Ecosystem Services and Climate Change: Concepts, Methods and Their Application to Utilize Ecosystem Services to Respond to Climate Change

Ecosystem services and climate change: Concepts, methods and their application to utilize ecosystem services to respond to climate change

Dissertation by Christin Haida

Submitted to the Faculty of Geo- and Atmospheric Sciences At the University of Innsbruck

for the Degree of

Doctor Philosophiae (PhD)

supervised by Assoz. Univ. Prof. Dr. Clemens Geitner and Univ. Prof. Dr. Johann Stötter Institute of Geography, University of Innsbruck

Innsbruck, January 2016

Acknowledgement

This dissertation would have never been realised without the contribution of many people in different ways. First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Assoz. Univ. Prof. Dr. Clemens Geitner for his unceasing encouragement, professional guidance and the innumerable time he spent in endless discussions about work- related and other topics. I really enjoyed working with you. I am very grateful to Univ. Prof. Dr. Ulrike Tappeiner for her invaluable input and the new insights she gave me to ecosystem services research and to Univ. Prof. Dr. Johann Stötter for helping me to take a step back and be able to see the bigger picture. Many thanks go to my work colleagues to discuss practical questions in day to day research and in particular to Dr. Katrin Schneider and Dr. Christian Georges who were always there to give me helpful advice and feedback.

I would also like to thank all the project collaborators and trainees who helped carrying out the practical implementation of this work, as well as all the stakeholders who were involved , such as interviewees, teachers and students. I appreciate the feedback from the reviewers of this thesis Dr. habil. Karsten Grunewald and Prof. Dr. Ariane Walz and from the anonymous reviewers of the included articles. Nevertheless, I am most grateful to my partner Andrew Greenbank and to my family Gisela, Siegfried and Isabel Haida. You were always there for me, believed in me, listened to me when I was in doubt, encouraged me to carry on when I was about to give up, distracted me when I needed a break and supported me in so many different ways. Without you I would have never been able to finish this work. Thank you so much! A large part of this dissertation has been accomplished during my employment at the alpS GmbH - Centre for Climate Change Adaptation. It was set within the scope of the project “SHIFT - Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Shifting Altitudinal Zones of Environmental Systems in Mountain Regions”, funded by the COMET Programme - Competence Centers for Excellent Technologies, administered by the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) and the project “Urban_WFTP - Introduction of Water Footprint (WFTP) approach in urban areas to monitor, evaluate and improve the water use”, funded by Central Europe Programme and the European Regional Development Fund by the European Union.

Abstract

Understanding and solving the challenge of climate change requires a broad view and the combination of multiple disciplines and perspectives. The ecosystem services concept provides a suitable framework to respond to the threat climate change poses for society. Ecosystem services (ES) are natural goods and services, which are used directly or indirectly by society and hence contribute to human well- being. But this supply is threatened, as climate change affects the properties, structures and functions of ecosystems. At the same time, ES facilitate responding to climate change through mitigation and adaption. In order to protect and maintain the supply of ES and to secure human well-being for future generations, society urgently needs applicable and broadly accepted concepts, methods and tools to evaluate and if needed, adjust current practices which affect ES supply and demand. This requires understanding the interactive process and mutual influ ence of ES with responding to climate change and knowing how to best utilize ES for adaptation and mitigation. For this, three research objectives were defined:

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 1: Developing an approach for adaptation assessment of multiple ES

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 2: Application of this approach

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 3: Elaborating the mutual influence of ES and mitigation

The developed approach for adaptation assessment in RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 1 consisted of a cycle with six sequential phases: (I) assessing ES relevance, (II) assessing ES sensitivity to climate change and developing ES impact storylines, (III) identifying “hotspot ES”, (IV) assessing adaptation options, (V) adaptation in practice and (VI) monitoring and evaluation.

For RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 2 these phases were implemented and tested in consecutive case studies. In phase (I) stakeholders ranked several ES according to their regional importance. ES which satisfy basic needs were perceived to be most important, followed by ES related to safety and security needs, and finally cultural ES. In phase (II) stakeholders described the sensitivity of multiple ES to climate change to develop ES impact storylines. In phase (III) the results from (I) and (II) were overlaid and six “hotspot ES” could be identified to be in need for adaptation : “natural hazard regulation”, “fresh water”, “water flow regulation”, “food and fodder”, “energy” and “all year tourism”. Focusing on these six ES in phase (IV) the same stakeholders identified already existing and suggested future options for appropriate adaptation and mitigation. For “fresh water” a discrepancy between adaptation needs and potential adaptation options could be detected. Demand for “fresh water” and water use efficiency was found to be the most pressing issue,

iii

which is why phase (V) developed and implemented an approach to adjust local water consumption. An innovative approach was developed linking the water footprint concept with bottom -up climate change adaptation and capacity development. A practical implementation of phase (VI) was not possible with in the timeframe of this thesis and therefore the state-of-the-art of monitoring and evaluation was reviewed and summarised.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 3 elaborated the influence of mitigation on ES, by reviewing the impacts expanding renewable energies might have on the provision of multiple ES. Several conflicting areas could be identified and prioritized, and key recommendations derived to reconcile the expansion of renewable energies with the provision of ES. By bridging different disciplines and target groups, and integrating heterogeneous knowledge forms, this work was able to produce a problem -solving contribution about how to utilize ES to respond to climate change. Thereby, the quality, acceptance and sustainability of climate change responses could be improved.

Zusammenfassung

Um die vielfältigen Konsequenzen des Klimawandels besser zu verstehen, sowie Gegenmaßnahmen und Strategien zur Anpassung zu entwickeln, bedarf es einer breiten Betrachtungsweise und fächerübergreifender Zusammenarbeit. Ecosystem services (ES) bieten dafür ein geeignetes interdisziplinäres Konzept, das der Herausforderung des Klimawandels gerecht wird. ES sind Güter und Leistungen, die von der Natur bereitgestellt und direkt oder indirekt von den Menschen genützt werden. Aber diese Bereitstellung kann durch den Klimawandel beeinträchtigt werden, da sich dieser auf Ökosystemstrukturen und -funktionen auswirkt. Da ES jedoch maßgeblich zu Maßnahmen beitragen, die auf die Minderungen von Klimawandel (Mitigation) und Anpassung an Klimawandelfolgen (Adaptation) abzielen, muss die Bereitstellung von ES auch für zukünftige Generationen geschützt und erhalten werden. Dafür werden dringend anwendbare Ansätze und Vorgehensweisen benötigt, die es ermöglichen gängige Praktiken zu evaluieren und wenn nötig anzupassen. Dabei ist es einerseits erforderlich die gegenseitigen Wechselwirkungen von ES mit Mitigation und Adaptation zu verstehen und andererseits zu wissen, wie man ES bestmöglich nutzen kann, um auf den Klimawandel zu reagieren. Um einen Lösungsansatz für diese Problemstellung zu liefern, wurden drei Forschungsziele definiert: FORSCHUNGSZIEL 1) Konzeptionelle Entwicklung einer Vorgehensweise, um Anpassungsbedarf, -optionen und -durchführung von mehreren ES zu bewerten;

FORSCHUNGSZIEL 2) Anwendung dieser Vorgehensweise in der Praxis;

FORSCHUNGSZIEL 3) Detaillierte Ausführung der Wechselwirkungen zwischen ES und Mitigation.

FORSCHUNGSZIEL 1) beinhaltet einen Kreislauf bestehend aus sechs Phasen: (I) Beurteilung der ES Relevanz, (II) Beurteilung der ES Sensibilität auf den Klimawandel und Entwicklung von ES Storylines, (III) Identifizierung von "Hotspot ES", (IV) Beurteilung von Anpassungsmöglichkeiten, (V) Durchführung von Anpassungsmaßnahmen und (VI) Monitoring und Bewertung.

Für FORSCHUNGSZIEL 2) wurden diese sechs Phasen in der Praxis durchgeführt und in aufeinander aufbauenden Fallstudien getestet. In Phase (I) haben Stakeholder mehrerer ES entsprechend ihrer regionalen Bedeutung gereiht. In Phase (II) haben Stakeholder die Sensibilität von ES gegenüber dem Klimawandel beschrieben und ES Storylines entwickelt. In Phase (III) wurden die Ergebnisse aus (I) und (II) miteinander verschnitten und sechs "Hotspot ES" identifiziert: "Regulierung von Naturgefahren", "Frischwasser", "Regulierung des Wasserabflusses", "Nahrungs- und Futtermittel", "Energie" und "Tourismus". Für "Frischwasser" wurde eine Diskrepanz zwischen Anpassungsbedarf und möglichen Anpassungsmaßnahmen erkannt, wobei das dringendste Problem die effiziente Nutzung von Frischwasser

war. Deshalb wurde in Phase (V) ein Konzept entwickelt und angewandt, um den lokalen Wasserverbrauch anzupassen. In einem innovativen Ansatz, wurde das Konzept des Wasserfußabdrucks mit bottom -up Klimawandelanpassung und Capacity Development verknüpft. Die praktische Umsetzung von Phase (VI) war innerhalb des Zeitrahmens dieser Arbeit nicht möglich, daher wurde der Stand der Forschung zu Monitoring und Bewertung von Klimawandelanpassung in einem Überblick zusammengefasst.

In FORSCHUNGSZIEL 3) wurden die Auswirkungen von Mitigation auf ES erarbeitet und am Beispiel des Ausbaus erneuerbarer Energien in einem Überblicksartikel detailliert erläutert. Dabei konnten mehrere Spannungsfelder identifiziert und gleichzeitig priorisiert, sowie wichtige Handlungsempfehlungen abgeleitet werden um den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien mit der Bereitstellung von ES in Einklang zu bringen. Durch die Verknüpfung unterschiedlicher Disziplinen und Zielgruppen, sowie der Integration heterogener Wissensformen , war es mit dieser Arbeit möglich, einen Lösungsansatz zu liefern, wie das Konzept der ES nachhaltig genutzt werden kann , um auf den Klimawandel zu reagieren.

Table of Content

Acknowledgement ...... i Abstract...... iii Zusammenfassung ...... v List of Figures ...... ix List of Tables ...... ix List of Appendices ...... x 1 Ecosystem services in a changing climate ...... 1 1.1 Motivation ...... 1 1.2 Terms and definitions ...... 2 1.3 Strategies to respond to climate change ...... 5 1.3.1 Mitigation options ...... 7 1.3.2 Adaptation assessments and options ...... 7 1.3.3 Ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation...... 9 2 Outline of dissertation ...... 12 2.1 Research aim and objectives ...... 12 2.2 Set up of dissertation ...... 12 2.3 Methods and approaches ...... 16 3 Assessing ecosystem services’ relevance ...... 18 4 Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity, developing impact storylines and identifying hotspots ...... 19 4.1 Introduction ...... 21 4.2 ES-based adaptation assessment approach ...... 23 4.3 Application of the approach ...... 25 4.3.1 Study area ...... 25 4.3.2 Methods ...... 26 4.3.3 Results ...... 30 4.4 Discussion ...... 36 4.5 Conclusion ...... 38 5 Assessing adaptation options ...... 39 6 Adaptation in practice ...... 43

vii

6.1 Introduction ...... 44 6.2 Water Footprint approach ...... 47 6.3 Application of the approach ...... 49 6.3.1 Case study set up ...... 49 6.3.2 Methods ...... 49 6.3.3 Results ...... 51 6.4 Discussion ...... 55 6.5 Conclusion ...... 56 7 Monitoring and evaluation possibilities ...... 58 8 Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts ...... 60 9 Conclusion ...... 61 9.1 Synopsis of achievements of research objectives ...... 61 9.2 Ecosystem Services - an inter- and transdisciplinary concept ...... 64 9.3 Outlook and further research need ...... 66 References ...... 68 Appendix ...... 79

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Pathways to respond to climate change ...... 6 Figure 2: Adaptation options based on Noble et al. 2014 ...... 10 Figure 3: Set up of dissertation ...... 13 Figure 4: Set up of dissertation. Illustrating the connection of article 4 with mitigation, as one of the pathways to respond to climate change...... 14 Figure 5: Approach for ecosystem-based climate adaptation assessment...... 24 Figure 6: Study design with workflow and corresponding phases of the ecosystem- based adaptation cycle...... 25 Figure 7: Perceived sensitivity of ecosystem services to climate change according to the regional background of 53 experts ...... 30 Figure 8: Assumed impacts of climate change on ecosystem services according to 53 experts ...... 33 Figure 9: Ecosystem services relevance-sensitivity matrix ...... 35 Figure 10: Water Footprint adaptation approach...... 47 Figure 11: Direct water footprint comparison before and after the intervention ...... 52 Figure 12: Indirect water footprint comparison before and after the intervention ... 53 Figure 13: Positioning of ecosystem services between the natural and societal sphere ...... 64

List of Tables

Table 1: Methods and approaches used in this work...... 17 Table 2: List of ecosystem services...... 28 Table 3: Perceived sensitivity of ecosystem services to climate change ...... 31 Table 4: Summary of adaptation and mitigation needs and options ...... 40 Table 5: Number of experts who suggested adaptation options ...... 41 Table 6: Number of experts who suggested mitigation options...... 41 Table 7: Water consumption categories ...... 50 Table 8: Measures which were implemented over 6 weeks ...... 54

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: Published article 1 - Ecosystem services in mountain regions: experts‘perception and research intensity Appendix 2: Published article 2 - Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts

Appendix 3: Published extended abstract in proceedings 1 – Water footprint as a new approach to water management in the urban areas Appendix 4: Published extended abstract in proceedings 2 – Trade-offs of ecosystem services provided by mountain hay meadows under land -use change scenarios Appendix 5: Published extended abstract in proceedings 3 – Societal relevance of ecosystem services in mountain environments Appendix 6: Published other paper 1 – Erneuerbare Energie im Alpenraum – ein aktuelles Thema und eine inter- und transdisziplinäre Herausforderung Appendix 7: Published other paper 2 – Aspekte bodenbezogener ecosystem services in den Alpen und ihre monetäre Bewertung

Chapter 1 – Ecosystem services in a changing climate

1 Ecosystem services in a changing climate

1.1 Motivation The environment provides natural goods and services, known as ecosystem services (ES), which are used directly or indirectly by society and hence contribute to human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010; TEEB, 2010; Summers et al., 2012). Examples are supply of food, fresh water, regulation of and protection against natural hazards, storage of greenhouse gases, attractive landscapes and space for recreation. Their provision, however, is likely to be impaired by human induced climate change. Although the global climate has always been changeable, “the warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia” (IPCC, 2015, p. 2). Anthropogenic drivers, such as the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) are extremely likely to be the dominant cause for these changes and will have widespread impacts on natural systems and humans.

Impacts on the state of ecosystems have been observed across the globe in recent decades, which alter ecosystems’ properties, structures and functions and thus affect the provision of ES. According to IPCC (2014a) there is robust to very high confidence that climate change will:

 decrease freshwater availability and cause a more uneven distribution across the globe;  affect food security, including production, access, use and price stability;  increase the risk of species extinction and loss of biodiversity, caused by rising temperature, sea-ice loss, variations in precipitation, reduced river flows, ocean acidification and lowered ocean oxygen levels;  affect terrestrial and marine habitats, including shifting of habitats and ecosystems that cannot be followed by species, shifting of species, which allocates them outside their preferred habitat, and altering habitat quality;  make ecosystems more susceptible to loss of stored carbon. At the same time, socio-economic developments and rising population are predicted to increase demand for ES, for example for food (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012) and water (UNWWAP, 2015). Also the expansion of land which is used for buildings, infrastructure and agriculture increases the need for natural hazard regulation (IPCC, 2012). Moreover, ES are employed for helping people to mitigate and to adapt to the impacts of climate change (Vignola et al., 2009; Andrade Pérez et al., 2010). Regarding mitigation actions, ES play a key role aiming to reduce GHG emission, as they are a source for renewable energies, such as biomass or hydropower. This rising use of renewable energies (European Commission, 2010), however, might have negative effects on the supply of other vital ES. In addition,

Chapter 1 – Ecosystem services in a changing climate

ecosystems act as natural carbon sinks as they accumulate and store carbon dioxide. People make use of this ES “carbon sequestration”, which is instrumental for carbon capture programmes, such as REDD – Reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation (Agrawal et al., 2011). Regarding adaptation, for example ecosystem-based adaptation (see Chapter 1.3.3) utilizes ES to help people adjust to the adverse effects of climate change and to increase their resilience. This rising demand for ES, as described above, requires well-functioning ecosystems and a sound provision of ES. In order to protect and maintain the supply of ES under climate change and secure human well-being for future generations, whilst meeting current demand , it is therefore necessary to evaluate and if needed, adjust current practices which affect both supply and demand. To do this, it is important i) to understand the interactive process and mutual influence of ES with climate change responses, and how the concept of ES can be used to assess adaptation and mitigation and ii) to develop and implement appropriate concepts and methods to utilize ES for such. This work mainly focuses on adaptation and develops, describes and implements a concept for ES adaptation assessment. The interactive process of ES and mitigation is investigated by elaborating the impacts on the provision of ES caused by expanding renewable energies.

1.2 Terms and definitions Many terms relevant for this work have no commonly accepted definition and need further explanation, how they are understood herein.

ADAPTATION According to IPCC (2015, p. 118) adaptation is defined as “the process to adjust to the actual or expected climate and accompanying effects”. Adaptation aims to reduce the risk posed by the changing climate, by either moderating or avoiding harm or by exploiting beneficial opportunities. This can happen autonomous (spontaneous) or planned as a result from policy decisions and take place in a bottom-up (decentralized) or top-down (centralized) process. Adaptation needs in this work are understood as priority areas which require adaptation action. Adaptation options are the actual possibilities, means and ways to adapt to climate change.

Chapter 1 – Ecosystem services in a changing climate

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT Capacity development has been defined slightly differently by leading development organisations. This work follows the definition of UNDP (2008a, p. 2), who defined capacity development as “the process through which individuals, organizations and societies obtain, strengthen and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development objectives over time”. One common point with other definitions (c.f. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2006; World Bank, 2009) is the process of change, and thus managing transformations. This can take place on the three levels: individual, organizational or the enabling environment.

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Ecosystem services (ES) are the benefits people obtain from environmental systems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) and contribute directly or ind irectly to human well-being (TEEB, 2010). Haines-Young and Potschin (2010) pointed out that ES do not exist in isolation from people’s needs. In other words ES evolve when a biophysical structure (e.g. vegetation cover) or a function (e.g. slow water passage) is used and directly or indirectly contributes to meeting human needs. The ES concept aims to demonstrate the value of the natural environment for people and their dependency, and thus contributes to reconnecting the society with nature (Lele et al., 2013). ES research has developed rapidly after the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) and publications in this field have increased exponentially. Due to the lack of a consistent and standardised definition and classification, this has been interpreted differently, and many items have been wrongly placed under the umbrella of ES. Examples include “provision of infrastructure for transport” and “ecosystem engineering” as pointed out by Haida et al. (2015). Criticism has been voiced regarding “double counting” when doing valuations and inconsistent naming of ES (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Fisher and Turner, 2008). In 2013 Haines-Young and Potschin (2013) set a systematical standard with the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Service (CICES), which classes ES into three categories: providing, regulating and maintaining, and cultural. CICES also refined the definition and included only “final ES”, which are the outputs of ecosystems that most directly affect human well-being, but retain a connection with the underlying ecosystem structures and functions, which generate them. The general definition used in this work, is based on MEA (2005), as matters regarding “final ES” and “d ouble counting” was of no issue, however, the classification is based on the more current publication of CICES. Nevertheless, some ES were included, which do not strictly fall within CICES’s definition of “final ES”, such as “habitat” and “biodiversity”, because CICES was developed after the start of this work.

Chapter 1 – Ecosystem services in a changing climate

More importantly, though, is the distinction between supply and demand. Supply of ES was defined by Burkhard et al. (2012) as the capacity of a specific area to generate services and goods within a given time and which are actually used. Demand for ES is the amount of ES and goods which are consumed or used in a specific area at a given time or over a given period of time (Burkhard et al., 2012). In order to preserve ES and secure human well-being it is therefore necessary to reach and maintain sustainable levels of both ES provision and ES demand.

MITIGATION (OF CLIMATE CHANGE) Mitigation refers to limiting the magnitude or rate of climate change. This includes human interventions and actions, which aim to reduce the source of GHG emissions and enhance the capacity of carbon sinks (carbon sequestration), for example via reforestation (IPCC, 2015, p. 125).

VULNERABILITY Vulnerability has slightly different meanings depending on the contextual background in which it is used and has been refined since its emergence in the 1980- ies. In the context of climate change, IPCC (2015, p. 128) defined vulnerability as the predisposition of systems, humans, organisations or organisms to be adversely affected by climate change. Vulnerability is often understood as a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Exposure describes the intensity of the changing climate, e.g. changes in temperature and precipitation. Sensitivity describes the magnitude of how a system (human, organisation, and organism) will be affected by or reacts to climate change. Adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to adjust to potential damage and to cope with and adapt to the altered conditions.

Chapter 1 – Ecosystem services in a changing climate

WATER FOOTPRINT The water footprint (WF) is an indicator of freshwater use which includes the direct and indirect water use of a consumer or producer (Hoekstra et al., 2011). Direct water use accounts for the freshwater consumption and pollution of a consumer or producer. Indirect water use, also called virtual water, is the total amount of water used during the entire production process of commodities and can be calculated for a specific product, process, person or region. The WF was first introduced in 2003 by Hoekstra (2003) and builds upon the virtual water concept developed by Allan in 1995 (Allan, 2003). The WF includes the three components green, blue and grey water. Following Hoekstra et al. (2011) green water consists of precipitation which is absorbed in soils and is available to plants. Blue water refers to surface and groundwater stored in lakes, rivers and aquifers. Usually agriculture uses both green (precipitation) and blue water (irrigation). Grey water indicates the pollution of freshwater that is caused by the production of a product and is calculated as the volume of water which is needed to dilute the polluted water to a water quality level so that it reaches agreed quality standards. By trading products which contain virtual water, water can be transferred between regions. This is also referred to as virtual water flows (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011a).

1.3 Strategies to respond to climate change Generally, there are two proposed ways to respond to climate change: adaptation and mitigation (Figure 1). In order to manage and reduce the risks of climate change and to contribute to climate-resilient pathways, combined efforts of mitigation and adaptation strategies are necessary. To achieve a long-term transformation, sustainable development is the ultimate goal, which mitigation and adaption aim to realize. Previously, mitigation and adaption have been understood as two separate alternatives to respond to climate change, however, in its most recent assessment report IPCC (2015) describes both strategies as being complementary. Only the combination of several adaptation and mitigation option s might be enough to solve the current challenges of climate change.

Chapter 1 – Ecosystem services in a changing climate

Figure 1: Pathways to respond to climate change.

However, mitigation and adaptation can mutually reinforce or oppose each other. For example, creating green infrastructure as an adaptation measure in urban areas to provide cooling effects, also increases carbon sequestration and therefore supports climate change mitigation (Demuzere et al., 2014); by contrast, adapting to higher temperatures by using more fossil fuelled air-conditioning emits additional GHG and thus contributes to global warming (Izquierdo et al., 2011). Moreover, both mitigation and adaptation also interact with ES. On the one hand, the supply of ES can be influenced negatively by adaptation and mitigation. For example intensifying the use of forest biomass for the production of renewable energies can have negative impacts on the quality of “habitats”, “natural hazard regulation” and the quality of “fresh water”, if forests are managed inappropriately (Hastik et al., 2015). On the other hand, sustainably managing and using ES might create co-benefits with mitigation and adaptation , e.g. increasing forest biomass production might also increase the potential for “carbon sequestration” (Ter- Mikaelian et al., 2015). Beside the rate of climate change, adaptation and mitigation are influenced by several socio-economic factors such as economic development, demographic change, human resources, social and cultural setting, governance and institutional structures and technological innovations. Also, diverse geographic regions can have different physical and ecological capabilities to adapt to and mitigate climate change (IPCC, 2015). These factors can either provide opportunities to enhance adaptation and mitigation efforts, or conversely to constrain and limit them. Further reading on constraints and limits for adaptation is provided by Klein et al. (2014) and for mitigation by IPCC (2014b).

Chapter 1 – Ecosystem services in a changing climate

As a consequence, it is imperative to fully comprehend and if possible weigh the benefits and contradictions of the above described mutual interaction between ES, mitigation and adaptation, as the appropriate supply of and demand for ES are important components to achieve sustainable development.

1.3.1 Mitigation options

Mitigation aims to reduce GHG emissions and thus to limit atmospheric CO 2 concentration to 450ppm by 2100. This target is necessary in order to limit the rise of global annual mean temperature to the agreed +2°C by the end of this century (UNFCCC, 2010a). There are several mitigation options to reach this target, generally focusing on the sectors: energy supply, transportation, buildings, industries, agriculture, forestry and land-use. Mitigation efforts are most efficient if approaches which focus on decarbonisation and reducing GHG emissions are combined with approaches which focus on increasing carbon sinks in land -based sectors, for example by applying the REDD concept, i.e. reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (Angelsen, 2008; Turner et al., 2009). Regarding utilizing ES for mitigation whilst avoiding harm to their supply, the sectors energy supply, agriculture and forestry are particularly relevant. For example, within the energy sector the EU aims to increase renewable energies by 20% and thus to decrease carbon emission (European Commission, 2009). This however, might cause conflicts with maintaining the provision of ES. This example is elaborated in detail in Chapter 8.

1.3.2 Adaptation assessments and options In the climate change community adaptation has received far less attention than mitigation. Two reasons have been suggested for this: lack of clear definition s and identification of what exactly comprises adaptation (Adger et al., 2009) and missing tools and measurements to track and measure the implementation and effectiveness of adaptation (Arnell, 2010). Although mitigation is important in order to reduce GHG, the climate is going to change to some degree in the foreseeable future, which makes it necessary to plan adaptation. Exactly what kind of adaptation is needed, however, is highly diverse and depends on several factors and constraints. Füssel (2007), partly based on Smit et al. (1999), identified several dimensions, such as sector and domain (e.g. agriculture, forestry, coastal protection), type of climate hazard, predictability of climatic changes, non-climatic conditions (e.g. environmental, economic, cultural), purpose, timing, planning horizon, adaptation options and actors. Therefore, there is no single adaptation framework and assessments must be flexible, tailored to the specific needs and apply different approaches (Baker et al., 2012). This has led to the development of widely applied guidelines by several organisations since the 1990-ies, including IPCC (Carter et al., 1994), UNEP (Feenstra et al., 1998), UKCIP (Willows and Connell, 2003), UNDP (Lim et al., 2004) and USAID (USAID, 2007). These assessments have evolved over time

Chapter 1 – Ecosystem services in a changing climate

and can be distinguished into “first-generation” and “second generation”. UNFCCC (2002), Füssel (2007) and Noble et al. (2014) give an overview and compare these two assessment approaches. First generation assessments use a hazard-based approach and have a strong focus on assessing climate impacts based on global climate projections. These global climate projections are often downscaled to the regional scale and then used to model impact scenarios. Only after a long modelling process, mitigation and adaptation needs are identified and strategies recommended. But these recommendations might not always be useful for adaptation practitioners, as they are often based on small-scale climate projections with long time frames, which are not relevant for the implementation of adaptation measures. Therefore, disadvantages of first generation assessments are the reliance on the data intensive input, the long modelling process, the long time horizon of output and the weak practical relevance of recommendations. However, they are useful to raise general awareness of climate change on the global and regional scale and to identify research gaps and priorities. Second generation assessments build on a vulnerability-based approach and offer a more holistic view. They assess the current and future climate risk by linking biophysical and socio-economic scenarios, incorporate past experience to manage climate risk, have an emphasis on sensitivity and adaptive capacity, involve local stakeholders und support decisions about adaptation needs and options in a bottom-up process. Second generation assessments are useful to identify priority areas for action and to assess the effectiveness of implemented measures. Disadvantages are the reliance on expert judgement, the limited comparability across regions and the lack of standardised methodology. As both first and second generation assessment have advantages and disadvantages they should not be viewed as exclusive, and most recent assessments combine elements from both types. According to IPCC (2014a) adaptation generally undergoes several consecutive steps, starting with (1) an impact, vulnerability or resilience assessment, followed by (2) identifying adaptation needs. The identified needs provide the foundation for (3) selecting or developing adaptation options and measures, and finally (4) planning and implementing adaptation actions. In recent years adaptation assessments which concentrated on ES had a tendency to focus on step (1) e.g. by Schröter et al. (2005), Metzger et al. (2008), Briner et al. (2013a), Elkin et al. (2013), Fatorić and Morén-Alegret (2013), Lorencová et al. (2013), Vihervaara et al. (2013) and Qiu et al. (2015). These studies are characterised by combining elements of first and second generation approaches, for example by including climate and socio-economic scenarios, past, current and future scenarios, vulnerability assessments and stakeholder involvement. Similar to general ES studies, adaptation assessments have a tendency to only include a few selected ES, e.g. carbon sequestration, biodiversity, water supply and natural hazard regulation .

Chapter 1 – Ecosystem services in a changing climate

Although many of these studies concluded with recommendation of adaptation needs and options, the actual process of steps (2) to (4), has received less attention. Some examples are provided by Dunford et al. (2015) and Makkonen et al. (2015) who analysed the performance of different kinds of adaptation and mitigation options and strategies to strengthen the provision of ES and by Chornesky et al. (2015) who reviewed four implementation case studies in California, USA. As the selection of adaptation options depends on the identified needs, it is therefore important to base the identification process on a systematic approach, in particular when multiple ES are involved.

1.3.3 Ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation There are several adaptation options (Figure 2) to choose from, as described in detail by Noble et al. (2014). These options are not exclusive, but should be considered as overlapping and complementary, as they often pursue the same adaptation goal simultaneously. In the context of utilizing ES for adaptation, ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) is particularly relevant. EbA has only recently emerged in the international climate change adaptation arena (Doswald and Estrella, 2015). It was first defined in 2009 as the use of ES (and biodiversity) to help with adapting to climate change (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009). EbA strategies build on the idea that conserving, restoring and sustainably managing ecosystems and their services (Andrade Pérez et al., 2010) assists people in the process to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. By doing this, EbA not only buffers and reduces the risks of natural hazards (similar to ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction), but also provides multiple social, cultural and economic benefits and thereby increases the resilience of communities. Although the idea of managing ecosystems to adapt to changing climatic conditions is not new and has a long history in environmental management, the EbA concept as defined above, was not integrated into an overall climate adaptation strategy before 2009 (UNEP, 2010). To prioritize the enhancement of socio-economic and ecological resilience, the EbA concept was adopted by the UNFCCC in 2010, followed by a compilation of the state of the art by their Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) in 2011 (UNFCCC, 2011). Examples of ecosystem-based adaptation according to Noble et al. (2014) are: ecological conservation and restoration of ecosystems (e.g. wetlands, floodplains, mangroves), increasing biological diversity, afforestation and reforestation, forest and bushfire management, green infrastructure, fisheries management, management of migration and translocation, community-based natural resource management an d adaptive land use management.

Chapter 1 – Ecosystem services in a changing climate

Figure 2: Adaptation options based on Noble et al. 2014.

By now, EbA has become an integral part of climate change adaptation as several overviews and reviews showed (Shaw et al., 2014; Noble et al., 2014; Pramova et al., 2012; Doswald and Estrella, 2015; Doswald et al., 2014). However, as the concept is still developing, there is no fixed methodology and implementations have to be designed according to the local needs and adaptation objective (Doswald and Estrella, 2015). In the context of utilizing ES to respond to climate change EbA not only provides an option for strengthening, maintaining and protecting the supply of ES (as it is understood in the classical sense and described above), but also enables to influence the demand for ES. If the demand for ES is also included, adaptation is most efficient if EbA strategies are combined with other social or institutional options (Noble et al., 2014). Adger (2010) emphasized that some degree of planning and intervention of governmental institutions, usually in a top-down way, is necessary in order to handle some climate risks. Nevertheless, successful adaptation is equally dependent on individuals and communities. Social options applied in a bottom-up way can contribute considerably to the motivation of individuals and communities to implement adaptation measures. For example, empowerment through education can have strong effects on reducing vulnerability to climate

Chapter 1 – Ecosystem services in a changing climate

change and enhancing adaptive capacity (Lutz et al., 2014). This is particularly so if it covers the range from acquiring system knowledge (helping to recognise the problem), target knowledge, (helping to formulate objectives and targets to be reached through the adaptation process), to transformation knowledge (helping to reach the formulated targets and objectives) (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn, 2008).

Chapter 2 – Outline of dissertation

2 Outline of dissertation

2.1 Research aim and objectives This thesis aims to contribute to the understanding of the interactive process and mutual influence of ES with climate change responses. In particular in this thesis it was investigated how the concept of ES can be used to assess adaptation and mitigation, with the main focus on adaptation. In doing so, it ranged from an assessment of ES impacts and vulnerability, to planning and applying specific adaptation actions. Accordingly, to provide a solution for the above stated research aim, three research objectives were defined: 1) Developing an approach for adaptation assessment of multiple ES, which (a) is resource efficient, pragmatic and applicable, (b) supports practitioners to prioritize adaptation needs of multiple ES and guide them in their decision making process, (c) is based on a combination of local and scientific knowledge and (d) is able to address uncertainties. 2) Putting this approach into practice and testing it by means of consecutive case studies. 3) Elaborating the mutual influence of ES and mitigation, by using the example of expanding renewable energies and their impact on ES.

2.2 Set up of dissertation The setup of this thesis closely follows the adaptation assessment approach developed within RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 1). This approach comprises a cycle of six sequential phases: (I) assessing ES relevance, (II) assessing ES sensitivity to climate change and developing ES impact storylines, (III) identifying “hotspot ES”, (IV) assessing adaptation options, (V) adaptation in practice and (VI) monitoring and evaluation. The approach will be described in more detail in Chapter 4. As shown in Figure 3 the individual phases correspond with the respective chapters of this thesis.

Chapter 2 – Outline of dissertation

Figure 3: Set up of dissertation. Adaptation assessment approach, developed within this thesis, with corresponding phases, chapters and articles.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 2) is pursued by means of three articles, which are published or under review (Chapter 3, 4 and 6), unpublished original research material (Chapter 5) and a discussion on monitoring and evaluation possibilities (Chapter 7). The implementation of phases I to IV was carried out within the project SHIFT - Spatio- Temporal Analysis of Shifting Altitudinal Zones of Environmental Systems in Mountain Regions, funded by COMET (Competence Centres for Excellent Technologies) Programme by the FFG (Austrian Research Promotion Agency). Phase V “adaptation in practice” builds on the findings from the previous phases. Focusing on the identified hotspot ES “fresh water”, a specifically designed adaptation concept was developed and implemented. This concept combines several adaptation measures, including EbA, educational, awareness and behavioural measures, applies a bottom -up strategy, and covers all three types of knowledge (system, target and transformation knowledge). This phase was realised within the project Urban_WFTP - Introduction of the Water Footprint (WFTP) Approach in Urban Areas to Monitor, Evaluate, and Improve Water Use, funded by the Central Europe Programme. The actual execution of Phase VI “monitoring and evaluation” was not possible within the timeframe of this thesis. However, an overview is given in Chapter 7 about what needs to be considered in this respect.

Chapter 2 – Outline of dissertation

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 3) is pursued by means of a published review article on how expanding renewable energies affect the provision of ES (Chapter 8), see also Figure 4. This study was realised within the project “Recharge Green – Balancing Alpine Energy and Nature”, funded by the Alpine Space Programme by the EU.

Figure 4: Set up of dissertation. Illustrating the connection of article 4 with mitigation, as one of the pathways to respond to climate change.

The core contribution of this thesis comprises the following four peer-reviewed articles either published or under review in internationally renowned journals, ranked in the annual Journal Citation Report by Thomson Reuter:

Article 1: Haida, C., Rüdisser, J. and Tappeiner, U. (2015). Ecosystem services in mountain regions: experts‘ perception and research intensity. Regional Environmental Change. Online First. Doi:10.1007/ s10113-015-0759-4 The author’s contribution: conceptualization of study set up, designing and performing research, analysing of data and writing the article. See Chapter 3 and for the original article Appendix 1.

Article 2: Haida, C., Höferl, K.-M., Hastik, R., Schneider, K. and C. Geitner (reviewed): A participatory approach for ecosystem services based climate adaptation. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management. This version of the manuscript has received and incorporated comments from anonymous reviewers. The author’s contribution: conceptualization of study set up, designing and performing research, analysing of data and writing the article. See Chapter 4.

Chapter 2 – Outline of dissertation

Article 3: Haida, C., Chapagain, A.K., Rauch, W., Riede, M. and K. Schneider (under review): Water Footprint as a concept to adapt to climate change: capacity development with young people to save water. International Journal of Water Resources Development. The author’s contribution: conceptualization of study set up, designing and performing research, analysing of data and writing the article. See Chapter 6.

Article 4: Hastik, R., Basso, S, Geitner, C., Haida, C., Poljanec, A., Portaccio, A., Vrščaj, B. and C. Walzer (2015). Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 48, pp. 608-623, Doi:10.10.16/j.rser.2015.04.004 The author’s contribution: contributing to writing the article’s introduction, discussion and conclusion. See Chapter 8 and for the original article Appendix 2.

Additional aspects to the core contribution are provided by the following peer- reviewed publications:

Article 5: Hastik, R., Walzer, C., Haida, C., Garegnani, G., Abegg, B. and C. Geitner (under review): The ecosystem service “footprint” of renewable energy sources: An approach to scrutinize renewable energies and their spatial impacts in the Alps. Mountain Research and Development. The author’s contribution: contributing to writing the article’s introduction, discussion and conclusion.

Extended abstract in proceedings 1: Fiałkiewicz, W., Czaban, S., Kolonko, A., Konieczny, T., Malinowski, P., Manzardo, A., Loss, A., Scipioni, A., Leonhardt, G., Rauch, W., Haida, C., Schneider, K., Wohlfart, K., Schmidt, R., Chilò, L., Bedin, D. and A. Kis (2014): Water footprint as a new approach to water management in the urban areas. In: Dymaczewski, Z., Jeż-Walkowiak, J. and M. Nowak (ed.): Water supply and water quality. Poznań: PZITS, ISBN 978-83-89696-93-2, pp.431-439. The author’s contribution: contributing to conceptualization of study set up, designing research and writing abstract. See Appendix 3.

Extended abstract in proceedings 2: Steinmetz, A.K., Haida, C. and C. Geitner (2013): Trade-offs of ecosystem services provided by mountain hay meadows under land-use change scenarios. In: 5th Symposium Conference Volume for Research in Protected Areas. Conference Volume 5. Mittersill, 10 to 12 June 2013. Salzburg: Salzburger Nationalparkfonds, pp. 743 - 746. The author’s contribution: contributing to conceptualization of study set up, designing research and writing abstract. See Appendix 4.

Chapter 2 – Outline of dissertation

Extended abstract in proceedings 3: Haida, C., Rüdisser, J. and U. Tappeiner (2011): Societal relevance of ecosystem services in mountain environments. In: Young, C., Beseney, L.; Hooper, I. & K. Moreton-Jones (Ed.): Proceedings of the eighteenth annual IALE UK conference. Held at The University of Wolverhampton, Telford Campus, 6th-8th September 2011. Garstang, Lancashire, ISBN 0-954713079, pp. 205-209. The author’s contribution: conceptualization of study set up, designing and performing research, analysing of data and writing abstract. See Appendix 5.

Furthermore, the following not peer-reviewed publications cover additional related aspects:

Other paper 1: Hastik, R., Geitner, C., Haida, C., Höferl, K.-M. and M. Berchtold (2013): Erneuerbare Energie im Alpenraum - ein aktuelles Thema und eine inter- und transdisziplinäre Herausforderung. In: Innsbrucker Geographische Gesellschaft (ed.): Innsbrucker Jahresbericht 2011-2013. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Geographische Gesellschaft, ISBN 978-3-901182-79-2, pp. 45 - 51. The author’s contribution: contributing to conceptualizing study set up, designing research, performing research, analysing of data and writing publication. See Appendix 6.

Other paper 2: Geitner, C., Haida, C. and P. Lang (2011): Aspekte bodenbezogener ecosystem services in den Alpen und ihrer monetären Bewertung. In: Innsbrucker Geographische Gesellschaft (ed.): Innsbrucker Jahresbericht 2008-2010. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Geographische Gesellschaft, ISBN 978-3-901182-83-9, pp. 142 - 156. The author’s contribution: contributing to conceptualizing study set up, designing research, performing research, analysing of data and writing publication. See Appendix 7.

2.3 Methods and approaches Climate change as a complex process and its many-faceted consequences can only be understood and solved via interdisciplinary collaboration. An appropriate interdisciplinary platform is provided by the ES concept, which bridges natural with social science and brings together various disciplines. Accordingly, pursuing the above mentioned research objectives was only possible through a mix of diverse methods and approaches as listed in Table 1. These draw from, and are typically applied in, multiple disciplinary background s such as ecology, geography, hydrology, statistics, social science, education and communication. Detailed

Chapter 2 – Outline of dissertation

descriptions and discussions of the methods can be found in the corresponding chapters.

Table 1: Methods and approaches used in this work.

Research Methods and approaches used objective Objective 1 Conceptual work and concept development Objective 2 Phase I

Semi-structured interviews Likert-scaled ranking

Quantitative analysis

Descriptive statistics

Non-parametric Friedmann tests

Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallace tests

Cluster analysis

Principal Component Analysis

Quantitative literature review Categorization according to pre-

defined criteria Descriptive statistics Phase II-IV

Semi-structured interviews Qualitative text analysis

Deductive coding system

Manually coding

Condensing and aggregating data Phase V

Conceptual work and concept development Stakeholder workshops Water footprint assessment

Bottom-up capacity development

Moderate-constructivistic learning approach Objective 3 Qualitative literature review

Chapter 3 – Assessing ecosystem services’ relevance

3 Assessing ecosystem services’ relevance

This chapter pursues research objective 2) and puts phase I of the approach for adaptation assessment into practice.

PUBLISHED AS Haida, C., Rüdisser, J. & Tappeiner, U. (2015). Ecosystem services in mountain regions: experts‘ perception and research intensity. Regional Environmental Change. Doi:10.1007/ s10113-015-0759-4

ABSTRACT Facing the challenges of global and regional changes, society urgently needs applicable and broadly accepted tools to effectively manage and protect ecosystem services (ES). This requires knowing which ES are perceived as important. We asked decision makers from different thematic backgrounds to rank 25 ES on the ba sis of their importance for society. To test if perceptions are varying across regions we surveyed three Alpine regions in Austria and Italy. The ranking of importance showed a high variability amongst experts but was not influenced by region or thematic background. ES which satisfy physiological needs (‘fresh water’, ‘food’, ‘air quality regulation’) were indicated as most important. ES which relate to safety and security needs were ranked in the middle field whereas cultural ES were perceived as less important. We used principal component analysis (PCA) to identified ES bundles based on perception of importance. In order to investigate whether research intensity follows the perceived importance we related the interviews with a comprehensive literature review. ‘Global climate regulation’, ‘food’, ‘biodiversity’, ‘fresh water’, and ‘water quality’ were studied most often. Although ‘habitat’, ‘energy’, ‘primary production’, ‘tourism’, ‘water cycle’, and ‘local climate regulation’ were ranked as important by decision makers, they did not receive corresponding research attention. We conclude that more interaction between research and stakeholders is needed to promote a broader application and understanding of the ES concept in practice. The use of ES bundles could help to manage its inherent complexity and facilitate its application.

KEYWORDS Alps, Perception of importance, Expert interviews, Quantitative literature review, Ecosystem service bundles (ESB), Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

The original research article can be found in the Appendix 1.

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

4 Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity, developing impact storylines and identifying hotspots

This chapter pursues research objective 1) and 2). It describes the approach for adaptation assessment in detail and puts the phases II and III into practice.

REVIEWED AS Haida, C., Höferl, K.-M., Hastik, R., Schneider, K. & C. Geitner: A participatory approach for ecosystem services based climate adaptation. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management.

ABSTRACT Purpose Facing the challenges of climatic changes, society urgently needs applicable tools and approaches to manage and protect ecosystems and their services (ES). This article presents and tests an approach for ES-based adaptation assessment.

Design, methodology and approach The approach includes six sequential phases: 1) assessing ES relevance, 2) assessing ES sensitivity to climate change and developing ES impact storylines, 3) identifying “hotspot ES”, 4) assessing adaptation options, 5) adaptation in practice, 6) monitoring and evaluation. The first three phases were applied in a regional case study in the Austrian and Italian Alps to test the feasibility. 53 decision-makers were asked to evaluate the sensitivity of 25 ES to climate change and to describe potential impacts. Based on this ES impact storylines were developed and “hotspot - ES” identified, which have a high priority for adaptation.

Findings ES impact storylines generally conformed with current literature on climate change impacts in the study area and thus our approach proved to be valuable. Six ES were identified to be in need for adaptation.

Practical implications The approach serves as a decision support tool for planners and practitioners, supports the development and implementation of adaptation measures and helps to reduce the risk of maladaptation.

Originality and value The approach, in particular the process of identifying vulnerable ES, is applicable worldwide and especially valuable for communities and regions with limited resources for adaptation assessments. It includes a novel prioritization system to

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

identify ES adaptation needs. Furthermore, it helps to identify different types of uncertainties and provides guidelines about how to handle these.

KEYWORDS Ecosystem services’ sensitivity, climate change, ecosystem services impact storylines, expert interviews, uncertainties, prioritization of ecosystem services

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

4.1 Introduction Ecological systems and natural resources are significant sources to generate human well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; TEEB, 2010; Summers et al., 2012). Climatic and socio-economic changes will have many adverse impacts on natural systems and thus threaten human well-being (Schröter et al., 2005; Metzger et al., 2006; Staudinger et al., 2012). Therefore, there is an urgent need for society to adapt to these future challenges in order to preserve ecosystem services (ES) and secure human well-being for future generations. But which ES are particular sensitive to climate change and how the management of ecosystems and their services needs to be adapted is still largely unclear. ES are defined as goods and services people obtain from ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), e.g. supply of “fresh water”, “soil formation”, “global climate regulation” and “aesthetic values”. They have been interpreted and used in different ways in literature (Haida et al., 2015) which has caused extensive discussions on their definition (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Fisher et al., 2009) and classification (de Groot et al., 2002; Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013). In recent years, much effort has been made to create a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Service (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013), which groups ES into the categories provisioning, regulation and maintenance, and cultural. By providing necessary goods and services, ecosystems also help people to adapt to the impacts of climate change and thus can contribute to making society more resilient (Vignola et al., 2009; Andrade Pérez et al., 2010). Adaptation in this context is defined as the planned “process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects. […] In natural systems, human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate and its effects” IPCC (2014a, p. 1758). One emerging adaptation option is ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) which recognises the contribution of ES to reducing the vulnerability of people to climate change (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009). The main aim of EbA is to build the resilience of communities by reducing vulnerability to climate change through conserving and managing ecosystems and their services (Andrade Pérez et al., 2010). But the supply of ES is threatened, as it depends on the state of the ecosystem, which will be affected by climate change. Although the impact of climate change on ES is heterogeneous, depending on ecosystem, service, location and time, the overall trend is expected to be negative (IPCC, 2014a). Considering the variation of climate projections (IPCC, 2013), it is highly uncertain to what extend the impacts will manifest themselves (Boyd, 2010; Grêt-Regamey et al., 2013a). However, the amount of literature concerning impact assessments of climate change on ES has been growing in recent years, with the consensus being that climate change is already having an effect on the supply of ES, thus threatening human well-being and that immediate action is needed (Schröter et al., 2005; Briner et al., 2012; Elkin et al., 2013;

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

IPCC, 2014a). Facing this need for action requires the integration of ES in regional and local decision making processes on climate change adaptation (Daily et al., 2009; UNEP, 2012; Loft et al., 2015). Following UNEP’s (2012) approach on EbA decision support, such an integration should initiate the assessment of climatic impacts on multiple ES, the assessment of the regional/ local importance of these services (Martín-López et al., 2012), the prioritization of highly affected and regionally/ locally important ES, and the development and selection of feasible adaptation measures focusing on these p rioritized ES (see Figure 5). Using this integration to assess multiple ES simultaneously reduces the risk of unintended trade-offs between adaptation measures and resulting maladaptations. However, so far, the methodological foundation for such an integrated EbA decision support is rather limited (Daily et al., 2009; Martinez-Harms et al., 2015; Giebels et al., 2015, 2016). As a notable exception, the evaluation of the vulnerability of ES to climate change received growing attention within the last decade. Here, assessments are dominantly based on modelling and simulation approaches (Civantos et al., 2012; Briner et al., 2013a; Hossain et al., 2015) or on monitoring and experiments in the field (Pauli et al., 2012; Dawes et al., 2013; López-Hoffman et al., 2013). These approaches, however, have their drawbacks, as they mainly focus on ES selected by scientists (Haida et al., 2015), are resource intensive - regarding time, data, and personnel - and therefore are not practical for rapid assessments at the local and regional level. Furthermore, the results often target an academic audience and overstrain capacities of communities, due to lacking clarification how these assessments can inform regional of local decision making processes. Involving stakeholders in participatory assessments could be another assessment option (Grêt- Regamey et al., 2013b; Karrasch et al., 2014; Tuvendal and Elmqvist, 2011), as they help to overcome limited resources and deliver much -needed and valuable information on the local needs and priorities. Trying to further promote more integrated EbA decision support, successful methods for adaptation assessments need to 1) support practitioners to prioritize adaptation needs of multiple ES, 2) inspire and inform innovative adaptation goals and measures, 3) be resource efficient, pragmatic and applicable, 4) integrate local and scientific knowledge and 5) be able to address assessment uncertainties. Based on these requirements, a participatory approach for ES-based adaptation was developed. By linking the ES concept with climate change adaptation this approach aids in analysing ES vulnerability to climate change for a specific region independent of land -use/ land cover. To identify ES of concern, which require immediate action as requested by Metternicht et al. (2014), a novel prioritization system supports practitioners in their decision making processes by combining relevance, sensitivity and impacts. Thus the approach assists in responding to and preparing for climate change impacts. The aim of this article is to describe this

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

approach, followed by a practical implementation to test its feasibility in a regional case study.

4.2 ES-based adaptation assessment approach Since the mid 1990-ies, adaptation assessments have evolved, and can be classed into first and second generation assessments (UNFCCC, 2008), sometimes also referred to as hazard -based and vulnerability-based approaches, respectively (Füssel, 2007). Whilst first generation approaches predominantly focused on impact- sensitivity assessments based on climate and environmental models, with adaptation neglected in the end after long modelling process, second generation approaches focus on holistic vulnerability assessments within an adaptation decision-making context (UNFCCC, 2002). Successful adaptation assessments also must be flexible and apply different approaches because of the diversity of impacts and adaptation needs (Füssel, 2007; Baker et al., 2012; Bruno Soares et al., 2012). To provide for resource efficiency and applicability this article proposes to minimise the data intensity by linking the impact-sensitivity-driven approach with participatory and consensus-building processes. Making use of the knowledge and experience of relevant stakeholders, who assess both the relevance of and independently of this, the impacts of climate change on ES within their respective sectors and professional backgrounds also raises the acceptance of resulting adaptation strategies and facilitates effective management (Salerno et al., 2010; Fatorić and Morén-Alegret, 2013; Martinez-Harms et al., 2015). For this a cycle of six sequential phases is suggested (Figure 5).

