Search

An assessment framework of marine ecosystem services (ES) indicators to quantify the socio-ecological effectiveness of nature-based solutions (NBS) and nature-inclusive harvesting (NIH) under climate-driven changes was developed. It creates a common understanding about the health status of ecosystems, their services (ES), and the impact of implementing NBS&NIH to inform policymakers and the public. The two NBS considered were restoration and conservation which need to be performed considering the sustainable harvesting of marine resources (NIH). The interaction between the biodiversity indicators with the socioeconomic, response and pressure indicators was established using the ES cascade. However, it was also linked to other environmental (e.g., DAPSI(W)R(M)) and economic frameworks such as the Standard National Account (SNA) and the System of Environment Economic Accounting (SEEA). A set of 155 multidisciplinary indicators were identified through a literature review and their effectiveness in measuring ES under changing climate. Biodiversity & environmental as well as Pressure indicators are the most numerous in the list representing 34 % and 23 % of the total respectively, while only 12 % of the used Indicators below to the economic dimension. Socioeconomic indicators considering CC are rarely contemplated, except for a short list redefining output and demand approach indicators to aggregate a carbon footprint valuation. For cultural services economic indicators dominate, whereas sparse for provisioning and regulating. The 70 % of the selected indicators were also empirically verified with 27 European storylines. Storylines have high coverage of biodiversity, environmental indicators, and CC indicators (91 %), lower coverage of economic (71 %) and poorer related to social (31 %) indicators. Harvest, pressure and/or habitats are clearly the groups of indicators majority used when evaluating the ES on marine and coastal ecosystems both in terms of the number of used indicators but also, the frequency of use. Despite the increase of ES research, this study identifies 14 substantial gaps or weaknesses limiting the guidance for NBS&NIH implementation derived from the employment of an unbalanced (between dimensions and key groups) number of quantitative indicators.