Ecosystem service framework and typology for an ecosystem approach to aquaculture

The ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA) considers ecosystem services (ES) important, but does not provide a conceptual framework or a typology to integrate and assess them. To supplement the EAA, a literature review of the ES conceptual framework and ES typologies was combined with selected criteria from the EAA and ES literature. Eight criteria of transition from a conventional approach to aquaculture to the EAA were used as selection criteria to choose a conceptual framework of ES relevant with the EAA. To select a typology, we determined that ES must be distinguished from benefits, be a part of nature, be usable directly and indirectly, and not contain support or habitat ES. The conceptual framework of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is the most compatible with the EAA but does not provide an ES typology. The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) provides the ES typology most consistent with EAA criteria to supplement the conceptual framework. We identified 10 provisioning ES, 20 regulation and maintenance ES, and 11 cultural ES. Integration of the IPBES conceptual framework with the CICES typology preserves the generic approach of the EAA. This integration could highlight the main interactions among an aquaecosystem, its ES supply, its management, and its relevant stakeholders at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Moreover, it fulfils the three main goals of the EAA by identifying them in a clear and common framework. •IPBES is the conceptual framework of ecosystem services most consistent with the EAA•CICES provides the typology of ecosystem services most consistent with the EAA.•Aquaculture systems potentially provide 41 ecosystem services.