Renewable Energy 140 (2019) 39e51

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Ecosystem services and renewable power generation: A preliminary

literature review
Mariana de Assis Espe
cie, Pedro Nino^ de Carvalho, Maria Fernanda Bacile Pinheiro,
Vinicius Mesquita Rosenthal, Leyla A. Ferreira da Silva,
Mariana Rodrigues de Carvalhaes Pinheiro, Silvana Andreoli Espig,
^ngela Medeiros de Almeida,
Carolina Fiorillo Mariani, Elisa
Federica Natasha Ganança Abreu dos Santos Sodre
*
Department of Environment Studies, Division of Energy Economics and Environmental Studies, Energy Research Office (EPE), Avenida Rio Branco, 1, 10

Andar, 20090-003, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The term ecosystem services describes a relatively novel approach that directly associates the environ-
Received 28 November 2018 ment to the provision of human well-being, a concept to which renewable power generation is intrin-
Received in revised form sically connected. In light of this, the present work characterizes the evolution of the ecosystem services
2 March 2019
approach as it relates to power generation from renewable sources and identifies trends that have being
Accepted 13 March 2019
applied in the field worldwide. The baseline data for the analyses were retrieved from queries of an
Available online 16 March 2019
online scientific database, from which articles that contained the term “ecosystem services” and terms
related to renewable energy sources were selected. Chiefly influenced by the publication of reference
Keywords:
Ecosystem services
documents on this issue, the literature review that supported this study demonstrates some trends
Renewable energy regarding the ecosystem services approach to renewables, most of which are related to hydropower,
Scientometric analysis including the following: (i) concerns about the degree of dependence that hydropower facilities have on
Hydropower forest conservation; (ii) the relevance of watershed land management for reducing soil erosion to
enhance energy generation by hydropower plants; (iii) the emergence of environmentally friendly
operational schemes to preserve and/or alleviate the impacts of hydropower plants on river ecosystem
services; (iv) the adoption of payment for ecosystem services as an instrument to foment land use
strategies that benefit hydropower generation by the engagement of different stakeholders; and (v) the
use of economic valuation methods as means to address trade-off scenarios between energy generation
and the maintenance of certain ecosystem services. In this process, universities, governments, com-
panies, nongovernmental organizations and even the United Nations have been engaged in different
manners of discussions as a reflection of the different positions they have assumed on the subject. The
results gathered indicate that there are still opportunities to improve the ecosystem services approach by
extending its use to the early stages of renewable energy facilities planning, such as the environmental
impact assessments of these projects.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The original idea of ecosystem services (ES) and products was

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mariana.especie@epe.gov.br (M.A. Espe
cie), pedro.carvalho@
epe.gov.br (P.N. de Carvalho), maria.pinheiro@epe.gov.br (M.F.B. Pinheiro),
vinicius.rosenthal@epe.gov.br (V.M. Rosenthal), leyla.silva@epe.gov.br (L.A.F. da
Silva), mariana.pinheiro@epe.gov.br (M.R.C. Pinheiro), silvana.espig@epe.gov.br
(S.A. Espig), carolina.mariani@epe.gov.br (C.F. Mariani), elisangela.almeida@epe.

).
gov.br (E.M. de Almeida), federica.sodre@epe.gov.br (F.N.G.A.S. Sodre
presented in the 1950s by Odum [1], who discussed the uses of
natural resources (agriculture, hunting, fisheries) and the dynamics
of the human population as being part of ecosystems [2]. Academia
has discussed the services provided by nature as a theme [3] since
at least the 1970s. The concept of ES was introduced in the 1980s; it
then went on to inspire a rapidly growing body of peer-reviewed

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.076
0960-1481/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
40 M.A. Esp
ecie et al. / Renewable Energy 140 (2019) 39e51
literature [4]. However, it was only after the Rio Earth Summit in
1992 that ES were institutionalized as a concept. The theme quickly
disseminated afterwards throughout scientific, expert and public
debate efforts aimed at promoting biodiversity preservation and
the protection of the environment [5].
Go
mez-Baggethun et al. [6] highlighted the first conceptuali-
zations of ES-connected environmental impacts and the conse-
quent loss of species to the balance of the ecosystems' long-term
carrying capacity. Daily et al. [7] eventually coined a very popular
definition for the term, which has been well accepted and ratified
by other authors, which is as follows: “Ecosystem services are the
conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and
the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill human life. They
maintain biodiversity and the production of ecosystem goods, such
as seafood, forage, timber, biomass fuels, natural fiber and many
pharmaceuticals, industrial products, and their precursors”. Cos-
tanza et al. [8] helped highlight the role of ecosystems in sustaining
well-being by estimating the economic value of the world's ES and
natural capital. Gradually, then, the concept of ES was reframed by
academia, transitioning from a heuristic model into an explicit
decision-making and policymaking tool [9e11].
However, it was only in 2004 that the ES approach emerged in
the context of a UN program led by a panel of international scien-
tific experts. The idea was to better understand and assess the
connections between ecosystems and human well-being [5]. The
result of these efforts was the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(MA) [12], published in 2005. The publication is still a reference
work on ES approaches and has since influenced other scientific
research and helped significantly increase the number of publica-
tions focused on the theme [13]. In this sense, The Economy of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) project [14], along with the
subsequent additions to the work of the MA [12], have helped bring
ecosystem services to the toolsets of decision-makers with an
economic overtone, assisting in the development of models and
tools for biodiversity economics [15].
The exact time at which the ecosystem services approach was
first applied to renewable energy as a subject of academic literature
is not known with certainty. The first study to make a connection
between renewable energy and ES discussed the negative exter-
nalities involved in hydropower projects, such as the decreasing
groundwater levels and riverhead throughput (and, consequently,
reducing the river flow, thus adversely impacting recreational and
fishing activities) [16].
Understanding the connections between renewable energy and
ES has grown in relevance since renewable sources provided
approximately 25% of all electricity generated in the world in 2016
[17], playing an important role in mitigating the effects of climate
change and global warming resulting from fossil fuel generation
and consumption. The potential of renewable energy sources to
meet the world's energy demand is enormous, and it is becoming
clear that it will be a future growth area of the energy sector [18]. By
2050, the gross power generation should almost double, with
renewable energy providing 85% of the electricity [19].
However, the impacts of this dramatic expansion of renewable
energy in recent years, both in terms of installed capacity and
output, still has not been well assessed. Hastik et al. [20], for
example, highlighted that land use competition, social acceptance
and trade-offs with biodiversity conservation are controversial is-
sues regarding renewable energy expansion. In that sense, linking
renewable energy and ES provides several benefits, such as inter
and transdisciplinary approaches, and comparisons of renewable
energy alternatives and their impacts on different ES [20].
Aiming to understand how the development of the ES concept
has been handled in the context of renewable energy, this study
presents an overview of 15 years of scientific production related to
the subject. By means of a scientometric analysis, the present
research sought to identify the trends in the use of the ES approach.
Moreover, the analysis explored where studies have been carried
out, which ES categories were most frequent, the institutions
involved in the dissemination of this concept, as well as the
different sorts of valuation methods and tools used to capture the
value of the ES.
2. Material and methods
The scientometric approach aims at the advancement of the
development of science in relation to social and to policy questions
[21]. It relies chiefly on the quantitative analysis of scientific pub-
lications to understand how a certain knowledge or scientific field
is structured and organized [22]. The main advantage of adopting
scientometric analysis is the possibility of mapping the relationship
between concepts, ideas and problems in science [23], allowing
researchers, policymakers and managers to identify trends on
knowledge production in different areas (e.g., Refs. [24e26]).
The scientometric analysis adopted in the present study fol-
lowed the framework described by Tancoigne et al. [5]. Online
database searches of the peer-reviewed literature allowed the
creation of a corpus dataset composed of scientific article refer-
ences related to the ES approach and renewable energy. Then, the
created corpus dataset was subjected to Cortext Manager (http://
manager.cortext.net/), a free online platform that provides
modeling and exploratory tools for analyzing any text corpora. In
this platform, text processing was used to identify the most
frequent terms and, thus, the emergence or disappearance of
research topics and concepts across the years. Finally, network
analysis was applied to characterize the thematic groups and range
of the ES studied. A methodology flowchart is presented in Fig. 1,
and a detailed description of each step adopted by this study is
provided in subsequent sections.
2.1. Composition and structure of the text corpus
The first stage consisted of narrowing down a text corpus from
the references available in the Scopus database. Indexed scientific
articles that contained the expression ecosystem services were
selected; then our search was further drilled down by seeking
mentions of multiple terms related to electricity from renewable
sources in the title, abstract and keyword sections of the articles in
the search results. For example, when searching for ecosystem ser-
vices electric power hydropower, Scopus retrieved a dataset corpus
containing references with the terms ecosystem AND services AND
electric AND power AND hydropower. The complete list of searched
terms are presented in Appendix A. The queries conducted against
the Scopus database returned a total of 196 scientific articles.
Since each record was examined to verify their relationship with
the focus of this research, 45 unrelated entries were manually
excluded from the corpus dataset. Therefore, all subsequent ana-
lyses presented in this study were carried out considering a total of
151 scientific articles. To explore how the concept of ES was actually
applied, a series of variables were manually assigned to the dataset
created. Information available in the title, author affiliation, author
keywords and abstract fields supported the classification. Table 1
summarizes the description and classes considered in the analysis
to all variables included in the dataset. In addition, brief appoint-
ments for some variables are provided below.
At the institutional level, aiming at discovering insights on use
intensity by different classes of institutions and the level of artic-
ulation among them, articles were assigned to one of the following
classes, according to the field “author affiliation”: “university”,
 M.A. Esp
ecie et al. / Renewable Energy 140 (2019) 39e51 41