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

Figure 5: Approach for ecosystem-based climate adaptation assessment. Dashed line indicates the practical implementation described in this article.

The first phase includes assessing the relevance of ES for the respective region and local population independent of climate change in order to identify key ES. In the second phase ES sensitivity to climate change will be assessed and impact storylines developed. This combination will help identifying ES which are affected by climatic induced stresses. The storylines consist of narrative descriptions of how climate change will affect ES, based on facts, experience or rational reasoning. In the third phase combing ES relevance, sensitivity and storylines in a relevance-sensitivity matrix helps to transparently identify “hotpot ES”, i.e. priority services which need future attention. In the fourth phase adaptation options for the “hotspot ES” will be assessed. This includes developing adequate adaptation strategies and measures, verifying whether necessary resources are available and composing a list of prioritised measures, by following the guidelines of the National Adaptation Programme (UNFCCC, 2002). Adaptation in practice (fifth phase) represents the concrete implementation of adaptation measures. The entire cycle is continuously affected by external constraints, such as climate change, socio-economic changes and governance structures, therefore all previous phases need to be monitored and re-evaluated (sixth phase) in order to avoid maladaptation. Communication in the centre of the approach i) guarantees efficient processes of awareness and knowledge building, ii) secures effective coordination between all phases, and iii) supports a bidirectional exchange between all involved stakeholders’ in a participatory way.

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

4.3 Application of the approach The application of the approach focusses on the first three phases of the cycle (Figure 5) and comprises a workflow with 4 consecutive steps (Figure 6). The assessment and analysis of ES relevance was described in Haida et al. (2015).

Figure 6: Study design with workflow and corresponding phases of the ecosystem -based adaptation cycle.

4.3.1 Study area Despite the often stated vulnerability of mountain ecosystems to climate chang e (Smith et al., 2009; Andrade Pérez et al., 2010; IPCC, 2014a), knowledge about potential impacts on ecosystems and their services at the local and regional scale is scarce and focusses mainly on agricultural and forest ES (APCC, 2014). Owing to the small-scaled diversity of topography and therefore land cover and land use within a confined space, mountain regions often provide numerous ES side by side (Grabherr, 1997; Grêt-Regamey et al., 2012), causing a challenging process for decision-makers to identify and prioritize hotspot ES. The three neighbouring mountain provinces in the Alps Tyrol (Austria), Vorarlberg (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy) provide an ideal model region to implement and test the proposed approach, due to their topographic, climatic and land cover/ land use diversity (Tappeiner et al., 2008).

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

The study regions are predominantly of high mountain character, reaching from the valleys up to the summits, with some Alpine foothills in Vorarlberg. Land cover/ land use is highly divers with a strong vertical gradient. Settlements concentrate on the valley floors and are interspersed by agricultural land cultivated with permanent and seasonal crops, and intensively used grassland. Forests dominate the hillside to approx. 2000m asl., followed by high mountain pastures used for grazing livestock in summer up to approx. 2500m asl. All three provinces are dominated by the northern central European climate, with high precipitation throughout the year and low variability between years, and a typical central European temperature regime. The Alpine character, however, causes small-scale horizontal and vertical climatic differentiation (e.g. for Tyrol Fliri, 1975). In South Tyrol and the western part of Tyrol, the main valleys are dominated by a central Alpine-dry climate, which is characterised by low but highly variable precipitation and a middle-European temperature regime.

In the past century temperature measures have shown an increase of ca. 2°C (Auer et al., 2007). According to APCC (2014) and EURAC (2012) mean temperature is expected to rise by 3.5°C until the end of 21st century. Until 2050 precipitation projections show a mean increase of 3.7% in winter and a decrease of 3.1% in summer. The uncertainty of projections until the end of 21st century is very high, nevertheless they show a distinct tendency to more humid conditions in winter (ca. +10%) and drier conditions in summer (-20%).

4.3.2 Methods EXPERT INTERVIEWS To obtain specific information regarding the influence of climate change on ES, expert interviews are a suitable method (Hagerman et al., 2010; Chowdhury et al., 2012). Making use of the expert’s high level of insight and aggregated knowledge, allows for assessing the sensitivity of multiple ES to climate change and the possible impacts in resource efficient, participatory and consensus-building manner. In total 53 interview partners were selected, covering nine thematic fields: forestry, agriculture, soil science, energy, meteorology, safety, planning, tourism and environmental protection. These fields were specifically chosen so as to thematically cover the range of all ES presented in the interviews (Table 2), with each field represented by six interviewees, but of soil science. The interviewees were all holding managerial positions, acted as decision makers and worked for governmental institutions, NGOs or in the p rivate sector. All interviews were semi- structured and conducted out on a one-to-one basis in 2011 and 2012. Henceforth the interview partners will be referred to as experts. At the start of the interviews 25 preselected ES were presented. The selection was predominantly based on Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) and taking TEEB (2010) and Haines-Young and Potschin (2011) into consideration. The experts were

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

then asked to state which of these ES are sensitive to climate change and to describe in which way they are affected. For this the experts were asked to commit themselves to one of three pre-defined impact categories (negative, positive, neutral). All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The resulting data were analysed using the qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA 11. All statistical analyses were performed with PASW Statistics 18.

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

Table 2: List of ecosystem services used in the interviews with the definitions given to the experts, based on Haida et al., (2015).

Ecosystem services Definition Provisioning services Fresh water Supply and storage of fresh water Fodder Food for domesticated animals Food grown in wild habitats and in managed agro-ecosystems - including Food crops, livestock, aquaculture and wild food

Raw materials Diversity of materials for construction, landscaping and ornaments

Resources used for biomedical products, natural medicine, Medicinal resources pharmaceuticals, etc. Means which can be used for energy production, e.g. hydropower, wood Energy fuel and bio fuel from agricultural products Regulating and maintaining services Water cycle The water cycling affected by plant processes in the system Recycling and storage of nutrients to maintain healthy soils and Nutrient cycle productive ecosystems Primary production Building of biomass Natural hazard Influence of ecosystems to moderate extreme events, e.g. storms, floods, regulation rock falls or avalanches Land cover can prevent soil erosion to maintain arable land and to prevent Soil erosion regulation damage from erosion/ siltation Water flow regulation Land cover can regulate water runoff and river discharge Pollination Pollination of wild plants and crops The presence or absence of selected species, functional groups of species Biodiversity or species composition The provision of suitable habitats for different species, for functional Habitat groups of species or for processes essential for the functioning of ecosystems Biological control Control of pests and diseases Soil formation & Maintenance of the natural productivity of soil fertility Ecosystems play a role in pollution control/ detoxification and filtering of Water quality dust particles Global climate Ecosystems play an important role in climate by either sequester ing or regulation emitting greenhouse gases Local climate Land cover can locally affect temperature, air moisture, wind, radiation regulation and precipitation Air quality regulation Maintenance of (clean) air Cultural services Natural landscapes and urban green spaces play an important role in Recreation maintaining mental and physical health Nature tourism provides considerable economic benefits and is a vital Tourism source of income for many countries Aesthetic appreciation Attractive landscapes provide enjoyment of scenery Ecosystems are used for religious or historic purposes and can foster a Spiritual values local identity and sense of belonging

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

DATA ANALYSIS Following the standard procedure of deductive qualitative content analyses (Mayring, 2000, 2010) predefined key themes and sub-themes served as a coding agenda along which the interviews were manually coded. This enabled a comparable and standardised frequency analysis of the coded themes. The key themes were defined by the 25 ES and sub-themes by the three impact-categories (negative, positive, neutral). To analyse the sensitivity of ES to climate change the key themes were assigened to the respective passage of text. Based on this the number of experts was extracted who mentioned each of the ES, regardless of the exact content of their arguments. To test whether experts from different regions or thematic backgrounds mentioned different ES a chi² test (p > 0.05) was used. To analyse the impact of climate change on ES, in addition to the key themes assignments, the data was also coded according to the three impact categories. In a first step the number of experts was extracted who described climate change impacts for each ES. In case of am biguous impact descriptions for the same ES two filters were applied, which permitted to assign every expert to one of the impact categories: i) counting of arguments per expert and assigning the one category with the most arguments, ii) verifying the content of the argument. This left a maximum of 53 impact trends per ES. In a second step the data was further condensed in order to attain one distinct climate impact trend per ES. Three criteria were applied for this: i) removing all ES for which <10% of the experts described an impact, ii) assigning of the trend which had been described by >50% of the experts for the respective ES, iii) assigning “inconsistent“ to the remaining ES. For tourism the experts described diverging arguments for winter and summer and therefore this ES was separated into summer tourism and winter tourism. Based on the experts’ arguments ES impact storylines were developed. To identify “hotspot ES” ES sensitivity was plotted against ES relevance in a sensitivity-relevance-matrix. ES relevance values are based on Haida et al. (2015), who asked 53 experts covering nine thematic fields to rank 25 ES according their importance for society on a scale from 1 to 25. For each ES the median value was calculated based on the individual ranking of the experts. For better readability the values were inverted to 1 (least relevant) and 25 (most relevant). Each ES was then attributed with one of the CC impact trends. To supp ort decisions on how to proceed with the next phase (assessing adaptation options), the matrix was evenly divided into quadrants, which represent levels of priority intensity. The division of the quadrants was set at the mean value of the range of both ES relevance and ES sensitivity.

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

4.3.3 Results ECOSYSTEM SERVICES’ SENSITIVITY When the experts were asked which of the 25 presented ES are sensitive to climate change, every service was mentioned at least once. Regarding three services (“natural hazard regulation“, “tourism“ and “energy“) there was high consensus amongst the experts that these ES are sensitive to climate change (Figure 7). However, for the majority of services the experts showed no or only small consensus. A chi² test showed no significant difference in the perceived sensitivity for experts from different areas, except for “fresh water“ in Vorarlberg and South Tyrol, with p=0.011. Unlike this regional conformity, the experts showed a thematic bias (Table 3). In other words, the experts considered those ES as sensitive, which were associated with their respective professional background. This was the case particularly for “natural hazard regulation“, “tourism“, “energy“ and “food“. Nevertheless, only two ES showed significant differences to the remaining professions: “biological control“ (p = 0.001) and “soil formation“ (p = 0.000), regarding forestry and soil science, respectively.

Figure 7: Perceived sensitivity of ecosystem services to climate change according to the regional background of 53 experts. Shown is the number of experts who mentioned the service when asked “Which ecosystem service is sensitive to climate change?” Significance (*) tested with chi² test (p > 0.05). Levels of consensus are based on the percentage of experts.

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

Table 3: Perceived sensitivity of ecosystem services to climate change according to the thematic background of 53 experts. Show n is the number of experts in percent who mentioned the service when asked “Which ecosystem service is sensitive to climate change?” Significance (*)

tested with chi² test (p > 0.05).

Soil Science Science Soil Energy Forestry protection Environmental Meteorology Safety Agriculture Planning Tourism Experts (n) 5 6 6 6 6 7 6 5 6 Natural hazard regulation 40 50 66,7 50 66,7 100 50 100 16,7 Tourism 20 50 66,7 66,7 66,7 28,6 33,3 60 100 Energy 60 100 33,3 83,3 33,3 71,4 16,7 40 33,3 Fresh water 40 16,7 66,7 33,3 50 71,4 83,3 20 33,3 Food 60 33,3 50 33,3 50 42,9 100 40,0 16,7 Water flow regulation 40 16,7 66,7 66,7 50,0 57,1 16,7 0 0 Biodiversity 40 0 50 66,7 33,3 0 50 20 16,7 Global climate regulation 40 0 33,3 16,7 33,3 14,3 33,3 40 0 Habitat 20 16,7 16,7 66,7 50 0 16,7 0 16,7 Raw materials 20 16,7 50 33,3 16,7 14,3 33,3 20 0 Biological control 20 16,7 83,3* 16,7 16,7 0 16,7 0 0 Soil erosion regulation 40 16,7 50 0 16,7 0 33,3 20 0 Aesthetic appreciation 20 16,7 33,3 16,7 16,7 14,3 16,7 0 16,7 Recreation 40 0 0 33,3 33,3 14,3 16,7 0 16,7 Air quality regulation 0 16,7 33,3 33,3 33,3 14,3 0 0 16,7 Water cycle 20 16,7 16,7 0 16,7 14,3 16,7 0 0 Soil formation & fertility 80* 0 0 16,7 0 0 0 0 16,7 Local climate regulation 0 0 16,7 0 16,7 14,3 16,7 40 0 Spiritual values 0 0 16,7 0 16,7 14,3 0 40 16,7 Primary production 20 0 16,7 16,7 16,7 14,3 0 0 0 Nutrient cycle 0 0 16,7 0 16,7 0,0 16,7 0 0 Water quality 0 0 0 0 16,7 14,3 0 0 0 Medicinal resources 0 0 0 0 16,7 14,3 0 0 0 Pollination 0 0 0 0 0 14,3 0 0 0

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

ES STORYLINES AND CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT TRENDS The assumed impacts of climate change on ES could be grouped into 5 classes which revealed similar trends (Figure 8). Six services showed a strong tendency to be negatively affected by climate change (A). Regarding “natural hazard regulation“ the experts argued that this trend is caused by a weakened protection function of forests, which in turn leads to an increase of morphodynamic processes. Rising demand caused by expanding settlements was presumed to exacerbate these impacts. This negative trend might be intensified by a weakened “biological control“, as a result from invasive species and more frequent outbreaks of pests and diseases. “Fresh water“ supply was expected to be at risk mainly in the central Alpine-arid valleys of the study region. Retreating glaciers and thus decreasing discharge were assumed to put water supply for irrigation under pressure in the second half of the century. In addition to summer droughts this might cause water scarcity. Predicted heavy rains after a long dry period might challenge the infiltration and retention potential of soil and vegetation and thus have a negative effect on “water flow regulation“ and “soil erosion regulation“. Economic benefits provided by “tourism“ in winter were assumed to decline due to decreasing reliability of snow cover. “All-year tourism“ and “biodiversity“ showed a strong tendency that climate change will have no impact on these ES (B). In case of biodiversity the experts argued that the overall diversity will stay the same. Loss of alpine species and habitats, caused by an altitudinal upward shift under warming temperatures, were assumed to be compensated by newly invading thermophilic species from the south.

Five ES (“food“, “energy“, “raw materials“, “aesthetic appreciation“ and “local climate regulation“) showed inconsistent trends, as the impacts described for these ES were more or less evenly spread across all three categories (C). This uncertainty resulted from partially conflicting arguments, e.g. for food: expansion of cropland into higher altitudes versus water scarcity problems. Regarding “energy“, the experts expected on the one hand a higher energy supply from biomass, as the tree line is predicted to shift upwards and thus increase biomass production. On the other hand hydropower might decline due to decreasing discharge from retreating glaciers. At the same time, demand for “energy“ was supposed to rise, e.g. for cooling. This might lead to overexploitation of renewable energies and accordingly the experts stressed the urge for more energy efficiency. “Primary production“ and “summer tourism“ showed a slight tendency to be positively affected (E). “Primary production“ was argued to increase caused by an altitudinal upward shift of the tree line and thus expansion of forest cover, in addition to an extension of the growing period.

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

For the remaining ten ES only few experts described climate change impacts (D), indicating a high level of uncertainty. This might result from missing information about climate change impacts on these ES on the one hand, or limited awareness of these impacts amongst decision makers on the other hand.

Figure 8: Assumed impacts of climate change on ecosystem services according to 53 experts. Shown is the amount of experts per ES who described the respective climate change impact trend. Width of the bars indicates the amount of experts. Grouped into classes of similar trends.

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

IDENTIFYING “HOTSPOT ES” Plotting a ES relevance-sensitivity matrix spread the 25 ES in quadrant I, III and IV (Figure 9). High priority could be identified for 6 ES lying in quadrant I. Particularly, ”natural hazard regulation“ and “fresh water“ showed a high consensus of sensitivity, were highly relevant for the region, and had a strong tendency to be negatively affected by climate change. This suggests an urgent need to pursue the next phase of the ES-based adaptation approach (Figure 5) and to assess adaptation options. Regarding “energy“ and “food“ the experts did not describe definite trends about how climate change will affect these ES, although they were regarded as sensitive and as highly relevant. The majority of experts who mentioned “all-year tourism“ stated that climate change would have positive (summer) and negative (winter) effects. However, throughout the year these impacts would neutralise. Particularly for “energy” and “food”, it is essential to evaluate their impact storylines in detail to identify major concerns and conflict ing arguments, so as to develop appropriate adaptation measures. 17 ES were distributed along the dividing line of quadrant III and IV, showing a medium relevance with no to small consensus of sensitivity. These ES are of minor priority for adaptation assessments in relation to those ES which lie in quadrant I. For 11 of these ES it was not possible to develop storylines and define impact trends considering the low number of experts who described potential developments. This indicates a high level of uncertainty. Especially regarding “habitat“, this uncertainty needs to be further examined. Although a high relevance could be identified and 26% of the experts mentioned this ES to be sensitive to climate change, only two experts were able to describe an impact trend.

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

Figure 9: Ecosystem services relevance-sensitivity matrix. ES relevance in median ranks from 1 (least important) to 25 (most important) based on experts’ ranking regarding the perceived relevance of 25 ES from Haida et al. (2015). Consensus of sensitivity of ES ES in percentage of the number of experts who mentioned the services when asked “Which ecosystem service is sensitive to climate change?” Climate change impact trends are indicated in different coloured shadings. Quadrants represent levels of priority intensity from I (high priority) to IV (minor priority) and were defined by the mean value of the range of ES relevance and sensitivity values.

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

4.4 Discussion Climate change impacts on ES at the local to regional scale are difficult to predict (APCC, 2014), and cannot always be decoupled from other global challenges, e.g. land use and socio-economic changes (de Vasconcelos et al., 2014; Chazal and Rounsevell, 2009). This difficulty is displayed in our case study results where it was not possible to describe impact scenarios for 11 ES. Moreover, for 5 ES the experts described several diverging scenarios, particularly, for “food“ and “energy“ . Impacts on “food“ must be differentiated since the complex topography of the study region will cause substantial changes to agricultural land -use, depending on crop type (Eitzinger et al., 2013; APCC, 2014). Whilst water intensive grassland areas might decrease (Schaumberger, 2012; Eitzinger et al., 2009; CH2014-Impacts, 2014), areas cultivated for thermophile crops such as wines and fruits might increase (Eitzinger et al., 2013; Europäische Akademie Bozen EURAC, 2012; CH2014-Impacts, 2014). Even though the knowledge base of climate change impacts on “food“ production is generally high, there is still the need to combine modelled simulations with experimental research (APCC, 2014) and to account for possible changes in the demand for “food“ (Poppy et al., 2014). Rising demand (Burkhard et al., 2012) might also be the case for “natural hazard regulation“ and “fresh water“. Like the experts implied, socio-economic developments will have an influence on the changing demand for “natural hazard regulation“; for example, settlements and infrastructure expanding into zones of higher risk leads to increasing exposure and vulnerability and thus to growing demand for “natural hazard regulation“ as a key component in an integrated natural hazard management. To identify ES at risk, an approach based exclusively on interviews is prone to be biased. For tangible services, like the hotspot ES, changes are easier to observe and thus might be mentioned more frequently than less tangible ES, such as “soil formation & fertility“. To interpret these results one ought to consider different motives which drive the experts’ assessments. These assessments could be based on personal conviction (e.g. religion), personal experience (e.g. observed changes), logic (i.e. causal relationships), or scientifically proven information. Lack of information and high levels of uncertainty might result into maladaptation (Andrade Pérez et al., 2010), and it is therefore important to design the interviews appropriately and if possible to try to complement the interview results with generally accepted literature. Uncertainties need to be considered with every decision which has unknown consequences (Tannert et al., 2007), and in case of climate change adaptation these decisions might carry severe risks. This study could identify two types of uncertainties: ambiguities and limited or not existing knowledge.

Ambiguities result out of diverging interpretative frames of interviewed experts on the same factual basis leading to a missing consensus on sensitivity, etc. This was

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

the case for all ES which had an inconsistent assessment. For such a situation, the International Risk Governance Council (2006) recommends a “participatory discourse” including civil society to discuss competing arguments, beliefs and values. As clearly shown by Brugnach et al. (2011), such a discourse can be based on different strategies, ranging from rational problem solving to oppositional modes of action. In case of EbA, participatory discourses focusing on dialogical learning or negotiations are suitable of tackling identified ambiguities (Brugnach and Ingram, 2012). In case of dialogical learning group model building or role playing games are conducted to create a shared framing of knowledge available by explorin g, enlarging and connecting existing individual frames (Ibid). In contrast, negotiations - taking place for example in participatory workshops - do not aim at shared framings but at ‘fair deals’, ideally ‘win -win’-solutions through strategic considerations of the stakeholders involved (Ibid). The second type of uncertainty resulted from limited or not existing knowledge and information, i.e. “the unknown”. ES for which it was not possible to define impact trends represent this type of uncertainty. To handle this type of uncertainty first the reason for the lack of knowledge needs to be identified. One reason is the missing exchange between stakeholders and researchers. In this case it is recommended to bridge the gap between science and practice for example by intensifying transdisciplinary research (Haida et al., 2015; Schröter et al., 2014) or engaging in innovative forms of knowledge transfer (Hauck et al., 2013; Klein et al., 2015). Another reason is general absence of knowledge and understanding of climate change processes and impacts and more research is needed (International Risk Governance Council, 2006). In both cases, however, after reaching an acceptable level of uncertainty, it is prudent to repeat phase 1 of the ES-based adaptation approach. However, when pursuing with the subsequent phases one has to bear this uncertainty in mind and formulate appropriate no or low -regret measures. In the case of this study the experts’ statements generally conformed with scientific knowledge. Therefore the presented approach proved to be valuable to scrutinize climate change impacts on ES, and to develop adaptation strategies and measures that are specifically designed for the regional needs. To this end the approach facilitates adaptation options which not only focus on ecological performance, resource extraction and provision of ES (Pramova et al., 2012), but also includes behavioural changes regarding consumption and demand. Stakeholders’ involvement is a prerequisite for education and capacity building, to move from short-term to long-term coping strategies. Despite the regionalization of adaptation needs and strategies (Pramova et al., 2012), the proposed process of identifying hotspot ES is applicable worldwide and is particularly valuable for regions with a low density of available data and high diversity of land cover/ land use. Nevertheless, the assessment of ES sensitivity could be improved, for example by asking the experts to rate ES sensitivity on a

Chapter 4 – Assessing ecosystem services’ sensitivity

scale, e.g. on a Likert scale. Distinguishing the interview partners between decision makers for assessing ES relevance, and experts for ES sensitivity could be beneficial for regions in which it is difficult to recruit suitable interview partners. In case of diverging arguments focus groups or round tables could foster finding consensus and understanding (Ross et al., 2015).

4.5 Conclusion This study presented and applied an approach for ecosystem services based climate adaptation assessment. This approach provides a novel hands-on decision support tool for planners and practitioners, which helps with identifying and prioritizing climate change impacts issues and, based on this, with developing appropriate adaptation measures at the local to regional level. This approach is particularly valuable for communities, municipalities or regional governments to address their specific needs within the range of their possibilities and resources. By including local knowledge this approach empowers community capacities and thus raises acceptance and pro-actively urges the development and implementation of adaptation measures. Moreover, the approach helps to identify different types of uncertainties and provides a guideline about how to handle these, thus reducing the risk of maladaptation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors are grateful to all interviewees for their input to this study. Special thanks go to Ulrike Tappeiner for her valuable input to the study design and to Andrew Greenbank for his thorough proofreading. This study was part of the project “SHIFT“ funded by the Austrian COMET programme and the Central Europe Programme project “Urban_WFTP - Urban Water Footprint: a new approach for water management in urban areas”.

Chapter 5 – Assessing adaptation options

5 Assessing adaptation options

This chapter pursues research objective 2) by putting phase IV of the approach for adaptation assessment into practice. It outlines unpublished results gathered during the previously described interviews with 53 professionals from nine thematic fields: soil science, forestry, agriculture, energy, meteorology, safety, planning, tourism and environmental protection. For a detailed description of the interview set up see Chapters 3 and 4.

METHODS Following the interview question discussed in Chapter 4 (“Please state which of these ES are sensitive to climate change and describe in which way they are affected”), the experts were then asked which of the mentioned ES are in need for adaptation, to state if adaptation was already happening, and if yes, to describe this, or if not, what kind of adaptation would be suitable. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Focusing on the six “hotspot ES” identified in Chapter 4, the data was analysed using the qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA 11. The data was manually coded according to these six ES as key themes. In a first step the principle argumentative point was extracted from each individual statement. In a second step the resulting arguments were then aggregated into groups of same adaptation options and measures.

RESULTS For all six ES the experts expressed adaptation need s and described adaptation options, although strictly interpreted, the experts described mitigation efforts regarding the ES “energy” (Table 4). For “tourism” five experts and for “fresh water” three experts stated that there is either no adaptation need or no interest for adaptation.

Chapter 5 – Assessing adaptation options

Table 4: Summary of adaptation and mitigation needs and options described by 53 experts.

How many How many How many How many experts stated no experts said this adaptation or experts mentioned Ecosystem Service need for ES to be sensitive mitigation options adaptation or adaptation or to climate change were mentioned mitigation options mitigation

Natural hazard 32 19 21 0 regulation Tourism 29 7 8 5 Fresh water 25 5 5 3 Water flow 19 5 7 0 regulation Food 10 10 8 0 Energy 28 9 13 0

Adaptation options and measures for “natural hazard regulation” included: maintaining hazard zone plans, sensitizing about remaining risk, better cooperation between active and passive protection approach, building bigger reservoirs for flood retention, cost-benefit analysis, cross-sectoral cooperation, early warning systems, expansion of monitoring networks, hazard -risk analysis, climate change impact analysis included into natural hazard modelling, management of bed load and mud slides, re-evaluating hazard zone plans, relocating of high risk infrastructure, rethinking the protection approach (i.e. what remaining risk is acceptable), rethinking future needs, sustainability certificates, strengthening the protective function of forests, strengthening the enforcement of hazard zone plans. Adaptation options and measures for “tourism” included: attracting different kinds of customers, rethinking usefulness of tourism, shifting holiday destinations to more suitable areas, investing into sustainable and regional tourism, snow making, reducing dependency on winter season, and regulation of selective investments.

Adaptation options and measures for “fresh water” included: reducing water consumption in agriculture for example by using traditional irrigation systems, protection of water bodies, keeping water in high altitudes by means of reservoirs, reducing water loss in pipes, awareness building regarding trans-regional responsibility for water access. Adaptation options and measures for “water flow regulation” included: adapting land use management, expanding forested areas, revitalizing upstream riverbeds, expanding (hydro-power) reservoir as flood retention measure, and general need for adaptation but no specific measures.

Chapter 5 – Assessing adaptation options

Adaptation options and measures for “food” included: awareness building for sustainable agriculture, adjusting and introducing better adapted species, developing a commonly applied adaptation strategy, developing crop protection measures, developing niche and high quality products, financial incentives to adapt land use management, doing more research and experiments to develop innovations, making the irrigation system more efficient, shifting cultivation area into more suitable areas/ altitudes, commencement of a general discussion about adaptation. Mitigation options and m easures for “energy” included: changing to alternative fuels e.g. hydrogen, reducing carbon emissions through awareness building of end - users to be more energy efficient, developing and implementing mandatory energy adaptation plans, investing into energy efficiency and saving, investing into carbon storage, expanding renewable energies, doing more research in the field of renewable energies, using local energy sources, financial incentives for renewable energies. The adaptation options detailed above, covered all categories described in Noble et al. (2014) as listed in Table 5, whilst mitigation measures only addressed the reduction of GHG emissions (Table 6).

Table 5: Number of experts who suggested adaptation options according to categories of adaptation options.

Structural & Institutional Ecosystem Service Social options physical options options Natural hazard regulation 6 11 10 Tourism 7 4 3 Fresh water 1 5 1 Water flow regulation 0 5 0 Food 2 5 1

Table 6: Number of experts who suggested mitigation options.

Reducing GHG Increasing carbon Ecosystem Service emissions sinks Energy 13 0

Chapter 5 – Assessing adaptation options

CONCLUSION Adaptation and mitigation measures and options can be applied to both the supply of and demand for ES. For example regarding “natural hazard regulation” some of the measures mentioned by the experts dealt with the supply, by enhancing the protective function of forests, in order to protect settlements and infrastructure from avalanches, rock fall and mud slides. At the same time the experts also suggested that the demand for “natural hazard regulation” needs to change and raised the question if it was necessary to maintain the widely extended infrastructure system in Austria by all means, despite high costs. In the case of “fresh water” 25 of the experts expected the supply of this ES to be at risk and negatively affected by climate change (Chapter 4). Despite the fact that “fresh water” was perceived as very important (Chapter 3), only five experts mentioned possible adaptation options, which primarily focused on the demand for “fresh water”. Moreover, three experts stated that there is no need at all for adaptation. This discrepancy suggests that stakeholders fail to comprehend the opportunities and possibilities to respond to or prepare for climate change impacts. For this reason, demand for “fresh water” was chosen as an example to develop and implement an approach to adapt local water consumption.

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

6 Adaptation in practice

This chapter pursues research objective 2) by putting phase V of the approach for adaptation assessment into practice. The corresponding article is currently

UNDER REVIEW AS Haida, C., Chapagain, A.K., Rauch, W., Riede, M. & K. Schneider: Water Footprint as a concept to adapt to climate change: capacity development with young people to save water. International Journal of Water Resources Development.

ABSTRACT Under climate change conditions, fresh water availability is predicted to decrease whilst demand for clean water is likely to increase. The water footprint (WF) concept helps to cope with this challenge by linking local consumption patterns with global dimensions. Here, new approaches are needed to empower consumers by communicating, assessing and improving the personal WF and thereby adapting to the impacts of climate change. This article presents a bottom -up approach which links the WF concept with climate change adaptation and capacity development, including five phases: 1) stakeholder engagement, 2) WF monitoring and assessment, 3) WF improvement development, 4) WF improvement implementation, 5) evaluation. The approach was developed and tested in cooperation with 38 pupils of a partner school in Innsbruck, Austria, with the aim to provide a starting point for WF assessment and to formulate an improvement response. The pupils were not only able to reduce their WF by approximately 9%, but also became agents of change and trained 214 pupils (810 people including their family members) in WF assessments. In conclusion, the approach supports young people to develop self-efficacy by learning the impacts of their own actions and gaining control over the effects of climate change. Thereby it provides a valuable tool to adapt to the impacts of climate change and reduces vulnerability.

KEYWORDS Climate Change Adaptation, Water Footprint, Water Management, Sustainable Development

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

6.1 Introduction The trend of ever increasing water demand has a significant impact on the quantity and quality of water available at local and global scales. This leads to loss of economic productivity, degraded ecosystems, poor hygiene and health, which results in higher death rates, social unrest, etc. (UNWWAP, 2015). With growing uncertainty of water availability in the face of climate change, governments, businesses and communities are becoming acutely vulnerable to a wide range of issues associated with limited access to clean water (Jiménez Cisneros et al., 2014). To sustainably supply water to the world’s population it will be necessary to adapt water resource management to future conditions. The water footprint (WF) concept helps to reduce global water consumption and thus provides a tool to adapt to the impacts of climate change by communicating, assessing and improving the WF (Chapagain et al., 2006). According to Hoekstra et al. (2011) the WF is an indicator of freshwater use which includes both direct and indirect water use of a consumer or a product, also defined as direct WF and indirect WF, respectively. This can be calculated for a specific product, process, person or region and generally consists of the three components: blue, green and grey WF (c.f. Hoekstra et al., 2011). Direct WF accounts for the direct consumption and pollution of freshwater caused by activities such as domestic water use for a person, operational water use in factories or businesses, and the use of internal national water resources for a country. The indirect WF is based on the concept of virtual water (Allan, 2003) and thus does not only account for the amount of water physically contained in a product, but also includes the amount of water which is used during the entire production process. By trading water intensive products, a country or a region creates “virtual water flows”. These can be instrumental in relieving the pressure on the internal water resources of a region, whilst creating dependencies on external water resources and vice versa (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2008).

WF assessments have been suggested to be an effective means of raising awareness of global water challenges among stakeholders outside the water sector (Chapagain and Tickner, 2012). Although efficient water use is essential for sustainable water use, a focus must also be made on the equitable and fair distribution of the limited resource. Therefore, there is an urgent need to evaluate the sustainability of current consumption patterns in the light of growing world population and the limited freshwater resources (Hoekstra, 2013). Under climate change conditions freshwater availability will decrease and become more unevenly distributed across the globe (IPCC, 2014a), whilst socioeconomic developments and population growth are predicted to increase the demand for water (UNWWAP, 2015). For example under a moderate to low population growth scenario from the UN, the freshwater availability in 2050 will be 835–1,045 m³/ year/ capita. This, however, is exceeded by current water demand, with a global average WF of 1,385 m³/ year/ capita, ranging

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

between 1,250–2,850 m³/ year/ capita in industrialized countries and 550–3,800 m³/ year/ capita in developing countries (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). The production of agricultural products is responsible for 70% of the total blue water withdrawals from aquifers, lakes and rivers (UNWWAP, 2015). Furthermore, including the green and grey WF components to the blue WF for food production, more than 90% of the global average WF is related to food consumption (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). Focusing on the food sector there are various levels and leverage points to reduce the WF and make it more sustainable:

 policy level: increasing the volumes of food which is traded through efficient trade relationships (Dalin et al., 2012) by encouraging an export of agricultural goods produced in water rich and water efficient regions to w ater scarce and less efficient regions considering other limited resources can result in a smaller usage of water per produced amount of crop and can save ~6% of water used in agriculture (Chapagain et al., 2006).

 producer level: increasing water productivity (i.e. the inverse of the virtual water content per product) of agricultural products and industrial processes (Vanham and Bidoglio, 2013),

 consumer level: changing peoples’ diet, for example reducing consumption of animal products (especially meat) has a large impact on the WF, as app. 50% of cereal production (in the EU) is used as fodder for animals (Vanham et al., 2013),

 all levels: reducing food losses (producer level) and food wastes (consumer level) along the entire food supply chain (Vanham and Bidoglio, 2013; Vanham et al., 2015); increasing awareness concerning the relation between a person’s behaviour and the WF, and the supply and demonstration of methods to reduce the WF. This demonstrates that good water governance requires a sharing of responsibility between consumers, governments, businesses and investors, with each playing different roles (Hoekstra, 2013). Consumers, however, are the biggest drivers and offer the greatest leverage for adaptation, as they are the key for the three remaining actors to change. To date, the WF concept has mainly been used to calculate the WF of a product, a company or nation, illustrating virtual water flows, connecting th ese with climate change scenarios and deriving potential water saving strategies (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011a; Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2008; Orlowsky et al., 2014; Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007). However, little work has been done to actually implement water saving strategies by applying the WF at the consumer level. To do so, a suitable approach is needed, which conducts bottom -up climate change adaptation by linking climate change with the WF. To achieve this, capacity development provides a suitable framework to encourage stakeholders to adapt and reduce their WF to

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

sustainable limits. According to UNDP (2008a, p. 4) capacity development is defined as “the process through which individuals, organizations and societies obtain, strengthen and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development objectives over time”. In this context, a successful WF adaptation approach needs to be sustainable, participative, long-term oriented, should have a multiplier effect and the outcomes need to be evaluated. Based on these requirements, this article presents an innovative bottom-up approach to improve the personal WF. By linking climate change adaptation with the WF concept and capacity development this novel approach provides a tool to empower individuals within their capabilities to adapt to the impacts of climate change. The objectives of this approach are to i) create awareness among young people regarding their water consumption habits and the consequences, ii) break down the abstract issue of global water management to personal consumption habits, iii) link global climate change impacts with local water consumption, and iv) empower young people to use their capabilities to take action in adapting to climate change. Thereby, the approach assists in responding to and preparing for climate change impacts on fresh water on the global scale and thus provides a valuable tool. The aim of this article is to describe this approach, followed by its practical implementation and evaluation in a regional case study.

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

6.2 Water Footprint approach Following the common process of capacity development (UNDP, 2008a) the WF adaptation approach (Figure 10) includes five sequential phases, which pursue an iterative process of design-application-learning adjustment, and incorporates current methods of climate change communication. The WF adaptation approach was designed to address young people, since they will be affected longer and more intensively by climate change and are in a stage of life in which fundamental values are developed; additionally, today’s children and teenagers will be the leading decision makers in the future. Empowerment through education has strong effects on reducing vulnerability to climate change and enhancing adaptive capacity (Lutz et al., 2014). Therefore, it is necessary to empower and integrate young people in the debate about climate change and sustainability of WFs as early as possible.

Figure 10: Water Footprint adaptation approach.

The first phase of the WF adaptation approach aims to engage and in troduce the relevant stakeholders, in this case young people, to the topic, by outlining the connection of the participants’ personal water consumption (and their WF) to climate change (adaptation). This is of high importance since for young people climate change is fundamentally about the ”here and now” (Corner et al., 2014). Therefore, describing the effects their actions will have undermines the u rgency of

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

the problem. In this phase, predominantly system knowledge (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn, 2008) will be imparted. This includes: climate change impacts on water availability, fundamental knowledge about the WF, WF of different products and activities (e.g. food, clothes, shower, washing up etc.), linking water consumption of the “here and now” with consequences on the other side of the world, illustrating how an improved and reduced WF relieves water stress elsewhere, and th us communicating WF as a tool to adapt to the impacts of climate change. The second phase aims to monitor the individual water consumption, to assess the personal WF and to identify improvement potential. The data collection may not necessarily focus on the calculation of an exact WF but rather on providing a starting point to reflect the personal WF and thus to be able to formulate a capacity development response (UNDP, 2008a). In general, people perceive climate change (impacts) as a menace to flora, fauna and p eople in other parts of the world, but do not see it as a local issue (Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, 2009). Furthermore, individuals often feel that their own actions have little impact and thus have little control over the effect of climate change (Payne, 2013). Therefore, developing self-efficacy among the participants is particularly emphasized in this phase, by training them to use the WF concept as a tool to adapt to climate change. Although fearful representations (of climate change) have much potential for attracting people's attention, fear in general is an ineffective tool to motivate genuine personal engagement (O'Neill and Nicholson-Cole, 2009; Moser, 2010). Therefore phase three builds on the potential for improvement, and initiates a co - developing process of WF improvement measures between scientists, practitioners and young people. Throughout the entire approach, but specifically in phase two and three, a moderate-constructivist understanding of learning is pursued (Riemeier, 2007). Thereby young people develop ownership for the particular measures and thus the probability to reduce their WF can be increased. Here pupils acquire necessary target knowledge (i.e. what are the sustainable limits of the personal WF) and transformation knowledge (i.e. how can behavioural patterns be overcome to ensure that these limits are not exceeded) to utilize their WF to adapt to climate change via improving their WF (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn, 2008). In phase four, participants implement the measures which have been developed in cooperation with scientists and practitioners. On the one hand, they attempt to implement the measures individually and on the other hand, they also try to convince as many others as possible to also participate. Thereby, the approach makes use of existing evidence to empower children and teenagers as change agents within their communities (Mitchell et al., 2008; Haynes et al., 2010; Tanner, 2010; Tanner et al., 2009). The fifth and final phase, evaluates the effectiveness of the WF adaptation approach on both levels the cognitive and the behavioural. The cognitive evaluation assesses

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

the lessons learned, the usefulness and applicability of the capacity development. To evaluate potential behavioural changes, the personal WF of the participants is monitored and assessed a second time. Such a pre-intervention and post- intervention comparison of WFs in combination with the cognitive evaluation provides insights into the impact and efficacy of the entire approach.

6.3 Application of the approach

6.3.1 Case study set up Austria with its Alpine landscape is often regarded as a water tower, which supplies freshwater to neighbouring countries. However, Austria is actually a net importer of virtual water often with imports from water scarce regions, such as Spain, or regions which experience severe environmental problems from agricultural intensification, such as Argentina or Uzbekistan (Vanham, 2012). Some of these locations where the external WF of Austria is located, are exposed to the risk of less water availability and associated vulnerabilities due to changing precipitation patterns under climate change scenarios and these links of virtual water flows might not be sustainable (Konar et al., 2013). This emphasises the urgent need to adapt water consumption also in regions which do not directly experience water stress or scarcity. For these reasons Austria was selected, and a pilot study carried out with a partner school in Innsbruck, with whom this approach was developed and implemented. Two classes from one school participated in the study, which included four sequential workshops, each lasting two hours. In total 38 pupils, aged 16-18 years, took part in all activities running over 1.5 years in 2013-2014.

6.3.2 Methods The four workshops corresponded with the five previously described phases. In the 1st workshop the pupils acquired necessary system knowledge in order to engage them with the topic and were trained to assess their personal WF. To monitor and subsequently calculate their WF before the intervention, the pupils used a check list. This list was specifically designed to be practical and feasible in daily life and contained 21 different water consumption categories (Table 7). The categories were limited to those that use most water and in sum amount to almost the complete daily water consumption. Over a period of 28 days in autumn 38 pupils marked every consum ed unit per category on a weekly basis. In order to get the entire family involved and so to reach more people, the families’ consumption was included in the monitoring as well. The monitoring was limited to the water consumption which took place at home, as it was not practicable for the pupils to track down the entire consumption of every family member during the

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

day when they were not at home. The check list included also additional information, such as number of people living in the same household, existing garden and size, existing swimming pool and size.

Table 7: Water consumption categories which were monitored by 38 pupils and marked per consumption unit. The volume per consumption category of direct water use (abstraction) is based on Neunteufel et al. (2012), where it was assumed that one unit of direct water use equals one unit direct water footprint. Indirect water volumes are based on Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2011b) and Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012). Volume per Consumption ID Consumption category consumption unit [L] Direct water 1 Washing machine younger 5y. per use 44 2 Washing machine older 5y. per use 100 3 Dish-washer younger 5y. per use 16 4 Dish-washer older 5y. per use 50 5 Dishes hand per use 35 6 Brushing teeth water running per use 1.7 7 Brushing teeth water turned off per use 5.2 8 WC eco-button per use 3 9 WC normal button per use 7 10 Showers per use 36 11 Baths per use 76 12 Car washed per use 100 Indirect water 13 Coffee cup 132 14 Tea cup 27 15 Dairy products kg 1675 16 Eggs piece 196 17 Fruits kg 1000 18 Vegetables kg 300 19 Meat kg 7220 20 Cereal products kg 1600 per piece at 21 Jeans cloths 8000 home

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

Based on this monitoring data the pupils calculated their personal WF as:

[Litre/ Capita/ Day]

∑

where consID refers to the sum of consumption marks per water consumption category on the check list, VID to the water volume used per consumption in Table 7, d to the amount of days the monitoring took place, and p to the number of people living in the household. The WF results were presented and discussed in a 2nd workshop. To develop WF improvement strategies and measures the pupils worked in small focus groups in a 3rd workshop. The aim was to develop and define concrete measures for each individual to improve their personal WF. Out of these, ever y pupil chose 2-3 measures and implemented them for 6 weeks.

The cognitive evaluation took place in a 4th workshop. By means of individual questionnaires the pupils were asked to rate the contribution of each of their implemented measures to reduce their WF (high, small, none) and whether it was easy or difficult to implement their measures. To evaluate long term behavioural changes, in addition to the first WF monitoring period (pre-intervention WF assessment) a second monitoring (post-intervention) took place one year later and 31 of the pupils monitored their water consumption for one week, following the same method as before.

6.3.3 Results The total WF of the pre-intervention monitoring was 1,965 L/ C/ D, with the weekly WF ranging between ±6%. Due to this narrow range, the post-intervention monitoring was shortened to only one week.

Before the intervention the pupils had an average direct WFpers of 86.6 L/ C/ D, which they were able to reduce by -11.9% (Figure 11). Showers (ID10) accounted for the highest water consumption before and after the intervention. The WF of using older washing machines (ID2) was reduced by -43%. Also the use older dish washers (ID4) could be reduced by 23%, which was caused by some families who instead washed their dishes by hand. Another trade-off was discernible from changing from using the normal toilet button (ID9) to instead using the eco-button (ID8) more often.

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

Figure 11: Direct water footprint comparison before and after the intervention. Water co nsumption categories are listed in Table 7.

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

Figure 12: Indirect water footprint comparison before and after the intervention. Water consumption categories are listed in Table 7.

The total indirect WFpers could be reduced by -9.2% from 1,879 L/ C/ D to 1,706L/ C/ D (Figure 12). This was mainly caused by a reduced consumption of dairy products (-44%; ID17) and cereal products (-32%; ID19). Consumption of meat products (ID20) accounted for the highest consumption before and after the intervention and was the only category which increased notably by +95 L/ C/ D (+12.1%) in the post-intervention phase.

The reduction of the total WFpers could be achieved through 16 different improvement measures, which were developed and implemented by the pupils (Table 8). The majority (52.8%) of the pupils chose to reduce their meat consumption. The reduction rates ranged from a general “eat less meat” to “eat meat only once per week”. This was followed by re-using PET bottles (47.2%) and having shorter showers (41.7%). In total the pupils choose 10 measures which reduced the indirect WF and six measures which addressed direct WF. Although these measures were implemented for only six weeks, they seemed to have a longer lasting effect on their water consumption behaviour, as the post-intervention WFpers assessment was 8 months after the implementation period. Although the pupils knew about the high WF of meat products and the majority chose to reduce their meat consumption, the comparison of the pre- and post- intervention showed a notable increase. Evaluating the WF improvement measures,

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

56% of the pupils confirmed that this measure was particularly difficult to be applied. This might be the reason why 50% also rated it as being hardly effective. This shows that the willingness to change consumption behaviour highly depends on personal preferences and could result in lack of confidence in the effectiveness. Moreover, young people often have limited control over their food consumption, as they are embedded in the family background.

Table 8: Measures which were implemented over 6 weeks, with the number of students in % who implemented each of the measures.

Students WF Measure [%] type Eat less meat 52,8 Virtual Re-use PET bottles 47,2 Virtual Shorter shower 41,7 Direct Turning of tap 19,4 Direct Eco button (toilette) 19,4 Direct Tea instead of coffee / less coffee 19,4 Virtual Shower instead of bath 16,7 Direct More regional/ seasonal products 16,7 Virtual Separating waste 13,9 Virtual Only full loads with dish washer / washing machine 8,3 Direct Tap water instead of bottled water 5,6 Virtual Use more public transport 5,6 Virtual Airing cloths instead of washing 2,8 Direct More organic products 2,8 Virtual No new cloths in the next six weeks 2,8 Virtual Cloth bag instead of plastic bag 2,8 Virtual "Water week" 100 Both

In addition to these measures, the pupils had the common desire to further spread the idea of saving water via adjusting the WFpers, which resulted in organising a so called “water week” at their school. The aim of the “water week” was to raise awareness amongst their fellow pupils. Therefore, the pupils acted as agents of change and organised and ran an information desk at their school for one week. Here their fellow pupils had the possibility to be informed about various water related issues e.g. accounting their WF and water saving options. Such a follow up campaign proved to be beneficial as additionally 214 pupils (810 people if the family members are included) were convinced to measure their WF for one week, using the same method.

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

6.4 Discussion To interpret the WF and formulate an appropriate response, Hoekstra et al. (2011) recommended a sustainability analysis by comparing the size of the WF with respect to environmental, social and economic issues. The sustainability of WFs can be evaluated regarding two criteria. In case of process efficiency, comparing benchmark values of similar processes and activities under similar conditions is one option. Another option is a geographic hotspot check, which examines if the collective WF of all users which are located within the same river basin does not exceed the sustainable limits regarding quantity and quality. In the case of products, such as crops, there are some global benchmark values available (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2013). This is certainly a way forward on a regional or national basis for agricultural or industrial products or production processes. However, benchmarking of personal WFs demands complex assessments, wh ich also include the socio-cultural context, assessment methods, data used, study aim etc. A simple comparison of the total WF value from this study (1,965 L/ C/ D) with the WF calculated by Vanham (2012) for Austria (4,377 L/ C/ D) shows this discrepancy. Reasons are differing quantities of food intake and included product groups, possibly caused by unreliable self-reporting of the pupils’ own consumption and in particular that of their family member. However, as it was not the aim of this study to calculate and exact WF, instead it might be more reasonable to relate the WF to other data on the basis of the separate components of the WF or the underlying consumption pattern. For Austria, this was possible by using Neunteufel et al. (2012) regarding the direct WF and using Statistik Austria (2011) and FAOSTAT (2009) regarding the indirect WF. Although the pupils’ WF was generally slightly lower, the pupils’ consumption pattern matched well with the statistical data. Differences were mainly caused by less use of toilets and less coffee consumed. This was a result of the limitation of water consumption to water that was consumed only at home and the generally lower average age of the case study participants, respectively. In addition the monitored categories did not encompass all water related uses but only the most significant ones. Regardless of exactly what data is used to set the WF into relation, it is crucial to formulate a response, which is backed by all participants. To achieve this, the bottom-up approach proved to be very effective and the participants were able to improve their WF. To further refine the WF improvement, distinguishing between green, blue and grey water has been suggested (Hoekstra et al., 2011). This is a viable approach when addressing commodity flows and agricultural processes; however on the consumer level, like in this case study, this might not be a very useful concept. Reasons are that on the one hand consumers have little to no knowledge or information on the different water components in their consumed products and on the other hand sustainability labels, which indicate this information, proved to be of little

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

motivation for consumers to choose their products appropriately (Grunert et al., 2014). On the producer level, however, increasing the WF knowledge of their products might be helpful to increase the water productivity (Wang et al., 2014). In this case, bottom-up approaches such as capacity development are essential (Kijne et al., 2009) and combined with institutional top -down approaches, such as financial incentives, this might lead to widely accepted improvements. While not directly transferable, the WF adaptation approach developed herein might serve as a role model also for bottom -up approaches at the production side of water intensive goods. In this case study the consumption of food accounted for the largest part of the personal WF, with the consumption of meat products contributing particularly. This consumption pattern matched well with records on the Austrian nutritional status (Elmadfa, 2012). In relation to the remaining food groups which were monitored, the amount of daily meat consumption exceeded recommendations of a general healthy nutrition by DACH (2000) more than twofold. Changes in the diet, with a shift from a meat dominated nutrition to a healthier more balanced diet have been suggested to improve the WF substantially (Vanham et al., 2013; Ercin and Hoekstra, 2014). In this context, the presented approach helps to communicate and to promote a healthier diet and thus contributes to a sustainable supply of food and advances the millennium development goal (United Nations, 2014).

