Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Marine and coastal ecosystem services on the science–policy–practice nexus: challenges and opportunities from 11 European case studies

Marine and coastal ecosystem services on the science–policy–practice nexus: challenges and... INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT, 2018 VOL. 13, NO. 3, 51–67 https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1417330 SPECIAL ISSUE: OPERATIONALISING MARINE AND COASTAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Marine and coastal ecosystem services on the science–policy–practice nexus: challenges and opportunities from 11 European case studies a,b a c d Evangelia G. Drakou , Charlène Kermagoret , Camino Liquete , Ana Ruiz-Frau , e f g a Kremena Burkhard , Ana I. Lillebø , Alexander P. E. van Oudenhoven , Johanna Ballé-Béganton , h,i j j k l João Garcia Rodrigues , Emmi Nieminen , Soile Oinonen , Alex Ziemba , Elena Gissi , m n n o Daniel Depellegrin , Kristina Veidemane , Anda Ruskule , Justine Delangue , Anne Böhnke- p k q r s Henrichs , Arjen Boon , Richard Wenning , Simone Martino , Berit Hasler , s q t k v Mette Termansen , Mark Rockel , Herman Hummel , Ghada El Serafy and Plamen Peev a b UMR M101, AMURE, CNRS, OSU-IUEM, Université de Brest, Brest, France; Department of Geo-Information Processing, Faculty of Geo- Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands; European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy; Department of Global Change Research, Instituto Mediterráneo de Estudios Avanzados, IMEDEA (CSIC-UIB), e f Esporles, Spain; Institute of Environmental Planning, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germany; Department of Biology & Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM), University of Aveiro,, Aveiro, Portugal; Institute of Environmental Sciences CML, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands; Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de i j Compostela, Spain; Campus Do*Mar – International Campus of Excellence, Vigo, Spain; Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Marine k l Research Centre, Helsinki, Finland; Marine and Coastal Systems Department, Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands; Department of Design and Planning in Complex Environment, University Iuav of Venice, Venice, Italy; Institute of Marine Science, National Research Council, n o p Venice, Italy; Baltic Environmental Forum, Riga, Latvia; French Committee of IUCN, Paris, France; Environmental Systems Analysis q r Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands; Ramboll Environ, Portland, ME, USA; Laurence Mee Centre for Society & Sea, Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, UK; Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark; t v Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Yerseke, The Netherlands; BlueLink Foundation, Sofia, Bulgaria ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 28 February 2017 We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities Accepted 29 November 2017 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 EDITED BY Ecosystem Services Partnership in September 2016. The MCES assessments were used to (1) address Sebastian Villasante multiple policy objectives simultaneously, (2) interpret EU-wide policies to smaller scales and (3) KEYWORDS inform local decision-making. Most of the studies did inform decision makers, but only in a few Policy relevance; cases, theoutputs were appliedorinformeddecision-making. Significant limitations among the 11 pan-European approach; assessments were the absence of shared understanding of the ES concept, data and knowledge uncertainty; ocean literacy; gaps, difficulties in accounting for marine social–ecological systems complexity and partial stake- data gaps; bottom-up holder involvement. The findings of the expert panel call for continuous involvement of MCES ‘end approach 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. Introduction Under this broad societal recognition, the need to safe- guard the marine and coastal social–ecological systems is The planet’s oceans and coasts are rapidly changing imperative. (Duarte 2014; McCauley et al. 2015; Cloern et al. 2016) To that end, policy instruments and Directives have and humans worldwide experience the consequences been established at a global and European level. In the (Worm et al. 2006;Ruckelshaus et al. 2015;Bennett European Union (EU) in particular, the Maritime Spatial et al. 2016). The recognition of this no longer stays within Planning Directive (MSPD) (89/2014/EC), the Marine the scientific community, but society has also begun to Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (2008/58/EC), face the impacts of such changes to the point where even the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) popular media begins to engage in this discussion (e.g. and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) set the legislative The Guardian, February 2017). The impacts of sea level framework for the management of activities in marine rise are experienced in cities, the over-exploitation of and coastal areas. International conventions like marine resources impacts the well-being of coastal com- 1 2 OSPAR, HELCOM and the Barcelona Convention for munities and the accumulation of microplastics in the the Mediterranean require that marine resources are oceans now reaches the seafood consumed worldwide. CONTACT Evangelia G. Drakou e.drakou@utwente.nl © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 52 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. using a single method approach. Ruckelshaus et al. protected and managed with an aim to achieve a balance (2015) proposed a framework that decomposes the between long-term sustainability and economic growth (Lillebø et al. 2017). Several national and municipal man- science–policy–practice pathway and allows researchers to rate ‘what it takes’ for agement strategies with shared or different sets of objec- scientific research to produce tives are in place in the EU to safeguard marine and policy-relevant outcomes useful to decision-making. coastal ecosystems and associated livelihoods. Such Considering the limited amount of MCES research requirements, due to the multiplicity of sectors, stake- that becomes ultimately integrated into decision-making, holders and societal groups involved, demand an inter- there is a need to identify where existing MCES assess- disciplinary approach with respect to the underlying ments stand on the science–policy–practice interface. To research and a transdisciplinary approach for managing do this, in this paper, we take stock of a set of different this complex adaptive socio-ecological system (Berkes European case studies addressing different marine policy et al. 1998; Oinonen et al. 2016). and research objectives and make an overview of the focal The ecosystem services (ES) concept has been rapidly MCES, the methods used and the objectives addressed. adopted as a framework that accommodates interdisci- We identify the conceptual and methodological chal- plinary approaches and accounts for human–nature lenges from a researcher and practitioner’s point of interactions while standing on the science–policy–prac- view. The results are used to make recommendations tice interface (Maes et al. 2012). For instance, for the for researchers and practitioners on how to optimize implementation of the WFD in transitional and coastal applied MCES research in the future. waters, ES assessments help highlight societal, economic and environmental benefits of the WFD (Atkins et al. Framing our narrative 2011). Also, the reformed version of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) provides a framework for analyz- To explore the relevance of MCES scientific research to ing the impacts of fisheries on biodiversity and on the policy and practice, we organized a theme session entitled supply of ES, including impact assessment for environ- ‘Informing marine and coastal policy using ecosystem mental, social and economic sustainability (Sissenwine service assessments: evidence from real world applica- and Symes 2007). Marine and coastal ES (MCES) assess- tions’,duringthe European EcosystemServices ment is often oriented toward specific management and Partnership Conference, in September 2016 (Antwerp, policy needs from local and national (e.g. Arkema et al. Belgium). We invited participants to share their experi- 2015) to supranational scales (Liquete et al. 2016; ence on the observed science–policy–practice link Mononen et al. 2016; Oinonen et al. 2016). For instance, through their projects. We asked them to elaborate on EU Member States are required to use a set of indicators the policy relevance of their research, the observed impact that measure their regulatory efforts to achieve good of their research, and the methodological and conceptual environmental status (GES) in marine waters as required challenges they faced in using MCES assessments to by the MSFD (Borja et al. 2013;Beaumontetal. 2014). inform decision-making and the desired ways to over- Yet, despite the environmental Directives at the EU come such challenges. level, there are very few examples or ‘success stories’ of the We selected an information-oriented sample, with actual inclusion of MCES assessments to decision-mak- studies carried out in a broad range of European coun- ing (Laurans et al. 2013). The consideration of ES for tries with a combination of scientists and practitioners. marine and coastal ecosystem management is still at an No policy or decision makers were directly involved in early stage with few such assessments completed to date, the process, since we selected one to two representatives and many others underway (Boulton et al. 2016). Indeed, per case study. However, most results discussed were the a policy requirement is not enough to guarantee the outputs of multidisciplinary and even transdisciplinary inclusion of scientific information (on MCES and projects. All participants had experience in marine beyond) in decision-making. The latter is the after effect social–ecological systems and ES research at the local, of several parameters, including the credibility of scien- national or supranational level. Studies that were under- tific information, enabling conditions and institutional way or still in scoping phase were excluded from the capacity (Ostrom and Nagendra 2006). Several studies analysis, since we were interested in analyzing not only developed frameworks guiding ES assessments in order the policy driver of the studies but also the policy rele- to strengthen their integration into decision-making pro- vance of the outcome. A post-conference survey was cesses. For instance, Lopes and Videira (2013)present a circulated to the selected case studies to extract all the participatory framework to identify the values that differ- required information for the analysis. A detailed overview ent stakeholder groups place on MCES and determine of the information extracted from the survey is given in how these values may be incorporated into decision- the Appendix. making processes. Hattam et al. (2015) suggest a frame- The information collected per case study broadly work based on the integration of different ES assessment focused on (Table 1) (1) case study description, (2) links and valuation methods to highlight complexities of man- to policy objectives and stakeholder involvement, (3) the agement outcomes that would not become apparent wayMCESwereusedandtheirassociatedimpacton INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 53 Table 1. Information extracted from each of the selected case studies, in order to evaluate how ES were used in the science– policy–practice interface. Information group Information extracted Description Study Description Name of the area The name of the case study area Spatial scale of the assessment The spatial scale at which the assessment took place: local, national, supra-national, Large Marine Ecosystem Author The names of the authors who contributed in this study Aim of the study A short description on the aim and objectives of the study Methods/Tools used The methods and tools that were used to carry out the assessment (e.g. mapping, modeling, valuation, stakeholder interviews). Associated project (s) The project that funded this case study. Project time frame The time and duration of the project. Policy / Decision-making Specific policy/decision- The authors identified to which policy needs their study responded to, if any. links making need for the work Scale of policy implementation The scale at which that specific policy was implemented (e.g. EU level, national) (local, regional, etc) Stakeholder groups involved The types of stakeholders involved in the case study, if any. Ecosystem Services Ecosystem services assessed The list of ecosystem services assessed within the study. [Note: the authors were not given a predefined ES classification, but all used CICES (1)]. Ecosystem services used as… The way the ecosystem services concept was used in each assessment, i.e. as a tool for decision-making, as a communication tool, as a direct objective of the study. Challenges in including Conceptual The top three (3) conceptual challenges (e.g. terms or conceptual frameworks used) the ES in the analysis authors faced when using ecosystem services. Methodological The top three (3) methodological challenges (e.g. lack of training, knowledge) the authors faced when using ecosystem services. Challenges overcome (Y/N) The authors responded about whether they managed to overcome the challenges they mention and how. Solutions Proposed / Desired solutions The authors identified desired solutions that could help them solve these issues in using ES as a tool to integrate science-policy-practice. decision-making, (4) conceptual and methodological Evidence from the field challenges faced in the use of MCES, and (5) the estab- Case studies description lished or desired solutions. References to the latter are given throughout the paper, indicating the coordinates of Among the 11 MCES case studies, 7 were carried out at the cell of the table (from A1 to K16) containing more the local, 2 at the national, and 2 at the supranational information. level. The location and spatial extent of the studies are To estimate the impact different MCES case studies shown in Figure 1. The different case studies aimed at had on decision-making, we adapted the framework carrying out an ES assessment through valuation and/or proposed by Ruckelshaus et al. (2015), which uses a mapping (e.g. Adriatic-Ionian – B4, Latvian coast – D4), classification of pathways followed throughout the ES producing strategic frameworks for management (e.g. the assessment process. The four pathways follow a gradient Bulgarian coast – E4) or proposing sustainable manage- from a less to a more strong impact on policy: Conduct ment solutionsaspartoflarge projects with broader Research (Pathway 1 – least impact on policy), objectives (e.g. the Delfland coast – H4). A range of Perspective Change (Pathway 2 – provides new under- assessment methods was used among the 11 MCES stu- standing), Action Generation (Pathway 3 – influences dies, depending on the policy and research objectives, the decision-making), Outcomes Produced (Pathway 4 – time, knowledge and expertise available. In general, local produces actual policy outcomes). Within each pathway, case studies focused on coastal issues using participatory there are different steps that account for the impact of the approaches, economic valuation tools and multi-criteria assessment on decision-making (Table 2). assessments. Larger scale MCES studies also considered theopen oceanandweremore likelytouse geospatial Table 2. The pathways of research that have an impact on mapping and environmental modeling tools. decision-making and policy, as presented in the framework developed by Ruckelshaus et al. (2015). Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Pathway 3 Pathway 4 Conduct Perspective change Action Outcomes Links to policy objectives and stakeholder research generated produced involvement Results People aware of, Alternative Enhanced and produced understand and choices based balanced ES discuss ES on ES provision Links to policy objectives Published Stakeholders use Plans and Improved The research carried out in 10 out of 11 case studies, was and articulate policies outcomes for driven by,oraimedat,informing oneormoreEuropean different ES consider ES ES and positions impact human well- policy or legislative frameworks. Most of the studies were assessment being designed to address the requirements of one specific Disseminated Stakeholder New policy and differences are finance policy agenda, namely the MSPD (e.g. Latvian Coast – transparent and mechanisms D5),theWFD (e.g.theRiadeAveiro – I5) or the Habitats mediated established and Birds Directive (Council of the European For each pathway, the different steps have an increasing impact from top to bottom (the darker the color, the higher the impact). Communities 1992)(C5;F5; K5)(Figure 2). For instance, 54 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. Figure 1. Map showing the distribution of European case studies taken into account for this paper. Studies 1–6 and 9 are local level studies; 7–8 are national ones and 10–11 are supranational assessments. policy objectives simultaneously (K5; C5; B5; A5). Given that some of the EU Directives are inter-related and so are some of their objectives, or knowledge required to achieve them, the MCES concept proved to be a useful tool to maximize the benefits of scientific effort. For instance, the integration of the ES concept in the Latvian coast was used to facilitate the application of the ecosystem-based management (D6), which is an overarching principle in both the MSPD and MSFD. Lastly, most of the assessed cases used the MCES concept to address policy objectives at the municipal or local level (C6; F6; G6; H6; J6; K6), to inform local legislation (e.g. on the coastal zone management in Bulgaria – E6) and to support innovative management measures [e.g. the Delfland case delivered scientific advice for solutions to protect the Dutch coast, through Figure 2. The number of different policy objectives, from beach nourishment (Bontje and Slinger 2017) – H6]. local and municipal priorities to European Directives, that were tentatively addressed in the case studies assessed. Stakeholder involvement Nine out of 11 case studies involved stakeholders in Ria de Aveiro (Portugal) ES provided by transitional throughout the assessments (C7; D7; E7; F7; G7; H7; I7; and coastal waters were assessed in the context of the J7; K7). Two cases did not consult stakeholders, because WFD to increase the connection between research and the study area was too broad and trans-boundary (A7; policy (Lillebø et al. 2015). In that case, MCES research B7), henceforth stakeholder involvement was time and had a core position in establishing a link between the budget restrictive (B7), or because it was not envisaged by European level at which policy objectives are set and the the project (A7). When stakeholders were consulted, national or local levels at which practical management different groups were involved throughout the project issues are fixed. (Figure 3). Regional administration and decision makers In two of the local level case studies – the Gulf of were involved in almost all cases, providing consultation Morbihan and the Wadden Sea – and two supranational mostly at the beginning and the end of the project. Local assessments – the Adriatic-Ionian region and the level administration and NGOs were also involved during Mediterranean Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) – the the consultation process (C7; D7; E7; F7; G7; H7; J7). It is MCES assessment was used to address more than one worth mentioning that some of the cases focused on INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 55 Figure 3. Main groups of stakeholders involved or consulted in the case studies. Note that, in most cases, many different groups of stakeholders were consulted for one case study. The grey bar indicates the two case studies in which no stakeholders were consulted. coastal areas across municipalities within the same coun- In all projects, the continuous stakeholder involvement try (e.g. Wadden Sea – E7,GulfofMorbihan – K7); was considered essential for an uptake of any products therefore, administrative bodies from multiple regions or downstream services derived from the MCES assess- and at multiple levels (i.e. local, municipal, national) ments. This point proved to be critical to ensure that were involved. Other stakeholders involved, although at information and tools addressed research goals, while a lesser extent, included researchers, members of the fitting the practical aims for transmitting sufficient tourism industry and the shipping sector (D7; E7; F7; information at an appropriate technical level to non- G7; H7; I7; K7). The most commonly used methods for academic end users. stakeholder involvement were interviews, surveys and workshops. Especially, the workshops occurred at differ- ent stages throughout the projects. In few cases, stake- MCES use in the assessment and associated holders were involved through the organization of impact symposia, public hearings (e.g. in the coast of Latvia – D8) or citizen juries (e.g. in the Ria de Aveiro – I8). Some MCES studies focused on multiple ES provided The stakeholder selection was based on whether they by the project area, e.g. the Bulgarian coast (E9) and (1) represented the main users and beneficiaries of the the Ria de Aveiro (I9) cases focused on all ES as MCES (e.g. fishers, residents); (2) were the principal specified by CICES. Other MCES studies targeted managers of MCES (e.g. public bodies in charge of multiple ES that are provided by specific species or managing water resources; marine spatial planners) or habitat types (e.g. the Balearic Islands case assessed all (3) participated in tools development for MCES assess- ES generated by Posidonia oceanica seagrass mea- ments. A key priority identified through those case dows – G9 and the Gulf of Morbihan those provided studies was that the final research outputs were adapted by Zostera marina and noltei – K9). The way the ES to the needs of beneficiaries and managers. This was concept was used in the different case studies affected achieved by stakeholder involvement throughout the the MCES use to inform policy and decision-making. projects, avoiding the one-off consultation at the begin- In some cases, the MCES assessment was the direct ning or the end of the project. For instance, at the Gulf objective of the case study (e.g. in the Northern of Morbihan (K8) around 50 interviews, 6 workshops Venice lagoon – F9, the Balearic Islands – G10 and and a choice experiment survey were conducted at the the Aquitaine region – J10). In others, the MCES beginningofthe projecttocapturetheuserrequire- concept was mostly a method to generate spatial ments and a conference involving all stakeholder groups information which could be used by decision makers, at the end of the project. Similarly, the Bulgarian Black e.g. in the Wadden Sea (E10). In a large number of Sea coast project (E8) started with an expert elicitation cases, MCES were used to convey social–ecological workshop and surveys to capture a broader set of information to decision makers and propose alterna- stakeholder requirements, followed by interviews with tive management measures. For instance, the Ria de high-level decision makers (i.e. municipality mayors Aveiro (I10) and the Delfland coast cases (H10) used and one regional governor) and a final stakeholder MCES to reveal stakeholders’ management prefer- consultation conference to validate the study outputs. ences, while for the Bulgarian Black Sea coast (E10), 56 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. it was used to communicate and integrate a sustain- to be time-consuming during the assessments. The Ria able ecosystem-based approach into planning. de Aveiro (I9) and the Wadden Sea (C9) cases encoun- To evaluate the impact MCES assessments had on tered difficulties in applying existing ES classification decision-making, we adapted the framework provided schemes in a decision-making context, as the adopted CICES classification in some cases seemed too ‘ecologi- by Ruckelshaus et al. (2015), as explained in the Framing our Narrative section. The majority of cases cally oriented’. Understanding and interpreting policy provided scientific evidence that informed decision-mak- requirements and how these could be addressed by ES concepts proved to be a challenge for many MCES ing (Figure 4). However in only a few cases, research outcomes were taken into account by decision makers. studies (e.g. the Venice lagoon – F11, Latvian coast – Two studies were research oriented (A4; G4), which D11). Differences in the interpretation of specific policy and legislative terms tended to create confusion and means that although researchers consulted stakeholders, the assessment outputs were limited to publication in disagreement both over how ES assessments should be peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the Mediterranean carried out to produce suitable outcomes to inform decision-making and over the most adequate actions to case (A4), the extent of the area did not allow for an immediate observation of the impact of the assessment, be adopted. while in the Balearic case, the results plan to be commu- A second challenge was the knowledge gaps on nicated to the regional government. None of the studies marine ecosystem functioning and its link to MCES. assessed had sufficient capacity to influence decision- Such gaps entail understanding the interactions making and trigger a policy change or an adaptation of among ecosystem components, the supply of regulat- specific management measures (Pathway 4, Table 2). It is ing and cultural MCES, the valuation of certain important to note that most of the studies included in this MCES features that are hard to understand and work were completed within the past 2 years. Hence, time assess. For instance, the link between ecosystem is required to assess the long-term impact of these initia- structure and the provision of cultural ES proved to tives on decision-making. be hard to address in several cases (A11; D11; K11). This may be due to an elusive link between marine ecosystems and several intangible values (e.g. sacred, Conceptual and methodological challenges in the sense of place) and unclear distinctions among ser- use of MCES research in policy and practice vices, benefits and associated values (e.g. existence or bequest values). The lack of well-documented knowl- An overview of the challenges presented in the different edge on the types of interaction between human case studies, along with the applied solutions, is given in activities and ecosystems was also identified as limita- Table 3. A ubiquitous challenge for applying MCES to tion. For instance, the role of seagrass beds in coastal decision-making was communication from science to protection, considered in the Gulf of Morbihan (K12) policy and practice and vice versa. In particular, ES case, remains the subject of ongoing research (Liquete terminology was new and unclear for many stakeholders et al. 2013b). Finally, assigning social and economic and decisionmakers (C9; E9;F9;G9;H9),which proved Figure 4. Sorting of the ES assessments addressed based on the observed impact they had to decision-making and policy. The sorting is based on an adapted version of the framework proposed by Ruckelshaus et al. (2015) on the pathways of ES research to decision-making. The conduct research pathway stands for scientific research that get published and disseminated. The inform decision-making pathway has impact on decision makers, by influencing their perception and raising their awareness on ES. The decision-makers actions pathway, stands for the research that influences decision-making to an extent, that it is reflected in their management and policy actions. The policy change/adaptation pathway of ES research is able to modify policy and promote the development of new mechanisms. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 57 Table 3. The major challenges encountered in the case studies, observed impacts and applied or proposed solutions. Major challenges (conceptual & Observed methodological) Impacts Applied solutions Terminology & ● MCES concepts are not equally ● Multiple approaches, ES classification ● MCES terms are translated and understanding understood among researchers and systems adapted to target audience decision-makers ● Time-consuming ● Translate broad policy terms in ● Lack of single, agreed upon MCES ● Misinterpretation and mistrust ES language classification framework ● Disagreement among research-practice- ● Need for practical recommen- ● The use of CICES classification in policy dations on how to use ES for decision-making context decision-making ● Policy requirements are too broad ● Involve experts on legal and and hard to interpret policy frames Knowledge gaps ● Link between ecosystem state and ● Weak methods and results ● Differentiate ES supply and MCES ● Difficulty in assigning values to regulat- demand ● Regulating and cultural MCES are ing and cultural ES ● Inter- and multi-disciplinary hard to understand teams ● Impact of human activities on func- tions and ES ● Lack of scientific expertise Addressing ● Integrate biophysical and socio-eco- ● Increased uncertainty ● Include the analysis of pres- complexity nomic information ● Partial assessment sures in existing ES frame- ● Difficulty in including drivers of works for management change, pressures and impacts in support existing ES frameworks ● Inter- and multi-disciplinary teams Data and ● Lack of data ● The use of expert opinion instead of ● Inter- and multi-disciplinary methodological ● Data heterogeneity in quality, reso- empirical data created mistrust to deci- teams gaps & lution and scales sion-makers ● Additional data collection inconsistencies ● Scale mismatch among data sources, ● Not all relevant ES can be assessed within campaigns study extent and policy objectives available time-frame ● Couple mapping methods with ● Data accessibility ● Uncertainty knowledge on marine ecosystem ● Difficulty in applying existing map- ● Difficulty in assessing trade-offs functioning ping methods ● Double-counting of values Stakeholders ● Lack of engagement of certain stake- ● Propagated uncertainty starting from ● Communicate uncertainties involvement holder groups data and methodological gaps to partial ● Give time ● Consultation is time-consuming and stakeholder involvement ● Raise awareness the managerial agendas may change during the process ● Conflicting interests among sectors (tourism, fisheries, shipping) The links among challenges, impacts and solutions are not one to one. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) framework values to MCES, although requested by decision makers, was a big challenge for MCES such as nitro- of drivers (direct and indirect) – impacts on ES and well-being – responses (policy and management). gen abatement (F9). Such knowledge gaps generated The fourth set of challenges was linked to data and difficulties in differentiating ES supply from demand (or capacity, flow, benefit) in several MCES studies methodological gaps in MCES assessments. These entailed (1) lack of empirical or modeled data, parti- (e.g. in Ria de Aveiro – I11). cularly geo-referenced socio-economic data (A12; B12; The third set of challenges focused on the difficulty to adequately account for the complexity of the marine D12; E12; F12; H12; K12); (2) data inconsistencies across spatial-temporal scales (B12; E12); (3) hetero- social–ecological system. The challenges revolved geneity in data format and resolution (B12; C12; D12; mostly around the integration of biophysical and socio-economic information and the inclusion of dri- E12) and (4) data inaccessibility (C12). The lack of vers of change in the assessment. This was crucial for empirical evidence and the need to replace it with expert opinion kept emerging in several MCES studies studies that responded to management needs (e.g. the impact of human activities on seagrass functions and but had an impact on the confidence of decision services in the Gulf of Morbihan – K12). The lack of makers to the results (e.g. in the Bulgarian coast – E12). Additionally, data reporting units (e.g. adminis- both social and economic expertise in research teams in many cases proved to be critical for such issues (e.g. trative) were not always relevant for the MCES oper- in the Delfland Coast – H12). Although there are ationalization and use by decision makers (e.g. in the Mediterranean case – A12). Incompatibility of units several proposals for integrative assessments of pres- sures–impacts–ES (Atkins et al. 2011; Maron et al. across ES made the calculation of ES trade-offs diffi- 2017), they are not easily adapted to the marine system. cult. Also in many cases, the lack of large-scale data for Still, some cases overcame this shortcoming by identi- features such as benthic species distribution (e.g. the fying and ranking drivers of change in stakeholder Adriatic-Ionian Sea – B9) was unavailable at the discussions (e.g. the Bulgarian coast – E13), using the required extent and was substituted by large-scale 58 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. habitat distribution models. Lastly, a considerable policy and management agendas in Europe, in order number of data sets describing uses of marine and to identify ways to operationalize the results gained coastal environment were sensitive, confidential (e.g. from MCES studies in the future. Such policy agen- ES with an associated commercial value) or privately das, e.g. on sustainable Blue Growth, implicitly owned, making them inaccessible for research. recognize that the marine environment is a complex Methodology-wise, the spatial representation of adaptive system with humans being an inherent part MCES provided by large, multi-dimensional of its dynamics. Therefore, economic growth strate- (benthic/pelagic) ecosystems proved to be a challenge. gies pertaining to the marine environment should be For example, in the Latvian coast (D12), the use of taking into account environmental well-being, standard land-use-based mapping approaches proved acknowledging the reciprocal role that humans play to be difficult and uncertain. both as a driver of change and a recipient of the Lastly, from a researcher’s and practitioner’s point impact of those changes. This is important since ES of view, the involvement of stakeholders led to several research claims to account for such interactions and challenges (C11; F11; I11). Many stakeholders were is used to facilitate the way scientific research in not eager to participate in the consultation process. social–ecological systems is communicated and con- That was mostly due to the fact that some perceptions sidered in decision-making (Maes et al. 2012; Lillebø that consultations are ‘too scientific’, asymmetrical et al. 2017). power relations among participants, or lack of trust. Within the diversity of spatial extents and policy Budget and time limitation also hindered the success requirements addressed in this narrative’s case stu- of the stakeholder engagement process in several dies, the MCES approach was used in three main MCES studies. Consultation is time-consuming and ways: (1) as a way to simultaneously address multiple managerial agendas often change during the process. targets of different marine and coastal policies (e.g. in Lastly, the trade-offs among different marine sectors the Adriatic-Ionian study, MCES was used to balance generated conflicts during the stakeholder consulta- the MSPD and MSFD objectives that account for tion (e.g. the Bulgaria Sea Coast – E11), preventing in sustainable growth); (2) as a way to ‘translate’ EU- some cases reaching consensus. wide policies to the local or national level (e.g. in the Latvian case to interpret the MSPD at the national level) (3) and as a method that produces scientific Applied solutions evidence to inform and to be used in decision-mak- ing (e.g. in the Bulgarian coast to inform regional Several approaches have been followed by the case strategic documents and sectorial policies). In the studies to overcome the encountered challenges (Row following paragraphs, we use the collective evidence 13, appendix). In most cases, the methodological chal- gained by this work to outline and discuss what it lenges were overcome with the use of additional exper- takes to operationalize MCES research, and we give tise (e.g. modelers in the Mediterranean case – A13), suggestions for future research. the adoption of new methods (e.g. quantification of The 11 MCES studies included in this paper were uncertainty in the Adriatic-Ionian – B13) or an adap- ranked using the Ruckelshaus et al. (2015) framework tation of scale (e.g. Latvian case – D13). Challenges in to gauge the extent to which the work actually or the use of ES were overcome with simplification of potentially informed policy and decision-making terminology (e.g. in the Balearic Islands and the (Figure 4). About half of the MCES studies considered, Delfland coast cases, the term ‘ecosystem services’ generated scientific outputs that informed decision- was replaced with terms like ‘ecosystem benefits’, ‘ben- making and generated actions (Pathway 3). Still none efits derived from ecosystems’ or ‘nature’s services’ to produced outcomes that improved directly ES provi- facilitate stakeholder comprehension – G11; H11), sion or human well-being (Pathway 4). Certainly, the especially for stakeholder consultation, or by merging research–policy–practice link is not linear (Beck some of the existing CICES classes to fit the case study 2011), but rather complex, and there are several inter- specificities (e.g. in the Wadden Sea – C13, or the actions, feedback loops, dynamics and power relation- Bulgarian Black Sea coast – E13). Cases that didn’t ships within it that are not always easy to decode overcome the encountered challenges, like for instance (Wesselink et al. 2013). in the Aquitaine coast (J13), were mostly attributed to lack of scientific knowledge on the actual contribution of a specific ecosystem component to the provision of MCES operationalization: what does it take? MCES. TheroleofMCESinestablishingthe science–pol- icy–practice link is still challenged by several con- Discussion ceptual and methodological gaps, as it was clearly The purpose of this paper was to examine where stated in this study. However, we believe there are MCES research stands relative to different marine ways to operationalize MCES assessments and help INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 59 d. Communicate scientific, technical and practical science, policy and practice move toward a more challenges to funding agencies (Bremer et al. 2015). operational pathway in which scientific outcomes are relevant to decision-making and have an impact e. Insist on the need for data and information sharing, while ensuring that scientific outputs on environmental and social well-being (Pathway 4, are published in open source databases Table 2). (Drakou et al. 2015). Involvement of ‘end users’ in MCES assessment Knowledge integration The creation of ‘enabling conditions’ for MCES operatio- Scientific research needs to set the prerequisites for nalization requires a substantial end-user engagement. new knowledge and expertise to be spread by incor- ‘End users’ (policy-makers, decision makers, practi- porating inter- and transdisciplinary approaches tioners) will use the generated scientific information in within different research fields. It