Maes, Joachim. et al.-- 10 pages, 2 figures, 3 tables, supplementary material https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023 ; In the EU, the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services, abbreviated to MAES, is seen as a key action for the advancement of biodiversity objectives, and also to inform the development and implementation of related policies on water, climate, agriculture, forest, marine and regional planning. In this study, we present the development of an analytical framework which ensures that consistent approaches are used throughout the EU. It is framed by a broad set of key policy questions and structured around a conceptual framework that links human societies and their well-being with the environment. Next, this framework is tested through four thematic pilot studies, including stakeholders and experts working at different scales and governance levels, which contributed indicators to assess the state of ecosystem services. Indicators were scored according to different criteria and assorted per ecosystem type and ecosystem services using the common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) as typology. We concluded that there is potential to develop a first EU wide ecosystem assessment on the basis of existing data if they are combined in a creative way. However, substantial data gaps remain to be filled before a fully integrated and complete ecosystem assessment can be carried out ; Balint Czúcz was supported by the Bolyai Grant of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences under grant number BO/00138/12/8 ; Peer Reviewed
In the EU, the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services, abbreviated to MAES, is seen as a key action for the advancement of biodiversity objectives, and also to inform the development and implementation of related policies on water, climate, agriculture, forest, marine and regional planning. In this study, we present the development of an analytical framework which ensures that consistent approaches are used throughout the EU. It is framed by a broad set of key policy questions and structured around a conceptual framework that links human societies and their well-being with the environment. Next, this framework is tested through four thematic pilot studies, including stakeholders and experts working at different scales and governance levels, which contributed indicators to assess the state of ecosystem services. Indicators were scored according to different criteria and assorted per ecosystem type and ecosystem services using the common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) as typology. We concluded that there is potential to develop a first EU wide ecosystem assessment on the basis of existing data if they are combined in a creative way. However, substantial data gaps remain to be filled before a fully integrated and complete ecosystem assessment can be carried out.
A systematic approach to map and assess the "maintenance of nursery populations and habitats" ecosystem service (ES) (hereinafter called "habitat maintenance") has not yet emerged. In this article, we present an ecosystem service framework implementation at landscape level, by proposing an approach for calculating and combining a series of indicators with spatial modelling techniques. Necessary conceptual elements for this approach are: a) ecosystem condition, b) supply and demand of the targeted ecosystem service and c) spatial relationships between the Service Providing Units (SPU) and the Service Connecting Units (SCU). Ecosystem condition is quantified and mapped based on two indicators, the Biodiversity State and the Anthropogenic Impact. Quantification and mapping of supply and demand are based on the hypothesis that high supply can be activated in strictly protected areas and that a demand is localised in the Natura 2000 sites (N2K), considering them as the Service Benefit Areas (SBA). Wetlands are assessed as SCU between the SBA and the landscape areas where the habitat maintenance ES is supplied. By assessing wetlands as SCU, we intent to highlight their role as biodiversity stepping stones and as green infrastructures. Overall, we conclude that the EU biodiversity policy demand for no net loss and for a coherent N2K network can be met by enhancing the delivery of the habitat maintenance ES. This approach can assist policy-makers in prioritisation of conservation and restoration targets, in line with the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 and the preparation of the post-2020 Strategy.
A systematic approach to map and assess the "maintenance of nursery populations and habitats" ecosystem service (ES) (hereinafter called "habitat maintenance") has not yet emerged. In this article, we present an ecosystem service framework implementation at landscape level, by proposing an approach for calculating and combining a series of indicators with spatial modelling techniques. Necessary conceptual elements for this approach are: a) ecosystem condition, b) supply and demand of the targeted ecosystem service and c) spatial relationships between the Service Providing Units (SPU) and the Service Connecting Units (SCU). Ecosystem condition is quantified and mapped based on two indicators, the Biodiversity State and the Anthropogenic Impact. Quantification and mapping of supply and demand are based on the hypothesis that high supply can be activated in strictly protected areas and that a demand is localised in the Natura 2000 sites (N2K), considering them as the Service Benefit Areas (SBA). Wetlands are assessed as SCU between the SBA and the landscape areas where the habitat maintenance ES is supplied. By assessing wetlands as SCU, we intent to highlight their role as biodiversity stepping stones and as green infrastructures. Overall, we conclude that the EU biodiversity policy demand for no net loss and for a coherent N2K network can be met by enhancing the delivery of the habitat maintenance ES. This approach can assist policy-makers in prioritisation of conservation and restoration targets, in line with the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 and the preparation of the post-2020 Strategy.
