CICES Going Local

Turkelboom, Francis; Raquez, Perrine; Dufrêne, Marc; Raes, Leander; Simoens, Ilse; Jacobs, Sander; Stevens, Maarten; Vreese, Rik De; Panis, Jeroen; Hermy, Martin; Thoonen, Marijke; Liekens, Inge; Fontaine, Corentin; Dendoncker, Nicolas; Biest, K. Van der; Casaer, Jim; Heyrman, Hilde; Meiresonne, Linda; Keune, Hans

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-419964-4.00018-4

Cited by 19 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CICES is one of the widely applied ES classification systems (e.g. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (MA, 2005), National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS) and Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (Landers and Nahlik, 2013)), which has been also practically applied as a basis for the national ecosystem assessment, for example, in Belgium (Turkelboom et al, 2013), in Germany (Naturkapital Deutschland TEEB DE, 2014) and in Finland (Mononen et al, 2015). One of its advantages is that it contains a nested hierarchical structure (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services

Lee

Lautenbach

2015

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystems provide multiple ecosystem services to society. Ignoring the multi-functionality of land systems in natural resource management generates potentially trade-offs with respect to the provisioning of ecosystem services.Understanding relationships between ecosystem services can therefore help to (Heera Lee) cultural services, whereas the relationship between regulating and provisioning services was trade-off dominated. Increases in cultural services did not influence provisioning services ("no-effect"). We further analyzed the pattern of relationships between ecosystem services across scales, land system archetypes and methods used to determine the relationship. Our analysis showed that the overall pattern of relationships between ecosystem services did not change significantly with scale and land system archetypes. However, some pairs of ecosystem services showed changes in relationships with scale.The choice of methods used to determine the relationship had an effect on the direction of the relationship: studies that employed correlation coefficients showed an increased probability to identify no-effect relationships, whereas descriptive methods had a higher probability of identifying trade-offs. The regional scale was the most commonly considered, and case studies were biased among different land system archetypes which might affect our ability to find the effect of scale or land system archetypes on the pattern of relationships. Our results provide helpful information of which services to include in ecosystem services assessments for the scientific community as well as for practitioners. Furthermore, they allow a first check if critical trade-offs have been considered in an analysis.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services

Lee

Lautenbach

2015

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Source: own representation. Underlined text is inspired by (1) [43] and (2) [30]. Water for non-domestic use (e.g., animal consumption (1) , irrigation, industrial production (2) , fire-fighting reservoirs, .. Water for non-domestic use (e.g., animal consumption (1) , irrigation, industrial production (2) , fire-fighting reservoirs, ...) Table 4.…”

Section: Provisioning Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Grey-shaded cells contain a synthesis between CICES and German FFM terminology, due to a complementary and more differentiated level of information. Underlined text is inspired by (1) [43] and (2) [30]. Filtration of hazardous substances from water (rhizofiltration) (2) seeping to lower soil layers and into the groundwater (also holds for mineral springs)…”

Section: Provisioning Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While existence values mainly relate to the present generation, option or bequest values relate to values for future generations. Existence values assume that the right to exist is inherent to all living nature, beyond any benefits to human beings [43]. Option values refer to a potential use of ESS in the future, whereas bequest values relate to preserving species or ecosystems for future generations [44].…”

Section: Cultural Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Challenges and Opportunities of Aligning Forest Function Mapping and the Ecosystem Service Concept in Germany

Tiemann

Ring

2018

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of considering natural capital in decision-making, the ecosystem services concept is steadily increasing in importance. This also holds for the forest sector in Germany. This development calls for a harmonisation of approaches and terms used in the forest sector, as well as being made compatible with the ecosystem services concept and relevant classifications. In Germany, and a number of Central European countries, a common way to assess the multifunctional benefits of forests is the forest function mapping method. Due to the federal multi-level governance system in Germany, each state has its own classification of forest functions and mapping. A first objective of this paper is to align the various forest function categories across German states as a basis to relate them to the ecosystem services concept. Second, this bottom-up approach is combined with a top-down approach, building on the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). The aim is to develop a harmonised, methodological framework, suitable for accounting forest-related ecosystem services, as a step towards future ecosystem services monitoring and reporting commitments in the forest sector. Finally, the challenges and opportunities of the ecosystem services concept for forest management are discussed and ways forward are elaborated.

show abstract

“…In general, the maximisation of one provisioning ES by a stakeholder or a group of stakeholders holding a private interest, without considering the other ES, leads to trade-offs between ES and conflicts between stakeholders (referred to as non-beneficiaries) (Howe et al 2014). For example, clear cutting ensures an immediate supply of timber, but reduces the ecosystem capacity to provide other ES, such as carbon sequestration, erosion protection or patrimonial landscape (Sutherland et al 2016) which could benefit other beneficiaries. Conversely, more environmentally friendly management could benefit a larger set of stakeholders (termed beneficiaries) and other ES (Howe et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The critical role of abiotic factors and human activities in the supply of ecosystem services in the ES matrix

Maebe¹,

Claessens²,

Dufrêne³

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Western Europe, ecosystems have been shaped to maximise the supply of one specific biomass provisioning ecosystem service (ES), such as food or timber, with detrimental impacts on other ES. The ES approach has therefore been established to better understand the multiple interactions between human society and ecosystems. A variety of methods have been developed to assess ES and their relationships, for instance the ES matrix model based on land cover classes. This popular, flexible and simple method allows combining different data sources and easily comparing ES. However, in general, this method poorly takes into account landscape heterogeneity while abiotic factors and human activities seem to play an important role in ES supply. The objective of this paper is twofold: (1) to extent the methodology based on the ES matrix model by including abiotic factors and human activities and (2) to test the impacts of these two types of factors on ES supply and their relationships. The assessment focused on the capacity of the forest to supply six ES depending on six types of soil ranging from productive soils to more constraining or less productive soils (i.e. abiotic factors) and two contrasting forest management strategies (i.e. human activities). This amended ES matrix was applied on one hand, to map the supply of ES and their relationships in four municipalities in the Ardenne ecoregion (Southern Belgium) and on the other hand, to investigate the impacts of three scenarios (i.e. three different management strategies) on ES supply and their relationships. The amended ES matrix shows large differences in ES supply between the two forest management strategies on the more constraining and less productive soils, creating differences in the spatial pattern of ES. The changes in ES supply amongst the three scenarios and the current supply were quantified to identify the best management options. In conclusion, one particular forest is not like another in terms of ES supply and their relationships. To capture this heterogeneity, we propose an amended ES matrix including abiotic factors and human activities. The maps, based on this matrix, allow identifying the hotspots (i.e. high capacity to supply different ES) and coldspots (i.e. low capacity to supply different ES or strong trade-offs between provisioning ES and regulating/cultural ES). Forest management should be adapted to the abiotic conditions, in particular in the coldspots, to ensure a more balanced supply of ES.

show abstract

CICES Going Local

Cited by 19 publications

References 24 publications

A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services

A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services

Challenges and Opportunities of Aligning Forest Function Mapping and the Ecosystem Service Concept in Germany

The critical role of abiotic factors and human activities in the supply of ecosystem services in the ES matrix

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About