Suchergebnisse

Green spaces are increasingly recognised as key elements in enhancing urban resilience as they provide several ecosystem services. Therefore, their implementation and monitoring in cities are crucial to meet sustainability targets.In this paper, we provide a methodology to compute an indicator that assesses changes in vegetation cover within Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI). Such an indicator is adopted as one of the indicators for reporting on the key area "nature and biodiversity" in the Green City Accord (GCA).In the first section, the key steps to derive the indicator are described and a script, which computes the trends in vegetation cover using Google Earth Engine (GEE), is provided.The second section describes the application of the indicator in a multi-scale, policy-orientated perspective. The analysis has been carried out in 696 European Functional Urban Areas (FUAs), considering changes in vegetation cover inside UGI between 1996 and 2018. Results were analysed for the EU and the United Kingdom. The Municipality of Padua (Italy) is used as a case study to illustrate the results at the local level.Over the last 22 years, a slight upward trend characterised the vegetation growth within UGI in European FUAs. Within core cities and densily built-upcommuting zones, the trend was stable; in non-densely built-up areas, an upward trend was recorded. Vegetation cover in UGI has been relatively stable in European cities. However, a negative balance between abrupt changes in greening and browning has been recorded, affecting most parts of European cities (75% of core cities and 77% of commuting zones in densely built-up areas). This still indicates ongoing land take with no compensation of green spaces that are lost to artificial areas.Focusing on the FUA of Padua, a downward trend was observed in 33.3% and 12.9% of UGI in densely built-up and not-densely built-up areas, respectively. Within the FUA of Padua, most municipalities are characterised by a negative balance between abrupt greening and browning, both in ...

Green spaces are increasingly recognised as key elements in enhancing urban resilience as they provide several ecosystem services. Therefore, their implementation and monitoring in cities are crucial to meet sustainability targets.In this paper, we provide a methodology to compute an indicator that assesses changes in vegetation cover within Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI). Such an indicator is adopted as one of the indicators for reporting on the key area "nature and biodiversity" in the Green City Accord (GCA).In the first section, the key steps to derive the indicator are described and a script, which computes the trends in vegetation cover using Google Earth Engine (GEE), is provided.The second section describes the application of the indicator in a multi-scale, policy-orientated perspective. The analysis has been carried out in 696 European Functional Urban Areas (FUAs), considering changes in vegetation cover inside UGI between 1996 and 2018. Results were analysed for the EU and the United Kingdom. The Municipality of Padua (Italy) is used as a case study to illustrate the results at the local level.Over the last 22 years, a slight upward trend characterised the vegetation growth within UGI in European FUAs. Within core cities and densily built-upcommuting zones, the trend was stable; in non-densely built-up areas, an upward trend was recorded. Vegetation cover in UGI has been relatively stable in European cities. However, a negative balance between abrupt changes in greening and browning has been recorded, affecting most parts of European cities (75% of core cities and 77% of commuting zones in densely built-up areas). This still indicates ongoing land take with no compensation of green spaces that are lost to artificial areas.Focusing on the FUA of Padua, a downward trend was observed in 33.3% and 12.9% of UGI in densely built-up and not-densely built-up areas, respectively. Within the FUA of Padua, most municipalities are characterised by a negative balance between abrupt greening and browning, both in non-densely built-up and densely built-up areas.This approach complements traditional metrics, such as the extent of UGI or tree canopy cover, by providing a valuable measure of condition of urban ecosystems and an instrument to monitor the impact of land take.

Ecosystem condition accounts are part of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). An ecosystem condition account contains aggregated statistical information about the overall abiotic and biotic quality of an ecosystem at a policy relevant spatial scale. This article reviews 23 publicly-accessible reports undertaken or commissioned by government agencies, academic and non-government organisations that discuss or present an ecosystem condition account. This analysis revealed that ecosystem condition is usually reported for one or more ecosystem types, but there is little consistency in the terminology used to define ecosystem types. All case studies report variables or indicators that measure specific ecosystem characteristics in order to make inferences about the overall condition of ecosystems. All studies included biotic indicators and almost all studies included species-based indicators in the condition account. The thematic aggregation of indicators into a single composite index (or in a few composite sub-indices) is not a standard practice, but applied in about half of the studies. The definition and use of a reference condition or reference levels for specific indicators against which the reported condition can be evaluated is not a standard practice, but was applied in about half of the studies. Based on this analysis, we suggest the revision of the SEEA EEA to propose a globally-consistent typology of ecosystem types; to recommend a list of ecosystem condition indicators according to an agreed classification; to provide further guidance on aggregation methods and on the development of an ecosystem condition index that can be used to compare ecosystem condition across ecosystem types and across different accounting areas; to provide further guidance on how best to set reference levels and reference conditions against which the past, current and future ecosystem condition can be assessed; and to propose a standard set of statistical tables for reporting ...

