim is to determine if there is sufficient consensus to ascertain “Which ecosystems provide which services?” for standardised ecosystem accounting. This paper first compares classifications used in nine selected ecosystem assessments as input studies that make value statements about multiple ecosystems providing multiple ecosystem services. Given that these nine studies do not use identical concepts, classifications and terminologies, we develop “supersets” that can accommodate the diversity of classifications used in these input studies. Each input study is then corresponded to these new supersets. On the basis of this analysis, substantial consensus was found that some ecosystems are more likely to provide certain services than others are. However, for several ecosystem types, there was little or no consensus on which services they provide. Linkages for which there is consensus can serve as a checklist for future ecosystem services assessments. Both the framework of the supersets and the correspondence and visual methods developed will be useful for integrating information at different scales (for example, linkages from local, ecosystem-specific and ecosystem services-specific studies). This paper also provides guidance to future ecosystem services assessments to use, test and extend the current classifications of ecosystems and ecosystem services.
{"title":"Which ecosystems provide which services? A meta-analysis of nine selected ecosystem services assessments","authors":"Michael Bordt, M. Saner","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.4.E31420","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.4.E31420","url":null,"abstract":"For ecosystem measurement frameworks to be accepted, operationalised and implemented by diverse international communities, clear and agreeable concepts and classifications are essential. This paper analyses and develops two foundational typology challenges within ecosystem measurement: the classification of ecosystems and the classification of their services. Our aim is to determine if there is sufficient consensus to ascertain “Which ecosystems provide which services?” for standardised ecosystem accounting.\u0000 This paper first compares classifications used in nine selected ecosystem assessments as input studies that make value statements about multiple ecosystems providing multiple ecosystem services. Given that these nine studies do not use identical concepts, classifications and terminologies, we develop “supersets” that can accommodate the diversity of classifications used in these input studies. Each input study is then corresponded to these new supersets.\u0000 On the basis of this analysis, substantial consensus was found that some ecosystems are more likely to provide certain services than others are. However, for several ecosystem types, there was little or no consensus on which services they provide. Linkages for which there is consensus can serve as a checklist for future ecosystem services assessments. Both the framework of the supersets and the correspondence and visual methods developed will be useful for integrating information at different scales (for example, linkages from local, ecosystem-specific and ecosystem services-specific studies). This paper also provides guidance to future ecosystem services assessments to use, test and extend the current classifications of ecosystems and ecosystem services.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47620377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Global warming is altering climate patterns and the frequency and magnitude of heat and drought events affecting ecosystems worldwide. One of the effects of these changes is tree mortality driven by heat and drought, which have effects in forest ecosystem functions, services and biodiversity. Therefore, systematic observations and georeferenced data on tree mortality is a fundamental prerequisite for a more comprehensive understanding of the complex interactions between climate and forests. Tree mortality is a complex process for which literature presents major knowledge gaps, making predictions on the fate of climate change challenging. Some of the gaps are due to limited spatio-temporal data on tree mortality. Despite extensive tree mortality and forest dieback, associated with drought and temperature stress, have been reported in Europe, a publicly available systematic collection of georeferenced data reporting tree mortality is lacking. The dataset presented in this paper is a contribution to mitigate the lack of information on tree mortality. Our dataset builds on scientific and peer-reviewed literature and provides a georeferenced set of documented tree mortality occurrences in the period 1970-2017 in Europe. The aim of this study is to describe the creation of the dataset and to provide the data file to interested users.
