Abstract

We assessed the gaps between current and "model mapping routines", which represent a benchmark for mapping marine ecosystem services (ESs). Model mapping routines comprised 17 selected variables and their best-rated alternatives depending on the mapping purpose, namely, marine spatial planning, environmental impact assessment, vulnerability and risk analysis, marine protected areas management, payments for ecosystem services, and natural resources management. We conducted a systematic search of articles (n = 64) from which information on the 17 variables and their alternatives was retrieved. We assessed gaps using similarity matrices, according to the co-occurrence index. The largest gaps (as measured by average distances >0.5 between actual and best options) occurred in articles reporting natural resources management as purpose, whereas the smallest were related to marine protected areas management and payments for ecosystem services. The gaps were due to departures in different individual variables. For example, in the case of marine spatial planning the omission of tradeoffs, scenario analysis, multiple scales, and threshold analyses explained the gap, whereas in vulnerability and risk assessment the omission of thresholds, the lack of consistency of the indicators used, and the absence of a definition of ESs explained the gap. We trust that this study will help to recognize that ESs mapping studies should be guided by the purpose of a given intervention rather than by the technical capacities and disciplines of the researchers, if the ESs approach expects to reach a real impact into public policies.