Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVári, Ágnes
dc.contributor.authorAdamescu, Cristian Mihai
dc.contributor.authorBalzan, Mario
dc.contributor.authorGocheva, Kremena
dc.contributor.authorGötzl, Martin
dc.contributor.authorGrunewald, Karsten
dc.contributor.authorInácio, Miguel
dc.contributor.authorLinder, Madli
dc.contributor.authorObiang-Ndong, Gregory
dc.contributor.authorPereira, Paulo
dc.contributor.authorSantos-Martín, Fernando
dc.contributor.authorSieber, Ina
dc.contributor.authorStepniewska, Malgorzata
dc.contributor.authorTanacs, Eszter
dc.contributor.authorTermansen, Mette
dc.contributor.authorTromeur, Eric
dc.contributor.authorVackarova, Davina
dc.contributor.authorCzúcz, Bálint
dc.coverage.spatialEuropean Unionen_US
dc.description.abstractBacked by the Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and 2030, numerous ‘Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services’ (MAES) projects have been completed in recent years in the member states of the European Union, with substantial results and insights accumulated. The experience from the different approaches is a valuable source of information for developing assessment processes further, especially with regard to their uptake into policy and more recently, into ecosystem accounting. Systematic approaches towards best practices and lessons learned from national MAES projects are yet lacking. This study presents the results of a survey conducted with participants of national MAES projects overviewing 13 European MAES processes. Focus hereby is put on the types of methods used, the assessed ecosystem services, and the perceived challenges and advancements. All MAES projects assessed ecosystem services at several levels of the ecosystem service cascade (69% at least three levels), using a diverse set of data sources and methods (with 4.7 types of methods on average). More accessible data was used more frequently (e.g., statistical and literature data being the most popular). Challenges regarding policy uptake, synthesizing results, and data gaps or reliability were perceived as the most severe. Insufficient evaluation of uncertainty was seen as a major critical point, and emphasized as crucial for uptake and implementation. Moving towards accounting for ES in the frame of environmental-economic accounts, considering uncertainties of ES assessments should be even more important. Ecosystem assessment Ecosystem service models Uncertainty Ecosystem service cascade Ecosystem condition types Biodiversity Strategy 2020en_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.subjectEcosystem servicesen_US
dc.subjectEcosystem assessmenten_US
dc.subjectEcosystem service modelsen_US
dc.subjectEcosystem service cascadeen_US
dc.subjectEcosystem condition typesen_US
dc.subjectBiodiversity Strategy 2020en_US
dc.titleNational mapping and assessment of ecosystem services projects in Europe – Participants’ experiences, state of the art and lessons learneden_US
dc.title.alternativeNational mapping and assessment of ecosystem services projects in Europe – Participants’ experiences, state of the art and lessons learneden_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2023 The Authorsen_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Samfunnsgeografi: 290en_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Human geography: 290en_US
dc.source.journalEcosystem Servicesen_US
dc.relation.projectAndre: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canadaen_US
dc.relation.projectAndre: Hungarian National Research, Developm & Innovation Officeen_US

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal