Skip to main content

Table 4 Potential benefits and burdens of EFAs on vulnerable ecosystem services

From: Spatial analysis of the benefits and burdens of ecological focus areas for water-related ecosystem services vulnerable to climate change in Europe

Ecosystem service and EFA Score ScoreVW ScoreVAW
Worst Best Worst Best Worst Best
Dilution
 Afforested areas − 100 − 4 − 29 0 − 8 0
 Agroforestry − 3 0 − 1 0 − 1 0
 Buffer strips − 15 78 − 2 41 − 1 16
 Catch crops or green cover − 6 36 − 1 17 − 1 7
 Ditches − 20 75 − 11 41 − 4 16
 Fallow land − 36 2 − 14 0 − 4 0
 Hedges or wooded strips 0 100 0 54 0 21
 Nitrogen fixing crops − 41 0 − 16 0 − 5 0
 Ponds 6 97 0 51 0 20
 Short rotation coppice − 2 0 − 1 0 − 1 0
Filtration
 Buffer strips − 15 78 − 2 51 − 1 25
Flood regulation
 Afforested areas 28 100 0 81 0 48
 Ditches 0 100 0 100 0 59
Water provision
 Afforested areas − 94 − 7 − 94 0 − 72 0
  1. It is important to note that the numbers shown in Table 4 are the relative performance for the specific EFA only (i.e. not absolute values for the ecosystem services) and thus should not be used to compare one EFA to another. For example, a best case score of 16 for dilution for buffer strips is not equivalent to the score of 16 for dilution for ditches. It simply means they both have a moderate potential to contribute to dilution in their own specific way in regions where they achieve this score