Ecosystems and People ISSN: (Print) 2639-5916 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbsm22 Improving ecosystem assessments in Mediterranean social-ecological systems: a DPSIR analysis Mario V. Balzan, Ana Martins Pinheiro, André Mascarenhas, Alejandra Morán-Ordóñez, Ana Ruiz-Frau, Claudia Carvalho-Santos, Ioannis N. Vogiatzakis, Jeroen Arends, Julia Santana-Garcon, José V. Roces-Díaz, Lluís Brotons, C. Sylvie Campagne, Philip K. Roche, Sergio de Miguel, Stefano Targetti, Evangelia G. Drakou, Vassiliki Vlami, Francesc Baró & Ilse R. Geijzendorffer To cite this article: Mario V. Balzan, Ana Martins Pinheiro, André Mascarenhas, Alejandra Morán- Ordóñez, Ana Ruiz-Frau, Claudia Carvalho-Santos, Ioannis N. Vogiatzakis, Jeroen Arends, Julia Santana-Garcon, José V. Roces-Díaz, Lluís Brotons, C. Sylvie Campagne, Philip K. Roche, Sergio de Miguel, Stefano Targetti, Evangelia G. Drakou, Vassiliki Vlami, Francesc Baró & Ilse R. Geijzendorffer (2019) Improving ecosystem assessments in Mediterranean social-ecological systems: a DPSIR analysis, Ecosystems and People, 15:1, 136-155 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1598499 © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa View supplementary material UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 01 May 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 507 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbsm22 ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 2019, VOL. 15, NO. 1, 136–155 https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1598499 RESEARCH Improving ecosystem assessments in Mediterranean social-ecological systems: a DPSIR analysis Mario V. Balzan a, Ana Martins Pinheirob, André Mascarenhas c,d, Alejandra Morán-Ordóñez e, Ana Ruiz- Frau f, Claudia Carvalho-Santos g, Ioannis N. Vogiatzakis h, Jeroen Arendsi, Julia Santana-Garcon f, José V. Roces-Díaz j, Lluís Brotonse,k,l, C. Sylvie Campagne m, Philip K. Roche m, Sergio de Miguel n, Stefano Targetti o, Evangelia G. Drakou p, Vassiliki Vlamiq, Francesc Baró r,s and Ilse R. Geijzendorffer t a Institute of Applied Sciences, Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST), Paola, Malta; bForest Research Centre, School of Agriculture, Lisbon University, Lisbon, Portugal; cLab of Landscape Ecology, Department of Geography, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany; dCENSE – Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, NOVA School of Science and Technology, NOVA University Lisbon, Caparica, Portugal; eInForest Joint Research Unit (CTFC-CREAF), Solsona, Spain; fDepartment of Global Change Research, Instituto Mediterraneo de Estudios Avanzados (IMEDEA) CSIC-UIB, Esporles, Spain; gCIBIO-InBIO - Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vila do Conde, Portugal; hSchool of Pure and Applied Sciences, Open University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus; iEcosystem Services Partnership Regional Chapter South East Europe, Belgrade, Serbia; jDepartment of Geography, College of Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK; kCREAF, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain; l CSIC, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain; mIrstea, UR RECOVER, EMR, Aix-en-Provence Cedex 5, France; nDepartment of Crop and Forest Sciences, University of Lleida-Agrotecnio Center (UdL-Agrotecnio), Lleida, Spain; oINRA UR Ecodevelopment, SAD, Avignon Cedex 9, France; pFaculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC), University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands; qDepartment of Environmental & Natural Resources Management, University of Patras, Agrinio, Greece; rInstitute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain; sBarcelona Lab for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability (BCNUEJ), Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute (IMIM), Barcelona, Spain; tMediterranean Wetlands Observatory, Tour du Valat, Research Institute for the conservation of Mediterranean Wetlands, Arles, France ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Social-ecological systems in the Mediterranean Basin are characterised by high biodiversity and Received 5 July 2018 a prolonged cultural influence, leading to the co-evolution of these systems. The unique Accepted 17 March 2019 characteristics of Mediterranean social-ecological systems, current pressures leading to EDITED BY a decline in ecosystem services, and the need for coordinated action are recognised by policies Nadia Sitas promoting the protection and sustainable use of the region’s heritage. Ecosystem assessments provide valuable information on the capacity of the Mediterranean Basin to ensure the well- KEYWORDS being of its population. However, most assessments simplify the complexity of these systems, Biodiversity; benefit; drivers which may lead to inaccurate ecosystem services supply and flow estimations. This paper uses of change; ecosystem the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model to guide an expert consultation that condition; ecosystem identifies the key characteristics of the Mediterranean social-ecological systems and analyses structure; Mediterranean Basin; pressures; sub-global how these should be included in ecosystem assessments. Data collection was carried assessments; synergies; out through expert consultation with ecosystem services researchers. Multiple sources of trade-offs complexity were identified, including the relationship between historical human activities, biodiversity spatio-temporal patterns, as well as the seasonal and long-term variability in ecosystem services. The importance of incorporating this complexity in ecosystem assessments for evidence-based decision-making is identified, suggesting that there is a need to adapt assessment approaches for the Mediterranean Basin social-ecological systems. 1. Introduction to global biodiversity, representing an estimated 7% of the world’s marine biodiversity (Coll et al. 2010). The The Mediterranean Basin is a biodiversity hotspot, Mediterranean Sea presents high numbers of endemic characterised by a high level of endemism and species species because of its unique paleogeography and richness (Myers et al. 2000) and, spanning a diverse range ecological characteristics that arise from a variety of of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecoregions (CEPF existing climatic and hydrological conditions (Bianchi 2017). Around 10% of the world’s higher plants are found and Morri 2000). in this area, which represents only 1.6% of the Earth’s The human history associated with the Mediterranean surface (Médail and Verlaque 1997; Médail and Quezel environments has led to significant transformations and 1999). The region’s high terrestrial biodiversity is a result the co-evolution of social-ecological systems that are rich of its biogeography and geological history, and its unique in biodiversity, provide a wide range of ecosystem services climatic features and interactions with human cultures and represent a diverse cultural heritage (Catsadorakis over millennia (Blondel 2006). Equally, the region’s 2007; Blondel et al. 2010; Martín-López et al. 2016). coastal and marine environment significantly contributes CONTACT Mario V. Balzan mario.balzan@mcast.edu.mt Supplementary data for this article can be accessed here. © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 137 However, the relationships between biodiversity, ecosys- France7 and Israel8) and others that are currently in tem services and human society in co-evolved social- the process of developing national assessments (e.g. ecological systems are complex and multi-layered, creating Dimopoulos et al. 2017; Balzan et al. 2018). challenges to understand, use and, even more difficult, to Ecosystem assessments need to be feasible while predict how the processes and interactions may change in incorporating a sufficient level of complexity to the future due to a complex suite of drivers acting at ensure that they represent the different patterns and different scales (Mace et al. 2012). processes acting within the region’s social-ecological Existing literature shows that biodiversity, ecologi- systems. This paper identifies the key characteristics cal functions and related ecosystem services in the of Mediterranean social-ecological systems that Mediterranean Basin terrestrial (Bangash et al. 2013; should be represented in ecosystem assessments to Doblas-Miranda et al., 2015; Thom and Seidl 2016), support evidence-based policy and management freshwater (Mediterranean Wetland Observatory actions. Therefore, the objectives of this work are to 2018) and marine ecosystems (Coll et al. 2010, 2012; (a) identify the specific elements and characteristics Piroddi et al. 2017) are often threatened by a series of of Mediterranean social-ecological systems that indirect drivers and direct pressures, which may lead uniquely shape ecosystem services flows, and that to a decline in the capacity of ecosystems to provide are at risk of not being adequately captured by exist- services (Bangash et al. 2013; Piroddi et al. 2017). ing ecosystem services assessments; and (b) propose Recent changes within the Mediterranean Basin how common and shared ecosystem services assess- such as the abandonment of agrosilvopastoral prac- ment methods could better take these elements into tices, the intensification of primary sector activities account. (e.g. the use of more intensive agricultural, fishing practices and increased demand for energy wood), as well as an increase in urban development, have been 2. Methods suggested to lead to the loss of biodiversity and lower 2.1. Conceptual framework ecosystem services supply (Liquete et al. 2016; García-Nieto et al. 2018). The identification of the key characteristics of Coordinated action to address common drivers, Mediterranean social-ecological systems followed the the protection of the region’s heritage and promotion DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) frame- of the sustainable use of ecosystems are some of the work (Smeets and Weterings 1999; OECD 2003). This key objectives of the Barcelona Convention for the well-established framework provides a coherent struc- Protection of the Marine Environment and the ture for the integration of information of biophysical Coastal Region of the Mediterranean1 adopted in and socio-economic interactions across spatio-temporal 1995. The Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable scales (Pinto et al. 2013; Vidal-Abarca et al. 2014; Díaz Development2 recognises the multiple long-term et al. 2018). It has been applied in terrestrial and aquatic anthropogenic pressures acting on this region and ecosystem assessments due to its ability to improve calls for coordinated policy and management communication and facilitate collaborative interactions responses to halt the degradation of Mediterranean between policymakers, stakeholders and scientists ecosystems (UNEP/MAP 2016). Policy and manage- thereby contributing to science-based resource manage- ment responses based on scientific evidence, such as ment decisions (Grunewald and Bastian 2015; Xue et al. that emanating from ecosystem assessments (Maes 2015; Patrício et al. 2016). The DPSIR approach has and Jacobs 2017), allow for a better exploration of received some criticism for its hierarchical structure scenarios and management alternatives (Maes et al. (Svarstad et al. 2008) and its limited grasp of complex 2012). However, important methodological choices interrelationships between different types of indicators simplify the shared natural and cultural heritage, (Niemeijer and De Groot 2008). Tscherning et al. and the challenges faced by Mediterranean social- (2012) highlighted that even though the DPSIR frame- ecological systems, to the extent that obtained results work is an effective approach to provide information represent a limited integrated understanding of the and allow consultation for the formulation of policy, region (e.g. for Mediterranean wetlands (Perennou only few DPSIR studies integrated end users into the et al. 2018)). The Mediterranean Basin is generally participative process which impaired the reality of the divided into separate studies, such as is the case in the representation of the social-ecological systems. regional assessments for Europe, Africa and Asia of The basic idea behind the DPSIR framework is that the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on social, demographic and economic (indirect) drivers Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)3 and exert pressures (also termed direct drivers, in the the EU Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; Nelson et al. Services (MAES)4 initiative for European countries. 