Towards Integrated Ecosystem Assessments: A literature review on linking ecosystem condition indicators to ecosystem services

Problem. Forests are the most important natural resource that has shaped the history and culture of each region. The economic assessment of forest ecosystem services is essential for improving the environmental situation, and acts as the basis for making informed management decisions. The economic assessment of ecosystem services is a complex scientific and methodological problem and is characterized by certain contradictions. One of these problems is the diversity and specificity of individual ecosystem services, in connection with which it greatly complicates the process of formation of standardized scientific and methodological approaches to the assessment of ecosystem services. Goal. The aim is to analyze methodological approaches to the cost assessment of forest ecosystem services and give an economic assessment of forest ecosystem services on the example of SE "Vovchanske forestry" of Kharkiv region. Methodology. Analytical research methods were used to determine standardized scientific and methodological approaches to the economic evaluation of ecosystem services and to identify forest ecosystem services for which there is sufficient source information for calculating the cost. The calculation method was used for the economic assessment of certain categories of forest ecosystem services and for the consolidated assessment of the cost of providing and regulating forest services of SE "Vovchanske forestry". Results. The result is a number of key principles of best practice for the cost assessment of ecosystem services “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (ТЕЕВ). Analysis of the main approaches to the commodification of ecosystem services made it possible to determine the established practice of their cost assessment on the basis of the Belarusian methodology "The procedure for carrying out a cost assessment of ecosystem services". The paper considers the main ecosystem services of the forest, identifies services for which there is enough initial information to calculate the cost. This is the characteristic of forestry SE "Vovchansky forestry". Of all the ecosystem services, forests are currently involved in market turnover and have an established cost of direct actual use services – providing services, and of the latter – the provision of wood. To calculate the cost of harvested wood, the average price was taken (taking into account the price of wood – firewood) per 1 m3 – 857 UAH/m3. The calculated cost of wood resources with a specific volume of felling 28.9 m3/ha is 24767 UAH/ha. In addition to wood, the forest also supplies the so-called non-wood resources, food resources and medicinal plants. The cost of wood and non-wood-providing forest services is 55297 UAH/ha. At the same time, the cost of non-wood resources exceeds the cost of harvested wood. Among the regulating ecosystem services of the forest, carbon dioxide assimilation is most often considered, which is an economically important factor in light of the problem of climate change and the Paris Agreement. In this paper, the estimate of the average annual absorption of carbon dioxide is carried out for the generalized age of plantings due to the inability to obtain data on the age indicators of certain areas of forestry and their growth areas. The calculation of the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed determines the assimilation capacity of the forest at 13.48 t/ha. At the existing rate per ton of $ 15 US (~ 420 UAH), the price of assimilation service is 5660 UAH/ha. Directly related to the assimilation of carbon dioxide, another regulatory service is the production of oxygen. At the cost of industrial oxygen production of 110.00 UAH/m3, the cost of the service is 55000 UAH/ha. Forests act as a filter, purify atmospheric air from various kinds of harmful impurities. The object of economic assessment of the assimilation potential of forest vegetation is the limiting content of pollutants in the phyto mass of the main forest-forming rocks. At the rates of environmental tax on substances emitted into the air, the cost of assimilation of pollutants is calculated, which is 17412 UAH/ha. The total cost of regulating ecosystem services of the forest is 81767,00 UAH/ha. Thus, the consolidated assessment of the cost of providing and regulating services of the forest SE "Vovchanske forestry" is 137054 UAH/ha. Originality. An economic assessment of the ecosystem services of the Volchanske forestry was carried out, the excess of the cost of regulatory services over services for the harvesting and delivery of timber and other “gifts” of the forest was determined. Practical value. The assessment of forest ecosystem services shows that the main value of the forest is not the provision of wood, but in the assimilation potential of the forest, its ability to maintain the cycle of substances and biodiversity. This must be taken into account when making environmental decisions and in order to develop paid nature management.

