No abstract

No abstract

. 2014. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: a framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU.Contact CEH NORA team at noraceh@ceh.ac.ukThe NERC and CEH trademarks and logos ('the Trademarks') are registered trademarks of NERC in the UK and other countries, and may not be used without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner. Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Ecological Indicators Manuscript DraftManuscript Number: Abstract: The publication of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 requires a substantial effort in terms of operationalizing the ecosystem service concept. Target 2 of the Strategy in fact advocates that ecosystems and their services have to be "maintained and enhanced" in the current decade. This necessitates the development of methods to map and assess ecosystem services at regional and Country level, which is recognized under Action 5 of the strategy.Research on ecosystem services mapping and valuing has boosted in recent years, nevertheless compared to other groups (provisioning, regulating) cultural ecosystem services are not yet fully integrated into operational frameworks. One reason is the transdisciplinarity which is required to address the issue: by their own definition cultural services (which encompass physical, intellectual, spiritual interactions with biota) need to be analysed from multiple perspectives (i.e. ecological, social, behavioural). A second reason is most likely the lack of data for large-scale assessments, being direct surveys a main source of information. Among cultural ecosystem services, assessment of outdoor recreation can be based on a large pool of literature developed mostly in social and medical science, and landscape and ecology studies. This paper presents a methodology to include recreation in the conceptual framework for EU wide ecosystem assessments (Maes et al., 2013), which couples existing approaches for recreation management at Country level with behavioural data derived from surveys and literature, and population distribution analysis. The result is a frame that can be applied to quantify the capacity of outdoor recreation as ecosystem service to citizens in the EU, and describe through Country profiles differences in provision, as input to land planning processes.Dear Editor, we are pleased to submit a contribution to Ecological Indicators. The manuscript is entitled Mapping cultural ecosystem services: the case of outdoor recreation. This is an original contribution to the scientific literature and its submission is supported by all the authors. The paper contains new material which is not considered elsewhere for review or publication.Our paper proposes a methodology to include outdoor recreation in the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services (MAES) framework (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper201 3.pdf), in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. More in general, we believe the paper indicates a viable path to include a cultural ecosystem service in EU...

Target 6.4 of the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) deals with the reduction of water scarcity. To monitor progress towards this target, two indicators are used: Indicator 6.4.1 measuring water use efficiency and 6.4.2 measuring the level of water stress (WS). This paper aims to identify whether the currently proposed indicator 6.4.2 considers the different elements that need to be accounted for in a WS indicator. WS indicators compare water use with water availability. We identify seven essential elements: 1) both gross and net water abstraction (or withdrawal) provide important information to understand WS; 2) WS indicators need to incorporate environmental flow requirements (EFR); 3) temporal and 4) spatial disaggregation is required in a WS assessment; 5) both renewable surface water and groundwater resources, including their interaction, need to be accounted for as renewable water availability; 6) alternative available water resources need to be accounted for as well, like fossil groundwater and desalinated water; 7) WS indicators need to account for water storage in reservoirs, water recycling and managed aquifer recharge. Indicator 6.4.2 considers many of these elements, but there is need for improvement. It is recommended that WS is measured based on net abstraction as well, in addition to currently only measuring WS based on gross abstraction. It does incorporate EFR. Temporal and spatial disaggregation is indeed defined as a goal in more advanced monitoring levels, in which it is also called for a differentiation between surface and groundwater resources. However, regarding element 6 and 7 there are some shortcomings for which we provide recommendations. In addition, indicator 6.4.2 is only one indicator, which monitors blue WS, but does not give information on green or green-blue water scarcity or on water quality. Within the SDG indicator framework, some of these topics are covered with other indicators.

No abstract