Introduction
Ecosystems and biodiversity are critical constituents of the natural environment. However, human indulges have interfered with their existence considerably. The European Union implementations on mapping and assessing the ecosystem services are associated with Action 5 of the Biodiversity Strategy. The member states are prioritized to map and evaluate the condition of various ecosystems and their services. Over the decades, excessive population influx has placed a growing demand on the ecosystem services. Mapping of the ecosystem is conducted based on its provision and demand; this is done through various scales that is, from transitional to the local level. Although mapping the ecosystem services remains to be an unabated topic of research, it is defined as a process associated with the production of spatial ecosystem services. The ecosystem functions and procedures that affect the production of ecosystem services vary significantly due to time and space. Moreover, the driver of change that affects and resizes the ecosystem processes and functions exhibits a robust spatial variation. The geographical statistics on mapping and assessing the ecosystem services precipitates that land-use patterns, agricultural intensification, and or land fragmentation and climatic changes determine ecosystem processes and functions (Nemec & Raudsepp-Hearne, 2013).
In the natural environment, there exist complex processes that describe and assess the production of the ecosystem services (ES). According to Maes et al. (2013), ES maps are critical and forms part of the function of the ecosystem processes, environmental variation, and patterns of land use. The existing trade-offs and synergies in various ES and between ES and biodiversity are common ( Maes et al., 2016 ). Mapping and assessing ecosystem services as a report proposes measuring conditions in freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. This is achieved through the selected indicators within the natural environment. Some particular indicators are preferred for a successful assessment of the types of the ecosystem (Egoh et al., 2012). Based on the report, the ecosystem conditions form part of the theoretical framework which connects ecosystem conditions, pressures, and ecosystem services, thus providing a hierarchical classification and structure of both pressure ecosystem indicators.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Framework for modeling Ecosystem Services
In the quantification and mapping of the ecosystem services, defining modeling framework is significant. The decision on the framework may vary based on the data required or obtained, the key drivers, knowledge and scale on demand. According to Kienast and Helfenstein (2016), the ecosystem service models can be classified into empirical models, process based models, landscape models and the indicator-based models. In their further assessment of the ES, Kienast and Helfenstein (2016) proposed another framework to explain the ecosystem services models or approaches. Their 6 point framework functions as the guide on how to choose the right approach to project requirement. The idea to understand the mapping and assessing of the ES depends on the variable knowledge. Through the variable knowledge, the ecosystem services under evaluation and study are narrative-based.
Spatial scale of the ecosystem service assessment or evaluation may vary from local or to global level and acts as the main driver of the type of data required for the ecosystem services mapping and evaluation. Relatively, the temporal scale of the ecosystem services influences the results and the data needs significantly. In this case, the temporal scale varies from months to decades or centuries. Through available data, driving the choice of the ecosystem services assessment become significant (Crossman et al., 2013). Also, the stakeholder’s involvement is critical since the output of the ecosystem demand for both qualitative and quantitative assessment.
The analytical framework and report by the European Union, ecosystem services consist of range of things provided by the natural and human environment (Maes et al., 2012). Based on the analytical framework for the various ecosystems, the biodiversity strategy focuses on the achievements of targets such as mapping and assessing the services. According to the biodiversity research, the ecosystem services have the ability to affect the current conservation measures ( Maes et al., 2016 ). For instance, they can impact both restoration and maintenance of the ecosystem thus allowing for the conservation to be a primary objective. Based on action 5 targets and relations to the Biodiversity strategy, the European scale demonstrates that habitat forms part of the favorable conservation status as long as more biodiversity is achieved and presented a great potential supply. Action 5 of the European commission is considered significant since it helps in identifying areas with cost-effective progress. The main aim is to conserve biodiversity and the ecosystem services as outlined by the Biodiversity Strategy.
In this report, MAES and Action 5 have strong linkages as outlined in the European Union’s agenda on spatial planning and the development of various ecosystem territories (Lauf, Haase & Kleinschmit, 2014). The series of targets presented in the diagram focuses on conserving the nature, promoting sustainable agriculture, combating alien species and addressing the issue of biodiversity crisis in the global society. In the figure, target 5 is associated with various supporting measures, however, at this stage, it is not linked to mapping and assessment of the ES.
Operationalizing Ecosystem Services.
In action 5, making the best use of and operationalize scientific knowledge and information is a major challenge. The most important idea is the accessibility of the ecosystems by the member countries to ensure mapping and assessing the territories becomes successful. The ecosystem assessment plan under Action 5 of the European Union is consider benefiting from the result of the reported obligations of the member countries under environmental legislation on the biotic components of the environment. As far as mapping is concerned, the member countries have devised mechanisms that protect the natural environment and its constituents that is, water bodies and other rangeland ecosystems.