{"title":"A georeferenced dataset of drought and heat-induced tree mortality in Europe","authors":"G. Caudullo, J. Barredo","doi":"10.3897/oneeco.4.e37753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.4.e37753","url":null,"abstract":"Global warming is altering climate patterns and the frequency and magnitude of heat and drought events affecting ecosystems worldwide. One of the effects of these changes is tree mortality driven by heat and drought, which have effects in forest ecosystem functions, services and biodiversity. Therefore, systematic observations and georeferenced data on tree mortality is a fundamental prerequisite for a more comprehensive understanding of the complex interactions between climate and forests. Tree mortality is a complex process for which literature presents major knowledge gaps, making predictions on the fate of climate change challenging. Some of the gaps are due to limited spatio-temporal data on tree mortality. Despite extensive tree mortality and forest dieback, associated with drought and temperature stress, have been reported in Europe, a publicly available systematic collection of georeferenced data reporting tree mortality is lacking.\u0000 The dataset presented in this paper is a contribution to mitigate the lack of information on tree mortality. Our dataset builds on scientific and peer-reviewed literature and provides a georeferenced set of documented tree mortality occurrences in the period 1970-2017 in Europe. The aim of this study is to describe the creation of the dataset and to provide the data file to interested users.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48602173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
S. L. Clec'h, S. Dufour, Janic Bucheli, M. Grimaldi, R. Huber, I. Miranda, D. Mitja, Luiz Gonzaga Silva Costa, J. Oszwald
Ecosystem Service (ES) mapping has become a key tool in scientific assessments of human-nature interactions and is being increasingly used in environmental planning and policy-making. However, the associated epistemic uncertainty underlying these maps often is not systematically considered. This paper proposes a basic procedure to present areas with lower statistical reliability in a map of an ES indicator, the vegetation carbon stock, when extrapolating field data to larger case study regions. To illustrate our approach, we use regression analyses to model the spatial distribution of vegetation carbon stock in the Brazilian Amazon forest in the State of Pará. In our analysis, we used field data measurements for the carbon stock in three study sites as the response variable and various land characteristics derived from remote sensing as explanatory variables for the ES indicator. We performed regression methods to map the carbon stocks and calculated three indicators of reliability: RMSE-Root-mean-square-error, R2-coefficient of determination - from an out-of-sample validation and prediction intervals. We obtained a map of carbon stocks and made explicit its associated uncertainty using a general indicator of reliability and a map presenting the areas where our prediction is the most uncertain. Finally, we highlighted the role of environmental factors on the range of uncertainty. The results have two implications. (1) Mapping prediction interval indicates areas where the map's reliability is the highest. This information increases the usefulness of ES maps in environmental planning and governance. (2) In the case of the studied indicator, the reliability of our prediction is very dependent on land cover type, on the site location and its biophysical, socioeconomic and political characteristics. A better understanding of the relationship between carbon stock and land-use classes would increase the reliability of the maps. Results of our analysis help to direct future research and fieldwork and to prevent decision-making based on unreliable maps.
{"title":"Uncertainty in ecosystem services maps: the case of carbon stocks in the Brazilian Amazon forest using regression analysis","authors":"S. L. Clec'h, S. Dufour, Janic Bucheli, M. Grimaldi, R. Huber, I. Miranda, D. Mitja, Luiz Gonzaga Silva Costa, J. Oszwald","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.4.E28720","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.4.E28720","url":null,"abstract":"Ecosystem Service (ES) mapping has become a key tool in scientific assessments of human-nature interactions and is being increasingly used in environmental planning and policy-making. However, the associated epistemic uncertainty underlying these maps often is not systematically considered. This paper proposes a basic procedure to present areas with lower statistical reliability in a map of an ES indicator, the vegetation carbon stock, when extrapolating field data to larger case study regions. To illustrate our approach, we use regression analyses to model the spatial distribution of vegetation carbon stock in the Brazilian Amazon forest in the State of Pará. In our analysis, we used field data measurements for the carbon stock in three study sites as the response variable and various land characteristics derived from remote sensing as explanatory variables for the ES indicator. We performed regression methods to map the carbon stocks and calculated three indicators of reliability: RMSE-Root-mean-square-error, R2-coefficient of determination - from an out-of-sample validation and prediction intervals. We obtained a map of carbon stocks and made explicit its associated uncertainty using a general indicator of reliability and a map presenting the areas where our prediction is the most uncertain. Finally, we highlighted the role of environmental factors on the range of uncertainty. The results have two implications. (1) Mapping prediction interval indicates areas where the map's reliability is the highest. This information increases the usefulness of ES maps in environmental planning and governance. (2) In the case of the studied indicator, the reliability of our prediction is very dependent on land cover type, on the site location and its biophysical, socioeconomic and political characteristics. A better understanding of the relationship between carbon stock and land-use classes would increase the reliability of the maps. Results of our analysis help to direct future research and fieldwork and to prevent decision-making based on unreliable maps.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43866586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ecological economists currently face an important opportunity to influence national policies and global awareness regarding ecosystems. Ecosystem services (ES) frameworks, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the System of Environmental Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) will influence how national measurement systems integrate the value of ecosystems and their services into national planning and monitoring progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Decision-makers are, however, faced with an embarrassment of riches. There is a multitude of ES frameworks, but no formal and integrative evaluation of the entire set exists. We review the IPBES, the SEEA EEA and 14 other ES frameworks using criteria designed to address operational and convergence considerations for national ecosystem accounting. While the frameworks reviewed incorporate many strengths, none fulfils all the criteria of a comprehensive national ecosystem accounting framework. We conclude with suggestions for conceptual, measurement and process developments to broaden the appeal, utility and acceptance of future frameworks. Considering these suggestions could substantially contribute to the development of ecosystem accounting frameworks that foster a constructive dialogue amongst the many disciplines, national contexts and viewpoints involved in understanding, measuring and making decisions about ecosystems.