6.5 Conclusion This study implemented and evaluated a tool in form of an innovative participatory adaptation approach to improve the personal WF by linking climate change adaptation with the WF concept and capacity development by means of a bottom - up workshop cycle. The evaluation of the implementation proved the approach to be very efficient considering that with comparably moderate financial efforts, the awareness of the pupils on the matter could be increased and thereby a measurable reduction of the personal WF achieved. This approach was particularly successful since the pupils acted as multipliers and disseminated the WF concept and water saving measures not only among their own families, but they were also able to encourage another 214 pupils (810 people including their family members) to participate and measure their WF. This shows that with little technological effort, water saving measures can be implemented by fostering capacity development. Also, promoting the WF via capacity development contributes to cognitive and behavioural transformation such as rethinking consumerism regarding water intensive products, reducing meat consumption and thus providing for a health ier diet and reducing the waste of direct water at home. This transformation is likely to foster acceptance of complementary top-down measures and contributes to a sustainable development.

Chapter 6 – Adaptation in practice

Although the WF adaptation approach achieved remarkable improvements, some unanswered questions remain, such as: how exactly does the improvement of the WF in the “here and now” affect water resource management in other parts of the world considering climate change impacts? To better connect the “here” with the “there” it could be helpful to personalize virtual water flows on the basis of local consumption and behavioural pattern. Such personalized virtual water flows, similar to national virtual water flows (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2008), might demonstrate the links from the location where the personal WF is produced to where the WF is consumed. Connecting the personal WF production site with local climate scenarios, in a second step, could help to illustrate the far -reaching impacts of one’s own activities. Following the general set up of the WF adaptation approach, it would be then prudent to formulate a capacity development response, focusing on WF improvement measures which are applicable for consumers. To do so, however, more research is needed to comprehensively elucidate the impacts these measures would have on the production site. Thereby people will be prepared to respond to climate change by giving them the opportunity to develop self-efficacy. By emphasising how their individual actions can make a difference they gain control over the effects of climate change and reduce their vulnerability. In order to further promote the application of the WF concept at an early age of education and foster capacity development in managing natu ral resources, such as water in this case, the approach can be refined and extended and meet the educational needs of different school and age levels. Developing a user -friendly monitoring device with an incorporated calculator, tailored to the appropriate level of knowledge, is a pre-requisite for reliability of reporting and to speed up the adaptation process and provides a means for benchmarking.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Special thanks go to the pupils and their teachers who worked intensively for over one year. The presented approach was developed and tested within a so called Urban Water Lab, which was part of the Central Europe Programme project “Urban_WFTP - Urban Water Footprint: a new approach for water management in urban areas”.

Chapter 7 – Monitoring and evaluation

7 Monitoring and evaluation possibilities

This chapter pursues research objective 2). Putting phase VI of the approach for adaptation assessment into practice was not possible within the timeframe of this thesis, therefore this chapter gives a brief overview of possibilities to measure, monitor and evaluate adaptation. Having a real time feedback loop at the end of the adaptation assessment, helps to iteratively improve the entire process and to respond to the changing needs of people and to external constraints such as climate change, socio-economic changes and governance structures. In this way, reflection can be provided on the relevance, efficiency, consistency and/ or effectiveness of the adaptation, and maladaptation can be avoided. In their extensive review on measuring adaptation Noble et al. (2014) suggested three types of metrics: vulnerability metrics, metrics for resource allocation and metrics for monitoring and evaluation, with the measurement of vulnerability being the focal point of all three.

Measuring the effectiveness of adaptation actions is most difficult, as it takes time for the effects to become identifiable, and also there is a existing general lack of commonly applied measurements and metrics to track and evaluate adaptation implementation (Noble et al., 2014). According to Arnell (2010) developing appropriate tools, methods and measurements would encourage this process. Preston et al. (2011) described three reasons why evaluating adaptation is important: 1) ensuring reduction in societal and ecological vulnerability, 2) learning and adaptive management and 3) need for accountability in an evidence-based policy environment. As climate change adaptation typically focuses on different adaptation aims and goals, it includes various recommendations, uses m ultiple strategies, engages several participants and often has a cross-sectorial character, there is no single framework to monitor and evaluate the adaptation effectiveness (Sanahuja, 2011). Several international organisations have developed guides on how to monitor and evaluation adaptation, including: UNDP (2007), UNDP (2008b), McKenzie Hedger et al. (2008), World Resources Institute (2009), UNFCCC (2010b), World Bank (2010) and GIZ (2011). Adaptation monitoring and evaluation can be either output or outcome oriented. Noble et al. (2014) pointed out that output oriented evaluation can be comparatively easy and objective, as it targets on the completion of processes and implementation. Whereas outcome oriented evaluation is more subjective, as it focuses on the long term changes, for example reduced vulnerability of livelihoods, and reduced risks, and there might be long time lags before changes can be measured or observed.

Chapter 7 – Monitoring and evaluation

Therefore adaptation monitoring and evaluation requires careful planning, a clearly defined objective (i.e. what is to be evaluated, output or outcome), establishing indicators and an appropriate timeframe.

Chapter 8 – Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts

8 Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts

This chapter pursues research objective 3) and elaborates the mutual influence of ES and mitigation, by using the example of expanding renewable energies and their impacts on ES.

PUBLISHED AS Hastik, R., Basso, S, Geitner, C., Haida, C., Poljanec, A., Portaccio, A., Vrščaj, B., Walzer, C. (2015). Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 48, 608-623. Doi:10.10.16/ j.rser.2015.04.004

ABSTRACT Expansion of renewable energies (=RE) is a key measure in climate change mitigation. For this expansion mountainous areas are regarded as specifically suitable because of their high-energy potential. However, mountains also are biodiversity hot-spots and provide scenic landscapes and therefore offer high natural and cultural value. Preserving this natural and cultural value whilst intensifying RE, is expected to increase land use conflicts. This is of great concern in particular for vulnerable areas such as the Alps. Reconciling RE expansion with the preservation of natural and cultural values and thus minimizing environmental impacts represents one of the most important challenges now. For this a systematic assessment of the wide range of impacts is needed. This literature review scrutinizes RE resources which are relevant in the Alpine region and their effects on the environment by applying the Ecosystem Service approach. Thereby, we identified possible environmental constraints when exploiting Alpine RE potentials and generated recommendations for future strategies on expanding RE. The outcomes highlight the strong need for interdisciplinary research on RE and environmental conflicts. Interdisciplinary approaches such as the concept of Ecosystem Services can help to cover the wide range of aspects associated with these particular human – environment interrelations.

KEYWORDS Renewable energy; Ecosystem services; Alps; Environmental conflicts

The original research article can be found in the Appendix 2

Chapter 9 – Conclusion

9 Conclusion

9.1 Synopsis of achievements of research objectives This thesis contributed to the understanding of the interactive process and mutual influence of ES with climate change responses. In particular it was investigated how the concept of ES can be utilized to assess adaptation and mitigation. To do so, three research objectives were defined:

1) Developing an approach for adaptation assessment of multiple ES The adaptation approach developed within this work followed the four consecutive steps suggested by IPCC (2014a): (1) impact, vulnerability or resilience assessment, (2) identifying adaptation needs, (3) selecting or developing adaptation options and measure, and (4) planning and implementing adaptation action. Such assessments need to include several ES in order to reduce the risk of unintended trade-offs and resulting maladaptation (Haida et al., 2015; Briner et al., 2013b). To be able to account for multiple ES and to meet regional requirements, the suggestion from IPCC (2014a) had to be slightly modified . For this reason the first step suggested by IPCC (2014a) was split up into the two separate phases: (I) assessing ES relevance and (II) assessing ES sensitivity to climate change and developing ES impact storylines. This distinction was necessary, since adaptation is predominantly implem ented on a local to regional scale (Tompkins and Adger, 2004) and it is therefore important to account for the needs and constraints of a specific region. Consequently, it was necessary to examine whether ES might be affected by climate change, but are of minor relevance for a specific region and therefore could be excluded from the su bsequent phases.

IPCC (2014a) applies the evaluation and measurement of adaptation only to the adaptation implementation. However, for this work the monitoring and evaluation was understood as a feedback of the entire process and therefore was assigned to its own phase (VI Monitoring and evaluation) at the end of the adaptation assessment. The developed approach herein combined elements from first and second generation assessments, as both types of assessments have their advantages and disadvantages. For example, this included a sensitivity and impact assessment (first generation). However, the assessment was not based on a long modeling process, but instead involved regional stakeholders in a participative manner (second generation). Moreover, the approach didn’t end with identified needs and recommendations on adaptation strategies as it is typical for first generation , but carried on with developing adaptation options and implemented specific adaption action (second generation).

Chapter 9 – Conclusion

This way it was possible to include several ES in the earlier phases of the approach, to then step by step identify priority areas and finally to develop specifically designed adaptation action for those ES in need.

2) Putting this approach into practice and testing it by means of consecutive case studies. Five of the six phases developed within research objective 1) were applied and tested. Phases I to IV were applied within the same case study, used the same data source and were successively based on each other.

PHASE (I) aimed to prioritize ES according to how their regional importance was perceived by stakeholders. It was assumed that this perceived importance might vary from region to region (Koellner, 2009; Martín-López et al., 2012) and therefore three alpine regions were compared. ES which satisfy basic needs were perceived to be most important, followed by ES related to safety and security needs, and finally cultural ES. Furthermore, ES research indicated that some ES receive considerable more attention than others (Haida et al., 2015), which might lead to discrepancies between science (which ES are at the focus of research) and practice (which ES are perceived as important). For this reason , it was investigated whether research intensity followed the perceived importance and to draw conclusions on how to best bridge the gap between ES science and ES practice.

PHASE (II) helped describing the sensitivity of multiple ES to climate change and to develop storylines regarding the impacts climate change is likely to have on ES.

In PHASE (III) a novel decision support tool was developed , which made it possible to overlay the results from (I) and (II) and so to support planners and practitioners in identifying priority areas for action. Six ES could be identified to be in need for adaptation. Moreover, by including regional knowledge, the proposed method was found to be particularly valuable for communities, municipalities or regional governments to address their specific needs within the range of their possibilities and resources.

PHASE (IV) aimed at identifying appropriate adaptation and mitigation options for the six ES recognised in phase (III). These included options which were already in existence and suggestions for the development of future options. The identified options could be applied to both the supply of and demand for ES. In the case of “fresh water” a discrepancy between adaptation needs and potential adaptation options could be detected, which suggested a lack of comprehension about how to respond to or prepare for climate change. In this way phase (IV) helped to further narrow down priority areas and to finally develop a specifically designed adaptation measure for “fresh water”

Chapter 9 – Conclusion

PHASE (V) aimed at developing and implementing adaption action for “fresh water”. There are only limited possibilities to effectively influence the supply of “fresh water” (here understood as the availability of freshwater), as it ultimately depends on precipitation. Therefore adaptation options usually deal with the management of available water resources and applying measures which focus on restoring, protecting, conserving and storing of water resources through e.g. rainwater harvesting, specific land use/ land cover management, water reuse, improving water use efficiency and desalination (Jiménez Cisneros et al., 2014). As the demand for “fresh water” and water use efficiency was found to be the most pressing issue, this phase developed and implemented an approach to ad just local water consumption. To do so an innovative approach was developed which connected local with global water consumption, by linking the water footprint concept with bottom -up climate change adaptation and capacity development.

3) Elaborating the mutual influence of ES and mitigation, by using the example of expanding renewable energies and their impact on ES Expanding renewable energies is regarded as a key measure in climate change mitigation, which leads to an exploitation of ecosystem-based energy sources and an intensification of the supply of this ES. This, however, is controversial in respect to land use competition and social acceptance. Moreover, trade-offs with other ES are likely to occur, which could be beneficial or harmful. A systematic approach could counteract this development, by making the consequences more transparent and thus support decision-making processes. To develop such an approach within this work, at first the impacts of several renewable energies sources on multiple ES had to be comprehensively reviewed, elaborated and compared. Based on this, various conflicting areas could be identified and prioritized , and key recommendations derived to reconcile the expansion of renewable energies with the provision of other ES.

Chapter 9 – Conclusion

9.2 Ecosystem Services - an inter- and transdisciplinary concept In recent decades global problems have occurred, which require a broad view and necessitate the combined effort of multiple disciplines and perspectives (Costanza and Kubiszewski, 2012), for example climate change. Understanding and solving the challenge of climate change can only be possible via interdisciplinary collaboration, cooperation, networks and concepts (Bill and Klein, 2000). One such concept is ecosystem services, as it aims at bridging nature with society, and thus inherently also bridging natural sciences with social science.

Figure 13: Positioning of ecosystem services between the natural and societal sphere. Based on Haines- Young and Potschin (2010, p. 116) and Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz (1999, p. 242).

Following the model by TEEB (2010) and the cascade model by Haines-Young and Potschin (2010), ES can be placed in the middle of the overlap between nature and society (Figure 13). Ecosystem properties, structures and functions, also referred to as the capability of an ecosystem to operate (Jax, 2010), are placed on the left, as the natural sphere gives rise to and acts as supplier of ES. In the earlier stages of ES research natural science disciplines, primarily ecology, tried to assess, evaluate and map this supply. On the right side, society demands and uses ES, because their benefits contribute to human well-being. In the beginning social sciences, predominantly economics, focused on assessing how ES contribute to human well- being by assigning monetary values. In recent years, however, this disciplinary dominance and segmentation has begun to dissolve, as many more facets have been identified as relevant, so as to comprehensively elaborate ES with all its aspects. The original intention of the cascade model as suggested by Haines-Young and Potschin (2010) was to highlight the essential elements and to understand how nature links to human well-being. This means that for a comprehensive analysis of ES, all

Chapter 9 – Conclusion

contributing elements and their relationships have to be considered together (Potschin and Haines-Young, 2011). Although the ES concept was originally mainly embedded in ecology and economics, nowadays it engages and draws from multiple disciplines, such as biology, silviculture, agricultural science, hydrology, engineering, law, sociology, anthropology, planning, architecture, geography, and many more. This interdisciplinarity can be both helpful and hindering, considering that different disciplines often have a different understanding of the same terms, pursue different goals and apply different methods and thus adding to the complexity of the concept (Norgaard, 2010; Huutoniemi et al., 2010). This complexity might also be the reason, why the ES concept is still not fully incorporated in practice. At the same time, interdisciplinarity facilitates the development and application of integrative approaches (Tress et al., 2005). For this reason, this work specifically sought to engage various disciplinary perspectives, by bringing together contributors such as co-authors and stakeholders from different fields, including ecology, hydrology, engineering, education, communication and geography. However, this work became truly integrative by also bridging science with practice by means of transdisciplinary research. Transdisciplinary research is understood in different ways internationally, ranging from a vague concept of complementing and sharing different disciplinary approaches (Nicolescu, 2002) to participatory research with stakeholder involvement (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008). Wiesmann et al. (2008, p. 435) defined it as “research that includes cooperation within the scientific community and a debate between research and the society at large. Transdisciplinary research therefore transgresses boundaries between scientific disciplines and between science and other societal fields and includes deliberation about facts, practices and values”. The process of transdisciplinary research includes three key knowledge components: system knowledge, target knowledge and transformation knowledge (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn, 2008). Accordingly, in Chapters 3 to 5, this work integrated predominantly system knowledge from science and society to value ES relevance, assess climate change impacts on ES and to identify current and future practices for ES based adaptation. Stakeholders from specifically chosen thematic backgrounds (incl. meteorology, soil science, safety, forestry, agriculture, tourism, planning, environmental protection, energy) were engaged in order to capture a holistic and comprehensive view of ES, their contributing elements and relationships. While engaging young people, Chapter 6 produced both target knowledge, in order to determine goals for better responding to climate change, and transformation knowledge, to investigate how these goals can be achieved and existing practices changed. By bridging different disciplines and target groups, and integrating heterogeneous knowledge forms, this work was able to produce a problem-solving contribution on

Chapter 9 – Conclusion

how to utilize ES to respond to climate change. Thereby the quality, acceptance and sustainability of climate change responses could be improved.

9.3 Outlook and further research need This work could contribute significantly to the understanding of how ES can be utilized to respond to climate change. Nevertheless, some research gaps still remain, and also some new questions arise, as summarised under the four following points:

1. Better understanding of the links and synergies of adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development Adaptation and mitigation are responses to help reduce climate risks, which complement and depend on each other. However, they do so at different time scales and regional extents. In case multiple ES are utilized, not all adaptation and mitigation efforts are sustainable. For example, climate projections indicate an increased need for irrigation for water intensive crops in certain areas, such as grassland (see also Chapter 4.4). However, simply increasing irrigation might not be sustainable in the Alps. As experts expressed in Chapter 4.3.3, retreating glaciers and consequently decreasing discharge might limit the amount of available water for irrigation, evoking an increasing call for more efficient irrigation systems (Chapter 5). This illustrates the need to consider several ES and to assess how they are interrelated. Therefore, future ES research needs to focus on benefits and synergies, and how these can be enhanced, and also on determining and reducing limitations and harmful trade-offs in the context of utilizing ES for adaptation and mitigation. Particularly, reviews which examine already implemented adaptation and mitigation actions in respect to these points can offer new insights.

2. Relationship of ES supply with demand In recent years climate change has increasingly become a topic of studies within the ES community. Until now, these studies predominantly explored the impacts on supply of ES, whilst changing demand caused by climate and socio-economic changes has received little attention. In this context, demand for and the actual use of ES can both increase and decrease, caused by several reasons such as behavioural, financial, legislative and demographic forces. Building on the above mentioned research need, in order to fully comprehend the relationships between adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development, process dynamics of ES supply and demand must be integrated. This requires developing a framework which conceptualizes interdependencies between ecological and societal subsystems on the basis of varying ES supply and demand. Such a framework should also account for the different scales at which supply and demand take place, as discussed in Haida et al. (2015).

Chapter 9 – Conclusion

3. Illustrating the outcome of adaptation efforts As described in Chapter 1.2, adaptation can take place in a bottom-up or top-down way. Although top-down adaptation has been undertaken more frequently in the past, generally focusing on policies, legislation, financial incentives and local to national authorities (Adger et al., 2007), recently it has been assumed that only the combination of both bottom-up and top-down approaches can achieve sustainable results (Fujisawa et al., 2015; Butler et al., 2015; Mimura et al., 2014). In order to motivate individuals to undertake bottom-up adaptations it is therefore necessary to demonstrate the effects their own actions might have. As discussed in Chapter 6, in the case of using the water footprint concept to adapt to climate change, developing personalized virtual water flows on the basis of local consumption and behavioural patterns could be helpful.

4. Better incorporation of ecosystem services into practice

Since its emergence the ES concept has quickly gathered momentum and gained visibility in academia and to some extend in practice, despite several critiques on the concept. Schröter et al. (2014) summarised these critiques in seven main points, including counter-arguments: 1) environmental ethics and anthropocentric focus, 2) imbalanced human-nature relationship and human exploitation of nature, 3) conflicts of the ES concept with biodiversity conservation, 4) economic valuation, 5) commodification and “selling-out” of ES, 6) vagueness of definitions and classifications, and 7) normative aims of ES and idealisation of nature. These seven points add to the complexity of the concept, hindering its full integration into practice. To overcome this challenge and to securely embed the ES concept in practice Schaefer et al. (2015) and Guerry et al. (2015) suggested to further advance the following aspects: 1) increasing the understanding and general awareness of the linkage and interdependency of ES with human well-being, 2) enhancing interdisciplinary collaborations to progress understanding of ES supply and value, and of the impacts governance, policies and management have on ES, 3) improving monitoring and evaluation to better assess the status of ES, and the impacts of governance, policies and management, and 4) implementing this gained knowledge to strengthen decision-making processes, in particular in the context of managing ES sustainably (see also Martinez-Harms et al., 2015). Further progress with these aspects, and thereby better integrating ES into practice, would also significantly increase the opportunities to utilize ES for climate adaptation and mitigation.

References

Adger, N.W., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M.M.Q., Conde, C., O'Brian, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R.S., Smit, B. and Takahashi, K. (2007), “Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity”, in IPCC (Ed.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, pp. 717–743. Adger, W.N. (2010), “Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change”, in Voss, M. (Ed.), Der Klimawandel: Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven, 1.th ed., VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 327–345. Adger, W.N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D.R., Naess, L.O., Wolf, J. and Wreford, A. (2009), “Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change?”, Climatic Change, Vol. 93, pp. 335–354. Agrawal, A., Nepstad, D. and Chhatre, A. (2011), “Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 373–396. Alexandratos, N. and Bruinsma, J. (2012), World agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision, ESA Working paper No. 12-03, Rome. Allan, J.A. (2003), “Virtual Water - the water, food, and trade nexus. Useful concept or misleading metaphor?”, Water International, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 106–113. Andrade Pérez, A., Herrera Fernández, B. and Cazzolla Gatti, R. (Eds.) (2010), Building resilience to climate change: Ecosystem-based adaptation and lessons from the field, no. 9, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Angelsen, A. (Ed.) (2008), Moving ahead with REDD: issues, options and implications, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia. APCC (2014), Österreichischer Sachstandsbericht Klimawandel 2014: Austrian Panel on Climate Change (APCC), Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissensch aften, Wien. Arnell, N.W. (2010), “Adapting to climate change. An evolving research programme”, Climatic Change, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 107–111. Auer, I., Böhm, R., Jurkovic, A., Lipa, W., Orlik, A., Potzmann, R., Schöner, W., Ungersböck, M., Matulla, C., Briffa, K., Jones, P., Efthymiadis, D., Brunetti, M., Nanni, T., Maugeri, M., Mercalli, L., Mestre, O., Moisselin, J.-M., Begert, M., Müller-Westermeier, G., Kveton, V., Bochnicek, O., Stastny, P., Lapin, M., Szalai, S., Szentimrey, T., Cegnar, T., Dolinar, M., Gajic-Capka, M., Zaninovic, K., Majstorovic, Z. and Nieplova, E. (2007), “HISTALP - historical instrumental climatological surface time series of the Greater Alpine Region”, International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 27, pp. 17–46. Baker, I., Peterson, A., Brown, G. and McAlpine, C. (2012), “Local government response to the impacts of climate change. An evaluation of local climate adaptation plans”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 107, pp. 127–136. Bill, A. and Klein, J.T. (2000), “Why a globalized world needs transdisciplinarity”, in Klein, J.T., Häberli, R., Scholz, R.W., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Bill, A. and Welti, M. (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: An effective way for managing complexity, Schwerpunktprogramm Umwelt / Programme Prioritaire Environnement / Priority Programme Environment, Birkhäuser Basel, Basel, pp. 25–34. Boyd, J.W. (2010), Ecosystem Services and Climate Adaptation: Issue Brief, Resources for the Future. Boyd, J.W. and Banzhaf, S. (2007), “What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 63, pp. 616–626. Briner, S., Elkin, C. and Huber, R. (2013a), “Evaluating the relative impact of climate and economic changes on forest and agricultural ecosystem services in mountain regions”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 129, pp. 414–422.

References

Briner, S., Elkin, C., Huber, R. and Grêt-Regamey, A. (2012), “Assessing the impacts of economic and climate changes on land -use in mountain regions: A spatial dynamic modeling approach”, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 149, pp. 50–63. Briner, S., Huber, R., Bebi, P., Elkin, C., Schmatz, D.R. and Grêt-Regamey, A. (2013b), “Trade-offs between ecosystem services in a mountain region”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 18 No. 3. Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Henriksen, H.J. and van der Keur, P. (2011), “More is not always better: coping with ambiguity in natural resources management”, Journal of environmental management, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 78–84. Brugnach, M. and Ingram, H. (2012), “Ambiguity: The challenge of knowing and deciding together”, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 60–71. Bruno Soares, M., Gagnon, A.S. and Doherty, R.M. (2012), “Conceptual elements of climate change vulnerability assessments. A review”, International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, Vol. 4, pp. 6–35. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S. and Müller, F. (2012), “Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 21, pp. 17–29. Butler, J.R.A., Wise, R.M., Skewes, T.D., Bohensky, E.L., Peterson, N., Suadnya, W., Yanuartati, Y., Handayani, T., Habibi, P., Puspadi, K., Bou, N., Vaghelo, D. and Rochester, W. (2015), “Integrating top-down and bottom-up adaptation planning to build adaptive capacity. A structured learning approach”, Coastal Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 346–364. Carter, T.R., Parry, M.L., Harasawa, H. and Nishioka, S. (Eds.) (1994), IPCC technical guidelines for assessing climate change impacts and adaptation, Dept. of Geography, University College London; Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, London, UK, Tsukuba, Japan. Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (2009), The psychology of climate change communication: A guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides, and the interested public, New York. CH2014-Impacts (2014), Toward quantitative scenarios of climate change impacts in Switzerland, OCCR, FOEN, MeteoSwiss, C2SM, Agroscope, ProClim, Bern, Switzerland. Chapagain, A.K. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2008), “The global component of freshwater demand and supply. An assessment of virtual water flows between nations as a result of trade in agricultural and industrial products”, Water International, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 19–32. Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y. and Savenije, H.H.G. (2006), “Water saving through international trade of agricultural products”, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 10, pp. 455–468. Chapagain, A.K. and Tickner, D. (2012), “Water Footprint: help or hindrance?”, Water Alternatives, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 563–581. Chazal, J. de and Rounsevell, M.D.A. (2009), “Land -use and climate change within assessments of biodiversity change: A review”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 19, pp. 306–315. Chornesky, E.A., Ackerly, D.D., Beier, P., Davis, F.W., Flint, L.E., Lawler, J.J., Moyle, P.B., Moritz, M.A., Scoonover, M., Byrd, K., Alvarez, P., Heller, N.E., Micheli, E.R. and Weiss, S.B. (2015), “Adapting California's ecosystems to a changing climate”, BioScience, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 247–262. Chowdhury, P.D., Haque, C.E. and Driedger, S.M. (2012), “Public versus expert knowledge and perception of climate change-induced heat wave risk. A modified mental model approach”, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 15, pp. 149–168. Civantos, E., Thuiller, W., Maiorano, L., Guisan, A. and Araujo, M.B. (2012), “Potential impacts of climate change on ecosystem services in Europe: The case of pest control by vertebrates”, BioScience, Vol. 62, pp. 658–666. Convention on Biological Diversity (2009), Connecting biodiversity and climate change mitigation and adaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biological Diversity, Technical Series No. 41, Montreal.

References

Corner, A., Roberts, O. and Pellisier, A. (2014), How do young people engage with climate change? Towards more effective communication with 18-25 year olds, Climate Outreach and Information Network, Oxford. Costanza, R. and Kubiszewski, I. (2012), “The authorship structure of “ecosystem services” as a transdisciplinary field of scholarship”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 16–25. DACH (2000), D-A-CH Referenzwerte für die Nährstoffzufuhr (Reference values for the nutrition intake), 1st ed., Umschau/ Braus, Frankfurt am Main. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J. and Shallenberger, R. (2009), “Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver”, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 21–28. Dalin, C., Konar, M., Hanasaki, N., Rinaldo, A. and Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. (2012), “Evolution of the global virtual water trade network”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 109 No. 16, pp. 5989–5994. Dawes, M.A., Hagedorn, F., Handa, I.T., Streit, K., Ekblad, A., Rixen, C., Körner, C. and Hättenschwiler, S. (2013), “An alpine treeline in a carbon dioxide-rich world: Synthesis of a nine- year free-air carbon dioxide enrichment study”, Oecologia, Vol. 171, pp. 623–637. de Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A. and Boumans, R.M.J. (2002), “A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 41, pp. 393– 408. de Vasconcelos, A.C.F., Schlindwein, S.L., Lana, M.A., Fantini, A.C., Bonatti, M., D’Agostini, L.R. and Martins, S.R. (2014), “Land use dynamics in Brazilian La Plata Basin and anthropogenic climate change”, Climatic Change, Vol. 127, pp. 73–81. Demuzere, M., Orru, K., Heidrich, O., Olazabal, E., Geneletti, D., Orru, H., Bhave, A.G., Mittal, N., Feliu, E. and Faehnle, M. (2014), “Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 146, pp. 107–115. Doswald, N. and Estrella, M. (2015), Promoting ecosystems for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: Opportunities for integration, Discussion paper. Doswald, N., Munroe, R., Roe, D., Giuliani, A., Castelli, I., Stephens, J., Möller, I., Sp encer, T., Vira, B. and Reid, H. (2014), “Effectiveness of ecosystem -based approaches for adaptation. Review of the evidence-base”, Climate and Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 185–201. Dunford, R.W., Smith, A.C., Harrison, P.A. and Hanganu, D. (2015), “Ecosystem service provision in a changing Europe: Adapting to the impacts of combined climate and socio-economic change”, Landscape Ecology, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 443–461. Eitzinger, J., Kersebaum, K.C. and Formayer, H. (2009), Landwirtschaft im Klimawandel: Auswirkungen und Anpassungsstrategien für die Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Mitteleuropa (Agriculture in Climate Change - Impacts and adaptation strategies for agriculture and forestry in Central Europe), Agrimedia, Clenze, Deutschland. Eitzinger, J., Trnka, M., Semerádová, D., Thaler, S., Sovobodoá, E., Hlavinka, P., Šiska, B., Takác, J., Malatinská, L., Nováková, M., Dubrovský, M. and Žalud, Z. (2013), “Regional climate change impacts on agricultural crop production in Central and Eastern Europe – hotspots, regional differences and common trends”, The Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol. 151, pp. 787–812. Elkin, C., Gutiérrez, A.G., Leuzinger, S., Manusch, C., Temperli, C., Rasche, L. and Bugmann, H. (2013), “A 2 °C warmer world is not safe for ecosystem services in the European Alps”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 19, pp. 1827–1840. Elmadfa, I. (Ed.) (2012), Österreichischer Ernährungsbericht 2012 (Austrian Nutrition Report), Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Wien. Ercin, A.E. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2014), “Water footprint scenarios for 2050: A global analysis”, Environment international, Vol. 64, pp. 71–82.

References

Europäische Akademie Bozen EURAC (Ed.) (2012), Klimareport Südtirol (Climate Report South Tyrol), Bozen/ Bolzano. European Commission (2009), “Directive 2009/ 28/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/ 77/ EC and 2003/ 30/ EC”, Official Journal of the European Union, No. L 140, pp. 16–62. European Commission (2010), Summary report on the work carried out by the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) Expert Group on climate change policy for land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF). FAOSTAT (2009), “Food Balance Sheets”, available at: http:/ / faostat.fao.org/ site/ 368/ DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=368#ancor (accessed 8 April 2014). Fatorić , S. and Morén-Alegret, R. (2013), “Integrating local knowledge and perception for assessing vulnerability to climate change in economically dynamic coastal areas: The case of natural protected area Aiguamolls de l'Empordà, Spain”, Ocean & Coastal Management, Vol. 85, pp. 90–102. Feenstra, J.F., Burton, I., Smith, J.B. and Tol, R.S.J. (Eds.) (1998), Handbook on methods for climate change impact assessment and adaptation strategies, Nairobi. Fischer-Kowalski, M. and Weisz, H. (1999), “Society as hybrid between material and symbolid realms. Toward a theoretical framework of society-nature interaction”, Advances in Human Ecology, Vol. 8, pp. 215–251. Fisher, B. and Turner, R.K. (2008), “Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation”, Biological Conservation, Vol. 141, pp. 1167–1169. Fisher, B., Turner, R.K. and Morling, P. (2009), “Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 68, pp. 643–653. Fliri, F. (1975), Das Klima der Alpen im Raume von Tirol: Monographien zur Landeskunde Tirols 1 (The climate of the Alps in the province of Tyrol), Vol. 1, Wagner, München. Fujisawa, M., Kobayashi, K., Johnston, P. and New, M. (2015), “What drives farmers to make top -down or bottom-up adaptation to climate change and fluctuations? A comparative study on 3 cases of apple farming in Japan and South Africa”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. e0120563. Füssel, H.-M. (2007), “Adaptation planning for climate change: Concepts, assessment, approaches, and key lessons”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 2, pp. 265–275. Giebels, D., van Buuren, A. and Edelenbos, J. (2015), “Using knowledge in a complex decision -making process – Evidence and principles from the Danish Houting project's ecosystem -based management approach”, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 47, pp. 53–67. Giebels, D., van Buuren, A. and Edelenbos, J. (2016), “Knowledge governance for ecosystem -based management. Understanding its context-dependency”, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 55, pp. 424–435. GIZ (2011), Making adaptation count: Concepts and options for monitoring and evaluation of climate change adaptation, Eschborn, Germany. Grabherr, G. (1997), “The high-mountain ecosystems of the Alps”, in Wielgolaski, F.E. (Ed.), Polar and Alpine tundra, Ecosystems of the world, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Lausanne, New York [etc.], pp. 97–121. Grêt-Regamey, A., Brunner, S.H., Altwegg, J. and Bebi, P. (2013a), “Facing uncertainty in ecosystem services-based resource management”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 127, pp. S145- S154. Grêt-Regamey, A., Brunner, S.H., Altwegg, J., Christen, M. and Bebi, P. (2013b), “Integrating Expert Knowledge into Mapping Ecosystem Services Trade-offs for Sustainable Forest Management”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 18 No. 3, p. art.34. Grêt-Regamey, A., Brunner, S.H. and Kienast, F. (2012), “Mountain ecosystem services. Who Cares?”, Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 32 No. S1, pp. S23–S34.

References

Grunert, K.G., Hieke, S. and Wills, J. (2014), “Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use”, Food Policy, Vol. 44, pp. 177–189. Guerry, A.D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin -Kramer, R., Daily, G.C., Griffin, R., Ruckelshaus, M., Bateman, I.J., Duraiappah, A., Elmqvist, T., Feldman, M.W., Folke, C., Hoekstra, J., Kareiva, P.M., Keeler, B.L., Li, S., McKenzie, E., Ouyang, Z., Reyers, B., Ricketts, T.H., Rockström, J., Tallis, H. and Vira, B. (2015), “Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 112 No. 24, pp. 7348–7355. Hagerman, S., Dowlatabadi, H., Satterfield, T. and McDaniels, T. (2010), “Expert views on biodiversity conservation in an era of climate change”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 20, pp. 192–207. Haida, C., Rüdisser, J. and Tappeiner, U. (2015), “Ecosystem services in mountain regions: experts’ perceptions and research intensity”, Regional Environmental Change, pp. in press. Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. (2010), “The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being”, in Raffaelli, D. and Frid, C. (Eds.), Ecosystem ecology: A new synthesis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, pp. 110–139. Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. (2011), Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Update 2011, EEA Framework contract no EEA/ BSS/ 07/ 007, November 2011. Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. (2013), Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES 4): Consultation on CICES Version 4, August-December 2012, EEA Framework contract No EEA/ IEA/ 09/ 003. Hastik, R., Basso, S., Geitner, C., Haida, C., Poljanec, A., Portaccio, A., Vršč aj, B. and Walzer, C. (2015), “Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 48, pp. 608–623. Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O. and Jax, K. (2013), “Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making. Some stakeholder perspectives”, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 25, pp. 13–21. Haynes, K., Lassa, J. and Towers, B. (2010), Child-centred disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: Roles of gender and culture in Indonesia: Working Paper No.2, Children in a changing climate research, Brighton. Hirsch Hadorn, G., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U. and Zemp, E. (Eds.) (2008), Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Springer Science + Business Media B.V, Dordrecht. Hoekstra, A.Y. (Ed.) (2003), Virtual Water Trade: Proceedings of the international expert meeting on virtual water trade, Delft. Hoekstra, A.Y. (2013), The water footprint of modern consumer society, Earthscan, from Routledge, London, New York. Hoekstra, A.Y. and Chapagain, A.K. (2007), “Water footprints of nations. Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern”, Water Resources Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 35–48. Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M. and Mekonnen, M.M. (2011), The water footprint assessment manual: Setting the global standard, Earthscan, London, Washington DC. Hoekstra, A.Y. and Mekonnen, M.M. (2012), “The water footprint of humanity”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 109 No. 9, pp. 3232–3237. Hossain, M.S., Hein, L., Rip, F.I. and Dearing, J.A. (2015), “Integrating ecosystem services and climate change responses in coastal wetlands development plans for Bangladesh”, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 20, pp. 241–261. Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J.T., Bruun, H. and Hukkinen, J. (2010), “Analyzing interdisciplinarity. Typology and indicators”, Research Policy, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 79–88. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) (2006), Risk governance towards an integrative approach, Geneva, Switzerland.

References

IPCC (2012), Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: A special report of working groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. IPCC (Ed.) (2013), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. IPCC (Ed.) (2014a), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. IPCC (Ed.) (2014b), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. IPCC (Ed.) (2015), Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Izquierdo, M., Moreno-Rodríguez, A., González-Gil, A. and García-Hernando, N. (2011), “Air conditioning in the region of Madrid, Spain. An approach to electricity consumption, economics and CO2 emissions”, Energy, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 1630–1639. Jax, K. (2010), Ecosystem functioning, Ecology, biodiversity and conservation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. Jiménez Cisneros, B.E., Oki, T., Arnell, N.W., Benito, G., Cogley, J.G., Döll, P., Jiang, T. and Mwakalila, S. (2014), “Freshwater resources”, in IPCC (Ed.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, pp. 229–269. Karrasch, L., Klenke, T. and Woltjer, J. (2014), “Linking the ecosystem services approach to social preferences and needs in integrated coastal land use managemen t. A planning approach”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 38, pp. 522–532. Kijne, J., Barron, J., Hoff, H., Rockström, J., Karlberg, L., Gowning, J., Wani, S. and Wichelns, D. (2009), Opportunities to increase water productivity in agriculture with special reference to Africa and South Asia: A report prepared by Stockholm Environment Institute, for the Swedish Ministry of Environment presentation at CSD 16, New York 14 May 2009, Stockholm. Klein, R.J., Midgley, G.F., Preston, B.L., Alam, M., Berkhout, F.G., Dow, K. an d Shaw, M.R. (2014), “Adaptation opportunities, constraints and limits”, in IPCC (Ed.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, pp. 899–943. Klein, T.M., Celio, E. and Grêt-Regamey, A. (2015), “Ecosystem services visualization and communication. A demand analysis approach for designing information and conceptualizing decision support systems”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 13, pp. 173–183. Koellner, T. (2009), “Supply and demand for ecosystem services in mountainous regions”, in Jandl, R., Borsdorf, A., van Miegroet, H., Lackner, R. and Psenner, R. (Eds.), Global change and sustainable development in mountain regions: Proceedings of the COST Strategic Workshop, 1st ed, Innsbruck University Press, Innsbruck, pp. 61–70. Konar, M., Hussein, Z., Hanasaki, N., Mauzerall, D.L. and Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. (2013), “Virtual water trade flows and savings under climate change”, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 3219–3234. Lele, S., Springate-Baginski, O., Lakerveld, R., Deb, D. and Dash, P. (2013), “Ecosystem Services: Origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives”, Conservation and Society, Vol. 11 No. 4, p. 343.

References

Lim, B., Spanger-Siegfried, E., Burton, I., Malone, E.L. and Huq, S. (Eds.) (2004), Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: Developing strategies, policies and measures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Loft, L., Mann, C. and Hansjürgens, B. (2015), “Challenges in ecosystem services governance. Multi- levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 16, pp. 150–157. López-Hoffman, L., Breshears, D.D., Allen, C.D. and Miller, M.L. (2013), “Key landscape ecology metrics for assessing climate change adaptation options: Rate of change and patchiness of impacts”, Ecosphere, Vol. 4 No. 8, pp. art101. Lorencová, E., Frélichová, J., Nelson, E. and Vač kář , D. (2013), “Past and future impacts of land use and climate change on agricultural ecosystem services in the Czech Republic”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 33, pp. 183–194. Lutz, W., Muttarak, R. and Striessnig, E. (2014), “Universal education is key to enhanced climate adaptation”, Science, Vol. 346 No. 6213, pp. 1061–1062. Makkonen, M., Huttunen, S., Primmer, E., Repo, A. and Hildén, M. (2015), “Policy coherence in climate change mitigation. An ecosystem service approach to forests as carbon sinks and bioenergy sources”, Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 50, pp. 153–162. Martinez-Harms, M.J., Bryan, B.A., Balvanera, P., Law, E.A., Rhodes, J.R., Possingham, H.P. and Wilson, K.A. (2015), “Making decisions for managing ecosystem services”, Biological Conservation, Vol. 184, pp. 229–238. Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Amo, D.G.D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., Palacios-Agundez, I., Willaarts, B., González, J.A., Santos- Martín, F., Onaindia, M., López-Santiago, C., Montes, C. and Bawa, K. (2012), “Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. e38970. Mayring, P. (2000), “Qualitative content analysis”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, p. art.20. Mayring, P. (2010), “Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (Qualitative content analysis)”, in Mey, G. and Mruck, K. (Eds.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (Handbook qualitative research in psychology), VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften / Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp. 601–613. McKenzie Hedger, M., Mitchell, T., Leafy, J., Greelay, M. and Downie, A. (2008), Desk review: Evaluation of adaptaion to climate change from a development perspective, Report commissioned by the FEG Evaluation Office and financed by DFID, London. Mekonnen, M.M. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2011a), National water footprint accounts: The green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption., Value of Water Research Report Series No. 50. UNESCO-IHE, Delft. Mekonnen, M.M. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2011b), “The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products”, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 1577–1600. Mekonnen, M.M. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2012), “A global assessment of the water footp rint of farm animal products”, Ecosystems, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 401–415. Mekonnen, M.M. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2013), Water footprint benchmarks for crop production, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 64. UNESCO-IHE, Delft. Metternicht, G., Sabelli, A. and Spensley, J. (2014), “Climate change vulnerability, impact and adaptation assessment”, International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, Vol. 6, pp. 442–476. Metzger, M.J., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Acosta-Michlik, L., Leemans, R. and Schröter, D. (2006), “The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change”, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 114, pp. 69–85.

References

Metzger, M.J., Schröter, D., Leemans, R. and Cramer, W. (2008), “A spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability assessment of ecosystem service change in Europe”, Regional Environmental Change, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 91–107. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Ed.) (2005), Ecosystems and human well-being: Current states and trends, Island Press, Washington, DC. Mimura, N., Pulwarty, R.S., Duc, D.M., Elshinnaway, I., Redsteer, M.H., Huang, H.-Q., Nkem, J.N. and Sanchez Rodriguez, R.A. (2014), “Adaptation planning and implementation”, in IPCC (Ed.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, pp. 869–898. Mitchell, T., Haynes, K., Choong, W. and Hall, N. (2008), “The role of children and youth in communicating disaster risk”, Children, Youth and Environments, Vol. 18, pp. 254–279. Moser, S.C. (2010), “Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions”, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 31–53. Neunteufel, R., Richard, L. and Perfler, R. (2012), Wasserverbrauch und Wasserbedarf: Auswertung empirischer Daten zum Wasserverbrauch (Water use and water demand - analysis of empirical data of water use), Wien. Nicolescu, B. (2002), Manifesto of transdisciplinarity, SUNY series in Western esoteric traditions, State University of New York Press, Albany. Noble, I.R., Huq, S., Anokhin, Y.A., Carmin, J., Goudou, D., Lansigan, F.P., Osman -Elasha, B. and Villamizar, A. (2014), “Adaptation needs and options”, in IPCC (Ed.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, pp. 833–868. Norgaard, R.B. (2010), “Ecosystem services. From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 1219–1227. O'Neill, S. and Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009), “"Fear Won't Do It". Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations”, Science Communication, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 355–379. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2006), The Challange of Capacity Development: Working towards good practice, Paris. Orlowsky, B., Hoekstra, A.Y., Gudmundsson, L. and Seneviratne, S.I. (2014), “Todayʼ s virtual water consumption and trade under future water scarcity”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 9 No. 7, p. 74007. Pauli, H., Gottfried, M., Dullinger, S., Abdaladze, O., Akhalkatsi, M., Alonso, J.L.B., Coldea, G., Dick, J., Erschbamer, B., Calzado, R.F., Ghosn, D., Holten, J.I., Kanka, R., Kazakis, G., Kollar, J., Larsson, P., Moiseev, P., Moiseev, D., Molau, U., Mesa, J.M., Nagy, L., Pelino, G., Puscas, M., Rossi, G., Stan isci, A., Syverhuset, A.O., Theurillat, J.-P., Tomaselli, M., Unterluggauer, P., Villar, L., Vittoz, P. and Grabherr, G. (2012), “Recent plant diversity changes on Europe's mountain summits”, Science, Vol. 336 No. 6079, pp. 353–355. Payne, K. (2013), “The effects of self-efficacy on proenvironmental intentions”, The Plymouth Student Scientist, Vol. 6, pp. 224–238. Pohl, C. and Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2008), “Core terms in transdisciplinary research”, in Hirsch Hadorn, G., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U. and Zemp, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Springer Science + Business Media B.V, Dordrecht, pp. 427–432. Poppy, G.M., Chiotha, S., Eigenbrod, F., Harvey, C.A., Honzak, M., Hudson, M.D., Jarvis, A., Madise, N.J., Schreckenberg, K., Shackleton, C.M., Villa, F. and Dawson, T.P. (2014), “Food security in a perfect storm: Using the ecosystem services framework to increase understanding”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 369 No. 1639, p. art.20120288.

References

Potschin, M. and Haines-Young, R.H. (2011), “Ecosystem services. Exploring a geographical perspective”, Progress in Physical Geography, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 575–594. Pramova, E., Locatelli, B., Brockhau s, M. and Fohlmeister, S. (2012), “Ecosystem services in the National Adaptation Programmes of Action”, Climate Policy, Vol. 12, pp. 393–409. Preston, B.L., Westaway, R.M. and Yuen, E.J. (2011), “Climate adaptation planning in practice. An evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations”, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 16, pp. 407–438. Qiu, B., Li, H., Zhou, M. and Zhang, L. (2015), “Vulnerability of ecosystem services provisioning to urbanization. A case of China”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 57, pp. 505–513. Riemeier, T. (2007), “Moderater Konstruktivismus (moderate constructivism)”, in Krüger, D. and Vogt, H. (Eds.), Theorien in der biologiedidaktischen Forschung: Ein Handbuch für Lehramtsstudenten und Doktoranden (Theories in science of didactics in biology - a handbook for students), 1st ed., Springer, Berlin, pp. 69–79. Ross, H., Shaw, S., Rissik, D., Cliffe, N., Chapman, S., Hounsell, V., Udy, J., Trinh, N.T. and Schoeman, J. (2015), “A participatory systems ap proach to understanding climate adaptation needs”, Climatic Change, Vol. 129, pp. 27–42. Salerno, F., Cuccillato, E., Caroli, P., Bajracharya, B., Manfredi, E.C., Viviano, G., Thakuri, S., Flury, B., Basani, M., Giannino, F. and Panzeri, D. (2010), “Experience with a hard and soft participatory modeling framework for social-ecological system management in Mount Everest (Nepal) and K2 (Pakistan) protected areas”, Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 80–93. Sanahuja, H.E. (2011), Framework for monitoring and evaluation of adaptation to climate change. Schaefer, M., Goldman, E., Bartuska, A.M., Sutton -Grier, A. and Lubchenco, J. (2015), “Nature as capital: Advancing and incorporating ecosystem services in United States federal policies and programs”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 112 No. 24, pp. 7383–7389. Schaumberger, A. (2012), Räumliche Modelle zur Vegetations- und Ertragsdynamik im Wirtschaftsgrünland (Spatial models for vegetation and yield dynamics for agriculturally used grassland): Dissertation, Graz. Schröter, D., Cramer, W., Leemans, R., Prentice, I.C., Aroujo, M., Arnell, N., Bondeau, A., Bugmann, H., Carter, T., Gracia, J., La Vega-Leiner, A. de, Erhard, M., Ewert, F., Glendining, M., House, J., Kankaanpää, S., Klein, R.J., Lavorel, S., Lindner, M., Metzger, M.J., Meyer, J., Mitchell, T., Reginster, I., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Sabaté, S., Sitch, S., Smith, B., Smith, J., Smith, P., Sykes, M.T., Thonicke K., T.W., Tuck, G., Zaehle, S. and Zierl, B. (2005), “Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe”, Science, Vol. 310 No. 5752, pp. 1333–1337. Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E.H., Van Oudenhoven, A.P., Remme, R.P., Serna-Chavez, H.M., de Groot, R.S. and Opdam, P. (2014), “Ecosystem services as a contested concept: A synthesis of critique and counter-arguments”, Conservation Letters, Vol. 7, pp. 514–523. Shaw, M.R., Overpeck, J.T. and Midgley, G.F. (2014), “Cross-chapter box on ecosystem based approaches to adaptation - emerging opportunities”, in IPCC (Ed.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, pp. 101–103. Smit, B., Burton, I., Klein, R.J. and Street, R. (1999), “The science of adaptation: A framework for assessment”, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 4, pp. 199–213. Smith, J.B., Schneider, S.H., Oppenheimer, M., Yohe, G.W., Hare, W., Mastrandrea, M.D., Patwardha n, A., Burton, I., Corfee-Morlot, J., Magdaza, C.H., Füssel, H.-M., Pittock, A.B., Rahman, A., Suarez, A. and van Ypersele, J.-P. (2009), “Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "reasons for concern"”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106 No. 11, pp. 4133–4137. Statistik Austria (2011), Konsumerhebung 2009/10 (Consumption survey 2009/10).

References

Staudinger, M.D., Grimm, N.B., Staudt, A., Carter, S.L., Chapin, F.S.I., Kareiva , P., Ruckelshaus, M. and Stein, B.A. (2012), Impacts of climate change on biodiversity, ecosystem, and ecosystem services: Technical input to the 2013 National Climate Assessment, Cooperative report to the 2013 National Climate Assessment. Summers, J.K., Smith, L.M., Case, J.L. and Linthurst, R.A. (2012), “A review of the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services”, Ambio, Vol. 41, pp. 327– 340. Tanner, T. (2010), “Shifting the narrative: Child -led responses to climate change and disasters in El Salvador and the Philippines”, Children & Society, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 339–351. Tanner, T., Garcia, M., Lazcano, J., Molina, F., Molina, G., Rodríguez, G., Tribunalo, B. and Seballos, F. (2009), “Children’s participation in community-based disaster risk reduction and adaptation to climate change”, Participatory Learning and Action, Vol. 60, pp. 54–64. Tannert, C., Elvers, H.-D. and Jandrig, B. (2007), “The ethics of uncertainty”, EMBO reports, Vol. 8, pp. 892–896. Tappeiner, U., Borsdorf, A. and Tasser, E. (Eds.) (2008), Alpenatlas: Mapping the Alps, Society, economy, environment, Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg. TEEB (2010), The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundation, London. Ter-Mikaelian, M.T., Colombo, S.J., Lovekin, D., McKechnie, J., Reynolds, R., Titus, B., Laurin, E., Chapman, A.-M., Chen, J. and MacLean, H.L. (2015), “Carbon debt repayment or carbon sequestration parity? Lessons from a forest bioenergy case study in Ontario, Canada”, GCB Bioenergy, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 704–716. Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, N.W. (2004), “Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change?”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 9 No. 2, p. art.10. Tress, G., Tress, B. and Fry, G. (2005), “Clarifying integrative research concepts in landscape ecology”, Landscape Ecology, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 479–493. Turner, W.R., Oppenheimer, M. and Wilcove, D.S. (2009), “A force to fight global warming”, Nature, Vol. 462 No. 7271, pp. 278–279. Tuvendal, M. and Elmqvist, T. (2011), “Ecosystem services linking social and ecological systems: River brownification and the response of downstream stakeholders”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 16 No. 4, p. art.21. UNDP (2007), Monitoring and evaluation framework for adaptation fot climate change, Nairobi. UNDP (2008a), Capacity Development: Practice Note, New York. UNDP (2008b), Human development report 2007/2008: Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a diveded world, Hampshire, UK and New York, USA. UNEP (2010), Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its tenth meeting: Decision X/33 - Biodiversity and Climate Change, Nagoya, Japan. UNEP (2012), Ecosystem-based adaptation guidance: Moving from principles to practice, Working document: April 2012. UNFCCC (2002), Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action: Least Developed Countries Expert Group, Bonn. UNFCCC (2008), Compendium on methods and tools to evaluate impacts of, and vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, Bonn. UNFCCC (2010a), Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010: Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties, Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties. UNFCCC (2010b), Synthesis report on efforts undertaken to monitor and evaluate the implementation of adaptation projects, policies and programmes and the costs and effectiveness of completed projects, policies and programmes, and views on lessons learned, good practices, gaps and needs, Bonn.