is noteworthy, for the decision-making process. Structured advocacy and instance, how the scientific communities that employ communication is needed to support the process through Ecosystem-Based Management approaches, besides a research and implementation. To achieve this, MCES few exceptions (Granek et al. 2010), are rarely linked assessments need to to those that deal with MCES. To achieve this, inte- a. Consider underlying values, power relations, gration and collaboration with a broader research attitudes and expectations of involved stake- community is essential. That will facilitate the way holders. Tools and instruments like collaborative various policy objectives and (EU) Directives are decision-making, participatory mapping and simultaneously addressed (Gissi and de Vivero 2016; modeling (Voinov and Bousquet 2010;Palomo Verutes et al. 2017). et al. 2013), increase legitimacy of scientific out- At the same time, there is no need to ‘re-invent the puts.Inmany cases,the decision-making pro- wheel’, but since the MCES concept is multi-disci- cess is driven by welfare economics to assess e.g. plinary by definition, it can make use of the tools and the benefits of improving coastal water quality methods that are at hand. For instance, MCES map- (Hynes et al. 2013), or the monetary benefits of ping proved to be really limited in our set of case achieving GES in EU marine waters (Norton studies, fact also agreeing with previous reviews of and Hynes 2014). However, economic decisions the literature (Böhnke-Henrichs et al. 2013; Liquete based on utilitarian approaches, limited ecologi- et al. 2013a; Hattam et al. 2015). Efforts to adapt cal knowledge of MCES and unknown prefer- mapping methods developed on land for MCES, e.g. ences from consumers fail in providing robust the ‘matrix-based’ approach (Burkhard et al. 2012), monetary valuation of MCES, e.g. for deep sea require taking into account the specificities of the habitats (Jobstvogt et al. 2014) or regulating marine ecosystems (e.g. Burdon et al. 2017), while MCES (Papathanasopoulou et al. 2014). filling the spatial data gaps. Therefore, research b. Communicate the level of confidence in scien- efforts need to be directed toward the improvement tific results in a comprehensive way in order to of available data for the marine environment. increase trust by decision makers in research Collection of in situ or satellite data is costly, but outputs. Many data sets used for MCES assess- more efforts should be made toward improving the ments are incomplete, leading to the use of available remote sensing products that can be used to qualitative methods or modeling approaches map MCES (Fretwell et al. 2014; Kavanaugh et al. (Druon et al. 2012) to fill in information gaps. 2016; Valentini et al. 2016). The level of confidence is also linked to point (a), since the inclusion of a biased set of end users could lead to biased results. Quantifying Establishing thresholds on MCES use and communicating uncertainties is therefore Marine ecological systems research uses thresholds and crucial to increase the trust of decision makers tipping points extensively, especially with reference the to scientific outputs (Gissi et al. 2017). establishment of fishing quotas that set limits to the c. Focus on the development integrative and exploitation of marine resources (Karr et al. 2015; flexible ontologies. Most of the existing ontol- Kittinger et al. 2015). At the same time, European direc- ogies and terminology used are rigid and tar- tives like the MSFD require Member States to maintain a geted to well-trained scientific audiences. Good Ecological Status (GES) and to monitor it with a Although these are necessary for researchers set of indicators. There is already a lot of work done in and decision makers (Glaeser 2016), less jar- marine and coastal ecosystems, toward assessing ecosys- gon needs to be used during stakeholder par- tem health (Halpern et al. 2012), and ecological functions ticipation and MCES policy or research linked to the supply of ES e.g. on nutrient cycling regula- concepts, need to be translated into layman’s tion (Hofmann and Schellnhuber 2009) and food provi- terms and employ ‘user-oriented’ approaches. sion from fisheries (Chu 2009). However, until now, such 60 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. indicators, thresholds and tipping points in marine eco- distant areas acts as an additional component that puts pressure in natural resources, since the demand does systems focus either solely on ecological or solely societal aspects of the system. But, within the anthropocene- not occur only at the local level, but elsewhere (Kittinger et al. 2015;Drakou et al. 2017), and should related research, the need to address planetary bound- be considered in research and practice. aries and tipping points of entire social–ecological sys- tems is imperative to best manage such systems As marine ecosystems are usually large and lay across multiple political jurisdictions, regional assessment is (Rockström et al. 2009). MCES assessments can focus called for to better integrate ES into actual management toward developing limits and thresholds on the use and supply of MCES to ensure their sustainability (Hanley et al. 2015). For example, HELCOM is conduct- ing the Second Holistic Assessment of the Ecosystem (Österblom et al. 2017), by taking stock on available Health of the Baltic Sea with the aim to develop regional knowledge. Science, policy and practice should work together to establish novel sets of indicators that integrate approach for social and economic analyses where MCES social and ecological knowledge on the marine environ- are accounted for (HELCOM 2017). Such regional assess- ments deal with trans-boundary areas and different ment and allow decision makers to monitor the proxi- mity to the ‘boundaries’. socio-economic and ecological conditions across them. In such cases, the flow of MCES between different coun- tries needs to be taken into account for the MCES assess- Enhancing societal literacy and raising awareness ment of the focal area to avoid double-counting in MCES research needs to ensure that the role, functions scientific assessments. and benefits derived from marine and coastal ecosystems MCES assessments in Europe currently make the first are acknowledged by the general public and not only the steps toward linking scientific research with practice and community of policy and practice. For the ‘enabling policy. Significant effort is required from science, policy conditions’ (point 1) to happen, society needs to be and practice, across spatial and temporal scales, to achieve aware of the multi-dimensional value of the marine and integrated management of marine social–ecological sys- coastal ecosystems. The successful application of man- tems. We believe that the integration of social–ecological agement policies and regulations heavily relies on peo- systems approach with sectoral perspectives that focus on ple’s compliance. But compliance is partly dependent on one of the social–ecological systems aspects is the basis people’s awareness of their reliance on ecosystems for for a meaningful dialog among stakeholders to be estab- their well-being; thus, there is a strong need to improve lished. This can provide the foundation to shape collec- the dissemination of scientific knowledge in society. A tive arrangements for overcoming barriers, addressing mix of institutional types promoted by well-structured social challenges and seizing opportunities. The evidence dialogue involving scientists, resource users and inter- we collected in the assessed case studies, along with our ested publics is needed for this (e.g. the Italian Ocean ‘wishes’ for the future, will hopefully be only the first step Literacy program). toward more integrated, collaborative and robust MCES Inclusiveness of plural views into the decision-making assessments. process is needed to deal with complexities and transpar- ency by giving space to social knowledge, other than scientific evidence (Reed et al. 2014). Ignoring cultural Notes and ethical values into the decision-making process may place further constraints on the acceptability of top-down 1. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. management decisions (Farber et al. 2006) and reduce the 2. Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission – actual limited uptake of fair allocations of appropriated Helsinki Commission. natural resources amongst stakeholders (Barry 2011). 3. Convention for Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution. 4. http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/blue_ Our ‘wish list’ for the future growth_en. For MCES assessments to reach and influence decision- making, still several aspects need to be considered. Acknowledgement Herein, we present a series of desired future actions as The authors would like to thank all the participants of the they occurred from the workshop discussions, the post- ESP Marine Biome Working Group Session hosted at the workshop survey (Row 14, appendix) and the authors’ European Conference of the Ecosystem Services viewpoints. Partnership that took place in Antwerp (Belgium) in Many of the generated MCES benefit people who are September 2016. located far from the provision area (e.g. where fish are caught). The routes of trade and shipping lanes facilitate Disclosure statement the flow of MCES within and outside Europe, having a key role on the marine and coastal systems state No potential conflict of interest was reported by the (Österblom et al. 2015). The demand for MCES from authors. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 61 Beck S. 2011. Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? Funding IPCC and the test of adaptation. Reg Environ Chang. This work was supported by the EEA Grants (BG03 11:297–306. ‘Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’); H2020 Science Bennett NJ, Blythe J, Tyler S, Ban NC. 2016. Communities with and for Society [grant number 641762-2]; Horizon and change in the anthropocene: understanding social- 2020 Framework Programme [grant number 642317]; DG ecological vulnerability and planning adaptations to MARE [grant number MARE/2012/25 [SI2.666717]]; multiple interacting exposures. Reg Environ Chang. European cross-border cooperation program INTERREG 16:907–926. VI [INTERREG IV A France]; Seventh Framework Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. 1998. Navigating social- ecological Programme [grant number 283157], [grant number systems. Building resilience for complexity and change. 308393] and Stichting voor de Technische Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. Wetenschappen [grant number 12691]; EFESE project Böhnke-Henrichs A, Baulcomb C, Koss R, Hussain SS, de funded by the French Ministry of Environment, Energy Groot RS. 2013. Typology and indicators of ecosystem and Sea; SPECIES project by the Ministry of services for marine spatial planning and management. J Environment and Water of Bulgaria; Portuguese Environ Manage. 130:135–145. Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through Bontje LE, Slinger JH. 2017. A narrative method for learn- the financial support to CESAM (national (UID/AMB/ ing from innovative coastal projects – biographies of the 50017/2013) and FEDER funds, within the PT2020 sand engine. Ocean Coast Manag. 142:186–197. Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020). Borja A, Elliott M, Andersen JH, Cardoso AC, Carstensen J, Ferreira JG, Heiskanen A-S, Marques JC, Neto JM, Teixeira H, et al. 2013. Good environmental status of ORCID marine ecosystems: what is it and how do we know when we have attained it? Mar Pollut Bull. 76:16–27. Evangelia G. Drakou http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4404- Boulton AJ, Ekebom J, Már GG. 2016. Integrating ecosys- 629X tem services into conservation strategies for freshwater Charlène Kermagoret http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2402- and marine habitats: a review. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 26:963–985. Ana Ruiz-Frau http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1317-2827 Bremer LL, Delevaux JMS, Leary JJK, Cox J, Oleson KLL. Kremena Burkhard http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2843- 2015. Opportunities and strategies to incorporate eco- system services knowledge and decision support tools Ana I. Lillebø http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5228-0329 into planning and decision making in Hawai‘i. Environ Alexander P. E. van Oudenhoven http://orcid.org/0000- Manage. 884–899. 0002-3258-2565 Burdon D, Potts T, Barbone C, Mander L. 2017. The João Garcia Rodrigues http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0234- matrix revisited: a bird’s-eye view of marine ecosystem service provision. Mar Policy. 77:78–89. Emmi Nieminen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0727-2039 Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F. 2012. Mapping Elena Gissi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1666-8772 ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Kristina Veidemane http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5497- Indic. 21:17–29. Chu C. 2009. Thirty years later: the global growth of ITQs Anda Ruskule http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1580-8304 and their influence on stock status in marine fisheries. Anne Böhnke-Henrichs http://orcid.org/0000-0002- Fish Fish. 10:217–230. 6918-0121 Cloern JE, Abreu PC, Carstensen J, Chauvaud L, Elmgren R, Arjen Boon http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2614-5024 Grall J, Greening H, Johansson JOR, Kahru M, Sherwood Richard Wenning http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3481-0477 ET, et al. 2016. Human activities and climate variability Simone Martino http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4394-6475 drive fast-paced change across the world’s estuarine- Berit Hasler http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0433-4086 coastal ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol. 22:513–529. Mette Termansen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4875-2810 Council of the European Communities. 1992.Council direc- Herman Hummel http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6902-5773 tive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of Plamen Peev http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9361-1980 natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Off J Eur Communities. 206:7–50. Drakou EG, Crossman ND, Willemen L, Burkhard B, Palomo References I, Maes J, Peedell S. 2015. A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: lessons learnt, challenges Arkema KK, Verutes GM, Wood S, Clarke-Samuels C, and the way forward. Ecosyst Serv. 13:134–140. Rosado S, Canto M, Rosenthal A, Ruckelshaus M, Drakou EG, Pendleton L, Effron M, Ingram JC, Teneva L. Guannel G, Toft J, et al. 2015. Embedding ecosystem 2017. When ecosystems and their services are not co- services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for located: oceans and coasts. ICES J Mar Sci. 74:1531–1539. people and nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 112:7390–7395. Druon JN, Panigada S, David L, Gannier A, Mayol P, AtkinsJP,BurdonD,ElliottM,GregoryAJ. 2011. Management Arcangeli A, Cañadas A, Laran S, Di Méglio N, of the marine environment: integrating ecosystem services Gauffier P. 2012. Potential feeding habitat of fin whales and societal benefits with the DPSIR framework in a systems in the western Mediterranean sea: an environmental approach. Mar Pollut Bull. 62:215–226. niche model. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 464:289–306. Barry JM. 2011. Mobilized bias and multistakeholder pro- Duarte C. 2014. Global change and the future ocean: a tected-area planning: a socio-institutional perspective on grand challenge for marine sciences. Front Mar Sci. collaboration. Soc Nat Resour. 24:1116–1126. 1:1–16. Beaumont NJ, Jones L, Garbutt A, Hansom JD, Toberman Farber S, Costanza R, Childers DL, Erickson J, Gross K, M. 2014. The value of carbon sequestration and storage Grove M, Hopkinson CS, Kahn J, Pincetl S, Troy A, et al. in coastal habitats. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 137:32–40. 62 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. 2006. Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem Lillebø AI, Stålnacke P, Gooch GD. 2015. Coastal lagoons management. Bioscience. 56:121. in Europe: integrated water resource strategies. Lillebø Fretwell PT, Staniland IJ, Forcada J. 2014. Whales from AI, Stålnacke P, Gooch GD, editors. London, UK: IWA space: counting southern right Whales by satellite. PLoS publishing; International Water Association (IWA). One. 9:e88655. Liquete C, Piroddi C, Drakou EG, Gurney L, Katsanevakis Gissi E, de Vivero JLS. 2016. Exploring marine spatial S, Charef A, Egoh B. 2013a. Current status and future planning education: challenges in structuring transdisci- prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal eco- plinarity. Mar Policy. 74:43–57. system services: a systematic review. Bograd SJ, editor. Gissi E, Menegon S, Sarretta A, Appiotti F, Maragno D, PLoS One. 8:e67737. Vianello A, Depellegrin D, Venier C, Barbanti A. 2017. Liquete C, Piroddi C, Macías D, Druon J-N ZG. 2016. Addressing uncertainty in modelling cumulative impacts Ecosystem services sustainability in the Mediterranean within maritime spatial planning in the Adriatic and Sea: assessment of status and trends using multiple Ionian region. PLoS One. 12:1–30. modelling approaches. Sci Rep. 6:34162. Glaeser B. 2016. From global sustainability research matrix Liquete C, Zulian G, Delgado I, Stips A, Maes J. 2013b. to typology: a tool to analyze coastal and marine social- Assessment of coastal protection as an ecosystem service ecological systems. Reg Environ Chang. 16:367–383. in Europe. Ecol Indic. 30:205–217. Granek EF, Polasky S, Kappel CV, Reed DJ, Stoms DM, Lopes R, Videira N. 2013. Valuing marine and coastal Koch EW, Kennedy CJ, Cramer LA, Hacker SD, Barbier ecosystem services: an integrated participatory frame- EB, et al. 2010. Ecosystem services as a common lan- work. Ocean Coast Manag. 84:153–162. guage for coastal ecosystem-based management. Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Conserv Biol. 24:207–216. Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, La Notte A, Halpern BS, Longo C, Hardy D, McLeod KL, Samhouri JF, Zulian G, et al. 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for Katona SK, Kleisner K, Lester SE, O’Leary J, Ranelletti policy support and decision making in the European M, et al. 2012. An index to assess the health and benefits Union. Ecosyst Serv. 1:31–39. of the global ocean. Nature. 488:615–620. Maron M, Mitchell MGE, Runting RK, Rhodes JR, Mace Hanley N, Hynes S, Jobstvogt N, Paterson DM. 2015.Economic GM, Keith DA, Watson JEM. 2017. Towards a threat valuation of marine and coastal ecosystems: is it currently fit assessment framework for ecosystem services. Trends for purpose? J Ocean Coast Econ. 2:1–38. Ecol Evol. 32:240–248. Hattam C, Atkins JP, Beaumont N, Bӧrger T, Bӧhnke- McCauley DJ, Pinsky ML, Palumbi SR, Estes JA, Joyce FH, Henrichs A, Burdon D, Groot R, de Hoefnagel E, Warner RR. 2015. Marine defaunation: animal loss in Nunes PALD, Piwowarczyk J, et al. 2015. Marine eco- the global ocean. Science. 347:1255641. system services: linking indicators to their classification. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and Ecol Indic. 49:61–75. human well-being: a framework for assessment. HELCOM. 2017.First versionoFthe “ state oF the Baltic sea ” Washington (DC): Island Press. report – June 2017 to be updated in 2018. http://stateofthe Mononen L, Auvinen AP, Ahokumpu AL, Rönkä M, balticsea.helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ Aarras N, Tolvanen H, Kamppinen M, Viirret E, HELCOM_State-of-the-Baltic-Sea_First-version-2017.pdf Kumpula T, Vihervaara P. 2016. National ecosystem Hofmann M, Schellnhuber H. 2009. Oceanic acidification service indicators: measures of social–ecological sustain- affects marine carbon pump. Proc Natl Acad Sci. ability. Ecol Indic. 