Action 5 of the European Union's Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 asks that Member States map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services in their national territory. Policymakers and stakeholders of these countries frequently ask why this work is necessary. This article shows that this question can be broken down into a number of specific questions which, in turn, bring specific requests for knowledge and guidance to the surface. This paper develops a typology of questions and identifies the following five categories: knowledge requests, policy support questions, questions on resources and responsibilities, application questions and technical and methodological guidance questions. Next, this typology of questions is framed in an adaptive policy cycle and coupled to a set of available solutions.

We implement a controlled, multi-site experiment to develop and test guidance principles for benefits transfers. These argue that when transferring across relatively similar sites, simple mean value transfers are to be preferred but that when sites are relatively dissimilar then value function transfers will yield lower errors. The paper also provides guidance on the appropriate specification of transferable value functions arguing that these should be developed from theoretical rather than ad-hoc statistical approaches. These principles are tested via a common format valuation study of water quality improvements across five countries. While this provides an idealised tested, results support the above principles and suggest directions for future transfer studies.

No abstract

No abstract

The Scheldt is a tidal river that originates in France and flows through Belgium and the Netherlands. The tides create significant flood risks in both the Flemish region in Belgium and the Netherlands. Due to sea level rise and economic development, flood risks will increase during this century. This is the main reason for the Flemish government to update its flood risk management plan. For this purpose, the Flemish government requested a cost-benefit analysis of flood protection measures, considering long-term developments. Measures evaluated include a storm surge barrier, dyke heightening and additional floodplains with or without the development of wetlands. Some of these measures affect the flood risk in both countries. As policies concerning the limitation of flood risk differ significantly between the Netherlands and Flanders, distinctive methodologies were used to estimate the impacts of measures on flood risk. A risk-based approach was applied for Flanders by calculating the impacts of flood damage at different levels of recurrence, for the base year (2000) and in case of a sea level rise of 60 cm by 2100. Policy within the Netherlands stipulates a required minimal protection level along the Scheldt against storms with a recurrence period of 1 in 4,000 years. It was estimated how flood protection measures would delay further dyke heightening, which is foreseen as protection levels are presently decreasing due to rising sea levels. Impacts of measures (safety benefits) consist of delays in further dyke heightening. The results illustrate the importance of sea level rise. Flood risks increased fivefolds when a sea level rise of 60 cm was applied. Although more drastic measures such as a storm surge barrier near Antwerp offer more protection for very extreme storms, a combination of dykes and floodplains can offer higher benefits at lower costs.

No abstract

The European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 Coordination and Support Action ESMERALDA aimed at developing guidance and a flexible methodology for Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) to support the EU member states in the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy’s Target 2 Action 5. ESMERALDA’s key tasks included network creation, stakeholder engagement, enhancing ecosystem services mapping and assessment methods across various spatial scales and value domains, work in case studies and support of EU member states in MAES implementation. Thus ESMERALDA aimed at integrating various project outcomes around four major strands: i) Networking, ii) Policy, iii) Research and iv) Application. The objective was to provide guidance for integrated ecosystem service mapping and assessment that can be used for sustainable decision-making in policy, business, society, practice and science at EU, national and regional levels. This article presents the overall ESMERALDA approach of integrating the above-mentioned project components and outcomes and provides an overview of how the enhanced methods were applied and how they can be used to support MAES implementation in the EU member states. Experiences with implementing such a large pan-European Coordination and Support Action in the context of EU policy are discussed and recommendations for future actions are given.

No abstract