The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping

Abstract

Publications on the modelling and mapping of ecosystem services (ESs) have increased exponentially in recent years. In this literature, a call for integrated environmental assessment is increasingly made, even if, in the ES context, the concept of integration remains fuzzy and can refer to different elements. First, this review paper attempts to clarify to which elements the word ‘integration’ is attributable in the ES literature. Integrated assessment can refer to the consideration of pluralistic values, the attention paid to several ESs and ecosystems, the accounting for multiple spatial and temporal scales, the implication of different stakeholders or the combination of techniques stemming from different disciplines. Second, this paper provides a review of the latest advances in the literature on mapping ESs, from the ecological to the economic perspective, in order to illustrate what can be done and what progress remains to be made to perform integrated and spatially explicit assessments of ESs. Third, this paper reviews examples of studies performing integrated assessments using the different meanings integration can take. Finally, it concludes by presenting the remaining challenges that research on this topic faces to perform fully integrated spatial assessments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.fsd.nl/esp/79222/5/0/5

  2. 2.

    http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/

  3. 3.

    http://www.esmeralda-project.eu/

  4. 4.

    http://www.ipbes.net/

  5. 5.

    Evaluation Française des Ecosystèmes et Services Ecosystémiques http://www.fondationbiodiversite.fr/fr/societe/avec-la-societe/appui-a-la-decision/appui-a-l-evaluation/efese.html

  6. 6.

    EU initiative on Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/index_en.htm

  7. 7.

    United Kingdom National Ecosystem Assessment: http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/

  8. 8.

    Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services: https://www.wavespartnership.org/

  9. 9.

    In agro-ecosystems for instance, farmers may benefit from ESs (ESs are, thus, production factors like other anthropogenic inputs), but they may also co-produce services to the society (Swinton et al. 2007; Zhang et al. 2007). ESs flowing to and flowing from managed ecosystems then have to be distinguished even if they are both influenced by land use practices. A typology of ES benefits derived by farmers and ESs co-produced by farmers to the society can be found in Zhang et al. (2007) or Garbach et al. (2014).

  10. 10.

    ARIES: Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services. For more information on the tool, refer to Villa et al. (2009). InVEST: Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs (Kareiva et al. 2011). For a mapping tool comparison, the reader can refer to Bagstad et al. (2013b, c).

  11. 11.

    In economics, the concept of a change is fundamental to defining values. Economists measure the value of a change from a baseline (pre-policy) level of some price or quantity variable to an alternative (post-policy) level (Polasky and Segerson 2009).

  12. 12.

    The search entered in Scopus was ‘(TITLE-ABS-KEY (mapping AND ecosystem AND services) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (mapping AND ecosystem AND service) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (integrated) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (integrated AND valuation) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (integrated AND assessment))’. The same search results to 92 papers in Web of Science ISI Web of knowledge.

  13. 13.

    Here, the scales described should be distinguished from the map resolution. For an assessment of the effect of resolution on ES assessments, see Grêt-Regamey et al. (2015b).

References

  1. Abson, D., Termansen, M., Pascual, U., Aslam, U., Fezzi, C., & Bateman, I. (2014). Valuing climate change effects upon UK agricultural GHG emissions: spatial analysis of a regulating ecosystem service. Environmental and Resource Economics, 57, 215–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alkemade, R., Oorschot, M., Miles, L., Nellemann, C., Bakkenes, M., & ten Brink, B. (2009). GLOBIO3: a framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems, 12, 374–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baerenklau, K.A. (2010). A Latent class approach to modeling endogenous spatial sorting in zonal recreation demand models. Land Economics, 86, 800–816.

  4. Baerenklau, K.A., González-Cabán, A., Paez, C., & Chavez, E. (2010). Spatial allocation of forest recreation value. Journal of Forest Economics, 16, 113–126.

  5. Bagstad, K. J., Johnson, G. W., Voigt, B., & Villa, F. (2013a). Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services, 4, 117–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D. J., Waage, S., & Winthrop, R. (2013b). A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosystem Services, 5, 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D. J., & Winthrop, R. (2013c). Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: a case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona. Ecosystem Services, 5, 40–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Balbi, S., Prado, A. D., Gallejones, P., Geevan, C. P., Pardo, G., Pérez-Miñana, E., Manrique, R., Hernandez-Santiago, C., & Villa, F. (2015). Modeling trade-offs among ecosystem services in agricultural production systems. Environmental Modelling & Software, 72, 314–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Baral, H., Keenan, R.J., Stork, N.E., Kasel, S., 2014. Measuring and managing ecosystem goods and services in changing landscapes: a south-east Australian perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57, 961–983.

