Content uploaded by Bálint Czúcz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bálint Czúcz on Jul 25, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Report on the use of CICES to identify and characterise the biophysical, social and monetary dimensions of ES assessments
Abstract and Figures
The aim of this Deliverable is to report on the use of the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) to characterise the biophysical, social and economic methods of ecosystem assessments, and to identify how it can be further developed to support the needs of the user community.
A first draft of this Deliverable was made available in 2016 and used to shape discussion in the various ESMERALDA workshops that took place during 2016-17. The objective of these meetings was to test a first version of the methodology for mapping and assessment of ecosystem services, and so close engagement with this work was necessary to ensure that the development and use of CICES was eventually integrated into the wider outcomes of ESMERALDA. This final Deliverable, prepared at the end of the Project, now describes both the preliminary work and the further developments that have taken place.
CICES V4.3 was developed in the context of work on the revision of the System of Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA) that is being led by the United Nations Statistical Division (UNSD). However, it has also been used widely in ecosystem services research for designing indicators, mapping and for valuation. In the EU, it is being used as the basis of the mapping work that is being done in support of Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, under the MAES Programme.
This report describes the structure and conceptual underpinning of CICES V4.3, and reviews the challenges that arise in designing a classification system of this kind. These challenges include the problem of scope, the extent to which ‘final ecosystem services’ can be defined operationally, and how benefits and uses of services can be distinguished from services so that assessments can be based on sound quantitative data. The review of CICES draws on a review of the published literature and a survey of users. The conclusions drawn from this review were both extended and tested through two workshops with the user community in 2016.
The results of our work show that there is an extensive and established user base for CICES V4.3, and that it has a number of advantages for users in terms of its hierarchical structure, logic and coverage, as well as the potential it offers as a standard. The review has identified some shortcomings, however, many of which can be overcome by the development of guidelines and the provision of examples of different applications. These shortcomings, nevertheless, also point to the need to revise the present structure of the Classification, especially in the area of cultural ecosystem services.
A systematic review of the wider ecosystem service literature has provided further insights into the ways in which CICES might be improved. This work has looked at whether the CICES classes are to narrow or too broad, and whether there is a need to provide better guidance at sub-class (Class-type level). Taken in conjunction with the other work discussed here, the review demonstrates that CICES V4.3 could nevertheless serve as an effective indicator framework, and that this function should also be supported in any revision.
On the basis of the work done in ESMERALDA and in the wider user community, CICES V4.3 has been revised during 2017 on the basis of parallel work supported by the European Environment Agency. The outcome of the revision process (Version 5.1) are described also here together with the implications for ESMERALDA with its focus on the role of mapping in integrated assessment. The key recommendations we make are:
• That just as V4.3 of CICES has been tested for its coverage and completeness, effort should now be made to critically examine the structure of the new CICES version V5.1.
• The extent to which CICES 5.1 can support the clear description of the way ecosystem services are defined and measured should be examined and its use as a reference system based on concept matching techniques further explored.
• That the CICES 5.1 ‘indicator’ and ‘methods’ library developed out of the work done in ESMERALDA should be published and used to facilitate the transfer of knowledge within the context of the MAES Process.
• That future work should look at how CICES 5.1 can link to the ways we classify and characterise the condition of ecosystems, so that we can better understand the biophysical underpinnings of ecosystem services.
• Future work should also look at the way we describe and classify benefits and beneficiaries, so that we can better document how people depend on or engage with nature over space and time.
• That the relationship between CICES V5.1 and other classification systems is tested and its reference function developed further.
Figures - uploaded by Bálint Czúcz
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Bálint Czúcz
Content may be subject to copyright.
... The anthropocentric perspective of ESs provides additional arguments for addressing their integration into planning as a key aspect for convincing decision-makers that human well-being is closely linked to the quality of the ecosystem and that, beyond the purely economic and monetary perspective, there is also a need to take health, social relations, and indigenous and local knowledge and perceptions into consideration [3,12]. ESs are a useful tool for identifying and communicating the benefits and value of nature, especially in urban areas [13][14][15]. ...
