Browsing by Author "Sieber, Ina M."
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Assessing the effects of different land-use/land-cover input datasets on modelling and mapping terrestrial ecosystem services : Case study Terceira Island (Azores, Portugal)Publication . Sieber, Ina M.; Hinsch, Malte; Vergílio, Marta H. S.; Gil, Artur José Freire; Burkhard, BenjaminModelling ecosystem services (ES) has become a new standard for the quantification and assessment of various ES. Multiple ES model applications are available that spatially estimate ES supply on the basis of land-use/land-cover (LULC) input data. This paper assesses how different input LULC datasets affect the modelling and mapping of ES supply for a case study on Terceira Island, the Azores (Portugal), namely: (1) the EU-wide CORINE LULC, (2) the Azores Region official LULC map (COS.A 2018) and (3) a remote sensing-based LULC and vegetation map of Terceira Island using Sentinel-2 satellite imagery. The InVEST model suite was applied, modelling altogether six ES (Recreation/Visitation, Pollination, Carbon Storage, Nutrient Delivery Ratio, Sediment Delivery Ratio and Seasonal Water Yield). Model outcomes of the three LULC datasets were compared in terms of similarity, performance and applicability for the user. For some InVEST modules, such as Pollination and Recreation, the differences in the LULC datasets had limited influence on the model results. For InVEST modules, based on more complex calculations and processes, such as Nutrient Delivery Ratio, the output ES maps showed a skewed distribution of ES supply. Yet, model results showed significant differences for differences in all modules and all LULCs. Understanding how differences arise between the LULC input datasets and the respective effect on model results is imperative when computing model-based ES maps. The choice for selecting appropriate LULC data should depend on: 1) the research or policy/decision-making question guiding the modelling study, 2) the ecosystems to be mapped, but also on 3) the spatial resolution of the mapping and 4) data availability at the local level. Communication and transparency on model input data are needed, especially if ES maps are used for supporting land use planning and decision-making.
- Ecosystem services mapping and assessment for policy- and decision-making : Lessons learned from a comparative analysis of European case studiesPublication . Geneletti, Davide; Esmail, Blal Adem; Cortinovis, Chiara; Arany, Ildikó; Balzan, Mario; van Beukering, Pieter; Bicking, Sabine; Borges, Paulo A. V.; Borisova, Bilyana; Broekx, Steven; Burkhard, Benjamin; Gil, Artur José Freire; Inghe, Ola; Kopperoinen, Leena; Kruse, Marion; Liekens, Inge; Lowicki, Damian; Mizgajski, Andrzej; Mulder, Sara; Nedkov, Stoyan; Ostergard, Hannah; Picanço, Ana; Ruskule, Anda; Santos-Martín, Fernando; Sieber, Ina M.; Svensson, Johan; Vačkářů, Dava; Veidemane, KristinaThis paper analyses and compares a set of case studies on ecosystem services (ES) mapping and assessment with the purpose of formulating lessons learned and recommendations. Fourteen case studies were selected during the EU Horizon 2020 “Coordination and Support Action” ESMERALDA to represent different policy- and decision-making processes throughout the European Union, across a wide range of themes, biomes and scales. The analysis is based on a framework that addresses the key steps of an ES mapping and assessment process, namely policy questions, stakeholder identification and involvement, application of mapping and assessment methods, dissemination and communication and implementation. The analysis revealed that most case studies were policy-orientated or gave explicit suggestions for policy implementation in different contexts, including urban, rural and natural areas. Amongst the findings, the importance of starting stakeholder engagement early in the process was confirmed in order to generate interest and confidence in the project and to increase their willingness to cooperate. Concerning mapping and assessment methods, it was found that the integration of methods and results is essential for providing a comprehensive overview from different perspectives (e.g. social, economic). Finally, lessons learned for effective implementation of ES mapping and assessment results are presented and discussed.
- Mapping and assessing ecosystem services in Europe's Overseas : A comparative analysis of MOVE case studiesPublication . Sieber, Ina M.; Montero-Hidalgo, Miriam; Kato-Huerta, Jarumi; Rendon, Paula; Santos-Martín, Fernando; Geneletti, Davide; Gil, Artur José Freire; Trégarot, Ewan; Lagabrielle, Erwann; Parelho, Carolina Paula Furtado de Medeiros; Arbelo, Manuel; van Beukering, Pieter; Bayley, Dan; Casas, Enrique; Duijndam, Sem; Cillaurren, Esperance; David, Gilbert; Dourdain, Aurélie; Haroun, Ricardo J.; Maréchal, Jean-Philippe; Martín García, Laura; Otero-Ferrer, Francisco; Palacios Nieto, Elena; Pelembe, Tara; Vergílio, Marta H. S.; Burkhard, BenjaminMapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) has been widely applied on the European Union (EU) mainland, whereas the EU Overseas entities still bear potential for implementation. This paper presents novel applications of the MAES procedure in the EU Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories ("EU Overseas"). Eight case studies from different geographical areas were analysed through a comparative assessment by applying an established framework following key steps in the MAES process, in order to stipulate lessons learned and recommendations for MAES in the EU Overseas. These key steps include the identification of policy questions, stakeholder networks and involvement, application of MAES methods, dissemination and communication and implementation. The case studies were conducted and analysed under the umbrella of the EU MOVE pilot project, including the Azores, the Canary Islands, Saint Martin, French Guiana, Martinique, Reunion Island and the Falkland Islands. Each case study represented different governance, policy and decision-making frameworks towards biodiversity and environmental protection. Case studies predominantly addressed the policy domains of Nature and Biodiversity Conservation and Marine and Maritime Policy. Ecosystem Services (ES) were assessed across a wide range of themes, biomes and scales, focusing on terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems. Results show that the implementation of the case studies was accompanied by extensive communication and dissemination activities. First success stories were visible, where the MAES exercise led to meaningful uptake of the ES concept to policies and decision-making. Yet, there is still work to be done - major bottlenecks were identified related to the MAES implementation centring around financial resources, training and technical expertise. Addressing these aspects can contribute to an enhanced implementation of MAES in the EU Overseas in the future.