This Section presents the key results of the co-creation process, structured along the different phases of the framework development (Table 1), with emphasis on the integration of feedback and its influence on subsequent revisions.

Phases I and II: Foundational frameworks and the integration of their core components

Partners initially identified three main frameworks (Table 2) as essential for a comprehensive understanding of ecosystem assessments: The operational MAES Framework developed in the ESMERALDA project (Burkhard et al. 2018), the IPBES 5-step valuation Framework (Termansen et al. 2023) and the Natural Capital Protocol (Capitals Coalition 2016):

The operational MAES Framework provides a structured approach for ecosystem assessments, central to the European Union's Biodiversity Strategy 2020. It is a nine-step operational framework aimed at guiding the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services across EU Member States. The steps are designed to address various activities: from defining questions to mapping ecosystems, assessing their condition, quantifying services and integrating results for dissemination. This process links ecosystem condition and services with socio-economic factors, emphasising their spatial dimension and stakeholder integration (Burkhard et al. 2018).

Within the first round of feedback collection, concerns emerged regarding the under-representation of public sector perspectives. In response to these concerns, the Integrated Approach to Planning Framework (Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia 2021) was incorporated (Table 2):

The Latvian Guidelines for Coastal Area Development Planners (Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia 2021) promote the Integrated Approach to Planning that treats coastal land and adjacent marine areas as a single, interconnected space. The Framework emphasises the need for holistic spatial planning that bridges traditional boundaries between terrestrial and marine governance. It calls for coordinated decision-making across administrative levels and sectors, ensuring that environmental, economic and social dimensions are considered together. Central to this approach is the application of ecosystem-based principles. The guidelines stress the importance of involving a wide range of stakeholders. Additionally, the integration of spatial data and compatible indicators across land and sea domains is encouraged to support evidence-based planning.

Together, these four frameworks formed the principal foundation for developing the FIEA and defining its overall structure (Table 2). Specifically, they provided the conceptual basis for the main FIEA phases (Level 1), whereas the design of the other levels and their specifics also drew on additional sources of information and methodological inputs (Table 2). Those relate to, for example, the Ecological Planning Model (Steiner 2008), the SEEA-EA (United Nations et al. 2024) and ecosystem services classification schemes (e.g. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), Haines-Young (2025)), to enhance the relevance and applicability of the FIEA in different scientific as well as decision-making contexts where such sources are known and commonly adopted.

Next to the consideration of available key resources, the initial development of the FIEA was guided by several core requirements identified by the SELINA consortium: adopting a nested, hierarchical approach; implementing a circular design that facilitates iterative cycles and potentially allows for multiple entry points; and creating an overarching Framework that encompasses multiple perspectives and is adaptable to various decision-making contexts to ensure flexibility, while, at the same time, recognising that not all steps or sub-steps may be relevant for every purpose and every user. All of this led to the FIEA v1 (see Suppl. material 6 for visualisation), a hierarchically nested framework structured around six phases: Frame, Scope, Design, Assess, Share and Act.

Phase III: Comprehensive revision

Following the initial development of the FIEA (FIEA v1), extensive feedback was collected through multiple formats, providing the basis for the adaptation and enhancement of the Framework. Feedback indicated, for example, the need for additional steps between the "Assess" and "Act" phases, focused on, for example, the development of solutions. Accordingly, a "Develop solutions or recommendations" step was inserted to identify options or pathways, informed by the preceding steps and assessment results (see Suppl. material 6). This step involves proposing and designing possible solutions or recommendations that align with the initial purpose of the assessment, potentially addressing the identified impacts and dependencies and aiming at mitigating the risks or capitalising on the opportunities uncovered. Further feedback indicated the need for a clear process of monitoring and evaluation before revisiting the "Frame" phase. To address this, a "Monitor and evaluate" step was incorporated, in which progress is tracked and the effectiveness of actions, based on the ecosystem assessment, is examined. This evaluation determines whether objectives have been achieved and assesses the adequacy of measures in addressing impacts, dependencies, risks and opportunities. Additionally, the "Share" phase was renamed to "Disclose" to increase the relevance of formal disclosure obligations.

