Current Status and Future Prospects for the Assessment of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review

Background

Research on ecosystem services has grown exponentially during the last decade. Most of the studies have focused on assessing and mapping terrestrial ecosystem services highlighting a knowledge gap on marine and coastal ecosystem services (MCES) and an urgent need to assess them.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We reviewed and summarized existing scientific literature related to MCES with the aim of extracting and classifying indicators used to assess and map them. We found 145 papers that specifically assessed marine and coastal ecosystem services from which we extracted 476 indicators. Food provision, in particular fisheries, was the most extensively analyzed MCES while water purification and coastal protection were the most frequently studied regulating and maintenance services. Also recreation and tourism under the cultural services was relatively well assessed. We highlight knowledge gaps regarding the availability of indicators that measure the capacity, flow or benefit derived from each ecosystem service. The majority of the case studies was found in mangroves and coastal wetlands and was mainly concentrated in Europe and North America. Our systematic review highlighted the need of an improved ecosystem service classification for marine and coastal systems, which is herein proposed with definitions and links to previous classifications.

Conclusions/Significance

This review summarizes the state of available information related to ecosystem services associated with marine and coastal ecosystems. The cataloging of MCES indicators and the integrated classification of MCES provided in this paper establish a background that can facilitate the planning and integration of future assessments. The final goal is to establish a consistent structure and populate it with information able to support the implementation of biodiversity conservation policies.     

Interactions of ecosystem properties,ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—A theoretical matrix exercise

The ecosystem service concept is becoming more and more acknowledged in science and decision-making, resulting in several applications in different case studies and in environmental management, but still it is developing in terms of definitions, typologies and understanding its complexity. By examining the interrelations between ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity, biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being qualitatively, the mutual influences on each constituent of the ‘ecosystem service cascade’ are illuminated, giving an impulse for further discussions and improvements for a better understanding of the complexity of human–environmental systems. Results of the theoretical interactions are among others the assumption that provisioning services exclude or compete with each other, while the role of biodiversity was found to be supporting for regulating services and cultural services. Ecosystem services meet the criteria of being adequate human–environmental system indicators and therefore, they are an appropriate instrument for decision-making and management.     

How is ecosystem health defined and measured? A critical review of freshwater and estuarine studies

Assessing ecosystem health is an ongoing priority for governments, scientists and managers worldwide. There are several decades of scientific literature discussing ecosystem health and approaches to assess it, with applications to aquatic and terrestrial environments incorporating economic, environmental and social processes. We conducted a systematic review of studies that assess ecosystem health to update our current understanding of how ecosystem health is being defined, and provide new ideas and directions on how it can be measured. We focused the review on studies that used the term ‘ecosystem health’ or the equivalent terms ‘ecosystem integrity’, ‘ecosystem quality’ and ‘ecosystem protection’, in lotic freshwater and estuarine environments, and examined how many of these included explicit definitions of what ecosystem health means for their study system. We collected information about the temporal and geographical distribution of studies, and the types of indicators (biological, physical or chemical) used in the assessments. We found few studies clearly defined ecosystem health and justified the choice of indicators. Given the broad use of the term it seems impractical to have an overarching definition of ecosystem health, but rather an approach that is able to define and measure health on a case by case basis. A combination of biological, physical and chemical indicators was commonly used to assess ecosystem health in both estuarine and freshwater studies, with a strong bias towards fish and macroinvertebrate community metrics (e.g. diversity, abundance and composition). We found only two studies that simultaneously considered both freshwater and estuarine sections of the ecosystem, highlighting the significant knowledge gap in our understanding of the transfer of flow, nutrients and biota between the different systems—all key factors that influence ecosystem health. This review is the first to combine knowledge from both freshwater and estuarine ecosystem assessments and critically review how aquatic ecosystem health is defined and measured since the late-1990s, providing the basis for setting achievable management goals relating to ecosystem health into the future.     