References

UNFCCC (2011), Report of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice on its thirty-fourth session, held in Bonn from 6 to 16 June 2011, Bonn. United Nations (2014), The Millennium Development Goals Report 2014, New York. UNWWAP (2015), The United Nations World Water Assessment Report 2015: Water for a sustainable world., Paris. USAID (Ed.) (2007), Adapting to climate variability and change: A guidance manual for development planning. Vanham, D. (2012), “Der Wasserfußabdruck Österreichs. Wie viel Wasser nützen wir tatsächlich, und woher kommt es? (The Austrian water footprint - how much water do we use and where does it come from?)”, Österreichische Wasser- und Abfallwirtschaft, Vol. 64 No. 1-2, pp. 267–276. Vanham, D. and Bidoglio, G. (2013), “A review on the indicator water footprint for the EU28”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 26, pp. 61–75. Vanham, D., Bouraoui, F., Leip, A., Grizzetti, B. and Bidoglio, G. (2015), “Lost water and nitrogen resources due to EU consumer food waste”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 10 No. 8, p. 84008. Vanham, D., Mekonnen, M.M. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2013), “The water footprint of the EU for different diets”, Ecological Indicators, Vol. 32, pp. 1–8. Vignola, R., Locatelli, B., Martinez, C. and Imbach, P. (2009), “Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: What role for policy-makers, society and scientists?”, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 14, pp. 691–696. Vihervaara, P., Amato, D. D’, Forsius, M., Angelstam, P., Baessler, C., Balvanera, P., Boldgiv, B., Bourgeron, P., Dick, J., Kanka, R., Klotz, S., Maass, M., Melecis, V., Petřík, P., Shibata, H., Tang, J., Thompson, J. and Zacharias, S. (2013), “Using long-term ecosystem service and biodiversity data to study the impacts and adaptation options in response to climate change: Insights from the global ILTER sites network”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 5, pp. 53–66. Wang, Y., Wu, P., Engel, B. and Sun, S. (2014), “Application of water footprint combined with a unified virtual crop pattern to evaluate crop water productivity in grain production in China”, Science of The Total Environment, 497-498, pp. 1–9. Wiesmann, U., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Joye, D., Pohl, C. and Zemp, E. (2008), “Enhancing transdisciplinary research. A synthesis in fifteen propositions”, in Hirsch Hadorn, G., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Hoffmann- Riem, H., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U. and Zemp, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Springer Science + Business Media B.V, Dordrecht, pp. 433–441. Willows, R. and Connell, R. (Eds.) (2003), Climate adaptation: Risk, uncertainty and decision-making, UKCIP Technical Report, UK Climate Impacts Programme technical report, UK Climate Impacts Programme, Oxford. World Bank (2009), Convenient solutions to an inconvenient truth: Ecosystem-based approaches to climate change, Washington, D.C. World Bank (2010), World development report 2010: Development in a changing climate - concept note, Washington D.C. World Resources Institute (2009), Bellagio framework for adaptation assessment and prioritization: WRI working paper, Washtington, DC.

Appendix 1

Appendix

Appendix 1: Published article 1 - Ecosystem services in mountain regions: experts‘ perception and research intensity

Reg Environ Change DOI 10.1007/s10113-015-0759-4

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Ecosystem services in mountain regions: experts’ perceptions and research intensity

Christin Haida • Johannes Ru¨disser • Ulrike Tappeiner

Received: 10 December 2013 / Accepted: 18 January 2015 Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Abstract Facing the challenges of global and regional regulation’, ‘food’, ‘biodiversity’, ‘fresh water’ and ‘water changes, society urgently needs applicable and broadly quality’ were studied most often. Although ‘habitat’, accepted tools to effectively manage and protect ecosystem ‘energy’, ‘primary production’, ‘tourism’, ‘water cycle’, services (ES). This requires knowing which ES are per- and ‘local climate regulation’ were ranked as important by ceived as important. We asked decision-makers from dif- decision-makers, they did not receive corresponding ferent thematic backgrounds to rank 25 ES on the basis of research attention. We conclude that more interaction their importance for society. To test whether perceptions between research and stakeholders is needed to promote a are varying across regions, we surveyed three Alpine broader application and understanding of the ES concept in regions in Austria and Italy. The ranking of importance practice. The use of ES bundles could help to manage its showed a high variability amongst experts but was not inherent complexity and facilitate its application. influenced by region or thematic background. ES that satisfy physiological needs (‘fresh water’, ‘food’, ‘air quality Keywords Alps Á Perception of importance Á Expert regulation’) were indicated as most important. ES that interviews Á Quantitative literature review Á Ecosystem relate to safety and security needs were ranked in the service bundles (ESB) Á Maslow’s hierarchy of needs middle field, whereas cultural ES were perceived as less important. We used principal component analysis (PCA) to identify ES bundles based on perception of importance. In Introduction order to investigate whether research intensity follows the perceived importance, we related the interviews with a Mountain ecosystems are important for the supply of comprehensive literature review. ‘Global climate ecosystem services (ES). ES are the benefits people obtain from ecosystem (MEA 2005). Despite covering only one- fifth of the terrestrial surface, mountains provide ES to ¨ Christin Haida and Johannes Rudisser have contributed equally. almost half of the world’s population (Ko¨rner and Ohsawa C. Haida (&) 2005). Mountain ecosystems are very sensitive to local and alpS GmbH, Grabenweg 68, Innsbruck, Austria global developments, such as land use or climate changes e-mail: [email protected] (Schro¨ter et al. 2005;Ko¨rner 2009). These changes might have an impact on the supply of ES. To face these future C. Haida Á J. Ru¨disser Á U. Tappeiner Institute of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Sternwartestr. 15, challenges, researchers have developed scenarios (Elkin Innsbruck, Austria et al. 2013), derived strategies to manage ES and proposed e-mail: [email protected] measures for how to best adapt to changes (Wang et al. U. Tappeiner 2013; Forsius et al. 2013). To facilitate these tasks, most e-mail: [email protected] studies have focused on a few selected ES (Crossman et al. 2013). Previous quantitative reviews (Greˆt-Regamey et al. U. Tappeiner Institute for Alpine Environment, EURAC Research, 2012; Crossman et al. 2013; Vihervaara et al. 2010; Seppelt Drususalle 1, Bozen, Italy et al. 2011) have shown that regulating services (mainly 123 C. Haida et al. carbon sequestration) tend to be researched the most often, identify discrepancies between practice and science (Lug- followed by provisioning services (such as the supply of not and Martin 2013). fresh water and food) and cultural services (largely recre- Based on this background, we investigated the following ation and tourism). research questions (RQ): In policy-making processes, decision-makers often have RQ How well known and understood is the ES concept to select or prioritise ES. This can be a challenging task due 1 amongst decision-makers in mountain regions? to the large number of interrelated ES. Stakeholders’ RQ Which ES are perceived as important for mountain involvement can assist in this challenge and help linking 2 regions, and does this perception depend on region ecosystem functions with human well-being (Scolozzi et al. or thematic background? 2012; Berbe´s-Bla´zquez 2012). This involvement covers RQ Which ES are studied most often in peer-reviewed three aspects (Seppelt et al. 2011): (1) stakeholders 3 journals? assisting in scenario building (Walz et al. 2007), planning RQ Is the research intensity in accordance with the and management processes (Bryan et al. 2010) and pro- 4 perceived importance? viding practical basis for modelling options (Cowling et al. 2008); (2) stakeholders evaluating possible management options, either by ranking them or by assigning weights of importance to different ES (Greˆt-Regamey et al. 2008; Materials and methods Fontana et al. 2013); and (3) stakeholders helping to identify important ES (Lamarque et al. 2011) and suitable To answer our research questions, it was necessary to indicators (Notter et al. 2012). This perception of impor- combine two different methodological approaches tance at the individual level can be influenced by many (Table 1). To answer RQ 1 and 2, we conducted interviews factors (Sherbinin and Curran 2004); in the case of the with 53 decision-makers from three distinct regions in Alps, with their small-scale heterogeneity, this perception Austria and Italy. To answer RQ 3, we performed a sys- might vary across different regions (Koellner 2009). The tematic literature review of ES studies. To answer RQ 4, field of ES has developed rapidly in recent years, with we compared the answers from the interviews with regard publications increasing exponentially after the publication to perceived importance to the results from the literature of the MEA (2005) guidelines. However, the lack of clear review. definitions and classifications of ES has resulted in some items being wrongly placed under the umbrella of ES, e.g. Study area ‘provision of infrastructure for transport’ and ‘ecosystem engineering’. Even though much effort has been put into We conducted interviews with decision-makers from three creating a common classification of ES (Haines-Young and neighbouring mountain provinces in Austria and Italy Potschin 2013), there is the risk that ES might be reduced (Fig. 1) with distinct characteristics: Tyrol (Austria), Vo- to a buzzword and that the concept might become devalued rarlberg (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy). Tyrol and South due to its arbitrary use (Greˆt-Regamey et al. 2012; Viher- Tyrol are dominated by high mountains, whereas Vorarl- vaara et al. 2010). In order to counteract this possible risk, berg primarily features Alpine foothills. Following Tap- Lamarque et al. (2011) suggest improving stakeholders’ peiner et al. (2008), most areas in Vorarlberg can be knowledge of ES. Comparing stakeholders’ knowledge and characterised as an ‘Alpine standard region’, with relative their perceptions of ES to research activities might help to low tourist intensity, a declining agricultural sector and a

Table 1 Research questions and general study design Research question (RQ) Method Interview questions (IQ)

RQ 1: How well known and understood is the ES Interviews IQ 1: Have you heard of ecosystem services before? concept amongst decision-makers? IQ 2: How would you deﬁne ecosystem services? RQ 2: Which ES are perceived as important for Interviews IQ 3: Could you please rank these 25 ecosystem mountain regions, and does this perception services according the importance for your region depend on region or thematic background? and with respect to your thematic ﬁeld? RQ 3: Which ES are studied most often in peer- Literature review reviewed journals? RQ 4: Is the research intensity in accordance Synthesis of literature with the perceived importance? review and interviews

123 Experts’ perceptions and research intensity

Fig. 1 Study area, with a Vorarlberg, Austria, b Tyrol, Austria and c South Tyrol, Italy

negative commuter balance. Migration and birth rates are population densities (Veit 2002; European Environmental balanced, preventing the excessive ageing of the popula- Agency 2010). tion. Tyrol is dominated by ‘important tourist centres’ with a well-developed touristic infrastructure, job abundance in Interviews with decision-makers the service sector and rural municipalities with an active agricultural sector. South Tyrol is typified as a ‘dynamic We conducted 53 interviews with professionals from nine rural area’ with a dynamic labour market, still intact agri- thematic fields: soil science, forestry, agriculture, energy, culture and positive developments in tourism. Develop- meteorology, safety, planning, tourism and environmental mentally, these regions are representative of 57 % of the protection. We opted to interview six professionals from entire European Alps region (Tappeiner et al. 2008). each thematic field, two in each region. The only exception All three provinces are influenced by the northern was South Tyrol, where we were only able to interview one central European climate, which is characterised by high professional working in the field of soil science. The in- precipitation throughout the year and low variability terviewees worked for governmental institutions, NGOs or between years, as well as a typical central European in the private sector and were all acting as decision-makers. temperature regime (Table 2). However, the Alpine We defined ‘decision-maker’ as a person who is respon- character results in much local, small-scale horizontal and sible for the development, implementation or control of vertical differentiation (Fliri 1975). In South Tyrol, the solutions, strategies or policies because of his or her degree main valleys are dominated by a central Alpine arid cli- of skill and/or knowledge and long-term experience, and mate with low but highly variable precipitation and a who is an expert in the field. To facilitate readability, middle European temperature profile. The cultivation of hereafter we refer to our interview partners as experts. permanent crops such as fruit orchards and vineyards in All interviews were semi-structured and carried out on a these valleys is characteristic of South Tyrol. The hill- one-to-one basis between May 2011 and January 2012. sides of all three regions are covered by extensive forests Each expert was asked to answer three questions. The first dominated by coniferous trees rising up to 2,000 m asl. two questions focused on the knowledge and understanding The area available for settlement is scarce and concen- of the ES concept (IQ 1–2), and the third addressed the trated on the valley floors, which have corresponding high relative importance of ES (IQ 3). First, we asked the

123 C. Haida et al.

Table 2 Description of the three study areas: Tyrol, Vorarlberg and Young and Potschin (2011) into consideration. Our aim South Tyrol was to provide a comprehensive and current list of ES Tyrol Vorarlberg South Tyrol adapted to the regional conditions. We based our definition of ES on MEA (2005) because this is the best known Geography publication amongst practitioners, and we did not seek to Country Austria Austria Italy address any debates regarding final and intermediate ES 2 Area (km ) 12,648 2,604 7,400 (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007) or classification schemes (Ha- Climate Northern Northern Southern sub- ines-Young and Potschin 2013). We deliberately used rank central central Mediterranean European European order instead of ratings to force experts to differentiate Vegetation Inner Northern South-eastern between ES and prevent a narrow range of ratings. Likert- Alpine Alpine Alpine rim scaled rating, for example, would have allowed the transition rim respondents to value every ES identically. This could lead zone to limited differentiation amongst ES and might have Land cover (%) obscured possible patterns in the perceived importance of Foresta 43 41 44 ES (Alwin and Krosnick 1985; Krosnick 1999; Likert Agriculturalf 23 37 32 1932). Nevertheless, we permitted the experts to place Settlement areaf 12 22 8 more than one ES at the same rank if they explicitly stated Level of education (%)b,c that they were equally important. In these cases, we applied Primary 20 25 163 the standard competition ranking strategy, meaning that all Secondary 67 64 723 items that were perceived as equally important received the University 13 11 123 same rank number. A gap was then left in the ranking so Tourismd that the next rank number was 1 plus the number of items Number of beds in the 201,254 35,668 151,018 ranked above it. hotel industry 2011 All interviews were recorded, transcribed and entered Index of tourism 16 14 20 into a database. For this study, answers to IQ 1 and IQ 2 intensity 2011 were coded using the binary (yes/no) variables ‘Expert has c,e Energy (%) heard of the ES concept’ and ‘Given definition is in line Part of renewable 39 36 38 with MEA (2005)’, respectively. For IQ 3, rankings from 1 energy of total energy consumption (most important) to 25 (least important) were assigned. All (2009/2010) statistical analyses were performed with PASW Statistics Economic sectors (%)f 18. Primary 10 9 20 Secondary 27 33 29 Data analysis Tertiary 63 58 51 Development typesg Important Alpine Dynamic rural Based on the individual expert rankings of ES importance, tourist standard area we estimated the median, the interquartile range and the centre region minimum and maximum for all ES. A nonparametric References: a European Environmental Agency (2010), b ISTAT Friedman test (p [ 0.05) was used to check for significant (2012), c Statistik Austria (2013), d ASTAT (2013), e ASTAT (2012), differences amongst ES ranks. To test whether experts f g Diamont Database (2008), Tappeiner et al. (2008) from different regions or thematic backgrounds ranked the importance of ES differently (RQ 2), we used nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis tests for independent samples. To experts whether they had heard of ES before (IQ 1). We test whether experts’ knowledge and understanding of the then asked (regardless of whether they had heard of ES ES concept varied by thematic background, we performed before or not) how they would define ES (IQ 2). Subse- a cluster analysis using Ward’s clustering method and quently, we explained the ES concept using the MEA Euclidean distance. (2005) definition and agreed to apply this concept for the We hypothesised that based on the expert rankings of rest of the interview. the importance of ES, it might be possible to group them In the second part of the interview, we asked the experts into various subgroups. Subgroups should encompass ES to rank 25 preselected ES (Table 3) with regard to the with similar relevance for the region. Therefore, we per- importance of each service for the region and the thematic formed a principal component analysis (PCA) to identify field the experts represented. Our selection of 25 ES was the factors driving experts’ perceptions of ES, using the ES based on MEA (2005) but took TEEB (2010) and Haines- rankings of all 53 interviewees. Before proceeding with the 123 Experts’ perceptions and research intensity

Table 3 List of ecosystem services used in the interviews with the deﬁnitions given to the experts Ecosystem services Deﬁnition

Provisioning services Fresh water Provision and storage of fresh water Fodder Food for domesticated animals Food Ecosystems provide the conditions for growing food—in wild habitats and in managed agro-ecosystems—including crops, livestock, aquaculture and wild food Raw materials Ecosystems provide a great diversity of materials for construction, landscaping and ornaments Medicinal resources Ecosystems provide resources used for biomedical products, natural medicine, pharmaceuticals, etc. Energy Ecosystems provide multiple means, which can be used for energy production, e.g. hydropower, wood fuel and biofuel from agricultural products Regulating and maintaining services Water cycle Refers to the water cycling affected by plant processes in the system Nutrient cycle Recycling and storage of nutrients to maintain healthy soils and productive ecosystems Primary production Building of biomass Natural hazard regulation Influence of ecosystems on moderation of extreme events, e.g. storms, floods, rock falls or avalanches Soil erosion regulation Vegetation can prevent soil erosion to maintain arable land and to prevent damage from erosion/siltation Water flow regulation Land cover can regulate water run-off and river discharge Pollination Pollination of wild plants and crops Biodiversity The presence or absence of selected species, functional groups of species or species composition Habitat The provision of suitable habitats for different species, for functional groups of species or for processes essential for the functioning of ecosystems Biological control Control of pests and diseases Soil formation and fertility Maintenance of the natural productivity of soil Water quality Ecosystems play a role in pollution control/detoxification and filtering of dust particles Global climate regulation Ecosystems play an important role in climate by either sequestering or emitting greenhouse gases Local climate regulation Land cover can locally affect temperature, air moisture, wind, radiation and precipitation Air quality regulation Maintenance of (clean) air Cultural services Recreation Natural landscapes and urban green spaces play a role in maintaining mental and physical health Tourism Nature tourism provides economic benefits and is a source of income for many countries Aesthetic appreciation Attractive landscapes provide enjoyment of scenery Spiritual values Ecosystems are used for religious or historic purposes and can foster a local identity and sense of belonging

PCA, we checked to ensure that all 25 ES fulﬁlled the We used a systematic literature review approach (Petticrew standard statistical criteria suggested by Hair et al. (2006): and Roberts 2009) based on an ISI Web of Science search. Values for both the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test and the Although quantitative reviews of ES have been published individual anti-image had to be higher than 0.50. Bartlett’s before (c.f. Vihervaara et al. 2010; Seppelt et al. 2011), test of sphericity had to be lower than 0.05. The factor’s these studies did not assess publication activities at the cut-off criterion was set to eigenvalues greater than one. individual ES level. We performed a keyword search using The communality of each item as well as dominant load- the term ‘ecosystem service’ in singular and plural and ings had to be greater than 0.50. As a rotation method, we included all available peer-reviewed English-language choose Varimax. ES were assigned to the factors with the articles after the completion of the MEA (2005) from 2006 highest communalities. Based on the assigned ES, we to October 2013. The keywords were allowed to appear selected a name for each factor. only in the title in order to eliminate studies that mentioned ES but did not further acknowledge the concept. We iden- Literature review tiﬁed 816 references. All references were categorised by the following criteria: bibliography, general study aim and type To answer RQ 3, we performed a literature review with the (empirical or theoretical), type and number of ES studied, aim of identifying which ES were investigated most often. scale, geographic region and focus on mountainous regions.

123 C. Haida et al.

Comparing expert perceptions with the literature review Table 4 Experts’ knowledge and understanding of the ecosystem service concept according to their thematic background or region Our fourth research question focused on the question of Thematic field Experts Had heard Could define whether the experts’ perceived importance of ES was (n) of ES before ES correctly aligned with research attention—or, in other words, how Forestrya 75 6 research on ES aligns with societal needs. To examine this Environmental protectiona 65 5 question, we compared the results of the interviews with Soil scienceb 53 2 the literature review. To identify whether certain ES were Meteorologyb 62 2 perceived as important by the experts but have not received Planningb 62 2 the corresponding level of attention in scientific research, b we used the amount of peer-reviewed published literature Tourism 61 1 c as a proxy for research intensity. For each ES, we com- Safety 63 3 c pared the experts’ ranking of importance with the amount Energy 52 3 c of literature published. Because our expert interviews Agriculture 65 2 focused on mountain regions, we compared not only the Region number of studies per ES within all reviewed publications, North Tyrol 18 11 9 but also the subset of studies focused on mountain regions Vorarlberg 18 10 10 (n = 87). As we were very aware of the different origins, South Tyrol 17 7 7 scales and content of these data (expert interviews and Cluster groups (a, b, c) of the thematic fields were identified with a literature review), we deliberately did not conduct any kind cluster analysis of statistical analysis including both datasets, instead deciding to present our findings in the discussion section of Which ES are perceived as important for the central this paper. Alps, and does perception change with regional differences or an expert’s field?

Results The experts’ rankings of importance of the 25 ES showed a high variability. This resulted in a very high range and a How well known and understood is the ES concept high interquartile range (Fig. 2). Every ES was ranked first amongst decision-makers? (most important) by at least one expert. Nevertheless, an overall pattern could be observed: ES that contribute to Twenty-eight (53 %) of the interviewed experts had satisfy basic human needs were ranked highest by the most heard of ES before. Twenty-six (49 %) defined ES in line experts (‘fresh water’, ‘habitat’, ‘energy’ and ‘food’), fol- with the MEA (2005) definition. Remarkably, two experts lowed by regulating and maintaining ES (e.g. ‘natural who said that they had not heard of the ES concept hazard regulation’, ‘air quality regulation’, ‘water cycle’ before defined ES in accordance with the MEA definition and ‘nutrient cycle’). Cultural ES (‘recreation’, ‘aesthetic when they were asked how they would define ES. appreciation’ and ‘spiritual values’) were ranked lowest by Twenty-seven (51 %) experts gave definitions, which the majority of experts (Fig. 2). The cultural ES also pre- were not in line with MEA or any other similar defini- sented the highest interquartile ranges, indicating a low tion. In fact, nine (17 %) experts defined ES more or less level of concordance amongst the experts. opposed to MEA, as services that are provided by soci- Even though the medians of the cultural services ‘rec- ety, to benefit the environment. The experts’ knowledge reation’, ‘aesthetic appreciation’ and ‘spiritual values’ and understanding showed a distinct pattern according to showed some differences between South Tyrol and Vo- their thematic backgrounds, which could be clustered into rarlberg, a Kruskal–Wallis test did not reveal any signifi- three groups (Table 4). Group 1 encompassed intervie- cant differences (Fig. 3) between experts’ perceptions of wees with either an environmental protection or forestry importance between the three study regions. background; this group was characterised by general The experts’ rankings were not influenced by their the- knowledge and understanding of the concept. Group 2 matic backgrounds. No significant differences between the consisted of interviewees from tourism, planning, mete- rankings could be found for experts from different thematic orology and soil science, of which the majority had either backgrounds, or for the three expert cluster groups not heard of the ES concept or could not define it cor- described before. We also checked whether the experts rectly. Group 3 included experts from energy, safety and who were familiar with the MEA (2005) definition ranked agriculture who had a mixed knowledge and ES differently from those experts who were not, but we did understanding. not find any significant differences. 123 Experts’ perceptions and research intensity

Fig. 2 Ranking of the perceived importance of 25 1 ecosystem services by 53 experts. Shown is the 5 distribution of ranks with median, interquartile range, 10 minimum and maximum, from 1 (most important) to 25 (least 15 important). Signiﬁcance (a, b, c) tested by a nonparametric 20 Friedman test with p [ 0.05.

Sorted by median importance Rank of perceived 25 c c a a a b b b b a b b b b b b b b,c b,c b,c b,c b,c b,c b,c b,c Food Energy Habitat Tourism Fodder Pollinaon Fresh water Fresh Biodiversity Recreaon Water cycle Water Raw materials Raw Water quality Water Nutrient cycle Nutrient Spiritual values Biological control Biological Primary producon Medicinal resources Air quality regulaon Water ﬂow regulaon Water Aesthec appreciaon Aesthec Soil erosion regulaon Soil erosion Soil formaon & ferlity Soil formaon Local climate regulaon climate Local Natural hazard regulaon hazard Natural Global climate regulaon Global climate

To identify the factors driving experts’ perceptions of direct outputs from agriculture, we called this factor the importance of ES, we conducted a PCA. We could use ‘agricultural output’. only 18 of the original 25 ES for a PCA because the var- Factor V correlated with the ES ‘tourism’, ‘energy’, iable structure of seven ES did not meet the applied criteria ‘soil formation’ and ‘medicinal resources’. ‘Medicinal for PCA. The excluded ES were as follows: ‘fresh water’, resources’ also cross-loaded with factor VI. ‘Soil forma- ‘raw materials’, ‘water cycle’, ‘local climate regulation’, tion’ correlated negatively with this factor because most ‘habitat’, ‘global climate regulation’ and ‘primary experts who ranked ‘tourism’ and ‘energy’ high and ranked production’. ‘soil formation’ low. As ‘tourism’ and ‘energy’ are eco- For the remaining 18 items, the Bartlett test was highly nomically very important services for the study region and significant and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin statistics resulted ‘medicinal resources’ also show potential for commer- in 0.619. This indicated sufficient correlation amongst the cialisation, we named factor V ‘economic output’. Factor variables to proceed and to extract perception factors. We VI correlated with the ES ‘water quality’, ‘air quality extracted six factors with eigenvalues higher than one. regulation’ and ‘medicinal resources’. All these services These factors explained 74.6 % (Table 5) of the total are related to human health issues, and hence, this factor variance. Communalities varied from 0.508 to 0.901. was called ‘human health’. The factors described above ‘Medicinal resources’ loaded significantly on two factors; could be used to define ecosystem service bundles (ESB) however, all common remedies used to eliminate this for further analyses or ES assessments. In addition to their cross-loading caused far worse test results. Therefore, we thematic assemblage and description of the factors, the kept this item and interpreted the results taking this cross- resulting ESB are based on perceived importance and thus loading into consideration. facilitate validations or ratings in the context of ES Factor I correlated with the ES ‘spiritual values’, ‘aes- assessments and trade-off analyses. thetic appreciation’ and ‘recreation’. This factor consisted of cultural services, which are particularly difficult to Which ES are studied most often in peer-reviewed value, and therefore, we named it ‘cultural intangibility’. journals? Factor II correlated with the ES ‘natural hazards regulation’, ‘soil erosion regulation’ and ‘water flow regulation’. We reviewed 816 references published from 2006 to 2013 These services describe gravitational mass movements, (October). The annual distribution (Table 6) showed an which might impair the safety of humans; this factor was increase in publication activity, which is in line with the named ‘safety regulation’. Factor III correlated with ‘bio- results of Vihervaara et al. (2010) and Seppelt et al. (2011), diversity’, ‘pollination’ and ‘biological control’. These who also report a strong increase in ES studies since 2006. three items are the prerequisite for a healthy ecosystem, The articles were published in 216 different journals and therefore, we called this factor ‘ecological integrity’. encompassing wide thematic, methodological and geo- Factor IV correlated with ‘food’ and ‘fodder’. As these are graphic focuses. This reflects the multidisciplinary

123 C. Haida et al.

Fig. 3 Comparison of experts’ Air quality regulaon rankings of 25 ecosystem Spiritual values 1 Natural hazard regulaon services. Shown are the median Aesthec appreciaon Global climate regulaon ranks of the three regions Recreaon 6 (Tyrol, Vorarlberg and South Water ﬂow regulaon Tyrol) from 1 (most important) to 25 (least important) Tourism 11 Local climate regulaon

16 Medicinal resouces Soil erosion regulaon

21 Fodder Water quality

Raw materials Biological control

Food Primary producon

Energy Water cycle Tyrol Habitat Soil formaon & ferlity Vorarlberg Fresh water Nutrient cycle South Tyrol Pollinaon Biodiversity

Table 5 Factor loadings of Factors ecosystem services after Varimax rotation with Kaiser I II III IV V VI normalisation. The rotation Cultural Safety Ecological Agricultural Economic Human converged in 7 iterations intangibility regulation integrity output output health

Spiritual values 0.946 -0.047 -0.042 -0.062 0.049 0.027 Aesthetic appreciation 0.945 -0.014 -0.056 -0.104 -0.015 0.080 Recreation 0.853 -0.021 0.006 -0.091 0.037 -0.226 Natural hazard regulation -0.058 0.833 -0.141 -0.141 0.118 -0.209 Soil erosion regulation -0.125 0.773 0.062 0.164 -0.243 0.196 Water flow regulation 0.115 0.757 -0.354 -0.136 -0.042 0.184 Biodiversity 0.062 -0.193 0.830 -0.133 -0.007 -0.130 Pollination -0.032 -0.309 0.749 0.046 -0.164 0.009 Biological control -0.169 0.276 0.688 0.141 -0.166 0.287 Fodder -0.087 0.063 0.037 0.920 0.028 0.014 Food -0.120 -0.163 -0.046 0.900 0.049 0.007 Tourism 0.253 0.073 0.021 0.036 0.727 -0.182 Energy -0.184 0.080 -0.216 -0.046 0.676 0.194 Soil formation -0.022 0.334 0.178 -0.031 -0.602 0.019 Water quality -0.190 0.252 0.127 0.094 -0.082 0.763 Air quality regulation 0.187 -0.115 -0.349 -0.358 0.079 0.656 The highest factor loadings are Medicinal resources -0.035 -0.174 0.163 0.249 0.540 0.554 in bold character and broad application of the ES concept. Most presented results from ES assessments. This included articles (76 %) described empirical studies. Thirty-three quantifying, valuing and measuring (1) the supply of ES percent of the articles did not focus on individual ES but (163 studies) and (2) the demand for ES (30 studies). were related to the ES concept in a broader context, for Five hundred and forty-four studies had one or more ES example, the development or refinement of frameworks, as a direct topic. Twenty-two percent of these studies various aspects of management and planning or a focus on focused on only one service, 39 % considered two to four other methodological issues. Forty percent of the studies ES and 39 % considered five and more ES (Fig. 4). On

123 Experts’ perceptions and research intensity

Table 6 Summery of the reviewed ecosystem services studies Table 6 continued Variable No. of (%) of Variable No. of (%) of articles total articles total

When was the study published? What was the scale? Non-cumulative 2006 28 3 Regional 332 41 2007 43 5 International 114 14 2008 46 6 Local 82 10 2009 67 8 Transnational 36 4 2010 125 15 Global 14 2 2011 151 18 Not applicable 32 4 2012 170 21 Where was the study conducted? Non-cumulative 2013—through October 186 23 Americas 195 24 In what type of journal was the study published? Europe 162 20 Ecology and ecosystems 186 23 Asia 112 14 Economy 121 15 Oceania 46 6 Management, planning and policy 96 12 Africa 45 5 Conservation, monitoring and pollution 77 9 Global 26 3 Interdisciplinary journals 76 9 Not applicable or no data 230 28 Forestry and agriculture 50 6 Human-environmental relations 43 5 average, 5.3 services were assessed per study. Over the Development and change journals 41 5 years, a slight increase is noticeable, indicating a trend Journals with a territorial focus 28 3 towards the assessment of multiple services. Hydrology 23 3 From the 544 studies that directly dealt with one or more Engineering and technology 20 3 ES, we extracted a list of 50 different ES. A large number Modelling and remote sensing 19 2 of goods, services and functions were classified as ES, Geography 19 2 including some which were not in line with the MEA Urban areas 6 1 (2005) definition. Services with well-established indicators What was the scientific approach of the study? were most often the subject of research: ‘Global climate Empirical 616 76 regulation’ (244 studies) topped the list of the ES studied Theoretical 175 21 most frequently, followed by ‘food’ (225 studies), ‘biodi- No data 25 3 versity’ (177 studies), ‘fresh water’ (167 studies) and Were individual ES mentioned in the study? ‘water quality’ (162 studies). Despite the ongoing debate Yes 544 67 (Mace et al. 2012) over whether biodiversity is actually an No 272 33 ES or whether it is instead a necessary underlying com- What was the topic of the study? Non-cumulative ponent, most studies classified it as an ES, and therefore, it ES assessments—quantifying, valuing, measuring 327 40 was frequently researched. As our study focused on the Impact analysis 181 22 importance of ES for mountain regions, we also analysed Frameworks and conceptual work 126 15 publications focusing on mountain regions separately. The Methodology development and testing 124 15 general trend regarding the number of studies focusing on Reviews 120 15 specific ES was similar in studies focusing on mountain Linking ecosystem functions and properties to ES 118 14 regions, as well as studies at a local or regional scale Planning and management 116 14 (Fig. 5). Conservation and restoration 82 10 Trade-off’s 74 9 Payment of ES 67 8 Discussion Linking ES to human well-being 59 7 Policies 44 5 How well known and understood is the ES concept Markets for ES 24 3 amongst decision-makers? Scales 22 3 Definitions, characterisations and classifications 14 2 In recent years, the ES concept has attracted increasing attention, both from scientists and from the general public.

123 C. Haida et al.

Fig. 4 Number of ecosystem 275 services studied per reviewed article from 2006 to October 2013. Zero means that the 125 20 article did not focus on a particular service but was of conceptual nature. The inset shows the frequency per year 100 10 with median, interquartile range, minimum and maximum, without outliers 75 Number of ES per study 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of studies 50

0 0 12345 67 891011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2526 27 28 29 Number of ES considered per study

A Google search for the term ‘ecosystem service’ produces Which ES are perceived as important for mountain more than 800,000 search results (September 2014). Nev- regions, and does perception depend on the regional ertheless, 47 % of our interviewed experts stated that they or thematic background of experts? had never heard of the ES concept before, and only 49 % defined ES in accordance with the MEA definition. The perception of ES can be influenced by sociocultural, Amongst decision-makers, only experts with an environ- economic or political factors (Martıń-Lo´pez et al. 2012; mental protection or forestry background seemed to have Orenstein and Groner 2014). However, within our study in-depth knowledge of the concept. This finding is in line regions, the experts’ ranking of ES was not influenced by not only with our literature review, which revealed high region, thematic background or previous knowledge of the publication activities in journals with an ecological/envi- ES concept. Furthermore, our ranking results correspond ronmental focus (Table 6), but also with Vihervaara et al. with the results of Lamarque et al. (2011), who asked (2010), who reports that the most first authors of ES studies stakeholders from traditionally rural areas in south-western had an ecological affiliation. Although ecology has con- France (a mountainous region, but culturally different from tributed some fundamental work upon which the ES con- our study region) to rank ES. cept has been built (Grunewald and Bastian 2012), its The perceived importance of ES shows a pattern that interdisciplinary character requires the adoption of the recalls Maslow’s (1943, 1993) hierarchy of needs (Fig. 6). concept by other disciplines. The still missing recognition The top-ranked ES (‘fresh water’, ‘food’ and ‘air quality of the ES concept amongst decision-makers from disci- regulation’) were those services that satisfy physiological plines such as planning, tourism and energy is remarkable needs. At first glance, the ES ‘habitat’ and ‘energy’ (which and worrying. These disciplines often play an important were ranked second and third, respectively) might not be role in the development of land-use policies and are related to basic physiological or safety and security needs. involved in practical management decisions. We are con- However, this view changes if we consider the reasoning of vinced that a better integration of the ES concept in plan- some of the experts who stated that they ranked these ES ning and decision-making processes could improve the high because they ‘enable the survival of humankind’. recognition of trade-offs and the various needs of society. Many experts understood ‘habitat’ as the general biotic To achieve this goal, ES research should focus on practical environment, which includes space for humans as well. applications and the transferability of results. Furthermore, Without a suitable habitat, no life would be possible, and ES studies should attempt to actively include decision- therefore, experts ranked it high. Most regulating and makers and practitioners in science-based stakeholder maintaining services, as well as some provisioning ser- dialogues (c.f. Welp et al. 2006). vices, were ranked in the middle. These ES can all be

123 Experts’ perceptions and research intensity

Fig. 5 Number of studies per 250 ecosystem service type. Ecosystem services that could not be assigned to one of the 25 Literature review menoning individual ES (n=544) predeﬁned types are listed as 200 deﬁned by the respective Literature review authors regional & local studies (n=414) 150 Literature review mountain regions (n=87)

100 Number of studies

0 0 1020304050 Ecosystem services ID

ID Ecosystem service ID Ecosystem service ID Ecosystem service 1 Global climate regulaon 18 Tourism 35 Noise reducon 2 Food 19 Energy 36 Seed dispersal 3 Biodiversity 20 Primary producon 37 Available land for industry 4 Fresh water 21 Cultural & historical heritage 38 Future values 5 Water quality 22 Spiritual values 39 Ecological engineering 6 Recreaon 23 Local climate regulaon 40 Geological & mineral resources 7 Raw materials 24 Medicinal resources 41 Iconic species 8 Natural hazard regulaon 25 Educaon 42 Fluvial transport 9 Soil erosion regulaon 26 Water cycle 43 Life sustaining values 10 Water flow regulaon 27 Research 44 Therapeuc values 11 Soil formaon & ferlity 28 Ecosystem health 45 Parasism 12 Nutrient cycle 29 Social relaon 46 Archaeology 13 Biological control 30 Inspiraon 47 Energy density 14 Habitat 31 Knowledge systems 48 Impact non-nave species 15 Air quality regulaon 32 Recycling e.g. by vultures 49 Moral sasfacon 16 Aesthec appreciaon 33 Infrastructure & Transport 50 Naturalness 17 Pollinaon 34 Nature conservaon & protecon related to safety and security needs. We also included services should be linked to physiological and safety needs, ‘tourism’ in this category based on the experts’ justifica- and cultural services to psychological and spiritual needs. tions, e.g. ‘without tourism, life in some tributary valleys Recent studies tend to describe well-being along other would not be possible’ because there are no other possi- dimensions as well, for example, ‘having’, ‘loving’ and bilities for employment or income. Most cultural services ‘being’ (Allardt 1993), or in terms of so-called capabilities were perceived as less important; these can be linked to the (Nussbaum and Sen 1993). No matter which system is used, upper levels of Maslow’s hierarchical structure (spiritual if just one of the components is not satisfied, human well- and psychological needs). One might suggest that the ES being is not guaranteed (Nussbaum 2006). ‘medicinal resources’, which was ranked low by most Although there were no differences between regions or experts, is also of basic importance, and hence, its low thematic backgrounds, it seems that experts often consid- rating contradicts our argument. However, we believe that ered the scale at which ES are supplied or demanded. this exception is due to the minor regional relevance of this Lamarque et al. (2011) has found that local needs might ES in the study region. overrule regional ones. This could lead to distinct valua- Despite critiques and revisions (Wahba and Bridwell tions, e.g. ‘biological control’ might be important at a local 1976; Alderfer 1972), the main structure of Maslow’s hier- scale but play only a minor role at a global scale. This scale archy is still used today (Keller 2009). Our observations are dependence might lead to conflicts over how to manage ES also in line with Dominati et al. (2010) and Summers et al. best (Hein et al. 2006). Therefore, methods are needed to (2012), who have suggested that provisioning and regulating account for such scale-dependent trade-offs (Anton et al.

123 C. Haida et al.

2010; Reid et al. 2006) and the resulting uncertainties (Hou can be classified as an ES (Haines-Young and Potschin et al. 2013). 2013). Nevertheless, the studies that include ‘energy’ in ES assessments regard it as highly important (Hartter 2010, Is the research intensity in accordance Ro¨nnba¨ck et al. 2007). In the context of changing policies with the perceived importance? which promote the use of renewable energy sources and the ongoing debate over the ecological consequences of the The evaluation of the research intensity per ES clearly increasing production of agro-fuels, we believe that com- indicates that some services receive considerably more prehensive ES assessments should not neglect this aspect. attention than others. To investigate whether research It is highly controversial whether tourism can actually be attention is in line with the perceived importance of distinct classified as an ES, or whether it is instead an economic ES, we used the number of publications per ES as a sur- sector that profits from various ES. This could partially rogate indicator for research intensity and compared this explain why ‘tourism’ as an ES is underrepresented in ES with the experts’ rankings (Fig. 7). For this comparison, we research. ‘Primary production’ and ‘water cycle’, which used both, publications focusing on mountain areas only have generally been classified as supporting ES, have been (n = 87) and the dataset with all publications directly excluded from CICES because of the double counting dealing with ES (n = 544). To identify and visualise ES problem (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). This probably con- that were perceived as important by experts but did not tributes to the discrepancy between the experts’ rankings receive the corresponding research attention, we compared and research activities. Although there are some possible the rank order of the experts’ rankings with the rank order explanations for the observed discrepancies, we still think based on the number of publications. When the rank orders that research attention for the identified ES lags behind based on the publication reviews (both datasets) were more their perceived importance and that this should be delib- than 5 ranks below the rank based on experts’ perceptions, erately considered in future research. we identified this ES as having a research gap (‘habitat’, The ES ‘fresh water’ and ‘food’, which relate to phys- ‘energy’, ‘primary production’, ‘tourism’, ‘water cycle’ iological needs, are ranked high and are intensively and ‘local climate regulation’). researched. Many authors (including Bryan et al. 2010; ‘Habitat’ was ranked high in our interviews and also in Castro et al. 2011; Reyers et al. 2009; Lamarque et al. other studies (Vilardy et al. 2011; Jordan et al. 2010), but 2011; Tasser et al. 2012) have reported that stakeholders did not receive the corresponding research attention. This acknowledge the importance of ‘fresh water’ and related might be affected by the difficulty of defining ‘habitat’ as services. Similarly, ‘food’ is ranked amongst the top five an ES and of establishing adequate indicators for assess- services in many studies (Bryan et al. 2010; Hartter 2010; ments. ‘Energy’ was only considered in a few ES studies, Iftekhar and Takama 2008). which might be attributed to the ongoing debate over the ES that receive relatively little research attention and types of energy (e.g. solar, wind, water and biomass) that were rated of minor importance by stakeholders included

Fig. 6 Relationship between (24) Spiritual values

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs Spi

(1943) and ecosystem services. ritual needs The services are listed in a (24) Medicinal resources standardised ranking order according to the experts’ (22) Biological control interviews, i.e. ‘fresh water’ and Self- ‘habitat’ were perceived as most (17) Soil erosion reg., Water quality reg., transcendence Fodder important (median rank of 4.5), Psychological need and therefore, both are found at (16) Biodiversity Self- the bottom of the pyramid. The (15) Local climate reg. schematic set-up is based on (14) Raw materials Dominati et al. (2010) (10) Nutrient cycle, Water ﬂow reg., Esteem needs

(9) Water cycle s (5) Tourism, Love and belonging needs Natural hazard reg. Survival needs (5) Air quality reg. Safety and security needs (4) Food (3) Energy Physiological needs (1) Fresh water, Habitat

123 Experts’ perceptions and research intensity

esources

rolont

ycle

ourism

Fresh water Fresh Nutrient cycle Raw materials quality Water Biodiversity Biological c Spiritual values Habi Energy T Water c Food Fodder Medicinal r 3 45

40 5 35

7 iew 30 v

9 25 re re

of studies [%] 20

eratu

11 it 15 L

Number Expert [Median] ranking 13 10

5 15 0

Expert ranking Literature review mountains (n=87)

Fig. 7 Comparison of perceived importance and research intensity. Ecosystem services that were perceived as important by experts but did not receive the corresponding research attention are shown on the right side

‘biological control’, ‘aesthetic appreciation’, ‘medicinal services will be of future relevance (Martıń-Lo´pez et al. resources’ and ‘spiritual values’. However, it should be 2012). One challenge of ES research is how to evaluate the noted that cultural services are characterised by a high impacts of future climate and political scenarios on the ranking variability in our study. It seems that stakeholders provision of and demand for ES. The capacity of ecosys- from regions with extensive agriculture, community-based tems to provide services occurs in clusters (Raudsepp- recreation or expansive protected areas (Lamarque et al. Hearne et al. 2010) across landscapes. Martıń-Lo´pez et al. 2011; Agbenyega et al. 2009; Castro et al. 2011) value (2012) have identified ES bundles (ESB) based on per- cultural services more than those who work in areas where ceived importance (cf. Plieninger et al. 2013). This concurs the productiveness of agricultural goods is predominant. with our finding that experts tend to view certain ES as One reason for this could be that the importance of cultural more important and that these services often are inter- services derived from agricultural landscapes is still linked. Many practitioners find it difficult to differentiate underestimated. Land use-based indicators focusing on between ES, in particular those belonging to the same land-use intensity (Ru¨disser et al. 2012) or scenic beauty perception factor. Therefore, we suggest making use of (Schirpke et al. 2013; Frank et al. 2013) could be useful ESB to facilitate the implementation of ES assessment and tools to assess and illustrate the relevance of cultural ES in management in regional planning and decision-making. agricultural landscapes. To cope with the intangible char- Using ESB could further improve the understanding of the acter of cultural ES, Daniel et al. (2012) suggest using ES concept and thus support the urgently needed exchange multiple assessment methods or focusing on specific geo- between research and practice (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. graphic regions or cultural contexts (Satz et al. 2013). Even 2010; Martıń-Lo´pez et al. 2012). though we are very aware of the different origins, scales and content of the data, we find that this comparison demonstrates that ES research is not always in accordance Conclusion with stakeholders’ perceptions. One of the main objectives of the ES concept is to reconnect society with nature (Lele Knowing the history and context of the ES concept, it is of et al. 2013). To achieve this, it is important to bridge the little surprise that related research is dominated by eco- gap between research and practice (Schro¨ter et al. 2014). logical and environmental disciplines. Nevertheless, it is Many ES have deteriorated over recent decades (MEA remarkable and worrying that many disciplines have not 2005, Harrison et al. 2010). This trend is likely to increase yet adopted the concept, despite its interdisciplinary char- with climate change (Schro¨ter et al. 2005). However, cli- acter and approach. This is true for both practitioners and mate change impact analyses of ES are rare. Preferences researchers. To facilitate the broad application and accep- and opinions change over time as conditions change tance of the concept, it will be important to integrate and (Malone et al. 2010). Identifying the reasons and motiva- connect it to other disciplines. This could also accelerate tions for the valuations of ES might help to identify which the further development of the concept. To this end, it will

123 C. Haida et al. be necessary to make the ES concept more understandable M, Sousa JP, Sykes MT, Tinch R, Vandewalle M, Watt A, and to support the implementation of ES assessment and Settele J (2010) Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy. management in regional planning and decision-making. Biodivers Conserv 19(10):2979–2994. doi:10.1007/s10531-010- We have shown that ES research does not always focus on 9853-6 the issues which are regarded as most relevant by practi- Assessment Millennium Ecosystem (ed) (2005) Ecosystems and tioners. The resulting discrepancy between perception and human well-being. Current states and trends. Island Press, Washington research activity can influence trade-off assessments if Autonome Provinz Bozen-Su¨dtirol Landesinstitut fu¨r Statistik important ES are not included; as a result, the full extent of (ASTAT) (2012) Su¨dtiroler Energiebilanz 2009, Bozen trade-offs might not be understood. One reason for this Autonome Provinz Bozen-Su¨dtirol Landesinstitut fu¨r Statistik discrepancy is the lack of interaction between researchers (ASTAT) (2013) astatinfo. Tourismus in einigen Alpengebieten 2011, Bozen and stakeholders. ES bundles could be a valuable instru- Berbe´s-Bla´zquez M (2012) A participatory assessment of ecosystem ment to manage the inherent complexity and comprehen- services and human wellbeing in rural Costa Rica using photo- siveness of ES assessments and facilitate their voice. Environ Manage 49(4):862–875. doi:10.1007/s00267- communication. ESB can be identified not only with 012-9822-9 Boyd JW, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need respect to the supply of ES, but also with respect to how ES for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ are perceived and valued. Further studies focused on 63(2–3):616–626. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002 developing a robust and reproducible methodology to Bryan BA, Grandgirard A, Ward JR (2010) Quantifying and create ESB on the basis of supply, demand and perception exploring strategic regional priorities for managing natural capital and ecosystem services given multiple stakeholder are required—not only in the Alps but also for other perspectives. Ecosystems 13(4):539–555. doi:10.1007/s10021- regions and in different socio-economic contexts. To foster 010-9339-0 the communication between science and practice, we fur- Castro A, Martıń-Lo´pez B, Garcıá-Llorente M, Aguilera P, Lo´pez E, thermore suggest intensifying transdisciplinary ES Cabello J (2011) Social preferences regarding the delivery of ecosystem services in a semiarid Mediterranean region. J Arid research, emphasising the involvement and participation of Environ 75(11):1201–1208. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.05.013 practitioners. This could help researchers to identify suit- Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight A, O’Farrell PJ, Reyers B, Rouget M, able and meaningful indicators to evaluate ES and to pro- Roux DJ, Welz A, Wilhelm-Rechman A (2008) An operational mote the broad application of the ecosystem service model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(28):9483–9488 concept in practice. Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S, Willemen L, Petz K, Palomo I, Drakou EG, Martıń-Lo´pez B, McPhearson T, Boyanova K, Acknowledgments We would like to thank all interviewees for Alkemade R, Egoh B, Dunbar MB, Maes J (2013) A blueprint their input to this study. Our special thanks go to Christian Georges for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv and Gottfried Tappeiner for their useful advice and discussions, to 4:4–14. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001 Andrew Greenbank for his thorough proofreading and to the anony- Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, mous reviewers for their valuable input. This study was part of the Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH, Greˆt-Regamey project ‘SHIFT’ funded by the COMET programme, the Austrian A, Lave R, Muhar S, Penker M, Ribe RG, Schauppenlehner T, Climate Research Funds project ‘CAFEE—Climate change in agri- Sikor T, Soloviy I, Spierenburg M, Taczanowska K, Tam J, von culture and forestry: an integrated assessment of mitigation and der Dunk A (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the adaptation measures in Austria’, and the bi-national project ‘Ecology ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci of the Alpine region’. Ulrike Tappeiner is a member of the research 109(23):8812–8819. doi:10.1073/pnas.1114773109 area ‘Alpine Space—Man and Environment’ at the University of Diamont Database (2008). http://www.diamont-database.eu. Acces- Innsbruck. sed 23 Oct 2013 de Sherbinin A, Curran S (2004) Completing the picture. The challenges of bringing ‘‘consumption’’ into the population- environment equation. Popul Environ 26(2):107–131 References Dominati E, Patterson M, Mackay A (2010) A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem Agbenyega O, Burgess PJ, Cook M, Morris J (2009) Application of an services of soils. Ecol Econ 69(9):1858–1868. doi:10.1016/j. ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community ecolecon.2010.05.002 woodlands. Land Use Pol 26(3):551–557. doi:10.1016/j.land Elkin C, Gutie´rrez AG, Leuzinger S, Manusch C, Temperli C, Rasche usepol.2008.08.011 L, Bugmann H (2013) A 2 & #xB0;C warmer world is not safe Alderfer CP (1972) Existence, relatedness, and growth: human needs for ecosystem services in the European Alps. Glob Chang Biol in organizational settings. Free Press, New York 19(6):1827–1840. doi:10.1111/gcb.12156 Allardt E (1993) Having, loving, being. An alternative to the swedish European Environmental Agency (2010) Corine land cover. http:// model of welfare research. In: Nussbaum MC, Sen A (eds) The www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/clc-2006-vector-data- quality of life. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 88–94 version. Accessed 11 May 2012 Alwin DF, Krosnick JA (1985) The measurement of values in Fliri F (1975) Das Klima der Alpen im Raume von Tirol. surveys. A comparison of ratings and rakings. Public Opin Quart Monographien zur Landeskunde Tirols 1, vol 1. Wagner, 49(4):535–552 Mu¨nchen Anton C, Young J, Harrison PA, Musche M, Bela G, Feld CK, Fontana V, Radtke A, Bossi Fedrigotti V, Tappeiner U, Tasser E, Harrington R, Haslett JR, Pataki G, Rounsevell MDA, Skourtos Zerbe S, Buchholz T (2013) Comparing land-use alternatives.

