Integrating MAES implementation into protected area management under climate change: A fine-scale application in Greece

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.336Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The MAES approach is applicable in high complexity and data-scarce conditions.

  • Ecosystem services valuation is crucial for effective protected area management.

  • MAES studies support coordination for management actions in protected areas.

Abstract

Increasing anthropogenic pressures often jeopardize ecosystem integrity and policy-relevant conservation management in protected areas. To harmonize nature conservation with human well-being, EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 suggests Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) as the key concept for environmental planning and management in EU Member States. Applying this procedure is challenging due to its data-demanding and multidisciplinary nature, resulting in the ecoystem services (ES) approach being scarcely used in protected areas management. Increased data availability under EU biodiversity-related inventories and monitoring projects, as well as theoretical and empirical research advances developed during the last decade, should be put into practice to guide Member States towards local management frameworks and scenario building under the ongoing changes in the EU socio-economic environment. This study aims at filling this gap by embodying into the MAES operational framework a scenario-based approach and demonstrates this in a challenging case study of a Natura 2000 site, Lake Stymfalia, in Greece. The present management strategy, an ecological-friendly management practice, a water-efficient management practice and a non-environmentally friendly option (e.g. ecosystem destruction) are examined for current and future water demand under current and future climatic scenarios. The proposed methodological framework for ES operationalization is based on the available data (derived by EU Directives and/or modelling), expert judgment and stakeholder involvement. Therefore, this work applies and tests the importance of the MAES approach as a management and coordination platform.

Introduction

Sustainable management of the Natura 2000 protected areas, the main green infrastructure in the EU, is a key challenge for the Member States (MS). Besides their primary objective for protecting species and natural habitats, these areas encompass a variety of features requiring conservation, e.g. water resources, landscape integrity, soil structure maintenance, scenic beauty, cultural heritage values, etc. (Papageorgiou and Vogiatzakis, 2006; Mikkonen and Moilanen, 2013; Bastian, 2013). Moreover, these sites are not only about conserving ‘islands of wilderness’, but also co-managing complex multifunctional landscapes, where in most cases, humans constitute an integral part (Rauschmayer et al., 2009; Underwood et al., 2009; Apostolopoulou and Pantis, 2009). Within this framework, environmental planning and management in these areas should harmonize conservation and preservation of a multitude of biophysical features with the provision of ecosystem services. To serve this purpose, the ecosystem services (ES) concept has been introduced and widely applied (e.g. Carpenter et al., 2009; de Groot et al., 2010; Braat and de Groot, 2012; Maes et al., 2012; Burkhard et al., 2012; Maes et al., 2016). The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (EC, 2011) specifically suggests the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services (MAES) as an effective toolbox to apply ES (Maes et al., 2012, Maes et al., 2013; Dimopoulos et al., 2017; Burkhard et al., 2018). Based on this concept, assessing ecosystem condition defines the overall quality of an ecosystem unit, in terms of its biological, physical and chemical characteristics underpinning its capacity to generate ecosystem services (Rendon et al., 2019). Changes in ecosystem condition affect the delivery of services and therefore human well-being. The importance of ES, as a new paradigm for economic analyses, puts nature at the core and should function as an effective bridge between ecological and economic assessments (Costanza et al., 2017).

At the European scale, the MAES Working Group has suggested an analytical framework for the implementation of the ES approach in the EU (Maes et al., 2016). Its operationalization has evolved via the interrelated conceptual entity of ES and the valuation of the benefits obtained by humans from ecosystems and their functions (de Groot et al., 2012). Despite significant advances in the development of the ES concept across science and policy arenas, the valuation of ES as a tool for sustainable development remains challenging, especially at the local scale and in data-scarce regions (Pandeya et al., 2016). Even though the number of studies concerning ES valuation is constantly on the rise, the practical application of ES valuation has been criticized as being somewhat superficial and its utility for policy guidance as questionable (Primmer and Furman, 2012; Schägner et al., 2013). As remarked by García-Llorente et al. (2018), the ES approach is scarcely used in protected areas management and its operationalization in protected area management may prove difficult (Hummel et al., 2019).

The aim of this study is to attempt to fill this gap by applying the ES concept through an enhanced MAES procedure in a challenging case study of a Natura 2000 site, Lake Stymfalia in Greece. We highlight the methodological framework for ES operationalization based on the available data (derived by EU Directives and/or modelling), expert judgment and stakeholder involvement (Grêt-Regamey et al., 2013; Campagne and Roche, 2018). In this way, we test if the MAES framework can be an integral and useful mean for protected area management and decision-making. Furthermore, one of the most important lessons learned through the enforcement of the EU Biodiversity Strategy is that the required data for planning and decision making may be already available under EU biodiversity-related inventories and monitoring projects (e.g. the numerous parameters monitored under the Water Framework Directive 200/60/EC and the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC). MS should now exploit these data and move forward to local management frameworks and scenario building under the ongoing changes in the EU socio-economic environment. Both theoretical and empirical research advances developed during the last decade should be put into practice through applying interlinking tools between biodiversity, climate change and ES within Natura 2000 site management plans for restoring, enhancing, or preserving “favourable conservation status” for species and habitats and “favourable ecological status” for all waterbodies, i.e. good ecosystem condition.

