Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLa Notte, A.
dc.contributor.authorVallecillo, S.
dc.contributor.authorGrammatikopoulou, L.
dc.contributor.authorPolce, C.
dc.contributor.authorRega, C.
dc.contributor.authorZulian, G.
dc.contributor.authorKakoulaki, G.
dc.contributor.authorGrizzetti, B.
dc.contributor.authorFerrini, S.
dc.contributor.authorZurbaran-Nucci, M.
dc.contributor.authorBendito, E. 
dc.contributor.authorVysna, V. 
dc.contributor.authorParacchini, M.L. 
dc.contributor.authorMaes, J.
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-04T08:49:07Z
dc.date.available2023-01-04T08:49:07Z
dc.date.issued2022-09-16
dc.identifier.citationLa Notte, A., Vallecillo, S., Grammatikopoulou, I., Polce, C., Rega, C., Zulian, G., ... & Maes, J. (2022). The Integrated system for Natural Capital Accounting (INCA) in Europe: twelve lessons learned from empirical ecosystem service accounting. One Ecosystem, 7: e84925, 1-22.
dc.identifier.issn2367-8194
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12478/7993
dc.description.abstractThe 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.
dc.format.extent1-22
dc.language.isoen
dc.subjectEcosystem Services
dc.subjectEnvironment
dc.subjectAccounting
dc.titleThe Integrated system for Natural Capital Accounting (INCA) in Europe: twelve lessons learned from empirical ecosystem service accounting
dc.typeJournal Article
cg.contributor.affiliationEuropean Commission Joint Research Centre
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of East Anglia
cg.contributor.affiliationInternational Institute of Tropical Agriculture
cg.contributor.affiliationEurostat, Luxembourg
cg.contributor.affiliationEuropean Commission
cg.coverage.regionACP
cg.coverage.regionEurope
cg.coverage.hubEastern Africa Hub
cg.identifier.bibtexciteidLANOTTE:2022
cg.authorship.typesCGIAR and advanced research institute
cg.iitasubjectClimate Change
cg.journalOne Ecosystem
cg.notesOpen Access Article; Published online: 16 Sep 2022
cg.accessibilitystatusOpen Access
cg.reviewstatusPeer Review
cg.usagerightslicenseCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 0.0)
cg.targetaudienceScientists
cg.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.7.e84925
cg.futureupdate.requiredNo
cg.identifier.issuee84925
cg.identifier.volume7


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record