123 Experts’ perceptions and research intensity

Using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria Strategic Workshop, 1st ed. Innsbruck University Press, Inns- decision analysis. Ecol Econ 93:128–136. doi:10.1016/j.ecole bruck, pp 61–70 con.2013.05.007 Ko¨rner C (2009) Mountain vegetation and environment under change. Forsius M, Anttila S, Arvola L, Bergstrom I, Hakola H, Heikkinen HI, In: Jandl R, Borsdorf A, van Miegroet H, Lackner R, Psenner R Helenius J, Hyvarinen M, Jylha K, Karjalainen J, Keskinen T, (eds) Global change and sustainable development in mountain Laine K, Nikinmaa E, Peltonen-Sainio P, Rankinen K, Reini- regions. Proceedings of the COST Strategic Workshop, 1st ed. kainen M, Setala H, Vuorenmaa J (2013) Impacts and adaptation Innsbruck University Press, Innsbruck, pp 25–30 options of climate change on ecosystem services in Finland: a Ko¨rner C, Ohsawa M (2005) Mountain Systems. In: Millennium model based study. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(1):26–40. Ecosystem Assessment (ed) Ecosystems and human well-being. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.001 Current states and trends. Island Press, Washington, DC, Frank S, Fu¨rst C, Koschke L, Witt A, Makeschin F (2013) pp 681–716 Assessment of landscape aesthetics. Validation of a landscape Krosnick JA (1999) Survey research. Annu Rev Psychol 50:537–567 metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic Lamarque P, Tappeiner U, Turner C, Steinbacher M, Bardgette R, beauty. Ecol Ind 32:222–231. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.026 Szukics U, Schermer M, Lavorel S (2011) Stakeholder percep- Greˆt-Regamey A, Walz A, Bebi P (2008) Valuing ecosystem services tion of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on for sustainable landscape planning in alpine regions. Mt Res Dev soil fertility and biodiversity. Reg Environ Chang 11:791–804. 28(2):156–165. doi:10.1659/mrd.0951 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01925.x Greˆt-Regamey A, Brunner SH, Kienast F (2012) Mountain ecosystem Lele S, Springate-Baginski O, Lakerveld R, Deb D, Dash P (2013) services. Who Cares? Mt Res Dev 32(S1):S23–S34. doi:10.1659/ Ecosystem Services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alterna- MRD-JOURNAL-D-10-00115.S1 tives. Conserv Soc 11(4):343. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.125752 Grunewald K, Bastian O (eds) (2012) O¨ kosystemdienstleistungen. Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Konzepte, Methoden und Fallbeispiele, 1, 2013. Spektrum Psychol 140:1–55 Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg, Neckar Lugnot M, Martin G (2013) Biodiversity provides ecosystem services: Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2011) Common International Classi- scientific results versus stakeholders’ knowledge. Reg Environ fication of Ecosystem Services (CICES). Update 2011. EEA Chang 13(6):1145–1155. doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0426-6 Framework contract no EEA/BSS/07/007, November 2011 Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter A (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2013) Common International Classi- services. A multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol fication of Ecosystem Services (CICES 4). Consultation on 27(1):19–26. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006 CICES Version 4, August–December 2012. EEA Framework Malone EL, Dooley JJ, Bradbury JA (2010) Moving from misinfor- Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003 mation derived from public attitude surveys on carbon dioxide Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2006) Multivariate data capture and storage towards realistic stakeholder involvement. analysis, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey Int J Greenh Gas Control 4(2):419–425. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc. Harrison PA, Vandewalle M, Sykes MT, Berry PM, Bugter R, Bello 2009.09.004 F, Feld CK, Grandin U, Harrington R, Haslett JR, Jongman Martıń-Lo´pez B, Iniesta-Arandia I, Garcıá-Llorente M, Palomo I, RHG, Luck GW, Silva PM, Moora M, Settele J, Sousa JP, Zobel Casado-Arzuaga I, Amo DGD, Go´mez-Baggethun E, Oteros- M (2010) Identifying and prioritising services in European Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, Gonza´lez JA, Santos- terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. Biodivers Conserv Martıń F, Onaindia M, Lo´pez-Santiago CA, Montes C, Bawa K 19(10):2791–2821. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9789-x (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social Hartter J (2010) Resource use and ecosystem services in a forest park preferences. PLoS One 7(6):e38970. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. landscape. Soc Nat Resour 23(3):207–223. doi:10.1080/ 0038970 08941920903360372 Maslow AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland E (2006) Spatial 50:370–396 scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Maslow AH (1993) The farther reaches of human nature, 4th edn. Ecol Econ 57(2):209–228. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005 Arkana, New York Hou Y, Burkhard B, Mu¨ller F (2013) Uncertainties in landscape Notter B, Hurni H, Wiesmann U, Abbaspour KC (2012) Modelling analysis and ecosystem service assessment. J Environ Manage water provision as an ecosystem service in a large East African 127:117–131. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.002 river basin. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16(1):69–86. doi:10.5194/ Iftekhar MS, Takama T (2008) Perceptions of biodiversity, environ- hess-16-69-2012 mental services, and conservation of planted mangroves: a case Nussbaum MC (2006) Frontiers of justice Disability, nationality, study on Nijhum Dwip Island, Bangladesh. Wetl Ecol Manage species membership. The Belknap Press/Harvard University 16(2):119–137. doi:10.1007/s11273-007-9060-8 Press, Cambridge Instituto nazionale di statistica (ISTAT) (2012) Compendio statistico Nussbaum MC, Sen A (eds) (1993) The quality of life. Clarendon italiano: Italian Statistical Abstract 2011 Press, Oxford Jordan SJ, Hayes SE, Yoskowitz D, Smith LM, Summers JK, Russell Orenstein DE, Groner E (2014) In the eye of the stakeholder: changes in M, Benson WH (2010) Accounting for natural resources and perceptions of ecosystem services across an international border. environmental sustainability. Linking ecosystem services to Ecosyst Serv 8:185–196. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.04.004 human well-being. Environ Sci Technol 44(5):1530–1536. Petticrew M, Roberts H (2009) Systematic reviews in the social doi:10.1021/es902597u sciences. A practical guide, 8. [Dr.]. Blackwell, Malden Keller L (2009) Lebensqualita¨t im Alpenraum. Innsbrucker Geo- Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, graphische Studien, vol 36. Geographie Innsbruck, Selbstverlag, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at com- Innsbruck munity level. Land Use Pol 33:118–129. doi:10.1016/j.land Koellner T (2009) Supply and demand for ecosystem services in usepol.2012.12.013 mountainous regions. In: Jandl R, Borsdorf A, van Miegroet H, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson G, Bennett E (2010) Ecosystem service Lackner R, Psenner R (eds) Global change and sustainable bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl development in mountain regions. Proceedings of the COST Acad Sci 107(11):5242–5247. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907284107

123 C. Haida et al.

Reid WV, Berkes F, Wilbanks T, Capistrano D (eds) (2006) Bridging shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48(3):630–636. scales and knowledge systems. Concepts and applications in doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington Statistik Austria (2013). http://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/ Reyers B, O’Farrell PJ, Cowling RM, Egoh B, Le Maitre DC, Vlok index.html. Accessed 23 Oct 2013 JHJ (2009) Ecosystem services, land-cover change, and stake- Summers JK, Smith LM, Case JL, Linthurst RA (2012) A review of holders: finding a sustainable foothold for a semiarid biodiversity the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the hotspot. E&S 14:38 contribution of ecosystem services. Ambio 41(4):327–340. Ro¨nnba¨ck P, Crona B, Ingwall L (2007) The return of ecosystem doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0256-7 goods and services in replanted mangrove forests: perspectives Tappeiner U, Borsdorf A, Tasser E (eds) (2008) Alpenatlas. Mapping from local communities in Kenya. Envi Conserv. doi:10.1017/ the Alps. Society, economy, environment. Spektrum Akademi- S0376892907004225 scher Verlag, Heidelberg Ru¨disser J, Tasser E, Tappeiner U (2012) Distance to nature. A new Tasser E, Schermer M, Siegl G, Tappeiner U (eds) (2012) Wir biodiversity relevant environmental indicator set at the landscape Landschaftmacher. Vom Sein und Werden der Kulturlandschaft level. Ecol Ind 15(1):208–216. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09. in Nord-, Ost- und Su¨dtirol. Athesia, Bozen 027 TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Satz D, Gould RK, Chan KMA, Guerry A, Norton B, Satterfield T, Ecological and economic foundation, London Halpern BS, Levin J, Woodside U, Hannahs N, Basurto X, Klain Veit H (2002) Die Alpen. Geoo¨kologie und Landschaftsentwicklung. S (2013) The challenges of incorporating cultural ecosystem UTB Geowissenschaften, O¨ kologie, Biologie, vol 2327. Ulmer, services into environmental assessment. Ambio 42:675–684. Stuttgart (Hohenheim) doi:10.1007/s13280-013-0386-6 Vihervaara P, Ro¨nka¨ M, Walls M (2010) Trends in ecosystem service Schirpke U, Ho¨lzler S, Leitinger G, Bacher M, Tappeiner U, Tasser E research. Early steps and current drivers. Ambio 39(4):314–324. (2013) Can we model the scenic beauty of an alpine landscape? doi:10.1007/s13280-010-0048-x Sustainability 5(3):1080–1094. doi:10.3390/su5031080 Vilardy S, Gonza´lez JA, Martıń-Lo´pez B, Montes C (2011) Schro¨ter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice IC, Aroujo M, Arnell N, Relationships between hydrological regime and ecosystem Bondeau A, Bugmann H, Carter T, Gracia J, de La Vega-Leiner services supply in a Caribbean coastal wetland. A social- A, Erhard M, Ewert F, Glendining M, House J, Kankaanpaä¨ S, ecological approach. Hydrol Sci J 56(8):1423–1435 Klein R, Lavorel S, Lindner M, Metzger MJ, Meyer J, Mitchell Wahba MA, Bridwell LG (1976) Maslow reconsidered: a review of T, Reginster I, Rounsevell M, Sabate´ S, Sitch S, Smith B, Smith research on the need hierarchy theory. Organ Behav Hum J, Smith P, Sykes MT, Thonicke KTW, Tuck G, Zaehle S, Zierl Perform 15(2):212–240. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90038-6 B (2005) Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global Walz A, Lardelli C, Behrendt H, Greˆt-Regamey A, Lundstro¨mC, change in Europe. Science 310(5752):1333–1337. doi:10.1126/ Kytzia S, Bebi P (2007) Participatory scenario analysis for science.1115233 integrated regional modelling. Landsc Urban Plan Schro¨ter M, van der Zanden EH, Van Oudenhoven AP, Remme RP, 81(1–2):114–131. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.11.001 Serna-Chavez HM, de Groot RS, Opdam P (2014) Ecosystem Wang S, Fu B, Wei Y, Lyle C (2013) Ecosystem services services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and management. An integrated approach. Curr Opin Environ counter-arguments. Conserv Lett. doi:10.1111/conl.12091 Sustain 5(1):11–15. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.003 Scolozzi R, Morri E, Santolini R (2012) Delphi-based change Welp M, La Vega-Leinert A, de Stoll-Kleemann S, Jaeger CC (2006) assessment in ecosystem service values to support strategic Science-based stakeholder dialogues: theories and tools. Glob spatial planning in Italian landscapes. Ecol Ind 21:134–144. Environ Chang 16(2):170–181. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.019 12.002 Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies. Approaches,

123 Appendix 2

Appendix 2: Published article 4 - Renew able energies and ecosystem service impacts

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts

Richard Hastik g,n, Stefano Basso c, Clemens Geitner g, Christin Haida b, Aleš Poljanec e,h, Alessia Portaccio f, Borut Vrščaj a, Chris Walzer d a Agricultural Institute of Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia b Centre for Climate Change Adaptation, Innsbruck, Austria c Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Department of Water Resources and Drinking Water, Dübendorf, Switzerland d University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology, Vienna, Austria e Slovenia Forest Service, Ljubljana, Slovenia f University of Padova, Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, Padova, Italy g University of Innsbruck, Institute of Geography, Innsbruck, Austria h University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Ljubljana, Slovenia article info abstract/Summary

Article history: Expansion of renewable energies (¼RE) is a key measure in climate change mitigation. For this expansion Received 2 October 2014 mountainous areas are regarded as specifically suitable because of their high-energy potential. However, Received in revised form mountains also are biodiversity hot-spots and provide scenic landscapes and therefore offer high natural 11 March 2015 and cultural value. Preserving this natural and cultural value whilst intensifying RE, is expected to increase Accepted 4 April 2015 land use conflicts. This is of great concern in particular for vulnerable areas such as the Alps. Reconciling RE expansion with the preservation of natural and cultural values and thus minimizing environmental Keywords: impacts represents one of the most important challenges now. For this a systematic assessment of the Renewable energy wide range of impacts is needed. This literature review scrutinizes RE resources which are relevant in the Ecosystem services Alpine region and their effects on the environment by applying the Ecosystem Service approach. Thereby, Alps we identified possible environmental constraints when exploiting Alpine RE potentials and generated Environmental conflicts recommendations for future strategies on expanding RE. The outcomes highlight the strong need for interdisciplinary research on RE and environmental conflicts. Interdisciplinary approaches such as the concept of Ecosystem Services can help to cover the wide range of aspects associated with these particular human–environment interrelations. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 609 2. Method and study area ...... 609 3. Ecosystem service impacts ...... 610 3.1. Forest biomass ...... 610 3.1.1. Impacts on provisioning services ...... 611 3.1.2. Impacts on regulating and maintenance services ...... 611 3.1.3. Impacts on cultural services ...... 612 3.2. Agricultural biomass ...... 612 3.2.1. Impacts on provisioning services ...... 613 3.2.2. Impacts on regulating and maintenance services ...... 613 3.2.3. Impacts on cultural services ...... 613 3.3. Hydropower...... 614 3.3.1. Impact on provisioning services ...... 614 3.3.2. Impacts on regulating and maintenance services ...... 614 3.3.3. Impacts on cultural services ...... 615

n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ43 680 142 8761. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Hastik). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.004 1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623 609

3.4. Windpower...... 615 3.4.1. Impacts on regulating and maintenance services ...... 615 3.4.2. Impacts on cultural services ...... 616 3.5. Photovoltaic energy ...... 616 3.5.1. Impacts on provisioning services ...... 616 3.5.2. Impacts on regulating and maintenance services ...... 616 3.5.3. Impacts on cultural services ...... 616 3.6. Near surface and deep geothermal energy...... 616 3.6.1. Impacts on regulating and maintenance services ...... 616 4. Discussion and conclusions...... 617 4.1. Main conﬂict dimensions ...... 617 4.2. Key recommendations for reconciling RE and ES...... 617 5. Outlook ...... 619 Acknowledgements ...... 619 References...... 619

1. Introduction ecosystems to humans [16],whichdependonbiodiversityasthe total sum of life. Despite previous efforts to systematically define and The energy sector is key to mitigating global climate change and categorise ES [16–21], the discussion regarding which type of RE can greenhouse gas emissions [1]. The consistent provision of renew- be considered as ES is still on going. Recently, literature differentiates able energy is a central goal of sustainable energy concepts, along- between biotic (e.g. biomass) and abiotic outputs from natural fi fi side energy ef ciency and suf ciency [2]. The 20-20-20 targets systems [17], excluding the latter (e.g. wind, wave and hydropower) introduced by the European Union aim to increase the production from being ES. This might be a reason for the separation between RE ¼ of renewable energies ( RE) by 20%, decrease energy consumption and ES research [22]. fi by 20% and increase ef ciency by 20% by 2020 [3]. However, the However, linking RE and the ES concept provides several benefits: expansion of RE is currently considered controversial in terms of (1) the inter- and transdisciplinary character of the concept [23] land use competition and social acceptance, and entails trade-offs allows to assess multiple environmental issues arising as a conse- – with nature and biodiversity conservation [4 7].Obstructionof quence of the anthropogenic pressure on ecosystems, e.g. due to landscape vistas by wind mills, river ecosystem deterioration asso- expanding use of RE [18]; (2) it facilitates a systematic comparison of fi ciated with hydropower, intensi cation of land use and competition alternative RE and their impacts on different ES; (3) the concept was with food production caused by biofuel production are just a few developed to bridge the gap between science and practice [24] and examples of possible conflicts, which underline the necessity to supports the inclusion and the dialogue among stakeholders (e.g. systematically analyse benefits and disadvantages of alternative RE affected local population and decision-makers) and facilitates in order to find the best possible solution for a specific location. decision-making processes. To this aim, it is recommended to focus The sustainability of RE is usually evaluated through life cycle on specific problems, differentiate between final and intermediate analyses, which assess carbon emissions, energy ratios or water and affected ES, and to explicitly state needs of stakeholders and the material consumptions of individual RE [8–12].Literaturesources relative importance of individual ES in specificareas[25,26]. which summarize technologies, potentials, economic impacts, and In this article, existing studies on the impacts of several RE environmental issues of RE on a global perspective also exist. In sources are reviewed and elaborated from an ecosystem services contrast, only little work has been performed to systematically com- perspective. Thereby, we emphasised possible ES impacts listed in pare RE sources while accounting for multiple dimensions (i.e. social, the CICES classification [17].ThefocusisonimpactsofREatthe ecological, economic). Fewer studies still, compare local environmen- production sites, in the context of theAlpinearea.Off-siteimpacts tal impacts caused by multiple RE sources and develop approaches caused by production, disposal or recycling of power plant elements defining sustainable levels of RE production. These studies mostly and lifecycle analyses (e.g. carbon lifecycle emissions) are not apply strategic environmental impact assessments and are conducted considered in this study. Based on this review, a set of ES particularly within specific projects or programmes [13].However,abroader affected by expanding RE are identified, and primary, secondary and perspective, which includes alternative RE with their multifaceted marginal issues are distinguished. Moreover, different spatial features environmental and societal repercussions, is required in order to of these impacts are highlighted. The resulting constraints when develop RE expansion strategies and prioritise the growth of specific exploiting RE potentials are discussed and conclusions inform a RE in a region. Such an approach also fosters dialogue of “sustainable” balanced exploitation of RE and foster participatory planning. energy exploitation levels and resulting environmental trade-offs. In this context the EU Water Framework Directive [14] can be regarded as an example of how general guidelines can help to assess pressures. 2. Method and study area The current experience in the Alpine Space project recharge.green (www.recharge-green.eu), within which this literature review has The present work is based on a review of existing scientific been developed, confirms the need for such systematic approach. This literature, which has been gathered by using different databases and is particularly true for the Alps, while being strategically important for search engines such as ISI web of knowledge, sciencedirect, Google European RE due to their high energy potentials and their role of scholar and national libraries. It was not possible to conduct a “green battery” in the energy market, the Alps also constitute a fragile quantitative analysis of existing publications due to the wide range ecosystem which is characterized by high biodiversity and valuable of environmental aspects involved, the variety of potential keywords, aesthetic, recreational and cultural values [15]. the different languages used in the Alpine region and the number of The concept of Ecosystem Services (¼ES) represents a suitable RE sources assessed. Two iterative rounds of literature search have approach to assess the wide range of environmental issues assoc- been carried out. In the first round, the individual energy source (e.g. iated with expanding RE exploitation. ES are benefits provided by “hydropower”) was associated with the keywords “environment” and 610 R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623

“Alps” or “Alpine”. This combination of key words was repeated for all 3. Ecosystem service impacts RE sources in English and the languages spoken in the Alpine area. The primary purpose of this first stage was to reveal the main environ- 3.1. Forest biomass mental impact dimensions for each RE source. In the second round, these impacts (e.g. “fish migration”) were associated to the respective Forest management in Europe traditionally focuses on the RE source. Due to the limited number of publications focused on the balance between various economic, ecological and social functions Alpine area, studies from other regions were also included and eva- [32–34]. Impacts caused by an increased use of biomass energy can luated, when not contrasting with the stated territorial focus. be regarded in the context of forest-related activities, but also in The Alpine area, as defined by the Alpine Convention [27],covers context of road infrastructure, transport activities and combustion. approximately 190,000 km2 distributed over 8 countries (Fig. 1). Its The extraction of biomass depends on forest management objec- altitudinal zonation, while not characterizing vegetation and biodi- tives, and it is strongly linked to silvicultural systems (e.g. clear versity, influences land use and renewable energy potentials. The cutting, shelterwood, selection system, coppice) [35–37] and har- lower valleys are primarily used for agriculture and as settlement vesting techniques (e.g. tree-length, full tree) (Table 1) [32,37–40]. areas. Therefore, the bulk of the agricultural biomass potential is Management strategies (management system, regeneration system, located in these areas. Most slopes are covered with forests, thus cut intensity, production period etc.) aimed at biomass production constituting a primary source of biomass. Areas above the timberline differs from strategies that prioritise recreation or nature conserva- mainly consist of alpine grasslands and vegetation-free spaces used tion. These strategies have varying impacts on forest stand extensively for tourism and Alpine transhumance. These areas show dynamics [32,37–40] as well as on ES such as the provision of fresh high potentials for wind energy production [28] and may be attra- water and water filtering, habitat function and quality, recreation ctive for the construction of hydropower intakes or reservoirs, due to and natural hazard protection (Table 2) [32,38–40]. Furthermore their elevations guaranteeing a high hydraulic head. increased biomass extraction also influences forest ES, which are Currently, only limited and highly fragmented data regarding the not usually addressed by local forest management (e.g carbon sink). actual exploitation of RE sources in the Alpine area are avai- These elements need to be considered in the context of land use lable. In general, hydropower and woody biomass are the most changes and changes in forest management concepts (e.g. rotation important energy sources in the Alps [29,30]. Additionally, the periods, intensity of thinnings) [41–45]. Another aspect related to installation of roof-mounted photovoltaic and near-surface geother- forest management aimed at biomass production is an increased mal plants (heat-pumps) is increasing in most Central European use of residuals such as branches and leaves. These residues make countries [31]. The same growth is assumed for settlements within up a varying proportion of the aboveground woody biomass the Alpine region. On a European scale, wind power, agricultural ranging from approximately 15% (Picea abies)to20%(Fagus sylva- biomass and ground-mounted photovoltaics are of greater impor- tica) depending on tree species and age [46]. In mountainous tance [ibid]. Presently, these RE are not widely exploited in the Alpine terrain, previously difficult to access, residue use is on the increase area, but they are included in this review along with geothermal due to the use of full-tree harvester vehicles [47]. However, residue energy, since they may offer potentials for future RE expansions. use additionally impacts forest dynamics (e.g. natural regeneration) Other forms of RE exploited in non-Alpine ecosystems (e.g. offshore and various ES such as soil productivity, water filtering and habitat wind power, tidal energy) are excluded from this study. quality.

GERMANY

AUSTRIA

SWITZERLAND

SLOVENIA FRANCE

ITALY

Urban areas Sparce vegetation Agricultural land Glaciers, snow Forests Water bodies Natural grasslands National states

025 50 100 150 200 Kilometers

Fig. 1. Land use and national states of the Alps [Data source: Seamless Corine Land Cover 2006]. R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623 611

Table 1 Overview of timber wood extraction and rejuvenation strategies. Sources: [35,36,48]

One-age-cohort management Group selection cutting Single-tree cutting Coppice

Plantation and harvest of all trees Group selection cutting refers to various Single tree cutting management strategies Forest that has emerged from stump uniformly within larger areas (clear thinning (selective cutting) managements help to preserve forest diversity as all tree shoots and is harvested in cutting). Controversial due to for the extraction of small tree groups. age classes coexist simultaneously within comparatively short cycles. The associated externalities such as Different tree ages are thus separated an area. Additionally small clearances utilization of the coppice forest is one erosion, habitat alterations and spatially. Fewer environmental impacts favour natural rejuvenation, natural forest of the oldest forms of forest impacts on micro climates. Therefore, assumed in contrast to cohort structures and particular species such as management (fuelwood production) increasingly restricted in Alpine management Grouses and can constitute a potential habitat countries of rare species

Table 2 Main ES impacts related to the use of forest biomass for energy generation. Sources: [49–101]

ES Threats Beneﬁts

Provisioning services Impacts on long-term soil and forest productivity possible due to inappropriate forest Exploitation of otherwise unused resources management or residuals removal for bioenergy Resource competition with wood processing industry Possible benefits depend on use cascades Regulating and Altered habitat quality for wild animals and plants due to land use intensifications (e.g. Rejuvenation ensures protective function of maintenance services decreased woody debris habitats) forests Decreased natural hazard protection in case of inappropriate management Pollution of water in case of inappropriate management Emissions from biomass are generally Air pollution depending on combustion and filter technology accounted carbon-neutral. Increasing biomass extraction from forest generally decreasing carbon sequestration Cultural services Impacts on recreation infrastructure and landscape aesthetics strongly depend on forest Forest road infrastructure also usable for management and landscape structures recreational activities Disturbances by traffic and forest work

3.1.1. Impacts on provisioning services [49]. An increased demand for woody biomass might stimulate Although the aim of Alpine forest management strategies is a pre-commercial thinning’s of lower quality timber, which increases sustainable harvest, the increased use of forest residues may create final timber quality, stand stability and regulates tree species new challenges. Based on negative outcomes (e.g. degradation of composition. This would result in higher stability and better utilisa- forest soils resulting in reduction of net primary production) during tion of forest potentials. Impacts on the provision of non-wood forest the last centuries, these residues are traditionally left in the forest to products, such as wild plants and wildlife, are more difficult to ensure long term soil fertility [49]. Biomass guidelines promote a evaluate, as these are strongly reliant on habitat quality and function. “sustainable” removal of residues [50,51]. However, quantifying Possible effects could be both positive and negative according to the thresholds for such a sustainable amount is challenging. The impact forest management type, the non-wood product and the site-specific on soil fertility by removing nutrient rich residues such as branches conditions [63,64]. or leaves has already been published decades ago (e.g. [52]). Today, there is renewed discussion in the context of biomass energy production and new harvest technologies [53–55]. Various long- 3.1.2. Impacts on regulating and maintenance services term experiments highlight the impact of residue removal, suggest- Habitat impacts resulting from the intensification of forest man- ing subsequent reduction in forest growth ranging from 5 to more agement on unmanaged or extensively managed forests are manifold. than 20% [56],confirming the importance of residues for the natural For instance, the opening of forest structure might impact light- regeneration of high mountain forests [57,58]. Impacts are generally seeking species more positively than those needing less light. There- described as high on shallow soils and/or nutrient poor soils as well fore, emphasis is put on evaluating key species which are indicative of as specific soil types (e.g. Podzols). Impacts on calcareous soils are high biodiversity. In this context, a comprehensive study elaborated a described differently reaching from low to substantial depending on list of bird species affected by reduced rotation periods [65].Ofthe soil development and depth [52–54]. listed species several are of conservation importance [66]. The extraction of biomass for energy is strongly interlinked Intensified forest management decreases deadwood ratios or with other forest products, in particular lumber wood and wood stands of old wood. Deadwood is an important habitat, for fungi, for the pulp and paper industry. The proportions of wood available bryophytes, lichens, beetles, amphibians, birds and small mammals as an energy source strongly depends on use cascades [59,60]. [67,68] and is an important biodiversity indicator [67,69].Severalbird Available data for Austria [61] show that approximately one third species such as the Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus)and of the extracted wood is directly used for the generation of energy the Grey-headed Woodpecker (Picus canus) rely on deadwood [65] and two thirds are processed by industries. Competition between and are of particular conservation concern [66]. Besides providing provisioning services might occur with industries relying on cheap habitat, dead wood supports additional important functions such as forest residues (paper and pulp industry) [49,62]. However, by- shelter, food, resting, reproduction, nesting, bedding, roosting, sun- product accumulations (e.g. woody residues or waste) are addi- basking, hibernating, breeding, drumming, travel routes or lookouts tionally available for energy generation. Depending on use cas- [50]. Published thresholds of dead wood levels that should be left in cades, these by-products make up more than the half of the wood forests for biodiversity conservation range between 20 and 70 m3/ha processed by industries. [67,70]. Studies from Swiss forests revealed that the actual dead- High fuel wood prices might promote intensified forest manage- wood rates lie at the lower end of this range [71]. Therefore, a 30% ment, but presently timber harvesting remains the main incentive reduction of the total biomass potential in ecologically sensitive areas 612 R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623 is proposed in order to attain these dead wood rates [47].However, implemented combustion and filter systems can decrease air pollu- these threshold values have to be interpreted carefully, as individual tion significantly [81,85]. habitat requirements depend on physical orientation, size, age, Forests in the Alps cover a large area and therefore play an composition stage, tree species and distribution of dead wood [68]. important role in climate change mitigation. Carbon sequestrated by Natural hazard protection is regarded as a key function of forests can offset greenhouse gas emissions and could be used to Alpine forests, as the catastrophic consequences related to defor- substitute fossil fuels [86]. However, an increased use of forest estations such as avalanches during the last centuries are apparent biomass decreases the overall amount of biomass and thus also the (e.g. [72]). Direct protection functions (protection of human life carbon sequestration rate of forests [87].Thiscouldbecompensated and anthropogenic objects by forests) need to be differentiated with sound forest and land use management, balancing long rotation from indirect protection functions (protection of a forest site itself) periods aiming at maximising carbon sequestration against short [34,40,73]. Therefore, forest activities need to be evaluated in rotation periods targeting biofuel harvesting [36,38,68]. Besides, respect to protection from avalanches, landslides, erosions, mud- forest carbon sequestration is influenced by a multitude of manage- flows, rockfalls or floods. Besides hazard protection, the removal of ment fields such as maintaining continuous forest cover, ameliora- old trees and residues might also decrease the potential for pest tion, species changes, disturbances, including fire, storms, snow and infections due to the removal of breeding substrate [33]. On the ice, cut intensity, extraction of biomass residues and conservation one hand, natural hazard protection strongly constrains the wood measures and/or maintaining water levels, particularly in peat lands energy potential in mountainous areas such as the Alps [38]. For [35,37,88]. An increased forest use can lead to land use changes, instance, 8% of Austrian forests are designated as forests with particularlynetforestlossesthroughdeforestations[89].Forest protection function (“Schutzwald”) entailing restrictions for eco- management practices in most alpine forests are extensive in order nomically motivated wood extraction. A further 12.5% are desig- to secure sustainable usages and maintain forest ecosystems for nated as forests with protection function excluding economic use future multi objective uses (e.g. [88,90]). This also includes various (“Schutzwald außer Ertrag”) [74]. Assumed usage rates in Swiss silvicultural measures that increase productivity in terms of the hazard protection forests range from 88% to 86% in lower moun- carbon balance. Such management practices generally enable syner- tain range environments (Jura, Mittelland), 51% in the Alpine giesbetweenbothcarbonsequestrationanduseofbiomassfor foothills (“Voralpen”), 45% in the Alps to only 20% on the southern energy [88]. Nevertheless, in the context of an increased bioenergy slopes of the Alps [47]. However, most current problems regarding use in the future, unbalanced forest management could also lead to the protection function are not related to over extraction of wood some trade-offs such us net forest loss through deforestation and but rather to inadequate rejuvenation and excessive game brows- decline in forest quality [87,88]. Therefore geographically explicate ing [39,75] which can endanger the regeneration of some tree models [89,91,92] and GIS approaches for quantifying and mapping species [76,77]. Whether the felled wood in these areas is left on greenhouse gas accounting at local, regional and global scale (e.g. site or used as fuel wood depends on the removal costs and the [93,94–97]) are an important support for sound policy generation, potential to trigger further natural hazards such as log jams. As the decision making and sustainable land use management. wood in the protection forests is usually not of high quality, higher prices for forest biomass can stimulate otherwise cost-prohibitive 3.1.3. Impacts on cultural services management interventions and promote favourable stand struc- Recreational activities in forests have been shown to have several tures, tree species composition and consequently improve the positive effects on human health and psyche [98]. However, only protection function of forests. Furthermore, thinning and removals limited conflicts are assumed between recreational and economic of dead and dry wood or of the woody wastes due to forest forest functions by a Swiss study [47]. These are concentrated at operations can help in preventing fire hazards [78,79]. forests near densely populated areas, forests at points of touristic Forest soils and the geological setting play a key role regarding interest or forests at points of intrinsic value such as cultural heritage water filtration and fresh water provision due to the physical, sites. However, even in these sites only a limited amount of biomass chemical and biological properties [80]. Water-related ES may benefit potential is lost due to constrained management requirements (remo- if the increased use of bioenergy favours a shift towards more diverse val of old trees constituting a potential source of danger, clearance of forests, particularly more broad leaved species [80].Furthermore, trees at viewpoints, etc.). Moreover, the landscape perception changes prudent use of biodegradable lubricants and the prohibition of due to the vegetation evolution in the context of forest management pesticides and preservatives help limit water resource impacts [80]. activities (new formations of open areas, different forest type succes- Several studies have shown that full tree harvesting impacts water sions). In fact, the maintenance of open areas such as meadows and quality through physical soil damage such as compaction and pastures guarantees a varying vegetation mosaic, which is of great erosion, reduced interception, infiltration and increased runoff with importance to mountain visitors [99,100]. Additionally, managed augmented turbidity [54,80]. These impacts are particularly relevant forests are often perceived as more attractive from an aesthetic, in mountainous areas characterised by steep slopes [55]. Besides recreational or hedonic point of view in contrast to purely natural physical damage, residue removal also impacts various aspects of soil forests [101]. To some extent the perception of unmanaged forest water. These include a decreased soil buffering capacity by removal þ þ þ (forests in pristine natural condition) by urban inhabitants engenders of base cations (Ca2 ,Mg2 ,K ) resulting in increased water anxiety rather than pleasure due to closed canopies and ‘real wild- acidification [54] but also positive influences on water quality such erness’. Temporal impacts related to forest operations might be offset as decreased nitrogen depositions [80]. by the increased availability of infrastructure (roads) to visitors. Air quality impacts caused by the combustion of wood are more problematic in the context of ecosystem properties (pollutant levels) rather than in the context of impacts on forest ES (air filtering). Most 3.2. Agricultural biomass emissions are related to particle matter and NOx [81] which can cause cardiopulmonary morbidity and mortality [82,83]. Alpine Biomass from agriculture is an umbrella term for various energy valleys are particularly affected during winter months due to incre- input sources, numerous production techniques and end products ased particle matter emissions from residential wood burning [84]. (Table 3) [102–104].MostrelevantfortheAlpineareaarethe However, pollutant levels strongly depend on the atmospheric anaerobic digestion of manure, slurry, biological waste and other dilution driven by regional terrain and meteorological characteristics sources of herbaceous biomass in biogas facilities in order to create (e.g. regular temperature inversions). Furthermore, wood quality and heat, electricity and/or methane [105–107].Twokeynichescanbe R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623 613 identified in Alpine regions: the first, found predominantly in rural carefully planned management of otherwise abandoned agricultural areas, is a biogas plant processing manure and slurry from animal land which enables the interplay between various successional stages farming; the second niche is occupied by biogas facilities processing of vegetation can actually increase the diversity of fauna and flora. In landfill gas, sludge and organic waste from urban areas. Both are the last decades, the abandonment of mountain pastures and fields in debated controversially in respect to water quality impacts, odour some parts of the Alps caused the expansion of shrubs and forests, nuisances, soil pathogens and pollutants [108]. Additionally these decreasing habitat heterogeneity and negatively affecting biodiversity products could possibly replace fossil fuel based fertilizers [108].An [128–130]. As a consequence, several grassland species have decreased additional and not yet widely discussed source of agricultural biomass [129]. For instance, we emphasize the importance of the ecotone as a could potentially be shrub and forest vegetation from abandoned land lekking ground during the breeding season for the black grouse (Tetrao under succession. These areas are spontaneously afforested and tetrix), which is viewed as an indicator species of ecosystem integrity represent growing Alpine areas since the past century [109]. [131]. The presence of meadows next to closed forest is a fundamental The addition of energy crops (e.g. maize silage) to anaerobic habitat characteristic for the ungulate populations such as red deer digestion has become increasingly important due to the significantly (Cervus elaphus), or roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) [132].Moreover, increased energy efficiency and profitability [110]. Therefore, biogas many semi-natural mountain meadows and pastures are likely to be facilities might favour the cultivation of energy crops that are con- inserted among habitats protected under the EU Directive Habitats troversial with respect to their impacts on global land use changes, (92/43/EEC) [133,134]. intensive farming, monostructured agriculture and especially food Besides habitat, an increasing use of bioenergy and resulting security [7,111–114]. The cultivation of energy crops for biofuel con- shifts in agricultural management strategies impact several further version is less relevant in the Alpine area due to structural disadvan- regulating and maintenance services [135,136]. Large scaled biogas tages such as the small sized agriculture in comparison with low facilities depending on high amounts of organic input are likely to lands. Besides biofuels, short rotation coppices of fast growing poplar favour intensified agriculture [126]. This can lead to a depletion of (Populus ssp.) and willow (Salix ssp.) clones are being increasingly soil organic matter reducing soil fertility and release greenhouse considered with respect to their potential to meet future energy gases [137,138]. Furthermore, biogas facilities potentially alleviate demands [115–118]. Nevertheless, these short rotation coppices are over-fertilization and resulting eutrophication of water catchments also not widespread in the Alpine area because of natural (relatively (a result of high livestock densities) as animal manure is digested limited areas of hydromorphic soils) and financial constraints (requ- for energy generation [108]. In this context, land use intensifications ired investments and the comparable long time span necessary to could lead to increased pesticide emissions, eutrophication rates, compensate these). Therefore, this study focuses on impacts related to pollute ground water resources and weaken biological pest control biogas facilities. and natural pollination [8]. However, field studies did not reveal substantially decreased nitrate-leaching rates of biogas residue 3.2.1. Impacts on provisioning services applications in contrast to the application of animal manure Depending on the input material used for anaerobic digestion, [139–142]. Nonetheless, anaerobic digestion has the potential to several studies have revealed positive effects from biogas residue reduce various pathogenic bacteria when compared with traditional applications on soil fertility [119–121]. This particularly holds true manure applications [142]. In extreme cases, Biogas facilities can when combined with other fertilising substances such as compost even be an option to cultivate heavy metal polluted soils [143]. or wood ash [122,123]. Consequently, Biogas facilities can help Odour and noise emissions might occur at biogas facilities during mobilise materials (elements) that would otherwise be lost and delivery and storage [144,145]. The combustion process produces CO2, maintain regional nutrient cycles. No major negative effects could NOX,SO2, particle matter, formaldehyde and hydrocarbons (methane- be determined for soil ecosystems from biogas residue applica- slip) emissions [144].However,todaymostemissionscanbesub- tions in case of proper management [124]. Therefore, long term stantially reduced with adequate accompanying technical measures. impacts of energy crops on soil and water quality strongly depend Nevertheless, CO2 emissions are likely to exceed legal limits in case of on sustainable agricultural management procedures, required insufficient maintenance, emission surveillance and combustion pro- fertiliser inputs and adequate biogas production practices [125]. cess calibration [ibid]. Odour emissions from the field-applications of However, large-scale biogas might favour agricultural intensifica- biogas residues are mostly lower than manure applications [144]. tion or energy crop imports. A case study based in the Italian Alps has previously highlighted conflicts which can arise from large- scale biogas projects in Alpine settings [126]. These conflicts arise 3.2.3. Impacts on cultural services particularly due to the large amounts of material inputs required Most cultural services, such as recreation and landscape aesthetics, that are incompatible with small scaled, extensive agriculture. might be less affected by the construction of biogas facilities but more so by the changed management of agricultural land. Therefore, 3.2.2. Impacts on regulating and maintenance services adapting biogas facilitysizetotherelativesmallscaleofAlpine Most impacts on Regulating and Maintenance Services are deter- agriculture [146] is central. Permanent maintenance of suc- mined by whether an increased demand for bioenergy results in land cessional stages for agricultural use and adequate land-use manage- use intensification. These impacts strongly depend on the reference ment can preserve aesthetic sceneries and the cultural heritage of system and prior land use pressures [127].Ontheonehand,the traditional landscapes.

Table 3 Technologies for energy conversion of agricultural biomass. Source: [104]

Conversion technology Suitable crop species

Combustion (for heat/electricity) Short rotation coppice, Miscanthus, switchgrass, wheat, triticale, abandoned agricultural land Plant oil extraction (for biodiesel) Rapeseed, sunﬂower, soybean, oil palm Alcoholic fermentation (for bioethanol) Maize, wheat, triticale, sugar beet, sugar cane Anaerobic digestion (for biogas) Maize, grassland, sunﬂower 614 R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623

3.3. Hydropower consequential hydropower plants. On the other hand, these systems can also create benefits such as irrigation or flood control [151,155]. The Alps have historically been highly exploited for hydropower production [29]. Assessing the related impacts is complex due to 3.3.2. Impacts on regulating and maintenance services the wide array of different technologies involved. These range from The ecological viability of a river ecosystem can be assessed run-of-river, reservoir, pumped-storage, cross-watershed diversion, using different parameters including hydrological character, river in-stream diversion to combinations or multipurpose projects [147]. connectivity, solid material budget and morphology, landscape and Strategies aiming at the further expansion of Hydropower are biotopes and biocoenosis [154,156,157]. Any deteriorations regard- severely constrained by the small number of larger rivers that are ing these ecological characteristics have to be considered carefully yet unexploited or unaltered by human activities. However, the shift with respect to the EU Water Framework Directive [14]. Addi- towards small and medium scale hydropower plants is considered tionally, the use of hydropower can result in: a loss of biological controversial due to the high environmental impacts in relation to diversity, barriers for fish migration, impacts on downstream river the possible energy output [148]. This issue is addressed by parti- ecosystems (e.g. alternation of hydrological cycles, loss of areas cular guidelines [149,150]. The expansion of hydropower must not exposed to regular inundation), reservoir impoundments, altered only be regarded in the context of new power plants but also in the sedimentation and water quality modifications [151].Impactsever- context of the optimisation of existing facilities by technical (e.g. ity depends on particular management procedures such as in- turbine renewal) and operational improvements (e.g. expansion of stream flow, hydropeaking, reservoir management, bed-load man- operating hours). Impacts related to the use of hydropower are agement and power plant structures (Tables 5, 6–9) [154,156–159]. mostly considered in the context of river ecosystems, landscape and Recent concerns are related to ecological impacts caused by hydro- recreational values [149,151]. Multiple hydropower management peaking, particularly during the winter months [160–162]. Further fields (Tables 4 and 5) aim at minimising ecological impacts by impacts arise from not maintaining minimum flow rates in the case physical measures (e.g. fish passages, fish-friendly turbines, restora- of water deviations [163] or thermal shifts in Alpine rivers related to tion of river reaches) and hydrological measures (reproducing a reservoir management [164,165]. Several studies focus on ecological natural flow regime). Energy potentials from power plants inte- measures such as improving the ecological integrity of dams [166] grated into drinking water supply systems are particularly high in or restorations of side channels [167]. Numerous efforts have been the Alps [152,153], without generating substantial additional envir- undertaken during the past decades to improve upstream fish onmental impacts and therefore are not addressed further here. movement and decrease turbine related mortality [168–170]. Human activities during the last centuries have resulted in significant morphological river alterations [171]. These alterna- 3.3.1. Impact on provisioning services tions have decreased the natural ability of rivers to provide flood On the one hand, hydropower reservoirs are a source of socio- protection and water retention highlighting not only the impor- economic conflicts due to human and livestock displacements tance of river conservation and restoration [172], but also the impacting various Provisioning Services. Furthermore, water diver- importance of reservoirs to further mitigate extreme events [173]. sions for hydropower generation can cause water scarcities and On the one hand, experience during the past decades has demon- water use conflicts. This can be particularly true for combined or strated the ability of man-made reservoirs to defuse extreme flood

Table 4 Main ES impacts related to the use of agricultural biomass for biogas facilities. Sources: [119–146]

ES Threats Beneﬁts

Provisioning Impacts on soil and water quality Use of biogas residues as fertilizer services Competition with food and fodder production (depending on size and required input products Use of otherwise abandoned land or unused for biogas facility) resources Regulating and Alternative habitat quality for aquatic and terrestrial wild animals and plants in case of land use Reduced odour emissions of biogas residues in maintenance intensiﬁcations contrast to dung/manure application services Land use intensiﬁcations can result in increased pesticide emissions, eutrophication rates, pollute ground water resources, weaken biological pest control and natural pollination Air emissions of biogas facilities in case of inappropriate management Total removal of biomass from agricultural lands for biogas production is likely to result in soil organic matter content depletion Cultural services Destruction of traditional cultural landscapes possible, monostructured landscapes of little Cultivation of otherwise abandoned land, aesthetic value maintenance of diverse landscapes

Table 5 Hydropower management ﬁelds and selected goals for environmental certiﬁcation. Source: [154]

instream ﬂow Hydropeaking Reservoir management Bedload management Power plant structures

Maintenance of natural Reduced hydropeaking and flow Flushing only at high Preservation of minimum flows Prevention of sudden discharge patterns, migration alternations to avoid stranding of discharge and outside critical enabling natural sedimentation releases and flow rates possibilities, solid material organisms, minimization of seasons, avoidance of siltation processes, erosion prevention, below minimum values, transport, hydraulic character, temperature changes, preservation and erosion, preservation of maintenance of functional bypass channels, optimum floodplain characteristics, of landscape features and fish passage to head waters, connectivity, riverline landscape weir design for bedload habitat and reproduction, (…) biodiversity, (…) (…) and habitats, (…) transport, (…) R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623 615

Table 6 Main ES impacts related to the use of hydropower. Sources: [151,155–179]

ES Threats Beneﬁts

Provisioning services Reduced water availability in case of deviations Water retention at reservoirs can have a positive impact on Loss of productive land and land use conﬂicts in case of reservoir construction water availability in case of droughts Regulating and Various physical and hydrological alterations resulting in habitat and biotope Possibility of water retention by hydro power stations in maintenance losses and a loss of ecological integrity/connectivity case of extreme weather events services Cultural services Destruction of natural and cultural landscapes Positive connotation of water areas, hydropower dams and artiﬁcial lakes as “landmark”

Table 7 Main ES impacts related to wind power. Sources: [184–218]

ES Threats Beneﬁts

Provisioning services – – Regulating and maintenance Habitat destruction and disturbance of air routes of speciﬁc birds and bats species possible – services Cultural services Visual impact on “pristine” or “traditional” landscapes due to the construction of technical/ Positive connotation as “landmark” artiﬁcial elements possible

Table 8 Main ES impacts related to ground-mounted photovoltaic. Sources: [221–227]

ES Threats Beneﬁts

Provisioning services Solar fields competing with food production Solar fields might be used as sheep or goat pastures, alternative to reforestations in steep slopes difficult to cultivate Regulating and Plant community changes due to shading effects on solar fields – maintenance depending on former land use services Alternation of green corridors in case of fence constructions Cultural services Visual impact on “pristine” or “traditional” landscapes due to the - construction of technical/artificial elements

Table 9 Main ES impacts related to near surface (Sources: [228,229,233,234]) and deep geothermal energy. Sources: [235–238]

ES Threats Beneﬁts

Provisioning services – – Regulating and maintenance services Near surface: Impact on groundwater invertebrates possible due to soil temperature changes – Deep geothermal: Modiﬁcations of habitats in conservation areas Cultural services – –

events, but on the other hand these can cause additional damages 3.4. Wind power through mismanagement of water flow and breaching [174–176]. Besides flood hazard protection, hydropower reservoirs may be In contrast to lowlands, wind energy is still minimally exploited in important structures to mitigate droughts from regional climate Alpine areas. Particularly high potentials are found in elevated areas change impacts in the future [146]. along mountain ridges, peaks or passes. However, the compatibility of wind mills and high Alpine landscapes is regarded critically (e.g. [180]). Guidelines for assessing wind mills encompass impacts on 3.3.3. Impacts on cultural services birds and bats, altered landscape aesthetics, health risks from noise, Hydropower projects historically have been a major draw for flickering and safety risks [181–183]. These impacts are differentiated (mass) tourism in the Alps due to their “spectacular” infrastructure from additional off-site impacts suchasconstructionofaccessroads [177]. The compatibility with (mass) tourism and recreational and power line infrastructure. activities was also revealed in a survey of winter tourists in Austria highlighting the high acceptance of artificial hydropower lakes [178]. However, the compatibility of hydropower projects with 3.4.1. Impacts on regulating and maintenance services present-day tourism strategies not focussing on mass tourism but Impacts of wind mills on wildlife habitats are described in the lower impact eco-tourism remains undetermined. Conflicts might context of rotor collisions, displacements due to disturbance, arise if hydropower projects affect elements of natural or cultural migration barriers and habitat alternations. A large number of heritage such as rare landscape characteristics [179]. studies and reviews originating particularly from the United States 616 R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623 and Canada address impacts on birds [184–190] and bats [191–196] examples highlight the wide range of possibilities of integrating PV with the general conclusion that these vary strongly depending on modules into architecture [219,220]. In contrast, impacts caused by site-specific factors (positioning of power station in respect to ground-mounted photovoltaic (¼GM-PV, often realised as “solar topography, winds and migration routes), species-specific factors, parks”) are manifold, including competing land uses, visual landscape diurnal and seasonal factors (yearly migration movements). How- alterations, microclimatic changes and reflections [221–225].Impacts ever, many studies were criticised due to methodological weak- and mitigation strategies related to GM-PV are intensively discussed in nesses [197]. Furthermore, these site-specificfactorsaredifficult the literature with reference to experiences in Italy [222,223,226]. and expensive to evaluate systematically beyond basic assumptions Although most GM-PV can be found at lower altitudes, larger facilities such as the importance of Alpine passes for migratory birds [182] such as in Les Mées (FR) in the valley Großes Walsertal (AT) or in and the influence of wooded landscape proximity on bat morta- Bolzano/Bozen (IT) have also been established in the Alps. lity [195]. The need for a case by case approach is highlighted by the 3.5.1. Impacts on provisioning services European Commission with the publication of a comprehensive Concerns regarding the loss of productive land have been 4 impact review including a list of potentially affected bird (n 80) raised, but these contradict European targets on reducing agricul- and bat species (n430) [198,199]. Deaths caused by wind turbine tural production [227]. Modern infrastructure foundations reduce collisions are generally regarded as minor in comparison to com- soil sealing to less than 5% of an area [224], and remaining areas munication towers, building windows, power lines, fences, cat can be used for grazing. Soils might benefit from an extensive land predation or mortalities related to pesticide use [187,188]. Never- management regime, e.g. by increased organic matter contents. theless, impacts on endangered species or species with low repro- However, soil impacts (e.g. compaction) might occur during the duction rates might be a serious matter of concern [182,189].For installation phase [ibid]. the Swiss Alps, 15 endangered bird species are potentially impacted by wind projects [200]. Case studies focussing on the Alpine area 3.5.2. Impacts on regulating and maintenance services have investigated the impacts on a black grouse (T. tetrix)popula- ES impacts associated with GM-PV strongly depend on former tion in Styria (Austria) [201] and impacts on various bat species in land uses. Impacts might be positive in the case of selective the French Rhône-Alpes region [202]. agricultural extensification or renaturation of former military or industrial zones [224]. Negative impacts are likely to occur in 3.4.2. Impacts on cultural services ecologically sensitive areas. Nevertheless, concerns about ecologic High wind energy potentials are particularly correlated to exposed impacts are generally low and focus on habitat alternations and terrain, higher altitudes and mountain ridges. However, these high plant community changes due to shading effects and microcli- Alpine landscapes are strongly associated with untouched nature, matic changes [223,224]. No avoidances by wildlife or bird colli- cultural identification and space for recreational activities [99,203]. sions have been demonstrated, yet fences required around faci- Landscapes devoid of anthropogenic constructions are seen as parti- lities are a potential barrier for various species [224]. cularly worthy of conservation due to their scarcity [204]. Many parts of the Alpine area are characterised by historic cultural landscapes, a 3.5.3. Impacts on cultural services factor which must be considered critically when implementing wind Evaluating aesthetic impacts is similar to the discussions concern- park developments [205]. Evaluating visual impacts caused by wind ing wind power due to the involvement of both physical/tangible and power stations is regarded a key task for Alpine regions [203,206]. intangible dimensions. Therefore, highly treasured landscapes (e.g. Therefore, both physical/tangible (e.g. lines of sight) and intangible cultural or natural heritage) should not be impacted by GM-PV [205]. dimensions (e.g. personal attitudes towards environment, cultural ideals and past experiences) of landscapes have to be taken into 3.6. Near surface and deep geothermal energy account [204,207]. Most assessment guidelines, in order to reduce potential health risks, discuss minimum distances from residential In contrast to all other RE sources, near surface and deep fl areas to avoid disturbances from noise, shading and icker effects geothermal energy do not depend on the energy provided by the [208]. However, these distances vary strongly depending on regional nuclear fusion of our sun. The use of heat pumps and underground legislations (e.g. between 500 and 1000 m in Germany [209]). geothermal probes is well established in Europe [228]. Thereby, Numerous efforts have been undertaken during the past decades to energy generation is based on the constant temperatures found at attenuate mechanical noise (e.g. of gear hubs) and aerodynamic noise depths ranging between 1 and 150 m for heating and cooling which occurs due to wind shearing (low ground wind speed but high purposes [229]. Near surface geothermal energy can be used with wind speeds at hub height) [210,211]. few spatial restrictions, while deep geothermal energy depends on fi Co-bene ts arising from the combination of wind energy and regional geothermal activity and related temperature elevations. tourism are traditionally highlighted by wind energy proponents Present-day utilization of deep geothermal energy is still limited [212]. Regional studies in Germany [213,214] and Austria [178] in most central European countries in the face of the other revealed that RE are generally ascribed positive attributes by tourists. available energy potentials [230–232]. Most existing facilities in However, concern is expressed regarding large wind turbines, parti- central Europe use deep geothermal sources to generate heat for cularly in exposed mountainous terrain [178]. Therefore, social thermal spas and/or district heating projects. An exception is the acceptance of individual projects by residents and visitors is essential focus on electricity generation in Italy [230]. for future exploitations of wind energy in the Alpine area [215–218]. 3.6.1. Impacts on regulating and maintenance services 3.5. Photovoltaic energy Impacts of heat pumps and underground geothermal probes have not yet been adequately investigated. Environmental guide- Photovoltaic facilities mounted on buildings and ground-mounted lines address possible ground water impacts [229,233]. One of the photovoltaic have to be differentiated regarding their ES impacts. No few available scientific publications highlights the fact that aquifer impacts on the regional environment are reported for building- microbial communities and pathogens are significantly influenced mounted photovoltaic (and building mounted solar thermal) panels by the temperature differences caused by the use of near surface except in respect to (minor) aesthetic issues. Guidelines and innovative geothermal energy [234]. Therefore, particular attention is R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623 617 warranted in areas exposing elevated dissolved organic matter and the power plant (e.g. noise disturbance) need to be scrutinised nutrient values resulting in oxygen-poor environments. for all sources. Local impacts need to be scrutinized for all RE Studies scrutinizing deep geothermal exploitations focus on sources but might be less relevant for those where no or only related air and water catchment impacts [235–237].However,these minor additional infrastructure is required. impacts are described as minor in comparison to fossil energy Directional flow related impacts: impacts caused by hydropower [235,236]. Chemical contents and possible hazardous substances in plants to water resources-related ES need to be scrutinized in geothermal fluids are site-specific and strongly depend on under- the context of (linear) water flow, e.g. downstream river eco- ground geological composition [235]. Most environmental impacts, system impacts, which decline with increasing distance. particularly those caused by geothermal fluids, can be controlled by User movement related impacts: most cultural services are existing technologies, e.g. by reinjections. Consequently, the spill of claimed and consumed by specific users. Therefore, potential hazardous substances into the environment is deemed unlikely conflicts are correlated with the demand of an ES in a specific [235,236]. Nevertheless, recent concerns relate to seismic activities area. This applies in particular to wind power plants, which are caused by deep geothermal power plants particularly in the context of seen as controversial in relation to recreational and aesthetic reinjections [238,239]. As most geothermal fields are located at plate values of the Alps. boundaries prone to natural earthquakes, a clear separation between Extensive impacts: Some impacts may be less pronounced and these and artificial phenomena is not always possible [238]. Besides, trigger conflicts only in case of an extensive exploitation of the impacts on natural phenomena such as geysers and hot springs need RE source affecting large areas/quantities. This is particularly to be considered, as these are likely to be of touristic interest. true for provisioning services which may not be affected by punctual alterations but may respond to large scale changes. This is for example the case for biomass production and 4. Discussion and conclusions GM-PV, which involve large-scale land use alterations.

