Mapping ES - Burkhard and Maes

edited by
Mapping Ecosystem Services

Mapping
Ecosystem Services
edited by
Benjamin Burkhard &
Joachim Maes
MAPPING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Edited by: Benjamin Burkhard, Joachim Maes
The content of the book is partially funded by the project En-

hancing ecosystem services mapping for policy and decision mak-
ing (ESMERALDA), which receives funding from the European
Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under
grant agreement No. 642007.
The publication of the book is funded by the EU and Leibniz Universitt Hannover.
The editors and several authors of this book are members of the Thematic Working Group
Ecosystem Services Partnership
on Mapping Ecosystem Services of the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP).
Citation: Burkhard B, Maes J (Eds.) (2017) Mapping Ecosystem Services. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia,
374 pp.
First published 2017

ISBN 978-954-642-829-5 (Hardback)
ISBN 978-954-642-852-3 (Paperback)
ISBN 978-954-642-830-1 (e-book)
Pensoft Publishers
12, Prof. Georgi Zlatarski Str.
1111 Sofia, Bulgaria
e-mail: info@pensoft.net
www.pensoft.net
All content is Open Access, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided that the original author and source are credited.
Disclaimer: The opinions and arguments expressed herein belong entirely to the authors. Their
views do not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission, Leibniz Universitt, the editors
or the reviewers.
Printed in Bulgaria, March 2017

Contents
List of contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chapter 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Chapter 2. Background ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.1. A short history of the ecosystem services concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.2. A natural base for ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

2.3. From nature to society. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.4. Categorisation systems: The classification challenge. . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Chapter 3. Background mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.1. Basics of cartography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2. Mapping techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.3. Map semantics and syntactics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.4. Tools for mapping ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.5. Mapping ecosystem types and conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.6. Landscape metrics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.7. Specific challenges of mapping ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Chapter 4. Ecosystem services quantification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.1. Biophysical quantification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.2. Socio-cultural valuation approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.3. Economic quantification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.4. Computer modelling for ecosystem service assessment. . . . . . . . 124
4.5. Bayesian belief networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.6. Applying expert knowledge for ecosystem service quantification . . 142
Contents 7
Chapter 5. Ecosystem services mapping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
5.1. What to map? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

5.2. Where to map? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

5.3. When to map?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
5.4. Why to map?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

5.5. Mapping specific ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
5.5.1. Mapping regulating ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
5.5.2. Mapping provisioning ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

5.5.3. Mapping cultural ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

5.6. Integrative approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
5.6.1. A tiered approach for ecosystem services mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
5.6.2. Participatory GIS approaches for mapping ecosystem services. . . . 216
5.6.3. Citizen science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
5.6.4. Ecosystem services matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
5.7. Mapping ecosystem services on different scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
5.7.1. Regional ecosystem service mapping approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
5.7.2. National ecosystem service mapping approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

5.7.3 Global ecosystem services mapping approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
5.7.4. Mapping marine and coastal ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
5.7.5. Spatial, temporal and thematic interactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Chapter 6. Uncertainties of ecosystem services mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
6.1. Data and quantification issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
6.2. Problematic ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
8 Mapping Ecosystem Services

6.3. Uncertainty measures and maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
6.4. Map interpretation/end-user issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

Chapter 7. Application of ecosystem services maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
7.1. Mapping ecosystem services in national and supra-national

policy making. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
7.2. Application of ecosystem services in spatial planning. . . . . . . . . . . 303

7.3. Land use sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
7.3.1. Mapping urban ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
7.3.2. Ecosystem service maps in agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
7.3.3. Mapping forest ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

7.3.4. Nature protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
7.4. Applying ecosystem service mapping in marine areas. . . . . . . . . . . 332
7.5. Business and industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
7.6. Mapping health outcomes from ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
7.7. Environmental security: Risk analysis and ecosystem services. . . . . 349
7.8. Mapping ecosystem services for impact assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
7.9. The ecosystem services partnership visualisation tool . . . . . . . . . . . 356
Chapte 8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
Contents 9
List of Contributors
ABDUL MALAK, Dania ARKEMA, Katie
Arquitecto Francisco Pealosa Stanford Woods Institute
Edificio Ada Byron 473 Via Ortega, MC: 4205
Ampliacin Campus de Teatinos Stanford, CA 94305, USA
29010 Mlaga, Spain Email: karkema@stanford.edu
Email: daniaabdulmalak@uma.es
BAGSTAD, Kenneth J.
ADAMESCU, Mihai US Geological Survey
University of Bucharest W 6th Ave Kipling St
Research Center in Systems Ecology and Lakewood, CO 80225, USA
Sustainability Email: kjbagstad@usgs.gov
Splaiul Independentei, 91-95
050095 Bucharest, Romania BANKO, Gebhard
Email: adacri@gmail.com Umweltbundesamt
Spittelauer Lnde 5
AGOSTINI, Vera 1090 Vienna, Austria
Science and Consearvation, Caribbean Email: gebhard.banko@umweltbundesa-
Programme, The Nature Conservancy, mt.at
4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100
Arlington, VA 22203-1606, United States BARTON, David N.
Email: vagostini@TNC.ORG Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
NINA
ALBERT, Christian Gaustadalleen 21
Leibniz Universitt Hannover NO-0349 Oslo, Norway
Institute of Environmental Planning Email: David.Barton@nina.no
Herrenhuser Strae 2
30419 Hannover, Germany BEAUMONT, Nicola
Email: albert@umwelt.uni-hannover.de Plymouth Marine Laboratory
Prospect Place
ALKEMADE, Rob PL1 3DH
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assess- The Hoe, Plymouth, United Kingdom
ment Agency Email: nijb@pml.ac.uk
PO Box 30314, 2500 GH Den Haag,
The Netherlands BOON, Arjen
Email: Rob.Alkemade@pbl.nl Department of Ecosystem Dynamics,
Marine and Coastal Systems Unit, Del-
ANDERSON, Sharolyn tares Research Institute
University of South Australia Boussinesqweg 1, 2629 HV Delft, Neth-
School of Natural and Built Environments erlands
GPO Box 2471 Email: Arjen.Boon@deltares.nl
Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia
Email: Sharolyn.Anderson@unisa.edu.au
List of contributors 11
BOYANOVA, Kremena Splaiul Independentei 91-95
Kiel University 050095 Bucharest, Romania
Institute for Natural Resource Conserva- Email: constantin.cazacu@gmail.com
tion
Olshausenstr. 40 CONTI, Michele
24098 Kiel, Germany European Commission Joint Research
Email: kbboyanova@gmail.com Centre
Via E. Fermi 2749
BRAAT, Leon 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
Alterra Email: michele.conti@ec.europa.eu
Droevendaalsesteeg
6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands COSTANZA, Robert
Email: lcbraat@gmail.com Crawford School of Public Policy
The Australian National University
BRANDER, Luke Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Institute for Environmental Studies VU Email: rcostanz@gmail.com
University Amsterdam
De Boelelaan 1087 CROSSMAN, Neville D.
1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands University of Adelaide
Email: l.m.brander@vu.nl School of Biological Sciences
Glen Osmond, SA, 5064, Australia
BROEKX, Steven Email: neville.crossman@gmail.com
VITO
Boeretang 200 DE GROOT, Rudolf
2400 Mol, Belgium Wageningen University & Research (WUR)
Email: steven.broekx@vito.mol Environmental Systems Analysis Group
Droevendaalsesteeg 3
BROWN, Claire 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Email: Dolf.deGroot@wur.nl
Centre
Ecosystem Assessment Programme DECLERCK, Fabrice
219 Huntingdon Road Bioversity International
Cambridge, CB3 0DL, United Kingdom Parc Scientifique Agropolis II
Email: Claire.Brown@unep-wcmc.org 34397 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
Email: f.declerck@cgiar.org
BURKHARD, Benjamin
Leibniz Universitt Hannover DENDONCKER, Nicolas
Institute of Physical Geography and University of Namur
Landscape Ecology Department of Geography
Schneiderberg 50 Rue de Bruxelles 61
30167 Hannover, Germany 5000 Namur, Belgium
Email: burkhard@phygeo.uni-hannover.de Email : nicolas.dendoncker@unamur.be
CAZACU, Constantin DERKZEN, Marthe

University of Bucharest Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Research Center in Systems Ecology and Environmental Geography Group, De-
Sustainability partment of Earth Sciences

De Boelelaan 1087 FRANK, Susanne
1081 HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands GICON - Gromann Ingenieur Consult
Email: marthe.derkzen@vu.nl GmbH
Tiergartenstr. 48
DRAKOU, Evangelia G. 01219 Dresden, Germany
Institut Universitaire Europen de la Mer Email: S.Frank@gicon.de
Rue Dumont dUrville, 29280 Plouzan,
France FRST, Christine
Email: Evangelia.Drakou@univ-brest.fr Martin-Luther University Halle-Witten-
berg
DUNFORD, Robert W. Institute for Geosciences and Geography
Oxford University Centre for the Environ- Sustainable Landscape Development
ment Von Seckendorff-Platz 4
Environmental Change Institute 06120 Halle, Saale, Germany
OX1 3QY South Parks Road, Oxford, UK Email: christine.fuerst@geo.uni-halle.de
Email: robert.dunford@ouce.ox.ac.uk
GARCA-LLORENTE, Marina
EGOH, Benis Madrid Institute for Rural, Agricultural
Council for Scientific and Industrial and Food Research and Development
Research, Natural Resources and The (IMIDRA),
Environment, PO Box 320, Stellenbosch Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona (N-II), KM.
7599, South Africa 38.200,
School of Agricultural, Earth and Envi- 28802 Alcal de Henares, Spain
ronmental Sciences, University of Kwa- Email: marina.garcia.llorente@madrid.org
Zulu-Natal, 27 Private Bag X01, Scotts-
ville 3209, South Africa GENELETTI, Davide
Email: BEgoh@csir.co.za Department of Civil, Environmental and
Mechanical Engineering
ERHARD, Markus University of Trento
European Environment Agency via Mesiano, 77
Kongens Nytorv 6 38123 Trento, Italy
1050 Copenhagen K, Denmark Email: davide.geneletti@unitn.it
Email: markus.erhard@eea.europa.eu
GIORDANO, Alberto
ESTRADA CARMONA, Natalia Texas State University
Bioversity International Department of Geography
Parc Scientifique Agropolis II Evans Liberal Arts, Room 139
34397 Montpellier Cedex 5, France San Marcos, TX 78666
Email: n.e.carmona@cgiar.org Email. ag22@txstate.edu
FAGERHOLM, Nora GRT-REGAMEY, Adrienne

University of Copenhagen ETH Zurich
Department of Geosciences and Natural Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Resource Management Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5
Rolighedsvej 23 8093 Zurich, Switzerland
1958 Fredriksberg C, Denmark Email: gret@nsl.ethz.ch
Email: ncf@ign.ku.dk
GRIFFITHS, Charly 00260 Helsinki, Finland
The Marine Biological Association of the Email: Anna-Stiina.Heiskanen@ympar-
United Kingdom isto.fi
The Laboratory, Citadel Hill
Plymouth, Devon, PL1 2PB, UK HEVIA, Violeta
Autonomous University of Madrid
GONZALEZ-REDIN, Julen Socio-Ecological Laboratory
The James Hutton Institute Department of Ecology
Craigiebuckler Office C-201
Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK 28049 Madrid, Spain
Email: Julen.Gonzalez@hutton.ac.uk Email: violeta.hevia@uam.es
GRUNEWALD, Karsten HIEDERER, Roland

Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Re- European Commission Joint Research
gional Development IOER Centre
Weberplatz 1 Via E. Fermi 2749
01217 Dresden, Germany 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
Email: k.grunewald@ioer.de Email: roland.hiederer@ec.europa.eu
GUERRA, Carlos HOOPER, Tara

German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Plymouth Marine Laboratory
Research iDiv Halle-Jena-Leipzig Prospect Place The Hoe,
Martin Luther University Halle-Witten- PL1 3DH, Plymouth, United Kingdom
berg Email: tarh@pml.ac.uk
Deutscher Platz 5e
04103 Leipzig, Germany HUYNEN, Maud
Email: carlos.guerra@idiv.de University of Maastricht
P.O. Box 616
HAINES-YOUNG, Roy 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
Fabis Consulting Ltd Email: m.huynen@maastrichtuniversity.nl
The Paddocks, Chestnut Lane,
Barton in Fabis, Nottingham, NG11 0AE, JACOBS, Sander
UK Research Institute for Nature and Forest
Email: Roy.Haines-Young@fabisconsult- (INBO)
ing.com Kliniekstraat 25
1070 Brussels, Belgium
HARRISON, Paula A. Email: sander.jacobs@inbo.be
Oxford University Centre for the Environ-
ment JONES, Sarah
Environmental Change Institute Bioversity International
OX1 3QY South Parks Road, Oxford, UK Parc Scientifique Agropolis II
Email: paharriso@aol.com 34397 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
Email: s.jones@cgiar.org
HEISKANEN, Anna-Stiina
Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) KABISCH, Nadja
Marine Research Centre Humboldt University Berlin
Mechelininkatu 34a Geography Department

Unter den Linden 6 9090 Melle-Gontrode, Belgium
10099 Berlin, Germany Email: dries.landuyt@ugent.be
Email: nadja.kabisch@geo.hu-berlin.de
LIEKENS, Inge
KELEMEN, Eszter VITO
Corvinus University of Budapest Boeretang 200
Fovam ter 81093 Budapest, Hungary and 2400 Mol, Belgium
ESSRG Ltd. Romer Floris u. 38 Email: inge.liekens@vito.be
1024 Budapest, Hungary
Email: kelemen.eszter@essrg.hu LIQUETE, Camino
European Commission Joint Research
KEUNE, Hans Centre
Research Institute for Nature and Forest Via E. Fermi 2749
(INBO) 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
Kliniekstraat 25 Email: camino.liquete@ec.europa.eu
1070 Brussels, Belgium
Email: hans.keune@inbo.be LUQUE, Sandra
National Research Institute of Science and
KLUG, Hermann Technology for Environment and Agricul-
Paris-Lodron University Salzburg ture, (IRSTEA), UMR TETIS
Schillerstr. 30, Building 15, 3rd Floor 500 rue JF Breton, Montpellier 34000
5020 Salzburg, Austria France
Email: hermann.klug@sbg.ac.at Email: sandra.luque@irstea.fr
KOPPEROINEN, Leena MAES, Joachim

Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) European Commission Joint Research
Natural Environment Centre Centre
Mechelininkatu 34a Via E. Fermi 2749
00260 Helsinki, Finland 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
Email: leena.kopperoinen@ymparisto.fi Email: joachim.maes@ec.europa.eu
KRUSE, MARION MANDLE, Lisa

Kiel University Natural Capital Project, Stanford University
Institute for Natural Resource Conserva- 371 Serra Mall
tion Stanford, CA 94305
Olshausenstr. 75 USA Email: lmandle@stanford.edu
24118 Kiel, Germany
Email: mkruse@ecology.uni-kiel.de MARTENS, Pim
University of Maastricht
KUBISZEWSKI, Ida P.O. Box 616
Crawford School of Public Policy 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
The Australian National University Email: p.martens@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Email: ida.kubiszewski@anu.edu.au MARTN-LPEZ, Berta
Leuphana University Lneburg
LANDUYT, Dries Scharnhorststrae 1
Ghent University Forest & Nature Lab 21335 Lneburg, Germany
Geraardsbergsesteenweg 267 Email: martinlo@leuphana.de
MONONEN, Laura 48940 Leioa, Spain
Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) Email: ignacio.palomo@bc3research.org
Natural Environment Centre
Yliopistokatu 7, 80100 Joensuu PRTL, Adam
Email: laura.mononen@ymparisto.fi Global Change Research Institute, Czech
Academy of Sciences
MLLER, Felix Jirchch 149/6
Kiel University Prague 11000, Czechia
Institute for Natural Resource Conserva- Email: adam.partl@aonbenfield.com
tion
Olshausenstr. 40 PAYYAPPALIMANA, Unnikrishnan
24098 Kiel, Germany UNU-International Institute for Global
Email: fmueller@ecology.uni-kiel.de Health,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
NEDKOV, Stoyan Jalan Yaacob Latiff
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 56000 Cheras
National Institute of Geophysics, Geodesy Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
and Geography Email: payyappalli@unu.edu
Acad. G. Bonchev str., bl. 3
1113 Sofia, Bulgaria PERPIA, Carolina
Email: snedkov@abv.bg European Commission Joint Research
Centre
NEALE, Anne Via E. Fermi 2749
US EPA Research 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
Mail Drop: D343-04 Email: carolina.perpina@ec.europa.eu
109 Alexander Drive
Durham, NC 27711, USA PETZ, Katalin
Email: neale.anne@epa.gov PBL Netherlands Environmental Assess-
ment Agency
OOSTERBROEK, Bram PO Box 30314, 2500 GH Den Haag,
University of Maastricht The Netherlands
P.O. Box 616 Email: katalin.petz@gmail.com
6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
Email: bram.oosterbroek@maastrichtuni- POLCE, Chiara
versity.nl European Commission Joint Research
Centre
OTEROS-ROZAS, Elisa Via E. Fermi 2749
Universidad Pablo de Olvide 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
Department of Social Anthropology, Email: chiara.polce@ec.europa.eu
Basic Psychology, and Public Health
41013 Seville, Spain POTSCHIN, Marion
Email: elisa.oterosrozas@gmail.com Fabis Consulting Ltd., The Paddocks,
Chestnut Lane, Barton In Fabis, Notting-
PALOMO, Ignacio ham, NG11 0AE, United Kingdom
Sede Building 1, 1st floor Email: Marion.Potschin@fabisconsulting.
Scientific Campus of the University of the com
Basque Country

PRIESS, Joerg A. Kliniekstraat 25
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental 1070 Brussels, Belgium
Research UFZ Email: anik.schneiders@inbo.be
Computational Landscape Ecology
Permoserstrae 15 SCHRTER, Matthias
04318 Leipzig, Germany UFZ - Helmholtz Centre for Environ-
Email: joerg.priess@ufz.de mental Research, Department of Ecosys-
tem Services
QIU, Jianxiao Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
University of Florida German Centre for Integrative Biodiversi-
School of Forest Resources & Conserva- ty Research iDiv Halle-Jena-Leipzig
tion Deutscher Platz 5e
Fort Lauderdale Research and Education 04103 Leipzig, Germany
Center Email: matthias.schroeter@idiv.de s
3205 College Ave, Davie, FL 33314
Email: qiujiangxiao@gmail.com SCHULP, Nynke
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
RABE, Sven-Erik Environmental Geography group
ETH Zurich Earth Sciences Department
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology De Boelelaan 1087
Wolfgang-Pauli-Str. 15 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
8093 Zurich, Switzerland Email: nynke.schulp@vu.nl
Email: rabes@ethz.ch
SUBRAMANIAN, Suneetha M.
RIVERO, Ins Mar UNU-International Institute for Global
European Commission Joint Research Health,
Centre Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Via E. Fermi 2749 Jalan Yaacob Latiff
21027 Ispra (VA), Italy 56000 Cheras
Email: ines.mari-rivero@ec.europa.eu Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Email: subramanian@unu.edu
RUSKULE, Anda
Baltic Environmental Forum SUTTON, Paul
Antonijas 3-8 University of Denver
Rga,1010, Latvia Department of Geography
Email. Anda.Ruskule@bef.lv 2050 E Iliff Ave
Denver, CO 80208
SANTOS-MARTN, Fernando Email. Paul.Sutton@du.edu
Autonomous University of Madrid
Department of Ecology SYRBE, Ralf-Uwe
Office C-201 Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Re-
28049 Madrid, Spain gional Development IOER
Email: fernando.santos.martin@uam.es Weberplatz 1
01217 Dresden, Germany
SCHNEIDERS, Anik Email: r.syrbe@ioer.de
Research Institute for Nature and Forest
(INBO)
TARDIEU, La 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
French National Institute of Agricultural Email: sara.vallecillo-rodriguez@ec.euro-
Research pa.eu
INRA, AgroParisTech, UMR356 Labora-
toire dconomie Forestire, VANDECASTEELE, Ine
54042 Nancy, France European Commission Joint Research
Email: lea.tardieu@inra.fr Centre
Via E. Fermi 2749
TELLER, Anne 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
European Commission Email: ine.vandecasteele@ec.europa.eu
Directorate-General for Environment
1049 Brussels, Belgium VEERKAMP, Clara J.
Email: anne.teller@ec.europa.eu PBL Netherlands Environmental Assess-
ment Agency
TENERELLI, Patrizia PO Box 30314, 2500 GH Den Haag,
IRSTEA - National Research Institute of The Netherlands
Science and Technology for Environment Email: clara.veerkamp@pbl.nl
and Agriculture
500 rue JF BRETON Montpellier 34000 VERHEYDEN, Wim
France Research Institute for Nature and Forest
(INBO)
TENEVA, Lida Kliniekstraat 25
Stanford University 1070 Brussels, Belgium
Department of Environmental Earth wim.verheyden@inbo.be
Systems Science
Braun Hall VIHERVAARA, Petteri
Stanford, CA 94305-2115, USA Finnish Environment Institute
Email: lteneva@stanford.edu Mechelininkatu 34a, P.O.Box 140, FI-
00251 Helsinki, Finland
TRAUN, Christoph
Paris-Lodron University Salzburg VIINIKKA, Arto
Hellbrunnerstr. 34 Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)
5020 Salzburg, Austria Environmental Policy Centre
Email: christoph.traun@sbg.ac.a Mechelininkatu 34a
00260 Helsinki, Finland
VAK, David Email: arto.viinikka@ymparisto.fi
Charles University
Environment Centre VIITASALO, Markku
Jos Martho 407/2 Finnish Environment Institute SYKE
162 00 Praha, Czechia Marine Research Centre/Marine Spatial
Email: david.vackar@czp.cuni.cz Planning
Mechelininkatu 34a
VALLECILLO, Sara 00260 Helsinki, Finland
European Commission Joint Research Email: Markku.Viitasalo@ymparisto.fi
Centre
Via E. Fermi 2749

VIZCAINO, Pilar WILLEMEN, Louise
European Commission Joint Research University of Twente
Centre Department of Natural Resources
Via E. Fermi 2749 PO Box 217
21027 Ispra (VA), Italy 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
Email: pilar.vizcaino-martinez@ec.euro- Email. l.l.willemen@utwente.nl
pea.eu
ZULIAN, Grazia
WALZ, Ulrich European Commission - Joint Research
University of Applied Sciences Dresden Centre
Chair of Landscape Ecology Directorate D - Sustainable Resources
Friedrich-List-Platz 1 Unit D3 - Land Resources
01069 Dresden, Germany Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 290
Email: ulrich.walz@htw-dresden.de 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
Email: grazia.zulian@ec.europa.eu
WEIBEL, Bettina
ETH Zurich
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5
8093 Zurich, Switzerland
Email: weibel@nsl.ethz.ch
Foreword
Mapping Ecosystem Services
The worlds economic prosperity and sectoral policies such as agriculture, mari-
well-being are underpinned by its natural time affairs and fisheries and cohesion.
capital, i.e. its biodiversity, including eco-
systems that provide essential goods and Mapping ecosystem services is essential to
services for mankind, from fertile soils and understand how ecosystems contribute to
multi-functional forests to productive land human wellbeing and to support policies
and seas, from good quality fresh water and which have an impact on natural resourc-
clean air to pollination and climate regula- es. In 2013, an EU initiative on Mapping
tion and protection against natural disasters. and Assessment of Ecosystems and their
This is the reason why, for example, the first Services (MAES) was launched and a ded-
priority objective of the 7th Environment icated working group was established with
Action Programme (7th EAP) of the Euro- Member States, scientific experts and rel-
pean Union (EU) is to protect, conserve and evant stakeholders. The first delivery was
enhance the EU natural capital. In order to the development of a coherent analytical
mainstream biodiversity in our socio-eco- framework2 to be applied by the EU and its
nomic system, the 7th EAP highlights the Member States in order to ensure consistent
need to integrate economic indicators with approaches. In 2014, a second technical re-
environmental and social indicators, includ- port3 was issued which proposes indicators
ing by means of natural capital accounting, that can be used at European and Member
to measure the changes in the stock of nat- States level to map and assess ecosystem ser-
ural capital at a variety of levels, including vices. The indicators are proposed for the
both continental and national levels. main ecosystems (agro-, forest, freshwater
and marine) and the important issue of how
The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 called the overarching data flow from the reporting
on Member States to map and assess the of nature directives can be used to assess the
state of ecosystems and their services in condition of ecosystems is also addressed.
their national territory by 2014, with the as-
sistance of the European Commission. The From the start of MAES, some exploratory
economic value of such services should also work was undertaken in parallel to assess
be assessed, and the integration of these val- how some of the biophysical indicators
ues into accounting and reporting systems could be used for natural capital account-
at EU and national level should be promoting. It was also important to ensure that
ed by 2020 (see Target 21, Action 5). the data flows available at European level
and, in particular, those from reporting
This specific action aims to provide a knowl- obligations from Member States would
edge base on ecosystems and their services in
Europe to underpin the achievement of the 2
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowl
six specific biodiversity targets of the strat- edge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWork
egy as well as including a number of other ingPaper2013.pdf
3
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodi
1
edge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/2ndMAESWork
versity/strategy/target2/index_en.htm ingPaper.pdf
Foreword 21
be used for the mapping and assessment itly taken into account and demonstrate, in
of ecosystems and their condition4. More physical and to the greatest extent possible
recently, dedicated work on urban ecosys- in monetary terms, the benefits of investing
tems was initiated with the active contri- in the sustainable management of ecosys-
bution of many cities and a fourth tech- tems and natural resources.
nical report5 on mapping and assessment
of urban ecosystems and their services was Finally, the European work undertaken un-
published. An overlapping activity on the der Target 2, Action 5, is actively contribut-
strengthening of the mapping and assessing to major ongoing initiatives, such as the
ment of soil condition and function in the global, regional and thematic assessments
long-term delivery of ecosystem services is under the Intergovernmental Platform on
also being developed. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IP-
BES9) and the UN guidelines on experi-
In the context of The Economics of Ecosys- mental ecosystem accounting from the Sys-
tems and Biodiversity (TEEB6), a study of tem of Environmental-Economic Accounts
available approaches to assess and value eco- (UN SEEA EEA10).
system services in the EU7 was supported by
the European Commission to support EU At present, with the constructive support
countries in taking forward Action 5 of the of research and innovation projects and ac-
EU Biodiversity Strategy. tions, such as ESMERALDA11 and with the
amount of work already accomplished in the
In 2015, a Knowledge Innovation Project Member States and at EU level, the momen-
on an Integrated System for Natural Capital tum for the next steps is impressive12.
and Ecosystem Services Accounting (KIP
INCA)8 was launched jointly by four Com- The policy developments in Europe, but
mission services (Eurostat, Environment, also in many other countries and at global
the Joint Research Centre and Research and scale, have spurred the scientific commu-
Innovation) and the European Environment nity to map ecosystem services, to devel-
Agency. This project aims to design and im- op new methods, to assess uncertainty of
plement an integrated accounting system maps and to provide practical applications
for ecosystems and their services in the EU, of using maps in various decision-making
to serve a range of information needs and processes. This book is an excellent sum-
inform decision making of different policy mary of the achievements of ecosystem
sectors, building on existing work in EU service mapping and provides guidance for
countries. Important ecosystems services scientists, students, practitioners and deci-
provided by nature will therefore be explic- sion makers who need to map ecosystem
services.
4
There are still big challenges ahead of us
edge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/3rdMAESRe
such as the improvement of the mapping
port_Condition.pdf
5
and assessment of the ecosystem condition
edge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/102.pdf
6
http://teebweb.org/ 9
http://www.ipbes.net/
7
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodi 10
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/eea_
versity/economics/index_en.htm project/default.asp
8
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/capi 11
http://esmeralda-project.eu/
tal_accounting/index_en.htm 12
http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes/maes_countries

and the integration of the assessment of the accounts. As highlighted in this book, we
ecosystem condition with ecosystem services are however on a very positive track!
and the construction of the first ecosystem
Anne Teller
European Commission,
Directorate-General Environment
Foreword 23
Chapter 1. Introduction
Benjamin Burkhard & Joachim Maes
Ecosystem services (ES) are the contribu- The interest of policy and decision makers,
tions of ecosystem structure and function the business sector and civil society in ES-
(in combination with other inputs) to hu- maps has been steadily increasing in the last
man well-being. This implies that mankind years. To bring ES maps into practical ap-
is strongly dependent on well-functioning plication and to make them useful tools for
ecosystems and natural capital that are the sustainable decision making is an import-
basis for a constant flow of ES from nature ant step and a responsibility of all parties
to society. Therefore, ES have the potential involved. Maps can be applied to portray
to become a major tool for policy and de- trade-offs and synergies for ES as well as
cision making on global, national, regional spatial congruence or mismatches between
and local scales. Possible applications are supply, flow and demand of different ES.
numerous: from sustainable management Additionally, flows of services from one eco-
of natural resources, land use optimisation, system to another and source-sink dynamics
environmental protection, nature conserva- can be illustrated. Based on such informa-
tion and restoration, landscape planning, tion, budgets for ES supply and demand
nature-based solutions, climate protection, can be calculated on different spatio-tempo-
disaster risk reduction to environmental ed- ral scales. Such budgets can help to assess
ucation and research. the dependence of a region (or even a whole
country) on ES imports or its potential to
ES maps constitute a very important tool to export certain goods and services. However,
bring ES into practical application. Maps in addition to the high application potential
can efficiently communicate complex spa- of ES maps in sustainable decision-making
tial information and people generally prefer that would benefit human society, there is
to look at maps and to explore their content also a risk of abusing the maps for further
and practical applicability. Thus, ES maps are exploitation of natural resources, fostering
very useful for raising awareness about areas land conversions or supporting land-grab-
of ecosystem goods and services supply and bing activities. That is the reason why it is so
demand, environmental education about hu- important to communicate the ES concept
man dependence on functioning nature and properly and to prepare and document all
to provide information about interregional related information carefully and with the
ecosystem goods and services flows. Further- best knowledge available.
more, maps are mandatory instruments for
landscape planning, environmental resource Well-documented maps of ES which are de-
management and (spatial) land use opti- veloped following rigorous guidelines and
misation. To fulfil the requirements of the definitions will be of crucial importance for
above-mentioned applications, high quality, natural capital accounting. Across Europe, as
robust and consistent data and information well as elsewhere and at local to global scales,
on ES supply, flow and demand are needed at natural capital accounts are being developed
different spatial and temporal levels. with the aim of supporting policies on ag-
Introduction 25
riculture, natural resources use or regional large-scale studies to map ES for mapping
development programmes or to support de- their natural capital. Cities need ES maps to
cision-making. These accounts are intended design, implement or maintain urban green
to measure and monitor the extent, the con- infrastructure. Large businesses start assessing
dition, the services and the benefits of ecosys- ecosystems and their services on their sites so
tems to support different policies. Regularly that they can better understand possible im-
updated and high quality geo-referenced data pacts of their operations on the environment.
on capacity, use and demand of ES are essen- Nature managers need to know how parks
tial inputs for natural capital accounts. and reserves contribute to human wellbeing.
Whereas, although not all of these stakehold-
The development of respective ES mapping ers will suddenly start mapping ES, they may
approaches, models and tools has profited rely on consultants, students, ecologists and
from the increasing popularity of the ES other researchers to help them with spatial
concept in science, especially within the last data analysis, to understand problems relat-
decade. However, this popularity of ES map- ed to mapping or to give practical guidance.
ping studies has, together with the rapid de- Full Open Access to this book is provided to
velopment of computer-based mapping pro- better reach this audience.
grammes, also led to an almost inflationary
generation of various ES maps. Besides the After this introductory chapter, Chapter2
many very promising and well-derived map- provides the conceptual ES background,
ping products, maps of inferior quality have including a short history of the concept,
also, unfortunately, been published. It takes introduces the nature-ecosystem service-hu-
more than just some data and a software man society connections and explains ES
package to make a good map that fulfils the categorisation systems. The necessary back-
criteria of being a geometrically accurate, ground of mapping is given in Chapter 3,
correctly-scaled and appropriately-explained starting from basic cartography knowledge,
graphic representation of three-dimensional methods and tools and ending with the
real space. Cartography, the art and science specific challenges of mapping ES. There is
of graphically representing a geographical no mapping without adequate information
area usually on a map, has served humanity or data behind it. Therefore, Chapter 4 is
since its emergence by providing informa- solely dedicated to various ES quantifica-
tion on the environment, resources, risks, tion approaches. These approaches include
paths, connections and barriers. biophysical, socio-economic, model-, ex-
pert- and citizen-science-based quantifica-
The theory, methods and practical appli- tion methods. Chapter5 on ES mapping is
cations of ES mapping are presented in the most extensive of this book. After elab-
this book, thus bringing together valuable orating what, where, when and why to map
knowledge and techniques from leading ES, the individual subchapters explain what
experts in the field. The different chapters has to be taken into account when mapping
can be explored to learn what is necessary to specific or bundles of ES using various (in-
make proper and applicable ES maps. cluding integrative) approaches. The chap-
ter ends by presenting mapping approach-
This book addresses an audience which is es on different and interacting scales. Each
broader than the research community alone. map represents a more or less complex but
ES are becoming mainstream outside the generalised model of reality and each model
academic world: national and regional au- comes with specific uncertainties. Uncer-
thorities are calling for or are involved in tainties can be related to data, specific ES

properties or concerning the eventual map Egoh B, Drakou EG, Dunbar MB, Maes J,
interpretation and use. Thus, uncertainties Willemen L (2012) Indicators for map-
are a highly relevant topic in ES mapping ping ecosystem services: a review. Report
that need to be dealt with properly. The EUR25456EN. Publications Office of the
whole of Chapter 6 is therefore solely ded- European Union, Luxembourg.
icated to uncertainties of ES mapping. As
mentioned above, there is a broad range Maes J, Crossman ND, Burkhard B (2016)
of applications for ES maps, which are ex- Mapping eocsystem services. In: Potschin
plained in Chapter 7. Applications include M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Turner RK
policy making and planning, different land (Eds) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem
use sectors, human health, risk and impact Services. Routledge, London, 188-204.
assessments as well as visualisation. The final
Chapter 8 provides some conclusions and Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vi-
synthesises the contents presented in the pre- hervaara P, Schgner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou
ceding chapters. EG, Notte AL, Zulian G, Bouraoui F, Luisa
Paracchini M, Braat L, Bidoglio G (2012)
Several chapters include practical examples Mapping Ecosystem Services for policy
which are meant to facilitate the understand- support and decision making in the Euro-
ing of the sometimes complex and often pean Union. Ecosystem Services 1: 31-39.
technical topics. The editors and authors
aim was to present chapters in a profession- Martnez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P (2012) Meth-
al but understandable language in order to ods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a
facilitate their readability and comprehen- review. International Journal of Biodiversity
sion. Therefore citations and references were Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
avoided in the text. Instead, footnotes with 8: 17-25.
direct links and suggestions for further read-
ing are provided at the end of each chapter. Pagella TF, Sinclair FL (2014) Development
We hope this book is helpful and supports and use of a typology of mapping tools
the appropriate mapping of ES! to assess their fitness for supporting man-
agement of ecosystem service provision.
Landscape Ecology 29: 383-399.
Further reading
Troy A, Wilson MA (2006) Mapping Ecosys-
tem Services: Practical challenges and op-
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Mller F portunities in linking GIS and value trans-
(2012) Mapping supply, demand and bud- fer. Ecological Economics 60: 435-449.
gets of Ecosystem Services. Ecological Indi-
cators 21: 17-29.
Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S, Wil-

lemen L, Petz K, Palomo I, Drakou EG,
Martn-Lopez B, McPhearson T, Boyano-
va K, Alkemade R, Egoh B, Dunbar M,
Maes J (2013) A blueprint for mapping and
modelling Ecosystem Services, Ecosystem
Services 4: 4-14.
Introduction 27
CHAPTER 2
Background Ecosystem
Services
Nature has a lot to offer to humans
(view from Mount Saana, Finland. Photo: Benjamin Burkhard 2014).
2.1. A short history of the
ecosystem services concept
Rudolf de Groot, Leon Braat & Robert Costanza
Introduction
A historic overview of the development of
the Ecosystem Services (ES) concept in a few Social Built
pages is almost impossible and unavoidably Capital Capital
biased and, for this chapter, we focused on Inter-
Human
the main events and publications1. Human action Well-
Capital Being
Most authors agree that the term ecosystem Natural Ecosystem
services was coined in 1981. It was pushed Capital
Services
to the background in the 1980s by the sus-

tainable development debate but came back
strongly in the 1990s with the mainstreaming Figure 1. Dependence of Human Wellbeing on
Natural, Social, Built and Human capital.
of ES in professional literature and with an Source: Costanza et al. 2014.
increased attention to their economic value.
Over time, the definitions of the concept The ecological roots

have evolved with a focus on either the eco-
logical basis as ES being the conditions and The term ecosystem function was originally
processes through which natural ecosystems used by ecologists to refer to the set of ecosys-
and their species sustain and fulfil human tem processes operating within an ecological
life or at the level of economic importance, system. In the late 1960s and early 1970s,
where ES are the benefits humans derive, some authors started using the term func-
directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions of nature to describe the work done
tions. As a compromise, the TEEB (The by ecological processes, the space provided
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) and goods delivered to human societies.
study (2008-2010) defined ES as the direct
and indirect contributions of ecosystems to When describing the flow of ES from nature
human well-being. Despite these differences, to society, the need to distinguish functions
all definitions stress the link between (nat- from the fundamental ecological structures
ural) ecosystems and human wellbeing (see and processes was emphasised to highlight
Figure 1) and the services are the bridge that ecosystem functions are the basis for
between the human world and the natural the delivery of a service. Services are actual-
world, with only humans being virtually sep- ly conceptualisations (labels) of the useful
arated from that natural world. things ecosystems do for people that pro-
vide direct or indirect benefits.
Some key publications are listed at the end of this

1
chapter as suggestions for further reading.
Chapter 2 31
The socio-cultural roots In the 19th century, industrial growth, tech-
nological development and capital accumu-
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a wave of lation led to changes in economic thinking
publications was produced which addressed that caused nature to lose importance in eco-
the notion of the usefulness of nature for nomic analysis. By the second half of the 20th
society, other than being an object to con- century, land or more generally environmen-
serve based on ethical concerns. Terms such tal resources, completely disappeared from
as functions of nature, amenity and spiritual the production function and the shift from
value were used in addition to, but not re- land and other natural inputs to capital and
placing, intrinsic values of nature, empha- labour alone and from physical to monetary
sising the importance to cultural identity, and more aggregated measures of capital,
livelihood and other non-material benefits. was completed. In the second half of the 20th
century, environmental problems became
This expanding field, recognising the depen- a topic of interest to some economists who
dence of people on nature, finally led to the founded the Association for Environmen-
coining of the term ecosystem services in tal and Resource Economists in 1979. The
the early 1980s. undervaluation in public and business deci-
sion-making of the contributions by ecosys-
tems to welfare was partly explained by the
The economic roots fact that they were not adequately quantified
in terms comparable with economic services
and manufactured capital.
The ways nature provides benefits to humans
are discussed throughout economic history From the perspective of environmental eco-
from the classical economics period to the nomics, non-marketed ecosystem services are
consolidation of neo-classical economics viewed as positive externalities that, if valued
and economic sub-disciplines specialised in in monetary terms, can be more explicitly in-
environmental issues. Some of the classical corporated in economic decision-making. In
economists explicitly recognised the contri- 1989, the Society for Ecological Economics
bution of nature rendered by natural agents was founded which conceptualises the eco-
or natural forces. However, although they nomic system as an open sub-system of the
recognised their value in use, they general- ecosphere exchanging energy, materials and
ly denied natures services role in exchange waste flows with the social and ecological
value, because they were considered as free, systems with which it co-evolves. The focus
non-appropriable gifts of nature. The phys- of neo-classical economists on market-driven
iocrats belief that land was the primary efficiency is expanded with issues of equity
source of value was followed by the classi- and scale in relation to biophysical limits
cal economists view of labour as the major and to the physical and social costs involved
force behind the production of wealth. in economic performance using monetary
along with biophysical accounts and other
Marx considered value to emerge from the non-monetary valuation languages.
combination of labour and nature: Labour
is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just Neo-classical and ecological economists dif-
as much the source of use values (and it is fer markedly regarding their approach to the
surely of such that material wealth consists!) sustainability concept. The so-called weak
as labour, which itself is only the manifesta- sustainability approach, which assumes the
tion of a force of nature. ability to substitute between natural and man-

ufactured capital, is typical for neo-classical ments to create economic incentives for con-
environmental economists. Ecological econo- servation (see Chapter 4.3), e.g.
mists generally embrace the so-called strong
sustainability approach, which maintains Although one has to be careful that the con-
that natural capital and manufactured capital cept is not misused, the benefits of greater
are in a relation of complementarity rather awareness of the full spectrum of values of
than of one of substitutability. They also differ nature outweigh the risk and with the adop-
with respect to approaches to ES valuation. tion of the Aichi-targets (see below) at the
Monetary valuation, costs versus benefits, of CBD convention and the creation of the
marketed goods and services have been pri- Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity
mary in neo-classical approaches, while eco- and Ecosystem Services (IPBES4 in 2012)
logical economists tend to show more interest as described below the ES-concept has been
in inclusion of non-monetary and non-mar- firmly placed on the political agenda. Espe-
ket goods and services approaches. cially CBD-Aichi Biodiversity Targets 1 and
2 are relevant: Target 1, by 2020, at the
latest, people are aware of the values of bio-
Ecosystem services in policy diversity and the steps they can take to con-
serve and use it sustainably and Target 2, by
and practice 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have
been integrated into national and local devel-
In the 1970s and 1980s, ecological concerns opment and poverty reduction strategies and
were framed in economic terms to stress so- planning processes and are being incorporat-
cietal dependence on natural ecosystems and ed into national accounting, as appropriate,
raise public interest for biodiversity conser- and reporting systems. The efforts to achieve
vation. Already in the 1970s, the concept of these targets, in Europe coordinated by the
natural capital was used and shortly there- Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and
after several authors started referring to eco- their Services (MAES5) contribute much to
system (or ecological, or environmental, or greater awareness of the many benefits of na-
natural) services. The rationale behind the ture and help to give them more weight in
ecosystem service concept was to demon- everyday decision-making (see Chapter 7.1).
strate how the disappearance of biodiversity Recently, the business-world is also waking
directly affects ecosystem functions that un- up to the ecosystem services-movement and
derpin critical services for human well-be- created the Natural Capital Coalition6 to bet-
ing. The 1997 calculation of the total value ter account for ES and biodiversity conserva-
of the global natural capital and ES was a tion in their business models.
milestone in the mainstreaming of ES. The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)2 Although much has been achieved, even
constitutes another milestone that firmly more remains to be done to further develop
placed the ES concept on the policy agenda. the ES science and embed the concept in ev-
eryday policy and practice to enhance nature
The TEEB3 study (2010), building on this conservation and sustainable use of ES which
initiative, has added a clear economic con- is the main objective of the Ecosystem Ser-
notation. The interest of policy makers has vices Partnership (ESP), founded in 20087.
turned to the design of market-based instru-
4
http://www.ipbes.net
2
http://www.maweb.org 5
http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes
3
http://www.teebweb.org 6
http://www.naturalcapitalcoalition.org
7
http://www.es-partnership.org
Chapter 2 33
Further reading
Braat LC, de Groot RS (2012) The ecosystem Daily G (Ed.) (1997) Natures Services. Soci-
services agenda: bridging the worlds of etal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems.
natural science and economics, conserva- Island Press, Washington, D.C., 412 pp.
tion and development and public and pri-
vate policy. Ecosystem Services 1: 4-15. Gmez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL,
Montes C (2010) The history of ecosystem
Costanza R, dArge R, de Groot RS, Farber S, services in economic theory and practice:
Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem from early notions to markets and pay-
S, ONeill R, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton ment schemes. Ecological Economics 69:
P, van den Belt M (1997) The Value of the 1209-1218.
Worlds Ecosystem Services and Natural
Capital. Nature 387: 253-260. Potschin M, Haynes-Young R, Fish R, Turner
RK (Eds.) (2016) Routledge Handbook
Costanza R, de Groot RS, Sutton P, van der of Ecosystem Services. Routledge, T&F
Ploeg S, Anderson SJ, Kubiszewski I, Far- Group, 640 pp.
ber S, Turner RK (2014) Changes in the
global value of ecosystem services. Global
Environmental Change 26: 152-158.

2.2. A natural base for
ecosystem services
Anik Schneiders & Felix Mller
Introduction
Formally, the natural base for ecosystem ser- (Chapter 2.3). The flow from the ecosystem
vices (ES) arises from the performance of the towards society is generated through the
living and non-living components of an eco- supply of ES. The flow back into the sys-
system and the interrelations between them. tem is societys influence on the ecosystem
The respective ecosystems can be character- generated by drivers and governance. Each
ised as a result of their structural features, step within the system is related to biodi-
their functional attributes and their organ- versity, which is the total stock or the living
isational properties. While the latter items part of our natural capital. It determines the
demonstrate the overall schemes of ecological self-regulating capacity of the system and
interactions, the self-organising processes and the attitudes of biodiversity dynamics, such
the whole systems dynamics, the functional as resilience or adaptability.
viewpoint highlights the flows and pools of
energy, water, matter and information. Within the system, specific ecological func-
tions are essential to support and supply a
The structural aspect of ecosystems is related specific ES: for example, primary produc-
to the spatio-temporal characteristics of the tion and pollination for food production,
biotic and abiotic elements. The focal fea- water infiltration capacity for water provi-
tures of this viewpoint are the components sion and organic decomposition for soil fer-
of biodiversity, which play a significant role tility. These specific functions depend upon
for the support of ES. The 2020 targets of a specific part of biodiversity and often,
the Biodiversity Strategy are focussing on increasing biodiversity will optimise these
two perspectives: the intrinsic value of bio- functions.
diversity and the life insurance value essen- Based on supply and demand, the final ES
tial for ES supply (see Chapter 5.1). In the is generated, e.g. as a yield of food or wood,
following pages, the second perspective will or a direct use of green infrastructure. Based
be discussed by examining the cross-correla- on the benefits of a service, people will even-
tions between biodiversity, ecological integ- tually value the components of biodiversity.
rity, ecosystem functions and ES. This can be an ethical or intrinsic value,
but also a cultural or instrumental value.
Biodiversity within the social- To complete the circle, the societal impact
and the governance flow can be adjusted,
ecological system which is based upon a biodiversity strategy.
Here targets are formulated and adjusted on
Ecosystems and society are closely connect- different scales. In line with these objectives,
ed within a Social-Ecological-System (SES) management plans will be developed and
Chapter 2 35
implemented and indicators will be chosen The third perspective is structural diversity:
to measure the trend and to control the dis- how fragmented is the landscape, how many
tance to the target. vegetation layers has a lake or a forest? The
landscape patterns or vegetation structures
are part of the way people perceive nature
Biodiversity and natural capital and this is closely related to cultural ES such
as the maintenance of historical landscapes
or unobstructed views. The degree of frag-
Biodiversity as a whole is the living part of mentation and connectivity in a landscape
the natural capital. It is our main capacity are also crucial for the migration capacity
to generate ES and to ensure adaptation to of species and their adaptive capacity to
environmental changes. Figure 1 shows the climate change. The fourth and last per-
essential components of the natural capi- spective is stock, a prerequisite to harvest a
tal and the connection with ES and nature provisioning ES, but also to most other ES.
conservation. To characterise biodiversity
aspects, each of the four organisation lev- To observe the dynamics of these biodiversi-
ty components, several indicator approaches
are utilised. In most regions there is a dom-
genes
genes
inance of composition indicators linked
species
with the nature conservation strategy while
species
indicators for diversity of functions, con-
ecosystems
ecosystems nectivity or vegetation structure are rarely
landsapes
developed.
landsapes
Link ES
Link ES
Biodiversity, ecosystem
Figure 1. Four complementary perspectives of functions and services
biodiversity, applicable to four organisation levels
(gene, species, ecosystem & landscape).
Understanding how key ecosystem func-
els (gene, species, ecosystem, landscape) tions determine ES supply, how it depends
should be represented. All levels can be on biodiversity and understanding the ef-
studied from different perspectives: the first fects of shortcutting these functions by
perspective is composition or the presence technological variants is crucial in the search
or absence of a specific property, such as a for nature-based solutions. The basic in-
specific genetic allele, a rare species or a his- terrelations between these components are
torical landscape. Also for cultural ES, such sketched in Figure 2. In the lower box, basic
as ecotourism, the presence or absence of ecosystem elements and relations are depict-
specific or charismatic species or landscapes ed. In this work, biodiversity structures are
is crucial. The second perspective is diversi- perceived as biotic processors which perform
ty of functions. This part focuses on indi- active life processes and which can be distin-
cators for specific ecosystem functions such guished, e.g. due to their roles in food webs.
as predation, photosynthesis, carbon flows, On the other hand, the abiotic processors,
or nutrient cycling. This part of biodiversity such as features of soil, geomorphology or
is important for the supply of many regu- climate, are creating and degrading concen-
lating ES and for the adaptive capacity to tration gradients and determining the living
environmental changes and perturbations. conditions of the biota. Both are linked by

ecosystemic process bundles that are the dy- Therefore the described process sequence
namics or pools and flows of energy, carbon, is a basic component of the regulating ES
water and nutrients. All of these elements global climate regulation. The production
are operating in complex, self-organised in- of this service emerges from a complex se-
teraction schemes. quence of interrelated processes, which in
turn is influenced by all self-organised eco-
Their characteristics can be aggregated into system interactions illustrated in Figure 2.
different groups of functional outcomes.
To assess the overall state of these complex Such connections are also responsible for
schemes, aggregated indicators such as eco- most provisioning ES, because the prima-
system integrity or ecosystem health are ry and secondary production functions
developed. For instance, the indication of are strongly linked to the sequestration
ecosystem integrity is based on an accessi- sequence. Also the regulation of nutrient
ble number of structural items of biodiver- budgets depends on the cycling and accu-
sity and ecosystem heterogeneity, combined mulating activities of the biotic system com-
with the functional items representative for ponents, as well as the potential of the abi-
the energy balance, the water balance and otic sphere to physically or chemically retain
the matter balance of ecosystems. nutrients within the soil matrix. As a result
of these process sequences, the seepage wa-
The aggregation of functional units can also ter is filtered and can be used for human
be made to represent specific ES. For exam- purposes, e.g. as drinking water. Finally, cul-
ple, photosynthesis leads to the fixation of tural ES also depend on ecological interac-
CO2 which is influenced by the static abiotic tions, because resulting ecosystem functions
site conditions, the dynamics of solar radia- provide the basic preconditions to create
tion, rainfall, evapo-transpiration or air tem- and maintain certain structural conditions
perature, but also by the nutrient and water which human beings perceive as attractive
provision and the state of competition with phenomena.
other plants. The result is an increase in phy-
tomass and, on a longer time scale, an input As a result, we can observe very complex
of litter into the soil subsystem, where the interrelations between ecosystem functions
carbon can be transferred and sequestered and ES. Some key functions and structures
into long-term stable humic compounds. for 16 ES are listed in Table 1. A steering
variable is the direct driver of a service, e.g.
These process sequences are interpreted as a primary production for wood production.
functional subsystem, e.g. as carbon seques- A supporting variable creates important
tration. These subsystems are illustrated by boundary conditions, e.g. pollination and
the middle box in Figure 2. They connect pest control for crop production. Most eco-
the system with a potential ES supply (see system functions serve various ES.
Chapter 5.1). Normatively it is only rec-
ognised as a service delivery if there is a hu- But what is the role of biodiversity for each
man benefit related to its performance (see of those functions? Many experimental
Chapter 2.3). In our example, the ability studies demonstrate that an increase in the
of ecosystems to fix carbon from the atmo- variety of genes or species contributes to the
sphere becomes a service because this process optimisation of one of the functions. Sow-
can be helpful in mitigating elevated CO2 ing a grassland ecosystem with more species
concentrations in the atmosphere which will, for example, generate a higher biomass.
are responsible for global temperature rises. For wood biomass usually a positive diver-
Chapter 2 37
Supply of ecosystem services
Regulating services Provisioning services Cultural services
Exemplary resulting ecosystem functions
Secondary Groundwater Temperature

Air filtering production storage buffering
Primary Nutrient Erosion

Pollination production retention processes
Pest Carbon Nutrient

dynamics sequestration cycling Soil formation
Biotic Ecosystem Abiotic

processors process processors
bundles
Active life- Passive
support gradient
processes Energy dynamics
flows & pools
Biodiversity Abiotic
structures Water structures
flows & pools
Carbon
flows & pools
Nutrient
flows & pools
Self-organised ecosystem interactions
Figure 2. Diagram sketching the relations between ecological structures and processes (self-organised
ecosystem interactions), exemplary ecosystem functions and ecosystem services. The interrelations are
also described in the following Chapter 2.3.

Table 1. Representation of ecosystem functions and structures steering ( ) or supporting ( ) an ecosystem
service or a biodiversity target linked with intrinsic valuation. White fields demonstrate indirect effects.
Global climate regulation

Production energy crops
Preserving soil fertility
Regulation air quality
Green space outdoor
Green infrastructure
Control erosion risk
Nutient regulation
Coastal Protection
Noise remidiation
Wood production
Water production
Water regulation
Essential functions or structures for
Flood control
the supply of a service
Natura 2000
Pest control
Pollination
activities
Venison
Food
Cul- Nature
Provisioning ES tural conser-
ES vation
Primary production
Animal production
Soil formation
Nutrient availability / -cycling
Decomposition of organic material
Carbon storage
Conservation carbon stock
Storage rain water (infiltration capacity)
Ground water retention
Storage river water
River Drainage
Combating soil loss
Pollination
Pest control
Prevent disease
Air purification capacity
Scattering and absorption sound
Buffering coastal storms
Regulate population dynamics
Regulating ecosystem dynamics, succession
Stability ecosystem processes
Ecosystem resilience
Development of complex ecological networks
Develop ecosystem diversity / habitat quality
sity-production relationship is found, as a tween species numbers and productivities is

result of synergies between species and a bet- broken by the additional inputs of energy,
ter utilisation of resources, although some manpower, fertilisers or pesticides. Thus, to-
combinations create a negative effect due to day, modern agriculture produces the high-
competition. The fact that many functions est biomass under conditions of (optimally)
are optimised by a higher biodiversity also single-species monocultures.
means that a loss of diversity will generate
a suboptimal function, often compensated
by human inputs of energy, materials or Towards nature-based solutions
technology (Chapter 5.1). It is a reality that
technical compensation can lead to a disin-
tegration of ES potentials and biodiversity Each ES can be delivered in a gradient from
in land use. For example, the correlation be- naturally to technologically based solutions.
Chapter 2 39
Nature-based solutions depend more on Moving towards more nature-based
biodiversity, generate a lower impact on sur- solutions of ES supply, generates posi-
rounding ecosystems and guarantee a lower tive effects for both biodiversity and the
impact on other ES and a more sustainable sustainable supply of ES bundles.
use of the service itself. The use of a service
is always a balance between supply and de-
mand. In highly populated areas, for most ES Further reading
the current demand is much higher than the
supply. The excessive demand, together with
a high drive for more human control, has Cardinale BJ et al. (2012) Biodiversity Loss
affected and transformed most natural eco- and Its Impact on Humanity. Nature 486
systems towards the technological side of the (7401): 59-67.
gradient, in order to maximise a single service.
The supporting and regulating role of biodi- Haines-Young R, Potschin MP (2010) The
versity is systematically replaced by techno- links between biodiversity, ecosystem ser-
logical inputs, energy inputs, chemical inputs vices and human well-being. In: Raffaelli
and management. This is true for nearly all D, Frid C (Eds.): Ecosystem Ecology: A
provisioning ES, but also for most regulating New Synthesis. BES Ecological Reviews
and cultural ES. The challenge is to optimise Series, CUP, Cambridge: 110-139.
the total supply of a bundle of ES, ensuring
ES delivery and maintaining ecosystem func- Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Mller F (2013)
tioning in the long term. Relying on more Interactions of Ecosystem Properties, Eco-
nature-based solutions will increase positive system Integrity and Ecosystem Service
and decrease negative interactions. Indicators - A Theoretical Matrix Exercise.
Ecological Indicators 28 (SI): 54-78.
Conclusions Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH (2012) Biodi-

versity and Ecosystem Services: A Multi-
layered Relationship. Trends in Ecology &
All relationships in social-ecologi- Evolution 27 (1): 19-26.
cal-systems are driven by different as-
pects of biodiversity. All these interac- Morin X, Fahse L, Scherer-Lorenzen L, Bug-
tions should be analysed in order to set mann H (2011) Tree Species Richness Pro-
up biodiversity strategies. motes Productivity in Temperate Forests
through Strong Complementarity between
The creation of ES is founded on very Species. Ecology Letters 14 (12): 1211-19.
complex schemes of ecological interac-
tions with very high mutual interde- Noss R F (1990) Indicators for monitoring
pendencies. biodiversity a hierarchical approach.
Conservation Biology 4: 355-364.
Understanding how key functions deter-
mine ES supply and how they depend Schneiders A, Van Landuyt W, Van Reeth
on biodiversity and understanding the W, Van Daele T (2012) Biodiversity and
effect of short-cutting these functions by Ecosystem Services: Complementary Ap-
technological variants, is crucial in the proaches for Ecosystem Management?
search for nature-based solutions. Ecological Indicators 21: 123-33.

2.3. From nature to society
Marion Potschin & Roy Haines-Young
Linking people and nature: Socio-ecological systems
Although people have always depended on ways. Some think of ES as the benefits that
nature, in modern societies it is easy to lose nature provides to people, like security and
sight of the fact that we still do. Indeed, the basic material we need for a good life.
many have argued that our failure to recog- Others view ES as the contributions that the
nise the value of nature and especially the ecosystem makes to such things. These dif-
contribution that biodiversity makes to our ferences in definition are explored in more
well-being, explains much of our damaging detail in Chapter 2.4. For the moment it is
behaviour towards the environment. It is sufficient to note that despite differences in
against this background that the concept of the way ES are defined, most commentators
ecosystem services (ES) is so important as agree that there is some kind of pathway
it highlights the ways in which people and that goes from ecological structures and pro-
nature are connected. cesses at one end through to the well-being
of people at the other (Figure 1). This idea
The links between people and nature are, can be represented in terms of what we call
however, complex and so it is hardly surpris- the cascade model. It is a way of expand-
ing that people have defined ES in different ing thinking about ecosystems to include
Environment The Social and Economic System
Supporting or Final Goods and Benefits

intermediate services services
Biophysical The production boundary

structure
or process
(e.g. woodland Function
habitat or
net primary (e.g. slow
productivity) passage
of water, or Service
biomass) (e.g. flood
Benefit
protection or
harvestable (e.g. contribution
products) Value
Limit pressures to ascpects of
via policy action? well-being such as (e.g. willingness to pay
health and safety) for woodland protection
or for more woodland,
or harvestable products)
Pressures
CICES
Figure 1. The cascade model. Credit: Haines-Young and Potschin.
Chapter 2 41
people and, as such, it might be described these are taken to be the subset characteris-
as a socio-ecological system. Finding out tics or behaviours that an ecosystem has that
how these socio-ecological systems work determines or underpins its capacity to de-
and how we can act to sustain them are core liver an ecosystem service. Some people call
issues in the field of ecosystem services. The these underpinning elements supporting
task not only involves the study of ecology, and intermediate services, depending on
but also such things as social practices, gov- how closely connected they are to the final
ernance and institutional structures, tech- service outputs; we believe, however, this
nology and, most importantly, the things terminology deflects attention away from
people value. the important characteristics and behaviours
of an ecosystem that generate different ser-
Note: CICES in Figure 1 is the Common vices. Thus using our terminology for one of
International Classification of Ecosystem Ser- the examples in Figure 1, the primary pro-
vices, it is described in more detail in Chapter ductivity of a woodland (i.e. an ecological
2.4; it is a way of categorising and describing structure) generates a standing crop of bio-
the final services that sit at the interface of na- mass (i.e. a functional characteristic of the
ture and society. woodland), parts of which can be harvested
(as a provisioning service).
Unpacking the cascade model
In the cascade, it is envisaged that services
To understand how socio-ecological systems contribute to human well-being through the
work, it is useful to unpack the cascade benefits that they support; for example by
model to see the inter-relationships between improving the health and safety of people
the elements. Ecosystem services are at the or by securing their livelihoods. Services are
centre of the cascade model which seeks to therefore the various ecosystem stocks and
show how the biophysical elements of the flows (Chapter 5.1) that directly contrib-
socio-ecological system are connected to the ute to some kind of benefit through human
socio-economic ones; ES are at the interface agency. The difference between a service and
between people and nature. a benefit in the cascade model is that bene-
fits are the things that people assign value to;
The ecosystem is represented by the ecolog- they are therefore synonymous with goods
ical structures and processes to the far left and products. The cascade model suggests
of the diagram. Often we simply use some that it is on the basis of changes in the values
label for a habitat type, such as woodland of the benefits that people make judgements
or grassland (Chapter 3.5), as a catch-all to about the kinds of intervention they might
denote this box, but there is no reason why make to protect or enhance the supply of
we cannot also refer to ecological processes, ES; this is indicated by the feedback arrow at
such as primary productivity as something the base of the diagram. The importance of
that can also occupy this part of the diagram values is that they can be expressed in many
(Chapter 2.2). In either case, given the com- ways; for example, alongside monetary val-
plexity of most ecosystems, when we want to ues, people can express the importance they
start to understand how they benefit people, attach to the benefits using moral, aesthetic
then it is helpful to start by identifying those and spiritual criteria (Chapter 4).
properties and characteristics of the system
that are potentially useful to people. This is Despite the simplicity of the cascade model,
where the idea of a function enters into the it is useful in highlighting a defining char-
discussion. In terms of the cascade model, acteristic of an ecosystem service, namely

that they are, in some sense, final outputs and how it connects people and nature1. We
from an ecosystem. They are final, in that need to map and measure indicators across
they are still connected to the ecological the entire pathway to build up a complete
structures and processes that gave rise to picture. The left hand side of the cascade
them and final in the sense that these links captures the important elements that deter-
are broken or transformed through some mine the capacity of an ecosystem to supply
human interaction necessary to realise a services, while the right hand side identifies
benefit. Often this intervention can take the aspects of the demand for them. And un-
the form of some physical action such as derstanding the balance between them is at
harvesting the useful parts of a crop. The the heart of the contemporary sustainability
interaction might also be non-material debate and key to our understanding of the
and more passive involving, for example, way people and nature are linked.
the benefit obtained from the reduction or
regulation of some kind of risk (flood risk
is the example shown in Figure 1), or the Further reading
intellectual or spiritual significance of na-
ture in a particular cultural context. Thus
services are at the point where the pro- Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2011) Eco-
duction boundary is crossed between the system Services: Exploring a geographical
biophysical and the socio-economic parts perspective. Progress in Physical Geogra-
of the socio-ecological system. phy 35(5): 575-594.
Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2016) Defin-

Balancing supply and demand ing and measuring ecosystem services.
In: Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Fish R,
Turner RK (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of
Socio-ecological systems are, of course, more Ecosystem Services. Routledge, London
complex than Figure 1 suggests. However, and New York: 25-44.
this simple diagram does help us to under-
stand that all the different elements of the
cascade need to be considered if we want to 1
see for example: http://www.biodiversity.fi/eco-
appreciate what an ecosystem service really is systemservices/cascade/
Chapter 2 43
2.4. Categorisation systems:
The classification challenge
Roy Haines-Young & Marion Potschin
Introduction
Categorising and describing ecosystem designing a classification system that is simple

services (ES) is the basis of any attempt to and transparent to use. We will argue that the
measure, map or value them. It is the basis problem of classification is still worth working
of being transparent in what we do, so that on and it is certainly not something that can
we can communicate our findings to others, be taken for granted. We would encourage ev-
or test what they conclude. So fundamental eryone to think about it when they embark
is the need to be clear about how we classi- on any kind of analysis involving ES.
fy ES that it might seem that it is an issue
that must already be well and truly resolved. The conclusion that we would like to advance
The aim of this chapter is to suggest that this is that the ES community probably needs to
might not, in fact, be the case entirely and develop a number of different classifications
that the way we categorise ES is something or typologies that can be used to name and
that still represents a challenge. describe all the elements in the cascade that
we described in Chapter 2.3, namely: the
A number of different typologies, or ways of ecosystem or habitat units that give rise to
classifying ES are available, including those the ES of interest, the ecological functions
used in the Millennium Ecosystem Assess- that are associated with them, as well as the
ment (MA) and The Economics of Ecosys- benefits and beneficiaries whose well-being is
tems and Biodiversity (TEEB) and a num- dependent on the output of services and, of
ber of national assessments, such as those in course, the values that people assign to these
the UK, Germany and Spain. The problem benefits. Services can also be classified accord-
with them is that they all approach the clas- ing to such criteria as whether they give rise
sification problem in different ways, involv- to private or public benefits, whether people
ing different scale perspectives and different can be prevented from accessing the service
definitions resulting in the fact that they are (excludable vs non-excludable), or whether
not always easy to compare. In order to try the use of a service by one individual or group
to partly overcome this translation problem, affects the use by others (rival vs non-rival).
the Common International Classification of
Ecosystem Services (CICES) was proposed in
2009 and revised in 2013. A typology trans- The Common International
lator is available via the OpenNESS-HUGIN
website1. Classification of Ecosystem
Services (CICES)
We do not argue that it is better than any
other system, but it illustrates the difficulty of CICES was originally developed as part of the
work on the System of integrated Environ-
1
http://openness.hugin.com/example/cices

mental and Economic Accounting (SEEA) sively into divisions, groups and classes.
led by the United Nations Statistical Division Figure 1 illustrates how this works using the
(UNSD), but it has been used by the wider example of cereals.
ecosystem services community to help define
indicators of ES, or map them. In designing The full version of CICES is available online2.
it, the intention was to provide a way of char-
acterising final services, namely those that Facing the challenges of
interface between ecosystems and society. In
this sense, it follows the definition used in categorisation
TEEB, namely that these final services are
the things from which goods and benefits are The first challenge that working on CICES
derived. However, it did try to use as much of showed was how difficult it is to categorise
the terminology that was already widely em- final ecosystem services. These, according
ployed and so used the categorisation of pro- to Boyd and Banzhaf, are the end-products
visioning, regulating and cultural services of nature who argue that it is important to
that were made familiar by the MA. define them clearly to avoid the problem of
double counting when we calculate their val-
Material and energetic outputs from ecosys- ue; i.e. assessing the importance of a compo-
tems from which goods and products are de- nent of nature more than once generally be-
rived are contained in CICES provisioning cause it is embedded in, or underpins, a range
services. Regulating services categories refer of different service outputs. More formally
to all the ways that ecosystems can mediate these authors suggest final services are compo-
the environment in which people live or de- nents of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed,
pend on in some way and therefore benefit or used to yield human well-being. The prob-
from them in terms of health or security, lem is that, what constitutes a final service,
for example. Finally, the cultural category generally depends on the context in which the
identified all the non-material characteris- assessment or mapping exercise is being made;
tics of ecosystems that contribute to, or are thus CICES lists potential final services.
important for peoples mental or intellectual A second challenge was whether abiotic eco-
well-being. CICES is hierarchical in struc-
ture, splitting these major sections succes- 2
www.cices.eu
Section Provisioning
Non-nutritional
Division Nutrition
biotic materials
Group Biomass Water ... ...
Cultivated
Class
crops
Class type Cereals
Figure 1. The hierarchical structure of CICES illustrated with reference to a provisioning service (cultivat-
ed crops - cereals). Credit: Haines-Young and Potschin.
Chapter 2 45
system outputs like wind or hydropower, or rience suggests that they will need to be de-
minerals like salt, should be categorised as veloped in an iterative way, using experience
ecosystem services. In the end, the argu- to find out what works where and how nam-
ment that the category ecosystem services ing conventions and definitions can be im-
should be restricted to those ecosystem proved. While we have used CICES to illus-
outputs that were dependent on living pro- trate some of these issues, it is important not
cesses won the day, because it strengthened to overlook the fact that it is a system that,
arguments about the importance of biodi- despite limitations, has been used effectively.
versity to people; an accompanying provi-
sional classification of abiotic services that For example, CICES forms part of the map-
follows the CICES logic has, however, been ping framework designed to support the
developed and is available. EUs Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (the sec-
ond report of the Mapping and Assessment
It is worth mentioning that the final chal- of Ecosystem Services (MAES) uses CICES
lenge which we encountered in designing classes to identify a range of indicators that
CICES, was the difficulty that people have can be used for mapping and assessment
in distinguishing services and benefits. The purposes3; see also Chapter7.1). A number
distinction is a difficult one to make because of papers have appeared in peer-reviewed
it involves deciding where the end-product scientific literature that have either used
of nature is transformed into a good, prod- CICES or commented upon it as part of
uct or benefit, product or benefit as a result their methodological discussion.
of human action of some kind. The distinc-
tion we use in CICES is whether the con- CICES has, for example, been used as the
nection with the underlying ecological pro- basis of the German TEEB study as well
cesses and structures is retained; hence the as the scoping work for a German Nation-
standing crop of wheat in the field is a final al Ecosystem Assessment, NEA-DE. The
service from an agricultural ecosystem, but TEEB report on Agriculture also recom-
the grain in the silo is the good or benefit. mends the use of CICES. Elsewhere, CICES
has been refined at the most detailed class
The distinction between services and ben- level to meet the requirements of ecosystem
efits is an important one because a single assessment in Belgium. Research in Finland
service can give rise to multiple goods and used CICES to develop an indicator frame-
benefits that all need to be identified if ser- work at the national scale. These kinds of
vices are to be valued appropriately. In the applications suggest that the detailed class
case of rice for example, in addition to the level in CICES can be useful as building
harvest of the grain, rice straw and husks can block from broader reporting categories, the
be used for animal feed or as raw material advantage being that these broader catego-
for energy. ries are themselves defined in a transparent
way. These types of use illustrate the kinds
of application that any good classification
Using CICES Taking stock system must be able to support. Many more
applications can be found several are listed
in the further reading material.
In this chapter we have used CICES to ex-
plore some of the challenges that we need to
face when developing systems for categoris- 3
see also (accessed 30/01/2016): http://biodiver-
ing ES. These systems are complex and expe- sity.europa.eu/maes/#ESTAB

Outlook Further reading
While the applications of CICES suggest Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem
that the current framework is appropriate services? The need for standardized envi-
for many uses, it is also clear that we need ronmental accounting units. Ecological
to think carefully about how such systems Economics 63: 616626.
can be developed. For example, researchers
have suggest that it may need to be adapted Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2013) Common
to ensure that it is suitable for the assess- International Classification of Ecosystem
ment of marine and coastal ecosystems, or Services (CICES), version 4.3. Report to
integrated more closely with typologies for the European Environment Agency EEA/
describing underlying ecosystem functions. BSS/07/007 (download: www.cices.eu).
It is probable that marine interests were un-
der-represented in the consultations that led Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2016a) De-
to the current CICES version. fining and measuring ecosystem services.
In: Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Fish R,
Thus while the current version of CICES Turner RK (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of
clearly works for many purposes, given the Ecosystem Services. Routledge, London
importance of categorising ES in clear and and New York: 25-44.
transparent ways, the development of this and
other systems needs to be reviewed constantly Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2016b) Report
as our needs and concepts evolve. They are es- on Workshop on Customising CICES
sential tools for our mapping and assessment across member states. Milestone 19 of
work. It has been suggested, for example, that ESMERALDA (download at: http://www.
a classification, such as CICES, might form esmeralda-project.eu/documents/).
part of a more general systematic approach
or blue print for mapping and modelling
ecosystem services. Other authors have em-
phasised that it is important to develop clas-
sification systems, such as CICES, that are
geographically and hierarchically consistent
so that we can make comparisons between re-
gions and integrate detailed local studies into
a broader geographical understanding.
Our concluding point is that, whether

CICES has a role to play or not, these kinds
of systems will not build themselves. We need
to be aware of the challenges that the cate-
gorisation of ES still poses and the fact that
we have only just started to address them.
Note: At the time of writing, version 4.3 is to

be used. This version is currently under revi-
sion and version 5 is under development. All
details are available on the CICES webpage4 .
4
www.cices.eu
Chapter 2 47
CHAPTER 3
Background mapping
3.1. Basics of cartography
Kremena Boyanova & Benjamin Burkhard
Introduction Coordinate systems

Cartography (from Greek kharts, The coordinate system of a dataset is used
map; and graphein, write) to define the positions of the mapped phe-
is the art and science of representing geo- nomena in space. It furthermore acts as a
graphic data by geographical means. Maps key to combine and integrate different data-
are the main products of cartographic work sets based on their location. This enables the
and are graphic representations of features performance of various integrated analytical
of an area of the Earth or of any other celes- operations, such as overlaying or merging
tial body drawn to scale. Regardless of the data layers from different sources. Coordi-
map type or the mapping technique applied nate systems can be geographic, projected or
(Chapter 3.2), every map has a coordinate vertical systems.
system, a projection, a scale and includes
specific map elements. These attributes Geographic coordinate systems
usually depend on the size and shape of the
mapped geographical area and the graphical A Geographic Coordinate System (GCS) uses
design of the map representation that needs a three-dimensional spherical surface to define
to be informative and understandable for locations on the Earth, i.e. the Earth is repre-
the map-user (Chapters 5.4 and 6.4). sented as a sphere or a spheroid. A point on
that sphere is referenced by its longitude and
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are latitude values. Longitude and latitude are an-
powerful tools for data Input, Management, gles measured in degrees from the Earths cen-
Analysis and Presentation (IMAP principle) tre to a point on its surface. The Prime merid-
providing multiple possibilities for a better ian and Equator act as reference for longitude
understanding of the structures and pat- and latitude respectively (Figure 1).
terns of human and natural activities and
phenomena (Chapter 3.4). Nevertheless,
much of its easy-to-apply default-function- 80
ality can be misleading for an inexperienced 60

60E 55N
map-maker.
40
In the present chapter, we discuss the main 20 55 Lat.
characteristics of maps such as coordinate 60
system, geodetic datum, projection, scale 0 20 40 60

Longitude
and map elements; how to choose them ac-
cordingly and what their role is for proper
use of a map. The use of GIS has significant-
ly simplified mapping and provides a good
environment for the visualisation of Ecosys- Figure 1. The world as a globe with longitude and
tem Services (ES). latitude values.
Chapter 3 51
Projected coordinate systems Therefore it is very important when using
A Projected Coordinate System (PCS) is digital mapping tools that the used datasets
based on a GCS that is transferred into a are defined in an eligible coordinate system.
flat, two-dimensional surface. For that
purpose, a PCS requires a map projection,
which is defined by a set of projection pa- Geodetic datum and transfor-
rameters that customise the map projection
for a particular location. The various map mations
projections are discussed in detail below.
The geodetic datum defines a) the size and
shape of the Earth and b) the orientation
Vertical coordinate systems and origin of the used coordinate system
A vertical coordinate system defines the ver- through a set of constants. The geodetic da-
tical position of the dataset from a reference tum can be based on flat, spherical or ellip-
vertical position - usually its elevation (height) soidal Earth models:
or depth from the sea level (Figure 2).
Flat Earth models are used over short
distances so that the actual Earth curva-
+6.3 ture is insignificant (< 10 km);
mean low water Spherical models represent the figure
mean sea water +5.8 +6.0 of the Earth as a sphere with a specified
radius, leading to deformations in the
model which are largest at the poles;
Figure 2. Two vertical coordinate systems: mean
sea level and mean low water. used for short range navigation and
global distance approximations; and
While the definition of a geographic or pro- Ellipsoidal models are the most accurate
jected coordinate system is obligatory for all models of Earth; used for calculations
datasets, vertical coordinate systems are only over long distances; the reference ellip-
needed if the vertical height of data is of rel- soid is defined by semi-major (equato-
evance. Lack of, or wrongly defined, coordi- rial radius) and flattening (the relation-
nate system information leads to problems of ship between equatorial and polar radii).
spatial data integration. (Figure 3).
The ellipsoidal model can represent the
Landuse
topographical surface of the Earth (actual
surface of the land and sea at some moment
Streets
in time), the sea level (average level of the
Districts
oceans), the gravity surface of the Earth
Parcels
(gravity model) or the Geoid. The Geoid is
the equi-potential surface that the Earths
Parks
oceans would take due to the Earths grav-
River
itation and rotation, neglecting all other in-
fluences such as winds, currents and tides.
Sand and Gravel Discharge
Sandstone
Point
Water Table Aquifer The World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-
Shale 84) datum defines geoid heights for the en-
tire Earth in a ten by ten degree grid. The
Figure 3. Integration of datasets for the same area
(inspired by Buckley 1997).

Global Positioning System (GPS) is based The transformation of a spherical surface
on the WGS-84. into a plane leads to different distortions in
the lengths, angles, shapes and areas of the
The geodetic datums can be horizontal (lat- mapped surface. The distortions are usually
itude and longitude), vertical (height) and smallest along the standard lines and close
complete. The transformation between to the attachment point. Depending on the
datums requires the application of strict shape and size of the mapped area, appropri-
mathematical rules and sets of parameters, ate projection and standard lines should be
depending on the required transformation. selected. Distortions are inevitable and it is
Most GIS and mapping platforms support impossible to create the perfectly projected
automated transformation between datums map that fulfils all map projection properties.
and coordinate systems. The four properties of the map and their re-
spective projection types are:
Map projections Local shapes of the features on the map

are the same as on the Earths surface.
This conformal projection maintains all
Map projections are mathematical repre- angles.
sentations of the Earths spherical body on
a plain surface through mathematical trans- The areas of the features on the Earth
formations from spherical (latitude, longi- are in the same proportions as on the
tude) to Cartesian (x, y) coordinates. Map map. Other properties - shape, angle,
projections usually depend for the transfor- and distance - are distorted in equal-ar-
mation on a form which can be developed ea projections.
or flattened a plane, a cone, or a cylin-
der- which is attached to the sphere at one The scaled distances along the standard
point or at one or two standard lines. The lines, or from the attachment point, to
respective map projections are referred to as all other points on the map are main-
planar, conic and cylindrical (Figure 4). tained in equidistant projections. This is
not valid along all lines or between any
two points on a map.
Flattnable
surfaces
The directions on the map are correct in
the true-direction (azimuthal) projection.
It gives the directions (or azimuths) of
all points on the map correctly with
respect to the centre. Some true-di-
rection projections are also conformal,
equal-area, or equidistant.
Flat maps For every map, only one or two of those

properties can be fulfilled and the cartog-
rapher has to make a choice, depending
on the purpose and needs of the map (see
Chapter 5.4).
Figure 4. Developable (flattenable) surfaces (in

Monmonier 1996).
Chapter 3 53
Scale Scale selection
The scale represents the ratio of the distance Map scales can be expressed as a ratio, a ver-
between two points on the map to the corre- bal statement or as a graphic (bar) scale (Fig-
sponding distance on the ground. Thus large ure 6). On non-analogous (digital) maps, it
scale maps (with a large reciprocal value of is essential to use a graphic scale bar (linear
the scale, such as 1:5,000) cover small areas bar). A scale bar adjusts to the resolution of
with great detail and accuracy, while small the respective display, a parameter which
scale maps (e.g. 1:1,000,000) cover larger cannot be controlled by the map maker. The
areas in less detail (Figure 5). The map scale variability of map size by using a projector is
also influences generalisation (Chapter 3.4) an example of this problem.
and symbolisation (Chapter 3.3) of the map.
When choosing the map scale, the cartogra-
pher should consider: Elements of a map
Purpose of the map - the mapped phe-
nomena need to be well-represented in Elements of a map are crucial for providing
the selected scale; the map-user with critical information about
Map size - the scale need to be adapted the map content. Making a thematic map is
to the size of the mapped area and the to a large extent a creative act and the choice
desired final size (format) of the map; of map elements depends on the context, au-
Detail - the scale need to be adapted to dience and the preferences of the map-maker.
the detail in which the phenomena are Nevertheless, there are three levels for repre-
mapped. sentation of the elements of a map, presented
here by by their level of relevance (Figure 7):
Scale selection
1:5 000 1:25 000 1:50 000 1:100 000 1:200 000 1:500 000 1:1000 000
Mapped earth area
Small Large
More Information detail Less
Symbolisation
More generalised Less generalised
Figure 5. Interaction between map content and scale selection.
Ratio scales Verbal scales Graphic scales

10.000 5.000 0 10.000 Miles
1 : 10 000 One centimetre (on the map) represents 10 000 centimetres (in reality)
(or 100 metres) Alternating scale bar
1 : 25 000 One centimetre (on the map) represents 25 000 centimetres (in reality) 10.000 5.000 0 10.000 Miles
(or 250 metres)
1 : 100 000 One centimetre (on the map) represents 100 000 centimetres (in reality) Double alternating scale bar
(or 1 kilometre)
10.000 5.000 0 10.000 Miles
1 : 1 000 000 One centimetre (on the map) represents 1 000 000 centimetres (in reality)
(or 10 kilometres ) Hollow scale bar
Figure 6. Examples of ratio, verbal and graphic scales.

