Exploring gaps in mapping marine ecosystem services: A benchmark analysis

Nahuelhual, Laura; Vergara, Ximena; Bozzeda, Fabio; Campos, Guilherme; Subida, María Dulce; Outeiro, Luís; Villasante, Sebastián; Fernández, Miriam

doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105193

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More information available at www.aboutvalues.net. Townsend et al, 2014;Nahuelhual et al, 2020) have highly limited the elaboration of CMES delivery maps, which are significantly relevant when assessing land ES at large scales. As a consequence, most of the research on CMES has been focused at local scales (Liquete et al, 2013;Townsend et al, 2018), which might be detrimental for assessing global services such as climate regulation, in which the scale of assessment is at the level of square kilometers or larger (Bouillon et al, 2008;Lovelock, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additional complications have raised due to the scarcity of spatial data for marine ecosystems (Guerry et al, 2012;Townsend et al, 2014;Nahuelhual et al, 2020), which has limited the elaboration of CMES provision and demand maps. Although scarcity of spatial data is a usual issue in natural sciences, terrestrial ecosystems have largely benefited from the development of remote sensing technology, as opposed to marine ecosystems.…”

Section: Why Did a Knowledge Gap Develop?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Knowledge Status of Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services - Challenges, Limitations and Lessons Learned From the Application of the Ecosystem Services Approach in Management

Cruz

Manuel²

2021

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of ecosystem services (ES), first introduced in 1970’s, gained mainstream attention in 2005, when the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment formally proposed a definition for it. In spite of this attention, many aspects about the ES concept have remained controversial to date, i.e., their classification, value, generation, link to human well-being, and supportive role as management tool. This review explores the knowledge status of ecosystem services, focusing on those services generated in coastal and marine environments (CMES). A knowledge gap and an underdevelopment of tools to assess CMES is evident in the literature, especially when compared to the progress done in the assessment of land ES. Possible explanations reside on the yet small proportion that the research done on CMES represents for the ecosystem service framework (ESF), in part due to the intrinsic challenges of researching the marine environment, also due to the limited availability of spatial data on marine ecosystems. Nevertheless, the ES concept is getting more attention toward policy-makers and stakeholders, leading to the implementation of an ecosystem services approach (ESA) to the management and protection of CMES. Six lessons are rescued from the literature to improve the ESA: (1) integration of the ESA in a science-policy process; (2) more simplicity for the CMES prediction models; (3) move toward empowering of stakeholders; (4) integration of the value pluralism of CMES with less focus on money; (5) the link of ES to Human Well-being must not been forgotten; and (6) communication of results and social literacy are key.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Why Did a Knowledge Gap Develop?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Knowledge Status of Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services - Challenges, Limitations and Lessons Learned From the Application of the Ecosystem Services Approach in Management

Cruz

Manuel²

2021

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We found 51.1% of papers were not rooted in any decision context. In the face of the major threats to the environment, such as pollution, land-use change, or climate change, orienting research outcomes towards real-world problem solving (Nahuelhual et al 2020) is urgent. Inversely, we believe existing incentives (e.g., payment for ES, compensation payments for environmental impacts, REDD + financial incentives) mostly promote financial strategies, risking jeopardizing the long-term stakeholder acceptance and participation.…”

Section: How To Improve Stakeholder Participation?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent literature review (Nahuelhual et al 2020) also highlights the need to find methods that could integrate data from different spatial scales. Modeling approaches relying on empirical data provide more reliable information but are often restricted to local-scale assessments and consider few ES.…”

Section: What Next?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging theory and practice in ecosystem services mapping: a systematic review