Additional suggestions emphasised the importance of continuous stakeholder engagement and utilising a more action-orientated language throughout the Framework. Although preferences for terminology varied depending on participants’ backgrounds, a single formulation was adopted at this stage. To acknowledge the diversity of perspectives and support a common understanding, all relevant terms were subsequently compiled into a project-internal glossary, providing clarity and ensuring transparency in language use (e.g. “actor” versus “stakeholder”). To emphasise that stakeholder engagement is a continuous and context-sensitive process, the FIEA substep “Engage stakeholders” was renamed to “Start engaging stakeholders” and moved to the beginning of the “Scope” phase. Furthermore, in the visual representation of the FIEA, a cog wheel labelled “Stakeholder engagement” rotating around the circular framework to signal its continuous, cross-phase role, was introduced (see Suppl. material 6 for visualisation). Feedback stressing the importance of integrating justice dimensions was also taken up. Links were identified between specific FIEA substeps and processes related to topics of justice. Those links focused on raising awareness about diverse justice dimensions and identifying entry points within the FIEA for addressing the different dimensions. It was also highlighted that the FIEA should be linked to the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) (2024) Locate, Evaluate, Assess and Prepare (LEAP) approach. Accordingly, a step-wise link was implemented. Building on these and the other revisions, the FIEA v1.3 was developed (see Suppl. material 6 for visualisation).

Phases IV and V: Insights from testing the FIEA in scientific case studies and from validating its applicability for decision-making

The combined activities of phases IV and V demonstrated the applicability and robustness of the Framework (FIEA v1.3) across more complex settings, while also revealing areas needing further attention and guidance. In phase IV, the piloting of the FIEA in scientific Test Sites validated the internal consistency and applicability of the Framework from the perspective of designing integrated scientific methods and the successful testing offered initial insights and orientation that supported the subsequent phases.

Phase V focused on real-world contexts through the 15 SELINA Demonstration Projects, spanning public and private decision-making processes. The comparison of the projects’ recent, ongoing and upcoming workflows to the FIEA steps confirmed the Framework’s capacity to align with real-world decision-making processes and its adaptability across different domains. The diversity of projects provided evidence that the Framework was not limited to academic or experimental conditions, but that it can also function under practical constraints and dynamics. The feedback and lessons learned gathered throughout the process laid the foundation for the comprehensive revision in phase VI.

Phase VI: Lessons learned and comprehensive revision

The feedback received from the Demonstration Projects (Table 4) comprised both general comments – covering, inter alia, overall impression, clarity and understandability, usability, presentation and format and comprehensiveness – and comments that were specific to individual phases and steps (see Suppl. material 4).

The importance of making the Framework accessible and comprehensible for different target user groups emerged as a key finding. In response, the objectives of the FIEA and accompanying supporting materials were refined to provide clearer guidance and target user groups and exemplary use cases were defined to ensure the Framework's relevance across sectors (Fig. 2). Public-sector decision-makers include individuals within EU Member State governments or institutions responsible for shaping, negotiating and implementing environmental policies and regulatory frameworks. Private-sector stakeholders develop business strategies, implementation plans, risk management approaches and compliance and reporting processes and include, for example, farmers applying the framework to provide information for land management decisions and assess ecosystem dependencies and impacts. Researchers focus on knowledge generation, method development and the application of indicators and models for ecosystem assessments. Civil society organisations represent societal interests, contribute local knowledge and engage in advocacy and participatory assessment processes, using the framework to support collaborative assessments and provide information for community-based decisions.

Additionally, requests for more granular guidance within each Framework step led to the addition of more detailed descriptions. In fact, three different versions of the descriptions for individual steps and sub-steps were created to cater to various needs: a long version providing very detailed descriptions, a short version distilling only the most crucial elements and a simple version devoid of technical terminology for better accessibility. The long version of the descriptions, with detailed explanations and explicit cross-references between steps, is particularly suited for experts, researchers and other more technical practitioners who require detailed guidance for conducting or designing assessments. The short version, which condenses the most crucial elements, might be more appropriate for, for example, project developers and policy advisors who need to grasp the framework quickly and apply it in practice without going too far into methodological depth. The simple version, written without technical terminology, is tailored to policy-makers, managers and non-technical stakeholders (e.g. community representatives and NGOs) who are primarily interested in understanding the process, relevance and implications rather than methodological detail. In response to feedback, within the long version of the description, cross-references were added linking between the FIEA steps to make input–output relationships and dependencies more explicit.

