Operationalising ecosystem services in Europe

Rounsevell, Mark; Metzger, Marc J.; Walz, Ariane

doi:10.1007/s10113-019-01560-1

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirdly, the knowledge and principles of the NBS concept may not always make it into practice due to the existence of knowledge gaps between researchers and practitioners, technical barriers, and lack of financing options (Lautenbach et al, 2019;Rounsevell et al, 2019;Bhardwaj et al, 2020). How to transform NBS from a heuristic framework and mostly thematic scientific evidence into unambiguous, systematic, impactful practices and business cases is challenging (Nikolaidis et al, 2017;Frantzeskaki et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lastly, progress in the adoption of NBS in the EC's policies is evident. However, the level of integration of NBS within existing policy frameworks remains limited (Rounsevell et al, 2019), and NBS implementation can be significantly hampered by the misalignment between municipal, regional, national and transnational policies and regulations (Li et al, 2019). Concrete policy instruments (e.g., information and financial incentives, decision-making mechanisms, and catalysers for public-private partnerships) are essential for implementing NBS successfully (Droste et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The European Union roadmap for implementing nature-based solutions: A review

Davies

Chen

Sanesi

et al. 2021

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper traces a chronological history, or roadmap, of the documentation produced by the European Union (EU) to promote and implement nature-based solutions (NBS) as an innovation action aiming to establish a socially inclusive, economically vibrant and ecologically resilient society. The EU's ambition is to position Europe as the world leader in NBS Research (via scientific research aiming at generating knowledge and theories) and Innovation (NBS implementation via identifying innovative approaches and best practices), as well as in a global market (for sharing, communicating, collaborating and promoting NBS). Considerable efforts have been made by the European Commission (the executive branch of the EU) as featured in a number of documents, funding programmes and Horizon 2020 (Research and Innovation) projects that span the period from 2012 to 2020. While the European Commission's commitment to promoting NBS within its Member States and beyond is still an ongoing process, we aim to review the efforts undertaken, knowledge gained, and practices accomplished. This roadmap intends to provide interested practitioners, policymakers, researchers, as well as civil organisations with an updated understanding of the leading role of the EU in NBS conceptualisation and operationalisation. This can inform future directions of NBS Research and Innovation actions, which in turn address environmental and societal challenges prompted by urbanisation/re-urbanisation, globalisation/de-globalisation, climate change and, more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The European Union roadmap for implementing nature-based solutions: A review

Davies

Chen

Sanesi

et al. 2021

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and are context and location dependent (e.g. distance to beneficiaries) (Lautenbach et al, 2019, Rounsevell et al, 2019. In the UK winter wheat case study, maximising NTTPs in the cropped area benefits pollinators, genetic biodiversity, and supports food webs through the provision of habitat and food; however, it comes largely at the expense of food provision (crop yield) and, to a certain extent, soil protection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Assessment of impacts from herbicide use and mechanical weeding were based on published literature (Owuor et al, 2016, Deacon et al, 2015Haddaway et al, 2016;Hacket and Lawrence, 2014;Holden et al, 2019;Lautenbach et al, 2019;Pocock et al, 2010;Rothamsted Research, 2020;Rounsevell, et al, 2019;Spurgeon et al, 2013;Defra, 2020), the risk assessment dossier for an example general spectrum herbicide and professional judgement. Care was taken to focus on published literature relating to UK winter wheat (or cereals) production.…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact Assessment Framework with Specific Protection Goals (SPGs) for Non-Target Terrestrial Plants (NTTPs)

Bremmer¹,

Deacon²,

Álvarez

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In dit rapport stellen we een voorlopig effectbeoordelingskader (IA) voor, dat kan worden toegepast op de regulering van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen (PPP's) en voldoet aan de eisen van de Better Regulation Guidelines. Kaderontwikkeling was gericht op het gebruik van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen voor onkruidbestrijding en de bescherming van niet-doelsoorten terrestrische planten (NTTP's). Vier onkruidbestrijdingsscenario's werden beschreven als casestudy's, waaronder (I) een referentiescenario met de nadruk op chemische onkruidbestrijding, (II) een scenario met focus op bescherming van NTTP's, in het perceel (III) een scenario gericht op bescherming van NTTP's buiten het perceel, en (IV) een scenario met volledige bescherming van ecosysteemdiensten. Zes ecosysteemdiensten werden geëvalueerd: voedselproductie (voedsel en grondstoffen), wildvoeder, watervoorziening (grondwater en oppervlaktewater), erosiepreventie en instandhouding van bodemvruchtbaarheid en leefgebied voor soorten. Het kader en de specifieke beschermdoelen zijn getest aan de hand van zes casestudies die een reeks gewassen en EU-lidstaten vertegenwoordigen.In this report we propose a preliminary Impact Assessment (IA) Framework that may be applied to the regulation of plant protection products (PPPs) and that fulfils the requirements of the Better Regulation Guidelines. Framework development focused on the use of PPPs for weed control and the protection of non-target terrestrial plants (NTTPs). Four weed control scenarios were described as case studies including (I) a reference scenario with emphasis on herbicidal weed control, (II) a scenario with focus on in-field protection of NTTPs, (III) a scenario oriented at off-field protection of NTTPs, and (IV) a scenario with full protection of ecosystem services. Six ecosystem services were evaluated: Crop provision (food and raw materials), wild foods, fresh groundwater, fresh surface water, erosion prevention and maintenance of soil fertility and habitat for species. The framework and Specific Protection Goals (SPGs) were tested using six case studies representing a range of crops and EU Member States.

show abstract

“…Actions and tools are said to constitute the core of a plan [39], and the probability of success of an action depends on the type of tools used [40]. However, [41] emphasizing that tools and methods alone are not enough to support ES, there remains a need to encourage better ES management. For example, there is a need to provide access to the tools and foster their use through knowledge exchange and application in practice [38][39][40][41][42].…”

Section: Urban Governance and Spatial Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ways Forward for Advancing Ecosystem Services in Municipal Planning—Experiences from Stockholm County

Khoshkar

Hammer

Borgström

et al. 2020

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This case study from Stockholm County, Sweden, explores practitioners’ experiences of barriers and bridges in municipal planning practices to support actions for ecosystem services. This qualitative study is based on information gathered from a focus group, workshops, and semi-structured interviews, which aided in identifying key factors for integrating ecosystem services in municipal planning. We identified 10 key factors divided into three themes: i) regulatory framework and political support, ii) local organizational capacity, and iii) local adaptation of tools and practices. In particular, the practitioners pointed to the need for the development of legal support and regulations for ecosystem services on the national and EU policy levels. Furthermore, the need for local capacity building and understanding of ecosystem services as well as increased regional support to enhance local knowledge exchange and learning was emphasized. Also, in a decentralized local governance system such as in Sweden, to fully implement ecosystem services in urban planning for sustainable development, locally adapted practical tools and monitoring procedures were considered important.

show abstract

Operationalising ecosystem services in Europe

Cited by 8 publications

References 30 publications

The European Union roadmap for implementing nature-based solutions: A review

The European Union roadmap for implementing nature-based solutions: A review

Impact Assessment Framework with Specific Protection Goals (SPGs) for Non-Target Terrestrial Plants (NTTPs)

Ways Forward for Advancing Ecosystem Services in Municipal Planning—Experiences from Stockholm County

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About