Elements that make the proper reading Projection provides information
of the map possible and it is recom- about the projection and possible dis-
mended to add them to all maps: tortions in the area, distance, direction
Scale information; and shape of the mapped features;
Map direction a symbol, usually Cartographers name and/or the au-
an arrow, that indicates the true north thority responsible for the composition
(the direction to the North Pole); if a of the map;
coordinate grid (graticule) is added to Date of production;
the map or on small-scale (e.g. conti- Data sources used to create the map.
nental) maps, a north arrow is not re-
quired; Elements used selectively to assist effec-
Legend the legend lists all sym- tive communication (optional):
bols, their sizes, patterns and colours Neatlines (clipping lines) used to
used in the map and the features they frame the map and indicate the exact
depict (see Chapter 3.3); they should area of the map;
appear in the legend exactly as they are Locator maps to place the body of
found in the body of the map; the map within a larger geographical
context;
Elements that provide context: Inset map a zoomed in map of
Title should provide a short and small areas from the map with high rel-
clear statement about the map content, evance, where information is too clus-
usually stating the name of the mapped tered for the scale of the map body;
area and the map theme (in ES maps - Index maps when labels or other
the mapped ES) along with the depict- information cannot be placed effective-
ed year in thematic maps; it should be ly in the body of the map, they can be
considered that this information can be input separately to increase readability.
included in the map legend title also;
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 34N

UPPER OGOSTA WATERSHED Projection: Transverse Mercator
Datum: WGS 1984
Units: Meter
Author: Kremena Boyanova

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2014
Data source: SWAT model outputs
Freshwater Supply
(average 2000-2005)
Basin
0 - no relevant supply
1 - low relevant supply
2 - relevant demand Figure 7. Example map and its elements:
3 - medium relevant supply actual map, scale, north arrow, legend,
4 - high relevant supply
title, coordinate system and projection,
5 - very high relevant demand
cartographers name and institution, date
of production, data source and neatline.
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 34N Author: Kremena Boyanova
Projection: Transverse Mercator Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2014
Datum: WGS 1984 Data source: SWAT model outputs
Units: Meter
Chapter 3 55
Conclusions Pearson F (1990) Map Projection: Theory and
Applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Cartography is based on a long tradition and Florida.
comprehensive knowledge of map-creation
and map-use. ES map-makers still need to be Snyder JP (1987) Map Projections - A Work-
aware of the general principles, techniques ing Manual. U.S. Geological Survey Pro-
(Chapter 3.2) and logics (Chapter 3.3) of fessional Paper 1395. U.S. Government
cartography, although with todays software Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
programmes, it seems all too easy to create
lots of maps rather quickly. Digital maps are Snyder JP (1993) Flattening the Earth: Two
the main means of map representation now- Thousand Years of Map Projections. Uni-
adays and the main tool for geographic data versity of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois.
interpretation, visualisation and communi-
cation. They provide multiple opportunities
but also traps for the map-maker. There- Online resources
fore, instead of producing large quantities
of badly-compiled and misleading maps, ES ArcGIS (ESRI Desktop Help): http://re-
map producers should harness the available sources.arcgis.com/en/help/
knowledge and techniques in order to sup-
port the proper application of ES and ES Buckley DJ (1997) The GIS Primer. Pacific
mapping in science, decision making and Meridian Resources Inc.: http://planet.bot-
society (Chapter 7). any.uwc.ac.za/nisl/GIS/GIS_primer/index.
htm
Further reading
Further:
Bugayevskiy LM, Snyder JP (1995) Map Pro- http://geokov.com/education/map-projec-

jections - A Reference Manual. Taylor & tion.aspx
Francis, Great Britain.
http://www.progonos.com/furuti
Fenna D (2007) Cartographic Science: A
Compendium of Map Projections, with http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/
Derivations. CRC Press, Boca Raton, notes/mapproj/mapproj_f.html
Florida.
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/
International Hydrographic Bureau (2003) notes/cartocom/cartocom_ftoc.html
Users Handbook on Datum Transfor-
mations Involving WGS 84. 3rd Edition http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/
(Last correction August 2008). Special notes/datum/datum_f.html
Publication No. 60. Monaco.
http://www.librry.arizona.edu/help/how/
Maling DH (1992) Coordinate Systems and find/maps/scale
Map Projections, 2nd Ed. Pergamon Press.
Oxford. http://awsm-tools.com/geo/convert-datum
Monmonier M (1996) How to lie with maps. http://gitta.info/LayoutDesign/en/html/in-

2nd ed. The University of Chicago Press. dex.html

3.2. Mapping techniques
Christoph Traun, Hermann Klug & Benjamin Burkhard
Introduction Matching data and map type
Mapping is about the graphical represen- Data are the result of measurements (Chap-
tation of spatio-temporal phenomena. Il- ter 4.1), modelling (Chapter 4.4) or other
lustrating our complex environment by quantifications (Chapter 4) of geographic
symbols and graphics requires important phenomena. Air temperature data, for ex-
decisions: Does the chosen map type prop- ample, is typically gathered by taking mea-
erly reflect the Ecosystem Service(s) (ES) surements at several point locations. Data
to be portrayed? Are more intuitive design on tree diameters might look similar, since
choices available to visualise and explain a it uses the same geometry (points) and is
particular dataset? What happens if the map measured on a metric level. However, the
type does not fit the data? This chapter aims represented phenomenon (trees) is entirely
to investigate popular map types like dot different in nature, since trees only exist at
maps, choropleth maps, proportional sym- discrete locations in space, while atmospher-
bol maps, isarithmic maps and marker maps. ic conditions are continuously distributed
We relate those types to inherent spatial and and can be measured everywhere.
statistical characteristics of certain ES phe-
nomena and give advice on advantages and Different data models can be used to store,
possible pitfalls related to their usage. analyse and present spatial data, for example
in Geographic Information Systems (GIS):
Every ES map, whether paper or digital, is a Vector data models represent discrete or
graphical representation of ES in their geo- continuous spatial phenomena by using
graphic context. In most cases, such maps points, lines and polygons. Vector data have
are built to facilitate understanding of ES high accuracy for displaying features with
in their spatial (Chapter 5.2) and/or tem- distinct boundaries; vector map data files
poral (Chapter 5.3) dimension. What kind usually use less memory capacity.
of ES data should be presented to whom
(e.g. general public, scientific community, Raster data represent the world in a regular
ES-practitioners) greatly determine the map- grid of cells (pixels). Raster models are often
ping process: a process of abstraction from used for continuously varying phenomena
geographic reality to the final map. Scientif- or they are the result of remote sensing.
ic cartography developed an extensive body
of theory and derived practical guidelines to It is possible to convert vector to raster data
accomplish this process. A major goal there- and vice versa. However, based on the differ-
of is the provision of maps that can be in- ent data model concepts, such conversions
tuitively read and correctly understood and normally lead to loss of information and/or
used by the intended end user (Chapter 6.4). data accuracy.
Chapter 3 57
When defining maps as graphic represen- While such a scheme can assist in selecting
tations with the aim of facilitating the un- an appropriate thematic mapping technique
derstanding of spatial phenomena, mapping for quantitative data, there are further corre-
techniques that properly reflect their main sponding considerations:
spatial characteristics should be chosen. But
what does properly reflect mean? According What is the intended usage of the ES
to the congruence principle from cognitive map (Chapter 5.4)? Does it merely act
design, the structure and content of visu- as an interface with the ES relevant en-
alisations should correspond to the desired tities, should it provide an overview on
structure and content of mental represen- general spatial patterns or is it intended
tations. The basic mapping concept of scal- to allow for local comparisons?
ing geographic space is appropriate in this
respect, since distances and directions be- Is the data related to individual locations
tween entities are adequately represented by or is it aggregated to enumeration units?
the scaled distances and directions of their
corresponding map symbols (except when Is the data standardised (e.g. rates) or
mapping on continental scale and projec- not (raw counts)?
tion distortion is apparent). Thus it facili-
tates the development of mental models on The following section describes important
the respective spatial configuration. Howev- thematic mapping techniques while ad-
er, it makes a difference whether a spatially dressing such considerations.
continuous geographic phenomenon like
the air is represented as a set of discrete dots
or by alternative graphic means correspond- Mapping techniques
ing better to its spatial continuity.
Spatial phenomena can be categorised based Common thematic mapping techniques

on spatial continuity and spatial (in)depen- include dot (density) maps, marker maps,
dence. For each possible combination, Fig- choropleth maps, proportional symbol
ure 1 suggests a specific mapping technique, maps and isarithmic maps.
as discussed in the following section.
Spatially discrete Spatially
(Phenomenon contiuous Dot (density) maps
only occurs at distinct, (Phenomenon is
separate locations) defined everywhere)
Abrupt Example: Example: In their simplest form of one-to-one feature
changes Number of people Strenght of
(Measured
working in National environmental correspondence, dot maps (also known as
properties
change Parks (continental scale) protection laws dot distribution maps) follow a very easy
abruptly Consider using a Consider using a
over space) Proportional Symbol Choropleth concept: at each location of the mapped en-
map map
tity, there is a corresponding small symbol
Smooth Example: Example: in the map. Although this one-dot-per-fea-
changes Number of salamander Change of mean annual
(Measured sightings in different temperature from ture approach is increasingly popular even
properties
change
regionsof a national park 1950-2015 in small scales and with very large numbers
Consider using a Consider using a
smoothly
Dot (density) Isarithmic of features1, dots quickly coalesce to a shad-
over space)
map map ing of variable intensity, which might be un-
Figure 1. Models of geographic phenomena and
suggested symbolisation methods. Simplified http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/
1
after MacEachren (1992).

favourable for certain applications. In that colours (therefore heat) while areas with
case, a one-to-many approach is favourable, sparse data are normally coloured in blue.
were each dot represents a fixed number Although heat maps are quite popular, it
of entities (e.g.: 1 dot = 100 people). The is somewhat difficult to derive actual point
choice of the number of entities per dot is feature numbers for a certain area.
related to the chosen dot size, the scale and
the density of feature locations. As a rule of
thumb, points should start to coalesce in the Marker maps
map areas of maximum density.
Dot maps are especially suited to focus on Marker maps are a special form of dot maps
the distribution patterns of entities or on that emerged with the advent of web map-
differences in local densities. When using ping applications such as Google maps. Ly-
the dot density approach for polygonal aging on top of a topographic base map, every
gregated data (e.g. number of people per marker or pushpin symbolises a feature
district), the according number of points is of interest in its geographic location. With
placed within each polygon. To determine each marker being hyperlinked, the user
the position of each point within its poly- can obtain additional object information or
gon, several options apply: trigger certain actions, like booking a hotel
room. The map itself acts foremost as an
Random point distribution is straight- interface to data which is structured by its
forward and often used, although it spatial location.
might be misleading in cases with a very
uneven distribution (e.g. randomly dis- Paper maps showing the location of entities
tributing points representing the pop- often use different symbols for different ob-
ulation of Egypt on the country area). ject types referenced in a legend. Thus the
selection of the currently relevant object is
Adjust the point positioning within a performed visually by the user. Contrary to
polygon by using information on den- this, a web map allows the user to query the
sities in neighbouring polygons. objects of interest within a database first and
then show the query result in the map. Con-
Use of ancillary information (e.g. settle- sequently, no further graphical differentiation
ment information from remote sensing of markers is necessary (but still possible).
data) for more precise point allocation.
Point markers are used to depict any type of
Dot density maps which are based on aggre- feature geometry in the map, be it points,
gated data require absolute counts as a ba- lines or areas. The main reason refraining
sis (e.g. number of persons per county). In from clickable areal symbols is explained
addition, the use of an area-preserving map by interaction challenges with other objects
projection (see Chapter 3.1) is essential, lying within the same area. Marker maps
since the density impression results from the are often used to encode qualitative infor-
number of dots per area unit on the map. mation. They mainly inform the user about
individual locations and the spatial distri-
Heat maps are frequently seen derivatives bution pattern of the entities of interest. To
of dot maps. Instead of showing the actual prevent markers from coalescing in small
dots, they use areal colouring to represent scales, different mechanisms for grouping
their density. Dense areas get more reddish and/or selection can be applied.
Chapter 3 59
Choropleth maps resulting relationship between unit-size and
colour for correcting the wrong impression
Choropleth maps are preferably used to map of spatial distributions (compare Figure 2).
data collected for areal units, such as states, However, in most cases, standardised values
census areas or eco-regions. Their main pur- can be easily derived from raw counts.
pose is to provide an overview of quantita-
tive spatial patterns across the area of inter- In summary, choropleth maps are a good
est. To construct a choropleth map, the data choice to demonstrate standardised data ag-
for each unit is aggregated into one value. gregated to areal units, especially if there is
According to their values, the areal units are little variation within units and the bound-
typically grouped into classes and a colour is aries of the units are meaningful for the
assigned to each class. This requires the use mapped phenomenon.
of meaningful colour-schemes2 (Chapter
3.3), representing the sequential or diverg-
ing nature of the mapped phenomenon. Proportional symbol maps
Although choropleth maps are very com-
mon, several pitfalls are inherently associat- Based on our assumption that larger means
ed with them: more, proportional symbol maps use vari-
ation in symbol size to depict quantities.
Variation within units is ignored, although While the size of point symbols can be used
the mapped phenomenon might vary con- to denote quantitative attributes of point
siderably within (especially larger) units. features (e.g. spring symbols scaled to wa-
ter outputs), scaled point symbols are also
The boundaries between units often do not used to represent data aggregated to areas, as
align with discontinuities in the mapped discussed for choropleth maps. Contrary to
phenomenon. Especially the historically the latter, not only is the colour of the areal
defined boundaries of administrative units units modified based on an attribute, but a
often poorly align with spatial discontinu- point symbol is positioned within each area
ities of current social or natural processes and the size of this symbol is scaled accord-
(Chapter 5.2). Both problems, namely the ing to the desired attribute. Since comparing
variation within units and the definition of sizes is much easier than comparing shades,
spatial boundaries apply for many ES and proportional symbol maps are especially ef-
belong to the so called Modifiable Areal fective for comparison tasks. According to
Unit Problem (MAUP; see Chapter 6.1). the scheme in Figure 1, proportional symbol
maps best connote spatially discrete entities
Choropleth maps are only suitable for with spatially unrelated attributes. In con-
mapping standardised (normalised) data trast to choropleth maps, they are capable
like rates (yield per ha per year) or densi- of handling absolute data like raw object
ties (persons per km). Mapping absolute counts within differently sized areas. This is
values (e.g. counts of persons per unit) is possible due to the fact that larger symbols
wrong since size differences of individual can be related to larger areas quite intuitive-
units will greatly affect the result: large units ly (Figure 3).
will tend to have higher values, small units
lower ones. Even for experienced map users, In their basic form, the area of a symbol is
it is impossible to mentally disentangle the scaled proportionally to the magnitude of
2
http://colorbrewer2.org

areal units of different size
object
1km
(Regularly dispersed) distribution of underlying objects. 1km
1 object/km
Mapping relative (area standardised) values: number of objects per km.
16 objects
4
1
Mapping the absolute number of objects per unit leads to a wrong impression of the spatial
distribution.
Figure 2. Only standardised data (rates etc.) should be mapped with choropleth maps. Inspired by
Slocum (2009).
16
objects
Figure 3. Symbol size relates well to the size of areal units, making proportional symbol maps
capable of mapping non-standardised, absolute values (see Figure 2 for the underlying object
distribution). Inspired by Slocum (2009).
Chapter 3 61
the mapped attribute. However, several vari- Isarithmic maps
ants apply:
Many ecosystem processes like climate reg-
Although the subject is controversial, ulation or air quality regulation take place
perceptual scaling tries to adjust the in a spatially continuous manner. As a con-
symbol size to compensate the empiri- sequence, the related ES are also gradually
cally tested tendency for underestimat- varying over space. Isarithmic maps connect
ing the area of large symbols. points of the same value (at certain intervals)
by a line (=isoline) and are especially useful
The use of 3D-symbols like spheres to map such smoothly changing continuous
or cubes allows scaling proportional- field data. The most prominent examples
ly to symbol volume instead of area. of isolines are contour lines in topographic
Although volumes are estimated even maps, connecting points of the same eleva-
more badly, this might be useful when tion. This concept can be used for all types
large spans of data values have to be ac- of continuous fields. Isarithmic maps can be
commodated in the map. combined with areal colouring using con-
tinuous colour ramps. Alternatively, the ar-
For data of extremely large or very eas between the isolines can be filled with a
small value ranges, data values might be sequence of classed colours. A combination
classed and classes are assigned a set of of isolines with analytical hill-shading inten-
graduated symbols. While symbol sizes sifies the surface-character of the mapped
still represent the order of classes, sym- phenomenon.
bols are not proportional to the magni-
tude of values any more. Thus additional The construction of isarithmic maps re-
information (e.g. in a legend) pointing quires surface data, commonly modelled
to that fact is crucial for interpretation. as point grid or Triangulated Irregular Net-
work (TIN). Grounded on a base value and
At times, data is composed of sever- an interval, isolines are constructed from
al subgroups (e.g. total population by the field model using spatial interpolation.
gender or age groups). To show this Using, for example, a base value of 50 and
further subdivision, scaled diagrams an interval of 100 to display a surface with
can be used instead of plain symbols. values ranging between 54 and 320, iso-
Pie charts are often chosen due to their lines of the value 150 and 250 will be the
compactness. result. Since isarithmic maps emphasise the
continuous, smoothly varying character of
Often, proportional or graduated symbols a phenomenon, it is advisable to use them
will overlap. While overall downscaling for such phenomena even though the data
might be a solution, a small amount of over- is being provided as discrete samples. As an
lap is acceptable. Using half-transparent, example, data on ecological vulnerability
simple symbols like circles is a good strate- based on districts could be considered: while
gy to cope with overlap as well. Web maps each district might have assigned a value
sometimes use cross-breeds of markers and indicating its vulnerability, local vulnera-
proportional symbols: instead of permitting bility might smoothly change over space,
marker-overlap in small scales, nearby mark- independently of sharp district borders. De-
ers are aggregated into one symbol scaled to pending on the intended message (objective
the number of markers it contains. representation of risk versus hey governor,

you are responsible for this highly vulner- therefore it depends on the mapped ES
able district, act!) it might make sense to topic, what kind of geographic features
create a continuous vulnerability surface should be part of the base map. While
from polygonal data and utilise an isarith- some base maps focus on the street net-
mic map for its communication. When fol- work7, others emphasise the terrain or
lowing such an approach, it is important to highlight administrative boundaries.
use only standardised (relative) values from Users should carefully think about what
enumeration units for surface generation. kind of information is required to sup-
Methods like pycnophylactic interpolation port the mapped ES topic.
or area-to-point kriging, guarantee that the
overall volume remains constant while the Visual prominence: Base maps provide
surface is smoothed. ancillary information, thus their place
is in the visual background. In a digi-
Apart from the basic thematic mapping tal context there are two common con-
concepts described so far, there are nu- cepts to accomplish this: A dark base
merous other techniques: Cartograms3, map with bright and saturated thematic
dasymetric maps, flow maps, animated information on top or a light and un-
maps4 or perspective views are just some saturated base map overlaid by darker
examples for techniques meeting more and more saturated thematic layers.
specialised purposes.
Visual density: At each scale level, the
base map should have approximate-
Choosing an appropriate base ly the same visual density (number of
shown features per area). If the themat-
map ic ES layers are rather complex, a base
map with a rather low visual density
A typical ES map consists of a topograph- (e.g. only coastline and country bound-
ic base map and one or more superimposed aries) should be chosen.
thematic layers showing the desired ES data.
The base map provides the geographic refer-
ence to the ES data, informing the user on Generalisation
location while simultaneously providing a
sense of the actual map scale. Depending on
the used mapping framework5, there is often Due to scale limitations it is not possible to
a choice between various base maps6. Some show all spatial objects with all their detail
base maps can also be edited by the user to in the limited map space. Generalisation
highlight or subdue certain object classes. aims to represent the ES-information in a
level of detail appropriate for a given scale,
When choosing a base map, several aspects user group and use context. It is necessary
must be considered: in cases where the visual density in maps is
increasing rapidly, symbols overlap or to-
Thematic support: The base map should pological conflicts become evident due to
support the thematic ES information; graphical scaling. Figure 4 shows typical
operations applied in the generalisation pro-
3
http://www.worldmapper.org/ cess. Although the application of some of
4
http://hint.fm/wind/ those operators can be automated, it is the
5
http://tools.geofabrik.de/mc/
6
http://maps.stamen.com 7
https://www.openstreetmap.org
Chapter 3 63
Original Map Generalised Map systems, consisting of discrete and contin-
Simplification
uous features. This complexity should also
be respectively reflected in the maps, which
need to be logical, clear, understandable and
Smoothing
well-designed.
Aggregation
Further reading
Amalgamation Brewer CA (1999) Colour Use Guidelines for
Data Representation. Paper presented at
the Proceedings of the Section on Statisti-
Airport Airport cal Graphics, Alexandria.
Collapse
Salzburg School Salzburg School
Krygier J, Wood D (2011) Making Maps,
Second Edition: A Visual Guide to Map
Merging Design for GIS: The Guilford Press.
Station Station
MacEachren AM (1992) Visualising uncertain

Bay Bay
information. Review of. Cartographic Per-
Exaggeration
spectives (13):10-9.
Inlet Inlet
MacEachren AM (2004) How Maps Work -

Enhancement
Representation, Visualisation and Design.
2 ed. New York, London: The Guilford
Press.
Stream Stream
Displacement Road Road
Muehlenhaus I (2013) Web cartography: map
design for interactive and mobile devices:
CRC Press.
Selection
Slocum TA, McMaster RB, Kessler F, Howard

Figure 4. Typical operators for generalisation. HH (2009) Thematic Cartography and
Modified after Phillipe Thibault (in: Slocum, 2009). Geovisualisation. Clarke KC (Ed.) 3rd ed,
Prentice-Hall Series in Geographic Infor-
mation Science. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
responsibility of the map maker to decide Pearson Prentice Hall.
on the relevance of specific ES information.
Tversky B (2005) Prolegomenon to scientific
visualisations. In Visualisation in science
Conclusions education, Springer, 29-42.
Map-makers can harness the broad knowl-

edge base, experience and techniques avail-
able from cartography. ES-maps display
highly complex human-environmental

3.3. Map semantics and
syntactics
Benjamin Burkhard & Marion Kruse
Introduction
Map-making and cartography combines sci- relating to their location in reality, the map
ence, arts, aesthetics and techniques that fol- scale and map projection (Chapter 3.1). Ad-
low map-specific logic. Thus, cartography is ditional information is communicated by
strongly based on semiotics, the theory and the choice of the map symbols shapes, sizes,
study of signs and symbols. Map symbol- colour hues, colour values, colour intensi-
isation is a key attribute of each map that ties and textures. According to the different
determines the map elements (Chapter 3.1) graphical variables semantics, they are best
and their applicability for communication used to show qualitative or/and quantitative
(Chapter 6.4) and other uses (Chapter 7). differences. Most ES maps and ES model
Knowledge about basic semiotic principles outputs (Chapter 4.4) are choropleth maps
is needed to produce proper ecosystem ser- (Chapter 3.2) displaying areas of ES supply or
vices (ES) maps that are fit for purpose. demand. Some ES and landscape features are
displayed as point or line features. Figure 1
Semiotics comprises semantics, syntactics gives an overview of the six key graphical vari-
and pragmatics: ables and how they can be used for mapping.
Semantics is the study of the relation-

ships between signs and symbols and Shape
what they represent,
Syntactics deal with the formal prop-
erties of languages and systems of sym- The map symbols shapes are used to repre-
bols and sent qualitative differences in thematic maps.
Pragmatics analyse the relationships In many cases, the shape is a logical connec-
between signs and their users. tion to the feature that it represents (e.g. a
petrol pump representing a gas station or a
This chapter introduces map semantics and bed indicating a hotel). Text or respective let-
syntactics, which are the basis for the proper ters/abbreviations are also often used (e.g. P
use of symbols, patterns and colours for dif- for car parking or H for hotel). Shapes or
ferent mapping purposes and scales. Chap- adaptations of shapes are most often used for
ter 6.4 deals with map pragmatics. spatially discrete point features (see Chapter
3.2). They are rarely used for line features
Graphic variables but can be applied in the form of cartograms
(or anamorphic maps) for area features. In
anamorphic maps, mapped areas are resized
Map features can be points, lines or areas based on particular indicator values.1
(polygons). They are positioned on a map
1
See for examples: http://www.worldmapper.org/
Chapter 3 65
Points Lines Areas Best to show
possible, but too qualitative

Shape cartogram
weird to show differences
quantitative
Size cartogram
differences
Colour qualitative
Hue differences
Colour quantitative
Value differences
Colour qualitative
Intensity differences
qualitative &
Texture quantitative
differences
Figure 1. Key graphic variables and their application in mapping (inspired by understandinggraphics).
Another relevant graphic feature that can be tures. The size of point and line features can
related to shape is orientation, which can be, be chosen accordingly, but following a rule of
for example, used to indicate directions of thumb to choose the difference in size accord-
ES flows, movements or directional ES con- ing to quantitative differences in the features
nections (Chapter 5.2). Topic-specific maps (e.g. double size for a double amount; see
(e.g. geological map or weather maps) con- Classification of data below). For graphical
tain highly complex and specialised sym- reasons, some smaller linear or point features
bols. These maps often use their own logic (e.g. streams) are often enlarged, although the
of semantics and non-specialists can have proportional size to other symbols might not
difficulties interpreting them. represent reality (see generalisation Chapter
3.2). The meaning of the different sizes (their
semantics) should be explained in the map
Size legend by providing the quantitative numbers
that are behind the symbols (Chapter 3.1).
Size variations of area features should refer to
Size is mainly applied in graphics to express anamorphic maps or cartograms.
quantitative differences, i.e. variations in
amount or count (such as the more the larger Combinations of different visual variables
and, vice versa, the less the smaller). Size can are possible, such as dot maps (see Chapter
also be used to suppress less important fea- 3.2), illustrating distributions and densities

by the symbols shapes and quantities by Due to the omnipresent nature of map-
their sizes. Depending on the scale of the ping products in all kinds of media, the
map and the complexity of the landscape to map-maker needs to be aware that many
display, shape and size may not offer suffi- colours are connected with particular geo-
cient detail or visibility for small symbols. graphic phenomena (e.g. green for forests,
blue for water bodies, red or black for urban
areas; see for example the European CO-
Colour hue, value and intensity RINE land cover data set)2. Applying such
commonly used colour schemes is essential
for an easy and correct communication of
Colour hue is arguably the most powerful of the map content (see Chapter 6.4).
the graphical variables. It can be applied to
point, linear and area map elements. Differ-
ent colour hues can relatively easily illustrate Texture
qualitative differences such as different land
cover types in area maps. Variations in co-
lour value or intensity are commonly used Texture can efficiently illustrate qualitative
to portray quantitative differences in both differences, for example different soil types,
dot and choropleth maps (see Chapter 3.2). land uses or hydrological units. Similar to
colour hue, texture can be applied for point,
When using colour in maps, the map-maker linear and area map features (see Figure 1). In
needs to be aware that the different colours combination with varying colour hues, dif-
have specific meanings for many people and ferent thematic layers (topics) can be shown
cause different psychological effects when in one map. Quantitative differences can be
viewed. Figure 2 shows some examples, noting portrayed in choropleth maps by applying
that there are many different interpretations increasing or decreasing texture densities
on colours based on the subject area and cul- (Chapter 3.2). However, mixing too many
ture. In many cultures green stands for positive different texture types or changing direction
developments whereas red is often related to of linear patterns can result in an over-com-
negative things such as intense heat or danger. plicated map design and should be avoided.
hope
power authority
simplicity
sophistication
mystery
maturity
security
cleanliness Classification of data
goodness
death stability
purity
intellect love The normal map-user has a limited capacity

innovation
friendliness
creativity
passion to differentiate between a large number of
warmth romance
caution thinking danger colour (or grey) values or intensities. There-
cowardice ideas energy fore it is often necessary to classify (group)
quantitative data that are to be portrayed in
life peace
growth sincerity
royalty the thematic map. A small amount of graph-
luxury
nature confidence
wisdom ic variations then appears in the map based
money integrity
freshness tranquilty
dignity on the reduced number of pre-defined data
classes. Aggregating of map features into
Figure 2. Possible psychological associations of appropriately-defined classes increases the
different colours for viewers (based on: http://gui-
ty-novin.blogspot.de/2014/07/chapter-70-history- 2
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/fig-
of-color-color-wheel.html).
ures/ corine-land-cover-types-2006
Chapter 3 67
readability and the usefulness of the map. the classes 0-2; 2-4; 4-6; etc.)3. Equally-dis-
Distribution patterns in the landscape can tributed data (showing a rectangular shape
be identified easier. The choice of the ap- in the histogram) would result in equal
propriate data classification method and the number of values in each class. However,
number of classes has a significant bearing data is usually normally-distributed with
on the quality of the final map. Data classi- fewer values in the extreme (minimum and
fication should be carried out carefully and maximum) classes. This may lead to unequal
with consideration to the data distribution representation of values in each class. Nev-
and the purpose of the map. The data distri- ertheless, equal interval data classifications
bution can be checked by using histograms are recommended for many quantitative
(Figure 3). data and natural phenomena. In combina-
tion with equally-spaced colour values or
saturations from one class to another, the
classified map can normally be understood
faster (e.g. the 4th class represents a double
quantity compared to the 2nd class; see also
Chapter 5.6.4).
Quantiles
When using quantiles, all available data

values are divided into unequal-sized
intervals so that the number of values is the
Figure 3. Example of ArcGIS data classification same in each class. Different from the equal
interface with histogram.
interval method, each class (including the
extremes) have the same number of values.
The most common data classification meth- This often leads to maps with more classes
ods are: portraying the middle value ranges. The
map-user has to be aware of the classification
Equal intervals, method and carefully check the map legend
Quantiles, when reading the map.
Natural breaks (Jenks),
Geometric intervals and
Standard deviations. Natural breaks (Jenks)
GIS or cartography software programmes The natural breaks classification method is
(see Chapter 3.4) normally offer algorithms applied by checking the data distribution
and standardised procedures for classifica- (for example in a histogram or in a graph)
tion of data (Figure 3). and placing class breaks around data
Equal intervals 3
To avoid double-representation of data, each
The data are divided into equal-sized inter- subsequent class must start with the next higher
vals (such as an interval of 2, resulting in value than the one before ended (i.e. 0-2; 2.1-4;
4.1-6 etc.) (cp. Figure 4).

Figure 4. Effects of different data classification methods on resulting maps.
clusters. This avoids large value variations A common mistake, which has been heavily
within one class and highlights differences stimulated by the seemingly easy map-cre-
between different classes. As with quantile- ation with various GIS, cartography and
based classified maps, the map-creator and presentation software programmes, is the
reader must be aware of the effects of this choice of too vibrant colour ramps that
(sometimes subjective) data classification on combine contrasting hues and go across
the resulting map. for example red-blue-orange-green-yellow-
brown colour schemes ignoring effects that
Figure 4 shows examples of the different different colours have on the map-user.
classification methods applied to the same Most map users may not be able to dif-
dataset. In the example, quantiles produce ferentiate more than six or eight different
the most heterogeneous map but there are colours within one map, depending on the
only minor differences for equal intervals maps complexity and the size of the de-
and jenks. The classification method must picted symbols. This number may be lower
be carefully selected based on the data set for people with limited colour vision. An-
and the desired map product. other important consideration when creat-
ing colour maps is that colours are not rec-
ognisable if the map is reproduced in black
Common mistakes and white or greyscale. Even if printed in
colour, mismatches can occur between the
An inappropriate selection and application printed version and the computer screen if
of graphic variables or the wrong data clas- different colour models are used.
sification method can lead to map misinter-
pretation (Chapter 6.4), confusion or pro- Using bad map symbols that do not follow
duction of poor map products. Bad choice the logics of map semantics, syntactics and
of colours, the most powerful graphic vari- pragmatics often leads to noises in the map-
able, can render a map useless. maker/map-user communication (map cod-
Chapter 3 69
ing; Chapter 6.4). Different cultural, societal
or educational backgrounds may lead to dif-
ferent interpretations of symbols. A cartog-
rapher or a trained map-user will interpret a
map differently from a novice map user.
Another common mapping mistake relates to

the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP;
see Chapters 3.2 and 6.1). MAUP becomes
especially relevant when using different co-
lour values or intensities in choropleth maps. Figure 5. Examples for single hue colour ramps.
Additionally, the use and combination of too
many different colours, patterns and symbols and white. Texture may be a better choice
hamper easy and appropriate map compre- than colour hue or intensity to portray dif-
hension by giving the map a nervous look. ferent classes in black and white maps.
Maps that are overcharged with information
might run the risk of being ignored. Regional peculiarities need to be taken into
account when compiling ES maps because
The map-maker needs to be aware of the fi- of the trans-disciplinary and complex nature
nite capacity of the map-user to differentiate of ES. Involving stakeholders and harness-
between the various graphic variables, espe- ing their local or subject-specific knowledge
cially in complex maps covering large spatial can help to avoid cultural traps or misin-
scales (Chapter 5.7). The appropriate classifi- terpretations. A stepwise process that seeks
cation of quantitative data is therefore a very feedback from stakeholders and map-users
important step in thematic map compilation. can help to improve maps and reduce the
number of map misinterpretations.
Solutions A proper map legend showing all symbols,

symbol sizes, colour hues, values, intensities
and orientations that appear in the map is
When choosing from the different graph- mandatory in each map in order to read the
ic variables shape, size, colour hue, value, map accordingly (see Chapter 3.1). Text in
intensity and texture presented above, the maps, where useful and appropriate, can
map-maker needs to be aware of the seman- support the information given by the map
tics and syntactics relevant to the choices. symbols. It must be legible, easy to compre-
The semantic and psychological effects of hend and in the language of the map-user.
different colours should therefore be care-
fully considered and maps should not be
overloaded with too many different colours. Specifics of ecosystem service
When illustrating quantitative differences,
the colour ramp should only have one or maps
two colour hues (Figure 5) and the colour
intensities should be adapted according to ES science involves several scientific disci-
the quantitative data. plines and links multiple topics and quan-
tification methods (Chapter 4) at various
It is also advisable to check the visibility of spatial and temporal scales (Chapter 5.7).
the selected colours after printing in black Therefore ES mapping includes several chal-

lenges (see Chapter 3.7), that can be related their high societal relevance, ES maps need
to map semantics and syntactics. to be designed with care. Well-constructed
The six key graphical variables described maps can properly communicate and ex-
above are also applied in ES maps, depend- plain complex ES phenomena.
ing on the ES to be displayed, what has to
be mapped (Chapter 5.1), where (Chapter
5.2), when (Chapter 5.3) and why (Chap- Further reading
ter 5.4). Many regulating ES (Chapter
5.5.1) can, for example, be related to nat-
ural phenomena which are often indicated Bertin J (1967) Smiologie Graphique. Les
by the choice of texture or orientation (e.g. diagrammes, les rseaux, les cartes. With
for flows). Different intensities are depicted Marc Barbut [et al.]. Paris: Gauthier-Vil-
with appropriate colour hues. Provisioning lars. (Translation 1983. Semiology of
ES maps (Chapter 5.5.2) often display ser- Graphics by William J. Berg).
vice providing areas (Chapter 5.2), which
can be point units (graphical shape) or area Dent B, Torguson J, Hodler T (2008) Cartog-
units (mostly displayed in choropleth maps; raphy: Thematic Map Design. 6th edition.
see Chapter 3.2). Quantities of ES supply McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math.
can be portrayed by size variations (point
sources, linear flows) and gradational colour Monmonier M (1996) How to lie with maps.
values, intensities or textures. Cultural ES 2nd ed. The University of Chicago Press.
(Chapter 5.5.3) can be related to spatially
discrete point features (e.g. iconic land- Muehrcke PC (2005) Map Use: Reading,
marks or religious sites displayed by map Analysis, and Interpretation. 5th ed. J P
symbol shape variations) or more continu- Pubns.
ous area features (aesthetic experience based
on viewsheds or landscape setting displayed Wood D (1992) The Power of Maps. The
by area features). Guilford Press.
Conclusions
The map-makers have to take responsibility

for their products as it is easy to impress or
mislead map-users with colourful and at-
tractive maps. ES maps are of high political,
societal and economic relevance (Chapter
7). Therefore their compilation should close-
ly follow the logics and the well-founded
knowledge from graphic semiology. Based
on the diversity of ES map-makers, map-us-
ers, the complex topics to be displayed and
Chapter 3 71
3.4. Tools for mapping
ecosystem services
Ignacio Palomo, Kenneth J. Bagstad, Stoyan Nedkov,
Hermann Klug, Mihai Adamescu & Constantin Cazacu
Background
Mapping tools have evolved impressively studies have been conducted and a variety of
in recent decades. From early computerised tools have been developed to systematise ES
mapping techniques to current cloud-based mapping. The progress we have witnessed
mapping approaches, we have witnessed a corresponds to advances in computing pow-
technological evolution that has facilitated er, modelling and GIS, the recognition of a
the democratisation of Geographic Infor- plurality of ES approaches (i.e., participato-
mation Systems (GIS). These advances have ry mapping (Chapter 5.6.2) and biophysi-
impacted multiple disciplines including cal modelling (Chapters 4.1 and 4.4), and
ecosystem service (ES) mapping. The infor- the consensus that ES maps provide a direct
mation that feeds different mapping tools connection between ES and the landscape
is also increasingly accessible and complex. and therefore with policy (Chapter 7.1).
In this chapter, we review the evolution of
mapping tools that are shaping the field Description of main mapping
of ES mapping together with the different
sources of information that exist at this software, tools and databases
point. We discuss briefly the suitability of
these approaches for mapping different ES Computing power and data availability that
types and for different scientific and policy support GIS analysis have evolved substan-
aims. Finally, we elaborate on the integra- tially in recent years. Several freeware GIS
tion of multiple tools (from desktop ap- platforms have been developed, such as
plications to sensor, web-based, or mobile QGIS (Quantum GIS), GRASS GIS (Geo-
devices) and on the future developments of graphic Resources Analysis Support System
these methods and the possibilities they may GIS), SAGA (System for Automated Geo-
open for ES mapping. scientific Analyses), and gvSIG (Generalitat
Valenciana Sistema de Informacin Geogr-
fica) that provide similar functionality to
Introduction the popular commercial ArcGIS software
from ESRI (a list of GIS software is avail-
able here1).
ES mapping has achieved rapid progress in
a very short time frame. To our knowledge, Specific modelling approaches for mapping
the first peer-reviewed ecosystem service ES have been developed by different institu-
maps were published in 1996 and, since
then, a large number of ad hoc mapping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_geograph-
1
ic_information_systems_software

tions worldwide, resulting in a wide variety (e.g., hydrological models such as the Soil
of possibilities for ES analysts use (Table 1, and Water Assessment Tool, SWAT or Vari-
also see chapter 4.4). Most of these tools are able Infiltration Capacity model, VIC for wa-
openly available to the public and are con- ter-related ES); and (3) integrated modelling
stantly evolving. Training for the potential tools designed specifically for ES assessment
users of these tools is of importance for their (e.g., InVEST, ARIES). The first approach is
accessibility and use for decision support. applicable for simple land cover-based anal-
The operational time necessary for their ap- yses and indicator-based ES mapping (see
plication to case studies ranges from hours Chapter 5.6.4) that have been used for exam-
(simple spreadsheet-based tools) to several ple in Mapping and Assessment of Ecosys-
months (advanced software tools). tems and their Services (MAES). The second
Table 1. List of the most common ES mapping tools.
Tool Platform Scale2 Source

Integrated Valuation of
ArcGIS/Stand- Municipal to http://www.naturalcapitalproject.
Ecosystem Services and
alone provincial org/invest/
Tradeoffs (InVEST)
Graphical User
Artificial Intelligence for Municipal to http://aries.integratedmodelling.
Interface (GUI)/
Ecosystem Services (ARIES) provincial org/
Web-based
Multiscale Integrated http://www.afordablefutures.com/
Village/farm
Models of Ecosystem Simile software orientation-to-what-we-do/services/
to global
Services (MIMES) mimes
Social Values for Ecosystem Municipal to
ArcGIS http://solves.cr.usgs.gov/
Services (Solves) provincial
Land Utilisation Capability Village/farm
ArcGIS http://www.lucitools.org/
Indicator (LUCI) to provincial
Integrated Model to Assess http://themasites.pbl.nl/models/
the Global Environment Set of models Global image/index.php/Welcome_to_
(IMAGE) IMAGE_3.0_Documentation
Web-based, Municipal to http://www.policysupport.org/
Co$ting Nature
Google Earth provincial costingnature
Ecosystem Valuation Municipal to
Web-based http://esvaluation.org/
Toolkit provincial
Android Municipal to http://www.ufz.de/index.
ESM-App
Smartphone app provincial php?en=33303
The use of GIS in ES mapping can take three approach is appropriate for more complex
general approaches: (1) analysis tools built model-based analyses of services that inte-
into GIS software packages; (2) disciplinary grate expertise from specific disciplines (e.g.,
biophysical models applied for ES assessment ecology for crop pollination or hydrology
2
Malinga et al. (2015) define scales as follows: village/farm < 60 km2; municipal 60-8,709 km2; provincial
8,709-83,000 km2; national 83,000-1,220,000 km2; continental > 1,220,000 km2.
Chapter 3 73
for flood regulation mapping). The third approach (Chapters 5.5.3 and 5.6.2). Oth-
proach extends the second one by utilising er services such as food production might
modelling tools that can assess trade-offs and use complex agricultural models or indi-
scenarios for multiple services. cator-based approaches (Chapter 5.5.2).
However, the complex nature of ES and the
Several ecosystem service valuation data- inter-linkages between provisioning, regulat-
bases have been developed as well, such ing and cultural services have led to the use
as The Economics of Ecosystems and of different tools for each ecosystem service.
Biodiversity (TEEB) Valuation Database It is also important to consider how different
and the Ecosystem Valuation Toolkit and mapping tools account for accuracy, reliabil-
these might be used to create ES maps. The ity and uncertainty. Accuracy is established
Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP) Vi- through successful calibration, reliability
sualisation Tool is a database consisting of through successful application in different
ES maps prepared by different researchers contexts and uncertainty through methods
intended to promote synthesis of mapping that estimate and transparently commu-
studies (see chapter 7.9). nicate uncertainty. These aspects have not
been adequately covered in the past and
still need to be developed for several tools.
Applicability of mapping tools Greater transparency in the presentation of
results and associated uncertainties (Chap-
ter 6) is needed so that informed decisions
In-depth assessment of the different map- can be made about the extent to which ES
ping tools is necessary to understand which maps can be used for different purposes and
one will best fit the users ES mapping con- which tools are best applied in different con-
text: time and data availability, mapping texts and locations.
skills, types of services to map, accuracy re-
quired, expected impact in decision-making
and overall study aims. This means that no Future developments
tool fits all criteria perfectly. Some highly
complex models can provide policy support
in regions with considerable time, data and Several challenges lie ahead for mapping ES.
personnel resources. Other approaches exist These are related to the progress that is cur-
that allow ES to be mapped with more lim- rently underway in research and monitor-
ited budgets and shorter time frames. The ing, remote sensing, sensor networks, data
intended use of the maps (i.e., for raising storage, data and knowledge integration,
awareness or direct use in policy-making) data harmonisation and sharing, database
will also influence the decision on which and tool maintenance and crowdsourcing,
tools to use (see Chapter 5.6.1). among others.
In many cases, the type of ES under assess- On the technical side, the accumulation of
ment will determine the mapping approach a growing quantity of data raises the chal-
or tools to use. Services such as water regu- lenge of effective storage and analysis of
lation usually require modelling approaches large amounts of data and is leading to an
that integrate meteorological databases, veg- increased emphasis on machine learning,
etation, soils and topographic data (Chapter pattern recognition (in complex data or re-
5.5.1), while others such as cultural identity mote sensing products), and data mining.
might require a participatory mapping ap- Initially high data storage requirements were

addressed by large data storage and super- Further reading
computer facilities, but falling costs of dis-
tributed solutions have pushed computing
towards scalable clusters of computers, grids Bagstad KJ, Semmens DJ, Waage S, Winthrop
and cloud computing, all aimed at increas- R (2013) A comparative assessment of de-
ing demand-driven computational power. cision-support tools for ecosystem services
Some ES modelling approaches using grids quantification and valuation. Ecosystem
include: Tropical Ecology Assessment and Services 5: 27-39.
Monitoring (TEAM) Network, Web-based
Data Access and Analysis Environments for Bagstad KJ, Reed JM, Semmens DJ, Sher-
Ecosystem Services, ARIES, enviroGRIDS rouse BC, Troy A (2015) Linking biophys-
and biodiversity virtual e-laboratory (Bio- ical models and public preferences for eco-
Vel). The advantage of grids/clouds is that system service assessments: a case study for
they are on-demand, self-service approach- the Southern Rocky Mountains. Regional
es, so the user can unilaterally obtain the Environmental Change: 1-14.
necessary computing capabilities, such as
server time and network storage, without Bateman IJ, Jones AP, Lovett AA, Lake IR, Day
having to interact with each services pro- BH (2002) Applying Geographical Infor-
vider. Cloud-based modelling tools and in- mation Systems (GIS) to environmental
terfaces (e.g., OpenMI) will enable the joint and resource economics. Environmental
development of and access to modelling and & Resource Economics 22: 219-269.
visualisation tools.
Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S, Wil-
The ongoing development and maintenance lemen L, Petz K, Palomo I, Drakou E,
of ES mapping tools (including free open- Martn-Lpez B, McPhearson T, Boyano-
source software) require adequate funding. va K, Alkemade R, Egoh B, Dunbar MB,
Further integration of ES mapping tools Maes J (2013) A blueprint for mapping
with policy will contribute to ongoing de- and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosys-
velopments in the field and a tailored ap- tem Services 4: 4-14.
proach towards decision-making aims.
Drakou EG, Crossman ND, Willemen L,
Burkhard B, Palomo I, Maes J, Peedell S
Disclaimer (2015) A visualization and data-sharing
tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons
learnt, challenges and the way forward.
Any use of trade, product, or firm names is Ecosystem Services 13: 134-140.
for descriptive purposes only and does not
imply endorsement by the U.S. or any other Eade JDO, Moran D (1996) Spatial econom-
Government or by the authors of this article. ic valuation: Benefits transfer using geo-
graphical information systems. Journal of
Environmental Management 48: 97-110.
Chapter 3 75
Klug H, Kmoch A (2015) Operationalizing Schrter M, Remme RP, Sumarga E, Barton
environmental indicators for real time DN, Hein L (2015) Lessons learned for
multi-purpose decision making and action spatial modelling of ecosystem services in
support. Ecological Modelling 295: 66-74. support of ecosystem accounting. Ecosys-
tem Services 13: 64-69.
Malinga A, Gordon L, Jewitt G, Lindborg R
(2015) Mapping ecosystem services across Stoll S, Frenzel M, Burkhard B, Adamescu M,
scales and continents a review. Ecosys- Augustaitis A, Baeler C et al. (2015) As-
tem Services 13: 57-63. sessment of ecosystem integrity and service
gradients across Europe using the LTER
Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Europe network. Ecological Modelling
Tallis H, Cameron RD, Chan KMA, Dai- 295: 75-87.
ly GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lonsdorf
E, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw RM
(2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem ser-
vices, biodiversity conservation, commod-
ity production and tradeoffs at landscape
scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Envi-
ronment 7(1): 4-11.

3.5. Mapping ecosystem types
and conditions
Markus Erhard, Gebhard Banko, Dania Abdul Malak &
Fernando Santos Martin
Introduction
Ecosystems are defined by the UN Con- species diversity of these ecosystems which
vention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as again are also triggered by nutrient content
a dynamic complex of plant, animal and and management.
micro-organism communities and their
non-living environment interacting as a The concept of ecosystem mapping and
functional unit. Ecosystems are therefore, conditions assessment can be applied at all
by definition, multi-functional. Each eco- spatial and temporal scales. Spatial explic-
system provides a series of services for hu- itness is important to characterise ecosys-
man well-being either directly, for example, tems in terms of their natural conditions
as food and fibre, or more indirectly by, for determined by climate, geology, soil prop-
example, providing clean air and water, pre- erties, elevation etc. and, in terms of their
venting floods or providing recreational or physical and chemical conditions, how they
spiritual benefits. are influenced by anthropogenic pressures.
Local or regional assessments require more
Ecosystems contain a multitude of living detailed information for adequate decision
organisms that have adapted to survive support. Usually national and continental
and reproduce in a particular physical and mapping is less detailed but provides im-
chemical environment, i.e. their natural portant information at the strategic level.
condition. Anything that causes a change In any case, active stakeholder involvement
in the physical or chemical characteristics of is recommended to design and adapt the
the environment has the potential to change assessments for successful implementation
an ecosystems condition, its biodiversity into the decision process.
and functionality and, consequently, its ca-
pacity to provide services. Up to the pres-
ent, ecosystem service (ES) assessments have Mapping ecosystem types
been based on ecosystem extent and spatial
distribution as basic input parameters. The
inclusion of condition assessment would Should no map of ecosystems or habitats be
add value in terms of ecosystem quality. available, a feasible proxy has to be developed
The provision of timber, for example, not as shown in Figure 1. The basic geometry and
only depends on the availability of forests, main classes in appropriate spatial resolution
but also on the species composition and age can be derived directly from satellite images1
class distributions of the forests. Pollination or from existing land cover / land use maps.
services might be highest in grass- and crop-
lands but are also highly influenced by plant
1
See e.g. http://www.earthobservations.org/geoss.php
Chapter 3 77
Corine Land Cover Mapping ecosystem extent
Bathymetry, EUSeaMap
Cross-walk land Geometric refinement

cover - ecosystem type, HRL forest, agriculture, wetlands, water bodies,
marine classes Ecosystem type map sealing riparian areas, green linear features
basic version
EUNIS data
Thematic refinement
Species and Habitat data
Elevation, soil, geology, climate, phenology,
potential,natural vegetation
Ecosystem map
enhanced version
Condition indicators
HD, BD, WFD, MSFD Pressure maps
Ecosystem
EU Habitat Directive (HD), condition maps
Bird Directive (BD),
Water Framework Directive (WFD),
Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (MSFD)
Mapping ecosystem condition
Ecosystem Services
Figure 1. Work flow for ecosystem mapping and condition assessment.
For policy-relevant information, the map acteristics of the ecosystems and their bio-
should be re-classified using an ecosystem diversity. GISbased, so-called envelope- or
typology which represents the most im- niche-modelling as developed for habitat or
portant types of their human management climate change impact studies, allows the
to make best use of their services, e.g. by combination of non-spatially referenced
agriculture, forestry, fisheries, water man- species or habitat information with a set of
agement, nature protection or territorial environmental parameters such as elevation,
planning. These management lines are also soil, geology, climate, phenology, potential
usually implemented in the respective legis- natural vegetation etc. to delineate the most
lations which are important cornerstones in likely areas of ecosystem presence.
the decision-making process. In case further
geometric refinements are required, these This probability mapping of ecosystem
can be performed by, for example, integrat- presence depends on the accuracy of the
ing more detailed information about rivers descriptors of its natural boundaries (e.g.
and lakes, green linear elements such as alpine meadows or calcareous broadleaf for-
hedgerows or detailed maps of urban areas ests) and the availability and quality of the
or protected areas. respective data to delineate and map these
boundaries. Further enhancement can be
If needed, such a basic map can be further performed by attributing statistical informa-
refined thematically by providing more de- tion e.g. crop yields or forest inventory data
tailed information about the natural char- to the respective ecosystem classes.

Mapping ecosystem conditions Pressures affect ecosystem conditions ei-
ther by concentration (e.g. ozone) or by
Mapping of ecosystem types provides infor- accumulation (e.g. nitrogen and pollution
mation on the natural conditions. To assess load). The Millennium Ecosystem Assess-
the current capability of ecosystems to pro- ment 2005 identified five different anthro-
vide services for human well-being requires pogenic main pressures affecting ecosystem
information about their current conditions conditions: habitat change, climate change,
which are induced by human activities. invasive species, land management and pol-
lution/nutrient enrichment.
For decision support, the most compre-
hensive and informative approach for the Drivers
Population,
assessment of ecosystem conditions should economic growth,
include direct mapping and assessments in technology
combination with information about the
direct and indirect pressures which induce
these conditions. This approach provides Response Pressures
information on both the current environ- Policy measures to Habitat change,
reduce impacts climate change,
mental state and expected changes due to (protection, pollution over-exploitation,
constant, increasing or decreasing pressures. reduction, land invasive species,
management pollution
Additionally, important information for
risk assessments can be derived. Time lags
between pressures and changes in ecosystem
conditions are often triggered by buffering Impacts State/condition
processes which indicate the resilience of Change in ecosystem Habitat quality,
species and ecosystems to the different types state (habitat loss species abundance
or degradation, and diversity, water
of stress factors affecting their condition. change in species quality etc.
abundance etc.)
For better understanding of the different pro-
cesses affecting ecosystem condition and the Figure 2. DPSIR framework for assessing
ecosystem condition.
link to human activities, the DPSIR (Driv-
ers, Pressures, State or Condition, Impact,
Response) approach is often used (Figure 2). Human pressures are either direct, i.e.
Drivers to cover our demand for ES and oth- mainly from land use, or indirect, i.e. by
er natural resources induce pressures which air pollution or anthropogenic climate
affect ecosystem conditions. The impacts change. Important for ecosystem condi-
should create (policy) responses which should tions are the strength of the pressure signal,
again change the drivers and the way we its persistence if cumulative and its change
manage our environment to cope with neg- over time. Time-series of observed chang-
ative impacts. The DPSIR approach should es in pressures are, therefore, important to
be considered not as absolute but relative to analyse the causal connectivities between
the ecosystem processes under consideration. pressures and current condition for each
The nutrient conditions of agro-ecosystems, ecosystem type and each spatial unit. The
for example, are the pressures for freshwater trend in pressures also provides a first in-
ecosystems and both conditions are pressures sight into the expected changes in the near
for marine ecosystems. future. Decreasing observed trends may
Chapter 3 79
Box 1. European ecosystem map
For the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, Member Countries1 and European institutions
perform ecosystem assessments in their territories. The European map is based on a proxy following the scheme as
outlined in Figure 1 based on Corine land cover (CLC)2. Geometry of the basic map was further refined using the
High Resolution Layers of Copernicus land services2 and re-classified to eight aggregated ecosystem types: urban,
cropland, grassland, forests and woodland, heathland and shrubs, sparsely vegetated land, wetlands and rivers and
lakes. For Europes seas, only a very simplified classification mainly based on EUSeaMap sea-floor mapping3 and
bathymetry data is currently implemented. The basic version was thematically enhanced using the non-spatially
referenced habitat information of the European Nature Information System (EUNIS) database4 in combination
with a set of environmental parameters to delineate the most likely areas of ecosystem presence.
Ecosystem map (aggregated)

Marine waters Inland vegetation and habitats Inland unvegetated or sparsely vegetated
Open waters
habitats
Tundra
Screes, inland cliffs
European regional seas Arctic, alpine and subalpine scrub and grassland
Snow or ice-dominated habitats
Marine seabed and coastal habitats Mediterranean-mountain scrub and brushes
Sublittoral sediment Heathland scrub
Human made constructions and habitats
Grasslands and land dominated by forbs
Infralittoral and circalittoral rock and Constructed, industrial and other artificial
Regularly or recently cultivated agricultural, habitats
other hard substrata
horticultural and domestic habitats
Marine habitats Broad leaved deciduous and evergreen woodland Non classified areas
Coastal habitats Mixed deciduous and coniferous woodland Unclassified areas
Inland surface waters Coniferous and broad leaved evergreen woodland Outside area of interest
Inland waters and shores Wetlands - mires, bogs and fens
Figure 3. Ecosystem map of Europe Version 2.1 (higher resolution map can be downloaded at:
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/ecosystem-types-of-europe).
1
http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes/maes_countries
2
http://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european
3
http://www.emodnet.eu/seabed-habitats
4
http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/

indicate further improvement of ecosystem The way forward
conditions and vice versa, i.e. important
information for decision-making about Ecosystem type mapping and condition as-
measures to mitigate and adapt to positive sessments have to be further improved mak-
or negative effects. ing use of new information and data flows
from research, reporting and other sources.
In practice, information on ecosystem con- A major issue is the lack of detailed informa-
ditions is often insufficient for appropriate tion on how the ecosystem condition affects
mapping and assessments. Another problem ecosystem service delivery. The delivery of
is the mapping and assessment of the com- ecosystem services depends on the biologi-
bined effects of pressures on the ecosystem cal, physical and chemical processes and the
condition. Usually spatially explicit maps of biodiversity involved (Chapters 2.2 and 2.3)
the different pressures and their gradients but there are few quantitative data to model
across the area under investigation can be and assess how these processes and function-
produced but knowledge about the com- al traits are affected by pressures such as pol-
bined effects on biodiversity and ecosystem lution, management or climate change and
structure and function is still insufficient. So their combined effects. Further research is
in many cases, proxy indicators have to be needed to fill these gaps and improve our
used to indicate the current ecosystem con- knowledge about the relationships between
dition as illustrated in Box 2. pressures ecosystem conditions, related
biodiversity and ecosystem service capacity.
Box 2. Mapping ecosystem condition

Figure 4 shows an example how the ecosystem condition can be derived by combining ecosystem mapping, report-
ed data of the European Habitat Directive and statistical data. The combination of information in different units
often requires re-scaling from absolute to relative values, e.g. from low to high.
Aggregated indicator for

management intensity
pressure on cropland as
combination of land
management and crop yield
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Non-cropland
No data
Outside coverage
Figure 4. Map of European cropland conditions.
Chapter 3 81
Table 1. Pressures and indicators for ecosystem condition assessment.
Pressures Indicators for ecosystem condition assessment

Land cover change, land take / sealing, fragmentation, land
Habitat change
abandonment, river regulation, dams
Changes in temperature, precipitation, humidity, seasonality,
Climate change extreme events, fires, droughts, frost, floods, storms, average river
flows, sea (surface) temperature, sea level rise
Invasive alien species Introduction or expansion of invasive alien species, diseases
Intensification, irrigation, degradation / desertification, erosion,
Land/sea use or exploitation (over-) harvesting, deforestation, water extraction, (over-) fishing,
aquaculture, mining
Fertiliser and pesticides application, air pollution, acid and
Pollution and nutrient enrichment
nitrogen deposition, soil contamination, water quality
Further reading
De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M et al. (2013) Map-
Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrat- ping and Assessment of Ecosystems and
ing the concept of ecosystem services and their Services. An analytical framework
values in landscape planning, management for ecosystem assessments under action 5
and decision making. Ecological Com- of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020.
plexity 7: 260-272. Publications office of the European Union,
Luxembourg http://ec.europa.eu/environ-
EEA (2016) Mapping and assessing the condi- ment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_as-
tion of Europes ecosystems: progress and sessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper2013.
challenges. EEA report 03/2016 http:// pdf accessed 12 December 2015.
www.eea.europa.eu/publications/map-
ping-europes-ecosystems accessed 31 May MAES information platform: Mapping and
2016. Assessment of Ecosystems and their Ser-
vices (MAES): http://biodiversity.europa.
Harrison PA, Berry PM, Simpson G, Haslett eu/maes accessed 31 May 2016.
JR, Blicharska M, Bucur M, Dunford R,
Egoh B, Garcia-Llorente M, Geam N, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
Geertsema W, Lommelen E, Meiresonne Ecosystems and human well-being: Syn-
L, Turkelboom F (2014) Linkages between thesis, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
biodiversity attributes and ecosystem ser- Island Press, Washington, DC, USA:
vices: A systematic review. Ecosystem Ser- http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx ac-
vices 9: 191-203. cessed 31 May 2016.
Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Turner

RK (Eds.) (2016) Routledge Handbook
of Ecosystem Services. Routledge London
and New York 629 pp.

3.6. Landscape metrics
Susanne Frank & Ulrich Walz
Introduction
Landscape metrics have been used to derive landscape aesthetics) and regulating ES
indicators in landscape ecology and related (e.g. soil erosion, biological pest control).
disciplines for decades. More than one hun- However they are predominantly applied to
dred metrics have been developed for the measure ecological functioning (biodiversi-
purpose of describing processes and land- ty, connectivity, soil quality) and land use
scape functions in the form of mathemati- processes (land consumption, fragmenta-
cal terms. After a very enthusiastic time, the tion, urban sprawl).
focus at present is on meaningful, simpler
measures that can be applied in practice. Within this chapter, we review the know-
Meanwhile, landscape metrics play a crucial ledge of pattern-related challenges in ES
role not only in science, but also in practical mapping, using the examples of habitat con-
issues, such as spatial planning or biodiver- nectivity and scenic attraction. We contrib-
sity monitoring. Most frequently applied ute to a better understanding of the reasons
metrics are used to discover biodiversity or for challenges in mapping structure-depen-
landscape fragmentation. Although great dent ES and we demonstrate some methods
advances have already been made, new met- for addressing them.
rics continue to be developed. Regularly
used metrics are further tested and updat-
ed regarding their interpretation. This sub- Landscape metrics as method
ject is not without controversy. A question
which is often raised in research circles is: for ES mapping?
Which role can landscape metrics play Landscape metrics are tools which can be
within the set of indicators for ES map- used to bridge the methodological gap be-
ping and assessment? tween landscape structure and ES provision.
They take the visible spatial manifestation
The following sections address this question. of land use patterns into account. Compo-
Regarding the ES cascade model (Chapter sition and configuration of patches (homo-
2.3) and following on from it, landscape geneous units of one property, e.g. land use
structures support biodiversity and ecosys- type) are key features of maps. Hence, land-
tem functions that are the basis for the fi- scape metrics and mapping are inherently
nal provision of ecosystem services (ES) to interrelated. Table 1 provides an overview of
humans. The crucial question is whether selected landscape metrics which are appli-
landscape metrics applied to land use / land cable for mapping and assessment of ES.
cover maps can provide direct or indirect in- Landscape metrics quantify physical land-
dications on the provision of ES. scape structures which themselves deter-
mine processes and functions. Although
So far, landscape metrics have been applied some landscape structures can be measured
to indicate cultural ES (e.g. recreation, and related to the provision of specific ES,
Chapter 3 83
Table 1. Examples for suitable landscape metrics indicating biodiversity and ES (provisioning, regulating,
cultural; following CICES (2013)), without claim to completeness.
Structure/landscape metric Process/function Mapping target
Dimension of Biodiversity
Shannons diversity index, Pattern heterogeneity

Landscape diversity
Patch density and variety
Shape index Natural conditions Species diversity
Proximity index, Isolation,

Species diversity
Nearest neighbour index Habitat connectivity
Effective mesh size Fragmentation Species diversity
Provisioning service
Total patch area Food and fodder

Food and fodder
(of arable land) production
Total patch area

Biomass production Biomass
(of forested/arable land)
Total patch area of lakes Food (fish)
Regulating service
No. / length of landscape Soil erosion due to

Mass flow
elements (hedges, tree lines) water runoff
Habitat provision
Edge length (of hedges,
forpollinators Pollination
forests and other ecotones)
(fringe structures)
Shannons diversity index /

Population
Heterogeneity of Pest control
development
agricultural areas
Cultural service
Total patch area (of water), Attraction,

Landscape aesthetics
Edge length of waters Complexity
Shape index Complexity and

Landscape aesthetics
Hemeroby index Natural conditions
No. of landscape elements Legibility, mystery Landscape aesthetics

direct functional interpretation of single be identified as potential of landscape met-
metrics regarding ES remains limited. For rics application in mapping ES. Cultural
the assessment and interpretation of land- services such as the potential of landscapes
scape metrics, for example, a normative as- for human recreation are interrelated with
sessment basis is required which relates the structural aspects. However, landscape aes-
current situation of landscape structure to a thetics is just one of many spiritual, expe-
reference or target situation of ES provision. riential and educational services. Landscape
However, landscape structure is important metrics can therefore serve as a complemen-
information in a more complex evaluation tary mapping and assessment method for
of ES. Landscape metrics have therefore to cultural ES.
be considered as meaningful parameters to-
gether with others in ES mapping and eval-
uation. A sound application of landscape Application of landscape
metrics is possible considering two dimen-
sions of biodiversity, species and landscape metrics for ES mapping
diversity. Many species and species commu-
nities rely on specific landscape structures or Landscape metrics have been applied in
landscape elements and their interrelations. several ES mapping and assessment stud-
ies. Two examples illustrate how they can
Provisioning services strongly depend on be related to ecological integrity, consid-
the extent of managed land and the land ered as the basis for any ES provision (Box
use intensity. However, for quantification 1) and scenic attraction, as an example for
of productivity or food provision, further cultural ES (Box 2). In a similar manner,
information, for example on soil quality spatial structures strongly determine reg-
or soil management, is essential to derive ulating ES. The regulation of soil erosion,
a valid estimation on food provision. Re- for example, can be estimated using the
garding regulating services, landscape met- number and the spatial arrangement of
rics also comprise the potential to provide landscape elements, such as hedgerows.
supplementary information. Indices like These elements reduce slope lengths which
edge length or the number of landscape ele- is one driving factor for soil erosion. How-
ments can quantify some preconditions for ever, suitable landscape metrics, such as the
functions and services. Although modelling number of patches or edge length, have not
and/or measurement of species abundance been frequently used for assessment and
or mass flows (qualitative data; Chapter 4.1) mapping of regulating ES.
cannot be replaced by structural indicators,
they have to be considered as one important Furthermore, smallscale landscape ele-
part of the required information. ments such as ecotones at forest borders,
single-trees, hedgerows including field mar-
Strong interrelations between indices of gins are important for the regulating of ES
biodiversity and landscape aesthetics can pollination.
Chapter 3 85
Box 1. Example for the application of landscape metrics at the
regional scale: evaluation of the landscape structures impact on
biodiversity
One approach, how landscape metrics can contribute to ES mapping and assessment, is illustrated in
Figure 1. Six metrics were applied to an administrative planning region (3,434 km) in middle Saxony,
Germany to evaluate ecological integrity as the precondition for biodiversity and the cultural service land-
scape aesthetics. They were implemented into the land use change simulation software GISCAME as sup-
plementary indicators. In this software, the basic evaluation of ES is based on land use types. An additional
landscape structure add-on makes the impact of composition and configuration visible and assessable.
The example focuses on habitat connectivity which is a landscape function related to biodiversity (see
Table 1). Using the moving window method, which is independent from any administrative or geo-
graphical zoning, combined with a cost-distance analysis, local landscape pattern were examined across
space and interpreted. The size of the moving window is determined by the action radius of a target
species. On the basis of the degree of hemeroby of land use types, near-to-nature areas were identified,
as well as core habitat areas and functionally connected areas. The latter were defined as potential habi-
tat areas which are too small and not compact enough to provide habitat core areas. Nevertheless, they
are close enough to another core area to be appropriate habitats for species moving through a landscape.
Such functionally connected areas were also considered as part of the habitat network. (Semi-)natural
areas were considered as isolated and therefore not contributing to the habitat network if they were
separated by roads, urban areas and similar land use types acting as barriers.
The map in has been classified according to the functional interpretation of a land use map. It can
serve scientists as well as spatial planners to identify i) the share of land which contributes to a habitat
network and ii) its spatial distribution. This information allows spatially explicit conclusions on pri-
ority areas for enhancement of the connectivity and on the overall state of habitat connectivity as one
influencing factor of biodiversity.
(Semi-)natural area Connected (semi-)natural area 31.9%

without connection
Core Area Index of (semi-)natural areas: 19:94
Functionally connected Effective Mesh Size of unfragmanted areas: 4.29/km2
(semi-)natural area Shape Index of (semi-)natural areas: 1.50
Shannons Diversity Index: 2.66
(Semi-)natural area:
core area Patch Dencity: 0.32/km2
Wood
production
Ecological Food and

integrity Fodder
Drought Soil
risk erosion
regulation protect
20 km
Recreation C- sequestration
1
Further information: www.giscame.com

Box 2. Example for the application of landscape metrics at the
national scale: application of ES to estimate the cultural ES scenic
attraction
Based on the natural amenities and features, a model for assessing the scenic attraction of landscapes is
presented. It is a suitability analysis of an area for nature-based recreation, assuming that certain features of
the landscape have a positive or negative impact on the attraction of the landscape and recreation. In this
model, landscape metrics are used for several parameters. The relief diversity, the proportion of open space,
the hemeroby Index, the density of forest-dominated ecotones, the density of water edges (without coasts),
the coastlines and the proportion of unfragmented open space greater 50 km were selected.
The relief diversity (ratio 3D / 2D) reflects not only the maximum height difference (relief energy), but
also the cumulative differences in altitude. A low proportion of open space indicates urban or densely
built-up areas which can decrease the natural attraction of the landscape by the strong influence of tech-
nical artefacts. In congruence with the hemeroby index, the natural condition is an important factor for
the attraction of landscapes. With the density of ecotones dominated by trees and shrubs and the densi-
ty of water edges, landscape diversity and structure are taken into account. This parameter characterises
mainly the variety and edge effects. Since the coasts play a very important role in terms of attraction
and recreation, they are represented by their own parameters - coastlines. Finally, the disturbing effect of
fragmentation by the transport network is considered with the parameter proportion of unfragmented
open spaces greater than 50 km.
All data used were based on the official land use data of the state and federal German survey authorities
(ATKIS Basis DLM or land cover model LBM-DE ) in vector format collected in 2010. The indicator of the
scenic attraction was calculated based on a 5-km grid (standardised according to EU INSPIRE directive).
To determine the five classes of scenic attraction, the

standard deviation from the nationwide average was
used. The reason behind this approach is mainly to
use no fixed scale, but starting from the average val-
ues of the scenic attraction, to be able to make state-
ments as to whether an area is rather less, or rather
more scenically attractive. Landscapes which are
significantly affected by anthropogenic impacts and
thus often are particularly fragmented, intensively
farmed or settled, can be found in the class less at-
tractive. Average attractive landscapes already meet
recreational functions in a regional context, while
very or particularly attractive landscapes represent
targets for nature-related tourism and are mostly
well-known nationwide.
Monitoring the development of scenic attraction

using this aggregated indicator would provide deci-
sion-makers with indications as to where the scenic
attraction is particularly reduced or has improved.
The information derived from the aggregated, landscape metrics-based indicator reveals that individual
changes affect the landscape values in their sum. Furthermore, spatial information on the scenic attraction
can be used to avoid encroachments in scenic highly attractive areas and thus to achieve better management.
Chapter 3 87
Conclusions Further reading
Landscape metrics and ES mapping are Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Mller
inherently related topics since landscape F (2014) Ecosystem Service Potentials,
metrics quantify spatial characteristics of Flows and Demands - Concepts for Spa-
landscape patterns. Therefore, we recom- tial Localisation, Indication and Quantifi-
mend the application of landscape metrics cation. Landscape Online 34: 1-32.
in the context of ES mapping and also ES
assessment. These indices have the power to Botequilha Leitao A, Ahern J, McGarigal K
support the identification and monitoring (2006) Measuring Landscapes. A Planners
of spatial characteristics of landscapes which Handbook. Island Press; 2nd edition.
have implications on the perfor mance of
biodiversity and several ES. Frank S, Frst C, Koschke L, Makeschin F
(2012) A contribution towards a transfer
Some dimensions of biodiversity and cultur- of the ecosystem service concept to land-
al ES can be comprehensively indicated by scape planning using landscape metrics.
landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators 21: 30-38.
The validity and verifiability of landscape Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2013) Com-

metrics, however, is limited. They quantify mon International Classification of Eco-
and illustrate processes and/or functions, systemServices (CICES), version 4.3.
which can serve as surrogates for specific ES. Report to the European Environment
Due to such indirect links to ES, landscape Agency EEA/BSS/07/007 (download:
metrics should only be used as supplementa- www.cices.eu).
ry indicators for ES assessments. In the case
of landscape aesthetics and recreation, they McGarigal (2015) FRAGSTATS HELP.
can be more directly linked to the ES pro- V. 4.2, 21 April 2015, available online:
vision. However, landscape metrics describe http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/
structural aspects of ES (which are import- fragstats/documents/fragstats.help.4.2.pdf
ant and should not be forgotten), but usually
additional information (e.g. data on quality Walz U, Stein C (2014) Indicators of hem-
of land use) is necessary. Still, they have a eroby for the monitoring of landscapes in
great significance in terms of mapping. Germany. Journal for Nature Conserva-
tion 22 (3): 279-289.
The spatial interpretation of land use maps
with the help of landscape metrics serves Walz U (2015) Indicators to monitor the
as a valuable method for communicating structural diversity of landscapes. Ecolog-
ES-related issues. With regard to the current ical Modelling 295: 88-106.
application for ES mapping and assessment
in science and practice, we foresee a large
capacity for future application of landscape
metrics, especially in practice. The benefit of
using landscape metrics for ES mapping is
currently below its estimated potential.

3.7. Specific challenges of
mapping ecosystem services
Joachim Maes
Ecosystems are spatially explicit and so too granted. Yet, ES mapping is challenging for
are their conditions and their capacity to a number of reasons. These are listed here
provide ecosystem services (ES). The differ- while referring to the next chapters which
ent biomes and ecosystems that cover the present and discuss solutions for addressing
earths surface deliver various ES bundles at these challenges.
different quantities and qualities. These ser-
vices are often consumed or used at other An often heard challenge is that not all ES
places. Mapping ES thus makes good sense, can be mapped. Review articles typically
in particular to quantify and sum stocks and found that regulating and provisioning ES
flows (Chapter 5.1) of services at different are most frequently mapped but cultural ES
spatial scales (Chapter 5.7). less so. As for regulating ES, most efforts have
gone to mapping climate regulation while
Furthermore, maps are very powerful tools for provisioning ES, the focus is on food,
for communicating and organising data. It water and timber. Evidently, these mapping
is little wonder that geography is a major studies have largely profited from knowledge
subject at school. Most people are familiar stemming from environmental sciences and
with maps to navigate or to find places for agricultural and forestry research. Howev-
holidays or recreation. Maps are used to er, substantial progress in mapping ES has
present data and compare the performance been made in the recent decade (see chap-
of countries and regions across the world ters 5.5.1, 5.5.2 and 5.5.3) and solutions
for virtually all possible indicators. Many of have been found to map services which were
us have still paper maps in our cars or dig- previously thought impossible to map (see
ital maps on our cell phones, as well as the chapter 6.2). Particular advancements have
popular Google Maps which are an essential been realised to map certain cultural ES or
tool and benefit to our lives. to map regulating ES which involve service
providing areas (Chapter 5.2) that operate
It follows that there is a strong basis in our at very small spatial scales (such as pollina-
society for maps and mapping and thus for tion or biological control).
mapping ecosystem services as well. In par-
ticular, there is a demand from policy-mak- A specific challenge is related to the trans-dis-
ers to map ES (see Chapter 7.1) and to build ciplinary nature of ecosystem services. ES
natural capital accounts which should be research has become a major academic
based on the reliable geo-referenced data of field, drawing on various academic disci-
ecosystems. plines, perspectives and research approach-
es. The multifaceted ES concept includes,
Despite the popularity of maps, they are in addition, a normative component. This
pitfalls as well. Some claim that maps have exposes ES maps (and the researchers who
an air of authority. Which means that created them) to the general critique of not
maps and their content are often taken for being sufficiently inclusive and to the spe-
Chapter 3 89
cific critique from disciplinary specialists example, a very local ES which takes place
of oversimplifying detailed ecological pro- in a specific period of the year when tem-
cesses that are underpinning ES. To both perature allows bees and other pollinators
challenges the ES mapping community has to be active. Groundwater recharge, in con-
responded well. Chapter 5.6 demonstrates trast, is a large-scale process which usually
how different views expressed by different is measured in decades. ES related to water,
stakeholders and researchers can be accom- climate and atmosphere demonstrate entire-
modated in the ES framework. Mapping ES ly different behaviour from services related
nowadays is not restricted to natural sciences to soil. They require different quantification
but includes social and economic sciences as approaches and are measured for different
well. Furthermore, recent studies promote spatial units. This results in maps which vary
the adoption of a tiered mapping approach across scale and spatial unit. Bringing them
which allows increasing levels of spatial and together in a series of consistent and har-
ecological details to be incorporated in map- monised ES maps for spatial planning and
ping studies (chapter 5.6.1). policy support requires application of spatial
operations (such as upscaling, downscaling,
Besides these thematic challenges, there are spatial statistics) which, in turn, may intro-
significant technical challenges to map ES. duce uncertainties (Chapter 6). Using scal-
able indicators (e.g. indicators which can be
A question which often arises relates to what measured at different spatial scales such as
ES maps should express: ES potentials, flows the density of trees) could overcome errors
or demand (Chapter 5.1)? ES are realised that arise when local data are upscaled or
when humans benefit from them. At this when global data are downscaled. But such
point, supply meets demand and ES flow indicators are not always available. In partic-
from where they are generated to where they ular for water, air and soil, related ES mea-
are received (Chapter 5.2). These flows are surements are mostly local and not scalable
dynamic over time and therefore difficult to to larger spatial scales.
capture on maps; stocks exhibit less dynam-
ics and are therefore easier to map. A typical ES mapping could thus be substantially ad-
example is climate regulation; this service is vanced by a more systematic development
often mapped by the carbon stock in soil or of cross-case comparisons and methods.
above-ground vegetation assuming that the Several chapters of this book touch on these
stock is related to the capacity to provide a challenges related to spatial scale and pro-
flow of service. Carbon capture as such is vide solutions for dealing with uncertain-
less mapped. The notion of stocks and flows ties arising from spatial data handling (dif-
is crucial for accounting purposes. The size ferent sections under 5.7). As more efforts
of the stock is not necessarily related to the and research are focused on these areas, it
magnitude of ES flows, so this challenge seems likely that datasets generated at dif-
needs to be addressed when ES maps are ap- ferent spatial and temporal scales and, us-
plied in decision-making contexts. ing different types of data, will complement
one another to provide a coherent message
The selection of an appropriate spatial scale regarding the health of global ecosystems,
and an appropriate mapping unit is another biodiversity and the benefits they confer
important issue and remains a challenge for upon society.
ES mapping studies (Chapter 5.7). Ecolog-
ical processes occur at different spatial and The different thematic and methodological
temporal scales. Pollination by insects is, for challenges are sources of uncertainties that

should be considered when using ES maps. Crossman ND, Burkhard B Nedkov S, Wil-
ES map-makers should try to detect sourc- lemen L, Petz K, Palomo I, Drakou EG,
es of uncertainty and give guidance on how Martn-Lopez B, McPhearson T, Boyano-
to deal with them (Chapter 6.3). Of equal va K, Alkemade R, Egoh B, Dunbar MB,
importance is transparency. The map-mak- Maes J (2013) A blueprint for mapping
er should be clear about how the maps are and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosys-
generated. A helpful tool is provided by the tem Services 4: 4-14.
Blueprint for mapping and modelling ES (see
further reading and Chapter 7.9). The prima- Dick J, Maes J, Smith RI, Paracchini ML,
ry purpose of this blueprint is to provide a Zulian G (2014) Cross-scale analysis of
template and checklist of information need- ecosystem services identified and assessed
ed for those carrying out an ES modelling at local and European level. Ecological In-
and mapping study. A second purpose is to dicators 38: 20-30.
reduce uncertainties associated with quanti-
fying and mapping of ES and thereby help Hauck J, Grg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamki O,
to close the gap between theory and practice. Maes J, Wittmer H, Jax K (2013) Maps
have an air of authority: Potential benefits
and challenges of ecosystem service maps
Further reading at different levels of decision making. Eco-
system Services 4: 25-32.
Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Baumgrtner S, Martnez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P (2012)

Fischer J, Hanspach J, Hrdtle W, Hein- Methods for mapping ecosystem service
richs H, Klein AM, Lang DJ, Martens P, supply: A review. International Journal of
Walmsley D (2014) Ecosystem services as Biodiversity Science, Ecosystems Services
a boundary object for sustainability. Eco- and Management 8: 17-25.
logical Economics 103: 29-37.
Chapter 3 91
Chapter 4
Ecosystem services
quantification
Chapter 4 93
The economic value of the best place on earth has been quantified
(Photo: Benjamin Burkhard 2008).