61(1):27–37. 106:3017–3022. Norton D, Hynes S. 2014. Valuing the non-market benefits Hynes S, Tinch D, Hanley N. 2013. Valuing improvements arising from the implementation of the EU marine strat- to coastal waters using choice experiments: an applica- egy framework directive. Ecosyst Serv. 10:84–96. tion to revisions of the EU bathing waters directive. Mar Policy. 40:137–144. Oinonen S, Hyytiäinen K, Ahlvik L, Laamanen M, Lehtoranta Jobstvogt N, Townsend M, Witte U, Hanley N. 2014. How V, Salojärvi J, Virtanen J. 2016. Cost-effective marine pro- can we identify and communicate the ecological value of tection - A pragmatic approach. PLoS One. 11:1–19. deep-sea ecosystem services? PLoS One. 9:e100646. Österblom H, Crona BI, Folke C, Nyström M, Troell M. Karr KA, Fujita R, Halpern BS, Kappel CV, Crowder L, 2017. Marine ecosystem science on an intertwined pla- Selkoe KA, Alcolado PM, Rader D. 2015. Thresholds in net. Ecosystems. 20:54–61. Caribbean coral reefs: implications for ecosystem-based Österblom H, Jouffray J-B, Folke C, Crona B, Troell M, fishery management. J Appl Ecol. 52:402–412. Merrie A, Rockström J. 2015. Transnational corpora- Kavanaugh MT, Oliver MJ, Chavez FP, Letelier RM, tions as “Keystone Actors” in marine ecosystems. PLoS Muller-Karger FE, Doney SC. 2016. Seascapes as a new One. 10:e0127533. vernacular for pelagic ocean monitoring, management Ostrom E, Nagendra H. 2006. Insights on linking forests, trees, and conservation. ICES J Mar Sci. 73:1839–1850. and people from the air, on the ground, and in the labora- Kittinger JN, Teneva LT, Koike H, Stamoulis KA, Kittinger DS, tory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 103:19224–19231. Oleson KLL, Conklin E, Gomes M, Wilcox B, Friedlander Palomo I, Martín-López B, Zorrilla-Miras P, García Del AM. 2015. From reef to table: social and ecological factors Amo D, Montes C. 2013. Deliberative mapping of eco- affecting coral reef fisheries, artisanal seafood supply chains, system services within and around Doñana National and seafood security. PLoS One. 10:e0123856. Park (SW Spain) in relation to land use change. Reg Laurans Y, Rankovic A, Billé R, Pirard R, Mermet L. 2013. Environ Chang. 14: 237–251. Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for deci- Papathanasopoulou E, Queirós AM, Beaumont N, Hooper sion making: questioning a literature blindspot. J T, Nunes J. 2014. What are the local impacts of energy Environ Manage. 119:208–219. systems on marine ecosystem services: a systematic map Lillebø AI, Pita C, Garcia Rodrigues J, Ramos S, Villasante protocol. Environ Evid. 3:26. S. 2017. How can marine ecosystem services support the Reed MS, Stringer LC, Fazey I, Evely AC, Kruijsen JHJ. 2014. blue growth agenda? Mar Policy. 81:132–142. Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 63 environmental management. J Environ Manage. 146:337– ine environment to assess potential aquaculture sites. 345. Sustain. 8:519. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Å P, Chapin FS, Lambin Verutes GM, Arkema KK, Clarke-Samuels C, Wood SA, EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Rosenthal A, Rosado S, Canto M, Bood N, et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature. Ruckelshaus M. 2017. Integrated planning that safe- 461:472–475. guards ecosystems and balances multiple objectives in coastal Belize. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag. Ruckelshaus M, McKenzie E, Tallis H, Guerry A, Daily G, 13:1–17. Kareiva P, Polasky S, Ricketts T, Bhagabati N, Wood SA, et al. 2015. Notes from the field: lessons learned from Voinov A, Bousquet F. 2010. Modelling with stakeholders. using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world Environ Model Softw. 25:1268–1281. decisions. Ecol Econ. 115:11–21. Wesselink A, Buchanan KS, Georgiadou Y, Turnhout E. 2013. Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and poli- Sissenwine M, Symes D. 2007.Reflections on thecommon tics at the science-policy interface. Environ Sci Policy. fisheries policy. Report to the General Directorate for 30:1–9. FisheriesandMaritime Affairsofthe European Commission. Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, Duffy JE, Folke C, Valentini E, Filipponi F, Xuan AN, Passarelli FM, HalpernBS, JacksonJBC,Lotze HK,Micheli F, Taramelli A. 2016. Earth observation for maritime spa- Palumbi SR, et al. 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss tial planning: measuring, observing and modeling mar- on ocean ecosystem services. Science. 314:787–790. 64 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. Appendix Question A B C D E F G H I J K 1 Name of the area Mediterranean Sea Adriatic and Ionian Wadden Sea Marine waters of Bulgarian Black Sea Northern Lagoon of Balearic Islands (Spain) Delfland Coast Ria de Aveiro coastal Aquitaine coast Gulf of Morbihan Region (AIR) Latvia coast Venice (Italy) (Netherlands) lagoon (Portugal) (France) (France) 2 Spatial scale of the Large Marine Regional National National Local Local Local Local Local Local Local assessment Ecosystem 3 Corresponding author Liquete C. Gissi E., Depellegrin D. El Serafy G., A. Ziemba Veidemane K., A. Burkhard K., P. Peev Böhnke-Henrichs A. Ruiz-Frau A. van Oudenhoven A. Lillebø A.I. Delangue J. Ballé-Béganton J. Ruskule 4 Aim of the study To spatially and To map MCES in the To incorporate the To provide spatial To produce a strategic To quantify ES To assess and value To provide a nature- To provide a tool for To understand the To assess ES provided temporally assess AIR in relation to concept of ES in an information on the framework for provision by salt the ES derived friendly, integrated functioning of sand by seagrass beds the sustainable use the MSFD Directive, assessment of both distribution of sustainable use of marshes and also from Posidonia sustainable management dune ecosystem and raise awareness and supply of five within the general policy and areas important for coastal ecosystems to understand oceanica around alternative to hard through an and show how it on seagrass marine and coastal framework of the managerial impacts ES provision. and the relevant stakeholder the Balearic Islands. engineering increased can represent a conservation to ecosystem services European Strategy on a protected resources. preferences for ES structures. understanding of relevant and improve their in the for the Region. area. and salt marsh land to sea economically management and Mediterranean Sea. management. processes and the interesting solution identify science-policy- against coastal management stakeholder erosion. options. interface in the context of climate change. 5 Specific policy/ Promotion of the Informing the Methodology and Mapping and Inform and facilitate Improve conservation N/A Inform policies about Increase the Local authorities need Inform the decision-making sustainable use of implementation of tools to assess the assessment of the integration of and restoration innovative solution connection to have proof that implementation of need for the work marine resources the MSP in relation effectivity and the protecting the Scheme for Sea marine ecosystem ecosystem services for salt marshes to protect coasts between research for EU Biodiversity to the MSFD potential Development in impact of services for the into local, regional (Natura 2000 and to provide and policy in the ecosystems was Strategy to 2020 within the general implemented implementation of and sectoral habitat) space for nature context of WFD efficient and could relation to a Natura and also MSFD ; framework of the policy on a Natura MSP in Latvia planning and recreation answer to erosion 2000 site. MSPD ; CFP. European Strategy issues and justify 2000 and UNESCO for the Adriatic and site; Inform the their management Ionian Region implementation of actions. (EUSAIR) the MSP 6 Scale of policy Supra-National National and Supra- Local to supra-national National Local, regional and Local Local Local National Local Local National sectoral 7 Stakeholder groups None None Local administration ; Government; Local Local administration ; Local administration ; Local administration ; Local administration ; Local administration; Regional Regional administration involved Regional authorities; NGOs; Government ; NGO Regional Regional Regional Regional administration ; ; Research ; Tourism administration ; Sea use sectors ; Research ; administration ; administration ; administration ; administration; Government ; sector; Fishermen; Government Tourism sector Government ; Civil NGO ; Tourism Government ; NGO NGOs; Research; NGOs; Research Mooring managers; society ; Fishermen sector ; Fishermen ; Research Tourism sector; Shellfish farmers; ; Shipping industry Civil society; Watershed Fishermen managers (professional and recreational); Farmers and hunter associations 8 Stakeholder None Only as data input Participatory Public hearing Interviews; Interviews; Surveys Interviews; Surveys Interviews; Participatory Interviews; Focus Interviews; Participatory involvement (interviews, workshops; Surveys Participatory Participatory workshops; Focus groups workshops; Surveys; methods participatory workshops; Surveys workshops; groups; Citizens Focus groups; workshops) Conference/ jury Conference/ symposia Symposia (Continued) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 65 Appendix (Continued). Question A B C D E F G H I J K Products from plants, Climate regulation Climate regulation; Coastal erosion All ES listed in CICES Coastline retreat All ecosystem services 9 Ecosystem services Food provision ; Water All ES listed in CICES Mass Stabilization and Wild plants, algae and assessed purification ; 2013 control of erosion their outputs ; Wild animals, (carbon dioxide, Habitat and prevention; storm 2013 mitigation provided by Zostera rates ; Abiotic animals and their mushrooms, algae; methane); water lifecycle surge protection; noltei and Zostera Coastal protection ; outputs; Bio- Products from in- treatment (nutrient maintenance recreation; life- marina seagrass Lifecycle services ; situ agriculture; abatement); -nursery grounds; cycle maintenance; beds. maintenance Recreation and remediation by (nursery) ; leisure, Buffering micro-organisms, Freshwater supply; erosion prevention/ coastal protection; information for Recreation and Attenuation ; algae, plants, and Plant and animal sediment fixation; water quality cognitive animals; Filtration/ based energy lifecycle maintenance; development; Lifecycle sequestration/ sources; Air and maintenance/sea recreation; identity; aesthetic maintenance (nursery); Supply of storage by micro- water purification; food; air cognitive experience cockles and fish as organisms, algae, Mass stabilisation purification; oportunities a provisioning plants, and animals and control of moderation of ; Mass stabilisation erosion rates; extreme events; resource and control of Hydrological cycle, nature protection; erosion rates ; water flow recreation; artistic Maintaining maintenance; inspiration; nursery Maintaining opportunities for populations and nursery education; habitats ;Global populations and aesthetic climate regulation habitats, information; by reduction of pollination and cultural heritage greenhouse gas seed dispersal; and identity; concentrations ; Climate regulation; spiritual experience Experiential and Experiential use of physical use of the natural plants, animals and environment; landscapes Scientific, /seascapes educational activities; Heritage; Recreation; Natural heritage 10 Ecosystem services A method to assess A tool to generate A unit that is mapped A tool to support MSP A tool for integration i) A key study i) A key study Communication and As a communication As a direct policy As a tool to support concept used as: environmental and spatial information and quantified with with spatial of a sustainable objective (to objective and ii) as evaluation tool tool to reveal objective to effective and ecological trends the final objective information on ecosystem-based estimate changes a tool to stakeholders’ quantify and assess informed affecting socio- to develop a tool marine ecosystems approach into in ES availability) understand management ES management and economic benefits, for managers; A and as a method in planning and ii) as a tool to management preferences planning for to provide policy way to the strategic understand preferences of seagrass beds. recommendations demonstrate the environmental management stakeholders and potential trade-off assessment (SEA) preferences of general public between ES; Input to assess the stakeholder data for an impacts of investigatory tool proposed sea uses for end-users; The on supply of ES backbone for a serious game for the general public. (Continued) 66 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. Appendix (Continued). Question A B C D E F G H I J K 11 Conceptual (1) Biophysical and (1) Use of expert (1) Term ES was hard (1) Multi-dimensional (1) CICES (too ecology (1) Use of terminology (1) Term ES was hard (1) Vague terms in (1) Stakeholders Difficulty in discerning (1) Habitat types like socio-economic opinion ; (2) Lack to use with people nature of marine ES oriented/ hard to of ES framework to use with people policy uncertainty in the benefits provided seaegrass, have integration ; (2) of empirical (“benefits derived” makes it difficult to adapt to decision- and translation (“benefits derived” requirements ; (2) use of CICES ES by ecosystem high regulating or Confusion on what evidence as an alternative) apply LC based ES making at such a between a as an alternative) disagreement Classes ; (2) function to those cultural value, is actually mapping method ; large scale) ; (2) technical and non- between meaning Exclusion of abiotic co-produced by which is hard to measured (within (2) Marine ES and Links between ES technical of specific concepts outputs from ES ; society quantify/measure ; the ES framework) cultural services are and indicator- terminology ; (2) ; (3) no ES specific (3) Supply/Demand (2) ES classification : challenging ; (3) based assessment ; People’s lack of framework indicator definition time consuming to Supply/Demand (3) Stakeholders trust in local agree upon ; (3) difference not familiar with institutions affects Inclusion of drivers the concept ; (4) the choice of the of change in Conflict of interest payment vehicle existing ES between sectors used to elicit WTP; frameworks is (tourism, fisheries, (3) Difficulty to necessary when we agriculture) ; (5) attach monetary need to inform Stakeholders are value to ES policy, management not familiar with (which manage the EU biodiversity human activities strategy for 2020 and drivers of change) 12 Methodological (1) Need for training (1) Habitat mapping (1) Data harmonization (1) Data gaps ; (2) (1) Data gaps ; (2) Data (1) Scale selection (1) Stakeholder lack of (1) Lack of social N/A Lack of data/ (1) Lack of knowledge and expertise to uncertainties ; (2) ; (2) Inaccessible or Knowledge gaps inconsistencies (no changes research engagement ; (2) scientists in information on on impact of human use models ; (2) Data gaps ; (3) Data sensitive data ; (3) on marine ES large scale data/ outputs and social Budget constraints research team how much the activities on Lack of geospatial inconsistencies (no Time consuming supply extrapolation perceptions; (2) (on stakeholder ecosystem actually seagrass and socio-econ data, large scale data/ (consultation with needed) ; (3) Scale Data gaps on consultation) contributes to the associated functions esp. in large spatial extrapolation stakeholders, esp mismatch between ecosystem MCES assessed and services ; (2) scales needed) ; (4) since the latter data, study area functions ; (3) Lack of Patchy dataset don’t have time) and results Knowledge gaps quantification (various quality, on the ecological methods on various scales) interactions sedimentation between salt marshes and aquatic fishery resources 13 Ways the studies Researchers (esp. Quantification of Translating ES into Adapting the scale Simplification of CICES Payment schemes Simplification of End-user involvement Practical N/A End-user involvement overcame them modellers) with uncertainty non-technical names ; Merge adapted to local scientific terms, i.e. in research ; recommendations in research ; high expertise description ; CICES classes ; Only context; Data change from Interdisciplinary on the use of ES to Awareness raising Prioritization; monetary collection through “services” to collaboration ; ES guide decision Quantification and quantification interviews benefits” terminology making ; To accurate ecosystem-based simplification improve mapping, representation of knowledge on ES uncertainty as a functioning needs measure of data to be enhanced viability to end- users (Continued) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 67 Appendix (Continued). Question A B C D E F G H I J K 14 Proposed /Desired Integrate biophysical Define means/ Further collection of Perform economic Inform and structure Compare case studies; Use of the MEA (2005) Involve decision Include the provisional Launch new research N/A solutions and socio- platforms/tools for in-situ data into a valuation ; assess advocacy and identify case study- framework of makers & end users accompanying projects on the economic effective data singular functional supply and communication based best drivers (direct and in research loop ; classification table topic approaches ; invest sharing; bridge location; continual demand of ES activities to practices, develop indirect) and Combine of abiotic outputs in communication shortcomings dialog with policy integrate the guidelines, impacts on ES to traditional coastal / from natural and awareness between basic makers and results into the recommendations; assess of responses marine science systems for the raising ; fill the science and managers to local, regional and communicate to wellbeing with socio- MCES assessment gaps that still exist applied research; ensure that the sectoral planning. challenges to (policy, economic and in support of in the scientific define methods assessment relevant funding management) political science ; ecosystems literature ; and procedures for strategy and agencies Do not use the ES management and providing data harmonization hierarchy of needs concept or governance ; comprehensive remains constant classification in Provide practical information for or at least communication recommendations marine spatial continually with decision on how to use ES planning ; continue applicable. makers ; Translate to guide decision using ecosystem policy aims to ES as making ; Mapping models ; start the well as other needs to be analysis of terms ; Include coupled with scenarios to cultural ES in all additional support phases, especially knowledge on the knowledge-based innovation functioning of management ; marine ecosystems establish links between ES and maritime spatial planning 15 Associated project (s) JRC institutional ADRIPLAN, RITMARE, ECOPOTENTIAL National project on All projects related the LIFE VIMINE OPERAs NatureCoast LAGOONS (EU/FP7; French national Interreg VALMER working SUPREME MSP; Horizon2020 programme ‘BG03 contract no. assessment of programme “ESMERALDA” Biodiversity and 283157) ecosystem services Ecosystem Services’ (EFESE) of the EEA 16 Project time frame 2014-2016 2013-2015; 2012-2016; 2015-2019 2015-2018 2015-2016 (16 2013-2017 2012-2017 2013-2018 2011-2014 2012-2017 3 years (2 in case study) 2016-2018 months) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management Taylor & Francis

Marine and coastal ecosystem services on the science–policy–practice nexus: challenges and opportunities from 11 European case studies

