Search

Social-ecological systems in the Mediterranean Basin are characterised by high biodiversity and a prolonged cultural influence, leading to the co-evolution of these systems. The unique characteristics of Mediterranean social-ecological systems, current pressures leading to a decline in ecosystem services, and the need for coordinated action are recognised by policies promoting the protection and sustainable use of the region’s heritage. Ecosystem assessments provide valuable information on the capacity of the Mediterranean Basin to ensure the well-being of its population. However, most assessments simplify the complexity of these systems, which may lead to inaccurate ecosystem services supply and flow estimations. This paper uses the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model to guide an expert consultation that identifies the key characteristics of the Mediterranean social-ecological systems and analyses how these should be included in ecosystem assessments. Data collection was carried out through expert consultation with ecosystem services researchers. Multiple sources of complexity were identified, including the relationship between historical human activities, biodiversity spatio-temporal patterns, as well as the seasonal and long-term variability in ecosystem services. The importance of incorporating this complexity in ecosystem assessments for evidence-based decision-making is identified, suggesting that there is a need to adapt assessment approaches for the Mediterranean Basin social-ecological systems.

We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and coastal ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This work is the output of a panel convened by the Marine Working Group of the Ecosystem Services Partnership in September 2016. The MCES assessments were used to (1) address multiple policy objectives simultaneously, (2) interpret EU-wide policies to smaller scales and (3) inform local decision-making. Most of the studies did inform decision makers, but only in a few cases, the outputs were applied or informed decision-making. Significant limitations among the 11 assessments were the absence of shared understanding of the ES concept, data and knowledge gaps, difficulties in accounting for marine social–ecological systems complexity and partial stakeholder involvement. The findings of the expert panel call for continuous involvement of MCES ‘end users’, integrated knowledge on marine social–ecological systems, defining thresholds to MCES use and raising awareness to the general public. Such improvements at the intersection of science, policy and practice are essential starting points toward building a stronger science foundation supporting management of European marine ecosystems.

© The Author(s), 2018. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Ecological Applications 28 (2018): 749-760, doi: 10.1002/eap.1682., The biodiversity and high productivity of coastal terrestrial and aquatic habitats are the foundation for important benefits to human societies around the world. These globally distributed habitats need frequent and broad systematic assessments, but field surveys only cover a small fraction of these areas. Satellite‐based sensors can repeatedly record the visible and near‐infrared reflectance spectra that contain the absorption, scattering, and fluorescence signatures of functional phytoplankton groups, colored dissolved matter, and particulate matter near the surface ocean, and of biologically structured habitats (floating and emergent vegetation, benthic habitats like coral, seagrass, and algae). These measures can be incorporated into Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs), including the distribution, abundance, and traits of groups of species populations, and used to evaluate habitat fragmentation. However, current and planned satellites are not designed to observe the EBVs that change rapidly with extreme tides, salinity, temperatures, storms, pollution, or physical habitat destruction over scales relevant to human activity. Making these observations requires a new generation of satellite sensors able to sample with these combined characteristics: (1) spatial resolution on the order of 30 to 100‐m pixels or smaller; (2) spectral resolution on the order of 5 nm in the visible and 10 nm in the short‐wave infrared spectrum (or at least two or more bands at 1,030, 1,240, 1,630, 2,125, and/or 2,260 nm) for atmospheric correction and aquatic and vegetation assessments; (3) radiometric quality with signal to noise ratios (SNR) above 800 (relative to signal levels typical of the open ocean), 14‐bit digitization, absolute radiometric calibration <2%, relative calibration of 0.2%, polarization sensitivity <1%, high radiometric stability and linearity, and operations designed to minimize sunglint; and (4) temporal resolution of hours to days. We refer to these combined s, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Grant Numbers: NNX16AQ34G, NNX14AR62A; National Ocean Partnership Program; NOAA US Integrated Ocean Observing System/IOOS Program Office; Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management Ecosystem Studies program (BOEM) Grant Number: MC15AC00006