Action 5 and MAES
The mapping and assessment of different ecosystems and ecosystem services is a major part of the European Union Biodiversity Strategy. The previous methodological work on the biotic mapping and assessment is done by the EU and member states and this is presented to contribute to the evaluation of the economic importance or value of the ecosystem services. Maes has formed working groups functioning under the implementation Framework of Biodiversity Strategy 2020 ( Crossman et al., 2013 ).
Assessing and Measuring Ecosystem Services
The assessment of an ecosystem is done through different methodology that is, social, economic and biophysical. The methods are implemented in different areas and provide varying information’s which are important to decision makers. In the bid assess environment and climate variation in some nations, a toolkit known as Competing and using ecosystem services evaluation is used for decision-making. Consequently, mapping ecosystem services posted various significance to the human environment. Through mapping, people understand and communicate on how the natural environment anticipates individuals’ well-being. The published ecosystem maps helps people to understand the importance natural environment and its components. According to Burkhard, Kandziora, and Müller (2014) mapping and assessing the ecosystem services is part of urban planning and helps people to understand the idea of achieving sustainability.
The Matrix in Mapping ES
The mapping of the ES markets presents a surveying tool used in various ecosystems. In the diversifying world, various businesses have realized man’s interdependency on the ecosystem services and earth’s ecology. They have invested on waste treatment and anticipated pollination process to help generate benefits to the industry. In the matrix template, ecosystem services such as food production and carbon sequestration are found in various ecosystems based on the adaptability features. Processes such as mineralization occur in cropland, terrestrial and forests ecosystems. As the world population becomes diverse, natural resources are suppressed and underutilized. The idea of achieving ecosystem balance becomes a major problem to the global environment. When the ecosystem services use intensifies, some ecosystems may lose their biodiversity and thus cases heighted levels of extinction. Relatively, environmental issues such as pollution and degradation may results. Although there are various social and economic parameters that affects the environment, mapping and assessing ecosystem and their services helps in achieving future sustainability. Beyond the mapping matrix, services offered by the ecosystems such as food production benefits various individuals.
The assessment of ecosystem is conducted with regards to flow and consumption demands. The increasing demand placed on the ES determines the rate of flow or supply. On the other hand, the flow today must be monitored to ensure the future generation is not compromised. When an ecosystem holding capacity becomes abnormal, ecosystem services may be depleted. In the environmental entity, mapping and assessing the ES helps understand the existing ecosystem flows, drivers and risks. Through demand and supply, the environmental or ecosystem management organizations have the ability to conduct analysis on the priorities and opportunities that will enhance a successful mapping and assessing ecosystems and ecosystem services (Maes, Crossman ND, Burkhard, 2016). Through MAE, some parallel work has been undertaken to help evaluate how the biophysical indicators could form part of the natural capital.
References
Burkhard, B. and J. Maes (eds), 2017. Mapping Ecosystem Services . Pensoft Publishers Ltd, Sofia
Burkhard, B., Kandziora, M., Hou, Y., Müller, F., 2014. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demand–concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landsc. Online 34, 1–32.
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., & Müller, F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological indicators , 21 , 17-29.
Crossman, N.D.; Burkhard, B.; Nedkov, S.; Willemen, L.; Petz, K.; Palomo, I.; Drakou, E.G.; Martín-Lopez, B.; McPhearson, T.; Boyanova, K.; Alkemade, R.; Egoh, B.; Dunbar, M. Maes, J., 2013. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 4: 4-14.
Egoh, B., Drakou, E.G., Dunbar, M.B., Maes, J., Willemen, L., 2012. Indicators for mapping ecosystem services: a review. Report EUR 25456 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Kienast, F., Helfenstein, J., 2016. Modelling ecosystem services. In M. Potschin, R. Haines-Young, R. Fish, & R. K. Turner (Eds.), Routledge handbook of ecosystem services (pp. 144-156). Abingdon: Routledge.
Lauf, S., Haase, D., & Kleinschmit, B. (2014). Linkages between ecosystem services provisioning, urban growth and shrinkage–A modeling approach assessing ecosystem service trade-offs. Ecological indicators , 42 , 73-94.
Maes J, Crossman ND, Burkhard B (2016) Mapping eocsystem services. In: Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Turner RK (Eds) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services. Routledge, London, 188-204.
Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schagner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, Notte AL, Zulian G, Bouraoui F, Luisa Paracchini M, Braat L, Bidoglio G (2012) Mapping Ecosystem Services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services 1: 31-39.
Maes, J., Liquete, C., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Paracchini, M. L., Barredo, J. I., ... & Meiner, A. (2016). An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosystem services , 17 , 14-23.
Nemec, K. T., & Raudsepp-Hearne, C. (2013). The use of geographic information systems to map and assess ecosystem services. Biodiversity and conservation , 22 (1), 1-15.
Zurlini, G., Petrosillo, I., Aretano, R., Castorini, I., D'Arpa, S., De Marco, A., ... & Zaccarelli, N. (2014). Key fundamental aspects for mapping and assessing ecosystem services: predictability of ecosystem service providers at scales from local to global. Annali di Botanica , 4 , 53-63.