... Of the research papers based on case studies, 32 articles incorporate an assessment of the ESs involved, often in terms of spatial distribution. The majority of the articles (17 in total) include all categories of ESs (regulating, provisioning and cultural) [12], with nine articles dedicated to just two categories of ESs (four on regulating and provisioning services, three on regulating and cultural services, and two on provisioning and cultural services) and five papers considering only a single category of ESs, with a preference for regulating ESs. In the research papers in which a GI is provided, all categories of ESs are deemed to fulfil the multifunctional principle of GI. ...
Recently, the concept of Ecosystem Services (ESs) has undergone a process of mainstreaming. It has been promoted in multiple policy documents and investigated in a growing number of studies addressing the functioning, assessment and management of ESs. Despite a general recommendation to integrate ESs into planning processes, this step remains highly critical yet far from complete. This paper explores the feasibility of the recommended uses of ESs for planning purposes by examining the needs of planners and decision-makers. A systematic literature review was conducted analysing different studies to overcome the limited adoption of ESs in planning verifying their operationalisation for planning practices. The paper classifies different purpose(s) assigned to ESs supporting the planning process. The results show that few experiments have adopted a step-by-step procedure facilitating the integration of ESs into planning and highlighting their added value in each phase of the planning process. In these cases, an ES-based Green Infrastructure has allowed for their integration into planning, also adopting a multi-scale spatial dimension. More practical experiments on how a planning process works are needed to operationalise the ESs concept for planning purposes, also reinforcing the role of the Strategic Environmental Assessment that is still marginal.
... In this section of the questionnaire, 13 ESs are listed and categorized into three main groups (provisioning, regulating, and cultural), as shown in Table S1 (in the Supplementary Materials). These groups are based on the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) [59], with an additional group named "biodiversity" to emphasize its critical role in many ESs. Finally, the fourth question asked about the possible association of the prioritized ESs with the four biotope categories (Table S1 in the Supplementary Materials). ...
Coastal wetlands deliver essential ecosystem services, including cultural services, which provide non-material benefits such as recreation, education, and spiritual enrichment that are crucial for human well-being. This study investigates the cultural ecosystem services provided by a 40 ha coastal wetland in the Gulf of Manfredonia, southern Italy, within the Gargano National Park. By integrating an ecological survey of the bird community with a social survey of visitors to the King’s Lagoon Nature Reserve, the content of tailored planning strategies and management tools for the conservation of wetland biodiversity was developed. An ecological analysis of the bird community was carried out on the assumption that it could be representative of the total biodiversity observed in the wetland. On the other hand, a questionnaire was used to collect information from visitors to the reserve, highlighting the aspects of the wetland that they found most interesting and attractive according to their judgement and beliefs, and thus targeting a specific set of cultural ecological services. The two approaches were then combined to develop a comprehensive strategy. The bird community analysis led to the identification of the mixed biotope category (a combination of wetlands, aquatic/riparian ecosystems, semi-natural vegetated areas, and meadows together with agricultural areas) as the reference biotope for prioritizing wetland management. The Ardeidae family was chosen as a bird flagship group because of its high visibility, ease of identification, attractiveness to visitors, wide local distribution, and fairly constant presence in the study area throughout the year. Flagship species have a dual function: to guide conservation measures and actions by wetland managers, and to attract the interest, curiosity and active participation of potential visitors to the wetland. Based on the results, a list of guidelines for improving the birds’ habitats and providing them with resources (feeding, breeding, shelter, roosting, etc.) has been proposed. The aim of these measures is to optimize the presence and abundance of Ardeidae as flagship species, thereby preserving the biodiversity heritage in general and increasing the provision of cultural ecosystem services in the wetland. The resulting dynamic interplay ensures that both natural and cultural resources are fully and appropriately valued, protected, and maintained for the benefit of present and future generations.
... In contrast, the ecosystem services framework 7 models an agricultural system differently, considering the landscape of the entire farm or farming region including its semi-natural habitats such as hedges, field margins, water bodies and forests. Ecosystem services are generally expressed per unit area (for example, ha of land 12 ). This framework considers the supply of a broad range of services (Fig. 3) from the agricultural system: provisioning (for example, crops, livestock and water), regulating and maintenance (for example, pest control, pollination and climate regulation) and cultural (for example, recreation and education), as well as regulating and maintenance services supplied by other ecosystems to the agricultural system. ...