“government”, non-Governmental Organization (“NGO”), “com-

panies” and United Nations (“UN”).
Additionally, all articles were subjected to a classification into ES
categories. Although different categorization schemes are available
in the literature, the present work followed the ES categories pre-
sented at the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) [12] and The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) [14] since both
documents have pioneered the ES approach worldwide. On the
other hand, the authors did not necessarily adopt the MA and TEEB
category scheme. In these cases, the closest MA-based category of
ES was assigned. For example, mentions of fishery and agricultural
production ES were classified as “food provision”.
In light of the aforementioned classification, two different
groups of articles were formed: a “generic” group, consisting of
articles in which the ES concept, although cited, was a minor focus
of the publication since they did not mention any ES category or
typology (n ¼ 102); and a “specific” group, regarding references in
which the ES in question were described per the categories or ty-
pologies proposed by the MA or TEEB (n ¼ 49).
Finally, some variables were established in alignment with
recently published market-oriented guidelines (e.g., IFC Perfor-
mance Standards [27] and Natural Capital Protocol [28]). In that
sense, the relation between the renewable energy source and ES in
terms of dependence (if energy generation was supported by a
certain ES) or impact (if energy generation has caused impacts or
externalities on certain ES) was taken into consideration. The
development stage, either planning (including the environmental
impact assessment) or operation, was also tracked down specif-
ically for hydropower projects since this renewable source of power
generation relies on longer stages before their effective construc-
tion and operation when compared to the other renewable energy
sources. Mentions of the valuation methods applied to evaluate ES
and of any decision-support tools with this purpose (cf. Ref. [29])
adopted by studies were also sought.

2.2. Text processing and multiterms extraction

This step attempted to extract the most frequent noun phrases

Fig. 1. Methodology flowchart representing the steps toward a scientometric analysis
of ecosystem services and renewable energy. ES ¼ Ecosystem Services; TEEB ¼ The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity; MA ¼ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
and terms from the group of 49-“specific” articles available in the
corpus dataset. As some scientific journals do not have the author
keywords field, this step focused only at title and abstract fields
available in the text corpus. The natural language processing (NLP)
methods provided in Cortext Manager comprise different stages
(for further details, see Ref. [30]), allowing the lexical extraction
from the text corpus by retrieving a list of terms corresponding to
the subjects studied. Plural and singular forms of an expression

Table 1
Summary of variables, with their respective descriptions and classes, inserted to corpus dataset.

Variable Description Classes

Renewable source Type of renewable power generation source considered in the article Biomass; Hydropower; Photovoltaic; Wind power
Year Year in which the article was published As many as those described by articles
Country of author's Country of author's institution as presented in the article As many as those described by articles
institution
Country of research Country where the research was carried out As many as those described by articles
Institution Type of institution from which the article's authors were affiliated Company; Government; NGO; UN; University; Combination
of such classes
ES category ES categories (according to MA and TEEB) mentioned in the article title, keywords Provisioning; Regulating; Habitat/Supporting; Cultural
or abstract
ES typology Typology of the ES (according to MA and TEEB) cited in the article title, keywords As many as those described by articles
or abstract
Relation to ES Nature of the relationship between the renewable energy source and ES, as Dependence; Impact
described by the article
Development stage Development stage of the hydropower enterprise described in the article Planning; Operation; Combination of such classes
Valuation method Name of the valuation method used in the study As many as those described by articles
Valuation tool Name of the valuation tool used to estimate the quantitative value of ES As many as those described by articles
42 M.A. Esp
ecie et al. / Renewable Energy 140 (2019) 39e51
were assigned as identical, since Cortext Manager groups multi-
terms as a function of their stem form [5]. In this study, the analyses
considered the most cited multiterms with a minimum frequency
of three, that is, comprising at least to 6% of the corpus.
Then, the terms obtained went through a thorough sorting
process to exclude from the list the words and/or expressions
whose meaning was not relevant to the focus of this research.
Subsequently, the list containing the sorted terms was indexed to
the corpus dataset in a new field named “Extracted terms”, which
has enabled the detection of articles containing the retained terms.
2.3. Characterization of thematic clusters
This step consisted of applying network analysis to cluster the
sorted terms for identifying the structure and the relationship be-
tween the topics addressed in the group of 49-“specific” articles.
Clustering methods set objects into groups as a measure of their
similarity or dissimilarity, grouping terms with high correlations
with each other into the same cluster [31]. In a network map, the
node size shows the occurrence frequency of a term; the smaller its
size, the lower the occurrence frequency [25]. On the other hand,
the line depicts the relationship between two or more words, while
their thickness draws the correlation between them proportionally,
i.e., the thicker the line between two terms, the stronger the
connection [25]. In this study, Cortext Manager was used to
calculate raw data and cooccurrence network maps of the extracted
terms. Homogeneous and heterogeneous network analyses were
conducted, as described next. However, for both cases, the identi-
fication of cohesive clusters in both networks was made possible by
applying Louvain's algorithm. Additionally, to provide a better
visualization of the network maps, links with intensities higher
than 0.3 combined with the top five neighbors of each node were
retained. All network graphs were drawn in Gephi 0.9.2 software.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity - TEEB publica-
tion in 2010 [14] was defined as the criterion to identify possible
trends in the ES approach for renewable energy sources throughout
Fig. 2. Scientific production on the ES approach by country. Pie charts refer to the ratio of the “generic” and “specific” articles per country (ranging from 1 to 32).
the years. Then, the 49-articles corpus dataset was broken down
into two distinct periods (2003e2009 and 2010 to 2017), making it
possible to build two homogeneous networks by considering solely
the “Extracted terms” field of the corpus. The proximity measure
considered in this case was the distributional measure, which can
be considered an indirect or global metric to define the similarity
between two nodes since it is based on comparing their entire
cooccurrence profile with the other terms [5].
Additionally, to understand how each institution type has been
developing the ES knowledge on renewable energy, a heteroge-
neous network was also mapped by associating two corpus fields
(“Extracted terms” and “Institution type”). In this case, the chi-
squared test was defined as a measure of similarity between
nodes because it is regarded as a direct or local metric, as it takes
into account the number of co-occurrences of each pair considered
[5].
3. Results and discussion
From all 151 scientific articles, 90% were about hydropower and
7% were about wind power. Other renewable sources, such as
biomass, biogas, solar and geothermal, were featured only occa-
sionally. The studies were carried out in 38 countries (Fig. 2). China,
the US and Brazil accounted for the majority of articles discussing
the relationship between ES and renewable energy. Specifically, for
China, more than half of the articles specify which category of ES is
being addressed. In the US and Brazil, most articles dealt with ES
more generally.
Since 2002, when the first publication on ES was launched, the
number of scientific articles concerning the ES approach with
renewable energy sources has been increasing, a trend that be-
comes more evident from 2010 onwards for both “generic” and
“specific” article groups. In line with the pattern described, in
previous studies of other areas of knowledge (e.g., Refs. [2,13]), an
association between the accumulation of scientific articles and the
release of technical reports and/or the holding of international
 M.A. Esp
ecie et al. / Renewable Energy 140 (2019) 39e51
Fig. 3. Distribution of the scientific production regarding an ES approach and renewable power generation from 2002 to 2017. CICES ¼ Common International Classification of
Ecosystem Services; COP ¼ Conference of the Parts; MA ¼ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; MDG ¼ Millennium Development Goals; SDGs ¼ Sustainable Development Goals;
TEEB ¼ The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity; UNCSD ¼ United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.
conferences on environmental issues was also identified. In that
sense, the publication of the MA and TEEB, the launch of the
Ecosystem Services Journal, and the holding of the Rio þ20 UNCSD
and COP 21 (Paris) seemed to be the most important milestones
that caused the increase in the number of articles published on the
theme (Fig. 3).
It is important to highlight that of the 151 scientific articles
analyzed, five studies have already treated “hydropower produc-
tion” as a provisioning ES [32e36], two of which achieved results
by using tools available for ES accounting (InVEST) [32,34]. Despite
that, they were not included in the subsequent analysis, as the MA
and TEEB classification schemes were used as the reference in the
present study.
Different ES classification schemes have been proposed since
MA publication, and the Common International Classification of
Ecosystem Services (CICES) has been developed to provide a hier-
archically consistent and science-based classification to be used for
natural capital accounting purposes [37]. To consider the end-use of
ES, the more recent version of CICES has incorporated energy
sources, such as hydropower, wind, solar, geothermal and mineral
substances as provisioning ES [38]. In that sense, “surface water
used for nutrition, materials or energy” has become an ES group of
the “Provisioning (Abiotic)” section of the “Water” division [38].
With this new approach, it is possible that future studies will adopt
such a classification system that emphasizes renewable energy as
provisioning ES as well.
In the sections below, the results and discussion about the group
of 49 -“specific” articles will be presented. The analyses were car-
ried out from 2003 to 2017, considering that the first specific article
was launched in 2003.
3.1. Ecosystem services approach on renewable energy
Regarding the “specific” group, it is noteworthy that the vast
majority of publications was related to hydropower (n ¼ 46), fol-
lowed by wind power (n ¼ 2) and biomass (n ¼ 1). The most-often
cited ES category was provisioning services, followed by cultural,
regulating, habitat and supporting services. Erosion regulation,
followed by freshwater provision and food provision, all topics
related chiefly to hydropower plants, were the most-discussed ES
43
(Fig. 4).
The findings about the nature of the relationship between the
renewable energy source and ES revealed that 19 articles described
the externalities or impacts of energy generation on certain ES,
while 12 articles addressed the dependence, describing ES that
support energy generation. While some studies focus on the chal-
lenges to incorporate the ES concept into well-known assessment
practices, others attempt to track the dependence of energy gen-
eration projects on ES, in which hydropower projects play an
important role in cases of valuating the ES dependence [39] and
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) [40,41]. Other authors
considered the externalities or impacts of using hydropower on the
river ecosystem services [16,42,43].
Analyzing the number of articles related to ES impacted by
renewable energy sources, “food provisioning” was the most-cited
ES and was particularly linked to the negative impacts on fishery
and aquaculture caused by hydropower plants. Regarding the de-
pendency of energy generation on ES, “freshwater provision” was
the main target, as studies discussed how hydropower generation
is strongly dependent on the water supply. “Erosion regulation”
was also featured frequently and was related to both natures of the
relationship, i.e., as an ES affected by hydropower projects in the
sense that such plants cause erosion downstream and as a de-
pendency since hydropower projects rely on the ability of such
services to regulate sedimentation in the reservoir. Moreover, it is
important to note that most articles (n ¼ 25) were related to the
operation stage of hydropower plants, a trend also seen in previous
studies (e.g., Refs. [44,45]).
3.2. Trends of the ecosystem services approach from 2003 to 2017
The results of the terms extraction and network analysis con-
ducted under this study have highlighted structural shifts in the ES
topics covered throughout the years. The publication of the report
on TEEB in 2010 represented a milestone e with major impacts on
the articles published afterwards e by bringing an economic
connotation to the ES approach [9]. In that sense, the analyses were
divided in two periods. The first period considered articles
launched from 2003 to 2009 and the second period considered
articles from 2010 to 2017 (Fig. 5).
44 M.A. Esp
ecie et al. / Renewable Energy 140 (2019) 39e51

