Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
There are many concerns regarding the effects of climate change including threats to ecosystem services. Rural land use can influence these services and there is scope for associated policies to steer decisions towards maximising benefits and minimising burdens. In Europe, for example, ecological focus areas (EFAs), introduced in the last reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, can have impacts on ecosystem services which vary with location, including potential trade-offs between benefits and burdens in some regions. This study combines the outputs from two continental-scale projects to provide a new perspective on the potential impact of EFAs for water-related ecosystem services under threat from climate change. An ecosystem service impact indicator framework was applied in conjunction with a climate change vulnerability assessment. This resulted in vulnerability and area weighted performance scores for dilution, filtration, water provision, and flood regulation services for 10 EFAs in 1256 regions. Best, average and worst case scenario maps were created that highlight the relative benefits and burdens of EFAs. Six EFAs have been identified which have not been activated in nine European Member States but which have potential to provide benefits. Eleven Member States have been identified which have regions where 3 EFAs should be avoided due to potential burdens. This analysis facilitates broad spatial targeting on a continental-scale of specific EFAs which may help maintain (and ideally increase) ecosystem service capacity and resilience in vulnerable regions.
Highlights
The ecological focus areas (EFAs) Calculator software (AERU 2017; Tzilivakis et al 2015b) was used to assess the relative benefits and burdens for ecosystem services from different EFAs in each level 3 Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS3) region in the European Union (EU). These benefits/burdens were combined with the assessment of the vulnerability of ecosystem services to climate change identified in Tzilivakis et al (2015a) to facilitate a spatial analysis
This analysis identifies regions where EFAs have the potential to increase the capacity of water-related ecosystem services, taking into account climate change vulnerabilities
The regional variability in the performance of the different EFAs for each ecosystem service is illustrated in the maps shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 and main observations for each EFA have been drawn out in the discussion
Summary
There are many concerns regarding the potential negative effects of climate change and amongst these are potential threats to ecosystem services such as increases in soil erosion and flooding, decreases in water provision and water quality and a reduction in pollination (Chang and Bonnette 2016; Dunford et al 2015; Jentsch and Beierkuhnlein 2008; Maron et al 2017; Lindner et al 2010; Panagos et al 2017; Runting et al 2017; Vanbergen 2013; Wilby et al 2010) Many of these services are influenced and impacted upon by agricultural land use practices. EFAs may have benefits for ecosystem services (Tzilivakis et al 2015b) which have been subject to declines in recent decades (Harrison et al 2010; IPBES 2016; MEA 2005; SEP 2015)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