4.1. Biophysical quantification
Petteri Vihervaara, Laura Mononen, Fernando Santos,
Mihai Adamescu, Constantin Cazacu, Sandra Luque,
Davide Geneletti & Joachim Maes
Introduction
Ecosystem services (ES) arise when eco- processes, functions and service flows (also
logical structures and ecological processes known as the left side or the supply side
directly or indirectly contribute to human of the cascade). Benefits and values (also
well-being and meet a certain demand from known as the right side or demand side of
people. This flow of ES from ecosystems to the cascade) are more often measured using
society is well represented by the ES cascade social (see Chapter 4.2) or economic units
concept (see Chapter 2.3). Ecosystems pro- (see Chapter 4.3). Nonetheless, benefits and
vide the necessary structure and processes values can sometimes be expressed in bio-
that underpin ecosystem functions which physical units as well. Consider again the
are defined as the capacity or potential to above example of water purification in wet-
deliver services. ES are derived from eco- lands. The benefit from this ecosystem ser-
system functions and represent the realised vice is clean water and this can be expressed
flow of services in relation to the benefits as the concentration of pollutant substances.
and values of people. This model is useful
for quantifying ES. Consider the follow- To quantify ES along the different compo-
ing example: wetlands (an ecosystem or a nents of the ES cascade, we need to address
structure) provide habitat for bacteria which two questions: what do we measure and how
break down excess nitrogen (denitrification, do we measure (Figure 1)? For the purpose
a process). This results in the removal of ni- of this chapter, we assume that the question
trogen from the water (a service) resulting in as to why we measure (e.g., policy questions,
better water quality (a benefit). People can scope of an ecosystem assessment) has been
value increased water quality in multiple answered.
ways (e.g., by expressing their willingness to
pay for clean water). Each of these different The first question is addressed in the scien-
steps can be quantified using biophysical, tific literature by developing and proposing
economic or social valuation methods. indicators. Ecosystem service indicators are
used to monitor the state or trends of ecosys-
This chapter focuses on biophysical quanti- tems and ecosystem service delivery within
fication which is the measurement of ES in a determined time interval. In recent years
biophysical units. Biophysical units are used a substantial indicator base has been devel-
to express, for example, quantities of wa- oped world wide to assess or measure ES.
ter abstracted from a lake, area of forest or
stocks of carbon in the soil. Looking at the Once an indicator is proposed or selected
ES cascade, it seems evident that biophysi- for inclusion in an ecosystem assessment,
cal quantification focuses, in particular, on the second question becomes important:
the measurement of ecosystem structures, how can we measure the service or the indi-
Chapter 4 95
Biophysical quantification of ecosystem services
Purpose of the assessment

Target audience
What to measure?
Select an appropriate indicator Position on the ES cascade
Spatial and temporal scale
Availability of data
How to measure?
Select an appropriate method
1 2 3
Direct measurement Indirect measurement Indirect measurement
Field observations Remote sensing and earth Expert based, statistical

Field experiments observation (NDVI, land and process based models
Surveys and questionaires cover, surface tempera- of ecosystems and ecosys-
ture, ) tem services
Socio-economic data
Proxy indicators
Figure 1. Biophysical quantification of ecosystem services (Icons by Freepik).
cator in biophysical terms or units? Which Purpose and target audience are important
methods or procedures should be applied to criteria for selecting or designing indicators
come to an reasonable estimate of the quan- for ES. It makes a difference if indicators are
tity of service provided? used to inform policy makers, journalists,
conservation and land managers, scientists
or students. Not everybody has an equal
What to measure: Ecosystem understanding of the flow of ES which is
indeed a relatively complex concept. There-
service indicators fore, indicators are sometimes expressed in
relative terms by setting a reference value
ES indicators are information that efficiently equal to, for instance, 100 and by calculat-
communicates the characteristics and trends ing other values relative to this reference.
of ES, making it possible for policy-makers This facilitates interpretation for some user
to understand the condition, trends and rate groups. Of equal importance is the purpose
of change in ES. of an indicator. Why is it used? Many ES
indicators are proposed to report the state
Different indicators can be used to measure or and trends of ES under different biodiver-
indicate a single ecosystem service. The choice sity policies from global to local scale. But
for an indicator depends on many factors in- such indicators are not necessarily useful for
cluding the purpose, the audience, its position application by spatial planners or for sci-
on the ES cascade, the spatial and temporal entific support to river basin management.
scale considered and the availability of data. Consider pollination, a regulating ecosys-

tem service. A scientist could be interested receive from ecosystems. A stock refers to
in the diversity and density of different bee the capacity of ecosystems to deliver those
and bumblebee populations; a farmer may benefits. Flows are always expressed per unit
wish to know how far he can rely on wild of time. Timber production serves as a good
pollination to help pollinate his fruit trees; a example to illustrate the difference between
biodiversity policy officer may need to know an indicator which measures the stock and
if, at national scale, pollination services are an indicator which measures the flow. Tim-
declining or increasing. Clearly, these stake- ber production is often measured by quan-
holders have different information requests tifying the harvest (how much timber is cut,
which require different indicators with dif- usually expressed in a volume of wood per
ferent biophysical units although pollina- unit area and per unit of time, for example,
tion is the common denominator. m3/ha/year). Sometimes timber production
can also be indicated by the available timber
The above example also illustrates the im- stock which can be harvested. This difference
portance of spatial and temporal scales. The is subtle for the case of timber. If the stock is
issue of scale is frequently presented in all harvested, stock becomes flow. However, for
textbooks on ecology as biodiversity and the other services, the difference between stock
ecological processes it supports (and thus also and flow is important because indicators for
the delivery of ES) are heavily dependent on stock and flow cannot always be expressed
time and space. Processes are influenced by in the same units. Wetlands have a certain
different time cycles (day-night, seasons) and capacity to clean water but it is not always
take place at different rates (see also Chapter straightforward to express this capacity in
5.3). The self-purifying capacity of water is, terms of pollutant removal (e.g., amount
for instance, highly dependent on the veloc- of nitrogen removed or immobilised in the
ity at which water flows. Water purification sediment in kg/ha/year). Often the size of
services, for example, which can be measured the wetland (in ha) is used as proxy to indi-
by the amount of pollutant removed, differ cate this capacity. The rationale is that larger
between fast running streams and stagnant wetlands have more capacity to purify water
lakes with the latter ecosystems having, in than smaller wetlands. In this context, the
general, a higher capacity (more time) to re- concept of ecosystem condition is import-
move nitrogen but a lower capacity to clean ant as well (see Chapter 3.5). Not only the
organic pollution. Also spatial scale matters. quantity (spatial extent) of an ecosystem is
Bees and bumblebees deliver their polli- important to assess the physical values of
nation services within a distance of a few ES capacity, ecosystem quality or ecosystem
hundred metres whereas the storage of car- condition is also an important determinant
bon in trees operates at almost global scale. of ecosystem delivery. Changes in ecosys-
Indicators and, in particular, their units of tems through degradation can thus alter the
measurement have to consider the scale at flows of ES and should thus be measured as
which ES are relevant. Sometimes indicators well by indicators.
are designed to be scale independent. This
means they can be upscaled or downscaled, a A final remark on indicators relates to com-
very useful technique for mapping. posite indicators or indices which aggregate
different sorts of information into a single
An important question often raised in litera- number. Usually such indicators are made
ture on ES is: should indicators measure the for specific purposes or to inform on partic-
stock and the flow? A service flow refers to ular challenges with a single value. In a sim-
the actual use of the actual benefits people ilar context for ES, such indicators exist but
Chapter 4 97
usually they are composed of normalised ver- planning, natural resources management
sions of indicators for single services which are and conservation has created additional in-
summed or aggregated. They cannot be quan- dicators. Therefore we list in Table 1 some
tified directly but depend on separate quanti- important initiatives where readers can find
fication of their individual components. a selection of indicators, organised from
global to sectorial initiatives.
This chapter does not provide a list with
indicators for ES for the simple reason that In summary, ES indicators express what to
there are hundreds of indicators available. measure when quantifying ES in a biophys-
Many countries and regions have developed ical manner. Good ES indicators come with
ES indicator sets; the setting of global or re- information on their place on the ES cas-
gional biodiversity targets has also spurred cade, on the available data, on the targeted
the development of indicators. Further- audience and the objective and on whether
more, the application of the ES concept for they assess a stock or a flow.
Table 1. Examples of sources, websites and key publications for ecosystem service indicators.
Scale Location Publication

Measuring Natures Benefits: A Preliminary Roadmap for Improving
Ecosystem Service Indicators (http://pdf.wri.org/measuring_natures_
benefits.pdf )
http://www.bipindicators.net/ (report ISBN 92-9225-376-X)
Measuring ecosystem services: Guidance on developing ecosystem

Global
service indicators (ISBN: 978-92-807-4919-5)
http://es-partnership.org/community/workings-groups/thematic-work-
ing-groups/twg-3-es-indicators/
A Global System for Monitoring Ecosystem Service Change (doi:

10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.7)
European website: http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes/mapping-ecosystems
Sub-global
Union article: doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023
Finland website: http://www.biodiversity.fi/ecosystemservices/home
article: doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.041
Canada Website: https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/
Switzerland Website: http://www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/01587/
National index.html?lang=en
Germany article: Towards a national set of ecosystem service indicators: Insights
from Germany (doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.050)
Spain Website: http://www.ecomilenio.es/informe-de-resultados-eme/1760
Article: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073249

How to measure? water from ground water layers (water pro-
vision) or asking citizens how many times
Indicators must be measured but how is they visit a forest to pick berries, mushrooms
this done for ES? Some of the above given or chestnuts (wild food products). When
examples already provide the answer. The the spatial extent or relative surface area of
number of bees on a farmland, the timber ecosystems is used to approximate ES, also
harvest from a forest or the denitrification botanical and forest inventories, permanent
in a wetland can all be monitored or mea- plots or any other direct observation on the
sured with different methods or devices. Yet terrain can be used as proxy. In certain cases
measuring stocks or flows of ES is less ev- remote sensing can be considered also as di-
ident than it seems. Here we present three rect measurement.
approaches which can be considered to
quantify biophysical stocks and flows of ES: These examples of direct measurement share
direct measurements, indirect measurement a number of characteristics. They are time
and (numerical) modelling. and resource consuming and thus costly,
mostly suitable for carrying out at site level
or local scale and they measure tangible
Direct measurements of flows of ES, in particular for provisioning
ES. Direct measurements are also feasible
ecosystem services in case of a clearly defined service providing
species (or areas) such as pollination, bird
Direct measurements of an ecosystem ser- watching or biological control.
vice indicator is the actual measurement of
a state, a quantity or a process from observa- As many of these indicators are effectively
tions, monitoring, surveys or questionnaires measured for other reasons, it is not always
which cover the entire study area in a repre- needed to set up expensive measurement
sentative manner. Direct measurements of ES schemes. Most provisioning ES including
deliver a biophysical value of ES in physical crops, fish, timber and water are recorded
units which correspond to the units of the by national and regional governments. Fur-
indicator. Direct measurements quantify or thermore, certain species groups and taxa are
measure a stock or a flow value. Direct mea- monitored to assess trends in biodiversity.
surements are also referred to as primary data.
TESSA1 is a toolkit for rapid assessment of
Examples of direct measurements of ES ES at site level which provides many proce-
(see also Table 2) are counting the number dures and suggestions for on-site measure-
of visitors visiting a national park (nature ment of ES.
based recreation); measuring the total vol-
ume of timber in a forest stand (timber pro- Direct measurements and the use of primary
duction); monitoring the release of nitrous data are the most accurate way to quantify
oxides of a reed bed or deposition of sulphur ES but they become impractical and expen-
dioxide on leaves (water and air filtration); sive beyond the site level or they are simply
recording the crop yield of a farm (crops); not available for all ES.
measuring the volumetric capacity of a flood
plain (flood control); monitoring over time Therefore the next step to consider for bio-
the improvement of water quality (water physical quantification is indirect measure-
purification); measuring the abstraction of ments.
http://tessa.tools/
1
Chapter 4 99
Table 2. Examples of different methods to measure ecosystem service indicators
Ecosystem
What to measure How to measure (method)
services
(CICES class) Indicator Direct Indirect Model
Remote sensing of
crop biomass using
NDVI and aerial
Crop statistics photo analysis for long
Crop yield Crop production
Cultivated crops (obtained through temporal changes
(tonne/ha/year) models
official reporting) Coupling structural
observations with
remote sensing
information
Livestock statistics
Reared animals Livestock (heads/ (head counts
and their outputs ha) obtained by
reporting)
Field observations Species
Wild plants, algae Wild berry yield and surveys of distribution
and their outputs (tonne/ha/year) people harvesting models; ecological
wild fruits production model
Aquaculture
Animals from in- Fish yield (tonne/ statistics (obtained Fish production
situ aquaculture ha/year) through official models
reporting)
Water statistics Remote sensing of
Water abstracted Water balance
Water (Nutrition) (obtained through water bodies and soil
(m /year)
3
models
official reporting) moisture
Timber growing
Forest stand Remote sensing of Timber
Biomass stock (m3/ha) and
measurements and forest biomass using production
(Materials) timber harvest
forest statistics NDVI models
(m3/ha/year)
Area occupied by
Earth observation land
riparian forests Site observations
cover data
(ha)
(Mediation of Measurement of
Nitrogen and
waste, toxics and deposition of NO2
Sulphur removal Remote sensing of Transport and
other nuisances) and SO2; field
in the atmosphere canopy structure (leaf fate models for N
measurement of
or in water bodies area index) and S
denitrification in
(kg/ha/year)
water bodies
Mass stabilisation
Soil erosion risk Field measurements Soil erosion
and control of
(tonne/ha/year) of soil erosion models (RUSLE)
erosion rates
Elevation models and
Area of floodplain data; aerial photo Modelling water
Flood protection Site observations
and wetlands (ha) analysis; remote transport
sensing of land cover

Ecosystem
What to measure How to measure (method)
services
Pollination Species
potential; number Field sampling of distribution
Pollination and
and abundance of pollinator species; models; ecological
seed dispersal
pollinator species counts of bee hives modelling of
(number/m2) habitat suitability
Field surveys; crop
Decomposition
Area of nitrogen statistics (obtained Crop production
and fixing
fixing crops (ha) through official models
processes
reporting)
Carbon storage
Global climate (in soil or
On-site
regulation by aboveground
measurements of Remote sensing of Carbon cycle
reduction of biomass) (tonne/
carbon stock and vegetation models
greenhouse gas ha); carbon
carbon fluxes
concentrations sequestration
(tonne/ha/year)
Modelling
Physical and Visitor data and Monitoring parking
Visitor statistics potential use of
experiential questionnaires of lots, mapping trails or
(number/year) nature reserves by
interactions visitors camping sites
people
Indirect measurements of ES measure stocks or flows of ES but they are

highly useful to quantify global climate reg-
ulation as well as all those ES which depend
Indirect measurements of ES deliver a bio- directly on the vegetation biomass of ecosys-
physical value in physical units but this value tems to regulate or mediate the environment.
needs further interpretation, certain assump- Soil protection and water regulation, for ex-
tions or data processing, or it needs to be ample, are strongly driven by the presence of
combined in a model with other sources of vegetation which can be inferred from earth
environmental information before it can be observation datasets. Local climate regulation
used to measure an ecosystem service. Indi- can be inferred from spatially and temporally
rect measurements of ES deliver a biophysical explicit patterns of surface temperature. Air
value of ES in physical units which are differ- filtration by trees and forest is directly related
ent from the units of the selected indicator. to the canopy structure which, in turn, can be
measured by the leaf area index. In addition,
In many cases, variables that are collected micro-climate regulation in cities (tempera-
through remote sensing qualify as indirect ture reduction during heat waves through
measurement. Examples for terrestrial eco- evapotranspiration and provision of shade)
systems are land surface temperature, NDVI can be approximated by measuring the total
(Normalised Difference Vegetation Index), surface area of urban forest.
land cover, water layers, leaf area index and
primary production. Examples for marine A specific role is reserved for land cover and
ecosystems include sea surface temperature, land use data which are used for both direct
chlorophyll A concentration and suspended and indirect quantification of ES. Detailed
solids. Many of these data products do not and accurate information on the extent of
Chapter 4 101
ecosystems or of ecosystem service provid- actual ecosystem service flows. This is partic-
ing units, constitute an essential data basis ularly evident when ecosystems are regulating
for all ecosystem assessments. Importantly, or mediating stocks and flows of soil, carbon,
land data can also be used to quantify de- nitrogen, water or pollutants. Consider soil
mand for ES. protection - also termed as erosion regula-
tion or erosion control which is the role
Not all indirect measurements are provided ecosystems and vegetation plays in retaining
by earth observation. The density of trails and soil or avoiding soil being eroded as a result
camping sites may provide an indirect esti- of wind or run-off water. Soil erosion can be
mate of recreation and tourism (Table 2). measured directly on sites which are prone to
erosion, usually cropland on slopes. Howev-
Indirect measurements, in particular earth er, estimating the quantity of soil that is not
observation, offer substantial advantages. eroded due to the protective cover of vegeta-
They provide consistent sources of infor- tion cannot be measured. It can however be
mation often with global coverage and they modelled by comparing the amount of soil
are regularly updated which makes them erosion with a model which simulates the
suitable for natural capital accounting and presence of vegetation with a model where
monitoring trends. the protective vegetation cover is deliberately
set to zero or to parameters which correspond
to parameters for cropland or bare soil. The
Modelling as alternative to difference between these two models results
in an estimate of avoided soil erosion and can
quantify ES represent the realised service flow. A similar
rationale applies to water purification, air
ES modelling can be used to quantify ES if quality regulation or other services which ex-
no direct or indirect measurements are avail- ert control on the fate and transport of abiot-
able. This is virtually always the case in any ic and organic material.
ecosystem assessment. With ES modelling,
we understand the simulation of supply, use
and demand of ES based on ecological and Implementing biophysical
socio-economic input data or knowledge.
Models can vary from simple expert based methods for decision-making
scoring systems to complex ecological mod-
els which simulate the planetary cycles of Ecosystem service assessments have increas-
carbon, nitrogen and water. More details are ingly been used to support environmental
also available in Chapter 4.4 management policies, mainly based on bio-
physical and economic indicators. There-
In the context of biophysical quantification, fore ES assessments have to integrate data
models can be used for spatial and temporal and information on biophysical ecosystem
gap filling of direct and indirect measure- components, including biodiversity, with
ments, extrapolation of direct and indirect socio-economic system components and the
measurements, modelling ES for which societal and policy contexts in which they
there are no measurements available or for are embedded.
scenario analysis.
Quantification of ES using biophysical
For regulating services, modelling is some- methods have been used for a number of
times the only option in order to quantify perspectives and for a variety of purposes,

including landscape management, natural Further reading
capital accounting, awareness raising, prior-
ity setting of projects or policies and policy Boerema A, Rebelo AJ, Bodi MB, Esler KJ,
instrument design. However, transferring Meire P (2016) Are ecosystem services
the outcomes of the biophysical assess- adequately quantified? Journal of Ap-
ments to policy is not straightforward and plied Ecology. DOI: 10.1111/1365-
some additional work is required to ensure 2664.12696.
a minimum degree of consistency and avoid
over-simplistic conclusions. De Araujo Barbosa CC, Atkinson PM, Dear-
ing JA (2015) Remote sensing of ecosys-
Different methods are relevant at different tem services: a synthetic review. Ecological
policy levels (ranging from international, Indicators 52: 430-443.
EU, national, regional and local scales).
Existing literature frequently acknowledg- Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC,
es that, in these cases, the interrelationship Polasky S (2011) Natural Capital: Theory
between different scales must be taken into and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Ser-
consideration, which can pose significant vices. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
challenges. Broad framings for these meth-
ods include the work done globally of the Mononen L, Auvinen AP, Ahokumpu AL,
Inter-governmental Platform on Biodiver- Rnk M, Aarras N, Tolvanen H, Kamp-
sity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and pinen M, Viirret E, Kumpula T, Viher-
the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems vaara P (2016) National ecosystem service
and their Services (MAES) in the context indicators: Measures of social-ecological
of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. The initial sustainability. Ecological Indicators 61:
methodological work on biophysical meth- 27-37.
ods will be the basis for the assessment of
the economic value of ES and promote the Peh KS-H et al. (2013) TESSA: A toolkit for
integration of these values into accounting rapid assessment of ecosystem services at
and reporting systems. sites of biodiversity conservation impor-
tance. Ecosystem Services 5: e51-e57.
Conclusions Pettorelli N, Owen HJF, Duncan C (2016)

How do we want satellite remote sensing
to support biodiversity conservation glob-
You cant manage what you dont measure. ally? Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7:
This well-known expression is also valid for 656-665.
ES which is, in essence, a concept to guide
and support the management of natural
resources, ecosystems and socio-ecological
systems. ES represent the flows of materi-
al, energy and information from ecosystems
to society. Accurate measurement of these
flows as well as the extent and the condition
of ecosystems which support these flows is
therefore key to base decisions, to monitor
progress to biodiversity targets and to create
a sound knowledge base for natural capital.
Chapter 4 103
4.2. Socio-cultural valuation
approaches
Fernando Santos-Martn, Eszter Kelemen, Marina
Garca-Llorente, Sander Jacobs, Elisa Oteros-Rozas,
David N. Barton, Ignacio Palomo, Violeta Hevia &
Berta Martn-Lpez
Introduction
Any evaluation of ES requires an integrat- odological framework, able to explore ways

ed analysis, taking into account the supply of representing cognitive, emotional and
and demand of ES and their biophysical, ethical responses to nature, alongside ways
socio-cultural and economic value dimen- of expressing preferences, needs and the
sions (see Chapters 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3, respec- desires of people in relation to ES, is very
tively). Recent literature has acknowledged much needed. In this context, the present
that many of the contributions on ES valu- chapter aims to contribute to this challenge
ation still use the term value exclusively in through the review of socio-cultural valu-
a monetary sense, ignoring the broader con- ation methods that have been frequently
tributions of ecosystems and biodiversity to applied in ES literature.
society in terms of cultural, therapeutic, ar-
tistic, inspirational, educational, spiritual or Socio-cultural valuation is defined in this
aesthetic values. chapter as an umbrella term for those meth-
ods that aim to analyse human preferences
To fill this scientific gap, literature on so- towards ES in non-monetary units. Under
cio-cultural valuation approaches has grown this umbrella, terms such as psycho-cultural
in the last ten years, mostly related to cultur- valuation, social valuation, deliberative val-
al ES (Figure 1). The recent increase in the uation, qualitative valuation and subjective
number of scientific papers on socio-cultural assessment represent valuation approaches
valuation of ES coincides with the creation that aim to uncover individual and collective
of the Intergovernmental Platform of Biodi- values and perceptions of ES without relying
versity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in on market logic and monetary metrics.
2012. Some of the challenges addressed by
IPBES are related with socio-cultural valua-
tion of ES, such as the inclusion of different A comprehensive review
knowledge-systems or the recognition of
value pluralism.
There are multiple approaches to uncover so-
Despite the increase in the number of publi- cio-cultural values of ES depending on data
cations, socio-cultural valuation approaches availability and the purpose of the valuation.
have not yet formalised a common meth- In this chapter, we will focus on seven meth-
odological framework. Designing a methods that are frequently used in literature.

they are willing to dedicate for a change in
the quantity or quality of a given ecosystem
service. This method is not only a non-mon-
etary metric, but also a way of measuring
the willingness to actively contribute to na-
ture conservation through practical actions.
Photo-elicitation surveys seek to uncover

the socio-cultural value of ES by translat-
ing peoples visual experiences, perceptions
and preferences of landscapes into ecosys-
Figure 1. Trends in the scientific literature
tem service values. The use of photo-elic-
exploring socio-cultural valuation approaches for itation surveys has proven to be a useful
cultural ES.1 technique for eliciting socio-cultural values
of ES as it uses a communication channel
(i.e. photographs) which is easily under-
1
Note: this illustration is not representing the total
stood by multiple social actors (for instance
number of published papers on cultural services
see Chapter 7.3.3).
valuation, but the timeline of publications of the
most relevant papers which focus on six cultural
Narrative methods differ from the pre-
ES: non-extractive recreation and tourism (e.g.
vious three as they are mainly used to col-
outdoor recreation, ecotourism), (2) extractive
lect qualitative data. By using narrative
recreation and tourism (e.g. sport fishing, recre-
methods (e.g. structured, semi-structured
ational hunting), (3) local ecological knowledge,
and unstructured interviews, focus groups,
(4) scientific knowledge and environmental edu-
participant observation, content analysis,
cation, (5) spiritual interactions with nature and
voice and video recording of events, artistic
(6) aesthetic experience.
expression, etc.), participants can articulate
the plural and heterogeneous values of ES
Preference assessment is a direct consulta- through their own stories and direct actions
tive method that assesses the individual and (both verbally and visually).
social importance of ES by analysing moti-
vations, perceptions, knowledge and associ- Three other approaches, frequently used in
ated values of ES. Data is collected through socio-cultural valuation, focus on the inte-
free-listing exercises, ecosystem service rank- gration of knowledge systems, disciplines
ing, rating, or other selection mechanisms. and diverse data. Participatory mapping
Techniques for weighting the preferences of ES (or sometimes referred to as partici-
related to impacts on the ecosystem service patory geographical information systems or
of different management alternatives such as review and standarized PGIS, see Box 1) as-
multi-criteria analysis are examples of inte- sesses the spatial distribution of ES accord-
grated preference assessment valuation. ing to the perceptions and knowledge of
stakeholders via workshops and/or surveys.
In the same manner, but aiming at a more PGIS facilitates the participation of various
quantitative indicator of socio-cultural val- stakeholders (e.g. community members, en-
ues of ES, the time use method creates hy- vironmental professionals, NGO represen-
pothetical scenarios for willingness to give tatives, decision-makers, etc.) integrating
up time (WTT). This method estimates the their perceptions, knowledge and values in
value of ES by asking people how much time maps of ES (see Chapter 5.6.2).
Chapter 4 105
Scenario planning combines various tools tive data by collaborating with scholars from
and techniques (e.g. interviews, brainstorm- other fields and non-academic stakeholders
ing or visioning exercises in workshops, (for instance PGIS, participatory scenario
often complemented with modelling) to planning and deliberative valuation), also
develop plausible and internally consistent called integrated approaches (Table 1). This
descriptions of alternative futures, where third group of methods has been applied to
values of ES can be elicited. Assumptions uncover ES values at national scales (and
about future events or trends are questioned international in the case of scenarios) while
and uncertainties are made explicit to estab- the first two groups are not usually applied
lish transparent links between changes in ES at such broad scales. Further, the third type
and human well-being. of methods can contribute to social learning
and knowledge co-production as it fosters
Deliberative methods comprise various discussion between different stakeholder
tools and techniques to engage and empower groups regarding the importance of differ-
non-scientific participants. These methods ent ES (deliberative valuation), their spatial
(e.g. valuation workshops, citizens juries, distribution (PGIS) and the future trends of
photo-voice, etc.) invite stakeholders and cit- ES and their implications for human well-
izens to form their preferences for ES togeth- being (participatory scenario planning).
er through an open dialogue. Deliberative
methods can address ethical beliefs, moral PGIS is also the most suitable method to pro-
commitments and social norms and are often vide spatial outputs, although preference as-
used in combination with other approaches sessment, time use and photo-elicitation may
(e.g. mapping or monetary valuation). also contribute with spatially explicit results
by estimating representative values for differ-
ent geographical areas. PGIS is particularly
Scrutiny of specific socio- suited to identify ecosystem service benefit-
ing areas, i.e. places where use or demand of
cultural valuation methods ES converge (see Chapters 5.2 and 5.6.2).
The diversity of socio-cultural methods Despite all developments regarding socio-cul-

described above is determined by different tural valuation of ES, the question of how so-
methodological requirements (Table 1) and cio-cultural valuation methods can elicit the
the ability of the different methods to pro- broad range of values associated with nature
vide different outputs and to uncover dif- is still relatively unexplored. Following the
ferent types of values (Table 2). Regarding conceptual definitions provided for value cat-
methodological requirements, socio-cul- egories in the Total Economic Value (TEV),
tural methods can be clustered into three the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiver-
different groups: (1) methods that require sity (TEEB) and the IPBES, an integrative
multiple observations as they are quantita- approach to socio-cultural valuation meth-
tive methods and are usually developed in ods has the capacity to uncover most of the
collaboration with scholars from the same different value categories (Table 2). Broadly
field (i.e. preference assessment, time-use speaking, Table 1 shows that some methods
and photo-elicitation), (2) methods based are more specific towards certain value types
on qualitative data that are usually applied (e.g. narrative methods), while other meth-
in collaboration with non-academic stake- ods are generally able to capture multiple
holders (i.e. narratives), (3) methods that values, but not specifically designed for any
are able to gather qualitative and quantita- value type in particular (e.g. participatory

scenario planning or deliberative valuation). The resulting analyses reflect the extent to
All value types are appropriately covered by which diverse valuation methods capture
one or more methods, but all methods have specific value types or have integrative po-
blind spots, which imply bias and condition- tential, as well as which set of complemen-
al application. Consequently, using multiple tary methods can be applied to capture mul-
methods is necessary to cover all values types. tiple values.
Table 1. Methodological requirements of socio-cultural methods for valuing ES. Methods are evaluated
according to their suitability to value ES at different spatial scales and to uncover quantitative or qualitative
data - () high, () moderate, () low - and according to the level of requirements in terms of data, collabo-
ration, time and economic resources - () high, ( ) medium, ( ) low - Source: Kelemen et al. (2015).
SOCIO-CULTURAL
SPATIAL SCALE DATA COLLABORATION RESOURCES
METHODS
Researchers other
Researchers own
Amount of data
Non-academic
Quantitative
stakeholders
Qualitative
Economic
Regional
National
Local
Time
field
field
Preference
assessment
Time use
Photo-elicitation
surveys
Narratives
Participatory GIS
(PGIS)
Scenario planning
Deliberative
valuation
Chapter 4 107
Table 2. Main socio-cultural methods are presented in relation to their capacity to integrate different
types of values - () high, () moderate, () low, () not appropriate - and according to their capacity to
integrate values - () high, ( ) medium, ( ) low - Source: Kelemen et al. (2015).
SOCIO-
CULTURAL IPBES values TEEB values Total Economic Value
Integrative Potential
METHODS
Indirect use values

Direct use values
Existence values
Bequest values
Socio-cultural
Option values
Instrumental
Ecological
Relational
Monetary
Intrinsic
Preference
assessment
Time use
Photo-
elicitation
surveys

Narratives
Participatory
GIS (PGIS)
Scenario
planning
Deliberative
valuation
Degree of values
captured by all
methods

Internal variability of socio- ry and deliberative techniques that go beyond

the aggregation of individual preferences. So-
cultural valuation methods cio-cultural valuation methods aim at valu-
ing ES in a considered way by discovering
A key similarity amongst socio-cultur- the psychological, historical, cultural, social,
al methods is the assumption that values ecological and political contexts and condi-
of ES are rooted in individuals and, at the tions, as well as social perceptions that shape
same time, shaped by individuals social and individually held or commonly shared values.
cultural context. In fact, socio-cultural ap-
proaches have the capacity to elicit collective Variability among methods makes socio-
and shared values of ES through participato- cultural valuation capable of flexible

adaptation to specific worldviews and consultation or engagement methods. There
decision contexts. Key aspects of this are three options to gain knowledge on pref-
variability include (Figure 2): erences, depending on whether preferences
(values) are considered as pre-existing or in
1. The type of values elicited: methods fo- the process of formation. Preferences can be
cusing on the value to individuals versus observed and reported when participants
methods focusing on the value to society. have a direct relation with the subject of
Values can be considered at the level of the valuation (e.g. they frequently use or enjoy
individual (what is considered useful, im- some ES). However, not having a direct re-
portant, good or morally acceptable by a lation with the subject of valuation does not
person) and at higher levels of societal or- necessarily mean that participants do not
ganisation, including a group, a commu- attribute value to it. To explore these social
nity or the society as a whole (Figure 2). preferences, participants can be consulted or
The latter type includes social and cultural asked via questionnaires or interviews about
values and refers to the fact that societies their perceptions of ES. If preferences are
hold shared principles and virtues, as well not expected to exist a priori, or are in the
as a shared sense of what is worthwhile and process of formation (i.e. participants do
meaningful. Shared social values influence not have a priori knowledge about, or have
individual values because all of us are part not faced others perceptions of certain ES),
of and have been socialised within, a specif- we can also engage participants in a joint
ic community and social context. Valuation preference formation process through de-
methods differ in terms of focusing on per- liberative valuation, participatory scenario
sonal (individual) understandings of value, planning or PGIS.
or eliciting those value dimensions that are
shared by a group of people and culturally 4. The dominant approaches to handling
embedded within a society. data: predominantly quantitative, predom-
inantly qualitative and mixed methodolog-
2. The type of rationality attributed to partic- ical approaches. All three types of methods
ipants (value providers): self-oriented versus can be used to collect quantitative, as well
others-oriented methodological approaches. as qualitative data. Quantitative data can be
We can distinguish between individual (I) collected in numerical form from large pop-
and collective (We) rationality as the two ulations and, if representative, can provide
main rules of thumb behind reasonable ac- results that are applied, in a general sense,
tions (Figure 2). When following I ratio- from local to regional or even broader spa-
nality, we consider individual benefits and tial scales. Quantitative data can be collected
costs of personal actions and choose the most both at individual and group level and then
beneficial option for ourselves. On the other aggregated to generalise the results from the
hand, following We rationality means that sample to larger populations. Qualitative
before acting, we consider what is good and data allow an in-depth understanding of
bad for our community/society and how our values and underlying motivations, but usu-
actions can impact others. Therefore, I ra- ally for a much smaller (and often non-rep-
tionality refers to self-oriented actions and resentative) sample. Qualitative data can be
choices, while We rationality refers to oth- collected at the individual and group level
er-regarding actions and choices. in the form of narrative arguments (main-
ly words, but also pictures, drawings, etc.).
3. The process of including participants Due to the heterogeneity of types of data,
(value providers) in valuation: observation, aggregation is often impossible and other
Chapter 4 109
means of synthesis have to be used (e.g. nar- be placed along a continuum (Figure 2) and,
rative methods or deliberation). In practice, in many cases, they are used in a mixed and
quantitative and qualitative approaches can complementary approach.
SELF-
ORIENTED
CONTACTING
Preference assessment APPROACH
Photo-elicitation
Participatory-based GIS CONSULTATION
Time use ENGAGEMENT
Narrative approaches OBSERVATION
INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES SOCIAL
Preference assessment Preference assessment

Photo-elicitation Participatory scenario planning
Participatory-based GIS Participatory-based GIS
Narrative approaches Narrative approaches
Deliberative approaches
OTHERS-
ORIENTED
Figure 2. Variability among socio-cultural valuation methods in relation to three axes: type of values
elicited, type of rationality attributed to value providers, and the dominant approach of handling data.
Implementation of socio- socio-cultural dimension might obscure

human-nature relationships and hinder the
cultural valuation methods in mainstreaming of ES across societal sectors
the decision-support and in decision-support.
Ecosystem service assessments have increas- Integrated valuation aims to clarify the in-
ingly been called to support environmental terdependencies between the multiple val-
planning, mainly based on biophysical and ues associated with different ES (see also
economic indicators. However, the expecta- Box 2 for an example). The biophysical
tions of decision-makers in relation to how dimension, i.e. an ecosystems capacity to
these assessments can support decision-mak- supply services, determines the range of po-
ing are not always fulfilled. Moreover, few tential uses by society which also influenc-
studies have included the socio-cultural es its socio-cultural and monetary values.
dimension of ES, despite its being consid- Socio-cultural values might also have an
ered a research priority. Overlooking the influence on monetary values because indi-

vidual and social motivations determine the age comparisons across contexts. In addi-
utility a person obtains from a particular tion, a number of socio-cultural valuation
service. Conversely, monetary values have methods are applied at local scales to assess
social interpretations and the process of certain values in depth.
monetary valuation is value-articulating in
itself. These interdependencies between val- 3. Socio-cultural valuation methods are a
ue dimensions and the different information useful tool to identify how plural values are
provided by them, justify combining the interlinked. These help identify plural and
different value domains to properly inform heterogeneous values that are relevant for
environmental decision-making processes. different people (e.g. different socio-demo-
In this section, we formulate several propo- graphic profiles, different cultures or cos-
sitions regarding how socio-cultural valua- mologies), at different temporal scales (e.g.
tion methods can provide support in deci- seasons of the year) and different choice sit-
sion-making: uations (individual versus group). Socio-cul-
tural valuation methods can reveal how plu-
1. Socio-cultural approaches help broaden ral and heterogeneous values are interlinked
the valuation scope and capture multiple and contribute to human wellbeing.
values that complement other valuation
methods. Socio-cultural valuation methods 4. Socio-cultural methods are more appro-
can be used to identify how values and per- priate in situations of social conflict than
ceptions toward ES differ among stakehold- other valuation methods. Aiming for an
ers and offer insights into the motivations in-depth understanding of human-nature
for conserving nature and the symbolic, cul- relationships, some socio-cultural methods
tural and spiritual values that are frequent- integrate different forms of knowledge (e.g.
ly invisible in other valuation approaches. expert or technical knowledge and experi-
Further, socio-cultural valuation methods ential and local knowledge) held by differ-
can address relational values that are prefer- ent social actors. Sometimes, the interests
ences, principles and virtues associated with of one stakeholder group might be in con-
nature-human relationships. For example, flict with the interests of other stakeholders
deliberative methods allow the consider- and power relations might operate between
ation of ethical beliefs, moral commitments them. In that case, socio-cultural valuation
and social norms. can support the identification of conflicts
arising from different perceptions, needs
2. Socio-cultural valuation methods can and uses of ES, as well as power inequities
cover different spatial scales. Values de- in the access to ES.
rived from large representative samples of
a population can be transferred to oth- 5. Socio-cultural preferences can serve as in-
er locations when the social, cultural and dicators of the impact of different manage-
ecological conditions are similar and ag- ment options on the ecosystems capacity to
gregated to larger scales than the original deliver services. Socio-cultural preferences
study. Given the emphasis of socio-cultur- are often associated with ecosystem service
al valuation methods on social formation bundles. They are helpful in identifying
and context-dependency of values, some ecosystem service synergies and trade-offs
approaches such as value transfer, aggrega- resulting from stakeholders diverging inter-
tion and scaling are less common than in ests and knowledge. Social preferences for
economic valuation where assumptions of ES can be used as indicators of present and
pre-existing individual preferences encour- future pressures on landscapes and land-use
Chapter 4 111
change. For example, multi-criteria analysis In summary, socio-cultural valuation meth-
can combine a biophysical ecosystem ser- ods can provide decision-support in the
vice assessment with peoples willingness to form of awareness-raising, value and knowl-
trade off one ecosystem service for another, edge recognition, value conflict identifi-
establishing a ranking order of landscape cation and priority-setting. They also help
management alternatives that can be used in bring different voices and stakeholders into
priority-setting. the decision-making process.
Box 1. Participatory mapping of ecosystem service flows in a

National Park (Sierra Nevada, Spain)
Participatory GIS seeks to produce ecosystem service maps in regions of data scarcity while engaging
stakeholders through the mapping process. These two aims were pursued in the process developed in
Sierra Nevada to map ecosystem service flows. In a two day workshop, 20 participants mapped the
supply and demand (i.e. Service Provision Hotspots and Service Benefiting Areas) of 11 ES. Results
showed the importance of protected areas to deliver ES and allowed the elaboration of concrete policy
proposals for the protected area and its surrounding landscape. Regarding ecosystem service supply,
potential restoration areas and areas that require a value enhancement strategy were identified. Eco-
system service demand maps showed the need of a multi-scale strategy for protected area management
beyond protected area boundaries to be able to manage the demand that affects the ecosystem within
the protected area.
Participatory mapping of ES developed by experts (i.e. managers and scientists) in Sierra Nevada
Protected Area.

Box 2. Socio-cultural valuation of ES in Hungary
(Homokhtsg)
The major aim of this ES study was to help local stakeholders and decision-makers move towards a
more sustainable landscape management system. To this end, in-depth and semi-structured interviews
and focus groups were applied. We carried out narrative methods to understand the institutionalised
mechanisms affecting farmers choices that are often in conflict with nature conservation.
Moreover, we carried out deliberative valuation to understand how farmers relate to biodiversity and
whether it has different meanings and values to different groups of farmers. A preference assessment
survey was carried out to mobilise community members and collect information on their knowledge,
opinion and feelings related to ES. This was then channelled into a participatory scenario planning pro-
cess, combined with modelling, to enable stakeholders and experts to explore alternative future options
and choose the most desirable one(s) together. This long lasting research process was able to highlight
multiple dependencies between local inhabitants and their surrounding environment. We could identi-
fy plural and heterogeneous values and their possible changes across time and space.
Focus group with local stakeholders using visual stimuli to elicit socio-cultural values of ES and their
spatial distribution in the landscape.
Chapter 4 113
Further reading Brady E, Bryce R and Church A (2015)
What are shared and social values of ecosys-
Chan K, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman tems? Ecological Economics, 111: 86-99.
M, Daz S, Gmez-Baggethun E, Gould
R, Hannahs N, Jax K, Klain S, Luck G, Kovcs E, Kelemen E, Kalczkai , Margczi
Martn-Lpez B, Muraca B, Norton B, K, Pataki G, Gbert J, Mlovics G, Balzs
Ott K, Pascual U, Satterfield T, Tadaki M, B, Roboz , Kovcs E, Mihk B (2015)
Taggart J, Turner NJ (2016) Why Protect Understanding the links between eco-
Nature? Rethinking Values and the Envi- system service trade-offs and conflicts in
ronment. PNAS 113:1462-1465. protected areas. Ecosystem Services 12:
117-127.
Garca-Llorente M, Martn-Lpez B, Inies-
ta-Arandia I, Lpez-Santiago CA, Aguilera Martn-Lpez B, Iniesta-Arandia I, Garca-
PA, Montes C (2012) The role of multi- Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga
functionality in social preferences toward I, Del Amo DDG, Gmez-Baggethun E,
semi-arid rural landscapes: an ecosystem Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Wil-
service approach. Environmental Science laarts B, Gonzlez JA, Santos-Martn F,
and Policy 19-20: 136-146. Onaindia M, Lpez-Santiago C, Montes
C (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service
Gmez-Baggethun E, Martn-Lpez B (2015) bundles through social preferences. PLoS
Ecological Economics perspective in eco- ONE 7(6): e38970.
system services valuation. In: Martnez-
Alier J, Muradian R (Eds) Handbook of Oteros-Rozas E, Martn-Lpez B, Gonzlez
Ecological Economics, 260-282. Edward JA, Plieninger T, Lpez CA, Montes C.
Elgar, London. (2014) Socio-cultural valuation of ecosys-
tem services in a transhumance social-eco-
Iniesta-Arandia I, Garca-Llorente M, Aguil- logical network. Regional Environmental
era P, Montes C, Martn-Lpez B (2014) Change 14: 1269-1289.
Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem ser-
vices: uncovering the links between values, Plieninger T, Bieling C, Ohnesorge B, Schaich
drivers of change and human well-being. H, Schleyer C, Wolff F (2013) Exploring
Ecological Economics 108: 36-48. futures of ecosystem services in cultural
landscapes through participatory scenario
IPBES (2015) Preliminary guide regarding development in the Swabian Alb, Germa-
diverse conceptualisation of multiple val- ny. Ecological and Society 18(3): 39.
ues of nature and its benefits, including
biodiversity and ecosystem functions and Santos-Martn F, Martn-Lpez B, Garca-
services, IPBES 15 Deliverable 3 (d). Llorente M, Aguado M, Benayas J, Mon-
tes C (2013) Unravelling the Relationships
Kelemen E, Garca-Llorente, M, Pataki G, between Ecosystems and Human Wellbe-
Martn-Lopez B, Gmez-Baggethun E ing in Spain. PLoS One 8: e73249.
(2014) Non-monetary techniques for the
valuation of ecosystem services. Open- Teddlie C, Tashakkori A (Eds) (2009)Founda-
NESS Syntehsis Papers No. 6. tions of mixed methods research: Integrat-
ing quantitative and qualitative approach-
Kenter J, OBrien L, Hockley N, Ravenscroft es in the social and behavioural sciences.
N, Fazey I, Irvine K, Reed M, Christie M, Sage Publications Inc.

4.3. Economic quantification
Luke M. Brander & Neville D. Crossman
Introduction
Economic quantification of ES attempts to those goods or services. Demand for goods

measure the human welfare derived from or services is driven by the benefit, utility or
the use or consumption of ES. Economic welfare that consumers derive from it. Sup-
quantification or valuation is one way to ply of goods or services is determined by the
assess and communicate the importance of cost to producers of producing it. The left-
ES to decision-makers and can be used in hand panel in Figure 1 provides a simplified
combination with other forms of informa- representation of demand (marginal benefit)
tion (e.g. bio-physical or social quantifica- and supply (marginal cost) for goods traded
tion - see Chapters 4.1 and 4.2). The com- in a market at quantity Q and price P.
parative advantage of economic valuation is Area A represents the consumer surplus
that it conveys the importance of ES directly which is the gain obtained by consumers
in terms of human welfare and uses a com- because they are able to purchase a product
mon unit of account (i.e. money) so that at a market price that is less than the highest
values can be directly compared across ES price they would be willing to pay (which
and across other goods and services that are is related to their benefit from consumption
consumed by society. and represented by the demand curve). The
producer surplus, depicted by B, is the
The aim of this chapter is to introduce the amount that producers benefit by selling at
key concepts underlying economic quantifi- a market price that is higher than the lowest
cation of ES and to provide an explanation price that they would be willing to sell for
for the various economic methods that can (which is related to their production costs
be applied. and represented by the supply curve). The
area C represents production costs which
differ among producers and/or over the
The economic value of ES scale of production. The sum of areas A and
B is labelled the surplus and is interpreted
as the net economic gain or welfare resulting
In this section, we provide definitions of from production and consumption with a
the various concepts of economic value that quantity of Q at price P.
may be encountered when quantifying ES.
It is important to recognise that, when we
In neo-classical welfare economics, the eco- make a decision to allocate resources to pro-
nomic value of goods or services is the well- duce particular goods or services, we are also
being derived from its production and con- deciding not to allocate those resources to
sumption, usually measured in monetary produce alternative goods or services. The
units. In a perfectly functioning market, the goods or services that we give up is called the
economic value of goods or services is de- opportunity cost of our decision. Oppor-
termined by the demand for and supply of tunity cost can be defined as the value of the
Chapter 4 115
foregone next best use of resources. This is an ers do not pay a price for the quantity (Q)
important concept in the context of ES since that is available to them and the entire area
it is often the value of the alternative use of under the demand curve (D+E) represents
resources (e.g. agriculture, timber extraction, their consumer surplus. It is useful to keep
aquaculture) that drives ecosystem loss. this picture in mind when considering the
economic quantification of ES.
In the case that ES are not traded in a mar-
ket, the interpretation of the welfare derived
from their provision can also be represented Total Economic Value
in terms of surplus. The right-hand panel of
Figure 1 represents the supply and demand
of a non-marketed ecosystem service. In this The concept of Total Economic Value
case, the ecosystem service does not have a (TEV) of an ecosystem is used to describe
supply curve in the conventional sense that the comprehensive set of utilitarian values
it represents the quantity of the service that derived from it. This concept is useful for
producers are willing to supply at each price. identifying the different types of value that
The quantity of the ecosystem service that is an ecosystem provides. TEV comprises of
supplied is not determined through a mar- use values and non-use values. Use values
ket at all but by other decisions regarding are the benefits that are derived from some
ecosystem protection, land use, manage- physical use of the resource. Direct use val-
ment, access etc. The quantity of the eco- ues may derive from on-site extraction of
system service supplied is therefore inde- resources (e.g. fuel wood) or non-consump-
pendent of its value. This is represented as tive activities (e.g. recreation). Indirect use
a vertical line. For the most part, bio-phys- values are derived from off-site services that
ical indicators of ES measure the quantity are related to the resource (e.g. downstream
supplied but not the welfare obtained. The flood control, climate regulation). The op-
demand curve for non-marketed ES is still tion value is the value that people place on
represented as a downward sloping line maintaining the option to use an ecosystem
since marginal benefits are expected to de- resource in the future given the uncertain-
cline with quantity (the more that we have ty that they would actually use it. Non-use
of a service, the lower the additional welfare values are derived from the knowledge that
of consuming more). In this case, consum- an ecosystem is maintained without re-
Supply Ecosystem
service
Price Value provision
A D
P Demand V Demand
B E
C
Q Quantity Q Quantity
Figure 1. Demand and supply for ES.

gard to any current or future personal use. nient recording of transactions between eco-
Non-use values may be related to altruism nomic units. In the context of comparing
(maintaining an ecosystem for others), be- the values of ES with values in the system of
quest (for future generations) and existence national accounts, it is therefore necessary to
(preservation unrelated to any human use) value the total quantity of ES at the market
motivations. The constituent components prices that would have occurred if the ser-
of TEV are represented in Figure 2. It is im- vices had been freely traded and exchanged.
portant to understand that the total in To- In other words, it is necessary to measure
tal Economic Value refers to the aggregation exchange value and not welfare value.
of different sources of value rather than the
sum of all values derived from a resource. The differences between the concepts of wel-
Accordingly, many estimates of TEV are for fare value and exchange value are the inclu-
marginal changes in the provision of ES but sion of consumer surplus (A) in the former
total in the sense that they take a compre- and the inclusion of production costs in the
hensive view of sources of value. latter (C). The concept of welfare value cor-
responds to a theoretically valid measure of
welfare in the sense that a change in value
Exchange value represents a change in welfare for the pro-
ducers and/or consumers of the goods and
services under consideration. The concept
The concept of welfare value is used in of exchange value does not correspond to a
most economic assessments of ES but it is theoretically valid measure of welfare and a
not used in the system of national accounts change in exchange value does not necessar-
(SNA) that is used to calculate gross do- ily represent a change in welfare for either
mestic product (GDP) and other economic producers or consumers.
statistics. The SNA uses the concept of ex-
change value which is a measure of producer
surplus plus the costs of production. In the Quantifying economic values
left-hand panel of Figure 1, this is represent-
ed by areas B and C or equivalently P times
Q. Under the concept of exchange value, A variety of methods have been developed
the total outlays by consumers and the to- for quantifying the economic value of ES.
tal revenue of the producers are equal. For These valuation methods are designed to
national accounting purposes, this approach span the range of valuation challenges raised
to valuation enables a consistent and conve- by the application of economic analyses to
Total Economic Value
Use Values Non-Use Values
Direct Use Indirect Use Option Altruism Bequest Existence
Figure 2. The components of Total Economic Value.
Chapter 4 117
the complexity of the natural environment. Value transfer is the use of research results
An important distinction exists between from existing primary studies at one or more
methods that produce new or original in- sites or policy contexts (study sites) to pre-
formation generally using primary data (pri- dict welfare estimates or related information
mary valuation methods) and those that use for other sites or policy contexts (policy
existing information in new policy contexts sites).1
(value transfer methods).
In addition to the need for expeditious and
inexpensive information, there is often a
Primary valuation methods need for information on the value of ES at
a different geographic scale from that for
which primary valuation studies have been
Table 1 provides an overview of primary conducted. So, even in cases where some pri-
valuation methods, typical applications and mary valuation research is available for the
limitations and indicates which primary val- ecosystem of interest, it is often necessary to
uation methods can be used to value which extrapolate or scale-up this information to a
ecosystem service. The reader should be larger area or to multiple ecosystems in the
aware of the important distinction between region or country. Primary valuation studies
primary valuation methods, i.e. the differ- tend to be conducted for specific ecosystems
ence between revealed preference methods at a local scale whereas the information re-
(those that observe actual behaviour of the quired for decision-making is often needed
use of ES to elicit values) and stated prefer- at a regional or national scale. Value transfer
ence methods (those that use public surveys therefore provides the means to obtain in-
to ask beneficiaries to state their preferences formation for the scale that is required.
for, generally, hypothetical changes in the
provision of ES). Revealed preference meth- The number of primary studies on the val-
ods may be favoured since they reflect actual ue of ES is substantial and growing rapid-
behaviour but are limited in their applica- ly. This means that there is a growing body
bility to some ES. Stated preference meth- of evidence to draw on for the purposes
ods, on the other hand, rely on responses of transferring values for informed deci-
recorded in surveys or experiments but are sion-making. With an expanding informa-
more flexible in their application. tion base, the potential for using value trans-
fer is improved.
Value transfer methods Value transfer can potentially be used to

estimate values for any ecosystem service,
provided that there are primary valuations
Decision-making often requires informa- of that ecosystem service from which to
tion quickly and at low cost. New prima- transfer values. The use of value transfer is
ry valuation research, however, is general- widespread but requires careful application.
ly time consuming and expensive. For this The alternative methods of conducting val-
reason, there is interest in using information ue transfer are described here.
from existing primary valuation studies to
make inform decisions regarding impacts
on ecosystems that are of current interest. 1
Value transfer is also known as benefit transfer
This transfer of value information from one but since the values that are transferred may be
context to another is called value transfer. costs as well as benefits, the term value transfer is
more generally applicable.

Table 1. Primary economic valuation methods.
Valuation
Approach Application to ES Example ecosystem service
method
Market Prices for ES that are direct- ES that are traded directly Timber and fuel wood from
prices ly observed in markets. in markets. forests; Recreation at na-
tional parks that charge an
entrance fee.
Public pric- Public expenditure or mon- ES for which there are public Watershed protection to
ing etary incentives (taxes/subsi- expenditures. provide drinking water;
dies) for ES as an indicator Purchase of land for protect-
of value. ed areas.
Defensive Expenditure on protection ES from protected Nutrient filtration by
expenditure of ecosystems. ecosystems. protected wetlands
Replace- Estimate the cost of replac- ES that have a man-made Coastal protection by
ment cost ing an ES with a man-made equivalent. dunes; water storage and
service. filtration by wetlands.
Restoration Estimate cost of restoring Any ES that can be provid- Coastal protection by
cost degraded ecosystems to ed by restored ecosystems. dunes; water storage and
ensure provision of ES. filtration by wetlands.
Damage cost Estimate damage avoided Ecosystems that provide Coastal protection by
avoided due to ecosystem service. storm or flood protection to dunes; river flow control by
houses or other assets. wetlands.
Net factor Revenue from sales of envi- Ecosystems that provide an Filtration of water by wet-
income ronment-related good mi- input in the production of lands; commercial fisheries
nus cost of other inputs. marketed goods. supported by coastal wet-
lands.
Production Statistical estimation of Ecosystems that provide an Soil quality or water quality
function production function for input in the production of as an input to agricultural
marketed goods including marketed goods. production.
an ES input.
Hedonic Estimate influence of envi- Environmental characteris- Urban open space; air
pricing ronmental characteristics on tics that vary across goods quality.
price of marketed goods. (usually houses).
Travel cost Use data on travel costs and Recreation sites Outdoor open access rec-
visit rates to estimate de- reation.
mand for recreation sites.
Contingent Ask people to state their All ES Species loss; natural areas;
valuation willingness to pay for an ES air quality; water quality
through surveys. landscape aesthetics.
Choice Ask people to make trade- All ES Species loss; natural areas;
modelling offs between ES and other air quality; water quality;
goods to elicit willingness landscape aesthetics.
to pay.
Group / Ask groups of stakeholders All ES Species loss; natural areas;
participatory to state their willingness air quality; water quality;
valuation to pay for an ES through landscape aesthetics.
group discussion.
Chapter 4 119
Unit value transfer uses values for ES at a scarcity of other ecosystems in the vicinity
study site, expressed as a value per unit of the study site, it is possible to estimate
(usually per unit of area or per beneficiary), a quantified relationship between scarcity
combined with information on the quantity and ecosystem service value. This parameter
of units at the policy site to estimate pol- can then be used to account for changes in
icy site values. Unit values from the study ecosystem scarcity when conducting value
site are multiplied by the number of units at transfers at large geographic scales.
the policy site. Unit values can be adjusted
to reflect differences between the study and These three principal methods for transfer-
policy sites (e.g. income and price levels). ring ecosystem service values are summarised
in Table 2. The choice of which value trans-
Value function transfer uses a value function fer method to use to provide information
estimated for an individual study site in con- for a specific policy context is largely de-
junction with information on parameter val- pendent on the availability of primary valu-
ues for the policy site to calculate the value ation estimates and the degree of similarity
of an ecosystem service at the policy site. A between the study and policy sites (in terms
value function is an equation that relates the of biophysical and socio-economic charac-
value of an ecosystem service to the characteristics and context). In cases where value
teristics of the ecosystem and the beneficiaries information is available for a highly similar
of the ecosystem service. Value functions can study site, unit value transfer may provide
be estimated from a number of primary val- the most straightforward and reliable means
uation methods including hedonic pricing, of conducting value transfer. On the other
travel cost, production function, contingent hand, when study sites and policy sites are
valuation and choice experiments. different, value function or meta-analytic
function transfer offers a means to systemati-
Meta-analytic function transfer uses a value cally adjust transferred values to reflect those
function estimated from the results of mul- differences. Similarly, in the case where value
tiple primary studies representing multiple information is required for multiple different
study sites in conjunction with information policy sites, value function or meta-analytic
on parameter values for the policy site to function transfer may be a more accurate and
calculate the value of an ecosystem service at practical means for transferring values.
the policy site. A value function is an equa-
tion that relates the value of an ecosystem
service to the characteristics of the ecosys- Representing economic values
tem and the beneficiaries of the ecosystem
service. Since the value function is estimated on maps
from the results of multiple studies, it is able
to represent and control for greater variation The representation of economic values on
in the characteristics of ecosystems, benefi- maps involves estimating variable combina-
ciaries and other contextual characteristics. tions of supply and demand across spatial
This feature of meta-analytic function trans- units and plotting the resulting values. Spa-
fer provides a means to account for simul- tial units in a value map can include land
taneous changes in the stock of ecosystems parcels (e.g. polygons representing own-
when estimating economic values for ES ership), ecosystem patches (e.g. polygons
(i.e. the scaling up problem). By includ- representing distinct ecosystems of different
ing an explanatory variable in the data de- type), ecosystem units (e.g. raster grids of
scribing each study site that measures the ecosystem type), grid cells (e.g. raster grids

Table 2. Value transfer methods.
Approach Strengths Weaknesses

Select appropriate values
Unlikely to be able to
from existing primary
account for all factors
valuation studies for
that determine differences
Unit similar ecosystems and
in values between study
value socio-economic contexts. Simple
and policy sites. Value
transfer Adjust unit values to reflect
information for highly
differences between study
similar sites is rarely
and policy sites (usually for
available.
income and price levels).
Value
Use a value function derived Allows differences between Requires detailed
function
from a primary valuation study and policy sites to be information on the
transfer
study to estimate ES values controlled for (e.g. differences characteristics of policy
at policy site(s). in population characteristics). site(s).
Allows differences between

study and policy sites to be
Use a value function
Meta- controlled for (e.g. differences Requires detailed
estimated from the results of
analytic in population characteristics, information on the
multiple primary studies to
function area of ecosystem, abundance characteristics of policy
estimate ES values at policy
transfer of substitutes etc.). Practical site(s). Analytically complex.
site(s).
for consistently valuing large
numbers of policy sites.
with land use/land cover), or beneficiaries clean water, area of recreational space, tonnes
(e.g. people plotted using residential or ac- of carbon stored) and economic methods are
tivity location). In most cases, spatial units used to estimate spatially variable marginal
are used to represent the ecosystem that values per unit of ecosystem service provided
supplies the ecosystem service, but mapping and consumed. Mapping economic values
values by the location of beneficiaries can therefore necessarily involves linking maps of
be useful in some decision-making contexts biophysical ecosystem supply with economic
(e.g. for representing the distributional con- valuation methods.
sequences of changes in ecosystem service
provision across communities; or for design-
ing payment mechanisms for ES). Production/consumption
In mapping ecosystem service values, each statistics
spatial unit is treated as a separate sub-mar-
ket for the ecosystem service. Methods for In addition to the quantification of human
mapping ecosystem service values can ad- welfare derived from ES in monetary units,
dress spatial variations in supply, demand, economic quantification of ES encompasses
or a combination of both determinants. the recording or estimation of production
and consumption statistics in physical units.
In general terms, bio-physical methods (see Indeed, the measurement of physical units
Chapter 4.1) are used to estimate the spa- of production and consumption of ES is a
tially variable quantities of ES supplied (e.g. necessary a step in the process of quantify-
probability of flood damage, quantity of ing economic value. Economic quantifica-
Chapter 4 121
tion may, however, stop short of estimating non-timber forest products (NTFPs), such
values and directly report production and as wild honey, may be measured in kilo-
consumption statistics as useful information grams; water extracted for consumption is
to support decision-making. measured in kilolitres or megalitres, carbon
sequestration is conventionally measured in
To a great extent, the production of ES is tonnes of carbon or CO2; and recreational
quantified using bio-physical methods (see use of natural open space may be measured
Chapter 4.1). For most ES, however, it is in numbers of visits all usually expressed
also necessary to use insights and methods per unit of time over which the flow of ser-
from economics to measure the quantities vice is recorded (e.g. per year). In very few
that are actually used (i.e. to quantify uti- cases will the quantity of an ecosystem ser-
lised services as opposed to potential service be explicitly observed and recorded in
vices). This generally involves measuring a systematic and accessible way (i.e. there is
the extent of demand for ES in terms of the generally not an equivalent of the business
population and preferences of beneficiaries. activity surveys conducted for the SNA).
In most cases, it is necessary to estimate the
The physical units in which production and level of production and consumption using
consumption statistics are reported are spe- some form of bio-economic modelling.
cific to each ecosystem service. For example,
Box 1. Example valuation and mapping of freshwater ES

Freshwater ecosystems provide a variety of ES that can be affected by changes in water quality. In this
case study, projected future changes in water quality for the period 2000-2050 are quantified using
the IMAGE-GLOBIO model. This information is combined with a meta-analytic value function to
estimate the economic value of changes in water quality. The analysis is performed at the resolution of
50 km grid cells. The supply of ES from water bodies (rivers and lakes) is implicitly modelled within
the meta-analytic value function. The results of this value transfer application are mapped in order to
communicate the spatial distribution of benefits (losses) derived from improvements (declines) in wa-
ter quality (see Figure 3). In this application, the spatial units used to map changes in value are benefi-
ciaries (households aggregated within 50 km grid cells) rather than the rivers or lakes providing the ES.
> -435
-435 -23
-23 -8
-8 -5
-5 -2
-2 0
03
38
8 19
19 234
Figure 3. Value map for changes in water quality 2000-2050 (Annual willingness to pay; Million
USD; 2007 price levels).

Box 2. Example valuation and mapping of carbon sequestration
The regulating service of carbon sequestration by ecosystems represents a special case in which supply
is spatially variable (dependent on vegetation type, soil characteristics etc.) but demand is entirely
spatially disconnected (since CO2 is a uniformly mixing stock pollutant, the marginal benefit of se-
questration is not related to where the sequestration takes place). Figure 4 represents an estimate of
economic returns from planting trees to sequester carbon under different carbon price scenarios in
the period 2010-2050 in South Australia. Annual rates of carbon sequestration were modelled based
on climate, soil and land management actions and then an economic model was used to estimate the
net present value of converting from existing agriculture (crops and livestock) to trees for carbon.
$10/tCO2-e $20/tCO2-e
$30/tCO2-e $40/tCO2-e
Economic returns
($NPV/ha)
Less than 0
0 - 1,000
1,000 - 2,500
2,500 - 5,000
5,000 - 7,500
7,500 - 10,000
10,000 - 12,500
12,500 - 15,093
$50/tCO2-e
Figure 4. Net present value of economic returns from carbon sequestration by carbon monoculture
species under five different carbon price scenarios ($/tCO2-e). Source: Bryan and Crossman (2013).
Chapter 4 123
Box 3. Example estimation of production statistics for non-
timber forest products (NTFPs)
This case study provides an example of how bio-physical and economic modelling can be combined
to quantify production statistics for a provisioning ecosystem service. The production of non-timber
forest products (NTFPs) in Mondulkiri province, Cambodia, is quantified by combining a validated
biophysical model (InVEST) of NTFP availability with an economic model of household decisions
regarding the number of harvesting trips to be undertaken and a separate economic model of harvest
yield per trip. The bio-physical model quantifies the availability of six NTFPs given spatial variation
in forest cover and species diversity. The harvest-trip function, estimated using data from a household
survey, quantifies how many trips each household makes given their income, household size and the
availability of NTFPs within harvesting distance of their village. The harvest yield function, also esti-
mated using data from a household survey, quantifies how much of each NTFP is harvested per trip
given household characteristics, number of trips made and NTFP availability. Figure 5 represents the
methodological framework for this economic quantification of NTFPs.
Figure 5. Combination of bio-physical and economic models to estimate spatially variable production
of NTFPs in Mondulkiri province, Cambodia. hhs: house hould survey. Source: Brander (2015).

Further reading
Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B, Villa F DEFRA (2013) Guidance for policy and de-
(2013) Spatial dynamics of ecosystem ser- cision makers on using an ecosystems ap-
vice flows: a comprehensive approach to proach and valuing Ecosystem Services.
quantifying actual services.Ecosystem Ser- Department for Environment, Food &
vices4: 117-125. Rural Affairs https://www.gov.uk/ecosys-
tems-services.
Bouma JA, van Beukering PJH (Eds) (2015)
Ecosystem Services: From Concept to DEFRA (2007) An introductory guide to
Practice. Cambridge University Press. valuing Ecosystem Services (2007) De-
partment for Environment, Food and Ru-
Brander LM, Brauer I, Gerdes H, Gherman- ral Affairs.
di A, Kuik O, Markandya A, Navrud S,
Nunes PALD, Schaafsma M, Vos H, Wag- Freeman AMI (2003) The Measurement of
tendonk A (2012) Using meta-analysis Environmental and Resource Values. Re-
and GIS for value transfer and scaling up: sources for the Future, Washington D.C.
Valuing climate change induced losses of
European wetlands. Environmental and Johnston RJ, Rolfe J, Rosenberger RS, Brou-
Resource Economics 52: 395-413. wer R (Eds) (2015) Benefit transfer of en-
vironmental and resource values: A hand-
Brander LM (2013) Guidance manual on book for researchers and practitioners.
value transfer methods for Ecosystem Ser- Springer. ISBN 978-94-017-9929-4.
vices. United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme. ISBN 978-92-807-3362-4. Pascual U, Muradian R, Brander L, Gmez-Bag-
gethun E, Martn-Lpez B, Verma M
Brander LM (2015). Economic valuation of (2010) The economics of valuing Ecosystem
Ecosystem Services in the Eastern Plains Services and biodiversity. In Kumar (Ed.)
Landscape, Modulkiri, Cambodia. Report The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiver-
for WWF Cambodia. sity: Ecological and Economic Foundations.
Earthscan, London and Washington.
Brouwer R et al. (2009) Economic Valuation
of Environmental and Resource Costs Pearce D et al. (2001) Economic Valuation
and Benefits in the Water Framework Di- with Stated Preference Techniques Sum-
rective: Technical Guidelines for Practi- mary Guide. Department of Transport,
tioners. AquaMoney. Local Government and Regions, London.
Bryan BA, Crossman ND (2013) Impact of Schgner JP, Brander LM, Maes J, Hartje V
multiple interacting financial incentives on (2013) Mapping ecosystem service values:
land use change and the supply of Ecosys- Current practice and future prospects.
tem Services. Ecosystem Services4: 60-72. Ecosystem Services 4: 33-46.
Chapter 4 125
4.4. Computer modelling for
ecosystem service assessment
Robert W. Dunford, Paula A. Harrison &
Kenneth J. Bagstad
Introduction What is a model?
Computer models are simplified represen- A model is a simplification of reality that

tations of the environment that allow bio- represents the relationship between two
physical, ecological, and/or socio-economic or more sets of factors and uses one set of
characteristics to be quantified and explored. factors to predict values of the other: y = x2
Modelling approaches differ from mapping is a simple model where the variable y can
approaches (Chapter 5) as (i) they are not be predicted from variable x by performing
forcibly spatial (although many models do the square function on x. However, there
produce spatial outputs); (ii) they focus on are many different types of models, most of
understanding and quantifying the interac- which are considerably more complex.
tions between different components of so-
cial and/or environmental systems and (iii) When used in ES research, models are gen-
by changing parameters within models, they erally used to predict either ES themselves,
are capable of exploring both alternative sce- or underlying environmental aspects from
narios and internal model dynamics. which ES are derived. ES models use di-
verse types of input variables, but common-
When applied to the assessment of ecosys- ly include measurements of environmental
tem services (ES), models are important parameters (e.g., tree heights, river flows,
tools which can quantify the relationships species counts), survey responses or scores
that underpin ES supply, demand and flows given by scientists or stakeholders (e.g.,
and, in some cases, produce maps represent- from questionnaire responses or interviews)
ing these factors. Furthermore, as models or the outputs from another model (e.g.,
can explore scenarios, trade-offs that result outputs from a climate model may provide
from different scenarios can be assessed. precipitation inputs to a water flow model).
This chapter provides a broad overview of
different types of models that have been ap-
plied to ES assessments and discusses, with What sorts of models are useful
examples, the ways that these models have
the potential to be used in practice. for ES assessment?
In the context of ES, there are a number Computer modelling predates the popu-
of ways of distinguishing between different larisation of the ES concept and models
types of models. Here, we distinguish be- have a decades-long history of use within
tween individual models focussing on single the environmental sciences. As such, there
ES and modelling frameworks that can as- are a large number of models that can be
sess multiple ES within the framework of a used to assist in ES assessment, though older
single modelling tool.

biophysical models may be less deliberately Deterministic models
beneficiary-orientated than more modern A deterministic model assumes links be-
ES models. tween cause and effect. The y = x2 example
above is a very simple deterministic model:
It is beyond the scope of this chapter to for every example of x the value of y will be
provide a full overview of modelling per se. x2. Deterministic models are usually based
In the following text, we describe five gen- on fundamental physical laws derived from
eral types of models that are used for ES a process-based understanding of the sci-
assessment. ence (e.g., the physical sciences or, as above,
a statistically derived relationship).
Conceptual models An implicit implication of deterministic
Conceptual models, although rarely com- models is that there is only one possible out-
puterised, are the first stage of any comput for a given set of inputs (x2 will always
puter modelling process. They are used to enumerate to x2). This can lead to a false
gain an understanding of linkages between impression of accuracy when modelling
different components of the system being complex systems where uncertainty is com-
studied. The carbon and water cycles, for mon. Probabilistic models have emerged to
example, provide the underlying concep- address these issues.
tual models for a number of more detailed
computer models used to predict ES, such Deterministic models underpin many com-
as carbon sequestration by vegetation or the mon ES assessment approaches. The Revised
role of vegetation in mediating floods. The Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), for
first step of any new computerised model- example, is a commonly used deterministic
ling process is to draw a conceptual diagram model developed to better understand the
that illustrates how model components in- factors driving soil loss from agricultural
terlink, then to determine how to quantify land. Expressed as: A = R x K x LS x C x
those linkages. P, it relates soil loss (A) to rainfall erosivity
(R), soil erodibility (K), slope steepness and
Statistical models length (LS), management practice (C) and
conservation practice (P).
Where there is no known quantified rela-
tionship between components of the con- Probabilistic models
ceptual model, statistical models can help
to establish relationships by drawing on Probabilistic models recognise that random
collected data. For example, if a conceptual behaviour is often part of a system; they ex-
model suggests that freshwater provisioning press likelihoods of events occurring (e.g.,
is driven by rainfall and forest cover in a the return period of a flood of a given magni-
catchment area, corresponding data can be tude). Rather than using single values as in-
collected and regression-based approaches puts, probabilistic approaches use probabil-
can be used to explore the strength of these ity distributions functions (PDFs) as input
relationships. Sufficiently strong relation- parameters. Instead of using mean rainfall,
ships that are identified can then be used in a probabilistic approach might use a range
a deterministic model to predict expected of inputs sampled from a normal distribu-
freshwater provisioning in areas for which tion around the mean up to the maximum
data are not present. and minimum recorded observations. These
Chapter 4 127
sample values can be selected systematically on the timing, identity and consequences of
or randomly (the Monte Carlo approach) agents interactions. If there is an element of
and then run through a deterministic model randomness in the guiding rules (i.e., 50%
to explore the range of outputs that result. of the time an agent makes choice X and
This allows the probability of a given output 50% choice Y), then the same outcome will
to be assessed, rather than implying that, in a not be replicated on repeated model runs
complex system, a single output value can be although, over a large number of runs, com-
expected for a given combination of inputs. mon emergent behaviour may be apparent.
In ES assessment, ABMs offer significant

Rule-based modelling opportunities to understand how interac-
Rule-based models can be applied, using tions between individual actors may influ-
Boolean (yes/no) decisions and if-then ence ES. This could involve human actors
statements to construct a path from input (e.g., farmers) interacting with policies and
to output. They are often represented as institutional structures to determine the best
nested decision trees. These are common in crop types for their farm and the associated
remote sensing and biological classification impact of this change for ES provision. Or,
keys and use if-then options to decide be- it could assess the effects of predator-prey
tween possible output classes (e.g., if vari- species interactions on the ES provided by
able x, representing tree cover, is above a these species.
given threshold then class y = forest, other-
wise class y = grassland). Rule-based models Integrated modelling systems
can also be incorporated into context-aware
artificial intelligence (AI)-supported model Models tend to be developed for specific pur-
selection platforms that account for context poses, to address a particular problem raised
by selecting from a library of possible data within a given sector. However, within a
and models. single-sectoral model, any number of indi-
vidual models may be used to represent dif-
Agent-based models (ABMs) are a special ferent linkages within the conceptual model.
type of rule-based model that set (usual- Furthermore, the outputs of one model may
ly simple) rules for individual agents. By be used to provide inputs to another model
allowing the individual agents to interact creating modelling chains. This can allow in-
in a model, collective behaviour emerges. tegrated modelling systems to be set up that
The agents within an ABM can represent take into consideration cross-sectoral interac-
anything from individual species or deci- tions, synergies and trade-offs including, for
sion-makers to institutions or countries at example, the implications for one ES (e.g.,
international levels. Another important as- drinking water provision) as a result of chang-
pect of ABMs is that agents learning from es in another (e.g., soil erosion regulation).
experience can be simulated within the
model as it runs, allowing ABMs to model
aspects such as the transfer of ideas between How can models help us better
individuals and other organic processes.
understand ES?
The ABM approach is very different from
deterministic approaches, where a clear path The previous section provided a brief over-
can be traced between model inputs and view of the types of models that exist to
outputs. Within an ABM, results depend provide information to help with ES assess-

ment. We next focus on how these models simple, statistical profile methods, regres-
can be used, i.e., on which aspects of the en- sion-based techniques and approaches that
vironment do models provide information use machine learning. Advanced SDM ap-
and how does this help us better assess ES? proaches combine these maps with land use
modelling (see below) to determine where
In the following sections, we consider four habitats are available and, using dispersal
main applications of models. First, models and connectivity models, can project the
of the natural environment that do not pro- abilities of species to colonise new habitats.
vide direct information about ES, but can
assess underlying ecosystem structures and The outputs of species distribution models
functions from which ES can be under- are maps of species distributions for a giv-
stood. Second, models that are focussed on en scenario. These can be used to assess ES
ES, both on individual services and those provision related to these species. For exam-
intended to enable assessment of a suite of ple, maps of charismatic or endemic species
different ES. Third, modelling systems that distributions can help assess whether partic-
take an integrated approach to ES, which ular areas may maintain or lose species with
allows for an assessment of trade-offs and particular religious, social or cultural value.
synergies between groups of services. Final-
ly, models designed to explore ES with deci- Land use/land cover modelling
sion-makers or stakeholders.
Land use/land cover data are key inputs to
Models of the natural environment many ES mapping approaches (see Chapter
5) and there are various ways to link LULC
Many more models address the natural en- with additional datasets to map ES (e.g., the
vironment than address the more recent matrix approach see Chapter 5.6.4). Ini-
field of ES. Such models may need to be tial land cover data are often derived from
extended to evaluate ES. However, as some remote sensing or habitat mapping and land
have been used for many decades, they may use can be modelled from this baseline in a
be well known, understood and trusted by wide range of ways. Given the impacts of
stakeholders. This may make them useful LULC change on ES (i.e., through urban-
entry points to introduce the ES concept, or isation, agricultural intensification, or eco-
may introduce a barrier of inertia (we have logical restoration), LULC data have obvi-
a tool that works, so why change it?). ous value in understanding how ecosystem
service flows are changing over time. Three
Species distribution models, land use/land common approaches are detailed below.
cover (LULC) models and general biophys-
ical models are common natural systems First, Lowry-type models can quantify
models that can provide ES assessment. where the location of an attribute of interest
(e.g., demographic data or recreational op-
Species distribution modelling portunities) is a function of the attraction
and travel costs associated with different
Species distribution modelling (SDM) is of- locations (using, for example, the Rural Ur-
ten used to identify how plant and animal ban Growth model (RUG) or the Ecosys-
species respond to changing environmen- tem Service Mapping Tool (ESTIMAP)).
tal parameters such as atmospheric CO2,
climate, or habitat availability. There is a Second, by assigning probabilities to transi-
wide range of approaches to SDM, such as tions between land use types (for instance,
Chapter 4 129
50% of grassland will turn to forest), tran- above-mentioned Revised Universal Soil
sition probability approaches can project Loss Equation (RUSLE).
land use change into the future. These prob-
abilities can themselves be driven by other Such models tend to focus on a single aspect
spatial and/or scenario variables to produce of the environment (such as the hydrologi-
more complex patterns of change. cal, soil, or biological subsystem) and may
not be directly appropriate for assessing ES
Third, state-and-transition models (STMs) in their strictest sense. Often an addition-
are conceptual models that use simple, dia- al modelling component will be needed to
grammatic approaches to address non-linear convert from a biophysical parameter (such
shifts in ecosystems in response to external as annual soil loss) to its ES (e.g., impacts
environmental or anthropogenic disruption. of soil loss on drinking water quality), par-
State-and-transition models are typically ticularly to connect these processes to their
created through a consultation process with human beneficiaries. However, due to their
experts and their diagrammatic approach long history many of these models are often
makes them well suited to participatory trusted by environmental decision makers,
work with stakeholders. A STM consists of sometimes making them more preferable
a recognised number of possible states of than some more recent ES-specific tools.
an ecosystem and the factors driving tran-
sitions between these states. Some, but not Modelling systems that explicitly
all, STMs are spatially explicit.
focus on ES
Finally, agent-based modelling can also be As interest in ES has grown, tools have been
used to understand how interactions be- developed with an explicit focus on individu-
tween groups of actors and their environ- al ES or suites of services. Some of these tools
ment (e.g., individual farmers or policy have been developed to be transferable across
makers under changing environmental or contexts whilst others are hard-wired into
socio-economic factors) lead to different their local context. In the following sections,
LULC patterns. Such approaches allow we discuss a number of these tools to illus-
LULC to evolve in response to the agents trate broad categories of available approaches
changing understanding of the environment and how they are used for ES assessment.
as they adapt and learn.
Matrix-based approaches
ABMs thus provide a powerful tool for ex-
ploring emergent properties in LULC change. Matrix-based approaches sit on the border
between ES mapping and modelling. They
Biophysical models combine GIS (geographical information
system) and spreadsheets analysis of LULC
A large number of biophysical models ad- input data to produce maps of ES supply
dress major environmental systems, includ- and/or demand. At their simplest, these
ing climatic, ecological, hydrological and are just mapping techniques (see Chapter
geochemical models of key earth systems 5.6.4 for a more complete description): they
such as air, soil and water. combine GIS LULC layers and scored val-
ues for the provision of ES to provide ES
Well-known examples include the Soil and provision maps across a study area. By us-
Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), which can ing standardised values, ES provision may
be used to assess water-related ES and the be compared between regions or, by using

locally targeted ES values, more locally ap- these services; this allows supply-demand
propriate values can be generated. The pro- mismatches to be assessed.
cess can be undertaken with stakeholders to
allow maps of both ES supply and demand InVEST models are freely available and
to be mapped. Additional GIS datasets can open-source. InVEST requires quantitative
be included to improve the processa pro- skills to be run; although experience with
cess known as a multi-attribute lookup ta- GIS is required to map outputs, coding
bleand these can be modified to reflect is not required and the models can be run
management scenarios. independently of specialised software (us-
ing industry standard or open-source GIS
Matrix-based approaches can be applied platforms to visualise and prepare input and
with very limited technical expertise. How- output data). Collecting and processing the
ever, the more the matrix values rely on ex- datasets required can take time and effort.
pert knowledge rather than quantification
with primary data, the more they are open Each of InVESTs tools is a separate model
to the critique of over-simplification and and can be run independently, depending
subjectivity, particularly when compared only on the users needs. The outputs can be
to primary data or more detailed modelling produced in biophysical units (i.e., tonne C
approaches. We include this technique here km-2) or monetised, however the interactions
to stress that ES computational modelling between ES are not specifically modelled.
need not always be complex.
InVEST has been used in a wide range of
Transferable ES modelling contexts including using ES metrics to as-
sess sustainable coastal management in Be-
frameworks lize, supporting decision-making over clean
A number of frameworks have been devel- water supply in Latin America and national
oped with standardised methods designed ecosystem planning in China. InVEST is
to be transferred between contexts. Three a good example of a suite of tools that has
of the most commonly applied modelling gained ground through its use in multiple
frameworks, InVEST, ESTIMAP and AR- contexts. However, it does not yet assess the
IES are described below but there are nu- full range of ES and, like many biophysical
merous others (e.g., Co$ting nature, LUCI, models, is weaker on harder-to-assess cul-
MIMES; see Chapter 3.4) and still others tural ES (see Chapter 6.6).
which are under development.
ESTIMAP
InVEST
ESTIMAP is a collection of spatially explicit
InVEST1 is a suite of modelling tools that modelling approaches that assess the supply,
provides a standard approach for applica- demand and flow of ES. It is implemented
tion to varied contexts. InVEST includes 18 within a GIS and is designed to be a stan-
tools for assessing marine, coastal, terrestrial dardised, replicable system developed for use
and freshwater ES. Each output is spatial- in the European Union (EU). It uses differ-
ly explicit and driven by user-input spatial ent methodologies for some ES and covers
datasets. Most InVEST models account for different ES than InVEST, focussing mainly
both ES supply and demand, in terms of the on regulating ES (air quality regulation, pro-
locations of people who would benefit from tection from soil erosion, water retention,
pollination, habitat for birds, and recreation).
1
http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest/
Chapter 4 131
Although the ESTIMAP approach was de- comparing individual sectoral or ES models
veloped to be applied at the EU scale for for the same scenario cannot. For example,
policy support, it is quite flexible and can be an agricultural model may calculate water
customised for application to local case stud- availability for irrigation based on rainfall,
ies or specific problems in a way that is more but without integrating a water allocation
difficult with InVESTs pre-made models. model that splits water availability between
different sectors (e.g., irrigation, domes-
ARIES tic supply, industry or power), it would be
impossible to know whether that irrigation
ARtificial Intelligence for ES (ARIES) is a water was actually available for use.
flexible modelling framework that uses AI
to select the most appropriate modelling There are two main classes of integrated
components (deterministic, probabilistic, assessment models differentiated predomi-
or ABM) to map ES at context-appropriate nantly by their application at global or re-
scales. This approach moves away from the gional scales. An example of each is illustrat-
idea that one model should fit all circum- ed below.
stances. The ARIES framework attempts
to recognise the dynamism and complexity GLOBIO-ES
of environmental systems and balances this
with the need for models that are simple GLOBIO-ES is an example of a dynamic
enough to remain usable at a range of spatial global system model. It is a tool to assess
scales and in a variety of contexts. ARIES past, present and future impacts of human
has a strong focus on both the identification activities on biodiversity and ES. Impacts on
of beneficiaries and not oversimplifying ES biodiversity are captured in terms of the bio-
to static values but instead focusing on dy- diversity indicator Mean Species Abundance
namic benefits that change with both space (MSA) and ecosystem extent. Impacts on
and time. It is cloud-based and semantic ES are included for 10 services. The model
which allows diverse users to contribute data has been applied at both the national and
and models to a growing library that the AI global scales (see Chapter 5.7.3).
system can select from, increasing its power
and flexibility. In other ways, it shares many GLOBIO-ES uses cause-effect relationships
common attributes with InVEST (i.e., it is between environmental variables and ES
spatially explicit, open-source and produc- identified by a literature review. It simulates
tion function-based). future changes in ecosystem functions and
services on a global scale. The methodolo-
Integrated assessment models gy uses spatially explicit inputs on environ-
mental drivers from the global climate and
To combat the fact that many models are agriculture model IMAGE and the global
focussed on individual ES and may ignore land use model GLOBIO.
or oversimplify key interactions, integrated
assessment models have been developed that The close link to the IMAGE-GLOBIO
link sectoral models in a way that the out- framework enables the assessment of inter-
puts of one are used as the inputs of anoth- actions between human development (e.g.,
er. This approach, though often technically consumption patterns) and the natural envi-
challenging and time consuming to imple- ronment (e.g., climate) based on key drivers
ment, ensures that outputs have taken oth- like population growth, economic develop-
er sectors into consideration in a way that ment, policy and governance, technology,

lifestyle and natural resource availability. elements necessary to produce those services.
The future directions of these drivers are Demand profiles, created for different societal
quantified from different scenarios of future groups are used to determine how environ-
socio-economic developments. mental processes lead to production and use
of ES. MIMES is also designed to assist in
CLIMSAVE Integrated Assessment learning about system processes and the broad
range of possible futures rather than provid-
Platform (IAP) ing definitive maps of expected futures. How-
The CLIMSAVE IAP is an example of a re- ever, whereas CLIMSAVE uses interlinked
gional integrated assessment model. It is a process-based models, MIMES takes an ap-
freely accessible web-based model that pro- proach using production functions linked to
vides options for ES assessment at a Europe- an economic input-output model.
an scale. It is based on an integrated system
of models for a number of different sectors
including urban growth, freshwater, coast- Models to help with decision-making
al/fluvial flooding, biodiversity, agriculture The ES concept provides decision-makers
and forestry. with a different way of looking at environ-
mental management problems. A forest
The model provides a number of output is no longer just a timber stock, but also a
variables from the integrated models includ- provider of climate regulation, habitat pro-
ing indicators related to land use and a va- vision, scenic beauty and recreation. Whilst
riety of ES. this brings a broader lens to the value of eco-
systems, it also brings new challenges: how
A wide selection of climate scenarios is in- do we decide which ES are more important?
cluded within the system as well as four What are the implications if we choose to
stakeholder-defined socio-economic scenar- harvest the forest as timber?
ios. The socio-economic input settings are
able to be fully customised beyond the pre- Modelling can help provide quantitative
set scenarios for a number of socio-economic answers to many of these questions. In the
drivers and adaptation options. This allows following sections, we provide examples of
the IAP the ability to explore a very broad how modelling can help decision-makers
range of combined socio-economic and cli- explore the implications of management al-
mate scenarios to analyse their impacts on ternatives. The line between previously men-
ES and allows adaptation options to be ex- tioned modelling tools and the decision sup-
plored. This enables ES synergies and trade- port elements, discussed below, is somewhat
offs to be investigated at a European scale. fuzzy and we recognise that previously men-
tioned models and modelling tools can be
MIMES (Multiscale Integrated integrated with the approaches that follow.
Model of Ecosystem Services)
Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs)
MIMES is an integrated assessment system
that models five distinct spheres: the litho- A Bayesian Belief Network is a type of mod-
sphere, the hydrosphere, the atmosphere, the el that uses conditional probability to assign
biosphere and the anthroposphere. Interac- likelihoods to a suite of potential outputs
tions between spheres are controlled using a given a known state of some or all of the in-
matrix and ES are modelled by applying pro- puts (see Chapter 4.5 for more information
duction functions that link ES to the system about Bayesian Belief Networks).
Chapter 4 133
When applied to ES, BBN inputs are likely multiple ES in a variety of different scenar-
to be factors determining ES supply (such as ios. MCDA is explicitly designed as a deci-
land cover, soil types and other environmen- sion support tool and has been used with
tal parameters) whilst the outputs will be ES both individual decision makers and groups
supply, demand costs or benefits. of stakeholders to analyse preferences for
different decision outcomes.
BBNs have a number of advantages. First,
they are very flexible in terms of the data Participatory modelling with
that they can integrate. Both qualitative
and quantitative values can be used, allow- stakeholders
ing them to be populated from field data, Modelling has traditionally been performed
outputs from other models and expert by experts in isolation from decision-makers
opinion. They are also capable of integrat- and stakeholders. This has led to criticisms
ing more complex models within them. of elitism and has been shown to reduce
Second, if the conditional probabilities are stakeholder interest, understanding and
not known, they can be inferred from exist- trust in the modelling. Including stakehold-
ing data using automated machine learning ers in the modelling process has, however,
or a statistical approach. Third, their con- been demonstrated to increase the legit-
ditional probabilistic approach explicitly imacy of the modelling in the eyes of the
takes uncertainty into consideration so stakeholders. Furthermore, taking the stake-
that neither inputs nor outputs are forci- holders local knowledge into consideration
bly treated as a deterministic single value. often improves the quality of the modelling
Fourth, BBNs can be embedded in a GIS itself (see Chapter 4.6).
or web-based platform to provide outputs
that can be demonstrated spatially. Finally, In an ES context, the importance of partic-
they are well suited for exploring scenarios ular ES to local people can be paramount
interactively with stakeholders as the mod- to their overall value. Participatory model-
ification of inputs allows for a quick iden- ling ensures that the modelling performed
tification of changing probabilities of the highlights ES that are of most importance
outcomes which can be performed directly to the local context rather than addressing
with stakeholders. a standard suite of service outputs that miss
locally important ES.
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
A knowledge co-production approach
(MCDA) can be taken with any modelling approach
Multi-criteria decision analysis is an umbrel- which places interactions between the mod-
la term for a suite of flexible modelling ap- eller and stakeholder on an even ground.
proaches designed to highlight the optimal Due to their iterative nature, such ap-
choice in a situation with many decision proaches are often considerably more time-
alternatives. It breaks problems down into consuming. In fact, it may require modellers
smaller components and analyses and values to develop entirely new models to address
these relative to one another in terms of a questions posed by stakeholders rather than
number of consequences (e.g. costs, ecolog- the questions they pose themselves. This
ical and social impacts). may mean that approaches which modellers
would have planned to follow (e.g. expand-
When applied to ES assessment, MCDA ing existing models) may not be appropriate
can be used to evaluate trade-offs between for addressing stakeholder needs.