Fig. 4. Number of articles per category and individual ecosystem services following the MA [12] and TEEB [14] classifications.

Fig. 5. Cooccurrence network maps of the terms extracted from the “specific” group (n ¼ 49) during the first (2003e2009; left) and second (2010e2017; right) periods.

During the first period, studies were carried out in only five
countries, all of which directly related to hydropower generation. In
a general sense, publications from the first period have depicted the
main insights from MA, given that those studies increased aware-
ness on how dependent hydropower generation is on ES and also
highlighted the use of ES valuation as a promising way to influence
different decision-making scenarios. The network analysis for this
period retrieved two isolated groups. The first cluster (A1; Fig. 5)
was more focused on issues associated with river ES. Those studies
attempted to assess the importance of the ES approach on inte-
grated watershed management [46] and on preserving river ES
functions when deciding whether or not to build dams, including
 M.A. Esp
ecie et al. / Renewable Energy 140 (2019) 39e51
those for hydropower generation [47,48]. The second cluster (A2;
Fig. 5) was related to the conceptual framework of ES, denoting
both hydropower facilities as beneficiaries of the ES provided by
protected areas (e.g., Ref. [39]) and how such enterprises can pro-
vide biodiversity conservation and, consequently, enhance the
provision of other ES (e.g., Ref. [49]).
However, moving from a conceptual to an operational frame-
work, as proposed in the MA publication, was recognized as
necessary to mainstream the ES approach regarding renewable
energy. In that sense, the results revealed a starkly different trend
in the second period (from 2010 to 2017), for which five distinct but
connected subgroups were created. The changes in the topics
covered in the articles were also accompanied by an increase in the
number of countries carrying out studies (n ¼ 19).
Additionally, the concepts of externality and the dependence of
ecosystem services flourished in the same period, and the tradeoffs
analyses were more explored in the articles related to PES.
Analyzing the dependence of the upstream watershed ES on energy
production appears to be a trend in academia, which supports
discussions about PES and different valuation methods and tools.
As a result, the second period seems to be influenced, on the one
hand, by the TEEB approach and methodology and, on the other
hand, by the decision making based on multicriteria analysis. The
network analyses for this period resulted in five thematic clusters.
The first cluster (B1; Fig. 5) addressed the importance of land-use
management strategies and their relationship to water conserva-
tion, while the B4 cluster referred mainly to soil conservation and
erosion control and their impacts on hydropower. Both clusters (B1
and B4; Fig. 5) seemed to contribute to the discussions centered on
hydrological issues related to hydropower and water regulating
services (B2; Fig. 5). Together these three clusters support the
discussions concerning the conservation of upstream watershed
ecosystems via PES (B3; Fig. 5). The latter cluster (B5; Fig. 5)
brought an economic approach by applying different valuation
methods and tools to the ES loss, dependence or benefits.
3.2.1. Hydropower dependence on ecosystem services
The land-use management explored by the articles included in
the B1 cluster (Fig. 5) reinforced the concept of hydropower
dependence on ES. The relationship between hydropower genera-
tion and ecosystem conservation at the watershed level become
evident in terms of supply and demand for ecosystem services of
water flow regulation and sediment retention [50]. Departing from
the perspective that upstream watershed land-uses influence the
amount of hydropower production, some studies are being carried
out to determine to what extent investments in the conservation of
upstream catchments would represent improvements in hydro-
power production [51e53].
Aligned with this perspective, Vogl et al. [41] presented a dis-
cussion on this topic and concluded that goals for soil and water
conservation should be established and more attention should be
given to the activities that are responsible for the conservation of
ecosystem services at the watershed scale. Moreover, the
enhancement of land management policies is essential to increase
the value of the ES provided by the landscape and to determine the
hydroelectricity dependence.
Thus, as important as forest conservation is, soil conservation
and erosion control (B4; Fig. 5) are the central issues for the res-
ervoirs of hydropower facilities. The service of erosion control is the
relative contribution of diverse parts of the landscape to sediment
retention, which means that land use patterns can affect sedi-
mentation into the downstream reservoir. As a consequence, the
high sediment deposition impacts the reservoir's water storage
capacity and functioning for hydropower generation [40,54].
Therefore, conserving and restoring the forest ecosystems at the
45
watershed scale will maintain and enhance the soil regulation
service, thus reducing soil erosion and contributing to the life span
of hydropower facilities.
Encouraging cooperation between hydropower beneficiaries
and local communities and farmers is reported as the key to
maintaining the ES provision [50,55] and facing the hydropower
development in an ongoing or expanding deforestation scenario.
3.2.2. Reducing externalities: environmental flow and multiple
water users
From the perspective of hydropower and water regulating ser-
vices, the discussions in the B2 cluster (Fig. 5) were centered on the
challenge of achieving sustainable water management, that is,
combining multiple water uses and maintaining the ecosystem
integrity to continue delivering ES to the beneficiaries. Regarding
hydropower specifically, some scientific articles have addressed the
alterations to downstream flows caused by these projects, focusing
on how modifications in the regulating services provided by rivers
may impact provisioning services, such as food provision by fish-
eries [56] and water provision for different activities [57]. Other
studies have stressed the negative consequences of changes on
hydrological flood pulses over other regulating services (soil
fertilization in riparian areas [58]) and on supporting services
(habitat availability for biota on downstream floodplains [59]).
Discussions involving the ES approach and the environmental
flows concept (recently conceived as the quantity, timing, and
quality of freshwater flows and levels necessary to sustain aquatic
ecosystems which, in turn, support human cultures, economies,
sustainable livelihoods, and well-being [60]) have been important
lately, given that impounded rivers around the world are facing
competing uses of water resources as seasonal flood regimes were
altered mainly for hydropower and irrigation [56]. However, in
regard to water governance and management systems, Pahl-Wostl
et al. [61] stated that a major emphasis has been given to provi-
sioning services mainly because of their most direct socioeconomic
benefits, whereas regulating and supporting services on sustain-
able environmental flows have been largely neglected due to the
weakness of quantitative relationships between river flows,
ecosystem states and service functions.
Despite the discussion on which set of trade-offs should be
considered when dealing with hydrological ES (see Ref. [62] for
more details), the incorporation of ES into the environmental flow
framework could be relevant to raise awareness for the importance
of ecosystem functions for the resilience of social-ecological sys-
tems, to support the negotiation of trade-offs and the development
of strategies for adaptive implementation [61].
In that sense, a novel market-oriented guideline for hydropower
development has incorporated the relationship between ES and
environmental flows as a good practice to be considered when
designing such projects [63]. Nevertheless, considering that some
hydropower facilities are acknowledged to be low-carbon options
that allow the penetration of intermittent renewables sources
(such as wind and solar) into an energy grid due to their flexibility
[64], special attention should be addressed when adopting such a
framework. Fernandez et al. [65], for example, observed that ad-
justments in downstream flows by a hydropower facility to pre-
serve some downstream river ES could impose operational
constraints to support wind integration. Future research focusing
on to what extent the implementation of environmental flows and
the ES framework by hydropower plants might affect their reli-
ability on offering energy security to the grid are needed to provide
adequate trade-offs for some context-specific decision-making
processes.
46 M.A. Esp
ecie et al. / Renewable Energy 140 (2019) 39e51
3.2.3. Economic incentives to preserve the benefits of ecosystem
services
Regarding pricing mechanisms aimed at biodiversity conserva-
tion, the B3 and B5 clusters (Fig. 5) denote the development of
economic approaches for correcting market failures that affect ES.
While B3 encompasses articles that addressed PES, in the scope of
positive externalities underlaid by the steward earns principle, B5
focuses on ES valuation methods to negative externalities underlid
by the polluter pays principle [66]. Both are market-based in-
struments (MBI) to create economic incentives for conservation [6].
The B3 cluster (Fig. 5) covers articles that address PES con-
cerning the relationship between land use, reservoir sedimentation
and stakeholder groups. PES is a voluntary and conditional trans-
action where there is a well-defined ecosystem service between at
least one supplier and one user [67]. Market schemes for ES include
several hydrological functions related to the quality, quantity, or
timing of freshwater flows from upstream areas to downstream
users [6]. This MBI has been conducted for watershed management,
reservoir conservation, and biodiversity protection by hydropower
companies, landowners and governments [68]. For instance, Arias
et al. [40] presented a modeling framework to estimate the cost for
forest conservation financed by hydropower via a PES scheme,
which included land-use change projections, watershed erosion
modeling, reservoir sedimentation estimations and power gener-
ation loss calculations, and points out the importance of individual
modeling, as the lost hydropower revenues from sediment accu-
mulation are mostly determined by both watershed and dam
characteristics. Alternatively, Vignola et al. [69] discussed different
incentive structures, in addition to PES, that use negotiation anal-
ysis to build areas of agreement among the different parts in a
specific decision-making context of stakeholders, converging in
interest in an ES provision.
Finally, a separate and distinct cluster of studies focused on all
ES valuation methods (B5; Fig. 5), which were also most often
explored by studies carried out in China. The distance between this
cluster and the others denotes the ancillary role that the use of
those methods is assumed to have on ES approaches, as will be
discussed later. Nevertheless, the emergence of this cluster seems
to be a direct consequence of the launch of TEEB and the COP 10
discussions, as scientific articles about this topic began to appear in
the sample in 2010. The first scientific paper to address the
connection between hydropower and ES, published in 2003, was
also the first to use a valuation method (travel cost) to estimate the
value of ecosystem function loss due to negative externalities from
the construction and operation of hydropower plants [16]. As the
travel cost method focuses on the recreational use value [70], it was
applied to estimate the economic value of recreational fishing.
In general, most valuation methods were used to estimate the
loss of ES from hydropower projects during the operation phase