Background: Ecosystem services (ES) mapping is becoming mainstream in many sustainability assessments, but its impact on real world decision-making is still limited. Robustness, end-user relevance and transparency have been identified as key attributes needed for effective ES mapping. However, these requirements are not always met due to multiple challenges, referred to here as bottlenecks, that scientists, practitioners, policy makers and users from other public and private sectors encounter along the mapping process. New information: A selection of commonly encountered ES mapping bottlenecks that relate to seven themes: i) map-maker map-user interaction; ii) nomenclature and ontologies; iii) skills and background; iv) data and maps availability; v) methods-selection; vi) technical difficulties; and vii) over-simplification of mapping process/output. The authors synthesise the variety of solutions already applied by map-makers and map-users to mitigate or cope with these bottlenecks and discuss the emerging trade-offs amongst different solutions. Tackling the bottlenecks described here is a crucial first step towards more effective ES mapping, which can in turn ensure the adequate impact of ES mapping in decision-making.

Local, regional, and global policies to manage protect and restore our oceans and coasts call for the inclusion of ecosystem services (ES) in policy-relevant research. Marine and coastal ES and the associated benefits to humans are usually assessed, quantified, and mapped at the ecosystem level to inform policy and decision-making. Yet those benefits may reach humans beyond the provisioning ecosystem, at the regional or even global level. Current efforts to map ES generated by a single ecosystem rarely consider the distribution of benefits beyond the ecosystem itself, especially at the regional or global level. In this article, we elaborate on the concept of "extra-local" ES to refer to those ES generating benefits that are enjoyed far from the providing ecosystem, focusing on the marine environment. We emphasize the spatial dimension of the different components of the ES provision framework and apply the proposed conceptual framework to food provision and climate regulation ES provided by marine and coastal ecosystems. We present the different extents of the mapping outputs generated by the ecosystem-based vs. the extra-local mapping approach and discuss practical and conceptual challenges of the approach. Lack of relevant ES mapping methodologies and lack of data appeared to be the most crucial bottlenecks in applying the extra-local approach for marine and coastal ES. We urge for more applications of the proposed framework that can improve marine and coastal ES assessments help fill in data gaps and generate more robust data. Such assessments could better inform marine and coastal policies, especially those linked to equal attribution of benefits, compensation schemes and poverty alleviation.

As the environmental issues facing our planet change, scientific efforts need to inform the sustainable management of marine resources by adopting a socio-ecological systems approach. Taking the symposium on "Understanding marine socio-ecological systems: including the human dimension in Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (MSEAS)" as an opportunity we organized a workshop to foster the dialogue between early and advanced-career researchers and explore the conceptual and methodological challenges marine socio-ecological systems research faces. The discussions focused on: a) interdisciplinary research teams versus interdisciplinary scientists; b) idealism versus pragmatism on dealing with data and conceptual gaps; c) publishing interdisciplinary research. Another major discussion point was the speed at which governance regimes and institutional structures are changing and the role of researchers in keeping up with it. Irrespective of generation, training or nationality, all participants agreed on the need for multi-method approaches that encompass different social, political, ecological and institutional settings, account for complexity and communicate uncertainties. A shift is needed in the questions the marine socio-ecological scientific community addresses, which could happen by drawing on lessons learnt and experiences gained. These require in turn a change in education and training, accompanied by a change in research and educational infrastructures.

We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and coastal ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This work is the output of a panel convened by the Marine Working Group of the Ecosystem Services Partnership in September 2016. The MCES assessments were used to (1) address multiple policy objectives simultaneously, (2) interpret EU-wide policies to smaller scales and (3) inform local decision-making. Most of the studies did inform decision makers, but only in a few cases, the outputs were applied or informed decision-making. Significant limitations among the 11 assessments were the absence of shared understanding of the ES concept, data and knowledge gaps, difficulties in accounting for marine social-ecological systems complexity and partial stakeholder involvement. The findings of the expert panel call for continuous involvement of MCES ‘end users’, integrated knowledge on marine social-ecological systems, defining thresholds to MCES use and raising awareness to the general public. Such improvements at the intersection of science, policy and practice are essential starting points toward building a stronger science foundation supporting management of European marine ecosystems. © 2017 The Author(s).