2005) on the environment, thereby changing its state There are, however, a few initiatives that undertake and the associated flow of ecosystem services. Whilst assessments at national scales (e.g. Spain,5 Portugal,6 drivers are the underlying cause of change, pressures 138 M. V. BALZAN ET AL. are the actual stimulus that through alterations of the ecosystem assessments, including the Millennium state of the system can ultimately have an impact on Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) and The Economics human well-being. The impacts of changes on the state of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (de Groot et al. 2010), and of the system trigger societal responses in the form of more recently, the Common International Classification human actions implemented by society and govern- of Ecosystem Services (Haines-Young and Potschin ments (Müller and Burkhard 2012; Nassl and Löffler 2018) and the IPBES conceptual framework (Díaz et al. 2015). These responses include the formulation of, for 2015). Various remaining structural mismatches between instance, new laws, management plans or economic ecosystem assessments and DPSIR frameworks exist, and and planning instruments, and reflect decisions based by addressing these it is possible to analyse societal trade- on people’s perception of ecosystem services, the state offs in the formulation of management goals (Nassl and of the environment and acting pressures and drivers Löffler 2015). (Kelble et al. 2013; Villamagna et al. 2013; Nassl and Löffler 2015). This DPSIR process is not linear but has 2.2. Data collection inherent feedback loops and reciprocity. We have used an adapted DPSIR framework (Figure 1), based on the This work builds on the expertise of members of the contributions of Müller and Burkhard (2012) and Xue Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP) Mediterranean et al. (2015), to identify key characteristics of Working Group,9 an interdisciplinary network of Mediterranean social-ecological systems and their ecosystem services scientists and practitioners work- associated ecosystem services, and how those key ing in the Mediterranean region. ESP10 is a global aspects need to be captured through ecosystem assess- network of researchers, academia and conservation ments to inform evidence-based policy and manage- organisations, policymakers and practitioners dedi- ment decisions. In addition to the causal pathway cated to the advancement and promotion of the con- normally considered using the DPSIR frameworks, cept of ecosystem services in policy making and and to avoid the pitfalls of the DPSIR framework management of natural areas and natural resources. associated with the compartmentalisation of indicators The Mediterranean Working Group comprises mem- (Niemeijer and De Groot 2008; Svarstad et al. 2008), bers who work across a wide range of scientific and we also considered potential interactions between dif- applied disciplines (e.g. ecology, social sciences, plan- ferent types of indicators and ecosystem services, as ning and management, land use policy, ecological these have been recognised to be important for effec- economics) in terrestrial (including urban and agri- tive decision-making (Nassl and Löffler 2015; Xue cultural systems), freshwater and marine and coastal et al. 2015). Mediterranean social-ecological systems. The group The analysis of ecosystem services using a DPSIR fra- members use a wide variety of approaches and tools mework makes it possible to move towards more proac- in ecosystem assessments and practice, and work at tive and integrative interventions rather than reactive different spatial and temporal scales within the mechanisms to protect ecosystems from human impacts region. (Kelble et al. 2013). Elements of the DPSIR framework The key characteristics of Mediterranean social-ecolo- have also been widely used in conceptual frameworks for gical systems, ranging from the supply and flow of Figure 1. DPSIR framework for ecosystem and ecosystem services assessments in a rapidly changing Mediterranean Basin. Arrows indicate causal relationships between driver, pressure, state, impact and response (ES: Ecosystem Services; TEK: Traditional Ecological Knowledge; NPP: Net Primary Productivity) (Adapted from Müller and Burkhard 2012; Xue et al. 2015). ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 139 ecosystem services to the benefits and value to society, importance of these ecosystem services in terms of the were identified using iterative expert consultation. The key benefits provided to society. These were subsequently expert consultation adopted a three-step process (Figure discussed in plenary with the whole group. The studied 2). In the first step, a workshop was organised at the ESP ecosystem services were food production, soil erosion conference in Antwerp in September 2016. The work- regulation, carbon sequestration and water supply eco- shop in Antwerp was open to anyone interested in eco- system services, and an aggregation of cultural ecosys- system services, but experts from the Mediterranean tem services. The choice to focus on cultural ecosystem working group were explicitly invited to participate, as services was made during the workshop to focus on well as key European and Mediterranean scientific net- what cultural ecosystem services had in common as works working on ecosystem assessment. Invitations key characteristics and, given the strong dependence were sent to the ESMERALDA,11 OPERAs,12 Open on personal and social driving forces (Hernández- NESS,13 EU BON14 and ECOPOTENTIAL15 Seventh Morcillo et al. 2013), attempts to avoid national or (FP7) and Horizon 2020 Framework Programmes pro- cultural differences between the use and appreciation ject consortia, coordination and supporting action pro- of cultural ecosystem services between countries and ject partners, the Mediterranean scientific network areas in the Mediterranean Basin. BIODIVMEX16 and the policy stakeholders from the After a thematic analysis, the results from the first Mediterranean Basin. A total of 19 participants attended workshop were complemented in a second round of the workshop. Participants were presented with concep- expert consultation by the workshop participants tual frameworks of a range of ecosystem services and the members of the ESP Mediterranean (Ericksen 2008; Power 2010; Church et al. 2014; Guerra Working Group through an online working docu- et al. 2014; Stevens 2014; Sánchez-Espinosa et al. 2016), ment. The results were shared in the form of while also being offered the option to freely choose other a manuscript outline and a preliminary table identi- ecosystem services frameworks. Visualisations of ecosys- fying key elements from the DPSIR framework for tem service flows were used to identify particularities of the five selected ecosystem services (Figure 1). At Mediterranean ecosystems, as well as the challenges this stage, participants identified relevant peer- encountered when attempting to quantify these services. reviewed and grey literature for the Mediterranean Each workshop participant contributed to a round-table Basin and for the topics identified during the expert discussion in line with their expertise and their perceived consultation. Figure 2. Flowchart showing the implementation of the collaborative research process (ES = Ecosystem Services; DPSIR = Driver-Pressure -State-Impact-Response). 140 M. V. BALZAN ET AL. In the third round of expert consultation, the 2012; Vayreda et al. 2012; Mediterranean Wetland refined Mediterranean ecosystem services DPSIR fra- Observatory 2018). mework (Figure 1), themes and key characteristics In terms of land use management changes, the were shared with the experts who had participated strong links between socio-economic factors and in rounds 1 and 2 to provide feedback on the synth- Mediterranean landscapes are particularly evident in esis of previous contributions. These steps allowed for agricultural abandonment. The loss of traditional the engagement of a total of 28 scientists and practi- management is associated with the progressive loss tioners in total (including the authors of this article). of terraces and the erosion of fertile soils (Cyffka and The experts have worked in terrestrial, freshwater and Bock 2008). The expansion of forest ecosystems marine ecosystems, in a gradient of natural to artifi- regions of land abandonment impacts on ecosystem cialised ecosystems and in policy processes services in yet another way (Aretano et al. 2013; (Supplementary Figure 1). The experts have worked Fuchs et al. 2016). A contemporary phenomenon is in a total of 11 Mediterranean Basin countries with the intensification of agricultural production and the some of the experts working at a more regional loss of diversified agroecosystems, affecting many Mediterranean Basin (n = 6) and European Union areas in Mediterranean EU countries (Debolini et al. (n = 5) level (Supplementary Figure 2). Based on the 2018). The homogenisation of the landscape over vast expert consultation, a comprehensive list of key areas (Nogués-Bravo 2006) results in the loss of agro- aspects of (a) the particularities of Mediterranean biodiversity (José-María et al. 2010; Tsiafouli et al. ecosystems and their services (Table 1), and (b) 2015), and associated ecosystem services (Raudsepp- those aspects which are at risk of not being ade- Hearne et al. 2010; also see 3.5. Impact – Interactions quately captured by existing ecosystem service assess- between ecosystem services, and arising benefits and ments was developed. values). Freshwater resources within the region are threatened by multiple pressures. These have led to the degradation and fragmentation of freshwater ecosystems, impacting 3. Results and discussion significantly on their biodiversity (Skoulikidis et al. 2011, 2017; Mediterranean Wetland Observatory 2018). 3.1. Drivers and pressures Irrigation demand increases rapidly with the intensifica- Demography and economic drivers, including human tion of agricultural practices while surface and ground- population growth and increased demand for goods water bodies are often sinks of pollution arising from and services, urbanisation and industrialisation pat- sources within catchment areas (CEPF 2017). The combi- terns were identified as being important drivers of nation of increasing temperatures, decreased precipitation, change within the region. Changes in land use man- particularly in the southern part of the Mediterranean agement, the degradation and loss of habitats, over- Basin (Mariotti et al. 2015; Polade et al. 2017), and urba- exploitation of terrestrial, coastal and marine nisation and increased water demand (e.g. Malek and resources, introduction of alien species, and regional Verburg 2017; Skoulikidis et al. 2017) contributes to the climatic change were considered as key direct pres- degradation of land and water resources, through aridifi- sures acting on Mediterranean ecosystems (Table 1). cation, salinisation and desertification, especially in the Drivers and pressures often act synergistically southern parts of the Mediterranean Basin (Souissi et al. (Doblas-Miranda et al. 2016) and not linearly, thus 2018). Climatic extremes, especially droughts, exacerbate increasing the complexity in determining the impact the impact on ecosystem services supply, amongst others, on ecosystems. Therefore, whilst the high level of due to significantly lower freshwater availability (Terrado vulnerability of the Mediterranean Basin to global et al. 2014). The counterpart to agriculture in marine environmental change can threaten future ecosystem systems is reflected on the long fishing tradition, and the services supply (Schröter et al. 2005; Hoff 2012), Mediterranean Sea has been exploited by humans since projections of ecosystem services supply patterns the prehistoric era and fishing is one of the activities with show high levels of uncertainty (Cramer et al. 2018). the longest tradition (Cortés-Sánchez et al. 2011). For example, while forest cover areas and biomass Historically, fishing was mainly performed through arti- storage in forest ecosystems are predicted to increase sanal methods and was restricted to coastal areas. thereby increasing carbon sequestration (Vilà- However, artisanal fishing has over the last 50 years been Cabrera et al. 2017), seagrass meadows are predicted relegated to a marginal role (Gaudin and De Young 2007) to decline in coverage and associated carbon seques- and has been gradually replaced by heavy towed gear tration capacity (Jordà et al. 2012). Droughts are capable of operating at greater depths. The introduction predicted to further impact the Mediterranean Basin of new technologies led to an increase in fishing capacity through increased mortality of plants, reduced quality and catchability, which has further increased the pressure of surface water, lower levels of ecosystems produc- on marine ecosystems. Additionally, there is growing con- tivity, and pest and disease outbreak (Palacio et al. cern for the damages on benthic habitats caused by towed Table 1. Drivers and pressures acting on Mediterranean socio-ecological systems and ecosystem services capacities and flows. Erosion control Carbon sequestration Food Production (Agriculture) Cultural