Figure 1.
Flow diagram of the methodology and selection processes used in this systematic review.
It follows the rules and templates of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews [30]). The related check-list can be found in table S1.
Figure 2.
Illustration of the cascade model framed within the natural and socio-economic context.
Figure 3.
Correspondence of the integrated classification of marine and coastal ecosystem services proposed in this paper with previous classifications.
The previous classifications schemes are the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – MA [25], Beaumont et al. [15], The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity – TEEB [26] and the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services version 3– CICES [27]. N/A: not available. The colors (yellow, green, orange and purple) have been used to differentiate the categories of services (provisioning, regulating and maintenance, cultural, and supporting/habitat services respectively). MA defined three services that could not be correlated with our MCES proposal: photosynthesis, primary production, water cycling; Beaumont had an addition of two services: resilience & resistance, and future unknown & speculative benefits; and CICES v3 included abiotic materials and renewable abiotic energy, although they are no longer supported in the preliminary CICES v4.1 (available at http://cices.eu/).
Table 1.
List and description of the integrated classification of marine and coastal ecosystem services used in this review.
Figure 4.
Data and analysis from the selected 145 MCES assessments.
A: Number of publications per year. *The year 2012 covers from January 1st until the cutoff date April 4th. B: Number of studies per type of analysis. C: Number of papers per type of environment analyzed. D: Number of publications per scientific discipline.
Figure 5.
Spatial scale of the MCES case studies found in the literature.
L: local, N-: subnational, N: national, N+: supranational, C: continental, G: global, N: no case study.
Figure 6.
Map illustrating the location of the MCES case studies and the affiliation of the first authors.
The pie size represents the number of studies carried out per region. The regions definition follows the Global Administrative Units and Layers scheme (http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/en/metadata.show?id=12691). Points depict the location of the local level case studies. The colors within the pie show the percentage of studies carried out by researchers from the same region (blue), or from different regions (orange). In regions such as Central and South Africa, or West and Central Asia no MCES assessments have been found.
Table 2.
Quantitative synthesis of the results shown in table S3, which compiles the MCES indicators found in this literature review.
Table 3.
Matrix showing the published assessments of marine and coastal ecosystem services (MCES) and the habitats where they were measured.