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the method most widely used to assess environmental impacts ofagricultural products. Current LCA methodology and studies tend to favour high-input intensiveagricultural systems and misrepresent less intensive agroecological systems such as organic agriculture.This is due partly to LCA’s approach, which focuses on products, without considering other ecosystemservices from agricultural systems, and partly because LCA rarely considers aspects that agroecologyaims to improve (soil health, biodiversity status, pesticide use impacts). We identify three key areas(additional indicators, broader perspective, indirect effects) for which we propose recommendations forLCA practitioners and priorities for research.
Urban blue-green infrastructure (BGI) not only serves an ecological purpose but also contributes to the physical and psychological well-being of residents by providing cultural ecosystem services (CES), which are the nonmaterial benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences. CES is a rising BGI research and management subject, with a growing number of papers in recent years. To identify and differentiate the latest research on the development of features based on cultural ecosystem services within blue-green infrastructure, we employed CiteSpace bibliometric methodologies to analyze pertinent papers for focusing on the developmental processes and key research areas. The publishing trend, research clusters, highly cited literature, research history, research frontiers and hot areas, and high-frequency and emerging keywords were studied and assessed after reviewing 14,344 relevant papers by CiteSpace software 6.3.1 from Web of Science. The standard domains concerned, according to the keyword visualization and high-value references, are implemented cultural ecosystem services assessment combined with natural-based solutions in green spaces, urban regions, residential areas, and sustainable development. In conclusion, the following recommendations are made: (1) When urban decision-makers incorporate the perspective of cultural ecosystem services into the strategic formulation of BGI, a broader spectrum of urban BGI types should be taken into account; (2) all categories of CES should be considered; (3) research on the application of cultural ecosystem services in urban blue-green infrastructure should be more effectively and flexibly integrated into urban governance; and (4) CES should be strategically employed to improve the physical health and psychological well-being of urban residents.
Increasing land use and land cover change and climate change have considerable impacts on urban green spaces and their ecosystem services. These impacts result in a loss of urban green space and particularly weaken the climate resilience of urban populations. Landsat imagery data from 1990 to 2020 were used to track the spatio-temporal dynamics of urban sprawl and its influence on the loss of urban green space in Bamako and Sikasso in Mali. Furthermore, a survey of local stakeholders was conducted to capture the perceptions of the status of urban green space. The results of the land use/land cover analysis of the cities between 1990 and 2020 showed that most of the vegetation classes, mainly urban green spaces, have been converted into built-up and bare land in both cities during the last 30 years. In Bamako, built-up land has risen from 5421 hectares in 1990 to 13,350 hectares in 2020, and in Sikasso, from 929 hectares in 1990 to 2213 hectares in 2020. Respondents mentioned street trees as the prevalent type of urban green spaces in both cities (20% of the respondents in Bamako and 24% in Sikasso). In addition, the majority of respondents perceived urban green spaces in Sikasso as having a good status and in Bamako as having a good or moderate status. This study recommends improving the number and quality of urban green spaces, which are crucial for the provision of ecosystem services and for the resilience of cities against climate change.
Although cultural ecosystem services (CES) are greatly valued by diverse stakeholders, the full range of CES provided by a landscape is notoriously difficult to estimate. The resulting lack of objective norms for CES may lead to the loss of the multiple non-material factors that contribute to how a landscape is valued and experienced. This is especially true under ecological restoration, which could sharply change how people experience landscapes. Therefore, our aim in this study was to identify and analyze the CES that arise from people's interaction with their landscape, focusing specifically on the influences of different ecological restoration strategies. We carried out semi-structured interviews with the residents of villages in the Xilin Gol League, Inner Mongolia, China. Regarding the implementation of ecological restoration measures, the people living in typical pastoral zones would be most affected by these measures because their main livelihood (animal husbandry) depends strongly on grasslands. Our results demonstrated that human perception of the CES provided by landscapes is affected not only by the factors related to an individual's cultural worldview (e.g., ethnicity, age, education) but also by the utility of landscape features, which are reflected in the individual's landscape dependence (occupation). Our research provides a cultural perspective for aspects of local well-being in addition to ecological and economic targets. Understanding these other aspects is critical for implementing sustainable ecological restoration.