{"title":"A critical review of ecosystem accounting and services frameworks","authors":"Michael Bordt, M. Saner","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.3.E29306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.3.E29306","url":null,"abstract":"Ecological economists currently face an important opportunity to influence national policies and global awareness regarding ecosystems. Ecosystem services (ES) frameworks, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the System of Environmental Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) will influence how national measurement systems integrate the value of ecosystems and their services into national planning and monitoring progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Decision-makers are, however, faced with an embarrassment of riches. There is a multitude of ES frameworks, but no formal and integrative evaluation of the entire set exists. We review the IPBES, the SEEA EEA and 14 other ES frameworks using criteria designed to address operational and convergence considerations for national ecosystem accounting. While the frameworks reviewed incorporate many strengths, none fulfils all the criteria of a comprehensive national ecosystem accounting framework. We conclude with suggestions for conceptual, measurement and process developments to broaden the appeal, utility and acceptance of future frameworks. Considering these suggestions could substantially contribute to the development of ecosystem accounting frameworks that foster a constructive dialogue amongst the many disciplines, national contexts and viewpoints involved in understanding, measuring and making decisions about ecosystems.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46928075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the foundation of the ecosystem services concept in the ninetieth of the last century (Costanza et al. 1998, Costanza et al. 1997, de Groot 1992), many methods to map and assess ecosystem services have been developed and applied to policy and business questions worldwide. While many flexible methods exist at different spatial scales and ecosystem types, Jax et al. (2018) express the difficulty in choosing and applying the correct method to the right topic of interest. To enable a selection of appropriate methods, Harrison et al. (2018) developed a decision tree approach. However, Dunford et al. (2018) argue that often not a single method but a combination of methods are required for appropriate decision-making in real world situations. Thus, applying the concept of ecosystem services in practice is challenging, especially at institutional level (Saarikoski et al. 2018). This hampers comparability, applicability and transferability of ecosystem services assessments and related mapping applications across scales and European regions. It also impedes a solid overview of existing methods suitable for use at different scales in different biomes and types of ecosystems. These challenges require a consistent knowledge capitalisation infrastructure, where information is synthesised in a publicly accessible portal to enable a consistent description of different ecosystem conditions and the services they provide. Going beyond the previously mentioned challenges requires a flexible methodology for assessing and mapping ecosystem services. The Horizon 2020 project ESMERALDA (Enhancing ecoSysteM sERvices mApping for poLicy and Decision mAking) developed this methodology and implemented it into the "MAES explorer"*5 and the "MAES Methods Explorer*1 (MME)". The MME complements previous developments from the EU projects OpenNESS*2 and OPERAs*3. In contrast to the OPPLA*4 case-study-finder with case study areas and accompanied study area booklets and descriptions, MME focuses on methods for mapping and assessing ecosystem services and links those to selected literature and case studies. Additionally, MME provides a comprehensive and publicly searchable collection of peer-reviewed journal references and grey literature about mapping and assessing ecosystem services in Europe. This compilation is cross-related with the case study booklets produced by the ESMERALDA project and particularly methods, which are specifically used to assess and map particular ecosystem services within the case study area. Thus, searching for and filtering of particular case study areas, (related) literature references and/or methods is possible. Santos-Martin et al. (2018) provide the detailed description about the scientific procedure behind the MME tool described here.
