Average rating: | Rated 4 of 5. |
Level of importance: | Rated 3 of 5. |
Level of validity: | Rated 4 of 5. |
Level of completeness: | Rated 4 of 5. |
Level of comprehensibility: | Rated 4 of 5. |
Competing interests: | None |
This article is a valuable contribution to the literature on ecosystem accounting for urban areas, particularly in light of the recent acceptance of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting as an international standard. It includes an inventory of publicly available datasets and assesses their suitability for ecosystem accounting for London, UK.
The authors provide a useful identification of datasets on extent, condition and services that could be used to develop accounts for London, but also highlight the significant gaps and limitations in topical coverage and temporal resolution. They identified challenges in integrating these data sets into annual accounting tables, given temporal and spatial incompatibilities between sources. Their findings highlights some of the challenges faced by researchers, National Statistical Organizations and others to develop integrated ecosystem accounts. The authors’ conclusions and identified next steps, which focus on improving publicly available data sources, standards and improved an improved interdisciplinary focus, seem justified.
One area that was not examined by this study and that might be a focus of future work, might be methods or practices that can be used to integrate these disparate data sources and/or how to apply modeling to improve the gaps with existing information. As a starting point, a table that integrates the best quality data from the inventory for a given year might help show what is/is not available and help clarify which data (extent, condition, services) are most needed. Alternatively, an identification of policy needs that could serve to prioritize data development for London.
The paper is clearly written.