Ecosystem condition accounts are part of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). An ecosystem condition account contains aggregated statistical information about the overall abiotic and biotic quality of an ecosystem at a policy relevant spatial scale. This article reviews 23 publicly-accessible reports undertaken or commissioned by government agencies, academic and non-government organisations that discuss or present an ecosystem condition account. This analysis revealed that ecosystem condition is usually reported for one or more ecosystem types, but there is little consistency in the terminology used to define ecosystem types. All case studies report variables or indicators that measure specific ecosystem characteristics in order to make inferences about the overall condition of ecosystems. All studies included biotic indicators and almost all studies included species-based indicators in the condition account. The thematic aggregation of indicators into a single composite index (or in a few composite sub-indices) is not a standard practice, but applied in about half of the studies. The definition and use of a reference condition or reference levels for specific indicators against which the reported condition can be evaluated is not a standard practice, but was applied in about half of the studies. Based on this analysis, we suggest the revision of the SEEA EEA to propose a globally-consistent typology of ecosystem types; to recommend a list of ecosystem condition indicators according to an agreed classification; to provide further guidance on aggregation methods and on the development of an ecosystem condition index that can be used to compare ecosystem condition across ecosystem types and across different accounting areas; to provide further guidance on how best to set reference levels and reference conditions against which the past, current and future ecosystem condition can be assessed; and to propose a standard set of statistical tables for reporting the condition account.

The widely reported impacts of climate change on ecosystems and biodiversity pose a threat also to the supply of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services (ES) arise when ecological structures or functions contribute toward meeting a human demand. Global change is impacting biodiversity and ecosystems properties and is therefore likely to affect the supply of ES and, consequently, human well-being. Assessing the possible bio-physical impacts of the ongoing and future changes in climate is relevant for designing mitigation and adaptation policies. Yet undergoing a comprehensive climate impact assessment continues to be a demanding research challenge due to the large knowledge gaps, for instance on impact areas such as the consequences on ecosystem services.\n\n Here we present a preliminary assessment of the changes in ES supply as a function of projected changes in climate and land use / land cover (LULC). The assessment is carried out for the mainland of the 28 Member States (MS) of the European Union (EU-28). The focus of the analysis is on regulating ecosystem services, which are directly dependent on the proper functioning of ecosystems, they are not traded on markets so that their contribution to human well-being is more difficult to assess. We present an assessment of changes in ES supply for three regulating services: air quality regulation, soil erosion control, and water flow regulation. The assessment was carried out under the IPCC SRES A1B climate change scenario. Changes were expressed as a positive or negative percentage variation, relative to the present situation. Land conversion was found to have a much stronger impact on ES provision than climate change. When considering both climate change and LULC change the expected variation ranged between -100% and +100%. These results are explained by the key role that LULC plays in the delivery of regulating ES. The sensitivity of ES to climate change is smaller than that to LULC change, with variations ranging at the most between -27% and +27%. However, these changes are the most relevant to assess, for instance, potential economic impacts of climate change on the provision of ES. There are clearly major challenges to address within the area of climate-change impacts, yet the scale of global change requires prompt actions to mitigate or adapt to the new conditions. This work, therefore, represents perforce a preliminary spatially explicit assessment. Further research is needed not only to expand the analysis to other ES, but also to incorporate processes and scaling properties of the systems considered as they become available, and to account for spatial dependencies.