[16,33,71e73]. The most important valuation methods identified
were willingness to pay, cost-benefit analysis and the market value
approach. Most of the articles used the willingness to pay method
but, in general, combined it with a second one [34,39,73e75]. The
cost-benefit analysis is also one of the most often-used methods to
assess the impacts of the construction and operation of power
plants on ES [71,76] and externalities to stakeholders [77]. There-
fore, the cost-benefit analysis has been used as a key tool for
evaluating the sustainability of hydropower projects and, thus, for
depicting the trade-offs between local economic development and
the reduction in ecosystem services, as shown by Kubiszewski et al.
[77].
It is not a coincidence that the studies approaching the depen-
dence on ES by hydropower plants focused on the operation phase
and use valuation methods to estimate the monetary values from
provision, regulation and cultural ES. Going deeper on other
specific ES, while some studies focused on tourism, education flood
prevention and maintenance of genetic diversity [39,71], others
focused on water provision, irrigation and fishery [72,78]. All of
them considered electricity generation in their accounts. In these
papers, the valuation methods played a key role in the planning and
decision-making in regard to the multiple uses of water. Using
valuation tools to estimate the quantitative value of ES is a recent
phenomenon. Currently, quite a few articles make use of valuation
tools to improve their results and identify synergies between
conservation and development [32]. Of all the tools available, the
analysis revealed that InVEST was used in two articles to estimate
the economic value of ES.
Finally, it is important to understand the small number (n ¼ 7) of
articles using valuation tools and methods to estimate the value of
ES related to renewable energy. There are some reasons for this
phenomenon. The first one is related to the key objective of the ES
approach and the second one has to do with the complexity and
uncertainties of the economic valuation methods. As the majority
of scientific research has shown, the main goal of this approach is to
assess how ES are physically impacted by renewable energy pro-
jects [54,79,80]. Although it has been developed, valuation must
not be limited to monetary approaches [61]. Instead, a combination
of quantitative and qualitative approaches might bring multiple
roles and values of ecosystem services as well as create awareness
of this issue [81]. According to Yang et al. [82], complexity and
uncertainty in accounting methods depend on ES classification
systems, specific accounting techniques and the total ES valuation
calculation. Indeed, there is a hidden value attached to the ES
nonholistic approach that makes the total economic value imper-
fect [83]. In accordance, Bateman et al. [84] believed that research
into the valuation of ES has not built a large enough stock of
knowledge given the complexity of the demands upon it.
Thus, the valuation of ecosystem services remains a highly
contested area [44] and a systematic typology and a comprehensive
framework for the integrated assessment and valuation of
ecosystem functions remains elusive [85]. Pandeya et al. [86] also
pointed out data-scarcity as a main difficulty for an application of
locally relevant valuation approaches. Finally, the capacity of the
traditional valuation approach to reduce biodiversity loss through
mainstream economic drivers is limited. Go
mez-Baggethun and
Pe
rez [66] stated that economic valuation will not solve the prob-
lems and shortcomings of traditional conservation and is likely to
pave the way for the commodification of ecosystem services with
potentially counterproductive effects for biodiversity conservation
and equity of access to ecosystem services benefits.
3.2.4. Beyond hydropower: what to expect of the ecosystem services
approach for other renewables?
Another feature that has characterized the second period was
the development of studies regarding other renewable energy
sources. In this context, the results have outlined different ES ap-
proaches to wind power and biomass when compared to those
applied to hydropower. Both wind power articles related to wind
power have reported the importance of considering ES during early
planning stages.
Negative aesthetic issues regarding the landscape caused by
onshore wind turbines might compromise some cultural ES. In an
analogous way, the installation of offshore wind farms may have
adverse effects on fisheries, a provisioning service. For both cases,
the negative impacts could be alleviated by identifying critical areas
before wind farm installation. Either for onshore [87] or offshore
[88] wind farms, spatial planning methods were applied to find
optimal solutions by enhancing the exploitation of wind resources
while reducing the impacts on ES. Then, the adoption of the ES
 M.A. Esp
ecie et al. / Renewable Energy 140 (2019) 39e51
approach for wind farms may have a positive effect on the devel-
opment of these projects in a more sustainable way.
In relation to the biomass study, the ES approach provided a
baseline to support a trade-off analysis between the use of willow
shrub woody biomass with other bioenergy feedstock, aiming to
identify the best alternative for land management [89]. Although
not supplying all the needs of the studied power plant, besides
increasing the resilience of the power system and the diversity of
alternative energy technologies, willow shrub crops may also
reduce nutrient loss and erosion and improve biodiversity, adapt-
ability to climate change and access to recreational activities [89].
Nevertheless, due to the well-known impacts of agriculture on
the environment and their footprint on land use, Holland et al. [44]
stressed the importance of future research on the relationship be-
tween bioenergy and ES. Land use change is regarded as the main
driver of biodiversity loss and ES degradation worldwide [12],
making the use of spatial data imperative, i.e., taking account of the
distribution of resources providing ES. Thus, incorporating spatial
dimension on ES approach is a relevant matter also to energy sys-
tems planning.
3.3. The role of institutions on disseminating the ecosystem services
approach for renewable energy
The ES concept operates as a boundary object, i.e., one that
structures and circulates through different fields of knowledge [4],
being robust enough to act as a channel of communication between
different contexts and perspectives [90]. The results presented in
this section envisage the perspectives on the use of ES when
dealing with renewable energy according to the type of institution
that carried out the study. As discussed in detail, the outcomes from
the heterogeneous network analysis indicated that institutions
engaged in these discussions in distinct manners, in terms of sci-
entific production, in the positions that each institution assumed
on the subject, and in the arrangements among them (Fig. 6).
As expected, members exclusively from universities had a
leading role in scientific production, coauthoring 74% of all articles.
Helping decision-makers see and understand how the ES approach
describes the real world is one of the many roles of academic
scholars [91], but the results presented in this study reveal that
there is still opportunity for improvements regarding to ES
approach on renewable energy, i.e., evolving from scientific pro-
duction to an effective mainstream. Although university-produced
studies have covered a greater number and more diverse ES topics
(A cluster; Fig. 6), thus providing innovative scientific knowledge
regarding ES and renewables, the single link and the distance be-
tween its cluster and the other four suggests a minor influence of
their findings on practitioners. In this sense, it is important to
highlight that academia had a major focus on using valuation
methods to address the ES approach with renewable energy.
However, whether and how the use of these valuation methods is
adding value to discussions regarding renewable energy projects is
still a matter of future research since some of these valuation
schemes were adopted to raise awareness of the dependence of
hydropower generation on specific ES. For example, most ES eco-
nomic valuation studies posed by academia promised to be useful
for the decision-making process; however, as they do not rely upon
precision and context, the certainty regarding whether the tools
offered to potential users are the best match for real decision-
making needs is in question [92]. The data gathered by the pre-
sent study supports a similar trend regarding renewable energy
since the mentions of “stakeholder groups” and “decision makers”
in the university articles reinforce that a less pragmatic and more
generic approach is addressed by such studies. As defended by
Costanza et al. [37], to provide sustainable outcomes, any ES
47
valuation attempt in practice needs to involve many stakeholders
and should consider mixes of monetary and nonmonetary methods
in these valuation processes. In this context, designing an interac-
tive science-policy process is crucial to provide advances on this
topic and, thus, increase the likelihood of using the knowledge
produced [93].
The network analysis has also shown that the terms preferen-
tially used in university-produced articles have emphasized the
negative impacts caused by hydropower facilities, differing from
those cited by institutions directly involved in the management of
energy projects. This fact was denoted by some of the terms used in
studies (such as “flow regime alterations”, “environmental im-
pacts” and “biodiversity loss”), which, in turn, may suggest the
importance of incorporating the ES approach by practitioners in
environmental impact assessments [94], even before commis-
sioning renewable energy projects, to reduce negative externalities
and potential conflicts since it inserts the human well-being
dimension in the decision-making process. The use of the ES
approach to assess environmental and social impacts has been seen
as a conceptual innovation that can improve the impact assessment
practice [95], allowing better estimates of whether and how the
impacts of an activity can be mitigated in the permitting decisions
made by governments [93]. Additionally, contradicting the fact that
renewable energy facilities commonly cause impacts on landscapes
(e.g., Ref. [45]), the results gathered by this study have indicated
that cultural ES has been painstakingly overlooked in scientific ar-
ticles. Only two university-produced studies have published ma-
terial on cultural ES. Research attempting to address the relation
between cultural ES, human well-being and renewables is required
to provide suitable mitigation measures and trade-offs.
Furthermore, although companies, governments, NGOs and
even the UN have had minor participation (26%) in scientific pro-
duction, such an incipient movement can indicate an effort from
practitioners to spread their field experience on the ES approach
beyond the more conventional gray literature (technical reports or
books, for instance), achieving also a scientific community. In
addition, a stronger degree of interactions among these institutions
was observed due to the various links connecting the different
topics covered by their articles. For instance, a convergence of in-
terests was found for companies, NGOs and government agencies,
as all of them mentioned the “stakeholder engagement process”
and “river basin management”.
Although a UN member took part in a single article regarding
hydrological issues and hydropower [59], the network analysis
revealed topics that have common importance also to companies,
governments and NGOs, such as “aquatic ecosystems”, “flow
regime” and “economic value” (C, Fig. 6). The inclusion of these
topics signifies the importance of accounting for river flows when
defining hydropower projects, as an attempt to reduce biodiversity