4.1. Main conflict dimensions 4.2. Key recommendations for reconciling RE and ES Based on the presented findings, the environmental impacts caused by various RE can be evaluated along thematic fields and The wide range of conflicting dimensions arising from the spatial dimensions. From a thematic point of view, several conflicting concurrent requirements of RE production and ES conservation priorities of RE and ES were revealed (Fig. 2). These have been highlights the need for systematic assessment procedures to classified as primary issues which strongly affect specificES,second- identify strategies in order to mitigate conflicts and emphasise ary issues that might affect ES, and side aspects. As most of these benefits. The previous chapter provides an outline of the most impacts depend on particular management regimes, supporting relevant conflicting dimensions. Based on this knowledge the measures and the characteristics of affected ecosystems, general following key recommendations are provided to develop RE a-priori impact evaluations are not possible. However, main conflict- source in an Alpine context: ing issues requiring decisions on potential trade-offs are highlighted: Biomass energy: effective multi-objective forest management Energy generation and provisioning services: An intensive use of strategies can help avoid conflicts, prevalent in areas with Forest- and Agricultural Biomass for energy generation can overlapping forest demands. Resource conflicts in case of decrease long-term productivity and induce resource com- intensive exploitations for energy generation are also relevant petition. for agricultural biomass. Therefore, adjusting biomass facility Energy generation and regulating and maintenance services: sizes with respect to the relative small scale of Alpine agricul- Goals of climate change mitigation need to be balanced with ture [146] and the limited availability of input products is local nature protection requirements, particularly important in essential for the sustainable development of bioenergy biodiversity—hot spots such as the Alps. This generally applies production. for all RE sources but might be less relevant if no or few Hydropower: most alpine rivers are already altered by human additional infrastructures are required (e.g. drinking water activities. Therefore, future hydropower exploitation in the hydropower, building-mounted PV and near-surface geother- Alpine area needs to find a balance between energy production mal energy in settlement areas). Furthermore, hazard protec- and the conservation of pristine river reaches with high tion, crucial in areas characterised by extreme topographies, ecological value (protected habitats, rare water body types) can be impacted both positively and negatively by expanding [241]. This particularly holds true for the recent expansion of RE. Trade-offs between energy generation and climate regula- small-scale hydropower plants, which have impacts similar to tion occur in case of land use changes and related greenhouse large-scale reservoirs if not properly managed. gas emissions. Wind energy: habitat alterations caused by wind mills in the Energy generation and cultural services: A balance between alpine region are similar in most aspects to those in other landscapes which have been industrialised to produce energy European areas. However, the compatibility of wind mills with and “pristine” mountain environments is needed. However, the Alpine landscape is disputed [180]. Management strategies tourism and energy generation can also create co-benefits must emphasise the social acceptance of wind mill projects and depending on the individual project and the respective tourism scrutinize their compatibility with other regional develop- strategies. ment goals. Photovoltaics and near surface geothermal: RE used within or Furthermore, the mentioned ES impacts and trade-off dimen- near settlement areas (roof-mounted photovoltaic, near surface sions need to be differentiated from a spatial point of view [240]. geothermal energy) are generally of less concern from an Fig. 2 gives an overview of the spatial characteristics of each ES environmental point of view. Scarcity of habitable land is an and RE source. Four main spatial features are revealed: inherent problem of many alpine areas. Therefore, the use of photovoltaics on buildings and other sealed surfaces (as Local or in-situ impacts: impacts occurring directly at the opposed to GM-PV), already favoured by many regions, should production site and declining with increasing distance from be promoted. 618 R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623

Fig. 2. RE and main affected ES, principal spatial relationships (dark blue¼primary issues; light blue¼secondary issues; white¼marginal issues), *) Not covered by CICES. (For interpretation of the references to color in this ﬁgure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623 619

Deep geothermal energy: environmental constraints for deep [2] Huber J. Nachhaltige Entwicklung durch Suffizienz, Effizienz und Konsistenz: geothermal energy are difficult to address systematically, due Nachhaltigkeit in naturwissenschaftlicher und sozialwissenschaftlicher fi fi Perspektive. In: Fritz P, et al., editors. Stuttgart: Hirzel/Wissenschaftliche to the signi cance of site-speci c variables and technologies. Verlagsgesellschaft; 1994. p. 31–46. Currently, deep geothermal heat is commonly used for touristic [3] European Commission, Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and facilities, but its potential for energy generation in the Alps is of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from yet little explored. renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30. Official Journal of the European Union 5: 2009; 2009 . These findings underline that conservation strategies do not [4] Jackson ALR. Renewable energy vs. biodiversity: policy conflicts and the future of nature conservation. Global Environ Change 2011;21(4):1195–208. necessarily imply trade-offs between ES in the Alpine area and the [5] Peters J. Erneuerbare Energien – Flächenbedarfe und Landschaftsauswirkun- need for energy generation [242]. Moreover, both negative impacts gen.: Landschaften in Deutschland 2030 – Der große Wandel. Bundesamt für and positive co-benefits on ES need to be balanced and scrutinized Naturschutz, Berlin; 2010. p. 71–84. regarding endogenous development strategies that are particularly [6] van der Horst D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies Energy important to Alpine regions [243]. Policy 2007;35(5):2705–14. Therefore, information and transparency, fair participation in the [7] Tilman D, Socolow R, Foley JA, Hill J, Larson E, Lynd L, et al. Beneficial — planning process, inclusion of different information and viewpoints biofuels the food, energy, and environment trilemma. Science 2009;325 fi (5938):270. and access to direct bene ts for the local population are important [8] IPCC. Special report on renewable energy sources and climate change assets to increase the social acceptance of RE [6,126,244]. Addition- mitigation. United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University ally, the acceptance of comparatively “new” RE sources (Wind Press; 2011. [9] Boyle G. Renewable energy–energy power for a sustainable future. Oxford Energy, Photovoltaic) has yet to be examined in Alpine context. University Press; 2012. [10] Kaltschmitt M, Streicher W, Wiese A. Renewable energy: technology, economics and environment. Springer; 2007. 5. Outlook [11] Sørensen B. Renewable energy: its physics, engineering, environmental impacts, economics & planning. Academic Press; 2011 Incorporated. [12] Resch G, Held A, Faber T, Panzer C, Toro F, Haas R. Potentials and prospects The large number of literature sources required for this review for renewable energies at global scale. Energy Policy 2008;36(11):4048–56. highlights the difficulty in evaluating the broad range of environ- [13] European Commission, Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and fl of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain mental con icts associated with RE. Most literature sources are plans and programmes on the environment. Official Journal of the European specialised within disciplinary or sectorial boundaries, paying little Communities, 197. From 〈http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? attention to the interaction of diverse environmental, economic or uri=CELEX:32001L0042:EN:HTML〉;2001. [14] European Commission, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament social issues. Ecologic evaluations of RE impacts are dominated by and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the disciplinary concepts (e.g. forest functions, hydropower manage- field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Union. ; 2000. ment), and only a few publications refer to the ES approach. This [15] Hoppichler J. Vom Wert der Biodiversität. Wirtschaftliche Bewertungen und approach allowed us to bridge these disciplinary gaps and highlight Konzepte für das Berggebiet. Forschungsbericht 67. Wien. Bundesanstalt für Bergbauernfragen; 2013. the broad range of environmental issues related to expanding RE. [16] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being. However, new problems occurred as some issues are not covered Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005. “ [17] European Environment Agency, Common international classification of directly by the ES approach (tectonic stability, housing as habitat for 〈 〉 ” ecosystem services version 4.3. From http://cices.eu/ ;2013. humans ). Other environmental impacts can even be explained more [18] Sukhdev P, Wittmer H, Schröter-Schlaack C, Nesshöver C, Bishop J, ten Brink P. easily without referring to the ES approach, such as impacts influen- et al., The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the cing mainly ecosystem properties but not services (e.g. combustion economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB; 2010. emissions reducing regional air quality but having little effect on the [19] Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W. Landscapes’ capacities to provide particular ES). Furthermore, land use and resource competitions, ecosystem services—a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape particularly relevant in Alpine areas characterised by space scarcities, Online 2009;15(1):22. fi [20] de Groot R. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use are dif cult to evaluate by referring to ES. Most importantly, in order conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape to expand RE and protect biodiversity, decision makers must develop Urban Plann 2006;75(3–4):175–86. and implement an integrated, cross-sectoral landscape vision for the [21] Boyd J, Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized – Alps, with concrete targets and implementation steps. In this context, environmental accounting units Ecol Econ 2007;63(2):616 26. [22] Haida C, Ruedisser J, Tappeiner U. Ecosystem services in mountain regions: this literature review serves as basis to develop a spatial explicit experts’ perception and research intensity. Reg Environ Change, 2015. decision support tool for analysing trade-offs between expanding RE [23] Schröter M, Zanden EH, Oudenhoven AP, Remme RP, Serna‐Chavez HM, and maintaining ES within the project recharge.green. Furthermore, Groot RS, et al. Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter‐arguments. Conserv Lett 2014. the gained knowledge on RE and ES impacts has become an [24] Lele S, Springate-Baginski O, Lakerveld R, Deb D, Dash P. Ecosystem services: important aspect for various transsectoral stakeholder workshops in origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conserv Soc 2013;11(4):343. the recharge.green pilot areas of Regione Veneto (Italy), Vorarlberg [25] Fu B-J, Su C-H, Wei Y-P, Willett I, Lü Y-H, Liu G-H. Double counting in ecosystem services valuation: causes and countermeasures. Ecol Res 2011;26(1):1–14. (Austria) and Triglav National Park (Slovenia) and Parco Naturale Alpi [26] Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services Marittime (Italy). for decision making. Ecol Econ 2009;68(3):643–53. [27] Secretariat of the Alpine Convention, [Ed.]. The Alps—people and pressures in the mountains, the facts at a glance. Bolzano-Bozen; 2010. [28] Schaffner B, Remund J. The alpine space wind map: modeling approach. Acknowledgements Alpine Windharvest Rep Ser 2005:7–12. [29] Haberl H Adensam H Kloud V. Daten zur Energie: Alpenreport: Daten, – Thanks for the comprehensive input corrections made by all Fakten, Probleme, Lösungsansätze. Schaan, CIPRA; 2001. p. 268 94. [30] Revaz M. Holzenergie: Die Wärme aus dem Wald: Alpenreport: Daten, alpine space project partners of recharge.green, thanks to Kerstin Fakten, Probleme, Lösungsansätze. Schaam, CIPRA; 2001. p. 307–9. Böck and Rafaela Schinegger from the Boku Vienna, additional [31] European Renewable Energy Council. Renewable energy in Europe: markets, thanks to PK Robbins trends, and technologies. Earthscan; 2010. [32] Führer E. Forest functions, ecosystem stability and management. For Ecol Manage 2000;132(1):29–38. References [33] Stupak I, Asikainen A, Jonsell M, Karltun E, Lunnan A, Mizaraitė D, et al. Sustainable utilisation of forest biomass for energy—possibilities and problems: policy, legislation, certification, and recommendations and guidelines [1] IPCC, [Ed.] (2007). Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Geneva, Cam- in the Nordic, Baltic, and other European countries. Biomass Bioenergy bridge University Press; 2007. 2007;31(10):666–84. 620 R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623

[34] Simoncic T, Boncina A, Rosset C, Binder F, De Meo I, Cavlovic J, et al. [66] European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Directive 2009/ Importance of priority areas for multi-objective forest planning: a Central 147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 European perspective. Int For Rev 2013;15(4):509–23. on the conservation of wild birds from 〈http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ [35] Röhrig E, Bartsch N, von Lüpke B, Dengler A. Waldbau auf ökologischer LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:020:0007:01:EN:HTML〉; 2009. Grundlage. Ulmer Stuttgart; 2006. [67] Müller J, Bütler R. A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline [36] Häusler A, Scherer-Lorenzen M. Sustainable forest management in Germany: for management recommendations in European forests. Eur J For Res the ecosystem approach of the biodiversity convention reconsidered. Ger- 2010;129(6):981–92. man Federal Agency for Nature Conservation; 2001 Bonn. [68] Sauberer N., Hochbichler E., Milasowszky N., Panagoitis B. Sachslehner, [37] Matthews JD. Silvicultural systems. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1989. L., Nachhaltiges Waldbiomassenmanagement im Biosphärenpark Wiener- [38] Avocat H, Tabourdeau A, Chauvin C, Marceau M-HDS. Energy and wood in wald. Vienna; 2007. the French Alps: strategies for an uncertain resource. Rev Geogr Alpine-J [69] Humphrey J, Sippola A, Lempérière G, Dodelin B, Alexander K, Butler J. Alpine Res 2011;99(1):316–31. Deadwood as an indicator of biodiversity in European forests: from theory to [39] Bürgi A. Holzproduktion im Schweizer Wald: Potenzial und Nutzungskonflikte. operational guidance. EFI Proc 2005;51:193–206. Forum Wissen 2011;2011:15–21. [70] Bütler R, Schlaepfer R. Wie viel Totholz braucht der Wald?| Dead wood in [40] Quadt V. Maaten-Theunissen vdM, Frank G. Integration of nature protection managed forests: how much is enough? Schweiz Z Forstwes 2004;155(2):31–7. in forest policy in Austria. INTEGRATE Country report. Vienna; 2013. [71] Brändli U-B, editor. Schweizerisches Landesforstinventar. Ergebnisse der [41] De Simon G, Alberti G, Delle Vedove G, Zerbi G, Peressotti A. Carbon stocks dritten Erhebung 2004–2006. Bern: Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für and net ecosystem production changes with time in two Italian forest Wald, Schnee und Landschaft WSL; 2010. – chronosequences. Eur J For Res 2012;131(5):1297 311. [72] Brang P. Resistance and elasticity: promising concepts for the management of [42] Gelman V, Hulkkonen V, Kantola R, Nousiainen M, Nousiainen V, Poku- protection forests in the European Alps. For Ecol Manage 2001;145:107–17. Marboah M. Impacts of forest management practices on forest carbon. [73] Duc P, Brändli U-B, Brassel P. Der Schutzwald im zweiten Schweizerischen HENVI workshop 2013: interdisciplinary approach to forests and climate Landesforstinventar (LFI2). Forum Wissen 2004;2004:7–13. change; 2013. [74] Bundesforschungszentrum für Wald, Österreichische Waldinventur 2007/09. [43] Jandl R, Vesterdal L, Olsson M, Bens O, Badeck F, Rock J. Carbon sequestration from 〈http://bfw.ac.at〉;2011. and forest management. CAB Rev: Perspect Agric Vet Sci Nutr Nat Resourc [75] Niese G. Österreichs Schutzwälder sind total überaltert. Waldinventur 2007/ 2007;2:017. 2009. BFW Praxis Inf 2011;24:29–31. [44] Thürig E, Kaufmann E. Increasing carbon sinks through forest management: [76] Motta R, Franzoi M. Foreste di montagna ed ungulati selvatici nel parco a model-based comparison for Switzerland with its Eastern Plateau and naturale di Paneveggio-Pale di S. Martino (TN). Dendronatura; 1997. 18 – Eastern Alps. Eur J For Res 2010;129(4):563 72. (1):15–32. [45] Jandl R, Lindner M, Vesterdal L, Bauwens B, Baritz R, Hagedorn F, et al. How [77] Berretti R, Motta R. Ungulati selvatici e foresta. I danni prodotti alla fl strongly can forest management in uence soil carbon sequestration? Geo- rinnovazione forestale del Parco Ente Parco Naturale Paneveggio-Pale di – – derma 2007;137(3 4):253 68. San Martino. Tipolitografia TEMI; 2005 Trento. [46] Kaltschmitt M, Hartmann H. Energie aus Biomasse: Grundlagen. Berlin, [78] Agnoletti M, Agrimi MG, Barbarti A, Marchetti M, Corona P. Standard di Heidelberg, New York: Techniken und Verfahren; 2001. buona gestione forestale per i boschi Appenninici e Mediterranei (SAM). [47] Hofer P, Altwegg J. Holz-Nutzungspotenziale im Schweizer Wald auf Basis Firenze: Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali; 2004. LFI3. Bericht erstellt im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Umwelt BAFU; 2007. [79] Goffman E. Wildfires, fuel loads, and forest management policy issues. [48] FAO, Protecting plantations from pests and diseases. Report based on the Environ Policy Issues 2004 From〈http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/ern/ work of W.M. Ciesla. Forest plantation thematic papers, working paper 10. 04jan/overview.php〉. Rome. Resources Development Service, Forest Resources Division ; 2001. [80] Hegg C, Jeisy M, Waldner P. Wald und Trinkwasser—Eine Literaturstudie. [49] Rode M, Schneider C, Ketelhake G, Reißhauer D. Naturschutzverträgliche Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft; 2004. Erzeugung und Nutzung von Biomasse zur Wärme- und Stromgewinnung. [81] Bauer C, Dones R. Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen: Grundlagen für den Bonn: BfN. BfN-Skripten; 2005. p. 136. ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug von Ener- [50] Abbas D, Current D, Phillips M, Rossman R, Hoganson H, Brooks KN. giesystemen in Ökobilanzen für die Schweiz, Final report ecoinvent; 2007. Guidelines for harvesting forest biomass for energy: a synthesis of environ- [82] Curtis L, Rea W, Smith-Willis P, Fenyves E, Pan Y. Adverse health effects of mental considerations. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35(11):4538–46. outdoor air pollutants. Environ Int 2006;32(6):815–30. [51] Frenholz K, Bratkovich DS, Bowyer DJ, Lindburg A. Energy from woody [83] Bickel P, Friedrich R. ExternE: externalities of energy. Methodology 2005 biomass: a review of harvesting guidelines and a discussion of related Update. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2004. challenges. Minneapolis, MN: Dovetail Partners. Inc.; 2009. [84] Szidat S, Prévôt ASH, Sandradewi J, Alfarra MR, Synal H-A, Wacker L, et al. [52] Kreutzer K. Ökologische Fragen zur Vollbaumernte. Forstwiss Centralbl Dominant impact of residential wood burning on particulate matter in 1979;98(1):298–308. Alpine valleys during winter. Geophys Res Lett 2007;34:5. [53] English M. Ökologische Grenzen der Biomassenutzung in Wäldern. BFW— [85] Leichtweis C, Hiendlmeier S, Hahn J. Feinstaub aus Holzfeuerungen im Fokus Praxisinf 2007;13:8–10. des Gesetzgebers. LFW aktuell 61 2007. [54] Nisbet T. Guidance on site selection for brash removal. Edinburgh: Forestry [86] Canadell JG, Raupach MR. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Commission; 2007. Science 2008;320(5882):1456–7. [55] Verkerk PJ, Anttila P, Eggers J, Lindner M, Asikainen A. The realisable [87] Verkerk P, Mavsar R, Giergiczny M, Lindner M, Edwards D, Schelhaas M. potential supply of woody biomass from forests in the European Union. Assessing impacts of intensified biomass production and biodiversity pro- For Ecol Manage 2011;261(11):2007–15. [56] Katzensteiner K, Nemestothy KP. Energetische Nutzung von Biomasse aus tection on ecosystem services provided by European forests. Ecosyst Serv – dem Wald und Bodenschutz—ein Widerspruch? Mitt. Österr Bodenkdl Ges 2014;9:155 65. 2007;74:5–15. [88] Kraxner F, Nilsson S, Obersteiner M. Negative emissions from BioEnergy use, — [57] Christensen M, Hahn K, Mountford EP, Ódor P, Standovár T, Rozenbergar D, carbon capture and sequestration (BECS) the case of biomass production by et al. Dead wood in European beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest reserves. For Ecol sustainable forest management from semi-natural temperate forests. Bio- – Manage 2005;210(1):267–82. mass Bioenergy 2003;24(4):285 96. [58] Eichrodt R. Über die Bedeutung von Moderholz für die natürliche Verjün- [89] Kraxner F, Nordström E-M, Havlík P, Gusti M, Mosnier A, Frank S, et al. — gung im subalpinen Fichtenwald. Zürich: Bühler; 1969. Global bioenergy scenarios future forest development, land-use implica- – [59] Haberl H, Geissler S. Cascade utilization of biomass: strategies for a more tions, and trade-offs. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;57:86 96. č efficient use of a scarce resource. Ecol Eng 2000;16(0):111–21. [90] Brang P, Spathelf P, Larsen JB, Bauhus J, Bonc ìna A, Chauvin C, et al. [60] Keegan D, Kretschmer B, Elbersen B, Panoutsou C. Cascading use: a Suitability of close-to-nature silviculture for adapting temperate European systematic approach to biomass beyond the energy sector. Biofuels Bioprod forests to climate change. Forestry 2014;87(4):492–503. Biorefin 2013;7(2):193–206. [91] Rokityanskiy D, Benítez PC, Kraxner F, McCallum I, Obersteiner M, [61] Österreichischer Biomasse-Verband, editor. Basisdaten 2013 Bioenergie, Rametsteiner E, et al. Geographically explicit global modeling of land-use Lebensministerium. Austrian Energy Agency; 2013. change, carbon sequestration, and biomass supply. Technol Forecast Soc [62] Dahlquist E, Bundenschuh J. Pulp and paper industry—trends for the future: Change 2007;74(7):1057–82. biomass as energy source: resources, systems and applications. In: Dahlquist [92] Schelhaas M-J, Eggers J, Lindner M, Nabuurs G, Pussinen A, Päivinen R, et al. E, editor. . CRC Press I, LLC; 2013. p. 229–54. Model documentation for the European forest information scenario model [63] Rist L, Shanley P, Sunderland T, Sheil D, Ndoye O, Liswanti N, et al. The (EFISCEN 3.1. 3). The Netherlands: Alterra Wageningen; 2007. impacts of selective logging on non-timber forest products of livelihood [93] Masera O, Ghilardi A, Drigo R, Trossero MA. WISDOM: a GIS-based supply importance. For Ecol Manage 2012;268:57–69. demand mapping tool for woodfuel management. Biomass Bioenergy [64] McLain RJ, Jones ET. Nontimber forest products management on national 2006;30(7):618–37. forests in the United States. General technical report PNW-GTR-655. -. [94] Gomes J, Nascimento J, Rodrigues H. Estimating local greenhouse gas Portland, OR. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest emissions—a case study on a Portuguese municipality. Int J Greenhouse Research Station; 2005. Gas Control 2008;2(1):130–5. [65] Delbaere B, Serradilla AN. a tool to assess the impacts of European Commu- [95] Asdrubali F, Presciutti A, Scrucca F. Development of a greenhouse gas nity policies on Europe’s biodiversity Tilburg. European Centre for Nature accounting GIS-based tool to support local policy making—application to Conservation; 2009. an Italian municipality. Energy Policy 2013;61:587–94. R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623 621

[96] Wang J, Chen J, Ju W, Li M. IA-SDSS: a GIS-based land use decision support biomass production in a changing world. Chapter II. In: Winiwarter V, system with consideration of carbon sequestration. Environ Modell Software Gerzabek MH, editors. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie für 2010;25(4):539–53. Wissenschaften; 2012. p. 48–71. [97] Deng S, Shi Y, Jin Y, Wang L. A GIS-based approach for quantifying and [126] Magnani N. Exploring the local sustainability of a green economy in alpine mapping carbon sink and stock values of forest ecosystem: a case study. communities: a case study of a conflict over a biogas plant. Mt Res Dev Energy Procedia 2011;5(0):1535–45. 2012;32(2):109–16. [98] Bernasconi A, Schroff U. editors.: Freizeit und Erholung im Wald: Grundla- [127] Prochnow A, Heiermann M, Plöchl M, Linke B, Idler C, Amon T, et al. gen, Instrumente, Beispiele. Umwelt-Wissen. Bern, Bundesamt für Umwelt; Bioenergy from permanent grassland—a review: 1. Biogas. Bioresour Technol 2008. 2009;100(21):4931–44. [99] Lehmann B, Steigerand U, Weber M. Landschaften und Lebensräume der [128] Piotti A, Piovani P, Scalfi M, Leonardi S, Menozzi P. Global change e risalita Alpen: zwischen Wertschöpfung und Wertschätzung: Reflexionen zum della treeline: conseguenze genetiche della colonizzazione dei pascoli alpini. Abschluss des nationalen Forschungsprogramms 48. vdf Hochschulverlag Forest@—J Silvicult For Ecol 2007;4(1):69. AG; 2007. [129] Chemini C, Rizzoli A. Land use change and biodiversity conservation in the [100] Tempesta T, Thiene M. The willingness to pay for the conservation of Alps. J Mt Ecol 2003;7(1):1–7. mountain landscape in Cortina D’Ampezzo (Italy). In: Proceeding of 90th [130] Patthey P, Signorell N, Rotelli L, Arlettaz R. Vegetation structural and EAAE Seminar “multifunctional agriculture, policies and markets: under- compositional heterogeneity as a key feature in Alpine black grouse micro- standing the critical linkages”. Rennes-France; 2004. habitat selection: conservation management implications. Eur J Wildlife Res [101] Martens D, Bauer N. Gepflegte Wälder für gepflegte Seelen? LWF aktuell 75 2012;58(1):59–70. 2010:60. [131] Storch I. Grouse: status survey and conservation action plan 2006–2010 [102] Abbasi T, Abbasi S. Biomass energy and the environmental impacts asso- IUCN. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN the World Pheasant Association; 2007. ciated with its production and utilization. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev [132] Mustoni A, Pedrotti L, Zanon E, G Tosi.): Ungulati Delle Alpi. Biologia – 2010;14(3):919–37. riconoscimento – gestione. Cles (Trento); 2002. [103] Kaltschmitt M, Merten D, Fröhlich N, Nill M. Energiegewinnung aus Bio- [133] Provincia di Bergamo, Settore Ambiente & Centro Studi sul Territorio “Lelio masse. Berlin, Heidelberg: Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Pagani”. From 〈http://ftp.provincia.bergamo.it/Territorio_Infrastrutture/biodi Globale Umweltveränderungen; 2003. versita/html/indice.htm〉;2010. [104] Winiwarter V, Gerzabek MH, Baumgastern A, Blum WE, Butterbach-Bahl K, [134] European Commission, Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of Cushman G, et al. Endangered soils: a long-term view of the natural and natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora Official Journal of the European social ramifications of biomass production in agriculture and forestry: the Union; 2006. challenge of sustaining soils: natural and social ramifications of biomass [135] Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S. Agricultural sustain- production in a changing world. In: Winiwarter V, Gerzabek MH, editors. ability and intensive production practices. Nature 2002;418(6898):671–7. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie für Wissenschaften; 2012. [136] Bastian O, Lupp G, Syrbe R-U, Steinhäußer R. Ecosystem services and energy p. 12–47 Chapter I. crops—spatial differentiation of risks. Ekologia 2013;32(1):13–29. [105] Markard J, Stadelmann M, Truffer B. Prospective analysis of technological [137] Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, et al. Greenhouse gas innovation systems: identifying technological and organizational develop- mitigation in agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 2008;363 ment options for biogas in Switzerland. Res Policy 2009;38(4):655–67. (1492):789–813. [106] Walla C, Schneeberger W. Farm biogas plants in Autria—an economic analysis [138] Liu X, Herbert S, Hashemi A, Zhang X, Ding G. Effects of agricultural (Landwirtschaftliche Biogasanlagen in Österreich—eine ökonomische Ana- management on soil organic matter and carbon transformation—a review. lyse). Jahrb Österr Ges Agrarökonomie 2005;13:107–20. Plant Soil Environ 2006;52(12):531. [107] Stritih U, Zupan G, Butala V. Review of green electricity production in [139] Svoboda N, Taube F, Wienforth B, Kluß C, Kage H, Herrmann A. Nitrogen Slovenia. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2007;11(9):2201–8. leaching losses after biogas residue application to maize. Soil Tillage Res [108] Holm-Nielsen JB, Al Seadi T, Oleskowicz-Popiel P. The future of anaerobic 2013;130(0):69–80. digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour Technol 2009;100(22):5478–84. [140] Svoboda N, Taube F, Kluß C, Wienforth B, Kage H, Ohl S, et al. Crop [109] Johann E. Traditional forest management under the influence of science and production for biogas and water protection—a trade-off? Agric Ecosyst industry: the story of the alpine cultural landscapes. For Ecol Manage Environ 2013;177(0):36–47. 2007;249(1–2):54–62. [141] Pötsch EM. Nährstoffgehalt von Gärrückständen aus landwirtschaftlichen [110] Hopfner-Sixt K, Amon T. Monitoring of agricultural biogas plants in Austria— Biogasanlagen und deren Einsatz im Dauergrünland. Final report BAL 2941. mixing technology and specific values of essential process parameters. In: Höhere Bundeslehr- und Forschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft Raumberg- Proceedings of the 15th European biomass conference and exhibition, Berlin; Gumpenstein. 2007. [142] Goberna M, Podmirseg SM, Waldhuber S, Knapp BA, García C, Insam H. [111] Chakravorty U, Hubert M-H, Nøstbakken L. Fuel versus food. Annu Rev Resour Pathogenic bacteria and mineral N in soils following the land spreading of Econ 2009;1:645–63. biogas digestates and fresh manure. Appl Soil Ecol 2011;49(0):18–25. [112] Fargione JE, Plevin RJ, Hill JD. The ecological impact of biofuels. Annu Rev Ecol [143] Sauer B, Ruppert H. Bioenergy production as an option for polluted soils—a Evol Syst 2010;41:351–77. non-phytoremediation approach: sustainable bioenergy production—an inte- [113] Groom MJ, Gray EM, Townsend PA. Biofuels and biodiversity: principles for grated approach. Springer; 2013. p. 425–44. creating better policies for biofuel production. Conserv Biol 2008;22(3):602–9. [144] Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt (LfU), Biogashandbuch Bayern—Materialien- [114] Bringezu S, Schütz H, Meghan OB, Kauppi L, Howarth RW, McNeely J. Towards band. from 〈http://www.lfu.bayern.de/abfall/biogashandbuch/index.htm〉. sustainable production and use of resources: assessing biofuels. Paris: UNEP/ [145] Weber R, Reinhold G, Georgi B. Informationen zum Immissionsschutz bei International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management; 2009. Biogasanlagen. Schriftenreihe der Thüringer Landesanstalt für Umwelt und [115] Bielefeldt J, Bolte A, Busch G, Dohrenbusch A, Kroiher F, Lamersdorf N, et al. Geologie. Thüringer Landesanstalt für Umwelt und Geologie; 2006 Nr. 76. Energieholzproduktion in der Landwirtschaft. Berlin: Naturschutzbund [146] Bätzing W. Die Alpen: Geschichte und Zukunft einer europäischen Kultur- Deutschland; 2008. landschaft. CH Beck, 2003. [116] Langeveld H, Quist-Wessel F, Dimitriou I, Aronsson P, Baum C, Schulz U, et al. [147] Egré D, Milewski JC. The diversity of hydropower projects. Energy Policy Assessing environmental impacts of short rotation coppice (SRC) expansion: 2002;30(14):1225–30. model definition and preliminary results. BioEnergy Res 2012;5(3):621–35. [148] Klinglmair A, Bliem M. Die Erschließung vorhandener Wasserkraftpotenziale [117] Baum C, Leinweber P, Weih M, Lamersdorf N, Dimitriou I. Effects of short in Österreich im Spannungsfeld von Energiepolitik und ökologischen Schutz- rotation coppice with willows and poplar on soil ecology. Agric For Res zielen, Z f Energiewirtschaft 38, 2014, 13-26. 2009;3(59):183–96. [149] Platform Water Management in the Alps. Common guidelines for the use of [118] Ruhm W, Schuster K. Kurzumtriebsflächen. BFW Praxis Inf 2012;28:15–6. small hydropower in the alpine region. Innsbruck, Bozen. Permanent [119] Yu F-B, Luo X-P, Song C-F, Zhang M-X, Shan S-D. Concentrated biogas slurry Secretariat of the Alpine Convention; 2011. enhanced soil fertility and tomato quality. Acta Agric Scand Sect B—Soil Plant [150] S FOEN, ARE, [Ed.] Recommendations for developing cantonal conservation Sci 2009;60(3):262–8. and exploitation strategies for small hydropower plants, Bern; 2011. [120] Abubaker J, Risberg K, Pell M. Biogas residues as fertilisers—effects on wheat [151] International Energy Agency. Implementing agreement for hydropower growth and soil microbial activities. Appl Energy 2012;99(0):126–34. technologies and programmes annex III. Paris: Hydropower and the Envir- [121] Dahiya AK, Vasudevan P. Biogas plant slurry as an alternative to chemical onment; 2000. fertilizers. Biomass 1986;9(1):67–74. [152] Möderl M, Sitzenfrei R, Mair M, Jarosch H, Rauch W. Identifying hydropower [122] Svensson K, Odlare M, Pell M. The fertilizing effect of compost and biogas residues potential in water distribution systems of Alpine Regions. World Environ from source separated household waste. J Agric Sci 2004;142(04):461–7. Water Resourc Cong 2012:3137–46. [123] Bougnom BP, Niederkofler C, Knapp BA, Stimpfl E, Insam H. Residues from [153] Blanc G, Cherix G. Drinking water networks interconnections and green renewable energy production: their value for fertilizing pastures. Biomass electricity production: case study in a Swiss Alps pilot region. Manage Bioenergy 2012;39(0):290–5. Environ Qual 2014;25(1):52–62. [124] Odlare M, Arthurson V, Pell M, Svensson K, Nehrenheim E, Abubaker J. Land [154] Bratrich C, Truffer B. Green electricity certification for hydropower plants. application of organic waste—effects on the soil ecosystem. Appl Energy Green Power Publications; 2001. 2011;88(6):2210–8. [155] Hohenwallner D, Saulnier GM, Brancelj A, Bertoncelj I, Brencic M, Brun A, [125] Gerzabek MH, Winiwarter V, Baumgarten A, Blum WE, Butterbach-Bahl K, et al. AlpWaterScarce: water resources management and water scarcity in Cushman G, et al. Productive soils, global environmental cycles and energy the Alps: recommendations for water resources managers and policy- crops: the challenge of sustaining soils: natural and social ramifications of makers. University of Savoie; 2011. 622 R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623

[156] Truffer B. Integrated environmental management of hydropower operation [190] Krijgsveld KL, Akershoek K, Schenk F, Dijk F, Dirksen S. Collision risk of birds under conditions of market liberalization: Alpine waters. In: Bundi U, editor. with modern large wind turbines. Ardea 2009;97(3):357–66. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2010. p. 227–34. [191] Arnett EB, Brown WK, Erickson WP, Fiedler JK, Hamilton BL, Henry TH, et al. [157] Bratrich C, Truffer B, Jorde K, Markard J, Meier W, Peter A, et al. Green Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in north america. J Wildlife hydropower: a new assessment procedure for river management. River Res Manage 2008;72(1):61–78. Appl 2004;20(7):865–82. [192] Baerwald EF, D'Amours GH, Klug BJ, Barclay RM. Barotrauma is a significant [158] Truffer B, Markard J, Bratrich C, Wehrli B. Green electricity from Alpine cause of bat fatalities at wind turbines. Curr Biol 2008;18(16):695–6. hydropower plants. Mt Res Dev 2001;21(1):19–24. [193] Barclay RM, Baerwald E, Gruver J. Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind [159] Renöfält BM, Jansson R, Nilsson C. Effects of hydropower generation and energy facilities: assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height. Can J opportunities for environmental flow management in Swedish riverine Zool 2007;85(3):381–7. ecosystems. Freshwater Biol 2010;55(1):49–67. [194] Cryan PM, Barclay RMR. Causes of bat fatalities at wind turbines: hypotheses [160] Meile T, Boillat JL, Schleiss AJ. Hydropeaking indicators for characterization of and predictions. J Mammal 2009;90(6):1330–40. the Upper-Rhone River in Switzerland. Aquat Sci 2011;73(1):171–82. [195] Dürr T, Bach L. Bat deaths and wind turbines—a review of current knowledge, [161] Fette M, Weber C, Peter A, Wehrli B. Hydropower production and river rehabilita- and of the information available in the database for Germany. Bremer tion: a case study on an alpine river. Environ Model Assess 2007;12(4):257–67. Beiträge Naturkunde Naturschutz 2004;7:253–64. [162] Person E, Bieri M, Peter A, Schleiss AJ. Mitigation measures for fish habitat [196] Kunz TH, Arnett EB, Erickson WP, Hoar AR, Johnson GD, Larkin RP, et al. improvement in Alpine rivers affected by hydropower operations. Ecohy- Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research drology 2013 n/a–n/a. needs, and hypotheses. Front Ecol Environ 2007;5(6):315–24. [163] CIPRA. Wasserkraft: Die Alpen unter Strom. CIPRA Info; 2005. p. 76. [197] Stewart GB, Pullin AS, Coles CF. Poor evidence-base for assessment of [164] Dickson NE, Carrivick JL, Brown LE. Flow regulation alters alpine river windfarm impacts on birds. Environ Conserv 2007;34(1):1–11. thermal regimes. J Hydrol 2012;464–465(0):505–16. [198] European Commission. Wind energy developments and Natura. Luxem- [165] Zolezzi G, Siviglia A, Toffolon M, Maiolini B. Thermopeaking in Alpine streams: bourg; 2010. p. 2000. “ event characterization and time scales. Ecohydrology 2011;4(4):564–76. [199] Illner H. Comments on the report Wind Energy Developments and Natura ” [166] Richter BD, Thomas GA. Restoring environmental flows by modifying dam 2000 , edited by the European Commission in October 2010. Arbeitsge- operations. Ecol Soc 2007;12(1):12. meinschaft Biologischer Umweltschutz, Biologische Station Soest, Bad Sas- [167] Chovanec A, Schiemer F, Waidbacher H, Spolwind R. Rehabilitation of a sendorf-Lohne, Germany; 2011. fl — heavily modified river section of the Danube in Vienna (Austria): biological [200] Horch P, Schmid H, Guélat J, Liechti F. Kon iktpotenzialkarte Windenergie assessment of landscape linkages on different scales. Int Rev Hydrobiol Vögel Schweiz: Teilbereich Brutvögel, Gastvögel und Vogelschutzgebiete 2002;87(2-3):183–95. gemäss WZVV. Vogelwarte Sempach, Bundesamt für Umwelt; 2012. [168] Larinier M, Marmulla G. Fish passes: types, principles and geographical [201] Zeiler HP, Gruenschachner-Berger V. Impact of wind power plants on black – distriburion—an overview; 2004. grouse, Lyrurus tetrix in Alpine regions. Folia Zool, 58. ); 2009. p. 173 82. [169] Schilt CR. Developing fish passage and protection at hydropower dams. Appl [202] Cornut J, Vincent S. Suivi de la mortalité des chiroptères sur deux parcs Anim Behav Sci 2007;104(3–4):295–325. éoliens du sud de la région Rhône-Alpes. Le Bièvre: 51. “ ” [170] Hefti D. Wiederherstellung der Fischauf- und -abwanderung bei Wasserk- [203] Rodewald R, Wem gehört die Landschaft: The Price of Landscape. Who raftwerken. Bern. Bundesamt für Umwelt. Umwelt-Wissen Nr 1210, 2012. cares about Landscape in the Alps? Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine – [171] Comiti F, Da Canal M, Surian N, Mao L, Picco L, Lenzi MA. Channel Convention. L. Dagostin; 2007. p. 82 95. adjustments and vegetation cover dynamics in a large gravel bed river over [204] Kienast F, Frick J, Steiger U. Neue Ansätze zur Erfassung der Landschaftsqua- lität. Bern. Bundesamt für Umwelt; 2013. the last 2000 years. Geomorphology 2011;125(1):147–59. [205] Peters J, Uwe G. Regenerative Energien und Kulturlandschaft—Chancen für [172] Habersack H, Piégay H. 27 River restoration in the Alps and their surround- Schutz und Entwicklung von Kulturlandschaften durch den Ausbau erneuer- ings: past experience and future challenges: developments in earth surface barer Energien. StadtþGrün 2006;12/2006:48–53. processes. In: Helmut Habersack HP, Massimo R, editors. . Elsevier; 2007. [206] CIPRA, editor. Der Wind der Veränderung. Ein Hintergrundbericht. Schaan; p. 703–35. 2002. [173] Schöberl F. Hochwasserschutz durch Hochwasserrückhalt Analyse der Rüc- [207] Nadaï A, van der Horst D. Wind power planning, landscapes and publics. khaltewirkung von Gebirgsspeicheranlagen im Raum Tirol. Innsbrucker Land Use Policy 2010;27(2):181–4. Geogr Berichte 2007:115–28. [208] Harrison JP. Wind turbine noise. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2011;31(4):256–61. [174] Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt, [Ed.]. Junihochwasser 2013 - Wasser- [209] Bund-Länder Initiative Windenergie, [ED.]. Überblick zu den landesplaner- wirtschaftlicher Bericht. Augsburg, UmweltSpezial; 2014. ischen Abstandsempfehlungen für die Regionalplanung zur Ausweisung von [175] Landesamt für Umwelt Landwirtschaft und Geologie, [Ed.]. Ereignisanalyse Windenergiegebieten. from 〈http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/filead Hochwasser im August und September 2010 und im Januar 2011 in Sachsen. min/Daten_EE/Dokumente__PDFs_/abstandsempfehlungen_0512.pdf〉;2013. Dresden; 2013. [210] van den Berg GP. Wind turbine power and sound in relation to atmospheric [176] Chanson H. Embankment overtopping protections system and earth dam stability. Wind Energy 2008;11(2):151–69. spillways: dams: impacts, stability and design. In: Hayes WP, Barnes MC, [211] Baqtasch M, Van Dam J, Sndergaardand B, Rogers A. Wind turbine noise—an – editors. Hauppauge NY, USA: Nova Science Publishers; 2009. p. 101 32. overview. 2006, from 〈http://jcaa.caa-aca.ca/index.php/jcaa/article/view/ [177] Rodriguez J-F. Hydropower landscapes and tourism development in the 1791/1538〉;2006. Pyrenees. From natural resource to cultural heritage. Rev Géogr Alpine/J [212] Kathrin R, Martin F‐J, Stefan M. Windkraft und Tourismus. Hintergrundpapier – Alpine Res 2012:100 2. IG Windkraft; 2013. [178] Pröbstl U, Jiricka A, Hindinger F. Renewable energy in winter sport destina- [213] Schödl D. Windkraft und Tourismus—planerische Erfassung der Konfliktber- — tions desired, ignored or rejected? In: Managing Alpine Future II proceed- eiche. Tourismus und Regionalentwicklung in Bayern 2013:125. – ings of the Innsbruck conference; 2011. p. 309 18. [214] Stuhrmann S. Windenergie versus Tourismus – ein Widerspruch? Wind- [179] Cosgrove D, Roscoe B, Simon R. Landscape and identity at Ladybower energienutzung und ihre Auswirkungen auf den Tourismus in der Uckermark – Reservoir and Rutland water. Trans Inst Br Geogr 1996;21(3):534 51. Saarbrücken; 2008. [180] Umweldachverband Österreich, [Ed.]. Umweltfreundliche Nutzung der Wind- [215] Wolsink M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the 〈 energie - eine Frage der Standortwahl. From https://www.alpenverein.at/ limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy 2000;21(1):49–64. portal_wAssets/docs/natur-umwelt/UWD-Positionspapier-Windkraft_mit- [216] Jobert A, Laborgne P, Mimler S. Local acceptance of wind energy: factors of Deckblatt.pdf〉;2011. success identified in French and German case studies. Energy Policy 2007;35 [181] Ministère de l’Ecologie; de l’Energie; du Développement Durable et de la (5):2751–60. Mer, [Ed.]. Handbuch für die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung von Windparks; [217] Breukers S, Wolsink M. Wind power implementation in changing institutional 2010. landscapes: an international comparison. Energy Policy 2007;35(5):2737–50. [182] Gilgen K, Sartoris A, Leuzinger Y, Contesse E. Empfehlung zur Planung von [218] Johansson M, Laike T. Intention to respond to local wind turbines: the role of Windenergieanlagen. Bern; 2010. attitudes and visual perception. Wind Energy 2007;10(5):435–51. [183] Balaguer I, Harinck J-P, Christophe F, Philippe C, Michel B. Guide régional [219] Elettrici GS. Guida agli interventi validi ai fini del riconoscimento dell’inte- éolien—Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur; 2004. grazione architettonica del fotovoltaico. From 〈http://pti.regione.sicilia.it/ [184] Loss SR, Will T, Marra PP. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind portal/page/portal/PIR_PORTALE/PIR_LaStrutturaRegionale/PIR_AssEnergia/ facilities in the contiguous United States. Biol Conserv 2013;168(0):201–9. PIR_DipEnergia/PIR_2754499.1088975756/PIR_ContoEnergia/Guida_inte [185] Barrios L, Rodríguez A. Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring- graz_architett_fotovoltaico_GSE.pdf〉. bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. J Appl Ecol 2004;41(1):72–81. [220] Lundgren M, Torstensson K. Photovoltaics in architecture—lessons learned in [186] Drewitt AL, Langston RH. Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds. Ibis PV Nord. Uppsala; 2004. 2006;148(s1):29–42. [221] Tsoutsos T, Frantzeskaki N, Gekas V. Environmental impacts from the solar [187] Drewitt AL, Langston RHW. Collision effects of wind-power generators and energy technologies. Energy Policy 2005;33(3):289–96. other obstacles on birds. Ann NY Acad Sci 2008;1134(1):233–66. [222] Torasso R. Fotovoltaico e paesaggio: applicazione dei criteri ERA a livello [188] Erickson WP, Johnson GD, Young Jr DP. A summary and comparison of bird locale. Politecnico di Torino; 2011. mortality from anthropogenic causes with an emphasis on collisions. USDA [223] Chiabrando FE, Garnero G. L‘impatto territoriale e paesaggistico degli For Serv Gener Tech Rep 2005:1029–42. impianti fotovoltaici: stato dell'arte e applicazioni; 2008. [189] Horch P, Keller V. Windkraftanlagen und Vögel–ein Konflikt. Schweizerische [224] Herden C, Rassmus J, Gharadjedaghi B. Naturschutzfachliche Bewertungs- Vogelwarte Sempach, Sempach; 2005. methoden von Freilandphotovoltaikanlagen. BfN-Skripte 2009;247:1–195. R. Hastik et al. / Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 48 (2015) 608–623 623