Download PDF
17 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/marine-and-coastal-ecosystem-services-on-the-science-policy-practice-tvIsLUdcfW

References (68)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
ISSN
2151-3732
eISSN
2151-3740
DOI
10.1080/21513732.2017.1417330
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT, 2018 VOL. 13, NO. 3, 51–67 https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1417330 SPECIAL ISSUE: OPERATIONALISING MARINE AND COASTAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Marine and coastal ecosystem services on the science–policy–practice nexus: challenges and opportunities from 11 European case studies a,b a c d Evangelia G. Drakou , Charlène Kermagoret , Camino Liquete , Ana Ruiz-Frau , e f g a Kremena Burkhard , Ana I. Lillebø , Alexander P. E. van Oudenhoven , Johanna Ballé-Béganton , h,i j j k l João Garcia Rodrigues , Emmi Nieminen , Soile Oinonen , Alex Ziemba , Elena Gissi , m n n o Daniel Depellegrin , Kristina Veidemane , Anda Ruskule , Justine Delangue , Anne Böhnke- p k q r s Henrichs , Arjen Boon , Richard Wenning , Simone Martino , Berit Hasler , s q t k v Mette Termansen , Mark Rockel , Herman Hummel , Ghada El Serafy and Plamen Peev a b UMR M101, AMURE, CNRS, OSU-IUEM, Université de Brest, Brest, France; Department of Geo-Information Processing, Faculty of Geo- Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands; European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy; Department of Global Change Research, Instituto Mediterráneo de Estudios Avanzados, IMEDEA (CSIC-UIB), e f Esporles, Spain; Institute of Environmental Planning, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germany; Department of Biology & Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM), University of Aveiro,, Aveiro, Portugal; Institute of Environmental Sciences CML, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands; Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de i j Compostela, Spain; Campus Do*Mar – International Campus of Excellence, Vigo, Spain; Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Marine k l Research Centre, Helsinki, Finland; Marine and Coastal Systems Department, Deltares, Delft, The Netherlands; Department of Design and Planning in Complex Environment, University Iuav of Venice, Venice, Italy; Institute of Marine Science, National Research Council, n o p Venice, Italy; Baltic Environmental Forum, Riga, Latvia; French Committee of IUCN, Paris, France; Environmental Systems Analysis q r Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands; Ramboll Environ, Portland, ME, USA; Laurence Mee Centre for Society & Sea, Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, UK; Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark; t v Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Yerseke, The Netherlands; BlueLink Foundation, Sofia, Bulgaria ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 28 February 2017 We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities Accepted 29 November 2017 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 EDITED BY Ecosystem Services Partnership in September 2016. The MCES assessments were used to (1) address Sebastian Villasante multiple policy objectives simultaneously, (2) interpret EU-wide policies to smaller scales and (3) KEYWORDS inform local decision-making. Most of the studies did inform decision makers, but only in a few Policy relevance; cases, theoutputs were appliedorinformeddecision-making. Significant limitations among the 11 pan-European approach; assessments were the absence of shared understanding of the ES concept, data and knowledge uncertainty; ocean literacy; gaps, difficulties in accounting for marine social–ecological systems complexity and partial stake- data gaps; bottom-up holder involvement. The findings of the expert panel call for continuous involvement of MCES ‘end approach 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. Introduction Under this broad societal recognition, the need to safe- guard the marine and coastal social–ecological systems is The planet’s oceans and coasts are rapidly changing imperative. (Duarte 2014; McCauley et al. 2015; Cloern et al. 2016) To that end, policy instruments and Directives have and humans worldwide experience the consequences been established at a global and European level. In the (Worm et al. 2006;Ruckelshaus et al. 2015;Bennett European Union (EU) in particular, the Maritime Spatial et al. 2016). The recognition of this no longer stays within Planning Directive (MSPD) (89/2014/EC), the Marine the scientific community, but society has also begun to Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (2008/58/EC), face the impacts of such changes to the point where even the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC) popular media begins to engage in this discussion (e.g. and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) set the legislative The Guardian, February 2017). The impacts of sea level framework for the management of activities in marine rise are experienced in cities, the over-exploitation of and coastal areas. International conventions like marine resources impacts the well-being of coastal com- 1 2 OSPAR, HELCOM and the Barcelona Convention for munities and the accumulation of microplastics in the the Mediterranean require that marine resources are oceans now reaches the seafood consumed worldwide. CONTACT Evangelia G. Drakou e.drakou@utwente.nl © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 52 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. using a single method approach. Ruckelshaus et al. protected and managed with an aim to achieve a balance (2015) proposed a framework that decomposes the between long-term sustainability and economic growth (Lillebø et al. 2017). Several national and municipal man- science–policy–practice pathway and allows researchers to rate ‘what it takes’ for agement strategies with shared or different sets of objec- scientific research to produce tives are in place in the EU to safeguard marine and policy-relevant outcomes useful to decision-making. coastal ecosystems and associated livelihoods. Such Considering the limited amount of MCES research requirements, due to the multiplicity of sectors, stake- that becomes ultimately integrated into decision-making, holders and societal groups involved, demand an inter- there is a need to identify where existing MCES assess- disciplinary approach with respect to the underlying ments stand on the science–policy–practice interface. To research and a transdisciplinary approach for managing do this, in this paper, we take stock of a set of different this complex adaptive socio-ecological system (Berkes European case studies addressing different marine policy et al. 1998; Oinonen et al. 2016). and research objectives and make an overview of the focal The ecosystem services (ES) concept has been rapidly MCES, the methods used and the objectives addressed. adopted as a framework that accommodates interdisci- We identify the conceptual and methodological chal- plinary approaches and accounts for human–nature lenges from a researcher and practitioner’s point of interactions while standing on the science–policy–prac- view. The results are used to make recommendations tice interface (Maes et al. 2012). For instance, for the for researchers and practitioners on how to optimize implementation of the WFD in transitional and coastal applied MCES research in the future. waters, ES assessments help highlight societal, economic and environmental benefits of the WFD (Atkins et al. Framing our narrative 2011). Also, the reformed version of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) provides a framework for analyz- To explore the relevance of MCES scientific research to ing the impacts of fisheries on biodiversity and on the policy and practice, we organized a theme session entitled supply of ES, including impact assessment for environ- ‘Informing marine and coastal policy using ecosystem mental, social and economic sustainability (Sissenwine service assessments: evidence from real world applica- and Symes 2007). Marine and coastal ES (MCES) assess- tions’,duringthe European EcosystemServices ment is often oriented toward specific management and Partnership Conference, in September 2016 (Antwerp, policy needs from local and national (e.g. Arkema et al. Belgium). We invited participants to share their experi- 2015) to supranational scales (Liquete et al. 2016; ence on the observed science–policy–practice link Mononen et al. 2016; Oinonen et al. 2016). For instance, through their projects. We asked them to elaborate on EU Member States are required to use a set of indicators the policy relevance of their research, the observed impact that measure their regulatory efforts to achieve good of their research, and the methodological and conceptual environmental status (GES) in marine waters as required challenges they faced in using MCES assessments to by the MSFD (Borja et al. 2013;Beaumontetal. 2014). inform decision-making and the desired ways to over- Yet, despite the environmental Directives at the EU come such challenges. level, there are very few examples or ‘success stories’ of the We selected an information-oriented sample, with actual inclusion of MCES assessments to decision-mak- studies carried out in a broad range of European coun- ing (Laurans et al. 2013). The consideration of ES for tries with a combination of scientists and practitioners. marine and coastal ecosystem management is still at an No policy or decision makers were directly involved in early stage with few such assessments completed to date, the process, since we selected one to two representatives and many others underway (Boulton et al. 2016). Indeed, per case study. However, most results discussed were the a policy requirement is not enough to guarantee the outputs of multidisciplinary and even transdisciplinary inclusion of scientific information (on MCES and projects. All participants had experience in marine beyond) in decision-making. The latter is the after effect social–ecological systems and ES research at the local, of several parameters, including the credibility of scien- national or supranational level. Studies that were under- tific information, enabling conditions and institutional way or still in scoping phase were excluded from the capacity (Ostrom and Nagendra 2006). Several studies analysis, since we were interested in analyzing not only developed frameworks guiding ES assessments in order the policy driver of the studies but also the policy rele- to strengthen their integration into decision-making pro- vance of the outcome. A post-conference survey was cesses. For instance, Lopes and Videira (2013)present a circulated to the selected case studies to extract all the participatory framework to identify the values that differ- required information for the analysis. A detailed overview ent stakeholder groups place on MCES and determine of the information extracted from the survey is given in how these values may be incorporated into decision- the Appendix. making processes. Hattam et al. (2015) suggest a frame- The information collected per case study broadly work based on the integration of different ES assessment focused on (Table 1) (1) case study description, (2) links and valuation methods to highlight complexities of man- to policy objectives and stakeholder involvement, (3) the agement outcomes that would not become apparent wayMCESwereusedandtheirassociatedimpacton INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 53 Table 1. Information extracted from each of the selected case studies, in order to evaluate how ES were used in the science– policy–practice interface. Information group Information extracted Description Study Description Name of the area The name of the case study area Spatial scale of the assessment The spatial scale at which the assessment took place: local, national, supra-national, Large Marine Ecosystem Author The names of the authors who contributed in this study Aim of the study A short description on the aim and objectives of the study Methods/Tools used The methods and tools that were used to carry out the assessment (e.g. mapping, modeling, valuation, stakeholder interviews). Associated project (s) The project that funded this case study. Project time frame The time and duration of the project. Policy / Decision-making Specific policy/decision- The authors identified to which policy needs their study responded to, if any. links making need for the work Scale of policy implementation The scale at which that specific policy was implemented (e.g. EU level, national) (local, regional, etc) Stakeholder groups involved The types of stakeholders involved in the case study, if any. Ecosystem Services Ecosystem services assessed The list of ecosystem services assessed within the study. [Note: the authors were not given a predefined ES classification, but all used CICES (1)]. Ecosystem services used as… The way the ecosystem services concept was used in each assessment, i.e. as a tool for decision-making, as a communication tool, as a direct objective of the study. Challenges in including Conceptual The top three (3) conceptual challenges (e.g. terms or conceptual frameworks used) the ES in the analysis authors faced when using ecosystem services. Methodological The top three (3) methodological challenges (e.g. lack of training, knowledge) the authors faced when using ecosystem services. Challenges overcome (Y/N) The authors responded about whether they managed to overcome the challenges they mention and how. Solutions Proposed / Desired solutions The authors identified desired solutions that could help them solve these issues in using ES as a tool to integrate science-policy-practice. decision-making, (4) conceptual and methodological Evidence from the field challenges faced in the use of MCES, and (5) the estab- Case studies description lished or desired solutions. References to the latter are given throughout the paper, indicating the coordinates of Among the 11 MCES case studies, 7 were carried out at the cell of the table (from A1 to K16) containing more the local, 2 at the national, and 2 at the supranational information. level. The location and spatial extent of the studies are To estimate the impact different MCES case studies shown in Figure 1. The different case studies aimed at had on decision-making, we adapted the framework carrying out an ES assessment through valuation and/or proposed by Ruckelshaus et al. (2015), which uses a mapping (e.g. Adriatic-Ionian – B4, Latvian coast – D4), classification of pathways followed throughout the ES producing strategic frameworks for management (e.g. the assessment process. The four pathways follow a gradient Bulgarian coast – E4) or proposing sustainable manage- from a less to a more strong impact on policy: Conduct ment solutionsaspartoflarge projects with broader Research (Pathway 1 – least impact on policy), objectives (e.g. the Delfland coast – H4). A range of Perspective Change (Pathway 2 – provides new under- assessment methods was used among the 11 MCES stu- standing), Action Generation (Pathway 3 – influences dies, depending on the policy and research objectives, the decision-making), Outcomes Produced (Pathway 4 – time, knowledge and expertise available. In general, local produces actual policy outcomes). Within each pathway, case studies focused on coastal issues using participatory there are different steps that account for the impact of the approaches, economic valuation tools and multi-criteria assessment on decision-making (Table 2). assessments. Larger scale MCES studies also considered theopen oceanandweremore likelytouse geospatial Table 2. The pathways of research that have an impact on mapping and environmental modeling tools. decision-making and policy, as presented in the framework developed by Ruckelshaus et al. (2015). Pathway 1 Pathway 2 Pathway 3 Pathway 4 Conduct Perspective change Action Outcomes Links to policy objectives and stakeholder research generated produced involvement Results People aware of, Alternative Enhanced and produced understand and choices based balanced ES discuss ES on ES provision Links to policy objectives Published Stakeholders use Plans and Improved The research carried out in 10 out of 11 case studies, was and articulate policies outcomes for driven by,oraimedat,informing oneormoreEuropean different ES consider ES ES and positions impact human well- policy or legislative frameworks. Most of the studies were assessment being designed to address the requirements of one specific Disseminated Stakeholder New policy and differences are finance policy agenda, namely the MSPD (e.g. Latvian Coast – transparent and mechanisms D5),theWFD (e.g.theRiadeAveiro – I5) or the Habitats mediated established and Birds Directive (Council of the European For each pathway, the different steps have an increasing impact from top to bottom (the darker the color, the higher the impact). Communities 1992)(C5;F5; K5)(Figure 2). For instance, 54 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. Figure 1. Map showing the distribution of European case studies taken into account for this paper. Studies 1–6 and 9 are local level studies; 7–8 are national ones and 10–11 are supranational assessments. policy objectives simultaneously (K5; C5; B5; A5). Given that some of the EU Directives are inter-related and so are some of their objectives, or knowledge required to achieve them, the MCES concept proved to be a useful tool to maximize the benefits of scientific effort. For instance, the integration of the ES concept in the Latvian coast was used to facilitate the application of the ecosystem-based management (D6), which is an overarching principle in both the MSPD and MSFD. Lastly, most of the assessed cases used the MCES concept to address policy objectives at the municipal or local level (C6; F6; G6; H6; J6; K6), to inform local legislation (e.g. on the coastal zone management in Bulgaria – E6) and to support innovative management measures [e.g. the Delfland case delivered scientific advice for solutions to protect the Dutch coast, through Figure 2. The number of different policy objectives, from beach nourishment (Bontje and Slinger 2017) – H6]. local and municipal priorities to European Directives, that were tentatively addressed in the case studies assessed. Stakeholder involvement Nine out of 11 case studies involved stakeholders in Ria de Aveiro (Portugal) ES provided by transitional throughout the assessments (C7; D7; E7; F7; G7; H7; I7; and coastal waters were assessed in the context of the J7; K7). Two cases did not consult stakeholders, because WFD to increase the connection between research and the study area was too broad and trans-boundary (A7; policy (Lillebø et al. 2015). In that case, MCES research B7), henceforth stakeholder involvement was time and had a core position in establishing a link between the budget restrictive (B7), or because it was not envisaged by European level at which policy objectives are set and the the project (A7). When stakeholders were consulted, national or local levels at which practical management different groups were involved throughout the project issues are fixed. (Figure 3). Regional administration and decision makers In two of the local level case studies – the Gulf of were involved in almost all cases, providing consultation Morbihan and the Wadden Sea – and two supranational mostly at the beginning and the end of the project. Local assessments – the Adriatic-Ionian region and the level administration and NGOs were also involved during Mediterranean Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) – the the consultation process (C7; D7; E7; F7; G7; H7; J7). It is MCES assessment was used to address more than one worth mentioning that some of the cases focused on INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 55 Figure 