Considerations with modelling ES can be modelled and overlaid to identify
We conclude by discussing five general issues mismatches between the two (e.g., air pollu-
that should be considered when modelling ES. tion filtration by trees can be modelled using
forest data and compared with a map of hu-
man exposure to pollutant levels). However,
Which ES? it is often far better to apply another model
that accounts for ES flows via service-spe-
cific flow mechanisms, rather than to just
Not all ES are as easy to model as others. In identify in situ supply-demand mismatches.
general, provisioning and regulating services
have a longer history of being modelled Though less commonly mentioned, it is of
than cultural ES. In fact, modelling cultural course possible with the same caveats to
ES tends to be limited to analyses of services model ecosystem disservices or their con-
with relatively tangible physical aspects to verse the natural benefits that control dis-
their provision, such as recreation, tourism services.
and, to some extent, aesthetic beauty. This is
because factors with greater social or cultur- Values
al meaning are considerably harder to tie to
environmental parameters. It is in situations How much is an ecosystem service worth?
such as these that participatory approaches This is a key question in studies of ES
come to the fore (see Chapter 5.6.2 for a and can be a very loaded question. Model-
discussion on the use of participatory ap- ling studies are often capable of producing
proaches for mapping cultural ES). quantified outputs of ES (or their proxies)
in biophysical (e.g., forest stock as tonne C/
Care should be taken when interpreting ha) and monetary units (e.g., sale price of
model outputs as ES, as these outputs often timber in /$/). However, value is a much
represent proxies rather than the actual ES more elusive concept particularly when
of interest. A clear example is carbon seques- weighing disparate services against one an-
tration which is often used as a proxy for the other. Questions such as value for whom?
ES of climate regulation, but there are many and value as of when? are key questions
others (e.g. the distance to locally accessible that also need to be considered by both
green space as a proxy for recreation pro- modellers and those who use the outputs
vision). It is very important to understand of models. This is because values are plural;
exactly what the output represents: is it they are not static and they vary depend-
evaluating the underlying ecosystem struc- ing on which groups place a value on ES.
ture and function only, or does it provide However, models, particularly deterministic
a direct benefit with concrete beneficiaries? ones producing single outputs, do not usu-
Furthermore, does it quantify actual service ally reflect these issues. This is particularly
provision (as directly used by beneficiaries) problematic for cultural services which are
or potential ES provision (that could be tak- very socially determined, but even provi-
en up by the beneficiaries, if they had de- sioning and regulating services will have
mand for and accessibility to the ecosystems different values in different social contexts
supplying the service)? in response to changing environmental, so-
cio-economic or political factors such as a
Whether ES supply or demand is modelled changing climate, political tensions, trade
is another consideration. For some ES, both bans or new supply opportunities.
Chapter 4 135
Validation put datasets used to train the model reflect
Validation is a key best practice in modelling; the conditions for which they are intended
it is good modelling practice to test model (data uncertainty) (ii) to what extent does
validity against known data. In a statistical the model represent the processes that hap-
model, a measure of goodness of fit such as pen in reality (model uncertainty) and (iii)
an R2 value in a regression or a kappa value for models forecasting the future, to what
for LULC classification can be used. extent is that future likely to occur (scenario
uncertainty)?
However, to validate a model, it is necessary
to know what the true values should have Model validation is often used to address
been. This is difficult for some ES, especially model uncertainty. Inter-model compari-
ones based on expert opinion and cultural son studies also reveal differences in outputs
services against which there are no objective due to different model types. Probabilistic
values to test. This leaves such models more approaches and sensitivity analysis can also
open to critique of their scientific robustness. be used to address scenario and input data
uncertainty by exploring the influence of
Interpreting model results input parameter changes on model outputs
by performing multiple runs and identify-
When dealing with models, it is important ing overall patterns. It is, however, rare that
to remember that they (i) are man-made the full holistic uncertainty (that addresses
constructions, (ii) are just one way of access- all these factors) is addressed. A validation
ing information on the environment and statistic may be produced that says, for
(iii) need to be considered in context. It is example, this model explains 80% of the
easy to envision situations where decision- variation in the dataset we tested it against,
makers are led to the wrong conclusions if but this provides no information about the
model outputs are taken as indisputable confidence in this dataset (was it randomly
proof without understanding how well mod- sampled, or taken from locations easily ac-
el outputs represent the environmental issue cessible by monitoring teams?); the factors
in question, or because a modeller has ap- within the model that provide the modeller
plied a pre-existing model to a new situation with confidence in the approach taken (e.g.,
without adapting it to meet local conditions. are there any subjectively selected adjust-
ment factors?); or, the pragmatic factors
The ES concept is designed to raise deci- such as time, expertise and funding that
sion-maker awareness of the benefits of- shaped the model development.
fered by nature. This decision-maker focus
means that ES model developers need to We stress this because it is critically im-
be keenly aware of the implications of how portant that the context of the modelling
their models are used. is considered when interpreting its outputs
for decision making. This is not to say that
Uncertainty models are any more inherently flawed than
any other way of understanding the envi-
Uncertainty is a key aspect of model inter- ronment; there will be some models, partic-
pretation: how sure are we that the model ularly those driven strongly by physical laws
output represents the real world phenome- that can reliably and repeatedly reproduce
non it seeks to quantify? There are multi- real-world outcomes. We simply stress that
ple elements of uncertainty (see Chapter6), models are simplifications of reality and
for example: (i) to what extent do the in- should be interpreted with care. Whenever

possible, model interpretation should take Dunford RW, Smith A, Harrison PA, Hanganu
place with the assistance of the modeller (or D (2015) Ecosystem Services in a changing
someone who understands the model) and Europe: adapting to the impacts of com-
local stakeholders who understand the con- bined climate and socio-economic change.
text of its application. Landscape Ecology 30 (3): 443-461.
IPBES (2016) Summary for policymakers of

Conclusions the methodological assessment of scenar-
ios and models of biodiversity and eco-
system services of the Intergovernmental
Modelling is being widely applied in the Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
field of ES. There are a large number of mod- and Ecosystem Services. Ferrier S, Ninan
elling approaches and a wide range of exist- KN, Leadley P, Alkemade R, Acosta
ing models that can be used for ES assess- LA, Akakaya HR, Brotons L, Cheung
ment. Modelling has considerable potential W, Christensen V, Harhash KA, Kabu-
to evaluate both the ecosystem structure and bo-Mariara J, Lundquist C, Obersteiner
function underlying ES and the supply and M, Pereira H, Peterson G, Pichs-Madruga
demand for ES themselves. Furthermore, R, Ravindranath NH, Rondinini C, Win-
modelling provides the potential to explore tle B (Eds.) Secretariat of the Intergovern-
the impacts of environmental change and mental Science-Policy Platform on Bio-
management on the future provision of ES diversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn,
through scenarios, making them vital tools Germany, 32 pp.
for ES decision support.
Schrter M, Remme RP, Sumarga E, Barton
DN, Hein L (2015) Lessons learned for
Disclaimer spatial modelling of ecosystem services in
support of ecosystem accounting. Ecosys-
Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for
descriptive purposes only and does not imply Wainright J, Mulligan M (Eds) Environmen-
endorsement by the U.S. or any other Gov- tal Modelling: Finding Simplicity in Com-
ernment or by the authors of this article. plexity, 2nd Edition, Wiley, 494 pp.
Further reading
Bagstad KJ, Semmens DJ, Waage S, Winthrop

R (2013) A comparative assessment of de-
cision-support tools for ecosystem services
quantification and valuation. Ecosystem
Services 5: 27-39.
Christin ZL, Bagstad KJ, Verdone MA (2016)

A decision framework for identifying mod-
els to estimate forest ecosystem service gains
from restoration. Forest Ecosystems 3: 3.
Chapter 4 137
4.5. Bayesian belief networks
Dries Landuyt, Adrienne Grt-Regamey &
Roy Haines-Young
Introduction
The complexity of natural systems and the consists of selecting suitable variables and
interactions between nature and society im- defining putative causal relations. By as-
pedes the use of state-of-the-art, data-driv- suming that land use and soil type are the
en, process-based techniques for ecosystem most important drivers that determine the
service (ES) modelling. Instead, simplified, production of wood, the models variables
pragmatic approaches can be used to pro- are restricted to soil suitability, land use
vide initial estimates of ecosystem service and wood production. By assuming that
delivery. Although simplification leads to soil type and land use both influence wood
an increase in model output uncertainty, production and that both variables are in-
many modelling approaches, however com- dependent, the structure of the graph is de-
plex, often do not take uncertainties into fined (Figure 1). To implement the model,
account. Despite their apparent simplicity, probability distributions need to be defined:
Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) do take unconditional ones for the input nodes,
uncertainty into account and, as a result, are conditional ones for the others. By combin-
worthy of attention. ing the information captured in the models
conditional probability tables (CPTs) with
Bayesian Belief Network models are graph- the initial probability distributions of the
ical probabilistic models that conceptualise networks input nodes, probability distribu-
the system being represented as a chain of tions for other nodes can be calculated based
causal relations, visualised as a Directed on Bayes theorem, which describes the con-
Acyclic Graph (DAG). Such a graph conditional probability of an event. There are
sists of nodes that represent the systems a number of software tools available that
variables and arrows that represent causal enable users to make these calculations au-
relations amongst them. Variables are typ- tomatically. The calculated probability dis-
ically discrete and relations amongst them tributions are represented as so-called belief
are quantified through probabilistic rules, bars in the model (Figure 1).
captured as conditional probability distri-
butions. These distributions can be derived The application of BBNs generally consists
from data, from expert knowledge or a com- of inserting new information or evidence in
bination of both. one or more nodes of the model and, subse-
quently, analysing the resulting belief chang-
An example BBN that enables an analysis of es. This new information can be determin-
how our estimate of wood production would istic or probabilistic depending on whether
change, given information about land use the information implies that a state is exactly
and soil type, is provided in Figure 1. The known or not. Figure 2 provides two exam-
first step of the model development process ples of inserting deterministic evidence in

Figure 1. A model example illustrating the structural components of a Bayesian Belief Network: (a) the
directed acyclic graph (DAG) and (b) the conditional probability tables (CPT).
Figure 2. Predictive and diagnostic belief updating in a Bayesian Belief Network model.
the model that was introduced in Figure 1. is high, we can infer that soil suitability will
When evidence is inserted in one of the in- be high with a high probability. Moreover,
put variables of the model, the model will be based on the inserted information, we can
run in predictive mode and will predict ef- infer that the forest stand being considered is
fects of input changes (Figure 2a). Knowing definitely not a forest reserve.
that the soil suitability is high, our belief in
high wood production will increase substan-
tially. Our belief in the zero state, however, Strengths and weaknesses
will not change, as we still know that 10%
(this information has not changed) of the
forests are reserves and, thus, do not produce Although BBN models have been used
wood. When evidence is inserted in the out- since the 1980s, applications were restrict-
put node, models are run in diagnostic mode ed to medical diagnosis, where BBNs were
and will predict causes instead of effects (Fig- used to combine probabilistic information
ure 2b). If we know that wood production on disease occurrence with probabilistic
Chapter 4 139
information on symptom development to Another important advantage in the context
support the process of reaching a diagnosis. of ecosystem service modelling is that BBNs
Late in the 1990s, BBNs were introduced fit extremely well in the ecosystem services
in the environmental modelling domain, cascade which has been used as a basis for
predominantly because of their ability to ex- many ecosystem service studies (see Chapter
plicitly account for uncertainty, an import- 2.3) (Figure 3). The idea that ecosystem ben-
ant aspect when natural processes are being efits are generated through services, services
modelled. A second important reason for through functions and functions through the
their adoption was the potential of the tech- biophysical structure of the environment,
nique to integrate expert knowledge in the closely resembles a chain of causal relations
modelling process. Expert knowledge can which can be easily modelled in a BBN.
be used to develop the network structure
or to populate the models CPTs with sub- Although a linear representation of the eco-
jective probabilities, which are also referred system service production process might
to as beliefs. This functionality is especially facilitate system understanding, in reality
useful in case variables need to be included most ecosystem service delivery processes
for which no supporting data are available, a are non-linear and involve a range of feed-
frequently occurring problem in ecosystem backs which BBNs cannot easily take into
service modelling. A final strength of the account. Developing several models for
modelling technique is its graphical nature. successive time steps of a system and chain-
Due to this feature, BBNs are transparent ing them afterwards is a workaround that
models that are relatively easy to grasp. This mimics feedbacks with BBNs. Such time-
means that non-expert stakeholders can be sliced models, however, often become very
involved in model development. complex and lack transparency. Another im-
Figure 3. General Bayesian Belief Network structure for ecosystem service modelling.

portant drawback of BBN is the obligation including ES in the model. These endpoints
to discretise continuous variables so that can be biophysical quantities, scores that
they can be represented as having states in a represent social values or monetary values of
node. To minimise information loss discreti- generated benefits. Modelling the full ES cas-
sation methods need to be chosen carefully. cade, up to the final benefits, can be attained
Nevertheless, for some applications, nodes by integrating studies from different research
with discrete states are more easily under- fields such as economics and sociology.
stood than continuous variables. If discreti-
sation thresholds are chosen in accordance To select input variables, two things need
with the aim of the model, discretisation to be considered, namely the management
does not necessarily lead to information options that need to be evaluated by the
loss. Where information loss is not accept- model and whether spatial application of
able, more complex software packages are the model is desired. For spatial modelling
available that enable the use of continuous applications, spatial data on the models
variables in BBNs. input nodes or on their proxies need to be
available. To make management evaluation
The drawbacks discussed above all suggest that possible, all variables that are influenced
BBNs are less suitable for modelling compli- through management and that impact eco-
cated processes than some other approaches. system service delivery need to be included.
Thus, for well-studied services, the added val-
ue of using BBNs instead of process-based, Discretisation of continuous variables is
validated models is low. The real strength of the next step in the model development
BBNs lies, however, within the integration of process. In general, the number of states
well- and poorly-studied services in one inte- needs to be kept as low as possible. As the
grated model. Such integrated models might number of states directly affects the com-
deliver additional insights into trade-offs and plexity of the models CPTs, less effort
synergies among services. In addition, their needs to be invested in CPT quantification
graphical nature can facilitate stakeholder in- in case the number of states is kept low.
volvement and social learning, two objectives Thus, a balance needs to be found between
that are difficult to attain using conventional reducing model complexity and minimis-
modelling approaches. ing information loss. Additionally, in case
CPTs are learned from data, the number of
states needs to be restricted to ensure that
Model development guidelines sufficient information is available for all
state combinations.
To determine which variables need to be in- To develop the structure of the model, ex-
cluded in the model, a variety of knowledge perts are often consulted. To integrate local
sources can be used. Domain experts can be knowledge in the model structure, stakehold-
consulted to select variables that are import- ers can also be consulted. As stakeholders and
ant for biophysical modelling of service pro- experts are generally not aware of a models
vision, while stakeholders can be consulted technical restrictions (e.g. the fact that feed-
to include social interests, i.e. the ecosystem back loops cannot be included), modellers
services that are considered important in need to guide the model development pro-
the study area, or the values associated with cess and, if necessary, adjust the structure af-
them. The type of endpoint being modelled terwards. Although data can be used to create
is also an important aspect to consider when model structures and estimate probabilities
Chapter 4 141
using learning algorithms, relations that are and stakeholders for model evaluation
defined through this process are not necessar- are preferably not those consulted during
ily a result of causality and, therefore, they are model development.
sometimes hard to interpret.
To perform the above tasks, a range of soft-
Quantification of CPTs is the final step to- ware packages are available. Frequently used
wards implementing the model. A broad software packages in the ecosystem services
range of knowledge sources can be consult- modelling domain are Netica and Hugin.
ed for this, including expert and stakeholder They both provide a user-friendly graphical
knowledge, empirical equations, simulations user interface for model development that
with existing models, literature data and can potentially be used with stakeholders.
field data. Although data might seem the Most packages also include algorithms that
most objective way to quantify a CPT, data- can be used to train and validate models us-
sets are often not sufficient to fully quantify ing existing datasets. Furthermore, through
a models CPTs. In these situations, experts application programming interfaces (API),
can be consulted to define prior CPTs and software packages can be extended with
data can be used to update CPTs; this is a all kinds of tools. Following this approach,
typical Bayesian workflow. Aside from CPT BBNs can, for example, be coupled to geo-
quantification, the probability tables of the graphical information systems (GIS). This is
input nodes also need to be quantified. If an important functionality when BBNs are
input nodes represent spatial variables, his- used for ecosystem service mapping.
tograms of spatial datasets can be used to
populate these probability tables.
Conclusions
To increase the credibility of a Bayesian Be-
lief Network, model validation needs to be
performed. To evaluate a models predictive As illustrated in this chapter, BBNs have
performance, a broad range of validation much potential for modelling and mapping
metrics are available, similar to those ex- ES. They operate at an intermediate level
tensively used in other modelling domains. of complexity which makes them especially
The predictive performance of BBNs, how- useful where the volumes of available data
ever, is generally low compared to other and knowledge are not sufficient for empir-
techniques. While most models only fo- ical or process-based modelling. Additional-
cus on performing one specific task opti- ly, BBNs are useful tools to help structure
mally, BBNs try to approximate the joint the available knowledge into comprehen-
probability distribution over all variables, sible ways that can support social learning
mostly at the expense of their predictive and stakeholder participation in ecosystem
performance. Predictive performance is, service modelling and management studies.
therefore, generally not the most import-
ant aim of a BBN model, especially in the
field of ecosystem service modelling. Other Further reading
evaluation criteria include the ability of the
model to describe a system, to enhance so-
cial learning and to facilitate decision-mak- Cain J (2001) Planning improvements in nat-
ing. To evaluate those aspects, evaluation ural resource management. Guidelines for
through experts and stakeholders might be using Bayesian networks to support the
more appropriate. The consulted experts planning and management of develop-

ment programmes in the water sector and Probability distribution
beyond. Wallingford: Centre for Ecology The set of probabilities assigned to the
and Hydrology. states of a variable that express the prob-
ability that the variable equals one of its
Haines-Young R (2011) Exploring ecosystem states. This set of probabilities always sums
service issues across diverse knowledge up to 1.
domains using Bayesian Belief Networks.
Progress in Physical Geography 35(5): Arrow
681-699. Graphical representation of the causal re-
lations amongst the system variables in a
Landuyt D, Van der Biest K, Broekx S, Staes Bayesian Belief Network. Each arrow flows
J, Meire P, Goethals PLM (2015) A GIS from a parent node to a child node.
plug-in for Bayesian belief networks: To-
wards a transparent software framework Conditional probability
to assess and visualise uncertainties in eco- The probabilities that quantify the models
system service mapping. Environmental causal relations and express the probability
Modelling & Software 71: 30-38. distribution of a child node given the sta-
tus of its parent nodes.
Landuyt D, Broekx S, Dhondt R, Engelen G,
Aertsens J, Goethals PLM (2013) A review Conditional probability table or CPT
of Bayesian belief networks in ecosystem A table that contains probability distribu-
service modelling. Environmental Model- tions over a nodes states conditional on
ling & Software 46(0): 1-11. all possible combinations of its incoming
nodes states.
Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2016) Defin-
ing and measuring ecosystem services. Directed acyclic graph or DAG
In: Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Graphical representation of the system
Turner RK (Eds) Routledge Handbook of being modelled by means of nodes that
Ecosystem Services. Routledge, London represent system variables and arrows that
and New York, 25-44. represent causal relations among the sys-
tem variables.
Glossary BBN
Node
Graphical representation of the system
variables in a Bayesian Belief Network
model.
State
A value, discrete class or qualitative level
to which a variable can be assigned. Each
variable in a Bayesian Belief Network
model has a set of states it can manifest.
Chapter 4 143
4.6. Applying expert knowledge
for ecosystem services-
quantification
Sander Jacobs & Benjamin Burkhard
Ecosystem services (ES) are a complex field science and social sciences, can be defined
of study. The application in practice poses as super-complex. Super-complex or so-
several additional challenges. Although ES called wicked problems require engagement
quantifications can built on existing experi- of several theoretical disciplines and practi-
ence, methods and data (see Chapters 4.1- tioners in actual implementation from the
4.5), specific human-environmental system very onset of the problem-solving process.
settings, policy frameworks and characteristic
ES need to be considered thoroughly. Expert What looks like just a simple ES map is
involvement can provide information in cas- often a complex combination of selected
es where other sources are lacking, efficient- quantitative data, proxies and expert esti-
ly generating results and validating maps. mates, qualitative judgements, theoretical
Moreover, structural expert involvement in assumptions, technical choices and commu-
trans-disciplinary projects can improve effec- nicative visual goals (see Chapters 3.3 and
tiveness of projects which are geared at real 6.4). The quality of the actual mapping pro-
world impact. This chapter provides basic cess directly determines the qualities of the
considerations on expert involvement and map in all its aspects (credibility, relevance,
puts forward some guidelines to tackle chal- clarity, usefulness; see Chapter 5.4). Creat-
lenges related to trans-disciplinary mapping. ing a map which lives up even to minimal
real world application ambitions obliges the
involvement of experts to legitimise, clari-
Why experts? fy, improve and validate maps to be relevant
for any specific application context.
Expectations towards ES science and appli-

cation are very high. The global socio-eco- What makes an expert?
logical challenges which researchers are aim-
ing to tackle are both urgent and important.
Still, the amount of trust and public re- Delineating who is an expert and who is not
sources going to ES studies and mapping is not straightforward. From the above, it
is relatively high compared to their current is clear that, when solving real world prob-
impact on solving real world problems. lems, merits of diploma and discipline are
not enough by far. A bright GIS technician
Applied ecology and sociology are con- is certainly a required expert, but without
sidered complex fields, combining several complementary input from the ecology ex-
disciplinary frameworks, ways of thinking pert, the modeller, the economist and the
and related methods. ES, at the crossroads social scientist, there is actually nothing to
of applied ecology, economy, sustainability map or to interpret. Also, without the local

or topical experts to put the socio-economic available. Note that this technical argument
and natural science theories into a specif- disregards the fact that quantitative models
ic context, maps will be hard to validate. (see Chapter 4.4) have originally been com-
Moreover, without the expert who connects piled and designed by experts. Often they
specific policy demands, cultures and know- are applied/extrapolated to another context
how, implementation of the maps into actu- by implementing expert-based modifications
al solution strategies will rarely happen. And and assumptions. In addition, many aspects
finally, deciding on societal importance of of ES mapping are simply not quantitative in
issues or values of specific ES to decide upon the natural science sense: economic data, val-
trade-offs requires input from policy makers uations, ecological quality estimates - they are
and/or the direct end-users of these services. all based to a large extent on qualitative expert
estimates. Collaboration among diverse and
All these types of knowledge are indispens- multiple experts from the onset could help to
able for the mapping process, and not nec- avoid the disciplinary bias of the experts that
essarily related to education level or strictly happen to steer the mapping process.
technical skills. The central idea is that all
experts - or knowledge-holders - need to be 2. Experts generate quick results
thoughtfully engaged. A second pragmatic reason to involve experts
is that they provide quick access to a broad
range of knowledge and comparable ES maps
Selective expert engagement can be obtained in a relatively cost-efficient
way. Indeed, with a minimum of resources,
maps can be obtained, with known reliabil-
From the point of view of a technical map- ity and high credibility (provided that some
ping project, involving experts is often re- basic rules are followed concerning which
garded as costly, tedious and complicated. experts to select, the representativeness of
We will show that structural expert involve- this selection and how to evaluate expertise
ment will add value to the whole process of levels). A process model-based quantification
map creation and effective problem-solving. (tier 3; see Chapter 5.6.1) does not necessar-
Three examples of selective engagement ily deliver more useful or true results than a
are discussed here. The section, following tier 1 (expert-based relative scoring) or a tier
this discussion, returns to address the more 2 quantification. In an optimum case, sever-
profound expert engagement of trans-disci- al approaches (tiers) can be applied for the
plinary research. same ES in one region and the results can be
triangulated in order to cross-validate and in-
1. Experts plaster the holes in your data crease reliability. There is a risk that an overly
The most commonly heard argument for en- pragmatic approach ignores existing data and
gaging experts is to provide educated guess- models already available. In addition, in-
es and estimates of ES supply, locations or volved experts are frequently frustrated when
contexts where a given dataset or model is the highly detailed and complex knowl-
not providing quantitative information. In- edge they hold is reduced, for example, to
deed, this is a highly effective way of filling a comparable scoring format for predefined
in missing data to obtain a dataset which al- indicators. Much more potential lies in the
lows the creation of a map. The explicit as- combination and comparison of diverse ap-
sumption is that these estimates are second proaches from different mapping tiers (see
choice and less reliable, and best replaced Chapter 5.6.1) and quantification methods
by model outputs as soon as these become (see Chapters 4.1-4.4), from the start.
Chapter 4 145
3. Experts fix your credibility additional benefits for the effectiveness of a
A third common application of expert en- mapping project.
gagement is ensuring the local or topical
validity of the maps created. This concerns Structural engagement of
local ecological knowledge or elicitation of
societal values, but it can also entail spatial experts
validation and adaptation of resulting maps.
Although the type of validation can vary, Mapping ES in the context of real world
this step is essential for any map which is problem-solving needs to go further. Struc-
meant to provide reliable and credible input tural engagement of experts departs from
to decision-making. a different paradigm. The underlying prin-
ciple is that there is no de facto distinction
The difficulty with such methods and relat- between experts and laymen, or between
ed results is that these often do not come in stakeholders and researchers. All people in-
before the end of a study. Experts are con- volved in, or potentially affected by, the ES
fronted with an end-product which is not mapping project are stakeholders as well as
always part of a clear process or linked to a experts in a certain aspect.
recognisable problem. Maps represent high-
ly complex and variable data types, combi- Such a trans-disciplinary viewpoint has two
nations and technical choices in a single, immediate consequences: first, the researchers
static 2D representation (see Chapter 3.2). mandated to perform the mapping project
Apart from assessing the overall plausibility depart from a humble attitude (see Chapter
of the result and recolouring local correc- 5.4). Second, experts/stakeholders outside
tions, information to (re)calibrate models of the actual project team are promoted to
or assess credibility of assumptions made the level of potentially indispensable knowl-
is very hard to obtain. Moreover, if a map edge-holders and project-owners. These in-
turns out not to be useful at all, it is often clude people commissioning the project, top-
far too late to change course. ical experts on certain ES, technical experts on
different methods, experts on local or themat-
A stakeholder analysis, a knowledge-needs ic context into which the mapping project is
inventory and an engagement strategy at the framed and people actually depending on ES.
start of an ES mapping project allows the
involvement of key experts (including local/ The above does not mean, of course, that
topical experts) and guarantee validation every mapping project should involve large
and credibility in order to develop an effec- numbers of experts throughout the project
tive map product. in order to be effective. The actual number
of experts is not the issue here, but it is their
All three selection-perspectives are prag- competence, diversity, qualification and role
matic and instrumental to improve quali- they have in the project. In the following sec-
ty, efficiency and effectiveness of mapping tion, a theoretical illustration of a mapping
projects. Still, these perspectives regard the projects cycle is presented. This example
mappers as project owners, mandated to se- imagines an ideal project without issues of
lect other experts for a certain purpose and policy restrictions or budgetary constraints.
within a restricted window of engagement.
In the next section, we show that a trans-dis- 1. Scoping
ciplinary approach not only combines the This first phase sets out clear project goals,
advantages mentioned above, but provides adding requirements and conditions for

well-defined final map products as well as Specialist experts on detailed sub-topics
concerning inclusion of various viewpoints (e.g. certain ES, habitats, land use prac-
in the process. A broad and realistic selec- tices, stakeholder groups);
tion of experts is made to join the project End-user experts to follow up on map
team and co-design, conduct, steer and eval- usability;
uate the mapping project. Policy experts to follow up on relevance;
Stakeholder representation to follow up
Questions to answer: on different goals and conditions;
Why is the project needed? Which problem Technical expertise to design and facili-
needs to be solved? Who are the end-users tate participation and feedback process
of the maps? What are the maps going to be between product developers, end-users,
used for exactly? Who will be affected by the commissioning bodies and stakeholders.
envisioned solution? How dependent are
different people/groups on the human-envi- 3. Creating reliable maps
ronmental system, how large is the potential This phase produces maps with transparent
impact on their well-being? What power or reliability, conscious decisions affecting in-
representation do they have, to what extent terpretation and best available knowledge,
can they govern their own environment? while safeguarding purpose, usability and
local/thematic specificities.
Expertise needed to answer these questions:
Experts from policy and administration Questions to answer:
commissioning the project; How can we include and combine various
Experts from the end-user side con- data types? How can we determine reliabili-
cerning format and requirements of the ty of different types of data and knowledge?
map (see Chapter 5.4); How can we select data and communicate
Technical expertise on policy and defin- reliability? How do we make technical
ing client demand for product develop- choices which impact the outcome (e.g. in-
ment; terpretation of maps)?
Experts on various stakeholder points
of view, directly or by representatives Expertise needed to answer these questions:
(e.g. NGOs); All experts and stakeholders need to
Technical expertise on stakeholder anal- reach agreement on choices concerning
ysis and participation of special groups. reliability within the particular project;
Different experts on similar topics need
2. Method selection and project design to triangulate and cross-validate meth-
This phase develops an agreed-upon work ods and results;
plan, project governance structure and Technical experts need to design and facili-
workload distribution. tate efficient decision processes and commu-
nicate decisions.
Questions to answer:
What methods and data do we need to create 4. Implementation of the maps
the product? What methods and know-how This phase ensures effective implementa-
do we need to set up the process accordingly? tion of the products as well as adherence
to the agreed goals. Ideally, this phase runs
Expertise needed to answer these questions: throughout the project, in order to test early
Experts from different disciplinary fields; versions of the maps and adapt methods (or
Technical mapping experts; goals) based on these tests.
Chapter 4 147
Questions to answer: Further reading
How can we ensure effective application of the
maps in the envisaged solution/instrument? Bradshaw GA, Borchers JG (2000) Uncer-
How can we evaluate distance to target? tainty as information: narrowing the sci-
ence-policy gap. Conservation Ecology
Expertise needed to answer these questions: 4(1): 7.
All experts and stakeholders need to
agree on engagement in implementa- Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Tbarae
tion and criteria for evaluation; JD, Jger J, Chabay I, de Wit B, Langlais
End-user experts need to test applica- R, Mills D, Moll P, Otto IM, Petersen A,
tion and provide feedback. Pohl C, van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening
up knowledge systems for better responses
to global environmental change. Environ-
Solutions and mental Science & Policy 28: 60-70.
recommendations Drescher M, Perera AH, Johnson CJ, Buse LJ,

Drew CA, Burgman MA (2013) Toward
Clear goals. Being effective requires the rigorous use of expert knowledge in eco-
right product, produced in the right way. logical research. Ecosphere 4: 1-26.
Clearly formulated goals are essential.
Diversity. The best people should be Gunderson LH, Holling CS (Eds.) (2002)
identified with the diverse skills and Panarchy. Island Press, Washington Covelo
knowledge types needed. Consider London.
them equal regardless of their diplomas
and promote this attitude. Hay I (2010) Qualitative Research Methods
Facilitation. Do not think that a in Human Geography. 3rd Edition. Ox-
trans-disciplinary process will run itself. ford University Press.
Project facilitation is a skill, and skilled
people will be needed to keep the pro- Jacobs S, Burkhard B, Van Daele T, Staes J,
cess running smoothly. Schneiders A (2015) The Matrix Reload-
Parsimony. Do not overdo it. Weigh ed: A review of expert knowledge use for
costs and efforts against stakes. Be mapping ecosystem services. Ecological
pragmatic when needed, but without Modelling 295: 21-30.
forsaking the project goals. Adapt unre-
alistic goals to more realistic objectives. Seidl R et al. (2013) Science with society in
Testing and evaluation. the anthropocene. Ambio 42(1): 5-12.
Do not expect that your team will pro-
duce a perfect product at the end of the Voinov A, Seppelt R, Reis S, Nabel JEMS,
project. Look for the weaknesses in the Shokravi S (2014) Values in socio-environ-
project and address them. Test maps as mental modelling: persuasion for action or
soon as possible and avoid the trap of excuse for inaction. Environmental Mod-
self-evaluation. The sooner a weakness elling and Software 53: 207-212.
or failure is identified, the greater chance
there will be of finalising your project
with a high level of success and impact.

CHAPTER 5
Ecosystem services
mapping
Chapter 5 149
5.1. What to map?
Ralf-Uwe Syrbe, Matthias Schrter, Karsten
Grunewald, Ulrich Walz & Benjamin Burkhard
Introduction
Ecosystem services (ES) originated as a con- qualitative estimations. ES mapping and as-
cept that reflects the value of nature for hu- sessment include ecosystem properties and
mans and provides additional reasons for conditions, ES potential, ES supply, ES flow
protection and sustainable management of and ES demand which we generically define
ecosystems (see Chapter 2.3). Many ES face in the next sections.
spatially explicit pressures or rely on anthro-
pogenic contributions such as technology,
energy or knowledge. ES maps can help to ES mapping terms and their
uncover risks for ecosystem health, unsus-
tainable use of potentials to provide a service, relationships
harmful impacts on a landscape, impaired
spatial flows of ES as well as mismatches be- The framework presented here aims to depict
tween ES supply and demand (see Chapter different aspects of ES important for map-
5.2). Such information can indicate where to ping. Our framework bridges variously in-
improve ES provision and where to prioritise terconnected ecosystems and socio-economic
nature and biodiversity conservation. systems, including the interactions between
their components. Figure 1 highlights aspects
Multiple components play a role in ES proof ES which can be considered relevant for
vision and use which can be mapped, as- mapping. ES are generated in the context of
sessed and monitored. ES can be mapped different aspects or components, which are
and assessed using quantitative indicators or interrelated, but can be mapped separately.
Ecosystem Socio-economic
system
Ecosystem properties
and conditions
ES potential Human inputs ES demand
ES supply Flow Benefits
Figure 1. Mapping aspects of ES (own illustration, adapted version of the the ES cascade by Haines-
Young & Potschin (see Chapter 2.3), Wolff et al. 2015, Bastian et al. 2013). Bold grey: subjects relevant
for mapping; dashed: may be mapped; thin: additional aspects for which mapping could be developed.
Chapter 5 151
Ecosystem properties and conditions provide Delimitation: Properties and condition re-
the ecological basis for ES potentials which, flect both the natural ecosystem state and
together with human inputs, form a capac- the type of ecosystem as result of a specific
ity of a social-ecological system to provide land use. Since the condition for ES supply
ES (ES supply). ES flows (i.e. the actual use differs between specific ES, the scope of
of ES) can be a fraction of this supply, or be related assessments has to be defined very
higher in case stocks are depleted or ecosys- carefully per ES.
tems are unsustainably used. Demand for ES
steers ES flows, i.e. without a demand for a Necessity and applicability: Indicators for
service, there is no actual use. This demand ecosystem properties and conditions should
can, however, be higher than actual flow, for be applied to different protection goods or
example, in cases where societal preferences land use classes. They are relevant because
for specific services remain unsatisfied. With- they provide the spatial and physical precon-
in the socio-economic system, benefits arise ditions for ES (see Chapter 2.2). ES poten-
from several kinds of ES use depending on tials can, for example, give a reference point
the demands of concerned people. Feedbacks for planning and scenarios (see Chapter 7.2).
from the socio-economic system such as land Both the individual patches land use and
use change, landscape maintenance or envi- land cover and the configuration and ar-
ronmental pressures, affect the ecosystem and rangement of such patches, are important for
thereby the ES supply. The following sections ES supply. Therefore, the landscape structure
explain these terms in detail. with its mosaic of patches should be consid-
ered (see Chapter 5.2).
Ecosystem properties and Possible indicators: Land cover can provide

an essential database for ES mapping. The
conditions CORINE land cover dataset is often used in
European studies (see Chapter 3.5). At na-
Definition: Properties describe the charac- tional level, land use data from land survey
ter, structure and processes of an ecosystem. or habitat mapping often are available. Ad-
Conditions refer to the integrity and health ditional data need to be integrated in more
status of an ecosystem which determine its detailed evaluations (see Example 1).
ability to generate ES (see Chapter 3.5).
Land use or land cover provide the basis Ecosystem properties and conditions are di-
of many ES maps. Beyond that, ecosystem rectly linked to the state of biodiversity. A high
properties such as soil type, slope gradient level of biodiversity in most cases underpins
and inclination, climate conditions and the the supply of multiple ES (see Chapter 2.2).
position in relation to a shoreline or within
a watershed are properties that essentially
control the supply of many ES. Features of ES potential
landscape structure like density of certain
objects, edge conditions, connection and
shape of areas can also be very important. Definition: ES potential describes the nat-
Ecosystem conditions, however, comprise ural contributions to ES generation. ES ca-
much more: for instance, the load of pollut- pacity is often used synonymously. ES po-
ants, species composition and health may be tential measures the amount of ES that can
crucial preconditions for ES. be provided or used in a sustainable way in

Example 1. Wood-dominated ecotones and non-fragmented forests
Large contiguous areas of woodland are vital for nature protection by offering habitats for animals and
plants and provide people with areas for relaxation. The size of uninterrupted woodland, not dissected
by roads and railways, is an important criterion for ecosystem conditions.
Ecotones are transitional areas between habitats. As such, they are home to a particularly rich variety of
species, not only those of the adjacent communities but also species that have become specialised to the
ecotone itself. In open landscapes, such elements are important as habitat for pollinating insects and for
other beneficial organisms. At the same time, a landscape with high proportions of such elements is very
attractive for human recreation. In this context, landscape configuration with ecotones is an indicator for
ecosystem condition. The calculation of the perimeter of forest-dominated ecotones takes account of all
hedges, tree rows and the margins of small copses as well as all forest margins (see Walz 2015).
Chapter 5 153
well as proxies for processes such as ground-
Example 2. Crop potential water recharge rates.
To indicate the gross potential of crop produc-
tion, the Natural Yield Potential from the Soil ES potential is particularly applicable for
Atlas of Saxony, Germany was used. Compa- planning, management and predictive re-
rable maps are available for most countries of search purposes. Since it is conceptualised
the world. In a two-stage procedure, first the hypothetically and for the long term, ES
soil fertility was assessed using field capacity, potential should not be assessed for short
capillary moisture, cation-exchange capacity time periods (such as for only one season).
and base saturation. Second, the ratio of ac- Preferably, ES potential should be orien-
tual vs. potential evaporation, the length of tated on natural regeneration rates. Direct
the vegetation period and slope gradient were human interventions such as fertilisation,
taken into account, resulting in five degrees in technical energy inputs or breeding and
total. Technical measures such as fertilisation, genetic engineering should not be consid-
liming, plant protection and irrigation were ered as contribution to ES potentials. In
excluded here (see Bastian et al. 2013). contrast, land use type (grassland, field,
forest, settlement) and the consequences of
long-lasting or very strong impacts such as
a certain region given current land use and mining have to be considered naturally. A
ecosystem properties and conditions. It is distinction of a real natural state that con-
recommended to regard this potential for a tributes to ES is not straightforward.
sufficiently long time period.
Delimitation: The (natural) ES potential is ES supply

often supplemented by human system in-
puts to generate ES supply (see Section Hu-
man inputs). The actual provision (co-pro- Definition: Supply is the provision of a ser-
duction) of ES (flow) sometimes includes vice by a particular ecosystem, irrespective
large human efforts, is strongly dependent of its actual use. It can be determined for a
on technological refinement and can be very specified period of time (such as a year) in the
difficult to determine. present, past, or future.
Necessity and applicability: In terms of ES Delimitation: The amount of ES supply

potential, the ecological carrying capacity and depends on natural conditions and often
resilience need to be considered. ES potential on human inputs (see below), such as land
allows the distinction between a realised ES management contributions, knowledge and
and the opportunities and limits of use which technology. Though there are some ES with-
is often meaningful for planning purposes, out human co-production, they may never-
scenarios and management issues. Some- theless depend on ecosystem preservation.
times, an indicator for ES potential can help ES supply also includes stocks of natural
to better understand and calculate physical assets as starting points of the flows of ma-
indicators for regulating ES supply. terial, energy, information and organisms as
results of both ecosystem potential and hu-
Possible indicators are, for example, the man co-production.
Muencheberg Soil Quality Rating (SQR),
metrics for relief diversity and the share of Necessity and applicability: ES supply is
water bodies as part of landscape aesthetics as a central subject to be mapped and can be

Delimitation: Service flow can be con-
Example 3. Wood growth in Germany strained by an inadequate ES supply
Forest stocks and wood growth are recorded which would lead to exceedance of the ES
by a forest inventory every 10 years in Ger- potential. This again may lead to an over-
many. Wood regrowth as supply indicator use of given ES potentials, degradation of
results in 122millionm per year (compara- natural capital or to unmet ES demand.
ble to a logging of 84millionm in 2013). It
describes only the status quo; another wood Necessity and applicability: ES flow maps
re-growth could be realised at different stock can unfold spatial mismatches between ES
levels, for example, by changing the tree spe- providers and beneficiaries. If there are es-
cies and age structures = managed potential. sential natural processes supporting these
The wood stock in German forests, which may interactions between providers and benefi-
also be regarded as supply, is 3.7billionm, or ciaries, ES flow mapping gives insights to
336mha-1. But since nobody could use them Service Connecting Areas (SCA; see Chap-
all, this number gives no meaningful indica- ter 5.2). Their conditions such as possible
tion (Grunewald et al. 2016). barriers or other features shaping the flow
are items that can be mapped meaningfully.
considered a complement to ES demand Possible indicators are fish catch, timber

(see below). logging, bioenergy gain, groundwater ex-
traction (by wells), flood peak reduction,
Possible indicators are average yields of crops, visitor numbers.
wood regrowth in forests, flood retention in
catchments or floodplains, amount of carbon
stored in soil and vegetation, relative reduction Example 4. Flood regulation
of noise or pollutants, aesthetics of scenery.
Flood regulating ES provide excellent exam-
ples for linkages of SPAs and SBAs via SCAs.
ES flow Unlike many provisioning ES, flood regu-
lating ES cannot be supplied and imported
from remote areas. SPAs and SBAs need to
Definition: Flow is a measure for the be physically connected (e.g. by a water body
amount of ES that are actually mobilised or stream) or located in the same process unit
in a specific area and time. Driven by a de- (e.g. a watershed). The flow of flood regulat-
mand for a service, ES supply is turned into ing ES takes place by spatial units that are able
ES flows (Figure 1). In case both ES supply to capture excess water (e.g. from torrential
and demand are quantified using the same rain) and to regulate the surface water run-
dimension and unit, a quantitative com- off contributing to floods. Humans and their
parison is possible (supply-demand budget properties benefit from this regulating ES flow
calculation). Flow can, in a more tangible by lower amounts of floodwater reaching the
meaning, also involve a movement of ma- SBA. The ES demand exceeds the supply in
terial, energy or information across space. case of flood hazards. Land use change (e.g.
In case supply and demand are not spatial- afforestation) in the SPAs can help to increase
ly congruent, flow maps can show spatial flood regulating ES flows (see Nedkov and
connections between Service Providing and Burkhard 2012).
Service Benefiting Areas (SPA SBA; see
Chapter 5.2).
Chapter 5 155
ES flow should particularly be included in tween different regions caused by inter-re-
integrative supply-demand assessments. gional ES use. (Regional) demand could
There is a broad range of process models (see also be lower than flow, in case ES are ex-
Chapter 4.4), expert knowledge (see Chap- ported. Demand is then expressed by other
ter 4.6) or monetary valuation methods (see social-ecological systems while ES flow takes
Chapter 4.3) which can be applied here. place in the region of interest.
Necessity and applicability: Demand can

ES demand change over time and can show an uneven
pattern across space. As a result, it makes
sense to map demand independently from
Definition: Demand is the need for specific potential, supply and flow. Regional demand
ES by society, particular stakeholder groups can exceed the (regional) supply considerably
or individuals. It depends on several factors and, through an increased flow, this could
such as culturally-dependent desires and result in unsustainable regional levels of ex-
needs, availability of alternatives, or means traction or use of a service so that flow could
to fulfil these needs. It also covers prefer- exceed ES potential. As a consequence, local
ences for specific attributes of a service and ecosystems are at risk of overuse or ecosys-
relates to risk awareness. Demand links ES tems in other parts of the world are degraded
to particular beneficiaries. This means that by land use change (ES footprint).
without a demand for a service, there is no
flow. Beneficiaries express demand and can
have the power to translate this demand Example 5. Demand for recreational
into an actual ES use. Demands for some use in Danish forest sites
ES (such as several regulating ES) might Using amongst others, travel costs, presence of
be uncovered, or certain groups of society viewpoints, distance to forest and coast, pop-
might be unaware that they actually benefit ulation and income statistics, Termansen et
from an ES. al. (2013) mapped demand for recreation for
Danish forest sites. They find spatial hetero-
Delimitation: Demand can be different geneity in demand for recreation, with higher
from flow which measures the actual ex- values in forests close to agglomerations such
traction of a service within a region. De- as Copenhagen and higher values for broad-
mand can, for example, be higher than flow leaved than for coniferous forests.
within that particular region. This means,
when demand is realised, it could be fulfilled
through services that come from another re-
gion. For instance, many provisioning ES Possible indicators are vulnerability of people
(e.g. food, timber, energy) can be import- or value of endangered assets for flood risk,
ed. The demand for carbon sequestration desirable attributes for recreation, accessibili-
(ES climate regulation) can be fulfilled by ty and travel costs of visitors, socio-economic
a region with a high potential to sequester valuation and stakeholder perceptions.
carbon or cultural ES such as recreation can
be actively used in another region through Demand involves human preferences which
travel (see Chapter 6.2). The phenomenon can be determined through questionnaires,
of regionally-unmet demand is common to but also involves basic needs (e.g. unpolluted
many ES and so far we have only started air) and actually used ES (e.g. flood protec-
to understand the long-distance effects be- tion at a riverside) even when people are not

aware of them. Aspects of risk aversion can fluence the integrity of ecosystems, but also
be based on assumptions, be modelled or by the utilisation and improvement of ES can
enquiries (stated preferences). In the case of impact other services as well. Resulting ES
provisioning ES, the beneficiary could be a trade-offs (see Chapter 5.7) are important to
farmer who benefits from an intact agricul- review, but are often hard to map.
tural ecosystem. It could, however, also be
the regional population that formulates the
demand for locally-produced food. Example 6. Nitrogen input in Europe
The indicator Gross Nitrogen Surplus (GNS)
indicates the potential surplus of nitrogen
Human inputs (N) on agricultural land. For EU-27, it re-
mained relatively stable between 2005 and
2008 with about 51kgN/ha/year. The GNS
Definition: Human inputs encompass all an- for the EU-15 reduced between 2001 and
thropogenic contributions to ES generation 2008 from 66 to 58kgN/ha/year. The GNS
such as land use and management (including was highest between 2005 and 2008 in coun-
system inputs such as energy, water, fertiliser, tries in the North-West of Europe (Belgium,
pesticides, labour, technology, knowledge), the Netherlands, Norway, UK, Germany,
human pressures on the system (e.g. eutrophi- Denmark) and the Mediterranean islands
cation, biodiversity loss) and protection mea- Malta and Cyprus, while many of the Med-
sures that modify ecosystems and ES supply. iterranean (Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece),
Central and East European countries show
Delimitation: Human inputs often emerge the lowest N surpluses (Eurostat).
as harmful impacts to ecosystems caused
by monocultural land use, land use change
or intensification. Today, most ecosystems
and the services they provide are used and Conclusions and
influenced by humans. recommendations
Necessity and applicability: Humans per-
form multiple roles in ecosystems acting as Depending on the scope of application, ES
managers, but also as co-producers, distribu- maps can show different contextual aspects
tors or beneficiaries of ES. of ES which are spatially heterogeneous in
a different way and therefore relevant for ES
Possible indicators are land use type and in- mapping. Depending on data availability and
tensity, load of pollutants, material or energy the policy question or information needs at
input (such as nitrogen), effort of landscape hand, mapping of one or two of these aspects
maintenance, further contributions to ES. might be sufficient. It is recommended to
Human impacts are accompanied in many map only such aspects that can be derived
cases by substantial losses of biodiversity. from reliable data. When monitoring or sys-
tematic balance over time is requested, data
Particular attention should be paid to hu- and indicators have to be double-checked
man inputs since they may alter ES supply for comparability which can also depend on
considerably and this impact differs spatial- methods or technology of data collection and
ly. Not only targeted land use activities in- on appropriate indicator selection.
Chapter 5 157
Further reading
Ala-Hulkko T, Kotavaara O, Alahuhta J, Helle Liu J, Yang W, Li S (2016) Framing ecosystem
P, Hjort J (2016) Introducing accessibility services in the telecoupled Anthropocene.
analysis in mapping cultural ecosystem ser- Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
vices. Ecological Indicators 66: 416-427. 14: 27-36.
Albert C, Galler C. Hermes J, Neuendorf F, Nedkov S, Burkhard B (2012) Flood regulat-

von Haaren C, Lovett, A (2015) Applying ing ecosystem services - Mapping supply
ecosystem services indicators in landscape and demand, in the Etropole municipality,
planning and management: The ES-in- Bulgaria. Ecological Indicators 21: 67-79.
Planning framework. Ecological Indica-
tors 61, Part 1: 100-113. Remme RP, Edens B, Schrter M, Hein L
(2015) Monetary accounting of ecosystem
Bastian O, Syrbe R-U, Rosenberg M, Rahe D, services: A test case for Limburg province,
Grunewald K (2013) The five pillar EPPS the Netherlands. Ecological Economics
framework for quantifying, mapping and 112: 116-128.
managing ecosystem services. Ecosystem
Services 4: 15-24. Termansen M, McClean CJ, Jensen FS (2013)
Modelling and mapping spatial heteroge-
Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Mller F neity in forest recreation services. Ecologi-
(2014) Ecosystem service potentials, flows cal Economics 92: 48-57.
and demand concepts for spatial localisa-
tion, indication and quantification. Land- Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennet EM
scape Online 34: 1-32. (2013) Capacity, pressure, demand, and
flow: A conceptual framework for analyz-
Fischer A, Eastwood A (2016) Coproduction ing ecosystem service provision and deliv-
of ecosystem services as humannature In- ery. Ecological Complexity 15: 114-121.
teractions - An analytical framework. Land
Use Policy 52: 41-50. Walz U (2015) Indicators to monitor the
structural diversity of landscapes. Ecolog-
Grunewald K, Herold H, Marzelli S, Meinel ical Modelling 295 (1): 88-106.
G, Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2016) Assessment
of ecosystem services at the national level Wolff S, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH (2015) Map-
in Germany illustration of the concept ping ecosystem services demand: a review
and the development of indicators by way of current research and future perspectives.
of the example wood provision. Ecological Ecological Indicators 55: 159-171.
Indicators 70: 181-195.
Jones L, Norton Z, Austin AL, Browne D,

Donovan BA, Emmett ZJ, Grabowski DC,
Howard JPG, Jones JO, Kenter W, Manley
C, Morris DA, Robinson C, Short GM, Siri-
wardena CJ, Stevens J, Storkey RD, Waters
G, Willis F (2016) Stocks and flows of natu-
ral and human-derived capital in ecosystem
services. Land Use Policy 52: 151-162.

5.2. Where to map?
Ulrich Walz, Ralf-Uwe Syrbe & Karsten Grunewald
The spatial-structural approach

It is an important feature of natural and cul- Units. For mapping purposes, such an SPU
tivated ecosystems that they are not evenly should be regarded as a spatial unit. This
distributed across landscapes, coastal or ma- opens the way for applying landscape-scale
rine areas and they also vary over time. Eco- geographic assessment methods based on
system services (ES) are usually generated landscape units corresponding to the area of
by ecological processes within their area of influence (see above).
influence such as catchments, habitats, nat-
ural regions or land use units. This suggests In order to avoid terminological confusion
the need for site-specific assessments. There- with different SPU variants, we term the
fore, each ecosystem service should not only spatially defined complexes as Service Pro-
be assessed through considering underlying viding Areas (SPA) (see Text Box 1). SPAs
ecosystem types but also with respect to: are a promising basis for an inclusive ap-
proach of ES at the landscape scale.
underlying natural regional conditions
(geology, landform configuration, soil, As the service providing areas defined above
climate, etc.), include entire ecosystems, their constituent
its positional relations to main types populations and underlying biophysical
of landscape (urban, agrarian, near-na- characteristics, the best way of capturing
ture), them spatially is as ecological spatial units
the configuration (landscape structure) (e.g. living spaces, water bodies or soil areas)
of the corresponding units (catchments, or as area of influence of the respective pro-
natural regions, etc.) with natural re- cesses (e.g. catchment areas, flood plains).
sources or land uses, From this point of view, such biophysical-
the relations between the ecosystem ly-delineated areas are more suitable for
providers of a service and groups of analysis than administrative units.
people who make use of it (i.e. benefi-
ciaries) and In the spatial analysis framework, however,
the use, management and maintenance not only the SPAs are of interest, but also the
of the respective ecosystem. regions to which their benefits accrue. For ex-
ample, one might ask: where is the benefit of
a given ecosystem service needed? In addition
Spatial relationships, area types to the service providing areas (SPAs), Service
Benefiting Areas (SBAs) should thus be de-
fined in which beneficiaries receive the ser-
The holistic approach presented here pre- vice (see Text Box 1). In a spatial framework,
sumes that complex ecological systems un- urban areas, rural settlement areas and espe-
derlie the production of most ES, which can cially administrative units could be consid-
be envisioned as SPUs, or Service Providing ered as SBAs. Factors such as population den-
Chapter 5 159
sity, social facilities (e.g. schools, hospitals but
also parks for recreation) and built structures Text Box 2. Example
(residential, commerce or industry buildings)
or the number and size of the households, are The floodwater regulation service mainly
important as indicators (e.g. per household depends on the character of the watershed
measures of demand for specific ES). that is upstream of beneficiaries, whereas
the benefit from the reduced flood risk in
the populous cities along the flood plains is
Text Box 1. Definitions presumably highest in the more built-up lower
reaches. This raises the question of whether
Service Providing Area (SPA): spatial unit the residents at the upper reaches should
within which an ecosystem service is provided. unilaterally forego development options in
This area can include animal and plant favour of the downstream riparian beneficiaries
populations, abiotic components as well as and, if so, how much compensation should
human actors. they be entitled to? Should the most vulnerable
houses in a downstream settlement be resettled
Service Benefiting Area (SBA): spatial unit to out from the flood plains or protected better?
which an ecosystem service flow is delivered to The service connecting area also plays an
beneficiaries. SBAs spatially delineate groups important role, since, for example, the
of people who knowingly or unknowingly channel geometry, tributary streams, natural
benefit from the ecosystem service of interest. floodplains and wetlands and reservoirs or
other grey infrastructure can strongly modify
Service Connecting Area (SCA): connecting the severity of a potential flood.
space between non-adjacent ecosystem
service-providing and service-benefiting
areas. The properties of the connecting space a. in situ: the two area types are identical,
influence the transfer of the benefit (also refer i.e. the ES are supplied and in demand
to Text Box 2). in the same area (e.g. the population uses
the groundwater of its settlement area),
b. central demand: the surrounding area
provides for / impacts on a central
The service providing and service benefiting demand area (e.g. a settlement bene-
areas may overlap, but significant spatial fits from supply of fresh and cold air
differences are also possible (see example which is generated by open spaces in
in Text Box 2). If the service providing and the surrounding),
service benefiting areas are not adjacent, the c. omni-directional: the service benefit-
properties of the connecting space can have ing area surrounds a service providing
an influence on the provision of the ser- area independent of direction (e.g.,
vice (see Text Box 2). We include such an farmland benefits from hedges as a liv-
interstitial space between service providing ing space for beneficial insects),
and service benefiting areas in our consid- d. directional without dependency on a
erations under the term Service Connecting slope: the service benefiting area is sit-
Area (SCA) (cf. Fig. 1). uated behind the service providing
area, protected as it were with respect to
The following fundamental types of relations the predominant impact direction (e.g.
between the service providing and the service a residential area protected against traf-
benefiting areas can be distinguished (Fig. 1): fic noise by a forest),

SPA
= SBA SPA
SBA
SPA SBA
a) in situ: SPA and SBA b) central: surrounding area c) omnidirectional: directed on

are identical supplies / acts on the central all sides - to larger surrounding
benefiting area area
SPA SPA
S
P SCA SCA
A
SBA SBA
SBA
d) directional spatially e) directional spatially f) non-directional spatially

separated from each other: separated from each other separated from each other
SBA lies behind the SPA (e.g., slope dependent)
Figure 1. Types of spatial relations of Service Providing Areas (SPA), Service Benefiting Areas (SBA) and
Service Connecting Areas (SCA) (adapted and extended from Fisher et al. 2009; Syrbe & Walz 2012).
e. directional downslope: the service ben- Analysing the spatial structures

efiting area is situated downhill (down-
river) from the service providing area, Once SPAs, SBAs and SCAs are defined
i.e. the service is dependent on gravi- for each ecosystem service (see Table 1 for
tational processes (e.g. cold air, water, examples), they can be described in greater
avalanches) and detail according to their properties such as
f. spatially separated: e.g. drinking wa- structure, type and characteristic of the spatial
ter, food production, recreational areas. situation. The comprehensive characterisation
There can be different connective meth- of a service-providing area should contain at
ods, e.g. natural hydrologic flow within least the following information:
watersheds, infrastructure (pipes/aque-
ducts) or road/trail networks. 1. a site characterisation and classification
of the potential for providing the ser-
The relation types d, e and f can especially vice with respect to the required natural
exhibit considerable service connecting areas. processes and their dynamics,
Chapter 5 161
Table 1. Examples for Ecosystem Services, which depend on lateral or vertical landscape processes,
with associated Service Providing Areas (SPA), Service Benefiting Areas (SBA), Service Connecting
Areas (SCA) (adapted from Syrbe & Walz 2012).
Service providing area Service connecting Service benefiting area

Ecosystem Services *
(SPA) area (SCA) (SBA)
Groundwater flow paths
Arable land, wood,
(with possible contam-
P groundwater grassland, wetlands and Settlement areas, irrigat-
inated sites and risk
recharge other open land in a ed areas
areas for the protection
groundwater basin
of groundwater)
Bodies of groundwater, Settlement areas, indus-
Headwaters and catchment
P drinking water streams, rivers, (pipe- try (for production, less
areas
lines); (see Chapter 6.2) for cooling)
P fodder for grazing
Grassland and forage crops Pastoral paths Farms
animals
R protection against Forest, road trees, shrubs, Embankments at roads E.g. roads, railway lines
snowdrift, storm hedges and railway lines and runways
R erosion prevention Forest, hedges, bushes,
Areas under cultivation,
- by wind trees and shrubs (grassland, Field edges, gullies
water reservoirs
- by water permanent crops)
Forest, ponds, wetlands,
Floodplains above Built-up area in the
R flood prevention etc. in flood generation
benefiting areas floodplain
areas
R local climate regu- Open land, parks above Slopes (with or without
City in valley
lation (cold/fresh air) cities obstacles) around a city
Areas (if appropriate
Roadside greenery, wood, Residential and
R noise reduction buildings) around the
ramparts recreational area
source of noise
Residential or
R avalanche and Forest above residential or
Slope area recreational areas below
landslide prevention recreational areas
steep slopes
Radius of flight and Farms with crops
R pollination Nesting habitats of insects
foraging habitat requiring pollination
Nesting habitats of
R pest control Foraging habitat Crop land
predators
R stream water Surface water bodies, Residential or
Water catchments
purification wetlands recreational areas
Viewsheds (areas which
C appreciated Line of sight, open Settlements and
can be seen from a
scenery country touristic infrastructure
particular site)
C recreation Surface water bodies, Road and path network
Touristic lodging units
activities mountains, wood between SPA and SBA
* Type of service: P provisioning services, R regulating services, H habitat services,

C cultural services

2. an analysis of the human usage patterns flood hazards) or to unsustainable resource
also regarding their internal structure, harvest rates (see above). Moreover, limit-
for example, through landscape metrics ed or widely demanded resources require
and clear rules for accessing them in order to
3. the consideration of the conditions re- avoid free-rider effects (benefiting from
garding location and neighbourhood a service without contributing to it) and
according to the respective processes. misinvestments. The type of access (pri-
vate, common or public) to a resource and
The comparison and the positional relations the possibility of excluding people from
of the service-providing areas to the associat- such access determine the marketability or
ed service-benefiting and service-connecting non-marketability of the ES.
areas form another focal point of the spatial
investigation. The characteristics of the ser- Even if a service connecting area does not
vice-providing areas are primarily founded exist separately because service-provid-
on the natural sciences, since they relate to ing and service-benefiting areas overlap,
the beneficial natural resources and - if ap- an analysis of the connection properties is
plicable - to those processes which ensure useful, since horizontal transfer processes
their regeneration. Furthermore, the anal- are influenced by landscape characteristics.
ysis needs to examine whether investments If there is an interstitial space between the
(protection or management measures) are service-providing and the service-benefiting
necessary in order to preserve the service area, this connecting space first needs to be
supply capacity. If so, the kind and frequen- determined more closely, which can at times
cy of the maintenance measures should be be difficult. This can be modelled for exam-
determined and the necessary cultivation ple using the transport and transformation
rules should be known. If the natural capital paths of substances, energy, biota and possi-
is reducible (by consumption), the natural bly also information.
capacity to regenerate has to be determined
in order to adapt the consumption to the
regeneration rate if a sustainable resource Spatial units as the basis of
management is to be achieved.
ecosystem services assessments
The characterisation of the service-bene-
fiting areas also includes further analysis Depending on the type of the ecosystem
from the social sciences. Especially, users service that is being assessed, very different
demands have also to be incorporated into spatial units can be considered for service
analysis of SBAs. Depending on the area providing, benefiting and connecting areas
of investigation, the demands, preferenc- (Table 2). Moreover, certain actors whose
es and values of the benefiting population actions significantly contribute to the ben-
groups represent indicators for the demand efit may participate in the service provision
for the ES. The size of a population group or the transfer of benefits. Stimulating their
is an important basis for determining and economic interest (remunerating instead of
assessing the service. However, whether disadvantaging them) is an essential goal of
threshold values should or must be defined the ES approach.
is also crucial for the assessment. This can
be the case, for example, with respect to Examples of different types of spatial units
people endangered by natural disasters (e.g. for capturing and assessing individual eco-
restriction of construction areas because of system services are:
Chapter 5 163
Table 2. Example for the suitability of landscape units for designation of provision, benefiting and con-
necting areas.
Nature and origin of the service Spatial unit

Generated by specific species Suitable habitats
Based on biophysical resources Natural regions
Depending on specific landscape mosaic Spatial unit with comparable spatial features
Generated by an abiotic process Area of influence of this process
Dependent on specific land management practices Management units
Rooted in history and culture Units of the historic cultural landscape
Hydrologic services Water catchment areas
Demand for ecosystem services by people Administrative units
a. Single surfaces (patches), landscape el- Conclusions

ements such as arable field sections or
forests provide the spatial basis of refer- A decided advantage of a spatial-structur-
ence most frequently used for the over- al approach is that it makes it possible to
all assessment. understand ES beneficiaries and flows. As
b. Administrative units are useful if data soon as it is possible to determine the ben-
are analysed which have such units as a eficiary of a service, the benefit of such a
reference basis, such as socio-economic service can also be identified. This especial-
data or legal framework conditions. ly applies when the provision and the use
c. Water catchment areas are typical mor- of such services do not spatially overlap.
phological units which can be delimited Only this knowledge makes it possible to
well using GIS on the basis of a digi- design incentive systems and fair payment
tal elevation model (see Chapter 3.4). for the providers when they deliver this ser-
They therefore represent the common vice (see Chapters 7.2 and 7.3). This is also
reference units for hydrologic services. the prerequisite for ES availability in the
d. Natural units should be drawn upon if long term.
natural properties such as soil condi-
tions, surface forms, climate, geology or
vegetation mainly determine a service. Further Reading
e. Landscape units, delimited not only ac-
cording to natural conditions but also Bagstad KJ, Villa F, Batker D, Harrison-Cox
according to land use, are usable for J, Voigt B, Johnson GW (2014) From
most services, especially for site-scale theoretical to actual ecosystem services:
assessment of ES. These units serve as Mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows
a reference basis for assessing different in ecosystem service assessments. Ecology
aspects of diversity, for determining the and Society 19(2): 64.
spatial heterogeneity and as a spatial
framework for practical management.

Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe RU (2012) Grunewald K, Bastian O (Eds) (2015) Ecosys-
Space and time aspects of ecosystem ser- tem Services. Concept, Methods and Case
vices, using the example of the EU Water Studies. Berlin, 312 pp.
Framework Directive. International Jour-
nal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Ser- Syrbe RU, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators
vices & Management: 1-12. for the assessment of ecosystem services:
Providing, benefiting and connecting areas
Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Mller and landscape metrics. Ecological Indica-
F (2014) Ecosystem Service Potentials, tors 21: 80-88.
Flows and Demands - Concepts for Spa-
tial Localisation, Indication and Quanti-
fication. Landscape online 34: 1-32.
Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defin-

ing and classifying ecosystem services for
decision making. Ecological Economics 68
(3): 643-653.
Chapter 5 165
5.3. When to map?
Carlos Guerra, Rob Alkemade & Joachim Maes
Setting the scene
Mapping ecosystem services (ES) is often seen does not consider that specific ES are often
as a static three-dimensional problem where supplied in different moments in time (e.g.
space (x, y) and the value of a given ecosystem pollination, food production and flood reg-
service (z) are referred as the main factors of ulation) and generate benefits that can be
analysis. A wide group of examples that fol- equally temporally displaced (e.g. in flood
low this approach populate current scientific regulation there is a lag of time between the
papers, books and technical reports. The is- accumulated decrease of runoff [superficial
sue with these assessments is that they often water flow] by percolation and the actual
consider that the value of a given ecosystem reduction of the downstream flood plain).
service in a particular place is (a) stable in time This results from the fact that ecological pro-
or (b) it already encapsulates the effects of the cesses/cycles vary through time and, because
underlying ecological processes/cycles. most ES (namely, production and regulating
services) depend on specific ecological pro-
Under a spatial notation (x, y, z), ecosystem cesses/cycles, ecosystem service supply is also
service supply is represented by a magnitude, dynamic. These dynamics can be illustrated
a spatial distribution or configuration and an by focussing on a specific ecosystem service
extent. Although perceptive, this approach provider, e.g. a deciduous tree (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Example of a within-year ecosystem service supply cycle considering a deciduous tree as the
focus of ecosystem service supply.

From January to December, the life cycle example, in flood protection, it is possi-
of a deciduous tree allows for the supply ble to focus on hourly variations (if a peak
of a relatively large number of ES. Start- flood is considered and the capacity of veg-
ing in spring, this single tree represents an etation to reduce runoff velocity is stud-
important support for bird nesting contrib- ied), monthly variations (if the purpose is
uting to habitat quality while, at the same to identify hotspots of ecosystem service
time through photosynthetic processes, it supply), or yearly variations which can be
captures carbon and other atmospheric pol- projected through centuries (if the purpose
lutants, thus improving local air quality. As is to study probability of flood events or
time passes, it gives shade for picnics in the projection of trends).
summer but it also promotes heat absorp-
tion and reduces the albedo effect which Another dimension of complexity is also the
helps to reduce heat waves in cities or the significant mismatch between the potential
probability of fires in forests. At the end of for ecosystem service supply and the actual
the summer, rain season starts and the same ecosystem service supply. This mismatch is
tree contributes to control soil erosion by re- also linked to temporal issues.
ducing the erosivity power of precipitation.
In the autumn, the leaves fall contributing to Consider soil protection as a regulating eco-
local soil fertility. The landscape changes to system service. In this context, vegetation
autumn colours which inspire poets, paint- cover protects soils from being eroded. If
ers and mountaineers. When winter arrives, vegetation is removed, for instance by har-
the same tree that in summer absorbed heat, vesting crops, there is an enhanced erosion
now lets the solar radiation pass and thus risk. If we evaluate the temporal dynamics
improves local heat regulation. When isolat- of vegetation cover (here representing the
ed, this deciduous tree has a rather narrow potential to supply soil erosion prevention)
potential to supply all of these ES but, when and the actual ecosystem service supply
part of a community (e.g. integrated in a de- (avoided erosion), these variables have two
ciduous forest), this potential is multiplied very different temporal distributions result-
and new ES can emerge. ing in a supply and demand mismatch.
This example serves to show the dynamics As for the ecosystem service supply, the
and complementarity of ecosystem service demand for ES is also dynamic. It usually
supply through time. It also highlights the correlates with the cycles of environmental
need to include temporal variations in the impact (in the case of regulating services),
assessment of ES, as the likelihood of mis- production cycles (e.g. the requirement
representing ecosystem service supply in for pollination services according to crop
static assessments is considerable. In fact, cycles), specific consumer demands (e.g.
time dependency of ES correspond to a the increase in codfish or turkey demand
very broad and complex issue that includes during the Christmas period), recreation
various time scales, ranging from very short cycles (e.g. the increase in the demand for
timescales (within a day or a year) to sev- hiking areas during the summer time),
eral years, decades or centuries depending amongst others. The potential differenc-
on the ecosystem service under assessment. es between the dynamics of demand and
Properly selecting the scale of assessment supply of ES are among the drivers for
is fundamental and it mainly depends on over-exploitation of ecosystems making
the objectives of the assessment and the the evaluation of temporal dynamics even
ecological cycle/process under study. For more significant.
Chapter 5 167
Ecosystem service dynamics To effectively assess ecosystem service supply,
it is essential to implement methodological
Assessing ecosystem service potential, sup- approaches that consider indicators that vary
ply and demand (see Chapter 5.1) requires a over time and space. Many examples of these
thorough understanding of ecological cycles approaches can be found in literature (see the
and ecosystem service mechanisms. Both of Further reading section in this chapter) and
these are dynamic and entail the recognition more recently StDMs (stochastic dynamic
that an ecosystem service is dependent on methodologies) are being used to highlight
multiple simultaneously occurring processes the influence of specific land management
with different (often competing) objectives strategies on the ecosystem condition and the
and that ecosystem service supply is secured related ecosystem service supply.
by different ecosystem service providers with
their own specific ecological cycles, targets Independently of the chosen method, there
and trends. are three major dimensions to be considered
when implementing a dynamic assessment
This recognition is critical when assessing of ecosystem service supply: i) the signifi-
ecosystem service supply but it also depends cant temporal amplitude of the underlying
on the objectives of the assessment and on ecological cycles; ii) co-dependency process-
the research question that is being addressed. es and their impact on the provision of mul-
Within a static approach, the indicators of tiple ES; and iii) seasonality.
ecosystem service supply portray a snapshot
(an image of a single moment in time). These Ecological processes develop within a wide
indicators often neglect the existence of eco- range of temporal cycles from short- to
logical or environmental cycles and dynamics long-term. Therefore, correctly assessing ES
or assume that these are already encompassed strongly depends on identifying the relevant
within the results obtained. Although these temporal amplitude that allows the capture
indicators can eventually be used as state or of the full extent of ecosystem service supply.
impact indicators they often lack the ability Another aspect for consideration is the de-
to produce a good representation of ecosys- termination of the relevant temporal ampli-
tem service supply that is suitable for policy tude to identify the effect of specific drivers
support, land management assessments or on ecosystem service supply. In some cases,
other forms of decision-making. within the same ecological process, one has
to look at both the short- and long-term cy-
One of the reasons for this, is the inability cles in order to understand the contribution
of static indicators to capture the influence of ecosystem service supply to society and the
of particular management practices on the influence of different drivers. Good examples
overall ecosystem service supply. Or at least come from assessing the contribution of ES
this is often only true when using long cy- to mitigate a particular flood event versus de-
cles and when a direct relation between eco- termining the mitigation effect in the case of
system service supply and the accumulated extreme, long-term, events (e.g. a 0.01 prob-
effects of specific impacts (e.g. the effect of ability event such as a 100-year flood).
intensive ploughing on soil erosion) is effec-
tively established. In this example, a static At the same time, many ecological process-
impact prevention indicator can be used to es have multiple co-dependency relation-
illustrate the spatial distribution of ecosys- ships between themselves. This dependency
tem service supply but it gives little informa- is often determined by the cycle of one or
tion regarding the underlying process. more ecosystem components and it is also

reflected in ecosystem service supply. For of soil sedimentation in wetlands) but can
example, both flood regulation and soil ero- also allow determination of the influence
sion prevention depend on the processes by of specific drivers in relation to specific
which water percolates into the soil and is ecological functions. Here lies the value of
retained by vegetation. Although using dif- trend analysis, the contribution for under-
ferent processes and interactions, vegetation standing the past and current development
plays a significant role in the supply of these pathways in order to create knowledge
two different ecosystem services. As in this about the future of ecosystems.
example, these co-dependence effects often
do not necessarily happen at the same time Current assessments of ES do not always fa-
and are therefore often overlooked by eco- vour the use of time series. This often comes
system service supply analysis. from data limitations regarding the use and
availability of contemporary datasets for all
As an example, crop yield depends strong- system components but also and more im-
ly on water (from infiltration) and nutrient portantly, the availability of temporal datasets
availability (e.g. from nitrification), but the with an amplitude and a frequency that is rele-
service supply from these three services oc- vant for the processes under study. A common
curs and has to be quantified at different limitation is related to the availability of com-
moments in time. parable time series of soil datasets or the exis-
tence and availability of biodiversity data with
Related to this is the seasonality of ecosys- relevant thematic, temporal and spatial extent.
tem service supply and its related benefits.
Previously illustrated in Figure 1, the in- Nonetheless, the use of trend analysis corre-
tensity and frequency of ecosystem service sponds to one of the most valuable tools to
supply depends strongly on the seasonali- identify the determinants of change. Exam-
ty of the ecological processes underlying a ples of this can be seen through literature (see
given ecosystem. Further reading for references) using long
time series to illustrate the effects of policies,
All of these different aspects contribute to land management, forest fires, amongst oth-
undermine ecosystem service supply quan- ers. Figure 2 presents an illustration of a time
tification and its analysis. When assessing series of land cover and land use change for
disturbance or recovery dynamics, an as- a montado landscape in the South of Portu-
sessment of ecosystem service supply should gal from which it is possible to calculate long
consider at least one or more of these differ- term trends. Such data is of critical impor-
ent aspects in order to produce consistent tance for understanding changes in ES over
results and to enable the illustration of spe- time as a result of changes in management
cific dynamics of change. and policy implementation.
Trend analysis Scenario analysis
Ecosystems evolve over time as they are af- At the same time, trend analysis also presents
fected by and react to different human and a valuable opportunity to better design and
environmental drivers of change. This evo- describe future scenarios of ecosystem devel-
lution can result in cumulative effects for opment. These scenarios are plausible repre-
the ecosystem (e.g. the cumulative effect sentations of possible future states for one or
Chapter 5 169
Land use change
Artificial Arable land and permanent Agro-forestry Permanent Forest areas Water surfaces
surfaces crops areas pastures
Land cover change
Artificial Irrigated arable land Non-irrigated arable Olive groves Orchards Agro-forestry areas with
surfaces land >50% of tree cover
Agro-forestry areas with 30- Agro-forestry areas with 30- Agro-forestry areas with Agro-forestry areas with
50% of tree cover and >50% 50% of tree cover and <50% <30% of tree cover and >50% <30% of tree cover and
of shrubs of shrubs of shrubs <50% of shrubs
Permanent pastures Mixed forest Production forest Shrubs and/or herbaceous vegetation Water bodies
associations
1951 1969 1986 1995 2004 2012

time
Figure 2. Example of land use and land cover change over a period of 61 years in a montado area in the
South of Portugal.
more components of a system, or as alterna- a specific subject and to analyse the drivers
tive policy or management options intended of change that are likely to be involved in
to alter the future state of these components. the foreseen tendencies. This phase results in
Scenario analysis in ecosystem assessments, a few plausible scenarios. A second phase is
policy support and decision-making aims at to translate these scenarios quantitatively or
visualising future impacts on biodiversity and qualitatively into variables that describe the
ES of global, regional or local changes such major drivers of change, such as economic
as land use change, invasive alien species, development or demography. These driv-
over-exploitation, climate change and pollu- ers of change are then the input for models
tion. Scenario analysis also provides decision that relate these changes to environmental
support for developing adaptive management change, such as land use change or climate
strategies and exploring the implications of al- change, and on biodiversity and ES. A third
ternative social-ecological development path- phase starts with analysing the outcomes of
ways and policy options. At the same time, these models and formulate policy options
scenario analysis and scenario planning have to avoid undesired developments in key
been successfully applied in many local stud- variables of biodiversity and ES.
ies, in national assessment and for regional
and global assessments (Chapter 5.7.3). Models used in scenario analysis are typi-
cally able to describe dynamic relationships
Generally, scenario analysis includes three amongst drivers, biodiversity and ES. Often
major phases. The initial step is to define the a wide range of models is needed to perform
major tendencies for a specific region or for an adequate scenario analysis. Not only

models that quantify changes of ES based cases, if any modelling approach is to be
on changes of land use are needed, but also implemented, these mismatches cannot be
models that drive these land use changes, simply overcome and often error propaga-
such as economic and demographic models. tion assessments should be implemented to
In addition, hydrological and other biophys- minimise unwanted effects.
ical models in combination with biodiversi-
ty interactions are required if more complex Independently of the problems or potential
issues are under consideration. caveats related to particular datasets, the tem-
poral resolution (i.e. the amplitude and fre-
New approaches for scenario analysis are pro- quency of data collection) of a given dataset is
posed and applied, where stakeholders and an important determining factor for dataset
local knowledge holders are increasingly in- selection in trend analysis. Therefore, future
volved. Another recent development in mod- ecosystem service supply studies should in-
elling for scenario analysis is to understand clude the effects of data quality on their re-
the feed-back loops from changing ES provi- sults as it can produce important biases in the
sion to a change in economic development. overall interpretation and decision-making
support.
Issues with data quality for

dynamic assessments Further reading
Ecological modelling and particularly pro- Bateman IJ, Harwood AR, Mace GM, et al.
cess-based ecological modelling, depend on (2013) Bringing ecosystem services into
a vast array of ecological, biophysical and economic decision-making: land use in the
anthropogenic datasets to generate relevant United Kingdom. Science (80) 341: 45-50.
results. Although in recent years, earth ob-
servation systems have evolved to the point Guerra C, Metzger MJ, Maes J, Pinto-Cor-
of delivering continuous (temporally and reia T (2016) Policy impacts on regulating
spatially) data for particular ecosystem com- ecosystem services: looking at the implica-
ponents (e.g. forest change and extent, tree tions of 60 years of landscape change on
density, elevation, human density, economic soil erosion prevention in a Mediterranean
characteristics, precipitation, etc.), many of silvo-pastoral system. Landscape Ecology.
these lack the ability to be compared or used doi: 10.1007/s10980-015-0241-1.
in a modelling environment due to different
resolutions and/or methods/sensors. Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Mller F (2013)
Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at
Additionally, there is a clear mismatch the local scale using data of varying spatial
between the publication date of the vari- and temporal resolution. Ecosystem Services
ables to be used in a given assessment (e.g. 4: 47-59. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.001.
LUCAS soil data from 2009) and the ref-
erence date for the assessment itself (for Koch EW, Barbier EB, Silliman BR et al.
example using vegetation data from 2016 (2009) Non-linearity in ecosystem services:
to assess the effect of soil erosion preven- temporal and spatial variability in coastal
tion without considering the 7 years dif- protection. Frontiers in Ecology and Envi-
ference between these datasets). In several ronment 7: 29-37. doi: 10.1890/080126.
Chapter 5 171
Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J et al. (2009) Leadley P, Alkemade R, Acosta-Michlik
Modelling multiple ecosystem services, LA, Akakaya HR, Brotons L, Cheung
biodiversity conservation, commodity pro- WWL, Christensen V, Allam Harhash
duction and tradeoffs at landscape scales. K, Kabubo-Mariara J, Lundquist C,
Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 7: Obersteiner M, Pereira HM, Peterson G,
4-11. doi: 10.1890/080023. Pichs-Madruga R, Ravindranath N, Ron-
dinini C, Wintle BA (Eds.) Secretariat of
IPBES (2016) Methodological assessment of the Intergovernmental Platform for Bio-
scenarios and models of biodiversity and diversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn,
ecosystem services, Ferrier S, Ninan KN, Germany.

5.4. Why to map?
Sander Jacobs, Wim Verheyden & Nicolas Dendoncker
Meaningful mapping
Maps for ecosystem services (ES) are made for this for two specific examples concerning re-
a broad set of purposes. These include advo- gional assessment and priority setting.
cacy (awareness raising, justification, decision
support), ecosystem assessment, priority set- Parsimony
ting, instrument design, ecosystem account-

ing, economic liability and scientific spatial
analysis. Figure 1 illustrates the theoretical
relationship between mapping purposes and
quality requirements. Requirements concern
notably spatial and temporal resolution, sci- MAP REQUIREMENTS
entific accuracy and reliability and ease of RELIABILITY

ACCURACY
RESOLUTION
understanding. Additional methodological CLARITY
Risk
requirements not represented in Figure 1 are
the extent of the mapping exercise, the repeat-
ability, the theme of the mapping (e.g. supply,
demand, conflict maps etc.) and basics of car-
tography and mapping semantics (see chap-
ters 3.1 and 3.3). These vary depending on
the specific context of the mapping exercise
(e.g. community development versus nation-
al assessment, see Figure 1).
Figure 1 can be interpreted across purposes Figure 1. Ecosystem services mapping

for one specific requirement or across re- requirements according to purpose.
quirements for one specific purpose. For ex-
ample, the expected clarity of a map meant
for research use is lower than that aimed at Good enough is just perfect
policy advocacy. On the other hand, maps
used by research should be highly reliable
while those used for awareness raising (ad- Mapping quality requirements are bound
vocacy) do not require such high reliability. by resource availability and by the risk of
decisions based on them. The upper bound-
Many current mapping applications focus ary of requirements is set by the principle
on quantitative valuation and accounting. of parsimony, stating that among two good
Typically, these maps are neither meant to be solutions, the simplest is always best. This
understood by a broad range of stakeholders highlights the need for using the least re-
nor do they necessarily require a high spa- sources or assumptions necessary to solve
tial resolution, but they should be highly a problem. In other words, one should not
accurate and reliable. This chapter illustrates spend excessive (project) time and/or (pub-
Chapter 5 173
lic) money to map at a greater level of detail purpose (see Figure 1). This information can
than necessary. For example, land use based be quantitative and qualitative and is rarely
maps (see Chapter 5.6), that can be pro- spatially explicit. Knowing how maps will be
duced repeatedly at relatively low costs (in combined with these non-spatial data and
terms of time and money) are sufficiently used in a specific context is essential for the
adequate for most purposes, while more reli- mapping process. We illustrate this below by
able data can sometimes only be obtained at showing how maps are used as part of the
excessively high cost, or involving complex diverse information for two common eco-
assumptions. Moreover, the time spent on a system service questions: a land use priority
specific map should be traded off against the setting in a local context and a regional eco-
urgency of the purpose. system assessment.
The lower limit of map quality requirements

is determined by the societal impact of the The modest mapper
decisions based on the mapping. Uncertain-
ty (or absence of information on uncertain- In this final section, we provide guidelines
ty) translates in a societal risk for adverse for critical map-makers to engage in effec-
outcomes if decisions are based on wrong tive ES mapping. While most of these will
data. Public or policy advocacy for the im- seem evident, they are rarely applied in prac-
portance of ES does not require highly ac- tice. Following these guidelines will improve
curate or detailed maps. However, commu- effectiveness of ecosystem service maps to
nication maps cannot be used for purposes impact actual decision-making and contrib-
which have more stringent requirements, ute to scientific advance.
such as ecosystem accounting or economic
liability: the risk for unfair or undesired out- Clearly define the purpose for which
comes is too high or unknown. mapping is needed. Plenty of maps are
created without clear purpose and later
This brings us to the issue of the safe oper- applied for the wrong purpose.
ating space for each type of map. Maps with Determine the minimum reliability, ac-
lower requirements cannot be used for pur- curacy, resolution and clarity required.
poses which have higher requirements. On The risk for undesired outcomes grows
Figure 1, this goes both ways: for instance, if maps are used for higher impact de-
maps made for scientific purposes need sim- cisions.
plification to be clear enough for priority Assess the resources (time and money)
setting, assessment or advocacy, while as- needed to meet these requirements.
sessment maps have to be detailed further to Highly expensive, detailed or complex
obtain the accuracy and reliability required maps are not necessarily more effective.
for some scientific purposes. Delineate the safe operating space of your
maps. The map-maker, being aware of
the power and limitations of maps, bears
Maps are means, not ends responsibility to caution against wrong or
risky application (see Chapter 6.4).
Target the form and communication of
Maps are instrumental tools that are com- maps fitted to the process they are used
bined with other types of data and contex- in. Maps are essential for many processes,
tual information in order to achieve a certain but project purposes are never just maps.

Box 1. Local example priority setting for land consolidation to
optimise ES provision
ES mapping at the local scale is often used to set priorities and guide decision-making to optimise ES
provision. This example describes how ecosystem service maps were combined with biophysical models
and valuation data to serve a participatory land-consolidation plan for three municipalities in Wallonia,
Belgium. It is co-constructed by the administrations, scientists and local stakeholders. The projects ob-
jective is to design a replicable methodology, based on hands-on experience in a first case study. Figure2
describes the methodological framework further.
Figure 2. Methodological framework for integrated valuation of ES to set priorities for land
consolidation in Wallonia: Maps are central, necessary parts of a yet broader process (from Baptist
et al. 2016).
After selecting a list of locally relevant ES and, based on a typology of ecosystems, biophysical assess-
ment and social valuation are carried out. The biophysical assessment includes mapping and quantifica-
tion of selected ES based on indicators obtained from a hydrological model and scenario development
of potential ecosystem service supply. Social analysis comprises stakeholder analysis, societal valuation
according to these stakeholders, participatory validation of the biophysically mapped ES and partici-
patory mapping of ecosystem service demand. These supply and demand maps are then used to guide
participatory comparison of land-consolidation actions. For instance, maps of biophysical indicators
were compared with demand maps to highlight locations for which there is potential improvement
of supply. Technical experts of land consolidation then suggest potential measures (e.g. installation of
new hedgerows, creation of new water retention basins, new flower strips along a walkway etc.) to be
implemented in the final land consolidation plan. This example clearly demonstrates that maps are used
as a central means in combination with various other data, methods and actions, to achieve a broader
objective shared by various stakeholders and lead to improved decision-making.
Chapter 5 175
Box 2. Regional example - regional ecosystem assessment
National and regional ecosystem service assessments seek to assess the state and trends of ES in their re-
gion, with the purpose of monitoring their evolution and informing policies. The state of ES comprises
information on the demand, the supply, the balance between demand and supply, the use of ES, eco-
system functions underpinning them, drivers of change, impacts on human well-being and governance.
Spatial data - also in regions with high data-density - are not available for all aspects of all services and
for some aspects the spatial dimension is even irrelevant.
Figure 3. Proportion of spatially explicit (distribution available on Flanders scale) data throughout
the ecosystem service chapters (left panel) and per data type (right panel).
The Flanders regional assessment has assessed demand, supply, balance between these two and interac-
tions between use of services. These statements were based on a detailed review of all data and informa-
tion in 16 ecosystem service chapters to obtain one single concise table on the state of ES with known
reliability. Despite the focus of the chapters on maps, the data underpinning this assessment are only
partly spatially explicit and range over different data types which are synthesised in key findings (Figure
3). Although the separate maps can be used to answer specific questions, the context of a regional as-
sessment requires synthesising maps into short conclusive statements or non-spatially explicit indicators
for policy communication. Therefore, the statements derived from the 78 maps to inform the regional
state assessment were verified and reviewed by all the involved map-makers.
In conclusion, maps which are integrated in communication, decisions or even research will be reduced
to quantitative or qualitative findings and combined with other data and information to obtain final
outcomes. Mapping will be more effective when engaging in the specific context, by targeting and
communicating the maps to the specific purpose and by tuning maps to the diverse information they
are combined with.
In many cases, maps are a starting point fectively apply maps, the ES map-maker
for an open discussion about what the needs to involve:
maps need to indicate and about the as- Interdisciplinary engagement: learn
sumptions made in the underlying mod- from existing practices and cooperate
els. Using maps top-down as objective with other research fields, such as envi-
data often discards nuanced reality of a ronmental decision support, communi-
local context and is counterproductive in cation science, participatory processes,
most real-life decision processes. To ef- etc. to avoid classic pitfalls.

Trans-disciplinary engagement: consid- Natural capital and ecosystem services in-
er the use of co-design approaches from forming decisions: From promise to prac-
the very start. Nowadays, stakeholder tice. Proceedings of the National Academy
involvement is an essential indicator for of Sciences 112(24): 7348-7355.
end-user satisfaction and final uptake of
the developed maps and the only reality Hauck J, Grg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamki O,
check the ES-map-maker has. Maes J, Wittmer H, Jax K (2013) Maps
Ecosystem service mapping can be highly and challenges of ecosystem service maps
rewarding in terms of impact on real-world at different levels of decision making. Eco-
decision-making. This requires leaving the system Services 4, 25-32. doi:10.1016/j.
comfort zone of single disciplines and clear ecoser.2012.11.003.
data layers and finding the right balance
between scientific demands, user demands, Jacobs S, Dendoncker N, Keune H (Eds.)
functionality and available resources. for ev- (2013) Ecosystem Services: Global Issues,
ery mapping project again. Local Practices, Elsevier, New York.
Jacobs S, Spanhove T, De Smet L, Van Daele,

Further reading T, Van Reeth W, Van Gossum P, Stevens M,
Schneiders A, Panis J, Demolder H, Mi-
chels H, Thoonen M, Simoens I, Peymen
Baptist F, Degr A, Grizard S, Maebe L, Pi- J (2016) The ecosystem service assessment
part N, Renglet J, Sohier C, Dufrne M, challenge: Reflections from Flanders-REA.
Dendoncker N (2016) Elaboration dune Ecological Indicators 61: 715-727.
mthodologie dvaluation des incidences doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.023.
sur lenvironnement de lamnagement
foncier sappuyant sur la notion des ser- McIntosh BS, Ascough JC, Twery M, Chewe
vices cosystmiques. Rapport gnral. Di- J, Elmahdi A, Haase D, Harou JJ, Hepting
rection Gnrale Oprationnelle de lAg- D, Cuddy S, Jakeman AJ, Chen S, Kassa-
riculture, des Ressources Naturelles et de hun A, Lautenbach S, Matthews K, Mer-
lEnvironnement, 187 pp. ritt W, Quinnm NWT, Rodriguez-Roda I,
Sieber S, Stavenga M, Sulis A, Ticehurst
Gmez-Baggethun E, Barton DN (2013) J, Volk M, Wrobel M, van Delden H,
Classifying and valuing ecosystem services El-Sawah S, Rizzoli A, Voinov A (2011)
for urban planning. Ecological Economics Environmental decision support systems
86: 235245. (EDSS) development - Challenges and
best practices. Environmental Modelling
Guerry AD, Polasky S, Lubchenco J, Chap- & Software 26: 1389-1402.
lin-Kramer R, Daily GC, Griffin R, Ruck-
elshaus M, Bateman IJ, Duraiappah A, Pavlovskaya M (2006) Theorising with GIS:
Elmqvist T, Feldman MW, Folke C, Hoek- a tool for critical geographies? Envi-
stra J, Kareiva PM, Keeler BL, Li S, McK- ronmental Planning A 38: 2003-2020.
enzie E, Ouyang Z, Reyers B, Ricketts doi:10.1068/a37326.
TH, Rockstrm J, Tallis H, Vira B (2015)
Chapter 5 177
5.5. Mapping specific ecosystem
services
Joachim Maes
This chapter is one of the core chapters of types, land use/land cover types or other
this book. It contains guidance and exam- spatial units such as watersheds or cadastral
ples of how to map provisioning, regulating data to obtain mapped values.
and cultural ecosystem services (ES). These
three categories constitute a commonly used Regulating ES (see Chapter 5.5.1) are of-
classification for ES (see Chapter 2.4) and ten mapped by using biophysical models
thus for ES mapping. (e.g., ecosystem models, species distribu-
tion models, water and air quality models;
Different methods and models are used see Chapter 4.4). These models simulate the
to map specific ES as indicators, used to fate and transport of, for example, carbon,
quantify these three categories of ES, dif- nitrogen, water or pollutants through the
fer remarkably. Provisioning ES are often ecosystems and the environment. The eco-
quantified based on indicators for their ac- logical processes which are modelled can be
tual use/ES flow or demand (see Chapter used to infer values for regulating and main-
5.1) or their value. In contrast, assessment tenance ES. Researchers mostly map poten-
of regulating ES is usually based on supply tial or flow of regulating ES (see Chapter
indicators, such as the different ecological 5.1). Demand for regulating ES is usually
processes which are the basis of ecosystem not mapped since it is conceptually less un-
regulation or avoided events (e.g. erosion derstood (see Chapter 6.2).
or floods) and related hazards. Indicators
for cultural ES have been mostly limited to As already indicated, assessments of cultural
recreation and (eco-)tourism for which both ES (see Chapter 5.3.3), to date, are mostly
supply (popular ecosystems to visit) and delimited to recreation and tourism. Actual
mand (visitor numbers) are quantified. use/ES flow needs to be mapped based on
surveys, national accounts and data collec-
The use of provisioning ES involves the ex- tion (e.g. national park visitor statistics or
traction of a product from the ecosystem entrance fees). These data can be combined
(e.g. harvested biomass in tonne per ha per with spatial data in order to map and assess
year; see Chapter 5.5.2). Mapping provi- the service and to provide detailed informa-
sioning ES therefore relies often on data tion on how ecosystems contribute to recre-
from statistical offices which collect statis- ation and tourism.
tics of water consumption, crop and timber
harvests, fishery yields and livestock data. The remainder of this chapter goes into more
Sometimes these data are geo-referenced detail for each of these. Each ES categories
and are thus available as geospatial data lay- section contains a representative selection of
ers. If not available, statistical data can be ES for which mapping techniques and meth-
spatially allocated over different ecosystem ods are illustrated at various spatial scales.