[225] BRE, [ED.]. Planning guidance for the development of large scale ground [235] Barbier E. Geothermal energy technology and current status: an overview. mounted solar PV systems. From 〈http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/media/ Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2002;6(1–2):3–65. NSC_Planning_Guidance_reduced.pdf〉;2013. [236] Brophy P. Environmental advantages to the utilization of geothermal energy. [226] Baldescu I, Barion F. Fotovoltaico: Prontuario per la valutazione del suo Renewable Energy 1997;10(2):367–77. inserimento nel paesaggio e nei contesti architettonici. Direzione regionale [237] Phillips J. Evaluating the level and nature of sustainable development for a per i beni culturali e paesaggistici del Veneto. Venezia; 2011. geothermal power plant. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 2010;14(8):2414–25. [227] Wirth H, Schneider K. Aktuelle Fakten zur Photovoltaik in Deutschland. [238] Goldscheider N, Bechtel T. Editors’ message: The housing crisis from under- Freiburg; 2012. ground—damage to a historic town by geothermal drillings through anhy- [228] Sanner B, Karytsas C, Mendrinos D, Rybach L. Current status of ground source drite, Staufen, Germany. Hydrogeol J 2009;17(3):491–3. heat pumps and underground thermal energy storage in Europe. Geother- [239] Deichmann N, Giardini D. Earthquakes induced by the stimulation of an – mics 2003;32(4):579 88. enhanced geothermal system below Basel (Switzerland). Seismol Res Lett [229] Landesamt für Landwirtschaft; Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes 2009;80(5):784–98. Schleswig-Holstein, [Ed.]. Leitfaden zur geothermischen Nutzung des ober- [240] Costanza R. Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. flächennahen Untergrundes. Flintbek, Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Biol Conserv 2008;141(2):350–2. Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein; 2011. [241] Schmutz S, Schinegger R, Muhar S, Preis S, Jungwirth M. Ökologischer [230] Schweizerische Vereinigung für Geothermie, [ED.]. Projektlandkarte Tiefen- Zustand der Fließgewässer Österreichs–Perspektiven bei unterschiedlichen geothermie. from 〈http://www.geothermie.ch/index.php?p=deep_geother mal_projects〉;2013. Nutzungsszenarien der Wasserkraft. Österreichische Wasser-und Abfall- – [231] Imhasly S, Signorelli S, Rybach L. Statistik der geothermischen Nutzung in der wirtschaft 2010;62(7-8):162 7. Schweiz. Zürich: Schweizerische Vereinigung für Geothermie SVG; 2013. [242] De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L. Challenges in integrating [232] Goldenbrunner J. Status und aktuelle Entwicklungen der Geothermie in the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, manage- Österreich. In: Berichte Geol. B.A. Transenergy—Öffentliches Symposium & ment and decision making. Ecological Complexity 2010;7(3):260–72. Exkursion 92; 2012. p. 11–13. [243] Dax T. Endogenous development in Austria’s mountain regions: from a source of [233] Benz S. Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen für die Nutzung der oberflächenna- irritation to a mainstream movement. Mt Res Dev 2001;21(3):231–5. hen Geothermie. BWV 2009. [244] Zoellner J, Schweizer-Ries P, Wemheuer C. Public acceptance of renewable energies: [234] Brielmann H, Lueders T, Schreglmann K, Ferraro F, Avramov M, Hammerl V, results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy 2008;36(11):4136–41. et al. Oberflächennahe Geothermie und ihre potenziellen Auswirkungen auf Grundwasserökosysteme. Grundwasser 2011;16(2):77–91. Appendix 3

Appendix 3: Published extended abstract in proceedings 1 – Water footprint as a new approach to w ater management in the urban areas

„ZAOPATRZENIE W WODĘ, JAKOŚĆ I OCHRONA WÓD” „WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY”

Wiesław FIAŁKIEWICZ1, Stanisław CZABAN1, Anna KOLONKO2, Tomasz KONIECZNY2, Paweł MALINOWSKI2, Alessandro MANZARDO3, Andrea LOSS3, Antonio SCIPIONI3, Günther LEONHARDT4, Wolfgang RAUCH4, Christin HAIDA5, Katrin SCHNEIDER5, Katharina WOHLFART6, Robert SCHMIDT6, Lisa CHILÒ7, Donato BEDIN7, András KIS8

1 Institute of Environmental Engineering Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland 2 Center of New Technologies Municipal Water and Sewage Company MPWiK S.A., Wroclaw, Poland 3 Department of Industrial Engineering University of Padova, Italy 4 Unit for Environmental Engineering University of Innsbruck, Austria 5 alpS Ltd., Innsbruck, Austria 6 Nuremberg Chamber of Commerce and Industry Innovation, Germany 7 Fondazione Centro Produttività Veneto, Italy 8 ENEREA, Észak-Alföldi Regionális Energia Ügynökség, Hungary

WATER FOOTPRINT AS A NEW APPROACH TO WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE URBAN AREAS

URBAN WATER FOOTPRINT – NOWY SYSTEM MONITOROWANIA I OCENY GOSPODAROWANIA WODĄ W MIASTACH

Wody słodkie są zasobem ograniczonym, w niektórych częściach świata nawet deficy- towym, który maleje podczas gdy zapotrzebowanie na niego rośnie, wraz ze wzrostem liczby ludności i standardu życia. Dotyczy to szczególnie obszarów miejskich, w których aktualnie mieszka ponad 75% populacji Europy. Dodatkowe zagrożenie stanowią zmiany klimatyczne i ekstrema pogodowe takie jak powodzie i susze, które podobnie jak człowiek ingerują w naturalny cykl wody na danym obszarze. Istnieje więc uzasadniona potrzeba udoskonalenia technologii oczyszczania wody i ścieków, rozbudowy i poprawy działania systemów wodno-kanalizacyjnych, oraz wdrożenia nowoczesnych metod i narzędzi ich monitoringu, kontroli i zarządzania. Partnerzy z Włoch, Polski, Niemiec, Austrii i Węgier reprezentujący środowisko naukowe i sektor przemysłowy zawiązali konsorcjum, które podjęło się zrealizować projekt Urban Water Footprint – nowy system monitorowania i oceny gospodarowania wodą w miastach. Podstawowym celem projektu jest wypraco- wanie uniwersalnej metodologii obliczania Urban Water Footprint, czyli wskaźnika śladu wodnego miasta. Ma on umożliwić ocenę, monitoring oraz docelowo poprawę zużycia wody i gospodarowania zasobami wodnymi na obszarze miejskim. Główne działania i rezultaty projektu to opracowanie jednolitej i uniwersalnej metodologii obliczania śladu wodnego dla miast, za pomocą trzech modeli o różnym poziomie dokładności i zastoso- wania, przetestowanie ich dla trzech miast Europy Środkowej, aktywacja trzech Urban 432 W. FIAŁKIEWICZ, S. CZABAN, A. KOLONKO, T. KONIECZNY, P. MALINOWSKI, A. MANZARDO, A. LOSS, A. SCIPIONI, G. LEONHARDT, W. RAUCH, C HAIDA, K. SCHNEIDER, K. WOHLFART, R. SCHMIDT, L. CHILÒ, D. BEDIN, A. KIS

Water Footprint Labs, których zadaniem jest szerzenie wiedzy i pozyskiwanie danych oraz wskazanie najlepszych praktyk, procedur i technologii. Narzędzia te będą wspomagały proces podejmowania decyzji w zakresie gospodarki wodno-ściekowej w miastach.

1. Introduction

The fresh water is a scarce resources in some areas of the world and its volume de- pletes while the demand increases, with time. The sensitive areas become the cities where the population migrates and concentrates. Currently over 75% of the European population lives in urbanized areas. Therefore, there was recognized a need for improvement of water and sewage treatment technologies, the condition of water supply and sewage collection networks, as well as implementation of modern tools for their monitoring, control and management. Beside the increase in population concentration, there are other factors which need to be considered such as the importance of water resources for natural and social environment and flood risks associated with climate changes and weather extremes. Correct water use and management are the key to set good climate change adaptation strategies, to ensure good quality of life of EU citizens and to support development of economic actors that work in the field of water. Recent studies show that there is a 40% potential for water saving in European urban areas. The important issue is the development of reliable monitoring and control systems for water distribution and sewage collection, by creating databases of technical state of equipment and recording users behaviours. Another important step is complex management of the system for rainwater drainage. Currently there are no uniform methods of managing storm water drainage systems and combined sewage system. There is a need for introduction of market principles in operation of urban drainage systems, increase of water retention, implementation of control techniques for channels and surface retentions during storm weather and reduction of discharge of pollutants from rainwater to surface waters. Last but not least it is important to improve the level of waste water treatment. The best way of studying the problem from different points of view, implementing the modern technological and management solutions and transferring the knowledge is by involving into the project representatives from different world regions. This lead the partners from Italy, Poland, Germany, Austria and Hungary representing both the scientific and industrial area to establish a consortium, which has set up the URBAN_WFTP project within the Programme for Central Europe. The project aims at improving the conservation of water resources through the deployment of new water-saving technologies and policies, starting from increasing citizens awareness in this area. The element of strong innovation consists in the application of the Water Footprint (WFTP) approach to the urban areas as a water management and planning tool. In addition, the project considers different urban contexts in order to obtain a model of common approach that will be used throughout the Central Europe in order to study and optimize water consumption by citizens. The water footprint concept was introduced by Arjen Y. Hoekstra in 2002 [1] as an indicator of freshwater use. It is closely linked to the virtual water concept [2] which accounts for the total volume of water required to produce a product. Import and export of the products is associated with the transport of virtual water between the countries and world regions [1]. WATER FOOTPRINT AS A NEW APPROACH TO WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE URBAN AREAS 433

In general the WFTP considers direct and indirect (virtual) water consumption by a consumer or producer. It has three components: blue water which is the volume of surface and ground water consumed for production of a product or a service, green water defined as the volume of rainwater stored in the soil and not returned to the water basin because of evapotranspiration processes and grey water referred as the dilution volume of water required to assimilate the load of pollutants according to the existing ambient water quality standards. The water footprint components used in the urban context are discussed in more detail in the next section. The WFTP is continuously developed by the Water Footprint Network [3]. A new ISO 14046.2 standard [4] is expected to be published, which will describe the rules, requirements and guidelines for evaluation and reporting the water footprints of products, processes and organizations within the framework of Life Cycle Assessment [5]. Nevertheless until present there is no application of water footprint to the urban areas.

2. Methodology

The water footprint concept is primarily intended to illustrate the hidden links between human consumption and water use and between global trade and water resources management [6]. While this is a powerful tool for communication, the concept bears a number of shortcomings, most important the lack of data. As already mentioned WFTP indicator according to Hoekstra et al. [7] assesses and represents three aspects of water use called blue water, green water and grey water. In general the blue water footprint refers to consumption of blue water resources (surface and groundwater). “Consumption” means the loss of water from the available ground-surface water body in a catchment area. Losses occur when water evaporates, returns to another catchment area or to a sea or is incorporated into a product. Within the urban context blue water footprint is defined as evaporation from impervious surfaces, long term storage and export of water outside the city boundary. The green water footprint refers to consumption of rainwater insofar as it does not become run-off. It is therefore assumed that in the urban environment green water footprint covers this part of rainwater which is transferred from green surfaces to the atmosphere by evapotranspiration. The grey water footprint refers to pollution and is defined as the volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants given natural background concentrations and existing ambient water quality standards. For the urban conditions grey water footprint is calculated based on concentrations of treated runoff/waste water. The term WFTP is used for both direct (real) and indirect (virtual) water use of a consumer or a producer in a certain region [6, 8]. Therefore it is assumed that the model will calculate in parallel the fluxes of virtual and real water that occur within the city boundaries (Figure 1). The virtual water fluxes that are connected to trade are reported separately, reason being that pure import-export of goods creates only a through flow of virtual water. As trading goods are neither created nor used the virtual water fluxes connected with those goods does not need to be considered specifically – but of course could be.

434 W. FIAŁKIEWICZ, S. CZABAN, A. KOLONKO, T. KONIECZNY, P. MALINOWSKI, A. MANZARDO, A. LOSS, A. SCIPIONI, G. LEONHARDT, W. RAUCH, C HAIDA, K. SCHNEIDER, K. WOHLFART, R. SCHMIDT, L. CHILÒ, D. BEDIN, A. KIS

Fig. 1. Water fluxes model on city level

Rys. 1. Model przepływu strumieni wody w mieście

The real water model has been structured in three different levels of application. For each level a specific model has been drawn up. Depending on specific needs only one level needs to be applied for calculating part of water footprint resulting from real water flow model. The second part can be calculated from virtual water flow model. Three different levels are distinguished to reflect the degree of details, the information they provide and the load of input data that are required (Figure 2). The first level is described with the global model which uses top-down approach. The city is defined as a black box, and all water fluxes are studied with an input-output approach. This model is addressed to politicians and decision makers at the municipality level, and also to the water managers. The second level is represented by the areal model and the focus is posed on different land uses that can be distinguished in the city and how they interfere with water uses. Through the use of geographical information system (GIS), it allows to create a map of the city that shows the hot spots where the WFTP is the highest. The obtained results are useful for city planners, decision makers and water managers. The last level is the local model which analyses all the structures that generate the water consumptions using bottom-up approach. Starting from the analysis of a single represen- WATER FOOTPRINT AS A NEW APPROACH TO WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE URBAN AREAS 435 tative neighbourhood and its elementary modules (buildings, roads, green areas etc.), the whole city water footprint is estimated adopting a multi-linear modelling approach. It is the most complex model and requires numerous data for the calculations. The results will allow for assessment of citizens behaviour, the technologies used in residential buildings as well as the regulation on fresh-water management solutions for new buildings and discharged water.

Fig. 2. Three level model of Urban WFTP

Rys. 2. Trzy poziomowy model Urban WFTP

The innovative approach used in the project allows to study the water uses in the city in order to identify points of intervention and choose the specific technologies to be introduced to reduce consumption. The models help to describe the water use within the municipality and to predict the water use according to new urban development. Based on the gathered data the impact of local policies on water use can be assessed. Due to varying complexity of the models it is possible to calculate the WFTP of the municipality starting from a limited number of data.

3. Project results

Besides the development of methodology the URBAN_WFTP project carries out number of other activities which deal with: activation of Urban Water Footprint Labs (UWF Labs), implementation of models in three Central European cities, identification of best practices, definition of improvement plans and promotion of water footprint approach. 436 W. FIAŁKIEWICZ, S. CZABAN, A. KOLONKO, T. KONIECZNY, P. MALINOWSKI, A. MANZARDO, A. LOSS, A. SCIPIONI, G. LEONHARDT, W. RAUCH, C HAIDA, K. SCHNEIDER, K. WOHLFART, R. SCHMIDT, L. CHILÒ, D. BEDIN, A. KIS

Urban Water Footprint Labs are the interface between water supply and water demand (Figure 3). The UWF Labs have the ability to continuously assess, evaluate and monitor changing behaviours, policies or technologies of consumers and water suppliers which might have an impact on the demand. Additionally the UWF Labs serve as communication platform and bring together water suppliers and users from various backgrounds to raise awareness about sustainable water management and consumption. This approach supports the involvement of different stakeholder groups and avoids a top-down approach which may not stress actual challenges and requirements of a city’s water management. The flexible framework makes it possible to personalize the labs depending on the individual needs of the urban area.

Fig. 3. Schematic set-up of an Urban Water Footprint Lab

Rys. 3. Schemat organizacyjny Urban Water Footprint Lab

Three UWF Labs have been created in Poland, Italy and Austria. MPWiK S.A. is responsible for UWF Lab in Wroclaw which is addressed to the decision-makers, such as water and sewage companies as well as politicians and planners, which have an influence on the investments and policies associated with water consumption, usage and treatment. It is important to raise their awareness about the global water scarcity and motivate them to choose environmentally friendly and sustainable solutions. Their decisions have an impact on behaviors and choices of large number of people. Several analyses have been carried out using developed models for three central European cities: Wroclaw, Vicenza and Innsbruck. Data gathered on water use and management enabled to make assessment of WFTP baselines for the cities under consideration. The baselines are considered as the reference points to study the efficacy and efficiency of future policies and initiatives related to water resources. In order to do so for each city possible future development scenarios have been defined. The scenarios WATER FOOTPRINT AS A NEW APPROACH TO WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE URBAN AREAS 437 have been determined based on population growth, change of urbanized area and climate conditions, improvement of waste water treatment facilities, application of water saving technologies (e.g. rainwater harvesting) and improvement of water use practices by citizens. Based on identified scenarios a sensitivity analysis of model performance has been performed. The output of sensitivity analysis and the inventory of local water management problems was a base for identification of best practices applied in the countries of project partners. Potential measures to improve local water management are: metering of water consumption, reduction of leakage from the drinking water network, cost recovering tariffs, introduction of water saving technologies, education of citizens on water saving and reduction of soil sealing. Most urban water management goals can be achieved through a number of different measures, and vice versa, most measures contribute to more than just one goal. In addition to defining the best practices, a SWOT analysis for the three urban areas has been done, which aimed to assess the strengths and weak points of the water use and management. All this information will be used in the future to formulate and activate improvement plans. Unfortunately most of the measures require a long time horizon of years and even decades. Therefore with the help of UWF Labs, the activities included in the improvement plans will be started within the framework of the project and will continue after it ends. During the project the training activity is done by each UWF Lab in the towns of Vicenza, Innsbruck and Wroclaw. The general purpose of the training is to make available in the Central Europe a first nucleus of trainers well acquainted in the themes of water footprint, with special knowledge on Urban Water Footprint and the organization of a UWF Lab. Dissemination of knowledge and project results is achieved in different ways: news- letters, project web-site (http://www.urban-wftp.eu), media appearances, participation at regional/transnational conferences and fairs, conducting face to face interviews with relevant regional and national stakeholders, organizing workshops or seminars in order to promote the knowledge about WFTP approach to local representatives, citizens and stakeholders. One of the achievements of the project is establishment of a common water technology and management database which is available on project web-site.

4. Discussion and conclusions

The URBAN_WFTP project is carried out within the framework of Central Europe Programme, Priority - Environment and the Area of Intervention - Supporting Environ- mentally Friendly Technologies and Activities. The project promotes better water use and management as well as reduction in water consumption, what contributes to preservation of water resources. The diffusion of innovative technologies will lead to formation of new services, companies and professionals, as well as economic growth in the area of intervention. This will result in environmental benefits such improved quality of water resources enhancing the quality of life, and economic benefits such as reduction in operational costs due to reduction in water consumption and wastewater discharges. The project fulfils the objective of the Lisbon strategy adopted in 2000, which is to create a competitive knowledge economy that could help achieve economic growth through raising employment levels, greater social cohesion and respect for the environment. The project will contribute to these objectives by strengthening regional and 438 W. FIAŁKIEWICZ, S. CZABAN, A. KOLONKO, T. KONIECZNY, P. MALINOWSKI, A. MANZARDO, A. LOSS, A. SCIPIONI, G. LEONHARDT, W. RAUCH, C HAIDA, K. SCHNEIDER, K. WOHLFART, R. SCHMIDT, L. CHILÒ, D. BEDIN, A. KIS internal cohesion and integration, ensuring the replicablity of the activities and upgrad- ing central Europe’s environmental policies. Knowledge and technology exchange as well as innovations in the field of water management within the Central Europe region will be an example for all Europe and also for the whole world, how to face the water scarcity issues. The project supports implementation of Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC [9] and its amendments by identifying and developing strategies, tools and innovative technologies that will contribute to enhancement of environmental quality standards in the field of water policy. As a result of the project a common approach for the management of water issues in Urban Areas at Central Europe river basin level has been developed. Another regulation associated with the project is Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC [10], to which it refers by increasing monitoring and control of water use and fresh water quality and use, protecting human health. Urban Waste Water Directive 91/271/EEC [11] and its amendments is the third standard, which the project supports by developing the tools of controlling the quality of waste water discharged from urban areas. The economic benefits of the project are related to better water management and use leading to reduction of costs. The environmental benefit is improved water quality of water resources enhancing the quality of life. The citizens and relevant stakeholders involved in the project will benefit from new local policy and regulations (e.g. better building standards), environmental achievements (better quality of water and life), new job creation (development of water technologies and services market). The economic and financial dimension will be guaranteed with investments in improvement of water management and use. These will support the growth of the local market of water use and management technologies and services. One of the objectives of the project is to share the WFTP approach and create the awareness about water scarcity and the potential for better water management and saving solutions, however regardless how broad is the marketing campaign the addressors might be not interested in the subject. There might be problems with data gathering due to lack of data and transparency. It might be impossible to implement improvement plans because of rigidly established water supply structure, bureaucracy, etc. There might be also difficulties in the identification and access to water technologies. Therefore the role of the project is to stimulate the collaboration between municipalities, universities and water authorities, favouring and enabling the common decisions on water management issues. The project technical board and scientific board involve experts from both, the scientific and industrial sector. Local municipalities supported by the scientific world and water authorities will be able to set reasonable policies, interventions and regulations in an innovative way, based on consistent and reliable data. Future development of the proposed approach can also be identified and considered for other potential future projects. It would be interesting to review the existing approach at the light of the forthcoming ISO standards on water footprint [4] therefore characterizing the different water use in term of impacts assessment to address the issue of scarcity or other environmental impacts such as eutrophication or acidifications. Another interesting developments would be to integrate the current framework with other interesting indicators such as the carbon footprint that has been widely applied at urban level for example in the Covenant of Mayors European initiative. WATER FOOTPRINT AS A NEW APPROACH TO WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE URBAN AREAS 439

Acknowledgements

The funding of the URBAN_WFTP project by the European Regional Development Fund through CENTRAL EUROPE programme is gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] Hoekstra, A.Y. Virtual water: An introduction. In: Hoekstra, A.Y. (ed.). Virtual Water Trade. Proceedings of the International Expert Meeting on Virtual Water Trade. Delft, 12-13 December 2002. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 12. Delft: UNESCO-IHE, 2003, pp. 13-23 [2] Allan, J.A. Virtual water: a strategic resource, global solutions to regional deficits. Groundwater, 1998, 36 (4), pp. 545-546 [3] Water Footprint Network. Water Footprint. Available at: http://www.waterfootprint.org, 2014 [4] ISO/DIS 14046.2 Environmental management – Water footprint – Principles, requirements and guidelines, 2014 [5] Mazzi, A., Manzardo, A. and Scipioni, A. Water footprint to support environmental management: an overview. In: Salomone, R. and Saija, G. (eds.). Pathways to environmental sustainability: methodologies and experience. Cham: Springer Interna- tional Publishing, 2014, pp. 33-42 [6] Galli, A., Wiedmannb, T., Ercinc, E., Knoblauchd, D., Ewinge, B. and Giljumf, S. Integrating Ecological, Carbon and Water footprint into a “Footprint Family” of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecological Indicators, 2012, 16, pp. 100-112 [7] Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M. and Mekonen, M.M. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual. Setting the Global Standard. London: Earthscan, 2011, p. 228 [8] Vanham, D. The Water Footprint of Austria for Different Diets. Water Science and Technology, 2013, 67, pp. 824-830 [9] Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy (Water Frame- work Directive), 23 October 2000 [10] Council Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption (Drinking Water Directive), 3 November 1998 [11] Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water treatment (Urban Waste Water Directive), 21 May 1991 Appendix 4

Appendix 4: Published extended abstract in proceedings 2 – Trade- offs of ecosystem services provided by mountain hay meadow s under land-use change scenarios

5th Symposium Conference Volume for Research in Protected Areas pages 10 to 12 June 2013, Mittersill

Trade-offs of ecosystem services provided by mountain hay meadows under land use change scenarios

Anna Katharina Steinmetz1, 2, Christin Haida1, 3, Clemens Geitner2

1 alpS Center for Climate Change Adaptation, Innsbruck, Austria. 2 Institute of Geography, Innsbruck University, Austria. 3 Institute of Ecology, Innsbruck University, Austria.

Abstract Land use change has had a strong impact on Alpine land cover and might alter the ability of ecosystems to provide ecosystem services. Particularly affected have been high mountain hay meadows, which have often been subject to abandonment and consequently have become overgrown by dwarf-shrubs and young trees. This trend will have long lasting effects on the provision of ecosystem services. Analysis of possible trade-offs of ecosystem services may enable the development of best possible management strategies. As study sites we chose a set of former mountain hay meadows representing various stages of succession, depending on the last time they were mowed. These sites are situated in the subalpine zone in the municipality of Brandberg adjacent to the nature park Zillertal. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an important tool for environmental planning and decision making and is widely acknowledged to quantify possible trade-offs of ecosystem services. In order to carry out a MCDA we organised a workshop with local experts. Preliminary results show that the six most important ecosystem services according to the ranking order were: biodiversity, aesthetic value/recreation, cultural heritage, fresh water, agricultural products, and protection from natural hazards.

Keywords Trade-offs, MCDA, Land use change

Introduction Human societies depend on goods and services they obtain from natural or semi-natural ecosystems. Fresh water, fertile soils, natural hazard regulation or recreation are just a few of these many services (MEA 2005). Over time, ecosystems and landscapes have been modified by man effecting the provision of multiple services. One characteristic feature of this modification in the Alps are mountain hay meadows. This labour intensive land use shapes the traditional cultural landscape of the Alps. In the past 50 years however, land use has changed; favourable agricultural sights have been intensified while, less favourable areas were subjected to abandonment (TAPPEINER et al. 2006). In the case of mountain hay meadows this has a significant impact on the vegetation cover, gradually becoming over grown by dwarf-shrubs, bushes and trees. This change might alter the capacity to provide ecosystem services. Yet which services might increase or decrease, in other words, which trade-offs might occur is not certain (RODRIGUEZ et al. 2006). On the one hand these open hay meadows, popular with walkers, might lose attractiveness and therefore get less frequented as a recreational sight. On the other hand natural hazard regulation might increase, as a dense tree cover provides higher protective functions. In order to facilitate best possible management strategies it is important to assess and value the provision of ecosystem services and weight possible trade-offs. Here multi-criteria decision analyses (MCDA) are useful, providing a tool to assist decision makers in finding an answer to which alternative is the best.For this study we used multiple ecosystem services as criteria to weigh which management alternative – labour intensive mowing or abandonment – is more suitable for mountain hay meadows. In this context we aim at answering the following question: 1. Which are the most important ecosystem services provided by mountain hay meadows? 2. Are some of these ecosystem services considered more important than others? 3. To which extent are these ecosystem services provided under certain land use change scenarios and do trade- offs occur?

Study site The study areas, situated around the Kolmhaus (1845m), are part of the municipality Brandberg and adjacent to the nature park Zillertaler Alps. The sites are located on a south facing slope of the Zillergrund, which is a tributary valley of the Zillertal. The annual precipitation of the municipality Brandberg amounts up to 1.365mm with an average annual temperature of 3,7°C. Already in the 12th century extensive areas of the Brandberger forests were cut cleare in order to provide meadows and pastures. Because of the steepness, the secluded locations and lack of workers various mountain slopes were abandoned in the past century. However, until today mountain hay meadows represent a cultural heritage of traditional land use in the Zillertaler Alps (SCHACHNER 2005).

Images: Picture one shows a view of the hay meadows of Brandberg, which are still mowed. Picture two illustrates peasants at work and picture three shows an installation for hay transportation.

Method General approach Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is an important tool for environmental planning and decision making and is widely acknowledged to quantify possible trade-offs of ecosystem services. Generally the principle of this method is to arrange a preference ordering to a number of other options (STEELE et al. 2009). So a multi-criteria decision analysis helps to structure a problem and to investigate the decision-making process using multiple criteria. A clear definition of the alternatives as well as of the criteria is the framework of the decision-making process. Using multi-criteria decision analysis in ecosystem services research has the advantage (STEELE et al. 2009) that both quantitative and qualitative criteria are comparable, monetary and non-monetary attributes alike can be used and separate units can be obtained. The common process of the MCDA follows a set of successive steps (HOWARD 1991, KEENEY 1992 in SANON et al. 2012): - Defining objectives - Selecting set of criteria to measure the objectives - Specifying the alternatives - Transforming the criterion scales into commensurable units - Pre-evaluating of the evaluation matrix - Assigning weights to the criteria that reflect decision maker’s preferences - Selecting and applying mathematical algorithms for ranking alternatives - Performing sensitivity analysis - Choosing or recommending alternatives Ranking of services (previous procedure) We organized a workshop with local experts in order to: i) determine the most relevant six ecosystem services provided by the study area in an open discussion, ii) agree upon their relative ranking and iii) identify suitable indicators to quantify these ecosystem services. An extensive literature review helped to assign quantitative or qualitative values for the selected indicators. Only few references dealt with the valuation of the indicator group aesthetic value/recreation. Therefore an additional questionnaire was required. This questionnaire was set up in two parts: the first part consisted of manipulated landscape photos showing separate development scenarios to assess the aesthetic value. The aim of the second part was to investigate recreational values using a set of questions.

Preliminary results Preliminary results show that for these mountain hay meadows of Brandberg the six most important ecosystem services according to the ranking order were: biodiversity, aesthetic value/recreation, cultural heritage, fresh water, agricultural products, and protection from natural hazards. According to these services (criterias) the following indicators were selected (see the table below):

Future steps Further steps are 1) to analyse the questionnaire and to define values for the service group aesthetic value/recreation, 2) to quantify the selected six ecosystem services according to two management scenarios, 3) to evaluate benefits and disadvantages of these two management scenarios within the ecosystem services framework, and 4) to identify trade-off trends and to assess ecosystem services which directly compete.

References

CARPENTER, S. R., BENNETT, E. M. & PETERSON, G. D. 2006. Scenarios for Ecosystem Services: An Overview. Research, part of a Special Feature on Scenarios of global ecosystem services. Ecological and Society 11 (1):29. CHOO, E. U., SCHONER, B. & WEDLEY, W. C. 1999. Interpretation of criteria weights in multicriteria decision making. Computers & Industrial Engineering 37 (1999) 527-541. MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. RODRÍGUEZ, J. P., BEARD, T. D. Jr., BENNETT, E. M., CUMMING, G. S., CORK, S., AGARD, J., DOBSON, A. P. & PETERSON, G. D. 2006. Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 11(1): 28. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art28/ SANON, S., HEIN, T., DOUVEN, W. & WINKLER, P. 2012. Quantifying ecosystem service trade-offs: The case of an urban floodplain in Vienna, Austria. Journal of Environmental Management 111(2012) 159-172. SEPPELT, R., DORMANN, C. F., EPPINK, F. V., LAUTENBACH, S. & SCHMIDT, S. 2011. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead, Forum. Journal of Applied Ecology 2011, 48, 630- 636. STEELE, K., CARMEL, Y., CROSS, J. & WILCOX, C. 2009. Uses and Misuses of Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses (MCDA) in Environmental Decision-Making. Risk Analysis, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2009. SCHACHNER, M. 2005.Land aus Menschenhand: Eine Entdeckungsreise durch die Kulturlandschaft am Brandberg. 2. Auflage. Brandberg. TAPPEINER, U., TASSER, E., LEITINGER, G. & TAPPEINER, G. 2006. Landnutztung in den Alpen. Historische Entwicklung und zukünftige Szenarien. R. Psenner & R. Lackner (Eds). Die Alpen im Jahr 2020. Innsbruck University Press, Innsbruck, pp. 23-39.

Contact Anna Katharina Steinmetz [email protected] alpS Center for Climate Change Adaptation Innsbruck Austria Appendix 5

Appendix 5: Published extended abstract in proceedings 3 – Societal relevance of ecosystem services in mountain environments

Societal relevance of ecosystem services in mountain environments

C. Haida1,2, J. Rüdisser2, U. Tappeiner2

1 alpS – Centre for Climate Change Adaptation Technologies, Innsbruck, Austria. e-mail: [email protected] 2 Institute of Ecology, Innsbruck University, Innsbruck, Austria.

______

Abstract

Climate and land use change will have a strong impact on Alpine landscapes, causing a shift of altitudinal zones and of land cover types. In addition to this spatial shift, structural alterations are expected. These changes in the structure and the spatial distribution of mountain ecosystems have the potential to alter their ability to provide goods and services. Existing assessments and valuations of ecosystem services (ES), however, tend to focus on either a few services or have been undertaken at a global scale. The project SHIFTing Ecosystem Services investigates and quantifies multiple ES at a regional scale covering the provinces of Tyrol (Austria), Vorarlberg (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy) and compares the present status (2010) with future scenarios (2030). In order to assess and value the provision of ES categories of land cover types are used. Possible changes in the societal relevance of ES are determined by expert interviews. The SHIFTing Ecosystem Services approach addresses the following questions: a. Which are the most relevant ES in an Alpine landscape? b. How will the future provision and consumption of ES be affected? c. Are there any trade-off trends among the services? The overall project objectives are comparisons of possible future land cover changes across the three provinces and an assessment of differing land cover types to provide ES across space and time (2010-2030). ______

Keywords: European Alps, ecosystem services, climate change, land use change

Introduction

Within the last 50 years ecosystem services (ES) have declined in quantity and quality, even though human well-being is directly dependent on their provision (Daily, 2000, MEA, 2005). According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005: V), ES are defined as the “benefits obtained from ecosystems”. They include: the provision of food, water, and timber; the regulation of climate, floods and water quality; recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; along with soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling as supporting services.

Altered climatic conditions will affect ecosystems directly, e.g. the upward shift of the tree line, forest densification of the subalpine belt, and indirectly through human impact (Walther et al. 2002, Gehring-Fasel et al. 2007, Grabherr et al. 2010). The two main driving forces, climate change and land use change, will have a strong impact on the land cover and thus on

the future provision of ES (Tappeiner et al. 2006, Houet et al. 2010). Depending on the proportion and intensity of these influencing factors, we assume, in line with Foley et al. (2005), that trade-offs of ecosystem services, which are in direct competition e.g. agricultural intensification/expansion, will increase provisioning services (food, fodder, timber) at the expense of decreasing supporting and regulating services (erosion regulation, nutrient cycling).

Study site

In total the study area covers ~22,650 km² and politically belongs to both Austria (A) and Italy (I) with 56% allotted to Tyrol (A), 11% to Vorarlberg (A), and 33% to South Tyrol (I) (Figure 1). The maximal vertical extent varies between 2917m in Vorarlberg, 3329m in Tyrol, and 3707m in South Tyrol. The distribution of area per elevation shows significant differences with 60% of Vorarlberg’s area, ~40% of Tyrol’s, and ~35% of South Tyrol’s below 1500m. The climate in all three provinces strongly depends on elevation, relief and orientation. Generally, Vorarlberg receives the greatest annual precipitation, particularly the north western Bregenzerwald, with up to 2,300 mm (Bödele). Whereas, inner Alpine dry valleys (e.g. Vinschgau), which are typical for South Tyrol, receive <600mm of annual precipitation. The valley bottoms in South Tyrol are characterised by permanent crops, e.g. fruit trees and vineyards. Vorarlberg is dominated by the greatest extent of populated areas at over 5%, in comparison with South Tyrol at 1,5%, and at Tyrol 1,8%. Vorarlberg is covered with the highest amount of broad-leaved and mixed forest, whereas Tyrol’s and South Tyrol’s forests are dominated by coniferous trees.

Figure 1: Location of the study sites Tyrol and Vorarlberg in Austria, and South Tyrol in Italy.

Methods

A possible shift of ecosystem services will be assessed and evaluated in three steps. In the first step, current land cover and land use data (Corine Land Cover, European Environmental Agency, 2000) provides the basis to assess the current status provision of all ES. Following

the methodological framework of Burkhard et al. (2009), literature reviews supply data concerning the qualitative provision of services according to land cover categories expressed on a scale from 0 to 5. These provisional values will be weighted by demand values, obtained through expert interviews. Based on these results, a few selected, pivotal ES will be evaluated in detail using appropriate indicators. In a second step, the future land cover (2030) will be modelled according to climate scenarios (temperature and precipitation) and expert opinions on land use change, using the model CLUE-S (Verburg et al. 2002). In the third step, the results from the first step will be applied on the modelled land cover 2030 (second step), and different scenarios computed.

Preliminary results

Initial results on the provision of ES show a clear distribution according to the topography (Figure 2). The valley bottoms of the highly populated Inn Valley in Tyrol and the Rhine Valley in Vorarlberg only provide a few services and these are of low quality. This contrasts with the South Tyrolean valley bottoms, which are dominated by fruit trees and vineyards, accommodating many services with medium quality. Many services with good quality are supplied along the hillsides, which are in all three provinces, in areas mainly covered by forests. These results indicate that some of the most important for the provision of ecosystem services are found in an altitudinal belt between 700 and 2000 m.s.l. and are mainly covered by forests. Hence, a more detailed look at this particular zone concerning shifts of the future land cover seems beneficial.

Figure 2: Spatial distribution of the qualitative provision of ecosystem services in Tyrol, South Tyrol, and Vorarlberg, based on land cover classes.

References

Burkhard, B.; Kroll, F.; Müller, F. & Windhorst, W. (2009) Landscapes' capacities to provide ecosystem services. A concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape online 15: 1-22. Daily, G.C.; Söderqvist, T.; Aniyar, S.; Arrow, K.; Dasgupta, P.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Folke , C.; Jansson, A.M.; Jansson, B.-O.; Kautsky, N.; Levin, S.; Lubchenco, J.; Mäler, K.-G.; Simpson, D.; Starrett, D.; Tilman, D. & Walker, B. (2000) The value of nature and the nature of value. Science 289: 395-396. Foley, J.A.; Asner, G.P.; Barford, C.; Bonan, G.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; Coe, M.T.; Daily, G.C.; Gibbs, H.K.; Helkowski, J.H.; Holloway, T.; Howard, E.A.; Kucharik, C.J.; Monfreda, C.; Patz, J.A.; Prentice, C.I.; Pamankutty, N. & Snyder, P.K. (2005) Global consequences fo land use. Science 309, 570-574.

Gehring-Fasel, J.; Guisan, A. & Zimmermann, N.E. (2007) Tree line shifts in the Swiss Alps: Climate change or land abandonment? Journal of Vegetation Science 18, 571-582. Grabherr, G.; Gottfried, M. & Pauli, H. (2010) Climate change impacts in alpine environments. Geography Compass 4,1133-1153. Houet, T.; Loveland, T.R.; Hubert-Moy, L.; Gaucherel, C.; Napton, D.; Barnes, C.A. & Sayler, K. (2010) Exploring subtle land use and land cover changes: a framework for future landscape studies. Landscape Ecol 25, 249-266. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human well-being. Current states and trends. Island Press, Washington, DC. Tappeiner, U.; Tasser, E.; Leitinger, G. & Tappeiner, G. (2006) Landnutztung in den Alpen. Historische Entwicklung und zukünftige Szenarien. R. Psenner & R. Lackner (Eds). Die Alpen im Jahr 2020. Innsbruck University Press, Innsbruck, pp. 23-39. Verburg, P. H.; Veldkamp, W. S. K.; Limpiada R.; Soepboer, W.; Espaladon, V.;& Mastura, S.S.A. (2002) Modeling the spatial dynamics of regional land use. The CLUE-S Model. Environmental Management 30, 391-405. Walther, G.-R; Post, E.; Convey, P.; Menzel, A.; Parmesan, C.; Beebee, T.C. ; Fromentin, J.-M; Hoegh-Guldberg, O. & Bailein, F. (2002) Ecological resoponses to recent climate change. Nature 416, 389-395.

Appendix 6

Appendix 6: Published other paper 1 – Erneuerbare Energie im Alpenraum – ein aktuelles Thema und eine inter- und transdisziplinäre Herausforderung

Erneuerbare Energien im Alpenraum – ein aktuelles Thema und eine inter- und transdisziplinäre Herausforderung

von Richard Hastik*, Clemens Geitner*, Christin Haida**, Karl-Michael Höferl*** und Markus Berchtold****

1. Erneuerbare Energien im Konﬂ iktfeld zwischen globalen Umweltzielen und lokalem Naturschutz Die Treibhausgasemissionen des Energiesektors werden von der Wissenschaft als Hauptverursacher des Klimawandels betrachtet (IPCC 2011). Auch in der Öffentlichkeit werden die Probleme einer fossilen und nuklearen Energiebereitstellung, der Ressourcenver- knappung, des Klimawandels und der damit verbun- denen Risiken zunehmend wahrgenommen (Kuckartz & Rheingans-Heintze 2006). Als Konsequenz daraus bildet die verstärkte Nutzung erneuerbarer Energieträger einen zunehmend wichtigen Bestandteil nachhaltiger Energie- politik. So wurden auf europäischer Ebene im März 2007 die sogenannten „20-20-20 Ziele“ beschlossen, welche Im Rahmen der Projekte sowohl eine mindestens 20prozentige Reduktion der recharge.green am Institut für Geographie und des Treibhausgasemissionen zum Referenzjahr 1990, die alpS-Projektes Energie- Erhöhung des Anteils erneuerbarer Energieträger auf raum Alpen befassen sich mindestens 20 Prozent als auch mindestens 20 Prozent die AutorInnen mit Fragen Energieeinsparung durch eine erhöhte Efﬁ zienz umfassen erneuerbarer Energien und (Europäische Kommission 2012). Einen Baustein zur deren Auswirkungen auf Umsetzung dieser Ziele auf nationalstaatlicher Ebene Umweltdienstleistungen so- bildet die EU-Richtlinie 2009/28/EG zur Förderung der wie mit den Konsequenzen, Nutzung von Energie aus erneuerbaren Quellen. In ihr die sich daraus für Ent- werden erstmals sämtliche Nutzungsstrategien für Strom, scheidungs- und Planungs- Wärme, Kälte und Kraftstoffe vereint (Europäische Union prozesse ergeben. Sie nutzen 2009). dazu die Synergien im Inns- brucker Kompetenzdreieck * Arbeitsgruppe Boden und Landschaftsökologie, Institut und bei konkreten Analyse- für Geographie ** alpS Centre for Climate Change Ad- aptation *** Arbeitsgruppen Naturgefahrenforschung & und Umsetzungsschritten in Entwicklungs- und Nachhaltigkeitsforschung, Institut für einer gemeinsamen Testre- Geographie **** Regionalentwicklung Vorarlberg gion in Vorarlberg. 157 Beiträge Innsbrucker Bericht 2011–13

Im Zuge der Umsetzung dieser Richtinie stellten sich jedoch neue Schwierigkeiten heraus, da der mit dem Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien verbundene Flächenbedarf neue (Flächen-)Nutzungskonfl ikte bedingt. Gerade Gebirgsräume wie die Alpen stehen hier vor besonderen Herausforderungen, da dem hohen Energiepotential eine große Vielfalt an ökologisch hochwertigen sowie touristisch attraktiven Lebensräumen und seltenen Arten gegenüberstehen. Als Folge gerät der Umwelt- und Naturschutz in einen Konfl ikt zwischen der Bewältigung globaler Umweltprobleme (Klimawandel) und dem lokalen Schutz von Flächen mit hohem ökologischen Wert. Die resultierenden Nutzungskonfl ikte betreffen jedoch nicht nur den unmittelbaren Naturschutz, sondern greifen viel weiter, z.B. in Bezug auf Tourismus, Wirtschaft und die allgemeine Lebens- qualität der betroffenen Bevölkerung. Eine zusätzliche Erschwernis ergibt sich aus der Feststellung, dass diese Nutzungskonfl ikte im Spannungsfeld zwischen Entwicklung und Umweltbelastung a priori keinem festen Muster folgen (Weiss 2008). Oft stehen subjektiv wahrgenommene Störungen – beispielsweise des Landschaftsbilds – im Zen- trum, während objektivierbare Probleme in den Hintergrund treten. Daher kommt der Raumplanung eine bedeutende Rolle zu, da sie die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Ausbaus erneuerbarer Energien aus ökologischer, ökonomischer und sozialer Sicht für Entscheidungsträger konkretisieren muss (Bosch & Peyke 2011). 2. Recharge.green: „Balancing alpine energy and nature“ Ausgehend von diesen Konfl iktfeldern entwickelt das EU-Projekt recharge.green (Interreg-IV-B Alpenraum, Laufzeit 2012–2015), in welchem auch das Institut für Geographie tätig ist, integrierte Strategien und Werkzeuge für das Zusammenspiel von erneuerbaren Energien mit ökologisch orientierten Landnutzungssystemen. Die Ergebnisse und Werkzeuge dieses Projektes sollen die EU-Politik, Alpenkonvention und Raumplanung bezüglich folgender Fragestellungen unterstützten: • Welches Energiepotential weisen die Alpenregionen (unter dem Gesichtspunkt einer nachhaltigen Nutzung) auf? • Welche sind die Hauptkonfl iktbereiche beim Ausbau erneuerbarer Energie- träger? • Wie wirkt sich der Ausbau erneuerbarer Energieträger auf regionale Wirtschafts- kreisläufe aus? • Welche ökologischen Konsequenzen und Kosten bringen die verschiedenen (erneuerbaren) Energieträger mit sich? • Wie können die sozialen Kosten, welche durch die Nutzung erneuerbarer En- ergieträger entstehen, ermittelt werden? • Wie kann der Abwägungsprozess zwischen Energiebereitstellung und anderen Landnutzungsformen in der Raumplanung unterstützt und ein Dialog zwischen den verschiedenen Interessensvertretern initiiert und begleitet werden? 158 Erneuerbare Energien im Alpenraum

Insbesondere beim Ausbau erneuerbarer Energieträger ist die Auseinandersetzung mit den ökonomischen Rahmenbedingungen, ökologischen Auswirkungen und der sozialen Akzeptanz auf lokaler Ebene im Sinne eines Bottom-Up Ansatzes entscheidend (Zoellner et al. 2008). Daher nimmt die intensive Zusammenarbeit mit lokalen Akteuren in sechs über den Alpenraum verteilten Pilotgebieten eine zentrale Rolle ein (Projekt- partner und Pilotgebiete siehe Abbildung 1). Die Hauptaufgabe der AutorInnen ist dabei vorwiegend die wissenschaftliche Betreuung der Pilotregion Vorarlberg (in Zusammen- arbeit mit der Regionalentwicklung Vorarlberg) mit einem räumlichen Schwerpunkt auf die Energieregion Leiblachtal. Dabei wird an die bestehende Energiestrategie des Landes mit dem Ziel der Energieautonomie bis 2050 angeknüpft, welche durch den partizipativen Ansatz im Rahmen eines „Visionsprozesses“ (Vorarlberger Landesre- gierung 2010) als besonders innovativ und zukunftsweisend gesehen werden kann. 3. Das Konzept der Umweltdienstleistungen und methodische Herangehensweise Zur Bearbeitung der Fragestellungen wird das Konzept der Umweltdienstleistungen (Ecosystem Services) angewendet. Als Umweltdienstleistungen werden Güter und Leistungen bezeichnet, die Ökosysteme bereitstellen und die der Mensch direkt oder indirekt nutzt (MEA 2005, Costanza et al. 1997). Dabei wird die Bereitstellung von

Pilotgebiet Vorarlberg (AT)

Pilotgebiet Triglav (SLO) Regional- IIASA Agroscope CH entwicklung Vorarlberg Institut für Slowenischer Wildtierkunde Forstdienst, Umweltbundes- Nationalpark und Ökologie Institut für amt Wien Triglav (Uni Wien) Universität Landwirtschaft Innsbruck, alpS Institut de la (Physische und montagne CIPRA Human- Uni Savoyens geographie) Parco Naturale Bayerische EURAC Alpi Marittime Elektrizitätswerke Forstwirtschaft und erneuerbare Regione del Waldressourcen Veneto (Uni Ljubljana) Pilotgebiet französische Pilotgebiet Nordalpen (FR) obere Iller (DE) Pilotgebiet Alpi Marittime (IT) Pilotgebiet Veneto (IT)

Wissenschaft Praxis Abb. 1: Projektpartner aus Wissenschaft und Praxis in recharge.green (eigene Darstellung) 159 Beiträge Innsbrucker Bericht 2011–13

Energie mit anderen solcher Leistungen, wie Habitat, landwirtschaftliche Produktion oder Erholung, abgewogen (Abbildung 2). Obwohl in den letzten Jahren Forschungs- aktivitäten in diesem Feld geradezu exponentiell zugenommen haben, wird dem Thema Energie als eine dieser Umweltdienstleistungen bisher noch wenig Beachtung geschenkt. Gerade der Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien jedoch kann sich sowohl positiv als auch negativ auf andere Umweltdienstleistungen auswirken und dadurch sogenannte „trade offs“ bewirken. So wirkt sich beispielsweise die intensive Nutzung von Biomasse auf die Habitatsqualität oder die Filterung von Sickerwasser aus. Wasserkraftwerke ver- ändern die Abfl ussmenge von Fließgewässern und können somit die Habitatsfunktion aquatischer Ökosysteme beeinfl ussen. Gleichermaßen wirken Photovoltaikanlagen und Windkraftwerke auf die Landschaftsästhetik und Erholungsfunktion ein. In recharge. green liegt der Schwerpunkt daher auf der Entwicklung eines Decision Support Tools, welches Entscheidungsträgern eine räumliche Gegenüberstellung der Potentiale und Konfl ikte der verschiedenen Alpenregionen im Bezug auf den Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien ermöglichen soll. Hierbei steht auch der Vergleich von Gewinnen und Ver- lusten aus ökonomischer, ökologischer und sozialer Sicht im Zentrum. Zu diesem Tool tragen die AutorInnen insbesondere mit konzeptionellen Arbeiten, aber auch mit einer Erhebung der Energiepotentiale und Umweltdienstleistungen bei. Methodisch bildet ein Workshop-basierter Ansatz, wie er auch von Wissen & Grêt-Regamey (2009) durchgeführt wurde, eine wichtige Grundlage. Diese wird durch Erfahrungen aus vergleichbaren Studien (Bosch & Partner et al. 2006, Bryan et al. 2010) ergänzt. Als besonders innovativ erscheint hierbei die Kombination partizipativer

Abb. 2: Schematische Darstellung der Abwägung zwischen Umweltdienstleistungen und erneuerbaren Energien (eigene Darstellung) 160 Erneuerbare Energien im Alpenraum

Kartierungen von Umweltdienstleistungen mit der Szenarienbewertung auf sogenannten „Musterhektaren“. Diese in der Untersuchungsregion gelegenen Musterﬂ ächen erleich- tern die Kommunikation komplexer Zusammenhänge zwischen Umweltdienstleistungen, Energiepotentialen und der Akzeptanz möglicher Entwicklungsszenarien (Abbildung 3). Im Zentrum dieses neu entwickelten Ansatzes steht die Bewertung der Veränderung relevanter Umweltdienstleistungen und die Sensibilisierung bezüglich möglicher Ge- winne und Verluste beim Ausbau erneuerbarer Energieträger für eine „Energieregion“.

