4.7 Article

Relationship between ecological condition and ecosystem services in European rivers, lakes and coastal waters

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 671, 期 -, 页码 452-465

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.155

关键词

Ecosystem services; Ecological status; Ecosystem condition; Water Framework Directive; Sustainable Development Goals; Biodiversity; Europe

资金

  1. institutional programme of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission
  2. EU [603378, 603629]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We quantify main ecosystem services (i.e. the contribution of ecosystems to human well-being) provided by rivers, lakes, coastal waters and connected ecosystems (riparian areas and floodplains) in Europe, including water provisioning, water purification, erosion prevention, flood protection, coastal protection, and recreation. We show European maps of ecosystem service capacity, flow (actual use), sustainability and efficiency. Then we explore the relationship between the services and the ecosystem condition at the European scale, considering the ecological status of aquatic ecosystems, reported under the EU Water Framework Directive, as a measure of the ecosystem integrity and biodiversity. Our results indicate that a higher delivery of the regulating and cultural ecosystem services analysed is mostly correlated with better conditions of aquatic ecosystems. Conversely, the use of provisioning services can result in pressures on the ecosystem. This suggests the importance of maintaining good ecological condition of aquatic ecosystems to ensure the delivery of ecosystem services in the future. These results at the continental scale, although limited to the ecosystem services under analysis, might be relevant to consider when investing in the protection and restoration of aquatic ecosystems called for by the current EU water policy and Biodiversity Strategy and by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据