5.5.1. Mapping regulating
ecosystem services
Joachim Maes, Chiara Polce, Grazia Zulian, Ine
Vandecasteele, Carolina Perpia, Ins Mar Rivero,
Carlos Guerra, Sara Vallecillo, Pilar Vizcaino &
Roland Hiederer
Introduction
Ecosystems regulate our environment by patches of forest, keep the soils fixed and thus
controlling or modifying the stocks and avoid erosion. To provide the service, two
flows of material and energy that make up conditions need to be met. First, there needs
our ambient environment. Ecosystems help to be a demand for soil protection. Typically
provide clean air and water by removing bare croplands on slopes are prone to erosion
pollutants. They regulate the global and lo- so farmers would benefit from enhanced ca-
cal climate through evapo-transpiration or pacity of the ecosystem to protect soils. Sec-
simply by providing shade. They maintain ond, the right ecosystems need to be present
habitats for insects and birds which support to provide the service wherever and whenever
the production of crops or which suppress the service is needed.
pests and diseases. They store carbon, buf-
fer flows of water or maintain the fertility of Understanding the different functions that
soils. All these services are not directly con- underpin the delivery of regulating ES is
sumed as goods by people but regulating ES thus the first step in a mapping process. In
provide many direct benefits by keeping a broad terms, ecosystems deliver regulating
safe and habitable environment, supporting services by storing, capturing, absorbing or
food production systems or processing and immobilising material such as carbon, wa-
removing waste and pollution. ter or pollutants, by maintaining or creating
suitable conditions for species that provide
Before mapping, it is important to under- regulating services (e.g. pollination, pest
stand first which ecosystem processes are at control, or soil quality regulation), or by
the basis of regulating ES and what the spatial buffering or mediating material and energy
characteristics are (scale and direction of dif- stocks and flows (regulation of waste and
ferent flows of material and energy). Further- toxics, regulation of the atmosphere, water
more, it is crucial to consider the difference or soil erosion).
between mapping capacity and mapping flow
or use (Chapter 5.1). Actual use of a regu- The remainder of this chapter presents de-
lating service happens when there is a detailed examples of how different regulating
mand for it. Consider the protection of soils and maintenance ES can be mapped. We
from erosion. Soil erosion in cropland occurs frame ES mapping using the ES cascade
when wind or water remove fertile soils (top- model (see Chapter 2.3) and classify maps
soil). Vegetation, in particular grasslands and depending on whether they represent eco-
Chapter 5 179
system processes, functions (potential sup- System (GIS). Examples of spatial layers rel-
ply), use or demand. The focus is on the evant to pollination maps are land use/land
biophysical mapping, not on mapping eco- cover, topography, distance from roads, or
nomic values. For every ecosystem service, semi-natural vegetation. The choice of layers
we identify each time which underpinning largely depends on which data are available
functions can be mapped but we also de- and on knowledge about the ecological traits
scribe how to map actual use and demand. of the pollinator species. Habitat suitability
maps, based on literature reviews and expert
Although this chapter does not present all opinions, involve assigning a weight to each
methods available for mapping, it gives the factor and then a suitability score to each
reader a flavour on how to map certain reg- class within a factor. Suitability scores, com-
ulating ES. Several other chapters provide bined with an estimated foraging distance,
other useful ways to map ES, for example, are then combined to form a single (habitat)
based on Bayesian statistics (Chapter 4.5) suitability map. Habitat suitability maps de-
or matrix models (Chapter 5.6.4). The work rived from empirical or statistical techniques
presented here falls largely under the catego- require species occurrence data which can
ry of tier 3 maps (see Chapter 5.6.1). Such be either presence/absence or presence-on-
ecosystem service maps are based on models ly records. The suitability is then derived
which are spatially resolved. by relating species occurrences to habitat
factors by means of the chosen technique.
Examples are regression methods, machine
Crop pollination learning techniques and Bayesian statistics.
Different packages and stand-alone software
exist to implement these techniques; exam-
Different ecosystems, particularly forest ples include packages available within the
edges, flower rich grasslands or riparian ar- software R, or stand-alone modelling tools
eas, offer suitable habitats for wild pollinator such as Maxent or DIVA-GIS. The results
insects such as solitary or honey bees, bum- of these models are then imported to GIS
blebees or butterflies. As soon as these in- software to display maps of probability of
sects start foraging, the ecosystems that host species occurrence across the landscape of
these insect populations have the potential interest. Suitability maps for insect pollina-
to increase the yield of adjacent crops which tors, regardless of the approach adopted to
are dependent on insect-mediated pollina- obtain them, can be interpreted as supply
tion. Fruit, vegetables, nuts, spices and oil (potential services).
crops profit from pollination. Mapping
supply and demand of pollination services Mapping the demand requires information
therefore involves mapping the suitability of on where crops that need pollination are
ecosystems or habitats for pollinator insects, grown in combination with information
mapping flight distances between the nest on crop dependency on insect pollination.
and the crops that need pollination (which Information on the pollinator-dependency
range from a few metres to a few kilome- can be obtained through literature and ex-
tres) and mapping the occurrence of crops pert knowledge. Crop location, on the other
in need of pollination. hand, can be obtained through a variety of
resources. Examples of these resources are
Habitat suitability maps are usually based regional statistics on agricultural land and
on a number of environmental layers or- production, online databases, field samples
ganised within a Geographic Information and models (for instance when looking at fu-

ture potential crop distribution). The choice correlated with the amount of vegetation
often depends on the extent of the area (e.g. which, in turn, can be derived from re-
regional vs. national vs. global data), on the mote sensing data such as the Normalised
crop type (e.g. perennial vs. annual) and on Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). Soil
the agricultural practice (e.g. rotational agri- retention can be calculated as the differ-
culture). Mapping the use can be based on ence between a model which calculates soil
overlay of supply (i.e. the habitat suitability) loss without vegetation cover and a model
and demand (i.e. the crop distribution) or including the current land use cover pat-
based on modelling the impact on yield in tern. A case study on mapping soil protec-
the absence of pollination. tion is illustrated in Box 1.
Soil protection Climate regulation
The root network of grass, herbs, shrubs and Ecosystems regulate our climate at various
trees physically keeps soil together; thus, it levels. In and around cities, urban forests
avoids soil from being eroded by the natural provide shade during hot summer days and
physical forces water or wind and flushed by evaporating water through their leaves,
downstream to cause problems such as loss they cool down cities, thus delivering bene-
of fertile soil or siltation of watercourses. fits in terms of saved energy costs or lowered
The demand for soil erosion control services ozone production and concentration. On
is usually associated with farmland dedicat- larger spatial scales, forests, wetlands, coast-
ed to crop production on slopes. Rainfall on al systems and other ecosystems maintain
bare soils, for instance after harvesting, en- comfortable atmospheric conditions and
hances erosion. regulate climate. Yet, mapping ES which
contribute to the regulation of climate, is
Mapping soil protection is largely based often narrowed down to mapping carbon
on mapping soil erosion. Five main factors storage and carbon sequestration. Climate
contribute to soil erosion: rainfall, erod- change science and policy is evidently the
ibility or soil type, absence of vegetation, reason for this focus. Net primary produc-
slope and land management. These are tion is at the basis of this and many other ES
usually modelled using the Revised Uni- and therefore often mapped. Much useful
versal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) equa- information to map primary production is
tion. By turning on or off the impact of available through remote sensing, field ob-
vegetation or conservation practices, the servations and modelling.
contribution of ecosystems can be estimat-
ed to avoid soil erosion which is then tak- Given the increase in atmospheric carbon
en as an indicator for soil protection or soil and the consequences for climate, terrestri-
retention. This is quantified by means of al carbon pools are an important factor in
two indicators: the capacity of ecosystems the carbon balance. The terrestrial organic
to avoid soil erosion and soil retention (ac- carbon pool (soil and vegetation) is estimat-
tual ecosystem provision). The capacity or ed to be 3500 Pg C, most of which (75%)
potential of a given land cover type to pro- is stored in soil. This is almost fivefold the
vide soil protection can be mapped with a amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The
dimensionless indicator taking values be- carbon stored in the soil mainly originates
tween 0 and 1. Capacity is assumed to be from dead organic material. The main gov-
Chapter 5 181
Box 1. Mapping soil protection in Europe
An assessment of soil protection in Europe in 2010: (a) Soil retention at European scale, b) Soil reten-
tion in Central Portugal, c) Capacity to avoid soil erosion in Central Portugal and d) Structural impact
in Central Portugal. Soil retention (Es) was calculated as soil loss without vegetation cover (structural
impact, Y) minus soil loss including the current land use/cover pattern (the mitigated impact), mea-
sured in tonns ha-1 year-1.
The structural impact is the total soil erosion impact when no ecosystem service is provided. The capac-
ity of a given land cover type to provide soil protection (e) is expressed using values ranging from 0 to
1 for every mapped grid cell. To estimate the capacity, the vegetation per land cover type was computed
using the Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), the environmental zones and the snow
cover. The highest soil retention values corresponded to areas covered by forest, transitional woodland
and shrubs (semi-natural vegetation areas) and pastures.
Soil retention is also a function of structural impact (high potential erosion). Expressed differently, soil
retention only occurs where soils run the risk of being eroded. In these places, vegetation cover protects
the soil against water flows (surface runoff), reduces the structural impact and, therefore, effectively
delivers a service.
A close up is presented for the central part of Portugal (Alentejo and Centro Regions). In the Tagus
river valley, soil retention is low (light orange areas) due to a low structural impact and the dominant
land use type, mainly agriculture. High soil retention (high provision of the service, in dark blue) results
from the combination of high structural impact and high capacity to avoid soil erosion, for instance
in forested areas. In contrast, if the inherent structural impact is low, the provision of the service (soil
protection) is low as well, thus lowering the role of vegetation in soil protection.
c d

erning factors for the status of the soil or- and moist conditions favour plant decom-
ganic carbon (SOC) pool are land use/land position into soil organic matter. However,
cover and local climatic conditions. Chang- under wet conditions and high productivity
es in land use and management practices of vegetation, organic material may also ac-
can lead to imbalances in the flux between cumulate in tropical regions, such as in peat
carbon pools. Depending on environmental lands of south-east Asia. In tropical forests,
conditions, the SOC pool can act as either a the amount of carbon stored in the above-
source of atmospheric carbon or a sink, i.e. ground vegetation exceeds the carbon stored
removing carbon from the atmosphere. in the soil with the exception of peat lands.
Mapping changes to the SOC pool can be

based on the methodology of the Interna- Water regulation
tional Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The method uses type of climate, soil, cat-
egory of land use, management and input Forests, grasslands and wetlands are ecosys-
practices as factors influencing SOC stocks. tems with a high capacity for regulating the
For each factor, the relative effect of changes flow of water. This is particularly import-
to the SOC pool is provided for different cli- ant for ensuring the supply of a sufficient
mate/soil regions. When all factors remain quantity of water to support the immediate
unchanged, an equilibrium in the SOC pool environment whilst avoiding extreme fluc-
is assumed to be reached after 20 years. tuations in water flows. Where water is not
properly regulated by the ecosystem (e.g., in
Given the factors influencing SOC content, cities, where the natural water cycle is often
the spatial distribution of SOC stocks is very interrupted by impermeable surfaces), there
variable (Figure 2). Most of the global SOC is is a much higher risk of such fluctuations,
stored in the northern hemisphere where cool potentially leading to flooding or water
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of global soil organic carbon density (t C ha-1). Source: FAO and ITPS.
Chapter 5 183
shortages. The provision of water regulation The retention of water in vegetation, surface
can be mapped by breaking down the pro- water bodies, soil and bedrock (groundwa-
cess into its various components. Ideally, the ter stores) are considered landscape storage
landscape should naturally retain and store factors. Additionally, the influence of slope
an adequate amount of water for its needs, and surface imperviousness are considered as
whilst limiting the amount of surface run- physical factors altering the actual water re-
off - an excess of which may cause flooding tention capacity of the landscape. The contri-
further downstream. Water flow through a bution of each process to the final indicator is
landscape may be influenced by the follow- approximated using one or more parameters
ing natural processes, all of which contrib- or characteristics of the landscape. The pa-
ute to the storage of water and therefore the rameters shaded in grey are those which are
reduction of surface runoff: interception by changeable over time. The various factors are
vegetation, storage in surface water bodies, combined to give the final composite indica-
infiltration and retention in soil and perco- tor representing relative landscape water re-
lation to groundwater stores. tention or, rather, the capacity of the ecosys-
tem to provide water regulation as a service.
In addition to these processes, the amount
of water which can be retained will also be
affected by the slope of the landscape and Pest control
by the degree of permeability of the soil.
Steeper slopes will promote faster surface
runoff, whilst flatter areas allow greater time Agricultural ecosystems are often harmed
for infiltration of water. Impermeable sur- by pests such as insects (i.e. caterpillars) and
faces (e.g. artificial infrastructure such as small mammals (i.e. moles), significantly re-
roads and buildings) represent a barrier to ducing the harvested share of crop produc-
the infiltration and retention of water, thus tion. However, nature offers natural fight-
promoting surface runoff. ers against these pests, thus saving farmers
billions of dollars annually by protecting
Figure 3 gives an overview of the parameters crops and reducing the need for chemical
taken into account to map the water reten- control. There are different groups of natu-
tion as a proxy for the water regulation ca- ral enemies known to play a key role in pest
pacity of the ecosystem.
Vegetation Rv Leaf Area Index
Water Bodies Rwb Share of surface water bodies

Landscape
Storage Factors Water Holding Capacity
Soil Rs
Organic carbon content
Water Retention
Index Bedrock Rgw Relative Bedrock Permeability
Physical Slope
Factors
Surface imperviousness
Figure 3. Schematic overview of the structure of the indicator for mapping water retention. Parameters in
grey are dynamic and thus change over time.

control, such as birds, mammals, spiders, Owl (Athene noctua), a known hunter of
lady bugs and other types of organisms. So, mice, voles, shrews, moles and rabbits and
mapping pest control clearly relies on spatial the Hoopoe (Upupa epops) which has an in-
information on the distribution of predator sect-rich diet.
species (species distribution models, see also
section on pollination). Species distribution models map the prob-
ability of species occurrence based on field
We show below an example of mapping observations. A probability threshold can
potential pest control by birds in agricul- be defined for instance at 50% to assume
tural systems (Figure 4). The example is the presence of a certain species. By over-
based on species distribution models of 49 laying all the species occurrence maps of
bird species, recognised as pest-control pro- the 49 modelled species, a map of potential
viders. Modelled species include the Little pest control by predatory birds is obtained.
Figure 4. Spatial distribution of predatory bird species richness in the European Union. The close-up
around Paris shows that species richness is lower near urban areas (mapped in red).
Chapter 5 185
Higher species richness corresponds to a The LAI is defined as the one-sided green
more diverse community of natural preda- leaf area per unit ground surface area. The
tors and is assumed to exert a greater control larger this area, the more pollutants are cap-
on pest populations. Figure 4 shows poten- tured by trees.
tial pest control by bird species across Eu-
rope. The inset is a close-up around Paris, Furthermore, the pollutant removal flux by
showing spatial differences in bird species vegetation, which is estimated as the prod-
richness, with low values (areas in yellow) in uct of pollutant dry deposition velocity by
and around the urban areas (in red). vegetation and pollutant concentration, is
usually considered as a good measure for the
ecosystem service flow.
Air quality regulation Finally, demand for the service can be mapped
using population exposure to pollutant con-
Air pollution is one of the main environ- centrations beyond the limit established
mental risks for human health and is the within the legislation currently in force.
main cause of premature deaths. In this con-
text, abatement of pollution has become of Maps of the atmospheric concentration of
major concern especially in areas with high pollutants are essential inputs to map air
pollutant concentrations, typically urban quality regulation as an ecosystem service.
areas. Maintaining and developing green ur- Mostly, they rely on a network of monitor-
ban areas can be part of an integrative strat- ing stations where different pollutants are
egy to help increase air quality in European measured. The measurements collected by
cities. Trees reduce temperatures in cities by different monitoring stations can then be
evaporating water and they remove air pol- interpolated to obtain maps of concentra-
lutants and particulate matter via their leaves tions. Several GIS techniques exist to per-
through dry deposition. Urban trees, green form interpolation by, for example, kriging
areas and forests surrounding cities have the and spatial regressions.
capacity to remove significant amounts of
pollutants thereby increasing environmental Figure 5 presents an example for the Barce-
quality and human health. lona metropolitan region. In this case, con-
centrations of NO2 were estimated using
Mapping air quality regulation is based on Land Use Regression (LUR) models. The
three types of information: the dry deposition LUR model was built using NO2 concentra-
velocity (supply), the removal of air pollut- tion measurements for the year 2013 from
ants (flow) and human exposure (demand). the operational monitoring stations as de-
pendent variables and a set of spatial predic-
The pollutant dry deposition velocity by tor parameters (independent variables) that
vegetation is considered often as a proxy were considered to be the most relevant for
to assess the ecosystems capacity to remove distribution of NO2 concentrations, related
pollutants from the atmosphere. This quan- to land cover type, geomorphology, climate
tity measures the rate at which pollutants and population. The map of unsatisfied de-
are collected from the atmosphere by tree mand for air quality regulation was generat-
leaves. The contribution of vegetation is ed from the population living in areas where
often mapped and modelled using spatial- annual mean concentrations exceed the EU
ly explicit data of the leaf area index (LAI). limit value (40 g/m3 for NO2).

Figure 5. Indicators for the assessment of air quality regulation of NO2 in the Barcelona Metropolitan Re-
gion: concentration, deposition velocity, removal capacity and population affected.
Mapping the capacity of ecosystems to pro-

Conclusions vide regulating services can be based on the
combination of different data layers to arrive
Much progress has been achieved in map- at a composite index between 0 and 1 where
ping regulating ES. Data, maps and models 0 stands for no capacity to deliver a service
are often available from other scientific dis- and 1 stands for maximum capacity. Where
ciplines such as research on air quality, hy- species provide a regulating service, capacity
drology, climate change or biodiversity and is often approximated based on species oc-
they need relatively minor adaptations for currence which can be mapped. In the case
applications in an ES context. of air quality regulation, mapping capacity
is based on mapping the dominant physical
Mapping regulating ES is often based on process (deposition).
mapping the capacity of ecosystems to pro-
vide these services rather than mapping the The case of soil protection demonstrates
actual use of the service. One possible rea- how actual flow or use of regulating services
son is that it is not always clear what the use can be done. Avoided erosion is modelled
is of a regulating service in comparison with as the difference between erosion in the ab-
provisioning services. sence of vegetation and erosion with protec-
Chapter 5 187
tive cover. This technique can be applied to Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC (2006)
other regulating services such as pollution Air pollution removal by urban trees and
and excess nutrient control. shrubs in the United States. Urban Forest-
ry and Urban Greening 4: 115-123.
Demand for regulating services can be Polce C, Termansen M, Aguirre-Gutirrez J,
mapped if spatial data are available which Boatman ND, Budge GE, Crowe A, Gar-
identify use, users or beneficiaries. Examples ratt MP, Pietravalle S, Potts SG, Ramirez
are crops which need pollination, farmland JA, Somerwill KE, Biesmeijer JC (2013)
exposed to erosion or people exposed to low Species Distribution Models for Crop Pol-
levels of air quality. lination: A Modelling Framework Applied
to Great Britain. PLoS ONE 8: e76308.
Further reading and resources Scharlemann JPW, Tanner EVJ, Hiederer R,

Kapos V (2014) Global soil carbon: Un-
derstanding and managing the largest ter-
Civantos E, Thuiller W, Maiorano L, Guisan restrial carbon pool. Carbon Management
A, Arajo MB (2012) Potential impacts of 5(1): 81-91.
climate change on ecosystem services in
Europe: The case of pest control by verte- Zulian G, Maes J, Paracchini M (2013) Link-
brates. BioScience 62: 658-666. ing Land Cover Data and Crop Yields for
Mapping and Assessment of Pollination
FAO and ITPS (2015) Status of the Worlds Soil Services in Europe. Land 2: 472.
Resources (SWSR) Main Report. Food
and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations and Intergovernmental Technical
Panel on Soils, Rome, Italy. 650pp.
Guerra CA, Maes J, Geijzendorffer I, Metzger

MJ (2016) An assessment of soil erosion
prevention by vegetation in Mediterranean
Europe: Current trends of ecosystem ser-
vice provision. Ecological Indicators 60:
213-222.

5.5.2. Mapping provisioning
services
Marion Kruse & Katalin Petz
Introduction
Material and energy outputs from ecosys- and fishery/aquaculture and consequently,
tems are usually classified as provisioning their related land cover/use types. As they
services. These are tangible goods or services represent traditional economic activities
that are directly used, traded or exchanged and research focuses that have existed for a
by all human beings. They can be grouped very long time, a large body of subject-spe-
into nutrition (e.g. cultivated crops, seafood cific knowledge and data sets are available to
from aquaculture, wild food), materials (e.g. quantify ES supply based on these economic
fibres and genetic materials) and energy ser- sectors. This fact also gives the opportunity
vices (e.g. fuel wood). Some of them, such to analyse changes and trends of these ES
as cultivated crops and animal outputs, are in many regions. These production systems
amongst the most mapped ecosystem ser- are usually monocultures and require a large
vices (ES), whereas others, such as genetic amount of human input (Chapter 5.1). On
materials and energy provided by animals, the contrary, wild plants, water and genetic
have been studied or mapped less frequently resources are less clearly associated with one
to date (Figure 1). specific land cover/use class and are generated
in more diverse and semi-natural or natural
Provisioning services are often produced and ecosystems and landscapes.
consumed or used in different places. They are
generally transported from the place of pro- The production of ES is not only loca-
duction (i.e. supply) to the place of consumption-specific, but it is also dynamic over time
tion (i.e. demand). It is
more common and eas-
ier to map the supply, as
it is spatially explicit and
directly depends on the
ecosystems structure and
functioning, whereas the
demand is a function of
socio-economic drivers.
The economically im-

portant crop and animal
products, as well as tim-
ber and fish products,
can be closely associated Figure 1. Schematic overview of least and most mapped provisioning
with agriculture, forestry services.
Chapter 5 189
(Chapter 5.3). Examples include crops main- characteristics of the agricultural ecosystem
ly being grown and harvested in spring-sum- (e.g. soil texture, climatic and hydrological
mer period in the temperate zones. In the conditions), all of which influence the level
tropical zone, the growing season lasts all year and quality of ES generated. It is also possible
around. Another example is the dynamic to include anthropogenic system inputs and
supply of drinking water from mountain re- environmental effects as indicators instead of
gions, which follows the seasonal changes in only crop yield or animal numbers. Due to
hydrological and climatological conditions. the commercial character, there is a large addi-
tional input (e.g. fertilisers, pesticides) in most
agro-ecosystems. Furthermore, it is important
Mapping methods for to notice that in the case of reared animals,
land cover/land use does not automatically
provisioning services correspond to the area of supply. Livestock is
often kept in buildings, resulting in point ac-
Based on the CICES classification (Chapter cumulation within the respective map.
2.4), provisioning services can be grouped
into the classes reported below. Differ- There are also crop or animal production
ent methods and data sets are available for models (e.g. Common Agricultural Policy
mapping these classes. A short overview of Regionalised Impact (CAPRI) model or Agri-
selected mapping methods and data sets is cultural Production Planning and Allocation
provided in the following sections. (APPA) model) accounting for the ecosys-
tems capacity, environmental effects and hu-
Cultivated crops & reared animals and man inputs to obtain more accurate results.
their outputs (e.g. cereals, vegetables, Nevertheless, these models are time and data
meat, milk) intensive. They are suitable if the aim is to bet-
ter understand a certain production system or
These provisioning services are mainly com- create a crop and animal production map for
mercially valued and traded as the direct a certain location under a specific socio-eco-
output of agriculture from arable land and nomic scenario or environmental constraint.
pastures. They are amongst the best mon-
itored ES and their level of production is For general purposes and the mapping of
documented in agricultural statistics or ac- multiple provisioning services, look-up ta-
counting in many areas. Therefore, they bles are in common use (Chapter 5.6.4). For
can be easily mapped using land cover/land some outputs from reared animals (meat,
use maps in combination with indicators of milk), only aggregated or average data exist
crop or animal production (e.g. t/ha/year (slaughtering for a defined reference date).
crop yield, number of animals/ha, l/ha/year
milk production) from national or other sta- On the local scale (e.g. farm), detailed anal-
tistics. This corresponds to a tier 2 mapping yses can be included in maps, such as varia-
approach (see Chapter 5.6.1). This method tions over a season. Considering the growing
has minimal data requirements and is there- season of cultivated crops, the supply does
fore easy and quick when the corresponding not always match the continuous demand.
data are at hand. With such data sets, maps Over the entire growing season, up until the
for these provisioning services can be generat- moment of harvest, crops can be considered
ed for local up to global scales. Use of a single as only potential provisioning services. The
indicator, however, neglects the effects of the real use (flow) is connected to harvest, pro-
management regime and the environmental cessing and consumption.

Wild plants and wild animals and their with other biophysical layers (e.g. manage-
outputs (e.g. wild berries, mushrooms, wa- ment intensity, climatic factors) and with
ter cress, game, fish, honey from wild bees) accessibility or travel time from settlement
areas. Another approach is participatory
This class includes both commercial and mapping (Chapter 5.6.2) of indicators such
subsistence berry and mushroom collec- as kg/ha berries collected or the location of
tion, fishing and hunting for food. These honey collection, relying on the knowledge
less marketed ES can provide subsistence and wild food collection habits of local in-
especially in less developed countries, while habitants and stakeholders. Wild food collec-
they are considered by some stakeholders tion is also closely related to cultural services
and researchers as hobby or recreational ac- (such as cultural diversity and traditions) and
tivities in other regions. Only few examples is affected by the human-environmental re-
exist for the mapping of these provisioning lationship and societal conditions (e.g. laws,
services because of their individual charac- regulations, property rights). This informa-
ter. Statistical data are available for hunting tion can be included in the mapping process-
and recreational fishing in some regions or es through, for example, overlaying protected
countries. Data and information are often areas or area with restricted access. Figure 2
available for commercial fishing as regu- presents an example for medicinal plants.
lations (e.g. exclusive economic zone and
catch quota) have to be respected in many Few studies are available on regional or na-
regions. However, mapping the exact area tional scales. Mapping of these services (ex-
of where fish and seafood are extracted in- cept commercial fishing) is most suitable for
cludes uncertainties due to the mobility of the local or regional scale, making it possible
most species. Mapping fishing grounds re- to include high resolution data and informa-
quires GPS data or interview data. Usual- tion needed for sustainable management.
ly, statistical data are grouped into specific
areas (e.g. Baltic Sea or North Sea) or on Fibres and other materials from plants
an administrational level (e.g. states and and animals (e.g. timber, cotton, grass as
countries) making the mapping less spatially fodder)
explicit. For some individual or subsistence
activities, such as berry/mushroom picking, This class includes both consumptive and
recreational fishing or hunting, licences are ornamental uses and both commercial (e.g.
needed. This can be used as a proxy to quan- industrial timber production) and subsis-
tify the amount of potential users. Most im- tence (e.g. local wood collection) uses. Tim-
portant though, is the exact area of supply ber, grass and fodder production have been
and the respective amount of provisioning widely mapped, whereas other materials,
service. This requires laborious and possibly such as cotton and silk are rarely mapped.
expensive, field studies and interviews. Data Mapping methods range from the use of a
from random sampling is often used for ex- single indicator (e.g. m3/ha wood harvested,
trapolation. Methodological studies need to kg/ha grass collected) to complicated forest
reveal which natural and socio-economic or vegetation production models e.g., the
settings, extrapolation or value-transfer are European Forest Information SCENario
accurate enough for reliable results. Model EFISCEN (see Figure 3 for an ap-
plication), the Global Forest Model (G4M).
Mapping of berry and mushroom collection Subsistence use can be mapped using partic-
and game hunting is possible by combining ipatory techniques as well, especially at local
land cover/land use and species habitat maps scales. An application example for mapping
Chapter 5 191
Figure 2. Participatory mapping of medicinal plants in the Bereg region, Hungary: Local stakeholders
were questioned if, where and which medicinal plants grow and if they are collected. The growth and col-
lection of medicinal plants were related to different land cover types. Although, the studys objective was
an assessment of ES, the results could be translated into a map showing the location of this provisioning
service in a further step (Source: Petz et al. 2012).
Figure 3. Mapping timber harvest (m/ha/yr) in 2050 under the VOLANTE A2 business-as-usual scenario
modelled with the EFISCEN (European Forest Information SCENario) model on the European scale.
Yellow indicates no harvest and grey indicates non-forest areas on the map (Source: Schelhaas &
Hengeveld pers. comm).

local fuel wood supply is shown in South Af- sioning services and are heavily traded glob-
rica in Figure 4. For timber, statistical data ally. Very few studies in the context of the
are available. However, separation from fuel ecosystem service concept exist, although
wood is difficult as sometimes several prod- some (global) statistics on production are
ucts are manufactured from the same source available. Recycling and multiple uses or
(e.g. timber, woodchips). In contrast to an- purposes of materials result in possible un-
nual or seasonal supply from some fibres and certainty of these assessments.
fodder (e.g. cotton, hay), wood products are
usually only harvested over longer time pe- The provisioning services of cultivated
riods (> 40 years) due to growing phases in crops, reared animals and their outputs and
the temperate zones. Fast-growing species materials from plants and animals are often
are harvested in the (sub-)tropical regions at produced on the same farm. In this case,
shorter intervals. double-counting is possible. Nowadays,
fodder is however imported to many inten-
Similarly with cultivated crops and reared sive farming regions, making the assessment
animals, there is a mismatch between the of provisioning services more difficult or
supply and demand for (some of ) these uncertain. Local mismatches of supply and
services, as timber and wood products are demand result from this, which make the
marketed across the globe. Some fibres (e.g. mapping of these services incomplete.
cotton) belong to the most important provi-
Figure 4. Mapping fuel wood supply in the Baviaanskloof Catchment in South Africa using local data
consultations. Combining multiple indicators (left) results in a fuel wood yield map (right). Several data
sets were combined to show the spatially diverse supply of fuel wood (including topography, accessibility
and also conservation areas), (Source: Petz et al. 2014).
Chapter 5 193
Genetic materials from wild plants and globally. Due to declining stocks and regu-
animals (e.g. medicines and wild species lations (e.g. EU fisheries regulations) aqua-
used in breeding programmes) culture is employed more and more to meet
the demand for seafood and algae.
Genetic material from wild plants can be
used for biochemical industrial and pharma- These data are available on different spatial
ceutical processes (e.g. medicines, fermenta- scales and, in most cases, over a very long
tion), as well as bio-prospecting activities (e.g. time period as they are important for the
wild species used in breeding programmes). economy. Here also single indicators (e.g.
Genetic materials have been mapped infre- fishing statistics in t/year) are available. In-
quently. On a similar basis, wild food and frastructure from aquaculture, such as cages,
medicinal plants have also a close link with basins, ropes, is visible in the field and can
cultural traditions and societal conditions. be used to identify the extent of the provi-
The occurrence or supply of medicinal plants sioning area.
could be mapped similarly to wild food by
combining species richness and land cover/ Water for drinking and non-drinking
land use data or applying participatory map- purposes
ping studies. Biodiversity models could pro-
vide useful information about the occurrence Water extraction is usually undertaken in
of different wild species. Suitable habitats for single spots where the conditions are suitable
and spatial dynamics of mobile species, such (i.e. infrastructure and water quantity, qual-
as insects or mammals, can be explored with ity and intensity). Groundwater is recharged
agent-based models (Chapter 4.4). over a larger area and depends on ecosystem
conditions, such as substrate and vegetation
These provisioning services have been rarely cover. Surface water is used in many regions
mapped, although there is ongoing research where ground water extraction conditions
(considering different species and ecosys- are not suitable.
tems ranging from the tropical rainforest to
marine environments). Usually, this covers Maps can show groundwater yield and the
only limited areas. amount of water (m3) that can be extracted
without declining the yield. Hydrological
Animals and plants from aquaculture models can be applied to simulate the effects
of changes in consumption and hydrologi-
Mapping provisioning services from aquat- cal and climatic conditions (Chapter 4.4).
ic ecosystems is usually more difficult. In-
formation on water bodies is often not as Some statistical data are available for aver-
detailed from land cover/land use maps as age water consumption (drinking water,
for terrestrial ecosystems (see Chapter 7.4). non-drinking water) and the water incor-
More detailed information about protected porated or locked in products (e.g. food,
areas, different habitats, or spawning areas clothes). Large regional mismatches occur
is needed to map animals and plants from on the global scale due to trading of prod-
aquatic ecosystems. An application example ucts. The price for water could be used as an
for mapping fishery areas in the Baltic Sea is indicator for mapping as well.
shown in Figure 5.
Temporal changes in water demand is an
Wild caught fish in marine and freshwater important aspect in management, especially
ecosystems is an important food resource in areas with high usage (e.g. from tourism).

CORINE LAND
COVER 2012
Darss Zingst
Bodden Chain,
Northern Germany
continous urban fabric pasture, meadows and other permanent sparsley vegetated areas
grasslands under agricultural use
discontinous urban fabric broad leaved forest inland marshes
industry or commercial units coniferous forest peat bogs
airports mixed forest salt marshes
construction sites natural grasslands water courses
green urban areas moors and heathlands water bodies
sport and leisure facilities transitional woodland shrub coastal lagoons
non-irrigated arable land beaches, dunes, and sand plains sea and ocean
Figure 5. Mapping fishery areas in coastal ecosystems of the German Baltic Sea. The example shows
that a land cover based approach results in an over-estimation of supply area. Here additional informa-
tion is included to depict spatially explicit areas of restriction due to protection within a National Park.
Boat traffic is partially prohibited. Temporal fishing restrictions exist in the spawning areas. Recreational
fishing (at land) is only allowed in the designated spots and areas where boat traffic is allowed.
Chapter 5 195
In some cases, water needs to be pumped certainty and the objective/purpose of the
from other areas to fulfil the demand. These maps (see Chapter 6).
regional and temporal mismatches make
mapping of water as an ES challenging. When using statistical data, the maps are not
always spatially explicit. These data sets are
Plant and animal-based energy resources often generated at administrative levels (e.g.
(e.g. fuel wood, crops and labour provid- municipality, regions), which do not neces-
ed by animals) sarily match the case study area. Although
farm land might be stretched over sever-
It is more common and easier to map plant- al administrative units, the respective data
based energy resources than animal-based ones. (e.g. number of animals, yields) are only
The mapping of energy crops, such as oilseed assigned to the location of the farm. Addi-
rape, is similar to food crops. Sometimes they tionally, wild animals which hunt and fish
are also competing in cultivated areas. are mobile and forage in areas which do not
always match with reporting units.
The supply of fuel wood can be mapped
with a single indicator (e.g. forest areas, oc- Furthermore, when using statistical data, it is
currence of certain tree species), forest pro- often not possible to distinguish between the
duction models (e.g. EFISCEN, G4M) for different uses of the product (e.g. rapeseed for
commercial use and participatory approach- human nutrition, biodiesel or fodder).
es for subsistence use. Large regional differ-
ences exist. In some regions, fuel wood is the Many provisioning services are supplied in
only energy source for cooking and heating larger areas that can be represented by poly-
whereas, in other regions, it is only a supple- gons. However, there are sometimes import-
mentary source or even unnecessary (e.g. ur- ant (hot) spots which affect only parts of an
ban areas with good energy infrastructure). area. Besides static services providers (e.g.
forests), there are some mobile ones, such as
Labour provided by animals as an ES has fish and seafood (see Chapter 5.2). Though
not been mapped yet. It could be mapped, the ecosystem might be restricted to aquatic
for example, using statistics involving the ones, there are several factors that might de-
quantity of animals. In some areas, la- termine the size of catches (e.g. in recreation-
bour provided by animals is important in al fishing) or the exact location of the actual
agriculture, but also for transportation. service (e.g. exact location of caught fish).
However, due to mechanisation in many
sectors, this provisioning service is of less Temporal aspects are generally difficult to
and less importance. integrate on a map but several maps can be
used to show the change of the supply or de-
mand of the provisioning service over time
Challenges and solutions for (i.e. seasonal maps; see Chapter 5.3)). Maps
on wild food (mushrooms and berries) can
mapping provisioning services change significantly between years due to cli-
matic variations or silvicultural management.
There are several maps and data sets avail-
able that facilitate the mapping of provi- The quality of the modelling results depends
sioning services. As usual, all methods have on the input data and the research questions.
advantages and disadvantages regarding un- All participatory mapping approaches are

impacted by the number of stakeholders and the interlinkages of ES and the need for
their background and how they are instructed. near-nature ecosystems for the supply. The
purpose and importance of these provision-
Following the grouping and classification ing services need to be taken into account to
of provisioning services from CICES, it be- decide whether or not a provisioning service
comes clear that the main challenge is the should be classified as cultural ES or not.
large and detailed amount of possible pro-
visioning services supplied in an area or de- The main challenge of incorporating the
manded by consumers. Globalisation makes temporal dynamics of provisioning services
it more challenging to track down detailed in maps remains. Many studies are limit-
information on a spatially explicit scale. For ed to a conceptual description of mapping
many of the examples of provisioning ser- provisioning services. A larger body of ap-
vices at the CICES class level, no data or in- plications for all provisioning services would
formation exist or the ES are part of a larger result in progress in closing the knowledge
supply chain. Therefore, the map-maker gaps, which lead to incomplete assessments
must carefully decide to which detail proof ES. A final question remains: should we
visioning services should be analysed or if a map the area and spatial extent of provision-
distinction into broader classes is necessary ing services, which is comparatively easy
(e.g. wooden biomass from forests instead of with land use/land cover maps, or should
subdividing into type and use, such as cellu- we also include information on the amount,
lose, timber, fuel food). quality and benefits?
The question of the purpose of the map and

the necessary details are also relevant. For a Conclusion
coarse (first) mapping of provisioning ser-
vices, data sets and methods are available
from local-global scale, especially when land Maps of provisioning services are essential,
cover/land use and statistical data can be as provisioning services play a key role in
used. The specific (policy) question guides economic activities from local to global scale
the work and detail needed to create a prop- and from the past to the future. Information
er map of provisioning services (Chapter on the distribution and intensity of provi-
5.4). For the least mapped services, direct sioning services supply and demand is need-
mapping based on sampling can overcome ed for sustainable land use management and
the lack of suitable data. policy-making. The more important an eco-
system service is (e.g. food), the more data
Another challenge is that many provisioning or information are available.
services outside of markets, which are mainly
for private use/subsistence, have no detailed As provisioning services are diverse and are
or comprehensive data sets for proper map- delivered by different ecosystems, several
ping. Many people are not aware of these methods are needed in the assessment and
benefits, such as ornamental use, and do mapping process, ranging from simple indi-
not keep detailed records or data sets. This cators or land cover/land use data to mod-
also applies for mushroom or berry picking, elling and participatory approaches. Many
or recreational fishing for personal con- details should or can be integrated in pro-
sumption. What is most important in this visioning services maps, but the purpose of
circumstance, is raising awareness to show the map guides the information content.
Chapter 5 197
As a close link between provisioning services, Petz K, Minca EL, Werners SE, Leemans R
regulating services and cultural services ex- (2012) Managing the current and future
ists, it is therefore advisable to cross-refer- supply of ecosystem services in the Hun-
ence the respective maps. garian and Romanian Tisza River Basin.
Regional Environmental Change 12:
689-700.
Further reading
Petz K, Glenday J, Alkemade R (2014) Land
management implications for ecosystemser-
Brown G, Fagerholm N (2015) Empirical vices provision in a South African rangeland.
PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem ser- Ecological Indicators 45: 692-703.
vices: A review and evaluation. Ecosystem
Services 13: 119-133. Rasmussen L V, Mertz O, Christensen, AE,
Danielsen F, Dawson N. Xaydongvanh P
Garca-Nieto AP, Garca-Llorente M, Ini- (2016) A combination of methods need-
esta-Arandia I, Martn-Lpez B (2013) ed to assess the actual use of provisioning
Mapping forest ecosystem services: From ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 17:
providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosystem 75-86.
Services 4: 126-138.
Schulp CJE, Thuiller W, Verburg PH (2014)
Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Mller F (2013) Wild food in Europe: A synthesis of knowl-
Mapping provisioning ecosystem services edge and data of terrestrial wild food as an
at the local scale using data of varying spa- ecosystem service. Ecological Economics
tial and temporal resolution. Ecosystem 105: 292-305.
Services 4: 47-59.
Verkerk PJ, Levers C, Kuemmerle T, Lindner
Karabulut A, Egoh BN, Lanzanova D, Griz- M, Valbuena R, Verburg PH, Zudin, S
zetti B, Bidoglio G, Pagliero L, Bouraoui F, (2015) Mapping wood production in Eu-
Aloe A, Reynaud A, Maes J, Vandecasteele ropean forests. Forest Ecology and Man-
I, Mubareka S (2016) Mapping water agement 357: 228-238.
provisioning services to support the eco-
systemwaterfoodenergy nexus in the
Danube river basin. Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem Services 17: 278-292.

5.5.3. Mapping cultural
ecosystem services
Leena Kopperoinen, Sandra Luque, Patrizia Tenerelli,
Grazia Zulian & Arto Viinikka
Introduction
Cultural ecosystem services (CES) bind ele- er to identify and measure while, at the same
ments between social and ecological concepts. time, neglecting other important CES that
They are seen as natures intangible benefits matter to people but which are not as easy to
related to human perceptions, attitudes and measure (e.g. spiritual services).
beliefs. People obtain spiritual enrichment,
cognitive development, reflection, recreation This chapter aims to present how to sur-
and aesthetic experiences from ecosystems vive the challenge of mapping non-materi-
(Table 1). Peoples perceptions can differ sig- al services, what examples of methods exist
nificantly, not only person by person, but also to map the potential provision of CES at
from one area and culture to another. There- different spatial levels, how to involve stake-
fore, CES are not readily transferrable from holders in the mapping activity and what
one place to other environments. are the options that social media provide
for CES mapping. Many methods useful for
CES have both use and non-use values in- mapping CES are also presented elsewhere
cluding existence, bequest, option and in- in this book.
trinsic values. Relational values referring to
cultural identity and well-being derived from
peoples relationships with both other people What is specific about mapping
and nature and mediated by particular places
are also typical of CES. The focus of CES can cultural ES?
be on individual needs and values or those
fulfilled and possessed at a collective level. As CES are considered non-material bene-
At both levels, CES concretely contribute fits, their quantification can be rather chal-
to human well-being, public health and psy- lenging: how to get hold of values linked to
chological experiences. As a result, CES are human perceptions compared to, for exam-
greatly appreciated by people and, in many ple, provisioning services where the actual
instances, they are even better acknowledged stock of material can be quantified using
than other ES. In more traditional commu- different units of measure? Rapid quanti-
nities, CES are often essential for cultural tative mapping might not be easy for com-
identity, livelihoods and even survival. The plex CES but it is possible to map them by
problem is, however, that many CES are combining knowledge and (also qualitative)
difficult to quantify or their value too com- methods from different disciplines, includ-
plex to assess and map. That has led to an ing not only natural and environmental sci-
over-emphasis on recreation and ecotourism ences but also psychology, anthropology and
which are empirically and conceptually easi- other social sciences.
Chapter 5 199
In order to map CES, methods to capture to certain socially or culturally normative
cultural norms and to express plurality of values of the environment (e.g. inventoried
values in a spatially-explicit way are needed. cultural heritage or valuable landscapes;
Some researchers consider CES and their green areas of sufficient size and location)
value measurable since they are expressed can also be used as indicators of areas pro-
in human actions. Values ascribed to CES viding CES.
can be identified, for example, using the
presence of certain products of an area, vis- However, if a more detailed and precise pic-
ible manifestations of CES in the physical ture of CES is to be gained in a specific area,
landscape, or the number of studies, artis- local people must be involved in mapping.
tic representations etc. about an ecosystem Thus, mapping CES is inherently participa-
as proxies. Spatial datasets giving location tory if it is to be done properly.
Table 1. CES according to Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services v. 4.3.
Division Group Class Examples

Physical and Physical and Experiential use of In-situ whale and bird watching, snorkelling,
intellectual experiential plants and animals. diving and other experiential enjoyment of
interactions interactions nature.
with biota, Experiential and
ecosystems, physical use of land- / Walking, hiking, climbing, boating, leisure
and land-/ seascapes in different fishing (angling), leisure hunting and other
seascapes [en- environmental settings physical activities in nature.
vironmental Intellectual Scientific Subject matter for research both on location
settings] and repre- and via other media.
sentative Educational Subject matter of education both on location
interactions and via other media. Nature as a location for
education.
Cultural heritage in Historic records, cultural heritage e.g. pre-
connection to nature served in water bodies and soils, interplay of
nature and culture, traditional uses of nature,
cultural identity.
Entertainment Ex-situ viewing / experience of natural world
through different media, such as photographs,
films, literature.
Aesthetics Beauty of nature and land- / seascapes, artistic
representations of nature.
Spiritual, Spiritual and/ Symbolic Emblematic plants and animals e.g. national
symbolic or emblem- symbols such as American eagle or Welsh
and other atic daffodil, sense of place, place identity.
interactions Sacred and / or reli- Spiritual values, ritual identity e.g. dream
with biota, gious paths of native Australians, holy places, sacred
ecosystems, plants and animals and their parts.
and land-/ Other cultur- Existence Enjoyment provided by the pure existence of
seascapes [en- al outputs wild species, wilderness, ecosystems and land-
vironmental / seascapes.
settings] Bequest Willingness to preserve plants, animals, eco-
systems, land- / seascapes for the experience
and use of future generations; moral / ethical
perspective or belief.

As a result, mapping CES capacity and de- terms of CES (for example, forests bring me
mand are interwoven. What is considered feelings of sanctity or meadows are aesthet-
as potential capacity of an area is depen- ically important for me). Still, the outcome
dent on what brings people well-being and remains quite vague as it is usually not purely
what people perceive they need and value in the land cover that adds the cultural meaning
terms of CES. This needs to be understood but a combination of different attributes.
first. When there is knowledge of this, dif-
ferent datasets can be used to identify where Tier 2 suits better for CES mapping as more
valued environments, features, species, or detailed and specific data can be used to give
opportunities for specific experiences having variation to the characteristics of an area.
the capacity to provide CES are located (Ta- Types of data beneficial for mapping poten-
ble 2). Mapping actual demand for CES is tial CES capacity include data on cultural
frequently done by using participatory map- heritage sites, sites with events combining
ping methods or indirectly utilising con- culture and nature, spiritual or religious
tents of social media. Participatory mapping sites, habitats of symbolic species (caution
means involving stakeholders, locals, etc. to in visualising sites of threatened species on
identify, assess or otherwise value and point a map must be applied), or recreational fa-
out on a map, areas or spots where they en- cilities, such as trails or campsites. The selec-
joy or feel CES (see more about participato- tion of data depends naturally on the CES
ry mapping in Chapter 5.6.2). Social media in question. In the demand side, statistics of
based methods include, for example, asking recreational visitors or the number of fishing
people to take photos of perceived CES in licences in an area, for example, can be used
an area, involving people in scoring photos for recreational ES demand, number of vis-
of different landscape types or, for example, itors of a religious event linked to a specific
analysing geo-tagged photos uploaded on natural site for spiritual ES, or number of
social media. The latter is an indirect meth- photos taken of beautiful scenery as a mea-
od to reveal peoples preferences and locate sure of aesthetic appreciation of a place.
their activities. Other geo-referenced con-
tents of social media can also be analysed Tier 3 mapping, based on process-based
and used for the same purpose. CES ca- models, could be understood as modelling
pacity and demand, as well as the flow, can the availability of, the accessibility to and the
also be mapped using deliberative mapping demand for CES that are needed in a certain
methods where a group of people discuss, place. The exceptions are intrinsic and be-
compile knowledge and finally build a con- quest values of nature as CES. They can be
sensus on these in a certain area on a map. understood as services which people need not
necessarily be able to experience or to see by
In a tiered approach for mapping, Tier 1 does themselves but which they want to preserve
not easily fit for the spatial representation of because of their value for current and future
CES (see Chapter 5.6.1 for explanation of dif- generations and for which they feel joy and
ferent tiers). For some CES, for example eco- thus receive a non-material benefit. People
systems as sites for activities, land cover can can identify these kinds of places on the map
be used as a proxy for the landscapes suitabil- or they can name specific species or habitats
ity for different use types from the perspective that they value after which they can be placed
of potential capacity. The demand side is eas- on a map based on other data.
ier to map in a Tier 1 approach as people can
be asked to score or value different land cov- In the following, we give examples of some
er types with regard to their appreciation in available CES mapping methods that repre-
Chapter 5 201
sent Tier 1 (mapping CES demand using a analysis and ESTIMAP-recreation model)
matrix; Chapter 5.6.4), Tier 2 (photo series and Tier 3 (viewshed analysis).
Table 2. A non-exhaustive list of methods suitable for mapping CES. Level of needed expertise refers to
the degree of needed skills in GIS and / or statistics.
For Level of
mapping: needed
Which CES can
Method Method Capacity= expertise: Characteristics of the method in regard to CES
be mapped with
type name C, Flow= Low= L, mapping
the method
F, De- Medium =
mand= D M, High = H
The GIS processes are relatively easy to implement, re-
quiring only a medium level of GIS expertise. The model
allows simulation of different scenarios and evaluation
of different policy options; it is flexible and can be
Potentially all
ESTIMAP C, D M downscaled and modified in order to fit local needs and
CES
conditions. Expert opinion is needed for inputs variables
selections and scoring. Scientific evidence for the used
thresholds is scarce and they thus mainly rely on expert
opinion, too.
Predicts the spread of person-days of recreation and
tourism, based on the locations of natural habitats,
InVEST - accessibility and built features that factor into peoples
Recreation,
recreation C H decisions about areas for recreation. Regression mapping
nature tourism
module that uses photos as a dependent variable. http://data.nat-
Models, mapping methods
uralcapitalproject.org/nightly-build/invest-users-guide/
html/recreation.html
Suits ideally the examination of trade-offs under various
Recreation, economic, policy and climate scenarios in space and
MIMES H
nature tourism over time. Allows for testing management scenarios that
would be socially unacceptable.
Is based on probabilistic modelling using Bayesian frame-
ARIES / Aesthetics, poten-
C, D H work. Requires expert-level modelling skills. http://www.
k.LAB tially all CES
integratedmodelling.org/
The GIS processes are relatively easy to implement,
requiring only a medium level of GIS expertise. Makes
use of a multitude of GIS datasets combined with both
scientific and local expert scorings. Data on harmful phe-
GreenFrame C, D All CES M
nomena that diminish the CES potential can be included
in the analysis. Both quantitative and qualitative data can
be used. Gives an overall picture of the relative spatial
variation of CES provision potential.
Land cover
Recreation, Gives only a very rough proxy with high uncertainty
/ land use
C, D aesthetics, edu- L level. Suits best for quick mapping of specific recreational
based map-
cation or experiential activities.
ping
Physical and
It represents a cost-effective way of gathering space-and
intellectual
time-referenced data on observed peoples preferences. It
interactions with
does not directly allow for obtaining information related
biota, ecosystems,
to the user characteristics (socio- and psycho-cultural).
and land- / sea-
Photo-series Inherent bias is related with the interpretation of pic-
Social media based mapping
C, (F), D scapes (including M-H

analysis tures. The photo-sharing community may not be repre-
recreation, nature
sentative of all social groups (the represented population
tourism, land-
will be dependent on the level of access to information
scape aesthetics,
technology, education and age and the users ability /
cultural heritage
willingness to correctly geo-tag the photos).
and education)
Specialised social media communities can produce data
on, for example, sites suitable for specific activities but
Recreation,
Other which are not commonly known and do not exist in
nature tourism,
analyses of databases. Communities may not be representative of all
C, (F), D cultural heritage, M-H
social media social groups (the represented population will be depen-
potentially all
content dent on the level of access to information technology,
CES
education and age, and the users ability / willingness to
correctly geo-tag locations.

For Level of
mapping: needed
Which CES can
Method Method Capacity= expertise: Characteristics of the method in regard to CES
be mapped with
type name C, Flow= Low= L, mapping
the method
F, De- Medium =
mand= D M, High = H
Easy to implement anywhere and anytime. Time-con-

suming and laborious. Only restricted amount of infor-
On-site map
mation can be collected unless plenty of workforce is
surveys using F, D All CES L
available. Collected information may be better in quality
paper maps
as any problems in mapping can be solved immediately.
Good social skills are needed.
Easy to implement anywhere and anytime. Time-con-

suming and laborious. Only restricted amount of infor-
On-site map
mation can be collected unless plenty of workforce is
surveys using
F, D All CES L available. Collected information may be better in quality
electronic
as any problems in mapping can be solved immediately.
device
Good social skills are needed. Malfunction of electronic
device can happen any time.
Participatory mapping (On-site and off-site mapping)
Interviews Laborious and time-consuming and thus a limited

for the number of people can be reached. Gained knowledge is
F, D All CES L
elicitation of much more detailed and much deeper understanding of
values the local CES can be derived in addition to maps.
Several companies providing opportunity to implement

on-line map surveys exist (paid service). Service includes
usually basic reporting tools. Planning a workable sur-
vey can be demanding. All population groups can be
difficult to achieve (access to computer, skills of using
On-line map it), digitising is not always easy for laypeople for several
F, D All CES M
surveys reasons (ability to locate places on maps, etc.). Usually
low response rate. With simple point mapping, lots of
data can be derived. Background information of the
respondent and additional information can be collected
together with the map markings. Used for spatial plan-
ning purposes to gather knowledge and feedback.
Deliberative
mapping in
a group on
Demands good facilitation skills as the data on CES is
paper maps
mapped in a face-to-face setting and can involve partic-
or using
C, F, D All CES L-M ipants of varying map reading skills and with opposing
device, e.g.
views. Sensitive to malfunction of electronic device if
computer,
those are used.
visual table
or landscape
theatre
Suitable for mapping CES related activities, values and
Mobile
perceptions of a target group at local scale. Works also
phone appli- F, D All CES L
for environmental awareness-raising simultaneously with
cations
mapping.
Combines social media and physical landscape analysis.

It represents a cost-effective way of gathering space-and
time-referenced data on observed peoples preferences.
Viewshed Landscape
C. F, D H The viewshed is an approximation of the real visible
analysis aesthetics
Landscape analysis
surface. Quality of assessments depends on the resolution

of the digital elevation model. Analysis includes compu-
tational complexity.
Landscape aesthetics; aesthetical aspects can be character-

Landscape ised by analysing landscape structure or the distribution
GIScame C M
aesthetics of land use types with the help of landscape metrics.
http://www.giscame.com/giscame/english_home.html
Chapter 5 203
Mapping CES using a matrix-
based approach
A matrix-based approach can be used as a

quick and relatively easy way to map supply
of or demand for CES. In its most simple
form, only land cover data or similar one
dataset is sufficient for this purpose. If sup-
ply is mapped, experts can be asked to score
each land cover type based on its capacity to
provide different CES. On the other hand,
residents of the study area can be asked to
do the same based on how important they
personally perceive the different land cover
types in terms of CES, i.e. for which land
cover types they have demand. As a result,
a number of scored matrices are produced Artistic inspiration from nature according to the GI typology
0 2
in both cases. After some basic statistical
operations, such as calculating variance and Not important Quite mportant Verymportant
medians of the given scores, a result matrix
is produced. This can be easily transferred Figure 1. Mapped demand for CES based on
scored matrices by individual residents in the City
to a GIS and combined with the land cover of Jrvenp, Finland.
data to produce a map (see Chapter 5.6.4).
An example of a result matrix and a map In the Jrvenp case, the matrix task was
produced from it is presented in Table 3 followed by a spatially-explicit map exercise
and Figure 1. The example stems from a re- in another room. This allowed for both a
al-life planning process in the city of Jrven- general overview of the demand for differ-
p, Finland, where an open participatory ent CES in different environments, as well
workshop was arranged for the residents to as spatially-explicit knowledge of locations
map the demand for CES. Participants of that people value.
the workshop were given clear instructions
for the matrix scoring task both orally and When simple matrix-based maps are used,
on paper. In addition, written explanations the restrictions of the method must be kept in
of different CES classes were also given as mind. The demand map, such as in the given
guidance. The CICES classification was example, reflects the perceptions of people in
used as a basis but the CES classes were a given location and they are seldom transfer-
simplified and broken down to sub-classes rable to other locations. They are also coarse
in a way that was easily understandable for generalisations and, in reality, there can be
laymen. The previously created green in- several factors that either improve or dimin-
frastructure (GI) typology for the city was ish the demand for certain locations even
used as land cover data (see the GI typology if the type of environment is important in
map in Chapter 7.3.1). Participants scored general. For example, a forest may be located
individually each GI type (= environment next to an industry with problematic emis-
type) based on how important it was to sions or the quality of water in a certain lake
them personally in terms of different CES. is poor and even aesthetically unpleasing.

Table 3. Demand for different types of green and blue environments as a source of CES based on
scored matrices by individual residents in the City of Jrvenp, Finland.
Green buffer
House green
Urban parks
Allotments
Allotments
Grasslands
Croplands
Mires and
with huts
wetlands
CES sub-class / GI type
Forests
Creeks
Rivers
Lakes
zones
Recreation in nature 2.0 0.8 1.4 0.8 0.6 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.3 2.0 1.8 1.1
Nature as a subject mat-
1.9 1.3 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.5
ter and site for education
Natural aesthetics 1.9 1.3 1.9 1.1 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.8
Artistic inspiration from
1.9 1.4 1.6 0.6 0.7 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.6
nature
Identity value of nature 1.7 1.0 1.4 0.7 0.4 1.7 1.6 0.7 0.8 1.7 1.4 1.3
Place for obtaining em-
2.0 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.4 1.6 1.6 0.7 1.0 1.9 1.6 1.3
powerment from nature
Feeling of holiness in
1.7 0.7 1.1 0.1 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.3 0.9
nature
Intrinsic and bequest
1.7 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.7 1.6 1.3 0.7 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.6
values of nature
All CES together 1.8 1.0 1.4 0.8 0.7 1.5 1.6 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.3
Photo series analysis studies suggest an empirical approach based

on the location of visitors, assuming that vis-
itors are attracted by the location where they
There is limited access to spatially explicit take photographs. This approach opens up
data in relation to cultural activities. Yet, there opportunities to directly analyse the presence
is a growing need for territorial planning to of beneficiaries on the provision site which
incorporate the perception of numbers of provides a proxy for actual service provision.
visitors who could be attracted by landscape
aesthetic or cultural heritage amongst other The main limitation of using public image
key cultural values. As representative field storage analysis to retrieve geo-located infor-
data are expensive and time consuming to mation is given by the representativeness of the
gather, gaining understanding on how CES social media platforms or in relation to specific
can be spatially defined and visualised is still groups. However, the taken photographs can
challenging. A novel way to overcome this is be considered as observed peoples preferences
to use crowdsourcing information. which are less vague than declared preferences.
The spatial distribution of visitors preferences
Until recently, user generated contents are provides an indicator of CES, allowing a local
providing volunteered geographic informa- analysis of service providing areas and address-
tion in different place-based applications. ing the lack of quantitative indicators of CES.
The very fast rate of image uploading on Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)
popular social media platforms offers poten- are publicly available for Web 2.0 applica-
tial for a new mapping paradigm based on a tions, such as Flickr and Panoramio, allowing
crowd of observers. Recent studies have used accessing the data, including the photographs
geo-located photographs retrieved from on- metadata, tags and geographic position.
line platforms to explore place perception.
Public image storage analysis has already been Different spatial analysis methods can be
applied in studies for assessing CES. These applied to analyse the specific patterns and
Chapter 5 205
identify the landscape settings which shape and camping, represent physical use of land-
the actual service provision. A systematic vi- scape. Other categories such as landscape
sual analytic process, based on expert knowl- aesthetics and cultural heritage can also be
edge, also allows the identification of different identified by photo-content analysis.
CES categories and their relative importance
(Figure 2). Photographs of animal and plant Moreover, the temporal attributes of the
species can, for instance, be classified as ex- photo-series (date), available on most public
periential use and enjoyment of wildlife, photo-archives, can be used to analyse the
while photographs of sport and recreational seasonality of CES (Figure 3). Specific time
activities, such as skiing, climbing, hiking and location may show over supply, there-
fore conflict and trade-offs between differ-
ent ES can also be mapped.
The photo-series analysis can be applied

at different spatial scales, ranging from
municipality to national, according to the
context, photo-density and positional ac-
curacy of the photographs. The final ser-
vice provision map can therefore inform
stakeholders and policy makers at different
institutional levels on priority areas (Figure
4). Finally, the analysis of community-con-
tributed photographs can be used to design
location-based interviews, questionnaires
or focus groups in order to take into ac-
count socio- and psycho-cultural aspects
which are related to CES values.
n W
in
um
te
t
Au
Legend
Enjoyment of wildlife
Recreation: winter sport
Recreation: summer sport
Other recreation activites
Landscape aesthetic
g
m
rin
Su
m
er Sp
Wildlife Other recreation Rcreation

Natural landscape Sport-summer Aesthetic
Anthropic landscape Sport-winter
Figure 2. Photo location and count by CES cate-

gory in Quatre Montagnes Region as case study Figure 3. Example: Seasonality of CES catego-
demonstration (French Alpine Mountain Range). ries in the study site of Quatre Montagnes.

Database preparation Geographically Weighted Poisson Regression
Explanatory Model calibration Results

Flickr API
variables diagnostic
Figure 4. Methodological framework for exploratory analysis of CES through Geographically Weighted
Regression (GWR). Given the high diversity of habitats and ecosystems in the study site of Quatre
Montagnes, we assume that CES delivery is context-specific and we expect a significant geographical
variation in the relations between the photo-count and explanatory variables. The variables correspond
to the physical (environmental settings) and infrastructure (opportunity settings) characteristics of the
landscape whose spatial variation may affect the CES provision. The spatially weighted regression
showed that specific variables correspond to prominent drivers of CES at the local scale. Dominant
habitat, accessibility, diversity of habitat and proximity to view points were identified as the variables
having a major impact on CES.
Mapping landscape aesthetic plicit data of actual service provision. These

service through viewshed data can be related with biophysical factors of
analysis the landscapes seen from the respective view-
points. The visible area and the respective
visual indicators can be calculated for each
The aesthetic value of landscapes, such as theoretic viewshed, derived from a Digital
scenic beauty, represents a specific category Elevation Model, corresponding to the pho-
of CES which has received growing attention tograph location. The viewshed is thus con-
in the socio-ecological research. Although sidered as a Service Providing Area from the
the visual aesthetic quality of landscapes has perspective of the beneficiary (Chapter5.2).
been researched for centuries, standardised The landscape aesthetic theory allows the
and quantitative assessment approaches are linking of landscape visual indicators to the
so far scarce. landscapes visual characteristics. Those in-
dicators represent the landscape structures
Geo-tagged photographs uploaded on on- related to the information functions of the
line photo-sharing platforms can be used to landscape which contribute to enjoyment
locate aesthetically attractive areas and derive of scenery as a final service. A quantitative
the frequentation rate. Together with the bio- framework can thus be applied to identify the
physical and built-up characteristics of the landscape variables contributing to the visual
landscape, the photo-series allows the anal- landscape attraction.
ysis of complex visual landscapes which are
associated with scenic beauty as it is perceived The procedure for capturing and mapping
by beneficiaries at specific locations. In open the visual character of the landscape has been
areas, as scenic beauty is especially related to applied in the same study region as the pho-
panoramic view, photographs capturing pan- to series analysis (Figure 5). The analysis al-
oramas can therefore be used as spatially ex- lowed the evaluation of the visual landscape
Chapter 5 207
preferences by considering the information
from the users source and assuming the re-
lationship between the mental landscape
perceptions and the visual scale. Different
visual indicators were considered which refer
to six different components of the landscape:
depth, relief, land cover, landform, geolo-
gy and habitat. Each indicator was linked
to nine visual concepts, describing different
landscape characters and landscape aesthetic
theories. The visual indicators were finally
used to run a cluster analysis in order to iden-
tify spatial patterns and geographical regions
(Figure 6).
Flickr photo
classification
Viewshed
calculation
Distance
zones
Depth Relief Landcover Landform Geology Habitat
150 m zone Figure 6. Landscape clusters based on the

visual indicators. Four different typologies
6 km zone
of landscapes corresponding to groups of
viewsheds emerged as distinct clusters.
30 km zone
The spatial distribution of the landscape
groups showed a clustered pattern, allowing a
150 km zone
regionalisation of the landscape characters.
Variable
reduction
expressing the actual service provision in a
spatially explicit way, we can learn about the
Cluster
beneficiaries perception and the landscapes
analysis visual character providing integrated infor-
mation which can support landscape moni-
toring and regional planning.
Figure 5. Methodological framework for visual
landscape assessment. The visible area
(viewshed) was calculated for each location of
photo representing panoramic views. The four Modelling CES supply using
distance zones were set to respect the degrading
visual properties with increasing distance from the
the opportunity spectrum
viewpoint. approach: ESTIMAP recreation
This approach provides a framework for Public, nature-based, outdoor recreational ac-
performing a systematic analysis of scenic tivities include a wide variety of practices rang-
beauty aspects and facilitates interpretation ing from walking, jogging or running in the
of the landscape information function. By closest green urban area or at the river/lake/sea

shore, bike riding in nature after work, pic- The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS).
nicking, observing flora and fauna, organising People can benefit from the opportunities
daily trips to enjoy the surrounding beauty provided by nature for recreational activi-
of the landscape, amongst a myriad of other ties if they are able to reach them. The ROS
possibilities. These activities have important was chosen as a method to map different
roles in human well-being and health. While degrees of service available according to
tourism is an occasional activity, local outdoor their proximity to the people. First, a prox-
recreation affects the daily life of people. The imity map is computed by combining Eu-
ESTIMAP recreation model (see also chap- clidean distance from urban and Euclidean
ter 4.4) assesses the capacity of ecosystems distance from roads. A final map of recre-
to provide nature-based outdoor recreational ation opportunities is then computed by
opportunities which can be enjoyed on a daily a cross tabulation between the RP and the
basis. The model consists of three parts: (1) Proximity using a second set of parameters
Recreation Potential (RP); (2) Recreation Op- with thresholds for the degree of recreation
portunity Spectrum (ROS); (3) The number opportunities provided by nature and the
of potential trips. degree of proximity and remoteness. Pa-
rameters can be based on national standards
The Recreation Potential (RP) (Figure 7) rep- or law (normative) or on observed data.
resents a composite dimensionless indicator
that estimates the potential capacity of a
group of identified landscapes and features Number of potential trips
to provide opportunities for local outdoor
recreation. The provision varies according
to four main components: (1) the suitabil- The potential flow of the service to visitors
ity of land to support recreational activities; can be estimated by computing the share
(2) the blue-green infrastructure in urban of potential trips that can theoretically be
areas; (3) the presence and typology of nat- undertaken in order to reach the different
ural protected areas and natural features; (4) ROS zones. As mentioned above, the pres-
the presence and quality of water bodies and ent model addresses daily recreation there-
coastal areas (inland and sea). fore, according to literature, two reference
distances were identified for close-to-home
Nature Based
Recreation
and daily maximum travelled distance: 8
Opportunities 2010
very low and 80 km.
low
medium
high
very high A moving window with a kernel file is ap-
Non-EU Member
States plied to a raster grid of population density
to compute an estimate of potential trips per
each pixel in the grid per day. Figure 8 shows
a map of potential close-to-home trips.
The percentage of potential trips per ROS

zone can be calculated by dividing the sum
of potential trips per ROS zone by the total
of all possible trips, see graphs in Figure 9.
Figure 7. Potential nature-based opportunities for

recreation in Europe.
Chapter 5 209
Figure 8. Potential close-to-home trips in Europe. The graph represents the shape of a distance decay
function which can be used to model the closeto-home trips. Y axis represents the decay function, X
axis the distance.
Potential local
trips for ROS
categories (%)
Figure 9. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum in Europe. More details are provid-
ed for two cities (Naples and Helsinki); for both cities, an estimate of close-to-home
potential trips was computed. Pie charts represent the percentage of potential trips
to all ROS categories.

Conclusions
The intangible CES are extremely import- Ode , Tveit MS, Fry G (2008) Capturing
ant for peoples well-being in many ways. Landscape Visual Character Using In-
Mapping them might seem difficult but it dicators: Touching Base with Landscape
is worth the effort. Knowledge of CES ca- Aesthetic Theory. Landscape Research 33:
pacity, demand and the flow from service 89-117.
providing areas to beneficiaries is crucial in
spatial planning, nature tourism develop- Paracchini ML, Zulian G, Kopperoinen L,
ment and sustaining and enhancing, for ex- Maes J, Schgner JP, Termansen M, Bido-
ample, peoples physical, mental and social glio G (2014) Mapping cultural ecosystem
health. CES can frequently be overlooked services: A framework to assess the poten-
if they are not analysed and visualised in a tial for outdoor recreation across the EU.
spatially-explicit way. Mapping provides a Ecological Indicators 45: 371-385. http://
means to bring them into discussion along doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.018.
with more easily understood provisioning
and regulating services. Richards DR, Friess DA (2015) A rapid in-
dicator of cultural ecosystem service usage
at a fine spatial scale: content analysis of
Further reading social media photographs. Ecological Indi-
cators 53: 187-195.
Schirpke U, Tasser E, Tappeiner U (2013) Pre-
Casalegno S, Inger R, DeSilvey C, Gaston KJ dicting scenic beauty of mountain regions.
(2013) Spatial co-variance between aes- Landsc Urban Plan 111: 1-12.
thetic value & other ecosystem services.
PLOS ONE 8 (6): e68437. Tenerelli P, Demar U, Luque S (2016)
Crowdsourcing indicators for cultural eco-
Di Minin E, Tenkanen H, Toivonen T (2015) system services: A geographically weighted
Prospects and challenges for social media approach for mountain landscapes. Eco-
data in conservation science. Frontiers logical Indicators 64: 237-248.
in Environmental Science 3: 63. doi:
10.3389/fenvs.2015.00063. Tenerelli P, Pffel C, Luque S (2016) Spatial
assessment of aesthetic services in Alpine
Kopperoinen L, Viinikka A, Zulian G, Yli-Pel- region: combining visual landscape with
konen V, Niemel J (2016) Developing Volunteered Geographic Information.
cultural ecosystem service mapping for Landscape Ecology (in review).
spatial planning purposes Sibbesborg,
Finland, as a case study. Ecosystem Ser- Zulian G, Paracchini ML, Maes J, Liquete
vices (in review). Garcia MDC (2013) ESTIMAP: Ecosys-
tem services mapping at European scale.
Martnez Pastur G, Peri PL, Lencinas MV, (E. U. R.-S. and T. R. Reports, Ed.). Euro-
Garca-Llorente M, Martn-Lpez B, pean Commission. Retrieved from http://
(2015) Spatial patterns of cultural ecosys- publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/
tem services provision in Southern Patago- bitstream/111111111/30410/1/lb-na-
nia. Landscape Ecology 31: 383-399. 26474-en-n.pdf.
Chapter 5 211
5.6. Integrative approaches
Benjamin Burkhard
Ecosystem services (ES) are an integrative The tiered ES mapping approach (see Chap-
multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary field of ter 5.6.1) provides a suitable conceptual
study per se (see Chapter 2.1). Therefore it framework to combine different levels of
is necessary to integrate multiple approach- complexity from tier 1 to tier 3. Participa-
es, methods and data of varying quality and tory GIS (PGIS; Chapter 5.6.2) is another
quantity (see Chapters 4 and 5) as well as highly integrative approach combining var-
experts from multiple backgrounds (see ious kinds of knowledge perspectives with
Chapter 4.6) in ES mapping and assessment spatial information in a straightforward
projects. Depending on the purpose of the manner. Harnessing citizens knowledge
map product, the most suitable methods and willingness to voluntarily contribute to
and available data need to be chosen and in- data gathering is the idea of citizen science
tegrated accordingly (see Chapter 5.4). as described in Chapter 5.6.3. The ES ma-
trix (see Chapter 5.6.4) is based on spread-
Integration takes place on different spheres sheets that link geospatial units to ES supply
such as different ES (regulating, provision- or demand providing relatively quick out-
ing, cultural) spatial and temporal scales, puts in a spatially explicit manner.
domains, (biophysical, social, economic),
methods and data (e.g. direct measure-
ments, modelling, interviews) and levels of Further reading
application (i.e. global, national, regional
or local decision- making). The enormous
complexity of ES maps and the processes Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Mller F
of producing them require a broad range of (2012) Mapping supply, demand and
approaches - from rather simple to complex budgets of ecosystem services. Ecological
- that can be integrated in order to harness Indicators 21: 17-29.
the advantages of each and to deliver the
most applicable and reliable results. How- Maes J, Crossman ND, Burkhard B (2016)
ever, a more complex approach does not Mapping ecosystem services. In: Potschin
always deliver more robust or more appli- M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Turner RK
cable outcomes. For some applications, less (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem
can actually be more (or at least sufficient) Services. Routledge, London, 188-204.
as was previously stated in the 14th centu-
ry: It is futile to do with more things than
which can be done with fewer (cf. Occams
Razor and Chapter 5.4).
The following four sub-chapters introduce

different integrative ES mapping and assess-
ment approaches. All approaches can be ap-
plied in combination with the concepts and
methods described in the preceding chapters.

5.6.1. A tiered approach for
ecosystem services mapping
Adrienne Grt-Regamey, Bettina Weibel, Sven-Erik Rabe &
Benjamin Burkhard
Introduction: The need for a

tiered approach in ES mapping
Understanding strengths and weaknesses of statistics for different areas, elevations
the different ecosystem services (ES) map- and forest types provided in a national
ping methods is crucial for understanding forest inventory.
what information can be derived from a
map and how applicable it eventually will 4. Approaches that estimate ES extrapo-
be. Particularly, information about reliabil- lated from primary data such as field
ity, accuracy and precision of ES maps is surveys linked to spatial information.
important for users to determine their suit-
ability in a specific context (see Chapters 5. Quantitative regression and socio-eco-
3.7 and 6.3). ES mapping approaches can logical system models that combine
broadly be classified into five categories: field data of ES as well as information
from literature linked to spatial data.
1. A simple and widely used approach
directly links ES to geographic infor- To provide guidance in the choice of the
mation, mostly land cover data and is appropriate ES mapping method and to
often referred to as the lookup table enhance comparability between different
approach. The land cover data are used ES assessments, tiered approaches can be
as proxies for the supply of (or demand used. The methods can be categorised into
for) different ES. The ES in the lookup tiers with increasing complexity between the
table can be derived from statistics such different levels such as, for example, in the
as crop yield for agricultural production. TEEB1 tiered approach. This idea has also
been implemented in the InVEST model
2. Approaches, mainly relying on expert (see Chapter 4.4) where a simple (tier 1) and
knowledge (see Chapter 4.6), include more complex (tier 2) approach is suggested.
expert estimates of ES values in lookup
tables but also other methods such as Usually the tier 1 approach relies on widely
Delphi surveys. available data and the tier 2 approach includes
more specific information for the case study
3. The causal relationship approach es- area. Another well-established example is the
timates ES based on well-known rela- IPCC tiered approach which structures and
tionships between ES and spatial in- facilitates the reporting on climate change at
formation retrieved from literature or
statistics. For example, timber produc- 1
TEEB stands for The Economics of Ecosystems
tion can be estimated using harvesting and Biodiversity; http://www.teebweb.org/
Chapter 5 213
global and national scales. Inventory reports spatial and temporal scale explicit. ES ben-
on national greenhouse gas refer to different eficiaries and institutions represent relevant
tiers when describing the methods used and stakeholders who could be considered in the
changes in methods from one report to an- decision-making process.
other are related to the tiers defined.
Once these components have been de-
scribed, the appropriate tier and associated
A tiered approach for ecosystem ES mapping method can be selected. To
guide this selection, we present a decision
services mapping tree in Figure 1. The first question addresses
the process-understanding of the human-en-
Similar to the approaches mentioned vironment system. If interactions between
above, a tiered approach for ES mapping the system components are relevant and a
is proposed in this chapter: it is most use- deeper understanding of processes is need-
ful to define the tiers according to the goal ed (e.g. to understand how management of
of the mapping exercise (see Chapter 5.4) ecosystem components can influence the
to make sure the information relevant for provision of ES), a tier 3 approach would be
the related decision-making process is pro- required. Otherwise, if the purpose of the
vided. This supports the efficiency of the map is mainly to provide a rough overview
mapping process avoiding far too complex of ES values in a certain area, their abun-
approaches where rough estimates would dance, presence and absence, a tier 1 ap-
be sufficient. proach can be selected. If information about
different ES is required at a certain level of
In a first step, the different components of detail but not linked to an explicit manage-
the analysed human-environment system ment question tackling the human-environ-
should be described which include the eco- ment system components and processes, a
systems and ES as well as the beneficiaries tier 2 approach may be suitable. However, if
and institutions involved and their inter- the ES map is to be used to explicitly eval-
actions. For example, for microclimate uate management measures, again a tier 3
regulation in urban areas, the considered approach should be considered. After the
ecosystems are usually green urban areas, most suitable tier has been identified, the
the service they provide is microclimate reg- availability of resources for the ES map-
ulation, beneficiaries are residents and in- ping should be evaluated. In case resources
stitutions are city planning agencies. These are severely limited, a method involving a
system components can be described at lower tier can be applied. Yet, efforts should
different levels of detail, for example, the be made to identify the most suitable tier to
ecosystem can be described in terms of its provide information that is useful for deci-
condition and structure (see Chapter 3.5), sion-makers.
the service provided can be quantified in
different units (see Chapter 2.4), the ES We associated the five different categories
demand can be structured according to of ES mapping methods (see above) with
different beneficiary groups (Chapter 5.1) the different tier levels: while most methods
and different instruments of institutions are applicable at all tier levels, they usually
including NGOs or businesses (see Chap- have a focus at a certain level as indicated
ter 7), for example, can be identified. This in Figure 1 with the shading. ES quantifica-
description of components should make the tion and mapping methods are described in
boundary of the considered system and the more detail in Chapters 4 and 5.

How to choose the appropriate tier Are a deeper understanding and
analysis of underlying socio-economic
and/or geo-bio-physical processes
Process-understanding needed?
necessary?
Is the mapping purpose

exclusively a rough
overview of ES in space?
Rough overview?
Explicit measures
needed?
Do the planned
actions require information
on the system behaviour?
Tier I Tier II Tier III
Are data and resources available?
Are data in sufficient quality, quantity,

scale and resolution available to
conduct an ES assessment in this
tier? Are there enough technical,
human and financial resources
Look-up tables available?
(e.g. linking ES values to land-cover classes)
Expert knowledge
(e.g. Delphi survey: experts rank land-cover types)
Causal relationship
(e.g. BBN: incorporate combined knowledge about ES)
Extrapolation of primary data

(e.g. field survey data linked to spatial information)
Regression and socio-ecological system models

(e.g. field and statistical information linked to spatial data)
Figure 1. Decision tree guiding the selection of tiers for ES mapping.
Chapter 5 215
Box 1. Illustrating the tiered approach: Microclimate regulation
In this example, we illustrate the tiered approach for mapping microclimate regulation within urban
areas with ES mainly provided by green space and important in the context of heat island effects. The
components of the human-environment system include green urban spaces as ecosystems, microclimate
regulation as provided ES, residents as the main user group and city planning agencies as main institu-
tions. If the purpose is to provide a rough overview, i.e. to compare cities or city districts, no detailed
process-understanding is required and a tier 1 approach would be most suitable. Using a lookup table
approach, the microclimate regulation can be estimated based on the amount of green space as illustrat-
ed in Figure 2. Alternatively, experts could also rank the different land use/land cover (LU/LC) classes
according to their suitability for providing microclimate regulation.
Figure 2. Illustrating the tiered approach for microclimate regulation.
If the map is to be used to analyse microclimate regulation in more detail without providing informa-
tion for an explicit management measure targeting system components or processes, a tier 2 approach
can be applied. Here, we present a causal relationship approach, where the green volume is estimated
by combining high resolution remote sensing data with LU/LC information: Green areas are estimated
from the remote sensing information based on the normalised-difference-vegetation-index (NDVI),
which allows, for example, identifying single trees. Additionally, the remote sensing data provides infor-
mation about the height of these identified green areas to estimate the volume. As reducing the urban
heat islands by increasing microclimate regulation requires an understanding of how certain measures
such as changes in the amount and/or structure of green area quantitatively affect the cooling potential,
a process-understanding is needed guiding us to a tier 3 approach.

In a tier 3 approach, the cooling effect is estimated based on a model combining ecological information,
i.e. the cooling potential of various vegetation types with the given green infrastructure and their green
volumes: the volume of green infrastructure can be derived from a detailed land use typology at the
cadastral level based on field surveys with classes such as private yards, sport facilities and infrastruc-
tural green. Each class of the typology is related to the amount of trees, grasses, shrubs and settlement
or infrastructure present. For the categories tree, grass and shrubs, the volume is estimated based on
well-known geometric relations and combined with remote sensing information. The potential cooling
effect for high, middle and low green infrastructure can then be modelled considering climate infor-
mation such as precipitation, temperature and solar radiation. Finally, the effect of infrastructure such
as roads or buildings on the cooling potential is considered for estimating the resulting cooling effect.
Conclusions Further Reading
The suggested concept and decision tree Grt-Regamey A, Weibel B, Kienast F, Rabe
provide guidance in the selection of the ap- S-E, Zulian G (2015) A tiered approach
propriate tier and associated methods for for ecosystem services mapping. Ecosys-
mapping ES. The presented tiered approach tem Services 13: 16-27.
distinguishes the different tiers according to
their purpose i.e. the intended use of the ES Martinez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P (2012)
map. Thus it ensures that ES maps provide Methods for mapping ecosystem service
information useful to decision-makers in the supply: a review. International Journal of
specific context avoiding either the applica- Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services
tion of over-complex and resource intensive & Management 8: 17-25.
methods resulting in high costs at a level of
complexity of methods which might not
be required or over-simplified assessments
which could mislead decision-makers.
If we want the concept of ES to be used by

decision-makers in the next decades, ES map-
ping needs to be of high quality and provide
precise and reliable information. To provide
a solid ground for decision-making, the se-
lection of ES maps should not only be based
on methods and data available, but also on
the ES that are assessed, because the lack of
consideration of relevant ES can significantly
change ES trade-off assessments and the se-
lection of alternative policy options.
Chapter 5 217
5.6.2. Participatory GIS
approaches for mapping
ecosystem services
Nora Fagerholm & Ignacio Palomo
Introduction
Participatory mapping is the process where patory mapping) and the democratic aim of
individuals contribute to the creation of a bringing stakeholders to participate in the
map. It can be applied to ecosystem ser- assessment of the value of natures services
vices (ES) assessment by engaging various and related decision-making. The increased
stakeholders to identify and map a range use of PGIS has resulted in its application
of ES that originate from location-based in multiple contexts and with different aims
knowledge. These approaches are com- including informing land use planning,
monly known as Public Participation GIS rural landscape planning, protected area
(PPGIS) or Participatory GIS (PGIS) (in management, conservation planning, ur-
this chapter, the acronym PGIS is used) and ban planning and coastal zone management
refer to the use of spatially explicit methods amongst others.
and technologies for capturing perceptions,
knowledge and values of individuals or
groups via surveys and/or workshops, with Collecting data through
the aim of using this spatial information in
land use planning and management process- participatory mapping
es. PGIS approaches represent a spatially ex- approaches
plicit socio-cultural assessment of ES. The
location-specific mapping communicates Data collection with PGIS approaches rep-
the assigned environmental values, i.e. the resents pluralism. Common data collection
judgement regarding the worth of objects methods include self-administered surveys,
such as places, ecosystems and species. either web- or paper-based, face-to face
surveys and workshops (see Table 1 for a
Since the early 2000s, when PGIS ap- comparison of these methods). Mapping ac-
proaches addressing community values for tivity typically engages the lay-public such
ES appeared, this field has increased expo- as residents or visitors to an area but also
nentially for pragmatic and practical reasons various stakeholders including land hold-
such as: the idea of crowd wisdom to create ers, environmental professionals, planning
knowledge from the masses, the lack of spa- practitioners and other experts. Random
tial data in specific contexts or for certain and meaningful sampling, on site recruit-
services, the need to include socio-cultural ment and volunteered open participation or
perceptions for ES assessment, technolog- different methods for stakeholder prioritisa-
ical development allowing sophisticated tion can be applied to select participants for
mapping solutions (e.g. web-based partici- the mapping process.