A framework for assessing ecological quality based on ecosystem services

Existing environmental legislation and ecological quality definitions such as ecosystem integrity tend to rely on measures that, either implicitly or explicitly, utilize naturalness as a key criterion. There are marked practical difficulties with employing the concept of naturalness in human dominated landscapes, and the management of such ecosystems is inevitably going to need to take account of human needs and expectations. We propose that ecological quality could be assessed by its ecosystem service profile (ESP): the overlap between societal expectations for, and the sustainable provision of, suites of ecosystem services. The status for each individual ecosystem service is defined by the ratio of its sustained provision to the expected level of provision for the service. The ESP measure is a multi-criterion, context-specific assessment of the match between expectation for and sustainable supply of ecosystem services. It provides a flexible measure of quality which takes into account that the “ideal” ecosystem state is largely dependent on the specific management context. The implementation of ESPs challenges us to develop indicators for the sustained provision of individual ecosystem services, much better understanding of the trade-offs among services, and practical tools for gauging societal demands. All of which are challenging problems. The proposed framework can help to strategically address research needs and monitoring requirements and foster a more integrative approach to ecosystem assessment and management in the future. The need for this follows from the fact that the undisturbed reference state represents only one aspect of an ecosystem and that ecological quality in human dominated landscapes will, ultimately, be determined by the value society places on the sustainable provision of multiple ecosystem services.     

Ecosystem services classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework

Ecosystem services research faces several challenges stemming from the plurality of interpretations of classifications and terminologies. In this paper we identify two main challenges with current ecosystem services classification systems: i) the inconsistency across concepts, terminology and definitions, and; ii) the mix up of processes and end-state benefits, or flows and assets. Although different ecosystem service definitions and interpretations can be valuable for enriching the research landscape, it is necessary to address the existing ambiguity to improve comparability among ecosystem-service-based approaches. Using the cascade framework as a reference, and Systems Ecology as a theoretical underpinning, we aim to address the ambiguity across typologies. The cascade framework links ecological processes with elements of human well-being following a pattern similar to a production chain. Systems Ecology is a long-established discipline which provides insight into complex relationships between people and the environment. We present a refreshed conceptualization of ecosystem services which can support ecosystem service assessment techniques and measurement. We combine the notions of biomass, information and interaction from system ecology, with the ecosystem services conceptualization to improve definitions and clarify terminology. We argue that ecosystem services should be defined as the interactions (i.e. processes) of the ecosystem that produce a change in human well-being, while ecosystem components or goods, i.e. countable as biomass units, are only proxies in the assessment of such changes. Furthermore, Systems Ecology can support a re-interpretation of the ecosystem services conceptualization and related applied research, where more emphasis is needed on the underpinning complexity of the ecological system.     

Operationalizing ecosystem services for the mitigation of soil threats: A proposed framework

Despite numerous research efforts over the last decades, integrating the concept of ecosystem services into land management decision-making continues to pose considerable challenges. Researchers have developed many different frameworks to operationalize the concept, but these are often specific to a certain issue and each has their own definitions and understandings of particular terms. Based on a comprehensive review of the current scientific debate, the EU FP7 project RECARE proposes an adapted framework for soil-related ecosystem services that is suited for practical application in the prevention and remediation of soil degradation across Europe. We have adapted existing frameworks by integrating components from soil science while attempting to introduce a consistent terminology that is understandable to a variety of stakeholders. RECARE aims to assess how soil threats and prevention and remediation measures affect ecosystem services. Changes in the natural capital's properties influence soil processes, which support the provision of ecosystem services. The benefits produced by these ecosystem services are explicitly or implicitly valued by individuals and society. This can influence decision- and policymaking at different scales, potentially leading to a societal response, such as improved land management. The proposed ecosystem services framework will be applied by the RECARE project in a transdisciplinary process. It will assist in singling out the most beneficial land management measures and in identifying trade-offs and win–win situations resulting from and impacted by European policies. The framework thus reflects the specific contributions soils make to ecosystem services and helps reveal changes in ecosystem services caused by soil management and policies impacting on soil. At the same time, the framework is simple and robust enough for practical application in assessing soil threats and their management with stakeholders at various levels.     