In: Burkhard , B , Maes , J , Potschin-Young , M B , Santos-Martín , F , Geneletti , D , Stoev , P , Kopperoinen , L , Adamescu , C M , Adem Esmail , B , Arany , I , Arnell , A , Balzan , M , Barton , D N , Van Beukering , P , Bicking , S , Borges , P A V , Borisova , B , Braat , L , Brander , L M , Bratanova-Doncheva , S , Broekx , S , Brown , C , Cazacu , C , Crossman , N , Czúcz , B , Danĕk , J , de Groot , R , Depellegrin , D , Dimopoulos , P , Elvinger , N , Erhard , M , Fagerholm , N , Frélichová , J , Grêt-Regamey , A , Grudova , M , Haines-Young , R , Inghe , O , Kallay , T K , Kirin , T , Klug , H , Kokkoris , I P , Konovska , I , Kruse , M , Kuzmova , I , Lange , M , Liekens , I , Lotan , A , Lowicki , D , Luque , S , Marta-Pedroso , C , Mizgajski , A , Mononen , L , Mulder , S , Müller , F , Nedkov , S , Nikolova , M , Östergård , H , Penev , L , Pereira , P , Pitkänen , K , Plieninger , T , Rabe , S E , Reichel , S , Roche , P K , Rusch , G , Ruskule , A , Sapundzhieva , A , Sepp , K , Sieber , I M , Šmid Hribar , M , Stašová , S , Steinhoff-Knopp , B , Stępniewska , M , Teller , A , Vackar , D , Van Weelden , M , Veidemane , K , Vejre , H , Vihervaara , P , Viinikka , A , Villoslada , M , Weibel , B & Zulian , G 2018 , ' Mapping and assessing ecosystem services in the EU - Lessons learned from the ESMERALDA approach of integration ' , One Ecosystem , vol. 3 , e29153 . https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e29153
The European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 Coordination and Support Action ESMERALDA aimed at developing guidance and a flexible methodology for Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) to support the EU member states in the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy's Target 2 Action 5. ESMERALDA's key tasks included network creation, stakeholder engagement, enhancing ecosystem services mapping and assessment methods across various spatial scales and value domains, work in case studies and support of EU member states in MAES implementation. Thus ESMERALDA aimed at integrating various project outcomes around four major strands: i) Networking, ii) Policy, iii) Research and iv) Application. The objective was to provide guidance for integrated ecosystem service mapping and assessment that can be used for sustainable decision-making in policy, business, society, practice and science at EU, national and regional levels. This article presents the overall ESMERALDA approach of integrating the above-mentioned project components and outcomes and provides an overview of how the enhanced methods were applied and how they can be used to support MAES implementation in the EU member states. Experiences with implementing such a large pan-European Coordination and Support Action in the context of EU policy are discussed and recommendations for future actions are given.
The European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 Coordination and Support Action ESMERALDA aimed at developing guidance and a flexible methodology for Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) to support the EU member states in the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy's Target 2 Action 5. ESMERALDA's key tasks included network creation, stakeholder engagement, enhancing ecosystem services mapping and assessment methods across various spatial scales and value domains, work in case studies and support of EU member states in MAES implementation. Thus ESMERALDA aimed at integrating various project outcomes around four major strands: i) Networking, ii) Policy, iii) Research and iv) Application. The objective was to provide guidance for integrated ecosystem service mapping and assessment that can be used for sustainable decision-making in policy, business, society, practice and science at EU, national and regional levels. This article presents the overall ESMERALDA approach of integrating the above-mentioned project components and outcomes and provides an overview of how the enhanced methods were applied and how they can be used to support MAES implementation in the EU member states. Experiences with implementing such a large pan-European Coordination and Support Action in the context of EU policy are discussed and recommendations for future actions are given.
The European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 Coordination and Support Action ESMERALDA aimed at developing guidance and a flexible methodology for Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) to support the EU member states in the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy's Target 2 Action 5. ESMERALDA's key tasks included network creation, stakeholder engagement, enhancing ecosystem services mapping and assessment methods across various spatial scales and value domains, work in case studies and support of EU member states in MAES implementation. Thus ESMERALDA aimed at integrating various project outcomes around four major strands: i) Networking, ii) Policy, iii) Research and iv) Application. The objective was to provide guidance for integrated ecosystem service mapping and assessment that can be used for sustainable decision-making in policy, business, society, practice and science at EU, national and regional levels. This article presents the overall ESMERALDA approach of integrating the above-mentioned project components and outcomes and provides an overview of how the enhanced methods were applied and how they can be used to support MAES implementation in the EU member states. Experiences with implementing such a large pan-European Coordination and Support Action in the context of EU policy are discussed and recommendations for future actions are given. ; ISSN:2367-8194
In: Burkhard , B , van Beukering , P & Brander , L M 2018 , ' Mapping and assessing ecosystem services in the EU : Lessons learned from the ESMERALDA approach of integration ' , One Ecosystem , vol. 3 , e29153 , pp. 1-20 . https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e29153
The European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 Coordination and Support Action ESMERALDA aimed at developing guidance and a flexible methodology for Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) to support the EU member states in the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy's Target 2 Action 5. ESMERALDA's key tasks included network creation, stakeholder engagement, enhancing ecosystem services mapping and assessment methods across various spatial scales and value domains, work in case studies and support of EU member states in MAES implementation. Thus ESMERALDA aimed at integrating various project outcomes around four major strands: i) Networking, ii) Policy, iii) Research and iv) Application. The objective was to provide guidance for integrated ecosystem service mapping and assessment that can be used for sustainable decision-making in policy, business, society, practice and science at EU, national and regional levels. This article presents the overall ESMERALDA approach of integrating the above-mentioned project components and outcomes and provides an overview of how the enhanced methods were applied and how they can be used to support MAES implementation in the EU member states. Experiences with implementing such a large pan-European Coordination and Support Action in the context of EU policy are discussed and recommendations for future actions are given.
