• Contact Us
    • Send Feedback
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Journal and Journal Articles
    • Journal and Journal Articles
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Journal and Journal Articles
    • Journal and Journal Articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    Whole Repository
    CollectionsIssue DateRegionCountryHubAffiliationAuthorsTitlesSubject
    This Sub-collection
    Issue DateRegionCountryHubAffiliationAuthorsTitlesSubject

    My Account

    Login

    Welcome to the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Research Repository

    What would you like to view today?

    The Integrated system for Natural Capital Accounting (INCA) in Europe: twelve lessons learned from empirical ecosystem service accounting

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Journal Article (1.284Mb)
    Date
    2022-09-16
    Author
    La Notte, A.
    Vallecillo, S.
    Grammatikopoulou, L.
    Polce, C.
    Rega, C.
    Zulian, G.
    Kakoulaki, G.
    Grizzetti, B.
    Ferrini, S.
    Zurbaran-Nucci, M.
    Bendito, E. 
    Vysna, V. 
    Paracchini, M.L. 
    Maes, J.
    Type
    Journal Article
    Review Status
    Peer Review
    Target Audience
    Scientists
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract/Description
    The Integrated system for Natural Capital Accounting (INCA) was developed and supported by the European Commission to test and implement the System of integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA). Through the compilation of nine Ecosystem Services (ES) accounts, INCA can make available to any interested ecosystem accountant a number of lessons learned. Amongst the conceptual lessons learned, we can mention: (i) for accounting purposes, ES should be clustered according to the existence (or not) of a sustainability threshold; (ii) the assessment of ES flow results from the interaction of an ES potential and an ES demand; (iii) the ES demand can be spatially identified, but for an overarching environmental target, this is not possible; ES potential and ES demand could mis-match; (iv) because the demand remains unsatisfied; (v) because the ES is used above its sustainability threshold or (vi) because part of the potential flow is missed; (vii) there can be a cause-and-effect relationship between ecosystem condition and ES flow; (viii) ES accounts can complement the SEEA Central Framework accounts without overlapping or double counting. Amongst the methodological lessons learned, we can mention: (ix) already exiting ES assessments do not directly provide ES accounts, but will likely need some additional processing; (x) ES cannot be defined by default as intermediate; (xi) the ES remaining within ecosystems cannot be reported as final; (xii) the assessment and accounting of ES can be undertaken throughout a fast track approach or more demanding modelling procedures.
    https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.7.e84925
    Multi standard citation
    Permanent link to this item
    https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12478/7993
    Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
    https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.7.e84925
    IITA Subjects
    Climate Change
    Agrovoc Terms
    Ecosystem Services; Environment; Accounting
    Regions
    ACP; Europe
    Hubs
    Eastern Africa Hub
    Journals
    One Ecosystem
    Collections
    • Journal and Journal Articles4842
    copyright © 2019  IITASpace. All rights reserved.
    IITA | Open Access Repository