自上世纪九十年代生态系统服务概念建立以来（Costanza等人1998，Costanza et al.1997，de Groot 1992），已经开发出许多绘制和评估生态系统服务的方法，并将其应用于世界各地的政策和商业问题。虽然在不同的空间尺度和生态系统类型下存在许多灵活的方法，但Jax等人（2018）表达了在选择正确的方法并将其应用于感兴趣的正确主题方面的困难。为了能够选择合适的方法，Harrison等人（2018）开发了一种决策树方法。然而，Dunford等人（2018）认为，在现实世界中进行适当的决策通常不需要单一的方法，而是需要多种方法的组合。因此，在实践中应用生态系统服务的概念是具有挑战性的，尤其是在机构层面（Saarikoski等人，2018）。这妨碍了生态系统服务评估和相关制图应用在不同尺度和欧洲区域之间的可比性、适用性和可转让性。它还阻碍了对适合在不同生物群落和生态系统类型中以不同规模使用的现有方法的全面概述。这些挑战需要一个一致的知识资本化基础设施，在这个基础设施中，信息被综合在一个可公开访问的门户网站中，以实现对不同生态系统条件及其提供的服务的一致描述。超越上述挑战需要一种灵活的方法来评估和绘制生态系统服务。地平线2020项目ESMERALDA（Enhanced ecoSysteM sERvices mApping for poLicy and Decision mAking）开发了这种方法，并将其实施到“MAES explorer”*5和“MAES Methods explorer*1（MME）”中。MME补充了欧盟项目OpenNESS*2和OPERAs*3之前的发展。与具有案例研究区域和附带研究区域小册子和描述的OPPLA*4案例研究发现器相比，MME侧重于绘制和评估生态系统服务的方法，并将这些方法与选定的文献和案例研究联系起来。此外，MME提供了一个全面的、可公开搜索的同行评审期刊参考文献和关于欧洲生态系统服务测绘和评估的灰色文献集。该汇编与ESMERALDA项目编制的案例研究小册子，特别是专门用于评估和绘制案例研究区域内特定生态系统服务的方法相互关联。因此，搜索和过滤特定的案例研究领域、（相关）文献参考和/或方法是可能的。Santos Martin等人（2018）提供了关于此处描述的MME工具背后的科学程序的详细描述。
{"title":"An online method database for mapping and assessing ecosystem services","authors":"Steffen Reichel, H. Klug","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.3.E25542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.3.E25542","url":null,"abstract":"Since the foundation of the ecosystem services concept in the ninetieth of the last century (Costanza et al. 1998, Costanza et al. 1997, de Groot 1992), many methods to map and assess ecosystem services have been developed and applied to policy and business questions worldwide. While many flexible methods exist at different spatial scales and ecosystem types, Jax et al. (2018) express the difficulty in choosing and applying the correct method to the right topic of interest. To enable a selection of appropriate methods, Harrison et al. (2018) developed a decision tree approach. However, Dunford et al. (2018) argue that often not a single method but a combination of methods are required for appropriate decision-making in real world situations. Thus, applying the concept of ecosystem services in practice is challenging, especially at institutional level (Saarikoski et al. 2018). This hampers comparability, applicability and transferability of ecosystem services assessments and related mapping applications across scales and European regions. It also impedes a solid overview of existing methods suitable for use at different scales in different biomes and types of ecosystems. These challenges require a consistent knowledge capitalisation infrastructure, where information is synthesised in a publicly accessible portal to enable a consistent description of different ecosystem conditions and the services they provide.\u0000 Going beyond the previously mentioned challenges requires a flexible methodology for assessing and mapping ecosystem services. The Horizon 2020 project ESMERALDA (Enhancing ecoSysteM sERvices mApping for poLicy and Decision mAking) developed this methodology and implemented it into the \"MAES explorer\"*5 and the \"MAES Methods Explorer*1 (MME)\". The MME complements previous developments from the EU projects OpenNESS*2 and OPERAs*3. In contrast to the OPPLA*4 case-study-finder with case study areas and accompanied study area booklets and descriptions, MME focuses on methods for mapping and assessing ecosystem services and links those to selected literature and case studies. Additionally, MME provides a comprehensive and publicly searchable collection of peer-reviewed journal references and grey literature about mapping and assessing ecosystem services in Europe. This compilation is cross-related with the case study booklets produced by the ESMERALDA project and particularly methods, which are specifically used to assess and map particular ecosystem services within the case study area. Thus, searching for and filtering of particular case study areas, (related) literature references and/or methods is possible. Santos-Martin et al. (2018) provide the detailed description about the scientific procedure behind the MME tool described here.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42129234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
C. Polce, J. Maes, Xavier Rotllan-Puig, D. Michez, L. Castro, B. Cederberg, L. Dvořák, Ú. Fitzpatrick, F. Francis, J. Neumayer, A. Manino, Juho Paukkunen, T. Pawlikowski, Stuart P. M. Roberts, J. Straka, P. Rasmont
Insect pollinators are a key component of biodiversity; they also play a major role in the reproduction of many species of wild plants and crops. It is widely acknowledged that insect pollinators are threatened by many environmental pressures, mostly of anthropogenic nature. Their decline is a global phenomenon. A better understanding of their distribution can help their monitoring and ultimately facilitate conservation actions. Since we only have partial knowledge of where pollinator species occur, the possibility to predict suitable environmental conditions from scattered species records can facilitate not only species monitoring, but also the identification of areas potentially vulnerable to pollinators decline. This data paper contains the predicted distribution of 47 species of bumblebees across the 28 Member States of the European Union (EU-28). Amongst the wild pollinators, bumblebees are one of the major groups contributing to the production of many crop species, hence their decline in Europe, North America and Asia can potentially threaten food security. Predictions were derived from distribution models, using species records with a spatial resolution of 10 km accessed from a central repository. Predictions were based on records from 1991 to 2012 and on a series of spatial environmental predictors from three main thematic areas: land use and land cover, climate and topography. These distributions were used to estimate the value of pollination as an ecosystem service. In light of the recent European Pollinators Initiative, this paper provides valuable information for a better understanding of where wild pollinators occur and it should be extended to other pollinator species.
