Marine Ecosystem Services Capacity assessment and mapping in the Adriatic Sea

Geographical coverage

Geographical scale of the assessment Regional,Sub-regional,National
Country or countries covered Albania, Croatia, Slovenia, Italy, Montenegro
Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name

Adriatic Sea, Northern Adriatic Sea

Conceptual framework, methodology and scope

Assessment objectives

Application of the Tools4MSP modelling framework for the analysis and mapping of marine ecosystem services derived from EUNIS Marine habitats. Currently the assessment has two main objectives: - Development of multi-objective geospatial tools for the analysis of Marine Ecosystem Services Capacity in the Adriatic Sea - Incorporating Cumulative Effects Assessment into Marine Ecosystem Services Threat Analysis for identification of restoration priorities in the Northern Adriatic Sea - Support ongoing ICZM and MSP initiatives on local, (macro) regional and Mediterranean Seabasin level through geospatial webtools, including Cumulative Effects Assessment, Maritime Use Conflict Analysis and Marine Ecosystem services Threat Analysis

Mandate for the assessment

Italian Flagship project RITMARE – Italian Research for the Sea (Ricerca ITaliana per il MARE, 2012–2016), supported by the Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR).

Conceptual framework and/or methodology used for the assessment

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)

URL or copy of conceptual framework developed or adapted

System(s) assessed

  • Marine
  • Coastal

Species groups assessed

EUNIS Marine Habitats

Ecosystem services/functions assessed


  • Food
  • Water
  • Genetic resources


  • Regulation of water quality
  • Waste treatment

Supporting Services/Functions

  • Habitat maintenance
  • Nutrient cycling
  • Primary production

Cultural Services

  • Recreation and tourism

Scope of assessment includes

Drivers of change in systems and services


Impacts of change in services on human well-being


Options for responding/interventions to the trends observed


Explicit consideration of the role of biodiversity in the systems and services covered by the assessment


Timing of the assessment

Year assessment started


Year assessment finished


If ongoing, year assessment is anticipated to finish

Periodicity of assessment


If repeated, how frequently

Assessment outputs



Communication materials (e.g. brochure, presentations, posters, audio-visual media)

Journal publications

Training materials

Other documents/outputs

Tools and processes

Tools and approaches used in the assessment

  • Modelling
  • Geospatial analysis
  • Indicators
  • Social (non-monetary) valuation

Process used for stakeholder engagement in the assessment process and which component

Key stakeholder groups engaged

The number of people directly involved in the assessment process

Less than 10

Incorporation of scientific and other types of knowledge

  • Scientific information only
  • Resource experts (e.g. foresters etc)

Supporting documentation for specific approaches, methodology or criteria developed and/or used to integrate knowledge systems into the assessment

Assessment reports peer reviewed



Accessibility of data used in assessment

Geospatial datasets used in the assessment are available in the following links: Tools4MSP Geoplatform: Zenodo:

Policy impact

Impacts the assessment has had on policy and/or decision making, as evidenced through policy references and actions

Independent or other review on policy impact of the assessment


Lessons learnt for future assessments from these reviews

Capacity building

Capacity building needs identified during the assessment

Actions taken by the assessment to build capacity

Network and sharing experiences, Access to funding, Sharing of data/repatriation of data, Developing/promoting and providing access to support tools

How have gaps in capacity been communicated to the different stakeholders

Knowledge generation

Gaps in knowledge identified from the assessment

How gaps in knowledge have been communicated to the different stakeholders

Additional relevant information