The widely reported impacts of climate change on ecosystems and biodiversity pose a threat also to the supply of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services (ES) arise when ecological structures or functions contribute toward meeting a human demand. Global change is impacting biodiversity and ecosystems properties and is therefore likely to affect the supply of ES and, consequently, human well-being. Assessing the possible bio-physical impacts of the ongoing and future changes in climate is relevant for designing mitigation and adaptation policies. Yet undergoing a comprehensive climate impact assessment continues to be a demanding research challenge due to the large knowledge gaps, for instance on impact areas such as the consequences on ecosystem services. Here we present a preliminary assessment of the changes in ES supply as a function of projected changes in climate and land use / land cover (LULC). The assessment is carried out for the mainland of the 28 Member States (MS) of the European Union (EU-28). The focus of the analysis is on regulating ecosystem services, which are directly dependent on the proper functioning of ecosystems, they are not traded on markets so that their contribution to human well-being is more difficult to assess. We present an assessment of changes in ES supply for three regulating services: air quality regulation, soil erosion control, and water flow regulation. The assessment was carried out under the IPCC SRES A1B climate change scenario. Changes were expressed as a positive or negative percentage variation, relative to the present situation. Land conversion was found to have a much stronger impact on ES provision than climate change. When considering both climate change and LULC change the expected variation ranged between -100% and +100%. These results are explained by the key role that LULC plays in the delivery of regulating ES. The sensitivity of ES to climate change is smaller than that to LULC change, with variations ranging at the most between -27% and +27%. However, these ...

Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 aims at the deployment of Green Infrastructure (GI) and the restoration of at least 15% of degraded ecosystems. We assess different alternatives for the spatial planning of GI and ecosystem restoration across the European Union by using spatial conservation prioritization tools. We compared three different scenarios for the identification of priority areas in which the ecosystem service potential, beneficiaries (i.e. people) and ecosystem condition play different roles. As an example of GI restoration, we also assessed the cost-effectiveness of removal of invasive alien species in the areas prioritized under each scenario. The comparative assessment of the spatial alternatives for GI shows synergies and conflicts. We found that GI could be efficiently established close to densely populated areas, since high multi-functionality is delivered in these locations (close to human settlements). However, restoration costs, such as the removal of invasive alien species, were higher in such areas given the influence of urban pressures. We also found that GI prioritized in areas under poor ecosystem condition would require a larger spatial extent of implementation, due to a lower ecosystem service potential per unit area. Given the scarcity of resources for investment in GI and ecosystem restoration, win-win situations should be identified where GI designation can deliver several policy objectives simultaneously. The prioritization framework we have presented here could also be applied at the country or regional level to support local planning. Multi-functionality Ecosystem service potential Beneficiaries Habitat conservation status Ecosystem condition Ecosystem restoration ; publishedVersion

National ecosystem assessments form an essential knowledge base for safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services. We analyze eight European (sub-)national ecosystem assessments (Portugal, United Kingdom, Spain, Norway, Flanders, Netherlands, Finland, and Germany) and compare their objectives, political context, methods, and operationalization. We observed remarkable differences in breadth of the assessment, methods employed, variety of services considered, policy mandates, and funding mechanisms. Biodiversity and ecosystem services are mainly assessed independently, with biodiversity conceptualized as underpinning services, as a source of conflict with services, or as a service in itself. Recommendations derived from our analysis for future ecosystem assessments include the needs to improve the common evidence base, to advance the mapping of services, to consider international flows of services, and to connect more strongly to policy questions. Although the context specificity of national ecosystem assessments is acknowledged as important, a greater harmonization across assessments could help to better inform common European policies and future pan-regional assessments.

National ecosystem assessments form an essential knowledge base for safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services. We analyze eight European (sub-)national ecosystem assessments (Portugal, United Kingdom, Spain, Norway, Flanders, Netherlands, Finland, and Germany) and compare their objectives, political context, methods, and operationalization. We observed remarkable differences in breadth of the assessment, methods employed, variety of services considered, policy mandates, and funding mechanisms. Biodiversity and ecosystem services are mainly assessed independently, with biodiversity conceptualized as underpinning services, as a source of conflict with services, or as a service in itself. Recommendations derived from our analysis for future ecosystem assessments include the needs to improve the common evidence base, to advance the mapping of services, to consider international flows of services, and to connect more strongly to policy questions. Although the context specificity of national ecosystem assessments is acknowledged as important, a greater harmonization across assessments could help to better inform common European policies and future pan-regional assessments.

