The Experts below are selected from a list of 62727 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Emmi Nieminen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
marine and Coastal Ecosystem services on the science policy practice nexus challenges and opportunities from 11 european case studies
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystems Services & Management, 2017Co-Authors: Evangelia G Drakou, Charlene Kermagoret, Camino Liquete, Ana Ruizfrau, Kremena Burkhard, Ana I Lillebo, Alexander P E Van Oudenhoven, Johanna Ballebeganton, Joao Garcia Rodrigues, Emmi NieminenAbstract:We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and Coastal Ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This...
-
marine and Coastal Ecosystem services on the science policy practice nexus challenges and opportunities from 11 european case studies
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystems Services & Management, 2017Co-Authors: Evangelia G Drakou, Charlene Kermagoret, Camino Liquete, Ana Ruizfrau, Kremena Burkhard, Ana I Lillebo, Johanna Ballebeganton, Joao Garcia Rodrigues, Alexander P E Van Oudenhoven, Emmi NieminenAbstract:We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and Coastal Ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This work is the output of a panel convened by the Marine Working Group of the Ecosystem Services Partnership in September 2016. The MCES assessments were used to (1) address multiple policy objectives simultaneously, (2) interpret EU-wide policies to smaller scales and (3) inform local decision-making. Most of the studies did inform decision makers, but only in a few cases, the outputs were applied or informed decision-making. Significant limitations among the 11 assessments were the absence of shared understanding of the ES concept, data and knowledge gaps, difficulties in accounting for marine social–ecological systems complexity and partial stakeholder involvement. The findings of the expert panel call for continuous involvement of MCES ‘end users’, integrated knowledge on marine social–ecological systems, defining thresholds to MCES use and raising awareness to the general public. Such improvements at the intersection of science, policy and practice are essential starting points toward building a stronger science foundation supporting management of European marine Ecosystems.
Evangelia G Drakou - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
marine and Coastal Ecosystem services on the science policy practice nexus challenges and opportunities from 11 european case studies
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystems Services & Management, 2017Co-Authors: Evangelia G Drakou, Charlene Kermagoret, Camino Liquete, Ana Ruizfrau, Kremena Burkhard, Ana I Lillebo, Alexander P E Van Oudenhoven, Johanna Ballebeganton, Joao Garcia Rodrigues, Emmi NieminenAbstract:We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and Coastal Ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This...
-
marine and Coastal Ecosystem services on the science policy practice nexus challenges and opportunities from 11 european case studies
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystems Services & Management, 2017Co-Authors: Evangelia G Drakou, Charlene Kermagoret, Camino Liquete, Ana Ruizfrau, Kremena Burkhard, Ana I Lillebo, Johanna Ballebeganton, Joao Garcia Rodrigues, Alexander P E Van Oudenhoven, Emmi NieminenAbstract:We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and Coastal Ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This work is the output of a panel convened by the Marine Working Group of the Ecosystem Services Partnership in September 2016. The MCES assessments were used to (1) address multiple policy objectives simultaneously, (2) interpret EU-wide policies to smaller scales and (3) inform local decision-making. Most of the studies did inform decision makers, but only in a few cases, the outputs were applied or informed decision-making. Significant limitations among the 11 assessments were the absence of shared understanding of the ES concept, data and knowledge gaps, difficulties in accounting for marine social–ecological systems complexity and partial stakeholder involvement. The findings of the expert panel call for continuous involvement of MCES ‘end users’, integrated knowledge on marine social–ecological systems, defining thresholds to MCES use and raising awareness to the general public. Such improvements at the intersection of science, policy and practice are essential starting points toward building a stronger science foundation supporting management of European marine Ecosystems.
-
current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and Coastal Ecosystem services a systematic review
PLOS ONE, 2013Co-Authors: Camino Liquete, Evangelia G Drakou, Chiara Piroddi, Leigh Josephine Gurney, Stelios Katsanevakis, Aymen Charef, Benis EgohAbstract: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.
Ana I Lillebo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a simple spatial typology for assessment of complex Coastal Ecosystem services across multiple scales
Science of The Total Environment, 2019Co-Authors: Tim Ohiggins, Antonio J A Nogueira, Ana I LilleboAbstract:This paper aims to present and demonstrate the applicability of a methodology to characterise supply and demand for Ecosystem services (ES) on the basis of spatial properties and interdependence, and economic properties of ES. The typology is demonstrated to support inclusion of ES flow in social-ecological systems management. Ria de Aveiro Coastal lagoon, Portugal, is used as a showcase for the proposed spatial typology for Ecosystem services assessment across multiple scales. To address the proposed objective a four-step methodology was developed: i) choice of the management area and definition of the boundaries of the system to be governed; ii) assessment and classification of ES produced or consumed within the management area, where supply or demand of an ES may be endogenous, exogenous or partially exogenous/endogenous; iii) mapping of production and consumption areas covering the major categories of ES (biotic and abiotic provisioning services, regulating and maintenance services, and cultural services) and major types of spatial relationships, which may be independent; interdependent, dependent or controlling; and iv) spatial characterisation of the ES production and benefits based on excludability and rivalness of ES. In Ria de Aveiro from the variety of ES and their spatial relationships we highlight interdependencies between the Lagoon and other locations outside the management area. This approach shows that the proposed methodology can support the understanding of these interrelationships and improve these connections by, identifying inherent transactions and key-actors.
-
marine and Coastal Ecosystem services on the science policy practice nexus challenges and opportunities from 11 european case studies
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystems Services & Management, 2017Co-Authors: Evangelia G Drakou, Charlene Kermagoret, Camino Liquete, Ana Ruizfrau, Kremena Burkhard, Ana I Lillebo, Alexander P E Van Oudenhoven, Johanna Ballebeganton, Joao Garcia Rodrigues, Emmi NieminenAbstract:We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and Coastal Ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This...
