A bibliometric review of ecosystem services and coastal zones: diagnoses and trends

Nivaldo Lemos de Souza; Ranyere Silva Nóbrega; Maria Fernanda Abrantes Torres; Antonio Vicente Ferreira Junior

doi:10.5327/Z2176-94781708

Authors

Nivaldo Lemos de Souza Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE) – Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7298-1272
Ranyere Silva Nóbrega Universidade Federal de Campina Grande (UFCG) – Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9097-1537
Maria Fernanda Abrantes Torres Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE) – Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9184-3518
Antonio Vicente Ferreira Junior Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE) – Brazil https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6721-4076

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-94781708

Keywords:

benefits; environments; recreational values; beaches; papers.

Abstract

Bibliometric analysis is an instrument used to quantify scientific production on a given topic. This type of analysis can be applied to show trends in an area of study. This review aims to examine how scientific production on ecosystem services, coastal zones, and ports is being carried out, identifying trends and gaps. The guiding questions of the work focused on the growth of production, the ports as focal points, the ecosystems studied, the methodologies used, and which ecosystem services were the focus of discussion. Searches on catalog platforms were made to determine how many articles would be considered for analysis, and after filtering, 91 articles were examined. The main results show that the years 2014 and 2018 were the peak of publications; the United States of America is the country that presented most publications with 19 papers; ports appear in just over 20% of the analyzed works, and beaches and marine environments, such as the continental shelf and slopes, are focus of discussion. More than 50 ecosystem services were found in the analysis, with “food” and “recreational values” being the most studied services. With the decade of the oceans, there is a tendency for the growth of scientific production, maintaining the relevance of the themes, particularly when studied together.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ahtiainen, H.; Liski, E.; Pouta, K.; Soini, C.; Bertram, K.; Rehdanz, K.; Pakalniete K.; Meyerhof, J., 2019. Cultural ecosystem services provided by the Baltic Sea marine environment. Ambio, v. 48, (11), 1350-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01239-1

Andrade, L.F.G.; Asmus, M.L.; Onetti, J.G.; Scherer, M.E.G., 2018. Aplicação da base ecossistêmica na gestão ambiental de portos. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, v. 44, 76-103. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v44i0.54999

Asmus, M.L.; Nicolodi, J.; Scherer, M.E.G.; Gianuca, K.; Costa, J.C.; Andrade, L.F.G.; Hallal, G., 2018. Simple to be Useful: Ecosystem Base for Coastal Management. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, v. 44, 4-19. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v44i0.54971

Carss, D.N.; Brito, A.C.; Chainho, P.; Ciutat, A.; Montaudouin, X.; Fernández Otero, R.M.; Filgueira, M.I., 2020. Ecosystem services provided by a non-cultured shellfish species: the common cockle Cerastoderma edule. Marine Environmental Research, v. 158, 104931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2020.104931

Chen, M.; Su, F.; Cheng, F.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z., 2021. Development of a comprehensive assessment model for coral reef island carrying capacity (CORE-CC). Scientific Report, v. 11, 3917. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83481-w

Clay, P.M.; Howard, J.; Busch, D.S.; Colburn, L.L.; Himes-Cornell, A.; Rumrill, S.S.; Zador, S.G.; Griffis, R.B., 2020. Ocean and coastal indicators: understanding and coping with climate change at the land-sea interface. Climatic Change, v. 163, 1773-1793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02940-x

Costanza, R.; D’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K., 1997. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature, v. 387, 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0

de Alencar, N.M.P.; Le Tissier, M.; Paterson, S.K.; Newton, A., 2020. Circles of Coastal Sustainability: A Framework for Coastal Management. Sustainability, v. 12, (12), 4886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124886

de Groot, R.;1987. Environmental Functions as a Unifying Concept for Ecology and Economics. Environmentalist, v. 7, (2), 105-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02240292

Díaz, S.; Pascual, U.; Stenseke, M.; Martín-López, B.; Watson, R.T.; Molnár, Z.; Hill, R.; Chan, K.M.A.; Baste, I.A.; Brauman, K.A.; Polasky, S.; Church, A.; Lonsdale, M.; Larigauderie, A.; Leadley, P.W.; van Oudenhoven, A.P.E.; van der Plaat, F.; Schröter, M.; Lavorel, S.; Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y.; Bukvareva, E.; Davies, K.; Demissew, S.; Erpul, G.; Failler, P.; Guerra, C.A.; Hewitt, C.L.; Keune, H.; Lindley, S.; Shirayama, Y. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science, v. 359, 270-272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826

Dhivya, S.; Karthi, N.; Balamurugan, S.; Ramesh, D.A., 2023. Valuing ecologically sensitive area’s ecosystem services in Bhitharkanika: implications for sustainable management. Academic Press, v. 2, 97-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-15847-6.00016-1

Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W. M. 2021. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research. v. 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

Drakou, E.G.; Pendleton, L.; Effron, M.; Ingram, J.C.; Teneva, L., 2017. When ecosystems and their services are not co-located: oceans and coasts. ICES Journal of Marine Science, v. 74, (6), 1531-1539. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx026

Elliff, C.I.; Kikuchi. R.K.P., 2015. The Ecosystem Service Approach and Its Application as a Tool for Integrated Coastal Management. Natureza & Conservação, v. 13, (2), 105-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2015.10.001

Finlayson, C.M., 2018. Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). In: Finlayson, C.M., Everard, M.; Irvine, K.; McInnes, R.J.; Middleton, B.A.; van Dam, A.A.; Davidson, N.C. (Eds.), The wetland book. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 349-353.