The present work incorporates into the MAES operational framework four management scenarios, considering: (i) the current management strategy, (ii) an environmentally friendly management practice, setting as the highest priority the preservation of the good ecosystem condition, (iii) a water-sufficient management practice respecting the good ecosystem condition, and (iv) the most non-environmentally friendly option, being the total lake desiccation. These scenarios have been combined with two possible water demand scenarios, being the current potable and irrigation water demand and the future demand, representing the highest possible demand which could set resources under extreme water stress. Finally, the combined management and water demand scenarios have been examined under the climate-change effect, by considering two climate-change scenarios, being the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios, extended to the near future (i.e. mean reference year 2040) and to the far future (i.e. mean reference year 2070). To support sustainable management decisions and practices, this study enables: (a) the identification and assessment of the biotic and abiotic characteristics and delineation of the site's ecosystem types, (b) the determination, thematic mapping and assessment of the supplied ecosystem services, (c) the valuation of key ES, and (d) the identification of problems and difficulties of ES operationalization at the local scale and how this should be addressed by future research. In this way, our work applies and tests the importance of the MAES approach as a management and coordination platform.

Section snippets

Methodological framework

To determine the methodological framework for the application of the ES concept at the local scale, we considered the European Commission's technical manuals for the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services (MAES) (e.g. Maes et al., 2013, Maes et al., 2014, Maes et al., 2018), the operational framework for integrated MAES (Burkhard et al., 2018) and the methods developed during the ESMERALDA project (Burkhard and Maes, 2017, http://database.esmeralda-project.eu/home). The

Mapping ecosystems and their condition (Natura 2000 site)

The generic ecosystem type approach is utilized for purposes of standardization and accurate comparison across regions. Eight (8) ecosystem types were distinguished and delineated in the study area: (i) settlements, (ii) cropland, (iii) grassland, (iv) heathland and shrub, (v) sparsely vegetated land, (vi) woodland and forest, (vii) lake and (viii) wetlands. Cropland dominate, covering 51% of the protected area, followed by wetlands (21%) and heathland and shrub (13%). The lake's water surface

Dealing with complexity and uncertainties

This study is an attempt to integrate the ΜΑES concept into evaluation and strategic planning in protected areas and their wider landscapes. It was carried out intentionally at the local scale via a multifaceted holistic approach which combines biodiversity parameters and biophysical knowledge with socio-economic methods of ES identified by residents, stakeholders and experts. The proposed procedure serves as a pilot for MAES studies in protected areas, because it can be carried out with

Conclusions

This work conveys a clear message to local planners and environmental policy decision makers. The MAES approach presented here can, and should, be applied at the local level to support coordination and management frameworks under highly complex and data-scarce conditions. This exercise paved new paths for assessing and critically reviewing an augmented MAES methodology within a Natura 2000 site and its wider landscapes. We propose a strategic and operational framework for decision making in

Acknowledgements

This article is based on the results of the research project: “Mapping, assessment and economic valuation of ecosystem services, as the basis for decision-making for the integrated management of the Lake Stymfalia protected area” funded by the Piraeus Bank (decision nr 29095/17.07.2017). We would like to thank all experts and stakeholders who worked with the study team to interpret a wide variety of problems, we are especially grateful to the following for unpublished data and knowledge of the

References (131)

  • R. De Groot et al.

    Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units

    Ecosystem services

    (2012)
  • P.G. Dimitrakopoulos et al.

    Local attitudes on protected areas: evidence from three Natura 2000 wetland sites in Greece

    J. Environ. Manag.

    (2010)
  • N. Fazel et al.

    Analysis of land use and climate change impacts by comparing river flow records for headwaters and lowland reaches

    Glob. Planet. Chang.

    (2017)
  • H.M. Flávio et al.

    Reconciling agriculture and stream restoration in Europe: a review relating to the EU Water Framework Directive

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2017)
  • M. Fuchs

    An assessment of human versus climatic impacts on Holocene soil erosion in NE Peloponnese, Greece

    Quat. Res.

    (2007)
  • I.R. Geijzendorffer et al.

    Can biodiversity monitoring schemes provide indicators for ecosystem services?

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2013)
  • I.R. Geijzendorffer et al.

    Ecosystem services in global sustainability policies

    Environ. Sci. Pol.

    (2017)
  • C. Heymann et al.

    Late Glacial to mid-Holocene palaeoclimate development of southern Greece inferred from the sediment sequence of Lake Stymphalia (NE-Peloponnese)

    Quat. Int.

    (2013)
  • C. Hummel et al.

    Protected area management: fusion and confusion with the ecosystem services approach

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2019)
  • S. Jacobs et al.