Mapping technological and biophysical capacities of watersheds to regulate floods

Flood regulation is a widely valued and studied service provided by watersheds. Flood regulation benefits people directly by decreasing the socio-economic costs of flooding and indirectly by its positive impacts on cultural (e.g., fishing) and provisioning (e.g., water supply) ecosystem services. Like other regulating ecosystem services (e.g., pollination, water purification), flood regulation is often enhanced or replaced by technology, but the relative efficacy of natural versus technological features in controlling floods has scarcely been examined. In an effort to assess flood regulation capacity for selected urban watersheds in the southeastern United States, we: (1) used long-term flood records to assess relative influence of technological and biophysical indicators on flood magnitude and duration, (2) compared the widely used runoff curve number (RCN) approach for assessing the biophysical capacity to regulate floods to an alternative approach that acknowledges land cover and soil properties separately, and (3) mapped technological and biophysical flood regulation capacities based on indicator importance-values derived for flood magnitude and duration. We found that watersheds with high biophysical (via the alternative approach) and technological capacities lengthened the duration and lowered the peak of floods. We found the RCN approach yielded results opposite that expected, possibly because it confounds soil and land cover processes, particularly in urban landscapes, while our alternative approach coherently separates these processes. Mapping biophysical (via the alternative approach) and technological capacities revealed great differences among watersheds. Our study improves on previous mapping of flood regulation by (1) incorporating technological capacity, (2) providing high spatial resolution (i.e., 10-m pixel) maps of watershed capacities, and (3) deriving importance-values for selected landscape indicators. By accounting for technology that enhances or replaces natural flood regulation, our approach enables watershed managers to make more informed choices in their flood-control investments.     

Selecting ecological indicators to compare maintenance costs related to the compensation of damaged ecosystem services

The aim of this paper is to compare different maintenance costs of ecosystem service arising from a hypothetical case of environmental damage in order to help to understand how the different ecosystem services are considered in decision making processes. Compensatory measures are aimed precisely at maintaining the level of supply of ecosystem services. According to the literature, compensatory measures like restoration are usually applied to specific ecosystem services. We used the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) categories of ecosystem service. For each MEA category, several ecological indicators are selected, and the cost of the compensatory measures required to fulfill the goal of no net loss is assessed using the Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA). The results of this analysis highlight differences between compensatory measures and their associated costs depending on the category of ecosystem services targeted. Maintenance costs are high for regulating services, low for provisioning services, and more difficult to determine for cultural services (high or low depending on the indicator selected). We discuss the implications of this result, noting that it is more rational for project developers to focus their attention on provisioning services if the legal regulation of compensation is lax or if indicators relative to cultural and regulating services are not precise enough.     

Forest biodiversity,ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services

Forests are critical habitats for biodiversity and they are also essential for the provision of a wide range of ecosystem services that are important to human well-being. There is increasing evidence that biodiversity contributes to forest ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Here we provide a review of forest ecosystem services including biomass production, habitat provisioning services, pollination, seed dispersal, resistance to wind storms, fire regulation and mitigation, pest regulation of native and invading insects, carbon sequestration, and cultural ecosystem services, in relation to forest type, structure and diversity. We also consider relationships between forest biodiversity and multifunctionality, and trade-offs among ecosystem services. We compare the concepts of ecosystem processes, functions and services to clarify their definitions. Our review of published studies indicates a lack of empirical studies that establish quantitative and causal relationships between forest biodiversity and many important ecosystem services. The literature is highly skewed; studies on provisioning of nutrition and energy, and on cultural services, delivered by mixed-species forests are under-represented. Planted forests offer ample opportunity for optimising their composition and diversity because replanting after harvesting is a recurring process. Planting mixed-species forests should be given more consideration as they are likely to provide a wider range of ecosystem services within the forest and for adjacent land uses. This review also serves as the introduction to this special issue of Biodiversity and Conservation on various aspects of forest biodiversity and ecosystem services.     