W regionie Karpat obserwujemy intensywny rozwój, postępującą urbanizację i związany z tym spadek bioróżnorodności. Decyzje odpowiednich władz często nie są oparte na właściwej analizie, a usługi ekosystemowe nie są uwzględniane w procesach politycznych. Ten interdyscyplinarny pakiet narzędzi do oceny usług ekosystemowych dla zarządzających i analityków (CEST) ma służyć jako przewodnik i źródło dla opartych na dowodach praktyk decyzyjnych i zarządzania nie tylko w regionie karpackim, ale także w innych krajach europejskich. Oferuje praktyczny przewodnik krok po kroku oraz liczne zasoby umożliwiające dalsze zrozumienie i ukierunkowanie działań. Zachęcamy wszystkich użytkowników zestawu narzędzi do uważnego przeczytania całego dokumentu przed rozpoczęciem rzeczywistej oceny ES. Oferujemy kilka opcji i podejść, dzięki czemu użytkownik może wybrać najbardziej odpowiedni sposób dostosowany do konkretnego kontekstu. Zestaw narzędzi zawiera kluczowe narzędzia do planowania i przeprowadzania ocen ES, uzupełnione szeregiem studiów przypadków na różnych poziomach.
In the Carpathian region we are witnessing intensive development, increasing urbanization and related declines in biodiversity. However, decisions of relevant authorities are often not based on proper analysis and ecosystem services are not considered in policy processes. This interdisciplinary Carpathian Ecosystem
Services Toolkit (CEST) is intended to serve as a guide and resource for evidence-based decision-making and management practices not only in the Carpathian region but also in other European countries. It offers a practical, step-by-step guide and numerous resources for further understanding and direction. We encourage all users of the Toolkit to read the entire document carefully before starting off with the actual ES assessment. We offer several options and approaches and therefore the user can choose the most suitable way adapted to the specific context. The Toolkit contains key tools for planning and conducting ES assessments, complemented by a number of cases and case studies at various levels.
Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services (MAES) is a key EU initiative to synthesise vital environmental information and facilitate balanced policy decisions. As MAES integrates across many scientific and policy domains, the development of a common language and shared concepts is essential. Here we present a comprehensive MAES Glossary that was compiled in the ESMERALDA project; it is based on the integration of several previous glossaries and a wide-ranging consultation process. While there are several ecosystem services glossaries available from EU supported work such as Oppla, OpenNESS and ecosystem services related handbooks, the new material presented here focuses on mapping and assessment of ecosystem services and therefore more directly supports the MAES process.
The focus of this report is to present a broad framework for ecosystem services assessment and to test it. The framework aims to illustrate the integrated assessment cycle for practitioners. The framework also places within the other assessment activities, such as scenarios and assessing policies.
The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) is widely used for mapping, ecosystem assessment, and natural capital ecosystem accounting. On the basis of the experience gained in using it since the first version was published in 2013, it has been updated for version 5.1. This policy brief summarises what has been done and how the classification can be used.
Assessments of ecosystems and their services (ES) are a relatively new and intensively expanding field connecting policy and science. The EU MAES assessment framework provides a logical and operative structure for such assessments. A key element of the MAES framework is the concept of ecosystem condition, which can establish the “missing link” between the various ecosystem types and the services enjoyed by humans. Nevertheless, both the concept of ecosystem condition and its potential indicators are still under discussion and development. This report documents ETC BD work done in 2017 to support the description of functional relationships between ecosystem characteristics (including biodiversity), and ecosystem services capacities. The report builds on the detailed reanalysis of a major systematic review exercise performed by the OpenNESS EU FP7 project, thus synthesizing scientific information for direct policy use. Altogether 100 scientific papers describing 10 ES are reanalysed, identifying 295 documented ecosystem characteristic ~ ecosystem service relationships. The most studied ecosystem types are croplands, forests, and grasslands, and the most relevant ecosystem characteristics include some aspects of species diversity, biomass, management intensity, and the proximity of other habitat types (typically small seminatural features) in the landscape.
