Landscapes differ in their capacities to provide ecosystem goods and services, which are the benefits humans obtain from nature. Structures and functions of ecosystems needed to sustain the provision of ecosystem services are altered by various human activities. In this paper, a concept for the assessment of multiple ecosystem services is proposed as a basis for discussion and further development of a respective evaluation instrument. Using quantitative and qualitative assessment data in combination with land cover and land use information originated from remote sensing and GIS, impacts of human activities can be evaluated. The results reveal typical patterns of different ecosystems' capacities to provide ecosystem services. The proposed approach thus delivers useful integrative information for environmental management and landscape planning, aiming at a sustainable use of services provided by nature. The research concept and methodological framework presented here for discussion have initially been applied in different case studies and shall be developed further to provide a useful tool for the quantification and spatial modelling of multiple ecosystem services in different landscapes. An exemplary application of the approach dealing with food provision in the Halle-Leipzig region in Germany is presented. It shows typical patterns of ecosystem service distribution around urban areas. As the approach is new and still rather general, there is great potential for improvement, especially with regard to a data-based quantification of the numerous hypotheses, which were formulated as base for the assessment. Moreover, the integration of more detailed landscape information on different scales will be needed in future in order to take the heterogeneous distribution of landscape properties and values into account. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to foster critical discussions on the methodological development presented here.

Cultural ecosystem services (CES) reflect peoples’ physical and cognitive interactions with nature and are increasingly recognised for providing non-material benefits to human societies. Whereas coasts, seas, and oceans sustain a great proportion of the human population, CES provided by these ecosystems have remained largely unexplored. Therefore, our aims were (1) to analyse the state of research on marine and coastal CES, (2) to identify knowledge gaps, and (3) to pinpoint research priorities and the way forward. To accomplish these objectives, we did a systematic review of the scientific literature and synthesised a subset of 72 peer-reviewed publications. Results show that research on marine and coastal CES is scarce compared to other ecosystem service categories. It is primarily focused on local and regional sociocultural or economic assessments of coastal ecosystems from Western Europe and North America. Such research bias narrows the understanding of social-ecological interactions to a western cultural setting, undermining the role of other worldviews in the understanding of a wide range of interactions between cultural practices and ecosystems worldwide. Additionally, we have identified clusters of co-occurring drivers of change affecting marine and coastal habitats and their CES. Our systematic review highlights knowledge gaps in: (1) the lack of integrated valuation assessments; (2) linking the contribution of CES benefits to human wellbeing; (3) assessing more subjective and intangible CES classes; (4) identifying the role of open-ocean and deep-sea areas in providing CES; and (5) understanding the role of non-natural capital in the co-production of marine and coastal CES. Research priorities should be aimed at filling these knowledge gaps. Overcoming such challenges can result in increased appreciation of marine and coastal CES, and more balanced decision-supporting mechanisms that will ultimately contribute to more sustainable interactions between humans and marine ecosystems.

Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) are central to the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Action 5 of the Strategy’s second target asks all EU member states to map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services in their national territories. Such comprehensive mapping and assessment builds on several individual tasks and their systematic integration. Therefore, an integrated and operational framework is needed, supporting and coordinating these activities. The presented framework builds on existing work done by the European Commission’s MAES Working Group and provides a clear nine-step approach including the identification of relevant questions or themes to be addressed, identification and mapping of ecosystem types, ecosystem condition and ecosystem services, their integration and dissemination of results. This framework can be used to set-up related research and development initiatives and to guide involved scientists, decision-makers and practitioners through the different steps and related tasks of the process.

With the Ecosystem Service (ES) concept's popularisation, the need for robust and practical methodologies for ES assessments has increased. The ES matrix approach, linking ecosystem types or other geospatial units with ES in easy-to-apply lookup tables, was first developed ten years ago and, since then, has been broadly used. Whereas detailed methodological guidelines can be found in literature, the ES matrix approach seems to be often used in a quick (and maybe even "quick and dirty”) way. Based on a reviewa of scientific publications, in which the ES matrix approach was used, we present the diversity of application contexts, highlight trends of uses and propose future recommendations for improved applications of the ES matrix. A total of 109 studies applying the ES matrix approach and one methodological study without concrete applications were considered for the review. Amongst the main patterns observed, the ES matrix approach allows the assessment of a higher number of ES than other ES assessment methods. ES can be jointly assessed with indicators for ecosystem condition and biodiversity in the ES matrix. Although the ES matrix allows us consider many data sources to achieve the assessment scores for the individual ES, in the reviewed studies, these were mainly used together with expert-based scoring (73%) and/or ES scores that were based on an already-published ES matrix or deduced by information found in related scientific publications (51%). We must acknowledge that 27% of the studies did not clearly explain their methodology. This points out a lack of method elucidation on how the data had been used and where the scores came from. Although some studies addressed the need to consider variabilities and uncertainties in ES assessments, only a minority of studies (15%) did so. Our review shows that, in 29% of the studies, an already-existing matrix was used as an initial matrix for the assessment (mainly the same matrix from one of the Burkhard et al. papers). In 16% of the reviewed studies, no other data were used for the matrix scores or no adaptation of the existing matrix used was made. However, the actual idea of the ES scores, included in the Burkhard et al.'s matrices published 10 years ago, was to provide some examples and give inspiration for one's own studies. Therefore, we recommend to use only scores assessed for a specific study or, if one wishes to use pre-existing scores from another study, to revise them in depth, taking into account the local context of the new assessment. We also recommend to systematically report and consider variabilities and uncertainties in each ES assessment. We emphasise the need for all scientific studies to describe clearly and extensively the whole methodology used to score or evaluate ES in order to be able to rate the quality of the scores obtained. In conclusion, the application of the ES matrix has to become more transparent and integrate more variability analyses. The increasing number of studies that use the ES matrix approach confirms its success, appropriability, flexibility and utility for decision-making, as well as its ability to increase awareness of ES.

This paper analyses and compares a set of case studies on ecosystem services (ES) mapping and assessment with the purpose of formulating lessons learned and recommendations. Fourteen case studies were selected during the EU Horizon 2020 “Coordination and Support Action” ESMERALDA to represent different policy- and decision-making processes throughout the European Union, across a wide range of themes, biomes and scales. The analysis is based on a framework that addresses the key steps of an ES mapping and assessment process, namely policy questions, stakeholder identification and involvement, application of mapping and assessment methods, dissemination and communication and implementation. The analysis revealed that most case studies were policy-orientated or gave explicit suggestions for policy implementation in different contexts, including urban, rural and natural areas. Amongst the findings, the importance of starting stakeholder engagement early in the process was confirmed in order to generate interest and confidence in the project and to increase their willingness to cooperate. Concerning mapping and assessment methods, it was found that the integration of methods and results is essential for providing a comprehensive overview from different perspectives (e.g. social, economic). Finally, lessons learned for effective implementation of ES mapping and assessment results are presented and discussed. Graphical Abstarcat in Fig. 1.