A suggestion was made to incorporate a decision tree to facilitate the implementation of the Framework according to varying user needs. However, a separate decision tree was considered unnecessary, as the FIEA is already structured as a stepwise Framework. Its built-in cross-referencing and modularity allow users to navigate and apply the Framework according to their specific context and purpose. Throughout the development process, the importance of refining stakeholder engagement strategies was repeatedly emphasised. Therefore, general information on potential stakeholder roles was added, based on the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation (IAP2 International Federation 2018). Feedback highlighted the importance of placing greater emphasis on the assessment of cultural ecosystem services and on opportunities for qualitative analysis, which led to their strengthened consideration within the Framework. On the basis of these revisions, the FIEA v2 was established.

Through the testing of the FIEA in the Demonstration Projects and in parallel with the specific feedback and revision recommendations, also broader insights were collected. Since these insights did not result in further revisions of the Framework itself, but have instead highlighted its strengths and challenges, they are presented in the Section #the_practical_value_of_the_fiea.

Phase VII: Final consultation for refinement

During the final revision, feedback from the entire SELINA consortium was incorporated to develop the final framework version. Slight modifications were made to the descriptions of individual FIEA substeps during this phase. Particular emphasis was placed on broadening private-sector perspectives. Therefore, clarity around the term "disclose" was improved by transitioning to a broader "Share" title for the Level 1 phase, with the addition of a dedicated Level 2 step, "Disclose". This distinction separates general communication and dissemination activities from actual disclosure obligations. Recommendations for stakeholder engagement, including suggested formats, were added to the FIEA steps. Further, the linkage between FIEA and the justice dimensions was also updated. The focus was placed on those steps in the process where recognitional, participatory, distributive and contextual justice are most visible and actionable in ecosystem assessments. For each selected step, a structured description was developed that: (i) explicitly links the step to justice, clarifying why it matters; (ii) unpacks the four justice dimensions in relation to the specific step; and (iii) explains the practical relevance of these linkages, ensuring that the FIEA is not only normative, but also operational. On the basis of these revisions, the final FIEA (FIEA v3) was established.

This Section presents the final version of the FIEA, outlining its overall structure, key components and (sub-)steps. Following the iterative development process and incorporation of feedback, the final structure of the circular Framework consists of six interconnected phases: Frame, Scope, Design, Assess, Share and Act (see Fig. 3). Each phase has multiple steps that guide the user through the process of defining the purpose of the ecosystem assessment, selecting the methods, indicators and data, implementing the ecosystem assessment, communicating and applying the results and integrating the results in decision-making (see Suppl. material 5 for table-based structure of the FIEA v3, including description on the level of individual Framework steps). Depending on the user group and the specific purpose of the assessment, the phases may vary in their level of detail. By engaging stakeholders throughout the assessment cycle, the FIEA emphasises the continuous and context-sensitive involvement of stakeholders across all phases for achieving an integrated, impactful, broadly accepted and applicable assessment. It acknowledges the importance of different levels of participation, for example, along the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation (IAP2 International Federation 2018) – from informing to co-creating and empowering – based on purpose, context and available capacities.