Water supply Drivers and ● Agricultural abandonment ● Agricultural abandonment and ● Recent agricultural intensification and con- ● Climate change ● Climate change – the most Pressures ● Abandonment of agricultural decreased human use of forests dur- centration, including increased use of agro- ● Tourism in islands leading to agricultural important driver affecting use in steep areas ing last decades. Natural succession, chemicals, irrigation. abandonment and more urbanisation; water supply in the ● Loss of grazing afforestation and restoration in some ● Loss of heterogeneous rural landscapes and ● Urbanisation and industrialisation Mediterranean Basin. ● Climatic change – increased areas. crop/agro-biodiversity ● Political and economic instability impact Scenarios indicate increased duration of drought period; ● Change in fire occurrence and ● Disconnection between agriculture, forest negatively on tourism in affected regions but demand for domestic water role of extreme rainfall events intensity and the use of animals have led to an potentially further causing a concentration of and irrigation ● Intensification, increased ● Coastal and urban development unbalanced fuel load favouring rural fires tourists in northern Mediterranean countries; ● Land cover change affect water mechanisation, irrigation, ● Direct negative impacts of climate ● Agricultural fragmentation ● Impact of loss of traditional practices and supply by extra water dependence on agro- change on forest C storage and ● Urbanisation associated elements from the landscapes on demanding crops; chemicals sequestration ● Climate change is likely to increase depen- cultural identity and heritage ● Changes in permeability of ● Negative effect on erosion ● Role of pest outbreaks leading to dence on food imports ● Lack of regulations or otherwise lax enforce- surfaces due to urbanisation. regulation of larger wildfires reduced tree growth and C stock ● In certain parts, exhaustion of freshwater ment ● Pollution affecting the quality ● Natural succession, afforesta- accumulation rate reserves leads to abandonment and soil dimension of water supply; tion and restoration in some ● Urbanisation and industrialisation; salinisation. ● Invasion of non-native species areas. But concurrent biodi- loss of traditional agroforestry ● Local, national and regional (e.g. EC) agri- affecting water availability versity loss in other areas systems cultural policies. Agriculture in the Southern dynamics ● Coastline artificialisation ● Pollution from nutrient run-off Mediterranean Basin as being particularly ● Loss of keystone marine spe- ● Commercial fishing practices ● Increasing numbers of recreational susceptible to market and price fluctuations; cies with high cultural values ● Nutrient run-off into coastal boats and yachts affecting marine ● Land use and climate change have an for local population (e.g. dol- waters (fertilisers, sewage…) habitats (e.g. Posidonia oceanica) impact on wild food production phins, sea turtles, monk seals). ● Increasing numbers of recrea- through anchoring ● Highly prone to invasive spe- tional boats and yachts affect- cies (e.g. Acacia, Arundo, ing marine habitats (e.g. Eucalyptus spp.) Posidonia oceanica) through anchoring ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 141 142 M. V. BALZAN ET AL. fishing gears (e.g. de Juan et al. 2007). This increase in transformation and use of the coast has impacts at various fishing pressure has led to the over-exploitation of fish ecosystem levels, from meiofauna to vertebrates, including stocks and a shift in community structures (Coll et al. marine mammals, due to stressors such as pollution, 2010; Piroddi et al. 2017). exploitation and biological invasion among others The Mediterranean Sea has many entry routes for (Defeo et al. 2009). Coastal development has, for example, exotic species due to the opening of the Suez Canal, been associated with strong declines of Mediterranean high maritime traffic and aquaculture activity seagrass Posidonia oceanica beds, with negative impacts (Katsanevakis et al. 2014; Mačić et al. 2018). on its food web components (Giakoumi et al. 2015; Holon Additionally, high coastal population densities, et al. 2015). The loss of traditional cultural elements and impacts from agriculture run-off and insufficient endemic ecosystem is also associated with the loss of local level of sewage treatment combined with the fact knowledge, cultural heritage (Morán-Ordóñez et al. 2013; that the Mediterranean is a semi-enclosed sea with Stara et al. 2015), and other cultural ecosystem services little water exchange with the open ocean, make the (Martín-López et al. 2016). Mediterranean Sea particularly sensitive to pollution, Drivers and pressures do not act in isolation, but posing an important threat to marine biodiversity they interact within landscapes. Fires are a common (Micheli et al. 2013). Maritime traffic has been feature of the Mediterranean landscapes and its deter- a major source of pollution in the Mediterranean minants are rapidly modified by changes in the land- Sea (Abdul Malak et al. 2015) whilst the extremely scape, climate and socio-economic factors (Brotons busy shipping routes increase the already high mor- et al. 2013). Traditionally, the deliberate burning of tality rates of endangered species like marine mam- woodlands by rural populations for improving ranges mals through ship collisions (Vaes and Druon 2013). for grazing animals has been a cause of forest fires in These shipping routes are also a major source of the region (Meddour-Sahar et al. 2013). The increas- underwater noise which has harmful impacts on mar- ing frequency and intensity of large wildfires in the ine biodiversity (Aguilar Soto et al. 2006). Given the last decades, in particular in the Western Europe, is strategic location of the Mediterranean Basin, these caused by several factors including the strong decline shipping routes are crucial for the financial well- in rural populations; the replacement of agricultural being of its adjacent countries, generating conflicts ecosystems with scrubland and forests by secondary among biodiversity protection and human well-being. succession, and the homogenisation of traditional Microplastic pollution is also a major driver of bio- landscape mosaics with subsequent loss of cultivated diversity loss within the Mediterranean Sea (e.g., fields and meadows (Badia et al. 2002; García-Ruiz Fossi et al. 2017; Casini et al. 2018). et al. 2013; Nunes and Lourenço 2017). The changing Widespread urbanisation trends in the Mediterranean dynamics of wildfires also has a strong impact on the Basin are associated with persistent rural-urban migra- ecosystem services supply (Thom and Seidl 2016) and tions, endogenous urban growth, and increasing tourist whilst abandonment and secondary succession may influx. Between 1970 and 2010, the urbanisation rate be associated with improved biodiversity conserva- around the Mediterranean increased from 54% to 66%, tion in some cases (Plieninger et al. 2014), enhanced whilst it is estimated that by 2025 72% of the erosion regulation (García-Ruiz et al. 2013) and car- Mediterranean population will live in urban areas bon sequestration (Vilà-Cabrera et al. 2017) or (Masad 2016). By 2030, the Mediterranean Basin may increased eco-tourism potential (Aretano et al. have become the global biodiversity hotspot with the high- 2013), these may be negated quickly by wildfires est percentage (5%) of urban land (Elmqvist et al. 2013). (Moreira et al. 2011; Peñuelas et al. 2017). Cities play an important role in economic growth and development, but have increasingly promoted rural- 3.2. State – ecosystem structure and condition urban migration and are a source of impacts on biodiver- sity (Masad 2016; Mediterranean Wetland Observatory Mediterranean social-ecological systems are a complex 2018), and on coastal and insular ecosystems because of mixture of elements (Table 2). The rich biodiversity a strong tourist influx to these environments within the region has played a critical role in human (Tzanopoulos and Vogiatzakis 2011; Aretano et al. 2013). prosperity and well-being for millennia as ecosystems With 33% of the Mediterranean Basin population residing were modified and transformed to provide a wide in coastal areas, coastal ecosystems are highly threatened range of ecosystem services. Together with the climatic by the overexploitation of natural resources and the con- and environmental variability, human activities strongly version of natural ecosystems into urban areas with influence and shape the spatio-temporal heterogeneity in a direct impact on ecosystem service supply (CEPF 2017; biodiversity and ecosystem services supply. The key char- Balzan et al. 2018; García-Nieto et al. 2018), further pres- acteristics identified across the five selected ecosystem sure is added as these areas are becoming hotspots for services were the (1) impacts of historical changes to ecosystem services demand (Baró et al. 2017). On the ecosystems and human inputs, (2) the significant role marine and coastal realm, the unplanned and exacerbated of indigenous biodiversity and endemic species, and (3) Table 2. State of Mediterranean social-ecological systems as a consequence of human input and temporal (intra-annual and long-term) variability (ES: Ecosystem services). Erosion control Carbon sequestration Food Production (Agriculture) Cultural Water supply State – Ecosystem Human input ● Historical changes and continuous ● Historical deforestation and more recent ● Heterogeneous landscapes ● Many traditional farming and ● Intense human impact; his- structure and and influence human input shaping landscapes abandonment and afforestation including due to historical and present fishing practices associated torical human modification of condition on ecosystem and contributing to erosion reduc- policies (since mid-twentieth century) at changes, farming practices with cultural heritage and ES; ecosystems to ensure rain- (including spatial services tion ES; national level moulding the landscape, and ● Human input plays an water harvesting variability) structure and ● Role of traditional elements of ● Decreased human use of forests during driven by natural and socio- important role in shaping ● Dependence on both ecosys- condition Mediterranean landscapes (exten- the last decades economic factors terrestrial landscapes and tems and water infrastructures sive terracing/ditches/field margins, ● Important role of traditional farming and ● Dependence on importation coastal areas to support freshwater provi- open-forest/agroforestry systems). agroforestry/landscape elements (as of food ● Anthropogenic vegetation sioning ES. These patches provide vegetation dehesas or montados) in relation with ● (Fishing) Commercial fishing disturbance regimes sustain- cover. this ES and the potential effect of the practices (e.g. trawling) ing culturally modified habi- ● Role of human-induced distur- decline by land abandonment and fire affecting the structure of tat types, and associated bances e.g. traditional grazing impact marine habitats and asso- species assemblages of high activity, fires and fire suppression ● Dense coastal population and intensive ciated production conservation value ● Negative role from the intensifica- use of coastal waters affecting the abun- tion of agriculture and forest activ- dance and quality of seagrass habitats ities, in particular mechanisation and hence sequestration capacity ● Intense use of coastal waters and excessive nutrient input leading to seagrass habitat erosion Biodiversity ● Traditional agricultural manage- ● Importance of endemic species: e.g. ● Traditional agricultural man- ● High level of biodiversity; ● Critical role of ecosystems in patterns ment associated with high biodi- Posidonia oceanica has a high agement associated with high characterised by a patchy ensuring groundwater underpinning versity and heterogeneous C sequestration capacity biodiversity, multiple ES. mosaic of different types of recharge ecosystem landscape patterns, multiple ES. ● Local-scale heterogeneity of ecosystems ● Nutrient deficient soils ecosystems, including her- ● vegetation traits – ecosystems/ services ● Role of native flora and ecosystems and regional spatial trends baceous, shrub and tree plants are adapted to drought (e.g. forests) ● Important role of forest species and cover during Summer – ● Resistance of scrublands to grazing structural richness ● Protected areas are often located in cultural landscapes that also provide many cul- tural ecosystem services ● Important role of sites with high biodiversity, coastal areas and heterogeneous landscapes ● Importance of key species in eco-tourism/part of the cul- tural heritage State – Temporal Intra-annual ● Dry periods with reduced vegeta- ● Primary production is highly dependent ● Seasonality of agricultural ● Temporal variation in tourist ● Precipitation in Variability variability tion cover and lower ES delivery. In on water availability – service flow varies production visitation or use of coastal Mediterranean Basin is seaso- particular, directly after the sum- between the seasons. E.g. in wetlands, ● Fallow land during drier ecosystems, and arising nal, associated with high mer period the soil is most vulner- where in dry period there is a net emis- months pressures inter-annual variation, which able to erosion due to reduced sion of carbon ● Given the strong intra-annual affects ecosystems integrity cover. variability, dynamic manage- and the provision of water ● Periods with strong rainfall trigger ment of natural resources & supply soil erosion socio-ecological systems is ● Surface water often greatly required reduced during dry seasons/ intermittent Inter-annual ● long(er)-term changes in ecosys- ● Increased tree density and biomass of ● Inter-annual variability of ● ES delivery dependent on ● Reservoirs and land manage- variability tems as a consequence of agricul- Mediterranean forests during last dec- weather conditions affects weather conditions in ment role in interannual ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE tural abandonment and ades due to reduced human use food production a particular year. variability intensification; ● Abandonment giving rise to ‘new forests’ ● Impacts of climate change ● Changing weather patterns ● Increasing value of water due ● changing disturbance regimes e.g. which provide faster growth rates and ● Areas sensitive to drought e.g. extended summer and to climate change, scarcity and fire and fire suppression policies carbon sequestration effects often show abandon- severe droughts; dependence on grey 143 (prescribed fires) impacting on ● Changes on forest dynamics and com- ment of crops infrastructure. erosion regulating ES position. Some species are replaced by ● Increased frequency of drought other less sensitive to environmental episodes. variability 144 M. V. BALZAN ET AL. strong seasonal, interannual, long-term and spatial var- 3.3. State – intra-annual variability iation in ecosystem services supply creating trade-offs The sources of temporal variation in ecosystem char- and synergies between ecosystem services. acteristics and in the supply of ecosystem services Land use land cover patterns, arising from histor- were identified to arise from the (a) strong seasonal ical modifications of the landscapes, and particularly changes in ecosystems and (b) the longer-term inter- in agricultural, coastal and island environments, have annual changes in ecosystems. Across the annual a long-lasting impact which is still influencing cur- cycle, seasonal variation is particularly expressed in rent ecosystem services supply (Baró et al. 2016; cultural ecosystem service supply and flows, whereas Balzan et al. 2018). For example, forest clearing has temporal availability of water determines many pro- traditionally been a requirement for agricultural pro- visioning and regulating ecosystem services (Terrado duction systems in many parts of the Mediterranean. et al. 2014). Dry periods are associated with reduced This land use change had profound effects on the primary production, vegetation cover or with plant region’s biodiversity and involved a reduction in for- dormancy (Volaire and Norton 2006; Volaire et al. est-related ecosystem service supply like firewood or 2009), and therefore in addition to lower freshwater soil erosion control (Blondel et al. 2010). Agricultural supply, these drier periods are also associated with legacies may continue to prevail in the long-term lower erosion regulation, carbon sequestration and through their impact on biodiversity and ecosystem food production. Seasonality in food provisioning services as demonstrated by forests growth and car- from marine systems is mainly determined by the bon sequestration. Forest attributes vary with envir- life cycle of those species of commercial interest onmental conditions that remain influenced by past such as deep-sea prawns (Guijarro et al. 2009). This decisions on the allocation and use of land for agri- biological seasonality is generally coupled with seaso- culture (Vilà-Cabrera et al. 2017). nal fishing regulations aimed at protecting the stocks. Massive changes in human societies and cultural Seasonal variability is also visible in ecosystem ser- practices have strongly affected biodiversity. vices demand which follows the peaks of tourist vis- Despite these changes, the region’s social- itation patterns. The high recreation and tourism ecological systems have continued to support services' flows coincide with high demands for water a high level of biodiversity (Médail and Quezel during the warmer months (Mediterranean Wetland 1999; Myers et al. 2000; Allen 2003), which under- Observatory 2018). pins the capacity of ecosystems to provide services (Vlami et al. 2017). Scrubland and forest adapted to the Mediterranean weather, fire regimes and graz- ing dynamics, are important for the supply of food 3.4. State – inter-annual and long-term (including for example wild fruits or mushrooms) variability and materials (e.g. cork, timber), the regulation of freshwater quantity and quality, and of soil erosion Longer term changes in ecosystems and their services are whilst contributing to carbon sequestration (Roces- strongly determined by human activities and are mainly Díaz et al. 2018a). Mediterranean wetlands ensure associated with land use and climate change. Long-term a buffering role to absorb water during floods and variability arises for the concurrent agricultural abandon- provide freshwater during droughts while seques- ment and intensification of agriculture and tourism- tering carbon and providing nursery habitats for related activities (Aretano et al. 2013), changes in fire many endemic species (Mediterranean Wetland occurrence, and the decreased use of forests leading to Observatory 2018). Similarly, Posidonia oceanica recovery and increased tree species diversity (Vilà- meadows, an endemic Mediterranean species, do Cabrera et al. 2017). Climate change has been associated not only play a key role for carbon sequestration with significant negative impacts on regional biodiversity in coastal environments but also provides multiple and ecosystem services (Schröter et al. 2005), including ecosystem services (Campagne et al. 2015) such as the decline of some types of forest ecosystems (Vidal- the protection of the gene pool, habitat provision Macua et al. 2017), wetlands (Mediterranean Wetland for multiple species, provision of food, mainte- Observatory 2018), and impact on crop production nance of water quality, the prevention of coastal (Olesen et al. 2011; Vidal-Macua et al. 2018) flood protec- erosion and the use of beaches and coastal waters tion (Mediterranean Wetland Observatory 2018), and for recreation and tourism (Vassallo et al. 2013; forest carbon sequestration (Seidl et al. 2014). With Ruiz-Frau et al. 2018). The Mediterranean Sea is a projected decrease in annual precipitation and increase also home to emblematic marine species, like in extended summer droughts (Mariotti et al. 2015), it is whales, dolphins and sea turtles (Panigada and expected that climate change will lead to a lower capacity Notarbartolo Di Sciara 2012). of ecosystems to supply freshwater whereas the demand ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 145 for this ecosystem service, especially from cities, agricul- ecosystem services and increased tourist influx, support ture and industries, is expected to increase. economic growth within the region but also signifi- Climate change is considered one of the main cantly impact the Mediterranean ecosystems which drivers of change for Mediterranean terrestrial, fresh- causes a general reduction in natural capital (CEPF water, coastal and marine ecosystems. Forecasted sce- 2017). Similar decreasing trends in the natural capacity narios for Mediterranean areas envisage decreases in of ecosystem to provide ecosystem services have been rainfall and wind, warmer surface waters and pro- observed for the Mediterranean wetlands, coastal and longed water stratification periods (Calvo et al. 2011; marine ecosystems (Liquete et al. 2016; Mediterranean Mariotti et al. 2015). The Mediterranean Sea is warm- Wetland Observatory 2018). ing two to three times faster than the global ocean (Marbà et al. 2015). The effects of these changes are 3.6. Response – challenges in the likely to be reflected in the meridionalisation of spe- implementation of ecosystem assessments cies, mortality events of coralligenous communities due to anomalous warm water temperatures; The experts have identified several key characteristics that increases in the smallest phytoplankton due to longer are currently no well captured in ecosystem assessments water stratification periods; proliferation of gelati- due to the inherent complexity of the Mediterranean nous carnivores and a faster acidification of seawater social-ecological systems (Table 4). This information compared to the global oceans (Calvo et al. 2011). can serve to identify meaningful management or policy Furthermore, it has been predicted that the seagrass, actions to sustainably manage ecosystems and their ser- Posidonia oceanica could reach functional extinction vices within the region. The key challenges in the imple- under warming scenarios predicted in the western mentation of ecosystem assessments for the social- Mediterranean (Jordà et al. 2012; Telesca et al. 2015). ecological systems of the Mediterranean Basin are pre- A recent assessment of periurban land around 12 sented in more detail below: Mediterranean cities (eight European and four (1) Appropriateness of spatial and temporal scale: North-African), shows that the capacity of these experts identified relevant pressures acting at important areas in terms of ecosystem services supply varying spatial and temporal scales which has generally reduced over the last 20–30 years due to drive intra- and inter-annual variation in eco- urbanisation dynamics (García-Nieto et al. 2018). system structure, ecosystem services supply However, it also shows some increases in the supply and socio-economic conditions that are often of certain forest-related ecosystem services, such as inadequately represented in ecosystem assess- air quality regulation, timber, and fuelwood provi- ments. The assessment of ecosystem condition sion. Studies have demonstrated that agricultural is considered as an important challenge due to abandonment followed by secondary succession may existing inter and intra annual variability of indeed lead to increased canopy cover, increasing climate and related biophysical processes. ecosystem services supply (Padilla et al. 2010; This variability is, however, only rarely suffi- Tzanopoulos and Vogiatzakis 2011; Aretano et al. ciently covered by ecosystem assessments (e.g. 2013). However, these long-term changes may also for Mediterranean wetlands (Perennou et al. give rise to reduced species diversity, increased wild- 2018)). fire risk and the loss of crop production systems and (2) Multidisciplinary approaches are required given associated cultural ecosystem services (CEPF 2017). the complexity of social-ecological systems in the Mediterranean Basin: the use of adapted methods is crucial in the assessment of changes in ecosys- 3.5. Impact – interactions between ecosystem tem services flows and the arising socio-economic services, and arising benefits and values benefits (IPBES 2016). The complexity of Several ecosystem service interactions, in the form of Mediterranean social-ecological systems suggests synergies and trade-offs, were identified by the experts that multidimensional tools and methods are (Table 3). Fisheries and agricultural food provisioning required to assess changes in Mediterranean eco- ecosystem services were identified to be strongly asso- system services. This is required to allow for ciated with cultural heritage and identity, recreation a meaningful connection between changes in the and tourism (Holmlund and Hammer 1999; Zasada supply, use and, demand of ecosystem services 2011). Similarly, freshwater provisioning is a key eco- and different beneficiary groups (Geijzendorffer system service that is threatened by overexploitation et al. 2015). and the impacts of a changing climate, potentially (3) Representativeness: Existing methods are often impacting on food security and other benefits arising adapted from different social-ecological systems from ecosystems such as reduced carbon storage and that may not be characterised by the high levels of local and global climate regulation (Hoff 2012). diversity present in heterogeneous landscapes and Increased demand for food and freshwater provisioning the non-linear importance of certain ecosystems Table 3. Impacts on ecosystem services and the benefits humans gain from Mediterranean social-ecological systems (ES: Ecosystem services). 