Mapping and national assessment of ecosystems and their condition in North Macedonia

The aim of this report is to illustrate by means of a series of case studies the implementation of mapping and assessment of forest ecosystem services in different contexts and geographical levels. Methodological aspects, data issues, approaches, limitations, gaps and further steps for improvement are analysed for providing good practices and decision making guidance. The EU initiative on Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES), with the support of all Member States, contributes to improve the knowledge on ecosystem services. MAES is one of the building-block initiatives supporting the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

Linking ecosystem condition and ecosystem services: A methodological approach applied to European agroecosystems

Ecosystem-based coastal zone management: A comprehensive assessment of coastal ecosystems in the Yangtze Estuary coastal zone

Chapter 4 Bioindicators for ecosystem management, with special reference to freshwater systems

Research Highlights: The developed National Set of Indicators for the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) implementation in Greece at the national level sets the official, national basis on which future studies will be conducted for MAES reporting for the achievement of targets within the National and the European Union (EU) biodiversity Strategy. Background and Objectives: Greece is currently developing and implementing a MAES nation-wide program based on the region’s unique characteristics following the proposed methodologies by the European Commission, in the frame of the LIFE-IP 4 NATURA project (Integrated actions for the conservation and management of Natura 2000 sites, species, habitats and ecosystems in Greece). In this paper, we present the steps followed to compile standardized MAES indicators for Greece that include: (a) collection and review of the available MAES-related datasets, (b) shortcomings and limitations encountered and overcome, (c) identification of data gaps and (d) assumptions and framework setting. Correspondence to EU and National Strategies and Policies are also examined to provide an initial guidance for detailed thematic studies. Materials and Methods: We followed the requirements of the EU MAES framework for ecosystem services and ecosystem condition indicator selection. Ecosystem services reported under the selected indicators were assigned following the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services. Spatial analysis techniques were applied to create relevant thematic maps. Results: A set of 40 MAES indicators was drafted, distributed in six general indicator groups, i.e., Biodiversity, Environmental quality, Food, material and energy, Forestry, Recreation and Water resources. The protocols for the development and implementation of an indicator were also drafted and adopted for future MAES studies in Greece, providing guidance for adaptive development and adding extra indicators when and where needed. Thematic maps representing ecosystem services (ES) bundles and ES hotspots were also created to identify areas of ES importance and simultaneously communicate the results at the national and regional levels.

Increasing degradation coral reefs ecosystem has created many concerns. Reduction of this damage can only be done with good and proper management of coral reef ecosystem based on existing condition. The condition of coral reef ecosystem can be determined by assessing its community structure. This study investigates community structure of coral reef ecosystems around Saebus Island, Sumenep District, East Java, by using satellite imagery analysis and field observations. Satellite imagery analysis by Lyzenga methods was used to determine the observation stations and substrate distribution. Field observations were done by using Line Intercept Transect method at 4 stations, at the depth of 3 and 10 meters. The results showed that the percentage of coral reef coverage at the depth of 3 and 10 meters were 64.36% and 59.29%, respectively, and included in fine coverage category. This study found in total 25 genera from 13 families of corals at all stations. The most common species found wereAcropora,Porites, andPocillopora, while the least common species wereFavitesandMontastrea. Average value of Diversity, Uniformity and Dominancy indices were 2.94, 0.8 and 0.18 which include as medium, high, and low category, respectively. These results suggest that coral reef ecosystems around Saebus Island is in a good condition.

Figure 6 from: Vogiatzakis IN, Zotos S, Litskas VD, Manolaki P, Sarris D, Stavrinides MC (2020) Towards implementing Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services in Cyprus: A first set of indicators for ecosystem management. One Ecosystem 5: e47715. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.5.e47715

The mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services (MAES) is key to inform sustainable policy and decision-making at national and sub-national levels. Responding to the paucity of research in sub-Saharan Africa, we conduct a pilot study for Eritrea that aims to map and assess the temporal dynamics of key ecosystems and their services. We reviewed policy and legal documents, analyzed land cover changes and estimated the potential for ecosystem services supply through an expert-based matrix approach. Our results showed that from 2015 to 2019, the potential supply of the ecosystem services analyzed (e.g., crop provisioning, water supply and recreation) increased, with the exception of wood supply. Overall, our study presents policy-relevant insights as to where to conserve, develop, or restore ecosystem services supply in Eritrea. Our approach is transferable to similar data scarce contexts and can thereby support policies toward more sustainable land development for people and nature.