loss and preserve the integrity of the downstream ecosystems (e.g.,
floodplains and wetlands). This issue is of such relevance to the UN
that it was discussed in a special MA issue [96].
The proximity between company and NGO clusters (D and E,
Fig. 6) indicates relatedness both in the topics of relevance to the
two institutions and in the way of perceiving them. Taking into
consideration that “conservation and development” was a common
topic for both institutions, it is possible to conclude that the ar-
rangements between them are aimed at delivering practical out-
comes in regard to the ES approach. In addition to mentioning the
positive externalities provided by some hydropower plants (e.g.,
“flow regulation”), the terms “watershed”, “sedimentation” and
“erosion control” indicate that companies have addressed concerns
about the dependence that their facilities have on some ES (D,
Fig. 6). This can be a consequence of market-oriented publications,
which have been delivering important guides, protocols and
48 M.A. Esp
ecie et al. / Renewable Energy 140 (2019) 39e51
Fig. 6. Cooccurrence network map of extracted terms for the “specific” article group (n ¼ 49) per institution type from 2003 to 2017.
methods to understand the costs of ecosystem degradation and to
recognize the dependence on ecosystem services at the renewable
energies project level. International Finance Corporation (IFC)
incorporated ES in the Performance Standards, meaning that all
IFC-financed projects are required to preserve the benefits from ES
[27]. Furthermore, the World Resource Institute (WRI) developed a
six-step method for identifying and managing a project's potential
impacts and dependencies on ecosystems and ecosystem services
[94]. Similarly, the Natural Capital Protocol [28] launched a stan-
dardized framework for businesses to incorporate ES into decision-
making, helping them to avoid risks and look for opportunities
regarding natural capital. In this regard, the present study has
evidenced this concern since mentions to “resource management”
were presented in company-produced articles (D, Fig. 6).
On the other hand, to accomplish all dimensions of “resource
management”, mainly in regard to hydropower plants, companies
have relied upon partnerships with NGOs. By means of the
“stakeholder engagement process”, NGOs have provided the prac-
tical background needed to implement conservation actions that
benefit both companies and ecosystems and this was achieved
through “payment for ecosystem services” schemes (E, Fig. 6).
Bennet et al. [97], in a review on payment for watershed services
programs, stated that in a scenario where continuous land-use
conflicts took place, NGOs were featured as strategic in-
termediaries in the implementation of such programs since they
bridge the trust gap between landowners and utilities, thus facili-
tating a negotiation solution [98]. In Latin America, for instance,
since hydropower plants benefit from upstream conservation
actions, these facilities are the most common service buyers in PES
schemes [99]. Considering the potential of PES schemes to alleviate
upstream-downstream river conflicts [97], policies designed to
nurture such initiatives should be encouraged worldwide.
Concerns regarding national or regional development aspects,
such as “economic growth”, “power generation” and “policy”, in
alignment with “land management”, “water conservation” and
“scenarios” characterized the scope of government-produced arti-
cles (B, Fig. 6). In this context, the terms selected reinforce the role
of the government in establishing policies to accommodate both
private short-term goals with societal long-term goals [100], which
was endorsed by the links connecting to companies, NGOs and the
UN (B, Fig. 6). A comprehensive approach could be accomplished by
means of adopting spatial planning since early renewable energy
development stages to settle potential conflicts (e.g., Refs. [41,87]).
Picchi et al. [45], for instance, argued that landscape modification
caused by renewable energy technologies is the most important
factor driving the lack of social acceptance by local communities,
the so-called “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) syndrome, because of
their pronounced impacts on the supply of some cultural ES (such
as aesthetics and heritage). Regarding river basin management, as
detailed in section 3.2.1, some studies have also discussed the
importance of landscape watershed planning to address multiple
water uses, including hydropower generation (e.g., Refs. [41,53]).
With the advent of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Plat-
form on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services e IPBES [101], efforts
to render the ES concept more operational and linked with
decision-making will start to take place in the policy agenda [93]. In
 M.A. Esp
ecie et al. / Renewable Energy 140 (2019) 39e51
that sense, decision-making on the environmental implications of
energy pathways might go beyond climate change, with concerns
regarding the loss of biodiversity and ES caused by energy facilities
by governments, which, on the other hand, might take these as-
pects into consideration when discussing future energy scenarios
[44].
4. Conclusions
The world is facing an energy transition, and sustainable energy
planning is essential to ensure the continuity of the energy supply
with the predetermined quality standards of energy grids with the
lowest cost, risks and environmental and socioeconomic impacts
[102]. Renewable energy sources are an option to achieve climate
change mitigation and energy security goals at the same time [103],
but the environmental problem of greenhouse gas emissions
should not be replaced with other environmental problems [79].
Due to some of its characteristics, such as intermittency and sea-
sonal and daily variations of energy generation, the expansion of
renewable energy worldwide may demand context-specific solu-
tions, thus urging innovative outcomes from different stakeholders
to the mainstream ES approach in place of business-as-usual
assessments.
A crucial question to support the decision-making is how to
minimize the trade-offs among multiple ES and these energy
sources. Accounting for ES in long-term energy scenarios may also
have positive effects on the choice of the best energy mix to secure
the energy supply while preserving biodiversity and important
ecosystem functions. Furthermore, understanding the dependence
relationship of ES at the early planning stages may reduce risks,
conflicts and operation costs for some renewable energy facilities,
such as hydropower plants.
Although the ES approach is not only about ascribing monetary
values to environmental benefits [93], the results gathered by the
present study reinforce the importance of adopting some of the
MBI originally conceived by MA publication [12] (such as PES
schemes) to promote sustainable land use management, environ-
mental flows and forest conservation aligned to energy production,
a pathway made possible due to the NGOs' active participation. On
the other hand, advances in the knowledge to bring ES valuation,
both through monetary and nonmonetary approaches, to a more
realistic arena are still required. Hereupon, interactions between
different stakeholders are crucial to overcome such methodological
limitations.
Over the past 15 years, the ES approach on renewable energy
has somewhat straddled the frontier between science and policy, as
distinct institutions took part of this process. Nevertheless, the
advent of IPBES may represent an important milestone to govern-
ments to design social and environmental policies and to stimulate
companies to adhere to innovative ES initiatives.
Finally, the steady growth of scientific articles produced over the
studied period was dominated by research on hydropower and ES.
In that sense, to fully address the consequences of renewable en-
ergy expansion and to support the decision-making, a more
comprehensive understanding of the relationships of other
renewable energy sources on the impacts and dependence of ES is
still needed. Consequently, further research should take into
consideration this topic with the participation of different stake-
holders, such as universities, NGOs, governments, companies and
beneficiaries of the ES.
Declarations of interest
None.
49
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. We are
grateful to Isaura Frega, former EPE's Superintendent of Social-
Environment and Sustainability, for supporting this Ecosystem
Services Workgroup's initiative. Our deepest gratitude to Jessica
Moraes and Caroline Freitas for their assistance with the writing of
the manuscript. We also acknowledge the valuable comments and
suggestions on the manuscript from the anonymous reviewers. The
opinions presented in this article are authors' responsibility and do
not reflect the view of the Energy Research Office (EPE) or the
Brazilian Government.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.076.
References
[1] E.P. Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology, W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia and
London, 1959.
[2] P. Vihervaara, M. Ro €nka €, M. Walls, Trends in ecosystem service research:
early steps and current drivers, Ambio 39 (2010) 314e324, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13280-010-0048-x.
[3] W. Westman, How much are nature‘s services worth? Science 197 (1977)
960e964, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.197.4307.960.
[4] D.J. Abson, H. von Wehrden, S. Baumg€ artner, J. Fischer, J. Hanspach,
W. H€ ardtle, H. Heinrichs, A.M. Klein, D.J. Lang, P. Martens, D. Walmsley,
Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability, Ecol. Econ. 103
(2014) 29e37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012.
[5] E. Tancoigne, M. Barbier, J.P. Cointet, G. Richard, The place of agricultural
sciences in the literature on ecosystem services, Ecosyst. Serv. 10 (2014)
35e48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.004.
[6] E. Go
mez-Baggethun, R. de Groot, P.L. Lomas, C. Montes, The history of
ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to
markets and payment schemes, Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010) 1209e1218, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007.
[7] G. Daily, Natures's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems,
Island Press, Washington DC, 1997, ISBN 978-1559634762.
[8] R. Costanza, R. Arge, R. De Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg,
S. Naeem, R.V.O. Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, M. van den Belt, The
value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature 387
(1997) 253e260, https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0.
[9] R.S. de Groot, R. Alkemade, L. Braat, L. Hein, L. Willemen, Challenges in
integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape
planning, management and decision making, Ecol. Complex. 7 (2010)
260e272, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.
[10] I.J. Bateman, A.R. Harwood, G.M. Mace, R.T. Watson, D.J. Abson, B. Andrews,
A. Binner, A. Crowe, B.H. Day, S. Dugdale, C. Fezzi, J. Foden, D. Hadley,
R. Haines-Young, M. Hulme, A. Kontoleon, A.A. Lovett, P. Munday, U. Pascual,
J. Paterson, G. Perino, A. Sen, G. Siriwardena, D. Van Soest, M. Termansen,
Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the
United Kingdom, Science 341 (2013) 45e50.
[11] J. Maes, B. Egoh, L. Willemen, C. Liquete, P. Vihervaara, J.P. Scha €gner,
B. Grizzetti, E.G. Drakou, A. La Notte, G. Zulian, F. Bouraoui, M. Luisa Para-
cchini, L. Braat, G. Bidoglio, Mapping ecosystem services for policy support
and decision making in the European Union, Ecosyst. Serv. 1 (2012) 31e39,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004.
[12] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:
Synthesis, Island Press, Washington DC, 2005, ISBN 1-59726-040-1.
[13] P. Jeanneaux, O. Aznar, S. de Mareschal, Une analyse bibliome
trique pour