Pathways to bridge the biophysical realism gap in ecosystem services mapping approaches

The mapping of ecosystem service supply has become quite common in ecosystem service assessment practice for terrestrial ecosystems, but land cover remains the most common indicator for ecosystems ability to deliver ecosystem services. For marine ecosystems, practice is even less advanced, with a clear deficit in spatially-explicit assessments of ecosystem service supply. This situation, which generates considerable uncertainty in the assessment of ecosystems’ ability to support current and future human well-being, contrasts with increasing understanding of the role of terrestrial and marine biodiversity for ecosystem functioning and thereby for ecosystem services. This paper provides a synthesis of available approaches, models and tools, and data sources, that are able to better link ecosystem service mapping to current understanding of the role of ecosystem service providing organisms and land/seascape structure in ecosystem functioning. Based on a review of literature, models and associated geo-referenced metrics are classified according to the way in which land or marine use, ecological processes and especially biodiversity effects are represented. We distinguish five types of models: proxy-based, phenomenological, niche-based, trait-based and full-process. Examples from each model type are presented and data requirements considered. Our synthesis demonstrates that the current understanding of the role of biota in ecosystem services can effectively be incorporated into mapping approaches and opens avenues for further model development using hybrid approaches tailored to available resources. We end by discussing ways to resolve sources of uncertainty associated with model representation of biotic processes and with data availability.     

Exploring the links between functional traits and cultural ecosystem services to enhance urban ecosystem management

Functional traits have been proposed as a more mechanistic way than species data alone to connect biodiversity to ecosystem processes and function in ecological research. Recently, this framework has also been broadened to include connections of traits to ecosystem services. While many links between traits and ecosystem processes/functions are easily and logically extended to regulating, supporting, and provisioning services, connections to cultural services have not yet been dealt with in depth. We argue that addressing this gap may involve a renegotiation of what have traditionally been considered traits, and a targeted effort to include and expand upon efforts to address traits-cultural ecosystem services links in traits research. Traits may also offer a better way to explore the recognition and appreciation of biodiversity. Drawing upon examples from outside the explicit traits literature, we present a number of potential connections between functional traits and cultural ecosystem services for attention in future research. Finally, we explore considerations and implications of employing a traits approach in urban areas, and examine how connections between traits and ecosystem services could be developed as indicators in a research and management context to generate a robust and resilient supply of ecosystem services.     

Assessment and illustration of cultural ecosystem services at the local scale – A retrospective trend analysis

There is a need to develop non-monetary methods for the assessment of cultural ecosystem services, in order to integrate them into the ES framework in a more balanced way. With this in mind, an adequate and comprehensive indicator base and mapping methods are required to communicate and discuss cultural ecosystem services, for it to be understood holistically. Referring to land use changes as an important driver for ES changes, we demonstrate the analysis of cultural ecosystem services trends, in a retrospective, as a supporting tool to better understand social and natural interactions as drivers behind land use changes, which are reflected in the landscape scene. There are two main outcomes of this study: (1) first, we developed and tested a catalogue of indicators as an approach to evaluate cultural ecosystem services trends at the local scale and (2) we established a mapping method for cultural ecosystem services trends in parallel with land use changes. This we did following the example of the afforestation processes which had taken place since the 19th century in the suburban area of Göttingen (Lower Saxony/Germany), called Hainberg. Our main conclusion is that cultural ecosystem services trends can indicate the reasons and drivers for land use changes that can be beneficial to forest/landscape management issues by means of the restoration of lost services. The proposed assessment method can be integrated into the development of future landscape plans, e.g. by providing information on historical guiding principles.     

Introduction to the Special Issue “Functional monitoring in megadiverse tropical ecosystems”

Land-use and climate change are major threats to biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Most of the current biodiversity monitoring systems are based on periodic records of the populations of a set of threatened or popular ‘flagship’ indicator species. In contrast to the abundance-based monitoring of species, also specific indicators of processes and functional interactions in an ecosystem may become targets of a more functional monitoring which can unveil early responses of an ecosystem to environmental changes at different spatial and temporal scales. The contributions of this Special Issue present such functional indicators for assessing and predicting responses to environmental changes of ecosystem functions in a hotspot of tropical biodiversity.     