This research addresses the challenge of assessing ecosystem services, ecosystem condition, and agricultural externalities in a Latin American socio-ecological context, where primary production is both a major economic activity and a pressure on ecosystems. In Uruguay, the intensification of agriculture and livestock farming has raised concerns about nutrient-related externalities affecting water and soil quality. Although the System of Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA)—Ecosystem Accounting framework is used for better ecosystem management, it does not explicitly represent externalities. Using the Santa Lucía sub-basin in Uruguay (supplying water to 60% of the population) as a case study, this research combines the Soil and Water Assessment (SWAT) Tool with ecosystem accounting principles to assess ecosystem services, ecosystem condition, and externalities. Model outputs are used to compile partial ecosystem accounts in physical terms, integrating spatially explicit indicators. Results show that nutrient losses to surface waters, interpreted as agricultural externalities, are predominantly driven by diffuse sources associated with croplands and dairy systems and shaped by hydrological connectivity. Despite data and model-related uncertainties, the approach supports hotspot identification and the spatial targeting of interventions and provides the basis for future monetary assessment, illustrating how hydrological modeling can complement ecosystem accounting in data-scarce contexts.

Value transfer in ecosystem accounting applications

The Integrated system for Natural Capital Accounting (INCA) was developed and supported by the European Commission to test and implement the System of integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA). Through the compilation of nine Ecosystem Services (ES) accounts, INCA can make available to any interested ecosystem accountant a number of lessons learned. Amongst the conceptual lessons learned, we can mention: (i) for accounting purposes, ES should be clustered according to the existence (or not) of a sustainability threshold; (ii) the assessment of ES flow results from the interaction of an ES potential and an ES demand; (iii) the ES demand can be spatially identified, but for an overarching environmental target, this is not possible; ES potential and ES demand could mis-match; (iv) because the demand remains unsatisfied; (v) because the ES is used above its sustainability threshold or (vi) because part of the potential flow is missed; (vii) there can be a cause-and-effect relationship between ecosystem condition and ES flow; (viii) ES accounts can complement the SEEA Central Framework accounts without overlapping or double counting. Amongst the methodological lessons learned, we can mention: (ix) already exiting ES assessments do not directly provide ES accounts, but will likely need some additional processing; (x) ES cannot be defined by default as intermediate; (xi) the ES remaining within ecosystems cannot be reported as final; (xii) the assessment and accounting of ES can be undertaken throughout a fast track approach or more demanding modelling procedures.

Relevance of research topic. Assessing ecosystems in terms of their contribution to the human well-being is one of the ways to achieve the goals of sustainable development, namely within the implementation of goals 14 and 15, therefore, it is an extremely important task in developing strategies for the development of local communities. Formulation of the problem. There is no official methodology for assessing ecosystem services and its integration into the management system in Ukraine. Analysis of recent research and publications. Currently, approaches to the assessment of ecosystems and their services are being developed, which are presented in the leading international documents: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting. Final Draft. Version 5. Selection of unexplored parts of the general problem. The issues of forming methodological approaches to the assessment of ecosystem services of protected areas of communities remain little studied. Setting the task, the purpose of the study. In this study, the task is to assess the ecosystem services of the protected area of the community basing on the example of cultural services (recreation and tourіsm) and services for biodiversity conservation. Method or methodology for conducting research. To assess the cost of ecosystem services in the protected area, a methodological approach to estimating the overall economic value of ecosystems is used. Presentation of the main material (results of work). On the example of the protected area of NPP "Bug Guard" within Blagodatnenskaya OTG Pervomaisky district of Mykolayiv region calculated the cost of direct and indirect use of ecosystem services (considered cultural services) and the cost of its existence (considered services to preserve biodiversity), as well as the total economic value. The field of application of results. The calculations are of great practical importance for territorial management. Conclusions according to the article The paper proves that the cost of indirect use of ecosystem services of the protected area and the cost of its existence significantly outweigh the cost of direct use.

Developing spatial biophysical accounting for multiple ecosystem services

• First national valuation of hunting ecosystem services in the Czech Republic. • Recreational hunting value exceeds provisioning by up to 17 times. • Combines cost-based, benefit transfer, and spatial allocation methods. • Results aligned with SEEA-EA for natural capital accounting integration. • Highlights risks of using benefit transfer in valuation studies. Hunting provides both provisioning and cultural ecosystem services, yet its economic value remains underrepresented in natural capital accounting. This study presents the first comprehensive, national-level assessment of hunting-related ecosystem services in the Czech Republic. Using a combination of market price valuation, cost-based methods, adjusted benefit transfer, and spatial allocation, the analysis estimates the 2022 value of wild game meat and recreational hunting. Results show that recreational hunting generates CZK 9.33 billion (USD 677 million), while the value of game meat provision totals CZK 548 million (USD 39.7 million). The comparison of primary valuation and benefit transfer methods reveals substantial discrepancies, with transferred values overestimating provisioning services and underestimating recreational values. Values are spatially allocated to ecosystem types using CORINE land cover, making them compatible with the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EA). The study presents an indicative methodological framework for valuing hunting-related ecosystem services and highlights the importance of context-specific data for informing natural capital accounting, and sustainable wildlife management.

