2
with the specific purpose of informing decisions (Daily et al. 2009). Highlighting
the dependency of human wellbeing on nature, the ES concept definitely makes
clear that no trade-off should exist between sustainable human development and
nature conservation (de Groot et al. 2010). Consequently, identifying, mapping,
quantifying, and valuing ES is expected to improve decision making, ultimately
promoting more sustainable development trajectories (TEEB 2010b; Díaz et al.
2015; Guerry et al. 2015). In the last years, efforts have been made to include ES in
different decision-making processes to support the identification and comparison of
costs and benefits of different policies (TEEB 2010b) and to contribute to the assessment of their impacts (Geneletti 2013).
At the international level, the acknowledgement of the need to secure a sustainable and fair provision of ES was explicitly at the basis of the adoption of the Aichitargets by the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) and of the creation of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(2012). The European Union is at the forefront in pursuing these obligations and is
leading the way toward mainstreaming the ES approach by progressively embedding
the ES concept in its policies (Bouwma et al. 2017). Through the EU Biodiversity
strategy to 2020, EU Member States committed to map and assess ES in their territory, thus setting the base for continuous monitoring and the inclusion of ES in the
system of national accounting and reporting across the EU (Maes et al. 2012, 2016).
Comprehensive ES assessments have also been carried out at national level, both in
the EU and in other parts of the world (Schröter et al. 2016). Furthermore, several
local experiences have proven the effectiveness of the ES approach in driving policy
changes toward more sustainable outcomes in different contexts and scales
(Ruckelshaus et al. 2015). Topics addressed include river basin management, climate
change adaptation and mitigation, green infrastructure planning, and corporate risk
management, to name just a few (Ruckelshaus et al. 2015; Dick et al. 2017), with a
wide range of stakeholders involved in different decision- making processes, from
landscape and urban planning (Hansen et al. 2015; Babí Almenar et al. 2018) to
impact assessment (Geneletti 2016; Rozas-Vásquez et al. 2018).
The spread of the ES concept and its progressive inclusion into decision-making
at various levels raised the interest on how ES and related values could be assessed
in a way that allowed comparison across space and monitoring through time.
Considering the type of values that they aim to capture, ES assessment methods are
commonly classified in biophysical, socio-cultural, and economic methods
(Harrison et al. 2017). Biophysical methods quantify ES in biophysical units based
on the analysis of structural and functional traits of ecosystems, or on biophysical
modelling (e.g., hydrological and ecological models, production functions). Sociocultural methods capture individual or social preferences expressed by stakeholders
in non-monetary terms (e.g., time use assessments, photo series analysis). Economic
methods quantify ES values in monetary units (e.g., market prices, replacement
cost, hedonic pricing). Although the distinction is sometimes blurred (e.g., methods
to investigate social preference can be used to assign monetary values), it helps to
understand the variety of methods from different disciplinary backgrounds that can
be adopted in ES assessments (Santos-Martin et al. 2018).
1 Introduction
with the specific purpose of informing decisions (Daily et al. 2009). Highlighting
the dependency of human wellbeing on nature, the ES concept definitely makes
clear that no trade-off should exist between sustainable human development and
nature conservation (de Groot et al. 2010). Consequently, identifying, mapping,
quantifying, and valuing ES is expected to improve decision making, ultimately
promoting more sustainable development trajectories (TEEB 2010b; Díaz et al.
2015; Guerry et al. 2015). In the last years, efforts have been made to include ES in
different decision-making processes to support the identification and comparison of
costs and benefits of different policies (TEEB 2010b) and to contribute to the assessment of their impacts (Geneletti 2013).
At the international level, the acknowledgement of the need to secure a sustainable and fair provision of ES was explicitly at the basis of the adoption of the Aichitargets by the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) and of the creation of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(2012). The European Union is at the forefront in pursuing these obligations and is
leading the way toward mainstreaming the ES approach by progressively embedding
the ES concept in its policies (Bouwma et al. 2017). Through the EU Biodiversity
strategy to 2020, EU Member States committed to map and assess ES in their territory, thus setting the base for continuous monitoring and the inclusion of ES in the
system of national accounting and reporting across the EU (Maes et al. 2012, 2016).
Comprehensive ES assessments have also been carried out at national level, both in
the EU and in other parts of the world (Schröter et al. 2016). Furthermore, several
local experiences have proven the effectiveness of the ES approach in driving policy
changes toward more sustainable outcomes in different contexts and scales
(Ruckelshaus et al. 2015). Topics addressed include river basin management, climate
change adaptation and mitigation, green infrastructure planning, and corporate risk
management, to name just a few (Ruckelshaus et al. 2015; Dick et al. 2017), with a
wide range of stakeholders involved in different decision- making processes, from
landscape and urban planning (Hansen et al. 2015; Babí Almenar et al. 2018) to
impact assessment (Geneletti 2016; Rozas-Vásquez et al. 2018).
The spread of the ES concept and its progressive inclusion into decision-making
at various levels raised the interest on how ES and related values could be assessed
in a way that allowed comparison across space and monitoring through time.
Considering the type of values that they aim to capture, ES assessment methods are
commonly classified in biophysical, socio-cultural, and economic methods
(Harrison et al. 2017). Biophysical methods quantify ES in biophysical units based
on the analysis of structural and functional traits of ecosystems, or on biophysical
modelling (e.g., hydrological and ecological models, production functions). Sociocultural methods capture individual or social preferences expressed by stakeholders
in non-monetary terms (e.g., time use assessments, photo series analysis). Economic
methods quantify ES values in monetary units (e.g., market prices, replacement
cost, hedonic pricing). Although the distinction is sometimes blurred (e.g., methods
to investigate social preference can be used to assign monetary values), it helps to
understand the variety of methods from different disciplinary backgrounds that can
be adopted in ES assessments (Santos-Martin et al. 2018).
1 Introduction