Germany’s Ecosystem Services – State of the Indicator Development for a Nationwide Assessment and Monitoring

Grunewald, Karsten; Syrbe, Ralf-Uwe; Walz, Ulrich; Richter, Benjamin; Meinel, Gotthard; Herold, Hendrik; Marzelli, Stefan

doi:10.3897/oneeco.2.e14021

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Braat and ten Brink [15] demonstrate how changes in biodiversity affect different types of ecosystem services, while Harrison et al [16] in their literature review study found that the relationships between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services are, in their majority, positively correlated. This is also highlighted by the work of Grunewald et al [17], in which regulating ES is found to be usually positively correlated with higher biodiversity. However, detailed studies at various area-extent and dataset scales are needed to provide robust information; Steur et al [18] studied plant diversity relationship with tropical forest ecosystem services, which were often found inconclusive, or showed both positive and negative correlations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Integrating Plant Diversity Data into Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem and Their Services (MAES) Implementation in Greece: Woodland and Forest Pilot

Κοτσίρας

Kokkoris

Strid³

et al. 2020

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Highlights: This is the first approach that integrates biodiversity data into Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem and their Services (MAES) implementation and natural capital accounting process, at the national scale, using an extensive vascular plant dataset for Greece. Background and Objectives: The study aims to support the MAES implementation in Greece, by assessing, as a pilot, the woodland and forest ecosystem type; the targets of the study are: (a) Identify and map ecosystem type extent; (b) identify ecosystem condition using biodiversity in terms of plant species richness (i.e., total, ecosystem exclusive, endemic, ecosystem exclusive endemic diversity); (c) develop ecosystem asset proxy indicators by combining ecosystem extent and ecosystem condition outcomes; (d) identify shortcomings; and (e) propose future steps and implications for the MAES implementation and natural capital accounting, based on biodiversity data. Materials and Methods: Following the national European Union’s and United Nations System of Environmental Economic Accounts-Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EEA) guidelines and the adopted National Set of MAES Indicators, we developed a set of four proxy ecosystem asset indicators to assess ecosystem types with respect to ecosystem area extent and ecosystem condition. This was as interpreted by its plant diversity in terms of species richness (total, ecosystem exclusive, endemic, and ecosystem exclusive endemic diversity). Results: The results revealed that when indicators use well-developed biodiversity datasets, in combination with ecosystem extent data, they can provide the baseline for ecosystem condition assessment, ecosystem asset delineation, and support operational MAES studies. Conclusions: The relation among biodiversity, ecosystem condition, and ecosystem services is not a linear equation and detailed, fine-scale assessments are needed to identify and interpret all aspects of biodiversity. However, areas of importance are pinpointed throughout Greece, and guidance is provided for case-study selection, conservation strategy, and decision-making under the perspective of national and EU environmental policies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Integrating Plant Diversity Data into Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem and Their Services (MAES) Implementation in Greece: Woodland and Forest Pilot

Κοτσίρας

Kokkoris

Strid³

et al. 2020

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The distances and green space categories for (i1) were stipulated/chosen by the authors and planners in the framework of a research project [50,56]. In principle, they are in line with the recommendations for primary and secondary indicators of green space provision given by the WHO 48].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ATKIS Basis-DLM (Digital Landscape Model) is the central data base for the national ecosystem services assessment in Germany [56]. It contains nationwide information on land use with a high thematic and spatial resolution and quality [57,58].…”

Section: Measurement Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of big cities in Germany such as Münster, Mannheim, and Chemnitz (data set 2006) as well as Dresden and Magdeburg (data set 2012) are not represented in the EUA. For these reasons, but also because the Basic-DLM has a higher thematic and temporal resolution, the ATKIS Basic-DLM is preferred for the development of indicators in Germany [50,56].…”

Section: Measurement Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Multi-Indicator Approach for Characterising Urban Green Space Provision at City and City-District Level in Germany

Grunewald

Richter

Behnisch

2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the question of how a sustainable urban development can be supported through simple measured quantities in the context of the specific provision of green space and open space. The specific provision of green space is analysed based on a combination of six indicators that describe, on the one hand, the access of inhabitants to green spaces and on the other hand, the settlement character as well as the strong anthropogenic imprint on the urban landscape. The indicators were calculated and combined in a 9-cell matrix for classifying the areas studied. The implementation was carried out at two scales for all German cities with at least 50,000 inhabitants as well as exemplarily for city districts of eight big cities. The calculated indicator values for representing green characteristics decrease with increasing number of inhabitants, whereas the opposite relationship was obtained for the indicators of the grey characteristics. We show how the approach provides an in-depth morphological assessment of German cities ranking their scores from low to the high presence of grey/green characteristics.

show abstract

“…Such an approach is similar to that in other European national ES assessments (e.g., [22]) and in the MAES framework [4,23].…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

TEEB-Russia: Towards National Ecosystem Accounting

Bukvareva¹,

Grunewald

Климанова

et al. 2021

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Russia’s ecosystems and ecosystem services (ES) are critical not only for the country’s economy and well-being of the people but also for maintaining biodiversity and biosphere regulation around the world. Thus, the introduction of ecosystem accounting in Russia is an urgent national and international goal to which the TEEB-Russia project is dedicated. In this publication, we briefly review and discuss the main project results. Based on currently available open statistical and cartographic data, TEEB-Russia project conducted the first national assessment of terrestrial ES in Russia to derive methodological approaches to national ecosystem accounting. A range of indicators were used to assess the ES provided by ecosystems (potential) as well as the level of demand and consumption of ES by Russia’s regions, both for populations and economies. Indicators of ecosystem assets include extent (ecosystem size) and condition (productivity, phytomass, bird and plant species diversity). An analysis of the correlations between indicators of ES and ecosystem assets showed that a system of national ecosystem accounting in Russia should be regionally differentiated to take account of the strong heterogeneity of natural conditions and the socio-economic development at this level. Decision-making in spatial planning and ecosystem management should carefully consider the difference between causal relationships between indicators and correlations that arise from the simultaneous response of indicators to changes in other factors. Differences in relationships between indicators at different spatial scales should also be taken into account.

show abstract

Germany’s Ecosystem Services – State of the Indicator Development for a Nationwide Assessment and Monitoring

Cited by 19 publications

References 14 publications

Integrating Plant Diversity Data into Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem and Their Services (MAES) Implementation in Greece: Woodland and Forest Pilot

Integrating Plant Diversity Data into Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem and Their Services (MAES) Implementation in Greece: Woodland and Forest Pilot

Multi-Indicator Approach for Characterising Urban Green Space Provision at City and City-District Level in Germany

TEEB-Russia: Towards National Ecosystem Accounting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About