Musterhektar 1: Szenario Wind: 1 ha Wald in abgelegener Lage Energieertrag ca. 300 MWh/ha/a am Hochberg (Pfänderrücken)

Musterhektar 2: Szenario Freiflächenphotovoltaik: 1 ha Grünland in siedlungsnaher Lage Energieertrag ca. 400 MWh/ha/a bei der Ortschaft Hohenweiler

Musterhektar X: Musterhektar X: spezifische Lagebeschreibung weiteres Energienutzungsszenario

Bewertung Ist-Situation Umweltdienstleistungen Bewertung der neuen Situation: Umweltdienstleistun- (durch Entscheidungsträger, Experten, Bevölkerung) gen, Gewinne und Verluste für die Region, soziale Akzeptanz, energetischer Nutzen, ... (durch Entscheidungsträger, Experten, Bevölkerung) Abb. 3: Grundlage für die Kommunikation und Bewertung der Abwägungsprozesse: Ein Set von im Untersuchungsgebiet verortbaren Musterhektaren (eigene Darstellung, in Workshops als Fotomontagen dargestellt) 161 Beiträge Innsbrucker Bericht 2011–13

Im Rahmen von Workshops werden lokale Entscheidungsträger und Akteure gebe- ten, Gewinne und Verluste bei dem Ausbau erneuerbarer Energieträger gegeneinander abzuwägen. Zusätzlich zur Gegenüberstellung werden anhand räumlicher Entwick- lungsszenarien und darauf aufbauener Visualisierungen und Fotomontagen mögliche Veränderungen des Landschaftsbilds evaluiert (Abbildung 3). Diese Ergebnisse werden anschließend mit einer Bewertung aus wissenschaftlicher Sicht verschränkt. Dafür werden Daten sowohl aus Experteninterviews als auch aus aktuellen Publikationen herangezogen. Weiters wird auch die Sicht der Bevölkerung durch eine repräsentative Befragung mit einbezogen. Das sich daraus ergebende Gesamtbild in Vorarlberg wird anhand von Experteninterviews mit anderen Pilotgebieten im Alpenraum verglichen. 4. Herausforderungen für eine integrative Geographie sowie für inter- und transdisziplinäre Kooperationen Die hier betrachtete Wechselwirkungen zwischen Energie, Raum und Politik sowie deren zeitliche Veränderungen sind unter anderem Gegenstand der Energiegeographie. Brücher (2009) verweist insbesondere auf das Raumverhältnis, welches sich zwischen Energiequellen und Energieverbrauchern beim Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien ändert. Konnte fossile Energie noch als eine (punktuell konzentrierte) Förderung für die im Raum verteilten Energieverbraucher betrachtet werden („energy for space“), ist erneuerbare Energie durch den für die Produktion notwendigen Raumbedarf maßgeblich gekennzeichnet („energy from space“). Die Breite der in recharge.green bearbeiteten Themenkomplexe geht deutlich über die Energiegeographie als Teil der Wirtschaftsgeographie oder Industriegeographie hinaus. Vielmehr kann sie als Herausforderung für eine Schnittstellenforschung gesehen werden (vgl. Weichhart 2006). Hierbei wird der thematischen, methodischen, theoretischen und begrifﬂ ichen Polarisierung entgegengewirkt, welche sich in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten durch die Spezialisierung innerhalb wissenschaftlicher Teil-Disziplinen zunehmend ergeben hat (Leser 2003). In Anlehnung an Von Groote et al. (2011: 23) betrachten wir die Kombination des Konzepts der Umweltdienstlei- stungen mit dem Thema erneuerbarer Energie als eine Möglichkeit von vielen, die Kommunikation zwischen Physio- und Humangeographie zu beleben. Darüber hinaus beinhaltet das Projekt inter- und transdisziplinäre Elemente, welche durch rekursive Zusammenarbeit verschiedener Fachgebiete (Projektpartner anderer wissenschaftlicher Disziplinen) und gesellschaftlicher Akteure (aktiv eingebunden in den Pilotregionen) gekennzeichnet sind. Literatur Bosch & Partner [Hrsg.] (2006): Flächenbedarf und kulturlandschaftliche Auswirkungen regenerativer Energien am Beispiel der Region Uckermark-Barnim. Leipzig, 144 S. Bosch, S. & G. Peyke (2011): Gegenwind für die Erneuerbaren – Räumliche Neuorientierung der Wind-, Solar-und Bioenergie vor dem Hintergrund einer verringerten Akzeptanz sowie zunehmender Flächen- nutzungskonﬂ ikte im ländlichen Raum. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung 69 (2), S. 105–118. 162 Erneuerbare Energien im Alpenraum

Brücher, W. (2009): Energiegeographie: Wechselwirkung zwischen Ressourcen, Raum und Politik. Berlin/ Stuttgart, 280 S. Bryan, B.A., Raymond, C.M., Crossman, N.D. & D.H. Macdonald (2010): Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and how? In: Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2), S. 111–122. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P. & M. van den Belt (1997): The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. In: Nature 387, S. 253–260. Europäische Kommission [Hrsg.] (2012): The EU climate and energy package. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ package/index_en.htm (aufgerufen im Juli 2013) Europäische Union (EU) [Hrsg.] (2009): Richtlinie 2009/28/EG des Europäischen Parlamentes und des Rates vom 23. April 2009 zur Förderung der Nutzung von Energie aus erneuerbaren Quellen und zur Änderung und anschließenden Aufhebung der Richtlinien 2001/77/EG und 2003/30/EG. (2011): IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York, 1075 S. Kuckartz, U. & A. Rheingans-Heintze (2006): Trends im Umweltbewusstsein. Umweltgerechtigkeit, Lebens- qualität und persönliches Engagement. Wiesbaden, 208 S. Leser, H. (2003): Geographie als integrative Umweltwissenschaft: Zum transdisziplinären Charakter einer Fachwissenschaft. In: Heinritz, G. [Hrsg.] (2003): Integrative Ansätze in der Geographie – Vorbild oder Trugbild. München, S. 35–52. MEA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) [Hrsg.] (2005): Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Washington, DC. Td-net [Hrsg.] (2004): Guidelines für die transdisziplinäre Forschung. Bern, 51 S. Von Groote, C., Michl, T., Stücker, J. & Weitnauer, C. (2011): Wozu Brücken? Wir können doch schwimmen! – Wissenschaftstheoretische Überlegungen zur geographischen Schnittstellenforschung. In: Entgrenzt. Studentische Zeitschrift für Geographisches (1), S. 17–25. Vorarlberger Landesregierung (2010) [Hrsg.]: Energiezukunft Vorarlberg – Ergebnisse aus dem Visionsprozess. Bregenz. 22 S. Weichhart, P. (2006): Auf der Suche nach der „dritten Säule“. Gibt es Wege von der Rhetorik zur Pragmatik? In: Müller-Mahn D. & U. Wardenga [Hrsg.]: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen integrativer Forschungsansätze in Physischer und Humangeographie (= iﬂ -forum 2). Leipzig, S. 109–136. Weiss, G. (2008): Umweltkonﬂ ikte verstehen: Die Ansiedlung von Industriebetrieben im Spannungsfeld regionaler Entwicklungspfade und nationaler Umweltdiskussionen. München, 456 S. Wissen, U. & A. Grêt-Regamey (2009): Identifying the regional potential for renewable energy systems using ecosystem services and landscape visualizations. In: Proceedings of the European IALE Conference 2009, European Landscapes in Transformation: Challenges for Landscape Ecology and Management. http://www.irl.ethz.ch/plus/people/agrtrega/2009_IALEConf (aufgerufen im Juli 2013) Zoellner, J., Schweizer-Ries, P. & C. Wemheuer (2008): Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany. In: Energy Policy, 36 (11), S. 4136–4141.

163 Appendix 7

Appendix 7: Published other paper 2 – Aspekte bodenbezogener ecosystem services in den Alpen und ihre monetäre Bew ertung

Aspekte bodenbezogener ecosystem services in den Alpen und ihrer monetären Bewertung

von Clemens Geitner, Christin Haida und Philipp Lang

1 Ecosystem services - ein weltweit aktuelles Thema 1.1 Aktualität Die BBC News melden am 14. Juni 2010: „An international meeting has given the green light to the formation of a global „science policy“ panel on biodiversity and ecosystem services.“ Somit ist – fünf Jahre nach dem Millennium Ecosystem Assessment der UN (2005) – der Startschuss für die Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem services (IPBES) gefallen. Für Achim Steiner, den Exekutivdirektor des UN-Umweltprogramms UNEP, bedeutet dies “a major breakthrough in terms of organizing a global response to the loss of living organisms and forests, freshwaters, coral reefs and other ecosystems that generate multi-trillion Die AutorInnen der Ar- dollar services that underpin all life - including economic beitsgruppe Boden und life - on Earth“ (BBC News, 14. Juni 2010). Landschaftsökologie be- fassten sich mit Ecosystem Innerhalb der letzten 50 Jahre haben die ecosystem Services im Rahmen einer services – im Deutschen etwas sperrig als Ökosystem- Masterarbeit und eines oder Umweltdienstleistungen bezeichnet – weltweit nicht Forschungsantrages. Im nur quantitativ, sondern auch qualitativ stark abgenom- Gelände trugen sie einige men. Obwohl sie die Basis unseres Wirtschaftens und Liter Wasser den Hang unserer Lebensqualität bilden, wird ihre umfassende hinauf, um konkret die Bedeutung meist erst durch ihren Verlust bewusst (Daily Versickerungsleistung von et al. 2000). Die damit einhergehende Preiserhöhung unterschiedlichen Boden- Vegetations-Komplexen zu der natürlichen Rohstoffe und Nahrungsmittel stellt eine quantifizieren. der gravierenden gesellschaftlichen Konsequenzen dar. Dass die Degradation von Ökosystemen und der Verlust an Artenvielfalt über die ecosystem services direkt mit der menschlichen Wohlfahrt verbunden sind (European Communities 2008), verdeutlicht Abbildung 1. 129 Beiträge Innsbrucker Bericht 2008-10

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Faktoren der Lebensqualität

Versorgend Sicherheit • Nahrung • persönliche Sicherheit • Trinkwasser • gesichterer Ressourcenzugang • Holz • Sicherheit vor Katastrophen • Brennstoff • ... Grundgüter zum Leben Unterstützend • adäquate Lebensgrundlage • Nährstoffkreislauf Regulierung von • ausreichende Nahrungsmittel • Bodenbildung • Klima • Unterkunft • Primärproduktion • Hochwasser • Zugang zu Waren • ... • Krankheiten • Wasseraufbereitung Gesundheit • ... • Belastbarkeit • Wohlbefinden Kulturell • Zugang zu sauberer Luft und Wasser • Ästhetik • Spiritualität Soziale Einbindung • Bildung • sozialer Zusammenhalt • Erholung • gegenseitiger Respekt • ... • Fähigkeit zur Hilfestellung Abb. 1: Verbindungen zwischen den ecosystem services und der Lebensqualität des Menschen; die Dicke der Pfeile repräsentiert das Ausmaß der Zusammenhänge (verändert nach Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005: VI). 1.2 Begrifflichkeiten und Zugänge Die Frage „Was sind ecosystem services?“ ist – wie aktuelle Publikationen belegen (Boyd & Banzhaf 2007, Köllner 2009, Costanza 2008) – zumindest in Details noch immer in Diskussion. Schon Daily (1997: 1-10) befasste sich ausführlich mit dieser Frage in dem ersten Kapitel ihres grundlegenden Buches „Nature’s services“. Demnach basieren die ecosystem services auf Strukturen und Prozessen natürlicher Ökosysteme und ihren Bestandteilen, durch welche Funktionen bereit gestellt werden, von denen ein Teil durch die Gesellschaft zur Erhaltung des menschlichen Lebens als ecosystem services in Anspruch genommen wird. Dieser Zusammenhang ist in Abbildung 2 schematisch dargestellt. Im Sinne von de Groot et al. (2002) nehmen dabei die Öko-

ÖKOSYSTEME GESELLSCHAFT

Strukturen und Prozesse

Funktionen

Umweltdienstleistungen (Ecosystem Services) Inanspruch- nahme

Abb. 2: Zusammenhang von Ökosystemstrukturen und -prozessen, Ökosystemfunktionen und den ecosystem services (eigene Darstellung). 130 Bodenbezogene ‚ecosystem services‘ systemfunktionen eine Zwischenstellung ein und kennzeichnen den Teilbereich der Ökosystemstrukturen und -prozesse, der dem Menschen nützlich sein könnte. Die Autoren (2002: 394) sprechen diesbezüglich von „the capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly“. Der Anteil dieser Funktionen, der letztendlich als ecosystem services vom Menschen abgefragt wird, ist keine fixe Größe, sondern unterliegt diversen Veränderun- gen. Die in Abbildung 2 skizzierte Struktur verdeutlicht, wie stark dieser methodische Ansatz auf die menschliche Gesellschaft ausgerichtet ist. Die Gesamtheit der ecosystem services kann nach unterschiedlichen Kriterien, die im Detail noch in Diskussion sind (Boyd & Banzhaf 2007, Costanza 2008), weiter differenziert werden. Das Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005: 40ff) unterteilt sie – wie auch in Abbildung 1 dargestellt – in folgende vier Gruppen: Versorgungsdienste: Nahrung, Wasser, pflanzliche Rohstoffe, Genreservoirs etc. Regulierungsdienste: Klima, Wasser, Luftqualität, Naturgefahren, Krankheiten etc. Unterstützende Dienste: Nährstoffkreislauf, Bodenbildung, Photosynthese, Primärproduktion etc. Kulturdienste: Erholung und Tourismus, intellektuelle Erfüllung, ästhetische und religiöse Werte etc. Für die Anwendung des methodischen Ansatz der ecosystem services werden die aufgezählten Dienstleistungen einerseits mit den Ökosystemen und ihren Funktionen verknüpft, andererseits monetär bewertet. Daraus ergeben sich grundsätzlich folgende drei Arbeitsschritte: 1) Die Identifikation der Ökosystemfunktionen, 2) ihre Verknüpfung mit den bereitgestellten Dienstleistungen und 3) die monetäre Bewertung dieser Dienstleistungen. Aufgrund der globalen ökologischen Krisen hat der methodische Ansatz der ecosystem services in den letzten Jahren zunehmend an Bedeutung gewonnen (Wallace 2007). Der nachfolgende Blick auf den Forschungsstand soll aufzeigen, wie sich dieses Thema entwickelt hat und welche Herausforderung in Bezug auf die ecosystem services heute bestehen. 1.3 Skizze des aktuellen Forschungsstands Die Erkenntnis, wie lebenswichtig die Ökosysteme für den Menschen sind, ist sehr alt. So weisen Mooney & Ehrlich (1997) darauf hin, dass diese Wertschätzung schon zu Platons Zeiten thematisiert wurde. Die moderne Forschung über ecosystem services besteht mindestens seit den 1950er Jahren, zunächst vor allem fokussiert auf erneuerbare Ressourcen (Gordon 1954). In den 1960er und 1970er Jahren begannen Vertreter der Wirtschaftswissenschaften, „the value of services that natural areas provide“ zu messen (Krutilla & Fisher 1975: 12). Schwerpunkte lagen dabei auf landwirtschaftlichen 131 Beiträge Innsbrucker Bericht 2008-10

Produkten (Beattie & Taylor 1985), erneuerbaren Ressourcen (Krutilla 1967; Clark 1990), nicht-erneuerbaren Ressourcen (Dasgupta & Heal 1979) und Umweltleistungen (Freeman 1993). In den 1990er Jahren ist die Forschungs- und Publikationstätigkeit zum Thema ecosystem services exponentiell angestiegen (Costanza & King 1999). Dabei standen in den letzen zwei Jahrzehnten folgende Themen im Vordergrund: Ökologie und globaler Wandel, wirtschaftliche Aspekte und die Institutionalisierung von Richtlini- en, vor allem aber auch die Integration dieser Einzelkomponenten. Nach Daily et al. (2009) liegen die heutigen Herausforderungen vorzugsweise darin, auf dem bisherigen wissenschaftlichen Fundament aufzubauen, bestehende Lücken zu schließen und die ecosystem services in die alltäglichen Entscheidungsprozesse zu integrieren. Für die Wissenschaft bedeutet dies beispielsweise, den Fokus stärker auf die nicht produktiven Funktionen und die vernetzte Bereitstellung einzelner Ökosystemdienstleistungen zu richten. Eine andere Aufgabe liegt darin, über Fallstudien, die in abgegrenzten Gebieten großmaßstäbig einzelne ecosystem services analysieren, hinaus zu kommen (Daily et al. 2009). Einen allgemeinen Überblick zum Stand des Wissens im globalen Maßstab bot 2005 das Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2 Ecosystem services in den Alpen 2.1 Besonderheiten In den Alpen – und das trifft großteils auch auf andere Gebirge zu – kommt dem Ansatz der ecosystem services aus mehreren Gründen eine besondere Relevanz zu: Die Ökosysteme sind durch eine hohe Diversität und Kleinräumigkeit gekennzeichnet, es herrscht ein ausgeprägter Nutzungsdruck auf bestimmte Flächen, und es bestehen enge Verknüpfungen zwischen den höheren und tieferen Lagen und bis weit in das Vorland hinaus. Entsprechend differenziert und räumlich verknüpft müssen die ecosystem services bewertet werden. Dazu besteht nach Köllner (2009) noch erheblicher Forschungsbedarf. Als konkreten Ökosystemdienstleistungen, die auch über den Alpenbogen hinausgreifen, kommt dem Schutz vor Naturgefahren, der Bereitstellung von Trink- und Brauchwasser, der Kohlenstoffspeicherung, der Biodiversität und der landschaftlichen Schönheit eine besondere Rolle zu (Huber et al. 2005, European Environment Agency 2010). Neben dem wachsenden Flächenverbrauch, veränderter Nutzungssysteme und einer zunehmenden Fragmentierung der Landschaft wird auch der Klimawandel immer offensichtlicher. Sein Einfluss auf die Ökosysteme der Alpen ist aufgrund der komplexen Zusammenhänge noch schwer abzuschätzen, dürfte aber teilweise erheblich sein (Becker et al. 2007, Bugmann et al. 2007). Veränderungen in den Strukturen und Prozessen der Ökosysteme werden die Bereitstellung von ecosystem services beeinflussen. Aufgrund der Disposition zu starker Morphodynamik – in Kombination mit klimatischen Extremen und Limitierungen – können vergleichsweise geringe Störungen gravierende ökologische Folgen haben. Insbesondere Erosionsprozesse vermögen die natürliche Regeneration stark einzuschränken (Sass et al. 2010, Wiegand & Geitner 2011). 132 Bodenbezogene ‚ecosystem services‘

2.2 Vorliegende Untersuchungen Auch in Bezug auf die Alpen konzentrierten sich vorliegende Untersuchungen in der Regel auf einzelne Ökosystemdienstleistungen. Glück & Kuen (1977), Hackl (1997) sowie Gios et al. (2006) berechneten beispielsweise den Erholungswert in Österreich und Italien. Die landschaftliche Schönheit ausgewählter Gebiete wurde von Tangerini & Soguel (2004), Baumgart (2005) sowie Grêt-Regamey et al. (2007) bewertet. Mehreren ecosystem services widmeten sich Goio et al. (2005), indem sie neben dem Erholungs- wert und der landschaftlichen Schönheit auch die Kohlenstoffspeicherung und die Schutzfunktion von Wäldern analysierten. Ähnlich komplex ermittelten Grêt-Regamey et al. (2008) einen aggregierten Wert für landschaftliche Schönheit, Habitatfunktion, Lawinenschutz und Kohlenstoffspeicherung. 2.3 Die Rolle der Böden und weitere konzeptionelle Überlegungen Böden gehören nicht nur zu den unauffälligen Elementen in Ökosystemen, sie er- weisen sich auch als schwer zugänglich – sowohl räumlich als auch inhaltlich. Daher werden sie in ihrer Bedeutung oftmals unterschätzt, obgleich sie die Geländeoberfläche und damit die zentrale Schaltstelle für Stoff- und Energieflüsse bilden. Dementspre- chend bedeutend ist der Beitrag der Böden an der Bereitstellung von ecosystem services. Daily et al. (1997) sowie das Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) beschreiben folgende sechs Ökosystemdienstleistungen als bodengesteuert: Management des Wasserkreislaufs, physikalische Unterstützung von Pflanzen, Nährstoffbereitstellung, Abfallverwertung, Erneuerung der Bodenfruchtbarkeit, Regulierung wichtiger Nähr- stoffkreisläufe und Erosionsregulierung. Für die Alpen dürften die Regulierung des Wasserhaushalts und der Erosion sowie der physikalisch-chemische Standortsinput – besonders in Bezug auf die Biodiversität – im Vordergrund stehen. Eine Überprüfung der genannten Punkte zeigt aber, dass der Boden auch bei bodengesteuerten Dienstleistungen nie isoliert betrachtet werden kann. Denn an den relevanten Stoff- und Energieflüssen ist immer das gesamte Ökosystem beteiligt. So erweist es sich als notwendig, die Vegetation differenziert mit zu berücksichtigen. Da in Gebirgen auch dem Relief eine besondere Relevanz zukommt (Geitner et al. 2010), muss auch die Ausprägung des Hanges in die Raumanalyse mit einfließen. Daraus lässt sich ein Konzept der Vegetation-Boden-Hang-Komplexe (VBH-Komplexe) ab- leiten, wie es explizit von Guo et al. (2000, 2001) im Rahmen hydrologischer Studien angewendet worden ist. In die VBH-Komplexe fließen die geologischen Rahmenbedingungen über lithologische und strukturelle Merkmale des Festgesteins und die Zusammensetzung und den Aufbau der Lockergesteinsdecken mit ein. Als räumliche Differenzierung bietet sich – zumindest zur Ausweisung und Kartierung von Typ-Komplexen – der Maßstab 1:5.000 an. Abbildung 3 stellt einen schematischen Aufriss eines VBH-Komplexes dar und führt die wichtigsten Merkmale an, die für seine Differenzierung und die umfas- 133 Beiträge Innsbrucker Bericht 2008-10 sende Ableitung seiner ecosystem services aufgenommen werden sollten. Die räumliche Verknüpfung dieser Einheiten stellt eine weitere wichtige Aufgabe dar.

ÖKOSYSTEME Ökologischer Wert Strukturen und Prozesse Totaler Kultureller Funktionen Wert Wert

Umweltdienstleistungen (Ecosystem Services) Ökonomischer Wert Entscheidungs- findungsprozess Abb. 3: Aufriss eines Vegetation-Boden-Hang-Komplexes und Zusammenstellung der Merkmale, die bei der Aufnahme zu berücksichtigen sind (eigene Darstellung). Zu beachten ist, dass sich die Systemelemente - besonders im Mineralboden - durchdringen. 3 Die monetäre Bewertung Die European Environment Agency (2008: 2) bringt das Ziel einer monetären Be- wertung auf den Punkt: „Putting some kind of monetary price on ecosystems in order to create the warning signals of loss is needed”. Ökonomische Bewertungen stellen ein wirksames Instrument dar, um den nachhaltigen Umgang mit Dienstleistungen und Gütern von Ökosystemen zu forcieren. Da ecosystem services nicht wie andere Güter gehandelt werden, fallen entsprechende Signale der Märkte weg, die zu einer nachhaltigen Nutzung beitragen könnten (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Um die fehlende Markteinbindung ausgleichen zu können, müssen nach Fromm (2000: 303) „die Dienstleistungen der naturräumlichen Ausstattung, die nicht auf Märkten bewertet werden, aber nichtsdestotrotz als wertvoll betrachtet werden können, erst identifiziert werden – und dann, so weit wie möglich, monetarisiert werden“. Denn nur durch die Monetarisierung kommt einem Ökosystem auch in der freien Marktwirtschaft das nötige Gewicht zu, um in der Politik und bei anderen Entscheidungsträgern seiner Bedeutung entsprechend beachtet und behandelt zu werden. Wie der Gesamtwert eines Ökosystems den Marktpreis bei weitem übertrifft, soll am Beispiel des Waldes verdeutlicht werden: Das von Wäldern produzierte Holz hat z.B. als Baustoff einen Marktpreis, der durch Angebot und Nachfrage bestimmt wird. Neben diesem „ökonomischen Wert“ erfüllt der Wald jedoch zahlreiche weitere Funk- tionen wie etwa Stabilisierung des Bodens, Speicherung von Feuchtigkeit, Schutz vor Lawinen etc., die den „ökologischen Wert“ des Waldes ausmachen. Als dritter über- geordneter Wert des Waldes ist der „kulturelle Wert“ anzuführen, der u.a. die Ästhetik 134 Bodenbezogene ‚ecosystem services‘ Entwurf: Clemens Geitner; Graphik: Kati Heinrich (2010)

C B A

Systemelemente Merkmale A Untergrund aus Festgestein Lithologische und strukturelle Merkmale, morphologische Struktur der Oberfläche B Lockergesteinsdecke Mineralische Zusammensetzung, Korngrößenverteilung, Lagerungs- art und -dichte, Mächtigkeit, morphologische Struktur der Oberfläche C (Mineral)Boden Bodentyp, Horizontmächtigkeiten und -merkmale, (Hang)Wasser- haushalt D Organische Auflage Mächtigkeit, Durchgängigkeit, Zusammensetzung E Vegetation Deckung, Schichtaufbau, Streuzusammensetzung, Durchwurzelung, dominante Arten Abb. 4: System zur umfassenden Bewertung der ecosystem services (verändert nach de Groot et al. 2002). 135 Beiträge Innsbrucker Bericht 2008-10 sowie den Informations- und Erholungs wert umfasst. Im Gegensatz zum ökonomischen Wert werden der ökologische und der kulturelle Wert nicht auf Märkten bewertet, we- shalb andere Möglichkeiten der Monetarisierung heranzuziehen sind (Costanza et al. 1997). Auf diese Weise kann unter Umständen - um bei dem genannten Beispiel zu bleiben - der Kahlschlag eines Waldes verhindert werden, weil der ökologische Wert des Bestandes den Holzpreis übertrifft. Die Bewertungen müssen allerdings behutsam durchgeführt und abgewogen werden, um beispielsweise das „Ausspielen“ der Werte untereinander zu verhindern. Die Summe dieser drei Werte bildet den totalen Wert des Ökosystems, der in der Fachliteratur als „totaler ökonomischer Wert“ (total economic value) oder „ökonomischer Gesamtwert“ bezeichnet wird und als solcher dem natürlichen Kapital ein starkes Ge- wicht in Entscheidungsfindungsprozessen verleihen kann (Abb. 4). So umfassend dieser Gesamtwert erscheint, belegt das Adjektiv „ökonomisch“ jedoch eindeutig, dass diese Bewertung dem anthropozentrischen Blickwinkel unterliegt und sich damit auf den Wert begrenzt, den ein Ökosystem mit seinen Gütern und Funktionen für den Menschen besitzt (Fromm 2000). Diese Verkürzung auf den menschlichen Nutzen unterschlägt die Bedeutung von Ökosystemen für Ökosysteme bzw. den Wert der Natur an sich. Für die monetäre Bewertung von ecosystem services können verschiedene Verfahren herangezogen werden, die in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften entwickelt wurden und für einzelne Dienstleistungen unterschiedlich gut geeignet sind (de Groot et al. 2002, Farber et al. 2002). Manche ecosystem services benötigen Kombinationen mehrerer Verfahren, um adäquat bewertet werden zu können. In den folgenden Ausführungen wird kurz auf die Bewertungsverfahren eingegangen, die in direkte und indirekte unterteilt werden.

3.1 Direkte Bewertungsverfahren Die direkten Bewertungsverfahren (kontingente Bewertungsanalyse, multikriterielle Analyse, Marktsimulation, Gruppenbewertung; zum Überblick vgl. Hanley & Spash 1993, Fromm 1997, Endres & Holm-Müller 1998, Meyerhoff 1999) ermitteln die Prä- ferenzen durch Befragungen oder durch Marktsimulationen. Dabei werden Individuen bestimmten Szenarien ausgesetzt, um dann hypothetisch zu entscheiden, wie sie in einer ähnlichen realen Situation handeln würden (Fromm 1997). Dieser Ansatz setzt einen gewissen Informationsgrad der Personen voraus. Gerade im Hinblick auf den Boden liegt dieser in der Regel nicht vor, so dass mit dieser Methode der monetäre Wert weit unterschätzt würde.

3.2 Indirekte Bewertungsverfahren Bei den indirekten Bewertungsverfahren (Vermeidungskostenansatz, Dosis-Wir- kungs-Beziehung, Produktionsfunktion, Reisekostenansatz, hedonischer Preisansatz; zum Überblick vgl. Hanley & Spash 1993, Fromm 1997, Endres & Holm-Müller 1998, 136 Bodenbezogene ‚ecosystem services‘

Meyerhoff 1999) wird auf unterschiedliche Weise die Zahlungsbereitschaft für ein bestimmtes Umweltgut oder eine -dienstleistung aus dem beobachtbaren Marktverhal- ten von Individuen abgeleitet (Meyerhoff 1999). Tendenziell führen diese Verfahren zur Unterschätzung von Zahlungsbereitschaften, womit zumindest „Übertreibungen“ verhindert werden können. Unter den indirekten Verfahren scheint der Vermeidungskostenansatz am ein- fachsten auf ecosystem services anzuwenden zu sein, daher soll er hier kurz andiskutiert werden. Die Idee dabei ist, dass Individuen auf Umweltbedingungen mit bestimmten Aufwendungen reagieren, um einen negativen Einfluss auszugleichen (Meyerhoff 1999). Endres & Holm-Müller (1998: 46) erklären den Zusammenhang wie folgt: „Wenn näm- lich ein Individuum bestimmte Ausgaben tätigt, um die erlittene Umweltverschmutzung oder ihre Folgen zu verringern, so kann man daraus schließen, dass es den Wert der betreffenden Schäden als mindestens so hoch ansieht wie die Verhinderungskosten“. Als Beispiel wird häufig die Trinkwasserproblematik angeführt. So können beispielsweise die aufgewendeten Kosten für Wasserfilter, welche die Regelungsfunktionen der Böden und Gewässer ersetzen, den Kosten eben dieser Ökosystemleistungen gleichgesetzt werden. Anhand dieser Methode wird deutlich, welche ökologische Leistung bereit gestellt wird, ob und wie diese Leistung ersetzt werden kann und welche Kosten daraus entstehen. Nachteilig ist zu bewerten, dass solche Anpassungsreaktionen noch andere Zwecke erfüllen. So leisten beispielsweise Schallschutzfenster neben der Lärmreduzierung auch einen Beitrag zur Wärmeisolierung. Auch sind manche ecosystem services technisch nur begrenzt zu ersetzen. Zudem ist es methodisch kaum möglich, unterschiedliche Leistungen von Ökosystemen gegeneinander abzugrenzen (Meyerhoff 1999; Görlach et al. 2004). Ein weiteres, grundsätzliches Problem stellt die zeitliche Dimension dar: Da die natürliche Regeneration von Ökosystemen sehr lange Zeiträume in Anspruch nehmen kann, müssten die Nutzungseinbußen über entsprechend lange Zeiträume akkumuliert werden, was oftmals schwer abzuschätzen ist. 4 Ansatz einer monetären Bewertung der Böden im Trinkwassereinzugsgebiet am Gaisberg Böden kommt eine zentrale Rolle bei der Filterung des Regenwassers und somit bei der Bereitstellung von Trinkwasser zu. Eine entsprechende Wasserreinigung kann auch technisch in Klärwerken durchgeführt werden. Daher kann – zumindest stark vereinfacht – über den Ansatz der Vermeidungskosten die Filterfunktion des Bodens monetär bewertet werden. Auf Grundlage der an den Quellfassungen bereit gestellten Trinkwassermenge und unter Berücksichtigung der Fläche des Einzugsgebiets, in dem dies Wasser gefiltert wird, kann berechnet werden, wie viel Trinkwasser pro Flä- cheneinheit gefiltert wird und wie hoch die entsprechenden Kosten einer technische Aufbereitung ausfallen würden. 137 Beiträge Innsbrucker Bericht 2008-10

DEUTSCHLAND N

Tirol

1770 m Brixenbachtal

Gaisberg

0 500 1000 m

Abb. 5: Lage, Relief, Ausdehnung der Hauptdolomitdecke und Position der Quellfassungen im Testgebiet am Gaisberg bei Brixen im Thale im Bezirk Kitzbühel (eigene Darstellung). Im Testgebiet am Gaisberg bei Brixen im Thale im Bezirk Kitzbühel befindet sich ein ausgedehnter unterirdischer Grundwasserspeicher mit zwei Quellfassungen, der von einer rund 270 ha großen Hauptdolomitdecke abgeschlossen wird (Abb. 5). Das verkarstungsfähige Gestein bietet nur eine geringe Filterung des Sickerwassers; umso wichtiger sind die Böden, die sich auf dem Dolomit entwickelt haben. Die Quellfassungen bieten eine Schüttung von insgesamt ca. 30 l/s (Wasserwirtschaftsamt Tirol 1993), das ergibt knapp eine Milliarde Liter pro Jahr. Aufgrund der geolo- 138 Bodenbezogene ‚ecosystem services‘ gisch-morphologischen Verhältnisse kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass die Ausdehnung der Dolomitdecke dem oberirdischen Einzugsgebiet des Grundwasser- speichers entspricht. Bei ausgeglichenen Speicherverhältnissen bedeutet dies, dass jeder Quadratmeter Boden am Gaisberg jährlich rund 350 l gefiltertes Regenwasser bereit stellt. Setzt man einen Durchschnittswert von rund 2,3 € für die Reinigung von einem Kubikmeter Wasser an (Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland 2007), errechnet sich für diese Trinkwasserfilterung ein jährlicher monetärer Wert von etwa 0,80 € pro Quadratmeter Boden (Lang 2009). Vergleicht man diesen zunächst sehr geringen Betrag beispielsweise mit üblichen Grundstückspreisen, wird die große Diskrepanz – und damit auch eine Gefahr dieser Bewertungsansätze – sofort deutlich. Denn wenn die Bewertung einer Dienstleistung wie die der Trinkwasserfilterung monetär sehr niedrig ausfällt, werden bei einer ökonomischen Abwägung von Kosten und Nutzen Infrastrukturprojekte weit besser abschneiden als beispielsweise ein Wasserschutzgebiet.

Tangelrendzina Mullrendzina Kalklehm-Rendzina Braunerde

Abb. 6: Böden auf der Hauptdolomitdecke am Gaisberg bei Brixen im Thale. Die Vielfalt der Bodentypen (Tangelrendzina, Mullrendzina, Kalklehm-Rendzina und Braun- erde aus äolischem Decksediment, nach Kilian 2002) müsste bei einer differenzier- ten Bewertung der ecosystem services mit berücksichtigt werden. Dazu fehlen im Gebirge jedoch in der Regel die bodenkundlichen Datengrundlagen. (Fotos: C. Geitner 2007) Genauere geologische und hydrologische Daten könnten diese vorläufigen Be- rechnungen zwar besser absichern, die Dimension des Ergebnisses bliebe aber in etwa gleich. Hier zeigen sich vor allem die zwei bereits angesprochenen methodischen Probleme, die Zeitdimension und die Isolierung einzelner ecosystem services. Natürlich sollten die jährlichen Geldbeträge auf 20, 50 oder gar 100 Jahre aufsummiert werden. Zudem ist zu bedenken, dass für eine umfassende Bewertung der Böden neben der Filterleistung noch andere relevante Dienstleistungen berücksichtigt werden müssten wie z.B. die Speicherung von Niederschlag, der Erosionsschutz, die Nährstoffbereitstel- 139 Beiträge Innsbrucker Bericht 2008-10 lung und der Schadstoffabbau. Auch diese Leistungen ließen sich prinzipiell anhand existierender Marktpreise über den Vermeidungskostenansatz monetarisieren. Aller- dings fehlen für eine entsprechend detaillierte Quantifizierung in Gebirgsregionen die ökologisch-bodenkundlichen Datengrundlagen weitgehend. Wie dem auch sei, wenn sowohl die Jahre als auch die unterschiedlichen Leistungen des Bodens akkumuliert werden, kommt man leicht auf dreistellige Geldbeträge. Die Ausweisung solcher Beträge bzw. ihrer Verluste, die bei der Zerstörung bzw. Versiegelung von Boden anfallen, können die gesellschaftliche Wertschätzung dem Boden gegenüber erhöhen und mit dazu beitragen, ihn in planerischen Entscheidun- gen nicht mehr einfach zu ignorieren. In ökonomische Kosten-Nutzen-Rechnungen kann zudem der Wert eines Umweltguts durch seine monetäre Bewertung direkt mit eingerechnet werden. 5 Ausblick Mit den vorliegenden Ausführungen sollte aufgezeigt werden, dass der Ansatz der ecosystem services eine konsequente Antwort auf die globale Umweltkrise darstellt. Trotz einer großen Anzahl von Studien besteht im Bezug auf die Alpen noch grundsätzlicher Forschungsbedarf. Dabei kann dem Boden, über den bisher nur wenig flächenhafte Informationen vorliegen (Geitner 2007), eine Schlüsselrolle zukommen. Bei der Er- hebung der ökologisch relevanten Daten ist der Ansatz von Vegetation-Boden-Hang- Komplexen zu empfehlen. Die monetäre Bewertung der Umweltdienstleistungen bietet – trotz zahlreicher Detailprobleme bei den ökonomischen Verfahren (Hampicke 2003) – große Chancen für eine neue gesellschaftliche Akzeptanz ökologischer Werte. Wie die Bewertung in einem einfachen Fall aussehen kann, wurde an der Filterleistung der Böden am Gaisberg anhand einer indirekten Bewertungsmethode verdeutlicht und diskutiert. Der Ansatz der ecosystem services ist jedoch mit der grundsätzlichen Fragwürdigkeit verbunden, komplexe ökologische Prozesse und ihre Leistungen bzw. Produkte in konkreten Geldbeträgen auszudrücken. Denn die Umwelt wird hierbei auf eine Ware reduziert, was ethisch höchst fragwürdig ist. Dieser Sachverhalt spitzt sich beispielsweise in der Frage zu: Welches ist der Geldwert einer – womöglich aussterbenden – Art? Beim Boden ist es vor allem das überaus reiche Bodenleben, das sich jeder angemessenen Bewertung entzieht. Dennoch scheinen in Bezug auf Schutzbelange in vielen Fällen nur wirtschaftliche Kriterien ausreichend durchsetzungsstark zu sein. Insofern kann es als gesellschaftliche Herausforderung betrachtet werden, sich mit dem Thema der ecosystem services zu befassen. – Für die Geographie eröffnet sich dabei ein Arbeitsfeld, das nicht nur sehr komplexe räumliche Bezüge bietet, sondern auch der Breite des Faches entspricht und vielfältige Verknüpfungen von Teildisziplinen erfordert – auch und gerade über die Grenzen zwischen Natur- und Gesellschaftswissenschaften hinweg. Damit könnte das 140 Bodenbezogene ‚ecosystem services‘

Thema ecosystem services für integrative Ansätze innerhalb der Geographie geeignet sein, wie sie als Beitrag zur „Dritten Säule“ im Sinne von Weichhart (2005) gefordert, bisher aber nur wenig umgesetzt werden.

Literatur Baumgart K (2005): Bewertung landschaftsrelevanter Projekte im Schweizer Alpenraum. Die Methode der Discrete-Choice-Experimente. – Bern. BBC News vom 14.06.2010. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10307761, abgerufen am 10.09.2010) Beattie B & CR Taylor (1985): The economics of production. – New York. Becker A, Körner C, Frun JJ, Guisan A & U Tappeiner (2007): Ecological and land use studies along elevational gradients. – Mountain Research and Development 27: 58-65. Boyd J & S Banzhaf (2007): What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. – Ecological Economics 63: 616-626. Bugmann H, Gurung AB, Ewert F, Haeberli W, Guisan A, Fagre D & A Kääb (2007): Modelling the biophysical impacts of global change in mountain biosphere reserves. – Mountain Research and Development 27: 66-77. Clark C (1990): Mathematical bioeconomics. – New York. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill R, Paruelo J, Raskin R, Sutton P & M van den Belt (1997): The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. – Nature 387: 253-260. Costanza R & J King (1999): The first decade of Ecological Economics. – Ecological Economics 28: 1-9. Costanza R (2008): Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. – Biological Conservation 141: 350-352. Daily GC (1997): Introduction: What are ecosystem services? – In: Daily GC (ed) Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems: 1-10, Washington. Daily GC, Alexander S, Ehrlich PR, Goulder L, Lubchenco J, Matson PA, Mooney HA, Postel S, Schneider SH, Tilman D & GM Woodwell (1997): Ecosystem Services: Benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. – Issues in Ecology 1: 1-16. Daily GC, Söderqvist T, Aniyar S, Arrow K, Dasgupta P, Ehrlich PR, Folke C, Jansson QMA, Jansson BO, Kautsky N, Levin S, Lubchenco J, Mäler KG, Simpson D, Starrett D, Tilman D & B Walker (2000): The value of nature and the nature of value. – Science 289: 395-396. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J & R Shallen- berger (2009): Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. – Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 7: 21-28. Dasgupta P & G Heal (1979): Economic theory and exhaustible resources. – Cambridge. de Groot RS, Wilson MA & RMJ Boumans (2002): A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. – Ecological Economics 41: 393-408. Endres A & K Holm-Müller (1998): Die Bewertung von Umweltschäden. Theorie und Praxis sozioökonomischer Verfahren. – Stuttgart. European Communities (2008): The economics of ecosystems & biodiversity. An interim report. – Cambridge. European Environment Agency (2008): Ecosystem services – accounting for what matters. (http://www.eea. europa.eu/publications/briefing_2008_2, abgerufen am 10.09.2010) European Environment Agency (2010): 10 Messages for 2010. Mountain ecosystems. – Copenhagen. (http://www. eea.europa.eu/publications/10-messages-for-2010-mountain-ecosystems, abgerufen am 10.09.2010) Farber SC, Costanza R & MA Wilson (2002): Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. – Ecological Economics 41: 375-392. Freeman AM III (1993): The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. – Wash- ington. Fromm O (1997): Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer ökonomischen Bewertung des Ökosystems Boden. – Frank- furt am Main. 141 Beiträge Innsbrucker Bericht 2008-10

Fromm O (2000): Ecological structure and functions of biodiversity as elements of its total economic value. – Environmental and Resource Economics 16: 303-328. Geitner C (2007): Böden in den Alpen – Ausgewählte Aspekte zur Vielfalt und Bedeutung einer wenig beachteten Ressource. – In: Borsdorf A & G Grabherr (Hrsg): Internationale Gebirgsforschung, IGF-Forschungs- berichte 1: 56-67 u. 82-83 (Bodenprofile); Innsbruck, Wien. Geitner C, Tusch M, Meißl G, Kringer K & C Wiegand (2010, im Druck): Einfluss des Reliefs auf die räumliche Verteilung der Böden: Grundsätzliche Überlegungen zu Wirkungszusammenhängen und Datengrund- lagen anhand von Beispielen aus den Ostalpen. – Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie. Gios G, Goio I, Notaro S & R Raffaelli (2006): The value of natural resources for tourism: A case study of the Italian Alps. – International Journal of Tourism Research 8: 77-85. Glück P & H Kuen (1977): Der Erholungswert des Großen Ahornbodens. – Allgemeine Forstzeitung 88: 77- 85. Goio I, Gios G, Pollini C & S Notaro (2005): The development of forest accounting in the province of Trento. – The International Forestry Review 7(5): 298-316. Gordon HS (1954): The economic theory of a common-property resource: the fishery. – Journal of Political Economy 62: 124-142. Görlach B, Landgrebe-Trinkunaite R, Interwies E, Bouzit M, Darmendrail D. & JD Rinaudo (2004): Assessing the Economic Impacts of Soil Degradation. – Berlin. (http://ecologic.eu/download/projekte/1950- 1999/1962/1962_soil_economics_4_execsum.pdf, abgerufen am 10.09.2010) Grêt-Regamey A, Bishop ID & P Bebi (2007): Predicting the scenic beauty value of mapped landscape changes in a mountainous region through the use of GIS. – Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34: 50-67. Grêt-Regamey A, Walz A & P Bebi (2008): Valuing ecosystem services for sustainable landscape planning in alpine regions. – Mountain Research and Development 28:156-165. Guo Z, Xiao X & D Li (2000): An assessment of ecosystem services: water flow regulation and hydroelectric power production. – Ecological Applications 10(3): 925-936. Guo Z, Xiao X, Gan Y & Y Zheng (2001): Ecosystem functions, services and their values – a case study in Xingshan Country of China. – Ecological Economics 38: 141-154. Hackl F (1997): Contingent Valuation als Instrument zur ökonomischen Bewertung der Landschaft. – Frankfurt am Main. Hampicke U (2003): Die monetäre Bewertung von Naturgütern zwischen ökonomischer Theorie und politischer Umsetzung. – Agrarwirtschaft 52(8): 408-418. Hanley N & C Spash (1993): Cost-Benefit analysis and the environment. – Hampshire. Huber UM, Harald K, Bugmann M & MA Reasoner (eds) (2005): Global change and mountain regions: an overview of current knowledge. – Dordrecht. Köllner T (2009): Supply and demand for ecosystem services in mountainous regions. – In: Jandl R (ed): Global change and sustainable development in mountain regions: 61-70; Innsbruck. Kilian W (2002): Schlüssel zur Bestimmung der Böden Österreichs. – Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Bod- enkundlichen Gesellschaft 67, Wien. Krutilla JV (1967): Conservation reconsidered. – American Economic Review 57: 777-786. Krutilla JV & AC Fisher (1975): The economics of natural environments: studies in the valuation of commodity and amenity resources. – Baltimore. Lang P (2009): Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der monetären Bewertung von Ecosystem Services des Bodens. – Mas- terarbeit am Institut für Geographie der Universität Innsbruck (unveröffentlicht). Meyerhoff J (1999): Ökonomische Bewertung ökologischer Leistungen. Stand der Diskussion und mögliche Bedeutung für das BMBF-Programm „Ökologische Forschung in der Stromlandschaft Elbe“. – Berlin. (http://www.landschaftsoekonomie.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/a0731/uploads/publikationen/edocu- ments/1999_Meyerhoff_bfg.pdf, abgerufen am 10.09.2010) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005): Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. – Washington. Mooney HA & PR Ehrlich (1997): Ecosystem services: a fragmentary history. – In: Daily GC (ed): Nature’s services: 11-22, Washington. 142 Bodenbezogene ‚ecosystem services‘

Sass O, Heel M, Haida C, Stöger F, Jüttner M, Friedmann A & KF Wetzel (2010): Disturbance, geomorphic processes and regeneration of wildfire slopes in North Tyrol. – Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 12, EGU General Assembly 2010. Tangerini A & N Soguel (2004): Evaluation monétair de la qualité du paysage. – IDHEAP Working Paper 6/2004, Chavannes-près-Renens. (http://www.idheap.ch/idheap.nsf/ed6f7e242e9019a7c12569ff00 38e8f9/d22d689c106c929cc1256ea00033ba82/$FILE/WP%206-2004%20at-ns.pdf, abgerufen am 10.09.2010) Wallace KJ (2007): Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Review. – Biological Conser- vation 139: 235-246. Weichhart P (2005): Auf der Suche nach der “dritten Säule”. Gibt es Wege von der Rhetorik zur Pragmatik? – In: Müller-Mahn D & U Wardenga (Hrsg.): Möglichkeiten und Grenzen integrativer Forschungsansätze in Physischer Geographie und Humangeographie. forum ifl 2: 109-136, Leipzig. Wiegand C & C Geitner (2010, im Druck): Flachgründiger Abtrag auf Wiesen- und Weideflächen in den Alpen (Blaiken) – Wissensstand, Datenbasis und Forschungsbedarf. – Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft 152.

Datengrundlagen BEV – Bundesamt für Eich- und Vermessungswesen (2008): Digitales Geländehöhenmodell Kufstein. Höhen- raster 10 m, EB 2008/00344, Wien. GBA – Geologische Bundesanstalt (2009): Zusammenstellung ausgewählter Archivunterlagen der GBA 1:50.000. 120 Wörgl, Stand 1999, Ausgabe 2008, Wien. Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (2007): Durchschnittliches Entgelt für die Entsorgung von Abwasser aus privaten Haushalten nach Entgeltklassen 2007. http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/ destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Statistiken/Umwelt/UmweltstatistischeErhebungen/Wasserwirtschaft/Ta- bellen/Content75/Durchschnittsentgelt__Abwasser__Entgeltklassen,templateId=renderPrint.psml, abgerufen am 10.09.2010) Wasserwirtschaftsamt Tirol (1993): WVT-Projekt Quellkataster Tirol.

143