Key criteria for developing ecosystem service indicators to inform decision making

Oudenhoven, A.P.E. van; Schröter, Matthias; Drakou, Evangelia G.; Geijzendorffer, Ilse R.; Jacobs, Sander; Bodegom, Peter M. van; Chazée, L.; Czúcz, Bálint; Grunewald, Karsten; Lillebø, Ana I.; Mononen, Laura; Nogueira, António J.A.; Pacheco-Romero, Manuel; Perennou, Christian; Remme, Roy P.; Rova, Silvia; Syrbe, Ralf-Uwe; Tratalos, Jamie A.; Vallejos, María; Albert, Christian

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.020

Cited by 103 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Van Oudenhoven et al, 2015). Posner et al (2016) and van Oudenhoven et al (2018) underlined the importance to consider scientific credibility as well as salience and legitimacy when assessing ecosystem services in relation to decision making. The classification systems incorporated by us were based on those by TEEB (De Groot et al, 2010) and CICES (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013), both of which are widely considered, approved by decision makers and, in case of the latter, even co-developed with a wide range of stakeholders , thus providing the salience and legitimacy required.…”

Section: Classification Of Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Mind the Gap’ between ecosystem services classification and strategic decision making

Oudenhoven¹,

Aukes²,

Bontje³

et al. 2018

Ecosystem Services

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Classification Of Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Mind the Gap’ between ecosystem services classification and strategic decision making

Oudenhoven¹,

Aukes²,

Bontje³

et al. 2018

Ecosystem Services

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Decision-makers have mentioned the need for a practical tool that shows values or thresholds characterizing ES supply and condition, facilitating the accomplishment of policy objectives [88,89]. The presented approach can serve as a baseline, helping in understanding the indicator frameworks [55]. It specifically focuses on easing the tasks of Member States (MS) on the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) (Action 5 of the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy [27]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the aim to overcome previous tools' weaknesses on scalability, data availability and possibility to monitor over time [55,58,89,90], the theoretical indicator frameworks [39,[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] are linked to the freely-available sources of remotely-sensed data that are suitable to monitor them ( Table 5): (i) products offered in the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (CLMS) [49] and (ii) satellite-based bio-geophysical indices to monitor vegetated surfaces [52,[78][79][80].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The integration with other datasets (Natura 2000), high-resolution satellite data (S2) and previous research that outlines user requirements [54][55][56] and sets ES condition indicators [39,[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65], allows the identification of NWRM within the riparian system of a river network and the assessment of their current condition. Furthermore, it overcomes specific limitations mentioned by decision-makers, such as data availability, scalability and possibility to monitor over time [55]. Specifically, it can ease MS tasks [27] by quickly identifying and assessing GI condition and supporting the corresponding management or restoration plans [31].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of Green Infrastructure in Riparian Zones Using Copernicus Programme

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an approach to identify Green Infrastructure (GI), its benefits and condition. This information enables environmental agencies to prioritise conservation, management and restoration strategies accordingly. The study focuses on riparian areas due to their potential to supply Ecosystem Services (ES), such as water quality, biodiversity, soil protection and flood or drought risk reduction. Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM) related to agriculture and forestry are the type of GI considered specifically within these riparian areas. The approach is based on ES condition indicators, defined by the European Environment Agency (EEA) to support the policy targets of the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. Indicators that can be assessed through remote sensing techniques are used, namely: capacity to provide ecosystem services, proximity to protected areas, greening response and water stress. Specifically, the approach uses and evaluates the potential of freely available products from the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (CLMS) to monitor GI. Moreover, vegetation and water indices are calculated using data from the Sentinel-2 MSI Level-2A scenes and integrated in the analysis. The approach has been tested in the Italian Po river basin in 2018. Firstly, agriculture and forest NWRM were identified in the riparian areas of the river network. Secondly, the Riparian Zones products from the CLMS local component and the satellite-based indices were linked to the aforementioned ES condition indicators. This led to the development of a pixel-based model that evaluates the identified GI according to: (i) its disposition to provide riparian regulative ES and (ii) its condition in the analysed year. Finally, the model was used to prioritise GI for conservation or restoration initiatives, based on its potential to deliver ES and current condition.

show abstract

“…These include measurability, scientific basis, interpretability, and ease of communication, but also sensitivity and responsiveness to environmental changes, specificity, robustness with well-known pressure-state relationships, and links to identified targets and thresholds (e.g., OECD, 1993;FAO, 1997;Rice and Rochet, 2005;Heink and Kowarik, 2010;Kershner et al, 2011;Queirós et al, 2016;Otto et al, 2018a). Biodiversity indicators that address policy and management goals are likely to be most effective if the relevant stakeholders and decision-makers also perceive them to be credible, salient, and legitimate (Cash et al, 2003;van Oudenhoven et al, 2018). Linking indicators to environmental conditions and ideally to management measures requires a good understanding of indicator responses to pressures and a sound testing of indicator performance, which is often lacking for biodiversity indicators (Rossberg et al, 2017).…”

Section: Concept Use and Suitability Of Biodiversity Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Science to Evidence – How Biodiversity Indicators Can Be Used for Effective Marine Conservation Policy and Management

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indicators are effective tools for summarizing and communicating key aspects of ecosystem state and have a long record of use in marine pollution and fisheries management. The application of biodiversity indicators to assess the status of species, habitats, and functional diversity in marine conservation and policy, however, is still developing and multiple indicator roles and features are emerging. For example, some operational biodiversity indicators trigger management action when a threshold is reached, while others play an interpretive, or surveillance, role in informing management. Links between biodiversity indicators and the pressures affecting them are frequently unclear as links can be obscured by environmental change, data limitations, food web dynamics, or the cumulative effects of multiple pressures. In practice, the application of biodiversity indicators to meet marine conservation policy and management demands is developing rapidly in the management realm, with a lag before academic publication detailing indicator development. Making best use of biodiversity indicators depends on sharing and synthesizing cutting-edge knowledge and experience. Using lessons learned from the application of biodiversity indicators in policy and management from around the globe, we define the concept of 'biodiversity indicators,' explore barriers to their use and potential solutions, and outline strategies for their effective communication to decision-makers.

show abstract

Key criteria for developing ecosystem service indicators to inform decision making

Cited by 103 publications

References 54 publications

‘Mind the Gap’ between ecosystem services classification and strategic decision making

‘Mind the Gap’ between ecosystem services classification and strategic decision making

Assessment of Green Infrastructure in Riparian Zones Using Copernicus Programme

From Science to Evidence – How Biodiversity Indicators Can Be Used for Effective Marine Conservation Policy and Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About