The Frame phase establishes the foundation for the assessment by defining its overall purpose, expected outcomes, and intended users, while ensuring legitimacy through inclusive and transparent approaches. It also includes analysing relevant stakeholders and their roles, as well as identifying key risks and opportunities that link the assessment to real-world consequences. Building on this, the Scope phase initiates stakeholder engagement and defines assessment questions and objectives. It further prioritises the most relevant impacts and dependencies and clarifies the spatial, temporal, social and ecological boundaries of the work. In the Design phase, the objectives are translated into concrete targets and strategies for assessing ecosystem types and extent, condition and services. This includes entry points for the selection of suitable methods, indicators and data, alongside consideration of communication needs, policy alignment, scenario and uncertainty assessments. The Assess phase represents the core of the framework, where the previously defined objectives and designs are put into practice. In this phase, the agreed methods, indicators and data are systematically applied to assess, map and potentially account for ecosystem types and their extent, the condition of ecosystems and ecosystem services. Beyond producing technical analyses, the Assess phase integrates different knowledge sources and perspectives, combines qualitative and quantitative approaches and ensures that assessments are context-specific and scientifically robust. By transforming the design into tangible results, the Assess phase forms the foundation for the subsequent synthesis, communication and uptake of findings, making it the pivotal element of the overall process. The Share phase synthesises results, revisits impacts and dependencies and develops solutions or recommendations in co-creation with stakeholders. Results are then tailored to specific audiences, communicated through appropriate channels and – where relevant – formally disclosed. Finally, the Act phase focuses on the uptake of results into public and private decision-making, their implementation through concrete actions and policies and the monitoring and evaluation of progress and effectiveness. A principle of continuous iteration and improvement underpins all phases, ensuring adaptation and refinement in light of new insights and changing contexts.

Justice considerations

Justice considerations are highlighted at multiple points throughout the FIEA, with individual substeps relating to more than one justice dimension (see Suppl. material 5 for table-based structure of the FIEA v3, including justice considerations). This is especially obvious in early framing stages (e.g. when defining purpose, identifying stakeholders and recognising risks and opportunities), where decisions simultaneously influence procedural justice (who is included and has influence) and recognitional justice (which knowledge and values are considered legitimate), thereby shaping which impacts are regarded as relevant. A second, less obvious connection appears in the “technical” stages of assessment design (methods, indicators and data choices), where decisions about what is measured and how it is assessed can favour certain value types (for example, biophysical or monetary indicators), while making others less apparent. In later stages, particularly when synthesising evidence, developing solutions and translating results into key decisions, distributive implications become more prominent as trade-offs amongst decisions need to be negotiated and benefits and burdens allocated. Overall, these results show that mapping justice across FIEA is highly relevant to enable users and decision-makers to anticipate where justice-related risks are likely to arise, from framing and evidence collection to outcomes and where transparent reasoning, inclusive interpretation and equity-focused monitoring are most vital.

This Section examines the practical relevance and added value of the Framework as they emerged during the testing and refinement process, illustrating how it advances beyond existing approaches in supporting real-world applications and decision-making processes.

The practical value of the FIEA has become most apparent when reflecting on the experiences of Demonstration Project partners who tested its usability during the co-creation process. Demonstration Project partners raised a number of practical challenges and critical implementation points. These inputs were the basis for the step-wise adaptation of the framework and are discussed in detail in the Section #framework_development. In this Section, the focus lies on the added value that Demonstration Project partners identified during implementation, highlighting how the FIEA can support their work in practice.

Integrative nature: As a first source of value, its integrative nature as a design tool for ecosystem assessments was noted. Demonstration Project partners stressed that the FIEA helps bring together ecological, economic and social dimensions within a single process. This was seen as particularly important for projects that had previously focused mostly on one dimension only or where activities were fragmented across different actors. A policy partner from Belgium reported that “it covers the whole process”, highlighting how the FIEA connects aspects that were often treated separately. In Norway, it was described as a “good exercise to help structure reporting”. Demonstration Projects highlighted how the Framework supports integration across knowledge domains. Several partners reflected that this integrative quality makes it easier to situate technical assessment work within broader decision-making contexts and to link scientific outputs with social and economic considerations.

Transparency: Second, the FIEA was perceived as clear and logically organised. Its stepwise design provides transparency and makes it easier for users to follow complex processes. A partner from Bulgaria stressed that “each stage is clearly defined”, while in Malta, it was highlighted that “it follows a logical flow and reflects the process we actually went through”. This clarity supports both understanding and communication of results and was particularly valued by Demonstration Projects already familiar with similar frameworks or protocols.

Knowledge co-creation: Third, its value was found to lie in facilitating communication and collaboration. The FIEA was said to act as a bridge between scientific work and stakeholder engagement, offering a common reference point for dialogue and helping to structure engagement. Diverse actors can easily see how their contributions relate to one another, supporting co-creation and collective ownership of the process.