clairer la mise a
e  l’agenda scientifique des «services environnementaux»,
VertigO 12 (2012) 1e12, https://doi.org/10.4000/vertigo.12908.
[14] The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic
Foundations, Earthscan, London and Washington, 2010, ISBN
9781849712125.
[15] L.C. Braat, R. de Groot, The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of
natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public
and private policy, Ecosyst. Serv. 1 (2012) 4e15, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoser.2012.07.011.
[16] L. Buchli, M. Filippini, S. Banfi, Estimating the benefits of low flow alleviation
in rivers: the case of the Ticino River, Appl. Econ. 35 (2003) 585e590, https://
doi.org/10.1080/0003684032000056797.
[17] International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook, 2018. https://www.iea.
org/weo/. (Accessed 19 February 2019), 2018.
[18] A.K. Akella, R.P. Saini, M.P. Sharma, Social, economical and environmental
50 M.A. Esp
ecie et al. / Renewable Energy 140 (2019) 39e51
impacts of renewable energy systems, Renew. Energy 34 (2009) 390e396,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.05.002.
[19] International Renewable Energy Agency, Global Energy Transformation: A
Roadmap to 2050, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, 2018,
2018.
[20] R. Hastik, S. Basso, C. Geitner, C. Haida, A. Poljanec, A. Portaccio, B. Vrscaj,
C. Walzer, Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 48 (2015) 608e623, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.04.004.
[21] A.F.J. Van Raan, Scientometrics: state-of-the-art, Scientometrics 38 (1997)
205e218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461131.
[22] X. Ochoa, D. Suthers, K. Verbert, E. Duval, Analysis and reflections on the
third learning analytics and knowledge conference, J. Learning Anal. 1 (2014)
5e22. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2014.12.2.
[23] Y. Ding, G.G. Chowdhury, S. Foo, Bibliometric cartography of information
retrieval research by using co-word analysis, Inf. Process. Manag. 37 (2001)
817e842. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(00)00051-0.
[24] E.T. Meyer, R. Schroeder, The world wide web of research and access to
knowledge, Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 7 (2009) 218e233. https://doi.org/10.
1057/kmrp.2009.13.
[25] X. Chen, J. Chen, D. Wu, Y. Xie, J. Li, Mapping the research trends by co-word
analysis based on keywords from funded project, Procedia Comput. Sci. 91
(2016) 547e555, in: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.140.
[26] A. Moro, E. Boelman, G. Joanny, J.L. Garcia, A bibliometric-based technique to
identify emerging photovoltaic technologies in a comparative assessment
with expert review, Renew. Energy 123 (2018) 407e416. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.renene.2018.02.016.
[27] International Finance Corporation, Performance Standard on Environmental
and Social Sustainability, International Finance Corporation, Washington,
2012.
[28] Natural Capital Coalition, Natural Capital Protocol, 2016. http://
naturalcapitalcoalition.org/protocol/. (Accessed 10 August 2017).
[29] K.J. Bagstad, D.J. Semmens, S. Waage, R. Winthrop, A comparative assessment
of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valua-
tion, Ecosyst. Serv. 5 (2013) 27e39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.07.
004.
[30] V. Cardon, M. Barbier, The fragmentation of plant and food biosecurity
research networks: a scientometric analysis, in: M. Gullino, J. Stack,
J. Fletcher, J. Mumford (Eds.), Practical Tools for Plant and Food Biosecurity,
Springer, Switzerland, 2017, ISBN 978-3-319-46897-6, pp. 289e308.
[31] S. Ravikumar, A. Agrahari, S.N. Singh, Mapping the intellectual structure of
scientometrics: a co-word analysis of the journal Scientometrics (2005-
2010), Scientometrics 102 (2015) 929e955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-
014-1402-8.
[32] Y. Bai, H. Zheng, Z. Ouyang, C. Zhuang, B. Jiang, Modeling hydrological
ecosystem services and tradeoffs: a case study in Baiyangdian watershed,
China, Environ. Earth Sci. 70 (2013) 709e718, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12665-012-2154-5.
[33] M. Chen, S. Li, H. Sun, T. Tian, Impact of cascade hydropower development in
the lower-reach of Yalong river on river ecosystem services, J. Hydroelectr.
Eng. 1 (2011) 89e93.
[34] Z.V. Harma
ckova
, E.K. Lorencov

