Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational

Jax, Kurt; Furman, Eeva; Saarikoski, Heli; Barton, David N.; Delbaere, Ben; Dick, Jan; Duke, Guy; Görg, Christoph; Gómez-Baggethun, Erik; Harrison, Paula A.; Maes, Joachim; Pérez‐Soba, Marta; Saarela, Sanna Riikka; Turkelboom, Francis; Dijk, J. van; Watt, Allan D.

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.001

Cited by 99 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, in order to provide instruments to be applied in real case studies, we deemed the creation of a conceptual framework to simplify complex systems, providing support in order to prioritise the interventions and enhance the relevance of the decisional process policies, as stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) [72]. The creation of frameworks is considered a common step to operationalise the ES concept and territorial resilience, two boundary concepts often believed to be lacking actual applications [71,73,74]. This framework recognises the importance of integrating nature-based solutions into mixed grey-green strategies, fostering their adoption through a roadmap to be implemented by regional public authorities and decision-makers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for the Integration of Nature-Based Solutions into Environmental Risk Management Strategies

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mountainous areas are expected to face increasing societal pressure due to mass tourism and the rising intensity and frequency of natural hazards triggered by climate change. Therefore, the development of proper strategies for the management of environmental risks will be crucial to ensure their liveability. Against this backdrop, concepts such as territorial resilience and Social–Ecological Systems (SES) can support the prioritisation of protective efforts. This paper presents a conceptual framework to be applied to areas subject to natural hazards. Its aim is to support the integration of different measures, with a special focus on protection forests and other Nature-based Solutions, into current risk management strategies. The framework considers (i) the definition of SES boundaries; (ii) the identification of the main goals to be achieved; (iii) the quantification of the supply and demand of the ecosystem protection service; and (iv) the development of risk management strategies able to include the management of protection forests among the adopted solutions. This framework is intended as a tool to be adopted by local and regional decision-makers as a tool to identify the areas at risk, to recognise the potential role of protection forests, and to operationalise the concept of resilience through the deployment of “grey-green” strategies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for the Integration of Nature-Based Solutions into Environmental Risk Management Strategies

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These entry points might be considered in combination with a seamless integration of other community driven portals and tools. This seamless integration would require standardised and thus compatible interfaces at both server sides and a minimum of mandatory ISO 19115 metadata standard entries (ISO 2003). Implementation of a Catalogue Service Web (OGC 2007) with a related server infrastructure would also enable a consistent user management and capturing of further entries into the existing database after the ESMERALDA lifetime.…”

Section: Discussion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An online method database for mapping and assessing ecosystem services

Reichel¹,

Klug²

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the foundation of the ecosystem services concept in the ninetieth of the last century (Costanza et al. 1998, Costanza et al. 1997, de Groot 1992), many methods to map and assess ecosystem services have been developed and applied to policy and business questions worldwide. While many flexible methods exist at different spatial scales and ecosystem types, Jax et al. (2018) express the difficulty in choosing and applying the correct method to the right topic of interest. To enable a selection of appropriate methods, Harrison et al. (2018) developed a decision tree approach. However, Dunford et al. (2018) argue that often not a single method but a combination of methods are required for appropriate decision-making in real world situations. Thus, applying the concept of ecosystem services in practice is challenging, especially at institutional level (Saarikoski et al. 2018). This hampers comparability, applicability and transferability of ecosystem services assessments and related mapping applications across scales and European regions. It also impedes a solid overview of existing methods suitable for use at different scales in different biomes and types of ecosystems. These challenges require a consistent knowledge capitalisation infrastructure, where information is synthesised in a publicly accessible portal to enable a consistent description of different ecosystem conditions and the services they provide. Going beyond the previously mentioned challenges requires a flexible methodology for assessing and mapping ecosystem services. The Horizon 2020 project ESMERALDA (Enhancing ecoSysteM sERvices mApping for poLicy and Decision mAking) developed this methodology and implemented it into the "MAES explorer"*5 and the "MAES Methods Explorer*1 (MME)". The MME complements previous developments from the EU projects OpenNESS*2 and OPERAs*3. In contrast to the OPPLA*4 case-study-finder with case study areas and accompanied study area booklets and descriptions, MME focuses on methods for mapping and assessing ecosystem services and links those to selected literature and case studies. Additionally, MME provides a comprehensive and publicly searchable collection of peer-reviewed journal references and grey literature about mapping and assessing ecosystem services in Europe. This compilation is cross-related with the case study booklets produced by the ESMERALDA project and particularly methods, which are specifically used to assess and map particular ecosystem services within the case study area. Thus, searching for and filtering of particular case study areas, (related) literature references and/or methods is possible. Santos-Martin et al. (2018) provide the detailed description about the scientific procedure behind the MME tool described here.

show abstract

“…Soil ES Lexicon Barnaud and Antona (2014) and Danley and Widmark (2016) reported that a broad range of stakeholders used the ES concept and argued that its wide adoption creates ambiguity in its meaning. Reporting stakeholders' feedback about operationalization of ES, Carmen et al (2018) and Jax et al (2018) identified the need to adapt language to each stakeholder as one of the crucial principles to frame and shape action on land management across scales of governance. Considering these TABLE 1 | Definition of key terms used in this framework of soil ecosystem services assessment.…”

Section: A Common Language For Mutual Understandingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework to Consider Soil Ecosystem Services in Territorial Planning

Fossey

Angers

Bustany

et al. 2020

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational

Abstract: messy world: lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational.

Cited by 99 publications

References 82 publications

A Framework for the Integration of Nature-Based Solutions into Environmental Risk Management Strategies

A Framework for the Integration of Nature-Based Solutions into Environmental Risk Management Strategies

An online method database for mapping and assessing ecosystem services

A Framework to Consider Soil Ecosystem Services in Territorial Planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About