  10. Baró, F., Palomo, I., Zulian, G., Vizcaino, P., Haase, D., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2016). Mapping ecosystem service capacity, flow and demand for landscape and urban planning: a case study in the Barcelona metropolitan region. Land Use Policy, 57, 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Barraquand, F., & Martinet, V. (2011). Biological conservation in dynamic agricultural landscapes: effectiveness of public policies and trade-offs with agricultural production. Ecological Economics, 70, 910–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bastian, O., Syrbe, R.-U., Rosenberg, M., Rahe, D., & Grunewald, K. (2013). The five pillar EPPS framework for quantifying, mapping and managing ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 4, 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bateman, I. J., Ennew, C., Lovett, A. A., & Rayner, A. J. (1999). Modelling and mapping agricultural output values using farm specific details and environmental databases. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50, 488–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bateman, I. J., Day, B. H., Georgiou, S., & Lake, I. (2006). The aggregation of environmental benefit values: welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP. Ecological Economics, 60, 450–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bateman, I. J., Brouwer, R., Ferrini, S., Schaafsma, M., Barton, D., Dubgaard, A., Hasler, B., Hime, S., Liekens, I., Navrud, S., De Nocker, L., Ščeponavičiūtė, R., & Semėnienė, D. (2011). Making benefit transfers work: deriving and testing principles for value transfers for similar and dissimilar sites using a case study of the non-market benefits of water quality improvements across Europe. Environmental and Resource Economics, 50, 365–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bateman, I. J., Harwood, A. R., Abson, D. J., Andrews, B., Crowe, A., Dugdale, S., Fezzi, C., Foden, J., Hadley, D., Haines-Young, R., Hulme, M., Kontoleon, A., Munday, P., Pascual, U., Paterson, J., Perino, G., Sen, A., Siriwardena, G., & Termansen, M. (2014). Economic analysis for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment: synthesis and scenario valuation of changes in ecosystem services. Environmental and Resource Economics, 57, 273–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Baveye, P. C., Baveye, J., & Gowdy, J. (2016). Soil “ecosystem” services and natural capital: critical appraisal of research on uncertain ground. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 4(41), 1–49.

  18. Bockstael, N. E., Freeman, A. M., Kopp, R. J., Portney, P. R., & Smith, V. K. (2000). On measuring economic values for nature. Environmental Science &Technology, 34, 1384–1389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Boyd, J. W. (2008). Location, location, location: the geography of ecosystem services. Resources for the Future, 170, 11–15.

  20. Brander, L. M., Brauer, I., Gerdes, H., Ghermandi, A., Kuik, O., Markandya, A., Navrud, S., Nunes, P. A. L. D., Schaafsma, M., Vos, H., & Wagtendonk, A. (2012). Using meta-analysis and GIS for value transfer and scaling up: valuing climate change induced losses of European wetlands. Environmental and Resource Economics, 52, 395–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brouwer, R., Langford, I. H., Bateman, I. J., & Turner, R. K. (1999). A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies. Regional Environmental Change, 1, 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Brown, G., & Fagerholm, N. (2015). Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services, 13, 119–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brunner, S. H., Huber, R., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2016). A backcasting approach for matching regional ecosystem services supply and demand. Environmental Modelling & Software, 75, 439–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bryce, R., Irvine, K. N., Church, A., Fish, R., Ranger, S., & Kenter, J. O. (2016). Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 21(Part B), 258–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Burkhard, B., & Maes, J. (2017). Ecosystem services mapping book. Sofia: Pensoft Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., & Müller, F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21, 17–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Burkhard, B., Crossman, N., Nedkov, S., Petz, K., & Alkemade, R. (2013). Mapping and modelling ecosystem services for science, policy and practice. Ecosystem Services, 4, 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cabral, P., Feger, C., Levrel, H., Chambolle, M., & Basque, D. (2016). Assessing the impact of land-cover changes on ecosystem services: a first step toward integrative planning in Bordeaux, France. Ecosystem Services, 22, 318–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cameron, T.A. (2006). Directional heterogeneity in distance profiles in hedonic property value models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 51, 26–45.