Table 1. Three common data collection approaches in PGIS (web-based surveys, face-to-face surveys
and workshops) for ES assessment and their characteristics.
Characteristics Web-based surveys Face-to-face surveys Workshops

Often experts (e.g. local
inhabitants with ecological
Participants type Often lay public Lay public and experts knowledge, environmental
specialists, planning
practitioners)
Time efficient but
Time consuming as each
resources needed for Time efficient as it
person needs to be met
Time, cost and inviting participants, allows all data gathering
individually, resources
facilitation no facilitation needed during the workshop, but
also needed for inviting
requirements and participation not demanding for preparation
participants and training
restricted by specific and training facilitators
interviewers
time and place
Random sampling, on site
Random sampling,
recruitment, meaningful Meaningful sampling,
Sampling method volunteered open
sampling, stakeholder stakeholder prioritisation
participation
prioritisation
Easier to reach a
larger and more
Remains often
representative sample, Depends on available
Sample size and low, statistical
although survey resources, possibility to
representativeness representativeness not
respondent rate often control representativeness
targeted
remains low (under
15%)
Allows communication
Instrumental and self-
Self-administered but among participants and
administered, difficult
Type of participation allows facilitation and a detailed exploration of the
to analyse the level of
and its effect on data detailed exploration of the issue analysed (deliberative
understanding of the
quality issue analysed, contributes mapping), contributes
participant and data
positively to data quality positively to data quality
quality
PGIS mapping of ES involves either dig- areas or using predefined land units as a
ital mapping interfaces, often web-based, basis for assigning values.
with zoomable background maps or print-
ed map layouts commonly presenting one Most commonly applied typologies for map-
given scale. Information, given on the ping include ES classifications (MA, TEEB,
background maps typically includes aerial/ CICES, see Chapter 2.4), adaptations of
satellite image overlaid with basic map el- these to specific contexts or landscape values
ements, or topographic maps showing, for and landscape services typologies developed
example, relief and basic natural and man- in case studies and based on research on so-
made features. The most often applied cial values. Direct ES identification and val-
method for marking has been point place- uation through an inductive approach, not
ment (e.g. movable plastic discs or stickers) deriving from a given typology, have been
followed by drawing polygons presenting rarely applied.
Chapter 5 219
Analytical process land cover, land use, management units, land
change) or ecological data. In addition, spa-
A wide variety of analytical approaches can tial indices such as landscape metrics derived
be applied to PGIS data on ES (Figure 1). indices are common to quantify the distribu-
Typically the analytical process starts by tion across different land use or management
describing the characteristics of informants units within the study area. Clustering tech-
who participated in ES mapping. Spatial niques have been found useful for exploring
analysis often begins with description of the potential relation between the mapped
the spatial patterns and characteristics of ES and, for example, land use and socio-de-
ES through testing the level of clustering mographic characteristics of informants. In-
or dispersion, intensity/density estimation, terest has also been paid to extrapolate and
diversity of ES, identification of hotspots model the distribution of the participatory
and by calculating distances, for example, mapped ES to locations where data were not
to the respondents home. Between pairs collected through value transfer methods.
of ES, the spatial overlap has been studied Analysis of ES bundles has not been frequent
through correlation analysis to look at the but is gaining more attention as is the analysis
co-existence of ES. In spatial analysis of of ES flows and trade-offs.
mapped ES, areas have a predefined precise
boundary but points are treated as repre-
senting the centroid of the spatial occur- Opportunities and challenges
rence of a specific ES extending outwards
to an unknown distance. for future research and practice
Spatial concurrence is commonly studied Several case studies show that socio-cultural
through overlay analysis to explain the re- valuation of ES through PGIS has success-
lationship to physical land features (such as fully facilitated the identification of spatial
1. Description of informant characteristics

Descriptive statistics
2. Description of ES spatial patterns
Spatial arrangement (clustering/dispersion)
PGIS data
Intensity/density estimation
Identification of hot spots
Distance analysis (e.g. from mapped locations to informant homes
3. Spatial overlap between mapped ES
Correlation analysis
4. Relationship to land use and other physical or administrative land properties
Overlay analysis
5. Quantification of ES distribution across land use or management units
Spatial indices (e.g. social landscape metrics) PGIS data
6. Relation between mapped ES, land use and socio-demographic characteristics integrated with
Clustering techniques (e.g. redundancy analysis (RDA)) other spatial
7. Extrapolation and modelling datasets
Value transfer methods
Figure 1. Example of an analytical process for PGIS data from basic descriptive steps to more advanced
spatial and statistical analysis where PGIS data is integrated with other spatial data sets.

areas of ES supply and demand and how landscape features mapped by participants,
these vary between stakeholder groups. or with modelling approaches).
PGIS data may also be integrated with
spatial data on ES produced through oth- Thirdly, it should be emphasised that partic-
er methods, advancing trans-discipline and ipation should be in the core of PGIS. Ca-
more comprehensive ES assessment. Some pacity building and social learning should
opportunities and challenges for PGIS ap- always be seen as important aims of partic-
proaches may be identified and formulated ipatory activities. Another important aspect
around the following three points. of mapping ES through PGIS is to actually
integrate this data into land use planning
Firstly, PGIS allows addressing certain as- and decision-making regarding ecosystem
pects of ES that cannot be evaluated without protection, conservation and management
participation. PGIS approaches have poten- and to communicate to the participants
tial to enhance the appreciation of abstract, how it was applied. This would enhance
symbolic and intrinsic values that landscapes public participation in practice and it would
and ecosystems provide to humans. Insuffi- not only be seen as consultation which,
cient acknowledgement of these values has unfortunately, is prevalent in the current
been addressed in literature as one of the re- PGIS practice. Hence, integration of the
curring critiques of the ES framework. Cer- gathered spatially explicit knowledge into
tain ES categories such as cultural services decision-making remains a challenge for the
(e.g. landscape aesthetics, cultural identity, future and requires also significant commit-
place attachment, etc.), might naturally ment by researchers and facilitators as well
better fit in PGIS than non-PGIS methods, as resources to appreciate PGIS as a process
since PGIS can directly capture the percep- in ES assessment.
tions and values individuals have towards
ES. Cultural services are also often inferred
from proxy data underestimating the multi- Further reading
ple socio-cultural benefits widely recognised
as critical for human well-being.
Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND,
Secondly, new opportunities arise through Macdonald DH (2010). Targeting the
information technologies (ITs). The mush- management of ecosystem services based
rooming new ITs and increasingly available on social values: Where, what and how?
open source spatial data sets can facilitate Landscape Urban Planning 97: 111-122.
the application of PGIS methods through
citizen science (e.g. via smart-phones and Brown G, Fagerholm N (2015) Empirical
use of open source high resolution imagery PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem ser-
or topographic maps) opening new possi- vices: A review and evaluation. Ecosystem
bilities for open public access of ES map- Services 13: 119-133.
ping for decision-making (Chapter 5.6.3).
In data-scarce regions, PGIS has also been Brown G, Pullar DV (2012) An evaluation of
proposed as an alternative to complex and the use of points versus polygons in public
expensive data-building processes to map participation geographic information sys-
ES. In this case, depending on the use of the tems using quasi-experimental design and
data, it is important to evaluate the accura- Monte Carlo simulation. International
cy of information outputs (e.g. to compare Journal of Geographical Information Sci-
participatory mapped ES data with physical ences 26: 231-246.
Chapter 5 221
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Mller F Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH,
(2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, Kali-
demand and budgets. Ecological Indica- vas T (2009) Mapping community values
tors 21: 17-29. for natural capital and ecosystem services.
Ecological Economics 68(5): 1301-1315.
Fagerholm N, Kyhk N, Ndumbaro F,
Khamis M (2012) Community stakehold- Raymond CM, Kenter JO, Plieninger T, Turn-
ers knowledge in landscape assessments er NJ, Alexander KA (2014) Comparing
Mapping indicators for landscape services. instrumental and deliberative paradigms
Ecological Indicators 18: 421-433. underpinning the assessment of social val-
ues for cultural ESs. Ecological Economics
Garca-Nieto AP, Quintas-Soriano C, Garca- 107: 145-156.
Llorente M, Palomo I, Montes C, Martn-
Lpez B (2014) Collaborative mapping of Sherrouse BC, Semmens DJ, Clement JM
ecosystem services: The role of stakeholders (2014) An application of Social Values for
profiles. Ecosystem Services 13: 141-152. ES (SolVES) to three national forests in
Colorado and Wyoming. Ecological Indi-
Klain SC, Chan KM (2012) Navigating coast- cators 36: 68-79.
al values: participatory mapping of ecosys-
tem services for spatial planning. Ecologi-
cal Economics 82: 104-113.
Palomo I, Martn-Lpez B, Potschin M,

Haines-Young R, Montes C (2013) Na-
tional Parks, buffer zones and surrounding
lands: mapping ES flows. Ecosystem Ser-
vices 4: 104-116.

5.6.3. Citizen science
Joerg A. Priess & Leena Kopperoinen
What is citizen science?

The term citizen science (CS) already sug- tion and honesty of CS contributors have
gests that citizens somehow are involved in been questioned by scientists.
science. Synonyms occasionally used are
crowd science or crowd wisdom (with col- While data quality criteria usually are avail-
lective intelligence considered superior for able, potential conflicts of interest may be
solving social or environmental problems). harder to detect and address (see suggested
reading at the end of this chapter). What has
A citizen, in this context, refers to amateurs been shown is that CS may improve deci-
or non-scientists voluntarily contributing sion-making, generate new knowledge and
to or participating in data gathering (such innovations, empower citizens and generate
as observations of natural phenomena or political discourse and concern.
species) or in scientific projects. Scientific
projects involving citizens are often called In the context of ecosystem services (ES)
participatory research. In many instances, mapping, CS implies that public partic-
volunteers are collecting, for example, ad- ipation can well go beyond participatory
ditional biological or astronomical data, monitoring of ES in a research project. For
with the most popular and well-known instance, groups of urban gardeners could
citizen science activity probably being bird map their ES use with the objective of iden-
watching. In other cases, citizens may be tifying their main interests or the diversity
more deeply involved in defining research of their contributions to food production or
questions and in designing and running the their recreational activities.
projects in which professional scientists may
or may not be involved at all. Such proj- In the rest of this chapter, we focus on CS
ects may take place in a citizen association contributing to the mapping and assessment
focusing on, for example, regional history, of ES and present some of the methods
language, landscapes. available for CS / participatory approaches.
Nowadays, research is dominated by pro-

fessionals but only two centuries back, am- CS approaches in ES mapping
ateur researchers such as Benjamin Frank-
lin or Charles Darwin were more the rule and assessment
rather than the exception. During the last
decades, CS and participatory research have Different types of ES can be distinguished
increased tremendously in various fields of (see Chapter 5.5) and different methods and
science such as astronomy, biology, environ- approaches are available to map and assess
mental science, history or the observation them (see Chapter 3.2). Many cultural ES
of weather phenomena such as cyclones. In are especially difficult to address via scientific
recent discussions about the quality of data mapping and modelling tools not involving
generated in CS projects, expertise, motiva- the broader public, as cultural ES often de-
Chapter 5 223
pend on the preferences of users which may 5.1). Additionally, in most approaches, spa-
vary considerably locally or regionally. Ex- tial and temporal units / coverage also need
cepting touristic activities, for which much to be clarified (see Chapter 5.7.5).
visitor or overnight stay data are available,
large information deficits still exist about ES use has been mapped by citizens and
other cultural ES such as gardening, outdoor scientists using the MapNat smartphone ap-
activities, appreciation of cultural heritage or plication. Colours of flags indicate different
intellectual experiences which are much more types of ES use. The selected ES use also in-
difficult to assess without asking or involving dicates the frequency of use and the impor-
citizens. Thus, in the context of cultural ES, tance, both reflecting the view of the person
CS projects have a huge potential to increase who mapped the ES use (Figure 1).
our knowledge base and contribute to im-
proving decisions and management. Further-
more, citizens increasingly contribute to pub-
lic debates and decision-making, especially
concerning the governance of regulating or
provisioning services by, for instance, discuss-
ing and defining environmental thresholds
such as the use of water resources.
Which methods and tools are

available for participatory
mapping?
In this section, we briefly present four of the
participatory mapping methods available for
CS in the context of ES mapping and assess-
ment, covering work with conventional paper
maps or tables, or digital tools such as geo-
graphic information systems (GIS) or smart-
phone apps. All methods can be used with
different levels of citizen and scientist involve-
ment. The higher the level of involvement
of citizens, the higher the level of knowledge
needed for citizens, for instance, about differ-
ent ES, to handle spatial data in a geographic
information system, to prepare paper or digi- Figure 1. ES use in Europe.
tal maps of the study area, or to evaluate infor-
mation generated during the CS project.
Four CS-compatible mapping
In every ES mapping approach, citizens and
scientists need to define the mapping per- examples
spective, i.e. whether they want to address
the (potential) supply of, the demand for, Mapping ES with paper maps: Identifying
or the actual use (= flow) of ES (see Chapter and locating ES on topographic or thematic

maps can be carried out as an indoor or an
outdoor approach, the latter enabling par-
ticipants (at least partly) to view and observe
the area of interest. Mapping units may be
predefined, for example, using units of land
cover, or may be identified during the proj-
ect as, for example, spatial units are assumed
to differ between ES. For a quick qualitative
ES mapping/assessment (tier 1; see Chap-
ter 5.6.1), one workshop or one field visit
may be sufficient, while the generation of
more detailed information (tiers 2-3) can
be expected to require more time and/or ad-
ditional sources of information. ES identi- Kilometers CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICE
SUPPLY AND ACCESSIBILITY
fication and mapping can be carried out in- 0 0.25 0.5
CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICE

1 Low provision - easily accessible
Low provision - accessible
dividually, either resulting in calculated ES

Low provision - not easily accessible
SUPPLY AND ACCESSIBILITY IN
SIPOO AREA Medium provision - easily accessible
Medium provision - accessible
means or ranges or both. Alternatively, ES Analysis includes 25 meter grids that presents potential
aesthetic and cultural heritage areas.
For every grid also their accessibility
Medium provision - not easily accessible
High provision - easily accessible
can be mapped based on a group consensus has been calculated.

Digiroad Finnish Transport Agency/Digiroad2013
Corine Land Cover 2006 SYKE, EEA
High provision - accessible
Highprovision - not easily accessible
(called deliberative mapping). The approach

Erikns master plan area
EuroGeographics for the administrative boundaries
can be used to map (potential) supply of Figure 3. A map presenting the opportunity spec-
trum of the CES group Aesthetics and cultural
and demand for ES, trade-offs, mismatches heritage in the background and residents point
etc. Data collected with paper maps can be and polygon markings of the same CES group.
digitised afterwards in GIS (Figures 2-3: Ex- Examples of open-ended explanations of the
markings have been added on the map. The bor-
ample from Sipoo, Finland). der of the local master plan area is shown as well.
units, as well as evaluating ES mapping re-

sults. However, at least one citizen or scien-
tist with GIS software experience is needed.
The approach can be used to map (poten-
tial) supply of and demand for ES. The
technical threshold might, however, invoke
a selection bias dependent on the knowledge
of the involved participant.
Figure 2. Using paper maps in a local master
plan exhibition to collect cultural ES related The Matrix method to map ES: This meth-
values, in Sipoo, Finland. Although a digital map
of the planning area (see computer in front) was od is presented in Chapter 5.6.4. In CS
available for citizens, paper maps were preferred projects, both paper and digital versions
by them. may be used. As explained in the previous
examples, the matrix method can also be
Mapping ES with GIS: This approach is applied individually or as a group exercise
comparable to the first, the difference be- and the approach is also suitable for map-
ing the replacement of paper maps by PCs, ping (potential) supply of and demand for
laptops or tablet computers (see also PPGIS ES and, additionally, actual ES use.
Chapter 5.6.2). The great advantage of dig-
ital mapping is that different types of spa- Use of a smartphone app such as MapNat
tial information can be linked or combined, for ES mapping: Similar to mapping ES
for example, to derive appropriate mapping with GIS, MapNat is a participatory GIS
Chapter 5 225
approach (see Chapter 5.6.2). Mapping ES CS organisations
uses the GPS (geo-positioning) unit of the
smartphone or a tablet to locate ES at the Citizen Science Alliance:
current position of the user. Alternatively, http://www.citizensciencealliance.org/
app users can just use their fingers to map European Citizen Science Association:
ES directly on the devices screen. In this http://www.citizen-science.net/
tool, the mapping perspective is focusing on
recording the actual use of ES, either directly CS definitions
during ES use, or afterwards identifying the
location in the apps map view. This meth- http://www.openscientist.org/2011/09/fi-
od can also be applied individually or as a nalizing-definition-of-citizen.html
group exercise. Contrasting with the previ- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_sci-
ous examples, this tool also provides access ence#Definition
to the ES records and valuations of all other
app users worldwide (Figure 1), because all CS platforms
records are sent to and redistributed by an
internet server. ZOONIVERSE
(https://www.zooniverse.org)
Main German platform (in EN and DE):
Further reading http://www.buergerschaffenwissen.de/en
CS example Cyclones
Bela et al. (2016) Learning and the transfor- http://www.cyclonecenter.org/#/about
mative potential of citizen science. Conser-
vation Biology 00:0, 1-10. doi: 10.1111/ Tools
cobi.12762
qGIS:
Dickinson and Bonney (Eds) (2013) Citizen http://www.qgis.org/de/site/index.html
Science: Public Participation in Environ- MapNat, ES mapping App:
mental Research. Cornell University Press, http://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=40618
Ithaca & London, 304 pp. Harava:
https://www.eharava.fi/en/
Editorial (2015) Rise of the citizen scientist. Maptionnaire:
NATURE 524, 265. https://maptionnaire.com/en/

5.6.4. Ecosystem services matrix
Benjamin Burkhard
Introduction
Ecosystem services (ES) are spatio-temporal As shown in Figure 1, the basic steps of ap-
explicit phenomena. Thus, ES supply, flow plication include:
and demand (see Chapter 5.1) can be linked
to units in space and time. One mapping 1. Selection of ES study area;
method is the ES matrix approach, which 2. Selection of relevant geo-biophysical
links ES to appropriate geo-biophysical spatial units (forming the assessment
spatial units. Thereafter, their supply, flow matrix lines/y-axis);
and/or demand are ranked using a relative 3. Collection of suitable spatial data (e.g.
scale ranging from 0 to 5 (not relevant to land cover/land use (LULC) data, hab-
very high, see Figure 1). Based on this nor- itat map, soil map, hydrological map);
malisation of ES rankings, various ES are 4. Selection of relevant ES (assessment
made comparable and different points in matrix columns/x-axis);
time (including scenarios) can be assessed. 5. Definition of suitable indicators for ES
Therefore, the approach has the potential to quantification;
integrate all kinds of ES-related data based 6. Quantification of ES indicators (using
on diverse scientific disciplines or ES quan- various methods);
tification methods (see Chapter 4) and of 7. Normalisation of ES indicator values to
varying quality and quantity in illustrative the relative 0-5 scale;
matrix tables and maps. It can be applied in 8. Interlinking geospatial units and scaled
data-poor as well as in data-rich study areas, ES values in the ES matrix;
fulfilling mapping purposes from first ES 9. Linkage of ES 0-5 rankings to geospa-
screening studies and awareness-raising to tial units to create ES maps; and
very comprehensive integrated trans-disci- 10. Interpretation, communication and ap-
plinary ES assessments. In this Chapter, the plication of resulting ES maps.
ES matrix approach is described and related
uncertainties are discussed. Figure 1 gives an overview of the key com-
ponents that are typically involved in the
process.
Approach
Steps 1-6 are strongly related to the purpose
of the ES mapping exercise (see Chapter
The ES matrix provides a very flexible ES 5.4) and available mapping capacities (data,
mapping methodology that can be applied methods, time and labour). Relevant stake-
on all spatial and temporal scales (see Chap- holders should be involved in the process as
ter 5.7.5), for all ES (see Chapter 2.4), vari- much as possible and when necessary. Steps
ous multidisciplinary ES quantification ap- 7-9 are specific for the ES matrix but also
proaches (see Chapter 4) and for different other ES mapping approaches and each step
mapping purposes (see Chapter 5.4). is related to characteristic uncertainties (see
below). Step 10 refers to the map-maker to
Chapter 5 227
map-user communication (see Chapter 6.4) can be helpful for the identification and
and applications of ES maps for different awareness-raising of ES and their supply
purposes (see Chapter 7). and demand patterns.
ES1 ES2 ESN
U1 0 0 X
U2 2 1 X
ES1
Map with U3 2 1 X
geospatial units
U4 1 1 X
Not relevant 0
Very low 1
U5 5 5 X
Low 2
Medium 3 U6 2 1 X
High 4
Very high 5 ES matrix linking geospatial ES2
units with ES rankings
Scale for ranking ES supply,
flow or demand ES ranking based on different ES quantification methods
Figure 1. Overview of the ES matrix approach, based on geospatial map data, the actual matrix and
resulting ES maps.
Data sources and quantification In case the ES mapping purpose goes be-
yond providing a rough overview of ES sup-
methods ply or demand in space, further data and ES
quantification approaches can be integrat-
In its simplest form of application, the ES ed. The tiered ES mapping approach (see
matrix assessment uses spatial LULC data Chapter 5.6.1) helps select the appropriate
as proxies for ES supply. The advantage method based on the mapping purpose, the
of LULC data is, besides its availability in necessary process-understanding and need-
many regions of the world, that many pro- ed explicit measures and, last but not least,
visioning ES (see Chapters 2.4 and 5.5.2) the data and resources availability.
can be specifically and uniquely linked to
single LULC types. Timber, for example, ES data from all three mapping tiers can be
is harvested from forests, crops grow on ag- integrated into the ES matrix. The use of
ricultural fields and fish and seafood occur expert knowledge for ES quantification and
only in water bodies, rivers and the ocean. qualification has, for example, become very
Regulating ES (see Chapter 5.5.1) and popular and increasingly accepted within
cultural ES (see Chapter 5.5.3) are usually the scientific community. More compre-
supplied in well-functioning and not too far hensive ES assessments would otherwise de-
degraded ecosystems which can be related to mand large resources in terms of time and
more natural LULC types. ES maps, based personnel. Data from statistics, for instance
on LULC information, provide important about agricultural or forestry production or
spatial landscape information which already existing studies with relevant information -

if available and appropriate - should further of ES. It is supposed to reflect the fact that,
be integrated in the ES matrix assessment. in natural systems, several ES are constantly
Model outcomes provide further useful data supplied, but this supply is not relevant (or
applicable for ES mapping (see Chapter 4.4). not yet perceived to be relevant) for human
well-being. At the other end of the scale, 5
In an optimum case, data from all tiers can represents the maximum ES indicator val-
be acquired for the same area, time and ue. It is important to be clear about what
spatial scale and in comparable resolution. the reference for this maximum value is.
These data can then be triangulated in or- In most cases, it is not useful to use glob-
der to be cross-checked and to find the most al reference values and compare them with
suitable, reliable and useful (for the specific regional studies (e.g. using tropical forests
mapping purpose) ES quantification and primary productivity as reference for bore-
mapping method (see also Chapter 4.6). al forests). One pragmatic solution is to use
Figure 2 shows how such triangulation could only ES indicator values that can be found
take place based on data from the three tiers, in the study area, i.e. class 5 represents the
normalised to the relative 0-5 scale on which maximum amount of ES supplied or de-
the ES matrix approach is based. manded in a region.
The data normalisation to the six categories

Tier 1 needs to be based on a sound data classi-
5 fication method using appropriate class
4
breaks. Usually the equal intervals (see
Chapter 3.3) classification methods should
3
be used to group the data into the 0-5
2 classes. Outlying values in the maximum
1 value class can be included in the 5-class
0 (i.e. integrating values that are larger than
the last equal interval maximum value). In
addition, for the lowest values (0-class), a
data range smaller than the respective equal
interval may be suitable. Classification
Tier 3 Tier 2
methods, other than equal intervals such
Figure 2. Data triangulation across ES mapping as natural breaks or quantiles, might affect
tiers illustrating the outcomes of different meth-
ods on the relative 0-5 scale. The ES map-maker results and are less suitable to make the dif-
needs to decide which value is most reliable, real- ferent classes and their values comparable
istic and useful for the actual ES mapping purpose. with each other. Class 4, for instance, in-
tuitively indicates twice as much ES supply
Data normalisation or demand than class 2, which also needs
to be shown by the data.
As mentioned above, the ES matrix ap- The relative data normalisation approach is
proach is based on a normalisation of ES comparable to the commonly used Likert
indicator values to a relative scale ranging scale. This scale uses five categories of de-
from 0-5. 0 represents no relevant ES sup- creasing (or increasing) values to indicate,
ply or demand. The term relevant is men- for example, frequency (very frequently
tioned here because 0 does not necessarily frequently occasionally rarely never),
mean absolute zero (0.000.....) for all types agreement, importance or likelihood.
Chapter 5 229
Uncertainties of the ES matrix studies, many ES are neglected due to data
availability.
The most appealing aspect of the ES matrix
approach is perhaps its simplicity of appli- 5. Definition of suitable indicators for ES
cation. The matrix delivers tangible results quantification
of ES supply and demand patterns in look- ES indicators need to be robust, scalable and
up tables and resulting maps by integrating sensitive to changes. Furthermore, appropri-
data from various sources. However, the ate indicator-indicandum (i.e. the subject to
approach and especially its integrative char- be indicated) relations need to be identified
acter include several uncertainties (see also and defined. Various indicators are needed
Chapter 6) which are presented in the fol- for ES trade-off and synergy assessments.
lowing, relating to the 10 steps of applica-
tion shown above: 6. Quantification of ES indicators
Uncertainties can be due to the lack of ap-
1. Selection of ES study area propriate data for ES quantifications and
The case study area needs to be representa- the use of surrogate indicators, model, mea-
tive for the addressed question and region. surement and statistical data uncertainties,
It needs to reflect the specific local, natural mismatches between geo-biophysical data
and cultural settings, land management and and statistical data spatial units or limited
changing socio-ecological system condi- knowledge about complex ecosystem func-
tions. tions.
2. Selection of relevant geo-biophysical 7. Normalisation of ES indicator values

spatial units Comparability of data from different sourc-
Generalisation (see Chapter 3.2) and cat- es, varying quality and quantity and across
egorisation of complex landscapes into a various ES categories is not always given.
limited number of classes (e.g. LULC types) Moreover, subjectivity in the scoring proce-
include simplification and uncertainties. dures and data classification include uncer-
Spatial units are also dependent on spatial tainties.
data resolution and study area size.
8. Interlinking geospatial units and ES in
3. Collection of suitable spatial data the ES matrix
Information availability (e.g. appropriate The averaging of ES data over space and
biophysical data on soils, hydrology and time is difficult (a weighting system could
vegetation) and data access often limit com- help but would complicate communication
prehensive ES studies. In some regions, of results). Usually, ES supply takes place
not all necessary data sets are available (e.g. spatially and heterogeneously and aggrega-
habitat maps). Further uncertainties can be tion of data, models and indicators without
based on inaccuracies in spatial and themat- losing relevant information is not easy.
ic data and unsuitability of spatial and tem-
poral scales. 9. Linkage of ES 0-5 rankings to geospa-
tial units
4. Selection of relevant ES Mismatches of selected spatial units and ES
Which ES are really relevant in the case (e.g. difficulties in allocating cultural ES to
study area and which user groups are ben- land cover data), including definition of ap-
efitting? Are ES imported and exported to/ propriate service providing areas (see SPA;
from the region? Especially for data-driven Chapter 5.2) and ES flows can lead to un-

certainties of ES maps. Limited knowledge Further reading
about complex socio-ecological system
linkages, data extrapolation to different or Burkhard B, Kroll F, Mller F, WindhorstW
larger regions, the proper representation of (2009) Landscapes capacities to pro-
multiple ES (2D maps usually only allow vide ecosystem services a concept for
the presentation of one ES or ES averages/ land-cover based assessments. Landscape
sums) and GIS software/data issues also add Online 15: 1-22.
further uncertainties.
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Mller F
10. Interpretation, communication and (2012) Mapping supply, demand and
application of resulting ES maps budgets of ecosystem services. Ecological
Badly designed maps and insufficient end-us- Indicators 21: 17-29.
er interfaces might cause interpretation
problems (see Chapter 6.4). Data and map Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, MllerF
misinterpretation can also be due to lacking (2014) Ecosystem Service Potentials,
knowledge of the study area or general lack of Flows and Demands - Concepts for Spa-
expert knowledge, for example, concerning tial Localisation, Indication and Quantifi-
interactions between landscape management cation. Landscape Online 34: 1-32
and ES supply. ES information is often too
complex and too aggregated for easy and fast European Commission Science for Envi-
understanding. Model and map validation ronment Policy (2015) Ecosystem Ser-
(see Chapter 6.3) and respective uncertainty vices and the Environment. In-depth
or reliability measures are, in most cases, not Report 11 produced for the European
provided with the ES map. Commission, DG Environment by the
Science Communication Unit, UWE,
Bristol. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/
Conclusions science-environment-policy.
Hou Y, Burkhard B, Mller F (2013) Uncer-

The ES matrix approach has become a very tainties in landscape analysis and ecosys-
popular methodology for ES mapping. tem service assessment. Journal of Envi-
Combined with the tiered approach, various ronmental Management 127: 117-131.
data and ES quantification methods can be
used and integrated. The key advantage is Jacobs S, Burkhard B, Van Daele T, Staes J,
the high flexibility and applicability of the Schneiders A (2015) The Matrix Reload-
ES matrix at various levels of complexity. ed: A review of expert knowledge use for
Less complex applications relatively quickly mapping ecosystem services. Ecological
deliver results that, for example, are useful Modelling 295: 21-30.
for awareness-raising or first ES screening
studies. The ES matrix is currently applied in Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Mller F (2013)
several case studies on different spatial scales Mapping provisioning ecosystem services
all over the world and for different mapping at the local scale using data of varying spa-
purposes. The methodology is increasingly tial and temporal resolution. Ecosystem
improved by this approach, until the full Services 4: 47-59.
potential eventually can be harnessed.
Chapter 5 231
Sohel SI, Mukul SA, Burkhard B (2015) Hmlinen H, Loke R, Mller J, Stanisci
Landscapes capacities to supply ecosystem A, Staszewski T, Mller F (2015) Assess-
services in Bangladesh: A mapping assessment of spatial ecosystem integrity and
ment for Lawachara National Park. Eco- service gradients across Europe using the
system Services 12: 128-135. LTER Europe network. Ecological Model-
ling 295: 75-87.
Stoll S, Frenzel M, Burkhard B, Adamescu M,
Augustaitis A, Baeler C, Bonet Garca
FJ, Cazacu C, Cosor GL, Daz-Delgado
R, Carranza ML, Grandin U, Haase P,

5.7. Mapping ecosystem services
on different scales
Susanne Frank & Benjamin Burkhard
Mapping of ecosystem services (ES) is in- The spatial scale, however, should not only
herently related to the topic of scales. Var- refer to grain and extent. The third dimen-
ious scale aspects need to be taken into sion should also be considered. Slope in-
account in order to consider key aspects clination, relief intensity and the elevation
which are driving decisions in the context above sea level significantly affect the quan-
of land use management. First of all, the tity, quality and distribution of ES.
spatial scale is of importance. It is crucial
to identify the appropriate spatial scale Mapping of ES at a specific spatial scale re-
which refers to the structures, process- veals insights of the current situation. For
es, functions and services which are pro- the application of the ES concept in policy
vided or demanded in a spatial unit. This making or spatial planning, the monitoring
unit might have a local, regional, national, of changes, as well as visualisation and eval-
continental, or global extent. Addition- uation of possible futures is of great impor-
ally, spatial scale is characterised by the tance. Not only spatial hot spots and cold
grain, i.e. the spatial resolution of a map. spots of ES supply and demand need to be
The higher the spatial resolution (and considered (see Chapter 5.2), but also hot
the smaller the Minimum Mapping Unit, moments and cold moments (see Chap-
MMU), the more detailed statements may ters 5.3 and 5.7.5).
be derived from a map.
Temporal scales range from short-term, sea-
Once the spatial scale is clear, the crucial sonal, annual, medium-term, to long-term
information for successful application of considerations. Again, depending on the
the ES concept is provided by the map subject and the purpose of a study, the appro-
content. The thematic resolution of maps priate scale needs to be identified. Cross-sec-
should reflect the subject of interest. For toral, integrated spatial planning (see Chap-
some basic statements, for example on soil ter 7.2) at the regional scale, for example,
sealing, the distinction of two thematic typically refers to the medium term perspec-
classes, sealed and un-sealed, can be suffi- tive (10 to 20 years in the future). In con-
cient. When it comes to the mapping of trast, sectoral forestry planning (see Chapter
more complex processes, functions or ser- 7.3.3) requires both operational short-term
vices, higher thematic resolution would be planning and long-term consideration of a
required. This is especially true for high- couple of hundred years to reflect the forest
ly specialised systems. To distinguish the development from planting to final harvest-
erosion potential of specific crop rotation ing (see Chapter 5.7.5). Looking backwards,
types, for example, numerous thematic maps of land use changes can reveal insights
classes are required which reflect the num- of past developments which are fundamen-
ber of crops, the length of a rotation peri- tal for the estimation of future trends in a
od, the soil management type etc. regions development.
Chapter 5 233
These various dimensions of scale are inter- Chapter 5.7 gives an overview of different
linked. Usually, global considerations take scales of ES mapping, covering regional,
large-scale and long-term topics at lower national and global perspectives. Marine
thematic resolution into account (see Chap- areas and the interactions of spatial, the-
ter 5.7.3). On the other hand, local or re- matic and temporal scales are specifically
gional studies typically are characterised addressed.
by deeper understanding of processes and
functions and availability of high resolution
data regarding spatial and temporal scale Further reading
(see Chapter 5.7.1). One of the major chal-
lenges is the up-scaling of local knowledge
on higher scales (see Chapter 3.7). Without Reid WV, Berkes F, Wilbanks T, Capistrano D
the understanding of local structures and (Eds.) (2006) Bridging scales and knowl-
processes, the regional, national and global edge systems: concepts and applications in
mapping and assessment of ES would run ecosystem assessment / Millennium Eco-
the risk of neglecting essential information system Assessment. Island Press/World Re-
which determines the ES performance. sources Institute, Washington, DC.

5.7.1. Regional ecosystem
service mapping approaches
Marion Kruse
Introduction
Human activities and therefore ecosystem of course, on the administrative/political

services (ES) act on different scales not or historical conditions of the case study
only temporally but also spatially. Consid- area. However, small protected areas or spe-
eration of these different spatial scales is cific ES that only act over a very narrowly
especially important for a meaningful and defined extent (e.g. sacred/holy features of
precise mapping of ES (see Chapter 5.7). nature such as trees) can also be considered
Results can be very different depending on local in mapping approaches. In addition,
the investigated ecosystem service(s) and the some ecosystems cover only a limited area;
available data sets. for example, species-rich wetlands. In coast-
al or marine ecosystems, harbours, steep
The first barrier is the fact that no clear defi- coasts or reefs are, for example, in a specific
nition exists about what regional or local location and provide many ES.
mapping approaches mean or include. Most
often the area that is mapped is considered as Local case studies are particularly suitable
the spatial scale. However, the applied data for more labour-intensive data compila-
sets also have different resolutions regarding tions and method testing. Many participa-
the technical or thematic scale (ranging from tory mapping studies and direct stakehold-
very fine to very coarse) and have therefore er-involved assessments (e.g. focus group
the ability to identify important ES or not. surveys) have been undertaken at the local
scale. Beyond that, there are several ES that
The aim of this chapter is to give a short can sometimes only occur at defined extents;
overview of some necessary requirements scenic views, for example or wild food such
that need to be kept in mind when mapping as mushroom picking. Mapping these is best
at local or regional scale. done on the matching scale for a precise re-
sult of the human preferences and activities
contributing to human well-being.
Spatial scales
Data sets must be of high resolution to ad-
dress the peculiarities of local mapping stud-
Local scale ies. Applying data that is too coarse (e.g. ag-
gregated land cover or land use) will blur the
The term local is mainly connected with a findings. Data mismatches can have a strong
specific (geographic) position. Local scale misleading effect on land use management
can range from single farms to villages/ and decision-making. Local case studies are
communities and to smaller administration important for many participatory steps in-
units (e.g. municipalities). This depends, cluding communication and raising aware-
Chapter 5 235
ness for ES. Decisions on ecosystem man- mapping and data acquisition/measuring
agement need to meet local requirements or ground-truth checks when applying
and fine resolution data and information. available data sets or other methods. Spe-
cific data sets, such as detailed habitat or
Regional scale biotope maps, are available on local scales
with high resolution. Supply and demand
A region is an area of indefinite size that is budgets can be accounted for and mapped
different to the adjacent areas. It can range more easily. Additionally, web or smart
from a part of a country (e.g. Northern Ger- phone based data acquisition (e.g. citizen
many) to a part of the globe (e.g. Scandi- science; Chapter 5.6.3) are suitable for
navia). This means the term can act as an smaller case studies and stakeholder con-
administrative unit or describe an area based sultations (interviews, workshops). There
on similar characteristics (e.g. subarctic re- are also models that work on the site scale
gions with similar climatic conditions or the or farm scale, especially for regulating and
Amazon basin). Therefore, regions contain provisioning services. On the other hand,
either similar natural or cultural/economic statistical data are often not available at
characteristics. Due to the similar features high resolution information levels due to
within a region, this spatial scale is a suitable privacy protection or highly time-con-
mapping unit for many ES. suming acquisition.
In addition, there are specific connotations, Regional mapping approaches contain all
such as a tourism region (e.g. the Alps, the available methods (see Chapters 4 and 5).
Baltic Sea) or a region is important or known Single indicators, statistical data and mod-
for its specific features (e.g. the breadbasket elling can be applied together with stake-
of a country like the Great Plains of the US). holder assessments (e.g. expert interviews).
Based on these different criteria, regions can Spatial data resolutions are often > 100 m.
also overlap with each other or certain areas
within a region could be excluded if they do Cultural ecosystem services
not possess the functional or homogenous
criteria. The term is also very specifically Many cultural ES can best be mapped on lo-
used in some languages, fostering further cal or regional scale, allowing the inclusion
challenges in the assessment and mapping of specific aspects of preferences and activi-
of ES by delineating case study areas. ties. Accessibility is an important point for
recreation and tourism, as well as for land-
In many cases, several data sets are available scape aesthetics. Points of interest, hiking
in aggregated format ranging over a great ex- paths, roads, streams and other landscape
tent. Land cover or land use data sets can act features must be included for a comprehen-
as an appropriate (first) approach for map- sive analysis. In regional maps, aggregated
ping regional ES (see Chapter 5.6.4). information (for instance, different beach
types) is needed to give a more general over-
view of cultural ES.
Mapping methods and data
Surveys in tourist locations are most often un-
requirements dertaken for a specific purpose to understand
the motivation of tourists for visiting a certain
Local mapping approaches can be quick- place (e.g. beach vs. cultural attractions).
ly supported by direct (participatory)

Regulating services Challenges and solutions
Many of the underlying natural processes in- Given the fact that ES act on different scales,
cluded in regulating services are not restricted it is not always possible to have all data sets
to small areas and are complex. Besides pri- available for all scales.
mary data collection which is usually difficult
and resource-dependent, secondary data sets For data-poor regions, value-transfer (Chap-
are often included for modelling regulating ter 4.4) or look-up tables (Chapter 5.6.4)
services (cf. InVEST, ARIES; Chapter 4.4). from similar biomes or ecosystems are often
utilised. These should be carefully selected
Water-related regulating services (e.g. nu- and checked. Many models incorporate a
trient retention, erosion regulation, flood sensitivity or uncertainty analysis. Mapping
protection, water flow regulation) should on different scales can also support each
be considered on the river basin/catch- other by testing methods and data sets for
ment scale. This is already implemented in applicability and transferability.
river basin management (as required, for
instance, under the EU Water Framework Analysing and mapping single ES that con-
Directive; see Chapter 7.1). sider temporal aspects are time-consuming.
However, knowledge gained on the local scale
Similarly, landscape features (same soil, cli- is important to further verify and improve
mate and flora/fauna) or cultural landscapes conceptual and methodological issues. Re-
(same land use in the past and today) can in- gional scales are suitable for trade-off analysis
fluence the supply of ES and could be con- between ES based on land use scenarios, as
sidered as the mapping unit. Some models realistic supply-demand budgets can be calcu-
require different base layers of the natural lated and mapped. Furthermore, bundles of
conditions for the mapping of ES which are ES or synergies can be assessed and mapped.
best quantified at the regional scale.
Provisioning services Conclusions

Provisioning services are, in many ar-
eas, well documented and monitored (see Neither the term regional nor local can be
Chapter 5.5.2) and statistical data is often broken down to a simple and clear defini-
applied together with matching land use/ tion. What is clear is that diverse spatial
land cover data. scales are important for mapping ES be-
cause ES (inter-) act over different scales.
For Europe, regional statistical data sets are Considering the different spatial effects, it is
available for many different subdivisions of necessary to carefully select the correspond-
countries (cf. NUTS and EUROSTAT). ing extent and data sets for mapping.
Furthermore, many countries have official Not all methods and data sets are easily trans-
land cover/land use data sets along with oth- ferable between scales. A local scale is often
er data sets (e.g. statistical data) which allow appropriate for cultural services, whereas
the comparison of ecosystem service supply many regulating services are best modelled at
and demand. However, as this is often ag- the regional scale. Data available from statis-
gregated and generalised, this approach is tics are, in most cases, a good source for map-
best applied in larger case study areas. ping provisioning services at regional level.
Chapter 5 237
Further reading
Burkhard B, Crossman ND, Nedkov, S, Petz Pagella TF, Sinclair FL (2014) Development
K Alkemade R (2013) Mapping and Mod- and use of a typology of mapping tools
elling Ecosystem Services for Science, Pol- to assess their fitness for supporting man-
icy and Practice. SpecialIssue. Ecosystem agement of ecosystem service provision.
Services 4: 1-146. Landscape Ecology 29: 383-399.
Malinga R, Gordon LJ, Jewitt G, Lindborg R Willemen L, Burkhard B, Crossman ND,

(2015) Mapping ecosystem services across Palomo I, Drakou E (Eds.) (2015) Best
scales and continents A review. Ecosys- Practices for Mapping Ecosystem Services.
tem Services 13: 57-63. Special Issue 13: 1-184.

5.7.2. National ecosystem
service mapping approaches
Sharolyn Anderson, Alberto Giordano, Robert
Costanza, Ida Kubiszewski, Paul Sutton, Joachim Maes
& Anne Neale
Introduction
The creation of any comprehensive mapping tems and ecosystem services (ES) has been
instrument at the national level requires the growing and it is expected that it will contin-
careful consideration of a set of issues, with ue to do so as a result of increasing awareness
components that range from the scientific of our fundamental dependence on natural
to the technical and from the economic to capital and the value of ES. In this context,
the organisational. Wealthier countries, such national maps may function as providers
as the United States and many European of reference cartographic data (see Chapter
countries, have a long tradition of national 7.1). Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strate-
level cartography, analogue and then digital, gy to 2020 calls for European Unions mem-
dating back centuries - with the first com- ber states to map and assess the state of eco-
prehensive and modern example being the systems and their services in their national
Cassini Maps of 18th century France. In the territory. In the United States, a memoran-
United States, the National Map1 is the dig- dum was issued in October 2015 directing
ital version and the continuation of efforts Federal agencies to factor the value of ES
to map the country at a variety of scales and into planning and decision-making activities
for multiple purposes was started in the late at the federal level (see Chapter 7.1 for more
1800s by the United States Geological Sur- details). The mapping of ecosystems is an es-
vey. One of many efforts to provide nation- sential first step in conducting an inventory
al maps for the US was the National Map of that portion of our common wealth that
which includes data layers on elevation, hy- manifests as natural capital.
drography, geographic names, transporta-
tion, structures, boundaries, ortho-imagery In this chapter, we briefly touch - from the
and land cover. Another example, the Aus- perspective of the mapmaker - on a small
tralian National Map2, includes not only the set of topics related to the national mapping
same data layers as the U.S. national map of ecosystems and ES. This discussion is by
but also layers on communication, environ- no means exhaustive and additional topics
ment, framework, groundwater, habitation, may be worth reviewing. Our objective is to
infrastructure, utility and vegetation. inform the reader and to pique his or her
curiosity; for further information, vast liter-
For the world in general, the quality and ature exists on all of these topics.
quantity of information related to ecosys-
1
http://nationalmap.gov/
2
https://nationalmap.gov.au/
Chapter 5 239
Peculiarities of national layers (land use, vegetation, infrastructures,
mapping scale and projections etc.) that can be shown in the map of Bel-
gium are much higher than in the South Af-
rican example.
The term scale is often used loosely and
casually in lay conversation and may take Concerning projections, the cartographic
different meanings depending on the tradi- representation of real-world 3-D objects on
tions and conventions of individual fields. a 2-D map necessarily introduces distor-
For example, some ecologists use the ex- tion (see Chapter 3.1). The larger the object
pression large scale when referring to mapped, the higher the amount of distortion.
large areas. In cartography, scale is defined Regarding the national mapping of ecosys-
as the ratio between distances on the map tems and ES, we would argue that distortion
and corresponding distances on the ground in the size of the objects mapped and their
(see Chapter 3.1). Thus, a 1:1,000 map is relative distance are of special concern, as
at a larger scale than a map with a scale of quantitative errors affect measurements, both
1:10,000, because the value of the ratio of linear and areal. Distortion in shape or direc-
the former (0.001) is larger than the value tion may affect the cartographic representa-
of the latter (0.0001). Thus, for a cartogra- tion and should be taken into consideration
pher, a map at large scale shows a smaller - the latter would be especially serious in case
area than a map at a smaller scale. Large of nautical maps. The good news is that the
scale maps show detail, as a map of ones way distortion varies across a map is predict-
backyard might be. Although guidelines for able and tools exist (e.g., the Tissots Indica-
the classification of maps, according to their trix) to measure it accurately. Another good
scale, have been developed and are in use, news is that all countries have established co-
what constitutes a large or small scale map ordinate systems (which also describe projec-
is a matter of convention. In classical hand- tions, datum, etc.) for mapping their territo-
books of cartography, maps have been classi- ries at various scales with the explicit purpose
fied as large scale (1:50,000 and less; for ex- of minimising distortion.
ample, 1:25,000) or small scale (1:500,000
and more, for example, 1:1,000,000), with
medium scale maps somewhere in between. Resolution
Individual countries may impose their own
guidelines based on local situations, conven-
tions and needs. In the cartographic context, a concept relat-
ed to scale is that of resolution. The two
Although national maps are typically at a differ in that scale is measured linearly, while
larger scale than maps showing continents resolution is a measure of size. Thus, a re-
or the entire world, it is the size of the coun- mote sensing image at a resolution of 100
try mapped that puts limits on the scale of metres shows an area of 10 by 10 metres
its national maps and therefore on the level (assuming a square pixel). Such a resolution
of detail for the cartographic representation. level would be coarser than an image at a
For example, a national map of ecosystems resolution of 30 metres. This is relevant to
and ES for South Africa would be very dif- the map-making process at any scale, in-
ferent from a comparable map for Belgium, cluding the national scale, in the sense that
not only because ecosystems are more varied images at higher resolutions give the cartog-
in the former than in the latter, but also be- rapher the option of making maps at larger
cause the level of detail at which thematic scales. To return to the example made earli-

er, creating a map of ones backyard would ue. This is different from the definition of
be impossible using an image at a resolution precision which pertains to the instrument
of 100 metres, but feasible with an image used to make this measurement. To under-
at 1-metre resolution. Thus, the spatial res- stand this idea, consider reading the latitude
olution of available primary sources is one and longitude of the point at which you are
of the principal factors affecting map scale. standing from a GPS receiver. The position
One complicating factor is that, as it per- is estimated with a certain distance accura-
tains to satellite imagery, the term resolu- cy (for example, 2 metres); if the signal is
tion has dimensions that are not spatial, scrambled- as might be undertaken in areas
including radiometric (e.g. how many levels of conflict by the country that controls the
of brightness; 6 bit, 8 bit, 12 bit, etc.), tem- GPS (US, Russia, China, etc.) - the unit will
poral (e.g. data acquisition frequency) and continue to indicate the same level of accu-
spectral (e.g. number of bands, bandwidths, racy, even though its precision has been de-
etc.) resolutions. Note that the higher the graded. In addition to its spatial dimension,
resolution - in all of the above senses - the measured in quantitative terms, accuracy
more expensive the primary source tends to has another dimension which is particular-
be per size of the area mapped. ly important in the context of the national
mapping of ecosystems and ES. This is the-
matic accuracy, which is usually measured
Generalisation in terms of categories and therefore quali-
tatively - for example, consider a land cover
layer in which a vegetated area is incorrectly
Cartographic generalisation, defined as the classified as urban area. As it is for spatial
reduction of spatial and thematic detail accuracy, methods and tools exist for mea-
needed to map the real world, is related to suring thematic accuracy both at the level of
scale and resolution. In general, the smaller feature and for the entire map.
the scale of the map, the higher the amount
of reduction needed (see Chapter 3.2). Note, Equally important is the currency of the in-
however, that different levels of generali- formation used. In addition to the obvious
sation can be applied to the same primary consideration that having up-to-date infor-
source. Generalisation is a decision-making mation is to be preferred to having outdated
process measured along a continuum from information, a crucial factor to consider is
low to high, with the high limited by the whether individual layers are current rel-
resolution of the image (recall the backyard ative to each other. For example, consider
example). This example also makes anoth- deforestation which has progressed in some
er important point: the cartographer works countries very quickly over the last 20 or 30
with the expert (in this case, an ecosystem years: a layer of forested areas in, for exam-
expert) to determine the level of generalisa- ple, Guatemala ca. 2000 would look very
tion needed to answer specific research and/ different than a corresponding layer from
or policy-related questions (see Chapter 4.6). 2016. According to an old adage in cartog-
raphy, a map is only as current as the newest
data source that was used to create it. Creat-
Accuracy and currency of data ing a composite map from layers that show
the situation on the ground at different
dates would lead to erroneous conclusions.
In cartography, accuracy is defined as the Note, though, that currency is of concern
closeness of a measurement to its true val- for certain types of information but not for
Chapter 5 241
others: for example, a geologic map does not question applies to all cartographic represen-
need to be updated as frequently as a map of tations ranging from the local to the region-
urban areas (see also Chapter 5.3). al, to the national and to the international.
One approach is to create a separate layer
In practical terms, accuracy and currency for every ecosystem service (e.g. one layer
are dealt with in relative rather than abso- for carbon sequestration, one for erosion
lute terms. This is the idea of fitness for control, one for spiritual values etc.). This
purpose: because maps, especially at the approach is convenient from a taxonomic
national scale, are expensive to produce, up- perspective but can be problematic, as varia-
date, maintain, distribute and, in legally liti- tions in most of these services are driven by
gious countries, the responsible agency can land cover proxy measurements (e.g. boreal
be brought to court for inaccurate represen- forests sequester X kg/ha/year whilst deserts
tations, governmental cartographic agencies sequester Y kg/ha/year), but, in others, they
should and, usually do, use metadata to de- vary as a function of spatial interactions
scribe how the maps should be used, their with other spatially variable information
limitations, accuracy levels and currency (e.g. spiritual value will likely vary as a func-
(in other words, their fitness for purpose). tion of proximate population density, the
Related to this discussion, in the last thirty income of that population and the spiritual
years many countries and international or- values of the proximate population). Car-
ganisations such as the ISO, have developed bon sequestration provides a salient example
standards for the accuracy of geographic of the relevance of these issues. It is increas-
information. Note that, in the cartographic ingly regarded as a policy-relevant ecosys-
field, standards have been in long use, for tem service as a result of climate change.
example, the US National Mapping Accu- At a national level, authoritative, verifiable
racy Standard (NMAS) dates back to 1947. and valid ground-based measures of carbon
sequestration which include direct measure-
ments of vegetation and soil would likely be
Data Sources needed to produce a comprehensive, coun-
try-wide map of carbon sequestration.
There are myriad sources of data that can Scientific accuracy, transparent methods of
potentially inform and contribute to the measurements and reliable and independent
production of maps for ecosystems and ES interpretation and dissemination of results
(see Section 4). A non-exhaustive list might would be needed to ensure the legitimacy of
include various types of satellite imagery, the process, both internally at the country
human population census data, agricultural level and in the international arena. Here,
productivity statistics, soil maps, vegetation again, we run into the problem of economic
maps, air quality measurements, biological costs, in the sense that valid and authori-
census data, transportation and other infra- tative maps representing real and dynamic
structure maps and climate station data and phenomena may be expensive to produce,
maps3. These data can be applied to the pro- maintain and update at the required levels of
duction of different kinds of ecosystems and cartographic detail, accuracy and currency.
ES mapping. For example, the 2010 United States Census
of the Population cost approximately $13
A key question to answer is how to structure billion to conduct, or over $40 per person
and organise the representation of ES? This counted and mapped. The degree to which
large investments can be made by individual
3

Box 1. Mapping ecosystem services at national scale in the
European Union
In the EU, countries have started initiatives to map their ecosystems and ecosystem services (ES) on
their national territory. The principal objective is to create a national knowledge base on ecosystems
which can be used for planning purposes such as the selection of areas for ecological restoration, the
development of new infrastructure projects or land and water management. The European Commission
is providing guidance to countries on how to map ecosystems and ES through the MAES initiative and
collects information of countries on the biodiversity information system for Europe4.
Two examples for Cyprus and The Netherlands illustrate nation-wide mapping of ES in the EU. Cyprus
is an island in the Mediterranean Sea. The map illustrates the recreational potential of the traditional
landscape and nature. The map was made in a training workshop where country officials from the min-
istry worked together with scientists to map recreational services on the island. The Netherlands create
maps of ES which are publicly available via their Atlas of Natural Capital5.
4
5
http://www.atlasnatuurlijkkapitaal.nl/en/home|
A map of recreation potential
offered by the traditional cultur-
al landscape and nature. This
map is based on the recreation
opportunity spectrum approach.
The red dots are places of ar-
chaeological interest.
recreation potential
traditional landscape and nature
< 0,090
0,090196078 - 0,098
0,098 - 0,17
0,17 - 0,50
> 0,50
GeoarchaeologySites 0 25 50 km
Map of the water storage capacity of soil

(expressed in mm) in the Netherlands is
derived from the Atlas of Natural capital
which collects spatially explicit data of ES
at national scale.
Chapter 5 243
Box 2. Mapping ecosystem services at the national extent for the
conterminous United States
In the US, the Environment Protection Agency leads a multi-organisation effort to develop and host a
suite of nationwide maps of ecosystem services (ES) indicators and indices in EnviroAtlas6. This open
access tool allows users to view, analyse and download a wealth of geospatial data and other resources
related to ecosystem goods and services. More than 160 national indicators of ecosystem service supply,
demand and drivers of change provide a framework to form decisions and policies at multiple spatial
scales, educate a range of audiences and supply data for research. A higher resolution component is also
available, providing data for finer-scale analyses for selected communities across the US. The ecosystem
goods and services data are organised into seven general ecosystem benefit categories: clean and plenti-
ful water; natural hazard mitigation; food, fuel and materials; climate stabilisation; clean air; biodiversi-
ty conservation; and recreation, culture and aesthetics. EnviroAtlas incorporates many data sources with
multi-resolution (i.e., 1 m and 30 m) land cover data providing fundamental information. The data are
updated at 5 year increments, subsequent to US National Land Cover Dataset updates.
This map shows the kind of data layers that are available in EnviroAtlas. For one of the indicators
in the climate stabilisation category, this map shows the amount of carbon stored in the above-
ground tree biomass. Like most of the national maps in EnviroAtlas, the data are summarised
by medium sized watershed drainage basins known as 12-digit hydrological unit codes (HUCS).
There are approximately 85,000 of these HUCS in the conterminous US, with each being approx-
imately 104 km. Users of EnviroAtlas can also overlay demographic maps to gain the perspec-
tive of proximity and population dynamics of beneficiaries.
6
https://epa.gov/enviroatlas

countries in order to map ecosystems and vices and for the development of policies to
ES remain to be seen. Perhaps the solution protect and restore them.
is partnerships between countries - exam-
ples include the European Unions Joint Finally, we stress that the most important
Research Centre (JRC) and the United Na- investment a country can make when ad-
tions Environmental Programme (UNEP)- dressing these issues is on its human capi-
as well as efforts by individual countries to tal. The creation, maintenance, update and
create, maintain and share primary envi- distribution of a national mapping initia-
ronmental data, including initiatives by US tive require trained, skilled, committed
government agencies (for example the Na- and motivated personnel, with technolog-
tional Aeronautic and Space Administration ical considerations important but second-
(NASA) and the National Oceanic and At- ary. The human capital should have the
mospheric Organisation (NOAA)). highest priority.
Conclusions Further reading
For the public, national maps can provide Bailey RG (2009) Mapping Regional Eco-
benefits that exceed their costs of produc- systems. Springer 2nd ED. DOI:
tion, assuming the maps are soundly exe- 10.1007/978-0-387-89516-1.
cuted, regularly updated and distributed
to the public at a reasonable cost. When Burkhard B et al. (2009) Landscapes capacity
mapping ecosystems and ES at national to provide ecosystem services a concept
levels, careful consideration should be giv- for land cover based assessments. Landscape
en in the very early planning stages to the on-line 151-22 DOI: 10.3097/lo.200915.
scale, accuracy and level of generalisation
needed for the explicit and specific purpose EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 Mapping and
the map is intended to serve. This is cru- Assessment of Ecosystems and their Ser-
cial when one considers that the degree to vices http//biodiversity.europa.eu/maes.
which a country acquires up-to-date and
reliable knowledge of its ecosystems and Robinson AH et al. (1995) Elements of Car-
ES will determine its ability to manage tography. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
them. Mapping should not only provide sixth edition.
information on the quality and quantity
of ES but also on their distribution among Schmidt S, Manceur A, Seppelt R (2016) Un-
the population within a country which is certainty of Monetary Valued Ecosystem
key to issues of equality and social justice. Services Value Transfer Functions for
Usually, the loss of ES has the greatest im- Global Mapping PLOS ONE March 3.
pact on the poorest communities which, as
a group, are the first to feel the effects when Pickard BR, Daniel J, Mehaffey M, Jackson
those ES begin to disappear. In this sense, LA, Neale A (2015) EnviroAtlas: A new
the mapping of ecosystems at the national geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services
scale is essential to understanding the mag- science and resource management, Ecosys-
nitude and spatial distribution of such ser- tem Services 14: 45-55.
Chapter 5 245
5.7.3. Global ecosystem service
mapping approaches
Katalin Petz, Clara J. Veerkamp & Rob Alkemade
Introduction Various mapping approaches

The global mapping of ecosystem services A common approach for mapping ES is to
(ES) helps to diagnose management and con- quantify the relationships between eco-
servation problems and develop solutions for system conditions (see Chapter 3.5) and
them, as well as to analyse the impact of man- ecosystem functions (i.e. the ecosystems
agement decisions on biodiversity and ES. It potential to provide a service, see Chapter
enables the identification of synergies, trade- 2.3) or services (i.e. the actual use of the
offs, hotspots of ES delivery and spatial mis- function by humans; see Chapter 5.1). The
matches between ES supply and demand or mapping of ES often starts with maps of
within world regions or sectors. Global initia- ecosystem types, land cover and land use.
tives (e.g. Convention of Biological Diversi- ES are then derived by applying models,
ty1 and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment2) quantifying each ES for each type of land
make use of global ES maps to investigate the use or land cover within each ecosystem.
state and trends of global biodiversity and ES These models can either be simple correl-
in order to formulate international policies. ative or expert-based models (see Chapter
There is, consequently, an increasing demand 4.6) or more complex process-based mod-
for accurate maps of ES supply, demand and els (see Chapters 4.4 and 5.6.1). Develop-
values. ES mapping is applied both for bio- ing these models is one of the main chal-
physical assessment of services and for valu- lenges for mapping global ES.
ation of these services. The history of glob-
al mapping of ES and their values globally Global models are suitable tools for interna-
dates back to the 1990s, concentrated on the tional science-policy assessments and deci-
monetary value of ecosystems. In the new sion-making support by assessing the impact
millennium, global ES mapping studies were of socio-economic drivers on the environ-
expanded to more biophysical descriptions. ment and ES. The Millennium Ecosystem
Although the number of publications target- Assessment used already-published individ-
ing the mapping of ES has rapidly increased ual models to assess the global ES trends and
in the last years, global ES mapping remained patterns. Others link sector-based global
limited to a few provisioning and regulating models to simulate the interaction between
services (e.g. food provision, water availabil- environmental processes and certain ES. Ex-
ity and carbon sequestration). Obstacles for amples for global models are the Integrated
global ES mapping include the resolution of Model to Assess the Global Environment
the available data, the uncertainty involved in (IMAGE3) developed by the PBL Nether-
upscaling local phenomena and the lack of lands Environmental Assessment Agency
knowledge of global ecological processes (see
Chapter 6). 3
http://themasites.pbl.nl/models/image/index.
php/Welcome_to_IMAGE_3.0_Documenta-
1
https://www.cbd.int/
tion
2
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/

and the Global Unified Metamodel of the al biodiversity model GLOBIO10 to assess
Biosphere (GUMBO4) by the University of impacts of human activities on biodiversity
Maryland. The International Institute for captured by the Mean Species Abundance.
Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) has also Later, the model was extended with addi-
developed several global models used in pol- tional ES modules into the GLOBIO-ES
icy support, such as the Global Biosphere model. IMAGE provides information about
Management Model (GLOBIOM5). Other environmental drivers (e.g. climatic fac-
efforts being applied to making decisions tors and land use allocation) that feed into
about ES in various case studies across the GLOBIO and GLOBIO-ES. These models
globe are the Natural Capital Projects In- map biodiversity and ES at 0.5x 0.5 spatial
VEST6, the ARtificial Intelligence for ES7 resolution and apply cause-effect relation-
and The Earth Genome8 (see Chapter 4.4 ships between the environmental variables,
for an overview of ES models). biodiversity and ES derived from literature.
Currently, biodiversity and eleven ES can be
Another common application of ES map- assessed with the IMAGE-GLOBIO mod-
ping is the creation of maps of monetary val- eling framework. Although the models are
ues (Chapter 4.3). Such approach is supposed strong in simulating the effects of changing
to draw attention to the relative importance socio-economic drivers and consequent bio-
and the potential economic benefit that can physical and climate pressures on biodiver-
be gained from ES, for example, when mak- sity and ES; the modelling of interactions
ing choices on land management. The Bene- between biodiversity and ES and between
fit Transfer method is the simplest approach the various ES as well as the policy response
for ES value mapping. It estimates economic to states of ES are missing links. The models
values by transferring existing estimates from have been applied for assessing biodiversity
studies already completed for (another) loca- and ES at regional and global scale11. Two
tion. Values of various ES are aggregated to concrete application examples of these mod-
a constant value applied for an ecosystem or els are presented in Boxes 1 and 2.
land cover type. The TEEB Valuation Data-
base9 provides a Total Economic Value (TEV)
for ES per global ecosystems or land covers. Challenges of global mapping
Global ES modelled by IMAGE Mapping ES becomes more challenging

with increasing extension of the mapped
and GLOBIO-ES area, since less quantitative data and poorer
knowledge of ecological and other processes
IMAGE is one of the few integrated global are available and higher level of aggregation
models describing the impacts of socio-eco- and simplification is necessary compared to
nomic drivers on the environment. IMAGE regional and local scales.
has been used in combination with the glob-
Data availability and quality
4
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
pii/S0921800902000988 Global ES modelling relies highly on land
5
http://www.globiom.org/ cover and land use data. Only few standard
6
http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest/ datasets exist and information on landscape
7
http://aries.integratedmodelling.org/
8
http://www.earthgenome.org/ http://www.globio.info/
10
9
http://www.fsd.nl/esp/80763/5/0/50 https://www.cbd.int/gbo4/
11
Chapter 5 247
structure, land use intensity and land man- Ecological processes and ES:
agement is poor or lacking. A widely used knowledge and scale at which they
ecosystem or biome map is provided by the operate
World Wildlife Fund12. A commonly used
land cover and land use dataset is the Glob-
al Land Cover (GLC) 2000 map13, which The knowledge of ecological and other pro-
is also used in the Millennium Ecosystem cesses becomes more limited with increasing
Assessment and the IMAGE and GLO- extension of the mapped area. ES that operate
BIO-ES models. The TEEB Valuation based on well-known global processes, such
Database uses the GlobCover dataset14. as the hydrological or carbon cycle, are easier
This dataset provides a higher-resolution to map globally. Furthermore, global maps
alternative to the Global Land Cover, but are more easily generated if an ES can be ag-
it also has a lower thematic accuracy. There gregated across time or space. This is the case
are also other databases available targeting for several provisioning services, such as crop,
certain ecosystem or land covers, such as timber or livestock production. For these ES,
the Global Lakes and Wetlands Database15, monetary value maps can also be prepared, as
the World Database of Protected Areas16, their products are traded on markets.
the livestock density database of the Food
and Agriculture Organisation of the Unit- ES that operate locally are, however, more
ed Nations (FAO)17 and forest cover data- difficult to map globally. ES such as pest
sets18. Due to the limited data availability, control and air quality regulation are rare-
the same datasets are often used for mul- ly considered globally because of the lack of
tiple purposes, which can lead to autocor- generalised knowledge and the local scale
relations. Global data include increased at which they operate. Pollination and pest
uncertainty as they are often estimated or control are dependent on small-scale land-
modelled (e.g. FAO livestock data). Un- scape elements making it difficult to map
certainty can be addressed with sensitivity them accurately globally. Furthermore, cul-
analyses (see Chapter 6.3), but is not of- tural services such as aesthetic value, rec-
ten done in practice. Last but not least, it reation and tourism have a subjective and
remains difficult to validate global datasets local character which makes them difficult
due to differences in temporal and spatial to generalise. As these ES do not have a di-
consistencies and classification systems, rect market value either, it is more difficult
amongst others. to prepare a monetary value map for them.
Little generalised information is available

12
http://www.worldwildlife.org/biomes about the degradation of ecosystem func-
13
http://forobs.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/glc2000/ tions over time and the inter-linkages be-
glc2000.php tween biodiversity and ES and between
14
http://due.esrin.esa.int/page_globcover.php the various ES. Degradation is, therefore,
15
http://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/glob not fully addressed and biodiversity and ES
al-lakes-and-wetlands-database are mainly modelled and valued separate-
16
http://www.protectedplanet.net/ ly at global scale. An approach to address
17
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGAInfo/resources/en/ these inter-linkages between ES is to create
glw/GLW_dens.html hotspot maps (i.e. highlighting areas where
18
e.g. http://www.globalforestwatch.org multiple services are provided).

Conclusions national science-policy assessments and for
awareness-raising. Global models have the
Various approaches exist for the global capacity to simulate ES trends across space
mapping of ES, the most common ones and time and to identify ES synergies,
being the biophysical and monetary value trade-offs and values. This makes them
maps. Despite the limited data and knowl- essential tools for decision-making about
edge available at global scale, global ES resource management and nature conser-
maps remain an important input for inter- vation across the globe.
Box 1. Example soil erosion prevention on global rangelands

Figure 1 provides an example map for the current state of soil erosion prevention on global rangelands.
A further developed version of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) applied in the IMAGE model
was used for mapping this service. Erosion prevention was mapped with an index (0-100) based on
soil erodibility, rainfall erosivity, both derived from IMAGE and a refined land use/cover index derived
from the vegetation cover fractions of the Global Land Cover map. Low erosion prevention (i.e. high
erosion risk) is the result of steep slopes, sensitive soil and scarce vegetation cover (e.g. in the Mediter-
ranean, Central Australia and Chile).
Figure 1. Soil erosion prevention ES on global rangelands (Petz et al. 2014).
Chapter 5 249
Box 2. Global crop production under two extreme scenarios
With the help of scenarios, the trends of ES delivery can be projected over time. In this example, the
global crop production is simulated with the IMAGE and GLOBIO-ES models for two future sce-
narios. The production of cereals, rice, maize, pulses, root and tubers is taken as an indicator of crop
production. The demand for crops is driven by changing lifestyle and population, whereas technology,
environmental factors and management determine the production efficiency hence the crop yield. The
two scenarios are adjusted SSP scenarios (i.e. new IPCC scenarios) used in the OpenNESS EU project.
The Wealth-Being (WB) scenario stands for economic growth, while the Eco-Centre (EC) scenario
promotes sustainable management around the globe. Figure 2 illustrates the potential change in crop
yield in 2050 in comparison to the base year of 2010. Crop yield increases in developing countries (e.g.
Africa, India) in the EC scenario, while the WB scenario projects lower crop yield in these countries,
but higher yield increase in US and Brazil.
Figure 2. Change of crop production under two extreme scenarios (PBL 2016).

Further reading
Alkemade R, van Oorschot M, Miles L, Turner WR, Brandon K, Brooks TM, Costan-
Nellemann C, Bakkenes M, ten Brinket za R, Da Fonseca GA, Portela R (2007)
B (2009) GLOBIO3: A Framework to Global conservation of biodiversity and
Investigate Options for Reducing Global ecosystem services. BioScience 57(10):
Terrestrial Biodiversity Loss. Ecosystems 868-873.
12(3): 374-390.
Schgner JP, Brander L, Maes J, Hartje V
De Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S, Cos- (2013) Mapping ecosystem services val-
tanza R, Bernard F, Braat L, Christie M, ues: Current practice and future prospects.
Crossman ND, Ghermandi A, Hein L, Ecosystem Services 4: 33-46.
Hussain S, Kumar P, McVittie A, Portela
R, Rodriguez LC, ten Brink P, van Beuker- Schulp CJE, Alkemade R (2011) Consequenc-
ing P (2012) Global estimates of the value es of uncertainty in global-scale land cover
of ecosystems and their services in mon- maps for mapping ecosystem functions: an
etary units. Ecosystem Services 1: 50-61. analysis of pollination efficiency. Remote
Sensing 3: 2057-2075.
Dickson B, Blaney R Miles L, Regan E, van
Soesbergen A, Vnnen E, Blyth S, Har- Schulp CJ, Alkemade R, Klein Goldewi-
foot M Martin CS, McOwen C, Newbold jk K, Petz K (2012) Mapping ecosystem
T, van Bochove J (2014) Towards a global functions and services in Eastern Europe
map of natural capital: key ecosystem as- using global-scale data sets. International
sets. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem
Services & Management 8(1-2): 156-168.
Kok M, Alkemade R (Eds.) (2014) How Sec-
tors can contribute to sustainable use and Stehfest E, van Vuuren D, Bouwman L, Kram
conservation of biodiversity, CBD Techni- T (2014) Integrated assessment of global
cal Series. environmental change with IMAGE 3.0:
Model description and policy applications.
Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Green RE, Lehner B, Ricketts TH (2008) Agency (PBL).
Global mapping of ecosystem services and
conservation priorities. Proceedings of the Verburg P, van Asselen S, van der Zanden E,
National Academy of Sciences 105(28): Stehfest E (2012) The representation of
9495-9500. landscapes in global scale assessments of
environmental change. Landscape Ecology
Petz K, Alkemade R, Bakkenes M, Schulp 28: 1067-1080.
CJ, van der Velde M, Leemans R (2014)
Mapping and modelling trade-offs and Verburg PH, Neumann K, Nol L (2011)
synergies between grazing intensity and Challenges in using land use and land cov-
ecosystem services in rangelands using er data for global change studies. Global
global-scale datasets and models. Global Change Biology 1: 974-989.
Environmental Change 29: 223-234.
Chapter 5 251
5.7.4. Mapping marine and
coastal ecosystem services
Evangelia G Drakou, Camino Liquete, Nicola Beaumont,
Arjen Boon, Markku Viitasalo & Vera Agostini
Introduction
The marine environment, from the coasts of MCES mapping compared to the terres-
to the open ocean, is closely tied to human trial realm and its major requirements and
well-being; from small-scale artisanal fisher- limitations.
ies providing local communities with food,
to large-scale regulating benefits like pro-
tecting coasts from erosion and regulating ES provided by marine and
global climate. Intense human intervention
in these areas, for example, through mari- coastal habitat types
time transport, fishing and aquaculture,
oil extraction, tourism and coastal land Each marine or coastal habitat type can gen-
use, alter these ecosystems, hence impact- erate different ecological functions which
ing human well-being. Several treaties and can then generate ES for the benefit of hu-
policy instruments have been enacted from man beings. In Table 1, we list the major
the local to global level to regulate human marine and coastal habitats and the MCES
influence on the marine realm and to sus- they provide according to what has been
tain these ecosystems (for example, the UN documented in the literature. The missing
Convention of the Law of the Sea, the UN links between habitats and ES highlight the
High Seas Treaty). In addition, the EU Ma- areas with the largest knowledge gaps, but
rine Strategy Framework Directive and that not the lack of a link. It is worth mention-
on Maritime Spatial Planning require an ing here that very few of these ES have been
ecosystem-based approach to the manage- actually mapped.
ment of human activities.
Mapping of ES can help decision-makers Mapping marine and coastal

define critical areas for intervention and aids
regulation of activities. Although mapping ecosystem services
methodologies are rapidly advancing for the
terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, ma- To map ES provided by marine and coastal
rine and coastal ecosystem service (MCES) ecosystems similarly to the terrestrial eco-
mapping is still limited. systems, one has to understand the pro-
cess of ES provision, from the ecosystem
This chapter gives an overview of MCES components, functions and processes to
mapping principles. We present below the the actual ES. For each component of the
major ES provided by marine and coastal ES provision chain, data need to be ac-
habitats, the particularities and differences quired and quantification methods applied

Table 1. Major marine and coastal habitat types and their links with ES as documented in the literature.
The () symbol represents the relationships between habitat types and ES that have been assessed and
documented in the literature. The (?) is there to represent the lack of sufficient knowledge to assess and
hence quantify and map this relationship.
Provisioning Regulating and maintenance Cultural
Symbolic/Aesthetic values
Water storage / provision
Biotic materials/Biofuels
Life cycle maintenance

Air quality regulation*
Biological regulation*
Ocean nourishment
Recreation Tourism
Climate regulation
Coastal protection
Water purification
Cognitive effects
Food provision
Beach and dunes ?
Coastal wetland ? ?
Estuary ? ? ?
Mangrove ? ? ?
Coral Reef ? ? ? ?
Maerl bed* ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Oyster reef ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Macroalgal bed ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Seagrass meadow ? ? ? ? ? ?
Unconsolidated
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
sediments
Open ocean/
? ?
pelagic
* These habitats and ES are still very poorly analysed.
throughout. This information can be used MCES maps are delivered by:
to spatially represent the ES distribution. Analysis of primary data, for example, high
In Figure 1 we illustrate the process of gen- resolution remote sensing of the coastal and
erating a map of MCES with a hypotheti- pelagic zone, field sampling and socio-eco-
cal example. nomic surveys. It can be very accurate, but it
is also time and resource consuming.
In the oceans and coastal seas, many eco-
system functions occur within the water Habitat maps can be used to translate sea-
column which adds a third spatial dimen- bed habitat maps into capacity to deliver ES
sion to the system. These functions change based on scoring factors. This method can
with depth, water temperature, solar irra- be feasible and quick if the seabed habitat
diance, salinity and other factors and are maps of the study area are already available.
extremely variable in space and time. This However, the scoring system can be subjec-
makes it difficult to capture this informative and the results reflect only the services
tion in two-dimensional maps. provided by benthic habitats.
Chapter 5 253
Figure 1. The figure depicts the way data and ecological models contribute to the different components
of a basic ecosystem service generation framework (ES cascade at the bottom of the figure) in order
to generate ES maps. In an example of whale watching tourism as an ES provided by whales, species
and habitat distribution models are used to describe the basic ES components. Then models are used
to describe the ecosystem functions. The outputs of all these models are then combined along with so-
cio-economic parameters (in the example we refer to the number of whale watchers, but it could also be
revenues from whale watching) in order to generate a final map of the benefit or value from whale-watch-
ing tourism. The arrows show the flow of information within the elements of the ES cascade.
Modelling Required data for MCES mapping

Models such as those below can be used:
a. Ecosystem models optimally integrated The possibility of creating MCES maps is
with socio-economic data, or bio-eco- often limited due to scarcity of spatial data.
nomic models. They can be relatively For proper ES mapping, data should ideally
accurate with quantifiable uncertainty be available for:
and capture three-dimensional (3D) Habitats spatial distribution (or their
processes across spatial scales. Still they model-derived proxies);
require a lot of data, time and expertise. ecological state of the habitats;
Model outputs may not be usable as water quality affecting ES provision
such; composites or proxies often need (e.g. eutrophication or amount of
to be generated for MCES mapping. harmful substances);
b. Already available MCES mapping tools species distribution of dominant, hab-
(see the following section). itat forming and keystone species that
either provide or support ES;
Most MCES maps depict the ES capacity and biomass of fish and other seafood;
very few address the actual flow of, or the de- human activities affecting the produc-
mand (Chapter 5.1) for MCES. The analysis tion of ES or those which could be used
of all these ES aspects is essential, especially as indicators for ES use (e.g. fishing ac-
for MCES whose use is often distant from the tivity, tourism etc.).
source of ES provision (e.g. the nutritional
value of globally consumed tuna or climate Collecting such data is laborious and expen-
regulation by mangroves in South-East Asia). sive, mostly because of the methodological

challenges. Some examples are given in the tection, marine fish aquaculture, marine
following text. aesthetic quality, fisheries and recreation
and marine habitat provision. ARIES2 has
Data on benthic habitats need to be collect- also been applied for MCES assessment to
ed with echo-sounding methods and tedious generate maps mostly in coastal areas, using
geological analysis of the sonar data. Spe- artificial intelligence networks and expert
cies data need to be collected with a suite opinion. In most of these models, data avail-
of methods that vary in spatial coverage and ability and quality are the major issues that
taxonomic accuracy. Data on sea bottom make their application difficult.
substrate and larger species can be collected
with underwater cameras, while information Several initiatives focus on publishing spa-
on smaller species can be derived with un- tially explicit information regarding or po-
derwater surveys (e.g. through scuba diving) tentially supporting MCES mapping. The
and benthic sampling. Species identification SeaAroundUs3 project has released a map
often requires microscopic analysis. server showing time series of the spatial dis-
tribution of fisheries around the globe. The
Some proxies for ES can be created for more EU has recently released a new tool for map-
cost-effective methods. The new satellite in- ping fishing activities (MFA)4 for the Euro-
struments provide high resolution data (e.g. pean seas which is based on AIS (Automatic
WorldView3 images have a resolution of 30 Identification System) data acquired by fish-
cm) that can be used to create proxies for ing vessels. AquaMaps5 also provide maps
some ES, like habitats essential for fish proof marine species distribution globally. The
duction. Semi-automatic in situ mapping Baltic Sea data and map service6, by the Hel-
devices, such as robot gliders, have been sinki Commission, provides spatial data on
developed for collecting sea bottom data biodiversity and human activities on sea. The
instead of cruises on research vessels. Such Ocean Health Index Project7 provides a glob-
methods can complement, but never entire- al map of ES provided by the sea and how
ly replace, the traditional methods. sustainably the countries are using them.
Spatial data on certain human activities can Challenges of MCES mapping

easily be derived from public databases, but
in most cases data are scarce. Proxies need There is a high level knowledge pool on the
to be calculated although these create uncer- functioning of the marine ecosystems and
tainties in the mapping. high expertise on ES mapping methods. Yet
these two only recently started converging
MCES mapping tools in an interdisciplinary manner. Hence the
number of MCES assessments that actually
Different online tools, models and method- provide maps is still very limited. Challeng-
ological frameworks allow practitioners to es to MCES mapping include:
assess and map different components of the
MCES generation chain (Figure 1). Amongst 2
http://ariesonline.org/
the most popular and well-established ones, 3
http://www.seaaroundus.org/data/#/spa
are the models from the InVEST1 toolkit tial-catch
that use ecological production functions to 4
https://bluehub.jrc.ec.europa.eu/mspPublic/
assess the supply and demand of MCES. 5
http://www.aquamaps.org/search.php
These can assess wave energy, coastal pro- 6
http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/in
dex.html
1
http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest/ 7
http://www.oceanhealthindex.org
Chapter 5 255
The dynamic three-dimensional (3D) Adopt a holistic view of the ES provi-
nature of the marine environment, es- sion chain focusing on the intermediate
pecially in the pelagic zone, makes it steps (from the ES to the benefit). In
difficult to produce two-dimensional particular, the valuation of regulating
maps. Averaging over time and space is services and the ecological processes
necessary and hence the level of spatial supporting provisioning and cultural
accuracy is low. services should be reinforced.
Information on the distribution of hab- Communicate the uncertainties in
itat is scarce or entirely lacking making MCES maps. Explain how much of the
it difficult to map MCES based on spatial detail shown on maps is reliable.
these habitats. Recommend for which purpose the
As the ecological functions and process- maps can and cannot be used.
es behind many ES, such as biological
regulation, are not known or not easily
quantified, their mapping is difficult. Further reading
Cultural ES, such as recreation, aesthetic
information or inspiration, are based on
human experiences which may be very Bhnke-Henrichs A, Baulcomb C, Koss R,
variable. Linkage of such experiences to Hussain SS, de Groot RS (2013) Typolo-
a specific habitat is difficult. gy and indicators of ecosystem services for
Data on ES demand or use is sensitive marine spatial planning and management.
thus hard to obtain for some ES with Journal of Environmental Management
high commercial value (e.g. food provi- 130: 135-145.
sion from fisheries).
Uncertainty in data and maps is too high Boonstra WJ, Ottosen KM, Ferreira ASA,
to be useful in a policy context, therefore Richter A, Rogers LA, Pedersen MW, Kok-
having often a negative feedback effect kalis A, Bardarson H, Bonanomi S, Butler
on momentum to create these maps. W, Diekert FK, Fouzai N, Holma M, Holt
RE, Kvile K, Malanski E, Macdonald
JI, Nieminen E, Romagnoni G, Snickars
Future recommendations M, Weigel B, Woods P, Yletyinen J, Whit-
tington JD (2015) What are the major
global threats and impacts in marine envi-
Given the limited number of MCES maps, ronments? Investigating the contours of a
there is a need to: shared perception among marine scientists
Adapt the current ES methodologies and from the bottom-up. Marine Policy 60:
frameworks that have been developed 197-201.
based on terrestrial ecosystems to the
specificities of the marine environment. Liquete C, Piroddi C, Drakou EG, Gurney L,
Improve the quality and spatial resolu- Katsanevakis S, Charef A, Egoh B (2013a)
tion of data and improve data availabil- Current Status and Future Prospects for
ity; advance initiatives such as the Eu- the Assessment of Marine and Coastal
ropean Marine Knowledge 2020; and Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review.
feed data into harmonised databases PLoS ONE 8: e67737.
like the EMODNET8 data portal.
http://www.emodnet-biology.eu/
8

Liquete C., Zulian G., Delgado I., Stips A., &
Maes J. (2013) Assessment of coastal pro-
tection as an ecosystem service in Europe.
Ecological Indicators 30: 205-217.
Townsend M, Thrush SF, Lohrer AM, Hewitt

JE, Lundquist CJ, Carbines M, Felsing M
(2014) Overcoming the challenges of data
scarcity in mapping marine ecosystem ser-
vice potential. Ecosystem Services 8: 44-55.
Chapter 5 257
5.7.5. Spatial, temporal and
thematic interactions
Susanne Frank & Christine Frst
The role of spatial and temporal boundary phenomena between ecosystems

scales in ES mapping; scale or land use types have been less investigated.
Knowledge and data about the influence of
dependencies of different composition and configuration of land use
(groups of ) ES types remains limited (see Chapter 3.6). For
assessing ES at continental or global scales
(see Chapter 5.7.3), ES data from local, re-
Ecosystem services (ES) are scale-depen- gional and national assessments (see Chap-
dent. While a single tree can have a positive ters 5.7.1 and 5.7.2) need to be up-scaled.
impact on the micro-climate (local scale), Therefore, mapping and assessment of ES at
it does not necessarily impact the climate global scale might involve high uncertainty.
regulation at global scale. Interactions of Additionally, indicators which are used to
spatial and temporal scales make the map- assess ES, are in many cases scale-sensitive.
ping of ES more complex. Therefore, with-
out taking into account the age of a tree Furthermore, the beneficiaries as well as
and its relations with other trees or other the perception of ES benefits change across
land uses (landscape scale/regional scale), scales: supply and demand are largely
no precise statement on its contribution scale-dependent. At local scale, individuals
to climate regulation can be derived across might be directly dependent from provi-
scales. Additionally, scale dependence is re- sioning services such as food or water (pri-
lated to different perspectives, including the vate ES) so that their activities (land man-
ES provider (supply) and the ES beneficiary agement, purchase) are directed towards
(demand), as well as ES assessment (expert) harmonising the spatio-temporal variation
and ES management (stakeholder). In this between supply and demand. Global ser-
chapter, we assess and clarify the various as- vices, such as global climate regulation, are
pects of scale interactions and perspectives relevant for humanity (public services).
in the context of ES mapping. Their spatial and temporal dynamics, also
called spatio-temporal lag, are huge (see
The difficulty of scale interactions lies in Chapter 5.2). Consequently, their percep-
many aspects. The mapping exercise as such tion and appreciation have the character of
can be conducted in a straightforward man- a shared value which complicates their as-
ner at many scales; the greater challenge is sessment and the application of financial in-
the data availability. Regarding scales, the struments such as Payments for Ecosystem
assessment of ES at the local scale is some- Services (PES) to boost them (Table 1).
times easier, because systems are smaller and
thus better investigated, understood and In land management and land use planning,
supported by data. At the regional scale, spa- the ES concept contributes to the assess-
tial interactions between various ecosystems ment of sustainability from a highly inte-
make the ES investigation more difficult, as grative perspective that covers regulating,

Table 1. Generalised scheme of the antagonism of ES awareness across spatial scales.
Scale Measurement Perception of benefits Beneficiary Payment for ES

Local Easy Good Land owner* Feasible
Regional
National
Continental
Global Difficult Poor Human kind Difficult
*and further local actors and stakeholders
provisioning and cultural ES and allows the or expert judgements if quantitative data
assessment of the value of biodiversity as a is not available. Hence, the first challenge
supportive backbone to enable ES supply is the identification of adequate indicators.
(see Chapter 2.2). A multitude of indicators Regarding spatial reference, a cross-scale
(e.g. in the context of CICES 4.31, Chapter approach might be necessary, for example,
2.4) has been introduced for the different the collection of local data, in order to re-
service groups. However, many of them ad- gionalise them for an ES assessment at the
dress a specific scale so that the subsequent regional or national scale (Box 1).
assessments require intense data collection,
analysis and aggregation. Taking regulating Once the status quo of ES is assessed and
services as an example, mediation of smell/ mapped, the next challenge is the consider-
noise/visual impacts relates to local or reation of the temporal scale (Box 2). Provision
gional scale, while dilution by atmosphere, of and demand for ES change during time.
freshwater and marine ecosystems refers to If available, historic data should be used as a
regional, national or even global scale. basis for the development of future land use
and management alternatives which should
In this chapter, we explore how to inte- support decision-makers in finding the most
grate data from different scales in a com- sustainable planning strategies.
prehensive manner. Using the results from
the project RegioPower2 as an example, in In addition to space and time, thematic in-
Boxes 1-3, we show how local data can be teractions need to be taken into account to
up-scaled for supporting decision-making at avoid unexpected trade-offs (Box 3). With
the regional level. the term thematic, we refer to thematically
heterogeneous ES, for example, provision-
ing, regulating and cultural services. Various
Scale interactions ES, which are relevant for a specific study in
terms of spatial scale and management chal-
lenges, should be mapped and assessed. At
To move from local data to regional decision least, some ES from each category (provision-
support, various data need to be collected, ing, regulating and cultural services) need to
harmonised and integrated. Data might en- be considered for a reliable analysis of ES
compass measured data from field studies, synergies and trade-offs. Depending on the
empirical data from surveys, modelled data, case study framework, ES that are relevant for
decision-making, should especially be con-
1
http://cices.eu/ sidered. However, neglecting one thematic
2
www.eli-web.com/RegioPower/ ES group might lead to unforeseen trade-offs.
Chapter 5 259
Box1. Bridging spatial scales
In RegioPower, we focussed on exploring regional biomass provisioning capacities and focus here on
the service timber production. Measured or modelled data, as well as stakeholder experience or expert
opinion can serve as the basis for the assessment of this service. We made use of forest inventory data
and regional statistics (harvesting, trade) and included empirical data when no specific information
could be obtained. Through normalisation, this quantitative information basis can be adjusted for
trade-off analyses with other services, such as Aesthetics or Carbon sequestration. Subsequently,
with the help of the software GISCAME3 , the effective capacity of providing services bundles and their
balance can be assessed in a spatially explicit manner or as summary information at regional scale. This
approach of local data collection and subsequent normalisation for up-scaling to larger scales (Figure 1)
can be applied for many ES and for various spatial scales (regional, national or larger).
Figure 1. Upscaling of local stand data (growing stock in m per ha, right map) to the regional scale
(relative scale from 0-100) using a normalization apporach (left map).
3
www.giscame.com

Box 2. Temporal variations in ES provision
Temporal variations in ES provision can be included through studies of historical land use change, by
monitoring data, or by using models (see Chapter 5.3). In the RegioPower project, changes in growth
and yield of forest stands were taken either from yield tables or models. Yield tables are based on long-
term field trials that describe different forest management models and their impacts on stand properties.
Though mapped information on the current timber provisioning capacities is helpful, more in-depth
analysis of stand dynamics starting from current properties (age, stand density, tree species composition)
provides valuable information on future capacities or limitations in the availability of timber and thus
helps to adjust regional development strategies or investments (e.g. in power plants or saw mills).
The example in Figure 2 shows the development of the regionally harvestable volume over time as a
response
!" to #$%&'())*
current forest management
+$&,'-.*',-,%/ models considering rotation periods, harvesting, recreation and
0).12/$34).'())*
tending
5%-/1 (business as usual). It reveals that reducing the assessment on the currently available timber
would underestimate
6 7789:8 the :;9<=:
amount of harvestable
8989= timber in the near future, while it would neglect the
risk of an
>
undersupply
7;=9>;
in the longer
:8?6>6
term.
>:87;
:6 78<<<6 :>7=9> >;<79
Changes in forest management, such as forest conversion, but also external impacts, such as climate
change,:> would
7>9;>: :>=8=>
alter the harvestable >>8>= Consequently, such long-term analyses of the variability
volume.
in ES 76
supply7??>:>
need to be interpreted
:?6>>8 cautiously
>?898 as they include high uncertainties. Even or especially
the communication
7> 7=7989 of the:?:<=9
degree of uncertainty
>?<8> is highly valuable information in the context of deci-
sion-support for spatial planning.
>6 7=877> :8967; >:>:6
=>
Furthermore, 7;:6:: :88:87
ecological, biophysical and>6<=7
social/legal parameters influence the regional availability of ES
such as timber production. We included86?=6
:66 :?778> ::7<:7 information on the type and status of ecosystems to calculate the
natural
:7>capacities
:98>66 of each land
::;7==use type 869<?
to contribute to the supply of ES such as timber. Topographical
data (slope)
:>6 were
78>=7=considered as
:;6?<8limiting factors
8?97? in the accessibility of forest resources due to technical lim-
itations in harvesting, so that areas with steep slopes were counted with a lower potential for timber sup-
:=> 7=669> :8<7<: >6?;<
ply. Additionally, information on ownership types (state, communal, private forests) and their particular
766
mobilisation 7>><?9 :;9::=
rates were used to adjust the8=;:=
potentially harvestable volume. The mobilisation rate in private
forests is, for instance, only 60 % of the harvestable volume. Finally, forests in national parks and nature
protection areas were calculated with only 10 % of the potentially harvestable volume.
300,000
Harvestable volumet
225,000
[m ]
150,000
75,000
0
Fuel wood 0 5 10 15 20 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Pulp and paper Time steps [years]
Construction wood
Figure 2. Temporal variation of the provisioning service "timber provision" considering three timber
assortments.
Chapter 5 261
Box 3: Thematic interactions: integrated assessment
In the RegioPower example, only few ES were taken into account for the integrated ES assessment. A
trade-off analysis was carried out using ES maps regarding provisioning, cultural and regulating services, as
well as ecological integrity. Figure 3 illustrates schematic supply maps for each ES and a radar chart which
helps to reveal trade-offs between different services when analysing land use change scenarios.
Integrated assessments should be the major aim of all ES studies to support decision-making. Particularly
the detection of SPAs and SBAs (see Chapter 5.2), hot spots and cold spots (see Chapter 5.1), as well
as synergies and trade-offs (see Chapter 5.6) are required for informed decision-making in sustainable
development.
Information on the regional ES supply balance and spatially explicit information as displayed in our
capacity maps contribute to informed decision-making: the regional ES balance is valuable information
for the planner who strives to harmonise projected demands in ES with their regional availability. Further-
more, the capacity maps contribute to the identification of areas where, for instance, natural capacities in
providing ES are not yet fully exploited or could be enhanced through adapted land management. This is
also helpful for adjusting financial instruments, such as Payments for ES (PES), or for developing gover-
nance mechanisms, such as community-based planning for enhancing ES.
Wood
production
Ecological Food and

integrity Fodder
Drought risk Soil

regulation erosion
protect
Recreation C- sequestration
Figure 3. Mapping of various ES capacities at the regional scale and trade-off visualisation.