A systematic map of ecosystem services assessments around European agroforestry

Agroforestry offers proven strategies as an environmentally benign and ecologically sustainable land management practice to promote ecosystem services. In this literature review, we systematically consider the agroforestry and ecosystem services literature with the aim to identify and catalogue the knowledge field and provide the first systematic synthesis of ecosystem services research in relation to European agroforestry. We reviewed 71 scientific publications from studies conducted in farmland and forest ecosystems with various types of agroforestry management. Each publication was systematically characterized and classified by agroforestry practice and research approach in order to provide an insight into the current research state in addressing ecosystem services (including methods, indicators, and approaches). Spatial distribution of the case study sites in Europe was also explored. In addition, typical clusters of similar research approaches were identified.The results show that ecosystem service assessment of European agroforestry is currently focused on the spatially extensive wood pastures in the Mediterranean, Atlantic, and Continental agricultural mosaic landscapes. A specific emphasis has been on regulating, supporting, and provisioning services, such as provision of habitat and biodiversity, food, climate regulation, fibre, and fuel, and the consideration of cultural services has been largely limited to aesthetic value. There is a bias to biophysical and monetary research approaches. The majority of the studies focus on quantitative methods and biophysical field measurements addressing the assessment of only one or two services. Monetary approaches have been applied in less than one fifth of the studies but form a distinctive group.Our results highlight gaps and biases in the ecosystem service research agenda within agroforestry based on which we conclude that research should aim to diversify from the biophysical and monetary approaches, towards a wider variety of approaches, especially socio-cultural, and a wider coverage of ecosystem services. Stronger consideration of stakeholder participation and introduction of spatially explicit mapping are also important key actions. We make suggestions to advance the promise of ecosystem services provision from European agroforestry in decision making including various actors, stakeholders, and institutions, with strong links to policy processes, such as the EU Biodiversity Strategy and Common Agricultural Policy.     

生态系统休闲游憩价值评估——以北京密云区为例

作为生态产品总值核算的重要内容,生态系统文化服务主要包括休闲游憩、旅游康养与景观增值三个核算内容,但受公共产品性质的影响,休闲游憩服务缺乏市场价值,因此目前的研究很少涉及对生态系统休闲游憩价值的评估。而随着公园绿地等区域被广泛利用,其能为人们带来的休闲游憩服务也逐渐成为生态系统文化服务中不可忽视的重要组成部分。因此以北京密云区的公园绿地、滨水带与山地健身区为研究对象,运用替代成本法与支付意愿法对生态系统的休闲游憩价值进行评估与比较。结果表明,替代成本法评估的结果相对更合理;公园绿地、滨水带与山地健身区的休闲游憩价值分别为2.93亿元、4.54亿元、2.78亿元;密云区生态系统的休闲游憩价值为10.25亿元,其中费用成本6.69亿元,时间成本3.56亿元。     

Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives

Mapping the demand for ecosystem services (ES) has received increased attention in scientific research and is seen as a relevant tool to inform conservation planning, land use planning and management. Yet, there is a varying understanding of the concept of ES demand, which has implications on how and where ES demand is being mapped. In this paper we review the current conceptual understanding of ES demand, indicators to measure demand and the approaches used to quantify and map demand. We identified four distinct “demand types”, which relate to different ecosystem service categories. These demand types include demand expressed in terms of (1) risk reduction, (2) preferences and values, (3) direct use or (4) consumption of goods and services. Each of the demand types was linked to specific methods applied in the reviewed literature. We found that operationalization of ES demand in policy, planning and management requires a more consistent understanding and definition of ES demand, its drivers and its temporal dynamics. Furthermore, the impact of demands for multiple ecosystem services on land use change needs to be investigated. This will allow for the consideration of temporal and cross-level interactions between supply and demand of ecosystem services and its impacts in land use change modelling.     