  30. Campbell, D., Scarpa, R., & Hutchinson, W. G. (2008). Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 1, 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Carbone, J. C., & Kerry Smith, V. (2013). Valuing nature in a general equilibrium. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 66, 72–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R. S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A. K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H. M., Perrings, C., Reid, W. V., Sarukhan, J., Scholes, R. J., & Whyte, A. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 1305–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Carré, G., Roche, P., Chifflet, R., Morison, N., Bommarco, R., Harrison-Cripps, J., Krewenka, K., Potts, S. G., Roberts, S. P. M., Rodet, G., Settele, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Szentgyörgyi, H., Tscheulin, T., Westphal, C., Woyciechowski, M., & Vaissière, B. E. (2009). Landscape context and habitat type as drivers of bee diversity in European annual crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 133, 40–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Chakir, R., & Le Gallo, J. (2013). Predicting land use allocation in France: a spatial panel data analysis. Ecological Economics, 92, 114–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Costanza R. (2008). Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation, 141, 350–352.

  36. Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., Groot, R. D., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & Belt, M. V. D. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Anglais, 387, 253–260.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Crossman, N. D., & Bryan, B. A. (2009). Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multifunctionality. Ecological Economics, 68, 654–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Crossman, N. D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, I., Drakou, E. G., Martín-Lopez, B., McPhearson, T., Boyanova, K., Alkemade, R., Egoh, B., Dunbar, M. B., & Maes, J. (2013). A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 4, 4–14.

  39. Czajkowski, M., Budziński, W., Campbell, D., Giergiczny, M., & Hanley, N. (2016). Spatial heterogeneity of willingness to pay for forest management. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1–23.

  40. Daily, G. C., Kareiva, P., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T., & Tallis, H. (2011). Mainstreaming natural capital into decisions. In P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T. H. Ricketts, G. C. Daily, & S. E. Polasky (Eds.), Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Darvill, R., & Lindo, Z. (2015). Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values. Ecosystem Services, 13, 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dick, J., Maes, J., Smith, R. I., Paracchini, M. L., & Zulian, G. (2014). Cross-scale analysis of ecosystem services identified and assessed at local and European level. Ecological Indicators, 38, 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dunford, R. W., Smith, A. C., Harrison, P. A., & Hanganu, D. (2015). Ecosystem service provision in a changing Europe: adapting to the impacts of combined climate and socio-economic change. Landscape Ecology, 30, 443–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Eade, J. D. O., & Moran, D. (1996). Spatial economic valuation: benefits transfer using geographical information systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 48, 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Egarter Vigl, L., Depellegrin, D., Pereira, P., de Groot, R., & Tappeiner, U. (2017). Mapping the ecosystem service delivery chain: capacity, flow, and demand pertaining to aesthetic experiences in mountain landscapes. Science of the Total Environment, 574, 422–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Richardson, D. M., Le Maitre, D. C., & van Jaarsveld, A. S. (2008). Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 127, 135–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Eigenbrod, F., Armsworth, P. R., Anderson, B. J., Heinemeyer, A., Gillings, S., Roy, D. B., Thomas, C. D., & Gaston, K. J. (2010). The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47, 377–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Garbach, K., Milder, J. C., Montenegro, M., Karp, D. S., & DeClerck, F. A. J. (2014). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems. Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems, 2, 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. García-Nieto, A. P., García-Llorente, M., Iniesta-Arandia, I., & Martín-López, B. (2013). Mapping forest ecosystem services: from providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosystem Services, 4, 126–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. García-Nieto, A. P., Quintas-Soriano, C., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Montes, C., & Martín-López, B. (2015). Collaborative mapping of ecosystem services: the role of stakeholders′ profiles. Ecosystem Services, 13, 141–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Geneletti, D. (2013). Assessing the impact of alternative land-use zoning policies on future ecosystem services. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Geneletti, D. (2016). Handbook on biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Barton, D. N. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69, 1209–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Barton, D., Braat, L., Saarikoski Kelemen, H., García-Llorente, M., van den Bergh, J., Arias, P., Berry, P., Potschin, M., Keene, H., Dunford, R., Schröter-Schlaack, P., Harrison, P.A. (2014). State-of-the-art report on integrated valuation of ecosystem services. In FP7, E.C. (Ed.), EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 4.1.