Ecosystem Accounting provides a framework to measure and value relationships amongst ecosystems, society and the economy. The accounts measure ecosystem extent, condition and services, providing the means to identify and internalise ecological degradation, as well as understanding the risks and dependencies of economic activities on the environment and tracking progress towards sustainable development. The OSPAR Convention, which concerns the protection of the Marine Environment for the North-East Atlantic, has committed to accounting for natural capital and ecosystem services, where the UN System of Environmental Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) provides an international accounting standard for guidance in compiling accounts. Here, we describe the first attempt in compiling accounts aligned with SEEA EA at a Regional Sea scale. We: (i) identified existing open access data, (ii) produced accounts for selected ecosystems and valued their services and asset value and (iii) identified challenges and lessons learned. For ecosystem services, we measured fish provisioning, carbon sequestration and outdoor recreation from coastal and marine environments across OSPAR contracting parties. The exercise identified lack of fitting data at regional level, spatially-explicit linkages and harmonisation need to be overcome to further expand accounts. This work represents an initial step to progress on ecosystem accounting and demonstrates that even with limited data and incomplete time-series, accounts can start being compiled to identify data gaps and prioritising next steps.

The Assessment of Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas

Ecosystem accounting provides a standardised framework for evaluating the economic value of ecosystems to society. Following the international accounting standard, System of Environmental Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA), we present first marine ecosystem extent pilot accounts for Finland, based on three habitat classification systems: the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), the EU Habitats Directive (HD) and the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE). We assess their condition using indicators from the Water Framework Directive, which measure ecosystem quality through biological, ecological and physico-chemical parameters. We found that MSFD habitats have the largest extent, exceeding the areas covered by HD and RLE habitats. A large portion of the assessed habitats, particularly in the inner archipelago and shallow areas close to shore, were in poor condition, reflecting the eutrophication status of coastal waters. We identify considerable challenges in reporting marine ecosystem extent and condition accounts, which most likely recur across (European) countries. For instance, MSFD habitats are rather coarse for accurately reporting ecosystem extents, potentially overlooking declines in ecosystem condition, while HD habitats cover only a subset of habitats. RLE habitats provide more ecological detail, although they may be less compatible with classifications used in other countries. Our research provides a baseline for future ecosystem accounts and emphasises the need for improved data and methods to enhance the accuracy and comparability of marine ecosystem assessments. Additionally, we discuss the compatibility of SEEA EA with EU policy reporting requirements, the spatial scale of reporting ecosystem extents and condition and highlight the limitations of current habitat classifications in representing the full diversity of marine ecosystems. The findings underscore the importance of integrating multiple habitat classification systems, development of crosswalks between habitat classifications and monitoring frameworks to ensure comprehensive and accurate ecosystem accounts.

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting - Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) (UN et al., 2021) is the integrated statistical framework for ecosystem accounting. The SEEA EA comprises a system of accounts that organizes information on ecosystems and the benefits that they provide to society. Accounts that are included in the SEEA EA are: ecosystem extent, ecosystem condition, ecosystem services in physical and/or monetary units, and monetary asset accounts. Ecosystem accounting aspires to provide integrated geospatial information, in which multiple layers of information (geographical, environmental, ecological, and economic) are brought together and summarized in accounts.

