Suchergebnisse

1. Pollination by insects is a key input into many crops, with managed honeybees often being hired to support pollination services. Despite substantial research into pollination management, no European studies have yet explored how and why farmers managed pollination services and few have explored why beekeepers use certain crops. 2. Using paired surveys of beekeepers and farmers in 10 European countries, this study examines beekeeper and farmer perceptions and motivations surrounding crop pollination. 3. Almost half of the farmers surveyed believed they had pollination service deficits in one or more of their crops. 4. Less than a third of farmers hired managed pollinators; however, most undertook at least one form of agri‐environment management known to benefit pollinators, although few did so to promote pollinators. 5. Beekeepers were ambivalent towards many mass‐flowering crops, with some beekeepers using crops for their honey that other beekeepers avoid because of perceived pesticide risks. 6. The findings highlight a number of largely overlooked knowledge gaps that will affect knowledge exchange and co‐operation between the two groups. ; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Grant/Award Number: 841.11.001; Ministarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja, Grant/Award Number: 43001; Natural Environment Research Council, Grant/Award Number: NE/K015419/1 and NE/N014472/1; Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS, Grant/Award Number: V4‐1622 and P1‐0255; Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division; Bayer Crop Science; European Cooperation in Science and Technology, Grant/Award Number: oc‐2013‐1‐15320; BBSRC, Grant/ Award Number: BB/R00580X/1; The Scottish Government Rural Affairs and the Environment Strategic Research Programme ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

1. Pollination by insects is a key input into many crops, with managed honeybees often being hired to support pollination services. Despite substantial research into pollination management, no European studies have yet explored how and why farmers managed pollination services and few have explored why beekeepers use certain crops. 2. Using paired surveys of beekeepers and farmers in 10 European countries, this study examines beekeeper and farmer perceptions and motivations surrounding crop pollination. 3. Almost half of the farmers surveyed believed they had pollination service deficits in one or more of their crops. 4. Less than a third of farmers hired managed pollinators; however, most undertook at least one form of agri‐environment management known to benefit pollinators, although few did so to promote pollinators. 5. Beekeepers were ambivalent towards many mass‐flowering crops, with some beekeepers using crops for their honey that other beekeepers avoid because of perceived pesticide risks. 6. The findings highlight a number of largely overlooked knowledge gaps that will affect knowledge exchange and co‐operation between the two groups. ; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Grant/Award Number: 841.11.001; Ministarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja, Grant/Award Number: 43001; Natural Environment Research Council, Grant/Award Number: NE/K015419/1 and NE/N014472/1; Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS, Grant/Award Number: V4‐1622 and P1‐0255; Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division; Bayer Crop Science; European Cooperation in Science and Technology, Grant/Award Number: oc‐2013‐1‐15320; BBSRC, Grant/ Award Number: BB/R00580X/1; The Scottish Government Rural Affairs and the Environment Strategic Research Programme ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Mediterranean islands face significant environmental challenges due to their high population density, reliance on imports, and water scarcity, exacerbated by increasing risks from climate change. Nature-based solutions (NbS) could address these challenges sustainably and with multiple benefits, but their uptake in policy and planning is limited, and stakeholder perspectives are conspicuously lacking from current research. Here, we report the results of a collaborative, multi-stakeholder exercise to identify priority knowledge needs (KNs) that could enhance the uptake of NbS in Mediterranean islands. We used a well-established iterative prioritisation method based on a modified Delphi process. This was conducted by the authors, environmental policy and practice stakeholders from across the Mediterranean islands, representing business, government, NGOs and research. We developed a long list of potential KNs through individual submissions, and prioritised them through voting, discussion and scoring. Excepting workshop discussion, all individual contributions were anonymous. We present the 47 resulting KNs in rank order, classified by whether they can be addressed by knowledge synthesis and further research, or demand action in policy and practice. The top priority KNs are i) a more precise definition of NbS, ii) which NbS are adapted to dry Mediterranean conditions? iii) how to increase the adoption and use of NbS in urban plans?, iv) how can buildings and built-up areas be modified to accommodate green infrastructure and v) cost-benefit analysis of urban green spaces. In collaboration with these stakeholders, our findings will determine future research strategies on NbS implementation in the Mediterranean islands.

Social-ecological systems in the Mediterranean Basin are characterised by high biodiversity and a prolonged cultural influence, leading to the co-evolution of these systems. The unique characteristics of Mediterranean social-ecological systems, current pressures leading to a decline in ecosystem services, and the need for coordinated action are recognised by policies promoting the protection and sustainable use of the region's heritage. Ecosystem assessments provide valuable information on the capacity of the Mediterranean Basin to ensure the well-being of its population. However, most assessments simplify the complexity of these systems, which may lead to inaccurate ecosystem services supply and flow estimations. This paper uses the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model to guide an expert consultation that identifies the key characteristics of the Mediterranean social-ecological systems and analyses how these should be included in ecosystem assessments. Data collection was carried out through expert consultation with ecosystem services researchers. Multiple sources of complexity were identified, including the relationship between historical human activities, biodiversity spatio-temporal patterns, as well as the seasonal and long-term variability in ecosystem services. The importance of incorporating this complexity in ecosystem assessments for evidence-based decision-making is identified, suggesting that there is a need to adapt assessment approaches for the Mediterranean Basin social-ecological systems. ; This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 809988. JVRD was supported by the Government of Asturias and FP7-Marie Curie-COFUND European Commission program (Grant 'Clarín' ACA17-02). SdM benefited from a Serra-Húnter Fellowship provided by the Generalitat of Catalonia.