3. Main groups of stakeholders involved or consulted in the case studies. Note that, in most cases, many different groups of stakeholders were consulted for one case study. The grey bar indicates the two case studies in which no stakeholders were consulted. coastal areas across municipalities within the same coun- In all projects, the continuous stakeholder involvement try (e.g. Wadden Sea – E7,GulfofMorbihan – K7); was considered essential for an uptake of any products therefore, administrative bodies from multiple regions or downstream services derived from the MCES assess- and at multiple levels (i.e. local, municipal, national) ments. This point proved to be critical to ensure that were involved. Other stakeholders involved, although at information and tools addressed research goals, while a lesser extent, included researchers, members of the fitting the practical aims for transmitting sufficient tourism industry and the shipping sector (D7; E7; F7; information at an appropriate technical level to non- G7; H7; I7; K7). The most commonly used methods for academic end users. stakeholder involvement were interviews, surveys and workshops. Especially, the workshops occurred at differ- ent stages throughout the projects. In few cases, stake- MCES use in the assessment and associated holders were involved through the organization of impact symposia, public hearings (e.g. in the coast of Latvia – D8) or citizen juries (e.g. in the Ria de Aveiro – I8). Some MCES studies focused on multiple ES provided The stakeholder selection was based on whether they by the project area, e.g. the Bulgarian coast (E9) and (1) represented the main users and beneficiaries of the the Ria de Aveiro (I9) cases focused on all ES as MCES (e.g. fishers, residents); (2) were the principal specified by CICES. Other MCES studies targeted managers of MCES (e.g. public bodies in charge of multiple ES that are provided by specific species or managing water resources; marine spatial planners) or habitat types (e.g. the Balearic Islands case assessed all (3) participated in tools development for MCES assess- ES generated by Posidonia oceanica seagrass mea- ments. A key priority identified through those case dows – G9 and the Gulf of Morbihan those provided studies was that the final research outputs were adapted by Zostera marina and noltei – K9). The way the ES to the needs of beneficiaries and managers. This was concept was used in the different case studies affected achieved by stakeholder involvement throughout the the MCES use to inform policy and decision-making. projects, avoiding the one-off consultation at the begin- In some cases, the MCES assessment was the direct ning or the end of the project. For instance, at the Gulf objective of the case study (e.g. in the Northern of Morbihan (K8) around 50 interviews, 6 workshops Venice lagoon – F9, the Balearic Islands – G10 and and a choice experiment survey were conducted at the the Aquitaine region – J10). In others, the MCES beginningofthe projecttocapturetheuserrequire- concept was mostly a method to generate spatial ments and a conference involving all stakeholder groups information which could be used by decision makers, at the end of the project. Similarly, the Bulgarian Black e.g. in the Wadden Sea (E10). In a large number of Sea coast project (E8) started with an expert elicitation cases, MCES were used to convey social–ecological workshop and surveys to capture a broader set of information to decision makers and propose alterna- stakeholder requirements, followed by interviews with tive management measures. For instance, the Ria de high-level decision makers (i.e. municipality mayors Aveiro (I10) and the Delfland coast cases (H10) used and one regional governor) and a final stakeholder MCES to reveal stakeholders’ management prefer- consultation conference to validate the study outputs. ences, while for the Bulgarian Black Sea coast (E10), 56 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. it was used to communicate and integrate a sustain- to be time-consuming during the assessments. The Ria able ecosystem-based approach into planning. de Aveiro (I9) and the Wadden Sea (C9) cases encoun- To evaluate the impact MCES assessments had on tered difficulties in applying existing ES classification decision-making, we adapted the framework provided schemes in a decision-making context, as the adopted CICES classification in some cases seemed too ‘ecologi- by Ruckelshaus et al. (2015), as explained in the Framing our Narrative section. The majority of cases cally oriented’. Understanding and interpreting policy provided scientific evidence that informed decision-mak- requirements and how these could be addressed by ES concepts proved to be a challenge for many MCES ing (Figure 4). However in only a few cases, research outcomes were taken into account by decision makers. studies (e.g. the Venice lagoon – F11, Latvian coast – Two studies were research oriented (A4; G4), which D11). Differences in the interpretation of specific policy and legislative terms tended to create confusion and means that although researchers consulted stakeholders, the assessment outputs were limited to publication in disagreement both over how ES assessments should be peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the Mediterranean carried out to produce suitable outcomes to inform decision-making and over the most adequate actions to case (A4), the extent of the area did not allow for an immediate observation of the impact of the assessment, be adopted. while in the Balearic case, the results plan to be commu- A second challenge was the knowledge gaps on nicated to the regional government. None of the studies marine ecosystem functioning and its link to MCES. assessed had sufficient capacity to influence decision- Such gaps entail understanding the interactions making and trigger a policy change or an adaptation of among ecosystem components, the supply of regulat- specific management measures (Pathway 4, Table 2). It is ing and cultural MCES, the valuation of certain important to note that most of the studies included in this MCES features that are hard to understand and work were completed within the past 2 years. Hence, time assess. For instance, the link between ecosystem is required to assess the long-term impact of these initia- structure and the provision of cultural ES proved to tives on decision-making. be hard to address in several cases (A11; D11; K11). This may be due to an elusive link between marine ecosystems and several intangible values (e.g. sacred, Conceptual and methodological challenges in the sense of place) and unclear distinctions among ser- use of MCES research in policy and practice vices, benefits and associated values (e.g. existence or bequest values). The lack of well-documented knowl- An overview of the challenges presented in the different edge on the types of interaction between human case studies, along with the applied solutions, is given in activities and ecosystems was also identified as limita- Table 3. A ubiquitous challenge for applying MCES to tion. For instance, the role of seagrass beds in coastal decision-making was communication from science to protection, considered in the Gulf of Morbihan (K12) policy and practice and vice versa. In particular, ES case, remains the subject of ongoing research (Liquete terminology was new and unclear for many stakeholders et al. 2013b). Finally, assigning social and economic and decisionmakers (C9; E9;F9;G9;H9),which proved Figure 4. Sorting of the ES assessments addressed based on the observed impact they had to decision-making and policy. The sorting is based on an adapted version of the framework proposed by Ruckelshaus et al. (2015) on the pathways of ES research to decision-making. The conduct research pathway stands for scientific research that get published and disseminated. The inform decision-making pathway has impact on decision makers, by influencing their perception and raising their awareness on ES. The decision-makers actions pathway, stands for the research that influences decision-making to an extent, that it is reflected in their management and policy actions. The policy change/adaptation pathway of ES research is able to modify policy and promote the development of new mechanisms. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 57 Table 3. The major challenges encountered in the case studies, observed impacts and applied or proposed solutions. Major challenges (conceptual & Observed methodological) Impacts Applied solutions Terminology & ● MCES concepts are not equally ● Multiple approaches, ES classification ● MCES terms are translated and understanding understood among researchers and systems adapted to target audience decision-makers ● Time-consuming ● Translate broad policy terms in ● Lack of single, agreed upon MCES ● Misinterpretation and mistrust ES language classification framework ● Disagreement among research-practice- ● Need for practical recommen- ● The use of CICES classification in policy dations on how to use ES for decision-making context decision-making ● Policy requirements are too broad ● Involve experts on legal and and hard to interpret policy frames Knowledge gaps ● Link between ecosystem state and ● Weak methods and results ● Differentiate ES supply and MCES ● Difficulty in assigning values to regulat- demand ● Regulating and cultural MCES are ing and cultural ES ● Inter- and multi-disciplinary hard to understand teams ● Impact of human activities on func- tions and ES ● Lack of scientific expertise Addressing ● Integrate biophysical and socio-eco- ● Increased uncertainty ● Include the analysis of pres- complexity nomic information ● Partial assessment sures in existing ES frame- ● Difficulty in including drivers of works for management change, pressures and impacts in support existing ES frameworks ● Inter- and multi-disciplinary teams Data and ● Lack of data ● The use of expert opinion instead of ● Inter- and multi-disciplinary methodological ● Data heterogeneity in quality, reso- empirical data created mistrust to deci- teams gaps & lution and scales sion-makers ● Additional data collection inconsistencies ● Scale mismatch among data sources, ● Not all relevant ES can be assessed within campaigns study extent and policy objectives available time-frame ● Couple mapping methods with ● Data accessibility ● Uncertainty knowledge on marine ecosystem ● Difficulty in applying existing map- ● Difficulty in assessing trade-offs functioning ping methods ● Double-counting of values Stakeholders ● Lack of engagement of certain stake- ● Propagated uncertainty starting from ● Communicate uncertainties involvement holder groups data and methodological gaps to partial ● Give time ● Consultation is time-consuming and stakeholder involvement ● Raise awareness the managerial agendas may change during the process ● Conflicting interests among sectors (tourism, fisheries, shipping) The links among challenges, impacts and solutions are not one to one. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) framework values to MCES, although requested by decision makers, was a big challenge for MCES such as nitro- of drivers (direct and indirect) – impacts on ES and well-being – responses (policy and management). gen abatement (F9). Such knowledge gaps generated The fourth set of challenges was linked to data and difficulties in differentiating ES supply from demand (or capacity, flow, benefit) in several MCES studies methodological gaps in MCES assessments. These entailed (1) lack of empirical or modeled data, parti- (e.g. in Ria de Aveiro – I11). cularly geo-referenced socio-economic data (A12; B12; The third set of challenges focused on the difficulty to adequately account for the complexity of the marine D12; E12; F12; H12; K12); (2) data inconsistencies across spatial-temporal scales (B12; E12); (3) hetero- social–ecological system. The challenges revolved geneity in data format and resolution (B12; C12; D12; mostly around the integration of biophysical and socio-economic information and the inclusion of dri- E12) and (4) data inaccessibility (C12). The lack of vers of change in the assessment. This was crucial for empirical evidence and the need to replace it with expert opinion kept emerging in several MCES studies studies that responded to management needs (e.g. the impact of human activities on seagrass functions and but had an impact on the confidence of decision services in the Gulf of Morbihan – K12). The lack of makers to the results (e.g. in the Bulgarian coast – E12). Additionally, data reporting units (e.g. adminis- both social and economic expertise in research teams in many cases proved to be critical for such issues (e.g. trative) were not always relevant for the MCES oper- in the Delfland Coast – H12). Although there are ationalization and use by decision makers (e.g. in the Mediterranean case – A12). Incompatibility of units several proposals for integrative assessments of pres- sures–impacts–ES (Atkins et al. 2011; Maron et al. across ES made the calculation of ES trade-offs diffi- 2017), they are not easily adapted to the marine system. cult. Also in many cases, the lack of large-scale data for Still, some cases overcame this shortcoming by identi- features such as benthic species distribution (e.g. the fying and ranking drivers of change in stakeholder Adriatic-Ionian Sea – B9) was unavailable at the discussions (e.g. the Bulgarian coast – E13), using the required extent and was substituted by large-scale 58 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. habitat distribution models. Lastly, a considerable policy and management agendas in Europe, in order number of data sets describing uses of marine and to identify ways to operationalize the results gained coastal environment were sensitive, confidential (e.g. from MCES studies in the future. Such policy agen- ES with an associated commercial value) or privately das, e.g. on sustainable Blue Growth, implicitly owned, making them inaccessible for research. recognize that the marine environment is a complex Methodology-wise, the spatial representation of adaptive system with humans being an inherent part MCES provided by large, multi-dimensional of its dynamics. Therefore, economic growth strate- (benthic/pelagic) ecosystems proved to be a challenge. gies pertaining to the marine environment should be For example, in the Latvian coast (D12), the use of taking into account environmental well-being, standard land-use-based mapping approaches proved acknowledging the reciprocal role that humans play to be difficult and uncertain. both as a driver of change and a recipient of the Lastly, from a researcher’s and practitioner’s point impact of those changes. This is important since ES of view, the involvement of stakeholders led to several research claims to account for such interactions and challenges (C11; F11; I11). Many stakeholders were is used to facilitate the way scientific research in not eager to participate in the consultation process. social–ecological systems is communicated and con- That was mostly due to the fact that some perceptions sidered in decision-making (Maes et al. 2012; Lillebø that consultations are ‘too scientific’, asymmetrical et al. 2017). power relations among participants, or lack of trust. Within the diversity of spatial extents and policy Budget and time limitation also hindered the success requirements addressed in this narrative’s case stu- of the stakeholder engagement process in several dies, the MCES approach was used in three main MCES studies. Consultation is time-consuming and ways: (1) as a way to simultaneously address multiple managerial agendas often change during the process. targets of different marine and coastal policies (e.g. in Lastly, the trade-offs among different marine sectors the Adriatic-Ionian study, MCES was used to balance generated conflicts during the stakeholder consulta- the MSPD and MSFD objectives that account for tion (e.g. the Bulgaria Sea Coast – E11), preventing in sustainable growth); (2) as a way to ‘translate’ EU- some cases reaching consensus. wide policies to the local or national level (e.g. in the Latvian case to interpret the MSPD at the national level) (3) and as a method that produces scientific Applied solutions evidence to inform and to be used in decision-mak- ing (e.g. in the Bulgarian coast to inform regional Several approaches have been followed by the case strategic documents and sectorial policies). In the studies to overcome the encountered challenges (Row following paragraphs, we use the collective evidence 13, appendix). In most cases, the methodological chal- gained by this work to outline and discuss what it lenges were overcome with the use of additional exper- takes to operationalize MCES research, and we give tise (e.g. modelers in the Mediterranean case – A13), suggestions for future research. the adoption of new methods (e.g. quantification of The 11 MCES studies included in this paper were uncertainty in the Adriatic-Ionian – B13) or an adap- ranked using the Ruckelshaus et al. (2015) framework tation of scale (e.g. Latvian case – D13). Challenges in to gauge the extent to which the work actually or the use of ES were overcome with simplification of potentially informed policy and decision-making terminology (e.g. in the Balearic Islands and the (Figure 4). About half of the MCES studies considered, Delfland coast cases, the term ‘ecosystem services’ generated scientific outputs that informed decision- was replaced with terms like ‘ecosystem benefits’, ‘ben- making and generated actions (Pathway 3). Still none efits derived from ecosystems’ or ‘nature’s services’ to produced outcomes that improved directly ES provi- facilitate stakeholder comprehension – G11; H11), sion or human well-being (Pathway 4). Certainly, the especially for stakeholder consultation, or by merging research–policy–practice link is not linear (Beck some of the existing CICES classes to fit the case study 2011), but rather complex, and there are several inter- specificities (e.g. in the Wadden Sea – C13, or the actions, feedback loops, dynamics and power relation- Bulgarian Black Sea coast – E13). Cases that didn’t ships within it that are not always easy to decode overcome the encountered challenges, like for instance (Wesselink et al. 2013). in the Aquitaine coast (J13), were mostly attributed to lack of scientific knowledge on the actual contribution of a specific ecosystem component to the provision of MCES operationalization: what does it take? MCES. TheroleofMCESinestablishingthe science–pol- icy–practice link is still challenged by several con- Discussion ceptual and methodological gaps, as it was clearly The purpose of this paper was to examine where stated in this study. However, we believe there are MCES research stands relative to different marine ways to operationalize MCES assessments and help INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 59 d. Communicate scientific, technical and practical science, policy and practice move toward a more challenges to funding agencies (Bremer et al. 2015). operational pathway in which scientific outcomes are relevant to decision-making and have an impact e. Insist on the need for data and information sharing, while ensuring that scientific outputs on environmental and social well-being (Pathway 4, are published in open source databases Table 2). (Drakou et al. 2015). Involvement of ‘end users’ in MCES assessment Knowledge integration The creation of ‘enabling conditions’ for MCES operatio- Scientific research needs to set the prerequisites for nalization requires a substantial end-user engagement. new knowledge and expertise to be spread by incor- ‘End users’ (policy-makers, decision makers, practi- porating inter- and transdisciplinary approaches tioners) will use the generated scientific information in within different research fields. It is noteworthy, for the decision-making process. Structured