Past and future impacts of land use and climate change on agricultural ecosystem services in the Czech Republic
In: Land use policy, Band 33
ISSN: 0264-8377
6 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Land use policy, Band 33
ISSN: 0264-8377
International audience ; Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the concept of ecosystem service (ES) has been increasingly used by scientists and policy makers. For example, the European Union launched an extensive mapping program of ES mapping in all Member countries. The objective of this paper is i) to examine the relevance and feasibility of the assessment of ES delivered by grasslands using indicators, and 2) to question whether it is necessary or not to adapt them to ecoclimatic regions and landuse systems. Firstly, we show that the concept of ecosystem service has not achieved consensus, which complicates its implementation. Based on case studies in different European regions (Continental, Atlantic, Mediterranean, Nordic), and on results from European research projects which have referred to the development of ES indicators, we show the diversity of possible approaches. This diversity concerns various aspects: the objectives of the indicators, the beneficiaries of the ES, spatial and temporal scales, organization levels. In conclusion, we think that it is necessary to develop ES indicators adapted to ecoclimatic and land-use conditions. The issue of ES is a global issue, and thus it appeared desirable to find common indicators in order to compare the systems, but to adapt the calculation to specific conditions.
BASE
International audience ; Since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the concept of ecosystem service (ES) has been increasingly used by scientists and policy makers. For example, the European Union launched an extensive mapping program of ES mapping in all Member countries. The objective of this paper is i) to examine the relevance and feasibility of the assessment of ES delivered by grasslands using indicators, and 2) to question whether it is necessary or not to adapt them to ecoclimatic regions and landuse systems. Firstly, we show that the concept of ecosystem service has not achieved consensus, which complicates its implementation. Based on case studies in different European regions (Continental, Atlantic, Mediterranean, Nordic), and on results from European research projects which have referred to the development of ES indicators, we show the diversity of possible approaches. This diversity concerns various aspects: the objectives of the indicators, the beneficiaries of the ES, spatial and temporal scales, organization levels. In conclusion, we think that it is necessary to develop ES indicators adapted to ecoclimatic and land-use conditions. The issue of ES is a global issue, and thus it appeared desirable to find common indicators in order to compare the systems, but to adapt the calculation to specific conditions.
BASE
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
BASE
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.
BASE
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.
BASE