农业文化遗产生态系统服务的复合增益——以浙江瑞安滨海塘河台田系统为例

农业文化遗产是农村与其所处环境长期协同进化和动态适应下所形成的独特的土地利用系统和农业景观，具备丰富的景观要素。景观要素的耦合会对景观整体的生态系统服务供应产生影响。研究构建了多景观要素的“生态系统服务复合增益”理论框架，并以浙江瑞安滨海塘河台田系统为例，将其景观要素划分为农田生态系统和水域生态系统，并分别评估其景观要素生态系统服务价值、景观整体生态系统服务价值和生态系统服务复合增益价值。研究结果显示：(1)2019年浙江瑞安滨海塘河台田系统生态系统服务总价值为187.72亿元，文化服务价值最高，占总价值的91.8%;(2)农田的生态系统服务价值为6.03亿元，占总价值的3.2%,水域的生态系统服务价值为8.15亿元，占总价值的4.3%;(3)生态系统服务复合增益价值为173.54亿元，占总价值的92.5%。研究表明，农田和水域两种景观要素的耦合能提高浙江瑞安滨海塘河台田系统中食物供应、气体调节、盐碱地改良、休息游憩四种生态系统服务价值，致使其产生生态系统服务复合增益。     

Indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services: a synthesis across ecosystems and spatial scales

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, common indicators are needed to monitor the loss of biodiversity and the implications for the sustainable provision of ecosystem services. However, a variety of indicators are already being used resulting in many, mostly incompatible, monitoring systems. In order to synthesise the different indicator approaches and to detect gaps in the development of common indicator systems, we examined 531 indicators that have been reported in 617 peer‐reviewed journal articles between 1997 and 2007. Special emphasis was placed on comparing indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services across ecosystems (forests, grass‐ and shrublands, wetlands, rivers, lakes, soils and agro‐ecosystems) and spatial scales (from patch to global scale). The application of biological indicators was found most often focused on regional and finer spatial scales with few indicators applied across ecosystem types. Abiotic indicators, such as physico‐chemical parameters and measures of area and fragmentation, are most frequently used at broader (regional to continental) scales. Despite its multiple dimensions, biodiversity is usually equated with species richness only. The functional, structural and genetic components of biodiversity are poorly addressed despite their potential value across habitats and scales. Ecosystem service indicators are mostly used to estimate regulating and supporting services but generally differ between ecosystem types as they reflect ecosystem‐specific services. Despite great effort to develop indicator systems over the past decade, there is still a considerable gap in the widespread use of indicators for many of the multiple components of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and a need to develop common monitoring schemes within and across habitats. Filling these gaps is a prerequisite for linking biodiversity dynamics with ecosystem service delivery and to achieving the goals of global and sub‐global initiatives to halt the loss of biodiversity.     

生态系统健康评价——概念构架与指标选择

在探讨生态系统健康概念构架的基础上,寻求对管理景观中的生态系统健康进行整体性评价的合适指标.健康的生态系统不仅在生态学意义上是健康的,并能维持健康的人类群体及有利于社会经济的发展.健康生态系统的一般特征是恢复力、多样性和生产力.建立生态系统健康评价指标的第一步是指标选择原则的确定,根据生态系统健康评价的目的和指标筛选的原则,把生态系统健康指标体系(Ecosystem Health Indicaror,EHI)分为生物物理指标、生态学指标和社会经济指标.     

Ecological indicators: Between the two fires of science and policy

This article approaches the concept of ecological indicators from a social science perspective. By applying theoretical concepts from policy analysis and social studies of science about knowledge utilization, problem structuring and the boundaries between science and policy to the issue of ecological indicators, we aim to contribute to our understanding not only of the development but more importantly of the actual use of ecological indicators in policy processes and the importance of political context.Our interest is in those ecological indicators that attempt to measure the ecological quality of ecosystems and that can be or are specifically developed to be used as instruments to evaluate the effects of policies on nature. We claim that these indicators, although they are highly dependent on scientific knowledge, cannot be solely science-based, due to the complexity of ecosystems and the normative aspects involved in assessing ecosystem quality. As a result, we situate ecological indicators in a fuzzy area between science and policy and between the production and the use of scientific knowledge.We will argue that ecological indicators can be expected to be used or rejected strategically, dependent on policy context. Furthermore we will argue that ecological indicators cannot be evaluated with traditional scientific quality criteria alone. The article concludes with some lessons for future indicator development one of them being the inclusion of stakeholder perspectives.