TY - JOUR

T1 - National Ecosystem Assessments in Europe

T2 - A Review

AU - Schröter, Matthias

AU - Albert, Christian

AU - Marques, Alexandra

AU - Tobon, Wolke

AU - Lavorel, Sandra

AU - Maes, Joachim

AU - Brown, Claire

AU - Klotz, Stefan

AU - Bonn, Aletta

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - National ecosystem assessments form an essential knowledge base for safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services. We analyze eight European (sub-)national ecosystem assessments (Portugal, United Kingdom, Spain, Norway, Flanders, Netherlands, Finland, and Germany) and compare their objectives, political context, methods, and operationalization. We observed remarkable differences in breadth of the assessment, methods employed, variety of services considered, policy mandates, and funding mechanisms. Biodiversity and ecosystem services are mainly assessed independently, with biodiversity conceptualized as underpinning services, as a source of conflict with services, or as a service in itself. Recommendations derived from our analysis for future ecosystem assessments include the needs to improve the common evidence base, to advance the mapping of services, to consider international flows of services, and to connect more strongly to policy questions. Although the context specificity of national ecosystem assessments is acknowledged as important, a greater harmonization across assessments could help to better inform common European policies and future pan-regional assessments.

AB - National ecosystem assessments form an essential knowledge base for safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services. We analyze eight European (sub-)national ecosystem assessments (Portugal, United Kingdom, Spain, Norway, Flanders, Netherlands, Finland, and Germany) and compare their objectives, political context, methods, and operationalization. We observed remarkable differences in breadth of the assessment, methods employed, variety of services considered, policy mandates, and funding mechanisms. Biodiversity and ecosystem services are mainly assessed independently, with biodiversity conceptualized as underpinning services, as a source of conflict with services, or as a service in itself. Recommendations derived from our analysis for future ecosystem assessments include the needs to improve the common evidence base, to advance the mapping of services, to consider international flows of services, and to connect more strongly to policy questions. Although the context specificity of national ecosystem assessments is acknowledged as important, a greater harmonization across assessments could help to better inform common European policies and future pan-regional assessments.

KW - boundary object

KW - conservation

KW - ecosystem service mapping

KW - IPBES

KW - quantification

KW - Ecosystems Research

KW - Environmental Governance

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994235689&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/9ce31c16-d7ce-3daf-900e-2d13577fa5f9/

U2 - 10.1093/biosci/biw101

DO - 10.1093/biosci/biw101

M3 - Scientific review articles

C2 - 28533561

AN - SCOPUS:84994235689

VL - 66

SP - 813

EP - 828

JO - BioScience

JF - BioScience

SN - 0006-3568

IS - 10

ER -