  57. Grêt-Regamey, A., Weibel, B., Kienast, F., Rabe, S.-E., & Zulian, G. (2015a). A tiered approach for mapping ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 13, 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Grêt-Regamey, A., Weibel, B., Bagstad, K. J., Ferrari, M., Geneletti, D., Klug, H., Schirpke, U., & Tappeiner, U. (2015b). On the effects of scale for ecosystem services mapping. PLoS One, 9, e112601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In D. Raffaelli & C. Frid (Eds.), Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis. BES ecological reviews series (pp. 110–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., & Kienast, F. (2012). Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: mapping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecological Indicators, 21, 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Hanley, N., Schlapfer, F., & Spurgeon, J. (2003). Aggregating benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 297–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Häyhä, T., Franzese, P. P., Paletto, A., & Fath, B. D. (2015). Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests. Ecosystem Services, 14, 12–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S., & van Ierland, E. C. (2006). Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57, 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Jakeman, A. J., & Letcher, R. A. (2003). Integrated assessment and modelling: features, principles and examples for catchment management. Environmental Modelling & Software, 18(6), 491–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Johnson, K. A., Polasky, S., Nelson, E., & Pennington, D. (2012). Uncertainty in ecosystem services valuation and implications for assessing land use tradeoffs: an agricultural case study in the Minnesota River Basin. Ecological Economics, 79, 71–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Jørgensen, S. L., Olsen, S. B., Ladenburg, J., Martinsen, L., Svenningsen, S. R., & Hasler, B. (2013). Spatially induced disparities in users’ and non-users’ WTP for water quality improvements—testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay. Ecological Economics, 92, 58–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., & Müller, F. (2013). Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution. Ecosystem Services, 4, 47–59.

  68. Kareiva, P., Tallis, H., Ricketts, T. H., Daily, G. C., & Polasky, S. (2011). Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Kelly, R. A., Jakeman, A. J., Barreteau, O., Borsuk, M. E., ElSawah, S., Hamilton, S. H., Henriksen, H. J., Kuikka, S., Maier, H. R., Rizzoli, A. E., van Delden, H., & Voinov, A. A. (2013). Selecting among five common modelling approaches for integrated environmental assessment and management. Environmental Modelling & Software, 47, 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Kreuter, U. P., Harris, H. G., Matlock, M. D., & Lacey, R. E. (2001). Change in ecosystem service values in the San Antonio area, Texas. Ecological Economics, 39, 333–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Landuyt, D., Van der Biest, K., Broekx, S., Staes, J., Meire, P., & Goethals, P. L. M. (2015). A GIS plug-in for Bayesian belief networks: towards a transparent software framework to assess and visualise uncertainties in ecosystem service mapping. Environmental Modelling & Software, 71, 30–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Landuyt, D., Broekx, S., Engelen, G., Uljee, I., Van der Meulen, M., & Goethals, P. L. M. (2016). The importance of uncertainties in scenario analyses—a study on future ecosystem service delivery in Flanders. Science of the Total Environment, 553, 504–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M., Garden, D., Girel, J., Pellet, G., & Douzet, R. (2011). Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services. Journal of Ecology, 99, 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Lee, K. H., & Schuett, M. A. (2014). Exploring spatial variations in the relationships between residents’ recreation demand and associated factors: a case study in Texas. Applied Geography, 53, 213–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Loomis, J. B., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2006). Reducing barriers in future benefit transfers: needed improvements in primary study design and reporting. Ecological Economics, 60, 343–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Luck, G. W., Harrington, R., Harrison, P. A., Kremen, C., Berry, P. M., Bugter, R., Dawson, T. P., de Bello, F., Díaz, S., Feld, C. K., Haslett, J. R., Hering, D., Kontogianni, A., Lavorel, S., Rounsevell, M., Samways, M. J., Sandin, L., Settele, J., Sykes, M. T., van den Hove, S., Vandewalle, M., & Zobel, M. (2009). Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. Bioscience, 59, 223–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J. P., Grizzetti, B., Drakou, E. G., Notte, A. L., Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F., Luisa Paracchini, M., Braat, L., & Bidoglio, G. (2012). Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services, 1, 31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Maes, J., Crossman, N. D., & Burkhard, B. (2016). Mapping ecosystem services. In M. Potschin, R. Haines-Young, R. Fish, & R. K. Turner (Eds.), Routledge handbook of ecosystem services. Oxford: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Mandle, L., & Tallis, H. (2016). Spatial ecosystem service analysis for environmental impact assessment of projects. In D. Geneletti (Ed.), Biodiversity and ecosystem service in impact assessment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Marcot, B. G., Steventon, J. D., Sutherland, G. D., & McCann, R. K. (2006). Guidelines for developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and conservation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 36, 3063–3074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M., & Montes, C. (2014). Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators, 37(Part A), 220–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Mendoza-González, G., Martínez, M. L., Lithgow, D., Pérez-Maqueo, O., & Simonin, P. (2012). Land use change and its effects on the value of ecosystem services along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Ecological Economics, 82, 23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Murdoch, W., Polasky, S., Wilson, K., Possingham, H., Kareiva, P., & Shaw, R. (2007). Maximizing return on investment in conservation. Biological Conservation, 139, 375–388.