advocacy and instance, how the scientific communities that employ communication is needed to support the process through Ecosystem-Based Management approaches, besides a research and implementation. To achieve this, MCES few exceptions (Granek et al. 2010), are rarely linked assessments need to to those that deal with MCES. To achieve this, inte- a. Consider underlying values, power relations, gration and collaboration with a broader research attitudes and expectations of involved stake- community is essential. That will facilitate the way holders. Tools and instruments like collaborative various policy objectives and (EU) Directives are decision-making, participatory mapping and simultaneously addressed (Gissi and de Vivero 2016; modeling (Voinov and Bousquet 2010;Palomo Verutes et al. 2017). et al. 2013), increase legitimacy of scientific out- At the same time, there is no need to ‘re-invent the puts.Inmany cases,the decision-making pro- wheel’, but since the MCES concept is multi-disci- cess is driven by welfare economics to assess e.g. plinary by definition, it can make use of the tools and the benefits of improving coastal water quality methods that are at hand. For instance, MCES map- (Hynes et al. 2013), or the monetary benefits of ping proved to be really limited in our set of case achieving GES in EU marine waters (Norton studies, fact also agreeing with previous reviews of and Hynes 2014). However, economic decisions the literature (Böhnke-Henrichs et al. 2013; Liquete based on utilitarian approaches, limited ecologi- et al. 2013a; Hattam et al. 2015). Efforts to adapt cal knowledge of MCES and unknown prefer- mapping methods developed on land for MCES, e.g. ences from consumers fail in providing robust the ‘matrix-based’ approach (Burkhard et al. 2012), monetary valuation of MCES, e.g. for deep sea require taking into account the specificities of the habitats (Jobstvogt et al. 2014) or regulating marine ecosystems (e.g. Burdon et al. 2017), while MCES (Papathanasopoulou et al. 2014). filling the spatial data gaps. Therefore, research b. Communicate the level of confidence in scien- efforts need to be directed toward the improvement tific results in a comprehensive way in order to of available data for the marine environment. increase trust by decision makers in research Collection of in situ or satellite data is costly, but outputs. Many data sets used for MCES assess- more efforts should be made toward improving the ments are incomplete, leading to the use of available remote sensing products that can be used to qualitative methods or modeling approaches map MCES (Fretwell et al. 2014; Kavanaugh et al. (Druon et al. 2012) to fill in information gaps. 2016; Valentini et al. 2016). The level of confidence is also linked to point (a), since the inclusion of a biased set of end users could lead to biased results. Quantifying Establishing thresholds on MCES use and communicating uncertainties is therefore Marine ecological systems research uses thresholds and crucial to increase the trust of decision makers tipping points extensively, especially with reference the to scientific outputs (Gissi et al. 2017). establishment of fishing quotas that set limits to the c. Focus on the development integrative and exploitation of marine resources (Karr et al. 2015; flexible ontologies. Most of the existing ontol- Kittinger et al. 2015). At the same time, European direc- ogies and terminology used are rigid and tar- tives like the MSFD require Member States to maintain a geted to well-trained scientific audiences. Good Ecological Status (GES) and to monitor it with a Although these are necessary for researchers set of indicators. There is already a lot of work done in and decision makers (Glaeser 2016), less jar- marine and coastal ecosystems, toward assessing ecosys- gon needs to be used during stakeholder par- tem health (Halpern et al. 2012), and ecological functions ticipation and MCES policy or research linked to the supply of ES e.g. on nutrient cycling regula- concepts, need to be translated into layman’s tion (Hofmann and Schellnhuber 2009) and food provi- terms and employ ‘user-oriented’ approaches. sion from fisheries (Chu 2009). However, until now, such 60 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. indicators, thresholds and tipping points in marine eco- distant areas acts as an additional component that puts pressure in natural resources, since the demand does systems focus either solely on ecological or solely societal aspects of the system. But, within the anthropocene- not occur only at the local level, but elsewhere (Kittinger et al. 2015;Drakou et al. 2017), and should related research, the need to address planetary bound- be considered in research and practice. aries and tipping points of entire social–ecological sys- tems is imperative to best manage such systems As marine ecosystems are usually large and lay across multiple political jurisdictions, regional assessment is (Rockström et al. 2009). MCES assessments can focus called for to better integrate ES into actual management toward developing limits and thresholds on the use and supply of MCES to ensure their sustainability (Hanley et al. 2015). For example, HELCOM is conduct- ing the Second Holistic Assessment of the Ecosystem (Österblom et al. 2017), by taking stock on available Health of the Baltic Sea with the aim to develop regional knowledge. Science, policy and practice should work together to establish novel sets of indicators that integrate approach for social and economic analyses where MCES social and ecological knowledge on the marine environ- are accounted for (HELCOM 2017). Such regional assess- ments deal with trans-boundary areas and different ment and allow decision makers to monitor the proxi- mity to the ‘boundaries’. socio-economic and ecological conditions across them. In such cases, the flow of MCES between different coun- tries needs to be taken into account for the MCES assess- Enhancing societal literacy and raising awareness ment of the focal area to avoid double-counting in MCES research needs to ensure that the role, functions scientific assessments. and benefits derived from marine and coastal ecosystems MCES assessments in Europe currently make the first are acknowledged by the general public and not only the steps toward linking scientific research with practice and community of policy and practice. For the ‘enabling policy. Significant effort is required from science, policy conditions’ (point 1) to happen, society needs to be and practice, across spatial and temporal scales, to achieve aware of the multi-dimensional value of the marine and integrated management of marine social–ecological sys- coastal ecosystems. The successful application of man- tems. We believe that the integration of social–ecological agement policies and regulations heavily relies on peo- systems approach with sectoral perspectives that focus on ple’s compliance. But compliance is partly dependent on one of the social–ecological systems aspects is the basis people’s awareness of their reliance on ecosystems for for a meaningful dialog among stakeholders to be estab- their well-being; thus, there is a strong need to improve lished. This can provide the foundation to shape collec- the dissemination of scientific knowledge in society. A tive arrangements for overcoming barriers, addressing mix of institutional types promoted by well-structured social challenges and seizing opportunities. The evidence dialogue involving scientists, resource users and inter- we collected in the assessed case studies, along with our ested publics is needed for this (e.g. the Italian Ocean ‘wishes’ for the future, will hopefully be only the first step Literacy program). toward more integrated, collaborative and robust MCES Inclusiveness of plural views into the decision-making assessments. process is needed to deal with complexities and transpar- ency by giving space to social knowledge, other than scientific evidence (Reed et al. 2014). Ignoring cultural Notes and ethical values into the decision-making process may place further constraints on the acceptability of top-down 1. The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. management decisions (Farber et al. 2006) and reduce the 2. Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission – actual limited uptake of fair allocations of appropriated Helsinki Commission. natural resources amongst stakeholders (Barry 2011). 3. Convention for Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution. 4. http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/blue_ Our ‘wish list’ for the future growth_en. For MCES assessments to reach and influence decision- making, still several aspects need to be considered. Acknowledgement Herein, we present a series of desired future actions as The authors would like to thank all the participants of the they occurred from the workshop discussions, the post- ESP Marine Biome Working Group Session hosted at the workshop survey (Row 14, appendix) and the authors’ European Conference of the Ecosystem Services viewpoints. Partnership that took place in Antwerp (Belgium) in Many of the generated MCES benefit people who are September 2016. located far from the provision area (e.g. where fish are caught). The routes of trade and shipping lanes facilitate Disclosure statement the flow of MCES within and outside Europe, having a key role on the marine and coastal systems state No potential conflict of interest was reported by the (Österblom et al. 2015). The demand for MCES from authors. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 61 Beck S. 2011. Moving beyond the linear model of expertise? Funding IPCC and the test of adaptation. Reg Environ Chang. This work was supported by the EEA Grants (BG03 11:297–306. ‘Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’); H2020 Science Bennett NJ, Blythe J, Tyler S, Ban NC. 2016. Communities with and for Society [grant number 641762-2]; Horizon and change in the anthropocene: understanding social- 2020 Framework Programme [grant number 642317]; DG ecological vulnerability and planning adaptations to MARE [grant number MARE/2012/25 [SI2.666717]]; multiple interacting exposures. Reg Environ Chang. European cross-border cooperation program INTERREG 16:907–926. VI [INTERREG IV A France]; Seventh Framework Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. 1998. Navigating social- ecological Programme [grant number 283157], [grant number systems. Building resilience for complexity and change. 308393] and Stichting voor de Technische Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. Wetenschappen [grant number 12691]; EFESE project Böhnke-Henrichs A, Baulcomb C, Koss R, Hussain SS, de funded by the French Ministry of Environment, Energy Groot RS. 2013. Typology and indicators of ecosystem and Sea; SPECIES project by the Ministry of services for marine spatial planning and management. J Environment and Water of Bulgaria; Portuguese Environ Manage. 130:135–145. Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through Bontje LE, Slinger JH. 2017. A narrative method for learn- the financial support to CESAM (national (UID/AMB/ ing from innovative coastal projects – biographies of the 50017/2013) and FEDER funds, within the PT2020 sand engine. Ocean Coast Manag. 142:186–197. Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020). Borja A, Elliott M, Andersen JH, Cardoso AC, Carstensen J, Ferreira JG, Heiskanen A-S, Marques JC, Neto JM, Teixeira H, et al. 2013. Good environmental status of ORCID marine ecosystems: what is it and how do we know when we have attained it? Mar Pollut Bull. 76:16–27. Evangelia G. Drakou http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4404- Boulton AJ, Ekebom J, Már GG. 2016. Integrating ecosys- 629X tem services into conservation strategies for freshwater Charlène Kermagoret http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2402- and marine habitats: a review. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 26:963–985. Ana Ruiz-Frau http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1317-2827 Bremer LL, Delevaux JMS, Leary JJK, Cox J, Oleson KLL. Kremena Burkhard http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2843- 2015. Opportunities and strategies to incorporate eco- system services knowledge and decision support tools Ana I. Lillebø http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5228-0329 into planning and decision making in Hawai‘i. Environ Alexander P. E. van Oudenhoven http://orcid.org/0000- Manage. 884–899. 0002-3258-2565 Burdon D, Potts T, Barbone C, Mander L. 2017. The João Garcia Rodrigues http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0234- matrix revisited: a bird’s-eye view of marine ecosystem service provision. Mar Policy. 77:78–89. Emmi Nieminen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0727-2039 Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F. 2012. Mapping Elena Gissi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1666-8772 ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Kristina Veidemane http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5497- Indic. 21:17–29. Chu C. 2009. Thirty years later: the global growth of ITQs Anda Ruskule http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1580-8304 and their influence on stock status in marine fisheries. Anne Böhnke-Henrichs http://orcid.org/0000-0002- Fish Fish. 10:217–230. 6918-0121 Cloern JE, Abreu PC, Carstensen J, Chauvaud L, Elmgren R, Arjen Boon http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2614-5024 Grall J, Greening H, Johansson JOR, Kahru M, Sherwood Richard Wenning http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3481-0477 ET, et al. 2016. Human activities and climate variability Simone Martino http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4394-6475 drive fast-paced change across the world’s estuarine- Berit Hasler http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0433-4086 coastal ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol. 22:513–529. Mette Termansen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4875-2810 Council of the European Communities. 1992.Council direc- Herman Hummel http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6902-5773 tive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of Plamen Peev http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9361-1980 natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Off J Eur Communities. 206:7–50. Drakou EG, Crossman ND, Willemen L, Burkhard B, Palomo References I, Maes J, Peedell S. 2015. A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: lessons learnt, challenges Arkema KK, Verutes GM, Wood S, Clarke-Samuels C, and the way forward. Ecosyst Serv. 13:134–140. Rosado S, Canto M, Rosenthal A, Ruckelshaus M, Drakou EG, Pendleton L, Effron M, Ingram JC, Teneva L. Guannel G, Toft J, et al. 2015. Embedding ecosystem 2017. When ecosystems and their services are not co- services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for located: oceans and coasts. ICES J Mar Sci. 74:1531–1539. people and nature. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 112:7390–7395. Druon JN, Panigada S, David L, Gannier A, Mayol P, AtkinsJP,BurdonD,ElliottM,GregoryAJ. 2011. Management Arcangeli A, Cañadas A, Laran S, Di Méglio N, of the marine environment: integrating ecosystem services Gauffier P. 2012. Potential feeding habitat of fin whales and societal benefits with the DPSIR framework in a systems in the western Mediterranean sea: an environmental approach. Mar Pollut Bull. 62:215–226. niche model. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 464:289–306. Barry JM. 2011. Mobilized bias and multistakeholder pro- Duarte C. 2014. Global change and the future ocean: a tected-area planning: a socio-institutional perspective on grand challenge for marine sciences. Front Mar Sci. collaboration. Soc Nat Resour. 24:1116–1126. 1:1–16. Beaumont NJ, Jones L, Garbutt A, Hansom JD, Toberman Farber S, Costanza R, Childers DL, Erickson J, Gross K, M. 2014. The value of carbon sequestration and storage Grove M, Hopkinson CS, Kahn J, Pincetl S, Troy A, et al. in coastal habitats. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 137:32–40. 62 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. 2006. Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem Lillebø AI, Stålnacke P, Gooch GD. 2015. Coastal lagoons management. Bioscience. 56:121. in Europe: integrated water resource strategies. Lillebø Fretwell PT, Staniland IJ, Forcada J. 2014. Whales from AI, Stålnacke P, Gooch GD, editors. London, UK: IWA space: counting southern right Whales by satellite. PLoS publishing; International Water Association (IWA). One. 9:e88655. Liquete C, Piroddi C, Drakou EG, Gurney L, Katsanevakis Gissi E, de Vivero JLS. 2016. Exploring marine spatial S, Charef A, Egoh B. 2013a. Current status and future planning education: challenges in structuring transdisci- prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal eco- plinarity. Mar Policy. 74:43–57. system services: a systematic review. Bograd SJ, editor. Gissi E, Menegon S, Sarretta A, Appiotti F, Maragno D, PLoS One. 8:e67737. Vianello A, Depellegrin D, Venier C, Barbanti A. 2017. Liquete C, Piroddi C, Macías D, Druon J-N ZG. 2016. Addressing uncertainty in modelling cumulative impacts Ecosystem services sustainability in the Mediterranean within maritime spatial planning in the Adriatic and Sea: assessment of status and trends using multiple Ionian region. PLoS One. 12:1–30. modelling approaches. Sci Rep. 6:34162. Glaeser B. 2016. From global sustainability research matrix Liquete C, Zulian G, Delgado I, Stips A, Maes J. 2013b. to typology: a tool to analyze coastal and marine social- Assessment of coastal protection as an ecosystem service ecological systems. Reg Environ Chang. 16:367–383. in Europe. Ecol Indic. 30:205–217. Granek EF, Polasky S, Kappel CV, Reed DJ, Stoms DM, Lopes R, Videira N. 2013. Valuing marine and coastal Koch EW, Kennedy CJ, Cramer LA, Hacker SD, Barbier ecosystem services: an integrated participatory frame- EB, et al. 2010. Ecosystem services as a common lan- work. Ocean Coast Manag. 84:153–162. guage for coastal ecosystem-based management. Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Conserv Biol. 24:207–216. Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, La Notte A, Halpern BS, Longo C, Hardy D, McLeod KL, Samhouri JF, Zulian G, et al. 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for Katona SK, Kleisner K, Lester SE, O’Leary J, Ranelletti policy support and decision making in the European M, et al. 2012. An index to assess the health and benefits Union. Ecosyst Serv. 1:31–39. of the global ocean. Nature. 488:615–620. Maron M, Mitchell MGE, Runting RK, Rhodes JR, Mace Hanley N, Hynes S, Jobstvogt N, Paterson DM. 2015.Economic GM, Keith DA, Watson JEM. 2017. Towards a threat valuation of marine and coastal ecosystems: is it currently fit assessment framework for ecosystem services. Trends for purpose? J Ocean Coast Econ. 2:1–38. Ecol Evol. 32:240–248. Hattam C, Atkins JP, Beaumont N, Bӧrger T, Bӧhnke- McCauley DJ, Pinsky ML, Palumbi SR, Estes JA, Joyce FH, Henrichs A, Burdon D, Groot R, de Hoefnagel E, Warner RR. 2015. Marine defaunation: animal loss in Nunes PALD, Piwowarczyk J, et al. 2015. Marine eco- the global ocean. Science. 347:1255641. system services: linking indicators to their classification. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2003. Ecosystems and Ecol Indic. 49:61–75. human well-being: a framework for assessment. HELCOM. 2017.First versionoFthe “ state oF the Baltic sea ” Washington (DC): Island Press. report – June 2017 to be updated in 2018. http://stateofthe Mononen L, Auvinen AP, Ahokumpu AL, Rönkä M, balticsea.helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ Aarras N, Tolvanen H, Kamppinen M, Viirret E, HELCOM_State-of-the-Baltic-Sea_First-version-2017.pdf Kumpula T, Vihervaara P. 2016. National ecosystem Hofmann M, Schellnhuber H. 2009. Oceanic acidification service indicators: measures of social–ecological sustain- affects marine carbon pump. Proc Natl Acad Sci. ability. Ecol Indic. 