International audience ; Semi-natural vegetation in agricultural land mainly includes extensively managed grasslands, agro-forestry areas and all vegetated features that are not used for crop production, such as hedgerows, buffer strips, field margins and woodlots. Semi-natural vegetation plays a major role in the supply of ecosystem services such as pollination, pest control, water quality control and erosion prevention. The efficiency of ecosystem services for agriculture should therefore depend upon the spatial distribution of semi-natural vegetation. In spite of such a relevance, semi-natural vegetation in agricultural land has never been mapped at the European scale. Therefore, we report here the first 1- km resolution map of semi-natural vegetation in agricultural land at the European Union scale. For that, we use an innovative convergence-of-evidence mapping method. We also present an assessment and a classification of the relation between semi-natural vegetation and ecosystem service supply at the regional scale. The major improvements in our mapping method are the following: (1) both large and small patches of perennial vegetation are detected in fine-resolution satellite images by incorporating the spectral rule-based preliminary classifier, (2) the identification of semi-natural grassland is enhanced, (3) European ancillary maps are used to help mapping of woody vegetation and identification of agro-ecosystems. Validation shows that our output map is 34.3 % more accurate than pre-existing components. In addition, results show that regulating ecosystem services increase with the abundance of semi-natural vegetation in agricultural lands with a coefficient R2 of 0.67. The results also show no specific trend in relation to provisioning ecosystem services. These findings mean that semi-natural vegetation is usually beneficial for regulating services, whereas the relation to provisioning services is strictly context-dependent. Overall our study supports greening measures design in the frame of the Common ...

Water, food and energy are at the core of human needs and there is a boundless complex cycle among these three basic human needs. Ecosystems are in the center of this nexus, since they contribute to the provision of each component, making it imperative to understand the role of ecosystems in securing food, water and energy for human well-being. In this study we aimed to map and assess water provisioning services and associated benefits to support the ecosystem–water–food–energy nexus by taking into account environmental flow requirements for riverine ecosystems using the hydrological model Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). We developed a framework that includes indicators of renewable water (capacity of ecosystem to provide water) and water use (service flow) and we applied it in the Danube river basin over the period 1995–2004. Water scarcity indicators were used to map the possible water scarcity in the subbasins, and analyze the spatial match of water availability and water use. The results show that modelling is instrumental to perform the integrated analysis of the ecosystem–water–food–energy nexus; and that spatial mapping is a powerful tool to display environmental availability of water provisioning and regulatory services delivered by ecosystems, and can support the nexus analysis.

International audience ; Water, food and energy are at the core of human needs and there is a boundless complex cycle among these three basic human needs. Ecosystems are in the center of this nexus, since they contribute to the provision of each component, making it imperative to understand the role of ecosystems in securing food, water and energy for human well-being. In this study we aimed to map and assess water provisioning services and associated benefits to support the ecosystem–water–food–energy nexus by taking into account environmental flow requirements for riverine ecosystems using the hydrological model Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). We developed a framework that includes indicators of renewable water (capacity of ecosystem to provide water) and water use (service flow) and we applied it in the Danube river basin over the period 1995–2004. Water scarcity indicators were used to map the possible water scarcity in the subbasins, and analyze the spatial match of water availability and water use. The results show that modelling is instrumental to perform the integrated analysis of the ecosystem–water–food–energy nexus; and that spatial mapping is a powerful tool to display environmental availability of water provisioning and regulatory services delivered by ecosystems, and can support the nexus analysis.

Water, food and energy are at the core of human needs and there is a boundless complex cycle among these three basic human needs. Ecosystems are in the center of this nexus, since they contribute to the provision of each component, making it imperative to understand the role of ecosystems in securing food, water and energy for human well-being. In this study we aimed to map and assess water provisioning services and associated benefits to support the ecosystem–water–food–energy nexus by taking into account environmental flow requirements for riverine ecosystems using the hydrological model Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). We developed a framework that includes indicators of renewable water (capacity of ecosystem to provide water) and water use (service flow) and we applied it in the Danube river basin over the period 1995–2004. Water scarcity indicators were used to map the possible water scarcity in the subbasins, and analyze the spatial match of water availability and water use. The results show that modelling is instrumental to perform the integrated analysis of the ecosystem–water–food–energy nexus; and that spatial mapping is a powerful tool to display environmental availability of water provisioning and regulatory services delivered by ecosystems, and can support the nexus analysis.