Bitoun¹,

Trégarot

Devillers³

2021

Environ Syst Decis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mapping and assessment of Ecosystem Services (ES) aims at better connecting environmental conservation, economic development, and human well-being. However, 60 years after the development of the ES concept, a persistent gap remains between the production of scientific knowledge on ES and its use in support of policy and management. Here, we report on a systematic review of the scientific literature that helps better understand key challenges and offers potential solutions to bridge this gap. The review considered four criteria: (1) how stakeholders participate to studies; (2) how usable ES maps are for decision-making; (3) what policy recommendations were made; and (4) what research recommendations were made. The analysis of 135 papers published between 2008 and 2020 revealed diverse technical and conceptual challenges that could prevent the effective use of ES concepts and methods outside the academic realm. The main challenges identified in the literature were the uncertainty levels of ES mapping outputs, issues of spatial scales, the understanding of ES interactions, and the need for temporal analysis. Many policies rely on mapped outcomes, creating a window of opportunity for the uptake of ES mapping into policy-making. However, it remains key to involve stakeholders early in the co-design of ES studies and to better understand their preferences and motivation to adopt ES mapping in their practices. The study shows that higher levels of learnability of ES mapping practices, further popularization to foster public awareness, and increased capacity building would facilitate the ES concept uptake into decision and policy-making.

show abstract

“…The negative effects included a sharp decrease in the water inflow into the Aral Sea, a shrinking water surface, deterioration in water quality, aggravation of salinization and desertification, destruction of the original ecological chain and some biological species, and disruption of original ecological balance of the Aral Sea basin. The problems related to resources and the environment in the Aral Sea basin have become increasingly prominent (Karimov et al 2020, Kulmatov et al 2021, Mueller et al 2014, thus affecting regional ES (Nahuelhual et al 2020).…”

Section: Impact Of Lulccs On Es In the Aral Seamentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal Change in the Land Use and Ecosystem Service Value in the Aral Sea basin (1993–2018)

He¹,

Yu²,

Sun³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Aral Sea started shrinking since the 1960s due to natural factors and human activities; however, the relationship between land cover change and ecosystem services (ES) in the Aral Sea basin has not been fully studied. To analyze and explore the spatiotemporal variation characteristics of ecosystem service values (ESVs) in this region, we used the European Space Agency CCI Global Land Cover product with a spatiotemporal resolution of 300 × 300 m and the annual scale. The land use data of 1993, 1998, 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018 in the study area were extracted, the study area’s ESV in the corresponding years was calculated, and the temporal and spatial evolution characteristics were analyzed. Additionally, the change rate and sensitivity were analyzed. The results revealed that the area of urban land, bare land, grassland, wetland, and cropland in the Aral Sea basin increased from 1993 to 2018; water body and forestland decreased. The integrated value of water bodies, cropland, and grassland ES accounted for more than 96% of the total ESV; the change rate of land use types differed. Urban land and water changed the fastest; cultivated land, woodland, grassland, and wetland changed the slowest. From 1993 to 2018, the total ESV of the Aral Sea basin decreased from 455.10 to 414.56 billion (Overall decrease = − 8.91%). The ESV study shows that the water area decreased sharply from 1993 to 2018, resulting in a loss of USD 46.84 billion. Biodiversity, food production, and water regulation were the main ES, accounting for 78.5% of the total ESV. The ESV of the Aral Sea basin declined from 1993 to 2018, and significant differences were observed among its regions. Some regions should thus focus on this aspect. A close correlation was observed between the ESV and land use. Hence, effective land use policies can control the expansion of cropland; protect water bodies, ecological environments, grassland, and forestland; and promote a more sustainable ecosystem.

show abstract

Exploring gaps in mapping marine ecosystem services: A benchmark analysis

Cited by 22 publications

References 75 publications

The Knowledge Status of Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services - Challenges, Limitations and Lessons Learned From the Application of the Ecosystem Services Approach in Management

The Knowledge Status of Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services - Challenges, Limitations and Lessons Learned From the Application of the Ecosystem Services Approach in Management

Bridging theory and practice in ecosystem services mapping: a systematic review

Spatiotemporal Change in the Land Use and Ecosystem Service Value in the Aral Sea basin (1993–2018)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About