  84. Naidoo, R., & Ricketts, T. H. (2006). Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biology, 4, e360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Green, R. E., Lehner, B., Malcolm, T. R., & Ricketts, T. H. (2008). Ecosystem services special feature: global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. PNAS, 105, 9495–9500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Navrud, S., & Mungatana, E. D. (1994). Environmental valuation in developing countries: the recreational value of wildlife viewing. Ecological Economics, 11, 135–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Nelson, J., & Kennedy, P. (2009). The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and natural resource economics: an assessment. Environmental and Resource Economics, 42, 345–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., Chan, K. M. A., Daily, G. C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T. H., & Shaw, M. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Nunes, P., & van den Bergh, J. (2001). Economic valuation of biodiversity: sense or nonsense? Ecological Economics, 39, 203–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., & Montes, C. (2013). National parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosystem Services, 4, 104–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Panduro, T. E., & Veie, K. L. (2013). Classification and valuation of urban green spaces—a hedonic house price valuation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 120, 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Muradian, R. (2014). Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience, 64, 1027–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Başak Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S., Al-Hafedh, Y. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., Berry, P., Bilgin, A., Breslow, S. J., Bullock, C., Cáceres, D., Daly-Hassen, H., Figueroa, E., Golden, C. D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., González-Jiménez, D., Houdet, J., Keune, H., Kumar, R., Ma, K., May, P. H., Mead, A., O’Farrell, P., Pandit, R., Pengue, W., Pichis-Madruga, R., Popa, F., Preston, S., Pacheco-Balanza, D., Saarikoski, H., Strassburg, B. B., van den Belt, M., Verma, M., Wickson, F., & Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Pennington, D. N., Dalzell, B., Nelson, E., Mulla, D., Taff, S., Hawthorne, P., & Polasky, S. (2017). Cost-effective land use planning: optimizing land use and land management patterns to maximize social benefits. Ecological Economics, 139, 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Perino, G., Andrews, B., Kontoleon, A., & Bateman, I. (2014). The value of urban green space in Britain: a methodological framework for spatially referenced benefit transfer. Environmental and Resource Economics, 57, 251–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Plummer, M. L. (2009). Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 38–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Polasky, S., & Segerson, K. (2009). Integrating ecology and economics in the study of ecosystem services: some lessons learned. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1, 409–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Lonsdorf, E., Fackler, P., & Starfield, A. (2005). Conserving species in a working landscape: land use with biological and economic objectives. Ecological Applications, 15, 1387–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Camm, J., Csuti, B., Fackler, P., Lonsdorf, E., Montgomery, C., White, D., Arthur, J., Garber-Yonts, B., Haight, R., Kagan, J., Starfield, A., & Tobalske, C. (2008). Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biological Conservation, 141, 1505–1524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Pennington, D., & Johnson, K. (2011). The impact of land-use change on ecosystem services, biodiversity and returns to landowners: a case study in the state of Minnesota. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 219–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Reyers, B., O’Farrell, P. J., Cowling, R. M., Egoh, B. N., Le Maitre, D. C., & Vlok, J. H. J. (2009). Ecosystem services, land-cover change, and stakeholders: finding a sustainable foothold for a semiarid biodiversity hotspot. Ecology and Society, 14, 38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Rodríguez, N., Armenteras, D., & Retana, J. (2015). National ecosystems services priorities for planning carbon and water resource management in Colombia. Land Use Policy, 42, 609–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Ruijs, A., Kortelainen, M., Wossink, A., Schulp, C. J. E., & Alkemade, R. (2015). Opportunity cost estimation of ecosystem services. Environmental and Resource Economics, 1–31.

