The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems

Finisdore, John; Rhodes, Charles; Haines-Young, Roy; Maynard, Simone; Wielgus, Jeffrey; Dvarskas, Anthony; Houdet, Joël; Quétier, Fabien; Lamothe, Karl A.; Ding, Helen; Soulard, François; Houtven, George Van; Rowcroft, Petrina

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101160

Cited by 28 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although double-counting has been identified as a potential problem in the use of the ES concept (e.g., Hein et al 2006;Turner et al 2010;Nahlik et al 2012), it was only mentioned in five of the reviewed articles (Borsuk et al 2019;Bryan et al 2010;Liquete et al 2016;Liu et al 2013, Miller andBelton 2014). It may be that this challenge has already been partially resolved, as the articles that mentioned this problem were clearly older than those articles presently evaluated in our review (see also Finisdore et al 2020Finisdore et al , 2021. On the other hand, the use of the ES concept may also simplify the assessment too much, as important aspects can be excluded from the analysis.…”

Section: Many Of the Examples Of Additional Value And Pitfalls Listed In Tablementioning

confidence: 76%

“…Karjalainen et al (2013a) also stressed that the explicit consideration of ESs within the MCDA framework would have enabled the framing and valuing of some provisioning services (commercial and subsistence harvesting of salmon) in a more meaningful way for some stakeholders. The use of the ES concept can also increase the comparability of the cases (Finisdore et al 2020) by providing a common set of criteria (Liu et al 2013). This is especially important in situations where a common indicator system is created (e.g., Liu et al 2013;Zhu et al 2015;Odgaard et al 2017).…”

Section: Additional Value and Pitfalls Of Utilizing The Es Concept In The Mcda Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Complementary use of the Ecosystem Service Concept and Multi-criteria Decision Analysis in Water Management

Marttunen

Mustajoki

Lehtoranta

et al. 2021

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ecosystem service (ES) concept has increasingly been applied in environmental planning, while there are several decades of experience in applying multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in complex planning situations. The aim of this article is to assess how the ES concept has been used in water management projects together with MCDA and to examine the experiences gained and make recommendations to overcome any identified challenges. Our conclusions are based on a systematic analysis of 23 articles that were selected among 206 articles focused on water-related studies using, for example, the terms multi-criteria and ecosystem services in the title, abstract or keywords. Here, we explore (i) at what level of detail ESs are included in the decision hierarchy, (ii) the pros and cons of the complementary use of the two approaches, and (iii) how the potential challenges related to the use of MCDA, such as the large number of criteria, double-counting, or assigning criteria weights, are addressed in the selected cases. The results reveal large differences between the case studies. It is shown that only a few case studies used ES categories to classify criteria in the decision hierarchy, that these cases included different numbers of ES criteria and non-ES criteria, and that most case studies elicited stakeholder preferences in MCDA. Although the paper focuses on water management projects, the conclusions regarding the advantages and pitfalls of the complementary use of the methods, as well as our recommendations, are also applicable to other environmental management contexts.

show abstract

Section: Many Of the Examples Of Additional Value And Pitfalls Listed In Tablementioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Additional Value and Pitfalls Of Utilizing The Es Concept In The Mcda Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementary use of the Ecosystem Service Concept and Multi-criteria Decision Analysis in Water Management

Marttunen

Mustajoki

Lehtoranta

et al. 2021

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers should be encouraged to share their findings and reference them, promoting their interoperability consistently with the FAIR data standards. With harmonized ES semantics and interoperable datasets, scientific findings could be more easily shared, improving institutional learning (Finisdore et al 2020). Such a platform would not only increase the visibility of ES mapping outputs to decisionand policy-makers but also allow researchers to identify blank areas where ES assessments are needed and reveal inconsistencies with other maps to encourage scientific collaboration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

“…A local scientific/technical support agency could provide strategic guidance on restoration activities and assess the overall fund performance, based on both intermediate and final ecosystem services. 102 The WIF could disburse payments to project developers (those restoring wetlands) using a reverse-auction format. Reverse auctions have been shown to deliver greater cost effectiveness for the delivery of other conservation and wetland restoration programs than uniform payments.…”

Section: Wetland Investment Trust Fund Governance Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…73 They would also be responsible for training wetland assessors, auditing their assessments, maintaining a database of the extent, condition, and function of the wetland portfolio, and providing regular ecological, social/cultural, and economic assessments of the portfolio performance to the fund management group. Portfolio performance should report on delivery of both intermediate and final ecosystem services, 102 as well as any other relevant indicators desired by the fund management group (Figure 2; Note S15). Where appropriate, local indigenous/traditional owners would have an active role in incorporating traditional environmental management, values, co-designing and delivering wetland restoration and maintenance, and assessing wetland performance.…”

Section: Wif Roles and Responsibilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial incentives for large-scale wetland restoration: Beyond markets to common asset trusts

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wetlands provide $47.4 trillion/year worth of ecosystem services globally and support immense biodiversity, yet face widespread drainage and pollution, and large-scale wetlands restoration is urgently needed. Payment for ecosystem service (PES) schemes provide a viable avenue for funding large-scale wetland restoration. However, schemes around the globe differ substantially in their goals, structure, challenges, and effectiveness in supporting large-scale wetland restoration. Here, we suggest wetland-based PES schemes use common asset trusts (CATs) to build investment portfolios of wetlands across landscapes that sustain and enhance overall provision of multiple ecosystem services. CATs can meet the needs of multiple investors, permit bundled payments, and provide flexibility to invest in the restoration of numerous services/values, all using a coordinated, highly collaborative, prioritized, and transparent process. CATs would support financial viability, facilitate efficiency to reduce administrative burdens, and enable credibility and social licence building to restore wetland values and services globally. ll

show abstract

The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems

Cited by 28 publications

References 69 publications

Complementary use of the Ecosystem Service Concept and Multi-criteria Decision Analysis in Water Management

Complementary use of the Ecosystem Service Concept and Multi-criteria Decision Analysis in Water Management

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

Financial incentives for large-scale wetland restoration: Beyond markets to common asset trusts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About