URL: https://bd.eionet.europa.eu/Reports/ETCBDTechnicalWorkingpapers/Functional_relationships_ecosystem_condition_assessments
We present a ‘concept matching’ systematic review linking the classes of the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES, v4.3) to the ways scientists define and apply ES indicators in published studies. With the dual aim of creating an overview how the different services are measured in the studies, and determining if CICES provides an appropriate structure to accommodate the ES assessed in the practical literature, we reviewed 85 scientific papers from which 440 indicators were identified. Almost all CICES classes were represented, with cultural and some regulating (e.g. global climate regulation, pollination) ES being the most frequently considered. The four most frequently studied CICES classes (or class clusters) were global climate regulation, aesthetic beauty, recreation, and bio-remediation. Regulating and cultural services were more often assessed than provisioning services. Normalisation to unit area and time was common for indicators of several regulating and provisioning ES. Scores were most frequently used for cultural ES (except recreation) and some regulating services (e.g. flood protection). Altogether 20% of the ES indicators were quantified as an economic value, and monetisation is most frequently done for cultural and provisioning ES. Few regulating services, on the other hand, were monetised (including ones, like global climate regulation, for which appropriate techniques are relatively easily available). The work enabled a library of indicators to be compiled and made available. The findings can be used to help improve CICES so that it can provide a more robust and comprehensive framework for ecosystem assessments.
A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework (1) is the notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding nature's contribution to people.
Background: The science–policy interface process – known as a ‘scientific assessment’ – has
risen to prominence in the past few decades. Complex assessments are appropriate for issues
which are both technically complicated, multifaceted and of high societal interest. There is an
increasing interest from the research community that studies biological invasions to undertake
such an assessment.
Objectives: Providing the relevant background and context, the article describes key principles
and steps for designing, planning, resourcing and executing such a process; as well as
providing evidence of high-impact assessments enhancing scientific careers.
Method: Experience from international and national assessments, most recently the South
African scientific assessment for the Shale Gas Development in the Central Karoo, was used to
develop this guiding generic template for practitioners. Analyses of researcher publication
performances were undertaken to determine the benefit of being involved in assessments.
Results: The key success factors for assessments mostly relate to adherence to ‘process’ and
‘governance’ aspects, for which scientists are sometimes ill-equipped. As regards publication
outputs, authors involved in assessment processes demonstrated higher H-indices than their
environmental scientist peers. We have suggested causal explanations for this.
Conclusion: Effectively designed and managed assessments provide the platform for the
‘co-production of knowledge’ – an iterative and collaborative process involving scientists,
stakeholders and policymakers. This increases scientific impact in the society–policy domain.
While scientists seem concerned that effort directed towards assessments comes at the
detriment of scientific credibility and productivity, we have presented data that suggest the
opposite.
STRESZCZENIE: Na całym świecie obserwuje się rosnące zainteresowanie kulturowymi świadczeniami ekosyste-mów. Jakkolwiek znaczenie tej grupy świadczeń dla jakości życia ludzkiego jest niepodważalne, ten zakres badań pozostaje słabo rozwinięty tak pod względem metodycznym jak i teoretycznym. Turystyka i rekreacja są zazwyczaj włączane do grupy świadczeń kulturowych. Jednakże nie bazują one wyłącz-nie na potrzebach duchowych; obejmują również konsumpcję różnego typu zasobów przyrodniczych. Celem artykułu jest analiza relacji między turystyką i rekreacją a różnymi kategoriami świadczeń ekosystemowych. Dla określenia wagi ośmiu wydzieleń drugiego poziomu klasyfi kacji CICES dla turystyki i rekreacji posłużono się metodą analizy hierarchicznej. Analiza została przeprowadzona przez ekspertów reprezentujących geografi ę fi zyczną oraz geografi ę turyzmu. Badanie potwierdziło, że turystyka i rekreacja bazują na zróżnicowanym spek-trum świadczeń ekosystemowych, nie powinny być zatem traktowane jako świadczenie per se.
There is growing demand for information regarding the impacts of decisions on ecosystem services and human benefits. Despite the large and growing quantity of published ecosystem services research, there remains a substantial gap between this research and the information required to support decisions. Research often provides models and tools that do not fully link social and ecological systems; are too complex, specialized, and costly to use; and are targeted to outcomes that differ from those needed by decision makers. Decision makers require cost-effective, straightforward, transferable, scalable, meaningful, and defensible methods that can be readily understood. We provide illustrative examples of these gaps between research and practice and describe how researchers can make their work relevant to decision makers by using Benefit Relevant Indicators (BRIs) and choosing models appropriate for particular decision contexts. We use examples primarily from the United States, including cases that illustrate varying degrees of success in closing these gaps. We include a discussion of the challenges and opportunities researchers face in adapting their work to meet the needs of practitioners.