  104. Saarikoski, H., Mustajoki, J., Barton, D. N., Geneletti, D., Langemeyer, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Marttunen, M., Antunes, P., Keune, H., & Santos, R. (2016). Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis: comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 22(Part B), 238–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Schaafsma, M., Brouwer, R., & Rose, J. (2012). Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 79, 21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Schaafsma, M., Brouwer, R., Gilbert, A., van den Bergh, J., & Wagtendonk, A. (2013). Estimation of distance-decay functions to account for substitution and spatial heterogeneity in stated preference research. Land Economics, 89, 514–537.

  107. Schägner, J. P., Brander, L., Maes, J., & Hartje, V. (2013). Mapping ecosystem services’ values: current practice and future prospects. Ecosystem Services, 4, 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Schläpfer, F., Waltert, F., Segura, L., & Kienast, F. (2015). Valuation of landscape amenities: a hedonic pricing analysis of housing rents in urban, suburban and periurban Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 141, 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Schröter, D., Cramer, W., Leemans, R., Prentice, I. C., Araújo, M. B., Arnell, N. W., Bondeau, A., Bugmann, H., Carter, T. R., Gracia, C. A., de la Vega-Leinert, A. C., Erhard, M., Ewert, F., Glendining, M., House, J. I., Kankaanpää, S., Klein, R. J. T., Lavorel, S., Lindner, M., Metzger, M. J., Meyer, J., Mitchell, T. D., Reginster, I., Rounsevell, M., Sabaté, S., Sitch, S., Smith, B., Smith, J., Smith, P., Sykes, M. T., Thonicke, K., Thuiller, W., Tuck, G., Zaehle, S., & Zierl, B. (2005). Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science, 310, 1333–1337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Schröter, M., Barton, D. N., Remme, R. P., & Hein, L. (2014a). Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: a conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecological Indicators, 36, 539–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Schröter, M., Rusch, G. M., Barton, D. N., Blumentrath, S., & Nordén, B. (2014b). Ecosystem services and opportunity costs shift spatial priorities for conserving forest biodiversity. PLoS One, 9, e112557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Scolozzi, R., & Geneletti, D. (2012). Assessing habitat connectivity for land-use planning: a method integrating landscape graphs and Delphi survey. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55, 813–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Sen, A., Harwood, A., Bateman, I., Munday, P., Crowe, A., Brander, L., Raychaudhuri, J., Lovett, A., Foden, J., & Provins, A. (2014). Economic assessment of the recreational value of ecosystems: methodological development and national and local application. Environmental and Resource Economics, 57, 233–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Seppelt, R., Dormann, C. F., Eppink, F. V., Lautenbach, S., & Schmidt, S. (2011). A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 630–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Shrestha, R. K., Seidl, A. F., & Moraes, A. S. (2002). Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models. Ecological Economics, 42, 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Smith, V. K., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2002). Is meta-analysis a Noah’s ark for non-market valuation. Environmental & Resource Economics, 22, 271–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Swetnam, R. D., Fisher, B., Mbilinyi, B. P., Munishi, P. K. T., Willcock, S., Ricketts, T., Mwakalila, S., Balmford, A., Burgess, N. D., Marshall, A. R., & Lewis, S. L. (2011). Mapping socio-economic scenarios of land cover change: a GIS method to enable ecosystem service modelling. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 563–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Swinton, S. M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G. P., & Hamilton, S. K. (2007). Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics, 64, 245–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Syrbe, R.-U., & Walz, U. (2012). Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators, 21, 80–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Tallis, H., & Polasky, S. (2011). Assessing multiple ecosystem services: an integrated tool for the real world. In P. Kareiva, H. Tallis, T. H. Ricketts, G. C. Daily, & S. E. Polasky (Eds.), Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Tardieu, L. (2016). Economic evaluation of the impacts of transportation infrastructures on ecosystem services. Chapter 6, In Handbook on biodiversity and ecosystem services in impact assessment. D. Geneletti (ed). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