a, D. Va
ck

ar, Ecosystem-based adaptation and
disaster risk reduction: costs and benefits of participatory ecosystem ser-

vices scenarios for Sumava National Park, Czech Republic, in: F. Renaud,
K. Sudmeier-Rieux, M. Estrella, U. Nehren (Eds.), Ecosystem-based Disaster
Risk Reduction and Adaptation in Practice, Springer, Cham, 2016,
pp. 99e129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43633-3_5.
[35] D. Jorda-Capdevila, B. Rodríguez-Labajos, Socioeconomic value(s) of
restoring environmental flows: systematic review and guidance for assess-
ment, River Res. Appl. 33 (2017) 305e320, https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3074.
[36] J.H. Xiao, M. Wang, Q.D. Yu, J. Liu, The evaluation models of ecological
compensation standard on the large-scale hydropower engineering con-
struction based on ecological footprint: a case of Three Gorges Project, Acta
Ecol. Sin. 35 (2015) 2726e2740, https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201311182760.
[37] R. Costanza, R. de Groot, L. Braat, I. Kubiszewski, L. Fioramonti, P. Sutton,
S. Farber, M. Grasso, Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we
come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 28 (2017) 1e16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008.
[38] R. Haines-Young, M. Potschin, Common International Classification of
Ecosystem Services, Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure,
Fabis Consulting, Nottingham, 2018.
[39] F. Bernard, R.S. de Groot, J.J. Campos, Valuation of tropical forest services and
mechanisms to finance their conservation and sustainable use: a case study
of Tapantí National Park, Costa Rica, Forest, For. Policy Econ. 11 (2009)
174e183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.02.005.
[40] M.E. Arias, T.A. Cochrane, K.S. Lawrence, T.J. Killen, T.A. Farrell, Paying the
forest for electricity: a modelling framework to market forest conservation
as payment for ecosystem services benefiting hydropower generation, En-
viron. Conserv. 38 (2011) 473e484. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0376892911000464.
[41] A.L. Vogl, P.J. Dennedy-Frank, S. Wolny, J.A. Johnson, P. Hamel, U. Narain,
A. Vaidya, Managing forest ecosystem services for hydropower production,
Environ. Sci. Policy 61 (2016) 221e229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.
2016.04.014.
[42] S. Yang, B. Chen, Environmental impact of manwan hydropower plant on
river ecosystem service, Energy Procedia 61 (2014) 2721e2724. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.287.
[43] F. Culhane, H. Teixeira, A.J.A. Nogueira, F. Borgwardt, D. Trauner, A. Lillebø,
G.J. Piet, M. Kuemmerlen, H. McDonald, T. O'Higgins, A.L. Barbosa, J.T. van der
Wal, A. Iglesias-Campos, J. Arevalo-Torres, J. Barbiere, L.A. Robinsona, Risk to
the supply of ecosystem services across aquatic ecosystems, Sci. Total En-
viron. 660 (2019) 611e621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.346.
[44] R.A. Holland, N. Beaumont, T. Hooper, M. Austen, R.J.K. Gross, P.J. Heptonstall,
I. Ketsopoulou, M. Winskel, J. Watson, G. Taylor, Incorporating ecosystem
services into the design of future energy systems, Appl. Energy 222 (2018)
812e822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.022.
[45] P. Picchi, M. van Lierop, D. Geneletti, S. Stremke, Advancing the relationship
between renewable energy and ecosystem services for landscape planning
and design: a literature review, Ecosyst. Serv. 35 (2019) 241e259. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.010.
[46] D. Yates, D. Purkey, J. Sieber, A. Huber-Lee, H. Galbraith, WEAP21 e a de-
mand- priority- and preference-driven water planning model Part 2: aiding
freshwater ecosystem service evaluation, Water Int. 30 (2005) 501e512.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060508691894.
[47] J.H. Xiao, G.Q. Shi, C.M. Mao, Z.X. Xing, River ecosystem service function and
dam-construction, Chin. J. Ecol. 25 (2006) 969e973. http://en.cnki.com.cn/
Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-STXZ200608018.htm.
[48] J.H. Xiao, G.Q. Shi, C.M. Mao, M. Wang, Z.X. Xing, Evaluation of effects of dams
on river ecosystem service functions in China, Acta Ecol. Sin. 27 (2007)
526e537.
[49] C.M. Holmlund, M. Hammer, Effects of fish stocking on ecosystem services:
an overview and case study using the Stockholm Archipelago, J. Environ.
Manag. 33 (2004) 799e820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0051-8.
[50] Z. Guo, Y. Li, X. Xiao, L. Zhang, Y. Gan, Hydroelectricity production and forest
conservation in watersheds, Ecol. Appl. 17 (2007) 1557e1562. https://doi.
org/10.1890/06-0840.1.
[51] Z. Guo, L. Zhang, Y. Li, Increased dependence of humans on ecosystem ser-
vices and biodiversity, PLoS One 5 (2010) 1e8, https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0013113.
[52] B. Locatelli, P. Imbach, P. Vignola, M.J. Metzger, E.F.J. Hidalgo, Ecosystem
services and hydroelectricity in Central America: modelling service flows
with fuzzy logic and expert knowledge, Reg. Environ. Change 11 (2011)
393e404, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0149-x.
[53] H. Zheng, Y. Li, B.E. Robinson, G. Liu, D. Ma, F. Wang, F. Lu, Z. Ouyang,
G.C. Daily, Using ecosystem service trade-off to inform water conservation
policies and management practices, Front. Ecol. Environ. 14 (2016) 527e532,
https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1432.
[54] R.F. Bangash, A. Passuello, M. Sanchez-Canales, M. Terrado, A. Lo
pez,
F.J. Elorza, G. Ziv, V. Acun ~ a, M. Schuhmacher, Ecosystem services in Medi-
terranean river basin: climate change impact on water provisioning and
erosion control, Sci. Total Environ. 458e460 (2013) 246e255. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.04.025.
[55] R. Vignola, B. Gonzalez-Rodrigo, M. Marchamalo, T. McDaniels, A scenario
approach to assess stakeholder preferences for ecosystem services in agri-
cultural landscapes of Cost Rica, Reg. Environ. Change 17 (2017) 605e618.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1051-y.
[56] A.M. Deines, C.A. Bee, C. Katongo, R. Jensen, D.M. Lodge, The potential trade-
off between artisanal fisheries production and hydroelectricity generation on
the Kafue River, Zambia, Freshw. Biol. 58 (2013) 640e654. https://doi.org/10.
1111/fwb.12055.
[57] N. Pacini, K. Donabaum, P.H. de Villeneuve, R. Konecny, G. Pineschi,
Y. Pochon, F. Salerno, K. Schwaiger, G. Tartari, G. Wolfram, I. Zieritz, Water-
quality management in a vulnerable large river: the Nile in Egypt, Int. J. River
Basin Manag. 11 (2013) 205e219. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2013.
781032.
[58] L. Taft, M. Evers, A review of current and possible future humanewater
dynamics in Myanmar's river basins, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 20 (2016)
4913e4928. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4913-2016.
[59] S. Fanaian, S. Graas, Y. Jiang, P. van der Zaag, An ecological economic
assessment of flow regimes in a hydropower dominated river basin: the case
of the lower Zambezi River, Mozambique, Sci. Total Environ. 505 (2015)
464e473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.033.
[60] A.H. Arthington, A. Bhaduri, S.E. Bunn, S.E. Jackson, R.E. Tharme, D. Tickner,
B. Young, M. Acreman, N. Baker, S. Capon, A.C. Horne, E. Kendy, M.E. McClain,
N.L. Poff, B.D. Richter, S. Ward, The brisbane declaration and global action
agenda on environmental flows, Front. Environ. Sci. 6 (2018) 1e15. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00045.
[61] C. Pahl-Wostl, A. Arthington, J. Bogardi, S.E. Bunn, H. Hoff, L. Lebel, E. Nikitina,
M. Palmer, L.N. Poff, K. Richards, M. Schlüter, R. Schulze, A. St-Hilaire,
R. Tharme, K. Tockner, D. Tsegai, Environmental flows and water gover-
nance: managing sustainable water uses, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sust. 5 (2013)
341e351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.009.
[62] D.A. Auerbach, D.B. Deisenroth, R.R. McShane, K.E. McCluney, N.L. Poff,
Beyond the concrete: accounting for ecosystem services from free-flowing
rivers, Ecosyst. Serv. 10 (2014) 1e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.
07.005.
[63] World Bank Group, Environmental Flows for Hydropower Projects: Guidance
for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets, International Finance Corpora-
tion, Washington, 2018.
[64] R. Moreno, R. Ferreira, L. Barroso, H. Rudnick, E. Pereira, Facilitating the
 M.A. Esp
ecie et al. / Renewable Energy 140 (2019) 39e51
integration of renewables in Latin America: the role of hydropower gener-
ation and other energy storage technologies, IEEE Power Energy Mag. 15
(2017) 68e80, https://doi.org/10.1109/MPE.2017.2708862.
[65] A.R. Fernandez, S.A. Blumsack, P.M. Reed, Operational constraints and hy-
drologic variability limit hydropower in supporting wind integration, Envi-
ron. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 1e8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024037.
[66] E. Go
mez-Baggethun, M. Ruiz-Perez, Economic valuation and the commod-
ification of ecosystem services, Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35 (2011) 613e628.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311421708.
[67] S. Wunder, Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts,
CIFOR Occasional, 2005. Paper No. 42.
[68] B. Yu, L. Xu, Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55 (2016) 729e738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.10.038.
[69] R. Vignola, T.L. McDaniels, R.W. Scholz, Negotiation analysis for mechanisms
to deliver ecosystem services: the case of soil conservation in Costa Rica,
Ecol. Econ. 75 (2012) 22e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.01.004.
[70] D. Cook, B. Davíðsdo
ttir, D.M. Kristo