{"title":"Distribution of bumblebees across Europe","authors":"C. Polce, J. Maes, Xavier Rotllan-Puig, D. Michez, L. Castro, B. Cederberg, L. Dvořák, Ú. Fitzpatrick, F. Francis, J. Neumayer, A. Manino, Juho Paukkunen, T. Pawlikowski, Stuart P. M. Roberts, J. Straka, P. Rasmont","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.3.E28143","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.3.E28143","url":null,"abstract":"Insect pollinators are a key component of biodiversity; they also play a major role in the reproduction of many species of wild plants and crops.\u0000 It is widely acknowledged that insect pollinators are threatened by many environmental pressures, mostly of anthropogenic nature. Their decline is a global phenomenon. A better understanding of their distribution can help their monitoring and ultimately facilitate conservation actions.\u0000 Since we only have partial knowledge of where pollinator species occur, the possibility to predict suitable environmental conditions from scattered species records can facilitate not only species monitoring, but also the identification of areas potentially vulnerable to pollinators decline.\u0000 This data paper contains the predicted distribution of 47 species of bumblebees across the 28 Member States of the European Union (EU-28). Amongst the wild pollinators, bumblebees are one of the major groups contributing to the production of many crop species, hence their decline in Europe, North America and Asia can potentially threaten food security.\u0000 Predictions were derived from distribution models, using species records with a spatial resolution of 10 km accessed from a central repository. Predictions were based on records from 1991 to 2012 and on a series of spatial environmental predictors from three main thematic areas: land use and land cover, climate and topography.\u0000 These distributions were used to estimate the value of pollination as an ecosystem service. In light of the recent European Pollinators Initiative, this paper provides valuable information for a better understanding of where wild pollinators occur and it should be extended to other pollinator species.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47653482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
B. Czúcz, Ágnes Kalóczkai, Ildikó Arany, Katalin Kelemen, J. Papp, Krisztina Havadtői, K. Campbell, Marton Kelemen, Á. Vári
There is a broad diversity of concepts and methods used in ecosystem service (ES) mapping and assessment projects with many open questions related to the implementation of the concepts and the use of the methods at various scales. In this paper, we present a regional ES mapping and assessment (MAES) study performed between 2015 and 2017 over an area of ~900 km2in Central Romania. The Niraj-MAES project supported by EEA funds and the Romanian government aimed at identifying, assessing and mapping all major ES supplied by the Natura 2000 sites nested in the valleys of the Niraj and Târnava Mică rivers amongst the foothills of the Eastern Carpathians. Major ES in this culturally and ecologically rich semi-natural landscape were determined and prioritised in cooperation with local stakeholders. Indicators for the capacities of individual services were modelled with a multi-tiered methodology, relying on the involvement of regional thematic experts. ES with appropriate socio-economic data were also evaluated economically. The whole process was supervised by a stakeholder advisory board endowed with a remarkable decision-making position, giving feedback and recommendations to the scientists at the critical nodes of the process, thus ensuring salience and legitimacy. In addition to simply presenting the dry facts about the approaches (assessment targets, methods) and outcomes, we also identify several key decisions on the design of the whole assessment process related to (1) the role of conceptual frameworks, (2) stakeholder involvement, (3) the selection of ES to assess (priority setting), (4) the development of models and indicators and (5) the interpretation of outcomes, for which we give a detailed description of the decision process. We found that conceptual frameworks can have a pivotal role in structuring and facilitating communication amongst the participants of a MAES project and that a broad and structured involvement of stakeholders and (local) experts creates a sense of ownership and thus can facilitate local policy uptake. We argue that priority setting and the development of indicators should be an iterative process and we also give an example how such a process can be designed, enabling an efficient participation of a broad range of experts and the collaborative development of simple ES models and indicators. Finally, we discuss several general issues related to the interpretation of results of any kind of MAES and the follow-up of regional MAES projects.