Fisher, B.; Turner, R.K.; Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, v. 68 (3), 643-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014

Gil, A.C., 1985. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. Atlas, São Paulo, 220 p.

Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. 2018. CICES V5. 1. Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Fabis Consult. 53 (Accessed December 10, 2023) at: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf.

HaMAARAG, 2018. Israel – National Ecosystem Assessment Report (on-line) (Accessed December 10, 2023) at:. https://www.hamaarag.org.il/en/ecosystem-services/israel-national-ecosystem-assessment

Helliwell, D.R., 1969. Valuation of wildlife resources. Regional Studies, v. 3 (1), 41-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09595236900185051

Hernández-Blanco, M.; Costanza, R., 2019. Natural capital and ecosystem services. In: Cramer, B.; Paudel, K.; Schimtz, A. (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Agricultural Economics. Routdledge, London. pp. 252-265.

Hope, J.A.; Paterson, D.M.; Thrush, S.F., 2020. The role of microphytobenthos in soft-sediment ecological networks and their contribution to the delivery of multiple ecosystem services. Journal of Ecology, v. 108, (3), 815-830. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13322

King, R.T., 1966. Wildlife, and man. NY Conservationist, v. 20 (6), 8-11.

Madear, G.; Madear, C., 2021. Environmental modelling – a modern tool towards sustainability. MATEC Web Conference, v. 342, (2021), 03013. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202134203013

Mehvar, S.; Dastgheib, A.; Filatova, T.; Ranasinghe, R., 2019. A practical framework of quantifying climate change-driven environmental losses (QuantiCEL) in coastal areas in developing countries. Environmental Science & Policy, v. 101, 302-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.007

Marzec, R.P., 2018. During the future in the anthropocene: A critical analysis of the millennium ecosystem assessment scenarios. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, v. 6, (42), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.294

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005. Ecosystem and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press: Washington, DC, 154 p.

Motta, R.S., 1997. Manual para valoração econômica de recursos ambientais. Ministério do Meio Ambiente, dos Recursos Hídricos e da Amazônia Legal, Brasília.

Priya, A., 2021. Case study methodology of qualitative research: key attributes and navigating the conundrums in its application. Sociological Bulletin, v. 70, (1), 94-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022920970318

Ocaña-Fernandez, Y.; Fuster-Guillén, D., 2021. The bibliograpichal review as a research methodology. Revista Tempos e Espaços em Educação, v. 14, (33), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.20952/revtee.v14i33.15614

Rova, S.; Pastres, R.; Zucchetta, M.; Pranovi, F., 2018. Ecosystem services’ mapping in data-poor coastal areas: Which are the monitoring priorities? Ocean Coast. Management, v. 153, 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.11.021

Scherer, M.E.G.; Andrade, J.; Emerilson, E.; Felix, A.; Oliveira, T.C.R.; Lima, F.A.V., 2012. Desenvolvendo um plano de gestão da Zona Costeira: uma abordagem metodológica. In: I Congreso Iberoamericano de Gestión Integrada de Áreas Litorales, 2012, Cadiz. I Congreso Iberoamericano de Gestión Integrada de Áreas Litorales: mirando a Iberoamerica. Libro de Comunicaciones y de Posters. Cadiz: Universidade de Cadiz, pp. 1550-1559.

Shan, J.; Li, J., 2020. Valuing marine ecosystem service damage caused by land reclamation: insights from a deliberative choice experiment in Jiaozhou Bay. Marine Policy, v. 122, 104249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104249

Silva, C.V.; Ortigão, M.; Willaert, T.; Rosa, R.; Nunes, L.C.; Cunha-E-Sá, M.A., 2021. Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PGIS): Alternative approaches to identify potential conflicts and positional accuracy in marine and coastal ecosystem services. Marine Policy, v. 131, 104650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104650

Solé, L.; Ariza, E., 2019. A wider view of assessments of ecosystem services in coastal areas: the perspective of social-ecological complexity. Ecology and Society, v. 24, (2), 24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10883-240224

Sufian M.; Grunbaum, J.A.; Akintobi, T.H.; Dozier, A.; Eder, M.; Jones, S.; Patricia Mullan, P.; Weir, C.R.; White-Cooper, S., 2011. Program evaluation and evaluating community engagement. Principles of Community Engagement. AbeBooks, Washignton.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar. Earthscan, London and Washington.

Wu, Z.; Chen, R.; Meadows, M.E.; Liu, X., 2021. Application of the ocean health index to assess ecosystem health for the coastal areas of Shanghai, China. Ecological Indicators, v. 126, 107650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107650

Xu, C.; Pu, L.; Zhu, M.; Li, J.; Chen, X.; Wang, X.; Xie, X., 2016. Ecological security and ecosystem services in response to land use change in the coastal area of Jiangsu, China. Sustainability, v. 8 (8), 816. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080816

Yin, R.K., 2014. Case study research: design and methods. 5. ed. SAGE, Los Angeles.