One Ecosystem :
Research Article
|
Corresponding author: Blal Adem Esmail (blal.ademesmail@unitn.it)
Academic editor: Joachim Maes
Received: 10 Apr 2020 | Accepted: 28 May 2020 | Published: 02 Jun 2020
© 2020 Davide Geneletti, Blal Adem Esmail, Chiara Cortinovis, Ildikó Arany, Mario Balzan, Pieter van Beukering, Sabine Bicking, Paulo Borges, Bilyana Borisova, Steven Broekx, Benjamin Burkhard, Artur Gil, Ola Inghe, Leena Kopperoinen, Marion Kruse, Inge Liekens, Damian Lowicki, Andrzej Mizgajski, Sara Mulder, Stoyan Nedkov, Hannah Ostergard, Ana Picanço, Anda Ruskule, Fernando Santos-Martín, Ina M. Sieber, Johan Svensson, Dava Vačkářů, Kristina Veidemane
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:
Geneletti D, Adem Esmail B, Cortinovis C, Arany I, Balzan M, van Beukering P, Bicking S, Borges PA, Borisova B, Broekx S, Burkhard B, Gil A, Inghe O, Kopperoinen L, Kruse M, Liekens I, Lowicki D, Mizgajski A, Mulder S, Nedkov S, Ostergard H, Picanço A, Ruskule A, Santos-Martín F, Sieber IM, Svensson J, Vačkářů D, Veidemane K (2020) Ecosystem services mapping and assessment for policy- and decision-making: Lessons learned from a comparative analysis of European case studies. One Ecosystem 5: e53111. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.5.e53111
|
|
This paper analyses and compares a set of case studies on ecosystem services (ES) mapping and assessment with the purpose of formulating lessons learned and recommendations. Fourteen case studies were selected during the EU Horizon 2020 “Coordination and Support Action” ESMERALDA to represent different policy- and decision-making processes throughout the European Union, across a wide range of themes, biomes and scales. The analysis is based on a framework that addresses the key steps of an ES mapping and assessment process, namely policy questions, stakeholder identification and involvement, application of mapping and assessment methods, dissemination and communication and implementation. The analysis revealed that most case studies were policy-orientated or gave explicit suggestions for policy implementation in different contexts, including urban, rural and natural areas. Amongst the findings, the importance of starting stakeholder engagement early in the process was confirmed in order to generate interest and confidence in the project and to increase their willingness to cooperate. Concerning mapping and assessment methods, it was found that the integration of methods and results is essential for providing a comprehensive overview from different perspectives (e.g. social, economic). Finally, lessons learned for effective implementation of ES mapping and assessment results are presented and discussed.
Graphical Abstarcat in Fig.
biodiversity, EU Biodiversity Strategy, comparative analysis, ecosystem services, MAES, case studies
Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services is recognised as a crucial step towards sustainable policy- and decision-making that accounts for both ecological processes and human activities (
Despite the growing scientific literature addressing ES, for example,
This paper compares practical experiences of mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in different EU contexts. Particularly, the paper analyses fourteen case studies selected during the EU Horizon 2020 “Coordination and Support Action” ESMERALDA - Enhancing ecosystem services mapping for policy- and decision-making (
For the comparative analysis of the case studies, an analytical framework was adopted, based on a generalised process of ES mapping and assessment that had been conceptualised during the ESMERALDA project. The analytical framework considers the key stages of the ES mapping and assessment process, from the identification of relevant questions from policy, society and business to the actual implementation in policy- and decision-making.
The case studies were selected to be representative of:
To this end, six selection criteria were defined - namely, (A) Levels of progress in ES mapping and assessment; (B) Geographic regions; (C) Biomes; (D) Spatial scales; (E) Themes; and (F) Ecosystem types. These criteria were used to select fourteen case studies, located in Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal (Azores Islands), Spain and Sweden (see Fig.
Locations of the fourteen selected case studies throughout the European Union (case studies at the national scale are represented by a dot placed on the capital city of the country). Overview of ESMERALDA project workshops WS3 - September 2016, Prague (Czech Republic); WS4 - January 2017, Amsterdam (Netherlands); WS5 - March 2017, Madrid (Spain); WS7- January 2018, Trento (Italy); WS8 - March 2018, Eger (Hungary).
Operationally, for each case study, a principal coordinator, typically a researcher who had been involved in the ES mapping and assessment process, performed analysis of his/her case study using the analytical framework described in the following section and drew key lessons learned from it. A further step consisted of classifying and grouping the lessons learned from all the case studies to outline the key recommendations for enhancing ES mapping and assessment for policy- and decision-making synthesised in this article. Noteworthy, the analysis was built on a previous harmonisation and in-depth analysis of the case studies conducted during five dedicated ESMERALDA project workshops, held in between September 2016 and March 2018. Each workshop lasted four days, including a field visit to a study area, was attended by 60 to 90 participants and provided an opportunity to analyse two to three case studies, amongst other activities (see Fig.