Flexibility: Fourth, the FIEA’s flexibility was noted as a practical advantage. It was seen as adaptable to different contexts and scales, enabling Demonstration Projects to tailor their application to their own needs. As an interviewee from Italy explained, the “flexibility of the framework enhances usability”. Partners also valued its modular approach, which allows selecting and applying those elements most relevant to the process stage and context, rather than feeling bound to follow the entire process step by step.

Alignment: Finally, its alignment with broader policy and methodological debates was emphasised. The FIEA’s alignment of structure and terminology with established standards, such as the Natural Capital Protocol, Capitals Protocol and SEEA-EA, was viewed as strengthening its credibility and relevance. As several partners reflected, “its consistency with [the language of] international standards makes it easier to link to EU and global debates”.

Alongside these benefits, some Demonstration Project partners (Table 4) highlighted that translating theoretical aspects into practical applications was not always straightforward, particularly for Projects with limited resources or for those less familiar with ecosystem terminology. While these issues were acknowledged and subsequently addressed through adaptations to the FIEA (see Section #framework_development) – including the development of different levels of description – they may continue to pose challenges, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as for local authorities or municipalities that often face similar capacity constraints.

These reflections underline that the FIEA’s practical value does not lie in rigid adherence to every step, but in its role as an integrative, clear, flexible, modular and communicable structure. It brings together complementary strengths from established frameworks, while addressing their respective limitations. In contrast to sector‑specific (e.g. the operational MAES Framework, the Natural Capital Protocol), context‑bound (e.g. the Integrated Approach to Planning) or conceptual frameworks (e.g. the IPBES 5-step valuation Framework), the FIEA offers an integrated approach necessary to address the multifaceted nature of integrated ecosystem assessments across diverse domains and contexts, specifying detailed steps and processes required for implementation. It offers ways to implement integrated ecosystem assessments, accounting for relevant interdependencies amongst ecosystem components, engaging with stakeholders and situating efforts within wider policy and methodological contexts.

Addressing the key challenge of limited uptake of ecosystem assessments in decision-making highlighted in recent literature (Longato et al. 2021, Walther et al. 2025), FIEA offers a practical pathway to improve adoption. Despite global and regional efforts – for example, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the EU Biodiversity Strategies 2020 and 2030 – as well as national instruments, such as the Bulgaria’s Forestry Act (Zakon za gorite (Forest Act of the Republic of Bulgaria) 2011), actual uptake of ecosystem evidence by decision-makers remains low (Laurans et al. 2013, Termansen et al. 2022, Walther et al. 2025). The FIEA’s development through co-creation directly addresses these issues by enhancing the Framework’s credibility, salience and legitimacy, which are crucial for increasing ecosystem services uptake (Barton et al. 2022).

More precisely, the co-creation approach employed in developing the FIEA was pivotal to strengthening its relevance, its inclusiveness and applicability. Inclusiveness is vital for decision-making because it ensures diverse perspectives are heard, which builds foundational trust amongst stakeholders and proactively identifies potential flashpoints, significantly reducing the risk of costly conflicts in complex areas like investment. By engaging scientists, public and private sector representatives, as well as civil society organisations, the FIEA ensures a robust integration of knowledge and expertise from the ecological, economic and social dimensions. This process enriched the Framework with diverse insights and practical applications. However, during the development and revision of the FIEA, at times, compromises amongst diverse perspectives were necessary, as some decisions did not achieve unanimous agreement. While these decisions helped ensure the Framework's functionality, they also underscore the complexity and challenges inherent in developing a Framework intended to address various needs and objectives (see Section #challenges_of_the_fieas_cocreation_and_general_limitations).

By incorporating the potential for iterative feedback loops and offering a flexible, modular design, the FIEA seeks to allow for pragmatic approaches to be undertaken in its implementation, reduce information costs and improve the translation of assessment findings into actionable insights. This adaptability is designed to accommodate various contexts and needs. The capacity to iterate ecosystem assessments over time across policy or project cycles contributes towards the likelihood of uptake in policy and project design (Barton et al. 2022).

