A Conceptual Framework for Integrated Ecosystem Assessment

Urban Forests and Green Areas as Nature-Based Solutions for Brownfield Redevelopment: A Case Study from Brescia Municipal Area (Italy)

Urban areas are experiencing major changes and facing significant sustainability challenges. Many cities are undergoing a transition towards a post-industrial phase and need to consider the regeneration of brownfield sites. Nature-Based Solutions (NBSs) are increasingly considered as tools for supporting this transition and promoting sustainable development by delivering multiple ecosystem services (ESs). Although the potential of NBSs as a cost-effective enabler of urban sustainability has been recognized, their implementation faces numerous barriers. The effective assessment of benefits delivered by urban NBSs is considered by existing literature as one of them. In order to contribute to filling this knowledge gap, we analyzed two alternative NBS-based intervention scenarios—i.e., (1) an urban forest and (2) meadows with sparse trees—for the redevelopment of an urban brownfield area within the municipality of Brescia (Northern Italy). Nine ESs were assessed both in biophysical and economic terms via a combination of modeling (InVEST, i-Tree and ESTIMAP) and traditional estimation methods. The results show that both scenarios improve ES stock and flow compared to the baseline, ensuring annual flows ranging between 140,000 and 360,000 EUR/year. Scenario 1 shows higher values when single ESs are considered, while scenario 2 shows higher total values, as it also accounts for the phytoremediation capacity that is not considered under the first scenario. All in all, regulating ESs represent the bulk of estimated ESs, thus highlighting the potential of proposed NBSs for improving urban resilience. The ES assessment and valuation exercise presented within this paper is an example of how research and practice can be integrated to inform urban management activities, and provide inputs for future decision making and planning regarding urban developments.

Mapping and assessing ecosystem services: Methods and practical applications

Collapse

How to design a transdisciplinary regional ecosystem service assessment: a case study from Romania, Eastern Europe

There is a broad diversity of concepts and methods used in ecosystem service (ES) mapping and assessment projects with many open questions related to the implementation of the concepts and the use of the methods at various scales. In this paper, we present a regional ES mapping and assessment (MAES) study performed between 2015 and 2017 over an area of ~900 km2in Central Romania. The Niraj-MAES project supported by EEA funds and the Romanian government aimed at identifying, assessing and mapping all major ES supplied by the Natura 2000 sites nested in the valleys of the Niraj and Târnava Mică rivers amongst the foothills of the Eastern Carpathians. Major ES in this culturally and ecologically rich semi-natural landscape were determined and prioritised in cooperation with local stakeholders. Indicators for the capacities of individual services were modelled with a multi-tiered methodology, relying on the involvement of regional thematic experts. ES with appropriate socio-economic data were also evaluated economically. The whole process was supervised by a stakeholder advisory board endowed with a remarkable decision-making position, giving feedback and recommendations to the scientists at the critical nodes of the process, thus ensuring salience and legitimacy. In addition to simply presenting the dry facts about the approaches (assessment targets, methods) and outcomes, we also identify several key decisions on the design of the whole assessment process related to (1) the role of conceptual frameworks, (2) stakeholder involvement, (3) the selection of ES to assess (priority setting), (4) the development of models and indicators and (5) the interpretation of outcomes, for which we give a detailed description of the decision process. We found that conceptual frameworks can have a pivotal role in structuring and facilitating communication amongst the participants of a MAES project and that a broad and structured involvement of stakeholders and (local) experts creates a sense of ownership and thus can facilitate local policy uptake. We argue that priority setting and the development of indicators should be an iterative process and we also give an example how such a process can be designed, enabling an efficient participation of a broad range of experts and the collaborative development of simple ES models and indicators. Finally, we discuss several general issues related to the interpretation of results of any kind of MAES and the follow-up of regional MAES projects.

Hotspots of biodiversity and ecosystem services: the Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories of the European Union

The obligations of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 create a need for mapping and assessment of the state of biodiversity, ecosystems and their services in all European member states. Europe’s nine Outermost Regions (ORs) and 25 Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) are mainly islands, scattered around the globe. These territories contain unique flora and fauna and encompass diverse ecosystems, from coral reefs to rainforests. These highly diverse ecosystems provide multiple relevant ecosystem services from local to global scale. To date, the ecosystem services concept has so far received little attention in European ORs and OCTs. Therefore, our aims were (1) to analyse the current state of ecosystem services mapping and assessment in Europe’s overseas territories, (2) to identify knowledge gaps in the context of ecosystem service research and application and (3) to provide recommendations for future research and policy directions to fill these gaps. We conducted a systematic review of scientific literature for each of the ORs and OCTs, screening 1030 publications. The analysis resulted in 161 publications referring to ES mapping and assessment, of which most were conducted in the European Caribbean (31%) and Pacific (21%) territories. Results show that many ORs and OCTs are still blank spots in terms of ecosystem service mapping and assessment and that, despite many biodiversity studies referring to species’ abundance, little has been published on ecosystem services. Our systematic review highlights theknowledge lacking on dealing with invasive species, which pose major threats to native island biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services. Further, it discusses knowledge gaps in (1) translation of information on island biodiversity and ecosystem functions into ES; (2) geographical coverage of mapping studies in most ORs and OCTs; (3) the lack of standardised approaches and integrated assessments to map, assess and value ecosystem services. Based on these results, future research and policy priorities could be adapted in order to focus on filling these gaps. To overcome current environmental policy challenges, it is crucial to address the ongoing decline in biodiversity, rising climatic and anthropogenic pressures on ecosystems and to maintain a sustainable ES flow to safeguard human well-being. Ultimately, ES mapping and assessment efforts will form the knowledge base for well-informed decision-making to protect Europe’s vulnerable overseas areas.