146 Erosion control Carbon sequestration Food Production (Agriculture) Cultural Water supply Impact – Interaction ● Synergy between erosion regula- ● Synergies with local ● Synergies with regulating ES e.g. erosion regulation, ● Different forms of tourism ● Water supply may have a trade-off with with other tion and provisioning, regulating and global climate air and water quality regulation. But depends on the creating synergies between food production (agriculture); ecosystem services and cultural ES capacity and flow regulation, and other intensity of management, and can lead to trade-offs multiple ES; strong links ● Water availability important for vegetation (synergies and (e.g. on crops, C sequestration; regulating ES such as with these services in intensive cultivation. between traditional food pro- cover, leading to synergies with cultural, car- trade-offs) nursery habitats); erosion control. ● Synergies with gene pool protection ES (in the case of duction and cultural ES bon sequestration and erosion regulation ● Silting of waterbodies is asso- ● Synergy with gene low input/several traditional agricultural practices); ● Trade-offs caused by high services. ciated with reduced flood pre- pool protection ES, Some food-systems rely on landscape and biodiversity tourist influx. E.g. concerns of vention ES. e.g. through attributes locals related to tourism M. V. BALZAN ET AL. a positive association ● Intensive farming leading to a land sparing dynamic pressure in some areas. with tree diversity. but intensification in some areas is not balanced by ● Trade-offs with food provi- better environmental conditions of extensively man- sioning ES (particularly on aged areas. islands) ● Importance of intermediate ES (pollination, nutrient ● Trade-offs between benefits cycling, pest control) for food production and nuisances (e.g. perceived nuisance of seagrass beach cast vs. seagrass benefits) ● Relevant gradient of demand of cultural ES from urban to rural areas ● Multifunctionality of coastal ecosystems: provide recrea- tion, tourism, high educa- tional, scientific, aesthetic and inspirational value. Impact – Benefits and ● Several indirect benefits, through ● Part of climate ● Important role in cultural heritage, recreation and ● Traditional farming practices ● Freshwater supply (aquifers, surface water) Values for example food provisioning change mitigation tourism; part of the cultural heritage as a highly valued benefit, and often scarce ● Erosion prevention ES improves within the ● Low environmental impact agriculture can act as ● Feeling of sense-of-place and ecosystem good, necessary for human well- water quality downstream Mediterranean Basin important fire breaks and limit the spread of wildfires distinct identity being and important for crop provisioning ● Avoided siltation of dams and ● Intensification of management leads to soil erosion, ● Artisanal fishing part of cul- within the region; aquatic habitats loss of agrobiodiversity tural heritage and related to ● Source of renewable energy ● Erosion prevention in coastal ● Abandonment may have a positive impact on other identity values habitats improves coastal waters’ items of wild food production such as game meat – ● Protected areas/coastal areas/ quality and transparency e.g. populations of wild boar, roe deer and others are sites with high biodiversity increasing in many areas partly as a consequence of important for recreation, eco- decreased traditional agricultural and forest activities tourism, and aesthetics. ● Spiritual and inspirational values related to cultural landscape forms (landscape character). ● Inspiration gained from wild- erness attribute of landscapes. ● Tourism – consumed by many visitors; strong direct and indirect contribution to eco- nomic growth; ● Positive impacts on human health of recreational and sport activities; ● Leisure, recreation, environ- mental education & aware- ness, tradition Table 4. Challenges in the implementation of ecosystem assessment within Mediterranean socio-ecological systems. Ecosystem service Ecosystem Service specific challenges Common challenges Erosion regulation ● Erosion regulation ecosystem services strongly linked to ecosystem condition. The assessment of ● Uncertainty of future climate, land cover and associated ecosystem processes (e.g. wildfires) ecosystem condition presents several challenges in heterogeneous Mediterranean landscapes; scenarios ● Data availability on effectiveness of measures or ecosystems for erosion mitigation is often limited; ● Data availability for ecosystem structure, condition, function and services; ● Empirical data relating to biophysical characteristics (at species, ecosystem level), and obtained from field trials and empirical studies, for specific ecosystem services is often limited. ● Capturing the inter-annual variability in ecosystem services capacity and flow; ● Discerning between the importance of human input and semi-/natural ecosystems in ecosystem services delivery; ● Importance of considering Mediterranean as ‘social-ecological ecosystem structures’ that co-produce ecosystem services; this must be reflected in the choice of assessment methods; ● Assessment of synergies and trade-offs is likely to hampered by the relative inavailability of data at adequate spatial scales (e.g contribution of traditional small-scale farming practices to carbon sequestration, erosion regulation and cultural heritage); Carbon sequestration ● Empirical data about species or functional group cover, carbon storage and sequestration is normally limited and based on multiple assumptions; ● Empirical data from field and long-term trials are strongly required to assess ecosystem services and their dynamics; Food production ● Challenges associated with the assessment of food production due to high diversity of farming (agriculture) systems; ● The presence of small-scale agricultural activities (e.g. subsistence agriculture), having important socio-cultural and economic functions, may not be adequately captured in existing assessments carried out at national or regional scale; Cultural ● Cultural services may be provided by different ecosystems e.g. important role of semi-natural ecosystems for aesthetic/inspirational value but strong contribution of green urban areas for recreation; ● Importance of focusing more on relational values and the socio-cultural significance of ecosystems. The assessment of perception and use by society of different cultural services, and their change in the future requires locally adapted approaches and stakeholder and expert participation. ● Scale of ecosystem assessments: often difficult to value cultural benefits generated by a specific ecosystem or specific species (e.g. dolphins or sea turtles). Freshwater supply ● Water quantity, quality and demand data availability ● Implementation of ecosystem assessment to combine conservation of freshwater resources with biodiversity conservation and restoration practices within watersheds; ● Ecosystem assessments can provide the basis for the implementation of nature-based solutions that enhance ecosystem capacity to provide freshwater but also conserve biodiversity and create synergies with other ecosystem services (e.g. food provisioning, erosion regulation, aesthetic) ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 147 148 M. V. BALZAN ET AL. for the wider supply of ecosystem services. For application of such approaches for the instance, wetlands and sandy beaches in small Mediterranean Basin social-ecological systems Mediterranean islands contribute to a higher eco- remain limited and only a few examples are system services flow relative to their surface in available (but see Schröter et al. 2005; Liquete comparison to other ecosystems (e.g. Zedler and et al. 2016; Piroddi et al. 2017). To adequately Kercher 2005; Togridou et al. 2006; Katselidis et al. capture future changes in ecosystem services, 2013). assessments should be able to incorporate (4) Data availability, national and institutional frag- human-inputs and disturbance processes mentation – The detection of trends to make across the terrestrial-coastal-marine conti- robust inference across the region requires nuum. Within a context of the environmental a significant amount of data, to guarantee the and socio-economic changes within the coverage of the large spatial, intra- and interann- Mediterranean Basin, the assessment of trends ual variability of Mediterranean social-ecological in ecosystem services flows is considered as systems. The fragmentation of data between being particularly important for policy and regions, countries, and often local authorities, decision-making relating to land and resource creates a strong element of heterogeneity in data use but this aspect is the least covered by availability and characteristics which often consti- existing data and indicators (Maes et al. 2012; tutes a source of uncertainty in ecosystem assess- Geijzendorffer et al. 2017). Projections are ments. Ecosystem assessments for the considered a critical tool for evidence-based Mediterranean Basin have been carried out at decision-making on adaptation and mitigation national or local scales (Martín-López et al. actions to avoid, to the maximum possible 2016) but a regional assessment remains unavail- extent, future negative impacts on ecosystems able, even though several drivers and pressures act and undesirable trade-offs. Scenario-based at a regional scale. Earth observation methods approaches for the Mediterranean Basin can provide the means to fill a limited number of provide an opportunity to explore the uncer- data gaps relating to the biophysical assessment tainty around the relationships and feedbacks of ecosystems and their services across the region between the different elements of the ecosys- (e.g. Hardin and Jensen 2011; Perennou et al. tem services chain. (e.g. Malek et al. 2018). 2018). Meanwhile permanent networks of survey- The challenge for scenarios of Mediterranean ing plots, such as those derived from National systems is to incorporate the multiplicity of Forest Inventories or long-term ecological factors influencing Mediterranean social- research, provide an opportunity to develop regio- ecological systems whereas most projections nal studies about ecosystem structure and func- tend to be monospecific, for example focusing tions and to study temporal changes of relevant on only one key driver such in climate change, ecosystem services (e.g., Vayreda et al. 2012) at land use, future projections on fish stocks and multiple spatial scales (Roces-Díaz et al. 2018b). sea level change scenarios (Morán-Ordóñez Given these gaps, and the extensive data require- et al. 2019). Results from scenarios can be ment for ecosystem assessments at varying scales, used to coordinate environmental and other the consultation with experts and stakeholders sectoral (e.g. agricultural, tourism, economic) can improve the understanding of the ecosystem policies to enhance adaptation and steer man- services flows (Campagne and Roche 2018). An agement towards sustainability (Khabarov important challenge also remains for the collec- et al. 2014; Malek et al. 2018). However, such tion of comparable information on socio- approaches need to be multidimensional economic data, with data availability often being (Carpenter et al. 2009) and should capture biased towards the European Mediterranean the ecological and social processes operating countries and much less available for North at multiple spatio-temporal scales. Africa and Eastern Mediterranean countries (García-Nieto et al. 2018; Malek et al. 2018). (5) Operationalisation of ecosystem assessments 3.7. Response – implications for policy and and projections: Process-based approaches management incorporate explicit representations of geo- Mediterranean Basin social-ecological systems are chemical, physical and biotic processes under- highly dynamic and continuously evolve due to pinning ecosystem functioning (Lavorel et al. new drivers and pressures whilst at the same time 2017), and can make projections on ecosystem demonstrating a legacy of historical changes and services flow (Wolff et al. 2015). The patterns. The use of the modified DPSIR ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 149 framework allowed us to conceptualise the dynamic cultural heritage and the common threats, adapta- nature of the Mediterranean social-ecological sys- tions of assessment approach methods to the specific tems. By highlighting ecosystem service flows, the context of Mediterranean social-ecological systems DPSIR framework enabled a focus on the manage- are rare. In this work we have identified key char- ment of ecosystems and their ecosystem service acteristics of the Mediterranean social-ecological sys- flows. It can be a useful tool in the identification tems using the DPSIR framework, and have of management approaches that integrate drivers of highlighted aspects that are currently oversimplified, change with ecosystem service capacities and flow, leading to a potential bias in policy and management and their spatial interactions and dynamics. This is decisions. We have identified a number of challenges in contrast with more traditional approaches to in the implementation of ecosystem assessment in biodiversity management, which tend to be reactive the Mediterranean Basin associated with the integra- in nature, focusing on the protection of ecosystems tion of drivers and pressures in ecosystem assess- from human impact (Kelble et al. 2013). The use of ments, the availability of empirical data about the modified DPSIR conceptual framework inte- ecosystems, functions and ecosystem service flows grating ecosystem services facilitates the identifica- and demand at the right scale, and the assessment tion of policies and management that improve the of synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem ser- capacity and flow of ecosystem services and which vices. Finally, we evaluate the potential application evolved both with changes in the biocapacity of of DPSIR frameworks and multidisciplinary ecosystems to provide services as well as with chan- approaches, which are based on empirical data at ging demands for ecosystem goods and services by relevant spatio-temporal scales, in developing more modern societies. dynamic and evidence-based management practices Mediterranean social-ecological systems are inher- for the Mediterranean Basin. ently complex, and oversimplifications in ecosystem assessments may arise from an inadequate represen- Notes tation of the relationship between historical and pre- sent human activities, biodiversity and ecosystem 1. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/interna services spatial patterns, as well as the seasonal and tional-cooperation/regional-sea-conventions/barce long-term variability in ecosystem services supply, lona-convention/index_en.htm . 2. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/ flow and demand. Multidisciplinary approaches are egmIndicators/MSSD_latest_eng.pdf . required to incorporate this complexity in ecosystem 3. https://www.ipbes.net/deliverables/2b-regional- assessments for improved relevance to decision- assessments . making. Whereas the development of process-based 4. https://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes . approaches is generally considered an important tool 5. http://www.ecomilenio.es/ . 6. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/SGA. to quantify ecosystem service flows, the integration of Portugal.html . multiple ecosystem assessment methods remains 7. https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/levalua a necessity to cover the wide variety of social and tion-francaise-des-ecosystemes-et-des-services- environmental indicators. The extent to which assess- ecosystemiques. ments can incorporate this complexity depends on 8. http://www.hamaarag.org.il/en/content/inner/ecosys the availability of data, with several gaps and oppor- tem-services . 9. https://www.es-partnership.org/community/work tunities for filling these through the use of satellite ings-groups/biome-working-groups/bwg-5-mediter imagery, ecological methods, and social and eco- ranean-systems/ . nomic assessment methods, at relevant spatial and 10. https://www.es-partnership.org/ . temporal scales. This is without a doubt a challenge 11. http://www.esmeralda-project.eu/ . but information on ecosystem services is a crucial 12. http://www.operas-project.eu/ . 13. http://www.openness-project.eu/ . asset for evidence-based policy and management 14. http://www.eubon.eu/show/project_2731/ . responses. 15. http://www.ecopotential-project.eu/ . 16. http://biodivmex.imbe.fr/?lang=en . 4. Conclusions Acknowledgments The use of ecosystem assessments to understand We would like to thank the participants of the Mediterranean ecosystems’ contribution to human well-being and Working Group workshop held at the 2016 European to inform policy and management has become Ecosystem Services Partnership conference in Antwerp, and increasingly popular within the Mediterranean the Ecosystem Services Partnership for the support to the Basin. However, despite the shared natural and Mediterranean Working Group. MVB acknowledges funding 150 M. V. BALZAN ET AL. from the ReNature project. This project has received funding an example from Catalonia. Environ Hazard. 4:23–32. from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and inno- doi:10.1016/S1464-2867(02)00014-1. vation programme under grant agreement No 809988. JVRD Balzan MV, Caruana J, Zammit A. 2018. Assessing the capacity was supported by the Government of Asturias and FP7-Marie and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Curie-COFUND European Commission program (Grant evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small ‘Clarín’ ACA17-02). SdM benefited from a Serra-Húnter island state. Land Use Pol. 75:711–725. doi:10.1016/j. Fellowship provided by the Generalitat of Catalonia. landusepol.2017.08.025. Bangash RF, Passuello A, Sanchez-Canales M, Terrado M, López A, Elorza FJ, Ziv G, Acuña V, Schuhmacher M. Disclosure statement 2013. Ecosystem services in Mediterranean river basin: climate change impact on water provisioning and erosion No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. control. Sci Total Environ. 458:246–255. doi:10.1016/j. scitotenv.2013.04.025. Baró F, Gómez-Baggethun E, Haase D. 2017. Ecosystem Funding service bundles along the urban-rural gradient: insights for landscape planning and management. Ecosyst Serv. This work was supported by the H2020 Spreading 24:147–159. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.021. Excellence and Widening Participation [809988];FP7- Baró F, Palomo I, Zulian G, Vizcaino P, Haase D, Gómez- Marie Curie-COFUND [‘Clarín’ ACA17-02]. Baggethun E. 2016. Mapping ecosystem service capacity, flow and demand for landscape and urban planning: a case study in the Barcelona metropolitan region. Land Use Pol. ORCID 57:405–417. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.006. Mario V. Balzan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2016-3937 Bianchi CN, Morri C. 2000. Marine biodiversity of the André Mascarenhas http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0942-5887 Mediterranean sea: situation, problems and prospects for Alejandra Morán-Ordóñez http://orcid.org/0000-0002- future research. Mar Pollut Bull. 40:367–376. doi:10.1016/ 5815-6089 S0025-326X(00)00027-8. Ana Ruiz-Frau http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1317-2827 Blondel J. 2006. The ‘design’ of Mediterranean landscapes: Claudia Carvalho-Santos http://orcid.org/0000-0003- a millennial story of humans and ecological systems 1841-209X during the historic period. Hum Ecol. 34:713–729. Ioannis N. Vogiatzakis http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7071- doi:10.1007/s10745-006-9030-4. 6950 Blondel J, Aronson J, Bodiou JY, Boeuf G. 2010. The Julia Santana-Garcon http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7961-3552 Mediterraneaen region – biological diversity in space José V. Roces-Díaz http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2569-8049 and time. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. C. Sylvie Campagne http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2566-7827 Brotons L, Aquilué N, de Cáceres M, Fortin MJ, Fall A. 2013. Philip K. Roche http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4443-7434 How fire history, fire suppression practices and climate Sergio de Miguel http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9738-0657 change affect wildfire regimes in Mediterranean landscapes. Stefano Targetti http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9738-0657 PLoS One. 8:e62392. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062392. Evangelia G. Drakou http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4404- Calvo E, Simó R, Coma R, Ribes M, Pascual J, Sabatés A, 629X Gili JM, Pelejero C. 2011. Effects of climate change on Francesc Baró http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0145-6320 Mediterranean marine ecosystems: the case of the Ilse R. Geijzendorffer http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8471- Catalan Sea. Clim Res. 50:1–29. doi:10.3354/cr01040. 7695 Campagne CS, Roche P. 2018. May the matrix be with you! Guidelines for the application of expert-based matrix approach for ecosystem services assessment and mapping. One Eco. 3:e24134. doi:10.3897/oneeco.3.e24134. References Campagne CS, Salles JM, Boissery P, Deter J. 2015. The sea- Abdul Malak D, Shröder C, Sanchez A, Mancosu E, grass Posidonia oceanica: ecosystem services identification Rodriguez DR, Mariel N, Lévêque L, Papatheochari T, and economic evaluation of goods and benefits. Mar Pollut Niavis S, Kyratsoulis T, et al. 2015. Med-IAMER project – Bull. 97(1–2):391–400. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.05.061. Final report. MED Programme Strategy 2007–2015. Carpenter SR, Folke C, Scheffer M, Westley FR. 2009. Aguilar Soto N, Johnson M, Madsen PT, Tyack PL, Resilience: accounting for the noncomputable. Ecol Bocconcelli A, Fabrizio Borsani J. 2006. Does intense Soc. 14(1):13. doi:10.5751/ES-02819-140113. ship noise disrupt foraging in deep-diving cuvier’s Casini S, Caliani I, Giannetti M, Marsili L, Maltese S, beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris)? Mar Mammal Sci. Coppola D, Bianchi N, Campani T, Ancora S, Caruso C, 22(3):690–699. doi:10.1111/j.1748-7692.2006.00044.x. et al. 2018. First ecotoxicological assessment of Caretta car- Allen HD. 2003. Response of past and present environmental etta (Linnaeus, 1758) in the Mediterranean sea using an change. Prog Phys Geogr. 27:359–377. doi:10.1191/ integrated nondestructive protocol. Sci Total Environ. 0309133303pp387ra. 631:1221–1233. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.111. Aretano R, Petrosillo I, Zaccarelli N, Semeraro T, Zurlini G. Catsadorakis G. 2007. The conservation of natural and cul- 2013. People perception of landscape change effects on tural heritage in Europe and the mediterranean: a Gordian ecosystem services in small Mediterranean islands: Knot? Int J Herit Stud. 13:308–320. doi:10.1080/ a combination of subjective and objective assessments. 13527250701350850. Landsc Urban Plan. 112:63–73. doi:10.1016/j.landurb CEPF. 2017. Ecosystem profile: Mediterranean Basin bio- plan.2012.12.010. diversity hotspot. [accessed 2018 Jun 15]. https://www. Badia A, Sauri D, Cerdan R, Llurdes JC. 2002. Casualty and cepf.net/resources/documents/mediterranean-basin- management of forest fires in Mediterranean environments: ecosystem-profile-summary-2017. ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 151 Church A, Fish R, Haines-Young RH, Mourator S, Tratalos J, Doblas-Miranda E, Alonso R, Arnan X, Bermejo V, Brotons L, Stapleton L, Willis C, Coates P, Gibbons S, Leyshon C, et al. de Las Heras J, Estiarte M, Hódar JA, Llorens P, Lloret F, et al. 2014. UK National ecosystem assessment follow-on phase. 2016. A review of the combination among global change Work Package Report 5: Cultural Ecosystem Services and factors in forests, shrublands and pastures of the Indicators. UK: UNEP-WCMC, LWEC. Mediterranean Region: beyond drought effects. Glob Planet Coll M, Piroddi C, Albouy C, Ben Rais Lasram F, Cheung WWL, Change. 148:42–54. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2016.11.012. Christensen V, Karpouzi VS, Guilhaumon F, Mouillot D, Doblas-Miranda E, Martínez-Vilalta J, Lloret F, Álvarez A, Paleczny M, et al. 2012. The Mediterranean Sea under siege: Ávila A, Bonet FJ, Brotons L, Castro J, Curiel Yuste J, spatial overlap between marine biodiversity, cumulative Diaz M, et al. 2015. Reassessing global change research threats and marine reserves. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. priorities in Mediterranean terrestrial ecosystems: how 21:465–480. doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00697.x. far have we come and where do we go from here? Glob. Coll M, Piroddi C, Steenbeek J, Kaschner K, Lasram FBR, Ecol Biogeogr. 24:25–43. doi:10.1111/geb.12224. Aguzzi J, Ballesteros E, Bianchi CN, Corbera J, Dailianis T, Elmqvist T, Redman CL, Barthel S, Costanza R. 2013. History of et al. 2010. The biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: esti- urbanization and the missing ecology. In: Elmqvist T, mates, patterns, and threats. PLoS One. 5:e11842. Fragkias M, Goodness J, Güneralp B, Marcotullio PJ, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011842. McDonald RI, Parnell S, Schewenius M, Sendstad M, Cortés-Sánchez M, Morales-Muñiz A, Simón-Vallejo MD, Seto KC, et al., editors. Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosys- Lozano-Francisco MC, Vera-Peláez JL, Finlayson C, tem services: challenges and opportunities: a global assess- Rodríguez-Vidal J, Delgado-Huertas A, Jiménez-Espejo FJ, ment. Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7088-1. Martínez-Ruiz F, et al. 2011. Earliest known use of marine Ericksen P. 2008. Conceptualizing food security for global resources by neanderthals. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal. environmental change research. Glob Environ Change. pone.0024026. 