fersson, Willingness to pay for the
preservation of geothermal areas in Iceland e the contingent valuation
studies of Eldvo € rp and Hverahlíð, Renew. Energy 116 (2018) 97e108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.09.072.
[71] N. Periotto, J. Tundisi, Ecosystem Services of UHE Carlos Botelho (Lobo/Broa):
a new approach for management and planning of dams multiple-uses, Braz.
J. Biol. 73 (2013) 471e482, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-
69842013000300003.
[72] D. Zhao, J. Liu, X. Zhao, A new approach to assessing the water footprint of
hydropower: a case study of the Miyun reservoir in China, Acta Ecol. Sin. 34
(2014) 2787e2795, https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201306091530.
[73] M. Mattmann, I. Logar, R. Brouwer, Hydropower externalities: a meta-anal-
ysis, Energy Econ. 57 (2016) 66e77, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.eneco.2016.04.016.
[74] H. Hongyun, Z. Liange, Z. Tong, Estimating ecological value of small hydro-
power using contingent valuation method: an application to tongjiqiao
reservoir in Zhejiang province, China, Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 10
(2012) 87e95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2012.10685064.
[75] J.R. Kahn, W.F. Va
squez, C.E. Rezende, Choice modeling of system-wide or
large scale environmental change in a developing country context: lessons
from the Paraíba do Sul River, Sci. Total Environ. 598 (2017) 488e496.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.059.
[76] X.S. Chen, T.Q. Zhao, C. Li, H. Zheng, Economic cost-benefit analysis of a
hydropower development project based on different stakeholders: a case
study of Lancang River, China, Acta Ecol. Sin. 37 (2017) 4495e4504. https://
doi.org/10.5846/stxb201504100725.
[77] R. Constanza, P. Paquet, S. Halimi Kubiszewski, Hydropower development in
the lower Mekong basin: alternative approaches to deal with uncertainty,
Reg. Environ. Change 13 (2013) 3e15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-
0303-8.
[78] A. Tesfaye, N. Wolanions, R. Brouwer, Estimation of the economic value of
the ecosystem services provided by the Blue Nile Basin in Ethiopia, Ecosyst.
Serv. 17 (2016) 268e277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.008.
[79] A.K. Athanas, N. McCormick, Clean energy that safeguards ecosystems and
livelihoods: integrated assessments to unleash full sustainable potential for
renewable energy, Renew. Energy 49 (2013) 25e28. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2012.01.073.
[80] M.E. Arias, T.A. Cochrane, M. Kummu, H. Lauric, G.W. Holtgrieve, J. Koponen,
T. Piman, Impacts of hydropower and climate change on drivers of ecological
productivity of Southeast Asia's most important wetland, Ecol. Model. 272
(2014) 252e263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.10.015.
[81] M. Busch, A. La Notte, V. Laporte, M. Erhard, Potentials of quantitative and
qualitative approaches to assessing ecosystem services, Ecol. Indicat. 21
(2012) 89e103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.11.010.
[82] Q. Yang, G. Liu, M. Casazza, E.T. Campbell, B.F. Giannetti, M.T. Brown,
Development of a new framework for non-monetary accounting on
ecosystem services valuation, Ecosyst. Serv. 34 (2018) 37e54. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.09.006.
[83] L. Jones-Walters, I. Mulder, Valuing nature: the economics of biodiversity,
J. Nat. Conserv. 17 (2009) 245e247, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jnc.2009.06.001.
[84] I.J. Bateman, G.M. Mace, C. Fezzi, G. Atkinson, K. Turner, Economic analysis
for ecosystem service assessments, Environ. Resour. Econ. 48 (2011)
51
177e218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9418-x.
[85] R.S. de Groot, M.A. Wilson, R.M.J. Boumans, A typology for the classification,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services, Ecol.
Econ. 41 (2002) 393e408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7.
[86] B. Pandeya, W. Buytaerta, Z. Zulkafli, T. Karpouzoglou, F. Mao, D.M. Hannah,
A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for
application at the local scale and in data scarce regions, Ecosyst. Serv. 22
(2016) 250e259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.015.
[87] T. Egli, J. Bolliger, F. Kienast, Evaluating ecosystem service trade-offs with
wind electricity production in Switzerland, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67
(2017) 863e875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.074.
[88] A.R. Grilli, T.L. Insua, M. Spaulding, Protocol to include ecosystem service
constraints in a wind farm cost model, J. Environ. Eng. 139 (2013) 176e186.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000599.
[89] A. Bressler, P. Vidon, P. Hirsch, T. Volk, Valuation of ecosystem services of
commercial shrub willow (Salix spp.) woody biomass crops, Environ. Monit.
Assess. 189 (2017) 1e14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-5841-6.
[90] J. Ainscough, A.V. Lentsch, M. Metzger, M. Rounsevell, M. Schro € ter,
B. Delbaere, R. de Groot, J. Staes, Navigating pluralism: understanding per-
ceptions of the ecosystem services concept, Ecosyst. Serv. 36 (2019), 100892.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.01.004.
[91] N.M. Evans, Ecosystem services: on idealization and understanding
complexity, Ecol. Econ. 156 (2019) 427e430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2018.10.014.
[92] Y. Laurans, A. Rankovic, R. Bille
, R. Pirard, L. Mermet, Use of ecosystem ser-
vices economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature
blindspot, J. Environ. Manag. 119 (2013) 208e219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2013.01.008.
[93] M. Ruckelshaus, E. McKenzie, H. Tallis, A. Guerry, G. Daily, P. Kareiva,
S. Polasky, T. Ricketts, N. Bhagabati, S.A. Wood, J. Bernhardt, Notes from the
field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform
real-world decisions, Ecol. Econ. 115 (2015) 11e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2013.07.009.
[94] F. Landsberg, J. Treweek, M.M. Stickler, N. Henninger, O. Venn, Weaving
Ecosystem Services into Impact Assessment: a Step-by-step Method, World
Resources Institute, Washington, 2013, ISBN 978-1-56973-811-5.
[95] J.C.S. Rosa, L.E. Sanchez, Advances and challenges of incorporating ecosystem
services into impact assessment, J. Environ. Manag. 180 (2016) 485e492.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.079.
[96] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:
Wetlands and Water Synthesis, World Resources Institute, Washington DC,
2005, ISBN 1-56973-597-2.
[97] D.E. Bennett, H. Gosnell, S. Lurie, S. Duncan, Utility engagement with pay-
ments for watershed services in the United States, Ecosyst. Serv. 8 (2014)
56e64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.02.001.
[98] S. Engel, M. Schaefer, Ecosystem services d a useful concept for addressing
water challenges? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 (2013) 696e707. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.010.
[99] J. Martin-Ortega, E. Ojea, C. Roux, Payments for Water Ecosystem Services in
Latin America: a literature review and conceptual model, Ecosyst. Serv. 6
(2013) 122e132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.008.
[100] A.D. Guerry, S. Polasky, J. Lubchenco, R. Chaplin-Kramer, G.C. Daily, R. Griffin,
M. Ruckelshaus, I.J. Bateman, A. Duraiappah, T. Elmqvist, M.W. Feldmanm,
C. Folke, J. Hoekstra, P.M. Kareiva, B.L. Keeler, S. Li, E. McKenzie, Z. Ouyang,
B. Reyers, T.H. Ricketts, J. Rockstro €m, H. Tallis, B. Vira, Natural capital and
ecosystem services informing decisions: from promise to practice, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U. S. A 112 (2015) 7348e7355. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1503751112.
[101] Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services: Summary for Policymakers of the Regional Assessment Report on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for the Americas of the Intergovern-
mental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services,
2018, ISBN 978-3-947851-01-0.
[102] T. Luz, P. Moura, A. Almeida, Multi-objective power generation expansion
planning with high penetration of renewables, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
81 (2018) 2637e2643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.069.
[103] J.P. Gouveia, L. Dias, I. Martins, J. Seixas, Effects of renewables penetration on
the security of Portuguese electricity supply, Appl. Energy 123 (2014)
438e447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.01.038.