Conclusions integrated assessments of ES which could
support identifying areas and subsequently
For a holistic and reliable assessment of their owners are of particularly high value
ES, it is crucial to consider the sensitivi- for providing such critical services. Global
ty of underlying indicators to spatial and agreements and strategies on how to com-
temporal scales. Only scale-appropriate pensate potential restrictions, for example,
land use planning including proper land in tropical or boreal forest areas, should con-
management practices can ensure the sus- sequently be developed.
tainable provision of ES. Spatially explicit
tools that support integrating models from
different land use sectors and aggregating Further reading
qualitative and quantitative information
are required to support informed deci-
sion-making processes. Frank S, Frst C, Pietzsch F (2015) Cross-sec-
toral resource management: how forest
Future challenges in providing reliable in- management alternatives affect the provi-
formation on ES supply capacities include sion of lignocellulosic resources and other
a stronger consideration of boundary phe- ecosystem services. Forests 6: 533-560.
nomena (proximity effects) whose impacts
on the availability of ES are often ignored Fremier AK, DeClerck FAJ, Bosque-Prez, NA,
due to the lack of respective monitoring Carmona NE, Hill R, Joyal T, Keesecker
data. In addition, the impact of the land- L, Klos PZ, Martnez-Salinas A, Niemeyer
scape configuration on ES supply capacities R, Sanfiorenzo A, Welsh K, Wulfhorst JD
(see Chapter 3.6) as a key research topic of (2013) Understanding Spatio-temporal
landscape ecology should be more actively Lags in Ecosystem Services to Improve In-
reflected in ES assessments. Regulating and centives. BioScience 63: 472-482.
cultural ES, as well as provisioning services,
are highly dependent on compactness or Frst C, Frank S, Rozas-Vasquez D, Jimenez
fragmentation that can accelerate or dimin- M, Pietzsch K, Pietzsch F (2016) How
ish, for instance, the productivity of forest to assess the impact of agricultural and
or agricultural land. forest management on biodiversity and
ecosystem services. In: Geneletti D (Ed.)
There is still a need to develop appropriate Handbook on biodiversity and ecosystem
governance models to ensure the provision services in impact assessment. Edward El-
of ES that are not directly consumed and gar Publishing, 195-221.
thus are often underestimated in their rel-
evance, such as many regulating ES (see Grt-Regamey A, Weibel B, Bagstad KJ, Ferra-
Chapter 5.5.1). Particular services that rep- ri M, Geneletti D, Klug H et al. (2014) On
resent shared, public values, such as global the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services
climate regulation (which cannot easily be Mapping. PLoS ONE 9(12): e112601.
directly connected to beneficiaries) require doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112601.
societal agreement on how to deal with
discrimination of land owners who would Grt-Regamey A, Weibel B, Kienast F, Rabe
need to renounce economic benefits from S-E, Zulian G (2015) A tiered approach
land use for the sake of the global pop- for mapping ecosystem services. Ecosys-
ulation. Spatially explicit modelling and tem Services 13: 16-27.
Chapter 5 263
Hayek UW, Efthymiou D, Farooq B, von Norton L, Greene S, Scholefield P, Dunbar M
Wirth T, Teich M, Neuenschwander N, (2016) The importance of scale in the de-
Grt-Regamey A (2015) Quality of ur- velopment of ecosystem service indicators.
ban patterns: Spatially explicit evidence Ecological Indicators 61(Part 1): 130-140.
for multiple scales. Landscape and Urban
Planning 142: 47-62.
Malinga R, Gordon LJ, Jewitt G, Lindborg R

(2015) Mapping ecosystem services across
scales and continents A review. Ecosys-

CHAPTER 6
Uncertainties of ecosystem
services mapping
Chapter 6 265
Borders of ecosystems are usually not as clear in nature as they may appear on a map
(Cape Agulhas, South Africa; Photo: Benjamin Burkhard 2015).

6.1. Data and quantification
issues
Neville D. Crossman
Introduction
Chapters 4 and 5 describe many different use and land cover data. Data acquisition will
methods and approaches for mapping eco- be at relatively low cost and data may even
system services (ES) across time and space. be available free of charge when governments
However, as with any mapping exercise, the commit to open data policies.
usefulness of the map is only as good as the
input data (garbage in, garbage out). It is In locations where there is a lack of ecosystem
important to be aware of the common data service data, it will be necessary to fill data
and quantification challenges when making gaps with alternative approaches such as re-
ecosystem service maps to prevent produc- mote sensing, participatory mapping, land
tion of poor quality maps. use proxies and/or use of lower resolution
global-scale datasets. Creative ways to fill data
The aim of this chapter is to discuss some of gaps are needed when ecosystem service map-
the common challenges quantifying ES for ping projects have limited resources to collect
use in maps. The chapter principally focuses new data and build new models.
on challenges when data is scarce and/or sys-
tem understanding is poor. Challenges relat-
ing to scale are also considered, such as the Filling data gaps
Modifiable Area Unit Problem (MAUP; see
also Chapter 3.2) and the ecological falla-
cy, the importance of metadata (data about Participatory mapping
data) and the need to avoid double-count- Participatory mapping, or participatory GIS,
ing of ecosystem service values in maps. This is an increasingly popular technique for col-
chapter will offer solutions to these prob- lecting data on ES using local expert knowl-
lems, including a list of online spatial data edge (see Chapter 5.6.2). A participatory
resources to fill data gaps. mapping exercise involves bringing togeth-
er local expertise in a workshop setting and
capturing on maps (paper or digital) experts'
Limited data understanding of the spatial distribution of
ES of interest. Figure 1 shows an example of a
map produced in a participatory setting.
It is a general principle that wealthier coun-
tries and regions with advanced economies Often the cultural ES have the least data and
will have higher resolution and more accurate understanding and participatory approaches
spatial data that can be used to map ES. There are best suited to capture that category of
will often be readily accessible high resolution services. A recent review of 30 participatory
climate, topography, soil, biodiversity, land GIS ecosystem service mapping case studies
Chapter 6 267
Figure 1. Example of paper map used in a participatory mapping exercise to map ecosystem service and
land degradation management priorities in Zambia (Source: Willemen et al. 2015).
found that multiple methods were imple- mangrove and dune systems). Land cover
mented and cultural and provisioning ser- and land use are common datasets captured
vices were most commonly mapped. by remote sensing and these data can act as
proxies for mapping the supply of ES. The
Participatory approaches have the extra ben- land cover/land use approach to mapping
efit of adding acceptance and credibility to ES is a common and very useful technique
ecosystem service mapping because they in- in the absence of detailed spatial models,
clude and capture local knowledge. data and system understanding.
Remote sensing Global scale data

Remotely sensed satellite data can be used to Many global scale datasets are available for
fill data gaps but the data are limited by what mapping ES, although their usefulness will
can be captured from above the land surface. be determined by the scale of mapping re-
Remotely-sensed data are often used to de- quired (Chapter 5.7). Global scale data is
rive spatial estimates of many ES such as food typically of coarse resolution (from 1 km
production (mapping of crops), surface and resolution and above), so mapping at local
ground water (mapping of water bodies and scales will often prohibit the use of global
watercourses), vegetation cover and attributes scale datasets. Global data will be more use-
(vigour, biomass), soil condition and erosion, ful for mapping at national/regional/conti-
flood control (mapping of floodplain topog- nental scales. A list of global datasets useful
raphy) and coastal protection (mapping of for mapping ES is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Selection of global datasets for mapping ES (note: some datasets require post-processing to
estimate ES).
Ecosystem service Global dataset Resolution URL
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
Land Cover 250 m
maps/data/global-land-cover-250m
http://www.fao.org/geonetwork/srv/
Land Use Systems 8 km
en/metadata.show?id=37139
Food production
http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?-
Net Primary Productivity 10 km
datasetId=MOD17A2_M_PSN
Global Livestock Den- http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/re-
5 km
sities sources/en/glw/GLW_dens.html
FAO Global Water Data- http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/
Fresh water Country
base (AQUASTAT) main/index.stm
http://earthenginepartners.appspot.
Timber harvesting Global Tree Cover Loss 30 m com/science-2013-global-forest/down-
load_v1.2.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/glob-
Carbon sequestration Global Biomass Carbon 1 km al_carbon/carbon_documentation.
html
Extreme events pre- SRTM Digital Elevation
90 m http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/
vention (flood risk) Data
Wastewater
Global Lakes and Wet- http://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/
treatment (lakes and 900 m
lands Database global-lakes-and-wetlands-database
wetlands)
http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/
Soil erosion soil-degradation-restoration/glob-
Global Soil Health n.a.
regulation al-soil-health-indicators-and-assess-
ment/global-soil-health/en/
http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Research/
Soil properties (eco- Harmonised World Soil
900 m LUC/External-World-soil-database/
system conditions) Database (HWSD)
HTML/
Species habitat and
Global Biodiversity Infor-
diversity (ecosystem n.a. http://www.gbif.org/
mation Facility (GBIF)
conditions)
Scale issues (MAUP). The boundaries of the aggregated

unit are arbitrary, modifiable and therefore
The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem drawn at the discretion of the person under-
taking the aggregation. The result is that the
(MAUP) summary values for each areal unit are influ-
The aggregation of spatial point data into ar- enced by the choice of unit boundary leading
bitrary spatial units such as postcode areas, to the display of data in maps which can be
suburbs or ecosystem types introduces a bias misleading. Aggregation of the same data to
known as the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem different boundaries could lead to very differ-
Chapter 6 269
ent summary data and maps. Figure 2 shows ipation in crime is a function of many other
an example of the same data (per capita water variables, not just income level.
availability for human consumption) sum-
marised for 21 different aggregated boundar- In ecosystem service mapping, an ecological
ies in Asia. The choice of boundaries will have fallacy could arise when mapping the value
a significant impact on the visual interpreta- of coastal protection by mangroves. It would
tion of water shortages in Asia. be a fallacy to assume all mangroves in a
coastal area offer storm protection based on
Ecosystem service maps are vulnerable to the coarse level positive relationship between
MAUP where point-based data (or high-res- mangrove area and level of storm protection.
olution raster data) is aggregated to large The level and, therefore, the value of storm
spatial units. Obvious examples are food protection at discreet locations within man-
production, freshwater abstractions, point- grove systems, is a function of other variables
sourced pollution and pollution treatment, such as topography and distance to shoreline.
tourism and recreation activity, and spe-
cies habitat; but all ES could be affected by
MAUP if their maps summarise high-res- Documenting mapped data
olution information to coarse, arbitrary
boundaries. Although sophisticated models
and techniques are available to accurately The rapid growth in ES research and imple-
interpolate and summarise point-based and mentation risks being undermined by poor
high resolution spatial data (such as geo- data management and mapping practices.
graphically weighted regression), the sim- There is a recognised inconsistency in ecosys-
plest approach is to recognise the MAUP in tem service modelling and mapping methods
the first place and then to ensure the areal which limits the use of ecosystem service in-
units into which data is summarised are as formation in national accounts and policy
internally homogenous as possible. decision-making related to the environment.
A basic set of metadata should be recorded
Ecological fallacy during every ecosystem service quantification
and mapping study. For example, informa-
Related to the MAUP is another data aggre- tion about the mapping study, such as pur-
gation and scaling issue known as the eco- pose, location, duration, administrative unit
logical fallacy. Here a logical fallacy occurs mapped, citations and project investigators
when inferences about data at the individ- should be recorded and published with the
ual (or local) scale are made from popula- maps. For each ecosystem service modelled/
tion-level (or coarse-scale) data. mapped, attributes such as ecosystem service
indicator, data source, quantification unit
The ecological fallacy occurs because it is and method, scale, extent, resolution, time
easy to make the erroneous assumption that period and beneficiary definition should be
relationships between variables at a coarse recorded on a blueprint. Completing meta-
level of aggregation also hold for lower lev- data and blueprints for ES quantification/
els of aggregation. For example, at a coarse mapping will provide users of the data and
level, there may be a strong relationship maps with a confidence in the pedigree and
between increasing crime rates and low- usefulness of the information.
er income levels; yet it would be wrong to
conclude that lower income individuals are Producing metadata and blueprints as part of
more likely to commit crime because partic- a mapping exercise provides a level of stan-

Figure 2. Example of the MAUP across
21 different boundaries in Asia. Extent
of water shortages (m3/cap/year) can
be very different depending on choice
of boundary (Source: Salmivaara et al.
2015).
Chapter 6 271
dardisation of the data for easy inclusion vices: A review and evaluation. Ecosystem
in catalogues such as the ESP Visualisation Services 13: 119-133.
Tool (ESP-VT)1. The ESP-VT is an online
web portal and catalogue for uploading, Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S, Wil-
downloading and querying spatial informa- lemen L, Petz K, Palomo I, Drakou EG,
tion on ES (Chapter 7.9). Another import- Martn-Lopez B, McPhearson T, Boyano-
ant cataloguing tool is the Intergovernmen- va K, Alkemade R, Egoh B, Dunbar M,
tal Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Maes J (2013) A blueprint for mapping
Services (IPBES) Catalogue of Assessments2. and modelling Ecosystem Services. Eco-
The IPBES Catalogue aims to build a global system Services 4: 4-14.
database of studies of ecosystem service quan-
tification and valuation. Drakou EG, Crossman ND, Willemen L,
(2015) A visualisation and data-sharing
Double-counting tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons
learned, challenges and the way forward.
Double-counting is an economics term that
refers to the erroneous practice of counting Fu B-J, Su C-H, Wei Y-P, Willett IR, L Y-H,
the value of goods or services more than once. Liu G-H (2011) Double counting in Ecosys-
Double-counting of ecosystem service val- tem Services valuation: causes and counter-
ues arises, for example, when supporting or measures. Ecological Research 26: 1-14.
intermediate ES such as soil formation, nu-
trient cycling and photosynthesis are valued Maes J, Crossman ND, Burkhard B (2016)
and mapped in conjunction with the valua- Mapping Ecosystem Services. In: Potsch-
tion and mapping of final ES. The problem in M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Turner K
of double-counting also occurs when there is (Eds) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem
overlap between ES because of vague service Services. Earthscan, UK, 188-204.
definitions and categorisations and/or limit-
ed understanding of ecosystem functions and Salmivaara et al. (2015) Exploring the Modi-
processes. Recent classification systems such fiable Areal Unit Problem in Spatial Water
as CICES3 and the US EPAs FEGS-CS4 have Assessments: A Case of Water Shortage in
taken considerable care to ensure final ES are Monsoon Asia. Water 7: 898-917.
clearly categorised to minimise the likelihood
of double-counting in valuation and mapping. Willemen et al. (2015) Mapping and valuing
ecosystem services in South Africa, Tanza-
nia and Zambia. Final report to UNCCD,
Further reading and resources consultancy CCD/15/GM/03.
Wong D (2009) The modifiable areal unit

Brown G, Fagerholm N (2015) Empirical problem (MAUP). In Fotheringham,
PPGIS/PGIS mapping of Ecosystem Ser- Stewart A, Rogerson P. The SAGE hand-
book of spatial analysis. Los Angeles:
1
http://esp-mapping.net/Home/ Sage105-124.
2
http://catalog.ipbes.net/
3
http://cices.eu/
4
https://gispub.epa.gov/FEGS/

6.2. Problematic ecosystem
services
Benjamin Burkhard & Joachim Maes
Introduction
Different ecosystem services (ES), as well as recreation are among the most mapped ES.
different mapping purposes, require different This is indeed confirmed by several review
quantification and mapping approaches. Al- studies which collected information on in-
though there is increasing knowledge (Chap- dicators for mapping ES. Less or even no
ters 2 and 3) and a high diversity of methods mapping is observed for genetic, ornamen-
and tools ready to be applied (Chapters 5), tal and medicinal resources, biological con-
several ES remain problematic to map. This trol, life cycle maintenance and gene pool
can be repeatedly found in related study re- protection and for cultural ES other than
ports, ES mapping reviews or other publica- nature-based recreation and tourism and
tions. However, integrative trans-disciplinary aesthetic beauty.
ES assessments will provide maps that are ap-
plicable for diverse purposes (see Chapter 7). Provisioning ecosystem services
The aim of this chapter is to present and to Whereas much statistical and spatial in-
discuss those ES which have been shown to formation is available for provisioning ES
be problematic to map. Related issues can be related to agriculture, forestry, fishery and
simply grouped into lack of knowledge and drinking water, other provisioning services
inherent uncertainties, conceptual questions, including wild food collection, or the use of
unclear ES spatial or temporal identification plants, algae or animals for other uses (e.g.
and localisation and specific technical map- medicines, genetic material, decoration, en-
ping questions (see also Chapter 6.1). ergy) are less well documented. Hence, these
ES remain largely unmapped. Yet, recent re-
Within this chapter, we want to share knowl- search has shown that the mapping of these
edge of ES that are problematic to map, to ES is possible. A study has drawn on differ-
contribute to a better understanding of the ent streams of information including species
reasons behind the problems and to show occurrence data, population distribution,
different options which can demonstrate taste preferences and local to national reci-
how to deal with these problems. pes to map wild food such as game and ed-
ible plants in Europe. Such approaches can
be repeated for similar types of provision-
Lack of knowledge and specific ing ES and would provide a more balanced
picture. In particular mapping of medicinal
uncertainties resources by mapping medicinal herbs and
hotspots of undiscovered species can make
Climate regulation, provision of water, food a substantial contribution to the knowledge
and timber, regulation of water flows and base on ES.
Chapter 6 273
Regulating ecosystem services Cultural ecosystem services
Although regulating ES are commonly As for cultural ES, it is fairly evident that
mapped and modelled, several knowledge virtually all focus has gone to mapping rec-
gaps remain limiting the mapping of, in reation in nature and to aesthetic beauty
particular, lifecycle maintenance and ge- of the landscape. In addition, mapping of
nepool protection. Mapping these services emblematic habitats and species can prof-
requires very specific biodiversity data sets. it from spatial data with different sources
Species distribution data is not sufficient (species occurrence and citizen science; see
since knowledge about life history, ecologi- Chapter 5.6.3). Intellectual, spiritual or
cal traits and information at subspecies level symbolic interactions with nature are much
is also needed. Proxy information exists (e.g. harder to map, though not impossible. Key
mapping phylogenetic diversity) but, in gen- issues with the intellectual and represen-
eral, mapping this level of detail does require tative human-environmental interactions
a substantial step forward in linking different (including scientific interactions, heritage,
biodiversity-related information sources. cultural entertainment, aesthetic, symbolic,
sacred and/or religious, existence and be-
Increasing efforts are being taken to map quest values) are related to their high sub-
many other regulating and maintenance ES jectivity and dependence on socio-cultural
and progress has been made on all service cat- system settings. Therefore they are difficult
egories related to water, soil, climate and at- to indicate, quantify and map.
mosphere. The increasing focus on the role of
ecosystems to support sustainable crop pro- In this section, we illustrate a generic ap-
duction has caused breakthroughs in map- proach for mapping cultural ES, based on
ping pollination and pest and disease control. a methodology which is used for mapping
However, the devil is in the detail. Map- nature-based recreation. Figure 1 maps two
ping the mediation of waste and mass flows cultural ES, based on a mapping of the rec-
or the regulation of global and local climate reational opportunity spectrum (ROS). The
is often based on the mapping of indicator ROS approach brings together two sources
substances or indicator species. Examples of of information: the recreation potential of
these include carbon in case of climate reg- ecosystems (measured using, for example,
ulation, nitrogen in case of wastewater reg- data on nature reserves, bathing water qual-
ulation, or bees in case of pollination. There ity, ecosystem degradation) and the accessi-
is insufficient mapping of, for example, how bility of this potential for people (e.g. roads,
ecosystems clean up different pesticides or infrastructure, distance to populated areas).
other pollutants, how they regulate other In a similar manner, other cultural ES can
greenhouse gasses, or what is the combined be mapped.
role of all service providing species. So ap-
propriate mapping methods and models are By using information on other values or by
available but usually they are not applied on participatory mapping approaches (Chap-
or extended to other material flows or other ter 5.6.2), the potential for ecosystems to
species. This requires more accurate spatial provide a suite of cultural ES including ed-
data of the stocks that are under regulation ucation, inspiration or spiritual experiences
by ecosystems (e.g. pesticides) or the better can be mapped. In Figure 1, a similar ap-
inclusion of existing species trait information proach was used to map cultural heritage
(for instance in case of pollination or pest in a regional nature reserve: different levels
control). Much gain is expected for coupling of service provision (low, medium, high)
data and information systems. are cross-tabulated with different levels of

Figure 1. Mapping cultural ecosystem services (nature-based recreation activities and cultural heritage)
based on mapping service provision versus access to the service. Service provision is expressed in three
ordinal classes (low, medium and high) while access to the service is approximated by proximity (expressed
in three ordinal classes: far, proximal, near). The case study relates to Campo dei Fiori, a regional park in
Lombardy (Italy).
proximity (far, proximal, near) resulting in ecosystem goods and services from nature to
nine different classes which are mapped. society. It distinguishes between biophysical
Mapping different cultural services, instead structures and processes, ecosystem func-
of focussing on recreation and tourism, is tions, services, benefits and values.
relevant for planning. Such mapping exer-
cises may be eye-openers for decision-mak- Conceptual problems may, however, arise
ers and increase ownership and legitimacy due to the fact that ES can be mapped along
of an ecosystem-based approach to solving different elements of the cascade. Most-
problems related to spatial planning. ly, many provisioning ES are not mapped
as contributions of ecosystems to human
Conceptual questions well-being but as the realised benefits or
the final goods from ecosystems which are
Even in the case of commonly mapped ES sold on markets (total harvested crops, live-
such as food, climate regulation or recre- stock production, water abstracted, timber
ation, conceptual problems may obstruct removals, fish yields etc.). However, these
the application of maps in policy and deci- maps also contain the human energy input
sion-making processes. What exactly to map that is applied to harvest or extract these
is a recurring question. The ES cascade (see provisioning ES (Chapter 5.1). In managed
Chapter 2.3) may give guidance but invokes systems, ecosystem structures, processes and
typical problems related to mapping as well. functions (and resulting ES) are heavily
The cascade provides a logical and well-es- modified by additional anthropogenic sys-
tablished framework to describe the flow of tem inputs such as fertiliser, water, energy,
Chapter 6 275
technology, labour or knowledge, affecting end-products, they need to be mapped and
especially regulating ES and biodiversity. integrated in respective assessments. Other-
In particular for crop production, these hu- wise regulating ES are in danger of being ne-
man-based inputs are far more important glected in ecosystem assessments, especially
than the natural energy and matter inputs when it comes to analyses of ES synergies
but it is difficult to separate and map these and trade-offs.
two components. It still needs to be tested
whether a distinction between natural and Mapping demand for ecosystem
anthropogenic contributions is feasible for
quantification and mapping of ES, especial- services
ly on larger spatial and temporal scales. Demands for many regulating ES are also
not easy to define or to map (see example in
In contrast, ecosystem processes, structures Box 1). Demands and preferences for micro
or functions are mapped for many regulat- and regional climate regulation and related
ing ES. Regulating ES are, by nature, closely benefits can, for example, be highly individ-
linked to biophysical structures and process- ual and specific. Respective indicators often
es and functions. For some regulating ES, quantify temperature amplitudes or devia-
such as mediation of flows (including mass, tions of precipitation, wind or evapo-tran-
liquid and gaseous flows) or maintenance spiration compared to surrounding areas or
of physical, chemical, biological condi- standard values. We are aware that regulat-
tions (including soil formation, pollination ing ES demands and related perceived hu-
and water conditions), clear overlaps with man benefits may differ considerably.
ecosystem functions like nutrient or water
cycling are obvious. In order to avoid dou- For global climate regulation, ES benefits
ble-counting (see Chapter 6.1), a clear dis- refer to non-desired temperature changes,
tinction between ecosystem functions and storm events or coastal hazards. The service
services has to be made in case they are to providing areas SPA (for example, the large
be quantified, mapped, assessed and finally forest belts) can be mapped at specific loca-
valued jointly. Even if many regulating ES tions, whereas the service benefitting areas
are not (yet) perceived as services by society SBA (Chapter 5.2) are of global extension
because they lack clear (direct) benefits or (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Example of global climate regulation with regional SPAs (service providing areas) and global
SBAs (service benefiting areas).

Box 1. Pollination
Pollination and seed dispersal are very prominent examples of a regulating ES that is mapped frequently.
The final goods would be the fruit or flower to be consumed or enjoyed by humans, whereas the pol-
lination process itself (the pollen-transfer) could be seen as an ecosystem function or intermediate ES
(Chapter 2.3), providing the base for the actual ES supply.
Figure 3. Pollination by wild animals is very important for the delivery of several ES.
In order to map pollination, often potential habitats for pollinators, species numbers or the amount of
pollinators are used as proxies to indicate the actual pollination function (see also Chapter 6.3). Howev-
er, we need to be aware that habitats or the occurrence of certain species belong to biophysical structures
and processes within the ES cascade (Chapter 2.3). Demand for pollination services can be mapped
based on the amount and location of agricultural, garden or wild plants demanding pollination.
For provisioning ES demand-mapping, the last contribution of an ecosystem as the place

problem of often highly complex and glo- of supply (e.g. the forest) and the place of
balised supply-demand patterns occurs for final use by the consumer (sitting on a chair)
many goods and services. For goods that as the demand area or SBA. Complex trad-
are based on multiple ES (e.g. a chair made ing schemes of goods, which involve several
of wood, fabric, metal), the question arises retailers, resellers and distributors along the
where to localise the demand for the partic- path from the ecosystem to the final con-
ular services and where to map their supply. sumer are adding to the issues of mapping
A solution can be to consider the place of the provisioning ES supply-demand patterns.
Chapter 6 277
For many cultural ES, the question about ical conditions) and one for the benthic
whether the benefits contributing to indi- habitats and the sea bottom (e.g. materials,
vidual well-being should be located i) direct- nutrition, mediation of flows).
ly at the place where the service is provided
(e.g. a SPA in the form of a good beach used Groundwater represents a special case as it
for recreational activities), ii) at the home challenges both the representation of eco-
of the beneficiary (i.e. the place where she/ systems in maps (often based on land cov-
he spends most time of the year), or iii) at er data) and the typical classification sys-
both sites. All three options make sense but tems for ES. Groundwater ecosystems are
are related to uncertainties and may lead to vital providers of water for drinking and
misinterpretations. non-drinking purposes. In two dimensions,
they spatially overlap with all other ecosys-
Spatial or temporal questions tems and processes in groundwater layers
sometimes take place in decades, if not lon-
A single map has two spatial dimensions ger. Several questions emerge with respect
and is static, so it is not very useful to show to groundwater as an ES: which ecosystems
temporal changes. Yet, the environment are the providers of groundwater ES, where
and ecosystems exist in three dimensions to localise the supply and to what extent is
in space and often undergo highly dynamic the provision of groundwater for drinking
changes (fourth dimension). This contrast or non-drinking purposes an ecosystem
brings about particular challenges for mapservice (see Box 2 for further details)?
ping which we illustrate here for certain eco-
systems and their services. A similar question can be addressed when
considering soil and soil-related ES. Soil is
Most ecosystems can be relatively well an important part of our natural capital and
mapped and spatially separated. Forests, soil science is a well-developed discipline
grasslands or wetlands obviously occur in with a great deal of information available
three dimensions but it is relatively straight- in soil maps. Prominent ES delivered by the
forward to map them and assign specific soil are erosion control and, obviously, soil
ES to them. Often ecological processes in formation and composition. The first two
terrestrial ecosystems follow seasonal cycles approaches also apply here when accounting
related to primary production so that annu- for soil ES: either they are assigned to the
al averages can be calculated and attributed ecosystem they support (e.g. forest, crop-
to these ecosystems and, hence, to ES maps land, or grassland) or they are considered as
(Chapter 5.3). a separate soil system overlapping with oth-
er ecosystems. Both approaches are possible
Marine areas are more complex to map due depending on the context and the purpose
to their three-dimensionality, water current of the study.
dynamics (especially in tide-influenced wa-
ters) and the significantly different compo- Technical questions
nents they include. One solution could be
to produce ES maps per ecosystem type and Available data, indicators and maps of ES
per service: one for the water surface (rele- come with different spatial extent and resolu-
vant, for example, for cultural ES, transport, tion. Examples of these include: forest inven-
energy), another for the water column (e.g. tories may use coordinates to report on forest
for nutrition, energy, mediation of flows, standing plots; model-based observations on
maintenance of physical, chemical, biolog- the regulation of water quantity and quality

Box 2. Groundwater
The easiest and most pragmatic approach is to assign the groundwater ES to the ecosystems or land
cover types lying above the ground.
Piezometric
Artesian well Flowing surface
artesian well (in confined
aquifer)
Confining layer
(impermeable) Unconfined
aquifer
Confined aquifer Water table well
(in unconfined aquifer)
Top of the
confined aquifer
Figure 4. Example provisioning ES water supply based on groundwater or surface water (based on
http://groundwater.sdsu.edu/).
There is also an ecological rationale for doing so. The generation of groundwater ES is mediated by
ecological processes which take place in forests or agricultural ecosystems where vegetation influences
the re-charge of groundwater layers beneath them. In addition, part of the groundwater is in the root
zone of these ecosystems whereas other, deeper, groundwater layers are part of the abiotic crust of the
earth. These aquifers also often receive groundwater from above but are mainly abiotic depositories of
groundwater generated elsewhere (in spite of the presence of some biotic organisms). Above-ground,
water supply based on groundwater only often occurs as discrete local phenomena such as springs,
dwells or water taps. Transportation installations such as water pipes or canals lead to a spatial decou-
pling of SPAs and SBAs (Chapter 5.2).
A second approach considers groundwater as a separate ecosystem and accounts for the specific ES
delivered by groundwater. Groundwater abstraction for different user purposes is assigned to this eco-
system type and not to the above-ground ecosystem where the abstraction takes place but this involves
working with multiple maps to avoid overlap.
A third approach considers groundwater as a subsoil asset or as system which delivers abiotic flows.
It is difficult indeed to always identify a clear boundary between the abiotic and ecosystem components
of natural capital. Water which also comes through in the treatment of groundwater in different related
pilot studies is a key example in this regard. A guiding question for classifying natural capital compo-
nents into abiotic or ecosystem elements needs to address whether or not a given component is primar-
ily shaped or maintained by biological organisms and their interaction with the abiotic environment.
Chapter 6 279
are often organised according to hydrologi- a source of statistical bias that can serious-
cal units; crop statistics are reported for par- ly affect the results, also referred to as the
cels or using political boundaries. Integrated Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP; see
ES assessments often require bringing these Chapter 3.1 and 6.1).
different data sources and maps into a sin-
gle, standardised format, for instance a 1 Summary tables
km grid or polygons representing munic-
ipalities or regions. This requires the use of The following tables give an overview of se-
GIS functions such as up- and downscaling lected ES, common mapping problems with
or zonal averaging. These operations may be them and suggested solutions.
Table 1. Selected regulating ecosystem services (ES), mapping problems and suggested solutions.
Regulating ES examples Possible problems Solutions

Focus on carbon dioxide and Integrative mapping approaches
climate change only (Chapter 5.6)
Focus on carbon sequestra- Combination of carbon sequestration
Global climate regulation
tion only and storage (i.e. in soils)
Large difference between Overlay or intersect SBA and SPA maps
SPA and SBA (Chapter 5.2)
ES demand relates to certain
Regional climate regulation human preferences of ecosys-
tem states Relate to standard, critical or legitimate
values
Human preferences or de-
Ventilation and transpiration
fined (critical) levels
Human preferences of con-
Hydrological cycle and water Combine with respective ES demand
stant water flow (flood and
flow maintenance maps
drought prevention)
Soil formation is a very slow
Consider long-term effects (Chapter 5.3)
process
Soil formation and compo-
sition Distinguish between natural processes,
Strong overlaps with ecosys-
external inputs and avoid double-
tem functions
counting
Mass flow regulation (e.g.
erosion control) Avoided events need be Model-based approach with and without
assessed ES supplied (Chapter 4.4)
Flood or storm protection
Pollination
Pest and disease control Separate between potential use and actu-
Strong overlaps with ecosys- al use (see Chapter 5.1)
Mediation of waste, toxics tem functions, high poten-
and other nuisances tial of double-counting Little concern about double-counting
when mapping single ES
Maintaining water conditions

Table 2. Selected provisioning ecosystem services (ES), mapping problems and suggested solutions.
Provisioning ES examples Problem Solution

If possible, include indicators of
High impact of external anthropo-
human contributions and external
genic system inputs
environmental effects
Cultivated crops, reared
animals, aquaculture Complex ES supply chains In absence of better data, use
Animal stables and aquafarms = spatially explicit crop and stock
locally discrete point SPA statistics for mapping
Biomass-based energy E.g. maize, rape: final use not always Combination with respective ES
sources clear demand
Distinction between ES potential
Timber Temporal: long growth phases
and flow (Chapter 5.1)
Groundwater for drinking/ Subsurface SPAs; SBAs delocalised
See Box 2 in this chapter
non-drinking purposes and point sources (wells, pipes)
Table 3. Selected cultural ecosystem services (ES), mapping problems and suggested solutions.
Cultural ES examples Problem Solution

Physical and experiential inter- Different and subjective prefer- Participatory GIS (Chapter 5.6.2),
actions ences Citizen science (Chapter 5.6.3)
Intellectual and representative Applying the ROS approach (see
interactions this Chapter) can help raising
ES supply and demand difficult
awareness
Spiritual and/or emblematic in- to indicate, quantify and localise
teractions
Participatory GIS (Chapter 5.6.2)
Solutions put them in the whole picture. The combina-

tion of using land use and land cover data and
expert- or evidence-based ranking of potential
Although not all ES can readily be mapped, supply and demand as proxies has been suc-
we still argue that an inclusive approach is cessfully applied at various spatial scales and
to be preferred. Too often, ecosystem assess- for different purposes. Several chapters of this
ments focus on selected ES only such as food book provide more detail or use matrix-map-
production, climate regulation, or water ping for different applications.
quality regulation using lack of knowledge,
data gaps and conceptual problems as an ar- For cultural ES, we advance here the approach
gument for justifying a limited perspective. based on mapping nature-based recreation.
Mapping cultural ES inevitably depends on
However, the strength of ES as a concept is quantifying an information flow from nature
that it offers scientists, planners and deci- to people. Mapping the recreational opportu-
sion-makers a frame that encompasses all nity spectrum involves combining ecological
benefits we receive from nature. We should data with socio-economic information such
therefore act accordingly. The ES matrix ap- as demographic statistics and the location of
proach (see Chapter 5.6.4) is a first valid alter- infrastructure and can serve as an example for
native to map and assess problematic ES and mapping other cultural ES.
Chapter 6 281
More efforts could be applied to the use of Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S, Wil-
biodiversity data for mapping ES. A recent lemen L, Petz K, Palomo I, Drakou EG,
study used species occurrence data from Martn-Lopez B, McPhearson T, Boyano-
GBIF, the global biodiversity information va K, Alkemade R, Egoh B, Dunbar M,
facility, to map wild food in Europe. Spe- Maes J (2013) A blueprint for mapping
cies are the basis of ecosystems and thus the and modelling ecosystem services. Eco-
main service providing units for several ES system Services 4: 4-14.
(see also Chapter 2.2). Linking occurrence
data with trait information will be key to Grizzetti B, Lanzanova D, Liquete C, Rey-
mapping those ES with a strong connection naud A, Rankinen K, Hellsten S, Forsius
to biodiversity such as pollination. M, Cardoso AC (2015) Cook-book for
water ecosystem service assessment and
Importantly, high resolution mapping is a valuation. EUR 27141. Publications office
solution to several conceptual and techni- of the European Union, Luxembourg.
cal problems. This is particularly evident in
heterogeneous landscapes with a mixture of Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) The
cropland, semi-natural vegetation and forest. links between biodiversity ecosystem ser-
vices and human well-being. In: Raf- fa-
Quantifying ES such as food production, elli D, Frid C (Eds) Ecosystem Ecology:
pollination, or maintenance of soil quality A New Synthesis. Cambridge University
often leads to questions about double-count- Press, Cambridge, 110-139.
ing. This arises as a result of the latter two
regulating ES contributing to the former Martnez-Harms MJ, Balvanera, P (2012)
service. A detailed mapping of cropland Methods for mapping ecosystem service
with spatial delineation of the semi-natu- supply: a review. International Journal of
ral vegetation such as hedges, forest patches Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services
and grass strips also allows spatially segregat- & Management 8: 17-25.
ing areas that provide regulating ES from ar-
eas that are dedicated to production. More- Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennet EM
over, double-counting mainly occurs when (2013) Capacity, pressure, demand, and
different ecosystem functions, services and flow: A conceptual framework for analys-
benefits are finally aggregated to one single ing ecosystem service provision and deliv-
number (such as the total economic value ery. Ecological Complexity 15: 114-121.
TEV). Compiling maps of individual ES
helps to avoid double-counting and high- Paracchini ML, Zulian G, Kopperoinen L,
lights the vital role of regulating services and Maes J, Schgner JP, Termansen M, Zan-
ecosystem structures. dersen M, Perez-Soba M, Scholefield PA,
Bidoglio G (2014) Mapping cultural eco-
system services: A framework to assess the
Further reading potential for outdoor recreation across the
EU. Ecological Indicators 45: 371-385.
Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Mller Schulp CJE, Thuiller W, Verburg PH (2014)

F (2014) Ecosystem Service Potentials, Wild food in Europe: A synthesis of knowl-
Flows and Demands - Concepts for Spa- edge and data of terrestrial wild food as an
tial Localisation, Indication and Quanti- ecosystem service. Ecological Economics
fication. Landscape Online 34: 1-32. 105: 292-305.

6.3. Uncertainty measures and
maps
Catharina J.E. Schulp & Dries Landuyt
Introduction
Many ecosystem services (ES) are very dif- carbon per g organic matter. Both weigh-
ficult or even impossible to measure. While ing procedures have a small error, resulting
the amount of crops produced is mon- in an uncertainty in the amount of organic
itored at a detailed level in the EU, it is matter. The conversion factor from organ-
less straightforward to quantify how many ic matter to organic carbon is well estab-
potential floods have been avoided and to lished, but differs depending on the origin
what extent functioning of the ecosystem of the organic matter, meaning that the
renders this flood risk mitigation. Conse- factor is uncertain as well. Altogether, the
quently, ES are commonly mapped based loss on ignition method has an uncertainty
on a combination of a limited number of of approximately 2 %, meaning that, when
measurements, expert-based or empirically a soil organic carbon stock of 5 % is report-
derived proxies and model-based mapping ed, the value can actually vary between 3 %
procedures. For example, the capacity of and 7 %.
the landscape to sequester CO2 has been
mapped through first measuring CO2 se- In many approaches for mapping ES, such
questration rates in different ecosystems, measurements are then coupled to maps of
which are then upscaled by combining land cover or environmental variables such
average sequestration rates per ecosystem as soil maps or elevation maps to create an
with a map delineating these ecosystems. ecosystem service map. Land cover maps
are commonly derived from remote sensing
In these modelling or upscaling approach- imageries. These maps are uncertain with
es, as well as in the underlying measure- regard to the location or shape of objects
ments, uncertainties arise. First, measure- and with regard to the characteristics of
ment equipment is not 100 % accurate and mapped objects. Uncertainty on the shape
people who measure environmental vari- or location of objects is called geometric
ables can make mistakes. A common meth- uncertainty and is a result of the spatial res-
od to measure soil organic carbon stocks olution of the data. While high-resolution
clearly illustrates this situation. In the loss remote sensing imagery such as the 20 m
on ignition method, a soil sample is first SENTINEL products are able to capture
dried in an oven to remove all soil mois- small land cover patches and land cover
ture and then weighed. Next, the sample types with a limited cover, upon a coarser
is placed in an oven at over 400 C for 24 resolution, such features get lost. Neither
hours to burn all organic matter. The sam- linear landscape elements like hedgerows,
ple is then weighed again and the weight ditches and tree lines nor individual trees
difference represents the amount of organic can be captured even with a 20 m resolu-
matter. This is translated into organic car- tion. For several ES, such landscape ele-
bon using a conversion factor of (1/1.72) g ments are essential for the supply, meaning
Chapter 6 283
that the inability to capture them limits the Uncertainties in large-scale
possibility of satellite-derived land cover ecosystem service maps:
data in mapping ES.
pollination as an example
Uncertainty on the attribute values is called
thematic uncertainty and arises when clas- On a global scale, the production of 35% of
sifying the reflectance signature into a land the food crops depends on pollinators. Both
cover classification. Thematic uncertainty managed honeybees as well as wild bees are
implies that when a land cover map displays important for pollination. Several crops are
grassland, there is, for example, a 90 % exclusively pollinated by wild pollinators
probability that there is actually grassland while, for many other crops, wild pollinators
on that specific location while there is a significantly contribute to the yield quanti-
10 % probability that, in reality, another ty and quality. This is a frequently mapped
land cover type is present. ecosystem service and the approaches avail-
able for mapping clearly demonstrate the
Mapping of other biophysical variables source and impact of conceptual and tech-
which are used as input to ecosystem ser- nical uncertainties that arise when mapping
vice maps exhibit additional uncertainties ES in general.
due to upscaling of measurements. This
includes simplifying the continuous varia- Mapping an ecosystem service basically
tion of soil characteristics into soil types, or involves, firstly, selecting an indicator to
inaccuracies in measuring elevation. An ad- quantify the service; next gathering spatial
ditional source of uncertainty for mapping and non-spatial input data in an iterative
ES is that, due to data availability limita- manner along with defining the model to
tions, inputs from a range of different years quantify the service; and finally, applying
are often used. the model to the data.
Additional to these technical uncertain- Each step introduces specific uncertainties.

ties, conceptual uncertainties may arise as
well. Most ES can be defined in different
ways. This is related to the understanding of Indicator selection
the processes that ensure the service supply
and to the aims of the mapping study.
The ecosystem service "pollination can be
When mapping an ecosystem service, many quantified using different indicators (Table 1).
different choices can be made on the indi-
cator used, the data and methods used to Which indicator to choose depends on the
quantify the indicator and the final presen- scale and aim of the study. For a detailed,
tation of the indicator. When a set of maps small-scale study that aims to assist with the
and measurements, each with an uncertain- planning of green infrastructure in a specific
ty range as a result of these technical and agricultural landscape, it may be relevant to
conceptual limitations, is combined into an consider which crops are typically grown in
ecosystem service map, the uncertainties in the landscape, which pollinators are import-
the input propagate into uncertainty of out- ant to those crops and what are the additional
put in ecosystem service maps. habitat requirements for those species. Here,

Table 1. Overview of indicators for the ecosystem service pollination.
Category Definition
Landscape-based indicators Capacity of the landscape to support pollinator communities
Percentage area of potential pollinator habitat
Distance to pollinator habitat
Probability that a location is visited by pollinators
Species-based indicators Abundance of pollinators
Abundance of specific pollinator species
Species richness of pollinators
Crop-based indicators Yield quantity
Financial benefits of yield of pollinator-dependent crops
Percentage yield loss upon absence of pollinators
indicators based on species composition or LGN (land use). Each of these maps has an
on abundance might be the most appropri- uncertainty associated with it and different
ate. ES are often mapped on a national or maps differ in thematic detail and spatial res-
continental scale to support national or EU olution and in accuracy. The most accurate
policies. At such a large scale, abundance is land use map of the Netherlands (LGN) has
often not feasible due to lack of data to cali- a classification accuracy of 85-90 %, while
brate or validate the required models and the the CLC has an accuracy of 80 % and the
variation in space and time of crops grown global scale GLC2000 of 68%. Apart from
makes it less relevant to distinguish specific the uncertainty within the maps, the maps
pollinator guilds. Therefore, more generic also differ in representation of the landscape.
measures such as landscape composition are For example, an area with > 15% tree cover
used. Several large-scale pollination maps is considered a forest in GLC2000 while in
are based on the presence of suitable habi- CLC a 30% threshold is used to distinguish
tat for pollinators and the distance to these forests among other land cover types. Some
habitats in croplands. of the land cover maps include a few details
on land use by, for example, distinguishing
Data selection pastures from natural grasslands. Thus, the
choice of a specific land cover map for map-
After choosing an indicator for quantifying ping an ecosystem service to a certain extent
the ecosystem service, input data for map- defines the output.
ping should be selected and a model for cal-
culation needs to be defined. A pollination Model definition
indicator which is based on landscape com-
position, commonly uses land cover data as A key parameter for pollination services is
input data. For most parts of the world, a few the distance between a pollinator habitat
different land cover maps are at least avail- (nesting site) and the crop which needs pol-
able. For example, the Netherlands is cov- lination. For calculating the distance to pol-
ered by global-scale MODIS products and linator habitat using a land cover map, one
digital elevation models, the European scale should decide whether each land cover type
CORINE land cover (CLC) and the Dutch provides habitat or not. This introduces new
Chapter 6 285
uncertainties. While for many individual 1.00
0.90
pollinator species, habitat requirements are 0.80
known, these often do not match the level 0.70
0.60
of detail displayed in land cover maps. One 0.50
can only assume that the specific vegetation 0.40
0.30
type and structure or host plant which a pol- 0.20
linator community requires, is present in a 0.10
0.00
land cover type that is only described with 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
a level of detail like natural grassland or

deciduous forest. Secondly, a single land Figure 1. Relation between distance to pollinator
habitat and probability that a location is visited by
cover type can include both suitable and pollinators. The black line is an average value for
unsuitable areas, dependent on the types of temperate regions while the uncertainty range is
vegetation included in the land cover or de- indicated in grey. Based on (Ricketts et al. 2008).
pendent on the management. Based on the
knowledge of pollinator behaviour and of
the land cover map, the map maker has to 1 demonstrates the overall relation between
distinguish between presence or absence of a distance to habitat, the probability that a lo-
habitat. Depending on background knowl- cation is visited by pollinators in temperate
edge and the exact nature of the uncertain- regions and also shows the uncertainty in
ties described above, different map makers these estimates.
can decide differently in similar situations.
This introduces a new uncertainty. The impacts of input data uncertainty on
the output uncertainty are demonstrated
More uncertainty arises when calculating in Figure 2. Figure 2 compares four dif-
the distance to habitat, depending on the ferent maps of the distance to nature (left)
resolution of the data. Each pixel gets as- and the percentage yield reduction based
signed one distance value which, especially on distance to nature (right) against a base
when using coarse resolution data, can devi- map. The base map is a high-resolution land
ate. In addition, land cover data often fail to cover map specifically for the Netherlands,
properly represent small landscape elements while the other maps are maps covering a
such as tree lines, hedgerows or individual larger area and with a coarser resolution.
trees. An alternative approach that can help The left map demonstrates that mapping
overcome this is, for example, using a map of distance to nature strongly depends on
of the density of such elements. But deriving the resolution of the input map: in most of
distance to habitat from a density map also the area of the Netherlands, none or one of
introduces a new uncertainty. the maps properly represents the distance
to nature as defined by the base map. The
Relations between distance to habitat and right map demonstrates that the yield loss
the effectiveness of animal pollination have as a function of distance to nature shows
been previously established. Close to natural more similarity with the base map. This is
habitat, bee abundance and species richness because, upon large distances to nature, the
tend to be high while richness and abun- yield reduction levels off, making deviations
dance decrease upon increasing distance to between different maps less important.
habitat. While this general principle is well
known, in different situations the decrease Figure 3 provides a comprehensive overview
of pollinator abundance or theoretical visi- of the impact of indicator choice, input data
tation rates can be hugely different. Figure and the model to quantify the ecosystem

Number of maps
that are similar to
the base map
0
1
2
3
4
Figure 2. Impact of input data on mapping ecosystem structure and function. For distance to nature (left)
and percentage yield reduction as a function of distance to nature, maps based on four EU / global scale
maps were compared with a detailed reference map (based on Schulp and Alkemade 2011).
service on the final ecosystem service map. of the study area (EU). In ca. 30% of the EU
The figure compares four different maps of territory, there is some agreement on high
the ecosystem service pollination, mapped values of pollination provision (green areas)
at European scale using four different defi- while, in just over 20 % of the EU territo-
nitions of the service, slightly different but ry, there is some agreement on low values of
mostly overlapping input data and different pollination provision (blue areas). A similar
methods to quantify the indicator. Figure 3 type of analysis for the ES climate regulation,
presents evidence that the four different out- flood regulation, recreation and erosion pre-
comes disagree on the relative provision of vention revealed comparable patterns. The
the service (purple areas) for about one third level of (dis)agreement between different
4 coldspots
3 coldspots
2 coldspots
1 coldspots
No extreme values
Disagreement about hotspot / coldspot
1 hotspot
2 hotspot
3 hotspot
4 hotspot
Figure 3. Agreement between different maps of the ecosystem service pollination (from Schulp et al.
2014).
Chapter 6 287
maps of the same service depends on the level complex process-based models (Tier 3 ap-
of understanding of the particular service and proaches; see Chapter 5.6.1), an uncertainty
on the range of input data used. analysis or a Monte Carlo approach can be
used. In a Monte Carlo approach, the indi-
cator is calculated several thousand times.
Dealing with uncertainties Each time, actual input values for calculation
are drawn from a probability distribution of
each input, resulting in different but realistic
As ecosystem service mapping will always representations of the indicator. From these
involve uncertainties, it is important to deal different representations, an average value of
with these uncertainties in the best possible ecosystem service provision can be calculated,
way. Dealing with uncertainties in ecosystem as well as indicators that quantify the uncer-
service maps means (1) improve methods for tainty, such as a probability range, a standard
ecosystem service maps so as to reduce un- deviation, or a probability that a specific tar-
certainties to the largest extent possible; (2) get or threshold value is met or not.
quantify and communicate uncertainties and
(3) account for uncertainties when using eco- A simpler uncertainty analysis includes
system service maps in policy and practice. making an inventory of the range of each in-
put. Next, for each input, one should identi-
Improving measurements fy if it increases or decreases provision of the
service. Finally, the ecosystem service map
Firstly, for several ES, there is a lack of clarity should be calculated with the combination
about how to define the service, a lack of proof inputs that provides a minimum, a max-
cess understanding and a limited measuring imum and an average indicator value. This
accuracy. In all of these three sources of un- provides the possible range of the indicator.
certainty, there is scope for improvement. For
each case of mapping, it should be carefully For methods that completely rely on expert
decided how a service can be best quantified. judgement (Tier 1 approaches; see Chapter
Furthermore, for several ecosystem service 5.6.1), it is important not to rely on a single
models, the underlying measurements can expert, but instead to take stock of a wider
be expanded and better stratified. Process range of expert knowledge in the field. Rat-
understanding for some services needs to be ings by different experts on the capacity of
better underpinned by field studies. the landscape to supply ES can, for example,
be translated into a measure for the agree-
Quantifying uncertainties ment of different experts and, with that,
provide an indicator for the uncertainty.
Regardless of the scope for improvement of
ecosystem service models, it is important to Intermediate approaches that combine expert
realise that uncertainties in ecosystem service knowledge with additional data or simplify
maps cannot be completely ruled out. Sen- process-based models (Tier 2 approaches;
sors will never be 100 % accurate and the see Chapter 5.6.1) can use an intermediate
provision of ES is a complex and multifac- approach for uncertainty quantification as
eted process where multiple datasets have to well. Bayesian Belief Networks, as discussed
be combined, always involving some kind of in chapter 4.5, are typical examples of models
expert judgement. It is, therefore, important that can account for a broad range of uncer-
to be transparent on uncertainties in ecosys- tainty types and can assess the effects of these
tem service maps. If ES are mapped using uncertainties on model outputs.

Dealing with uncertain maps Jacobs S, Burkhard B, Van Daele T, Staes J,
Schneiders A (2015) The Matrix Reload-
At the same time, scientists and policy mak- ed: A review of expert knowledge use for
ers use maps of ES on which to base analyses mapping ecosystem services. Ecological
and decisions. Such decisions should be ro- Modelling 295: 21-30.
bust, meaning that they should not work out
differently from what they are supposed to, Schulp CJE, Alkemade R (2011) Conse-
because of the uncertainties in the maps. To quences of Uncertainty in Global-Scale
ensure that uncertainties in ecosystem service Land Cover Maps for Mapping Ecosystem
maps do not impede decision-making, they Functions: An Analysis of Pollination Effi-
must be quantified and communicated by ciency. Remote Sensing 3: 2057-2075.
map makers. Here, an uncertainty analysis,
as described above, is essential and clear re- Schulp CJE, Burkhard B, Maes J, Van Vliet
porting of uncertainties is compulsory. J, Verburg PH (2014) Uncertainties in
Ecosystem Service Maps: A Comparison
On the other hand, policy makers and oth- on the European Scale. PLoS ONE 9:
er users of ecosystem service maps should e109643.
account for the level of certainty in their
decision-making. To do so, a dialogue be- Schulp CJE, Lautenbach S, Verburg PH
tween policy makers and mappers is essential (2014) Quantifying and mapping ecosys-
(Chapter 6.4) to ensure that the indicator tem services: Demand and supply of polli-
mapped actually reflects the request by poli- nation in the European Union. Ecological
cy makers, given that the indicator is a major Indicators 36: 131-141.
source of uncertainty. Users of ecosystem ser-
vice maps should also be careful when mak- Stoll S, Frenzel M, Burkhard B, Adamescu M,
ing planning decisions based on ecosystem Augustaitis A, Baeler C, Bonet FJ, Car-
service maps. Also, for map users, it might ranza ML, Cazacu C, Cosor GL, Daz-Del-
be important to take stock of the broad gado R, Grandin U, Haase P, Hmlinen
knowledge in the field rather than relying on H, Loke R, Mller J, Stanisci A, Staszewski
a single map upon decision-making. Finally, T, Mller F (2015) Assessment of ecosys-
policy makers should be cautious upon using tem integrity and service gradients across
ecosystem service maps for decision-making. Europe using the LTER Europe network.
Ecological Modelling 295: 75-87.
Further reading Ricketts TH, Regetz J, Steffan-Dewenter I,

Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Bogdanski
AK, Gemmill-Herren B, Greenleaf SS,
Grt-Regamey A, Brunner SH, Altwegg J, Klein AM, Mayfield MM, Morandin LA,
Bebi P (2013) Facing uncertainty in eco- Ochieng A, Viana BF (2008) Landscape
system services-based resource manage- effects on crop pollination services: are
ment. Journal of Environmental Manage- there general patterns?, Ecology Letters
ment 127: 145-154. 11(5): 499-515.
Chapter 6 289
6.4. Map interpretation/end-user
issues
Christian Albert, Claire Brown & Benjamin Burkhard
Introduction
Maps are very powerful tools to communi- mantic problem of how well the meaning of
cate complex geographic information from the map is conveyed (Chapter 3.3), the in-
the map-maker (the cartographer) to the terpretation problem of maps by map-users
end-user (such as a decision-maker). As in and problems of power relations.
all communications, there are information
losses and/or modifications during the trans- Feedback
mission from the sender to the receiver. Eco-
system service maps are a specific case due to Map Coding
Language, Symbols, Legend
their high thematic complexity, adding fur-
ther potential for (mis)interpretation of the
Map Author Map User
intended messages. It is therefore essential
that the end-users not only have access to the
map, but are also aware of any interpretation
Transmission I Transmission II
issues such as the categorisation of ecosystem Map Making, including Map Use, including
services (ES) used (Chapter 2.4), choice of information losses interpretation issues
spatial scales (Chapter 5.7) and uncertainties

Figure 1. A simple map communication model
or scientific errors (Chapter 6). (adapted from Dent 1985).
Map communication model Specifics of ecosystem service

maps
Maps can usefully be understood as a form
of visual communication to describe spatial Ecosystem service maps are complex as they
phenomena and their relationships. In early reflect the level of difficulty we find ourselves
understandings, building, for example, on in managing the environment and ensuring
the transmission model of communication equitable benefits across society. The science
put forward by Shannon and Weaver in underpinning the actual mapping of ES is
1949, maps were seen as media for spatial still unresolved despite recent advances. The
information sent from the mapper to the issue of mapping ES is further compounded
map-users (Fig. 1). Since then, it has be- by the need to bring together and display
come increasingly apparent that many issues the supply of a service and its demand (in-
complicate the function of maps as com- cluding flow; see Chapter 5.1) using envi-
munication devices including, for example, ronmental, economic and societal factors, a
the technical question of how accurately difficult endeavour when working in con-
information is actually transmitted, the se- ventional two-dimensional space (Chapter

3.7). With the concepts of ES and natural Ecosystem service map-makers
capital rising high up the political agenda
through processes such as the Intergovern- In recent years, ecosystem service mapping
mental Platform for Biodiversity and Eco- has gained prominence as a scientific field and
system Services (IPBES), CBD Aichi Target as an output from research. It has permitted
14, the UN SDGs or the EUs Biodiversity different disciplines (such as ecology, econom-
Strategy, there is a need to ensure ecosystem ics and social sciences) to analyse different
service mapping is scientifically robust and types of information together, often resulting
easily understood (Chapter 7.1). in highly complex and specialised maps.
Particular challenges surrounding the com- With the advent of desktop Geographic In-
munication of ES maps to end-users include: formation Systems (GIS) and a number of
ecosystem service mapping tools (see Chap-
The existence of diverging categorisa- ter 3.4), creating maps has become easier
tions (Chapter 2.4) and conceptuali- and seemingly without the requirement of
sations of ES (e.g. as potentials, flows having specific cartography training. How-
or benefits of ecosystems; Chapter 5.1) ever, the ease at which ecosystem service
requires clearly specifying the exact maps nowadays can be created needs to
meaning of what is being illustrated on be balanced with the danger of creating a
the maps. End-users may be aware of badly designed map. Maps that are not well
different categorisations and conceptu- designed or lack cartographic logic (Chap-
alisations of ES but will not be aware of ter 3) increase the risk of misinterpretation
the associated interpretation issues. by decision-makers or even the deliberate
abuse of ecosystem service information in
The possibility of spatial misfit between non-sustainable environmental resource
the areas that supply ES and the areas management. Therefore, (at least basic) car-
in which the benefits are consumed tography training and knowledge are neces-
(Chapter 5.2). Communicating the sary in order to avoid typical technical and
choice of spatial scale or the mismatch thematic pitfalls of map-making.
between supply and beneficiaries can
conceptually be difficult to understand.
Ecosystem service map end-
The complicated spatial overlap of the
provisioning and/or benefitting areas users
concerning several ES at the same site.
Communicating this overlap spatially The end-users of ecosystem service mapping
on maps can build upon, for example, products vary in nature and in their purpose
hotspot and cold-spot analyses (Chap- for wanting a map. End-users could be:
ter 5.7).
Decision-makers working at different
The difficulty to communicate the un- scales who wish to make a specific land-
certainties inherent in the delineation, use decision such as approval for a dam,
quantification and evaluation of ES road or land use change (e.g. forest to
provision, supply and benefits despite agriculture; see Chapter 7). The types of
the connotation conveyed by maps questions which are asked are highlight-
as authoritative spatial information ed in Table 1;
(Chapter 6.3).
Chapter 6 291
Table 1. Example of policy questions from the EU that ecosystem service mapping might address
(adapted from Maes et al. 2012).
Policy questions Policy & research actions

What are the status and trends of the EUs ecosystems and the
services they provide to society? Biophysical mapping of ES using data
What are the drivers causing changes in the EUs ecosystems and models.
and their services?
How might ecosystems and their services change in the EU
under plausible future scenarios?
How can we secure and improve the continued delivery of ES?
Can we set priorities for ecosystem restoration within a
strategic framework at sub-national, national and EU level?
Mapping and valuation of ES as part
Can we define where to strategically deploy green infrastructure of an integrated and stakeholder-based
in the EU in urban and rural areas to improve ecosystem approach to sustainable land management
resilience and habitat connectivity and to enhance the delivery and use of natural resources.
of ES at member state and sub-national level?
How can we foster synergies between existing and planned
initiatives at local, regional or national levels in member
states, as well as how to promote further investments, thereby
providing added value to member states action?
A decision-maker or NGO wanting Sources of uncertainty in map

to engage a group of stakeholders or interpretation
the public in a specific issue such as
demonstrating their links and benefits
obtained from a particular site; Even if the best data, best model or best avail-
able methods have been used by a very skilled
A practitioner synthesising information map-maker, the applicability of a map can be
to present to a decision maker around a hampered by limited map reading/interpreta-
specific issue; tion skills of the actual map end-user. Maps
are generalising models of reality (Chapter
Policy makers on different levels want- 3.2) with inherent uncertainties related to
ing to illustrate progress towards certain all steps of map production. Lack of expert
policy goals; knowledge concerning ecosystem service
supply and demand schemes can cause map
The scientific community, students and misinterpretations. Much of the information
teachers. included in ES maps is very complex and the
information is highly aggregated to be di-
Although all these user groups may find eco- rectly used in practical applications. On the
system service maps useful, once again the other hand, even a highly trained map-user
risk of misinterpretation is high. Many of with comprehensive expert knowledge can-
the individuals involved will often not have not overcome weaknesses in data and map
a specific cartography education needed to compilation.
read and understand a map. Moreover, the
map may be only one piece of evidence that In particular, the challenges can be sum-
their decision-making is based on. marised as providing maps:

at the scale appropriate for planning should not only be accepted by their peers
and management, but also be communicated clearly to those
at the right point in time to make in- practitioners who are frequently generating
formed decisions, maps or interpreting maps for different de-
in an accessible manner and cision-making contexts.
in communication formats appropriate
for diverse user groups. While the most desired outcome would be
to have the user-community trained to un-
derstand spatial information generally and,
Solutions more specifically, the interpretation of eco-
system service maps, this is not really feasible
due to the high resources required. However,
In recent years there has been a call from the user-communitys capacity can be contin-
the end-user community for more scientif- ually enhanced over the long-term through
ic outputs to be policy-relevant and for the dialogues with scientists and practitioners.
co-development of outputs. However, poli-
cy-relevance and scientific integrity need to
be balanced accordingly. Therefore the ques- Further reading
tion is: how do you create a fit-for-purpose
map that is scientifically robust? The first
solution is to improve the communication Dent Borden D (1985) Principles of Thematic
between the map-maker and the end-user. Map Design. Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Secondly, there is a need to improve the Reading, Mass.
transparency of how the map was created
and the uncertainties embedded in the map. Hou Y, Burkhard B, Mller F (2013) Uncer-
Lastly, the reproducibility and the compre- tainties in landscape analysis and ecosys-
hension of the results need to be improved tem service assessment. Journal of Envi-
(e.g. better maps produced). ronmental Management 127: 117-131.
Engaging the end-user before the map is Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vi-
developed will allow the map-maker to un- hervaara P, Schgner JP, Grissetti B, Drak-
derstand how the map is going to be used, ou EG, La Notte A, Zulian G, Bouraoui
i.e. what question will the map be used to F, Paracchini ML, Braat L, Bidoglio G
answer (Chapters 4.6 and 5.4)? The map- (2012) Mapping ecosystem services for
maker can then use this information to de- policy support and decision-making in
termine the degree of precision required, as the European Union. Ecosystem Services
it is not always necessary to use the high- 1: 31-39.
est data resolution with the most complex
methods (Chapter 5.6.1). Often, simpler Monmonier M (1996) How to lie with maps.
easy-to-comprehend approaches (Chapters 2nd ed. The University of Chicago Press.
4.6 and 5.6.4) may deliver results that are
easier to communicate. Muehrcke PC (2005) Map Use: Reading,
Analysis, and Interpretation. 5th ed. J P
The scientific community is also required Pubns.
to continuously improve the methods that
are used to quantify, measure, monitor, Wood D, Fels J, Krygier J (2010) Rethinking
model, map and value ES. These methods the Power of Maps. Guilford Pubn.
Chapter 6 293
CHAPTER 7
Application of
ecosystem services maps
Chapter 7 295
Environmental restoration planning is one practical application where ecosystem services map are
needed (Photo: Benjamin Burkhard 2008).

in national and supra-national
policy making
Joachim Maes, Benis Egoh, Jianxiao Qiu, Anna-Stiina
Heiskanen, Neville D. Crossman & Anne Neale
Introduction
Despite the global efforts taken to conserve scope of the maintenance and restoration ef-
biodiversity it was clear in 2010 that the forts needed to achieve the new biodiversity
global 2010 target of preventing the loss targets. Eventually, the mapping of ES was
of biodiversity had not been met. The Mil- retained in the EU Biodiversity Strategy to
lennium Ecosystem Assessment, the various 2020 as one of 20 actions to be implemented
subsequent sub-global assessments and The by the EU member states.
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
study have increased awareness of the neg- Well before 2010, South Africa had already
ative impacts of biodiversity loss on human pioneered ES research including mapping to
welfare by addressing the value of ecosystems support policy on biodiversity, restoration
and biodiversity for sustaining livelihoods, and poverty reduction. Thus, this chapter
economies and human wellbeing. Failing to will start with the achievements in that coun-
incorporate the values of ecosystem services try to illustrate how mapping can contribute
(ES) and biodiversity into economic deci- to policy support or, vice versa, how mapping
sion-making has resulted in investments and entered into various policies. In later sections,
activities that degrade natural capital. developments on mapping for policy in other
parts of the world will be presented.
In 2010, the tenth meeting of the Confer-
ence of Parties (COP 10) to the Conven-
tion on Biological Diversity (CBD) led to Mainstreaming ecosystem ser-
the adoption of a global Strategic Plan for
biodiversity for the period 20112020. The vices into policy: South Africa
2020 Aichi targets complement the previ-
ous conservation-based biodiversity targets When the concept of ES came into the lime-
with the addition of ES. light in the mid to late 1990s, South Africa
was one of the first countries to embrace it. In
Anticipating the COP10, the European 1995, South African scientists carried out a
Union (EU) adopted a communication on ground-breaking study showing that invasive
Options for an EU vision and target for alien plants had a negative impact on water
biodiversity beyond 2010. For the first time, supply. The results were communicated to
explicit reference was made to the practice of the then Minister of Water Affairs (Mr Kader
mapping ES in a high level policy document. Asmal) who later established a very success-
Maps of ES were expected to help define the ful Working for Water (WfW) programme
Chapter 7 297
aimed at removing invasive alien plants to nicipality. The SEA is a key policy instrument
improve water quantity in rivers, conserve in guiding development plans for the city of
biodiversity and provide jobs for local peo- Durban. ES have direct links to the well-be-
ple. The WfW programme was so popular, ing of people living in the city and are attrac-
its budget grew from $5M to about $50M tive to policy makers. These examples show
and created about 35,000 jobs in just 2 years. that ES are being integrated into the national,
This success has inspired other programmes regional and local policy and practice.
such as working for wetlands. This example
shows that the concept of ES can be a very
powerful tool in developing policies that pro- Mapping and Assessment of
mote sustainable land use and improving the
livelihoods for poor people. Ecosystems and their Services
in the European Union
South African scientists have written many (MAES)- A dedicated action of
influential papers on the mainstreaming
of ES into policy, most of them inspired the EU Biodiversity Strategy
through their experience in the implemen-
tation of biodiversity plans in their country. The mapping and assessment of ES is an es-
These lessons were incorporated within a new sential part of the EU Biodiversity Strategy
grassland initiative1 led by the South African to 2020 and a necessary condition in mak-
National Biodiversity Institute in Pretoria ing ES key parameters for informing about
(SANBI). As an implementation strategy planning and development processes and de-
within the programme, stakeholders, such as cisions. In particular, Action 5 of the Strategy
mining companies and the agricultural sec- requires member states, with the assistance of
tor, were brought in as partners in order to the European Commission, to map and as-
help them understand the value of ES in their sess the state of ES in their national territory
business, how they can practise sustainable by 2014, assess the economic value of such
land use and minimise cost. The grassland services and promote the integration of these
programme was a huge success as stakehold- values into accounting and reporting systems
ers were able to directly see the benefits of at EU and national level by 2020.
conservation through the lens of ES.
The European working group on Mapping
Since the grassland programme, much prog- and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Ser-
ress has been made in integrating ES into pol- vices (MAES), which includes experts of the
icy and practice. In 2013, the Department of European Commission, the member states
Environmental Affairs (DEA) in South Africa and the research community, has been instru-
set up the GREEN FUND (GF) to support mental in providing an analytical framework,
green economy initiatives. As examples, this a typology of ecosystems and ES and a first set
GF has supported the service of climate regu- of indicators for mapping and assessment. Im-
lation through low-carbon initiatives such as portantly, the EU supports dedicated research
the planting of trees in Durban and a study under its framework programme for research
of the importance of ecological infrastructure (Horizon 2020) to support the member states
in delivering ES. Scientists in South Africa of the EU with the implementation of this
are investigating the use of ES as a key entry policy. The project ESMERALDA2, for ex-
point into developing the Strategic Environ- ample, provides detailed guidance to various
mental Assessment (SEA) for Thekwini mu- stakeholders for mapping and assessing ES.
1
www.graslands.org 2
www.esmeralda-project.eu

The work being carried out on the mapping on water, climate, agriculture, forest and re-
and assessment of ecosystems and ES is not gional planning.
only important for the advancement of bio-
diversity objectives, including the develop- Box 1 presents a special case on how the
ment of Europes green infrastructure, but MAES initiative could profit from ongoing
also to provide information for the develop- assessments in the frame of the EUs ma-
ment and implementation of related policies rine policy.
BOX 1. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their

Services (MAES) in Europes seas and oceans
Under the present EU regulatory frameworks and the pressure to foster sustainable Blue Growth
(COM(2012)494) in the marine regions of the EU, it is necessary to undertake more accurate, policy-driv-
en research able to map marine ES. Competing uses of marine resources need to be analysed from a holistic
perspective to enable achievement of the environmental goals and socio-economic needs that are often
competing. ES maps are needed to provide information about the supply and demand of essential services
in different coastal and marine regions. These services can be used by different sectors (such as fisheries
or tourism and recreation) and supplied in variable scales: commercial fish are catches derived from large
marine areas, while recreation destinations such as scenic and pristine beaches can be spatially quite re-
stricted. Therefore, maps showing the marine hotspots of ES can be very useful for the EU Marine Spatial
Planning Directive (MSPD; Directive 2014/89/EU) and should be disseminated to decision-makers, wider
key stakeholders and the general public for both use and validation. Mapping of marine ES is a prerequisite
for assessing ES and hence, for preparing environmentally and societal-relevant plans for usage of marine
resources, i.e. maritime spatial plans. In the same manner, ES valuation can be used for estimation of the
benefits of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD; Directive 2008/56/EC) programme of
measures when the target good environmental status is reached. Therefore the economic assessment that
is a part of the MSFD assessment (in article 8 of the Directive 2008/56/EC) can directly provide informa-
tion for the EU Biodiversity Strategy Action 5, should the ES approach be used in the assessment.
The MAES framework consists of 4 different process steps: 1) mapping the ecosystems, 2) assessment
of the conditions of ecosystems, 3) assessing ES and 4) integrated assessment based on these three com-
ponents (Figure 1). The MAES process can potentially use information from the assessment processes
carried out as part of the implementation of the MSFD, the Water Framework Directive (WFD; Directive
2000/60/EC) the MSPD and the Habitats Directive (HD; Directive 92/43/EEC). In Figure 1, a general
overview of the linkages between the MAES framework, the MSFD, the MSPD and also the WFD and
HD processes is presented. There is a win-win situation for the EU member states, if the data is collected
diligently and subsequently used in assessment and reporting for all these directives as well as the MAES
process. Here the principle measure only once and report for several purposes could be a gold mine for
simplifying the reporting procedures of member states.
The current EU directives that govern the use and protection of marine environment, namely MSFD and
WFD, together cover all marine waters (including transitional waters). MSFD, WFD and HD include
assessment of ecological status and pressures and impacts that will provide information for the MAES
process step 2 assess the conditions of ecosystems. MSFD and HD also provide data and information on
the distribution of species and habitats for process step 1: mapping the ecosystems. MSPD can potentially
provide data and information to assess the use of marine space and to derive indicators on demand of the
ES for process step 3: assessing the ES. However, the data flow from the directives reporting might still not
be sufficient and additional environmental and socio-economic data could be needed to assess the supply of
ES and to provide information for the MAES process step 4 integrated ecosystem assessment.
Chapter 7 299
MAES assessment Information and data needed Assessment components
framework modules for MAES in marine and included in the EU directives
coastal waters
Distribution and status HD

Module 1: Mapping
MAES assessment of marine and coastal Distribution and
of ecosystems
framework modules ecosystem (species, conservation status of
habitats) species and habitats
Human pressures on WFD

Module 2: Assess marine and coastal Coastal and transitional waters
ecosystem condition ecosystems Ecological status
Pressures and impacts
Module 3: Assess Human activites and MSFD

ecosystem services use of marine and (sall marine waters)
coastal ecosystems State of marine ecosystems
Socio-economic assessment
Module 4: Integrated
of human activities
ecosystem assessment
and pressures
Data and indicators for MSPD

demand of ecosystem Human activities and their
services locations in the sea
Figure 1. Overview of the linkages between the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their
Services (MAES) framework and the EU directives that govern environmental status and biodiver-
sity in marine and coastal areas: MSFD, WFD, the HD and the MSPD (see text for the explanations
for the abbreviations). The linkages illustrate how the information and data from the assessments
components (from the implementation process of these directives) can feed into the MAES process
and its modules 1-3. Optimally, such environmental and socio-economical flow of data could allow
the use of the same information in multiple reporting purposes, if undertaken diligently.
China: A unique opportunity to natural disasters (e.g. devastating flooding,

mainstream ES into policies of drought and sandstorms) and cascade with
a rising country economy global implications through globalisation,
international trade, pollution and resource
exploration.
China, as the worlds most populous nation
and amongst the largest in geographic ex- The increasing public and government aware-
tent, is endowed with immense reserves of ness of environmental problems has triggered
biological resources, natural capital and the a series of large-scale and pervasive nation-
supply of ES. However, escalating anthro- al policies to protect natural resources and
pogenic pressures, including growing pop- safeguard the sustainability of ES. Amongst
ulation, rapid economic development and the most prominent policies are the Natural
ineffective governance, have led to substan- Forest Conservation Programme (NFCP),
tial degradation and loss of a wide range of Grain-to-Green Programme (GTGP), Nat-
ES from local to national scales with mas- ural Reserve System (NRS) and Forest and
sive impacts on human welfare. Such ef- Grassland Eco-Compensation Programmes.
fects can sometimes even be ramified into Most of these policies, such as NFCP and

GTGP, are reliant on the scheme of pay- and tend to be piecemeal or system-specif-
ment for ecosystem services (PES), in which ic (e.g. forest- or grassland-centred). Map-
subsidies and compensation are provided to ping and incorporation of multiple ES and
participants as incentives to promote conser- their complex interrelationships call for the
vation and safeguard ES. Specifically, NFCP need to consider multiple services and also
conserves and restores natural forests through encourages future policies to broaden their
logging bans and afforestation with incentives scope through coordinated management
to forest enterprises, whereas GTGP converts which potentially could improve the effec-
erodible and steep croplands to forest and tiveness and efficiency. Last but not least,
grasslands through offering grain and cash comprehensive monitoring and assessment
subsidies to farmers. These programmes are of ES can help provide timely feedback for
thus, by far, two of the largest programmes adjusting and refining these programmes,
in both China and worldwide in terms of helping to identify current gaps and provide
scale (i.e. altogether encompassing 97% of information about areas where future policy
Chinas counties), amounts of payment (i.e. efforts and funding need to be prioritised.
investment exceeding 700 billion yuan at $1
= 6.6 yuan as of 2016) and duration of ef-
fectiveness (i.e. ca. 20 years and continuing). The United States: Growing
NRS, on the other hand, is a series of action
and policies, primarily regulatory, to restrict evidence of a commitment to
economic development and prohibit regular consideration of ecosystem
human activities (e.g. gathering, poaching) services in decision-making
in designated reserve areas in order to protect
all forms of biological diversity that underlies
the provision of ES. This NRS effort has been In October 2015, the US White House
in place for many decades and has resulted Council on Environmental Quality issued a
in the establishment of 319 nature reserves landmark Executive Office Memorandum to
across China covering ca. 93 million ha. all US Federal government agencies calling
on them to incorporate ES into federal plan-
Research on mapping and assessing ES over ning and decision-making. The memoran-
the past several decades has played a criti- dum directs agencies to develop and institu-
cal role in supporting these policy efforts tionalize policies that promote consideration
in multi-faceted ways. First, it provides the of ecosystem services, where appropriate and
scientific basis for valuation of ES and the practicable, in planning, investment and reg-
foundation on which the PES-related pol- ulatory contexts. It establishes a process for
icies were implemented (e.g. calculation the Federal government to develop a more
of subsidies or compensation). Secondly, detailed guidance on integrating ES assess-
monitoring and quantifying changes, in ments into relevant programmes and aims
particular long-term changes in ES through to help maintain ecosystem and community
mapping, can adequately assess effectiveness resilience. It also required Federal agencies
and support the continued implementation to develop work-plans describing how their
of these policy efforts. The provision of tan- current and future efforts will meet the re-
gible effects of these policies on natural cap- quirements of this new policy.
ital and the provision of ES can help raise
public, economic and institutional support Leading up to the 2015 Executive Mem-
for future policy implementation. Thirdly, orandum in July 2011, the US Presidents
most of current policy efforts are not holistic Council of Advisors on Science and Tech-
Chapter 7 301
nology (PCAST) published a list of recom- The Federal Resource Management and
mendations to President Obama in the Re- Ecosystem Services Guidebook, developed
port on Sustaining Environmental Capital: by The US National Ecosystem Partnership
Protecting Society and the Economy. This and led by the Duke University Nicholas
report was developed as a sequel to the 1998 School of the Environment serves as an on-
PCAST report to President Clinton entitled line training resource for incorporating ES
Teaming with Life: Investing in Science in decision-making and includes a number
to Understand and Use Americas Living of case studies in which ES were incorporat-
Capital. PCAST is an advisory group of ed into Federal decision-making.
the nations leading scientists and engineers
who directly advise the President and the All of the above culminate in a growing need
Executive Office of the President. The 2011 for better data and tools to support an ES
report recommended a suite of ambitious approach to decision-making. EcoINFOR-
solutions related to ES, two of which having MA, recommended by the 2011 PCAST
particular and direct relevance to national report, was launched in late 2014. At the
mapping of ES. The PCAST recommend- time of writing, EcoINFORMA includes
ed that the US Government establishes an three major data resource hubs: 1) Biodi-
Eco-informatics-based Open Resources and versity Serving Our Nation (BISON) con-
Machine Accessibility (EcoINFORMA) taining millions of records of species obser-
initiative. This recommendation was aimed vations, 2) EnviroAtlas, the ES hub and, 3)
at improving existing data collection efforts Multi-Resolution Land Cover Consortium,
related to biodiversity, ecosystems and ES providing land cover data. Additional hubs
and maximising their accessibility and in- will likely be forthcoming.
ter-operability. Although the PCAST also
recommended that the US conduct a qua- The EnviroAtlas3 is a web application serv-
drennial ES trends assessment, this has not ing hundreds of open access geo-spatial data
yet come to fruition. layers to technical as well as non-technical
audiences (see Chapter 5.7.2). This tool is
Even prior to the 2015 Executive Memo- built on an ES framework with every lay-
randum, ES were already becoming evident er described in terms of its relevance to
in US national policies, regulation and de- production, delivery, or driver of change
cision-making (e.g. 2008 Farm Bill, 2008 of ecosystem goods and services. The data
update for compensatory mitigation under span the continental US with wall-to-wall
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 2012 coverage of many indicators as well as with
Forest Planning Rule, ongoing Environ- a consistent suite of indicators for selected
mental Protection Agency efforts to incor- communities across the US.
porate ES into secondary air quality stan-
dards). These legislative actions have helped
to open the door for markets and payments Australia
for ES schemes to emerge with the US De-
partment of Agriculture and the US Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency entering into Australia is the worlds driest continent, has
a joint partnership to support water quality many unique ecosystems and endemic flo-
trading and other market-based approaches ra and fauna and, since European arrival in
for ES consistency, where applicable, with the late 1700s, has witnessed intensive and
the protection of water quality pursuant to widespread modification of land and water
the Clean Water Act (CWA).
https://epa.gov/enviroatlas
3

resources. Australia is particularly vulner- Conclusions
able to further declines in its natural cap-
ital which will be exacerbated by climate Current design and implementation of
change. Since the 1980s, Australian govern- many national and regional policies require
ments have invested many billions of dollars spatially explicit information on ES. This is
in restoring its natural capital through sig- particularly evident for supporting policies
nificant policies such as the National Land- on restoration, agriculture, spatial and ur-
care Programme, Natural Heritage Trust (1 ban planning or marine spatial planning.
and 2) and the national water reform pro-
cess. The roles of ES assessment to provide Many countries recognise this and have ini-
information on investments under these tiated programmes to mainstream quantifi-
programmes are varied. cation and mapping of ES in policies.
For example, under the Australian Govern- These commitments, once they are effectively
ments 2011 Water for the Future Plan, about implemented, will contribute significantly to
AU$10 billion is being invested in water li- the global and regional assessments which are
cence buy-backs and irrigation infrastructure part of IPBES, the International Platform on
improvements to reduce by about 3,200 gi- Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
galitres the annual volume of water taken
from river ecosystems for irrigation. ES assess-
ments are an important part of the knowledge Further reading
base for decisions about where to allocate this
investment that will provide the greatest en-
vironmental and socio-economic benefits. A Cowling RM, Egoh BN et al. (2008) An op-
study by CSIRO showed that the social and erational model for mainstreaming ecosys-
economic benefits from the return of this wa- tem services for implementation. PNAS
ter to the environment, via enhanced flow of 105: 1983-9488.
ES, could be worth an amount similar to the
Australian Governments investment. Crossman ND, Bark RH, Colloff MJ, Hatton
MacDonald D, Pollino CA (2015) Using
In the State of Victoria in south-eastern Aus- an ecosystem services-based approach to
tralia, recent analysis by the State Government measure the benefits of reducing diver-
has estimated the value of the ES benefits pro- sions of freshwater: a case study in the in
vided by the States protected areas4. They con- the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. In: J.
clude that nearly 4 million hectares of protect- Martin-Ortega, R. C. Ferrier, I. J. Gordon
ed areas provide, annually, up to AU$1 billion & S. Khan (Eds.). Water Ecosystem Ser-
in recreational values, up to AU$200 million vices: A Global Perspective. Cambridge:
in avoided health costs, AU$134 million in Cambridge University Press.
water quality improvements, plus a number
of other ES benefits. This information will be Hasler B, Ahtiainen H, Hasselstrm L,
used to support protected area planning, in- Heiskanen A-S, Soutukorva , Martin-
vestment and management decisions as well sen L (2016) Marine ecosystem services in
as to provide information for policy decisions Nordic marine waters and the Baltic Sea
about maintaining the natural capital in Vic- possibilities for valuation. TemaNord
torias protected areas. 2016:501. Nordic Council of Ministers.
http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2016501.
4
http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/about-us/news/valu
ing-victorias-parks
Chapter 7 303
Liu JG, Diamond J (2008) Science and gov- Partnership Agreement between the United
ernment - Revolutionizing Chinas environ- States Department Of Agriculture And
mental protection. Science 319: 37-38. The United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency Regarding Water-Quality
Liu JG, Li SX, Ouyang ZY, Tam C, Chen XD Trading (2013) https://www.epa.gov/sites/
(2008) Ecological and socioeconomic ef- production/files/2016-05/documents/im-
fects of Chinas policies for ecosystem ser- age2016-05-23-125618.pdf.
vices. Proceedings of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences of the United States of Pickard BR, Daniel J, Mehaffey M, Jackson
America 105: 9477-9482. LE, Neale A (2015) EnviroAtlas: A new
geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services
Lu YH, Fu BJ, Feng XM, Zeng Y, Liu Y, Chang science and resource management. Eco-
RY, Sun G, Wu BF (2012) A Policy-Driv- system Services 14: 45-55 http://dx.doi.
en Large Scale Ecological Restoration: org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.04.005.
Quantifying Ecosystem Services Changes
in the Loess Plateau of China. Plos One 7. Presidents Committee of Advisors on Science
and Technology (2011) Sustaining En-
Sousa et al. (2015) Ecosystem services provid- vironmental Capital: Protecting Society
ed by a complex coastal region: challenges and the Economy (Executive Office of
of classification and mapping. http://www. the President, Washington, DC). https://
nature.com/articles/srep22782. www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
microsites/ostp/pcast_sustaining_environ-
Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vi- mental_capital_report.pdf.
hervaara P, Schgner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou
EG, Notte AL, Zulian G, Bouraoui F, Luisa Schaefer M, Goldman E, Bartuska AM, Sut-
Paracchini M, Braat L, Bidoglio G (2012) ton-Grier A, Lubchenco J (2015) Nature as
Mapping ecosystem services for policy sup- capital: advancing and incorporating ecosys-
port and decision-making in the European tem services in United States federal policies
Union. Ecosystem Services 1: 31-39. and programs. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States
Memorandum for Executive Departments and of America 112(24): 7383-7389 http://dx.
Agencies on Incorporating Ecosystem Ser- doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1420500112.
vices into Federal Decision Making, https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ Van Wilgen BW, Le Maitre D, Cowling RM
omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-01.pdf. (1998) Ecosystem services, efficiency,
sustainability and equity: South Africas
National Ecosystem Services Partnership Working for Water Programme. TREE
(2016) Federal Resource Management 13(9): 378.
and Ecosystem Services Guidebook. 2nd
ed. Durham: National Ecosystem Services
Partnership, Duke University, https://ne-
spguidebook.com.