  122. Tardieu, L., & Crossman, N. D. (2017). Application of ecosystem services maps in business and industry. In B. Burkhard & J. Maes (Eds.), Ecosystem services mapping book. Sofia: Pensoft Publishers p. Advanced Books.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Tardieu, L., Roussel, S., Thompson, J. D., Labarraque, D., & Salles, J.-M. (2015). Combining direct and indirect impacts to assess ecosystem service loss due to infrastructure construction. Journal of Environmental Management, 152, 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. TEEB (2012). The economics of ecosystems and bio-diversity in business and enterprise. In Earthscan (Ed.), Joshua Bishop, New York.

  125. Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio, 43, 579–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Troy, A., & Wilson, M. A. (2006). Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics, 60, 435–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011). The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: synthesis of the key findings. In UNEP-WCMC (Ed.), Cambridge.

  128. UNEP-WCMC (2011). Developing ecosystem services indicators: experiences and lessons from sub global assessment and other initiatives, Technical Series. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal, p. 118 p.

  129. Verburg, P. H., Eickhout, B., & van Meijl, H. (2008). A multi-scale, multi-model approach for analyzing the future dynamics of European land use. The Annals of Regional Science, 42, 57–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Verburg, H. P., Soepboer, W., Veldkamp, A., Limpiada, R., Espaldon, V., & Mastura, S. A. S. (2014). Modeling the spatial dynamics of regional land use: the CLUE-S model. Environmental Management, 30, 391–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Verkerk, P. J., Levers, C., Kuemmerle, T., Lindner, M., Valbuena, R., Verburg, P. H., & Zudin, S. (2015). Mapping wood production in European forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 357, 228–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Villa, F., Ceroni, M., Bagstad, K., Johnson, G., Krivov, S. (2009). ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services): a new tool for ecosystem services assessment, planning, and valuation. 11th annual BIOECON conference on economic instruments to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, conference proceedings. Venice.

  133. Villa, F., Bagstad, K. J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G. W., Portela, R., Honzák, M., & Batker, D. (2014). A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLoS One, 9, e91001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Villamagna, A. M., Angermeier, P. L., & Bennett, E. M. (2013). Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity, 15, 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Wicke, B., van der Hilst, F., Daioglou, V., Banse, M., Beringer, T., Gerssen-Gondelach, S., Heijnen, S., Karssenberg, D., Laborde, D., Lippe, M., van Meijl, H., Nassar, A., Powell, J., Prins, A. G., Rose, S. N. K., Smeets, E. M. W., Stehfest, E., Tyner, W. E., Verstegen, J. A., Valin, H., van Vuuren, D. P., Yeh, S., & Faaij, A. P. C. (2015). Model collaboration for the improved assessment of biomass supply, demand, and impacts. GCB Bioenergy, 7, 422–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Willemen, L., Burkhard, B., Crossman, N., Drakou, E. G., & Palomo, I. (2015). Editorial: Best practices for mapping ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 13, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Wolff, S., Schulp, C. J. E., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Mapping ecosystem services demand: a review of current research and future perspectives. Ecological Indicators, 55, 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Woodward, R. T., & Wui, Y.-S. (2001). The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 37, 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Zhang, W., Ricketts, T. H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., & Swinton, S. M. (2007). Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics, 64, 253–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This review paper is part of the ADOSE-CAPP project coordinated by Vincent Martinet and supported by the meta-programme, EcoServ (INRA). I would like to thank Jens Abildtrup, Serge Garcia, the editor Julien Salanié and two anonymous referees for their useful comments that significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the ‘Investissements d’Avenir’ programme (ANR-11-LABX-0002-01, Lab of Excellence ARBRE).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Léa Tardieu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tardieu, L. The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping. Rev Agric Food Environ Stud 98, 173–200 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-017-0054-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Economic valuation
  • Ecosystem service assessment
  • Ecosystem service mapping
  • Integrated assessment
  • Integrated valuation