For the analysis, we rely on the “ESMERALDA MAES Explorer”*
In this paper, we focus on case studies of mapping and assessment (stage 5) and analyse and compare them according to the six stages (we joined stages 2 and 3) shown in Fig.
For the comparative analysis of the questions addressed in the case studies, we identified nine policy domains ranging from nature conservation to marine policy, to health (See Fig.
According to the most accepted definition in the participatory literature, a stakeholder in a decision-making process is defined as someone who may either influence or be influenced by the decision (
Our framework allows gathering information on the type of stakeholders involved in the process (competent authorities for the specific policy area, ES experts and specialists, business sector and general public) and the level of engagement. For the latter, the framework refers to Arnstein’s seminal ladder of participation (
Assessment of ecosystem condition and selection of ES
This initial stage of the process includes the identification of ecosystems considered in the study, whether ecosystem condition was assessed together with the ES (and if yes, how) and the selection of the ES to be analysed. Ecosystem condition refers to the “state of the ecosystem”, i.e. “the physical, chemical and biological condition of an ecosystem at a particular point in time” (
Methods for ES mapping and assessment
A range of different approaches and methods for mapping and assessment of ES has been tested and explored, which can be applied at various geographical scales and levels of detail and complexity. Tiered approaches have been developed in order to integrate methods and data of these different levels (
Yet, there is not always a clear distinction between methods and different types of methods are often linked or combined (
An appropriate and efficient dissemination and communication of (often complex) scientific findings to potential users from policy- and decision-making is at the core of every successful science-policy-society interface. This includes a rigorous plan for dissemination and exploitation of results, based on strong stakeholder engagement and networking. Operationally, for the comparative analysis of the case studies, three main types of Dissemination and Communication can be distinguished, based on the targeted audience: communications targeting specialised audiences (e.g. through scientific publications and presentations in conferences), competent authorities (e.g. through policy briefs, reports and meetings) and the public in general (e.g. through newspaper articles, social media and documentaries) (see Fig.
In Fig.
The selected case studies covered a large variety of themes (see Fig.
Different categories of stakeholders were involved in the ES mapping and assessment processes. Fig.
Fig.
An overview of ecosystems condition assessment and ES selection in the fourteen case studies.
* ECOSYSTEM TYPES: a. Urban; b. Cropland; c. Grassland; d. Woodland & forest; e. Heathland and shrub; f. Sparsely-vegetated land; g. Wetlands; h. Rivers and lakes; i. Marine inlets and transitional waters; j. Coastal; k. Shelf.
**ES CLASSIFICATION: CICES 4.3 and 5.1. Common International Classification of ES (version 4.3 and 5.1); MA. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; KIEL. Kiel own classification of ES.
An overview of the methods that were applied to map and assess selected ES is given in Fig.
In almost all of the case studies, the methods and related results were linked or combined with each other, although for different purposes and premises. For example, in the Bulgarian case, the results of different ES assessments were combined by normalisation to a common qualitative scale. Similarly, in Finland, Italy and Latvia, multicriteria analysis was used to spatially combine the results of the ES assessments obtained by applying a range of different methods. In the Belgian case study, an interactive web-tool was developed in collaboration with the city administration to summarise expert-based assessments and possible green measures.
Fig.
Fig.