61(1):27–37. 106:3017–3022. Norton D, Hynes S. 2014. Valuing the non-market benefits Hynes S, Tinch D, Hanley N. 2013. Valuing improvements arising from the implementation of the EU marine strat- to coastal waters using choice experiments: an applica- egy framework directive. Ecosyst Serv. 10:84–96. tion to revisions of the EU bathing waters directive. Mar Policy. 40:137–144. Oinonen S, Hyytiäinen K, Ahlvik L, Laamanen M, Lehtoranta Jobstvogt N, Townsend M, Witte U, Hanley N. 2014. How V, Salojärvi J, Virtanen J. 2016. Cost-effective marine pro- can we identify and communicate the ecological value of tection - A pragmatic approach. PLoS One. 11:1–19. deep-sea ecosystem services? PLoS One. 9:e100646. Österblom H, Crona BI, Folke C, Nyström M, Troell M. Karr KA, Fujita R, Halpern BS, Kappel CV, Crowder L, 2017. Marine ecosystem science on an intertwined pla- Selkoe KA, Alcolado PM, Rader D. 2015. Thresholds in net. Ecosystems. 20:54–61. Caribbean coral reefs: implications for ecosystem-based Österblom H, Jouffray J-B, Folke C, Crona B, Troell M, fishery management. J Appl Ecol. 52:402–412. Merrie A, Rockström J. 2015. Transnational corpora- Kavanaugh MT, Oliver MJ, Chavez FP, Letelier RM, tions as “Keystone Actors” in marine ecosystems. PLoS Muller-Karger FE, Doney SC. 2016. Seascapes as a new One. 10:e0127533. vernacular for pelagic ocean monitoring, management Ostrom E, Nagendra H. 2006. Insights on linking forests, trees, and conservation. ICES J Mar Sci. 73:1839–1850. and people from the air, on the ground, and in the labora- Kittinger JN, Teneva LT, Koike H, Stamoulis KA, Kittinger DS, tory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 103:19224–19231. Oleson KLL, Conklin E, Gomes M, Wilcox B, Friedlander Palomo I, Martín-López B, Zorrilla-Miras P, García Del AM. 2015. From reef to table: social and ecological factors Amo D, Montes C. 2013. Deliberative mapping of eco- affecting coral reef fisheries, artisanal seafood supply chains, system services within and around Doñana National and seafood security. PLoS One. 10:e0123856. Park (SW Spain) in relation to land use change. Reg Laurans Y, Rankovic A, Billé R, Pirard R, Mermet L. 2013. Environ Chang. 14: 237–251. Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for deci- Papathanasopoulou E, Queirós AM, Beaumont N, Hooper sion making: questioning a literature blindspot. J T, Nunes J. 2014. What are the local impacts of energy Environ Manage. 119:208–219. systems on marine ecosystem services: a systematic map Lillebø AI, Pita C, Garcia Rodrigues J, Ramos S, Villasante protocol. Environ Evid. 3:26. S. 2017. How can marine ecosystem services support the Reed MS, Stringer LC, Fazey I, Evely AC, Kruijsen JHJ. 2014. blue growth agenda? Mar Policy. 81:132–142. Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 63 environmental management. J Environ Manage. 146:337– ine environment to assess potential aquaculture sites. 345. Sustain. 8:519. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Å P, Chapin FS, Lambin Verutes GM, Arkema KK, Clarke-Samuels C, Wood SA, EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Rosenthal A, Rosado S, Canto M, Bood N, et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature. Ruckelshaus M. 2017. Integrated planning that safe- 461:472–475. guards ecosystems and balances multiple objectives in coastal Belize. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag. Ruckelshaus M, McKenzie E, Tallis H, Guerry A, Daily G, 13:1–17. Kareiva P, Polasky S, Ricketts T, Bhagabati N, Wood SA, et al. 2015. Notes from the field: lessons learned from Voinov A, Bousquet F. 2010. Modelling with stakeholders. using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world Environ Model Softw. 25:1268–1281. decisions. Ecol Econ. 115:11–21. Wesselink A, Buchanan KS, Georgiadou Y, Turnhout E. 2013. Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and poli- Sissenwine M, Symes D. 2007.Reflections on thecommon tics at the science-policy interface. Environ Sci Policy. fisheries policy. Report to the General Directorate for 30:1–9. FisheriesandMaritime Affairsofthe European Commission. Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, Duffy JE, Folke C, Valentini E, Filipponi F, Xuan AN, Passarelli FM, HalpernBS, JacksonJBC,Lotze HK,Micheli F, Taramelli A. 2016. Earth observation for maritime spa- Palumbi SR, et al. 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss tial planning: measuring, observing and modeling mar- on ocean ecosystem services. Science. 314:787–790. 64 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. Appendix Question A B C D E F G H I J K 1 Name of the area Mediterranean Sea Adriatic and Ionian Wadden Sea Marine waters of Bulgarian Black Sea Northern Lagoon of Balearic Islands (Spain) Delfland Coast Ria de Aveiro coastal Aquitaine coast Gulf of Morbihan Region (AIR) Latvia coast Venice (Italy) (Netherlands) lagoon (Portugal) (France) (France) 2 Spatial scale of the Large Marine Regional National National Local Local Local Local Local Local Local assessment Ecosystem 3 Corresponding author Liquete C. Gissi E., Depellegrin D. El Serafy G., A. Ziemba Veidemane K., A. Burkhard K., P. Peev Böhnke-Henrichs A. Ruiz-Frau A. van Oudenhoven A. Lillebø A.I. Delangue J. Ballé-Béganton J. Ruskule 4 Aim of the study To spatially and To map MCES in the To incorporate the To provide spatial To produce a strategic To quantify ES To assess and value To provide a nature- To provide a tool for To understand the To assess ES provided temporally assess AIR in relation to concept of ES in an information on the framework for provision by salt the ES derived friendly, integrated functioning of sand by seagrass beds the sustainable use the MSFD Directive, assessment of both distribution of sustainable use of marshes and also from Posidonia sustainable management dune ecosystem and raise awareness and supply of five within the general policy and areas important for coastal ecosystems to understand oceanica around alternative to hard through an and show how it on seagrass marine and coastal framework of the managerial impacts ES provision. and the relevant stakeholder the Balearic Islands. engineering increased can represent a conservation to ecosystem services European Strategy on a protected resources. preferences for ES structures. understanding of relevant and improve their in the for the Region. area. and salt marsh land to sea economically management and Mediterranean Sea. management. processes and the interesting solution identify science-policy- against coastal management stakeholder erosion. options. interface in the context of climate change. 5 Specific policy/ Promotion of the Informing the Methodology and Mapping and Inform and facilitate Improve conservation N/A Inform policies about Increase the Local authorities need Inform the decision-making sustainable use of implementation of tools to assess the assessment of the integration of and restoration innovative solution connection to have proof that implementation of need for the work marine resources the MSP in relation effectivity and the protecting the Scheme for Sea marine ecosystem ecosystem services for salt marshes to protect coasts between research for EU Biodiversity to the MSFD potential Development in impact of services for the into local, regional (Natura 2000 and to provide and policy in the ecosystems was Strategy to 2020 within the general implemented implementation of and sectoral habitat) space for nature context of WFD efficient and could relation to a Natura and also MSFD ; framework of the policy on a Natura MSP in Latvia planning and recreation answer to erosion 2000 site. MSPD ; CFP. European Strategy issues and justify 2000 and UNESCO for the Adriatic and site; Inform the their management Ionian Region implementation of actions. (EUSAIR) the MSP 6 Scale of policy Supra-National National and Supra- Local to supra-national National Local, regional and Local Local Local National Local Local National sectoral 7 Stakeholder groups None None Local administration ; Government; Local Local administration ; Local administration ; Local administration ; Local administration ; Local administration; Regional Regional administration involved Regional authorities; NGOs; Government ; NGO Regional Regional Regional Regional administration ; ; Research ; Tourism administration ; Sea use sectors ; Research ; administration ; administration ; administration ; administration; Government ; sector; Fishermen; Government Tourism sector Government ; Civil NGO ; Tourism Government ; NGO NGOs; Research; NGOs; Research Mooring managers; society ; Fishermen sector ; Fishermen ; Research Tourism sector; Shellfish farmers; ; Shipping industry Civil society; Watershed Fishermen managers (professional and recreational); Farmers and hunter associations 8 Stakeholder None Only as data input Participatory Public hearing Interviews; Interviews; Surveys Interviews; Surveys Interviews; Participatory Interviews; Focus Interviews; Participatory involvement (interviews, workshops; Surveys Participatory Participatory workshops; Focus groups workshops; Surveys; methods participatory workshops; Surveys workshops; groups; Citizens Focus groups; workshops) Conference/ jury Conference/ symposia Symposia (Continued) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 65 Appendix (Continued). Question A B C D E F G H I J K Products from plants, Climate regulation Climate regulation; Coastal erosion All ES listed in CICES Coastline retreat All ecosystem services 9 Ecosystem services Food provision ; Water All ES listed in CICES Mass Stabilization and Wild plants, algae and assessed purification ; 2013 control of erosion their outputs ; Wild animals, (carbon dioxide, Habitat and prevention; storm 2013 mitigation provided by Zostera rates ; Abiotic animals and their mushrooms, algae; methane); water lifecycle surge protection; noltei and Zostera Coastal protection ; outputs; Bio- Products from in- treatment (nutrient maintenance recreation; life- marina seagrass Lifecycle services ; situ agriculture; abatement); -nursery grounds; cycle maintenance; beds. maintenance Recreation and remediation by (nursery) ; leisure, Buffering micro-organisms, Freshwater supply; erosion prevention/ coastal protection; information for Recreation and Attenuation ; algae, plants, and Plant and animal sediment fixation; water quality cognitive animals; Filtration/ based energy lifecycle maintenance; development; Lifecycle sequestration/ sources; Air and maintenance/sea recreation; identity; aesthetic maintenance (nursery); Supply of storage by micro- water purification; food; air cognitive experience cockles and fish as organisms, algae, Mass stabilisation purification; oportunities a provisioning plants, and animals and control of moderation of ; Mass stabilisation erosion rates; extreme events; resource and control of Hydrological cycle, nature protection; erosion rates ; water flow recreation; artistic Maintaining maintenance; inspiration; nursery Maintaining opportunities for populations and nursery education; habitats ;Global populations and aesthetic climate regulation habitats, information; by reduction of pollination and cultural heritage greenhouse gas seed dispersal; and identity; concentrations ; Climate regulation; spiritual experience Experiential and Experiential use of physical use of the natural plants, animals and environment; landscapes Scientific, /seascapes educational activities; Heritage; Recreation; Natural heritage 10 Ecosystem services A method to assess A tool to generate A unit that is mapped A tool to support MSP A tool for integration i) A key study i) A key study Communication and As a communication As a direct policy As a tool to support concept used as: environmental and spatial information and quantified with with spatial of a sustainable objective (to objective and ii) as evaluation tool tool to reveal objective to effective and ecological trends the final objective information on ecosystem-based estimate changes a tool to stakeholders’ quantify and assess informed affecting socio- to develop a tool marine ecosystems approach into in ES availability) understand management ES management and economic benefits, for managers; A and as a method in planning and ii) as a tool to management preferences planning for to provide policy way to the strategic understand preferences of seagrass beds. recommendations demonstrate the environmental management stakeholders and potential trade-off assessment (SEA) preferences of general public between ES; Input to assess the stakeholder data for an impacts of investigatory tool proposed sea uses for end-users; The on supply of ES backbone for a serious game for the general public. (Continued) 66 E. G. DRAKOU ET AL. Appendix (Continued). Question A B C D E F G H I J K 11 Conceptual (1) Biophysical and (1) Use of expert (1) Term ES was hard (1) Multi-dimensional (1) CICES (too ecology (1) Use of terminology (1) Term ES was hard (1) Vague terms in (1) Stakeholders Difficulty in discerning (1) Habitat types like socio-economic opinion ; (2) Lack to use with people nature of marine ES oriented/ hard to of ES framework to use with people policy uncertainty in the benefits provided seaegrass, have integration ; (2) of empirical (“benefits derived” makes it difficult to adapt to decision- and translation (“benefits derived” requirements ; (2) use of CICES ES by ecosystem high regulating or Confusion on what evidence as an alternative) apply LC based ES making at such a between a as an alternative) disagreement Classes ; (2) function to those cultural value, is actually mapping method ; large scale) ; (2) technical and non- between meaning Exclusion of abiotic co-produced by which is hard to measured (within (2) Marine ES and Links between ES technical of specific concepts outputs from ES ; society quantify/measure ; the ES framework) cultural services are and indicator- terminology ; (2) ; (3) no ES specific (3) Supply/Demand (2) ES classification : challenging ; (3) based assessment ; People’s lack of framework indicator definition time consuming to Supply/Demand (3) Stakeholders trust in local agree upon ; (3) difference not familiar with institutions affects Inclusion of drivers the concept ; (4) the choice of the of change in Conflict of interest payment vehicle existing ES between sectors used to elicit WTP; frameworks is (tourism, fisheries, (3) Difficulty to necessary when we agriculture) ; (5) attach monetary need to inform Stakeholders are value to ES policy, management not familiar with (which manage the EU biodiversity human activities strategy for 2020 and drivers of change) 12 Methodological (1) Need for training (1) Habitat mapping (1) Data harmonization (1) Data gaps ; (2) (1) Data gaps ; (2) Data (1) Scale selection (1) Stakeholder lack of (1) Lack of social N/A Lack of data/ (1) Lack of knowledge and expertise to uncertainties ; (2) ; (2) Inaccessible or Knowledge gaps inconsistencies (no changes research engagement ; (2) scientists in information on on impact of human use models ; (2) Data gaps ; (3) Data sensitive data ; (3) on marine ES large scale data/ outputs and social Budget constraints research team how much the activities on Lack of geospatial inconsistencies (no Time consuming supply extrapolation perceptions; (2) (on stakeholder ecosystem actually seagrass and socio-econ data, large scale data/ (consultation with needed) ; (3) Scale Data gaps on consultation) contributes to the associated functions esp. in large spatial extrapolation stakeholders, esp mismatch between ecosystem MCES assessed and services ; (2) scales needed) ; (4) since the latter data, study area functions ; (3) Lack of Patchy dataset don’t have time) and results Knowledge gaps quantification (various quality, on the ecological methods on various scales) interactions sedimentation between salt marshes and aquatic fishery resources 13 Ways the studies Researchers (esp. Quantification of Translating ES into Adapting the scale Simplification of CICES Payment schemes Simplification of End-user involvement Practical N/A End-user involvement overcame them modellers) with uncertainty non-technical names ; Merge adapted to local scientific terms, i.e. in research ; recommendations in research ; high expertise description ; CICES classes ; Only context; Data change from Interdisciplinary on the use of ES to Awareness raising Prioritization; monetary collection through “services” to collaboration ; ES guide decision Quantification and quantification interviews benefits” terminology making ; To accurate ecosystem-based simplification improve mapping, representation of knowledge on ES uncertainty as a functioning needs measure of data to be enhanced viability to end- users (Continued) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES & MANAGEMENT 67 Appendix (Continued). Question A B C D E F G H I J K 14 Proposed /Desired Integrate biophysical Define means/ Further collection of Perform economic Inform and structure Compare case studies; Use of the MEA (2005) Involve decision Include the provisional Launch new research N/A solutions and socio- platforms/tools for in-situ data into a valuation ; assess advocacy and identify case study- framework of makers & end users accompanying projects on the economic effective data singular functional supply and communication based best drivers (direct and in research loop ; classification table topic approaches ; invest sharing; bridge location; continual demand of ES activities to practices, develop indirect) and Combine of abiotic outputs in communication shortcomings dialog with policy integrate the guidelines, impacts on ES to traditional coastal / from natural and awareness between basic makers and results into the recommendations; assess of responses marine science systems for the raising ; fill the science and managers to local, regional and communicate to wellbeing with socio- MCES assessment gaps that still exist applied research; ensure that the sectoral planning. challenges to (policy, economic and in support of in the scientific define methods assessment relevant funding management) political science ; ecosystems literature ; and procedures for strategy and agencies Do not use the ES management and providing data harmonization hierarchy of needs concept or governance ; comprehensive remains constant classification in Provide practical information for or at least communication recommendations marine spatial continually with decision on how to use ES planning ; continue applicable. makers ; Translate to guide decision using ecosystem policy aims to ES as making ; Mapping models ; start the well as other needs to be analysis of terms ; Include coupled with scenarios to cultural ES in all additional support phases, especially knowledge on the knowledge-based innovation functioning of management ; marine ecosystems establish links between ES and maritime spatial planning 15 Associated project (s) JRC institutional ADRIPLAN, RITMARE, ECOPOTENTIAL National project on All projects related the LIFE VIMINE OPERAs NatureCoast LAGOONS (EU/FP7; French national Interreg VALMER working SUPREME MSP; Horizon2020 programme ‘BG03 contract no. assessment of programme “ESMERALDA” Biodiversity and 283157) ecosystem services Ecosystem Services’ (EFESE) of the EEA 16 Project time frame 2014-2016 2013-2015; 2012-2016; 2015-2019 2015-2018 2015-2016 (16 2013-2017 2012-2017 2013-2018 2011-2014 2012-2017 3 years (2 in case study) 2016-2018 months)

Journal

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management – Taylor & Francis

Published: Nov 29, 2017

Keywords: Policy relevance; pan-European approach; uncertainty; ocean literacy; data gaps; bottom-up approach

There are no references for this article.