IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i10p1040-d649074.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems Services under the Proposed MAES European Common Framework: Methodological Challenges and Opportunities

Author

Listed:
  • Lia Laporta

    (MARETEC/LARSyS, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal)

  • Tiago Domingos

    (MARETEC/LARSyS, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal)

  • Cristina Marta-Pedroso

    (MARETEC/LARSyS, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal)

Abstract

The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 was a driving force behind spatially explicit quantifications of Ecosystem Services (ES) in Europe. In Portugal, the MAES initiative (ptMAES–Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem and their Services) was conducted in 2014 to address Target 2 (Action 5) of the Strategy, namely mapping and assessing ecosystems, ecosystems’ condition (EC), and ES. In this study covering the NUTS II Alentejo region, EC was assessed and mapped based on four indicators (soil organic matter, plant and bird diversity, and ecological value of plant communities) and five ES were assessed and mapped (soil protection, carbon sequestration, and fiber/crop/livestock production). Assessments were performed under a multi-tiered approach, ranging from spatialization of statistical data to analytical modeling, based on the most detailed land-use/land-cover cartography available. In this paper, we detail the methodological and analytical framework applied in ptMAES and present its main outcomes. Our goal is to (1) discuss the main methodological challenges encountered to inform future MAES initiatives in Portugal and other member states; and (2) further explore the outcomes of ptMAES by looking into spatial relationships between EC and ES supply. We highlight the advantages of the proposed analytical framework and identify constraints that, among others, limited the number of ES and EC indicators analyzed. We also show that MAES can provide useful insights to landscape planning at the regional scale, for instance, red-flagging areas where ES supply may be unsustainable over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Lia Laporta & Tiago Domingos & Cristina Marta-Pedroso, 2021. "Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems Services under the Proposed MAES European Common Framework: Methodological Challenges and Opportunities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-28, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:10:p:1040-:d:649074
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/10/1040/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/10/1040/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gréta Vrbičanová & Dominika Kaisová & Matej Močko & František Petrovič & Peter Mederly, 2020. "Mapping Cultural Ecosystem Services Enables Better Informed Nature Protection and Landscape Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Crossman, Neville D. & Burkhard, Benjamin & Nedkov, Stoyan & Willemen, Louise & Petz, Katalin & Palomo, Ignacio & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Martín-Lopez, Berta & McPhearson, Timon & Boyanova, Kremena & , 2013. "A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 4-14.
    3. Turkelboom, Francis & Leone, Michael & Jacobs, Sander & Kelemen, Eszter & García-Llorente, Marina & Baró, Francesc & Termansen, Mette & Barton, David N. & Berry, Pam & Stange, Erik & Thoonen, Marijk, 2018. "When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 566-578.
    4. Marie Perennes & C. Sylvie Campagne & Felix Müller & Philip Roche & Benjamin Burkhard, 2020. "Refining the Tiered Approach for Mapping and Assessing Ecosystem Services at the Local Scale: A Case Study in a Rural Landscape in Northern Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-23, September.
    5. Esgalhado, Catarina & Guimarães, Helena & Debolini, Marta & Guiomar, Nuno & Lardon, Sylvie & Ferraz de Oliveira, Isabel, 2020. "A holistic approach to land system dynamics – The Monfurado case in Alentejo, Portugal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Laporta, Lia & Domingos, Tiago & Marta-Pedroso, Cristina, 2021. "It's a keeper: Valuing the carbon storage service of Agroforestry ecosystems in the context of CAP Eco-Schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    7. Kandziora, Marion & Burkhard, Benjamin & Müller, Felix, 2013. "Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 47-59.
    8. Jacobs, Sander & Burkhard, Benjamin & Van Daele, Toon & Staes, Jan & Schneiders, Anik, 2015. "‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 21-30.