We would like to thank the participants of the Mediterranean Working Group workshop held at the 2016 European Ecosystem Services Partnership conference in Antwerp, and the Ecosystem Services Partnership for the support to the Mediterranean Working Group. MVB acknowledges funding from the ReNature project. JVRD was supported by the Government of Asturias and FP7-Marie Curie-COFUND European Commission program (Grant 'Clarín' ACA17-02). SdM benefited from a Serra-Húnter Fellowship provided by the Generalitat of Catalonia. ; Social-ecological systems in the Mediterranean Basin are characterised by high biodiversity and a prolonged cultural influence, leading to the co-evolution of these systems. The unique characteristics of Mediterranean social-ecological systems, current pressures leading to a decline in ecosystem services, and the need for coordinated action are recognised by policies promoting the protection and sustainable use of the region's heritage. Ecosystem assessments provide valuable information on the capacity of the Mediterranean Basin to ensure the well-being of its population. However, most assessments simplify the complexity of these systems, which may lead to inaccurate ecosystem services supply and flow estimations. This paper uses the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model to guide an expert consultation that identifies the key characteristics of the Mediterranean social-ecological systems and analyses how these should be included in ecosystem assessments. Data collection was carried out through expert consultation with ecosystem services researchers. Multiple sources of complexity were identified, including the relationship between historical human activities, biodiversity spatio-temporal patterns, as well as the seasonal and long-term variability in ecosystem services. The importance of incorporating this complexity in ecosystem assessments for evidence-based decision-making is identified, suggesting that there is a need to adapt assessment approaches for the Mediterranean Basin social-ecological systems. ; publishersversion ; published

Social-ecological systems in the Mediterranean Basin are characterised by high biodiversity and a prolonged cultural influence, leading to the co-evolution of these systems. The unique characteristics of Mediterranean social-ecological systems, current pressures leading to a decline in ecosystem services, and the need for coordinated action are recognised by policies promoting the protection and sustainable use of the region's heritage. Ecosystem assessments provide valuable information on the capacity of the Mediterranean Basin to ensure the well-being of its population. However, most assessments simplify the complexity of these systems, which may lead to inaccurate ecosystem services supply and flow estimations. This paper uses the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model to guide an expert consultation that identifies the key characteristics of the Mediterranean social-ecological systems and analyses how these should be included in ecosystem assessments. Data collection was carried out through expert consultation with ecosystem services researchers. Multiple sources of complexity were identified, including the relationship between historical human activities, biodiversity spatio-temporal patterns, as well as the seasonal and long-term variability in ecosystem services. The importance of incorporating this complexity in ecosystem assessments for evidence-based decision-making is identified, suggesting that there is a need to adapt assessment approaches for the Mediterranean Basin social-ecological systems. ; We would like to thank the participants of the Mediterranean Working Group workshop held at the 2016 European Ecosystem Services Partnership conference in Antwerp, and the Ecosystem Services Partnership for the support to the Mediterranean Working Group. MVB acknowledges funding from the ReNature project. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 809988. JVRD was supported by the Government of Asturias and FP7-MarieCurie-COFUND European Commission program (Grant'Clarín'ACA17-02). SdM benefited from a Serra-Húnter Fellowship provided by the Generalitat of Catalonia.

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.

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. 1.

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. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

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.

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. biodiversity, EU Biodiversity Strategy, comparative analysis, ecosystem services, MAES, case studies ; publishedVersion

International audience ; The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial proportions of greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of planning for climate change by collecting and analysing local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and analysis framework was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their spatial (alignment with local, national and international policy) and sectoral integration (alignment into existing local policy documents). We document local climate plans that we call type A1: non-compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international climate networks; A2: compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international networks; A3: plans developed as part of international networks. This most comprehensive analysis to date reveals that there is large diversity in the availability of local climate plans with most being available in Central and Northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have an A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, 17% joint adaptation and mitigation plans, and about 30% lack any form of local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but mitigation does not always precede adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 70% of the cities above 1 million inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1 or A2). Countries with national climate legislation (A2), such as Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are found to have nearly twice as many urban mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce urban adaptation plans, than countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in countries where local climate plans are compulsory, especially in France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans of international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous, i.e. A1 plans are less common. The findings reported here are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making and thinking of stakeholders with similar experiences or developments at all levels and sectors in other regions around the world.

International audience ; The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial proportions of greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of planning for climate change by collecting and analysing local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and analysis framework was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their spatial (alignment with local, national and international policy) and sectoral integration (alignment into existing local policy documents). We document local climate plans that we call type A1: non-compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international climate networks; A2: compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international networks; A3: plans developed as part of international networks. This most comprehensive analysis to date reveals that there is large diversity in the availability of local climate plans with most being available in Central and Northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have an A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, 17% joint adaptation and mitigation plans, and about 30% lack any form of local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but mitigation does not always precede adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 70% of the cities above 1 million inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1 or A2). Countries with national climate legislation (A2), such as Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are found to have nearly twice as many urban mitigation plans, and five times more likely to ...