18:234–245. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002. Cramer W, Guiot J, Fader M, Garrabou J, Gattuso J, Fossi MC, Romeo T, Baini M, Panti C, Marsili L, Campani T, Iglesias A, Lange M, Lionello P, Paz S, Peñuelas J, et al. Canese S, Galgani F, Druon J-N, Airoldi S, et al. 2017. Plastic 2018. Climate change and interonnected risks to sustain- debris occurrence, convergence areas and fin whales feeding able development in the Mediterranean. Nat Clim ground in the Mediterranean marine protected area pelagos Chang. 8:972–980. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0299-2. sanctuary: a modeling approach. Front Mar Sci. 4:167. Cyffka B, Bock M. 2008. Degradation of field terraces in the doi:10.3389/fmars.2017.00167. Maltese Islands – reasons, processes and effects. Geogr Fuchs R, Schulp CJ, Hengeveld GM, Verburg PH, Fis e Din Quat. 31:119–128. Clevers JG, Schelhaas MJ, Herold M. 2016. Assessing de Groot R, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Gowdy J, the influence of historic net and gross land changes on Haines-Young R, Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, et al. 2010. the carbon fluxes of Europe. Glob Chang Biol. 22 Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in bio- (7):2526–2539. doi:10.1111/gcb.13191. diversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar P, edi- García-Nieto AP, Geijzendorffer IR, Baró F, Roche PK, tor. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Bondeau A, Cramer W. 2018. Impacts of urbanization ecological and economic foundations. London and around Mediterranean cities: changes in ecosystem ser- Washington D.C.: Earthscan; p. 1–40. vice supply. Ecol Indic. 91:589–606. doi:10.1016/j. de Juan S, Thrush SF, Demestre M. 2007. Functional ecolind.2018.03.082. changes as indicators of trawling disturbance on García-Ruiz JM, Nadal-Romero E, Lana-Renault N, Beguería S. a benthic community located in a fishing ground (NW 2013. Erosion in Mediterranean landscapes: changes and Mediterranean Sea). Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 334:117–129. future challenges. Geomorphology. 198:20–36. doi:10.1016/ doi:10.3354/meps334117. j.geomorph.2013.05.023. Debolini M, Maraccini E, Dubeuf JP, Geijzendorffer IR, Gaudin C, De Young C. 2007. Recreational fisheries in the Guerra C, Simon M, Targetti S, Napoléone C. 2018. Mediterranean countries: a review of existing legal fra- Land and farming system dynamics and their drivers meworks. Rome: GFCM. Studies and Reviews. in the Mediterranean Basin. Land Use Pol. 75:702–710. Geijzendorffer IR, Cohen-Shacham E, Cord AF, Cramer W, doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.010. Guerra C, Martín-López B. 2017. Ecosystem services in Defeo O, McLachlan A, Schoeman DS, Schlacher TA, global sustainability policies. Environ Sci Pol. 74:40–48. Dugan J, Jones A, Lastra M, Scapini F. 2009. Threats to doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.017. sandy beach ecosystems: a review. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. Geijzendorffer IR, Martín-López B, Roche PK. 2015. 81:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2008.09.022. Improving the identification of mismatches in ecosystem Díaz ME, Figueroa R, Alonso MLS, Vidal-Abarca MR. 2018. services assessments. Ecol Indic. 52:320–331. doi:10.1016/j. Exploring the complex relations between water resources and ecolind.2014.12.016. social indicators: the Biobío Basin (Chile). Ecosyst Serv. Giakoumi S, Halpern BS, Michel LN, Gobert S, Sini M, 31:84–92. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.03.010. Boudouresque C-F, Gambi M-C, Katsanevakis S, Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Lejeune P, Montefalcone M, et al. 2015. Towards Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, et al. 2015. a framework for assessment and management of cumu- The IPBES Conceptual Framework – connecting nature lative human impacts on marine food webs. Conserv and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 14:1–16. Biol. 29:1228–1234. doi:10.1111/cobi.12468. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002. Grunewald K, Bastian O. 2015. Ecosystem assessment and Dimopoulos P, Drakou E, Kokkoris I, Katsanevakis S, management as key tools for sustainable landscape develop- Kallimanis A, Tsiafouli M, Bormpoudakis D, Kormas K, ment: a case study of the Ore Mountains region in Central Arends J. 2017. The need for the implementation of an Europe. Ecol Modell. 295:151–162. doi:10.1016/j. ecosystem services assessment in Greece: drafting the ecolmodel.2014.08.015. national agenda. One Ecosyst. 2:e13714. doi:10.3897/ Guerra CA, Pinto-Correia T, Metzger MJ. 2014. Mapping soil oneeco.2.e13714. erosion prevention using an ecosystem service modeling 152 M. V. BALZAN ET AL. framework for integrated land management and policy. Liquete C, Piroddi C, Macías D, Druon JN, Zulian G. 2016. Ecosystems. 17:878–889. doi:10.1007/s10021-014-9766-4. Ecosystem services sustainability in the Mediterranean Sea: Guijarro B, Massutí E, Moranta J, Cartes JE. 2009. Short assessment of status and trends using multiple modelling spatio-temporal variations in the population dynamics approaches. Sci Rep. 6:34162. doi:10.1038/srep34162. and biology of the deep-water rose shrimp Parapenaeus MA. 2005. MA Conceptual Framework. In: Hassan R, longirostris (Decapoda: crustacea) in the western Scholes R, Ash N, editors. Ecosystems and human well- Mediterranean. Sci Mar. 73:183–197. being: a framework for assessment. London: Island Haines-Young RH, Potschin M 2018. Common International Press; p. 25–36. Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH. 2012. Biodiversity and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends www.cices.eu Ecol Evol. 27:19–26. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006. Hardin PJ, Jensen RR. 2011. Small-Scale unmanned aerial Mačić V, Albano PG, Almpanidou V, Claudet J, Corrales X, vehicles in environmental remote sensing: challenges Essl F, Evagelopoulos A, Giovos I, Jimenez C, Kark S, et al. and opportunities. GIScience Remote Sens. 48:99–111. 2018. Biological invasions in conservation planning: doi:10.2747/1548-1603.48.1.99. a global systematic review. Front Mar Sci. 5:178. Hernández-Morcillo M, Plieninger T, Bieling C. 2013. doi:10.3389/fmars.2018.00178. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, indicators. Ecol Indic. 29:434–444. doi:10.1016/j. Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, Notte AL, Zulian G, ecolind.2013.01.013. et al. 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support Hoff H. 2012. Vulnerability of ecosystem services in the and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv. Mediterranean region to climate changes in combination 1:31–39. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004. with other pressures. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5772-1. Maes J, Jacobs S. 2017. Nature-based solutions for Europe’s Holmlund CM, Hammer M. 1999. Ecosystem services gen- sustainable development. Conserv Lett. 10(1):121–124. erated by fish populations. Ecol Econ. 29:253–268. doi:10.1111/conl.12216. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00015-4. Malek Ž, Verburg PH. 2017. Adaptation of land manage- Holon F, Boissery P, Guilbert A, Freschet E, Deter J. 2015. The ment in the Mediterranean under scenarios of irrigation impact of 85 years of coastal development on shallow sea- water use and availability. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob grass beds (Posidonia oceanica L. (Delile)) in South Eastern Chang. 23:821–837. doi:10.1007/s11027-017-9761-0. France: a slow but steady loss without recovery. Estuar Coast Malek Ž, Verburg PH, Geijzendorffer IR, Bondeau A, Shelf Sci. 165:204–212. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2015.05.017. Cramer W. 2018. Global change effects on land manage- IPBES. 2016. Scenarios and models of biodiversity and ment in the Mediterranean region. Glob Environ Chang. ecosystem services. secretariat of the intergovernmental 50:238–254. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.04.007. science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem Marbà N, Jordà G, Agustí S, Girard C, Duarte CM. 2015. services. Bonn (Germany). Footprints of climate change on Mediterranean Sea biota. Jordà G, Marba N, Duarte CM. 2012. Mediterranean sea- Front Mar Sci. 2:56. doi:10.3389/fmars.2015.00056. grass vulnerable to regional climate warming. Nat Clim Mariotti A, Pan Y, Zeng N, Alessandri A. 2015. Long-term Chang. 2:821–824. doi:10.1038/nclimate1533. climate change in the Mediterranean region in the midst José-María L, Armengot L, Blanco-Moreno JM, Bassa M, of decadal variability. Clim Dyn. 44:1437–1456. Sans FX. 2010. Effects of agricultural intensification doi:10.1007/s00382-015-2487-3. on plant diversity in Mediterranean dryland cereal Martín-López B, Oteros-Rozas E, Cohen-Schacham E, fields. J Appl Ecol. 47:832–840. doi:10.1111/j.1365- Santos-Martín F, Nieto-Romero M, Carvalho-Santos 2664.2010.01822.x. C, González JA, García-Llorente M, Klass K, Katsanevakis S, Coll M, Piroddi C, Steenbeek J, Ben Rais Geijzendorffer I, et al. 2016. Ecosystem Services Lasram F, Zenetos A, Cardoso AC. 2014. Invading the Supplied by the Mediterranean Basin Ecosystems. In: Mediterranean Sea: biodiversity patterns shaped by human Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Turner RK, edi- activities. Front Mar Sci. 1:32. doi:10.3389/fmars.2014.00032. tors. Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services. Katselidis KA, Schofield G, Stamou G, Dimopoulos P, London and New York: Routledge; p. 405–414. Pantis JD. 2013. Evidence-based management to regulate Masad F 2016. Draft report on a sustainable urban agenda the impact of tourism at a key marine turtle rookery for the Mediterranean region. Euro-Mediterranean on Zakynthos Island, Greece. Oryx. 47(4):584–594. Regional and Local Assembly. doi:10.1017/S0030605312000385. Médail F, Quezel P. 1999. Biodiversity hotspots in the Kelble CR, Loomis DK, Lovelace S, Nuttle WK, Ortner PB, Mediterranean Basin: setting global conservation priorities. Fletcher P, Cook GS, Lorenz JJ, Boyer JN. 2013. The Conserv Biol. 13:1510–1513. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999. EBM-DPSER conceptual model: integrating ecosystem 98467.x. services into the DPSIR framework. PLoS One. 8: Médail F, Verlaque R. 1997. Ecological characteristics and e70766. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070766. rarity of endemic plants from southeast France and Khabarov N, Krasovskii A, Obersteiner M, Swart R, Dosio A, Corsica: implications for biodiversity conservation. Biol Ayanz J, Durrant T, Camia A, Migliavacca M. 2014. Forest Conserv. 80:269–281. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(96)00055-9. fires and adaptation options in Europe. Reg Environ Meddour-Sahar O, Meddour R, Leone V, Lovreglio R, Change. 16:21–30. doi:10.1007/s10113-014-0621-0. Derridj A. 2013. Analysis of forest fires causes and Lavorel S, Bayer A, Bondeau A, Lautenbach S, Ruiz-Frau A, their motivations in northern Algeria: the Delphi Schulp N, Seppelt R, Verburg P, van Teeffelen A, method. IForest. 6:247–254. doi:10.3832/ifor0098-006. Vannier C, et al. 2017. Pathways to bridge the biophysical Mediterranean Wetland Observatory. 2018. Mediterranean realism gap in ecosystem services mapping approaches. wetland outlook 2: solutions for sustainable Mediterranean Ecol Indic. 74:241–260. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.015. Wetlands. Arles, France: Tour du Valat. ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 153 Micheli F, Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Ciriaco S, Ferretti F, list of threatened species 2012. doi:10.2305/IUCN. Fraschetti S. 2013. Cumulative human impacts on UK.2012.RLTS.T16208224A17549588.en. Mediterranean and Black Sea Marine ecosystems: asses- Patrício J, Elliott M, Mazik K, Papadopoulou KN, Smith CJ. sing current pressures and opportunities. PLoS One. 8 2016. DPSIR – two decades of trying to develop a unifying (12):e79889. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079889. framework for marine environmental management? Front Morán-Ordóñez A, Bugter R, Suárez-Seoane S, de Luis E, Mar Sci. 3:1–14. doi:10.3389/fmars.2016.00177. Calvo L. 2013. Temporal changes in socio-ecological sys- Peñuelas J, Sardans J, Filella I, Estiarte M, Llusià J, tems and their impact on ecosystem services at different Ogaya R, Carnicer J, Bartrons M, Rivas-Ubach A, governance scales: a case study of heathlands. Ecosystems. Grau O, et al. 2017. Impacts of global change on med- 16:765–782. doi:10.1007/s10021-013-9649-0. iterranean forests and their services. Forests. 8(12):463. Morán-Ordóñez A, Roces-Díaz JV, Otsu K, Ameztegui A, Coll doi:10.3390/f8120463. L, Lefevre F, Retana J, Brotons L. 2019. The use of scenarios Perennou C, Guelmami A, Paganini M, Philipson P, and models to evaluate the future of nature values and Poulin B, Strauch A, Tottrup C, Truckenbrodt J, ecosystem services in Mediterranean forests. Reg. Environ. Geijzendorffer IR. 2018. Mapping Mediterranean wet- Chang. 