    9. Potschin-Young, M. & Haines-Young, R. & Görg, C. & Heink, U. & Jax, K. & Schleyer, C., 2018. "Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: Reading the ecosystem service cascade," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 428-440.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paolo De Fioravante & Andrea Strollo & Alice Cavalli & Angela Cimini & Daniela Smiraglia & Francesca Assennato & Michele Munafò, 2023. "Ecosystem Mapping and Accounting in Italy Based on Copernicus and National Data through Integration of EAGLE and SEEA-EA Frameworks," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Ágnes Vári & Eszter Tanács & Eszter Tormáné Kovács & Ágnes Kalóczkai & Ildikó Arany & Bálint Czúcz & Krisztina Bereczki & Márta Belényesi & Edina Csákvári & Márton Kiss & Veronika Fabók & Lívia Kisné , 2022. "National Ecosystem Services Assessment in Hungary: Framework, Process and Conceptual Questions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-22, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    2. Balzan, Mario V & Caruana, Julio & Zammit, Annrica, 2018. "Assessing the capacity and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small island state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 711-725.
    3. González-García, Alberto & Palomo, Ignacio & González, José A. & López, César A. & Montes, Carlos, 2020. "Quantifying spatial supply-demand mismatches in ecosystem services provides insights for land-use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    4. Jennifer Hodbod & Emma Tebbs & Kristofer Chan & Shubhechchha Sharma, 2019. "Integrating Participatory Methods and Remote Sensing to Enhance Understanding of Ecosystem Service Dynamics Across Scales," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-30, August.
    5. Sinare, Hanna & Gordon, Line J. & Enfors Kautsky, Elin, 2016. "Assessment of ecosystem services and benefits in village landscapes – A case study from Burkina Faso," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 141-152.
    6. Jacobs, Sander & Burkhard, Benjamin & Van Daele, Toon & Staes, Jan & Schneiders, Anik, 2015. "‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 21-30.
    7. Wiggering, Hubert & Steinhardt, Uta, 2015. "A conceptual model for site-specific agricultural land-use," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 42-46.
    8. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey & Bettina Weibel & Kenneth J Bagstad & Marika Ferrari & Davide Geneletti & Hermann Klug & Uta Schirpke & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2014. "On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-26, December.
    9. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    10. Marie Perennes & C. Sylvie Campagne & Felix Müller & Philip Roche & Benjamin Burkhard, 2020. "Refining the Tiered Approach for Mapping and Assessing Ecosystem Services at the Local Scale: A Case Study in a Rural Landscape in Northern Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-23, September.
    11. Chen, Wanxu & Chi, Guangqing & Li, Jiangfeng, 2020. "The spatial aspect of ecosystem services balance and its determinants," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    12. Picchi, Paolo & van Lierop, Martina & Geneletti, Davide & Stremke, Sven, 2019. "Advancing the relationship between renewable energy and ecosystem services for landscape planning and design: A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 241-259.
    13. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    14. Gacutan, Jordan & Galparsoro, Ibon & Murillas-Maza, Arantza, 2019. "Towards an understanding of the spatial relationships between natural capital and maritime activities: A Bayesian Belief Network approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    15. Cui, Fengqi & Tang, Haiping & Zhang, Qin & Wang, Bojie & Dai, Luwei, 2019. "Integrating ecosystem services supply and demand into optimized management at different scales: A case study in Hulunbuir, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    16. Li-Chun Peng & Wan-Yu Lien & Yu-Pin Lin, 2020. "How Experts’ Opinions and Knowledge Affect Their Willingness to Pay for and Ranking of Hydrological Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, December.
    17. Silvia Ronchi, 2021. "Ecosystem Services for Planning: A Generic Recommendation or a Real Framework? Insights from a Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    18. Lydia Gorn & Janina Kleemann & Christine Fürst, 2018. "Improving the Matrix-Assessment of Ecosystem Services Provision—The Case of Regional Land Use Planning under Climate Change in the Region of Halle, Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-18, June.
    19. Ochoa, Vivian & Urbina-Cardona, Nicolás, 2017. "Tools for spatially modeling ecosystem services: Publication trends, conceptual reflections and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 155-169.
    20. Bennett, James & Marandure, Tawanda & Hawkins, Heidi-Jayne & Mapiye, Cletos & Palmer, Anthony & Lemke, Stefanie & Wu, Lianhai & Moradzadeh, Mostafa, 2023. "A conceptual framework for understanding ecosystem trade-offs and synergies, in communal rangeland systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:10:p:1040-:d:649074. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.