Integration of the system of environmental economic accounting-ecosystem accounting (SEEA-EA) framework with a semi-distributed hydrological and water quality simulation model

The scientific debate over how to make visible the connections between the standard System of National Accounts (SNA) and its ongoing satellite Environmental Economic Ecosystem Accounting–Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA–EEA) is a challenge that is still pending. The literature on environmental accounting of agroforestry and silvopastoral landscapes rarely values the multiple ecosystem services of an area, an economic unit (e.g., farm), or a vegetation type (e.g., holm oak—Quercus ilex L.—open woodland). Generally, the literature presents the market value of the products consumed directly or a correction of the latter that reduces their exchange values in order to approximate them to their resource rents. In our previous publications, we have applied and compared our Agroforestry Accounting System (AAS) with the System of National Accounts (SNA), and we refined the latter to avoid the lag between income generation and its accounting in the period in which the product is extracted. These previous publications did not develop experimental applications of the SEEA–EEA with comparisons to the SNA and it being integrated into the AAS. The main novelty of this article is that, for the first time, we present detailed applications and comparisons of our developments of the refined SEEA–EEA and refined SNA with a simplified version of the AAS. The accounting frameworks applied take the production and capital accounts in the process of being updated by the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) at the scale of the holm oak open woodlands of Andalusia into account. In this study, we compare three environmental accounting approaches for ecosystem services and environmental income measurements at basic and social prices: our slightly refined standard System of National Accounts (rSNA); our refined, updated and ongoing satellite System of Environmental Economic Accounting–Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (rSEEA–EEA); and our simplified Agroforestry Accounting System (sAAS). We tested them for 15 economic activities in 1408 thousand hectares of the predominantly mixed holm oak open woodland (HOW) land use tiles in the region of Andalusia, Spain. We considered the government institutional sector to be the collective owner of public economic activities, which we incorporated in the rSNA and the sAAS approaches. We discuss consistencies in environmental incomes identified from the results of the three ecosystem accounting frameworks applied to the HOW. The discrepancies in the measurement of ecosystem services of the government institutional sector between the rSEEA–EEA and the sAAS were due to the omission in the former of the government manufactured costs incurred in the supply of freely consumed public final products. The most notable finding of our comparison is that the ecosystem services and the environmental income results for individual market products offered the same values, whichever the ecosystem accounting framework applied. This was not the case with the ecosystem services of public products without market prices, due to the fact that the rSNA estimates these products at production cost and the rSEEA–EEA did not consider the government manufactured production costs and ordinary manufactured net operating margin of government final public product consumption. We also found that, according to modeling of the scheduled management of future biological resources of the HOW, the environmental income shows biological sustainability of the individual nature-based total product consumption.

This paper contributes to the discussion on integrating societal considerations, stakeholders' perceptions and laymen knowledge into ecosystem services (ES) assessments. The paper illustrates how social mapping of perceived ES supply (or alternatively demand) can contribute to integrated ES assessment. Based on sketched locations of the, according to 38 respondents, most important ES at the local scale, we describe the perceived ES distribution with social landscape metrics (abundance, diversity, richness, risk, rarity) based on traditional landscape ecology indicators. We illustrate how social landscape metrics can inform ES management and planning and describe how synergies between ES as stated by the respondents differ from calculated synergies (the latter based on correlation coefficients between perceived ES abundance). We present indicators pointing to locations where (multiple) ES synergies are perceived by stakeholders (stated synergy index), and to conflicting ES and ES perceived to be at risk (risk index). Overlapping social ES hotspots based on the social landscape metrics with ES hotspots based on more traditional biophysical modelling (biophysical hotspots) and ecological inventories (ecological hotspots) results in social–ecological or social–biophysical hotspots, coldspots and warmspots relevant for nature and landscape planning, management and governance. Based on an analysis of the overlaps between social, biophysical and ecological hotspots on the one hand, and the contribution of ecological quality, land zoning categories and conservation statuses on the other hand, we discuss the added value of integrating social ES mapping in integrated ES assessment, above ES assessments based on biophysical or ecological attributes. Given the limited overlap between social hotspots and ecological or biophysical hotspots, we conclude that integrating stakeholders' mapping of perceived ES supply (or demand) into ES assessments is necessary to reflect the societal aspects of ES in ES assessments. However, with a limited sample of respondents, there is a risk of collectivisation of respondents' viewpoints as a common, societal stance. Moreover, the social landscape metrics are not suitable for describing the distribution of ES with low perceived abundance. Finally, we explain how social ES assessment can result in mainstreaming ES in planning, policy and practice.

Bridging the gap between ecosystem service indicators and ecosystem accounting in Finland