Policy-makers increasingly acknowledge ES as an important concept in supporting decision-making, due to its holistic understanding of interactions between nature and humans and its ability to reveal synergies and trade-offs between environmental and socio-economic goals. ES provide a comprehensive framework for trade-off analysis, addressing compromises between competing land uses and assisting to facilitate planning and development decisions across sectors, scales and administrative boundaries (
In practice, the ES concept can be included within the impact assessment procedures (e.g. Strategic Environmental Assessment of plans and programmes and Environmental Impact Assessments of projects), thus extending the scope of impact assessment from purely environmental considerations to other dimensions of human well-being. The potential contribution of ES information to impact assessment has been described in
Both the agricultural and forestry sector bear high potential for applying the ES concept, for instance, to increase synergies of recreation and carbon sequestration with timber production in forests or pollination and biological control in agricultural environments. These sectors are inextricably linked with the supply of ES and, at the same time, are dependent on supply of other ES (e.g. pollination, pest and disease control, maintaining of soil fertility). At the same time, both sectors have direct impacts on ecosystem condition and the supply of other ES (e.g. maintaining habitats, chemical condition of freshwaters, global climate regulation). The level of supply of these ES and the impacts produced directly depend on the applied management practice. Thus, results of ES mapping and assessment can be used to address the trade-offs within and between sectors, to target policy objectives and required measures for improving ES supply and related payment schemes. Application of ES in spatial planning and policy-making through scenario development, modelling of impacts and trade-off analyses can provide added value by synthesising and organising knowledge from various datasets, as well as facilitate cross-scale and cross-sector planning, thus contributing to integrative resource management (
The first step in the identification of stakeholders is to identify the focal issue that influences the range of stakeholders to be included and their basic interests. Therefore, a good identification of the relevant policy, societal or business questions is an important starting point of the assessment (
The case studies highlighted the importance of starting stakeholder dialogue early in the process, which can generate interest and confidence in the project and increase the willingness to cooperate. It is also suggested to provide comprehensive information that enables stakeholders to have a good overview of the goals of the project and related activities. Goals and activities, however, have to be flexible and adaptive enough, so that stakeholder needs and requirements can be taken into consideration in an iterative process. By this, the co-creation of new knowledge becomes possible, facilitating uptake and promoting ownership by key stakeholders (
Furthermore, the lessons learned emphasized the importance of targeted discussion groups on the one hand and comprehension on the other, involving all relevant stakeholders and their diverse views (
Involvement of the public is evenly important but requires different ways of dissemination, for instance, social media, schools, NGOs and social movements, building on the growing impact of ES studies on raising public awareness. In the case of Sweden, for example, the stakeholder input benefitted from an ongoing process within the UNESCO biosphere reserve, covering the case study area, with emphasis on the land use and cultural expression of the indigenous Sámi people and their traditional reindeer (Rangifer tardanus) husbandry (
Developing an appropriate typology of ecosystem types that is consistent with existing national, EU and/or international typologies is a key first step to initiate ES mapping and assessment. In the context of mapping and assessment carried out to be compliant with the EU Biodiversity Strategy, in particular, such typologies need to be in line with the European ecosystem map developed by the European Environmental Agency (
Studies dealing with green and blue infrastructure in an urban planning context require high-resolution maps created using high-resolution remote sensing data, such as aerial photographs and thematic data provided by the municipalities (e.g. in the Finnish case study). In the case of islands with complex orography and rapid changes in the local environment (e.g. many islands in the EU overseas territories;
Besides the general consistency with existing typologies and an appropriate level of detail, the typology should reflect the relevant ecosystem types frequently present in the study area, as well as address priority habitats according to European, national and regional schemes. Therefore, the close interaction of experts and the co-identification of relevant ecosystem types together with stakeholders is useful. This procedure allows the creation of a common understanding of the typology, which can assist in the following ES mapping and assessment process. The identification of relevant ecosystem types is a time-consuming, but critical process, in ES mapping and assessment. Thus, enough time should be allocated for this step. To benefit of the work carried out, the developed method to create the typology should allow future continuation, based on changed input data and thereby time-series analysis, while possibly being reproducible in other study areas.
Generally, the 14 ESMERALDA case studies highlight the need for concise and precise indicators for different ecosystem types relevant for the study area, possibly defined by involving stakeholders and using local knowledge. In particular, indicators on ecosystem condition must:
Indeed, the availability of relevant data sources is crucial for a robust assessment. In this regard, the second (
The selection of ES should follow the identified policy, societal or business questions relevant for the study area. In this regard, the analysed case studies underpin the relevance of the involvement of stakeholders and local experts in the selection process. This ensures the relevance of the selected ES for stakeholders, policy- and decision-making and the study area and, at the same time, it may require some capacity-building activities to foster an active involvement of stakeholders involved in the selection process (
In general, it was found that the integration of methods and results is essential for providing a comprehensive overview integrating different perspectives (e.g. social, economic). For example, focusing on social methods alone may underestimate the value of some more ‘unknown’ ES, such as water purification or infiltration. On the other hand, focusing on biophysical methods only would overlook some important intangible values or conflicts between ES. The development of a simple illustration (e.g. in the form of a flow diagram) presenting the implemented form of integration and its effects in the ES mapping and assessment process, is recommended in order to ensure transparency and to increase replicability. The Integrated Ecosystem Service Assessment Framework, developed within ESMERALDA, can provide a useful conceptual framework for designing such individual workflows (
The interface between science and decision-making in policy, business and society is crucial for evidence-based environmental governance. An appropriate and efficient dissemination and communication of (often complex) scientific findings to potential users from policy- and decision-making is at the core of a successful science-policy-society interface. Connecting ES mapping and assessment-related research and relevant, competent authorities is thus key to ensure effective use of monitoring, research and science in policy-making. This dialogue is needed, as it was found that policy-makers do not always effectively provide information on their needs for scientific knowledge, especially in the spatial planning and land use realm.