-
marine and Coastal Ecosystem services on the science policy practice nexus challenges and opportunities from 11 european case studies
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystems Services & Management, 2017Co-Authors: Evangelia G Drakou, Charlene Kermagoret, Camino Liquete, Ana Ruizfrau, Kremena Burkhard, Ana I Lillebo, Johanna Ballebeganton, Joao Garcia Rodrigues, Alexander P E Van Oudenhoven, Emmi NieminenAbstract:We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and Coastal Ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This work is the output of a panel convened by the Marine Working Group of the Ecosystem Services Partnership in September 2016. The MCES assessments were used to (1) address multiple policy objectives simultaneously, (2) interpret EU-wide policies to smaller scales and (3) inform local decision-making. Most of the studies did inform decision makers, but only in a few cases, the outputs were applied or informed decision-making. Significant limitations among the 11 assessments were the absence of shared understanding of the ES concept, data and knowledge gaps, difficulties in accounting for marine social–ecological systems complexity and partial stakeholder involvement. The findings of the expert panel call for continuous involvement of MCES ‘end users’, integrated knowledge on marine social–ecological systems, defining thresholds to MCES use and raising awareness to the general public. Such improvements at the intersection of science, policy and practice are essential starting points toward building a stronger science foundation supporting management of European marine Ecosystems.
Ronald M. Thom - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
adaptive management of Coastal Ecosystem restoration projects
Ecological Engineering, 2000Co-Authors: Ronald M. ThomAbstract:Abstract There is a clear need to apply better and more effective management schemes to Coastal Ecosystem restoration projects. It is very common for aquatic Ecosystem restoration projects not to meet their goals. Poor performance has led to a high degree of uncertainty about the potential success of any restoration effort. Under adaptive management, the knowledge gained through monitoring of the project and social policies is translated into restoration policy and program redesign. Planners and managers can utilize the information from the monitoring programs in an effective way to assure that project goals are met or that informed and objective decisions are made to address both ecological and societal needs. The three main ingredients of an effective adaptive management plan in a restoration project are: (1) a clear goal statement; (2) a conceptual model; and (3) a decision framework. The goal ‘drives’ the design of the project and helps guide the development of performance criteria. The goal statement and performance criteria provide the means by which the system can be judged. With the conceptual model, the knowledge base from the field of ecological science plays an active and critical role in designing the project to meet the goal. A system-development matrix provides a simple decision framework to view the alternative states for the system during development, incorporate knowledge gained through the monitoring program, and formulate a decision on actions to take if the system is not meeting its goal.
-
System-development matrix for adaptive management of Coastal Ecosystem restoration projects
Ecological Engineering, 1997Co-Authors: Ronald M. ThomAbstract:Abstract Ecological performance of Coastal habitat and Ecosystem restoration projects is not yet predictable with great certainty. The simple method developed in this paper applies the principles of adaptive management to Coastal Ecosystem restoration to improve the ability to assess performance and make informed decisions on how to improve performance. The method uses a system-development matrix to assist in identifying the state of the system for which restorative actions were applied. The matrix defines development in terms of structure and function, but can accommodate other performance and development characteristics. Monitoring of the system provides input on the state of the system. Phrases in the matrix provide plausible explanations for the condition of the system and point toward possible actions to be taken. The matrix is applied using examples from community development on dredged material, a seagrass system and tidal marsh system. It is recommended that the matrix be developed by all interested parties during the planning phase. This group can then utilize the matrix for managing the project.
Camino Liquete - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
marine and Coastal Ecosystem services on the science policy practice nexus challenges and opportunities from 11 european case studies
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystems Services & Management, 2017Co-Authors: Evangelia G Drakou, Charlene Kermagoret, Camino Liquete, Ana Ruizfrau, Kremena Burkhard, Ana I Lillebo, Alexander P E Van Oudenhoven, Johanna Ballebeganton, Joao Garcia Rodrigues, Emmi NieminenAbstract:We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and Coastal Ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This...
-
marine and Coastal Ecosystem services on the science policy practice nexus challenges and opportunities from 11 european case studies
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystems Services & Management, 2017Co-Authors: Evangelia G Drakou, Charlene Kermagoret, Camino Liquete, Ana Ruizfrau, Kremena Burkhard, Ana I Lillebo, Johanna Ballebeganton, Joao Garcia Rodrigues, Alexander P E Van Oudenhoven, Emmi NieminenAbstract:We compared and contrasted 11 European case studies to identify challenges and opportunities toward the operationalization of marine and Coastal Ecosystem service (MCES) assessments in Europe. This work is the output of a panel convened by the Marine Working Group of the Ecosystem Services Partnership in September 2016. The MCES assessments were used to (1) address multiple policy objectives simultaneously, (2) interpret EU-wide policies to smaller scales and (3) inform local decision-making. Most of the studies did inform decision makers, but only in a few cases, the outputs were applied or informed decision-making. Significant limitations among the 11 assessments were the absence of shared understanding of the ES concept, data and knowledge gaps, difficulties in accounting for marine social–ecological systems complexity and partial stakeholder involvement. The findings of the expert panel call for continuous involvement of MCES ‘end users’, integrated knowledge on marine social–ecological systems, defining thresholds to MCES use and raising awareness to the general public. Such improvements at the intersection of science, policy and practice are essential starting points toward building a stronger science foundation supporting management of European marine Ecosystems.
-
current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and Coastal Ecosystem services a systematic review
PLOS ONE, 2013Co-Authors: Camino Liquete, Evangelia G Drakou, Chiara Piroddi, Leigh Josephine Gurney, Stelios Katsanevakis, Aymen Charef, Benis EgohAbstract: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.