{"title":"How to design a transdisciplinary regional ecosystem service assessment: a case study from Romania, Eastern Europe","authors":"B. Czúcz, Ágnes Kalóczkai, Ildikó Arany, Katalin Kelemen, J. Papp, Krisztina Havadtői, K. Campbell, Marton Kelemen, Á. Vári","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.3.E26363","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.3.E26363","url":null,"abstract":"There is a broad diversity of concepts and methods used in ecosystem service (ES) mapping and assessment projects with many open questions related to the implementation of the concepts and the use of the methods at various scales. In this paper, we present a regional ES mapping and assessment (MAES) study performed between 2015 and 2017 over an area of ~900 km2in Central Romania. The Niraj-MAES project supported by EEA funds and the Romanian government aimed at identifying, assessing and mapping all major ES supplied by the Natura 2000 sites nested in the valleys of the Niraj and Târnava Mică rivers amongst the foothills of the Eastern Carpathians. Major ES in this culturally and ecologically rich semi-natural landscape were determined and prioritised in cooperation with local stakeholders. Indicators for the capacities of individual services were modelled with a multi-tiered methodology, relying on the involvement of regional thematic experts. ES with appropriate socio-economic data were also evaluated economically. The whole process was supervised by a stakeholder advisory board endowed with a remarkable decision-making position, giving feedback and recommendations to the scientists at the critical nodes of the process, thus ensuring salience and legitimacy. In addition to simply presenting the dry facts about the approaches (assessment targets, methods) and outcomes, we also identify several key decisions on the design of the whole assessment process related to (1) the role of conceptual frameworks, (2) stakeholder involvement, (3) the selection of ES to assess (priority setting), (4) the development of models and indicators and (5) the interpretation of outcomes, for which we give a detailed description of the decision process. We found that conceptual frameworks can have a pivotal role in structuring and facilitating communication amongst the participants of a MAES project and that a broad and structured involvement of stakeholders and (local) experts creates a sense of ownership and thus can facilitate local policy uptake. We argue that priority setting and the development of indicators should be an iterative process and we also give an example how such a process can be designed, enabling an efficient participation of a broad range of experts and the collaborative development of simple ES models and indicators. Finally, we discuss several general issues related to the interpretation of results of any kind of MAES and the follow-up of regional MAES projects.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46439928","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
C. Marta-Pedroso, L. Laporta, I. Gama, T. Domingos
Demonstrating economic benefits generated by protected areas is often pointed out as pivotal for supporting decision-making. We argue in this paper that the concept of ecosystem services (ES), defined as the benefits humans derive from ecosystems, provides a consistent framework to approach this issue as it links ecosystem functioning and benefits, including benefits with economic value. This study aimed at providing evidence on how to bring the economic value of protected areas to the decision-making process and contributing to extend current EU Member States' experience in mapping and assessing the economic value of ES in the context of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (Action 5). In doing so, we used the Natural Park of Serra de S. Mamede (PNSSM), located in the Alentejo NUTS II region, as a case study. We followed a three-step approach to pursue our goals, entailing stakeholders' engagement for selecting relevant ES (through a participatory workshop), biophysical mapping of ES flows (based on a multi-tiered approach depending on data availability) and spatial economic estimation of such flows (using value transfer, willingness-to-pay and market price methods). Our results indicate that the ES with highest economic value are not always the ones with higher perceived value by stakeholders. For most ES, the economic value increased with increasing protection level within the park, except for the crop production service. Although no formal uncertainty or sensitivity analysis has been performed, the following range is based on a critical assessment of non-primary data used. We estimated the aggregate annual value of PNSSM to be 11 to 33M€/year (representing 0.1 to 0.3% of the regional NUTSII Alentejo Gross Domestic Product). Our findings reinforce the need to adopt mixes of monetary and non-monetary valuation processes and not to rely just on one approach or measure of value while bringing ES into protected areas management.