Accordingly, in the case of scientists, the results of the ES mapping and assessment should be made available as (open access) publications, the main instrument for a comprehensive exchange of knowledge, in order to support the reproduction of the assessment in other study areas. When it comes to competent authorities, it is important to provide strong arguments by using strong visualisation and inspiring examples, including references to more commonly-known strategies, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and especially human well-being issues including health, security and employment (
Involvement of stakeholders is an important part of the dissemination and communication process. Wide participation by experts is strongly suggested throughout the process of assessment of ecosystems and their services (
Communicating the complexity of the ES concept in an understandable way is challenging. To start with, scientists should not assume that everyone knows and easily understands ES. Quite often, the ES concept is misunderstood by policy-makers and practitioners, thus there is a need of a targeted communication to “get the concept right” in the first place. Following, the results of an ES assessment may not be comprehensible enough for the public in general; there is, thus, a need to “translate” the results in a way that more people could understand them. A crucial step towards getting the message across is to build capacity of the stakeholders who are often aware of environmental issues in their activities (e.g. spatial planning or other decision-making processes), but rarely use the ES approach as such. In fact, there is the need for training technicians and civil servants – a tailored programme, with different levels of complexity (e.g. starting, advanced), for different stakeholders, to demonstrate the benefits of applying the ES approach and to build institutional capacity. Finally, there is a need for local ‘champions’ that defend and promote the application of ES mapping and assessment (
ES mapping and assessment results have great relevance and potential to support decision-making and action planning. Accordingly, researchers or, generally, anyone conducting ES mapping and assessment studies should be open and proactive for co-operation with decision-makers. When involving decision-makers, it is important to display what potential the results have in showing the consequences of decisions on ES potential and to promote innovation in decision-making processes. In some policy fields, integration of the ES concept is becoming a common practice, for instance, through the principles of the ecosystem-based approach in maritime spatial planning promoted by the the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). This was demonstrated in practice by the Latvian case study, which involved ES mapping and assessment as a part of the official national MSP process (
Bringing together researchers, decision-makers and stakeholders is a crucial step to co-produce credible and relevant results that support policies and decisions for sustainable development (Carlsson et al. 2017). As discussed in the previous section, it is important to develop initiatives to promote knowledge and understanding of the importance of biodiversity, including its effects on human well-being, to promote changes in attitudes toward it, (see, for example,
The barriers for implementation can be beyond the process of ES mapping and assessment. Lack of data and research-based evidence, often mentioned as key barriers mainly by scientists (e.g.
The fourteen case studies, presented in this research, provided insights into current experiences with the application of ES mapping and assessment for policy and decision-making, which are still rarely described in peer-reviewed literature. However, the selection of cases that was investigated has some limitations, since the breadth of cases clearly influences the results. To start with, the number of case studies, mainly representing the EU context, cannot be considered representative of the whole set of real-life experiences in which ES mapping and assessment have been used to support policy- and decision-making. The ex-post comparative analysis using the analytical tool reflects the views and considerations of the case study coordinators, supported by the group discussion involving stakeholders and other researchers from the ESMERALDA Consortium. In general, the risk of subjective answers and misunderstandings involving questions coming from the analytical tool has been addressed during the five dedicated workshops through careful discussions amongst the case study coordinators concerning the research methodology and the content of the analytical framework itself.
In conclusion, this work highlighted and discussed some of the advantages and challenges in the application of ES mapping and assessment for policy- and decision-making, distilling key recommendations for the main steps of the implementation process. Amongst others, emerging specific recommendations are that, first, ES mapping and assessment studies should focus on the specific policy issues or decision-making challenges. This has an impact on theselection of the ecosystems and services to be assessed, as well as on methods to be applied. Second, stakholders involvement should be ensured through an iterative process to increase awareness and acceptance of the ES mapping and assessment results, as well as to support their implemetation, in particular decision-making contexts. More in general, this paper argues that downscaling the EU objectives to the national level, hence integrating national priorities, is a good strategy to use MAES for addressing national challenges. Again, the importance of demonstrating the benefits of MAES, i.e. what advantages can be derived from its application, also providing good case study examples of application. Last, the use of success stories to communicate how ES mapping and assessment can make a difference in the decision-making process.
Despite the complexity in the process of ES mapping and assessment, including the high diversity of contexts of application, which makes generalisations of findings difficult, the analysis has shown that mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services have a very high potential to support policy- and decision-making in a wide range of domains in policy, business and society across the EU.
The ESMERALDA project received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement no. 642007. The authors are grateful to Joachim Maes and Uta Schirpke, the two reviewers, whose comments and reflections helped improve the manuscript.
European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme.
Grant agreement no. 642007.
Table S1: An overview of the assessment of ecosystem condition in the selected case studies.
SUPPLEMENTARY FILE TO: Ecosystem services mapping and assessment for policy and decision-making: Lessons learned from a comparative analysis of European case studies (Geneletti et al.).