Marine and coastal ecosystem services on the science–policy–practice nexus: challenges and opportunities from 11 European case studies

Drakou, Evangelia G.; Kermagoret, Charlène; Liquete, Camino; Ruiz‐Frau, Ana; Burkhard, Kremena; Lillebø, Ana I.; Oudenhoven, A.P.E. van; Ballé-Béganton, Johanna; Rodrigues, João Garcia; Nieminen, Emmi; Oinonen, Soile; Ziemba, Alex; Gissi, Elena; Depellegrin, Daniel; Veidemane, Kristīna; Ruskule, Anda; Delangue, Justine; Böhnke-Henrichs, Anne; Boon, Arjen; Wenning, Richard J.; Martino, Simone; Hasler, Berit; Termansen, Mette; Rockel, Mark; Hummel, H.; Serafy, Ghada El; Peev, Plamen

doi:10.1080/21513732.2017.1417330

Cited by 59 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this way, a greater portion of society will be involved in assessing the value of ES and both ‘natural capital’ and ‘social capital’ will be further integrated within national and global accounts of economic development (Drakou et al . ; Garcia‐Rodrigues et al . ).…”

Section: The Step‐forward: Pluralistic Valuationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuation of Ecosystem Services to promote sustainable aquaculture practices

Custódio

Villasante

Calado

et al. 2019

Reviews in Aquaculture

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conceptual frameworks to assess and valuate Ecosystem Services (ES) are rapidly becoming important tools for ecosystem‐based management, as they support transdisciplinary approaches to ecological economics and expand current asset boundaries to include natural and social capital. An important area where such ES assessment frameworks could become relevant management tools is aquaculture. Aquaculture activities are an interconnected part of the ecosystem in which they exist and, under certain circumstances, can support many of the same fundamental ES provided by nature. But, in most cases, aquaculture typically increases provisioning services at the expense of the other services (regulation & maintenance and cultural services). To understand the capacity of ES valuation methods to expose existing ES trade‐offs in areas under aquaculture development, this study provides a literature review of publications that assessed and valuated ES delivered and/or impacted by aquaculture. In general, it seems that certain types of aquaculture do negatively impact overall ES delivery (e.g. intensive mangrove shrimp farming in Asia), yet certain modes of production (e.g. integrated multi‐trophic aquaculture) and cultured species (e.g. algae and certain bivalves) can have a positive impact on ES, not only improving provisioning services but also regulation and maintenance services and, potentially, cultural services. ES valuation methods provide important data that facilitate discussion among stakeholders and policymakers and should be included in marine and coastal management planning processes to foster a more sustainable aquaculture.

show abstract

Section: The Step‐forward: Pluralistic Valuationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuation of Ecosystem Services to promote sustainable aquaculture practices

Custódio

Villasante

Calado

et al. 2019

Reviews in Aquaculture

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ecosystem-based management has been recognized as an analytical approach that establishes a broad framework to assess coastal resource and human interactions. These two directives, and other more resource-specific coastal and marine national and European legislation [63], provide for the evaluation of indicators, targets, and economic analyses to develop programs to achieve this objective and to consider transboundary features and impacts [12,40,64]. Formal guidance has been developed to utilize an ecosystem services based approach, and some results have been achieved in compiling studies and inventories for different CME service values, e.g., [65].…”

Section: The European Unionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite the broad scope of the directives, there has been limited success in actual implementation of ecosystem services valuation in the planning and evaluation process. Drakou et al [64] reviewed 11 European case studies and found that valuation studies did inform decision makers. In only a few cases, however, were the valuation results applied or used to influence decision making.…”

Section: The European Unionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Elusive Quest for Valuation of Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Services

Milon

Álvarez

2019

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal and marine ecosystem (CME) services provide benefits to people through direct goods and services that may be harvested or enjoyed in situ and indirect services that regulate and support biological and geophysical processes now and in the future. In the past two decades, there has been an increase in the number of studies and journal articles designed to measure the economic value of the world’s CME services, although there is significantly less published research than for terrestrial ecosystems. This article provides a review of the literature on valuation of CME services along with a discussion of the theoretical and practical challenges that must be overcome to utilize valuation results in CME policy and planning at local, regional, and global scales. The review reveals that significant gaps exist in research and understanding of the broad range of CME services and their economic values. It also raises questions about the validity of aggregating ecosystem services as independent components to determine the value of a biome when there is little understanding of the relationships and feedbacks between ecosystems and the services they produce. Finally, the review indicates that economic valuation of CME services has had a negligible impact on the policy process in four main regions around the world. An alternative direction for CME services research would focus on valuing the world’s CME services in a wealth accounting framework.

show abstract

“…These findings may have implications for the regulation of human activities that rely on MCES, such as fisheries, aquaculture, or seaweed harvesting. Drakou et al (2017) take stock of 11 European case studies to understand how MCES assessments have been operationalised and taken up by decisionmakers. To that end, the authors provide an overview of the main conceptual and methodological challenges in MCES operationalisation from a researcher and practitioner's perspective, indicate observed impacts of such challenges, and specify applied solutions that contributed to solving those challenges.…”

Section: Lessons Learned and Key Recommendations To Operationalise Mcesmentioning

confidence: 99%