证明保护区产生的经济效益往往被认为是支持决策的关键。我们在本文中认为，生态系统服务（ES）的概念，被定义为人类从生态系统中获得的利益，为解决这个问题提供了一个一致的框架，因为它将生态系统功能和利益，包括利益与经济价值联系起来。本研究旨在为如何将保护区的经济价值纳入决策过程提供证据，并有助于将当前欧盟成员国在欧盟生物多样性战略背景下绘制和评估ES经济价值的经验推广到2020年（行动5）。在这样做的过程中，我们使用了位于Alentejo NUTS II地区的Serra de S.Mamede自然公园（PNSSM）作为案例研究。我们采用了三步走的方法来实现我们的目标，包括利益相关者参与选择相关的生态系统（通过参与式研讨会）、生态系统流量的生物物理测绘（基于取决于数据可用性的多层方法）和对此类流量的空间经济估计（使用价值转移、支付意愿和市场价格方法）。我们的研究结果表明，经济价值最高的ES并不总是利益相关者感知价值较高的ES。对于大多数ES，经济价值随着园区内保护水平的提高而增加，但作物生产服务除外。尽管尚未进行正式的不确定性或敏感性分析，但以下范围基于对所用非主要数据的关键评估。我们估计PNSSM的年总价值为1100万至3300万欧元/年（占地区NUTSII阿连特霍国内生产总值的0.1%至0.3%）。我们的研究结果强化了采用货币和非货币估价流程相结合的必要性，在将ES纳入保护区管理时，不要只依赖一种方法或价值衡量标准。
{"title":"Economic valuation and mapping of Ecosystem Services in the context of protected area management (Natural Park of Serra de São Mamede, Portugal)","authors":"C. Marta-Pedroso, L. Laporta, I. Gama, T. Domingos","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.3.E26722","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.3.E26722","url":null,"abstract":"Demonstrating economic benefits generated by protected areas is often pointed out as pivotal for supporting decision-making. We argue in this paper that the concept of ecosystem services (ES), defined as the benefits humans derive from ecosystems, provides a consistent framework to approach this issue as it links ecosystem functioning and benefits, including benefits with economic value. This study aimed at providing evidence on how to bring the economic value of protected areas to the decision-making process and contributing to extend current EU Member States' experience in mapping and assessing the economic value of ES in the context of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (Action 5). In doing so, we used the Natural Park of Serra de S. Mamede (PNSSM), located in the Alentejo NUTS II region, as a case study. We followed a three-step approach to pursue our goals, entailing stakeholders' engagement for selecting relevant ES (through a participatory workshop), biophysical mapping of ES flows (based on a multi-tiered approach depending on data availability) and spatial economic estimation of such flows (using value transfer, willingness-to-pay and market price methods). Our results indicate that the ES with highest economic value are not always the ones with higher perceived value by stakeholders. For most ES, the economic value increased with increasing protection level within the park, except for the crop production service. Although no formal uncertainty or sensitivity analysis has been performed, the following range is based on a critical assessment of non-primary data used. We estimated the aggregate annual value of PNSSM to be 11 to 33M€/year (representing 0.1 to 0.3% of the regional NUTSII Alentejo Gross Domestic Product). Our findings reinforce the need to adopt mixes of monetary and non-monetary valuation processes and not to rely just on one approach or measure of value while bringing ES into protected areas management.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41873009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：