PurposeThe transition to a low carbon future is an emerging challenge and requires the planning and designing of sustainable energy landscapes – landscapes that provide renewable energy while safeguarding the supply of other ecosystem services. The aim of this paper is to present the application of an ecosystem services trade-off assessment in the development of sustainable energy landscapes for long-term strategic planning in a case study in Schouwen-Duivenland, The Netherlands.Design/methodology/approachThe application consists in three activities: in (1) stakeholder mapping hot spots of ecosystem services and renewable energy technologies in a workshop, (2) landscape design principles being discussed by a focus group, (3) experts gathering the information and proceeding with an assessment of the potential synergies and trade-offs.FindingsThe case study indicates that (1) deploying the ecosystem services framework in planning and design can enhance the development of sustainable energy landscapes, (2) diversified and accurate spatial reference systems advance the trade-off analysis of both regulating and cultural ecosystem services and (3) the involvement of local stakeholders can advance the trade-off analysis and, ultimately, facilitates the transition to a low-carbon future with sustainable energy landscapes.Originality/valueThe originality of this research lies in the creation of an approach for the deployment of ecosystem services in the planning and design of energy transition. This is useful to advance energy transition by enhancing research methods, by providing methods useful for planners and designers and by supporting communities pursuing energy self-sufficiency in a sustainable manner.

A large and growing number of EU and national policies draw on, or affect directly and indirectly, Europe’s forests, including their ecosystems. Hence, there is a need for improved efforts to provide up-to-date assessments of the condition of European forests. The Forest Information System for Europe (FISE) is launched to respond to this need. This report shows the content developed for the FISE platform in the form of mock-ups.

A novel European Union forest policy based on the best and most up-to-date information available is urgently needed. Without such change, forests will not provide the resources we need and will suffer heavily under climate change. Forest inventories and many information sources exist in all countries but are not properly used in European Union policymaking. We introduce a next-generation information tool that portrays a synchronized top-down European forest management strategies map, spatially weighing the multifunctionality of European forests.

A range of methods are available for assessing ecosystem services. Methods differ in their aims; from mapping and modelling the supply and demand of ecosystem services to appraising their economic and non-economic importance through valuation techniques. Comprehensive guidance for the selection of appropriate ecosystem service assessment methods that address the requirements of different decision-making contexts is lacking. This paper tackles this gap using the experience from 27 case studies which applied different biophysical, socio-cultural and monetary valuation methods to operationalise the ecosystem service concept towards sustainable land, water and urban management. A survey of the reasons why the case study teams selected particular methods revealed that stakeholder-oriented reasons, such as stakeholder participation, inclusion of local knowledge and ease of communication, and decision-oriented reasons, such as the purpose of the case study and the ecosystem services at stake, were key considerations in selecting a method. Pragmatic reasons such as available data, resources and expertise were also important factors. This information was used to develop a set of linked decision trees, which aim to provide guidance to researchers and practitioners in choosing ecosystem service assessment methods that are suitable for their context.

A range of methods are available for assessing ecosystem services. Methods differ in their aims; from mapping and modelling the supply and demand of ecosystem services to appraising their economic and non-economic importance through valuation techniques. Comprehensive guidance for the selection of appropriate ecosystem service assessment methods that address the requirements of different decision-making contexts is lacking. This paper tackles this gap using the experience from 27 case studies which applied different biophysical, socio-cultural and monetary valuation methods to operationalise the ecosystem service concept towards sustainable land, water and urban management. A survey of the reasons why the case study teams selected particular methods revealed that stakeholder-oriented reasons, such as stakeholder participation, inclusion of local knowledge and ease of communication, and decision-oriented reasons, such as the purpose of the case study and the ecosystem services at stake, were key considerations in selecting a method. Pragmatic reasons such as available data, resources and expertise were also important factors. This information was used to develop a set of linked decision trees, which aim to provide guidance to researchers and practitioners in choosing ecosystem service assessment methods that are suitable for their context. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1 Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Germany 2 Alterra Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands 3 Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Germany 4 Mountain Research Centre (CIMO), ESA – Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, Portugal 5 Nature Conservation Agency of the Czech Republic 6 University of Antwerp, Belgium 7 United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), Economics and Trade Branch, TEEB and Green Economy Team 8 Slovak Academy of Science, Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovakia

This report provides a synthesis of argumentation analysis in real-world cases in “multi-level biodiversity governance”, investigated within the BESAFE project. The following broad research questions guided the synthesis of argumentation analysis in the case studies: • Which (different types of) arguments can be identified at different levels and units of biodiversity governance? • How are these arguments exchanged and put to work in multi-level and networked interactions (i.e. within and across different levels and units of biodiversity governance)? • How are these arguments rooted in and how do they feed into different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups or institutions at the different levels and units of biodiversity governance? The study’s approach to answering these questions is guided by a three layer analytical framework. This framework comprises three different perspectives to argument-making practice. Together these enable a comprehensive understanding of the role of argumentation in multi-level biodiversity governance. The first layer takes the perspective that arguments are “products” of communication. The analysis focuses on the verbal content of arguments, i.e. what these arguments “say”. By comparing argument contents between global, European, national, regional and local governance levels, it was revealed that at both global and regional level, social arguments were most dominant, while at the European level economic arguments were more prominent. Comparison between European and national governance levels revealed little differences. Comparison between types of actors showed some differences of emphasis. Whereas most actors use the argument that biodiversity should be protected because of its inherent value, regional authorities more often referred to social wellbeing and national authorities to legal obligation. The analysis also considered variety of arguments. In general, variety was very limited. Politicians used the smallest variety of arguments, while the largest variety was found in the science actors. Furthermore, variety depended on communication channels (e.g. internet forums showed much variety). Lastly, arguments do change over time. Arguments on ecosystem services, for instance, became prominent at both global and European levels, but they often do not reach or persist at local levels of governance. The second layer of the framework uses the perspective of arguments being transactions between arguers and audiences. The focus here is on what actors “do” D3.1 Final report synthesising the analysis of argumentation in multi-level governance interactions in case studies 5 with arguments, that is, what they aim to achieve with the arguments and what strategies they use. Plenty of strategies were identified, such as particularisation (e.g. stressing the uniqueness of a natural area to increase policy attention), up-scaling (e.g. situating a biodiversity problem at a higher level of space or time to make it more important), dichotomisation (e.g. polarising between two alternatives to exclude the possibility of an intermediate solution) and aligning arguments to the goals and interests of others to affect policy outcomes in a way that suits own interests. Finally, actors used various channels to transmit argument. Main examples were local politicians, NGOs and mass media. The third layer takes the perspective of arguments as being conditioned by the social-institutional networks in which they are transmitted. The analysis focuses on how the arguments and the reasoning they communicate “fit” into the different perspectives, worldviews and functioning of social groups and institutions. It was shown that argumentation was highly conditioned by law and regulations, institutional roles and established practices. International obligation, in particular, empowered member states to implement biodiversity policy and to finish disputes. But legislation (and uncertainty about it) also hampered conservation efforts. Furthermore, established criteria used in conservation practice (e.g. rarity, threat and species richness) supported justification of the need for implementing biodiversity conservation measures. Finally, what actors considered as their interests and what they valued as a legitimate policy process (democratic, science-based and sufficient societal support) conditioned the argumentation.