19:415–428. doi:10.1007/s10113-018-1408-5 lands with remote sensing: a good-looking map is not Moreira F, Olga V, Margarita A, Thomas C, Nikos K, Eric R, always a good map. Adv Ecol Res. 58:243–277. Barbati A, Corona P, Vaz P, Gavriil X, et al. 2011. Landscape Pinto R, de Jonge VN, Neto JM, Domingos T, Marques JC, - wildfire interactions in Southern Europe: implications for Patrício J. 2013. Towards a DPSIR driven integration of landscape management. J Environ Manage. 92:2389–2402. ecological value, water uses and ecosystem services for doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.028. estuarine systems. Ocean Coast Manag. 72:64–79. Müller F, Burkhard B. 2012. The indicator side of ecosys- doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.06.016. tem services. Ecosyst Serv. 1:26–30. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser. Piroddi C, Coll M, Liquete C, Macias D, Greer K, Buszowski J, 2012.06.001. Steenbeek J, Danovaro R, Christensen V. 2017. Historical Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GAB, changes of the Mediterranean Sea ecosystem: modelling the Da, Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation role and impact of primary productivity and fisheries priorities. Nature. 43:853–858. doi:10.1038/35002501. changes over time. Sci Rep. 7:44491. doi:10.1038/srep44491. Nassl M, Löffler J. 2015. Ecosystem services in coupled Plieninger T, Hui C, Gaertner M, Huntsinger L. 2014. The social–ecological systems: closing the cycle of service impact of land abandonment on species richness and provision and societal feedback. Ambio. 44:737–749. abundance in the Mediterranean Basin: a meta-analysis. doi:10.1007/s13280-015-0651-y. PLoS One. 9:e98355. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098355. Nelson GC, Bennett E, Berhe AA, Cassman KG, DeFries R, Polade SD, Gershunov A, Cayan DR, Dettinger MD, Dietz T, Dobson A, Dobermann A, Janetos A, Levy M, Pierce DW. 2017. Precipitation in a warming world: et al. 2005. Drivers of change in ecosystem condition assessing projected hydro-climate changes in California and services. Ecosyst Hum Well-Being Scenarios. 2:175– and other Mediterranean climate regions. Sci Rep. 7 222. citeulike-article-id:4423649. (1):10783. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-11285-y. Niemeijer D, De Groot RS. 2008. Framing environmental Power AG. 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: indicators: moving from causal chains to causal trade-offs and synergies. Philos Trans R Soc Lond networks. Environ Dev Sustain. 10:89–106. doi:10.1007/ B Biol Sci. 365:2959–2971. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0143. s10668-006-9040-9. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Tengö M, Bennett EM, Nogués-Bravo D. 2006. Assessing the effect of environmen- Holland T, Benessaiah K, MacDonald GK, Pfeifer L. 2010. tal and anthropogenic factors on land-cover diversity in Untangling the Environmentalist’s Paradox: why Is human a Mediterranean mountain environment. Area. 38 well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? (4):432–444. doi:10.1111/area.2006.38.issue-4. Bioscience. 60:576–589. doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4. Nunes AN, Lourenço L. 2017. Increased vulnerability to Roces-Díaz JV, Vayreda J, Banqué-Casanovas M, Cusó M, wildfires and post fire hydro-geomorphic processes in Anton M, Bonet JA, Brotons L, De Cáceres M, Portuguese mountain regions: what has changed? Open Herrando S, Martínez de Aragón J, et al. 2018a. Agric. 2:70–82. doi:10.1515/opag-2017-0008. Assessing the distribution of forest ecosystem services OECD. 2003. OECD environmental indicators: development, in a highly populated Mediterranean region. Ecol measurement and use. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.005. Indicat. 93:886–997. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.076. Olesen JE, Trnka M, Kersebaum KC, Skjelvåg AO, Roces-Díaz JV, Vayreda J, Banqué-Casanovas M, Díaz- Seguin B, Peltonen-Sainio P, Rossi F, Kozyra J, Varela E, Bonet JA, Brotons L, de-Miguel S, Herrando S, Micale F. 2011. Impacts and adaptation of European Martínez-Vilalta J. 2018b. The spatial level of analysis crop production systems to climate change. Eur affects the patterns of forest ecosystem services supply J Agron. 34:96–112. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2010.11.003. and their relationships. Sci Total Environ. Padilla FM, Vidal B, Sánchez J, Pugnaire FI. 2010. Land-use 626:1270–1283. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.150. changes and carbon sequestration through the twentieth Ruiz-Frau A, Krause T, Marbà N. 2018. The use of sociocultural century in a Mediterranean mountain ecosystem: impli- valuation in sustainable environmental management. cations for land management. J Environ Manage. Ecosyst Serv. 29:158–167. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.12.013. 91:2688–2695. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.07.031. Sánchez-Espinosa A, Marín-Guerrero AI, Guelmami A, Palacio S, Hernández R, Maestro-Martínez M, Camarero JJ. Abdul Malak D 2016. A widely applicable methodology 2012. Fast replenishment of initial carbon stores after to assess flood regulation capacity of wetland defoliation by the pine processionary moth and its rela- ecosystems. Technical report – Horizon-2020 project tionship to the re-growth ability of trees. Tree Struct (SWOS). European Topic Centre. University of Malaga. Funct. 26:1627–1640. doi:10.1007/s00468-012-0739-y. Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Arnell NW, Panigada S, Notarbartolo Di Sciara G. 2012. Balaenoptera Prentice IC, Arau MB, Bondeau A, Bugmann H, physalus (Mediterranean subpopulation). The IUCN red Carter TR, Gracia CA, et al. 2005. Ecosystem Service 154 M. V. BALZAN ET AL. Supply and Vulnerability to Global Change in Europe. Tzanopoulos J, Vogiatzakis IN. 2011. Processes and pat- Science. 310:1333–1337. doi:10.1126/science.1115233. terns of landscape change on a small Aegean island: the Seidl R, Schelhaas MJ, Rammer W, Verkerk PJ. 2014. case of Sifnos, Greece. Landsc Urban Plan. 99:58–64. Increasing forest disturbances in Europe and their doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.08.014. impact on carbon storage. Nat Clim Change. 4 UNEP/MAP. 2016. Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable (9):806–810. doi:10.1038/nclimate2318. Development 2016-2025: investing in environmental sustain- Skoulikidis NT, Sabater S, Datry T, Morais MM, Buffagni A, ability to achieve social and economic development. Dörflinger G, Zogaris S, Del Mar Sánchez-Montoya M, Valbonne: Plan Bleu, Regional Activity Centre. Bonada N, Kalogianni E, et al. 2017. Non-perennial Vaes T, Druon JN. 2013. Mapping of potential risk of ship strike Mediterranean rivers in Europe: status, pressures, and with fin whales in the Western Mediterranean Sea. challenges for research and management. Sci Tot doi:10.2788/8520. Environ. 577:1–18. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.147. Vassallo P, Paoli C, Rovere A, Montefalcone M, Morri C, Skoulikidis NT, Vardakas L, Karaouzas I, Economou AN, Bianchi CN. 2013. The value of the seagrass Posidonia Dimitriou E, Zogaris S. 2011. Assessing water stress in oceanica: A natural capital assessment. Mar Pollut Bull. Mediterranean lotic systems: insights from an artificially 75:157–167. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.07.044. intermittent river in Greece. Aquat Sci. 73(4):581. Vayreda J, Gracia M, Canadell JG, Retana J. 2012. Spatial doi:10.1007/s00027-011-0228-1. patterns and predictors of forest carbon stocks in Smeets E, Weterings R 1999. Environmental indicators: Western Mediterranean. Ecosystems. 15:1258–1270. typology and overview. Technical Report No. 25. doi:10.1007/s10021-012-9582-7. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen Vidal-Abarca MR, Suárez Alonso ML, Santos-Martín F, Souissi I, Boisson JM, Mekki I, Therond O, Flichman G, Wery J, Martín-López B, Benayas J, Montes C. 2014. Understanding Belhouchette H. 2018. Impact assessment of climate change complex links between fluvial ecosystems and social indica- on farming systems in the South Mediterranean area: tors in Spain: an ecosystem services approach. Ecol Complex. a Tunisian case study. Reg Environ Chang. 18(3):637–650. 20:1–10. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2014.07.002. doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1130-8. Vidal-Macua JJ, Ninyerola M, Zabala A, Domingo-Marimon C, Stara K, Tsiakiris R, Wong JLG. 2015. Valuing trees in Gonzalez-Guerrero O, Pons X. 2018. Environmental and a changing cultural landscape: a case study from north- socioeconomic factors of abandonment of rainfed and irri- western Greece. Hum Ecol. 43:153–167. doi:10.1007/ gated crops in northeast Spain. Appl Geogr. 90:155–174. s10745-014-9706-0. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.12.005. Stevens M 2014. Natuurrapport - Toestand en trend van Vidal-Macua JJ, Ninyerola M, Zabala A, Domingo- ecosystemen en ecosysteemdiensten in Vlaanderen, Marimon C, Pons X. 2017. Factors affecting forest Technisch rapport. Mededelingen van het Instituut dynamics in the Iberian Peninsula from 1987 to 2012. voor Natuur-en Bosonderzoek, INBO.M.2014.1988582. The role of topography and drought. For Ecol Manage. Brussel 406:290–306. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.10.011. Svarstad H, Kjerulf L, Rothman D, Siepel H, Wa F. 2008. Vilà-Cabrera A, Espelta JM, Vayreda J, Pino J. 2017. “New Discursive biases of the environmental research frame- Forests” from the twentieth century are a relevant contribu- work DPSIR Discursive biases of the environmental tion for C storage in the Iberian Peninsula. Ecosystems. research framework DPSIR. Land Use Pol. 25:116–125. 20:130–143. doi:10.1007/s10021-016-0019-6. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.03.005. Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM. 2013. Telesca L, Belluscio A, Criscoli A, Ardizzone G, Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual fra- Apostolaki ET, Fraschetti S, Gristina M, Knittweis L, mework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and Martin CS, Pergent G, et al. 2015. Seagrass meadows delivery. Ecol Complex. 15:114–121. doi:10.1016/j. (Posidonia oceanica) distribution and trajectories of ecocom.2013.07.004. change. Sci Rep. 5:12505. doi:10.1038/srep12505. Terrado M, Acuña V, Ennaanay D, Tallis H, Sabater S. 2014. Vlami V, Kokkoris IP, Zogaris S, Cartalis C, Kehayias G, Impact of climate extremes on hydrological ecosystem ser- Dimopoulos P. 2017. Cultural landscapes and attributes vices in a heavily humanized Mediterranean basin. Ecol of “culturalness” in protected areas: an exploratory Indic. 37:199–209. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.016. assessment in Greece. Sci Total Environ. 595:229–243. Thom D, Seidl R. 2016. Natural disturbance impacts on ecosys- doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.211. tem services and biodiversity in temperate and boreal forests. Volaire F, Norton M. 2006. Summer dormancy in perennial Biol Rev. 91:760–781. doi:10.1111/brv.12193. temperate grasses. Ann Bot. 98:927–933. doi:10.1093/aob/ Togridou A, Hovardas T, Pantis JD. 2006. Determinants of mcl195. visitors‘ willingness to pay for the National Marine Park of Volaire F, Norton MR, Lelièvre F. 2009. Summer drought Zakynthos, Greece. Ecol Econ. 60:308–319. doi:10.1016/j. survival strategies and sustainability of perennial tempe- ecolecon.2005.12.006. rate forage grasses in mediterranean areas. Crop Sci. Tscherning K, Helming K, Krippner B, Sieber S, Gomez S. 2012. 49:2386–2392. doi:10.2135/cropsci2009.06.0317. Does research applying the DPSIR framework support deci- Wolff S, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH. 2015. Mapping ecosys- sion making? Land Use Pol. 29:102–110. doi:10.1016/j. tem services demand: A review of current research and landusepol.2011.05.009. future perspectives. Ecol Indic. 55:159–171. doi:10.1016/ Tsiafouli M, Thebault E, Sgardelis SP, de Ruiter PC, van j.ecolind.2015.03.016. der Putten WH, Birkhofer K, Hemerik L, De Vries F, Xue H, Li S, Chang J. 2015. Combining ecosystem service Bardgett R, Brady M, et al. 2015. Intensive agriculture relationships and DPSIR framework to manage multiple reduces soil biodiversity across Europe. Glob Chang ecosystem services. Environ Monit Assess. 187:117. Biol. 21:973–985. doi:10.1111/gcb.12752. doi:10.1007/s10661-015-4303-2. ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 155 Zasada I. 2011. Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture – Zedler JB, Kercher S. 2005. Wetland resources: status, trends, A review of societal demands and the provision of goods ecosystem services, and restorability. Annu Rev Environ and services by farming. Land Use Pol. 28:639–648. Resour. 30:39–74. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.01.008. 144248.