The current European Union biodiversity strategy is failing to reach its targets aimed at halting biodiversity loss by 2020, and eyes are already set at the post-2020 strategy. The European Commission is encouraging the active role of citizens in achieving policy objectives in the coming years. In this paper, we explore ways citizens discuss their priorities regarding biodiversity and abilities to influence environmental problems at individual, collective and policy levels. We also examine how the citizen discussions resonate with scientific environmental priorities and how researchers see the role of citizens in policy processes and harmonising citizen and scientific knowledge. To pursue the citizen voices, an expert working group acting as knowledge brokers, facilitated a series of citizen workshops in seven European locations and a reflective researcher workshop in Belgium. Based on the results, participants identified many concrete and value-related measures to stop environmental degradation. The environmental priorities differed between citizens and scientists, but not irreconcilably ; rather, they complemented one another. Both groups stressed environmentally minded attitudes in individuals and policy. Displaying diversity of perspectives was regarded as positive and adding legitimacy. Improving methods for balanced encounters among science and society is central for participation to become more than rhetoric in the EU.
The current European Union biodiversity strategy is failing to reach its targets aimed at halting biodiversity loss by 2020, and eyes are already set at the post-2020 strategy. The European Commission is encouraging the active role of citizens in achieving policy objectives in the coming years. In this paper, we explore ways citizens discuss their priorities regarding biodiversity and abilities to influence environmental problems at individual, collective and policy levels. We also examine how the citizen discussions resonate with scientific environmental priorities and how researchers see the role of citizens in policy processes and harmonising citizen and scientific knowledge. To pursue the citizen voices, an expert working group acting as knowledge brokers, facilitated a series of citizen workshops in seven European locations and a reflective researcher workshop in Belgium. Based on the results, participants identified many concrete and value-related measures to stop environmental degradation. The environmental priorities differed between citizens and scientists, but not irreconcilably; rather, they complemented one another. Both groups stressed environmentally minded attitudes in individuals and policy. Displaying diversity of perspectives was regarded as positive and adding legitimacy. Improving methods for balanced encounters among science and society is central for participation to become more than rhetoric in the EU.
The European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 Coordination and Support Action ESMERALDA aimed at developing guidance and a flexible methodology for Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) to support the EU member states in the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy's Target 2 Action 5. ESMERALDA's key tasks included network creation, stakeholder engagement, enhancing ecosystem services mapping and assessment methods across various spatial scales and value domains, work in case studies and support of EU member states in MAES implementation. Thus ESMERALDA aimed at integrating various project outcomes around four major strands: i) Networking, ii) Policy, iii) Research and iv) Application. The objective was to provide guidance for integrated ecosystem service mapping and assessment that can be used for sustainable decision-making in policy, business, society, practice and science at EU, national and regional levels. This article presents the overall ESMERALDA approach of integrating the above-mentioned project components and outcomes and provides an overview of how the enhanced methods were applied and how they can be used to support MAES implementation in the EU member states. Experiences with implementing such a large pan-European Coordination and Support Action in the context of EU policy are discussed and recommendations for future actions are given.
Maximizing the area under biodiversity-related conservation measures is a main target of the European Union (EU) Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. We analyzed whether agrienvironmental schemes (AES) within EU common agricultural policy, special protected areas for birds (SPAs), and Annex I designation within EU Birds Directive had an effect on bird population changes using monitoring data from 39 farmland bird species from 1981 to 2012 at EU scale. Populations of resident and short-distance migrants were larger with increasing SPAs and AES coverage, while Annex I species had higher population growth rates with increasing SPAs, indicating that SPAs may contribute to the protection of mainly target species and species spending most of their life cycle in the EU. Because farmland birds are in decline and the negative relationship of agricultural intensification with their population growth rates was evident during the implementation of AES and SPAs, EU policies seem to generally attenuate the declines of farmland bird populations, but not to reverse them. ; Peer reviewed