The obligations of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 are generating a need to create national maps and monitoring systems for the state of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) on the basis of indicators. The paper gives an overview of the ecosystem services indicators being developed for Germany in the context of ongoing research projects. Additionally, it provides the indicator specifications, which are aligned with the EU MAES framework concepts (initiative on Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services). We illustrate aspects of data selection, calculation and negotiation procedures, results and target values in general and by way of examples. The German indicator-based approach presents measures and sums up ES in their spatial expression and temporal change and compares them with objectives. As far as possible, this is carried out according to the demand-supply concept. A prioritization of ES classes to be processed was carried out in the framework of an expert-based assessment. The results indicated that 21 of the 48 CICES classes (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services) were most relevant for Germany in recent years. We proposed a total of 51 indicators, of which 14 indicators for 4 ES classes were accepted, implemented and published by the end of 2016. The development of ES maps and the indicator-based assessment on a national scale is a process. Consequently, the necessary further steps are shown.

One Ecosystem is an innovative open access scholarly journal which provides a forum for studies in the field of ecology and sustainability. In addition to conventional research papers, the journal welcomes contributions documenting the entire research cycle, including data, models, methods, workflows, results, software, perspectives and policy recommendations. By making research outputs public, the journal will open up new mechanisms for integration of information, collaboration, appraisal, and dissemination. One Ecosystem uses ARPHA - a technologically unique publishing platform which supports the full life cycle of a manuscript, from writing through submission, public peer-review, publication and dissemination.

A national scale web mapping platform for mainstreaming ecosystem services in Greece

Figure 2 from: Nedkov S, Borisova B, Koulov B, Zhiyanski M, Bratanova-Doncheva S, Nikolova M, Kroumova J (2018) Towards integrated mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services in Bulgaria: The Central Balkan case study. One Ecosystem 3: e25428. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e25428

Figure 1 from: Vogiatzakis IN, Zotos S, Litskas VD, Manolaki P, Sarris D, Stavrinides MC (2020) Towards implementing Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services in Cyprus: A first set of indicators for ecosystem management. One Ecosystem 5: e47715. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.5.e47715

Natural heritage (NH) possesses an outstanding universal value that can be described as “natural significance” at a national level. The ecosystems can be considered as the spatial units which represent the NH of the particular area in terms of their value to people. Recreation and tourism are amongst the important values which are strongly dependent on the NH and they have a certain impact on the ecosystems' condition and the quality of the services they provide. The efforts through the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and thier Services (MAES) process led to the development of a multi-tiered approach that considers different methods at different levels of detail and complexity and can be applied according to specific needs, data and resource availability. In this paper, we propose the development of this methodology for the specific need for mapping and assessment of the NH as a source of ecosystem services (ES) for recreation and tourism. The conceptual scheme of the study demonstrates how the MAES framework can be adapted to the specific needs of the work and arrange the methods into three tiers according to the data availability and resources. The mapping and assessment procedure is based on an algorithm for spatial data analyses which enables the evaluation of the NH potential to provide 15 ecosystem services. The results show that the NH of Bulgaria is a valuable source of ES which are well presented in most parts of the country. The areas with very high potential form several clusters that correspond to the country's tourist regions. The proposed approach is applicable on the national scale and solves the problem of data availability limitations for various ES. The algorithm ensures the optimal quality of the results using the available data and resources. Instead of an expert-based assessment for all services which is easier, but less accurate, the proposed approach provides the means how to define more precise indicators, based on statistical data or models where possible. The study provides appropriate data for analyses of the methods’ performance at different tiers.

In the face of enduring environmental decline, ecologists are continuously exploring new ways to improve the relevance of their research and address nature conservation issues. Hoping for more relevant solutions than former species-centered conservation, some ecologists have mapped ecosystems and the services they deliver to human societies. Maps offer crucial, but understudied, relevance-making tools. By proposing a relational conceptualisation of relevance, I demonstrate that maps can make issues simultaneously relevant and irrelevant for conservation. In two mapping projects conducted at the European Union level by the Working Group Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services and at the French regional scale by the Laboratoire d’Écologie Alpine, I investigate how the (ir)relevance of ecosystem services maps is enacted through different modes. I successively show that: ecologists employed maps to re-orient their research toward social issues, but were constrained by the available quantified data (mode A); they used maps to implement a biopolitical approach and decide which ecosystems to protect, yet grappled with the imprecision of maps (mode B); and they engaged stakeholders in map development, but had to make excessive adjustments to align with their demands (mode C). I conclude by arguing that ecosystem services maps exemplify an automation of relevance, where relevance is more conditioned by technical feasibility than by the conceptualisation of solutions to conservation issues. Ultimately, the article contributes to the relevance scholarship by advancing the concept of irrelevance, operationalising the study of modes of relevance, and demonstrating that relevance is an inherently relational process.