Premium
Assessment of marine ecosystem services indicators: Experiences and lessons learned from 14 European case studies
Author(s) -
Lillebø Ana I,
Somma Francesca,
Norén Katja,
Gonçalves Jorge,
Alves M Fátima,
Ballarini Elisabetta,
Bentes Luis,
Bielecka Malgorzata,
Chubarenko Boris V,
Heise Susanne,
Khokhlov Valeriy,
Klaoudatos Dimitris,
Lloret Javier,
Margonski Piotr,
Marín Atucha,
Matczak Magdalena,
Oen Amy MP,
Palmieri Maria G,
Przedrzymirska Joanna,
Różyński Grzegorz,
Sousa Ana I,
Sousa Lisa P,
Tuchkovenko Yurii,
Zaucha Jacek
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
integrated environmental assessment and management
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.665
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 1551-3793
pISSN - 1551-3777
DOI - 10.1002/ieam.1782
Subject(s) - marine strategy framework directive , european union , environmental resource management , biodiversity , water framework directive , ecosystem services , legislation , environmental planning , scale (ratio) , identification (biology) , marine spatial planning , marine ecosystem , fjord , geography , ecosystem , marine protected area , environmental science , business , ecology , oceanography , political science , water quality , cartography , habitat , geology , law , biology , economic policy
This article shares the experiences, observations, and discussions that occurred during the completing of an ecosystem services (ES) indicator framework to be used at European Union (EU) and Member States' level. The experience base was drawn from 3 European research projects and 14 associated case study sites that include 13 transitional‐water bodies (specifically 8 coastal lagoons, 4 riverine estuaries, and 1 fjord) and 1 coastal‐water ecosystem. The ES pertinent to each case study site were identified along with indicators of these ES and data sources that could be used for mapping. During the process, several questions and uncertainties arose, followed by discussion, leading to these main lessons learned: 1) ES identification: Some ES that do not seem important at the European scale emerge as relevant at regional or local scales; 2) ES indicators: When direct indicators are not available, proxies for indicators (indirect indicators) might be used, including combined data on monitoring requirements imposed by EU legislation and international agreements; 3) ES mapping: Boundaries and appropriate data spatial resolution must be established because ES can be mapped at different temporal and spatial scales. We also acknowledge that mapping and assessment of ES supports the dialogue between human well‐being and ecological status. From an evidence‐based marine planning‐process point of view, mapping and assessment of marine ES are of paramount importance to sustainable use of marine natural capital and to halt the loss of marine biodiversity. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:726–734. © 2016 SETAC