Ecosystem services (ES) mapping is becoming mainstream in many sustainability assessments, but its impact on real world decision-making is still limited. Robustness, end-user relevance and transparency have been identified as key attributes needed for effective ES mapping. However, these requirements are not always met due to multiple challenges, referred to here as bottlenecks, that scientists, practitioners, policy makers and users from other public and private sectors encounter along the mapping process. A selection of commonly encountered ES mapping bottlenecks that relate to seven themes: i) map-maker map-user interaction; ii) nomenclature and ontologies; iii) skills and background; iv) data and maps availability; v) methods-selection; vi) technical difficulties; and vii) over-simplification of mapping process/output. The authors synthesise the variety of solutions already applied by map-makers and map-users to mitigate or cope with these bottlenecks and discuss the emerging trade-offs amongst different solutions. Tackling the bottlenecks described here is a crucial first step towards more effective ES mapping, which can in turn ensure the adequate impact of ES mapping in decision-making.

Climate change and biodiversity loss are two of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. To date, actions proposed by the international community to address these problems have largely been conducted in a piecemeal fashion. Conservation biologists advocate for low‐intensity management in temperate protected areas to maintain and restore biodiversity. Low‐input, high‐diversity biomass from such areas has been proposed as a promising alternative bioenergy feedstock. Here, we show that there is a vast unexploited biomass‐for‐bioenergy potential present in Natura 2000, the European nature conservation network. Spanning 7.5 million hectares (ha), non‐forest ecosystems within Natura 2000 have a biomass production of 17.9 teragrams (Tg) of dry matter annually. The conversion of this biomass to bioenergy will not lead to the displacement of food production systems, thereby avoiding 12.5 Tg of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse‐gas emissions and circumventing between 1.2 and 2.8 million ha of indirect land‐use change. The use of conservation biomass as bioenergy feedstock clearly offers the opportunity to reconcile biodiversity goals and climate‐change mitigation.