‘Mind the Gap’ between ecosystem services classification and strategic decision making

Ecosystem services (ES) are increasingly embedded in policy agendas, but if and how policy actors are considering them is not often reported. This study assesses the extent to which ES were considered by key policy actors involved in the strategic decision-making process leading to an innovative large-scale Dutch coastal management project. We analysed retrospective interviews to ascertain which ES were considered and how they were described by policy actors. Over half of the quotes (118/228) and 16 out of the 17 interviewees referred to three broad ES categories, with high degrees of adoption: coastal safety, recreation and cognitive development (learning by doing). The broad terms ‘nature’ and ‘spatial quality’ were also referenced often (36 times). Our findings suggest that broad, unspecified ecosystem services were adopted highly by the policy actors, while specific ecosystem service categories were rarely considered. Relatable and comprehensible cultural ecosystem services also constituted critical arguments for policy actors in their strategic decision making. We reflect that ambiguous, broad terms can help to garner support and unite efforts across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. For ES to align with relevant aspects of decision making, a ‘translation step’ between ES research and decision making might be required and ambiguity should be acknowledged.</p

Open access to science on ecosystem services and biodiversity

Conservation Biolog

The grey – green spectrum: A review of coastal protection interventions

In the face of uncertainties around coastal management and climate change, coastal engineering interventions need to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Nature-based solutions and other non-traditional, integrated interventions are gaining traction. However, system-based views are not yet embedded into coastal management strategies. Moreover, the differences in coastal interventions, ranging from hard (‘grey’) to nature-based (‘green’) infrastructure remain understudied. In coastal management it is therefore challenging to work with the grey-green spectrum of interventions with clarity and focus, and to produce results that can be evaluated. The objective of this paper was to examine whether there is a common understanding of: the characteristics and differences between grey and green infrastructure, where interventions sit on this spectrum, and the resilience of grey versus green infrastructure. We conducted an integrative literature review of the grey-green spectrum of coastal infrastructure. We examined 105 coastal protection case studies and expanded the double-insurance framework to ensure an integrative approach, looking at both external and internal factors of resilience. Our review showed that external factors are typically used to characterise the grey-green spectrum. However, although useful, they do not facilitate a holistic comparison of alternative interventions. The additional consideration of internal factors (response diversity, multifunctionality, modularity and adaptive, participatory governance) bridges this gap. The review showed that dikes, reefs, saltmarshes, sand nourishment and dunes span a wider segment of the grey-green spectrum than they are generally categorised in. Furthermore, resilient solutions for adaptation are unlikely to be exclusively engineered or natural, but tend to be a mix of the two at different spatial scales (micro, meso, macro and mega). Our review therefore suggests that coastal planners benefit from a more diverse range of options when they consider the incorporation of grey and green interventions in the context of each spatial scale. We propose that internal resilience should be accounted for when infrastructure options are comparatively evaluated. This consideration brings attention to the ways in which the grey-hybrid-green spectrum of infrastructure enhances value for people.Coastal Engineerin

Advancing science on the multiple connections between biodiversity, ecosystems and people

This Editorial of the International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management (IJBESM) marks the end of this Journal’s publications under Rudolf de Groot. He has been instrumental in bringing the concept of ecosystem services to the fore, through seminal publications, books, lectures, through founding and chairing the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP); and finally, through ‘adding the ecosystem services to IJBESM’. After almost 8 years as Editor-in-Chief, he has decided to step down and hand over to a next generation.In the final part of this co-written Editorial, Rudolf de Groot will look back one last time at some highlights of the past years, partly together with his editorial team. The first part of this Editorial introduces the new co-Editors in Chief and how they envision the future of the Journal. Berta Martín-López (Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Germany) and Alexander van Oudenhoven (Leiden University, Netherlands) have gladly accepted to take over as co-Editors in Chief of IJBESM. They are interdisciplinary scientists at the forefront of research on social-ecological systems, ecosystem services, ecosystem management and sustainability transformation. Both are heavily involved in the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and both have been actively involved with this Journal for several years. While acknowledging and building on the achievements of the last couple of years, they suggest a way forward for publishing research on human–nature relationships.Conservation Biolog

Kennisregio aan Zee 2070

Environmental Biolog