Feedback during the usability testing of the FIEA v1.3 with Demonstration Projects emphasised the value of having clearly defined and well-structured phases. The logical flow was described as facilitating comprehension and implementation and as supporting integration into existing processes. Representatives from both the public and private sectors noted that the FIEA’s structure aligns with relevant approaches and recent developments at the EU and global scale. The FIEA offers a practical way to connect research with decision-making, helping to support more efficient and sustainable practices in ecosystem management. In addition, the FIEA recognises ecosystem condition as an analysis component equivalent in importance to other elements – a feature that, apart from its conceptual inclusion in MAES, is not yet a common standard. Furthermore, by incorporating ecosystem accounting in line with the SEEA-EA (United Nations et al. 2024), the FIEA extends its applicability to areas with limited coverage in other frameworks. During the FIEA development, the ongoing progress by the Capitals Coalition – namely the evolution from the Natural Capital Protocol to the more comprehensive Capitals Protocol (Capitals Coalition 2025) and the Beta Framework for Integrated Decision-making (Capitals Coalition 2024) – was actively monitored and considered. This transition reflects a broader shift towards integrated, multi-capital approaches to decision-making, encompassing not only natural, but also social, human and produced capitals (Capitals Coalition 2025). Besides, the implemented link from the FIEA steps to the TNFD’s LEAP framework assessment components (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) 2024) increases FIEA’s relevance by improving comparability and alignment and enabling more interoperable, efficient workflows across private‑sector processes.

The Framework not only emphasises the importance of stakeholder engagement, but also explicitly mentions aspects, such as uncertainty analysis in the assessment cycle, a critical factor identified as affecting ecosystem services uptake (Rounsevell et al. 2021, Walther et al. 2025). Furthermore, by promoting transparency and inclusivity through stakeholder engagement and active disclosure, the Framework facilitates navigating the complexities of diverse values and worldviews (Dou et al. 2023). General guidance as well as step-specific recommendations for stakeholder participation are provided. Additionally, the framework identifies, at selected steps, where recognitional, participatory, distributive and contextual justice are most relevant and provides operational guidance for addressing them. Together, the stakeholder engagement and justice considerations strengthen trust in results, improve the durability of decisions and broaden the framework’s relevance across governance contexts. They increase the value of FIEA by producing outputs that are not only scientifically, but also socially robust and easier to integrate into policy, planning and private‑sector processes.

Consistent with the IPBES Values Assessment (Pascual et al. 2023), the FIEA has the potential to support ecosystem assessments undertaken for all three valuation purposes: informing (e.g. for knowledge generation, awareness raising and impact evaluation), deciding (e.g. for evaluating options in projects, policies or corporate management) and designing (e.g. standard setting, damage estimation). Its modular architecture allows users to apply only those steps relevant to their purpose and capacity, with assessment depth that may vary from research-orientated applications to decision-orientated assessments. Overall, the FIEA facilitates the internalisation of nature’s values by focusing on ecosystem assessments and allowing for embedding plural valuation, uncertainty analysis and documentation within decision cycles. However, any actual internalisation through statutory reporting, certification or binding instruments requires adherence to the respective external standards, which the FIEA is designed to inform and complement rather than replace.

Through the co-creation process, a few limitations were encountered that are worth discussing. A primary challenge was balancing the diverse interests and expectations of a broad range of involved partners, including scientists, policy-makers, private sector representatives, as well as civil society organisations. Each group brought distinct priorities and constraints, which necessitated compromises that did not always fully satisfy all parties involved. Further, communication barriers arose, for example, concerning terms such as “stakeholder” and “actor” or “material” and “relevant”, stemming from differences in terminology, conceptual approaches and levels of expertise across disciplines and sectors. These disparities occasionally led to misunderstandings and necessitated additional clarification efforts, for example, the development of a glossary. Furthermore, crafting a framework that is both integrative, flexible and adaptable, yet simple enough for practical application, has presented its own difficulties, as there is a constant risk of overly complex design potentially overwhelming users. Additionally, the process highlighted the need for robust implementation support which one can encounter by providing appropriate guidance material and exemplary cases.