    The ecosystem service assessment challenge: reflections from Flanders-REA

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2016)
  • N. Koutsikos et al.

    Tracking non-indigenous fishes in lotic ecosystems: invasive patterns at different spatial scales in Greece

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2019)
  • A. Lipponen et al.

    Development of cooperation on managing transboundary groundwaters in the pan-European region: the role of international frameworks and joint assessments

    Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies

    (2018)
  • A. Lomba et al.

    Mapping and monitoring high nature value farmlands: challenges in European landscapes

    J. Environ. Manag.

    (2014)
  • J. Maes et al.

    Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union

    Ecosystem Services

    (2012)
  • J. Maes et al.

    An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

    Ecosystem services

    (2016)
  • Ž. Malek et al.

    Global change effects on land management in the Mediterranean region

    Glob. Environ. Chang.

    (2018)
  • N. Mikkonen et al.

    Identification of top priority areas and management landscapes from a national Natura 2000 network

    Environ Sci Policy

    (2013)
  • J.N. Moore

    Recent desiccation of western Great Basin saline lakes: lessons from Lake Abert, Oregon, U.S.A

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2016)
  • C. Paliogiannis et al.

    The impact of the economic crisis on the implementation of the EU Nature Directives in Greece: an expert-based view

    J. Nat. Conserv.

    (2019)
  • I. Palomo et al.

    National parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows

    Ecosystem Services

    (2013)
  • B. Pandeya et al.

    A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions

    Ecosystem Services

    (2016)
  • C. Papadaki et al.

    Potential impacts of climate change on flow regime and fish habitat in mountain rivers of the southwestern Balkans

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2016)
  • K. Papageorgiou et al.

    Nature protection in Greece: an appraisal of the factors shaping integrative conservation and policy effectiveness

    Environ Sci Policy

    (2006)
  • E. Primmer et al.

    Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems?

    Ecosystem Services

    (2012)
  • D.J. Rapport et al.

    Evaluating landscape health: integrating societal goals and biophysical process

    J. Environ. Manag.

    (1998)
  • C. Adamopoulou et al.

    First account on the occurrence of selected invasive alien vertebrates in Greece

    BioInvasions Records

    (2016)
  • N. Athanasopoulos

    Hydrogeological Study of Stymfalia Carstic System

    (2013)
  • M.V. Balzan et al.

    Improving ecosystem assessments in Mediterranean social-ecological systems: a DPSIR analysis

    Ecosystems and People

    (2019)
  • E. Birol et al.

    Integrating wetland management into sustainable water resources allocation: the case of Akrotiri wetland in Cyprus

    J. Environ. Plan. Manag.

    (2008)
  • B. Burkhard et al.

    Mapping Ecosystem Services

    (2017)
  • B. Burkhard et al.

    Landscapes' capacities to provide ecosystem services–a concept for land-cover based assessments

    Landscape online

    (2009)
  • B. Burkhard et al.

    An operational framework for integrated Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES)

    One Ecosystem

    (2018)
  • T. Campagnaro et al.

    Identifying habitat type conservation priorities under the habitats directive: application to two Italian biogeographical regions

    Sustainability

    (2018)
  • C.S. Campagne et al.

    May the matrix be with you! Guidelines for the application of expert-based matrix approach for ecosystem services assessment and mapping

    One Eco

    (2018)
  • S.R. Carpenter et al.

    Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

    (2009)
  • H.L. Diefenderfer et al.

    Evidence-based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration

    Ecosphere

    (2016)
  • P. Dimopoulos et al.

    New floristic reports on Killini Mountain

    Candollea

    (1990)
  • P. Dimopoulos et al.

    Floristic and phytogeographical analysis of Mount Killini (NE Peloponnisos)

    Phyton- Annales Rei Botanicae

    (1992)
  • P. Dimopoulos et al.

    Phytosociological research on the montane coniferous forests of Greece: Mount Killini (NE Peloponnisos - S Greece)

    Folia Geobotanica

    (1996)
  • P. Dimopoulos et al.

    The need for the implementation of an Ecosystem Services assessment in Greece: drafting the national agenda

    One Ecosystem

    (2017)
  • Cited by (30)

    • MAES implementation in Greece: Geodiversity

      2023, Journal of Environmental Management
    • Mapping lake ecosystem services: A systematic review

      2022, Science of the Total Environment
      Citation Excerpt :

      Seventeen studies (55 %) analysed the three ES sections (e.g., Ai et al., 2015), 5 studies (17 %) assessed two (e.g., Gong et al., 2017), and 8 studies (28 %) were focused on one section (e.g., Chen et al., 2020) (Table 3). Regulating & maintenance was the most assessed section with 25 studies (83 %) (e.g., Kokkoris et al., 2019), followed by Cultural with 24 studies (80 %) (e.g., Kulczyk et al., 2018), and Provisioning with 20 studies (67 %) (e.g., Ai et al., 2015) (Table 3). Detailed information is shown in Table S4.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text