7.2. Application of ecosystem
services in spatial planning
Christian Albert, Davide Geneletti
& Leena Kopperoinen
Introduction
Spatial planning and landscape planning are different types of environmental informa-
generally concerned with the spatial arrange- tion and approaches for integration are
ment and management of land but differ in already in use. SEA, particularly, aims to
focus and disciplinary orientation. Spatial provide a high level of protection for the en-
planning, according to the European Re- vironment by systematically integrating en-
gional/Spatial Planning Charter, gives geo- vironmental considerations during planning
graphical expression to the economic, social, preparation and adoption. The environmen-
cultural and ecological policies of society. It tal issues explicitly mentioned by the Euro-
includes various instruments, such as com- pean SEA legislation include biodiversity,
prehensive planning, zoning and Strategic population, human health, fauna, flora, soil,
Environmental Assessments (SEA). Land- water, air, climatic factors, material assets,
scape planning, in contrast, has been defined cultural heritage (including architectural
by the European Landscape Convention as and archaeological heritage) and landscape.
a strong forward looking action to enhance,
restore or create landscapes. In many EU Landscape planning also illustrates various
member states, landscape planning is an in- approaches for taking account of environ-
tegral part of spatial planning. mental information. The German Land-
schaftsplanung, for example, analyses the
The aims of this chapter are to introduce current state of the landscape concerning a
the current spatial and landscape planning set of landscape functions, defined as the
practice concerning the integration of envi- capacity of a landscape [] to sustainably
ronmental information, to present options fulfil basic, lasting and socially legitimised
for applying ES maps in planning and to material or immaterial human demands.
discuss related opportunities and challenges. As such, it considers the capacities (or po-
tentials) of ecosystems to deliver ecosystem
services (ES) as demanded by society, re-
Current practices of integrating gardless of their actual and current use. The
measures, against which landscape plan-
environmental information in ning assesses and evaluates these landscape
planning functions, are legally derived environmental
development objectives and expert-based as-
Assessing and addressing environmental is- sessments of rarity and value.
sues is not new to the fields of spatial and
landscape planning. Depending upon the Importantly for useful application, mapping
planning instrument under consideration, approaches need to be adapted to the specif-
Chapter 7 305
ic objectives and interests of decision-mak- gic development plans. For example, areas
ers, planners and stakeholders involved in which have particular environmental sensi-
the planning processes. Furthermore, the tivity against impacts, provide particularly
delineation of maps often relates to jurisdic- important ES, or provide opportunities for
tional boundaries whereas ecosystems and exploiting synergies by delivering several ES
ES provisioning and benefiting areas easily simultaneously, should be safeguarded, en-
transcend them. To this end, a multi-level hanced or restored.
approach to mapping with eventually dif-
ferent degrees of mapping detail (Chapter Maps of green and blue infrastructure rep-
5.6) are required to provide decision-mak- resenting the spatial variation in ES supply
ers with information on how external effects potential, coupled with spatially explicit data
influence their decision-making and how on peoples values and actual use of ES, help
their decision-making in the respective ju- spatial planners identify mismatches between
risdiction may influence ES provision and supply and demand, as well as trade-offs or
delivery in other jurisdictions. compensation actions to be undertaken in
planning decisions. In addition, the flow of
ES from supplying areas to the beneficiaries
Options for applying ES maps can be illustrated with ES maps, especially
when using participatory mapping methods.
in planning
ES maps can enhance stakeholders and de-
Various options exist for applying ES maps cision-makers engagement by better com-
in support of spatial planning and deci- municating the benefits and shortcomings
sion-making. The way in which the ES associated with proposed planning options.
maps can be used depends upon the specif-
ic planning instrument in use, the need to ES maps visualise the trade-offs that can be
fulfil statutory requirements for the imple- caused by land-use changes and urban man-
mentation of the respective instrument, the agement alternatives for ES provision.
needs and interests of instrument users and
decision-makers, as well as the time and re- ES maps support valorisation, for ex-
sources available for developing ES maps (in ample, by selling agrarian and touristic
addition to what is already legally required). products with price premiums as a way to
Consider the following examples. co-finance environmentally sensitive land
use management.
ES maps can be used as an information
source for investigating impacts of proposed ES maps contribute to understanding the spa-
planning decisions and for comparing pos- tial relationships between the planning area
sible alternatives. Recent publications have (which typically corresponds to a jurisdiction,
addressed the question of how ES maps can for example, at the regional or national level)
be used to support SEA of spatial planning and the areas where ES are supplied and used.
(see Chapter 7.8). A proper recognition of these relationships al-
lows addressing situations where the benefits
ES maps can help to identify where areas of of planning decisions accrue at one scale, but
particular environmental sensitivity or high costs are borne at another scale.
potential for ES delivery or for demand for
ES are located. Such information is useful By using open access data and methods for
for developing comprehensive and strate- mapping, similar approaches can easily be

made available for scientific review, practical
application, comparison between different
regions and further development.
Case example of applying ES

maps in spatial planning, city
of Jrvenp, Finland
The small and relatively compact city of Jr-
venp, Finland, decided to take positive ac- Figure 2. Demand for ES, assessed by a map
survey in a workshop organised for local residents
tions for land improvement by placing infill in Jrvenp. The dots represent markers placed
development in city-owned land parcels that by residents and the different colours of dots
were mainly green areas of varying quality. To represent different cultural ES-related values of
the respondents. The potential development sites
understand the values of the potential infill within the urban fabric are delineated with a red
development sites, the green infrastructure line. Black areas are buildings, white areas are
of Jrvenp was mapped based on natural impervious land. Other colours of the areas show
values, ecological connectivity and ES supply to which class in the created green infrastructure
typology the area belongs.
(Figure 1) and demand (Figure2). The maps
covering the whole city area were then used
to assess the importance of each potential site.
Requirements of ES maps to be
usefully applied in planning
In order to be useful in planning, ES maps
need to fulfil a number of requirements:
They need to be specifically attuned to the

context and purpose of the planning study
and the interests and concerns of the pop-
ulation. To be actually useful, the mapping
exercise needs to begin with a joint decision
of map-makers, users and decision-makers
Figure 1. The variation in the cultural ES supply concerning the spatial scale and resolution
potential in and around the potential infill develop- applied, the ES considered, the indicators
ment site of the eastern and western Aittokorven-
puisto (delineated with a red line) in Jrvenp. used, the approaches used for assessing
The darker the green, the greater the supply and valuing, as well as the format of the
potential. Black areas are buildings, white areas mapping outputs. As a consequence, the
are impervious land.
information needs and requirements of po-
tential users and decision-makers need to
The values of the sites were described in be investigated and addressed in the design
detail and this information helped the spa- and implementation of the mapping exer-
tial planners to make an informed decision cise from the very outset.
about which areas could be used for con-
struction while causing least harm to both The ES classes selected and examined need to
nature and people. be specifically attuned to the issue at stake.
Chapter 7 307
Mapping of ES supply is only a part of the ES maps appear to represent true infor-
planning process. It needs to be comple- mation, but they most often have inherent
mented with spatially explicit information uncertainties attached to them (Chapter 6).
on ES demands, stakeholder interests etc. Communicating this uncertainty to the au-
dience and appropriately addressing the un-
Users and decision-makers need to be sys- certainty by planning- and decision-makers
tematically involved in the development of is an enduring challenge.
the ES maps. Feedback from local and re-
gional experts is also essential in verifying The opportunities provided by using ES re-
the maps because no spatial data is perfect late to the provision of essential and import-
and without gaps. ant information for planning.
The timeliness and longer term appropri- The use of the ES concept, versus other con-
ateness of the maps should be ensured. The cepts such as landscape functions, has the
maps need to be prepared in the timeline potential to relate well to diverse groups of
with the planning decision that is to be users and stakeholders through the notion
made. In addition, ES maps should be de- of services provided by nature and land-
veloped and delivered in a way that allows scape to people. As such, they can facilitate
them to be updated once changes have been cooperative landscape and spatial planning
made to land uses and management. and implementation in practice.
ES maps can complement existing envi-

Opportunities and challenges ronmental information and approaches by
providing more differentiated information
of applying ES maps in on the actual provision and use of ES (and
planning not just ES potentials as hitherto the case),
trade-offs and synergies of land use options
Several challenges exist concerning the ap- concerning the delivery of various ES and
plication of ES maps in planning. the spatial allocation of the supply of and
demand for ES.
ES maps, as with any kind of environmental
information, are only one part of the vari- ES maps can provide a useful basis for quan-
ous information and concerns that planning tification and economic valuation of ES
needs to take into consideration. They may which in turn may provide additional added
illustrate and, thus, helpfully support efforts value for planning and decision-making.
to integrate environmental considerations
in decision-making, but the actual potential
to influence decision-making is limited (es- Conclusions
pecially within statutory planning).
Incorporating ES in decision-making can Maps of ES supply and demand are useful for
make the planning process more complex. planning- and decision-support in providing
This is a significant challenge that might be information concerning ES provisioning and
alleviated by developing assessment stan- benefiting areas as well as synergies and trade-
dards, the provision of ES maps by national offs between several ES. This information can
institutions, simple but robust methods and relate to the status quo or in alternative land
tools for the creation of maps. use options. Outcomes of ES maps can then

be used to identify areas that need to be safe- Hauck J, Grg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamki O,
guarded, enhanced or developed. Maes J, Wittmer H, Jax K (2013) Maps
To harness these opportunities for applying and challenges of ecosystem service maps
ES maps, planning practitioners need to at different levels of decision-making. Eco-
apply the mapping techniques and maps in system Services 4: 25-32.
ways carefully adapted to the specific user,
governance and decision-making context. Hauck J, Schweppe-Kraft B, Albert C, Grg
C, Jax K, Jensen R, Frst C, Maes J, Ring
I, Hnigov I, Burkhard B, Mehring M,
Further reading Tiefenbach M, Grunewald K, Schwarzer
M, Meurer J, Sommerhuser M, Priess JA,
Schmidt J, Grt-Regamey A (2013) The
Albert C, Aronson J, Frst C, Opdam P Promise of the Ecosystem Services Con-
(2014) Integrating ecosystem services in cept for Planning and Decision-Making.
landscape planning: requirements, ap- GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science
proaches and impacts. Landscape Ecology and Society 22: 232-236.
29: 1277-1285.
Kopperoinen, L., Itkonen, P., Niemel, J.
Albert C, Galler C, Hermes J, Neuendorf F, (2014) Using expert knowledge in com-
von Haaren C, Lovett A (2016) Applying bining green infrastructure and ecosystem
ecosystem services indicators in landscape services in land use planning an insight
planning and management: The ES-in- into a new place-based methodology.
Planning framework. Ecological Indica- Landscape Ecology 29: 1361-1375. DOI
tors 61, Part 1: 100-113. 10.1007/s10980-014-0014-2.
Albert C, Hauck J, Buhr N, von Haaren C von Haaren C, Albert C (2011) Integrating
(2014) What ecosystem services informa- ecosystem services and environmental
tion do users want? Investigating interests planning: limitations and synergies. Inter-
and requirements among landscape and national Journal of Biodiversity Science,
regional planners in Germany. Landscape Ecosystem Services & Management 7:
Ecology 29: 1301-1313. 150-167.
Geneletti D (2011) Reasons and options for von Haaren C, Albert C, Barkmann J, de Groot
integrating ecosystem services in strategic R, Spangenberg J, Schrter-Schlaack C,
environmental assessment of spatial plan- Hansjrgens B (2014) From explanation to
ning. International Journal of Biodiversity application: introducing a practice-oriented
Science, Ecosystem Services & Manage- ecosystem services evaluation (PRESET)
ment 7(3): 143-149. model adapted to the context of landscape
planning and management. Landscape
Hansen R, Pauleit S (2014) From Multifunc- Ecology 29: 1335-1346.
tionality to Multiple Ecosystem Services?
A Conceptual Framework for Multifunc-
tionality in Green Infrastructure Planning
for Urban Areas. AMBIO 43: 516-529.
Chapter 7 309
7.3. Land use sectors
Benjamin Burkhard
The human utilisation of a piece of land for land use are mutually exclusive, such as con-
a certain purpose is called land use. Land use ventional agriculture and forestry or military
is often closely related to land cover, but it areas and tourism. Other forms of land use
is not the same. Land cover represents the can create synergies amongst each other, for
features that cover the earths surface as they example, agricultural tourism, agroforestry
would be viewed from above, for example, or urban gardening. Some forms of land use
from an aeroplane or a remote sensing sat- can be exclusive such as mining or military
ellite. Land use clearly refers to activities areas. Such hard forms of human activi-
of people and how they are using the land. ties (but also nature reserves) often cause
In todays heavily cultivated and modified conflicts due to their exclusivity or rivalry.
world, it is difficult to find wilderness areas Studies on land use conflicts and related ES
without any human impact on land cover. gains and losses are highly relevant for envi-
Therefore both terms are often used in a ronmental management and complex trade-
combined way such as land use/land cover off decisions between land use development
(LULC). All forms of land use are causing and conservation.
impacts on ecosystem functions by alter-
ing ecosystem structures and processes and LULC changes can affect ES on various
related ecosystem services (ES) supply (see spatial and temporal scales. Therefore it is
Chapter 2.2). Land use intensification and important to know about the effects that
increased technology use will enhance these different land use sectors have on ES and
impacts in future if no sustainable strategies to map them. Land use data can be used as
can be found. basic geospatial map units to up- or down-
scale aggregated models (see Chapter 4.4) or
Traditional and typical land use sectors are statistical data to quantify and map ES. Re-
agriculture (see Chapter 7.3.2), forestry (see spective statistics such as agricultural yields,
Chapter 7.3.3), tourism, mining, industry forestry harvests, fish catches or tourist
(Chapter 7.5), infrastructure, military areas numbers are available for most land use sec-
or urbanisation (see Chapter 7.3.1). The tors. Land use data can provide spatial units
most widespread form of land use today is to start the mapping until more suitable spa-
agriculture, currently covering more than tial data in finer scales (such as watersheds,
37 % of the earths terrestrial areas. Graz- field blocks) are available.
ing land accounts for about 26 % and crops
grown for animal fodder account for about In Europe, the land cover classes of the Eu-
33 % of all cultivated land. In addition, ropean CORINE1 project are applied fre-
non-use forms such as nature protection quently for ES mapping. Comparable ap-
areas (see Chapter 7.3.4) are claiming land proaches exist in North America (NALC2)
and can be considered a land use sector, for
instance, when it comes to landscape plan- 1
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/
ning. Each available (and reachable) piece of corine-land-cover-types-2006
land can be utilised by human beings for a 2
https://lta.cr.usgs.gov/pathfinder/nalc_project_
limited number of uses only. Some forms of campaign

and on a global scale (GlobCover3). The Further reading
data originate from remote sensing. Thus
they provide a logical combination of land Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N (Eds.) (2005)
cover and land use as seen from space and Ecosystems and human well-being: Cur-
as it can be found in reality - a combination rent state and trends: findings of the Con-
of natural conditions and human activities. dition and Trends Working Group. The
Information from ES maps has a high appli- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series,
cation potential for land use planning and Vol. 1. Island Press.
management. They can contribute to the
development of site-specific, optimised and Maes, J, Crossman ND, Burkhard B (2016)
sustainable land use strategies. Mapping ecosystem services. In: Potschin
M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Turner RK
(Eds.) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem
3
http://due.esrin.esa.int/page_globcover.php Services. Routledge. London: 188-204.
Chapter 7 311
7.3.1. Mapping urban ecosystem
services
Grazia Zulian, Inge Liekens, Steven Broekx, Nadja
Kabisch, Leena Kopperoinen & Davide Geneletti
Introduction
Globally, more people live in urban areas Next it provides concrete examples on map-
than in rural areas, with 54 % of the worlds ping urban GI and urban ES applying a tier
population living in urban areas in 2014. As 1 approach, based on Urban Atlas landcover
the world continues to urbanise, sustainable data provided by the European Environment
development challenges will be increasingly Agency and local data. The chapter presents
concentrated in cities. The UN Sustainable two tier 3 models, for mapping regulating
Development Goals well summarise this and cultural services. Finally a web-based tool
concept with goal 11: Make cities inclu- for an analysis of urban ES is introduced.
sive, safe, resilient and sustainable.
Maintaining functioning, healthier and Ecosystem services relevant in

equally accessible urban ecosystems and
services is thus an essential point for future cities
urban policies and planning.
Trees, parks, gardens and (peri-)urban for-
Urban ecosystems can be defined as an ests help improve the quality of the air, re-
integrated ensemble of connected built duce noise and mitigate extreme summer
(sharing built or paved infrastructures) temperatures or peak flood events. They
and green infrastructures (GI). The tangi- also provide non-material benefits, such as
ble integration of GI in urban policies re- recreation, education, cultural and aesthetic
quires awareness-raising amongst planners, values and contribute to social interactions.
stakeholders and citizens as well as tools to Table 1 presents a list of key urban ES. Cit-
monitor progress of policy objectives and ies also depend on ecosystems beyond city
to support local planning. limits and, in this case, we refer to indicators
described in other sections of this book.
Nevertheless urban environments are very
peculiar and a general framework for the
mapping of urban ecosystem services (ES) Mapping urban ecosystems and
cannot be directly adopted.
urban green space as the base layer
This chapter illustrates how urban ES can be for assessing urban ES
mapped according to a tiered approach (see
Chapter 5.6.1). This chapter introduces a A detailed map of urban GI can serve as
selection of ES particularly relevant in cities. the basis for mapping urban ES supply and

Table 1. Key urban ES organised according to the CICES classification.
CICES
CICES Section
Class
Cultivated crops
Surface water for drinking
Provisioning Groundwater for drinking
Surface water for non-drinking purposes
Groundwater for non-drinking purposes
Filtration/sequestration/storage/accumulation by ecosystems
Global climate regulation by reduction of greenhouse gas concentration
Micro and regional climate regulation
Regulation &
Mediation of smell/noise/visual impacts
Maintenance
Hydrological cycle and water flow maintenance
Flood control
Pollination and seed dispersal
Physical and intellectual use of land-/seascapes in different environmental settings
Scientific/ Educational
Cultural
Heritage, cultural
Aesthetic
demand. This requires detailed spatial data The final outcome of the spatial representa-
for identifying the service providing units of tion of the GI typology in Jrvenp is pre-
GI. Depending on the context and purposes sented in Figure 1.
of the study, the analysis can cover a variety
of spatial extents (from large metropolitan GI was classified according to land cover
areas to small compact cities) and can be and land use type. Public and private land
based on different data sources. were both considered as potential service
providing units for urban ES provision. In
In Jrvenp, Finland, GI was identified and fact, private yards and gardens can be very
a typology of GI was created based on fair- important for provision of regulating and
ly detailed spatial data (municipal biotope cultural services (e.g. stormwater retention,
data) and areal units, including even the pollination and adding to aesthetics of an
smallest green spaces. All permeable sur- area). Public green and blue areas, on the
faces were considered as areas potentially other hand, are very important from an
providing ES. Therefore, the land use and environmental justice point of view. The
land cover data were masked by all sealed benefits delivered by these areas should be
areas including mainly streets, railroad, oth- available and accessible easily and evenly to
er traffic areas, landfills and buildings. This different population groups to improve the
was undertaken by using several national well-being of residents.
and municipal spatial datasets. At the final
stage, the most recent available aerial photo- In Leipzig, Germany, the Urban Atlas land
graphs were used to check the validity of the cover data set, provided by the European
digitised features. Environmental Agency, was used to show
Chapter 7 313
spatial patterns of urban ES indicators and Urban ES values for carbon storage and recre-
their performance1 . ation services for the 20 different Urban Atlas
land cover classes were derived from empiri-
(http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/
1
cal studies. For the assessment of recreation,
urban-atlas). the per capita green space in 63 districts of
Leipzig was used as proxy. Population data
reflect the district population in 2014.
The results are urban ES performance maps

based on the different land cover classes.
Figure 2 shows the resulting map for carbon
storage and per capita green space for the
city of Leipzig.
The use of secondary land cover and popula-

tion data may limit the opportunities for sta-
tistical analysis. Using land cover data always
means generalisation but this provides an
overview of city-wide urban ES performance.
Figure 1. Map of green infrastructure in Jrvenp

for the assessment of urban ES provision. Built-up
areas are shown in white.
Figure 2. Carbon storage in Leipzig (left) and per capita green space in the districts (right). Carbon
storage is highest in the riparian forest areas in Leipzig. The per capita green space is highest in districts
near the floodplains and in the southern, north-western and north-eastern districts near the city border
where the population number is comparatively lower than in the inner city districts.

Mapping regulating and
cultural services: A tier 3
approach
Assessing the cooling capacity of
urban GI
Assessing the urban ES provided by GI is of-
ten too data-demanding for being routinely
conducted in urban planning. A method,
based on literature data, has been developed
to assess the cooling effect provided by GI.
This method can be employed by planners
to support the design and management of
these infrastructures. First, the main func-
tions involved in the cooling capacity of GI
were identified: shading and evapo-transpi-
ration. These functions were assessed in-
dividually and then combined in order to
estimate the overall cooling capacity of GI.
The assessment of the shading function was
based on an analysis of the tree canopy cov-
erage which is one of the key elements in-
fluencing the shading effect. The assessment
of evapo-transpiration considered soil cover,
tree canopy coverage and climatic area of Figure 3. Map of the cooling capacity of the
the GI which are the three main compo- urban GI in the city of Trento. Cooling capacity is
expressed in classes from A+ (highest capacity)
nents involved in providing this function. to E (lowest capacity).
Each function was classified into categories
and the categories were then combined into
an overall cooling capacity value which also Assessing the social value of public
considered the size of GI. This capacity was parks and playgrounds
then classified into six classes from E to
A+, adopting the European Union Energy
Label classification, where A+ represents the Public parks and playgrounds are key re-
highest cooling performance. Finally, decay sources for urban citizens since they provide
models were also applied to assess the effect recreational, cultural and educational oppor-
beyond the boundaries of GI. The overall tunities. Nevertheless these opportunities
purpose was to provide planners with a rel- are not only related to the amount of public
atively simple model to predict the cooling green surface per capita but also to other as-
capacity of GI and to support their design pects, for example, type of facilities available
and inclusion in urban plans. Figure 3 pro- or the presence of bicycle paths to reach the
vides an example of cooling capacity assess- park. This problem was addressed by devel-
ment in the city of Trento, Italy. oping a model to estimate the amount of
Chapter 7 315
service provided by urban parks. The model
consists of two parts: 1) it estimates the So-
cial Value of Public GI (SVPGI); 2) it calcu-
lates a potential accessibility measure which
accounts for users characteristics (the age).
Figure 4 presents the structure of the model;
Figure 5 shows the amount of service poten-
tially available in Padua (Italy) amongst the
population younger than 11 years old.
Planning for green

infrastructure in cities: The
Nature Value Explorer for Figure 4. Overview of the structure of the model.
Cities tool The SVPGI (A) depends on the green area sur-
face and the presence of playgrounds-sport-rec-
reational facilities (A.2) and key contextual factors
(proximity to bicycle paths, safety) (A.3). To
The online Nature Value Explorer tool2 calculate the social services map (B), the SVPGI
aims to value the impact of nature develop- is allocated amongst all citizens (or amongst
defined user groups), giving each one an amount
ment projects on ES. The tool is currently proportional to a distance decay function (B.1).
being extended with an urban version. The The parameters of the function can be adjusted,
purpose of this version is to support cities, according to the users age or other characteris-
administrations and planners in providing tics. The distance can be estimated through the
local road network.
an equal and adequate supply of urban GI,
paying attention to the quality and the func-
tions of the GI and the trade-offs between
different urban ES. Users can estimate the
effects of the existing and planned GI on
reaching different sustainability goals. The
urban context requires a specific typology
of urban green and valuation methodologies
specifically suited for urban environments.
Urban ES which can be valued include ur-
ban farming, air pollution and urban heat
stress reduction, carbon sequestration, water
retention, health and wellbeing.
The maps below (Figure 6) are produced for

the city of Antwerp (Belgium) and represent
the actual demand, supply and potential for
green vegetation to reduce urban heat impacts.
Demand maps are based on population densi-
ty. The urban heat map for Antwerp is a com-
bination of UrbClim model simulations with
in-situ validation and satellite images, whereas
Figure 5. The estimated social service per
2
www.natuurwaardeverkenner.be population younger than 11 years old.

the supply maps represent the cooling effect of supply and demand, the impact of trees on
of the existing vegetation and water system. urban climate and the spatial boundary con-
The potential for additional trees to reduce ditions for additional trees (we assume trees
urban heat impacts depends on the mismatch cannot replace existing buildings).
Demand: avarage radiation Supply: impact existing

temperature (oC) 2012 vegetation (0:none; 5: high)
< 40 0
40 - 60 1
>60 2
3
4
5
Potential impact
tree row (0:none;
20: high)
0 11
1 12
2 13
3 14
4 15
5 16
6 17
7 18
8 19
9 20
10
Figure 6. Urban ES maps for heat stress in Antwerp. Supply from existing vegetation and water is
scored from zero (0) to maximum (5). Based on a heat map of the city and population densities, the
demand is mapped leading to zones with varying degrees of impact vegetation. Taking into account the
current supply and demand, the potential for green measures is calculated and scored from no potential
(0) to maximum potential (20).
Further reading
Broekx S, Liekens I, Peelaerts W, De Nocker many and Salzburg, Austria: Climate Regu-
L, Landuyt D, Staes J, Meire P, Schaafs- lation and Recreation function. In Kabisch
ma M, Van Reeth W, Van den Kerckhove N, Larondelle N, Artmann M (Eds.) Hu-
O, Cerulus T (2013) A web application to man-Environmental Interactions in Cities
support the quantification and valuation - Challenges and Opportunities of urban
of ecosystem services. Environmental Im- land use planning and green infrastructure.
pact Assessment Review 40: 65-74. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 66-80.
Geneletti D, Zardo L, Cortinovis C (2016) Pro- Haase D, Kabisch N, Strohbach M, Eler

moting nature-based solutions for climate K, Pintar M (2015) Urban GI compo-
adaptation in cities through impact assess- nents inventory. Milestone 23. GREEN
ment. In: Geneletti, D (Ed) Handbook on SURGE project (2013-2017), EU FP7
biodiversity and ecosystem services in im- (ENV.2013.6.2-5-603567) 16 pp. http://
pact assessment. Edward Elgar, 428-452. greensurge.eu/working-packages/wp3/
files/MS23_update_19022015.pdf.
Kabisch N, Larondelle N, Artmann M (2014)
Urban Ecosystem Services in Berlin, Ger-
Chapter 7 317
Larondelle N, Haase D, Kabisch N (2014) Eupen M, Verweij P, de Vries A, Kruse
Mapping the diversity of regulating eco- H, Polce C, Cugny-Seguin M, Erhard M,
system services in European cities. Global Nicolau R, Fonseca A, Fritz M, Teller A
Environmental Change 26: 119-129. (2016) Mapping and Assessment of Eco-
systems and their Services. Urban Ecosys-
Maes J, Zulian G, Thijssen M, Castell C, Bar tems. Publications Office of the European
F, Ferreira AM, Melo J, Garrett CP, Da- Union, Luxembourg.
vid N, Alzetta C, Geneletti D, Cortinovis
C, Zwierzchowska I, Louro Alves F, Souto Secco G, Zulian G (2008) Modelling the so-
Cruz C, Blasi C, Als Ort MM, Attorre F, cial benefits of parks for users. In Carreiro
Azzella MM, Capotorti G, Copiz R, Fusa- MM, Song Y-C, Wu J (Eds.) Ecology,
ro L, Manes F, Marando F, Marchetti M, Planning and Management of Urban For-
Mollo B, Salvatori E, Zavattero L, Zingari ests: International Perspectives. New York,
PC, Giarratano MC, Bianchi E, Dupr E, Springer, 312-335.
Barton D, Stange E, Perez-Soba M, van

7.3.2. Ecosystem service maps
in agriculture
Louise Willemen, Sarah Jones,
Natalia Estrada Carmona & Fabrice DeClerck
Introduction
Agricultural ecosystems are the largest eco- ES in agricultural landscapes operate across
systems in the anthropocene. To produce different spatial and temporal levels: before
food, fodder and fuels, these agricultural an ES reaches the field, it may have moved
systems strongly depend on a reliable flow of over various distances from different land
ecosystem services; examples include water, cover types in the surrounding areas. For ex-
pollination, pest control, soil fertility and the ample, soil conservation practices on slopes
gene pool of wild crop relatives. At the same reduce the negative impact of sedimentation
time, it is well known that many agricultur- or landslide risk on the downslope. Under-
al practices and the expansion of agricultural standing this multi-level aspect (where ES
areas are a major threat to well-functioning come from and flow to and at what point in
healthy ecosystems. However, the inverse can time) is crucial for an effective management
arguably be just as true; agriculture, if well of ES flows in rural areas.
managed, can become an important means
by which to secure and safeguard ecosystem In this chapter, we reflect on the role of spa-
services (ES). Agriculture has been the most tial information on ES for the sustainable
direct way humans altered their natural sur- management of agricultural areas. The use
roundings and has brought major increas- and selection of ES to consider and their
es in well-being and income to humans. It mapping approaches depend on: i) the
is important to realise that most ES result strength of the relationship between agricul-
in human benefits only after human input tural production systems and ES supply and
or activities, such as seeding and harvesting ii) the spatial extent of the supply, flow and
crops, travelling to attractive locations, or re- management level of the ES.
directing water (Chapter 5.1).
Agricultural systems are intensely managed Ecosystem services and

by humans and are more controlled and reg-
ulated than most other ecosystems. Many agricultural production links
governance systems are in place to manage
and distribute excludable and rival goods In 2014, The Economics of Ecosystems and
(e.g. water board for irrigation water, fishing Biodiversity initiative (TEEB) initiated a
quota, timber extraction licences). This high specific study on the value of ES and bio-
level of human management and regulation diversity across agricultural systems: TEEB
creates opportunities for securing and safe- for Agriculture and Food (TEEBAgFood).
guarding ES for agriculture and non-agri- TEEBAgFood has identified the positive
cultural production uses. (provisioning and regulating services) and
Chapter 7 319
negative (environmental impacts) flows to ample, the supply of the ES nutrient cycling
and from agricultural systems. The quanti- is particularly relevant for low input farming
fication of these services helps to assess the systems. In contrast, closely managing nutri-
dependence and impact of production sys- ent cycling via an ES based approach is not as
tems on ES supply. relevant on farms where this is provided by
Figure 1. Linkages between ES and agricultural management types for ES production, ES dependence
and ES impact per spatial level. The white arrows indicate to which farming type the ES relate, from low
to high input.
However, not all ES have equal relevance for synthetic fertilisers. In Figure 1, this is shown
all farming systems. In Figure 1, we show by the arrow indicating the lower input farm-
the assumed and simplified link for high to ing systems only for this ES. Some ES are rel-
low input farming systems to relevant ES evant for all farming systems: all farms will
based on their supply, ES dependence and produce food, fodder or fuel crops, they all
ES impact. The figure also shows on which rely on specific water and climate conditions
spatial level these interactions take place and and all conversions of land to agriculture will
therefore need to be managed. Input refers impact the natural habitat.
here to pesticides, fertilisers and water (not
to labour or machinery). The white arrows in Figure 1 could be used as a general guide for
this figure indicate the farming systems for selecting the specific ES to be mapped, in ad-
which the specific ES (and thus information dition to the location-specific ES information
on this ES) is relevant. The general assump- needs and focus. Maps of ES play an import-
tion is that low input farms are more depen- ant role in land management for: the assess-
dent and have less impact on ES compared ment of the current state of ES in rural ar-
to conventional high input farming. For ex- eas, impact analyses of agriculture on ES and

the monitoring of ES to support sustainable ment, farm and field level maps alone are
management of agricultural areas. Land man- insufficient, as agriculture mostly supplies,
agement, as well as the generation of spatial impacts and depends on ES from larger spa-
information, has so far mostly focused on the tial extents. The spatial extent of ES and the
ES supply (agricultural goods) and ES impact related mapping requirements (data resolu-
(e.g. environmental impact assessments) and tion, accuracy) are described in Chapter 5.2.
less so on the enabling of common public
goods on which ES depend (central blue bar
of Figure 1). The TEEBAgFood project calls Applications of ES mapping in
these the invisible positive flows. Maps can
make these invisible flows visible, facilitating agricultural areas
their inclusion in decision-making.
Current work demonstrates that ES maps
and the process of generating maps can
Ecosystem service maps for address important land management ques-
tions in agricultural areas across the globe.
farms and beyond Studies have shown that the process of map-
ping ES as well as the maps themselves can
Decisions on agricultural practices are typi- be used to: i) visualise the scales at which
cally made at farm level. However, most ES different services operate; ii) assess locations
on which agriculture depends and impacts of ES supply and beneficiaries highlighting
often have a spatial level exceeding the farm. dependencies; iii) visualise impacts which
Figure 1 shows that difference: few ES are are often considered invisible externalities of
purely linked to field level, while many ES agriculture, both positive and negative; iv)
are related to the full eco-agri-system which facilitate negotiations amongst stakeholders,
can cover landscapes, watersheds or even the including payment schemes and v) target
global system depending on the ES in ques- intervention locations required to ensure or
tion. Thus, when mapping ES to support improve ES supply. An example of this type
decision-making in agricultural manage- of ES mapping study is presented in Box 1.
Box 1. Managing reservoir catchments to secure transboundary

ES delivery in the Volta basin
The Volta River flows through six West African countries, draining a 407,000 km2 area that is home to
over 20 million people. The Volta basin is subject to highly variable rainfall, yet timely supply of a sufficient
quantity of quality water is essential for the rural households that rely on crop, fish or livestock production
for their livelihood. Over 1000 small and several large dams have been constructed in the basin since the
1950s to help maintain a year-round supply of agricultural water. Ecosystem processes in the reservoir
catchments provide a service for reservoir-users by regulating the quality, quantity and timing of reservoir
water supplies, making the network of land-users, reservoir systems and water beneficiaries tightly inter-
connected. Bioversity International and its partners are working with smallholder farmers and local and
regional government in the Volta basin to facilitate evidence-based ES management decisions. Many of
these stakeholders identify soil erosion and associated sedimentation as a key threat to reservoir water sup-
plies and water management authorities are seeking to minimise erosion through improved management
of land adjacent to the stream network. The ES model WaterWorld , is used here to investigate the effect
on water supply and the control of soil erosion rates by ensuring: 1) 100 % herbaceous plant cover and 2)
Chapter 7 321
100 % tree cover, on land within 100 m of waterways in dam catchments across the Volta basin. Results
indicate that targeting herbaceous vegetation cover in riparian zones (Scenario 1) would be more effective
than targeting tree cover (Scenario 2) for improving water availability, although benefits are unevenly dis-
tributed across the region and generally higher in the south. Local variations in annual water balance are
expected particularly under the tree cover scenario, with the annual water supply falling to less than half
of its baseline level (a decrease of more than 100 %) in several dispersed locations across the region. The
area, highlighted in the annual water supply inset maps below, illustrates that water supplies are generally
expected to decrease on the Burkinab side of the border under both scenarios while, on the Ghanaian
side, water balance is expected to increase by up to 10 % or more in most places under herbaceous cover
(Scenario 1), but continue to fall under tree cover (Scenario 2). The difference in water supply results
between the scenarios can be largely explained by a difference in evapo-transpiration losses which will be
higher from tree cover than herbaceous cover. In contrast, both vegetation types appear to be effective at
controlling sediment. Both scenarios indicate erosion control rates adjacent to waterways will increase
across the basin where there is perennial vegetation cover, with the largest erosion prevention impacts
occurring near the headwaters of the stream network where slopes are steepest. The erosion control inset
maps below illustrate that reduced erosion rates may be up to 100 % compared to baseline levels in some
areas. The model outputs show that ensuring year-round vegetation cover on land adjacent to waterways,
particularly with herbaceous plants and near stream headwaters, could be an effective strategy to control
sedimentation rates and improve regional water supplies. Much of this riparian land is currently used
for crop and livestock production and restricting agriculture on this land would negatively impact on
thousands of smallholder farmers. Careful management of vegetation cover on existing agricultural land
combined with protection and restoration of natural vegetation in adjacent areas could represent a viable
option for implementing a riparian management scheme with minimal losses to food production. This
would mean agricultural land in riparian zones is selectively managed to ensure year-round plant cover by,
for example, using perennial species such as bananas, perennial rice and cover crops, while natural vegeta-
tion is restored and protected on adjacent non-agricultural land.
Mapping relative changes in ecosystem servces across the Volta basin under two riparian buffer
management scenarios.
Scenario 1: Herbaceous plant cover (natural, crops, cover crops) in 100 m buffer along waterways in dam watersheds.
Change from baseline (%)
-1000% - -100%
Main map scale:
-99% - -11% 1:17,000,000.
-19% - -1% Minor map scale:
1:5,000,000.
0% (no change) Data sources:
GAUL (admin bounderies);
1% - 10% GRUMP (settlements)
11% - 100% WaterWourld V2 -
KCL/AmbioTEK
101% - 1,000% (all other data)

Scenario 2: Tree cover (natural, orchards, plantations) in 100 m buffer along waterways in dam watersheds.
Change from baseline (%)
-1000% - -100%
Main map scale:
-99% - -11% 1:17,000,000.
-19% - -1% Minor map scale:
1:5,000,000.
0% (no change) Data sources:
GAUL (admin bounderies);
1% - 10% GRUMP (settlements)
11% - 100% WaterWourld V2 -
KCL/AmbioTEK
101% - 1,000% (all other data)
Further reading
Fremier AK, Declerck FAJ, Bosque-Prez NA, Poppy GM, Chiotha S, Eigenbrod F, Harvey
Carmona NE, Hill R, Joyal T, Keesecker CA, Honzk M, Hudson MD, Jarvis A,
L, Klos PZ, Martnez-Salinas A, Niemey- Madise NJ, Schreckenberg K, Shackleton
er R, Sanfiorenzo A, Welsh K, Wulfhorst CM, Villa F, Dawson TP (2014) Food secu-
JD (2013) Understanding Spatiotemporal rity in a perfect storm: using the ecosystem
Lags in Ecosystem Services to Improve In- services framework to increase understand-
centives. BioScience 63: 472-482. ing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences: 369.
Mulligan M (2013) WaterWorld1: a self-pa-
rameterising, physically based model for Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and
application in data-poor but problem-rich agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Phil-
environments globally. Hydrology Re- osophical Transactions of the Royal Soci-
search 44(5): 748. ety of London B: Biological Sciences 365:
2959-2971.
TEEB (2015) TEEB for Agriculture & Food:
an interim report. United Nations Environ-
ment Programme, Geneva, Switzerland.
1
www..org/waterworld
Chapter 7 323
7.3.3. Mapping forest ecosystem
services
Sandra Luque, Julen Gonzalez-Redin & Christine Frst
Introduction
Forests are a crucial element not only of interests and needs of a great variety of ac-
landscapes but of human living conditions. tors and sectors. In doing so, adequate tools,
Forests have supported peoples livelihoods information and mapping of ES are needed
throughout history, particularly when crops to support policies and decision-making.
failed. Covering nearly a third of the earths In Europe, as an example, over 155 mil-
land surface, they provide multiple ecosystem lion hectares of forests are under manage-
services (ES) and habitats for a multitude of ment plans, representing over 70 % of the
species. They hold the majority of the worlds forest area in the region. Despite this, data
terrestrial species. However, these biological- sharing and adequate ES mapping for deci-
ly-rich systems are increasingly threatened, sion-making is still lacking.
largely as a result of human activity, such as
land-use and climate change, deforestation, The recent decision by European govern-
afforestation, wildfires, storms, insects and ment leaders to increase the share of renew-
pathogen outbreaks. able energy in Europe to 20 % by 2020 is
expected to result in a much greater demand
Timber production has often dominated the for forest biomass for bio-energy generation.
way in which forests were managed until the This higher demand will intensify the com-
20th century. New challenges and increasing petition for resources between forest indus-
pressures in the 21st century have stimulated try, the energy sector and nature conserva-
a multi-functional approach, involving the tion/other protective functions and services
delivery of multiple goods and services in- (including biodiversity, protection from nat-
cluding regulating ES (e.g. climate regulation ural hazards, landscape aesthetics, recreation
and mitigation, erosion control, hydrological and tourism). This competition may lead to
regulation). Nowadays, in most regions of the more intensive forest management such as
world, forests, trees on farms and agro-forestry plantation of fast-growing tree species, more
systems play important roles in the livelihoods frequent cuttings, shorter rotations and
of people by providing employment, ener- increasing export of coarse woody debris
gy, nutritious foods and a wide range of ES. which has not traditionally been harvested.
Well-managed forests have a high potential to
contribute to sustainable development and to These increasing economic demands from
a greener economy. society and complex relationships between
humans and ES drive our actions towards
Applications of ES mapping in the need for spatially explicit analysis and
tools to map both the capacity of the eco-
forest management systems to deliver services to society and the
societal demand for ES.
A successful multifunctional forest man-
agement approach needs to consider the

Data challenges for mapping areas where cloud-cover was a problem (e.g.
forest-related ES tropical forests, boreal forests).
To collect indicator data in relation to forest

The first challenges in quantifying forest habitat quality as an example, a number of
ES involve having relatively comprehensive information sources (besides more conven-
data on stand structure and composition tional data sources) exist today that are be-
(species composition, diameter distribu- coming very popular such as citizen science
tion, spatial distribution of trees) and, if (see Chapter 5.6.3); forest pedagogics proj-
possible, their dynamics (growth, mortali- ects; the use of crowdsource information
ty and regeneration). These static and dy- and social networks amongst others (see
namic data are indeed essential to provide Chapter 5.5.3). It is also important to as-
information for ES indicators that may be sess how changes to ecosystem management
relevant for producing maps to support might alter the flow of ES either positively
management and planning. The acquisition or negatively and who will be affected.
of these data may be based on a dedicated
device in situ (e.g. forest inventories, plot
data at different levels, botanical surveys, Forest ES indicators
surveys of forest companies, statistics for
taxation) but also on remote sensing (RS)
data and tools to give spatial form to the A key aspect in the assessment of forest ES is
information. New RS developments such the consideration of the long-term temporal
as very high resolution satellite imagery, dynamics of forest ecosystems that strongly
LiDAR techniques that support the mea- determine ES capacities of the system. Con-
suring of forest structure amongst other sequently, indicators that provide informa-
parameters, can really help to speed up the tion about forest ES supply need to be related
process of mapping at different scales. More to the ecosystem conditions, including infor-
satellite imagery is becoming available as mation on age (ranges), tree species compo-
open data, such as the imagery from the sition and spatial distribution as well as stand
European SENTINELS. density. The research project RegioPower
(see example in Chapter 5.7.5) developed an
To improve forest ES mapping capabilities, approach for a combined assessment of typi-
current free and open data policy (i.e. RS cal forest ES in a landscape context.
data at different resolutions, large species
data and open access forest inventory data) Referring to case studies undertaken in this
will have a dramatic impact on our ability context in Finland, Germany, Slovenia and
to understand how forests are being affect- Sweden, making use of the CICES frame-
ed by anthropogenic pressures. We need work (see Chapter 2.4) and to approved
to improve our knowledge on the status of frameworks for assessing sustainability of
forest systems which play key roles in trade- forests (MCPFE), we propose the following
offs between provisioning ES supply and indicators to be adopted as shown in Table 1.
maintenance of, for example, carbon stocks,
biodiversity and other related ES. In recent Additional to these suggested indicators
years, advances in working with different which mainly consider either the stand lev-
sensors (optical and non-optical sensors) at el, or the level of forest areas/districts, the
different resolutions are allowing work not capacities of forest ecosystems to supply ES
just at finer resolutions but also for work on (see Chapter 5.1) are also greatly depen-
Chapter 7 325
Table 1: Examples for forest ES indicators according to the CICES scheme.
Section Division Class Indicators

stand level / tree species level: stocking
Provisioning Materials Biomass volume (m3 / ha); growth (m3 / ha x a);
yield (m3 / ha x a)
Maintenance of GHG emissions / ha x a; above and
Regulation & Global climate
physical, chemical and belowground sequestered carbon; humus
Maintenance regulation
biological conditions forms
abundance of rare species; number of
above-average aged / thick single trees /
Cultural Spiritual, symbolic Symbolic
breeding burrow trees, dead-wood stock
(m3 / ha)
dent on structural parameters at the (for- Forest biodiversity and ES

est) landscape level (see landscape metrics;
Chapter 3.6).
Forest biodiversity contributes to ecosystem
Benefits from cultural ES continue to be functioning by maintaining a sustainable
overlooked in many forest assessments be- production of related forest ES. Therefore,
cause of the many difficulties associated losses of biodiversity can impose substantial
with measuring and mapping them. How- costs at local and national scale, but many
ever, cultural ES and other types of social of the costs of changes in forest biodiver-
values are often fundamentally important sity have not been accounted for in deci-
to understand how people use and value na- sion-making. Recognising the links between
ture. Forests and woodlands play an import- forest biodiversity and ES would help stake-
ant cultural role and a number of spatially holders to avoid biodiversity losses which
explicit methodologies have been developed lead to unacceptable ES shortfalls.
which attempt to explore the values of their
cultural ES. However, the current indicators Setting aside forest stands from commercial
of well-being linked to cultural and social use reduces wood harvest possibilities and in-
values that are used in mapping approaches, creases timber prices which affect forestry and
if present at all, tend to be the more generic forest industries. Employment opportunities
and easily quantifiable values. These include in the forest sector are important for the rural
ES such as recreation, tourism and some population and the export income from the
aesthetic values. There is very limited repre- forest industry products are important for
sentation of non-market ES such as spiritual national economies. Although there are often
connections with woodlands or emotional not sufficient economic resources for the pro-
attachment to local places. This presents a tection of biodiversity yet, difficult choices
significant barrier to understanding the wid- on how to prioritise conservation need to be
er societal benefits associated with wood- made. In order to support decision-making,
lands and similar green spaces. The result is integrative tools and analyses that simultane-
that cultural and social values of woodlands ously consider the goals and economic im-
are underestimated (see Chapter 5.5.3 for an pacts of conservation are needed.
alternative approach to assess cultural ES).

An integrated methodology, based on link- Final considerations
ing Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN; Chap-
ter 4.5) with GIS is proposed in Box 1, for Future efforts should aim at improving mea-
combining available evidence to help forest sures on the importance of forests for society
managers evaluate implications and trade- at large. Therefore we need to improve our
offs between forest production and conser- understanding of the people who live in and
vation measures in order to preserve biodi- around forests in many cases depending
versity in forested habitats. directly on forest ES for their livelihoods.
BOX 1. An integrated approach for forest ES mapping

The approach for forest ES mapping, incorporates GIS-based data with expert knowledge to consider
trade-offs between the biodiversity value for conservation and timber production potential with the
focus on a complex mountain landscape in the French Alps.
Timber Production Suitability Trade-offs Conservation Suitability

Very Low (<0.10) Very Low (<0.21) Very Low (<0.19)
Low (0.10 - 0.17) Low (0.21 - 0.39) Low (0.19 - 0.32)
Moderate Moderate Moderate
(0.17 - 0.28) (0.39 - 0.52) (0.32 - 0.42)
High High High
(0.28 - 0.42) (0.52 - 0.66) (0.42 - 0.56)
Vert High Vert High Vert High
(0.42<) (0.66<) (0.56<)
Total Suitability
High_Suitability_Production 5%
Trade_off 55%
High_Suitability_Conservation 37%
No_Suitable 3%
Figure 1. Forest trade-offs management: Target areas with high potential for intensification of for-
estry practices (in brown, left side) as opposed to areas with conservation suitability potential (in
green, right side). The final map in red represents areas showing conflicts (darkest red) in terms of
trade-offs needed to balance interests of potential forest production and forest biodiversity conser-
vation targets (from Gonzalez-Redin et al. 2016).
Chapter 7 327
Well-managed forests have a high potential Gonzalez-Redin J, Luque S, Poggio L, Smith
to contribute to sustainable development R, Gimona A (2016) Spatial Bayesian be-
and to promote food security. We need then lief networks as a planning decision tool
stronger collaborative efforts to collect data for mapping ecosystem services trade-offs
and monitor trends, to raise awareness and on forested landscapes. Environmental
monitor progress towards sustainable forest Research 144 Part B: 15-26.
management. We need operational inte-
grative methods to ensure spatially explicit Luque S, Vainikainen N (2008) Habitat Qual-
mapping of complex forest ES to facilitate ity Assessment and Modelling for Biodi-
communication and planning adequate for- versity Sustainability at the Forest Land-
est management. scape Level. pp. 241-264. In: Lafortezza R,
Chen J, Sanesi G, Crow T (Eds) Patterns
and Processes in Forest landscapes: Mul-
Further reading tiple Use and Sustainable management
Part III Landscape-scale indicators and
projection models. Springer publications.
Arnold FE, van der Werf N, Rametsteiner 370 pp.
E (2014) Strengthening evidence-based
forest policy-making: linking forest mon- Kallio M, Hnninen R, Vainikainen N,
itoring with national forest programmes. Luque S (2008) Biodiversity value and
Forestry Policy and Institutions Working the optimal location of forest conservation
Paper 33. Rome, FAO. sites in Southern Finland. Ecological Eco-
nomics 67: 232-243.
Frst C, Frank S, Witt A, Koschke L, Make-
schin F (2013) Assessment of the effects of State of the Worlds Forests (SOFO) (2014)
forest land use strategies on the provision Enhancing the socioeconomic benefits
of Ecosystem Services at regional scale. from forests. FAO, Rome. E-ISBN 978-
Journal of Environmental Management, 92-5-108270.
127: 96-116.
Garca-Nieto AP, Garca-Llorente M, Ini-

esta-Arandia I, Martn-Lpez B (2013)
Mapping forest ecosystem services: from
providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosystem
Services 4: 126-138.

7.3.4. Nature protection
Petteri Vihervaara, Joachim Maes, Laura Mononen,
Constantin Cazacu & Mihai Adamescu
Biodiversity, ecosystem
functioning and ecosystem
services
Biodiversity, i.e. genetic, species and eco- delivery of ES may also improve the state
systems diversity, is at the core of ecosystem of biodiversity. Thus, the assumption is
services (ES). Their relationship is two-di- that measures which increase the extent
rectional. On the one hand, it is commonly of ecosystems through land conversion
stated that biodiversity underpins the deliv- or development of green infrastructure
ery of ES. Increasing species diversity is asso- or measures improving the quality or the
ciated with enhanced ecosystem stability and condition of ecosystems with the particu-
productivity which, in turn, supports the lar aim of increasing ES, have a spill-over
delivery of multiple ES at higher production effect on biodiversity. More species would
levels (Chapter 2.2). This is evident, for in- be able to profit from restored ecosystems
stance, in grasslands where processes such as or from new green infrastructure and this
ecosystem productivity or recycling of nutri- has a positive effect on overall biodiversity.
ents achieve higher rates if more species are There is indeed much scientific support for
present. The more species which are present the positive relationships observed between
in an ecosystem, the higher the probability biodiversity and ES.
that one of the species is very productive in
delivering particular functions and particu- However, not all evidence points in the
lar services. Similar observations are report- same direction. Some studies report nega-
ed for forests or rivers where higher species tive, no or weak correlations between bio-
richness is associated with higher potential diversity and ES. Many species are rare and
and actual service delivery (Chapter 7.3.3). most species are very rare. This log-normal
Knowing the relationship between species distribution of the relative abundance of
diversity and ES is useful for mapping ES. species is used to describe biodiversity across
If certain habitats or species are key service different levels of taxonomic organisation,
providers, it is usually sufficient to map the biomes, ecosystems or bio-geographical re-
distribution or presence of these species for gions. Only few species dominate ecosys-
mapping ES. This concept is also known as tems or ecological communities. As a con-
service providing areas (SPA; Chapter 5.2). sequence, most flows of matter and energy
It links habitats and species to the spatially are processed by a relatively small number
explicit supply of ES by assigning different of dominating species. This is very evident
roles to service providers depending on their in croplands which farmers maintain in a
contribution in the delivery of ES. particular state to maximise production by
a single species, but it is also the case in nat-
On the other hand, nature management ural systems where few species deliver most
targeted at maintaining or enhancing the of the services.
Chapter 7 329
Conservation as a management Conservation is based on intrinsic values
strategy and humans have a moral obligation to share
the planet with other species. Consequently,
conservation mapping is based on mapping
Global targets for nature protection come protected areas and nature reserves. Species
from the Aichi targets of the Convention distribution mapping and habitat mapping
on Biological Diversity. The Aichi target 11 are however important tools for support-
states that: By 2020, at least 17 per cent ing conservation. Species distribution and
of terrestrial and inland water and 10 per habitat mapping are usually based on field
cent of coastal and marine areas, especially observations which are then up-scaled for
areas of particular importance for biodiver- instance through niche modelling using en-
sity and ecosystem services, are conserved vironmental and climate data sets. The as-
through effectively and equitably managed, sumption is that species which are observed
ecologically representative and well con- under a particular set of environmental con-
nected systems of protected areas and other ditions will also occur in places which are
effective area-based conservation measures not monitored but which are characterised
and integrated into the wider landscapes by the same conditions. Some well known
and seascapes. The Natura 2000 network software packages to model species distribu-
in the European Union is one of the most tions include MAXENT and DIVA-GIS.
comprehensive nature protection networks
in the world it protects around 18 % of
land in the EU countries. It aims to protect Ecosystem service approach as a
valuable, endangered habitats and species all
over the EU. management strategy
It follows that often conservation approach- An ES-based management approach is fre-

es, which usually target rare habitats or quently based on instrumental and social val-
species, exist next to approaches based on ues. It aims to conserve ES and restore natu-
adaptive ecosystem and ES management. ral resources while, at the same time, meeting
Conservation as an approach to preserve socio-economic and cultural targets. Often it
biodiversity remains an important instru- complements conservation approaches, since
ment in environmental policies and legis- the aim is not to protect vulnerable species
lation (e.g. the Convention of Biological but rather to ensure human well-being by
Diversity, the EU Biodiversity Strategy to enhancing ES. Evidently, this requires other
2020, national legislation). Conservation mapping methods which are described in
through the delineation and management of detail in this book (Chapter 5). The impor-
protected areas remains crucially important tance of restored areas to support ES has also
since most of the available evidence suggests increased their socio-economic significance.
that biodiversity continues to decline de- Outside nature protection areas, this means,
spite global efforts to stop biodiversity loss. for instance, raising of concepts (e.g. green
Conservation targets vulnerable species and infrastructure) in land use planning to im-
habitats and protects their status by protect- prove the state of biodiversity and increased
ing land from development such as urban- ecosystem quality of the connection corridors
isation and agriculture. Climate change is between the more strictly protected areas. Ac-
shifting distributions of many species and tually, there is a need to move from the lim-
new conservation tools are needed to adapt ited conceptual framework for nature pro-
to these changes. tection which only relies on protected areas

and move beyond this, towards a connected servation values with instrumental or social
network of sites and, even more, facilitate the values or at least help to understand where
capacity of ecosystems to support ES outside conflicting cases may occur so that appro-
the protected areas. priate solutions can be found and proposed
for policy-making and management.
There is cross-fertilisation between the two
approaches of nature protection and ES Overlaying maps used for conservation with
management but sometimes they are also maps of potential and actual ES is usually a
in conflict with each other. It is not always first good approach to provide information
possible to use limited resources to preserve for nature conservation managers. Besides
protected species while improving the ca- protecting habitats and species, nature reserves
pacity of ecosystems to, for instance, store usually have high capacity to provide a whole
more carbon and contribute to climate range of ES. In particular, regulating and cul-
change mitigation. An example of land use tural ES reach high levels in conservation ar-
management in northern Finland demon- eas. In practice, ES maps can be overlaid on a
strates this dichotomy of forestry versus map with nature reserves and zonal statistics
conservation (Figure 1). Synergies between are then used to derive values for ES which
different land uses can be improved, but can be compared for selected places outside
first we need information about the effects protected areas. Such information is usually of
of different management strategies on vari- value for park managers as it can help make a
ous ES. Mapping can help to reconcile con- business case for funding proposals.
Above-ground carbon stocks

Tons of C/ha Biotope classes
No Data Shallow lakes Sparsley wooded alpine heaths
0,01 - 10,00 Underground brooks Regenerating scots pine-dominated heath forest
10,01 - 20,00 Small streams and brooks Densley wooded deciduous forest
20,01 - 30,00 Large rivers Densley wooded mixed forest
30,01 - 40,00 Open hummock-level mires Mature sparsley wooded stocs pine-dominated heath forest
40,01 - 50,00 Alpine deflation basins Border of protection area Metshallitus
LUKE
Figure 1. Forestry (upper part of maps) and conservation (below) are main land use types in northern
Finland having opposite impacts on biodiversity and ES, for instance carbon storage which needs to be
considered in management plans.
Chapter 7 331
Many researchers have also tried to compare other approaches are necessary for sustainable
maps of biodiversity with maps of ES in or- management. For example, inclusive conser-
der to find synergies and trade-offs. Obvious- vation (i.e. where priorities are directed to
ly, there are always trade-offs between biodi- protecting biodiversity with the acceptance
versity protection and, for instance, delivery of low level disturbance), profit from regu-
of especially provisioning ES, such as food lating or cultural services such as recreation.
and timber (Figure 2). Due to ES trade-offs Many of the tools described in other chapters
in land use and nature management, there such as social (Chapter 4.2) and participatory
can, at times, even be conflicts between the (Chapter 5.6.2) mapping techniques are used
two. Nature protection areas provide an im- in such cases.
portant basis for developing ES maps due to
readily available data sets which can support Besides simple overlaying different maps to
methodological improvements of mapping guide policy and management, optimisation
techniques. Areas where there is spatial con- software such as MARXAN and ZONA-
gruence between biodiversity and ES could TION are quite useful tools to assist land
receive higher priority in management plans. planning and for managers responsible for
Areas, where both biodiversity and ES are conservation, biodiversity or natural re-
low, can be considered for development of sources, such as forests or watersheds. These
more nature through green infrastructure tools allow the choice from the best of both
projects. Areas, where ES are not or nega- worlds and specifically target or select areas
tively related to biodiversity, could show that where win-win situations can be achieved.
Quantity
l
Cultura
Pr
gu lating,
ov
g, Re
ortin
isi
pp
Su
o nin
g
Forest plantation
Old grown forests

Agricultural systems
Wetlands
System complexity
Energy subsidies Maximisation of the
(energy input from transfer of high quality
energy into services services
economic system)
High production
Low consumption inside system goods
Energy needed for transformation
High transfer for human consumption
Low service providers
Figure 2. Nature protection areas offer valuable sites to study trade-offs between different ES and
natural conditions.

From policy to practice Further reading
Bridging the gap between different approach- Sandifer P, Sutton-Grier A, Ward B (2015)
es of nature conservation and adaptive man- Exploring connections among nature, bio-
agement of ecosystems to enhance their ser- diversity, ecosystem services and human
vice provision is key to biodiversity policy. A health and well-being: Opportunities to
comprehensive mapping of all ES and better enhance health and biodiversity conserva-
use of spatially explicit biodiversity data, sup- tion. Ecosystem Services 12: 1-15.
plementing species richness indicators with
abundance and functional traits, will support Tallis H, Lubchenco J (2014) Working togeth-
biodiversity policy. However, it is of equal er: A call for inclusive conservation. Na-
importance to mobilise financing to continue ture 515: 27-28. doi:10.1038/515027a.
support for conservation while investing in
ecosystem restoration and green infrastruc- Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Bode M, Rich-
ture. This requires using the best available ardson DM (2009) Spatial congruence be-
spatial data to help investments in identified tween biodiversity and ecosystem services
priorities so that they deliver multiple bene- in South Africa. Biological Conservation
fits in terms of biodiversity gains, ES, human 14: 553-562.
well-being and climate adaptation.
Maes J, Paracchini ML, Zulian G, Dunbar
Intrinsic values and instrumental values to MB, Alkemade R (2012) Synergies and
protect biodiversity and ecosystems need trade-offs between ecosystem service sup-
not be in opposition, although they do re- ply, biodiversity and habitat conservation
flect the hard choices that conservation of- status in Europe. Biological Conservation
ten faces. They can, instead, be matched to 155: 1-12.
contexts in which each one best aligns with
the values of the many audiences that we
need to engage. Mapping these values by
mapping biodiversity and ES can show what
works and what fails in conservation and
ecosystem management and thus reconcile
different stakeholders.
Chapter 7 333
7.4. Applying ecosystem service
mapping in marine areas
Nicola Beaumont, Katie Arkema, Evangelia G. Drakou,
Charly Griffiths, Tara Hooper, Camino Liquete, Lida
Teneva, Anda Ruskule & Anna-Stiina Heiskanen
Introduction
Accessibility and availability of spatially while enabling the sustainable use of marine
explicit information on marine ecosys- goods and services by present and future
tem functions and ecosystem services (ES) generations. Mapping can provide informa-
are key components for successful marine tion on integrated sustainable development
management. As the uses and users of the and conservation with positive outcomes for
marine environment increase in number ecosystems as well as people.
and variety, there is a growing need for
detailed Marine Spatial Planning (MSP), Marine and coastal ES (MCES) mapping
delineating spatial and temporal extents of is still in its infancy (see Chapter 5.7.4) al-
different resource uses and the likely inter- though several mapping studies have recently
actions of these uses, as well as impacts on been undertaken. In most cases, these studies
the ecosystem and associated ES. In Europe, focus on mapping ES stocks and potential
despite the new interest fostered by the Ma- supply. However, in a few cases, it is has been
rine Spatial Planning Directive or the Bio- attempted to associate marine ecosystems
diversity Strategy 2020, there are still very with the flow of benefits or the demand for
few initiatives for mapping marine ES at them. This chapter explores the methods and
national or regional scales. Marine ecosys- data required to undertake a mapping exer-
tem service mapping is crucial for enabling cise and how these vary depending upon the
sustainable marine resource use and is also drivers of the mapping exercise, the scale of
equally important for ensuring successful the study, the data available and the final use
marine protection through, for example, the of the mapping by stakeholders.
designation of marine protected areas. In ac-
cordance with the EU legal framework for
marine protection and planning of sea uses Drivers of mapping
(Marine Strategy framework Directive and
MSP Directive), MSP can enable the imple-
mentation of the ecosystem-based approach Mapping exercises may be driven by local
in management of human activities. This communities (Box 1), local/regional policy
means that the collective pressure of hu- and governance regimes (Box 2) or national/
man activities should be kept within levels international policy (Box 3). The aim of ES
compatible with the achievement of good mapping may simply be to understand and
environmental status and that the capaci- highlight current ES provision and to pro-
ty of marine ecosystems to respond to hu- vide a baseline for future management strat-
man-induced changes is not compromised, egies (Boxes 1 and 2), or an alternative aim

may be to produce Marine Spatial Plans to ing services. There is however a high level
enable trade-offs between different uses and of uncertainty associated with this approach
users, ensuring the balanced and sustainable and innovative methods for modelling ES
use of the coastal and marine environment are becoming more common. Surveys tend
for human benefit both nationally and across to be used to access additional information
the world (Box 3). In deriving the approach on provisioning and cultural services (Boxes
to mapping, it is essential to maintain clarity 1 and 3). If surveys are undertaken, it is ad-
in the drivers and aims of the exercise and visable that approaches which are used are
to ensure regular communication with the participatory, emphasising the design and
end users to ensure the final product is both implementation by community members
fit for purpose and readily understood. As who are also resource-users.
such, it is recommended that the aim and
methods are clearly defined from the outset
with expectations managed accordingly. Data gaps and uncertainty
Scale of mapping The lack of empirical assessment of ES and

their supporting habitats and attributes,
remains a key challenge. Low resolution
Mapping exercises can vary in scale from lo- habitat data continues to be an issue at all
cal (Box 2) to regional (Box 1) to national levels, generating generalised service provi-
(Box 3). In some cases, a mapping exercise sion maps at best (Box 3). The use of un-
may be designed to explore a single ecosys- certain underlying information reduces the
tem service whereas others may explore a confidence in mapped outputs. As such, the
host of ES (Box 2 and 3). The scope of the communication of uncertainty and confi-
ES analysis will influence methods and data dence is important in mapping ES (Chap-
requirements. Thus, the objectives, scale and ter6.3), to aid interpretation of the outputs
constraints of the analysis should be clear- by end-users (Box 2) and to ensure decisions
ly defined at the outset. ES mapping on a are made with the full knowledge of poten-
larger scale may yield results of greater un- tial uncertainty in the underlying data.
certainty than mapping on a smaller scale.
Thus, when deciding the scale of the map-
ping exercise, the end-user should be aware Stakeholder engagement
of this trade-off.
Stakeholder engagement is essential for suc-

Data availability cessful marine ES mapping, from defining
the aim and parameters of the exercise, to
providing data, context, ownership and val-
In some cases, existing data may be suffi- idation. As explored in Box 1, the combina-
cient for a particular mapping exercise (Box tion of a participatory approach along with
2); however, in other cases, new data (Box the mapping approach of provisioning and
1) or a combination of primary and second- cultural ES allows for novel, informative
ary data (Box 3) may be necessary. In da- and management-relevant maps of flow of
ta-limited contexts, practitioners often use benefits that help communities, especially
habitat type as a proxy for ES supply (Boxes those in collaborative management settings.
2 and 3), especially in the case of regulat- To ensure stakeholders are engaged effec-
Chapter 7 335
tively, it is important to establish a two way the outset and design the approach ac-
dialogue throughout the process. cordingly.
Collect and share more spatially-explic-

Conclusions it data, ideally including low resolution
data and with higher confidence levels.
Data availability is still a limiting factor
Under the present regulatory frameworks at all stages of marine ES assessments,
and the pressure to foster sustainable Blue from our understanding of the ecosys-
Growth, it is crucial to undertake more ac- tems and how they provide the ES, to
curate, policy-driven mapping of marine the final social benefits and location of
ecosystems and their services. Competing demand. Therefore national policy is
uses of marine resources should be analysed recommended to actively promote the
from a holistic perspective. ES maps should research on marine ecosystems in order
reveal the supply and demand of essential to obtain more credible data on distri-
services across sectors and scales and should bution of ES.
be co-developed and validated through iter-
ative engagement with decision-makers, key Improve accessibility to modelled infor-
stakeholders and the general public. A com- mation which is often highly technical.
bination of methods is required to carry out
MCES mapping, ranging from participatory Find ways of measuring and communi-
mapping, stakeholder surveys, field measure- cating uncertainty to stakeholders and
ments, to models. Care should be taken to end-users, as this is likely to be a signif-
ensure that the mapping exercise is well-de- icant factor in all marine ES mapping.
fined at the outset with the aims, scope and
scale agreed upon and the methods developed
accordingly. The use of proxies and models
can help to fill the data gaps until primary
data can be attained, but uncertainty associ-
ated with such data tends to be high. Key rec-
ommendations should include the following:
Be fully aware of the reasons for the

mapping exercise and active encourage-
ment of stakeholder engagement at the
start of the mapping process, including
the use of local champions, to ensure
that: i) the ES mapping is designed to
meet stakeholder, policy-maker and
practitioner needs; ii) the best available
data is collected; iii) the outputs are us-
able; iv) stakeholders can take owner-
ship of the outputs.
Clearly define the scale of mapping at

Box 1. From reef to table: Seafood security from community
fisheries, Main Hawaiian Islands.
A small Hawaiian community was interested in understanding the total biomass of their fisheries as
well as the community dependency on the ecosystem as a food source in order to promote better local
sustainable fishing practices and community management initiatives. Methods included field expert
surveys, participatory mapping and data quantification. The reason for mapping the seafood catch
benefit from Kholo Bay across the island was to understand how this bay feeds the rest of the island
and the magnitude of the food provisioning ES it provides.
This study, involving collaboration between Conservation International, University of Hawaii and the
community organisation, Hui Aloha Kholo, mapped how seafood caught in Kholo Bay travelled
across the island and fed communities near and far. The location of peoples fishing activities was not
discretely mapped, as fishing ground locations remain local knowledge and confidential. The ES which
was mapped was essentially the seafood benefit in equivalent number of meals which were generated
and also exported from Kholo Bay. The methods used included fishermens surveys upon returning to
shore and collecting data on species catch and size. Interviews with the fishermen revealed information
on the end-users of the catch in order to assess the food miles (distance between the landing area and
the place of consumption). The survey also investigated if catches were handled by the commercial
sector or through non-commercial or not-for-profit activities. This single small-scale coastal fishery can
provide more than 30,000 meals per year per square mile (2.6 km2) and represents nearly $80,000 in
landed value (Figure 1). Approximately 90 % of the catch is consumed at home or given away as part of
cultural practice. These fisheries provide a significant source of food security and economic security. The
results from this study are likely to be used by the community to propose local legislation that would
ensure a sustainable local subsistence fishery.
Figure 1. Mapping the transport of a small reef fishery harvest in Kholo Bay, Hawiian Islands, from
the land zone to place of consumption. Quantities (kg) are depicted by the size of the pie charts
which also indicate the type of transaction.
Chapter 7 337
Box 2. Mapping ES provision and associated uncertainty in the
Plymouth Sound to Fowey region, UK
In the Plymouth Sound to Fowey region, UK, local marine managers requested maps of ES to enable
understanding to be gained and communication about the current level of service provision, to provide
a baseline against which future changes could be measured and to provide information for local policies
and plans which include the Cornwall Maritime Strategy. This area comprises a range of marine habitats,
supports diverse human uses and covers 934 km2, extending 22 km offshore. A variety of ES were mapped
including carbon sequestration, water purification, fish nursery habitat, nutrient cycling, pollution immo-
bilisation and sea defence. The mapping exercise combined local knowledge, expert knowledge, habitat
data and published literature, into a series of maps using ESRI ArcGIS v10.2. As empirical assessments of
ES within the case study were lacking, the habitat type was used as a proxy for service delivery using pub-
lished literature to determine these relationships. In most cases, this resulted in a three-point qualitative
scale (low, medium, high) representing the level of each service provided by each habitat. The fish nursery
service was, however, considered in terms of the number of commercially important species utilising the
habitat in their early life stages. A confidence scale was also provided for each service, based on the quality
and quantity of the available data. Habitat data from a number of sources was used to produce habitat
maps. These maps were then combined with the ES data and confidence information, allowing the map-
ping of the level of service provision and confidence for each service.
Figure 2. A map of carbon sequestration in the Plymouth Sound to Fowey region, UK.

Box 3. Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) for the Latvian
territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone
Marine ES were mapped as an input for the Latvian national MSP. Areas significant for supply of provi-
sioning, regulating and cultural services were mapped to avoid their deterioration when allocating space
for new developments in the sea. Depending on data availability, different methodological approaches
were used. Empirical assessments and spatial data on ES supply were available only for two provisioning
services wild animals and plants, including the catch of commercially important fish species (sprat,
herring, cod, flounder) and red algae beds. The areas important for the fishery were mapped using
data from fishery logbooks and visualised by calculation of the total value of fish catch and fishing acts
within grid cells with a spatial resolution of 2.8 3 km2. The area covered by red algae beds was calcu-
lated as a percentage of area unit based on actual field data from benthic habitat surveys. The potential
supply of regulating services was mapped using benthic habitat data, expert judgement and indicators
from literature. The habitat distribution map was used as a proxy for ES supply, including regulation of
eutrophication processes, accumulation of pollutants in sediments, filtration by mussels, maintenance
of nursery habitats and carbon storage. The ES distribution was presented in both individual maps and
a summary map (Figure 3). The supply of a cultural service (tourism and recreation) was mapped using
data on recreational options and their accessibility.
The maps were a useful tool in assessing possible impacts of alternative development scenarios and
deciding on optimum locations of new uses - offshore wind farms and marine aquaculture farms. The
main limitation of the mapping approach was a lack of empirical survey data on habitat distribution,
resulting in a low certainty level of the maps on regulating ES.
Figure 3. Diversity of benthic habitat-related ES in Latvian marine waters. Legend 0-5 indicates the
sum of services identified within each grid cell.
Chapter 7 339
Further reading
Arkema K, Verutes G, Wood S, Clarke C, Mandle L, Tallis H, Sotomayor L, Vogl AL
Canto M, Rosado S, Rosenthal A, Ruck- (2015) Who loses? Tracking ecosystem ser-
elshaus M, Guannele G, Toft J, Faries J, vice redistribution from road development
Silver JM, Griffin R, Guerry AD (2015) and mitigation in the Peruvian Amazon.
Improved returns on natures benefits to Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
people from using ecosystem service mod- 13(6): 309-315.
els in marine and coastal planning in Be-
lize. Proceedings of the National Academy Tallis H, Wolny S, Lozano JS, Benitez S,
of Sciences 112 (24): 7390-7395. doi: Saenz S, Ramos A (2013) Service sheds
10.1073/pnas.1406483112. Enable Mitigation of Development Im-
pacts on Ecosystem Services. Natural
Kittinger JN, Teneva L, Koike H, Stamoulis Capital Project.
KA, Kittinger DS, Oleson KLL, Conklin
E, Gomes M, Wilcox B, Friedlander AM. Potts T, Burdon D, Jackson E, Atkins J, Saun-
From reef to table: social and ecological ders J, Hastings E, Langmead O (2014) Do
factors affecting coral reef fisheries, arti- marine protected areas deliver flows of eco-
sanal seafood supply chains and seafood system services to support human welfare?.
security. PLoS One 10(8): e0123856. doi: Marine Policy 44: 139-148.
10.1371/journal.pone.0123856.

7.5. Business and industry
La Tardieu & Neville D. Crossman
Introduction
The private sector has strong relationships many ES. As a consequence, many ES ben-
with ecosystem services (ES). Business and efits/impacts are not represented in market
industries receive benefits from ES but they prices. Land-use decisions by the private sec-
can also have major impacts on ecosystems tor tend to maximise only single objectives
and ES delivery. ES degradation can have a which may lead to a decline in other ES.
significant impact on a companys perfor-
mance in sectors such as food production, There are several arguments for ES consider-
construction, hydropower, tourism or bio- ation in company decision-making, partic-
technology. ularly given the strong interactions between
industry and ES and increasing consumer
There are very few examples of ES accounting awareness of the contribution of ecosystems
used to support business management and to well-being. Table 1 lists advantages of ac-
decision-making. It is uncommon for firms counting for ES in business decisions.
to make the link between ecosystem manage-
ment and financial performance and there is a In this chapter we show how the inclusion
general lack of understanding of the extent of of ES in business decision-making can im-
firms dependence and impact on ecosystems. prove company management and perfor-
In some cases the exclusion is due more to a mance. We also show how ES mapping
lack of guidance on how a company conducts leads to more optimal land management
such an analysis than to a lack of knowledge. decisions. We then highlight particular chal-
lenges faced in mapping ES in the private
A further complication is the public-good sector and we present some examples from
nature of ES and the absence of markets for existing applications and case studies.
Table 1. Potential advantages and disadvantages in accounting for ES in business and industry.
Potential advantages Potential disadvantages

Greening the companys Adaptation to novel
Improving ES management
image techniques
Respond to consumer Determining more cost-effective - Cost and time consuming
demand for green products investments - Adaptation of ES analysis
Produce life cycle assessment Identifying new opportunities/risks to existing tools
or environmental impact Answer to legal regulations and - Availability of data
assessment accounting for ES eventually reduce taxes or become - Uncertainty on the results
Consideration by different eligible for other financial incentives - May need the collaboration
investors and for bank loans Develop leadership in considering ES with research partners
grants New complementary tool for - May reveal commercially
Helps in demonstrating project design, enhancing project sensitive information.
corporate sustainability. acceptability by strengthening
existing approaches.
Chapter 7 341
ES mapping for business and as well as how activities from other indus-
industry tries affect their operations and profits.
Modelling and mapping ES supply, in both

By providing spatially explicit descriptions biophysical and monetary terms, assists pri-
of ES, mapping can be used to evaluate vate sector decision-makers to locate ES de-
business opportunities and to reduce risks livery hotspots or cold-spots. These types of
for companies whose operations rely on nat- maps allow a company to identify and then
ural resources and ES. take advantage of ES benefits. By modelling
scenarios of change, land use alternatives and
Mapping ES can improve decision support the synergies and trade-offs between delivery
and evaluation tools commonly used in the of ES can be assessed in order to enhance
private sector, such as environmental impact the provision or the use of multiple ES.
assessments (Box 1), lifecycle assessments, Maps and modelled ES scenarios are useful
risk assessments, cost-benefit analyses for monitoring consequences of different
(Box 2), land-use plans, or off-site mitiga- business investment strategies, improving
tion plans. Maps can be used to assess the resource management and/or determining
impacts of alternative business decisions or and locating new opportunities for business
courses of action on the location, quantity investment (e.g. identifying best locations to
and value of ES. A company can also use ES offset carbon emissions or offset biodiversity
maps to assess the direct, indirect and cu- impacts from infrastructure developments).
mulative impact of their operations on ES, Mapping can help reduce risks for companies
Box 1. Mapping ES for a transport infrastructure construction

project in France
ES maps have been used to assess ES loss caused by infrastructure construction in order to account for
it in the project evaluation tools. The analysis proved to be a powerful complementary means of com-
paring implementation options at different stages of environmental impact assessment (see Figure 1).
It allows for the consideration of impacts otherwise overlooked, but also better targeting of mitigating
measures. Further, since ES loss is expressed in monetary terms, the loss induced by the final selected
route can be integrated as a standard social cost in the cost-benefit analysis, allowing a more efficient
control of natural capital loss.
Map of ES loss in preliminary Overlay of multiple ES losses in ES loss analysis during

studies (local climate change preliminary studies implementation option
regulation service here) comparison
Figure 1. ES mapping for infrastructure construction projects (Source: Egis, AULNES , based on
Tardieu et al. 2015).

that depend on ES (e.g. mapping flood dam-
age risks for the construction sector). Box 2. Lafarge example
in the Presque Isle quarry,
Mapping ES supply can identify potential
foregone benefits (opportunity costs) in-
Michigan (Natural Capital
curred by a business decision (e.g. foregone Project, WRI and WWF)
agricultural production). Opportunity cost
maps can be used to spatially target locations Lafarge is one of the largest construction
materials companies in the world. InVEST
for investment which are most cost effective
was used to map and value two ES relevant to
(i.e. provide greatest returns for least cost). Lafarges operations on quarry sites: erosion
Locations of comparative advantage in ES control and water purification. ES mapping
supply can be identified and investment de- located areas where vegetation contributes
cisions can be made based on whether it is to sediment retention and evaluated the
better to jointly generate multiple ES in a monetary value of the service provided by
region or to specialise in one ES. This will avoiding dredging costs. It also identified areas
help companies manage trade-offs in opera- where vegetation could be grown to reduce
tions, investments and management. potential sedimentation of Lake Huron. The
assessment of the water purification service by
Mapping ES values derived from beneficia- calculating the amount of nitrogen retained
by the site has also been analysed. Subsequent
ries (in monetary or non-monetary terms),
economic valuation showed that Lafarges
such as through a participatory GIS process efforts to maintain vegetation provided a clear
(Chapter 5.6.2), can be used to identify ar- benefit by avoiding water treatment costs.
eas with ES benefits specific to economic
sectors (e.g. tourism sector). By assessing and Case study available at: http://www.wri.org/
mapping the variation of these benefits ac- sites/default/files/esrcasestudylafarge.pdf
cording to different land uses, companies can
estimate losses or gains from their operations
(See Box 2 for an illustration) and they can such as InVEST1 (Chapter 4.4), but these
target cost-effective risk adaptation or miti- tools can be difficult to implement or adapt
gation measures (e.g. determining where to to private sector activities. Partnerships
implement a fauna passageway at a new road between companies and researchers are
infrastructure development). Table 2 lists ex- becoming more common for developing
amples of the use of ES maps in business. brand-friendly toolkits (e.g. AULNES2,
EarthGenome3) or platforms for advice,
tools and techniques (e.g. Oppla4). A grow-
Particular challenges in ES ing number of initiatives to help the private
sector in realising ES benefits are available,
mapping for business and such as the Corporate Ecosystem Services
industry Review Guidelines.
Spatially-explicit ES valuation is not sim-

ple. The process requires multi-disciplinary 1
http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest/
expertise: environmental and ecological sci- 2
http://www.climatesolutionsplatform.org/solu
ence, geographic information systems and tion/aulnes
socio-economics. However there are tools 3
http://www.earthgenome.org/
that companies can access to help map ES 4
http://oppla.eu/
Chapter 7 343
Table 2. Example of ES maps of practical business relevance in different sectors.
Business sector Example of ES assessment and mapping potentially useful for the sector
Forestry Mapping wood production for forest profitability versus provision of other ES
(global climate regulation, recreation, regulation of water flows) to identify areas
with comparative advantages
Agriculture Mapping pollinators probability of presence and increase potential crop yields and
revenues
Aquaculture Assess and map different farming practices, location of farms in relation to climate
change to determine how it affects harvests
Water treatment Map pesticide diffusion and water purification performed by wetlands to minimise
by beverage contamination of watersheds and identify how to manage upstream land sustainably
producers
Hydropower Map avoided erosion to identify land areas upstream that are important for erosion
companies control and reduce the costs of removing sediment from reservoirs
Transportation Map impacts on ES of alternative routes and identify best location for mitigation
measures to increase probability of project approval
Tourism Identifying risky areas to avoid when locating businesses or identify areas with
particular recreational benefits
The major challenges can be classified into Mandle L, Bryant BP, Ruckelshaus M, Genel-
methodological and operational. The main etti D, Kiesecker JM, Pfaff A (2015) Entry
methodological challenges are: i) defining points for considering ecosystem services
and prioritising ES; ii) determining the type within infrastructure planning: how to in-
of impact of operations on ES; iii) modelling tegrate conservation with development in
and mapping multiple ES in large areas and order to aid them both. Conservation Let-
iv) dealing with the future (e.g. temporal ters 9(3): 221227
trends, discount rate, evolution of ES pric-
es). The main operational challenges are: i) Ruijs A, Kortelainen M, Wossink A, Schulp
the integration in existing evaluation tools; CJE, Alkemade R (2015) Opportunity cost
ii) the cost, time and resources required for estimation of ecosystem services. Environ-
such analysis; iii) the need for exhaustive as- mental and Resource Economics: 1-31.
sessments and precision of data for trade-offs
and iv) the balance between scientific reliabil- Tardieu L, Roussel S, Thompson JD, Labar-
ity and reproducibility. Note: Tardieu (2016) raque D, Salles J-M (2015) Combining
(reference below) should be consulted for ex- direct and indirect impacts to assess eco-
planation of these major challenges. system service loss due to infrastructure
construction. Journal of Environmental
Management 152: 145-157.
Further reading
Tardieu L (2016) Economic evaluation of
the impacts of transportation infrastruc-
Crossman ND, Bryan BA (2009) Identifying tures on ecosystem services. Chapter 6, In
cost-effective hotspots for restoring natu- Handbook on biodiversity and ecosystem
ral capital and enhancing landscape mul- services in impact assessment. In Genel-
tifunctionality. Ecological Economics 68: etti D (Ed). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
654-668. Forthcoming, 113139.

TEEB (2012) The Economics of Ecosystems services review: guidelines for identifying
and Biodiversity in Business and Enter- business risks and opportunities arising
prise. Edited by Joshua Bishop. Earthscan, from ecosystem change. World Resources
London and New York. Institute, Washington, DC.
Hanson C, Ranganathan J, Iceland C, Finis-

dore J (2012) The corporate ecosystem
Chapter 7 345
7.6. Mapping health outcomes
from ecosystem services
Hans Keune, Bram Oosterbroek, Marthe
Derkzen, Suneetha M Subramanian, Unnikrishnan
Payyappalimana, Pim Martens & Maud Huynen
Introduction ES - health mapping challenges
The practice of mapping ecosystem services When combining information about human
(ES) in relation to health outcomes is only health with information about ecological sys-
in its early developing phases. Air purifica- tems - and with social complexity which is part
tion by vegetation and the resulting avoided of social ecological and environmental health
respiratory disease burden is a health-related systems - we not only combine complex in-
ES that is currently mapped for several areas formation which is different in nature, but we
in the world (see Figure 1 for an example also combine scientific cultures containing a
in the United States). Another example is diversity of methodological approaches, data
the attenuation of ocean waves by marine and evidence. We also need to make choices:
ecosystems and the subsequent reduction in we can never fully grasp nor take into account
population at risk from flooding. The latter all potentially relevant complexity. This is not
is a health proxy as no connections are made only just a matter of choice, it also has im-
to drowning. Of course, the value of other portant consequences for the quality of our
ES is approximated through maps as well, outputs. Especially regarding the links be-
but map values are often biophysical rather tween nature and human health, the devil is
than human health related. Table 1 lists sev- in the detail: we need to take into account
eral examples. specific characteristics of nature and target
groups whose health is affected. Here we in-
troduce some specific challenges.
First, ES supply and demand often relate

to different spatial locations (Chapter 5.2).
This is specifically relevant to health-related
ES as they often benefit from close to the
supply source. Due to the spatial explicit-
ness of supply and demand, mapping is also
a proper solution for this challenge. High
resolution data are needed on, amongst
Figure 1. Estimations of the annual number of others, the location of vegetation and the
asthma exacerbation cases that may be avoided location of exposed people (e.g. places with
due to total nitrogen dioxide removed by trees a high population density). We also need to
per census block group. (Shown here is Durham,
North Carolina.) Adopted from EPAs EnviroAtlas
take into account different effects for differ-
Interactive Map. ences in vulnerability of different groups.

Table 1. Examples of direct health-related ES that are currently mapped and provide promising starting
points to assess health impacts
Mapped ecosystem service Example indicator used Prevented health outcomes

Air pollutant uptake (mass per area Respiratory diseases, cardiovascular
Air purification
unit per year) diseases, cancer
Reduced wave height, shoreline Drowning, infectious diseases,
Flood protection
erosion mental disorders, respiratory diseases
Biological control Habitat suitability (index /
of infectious categorical values, habitat presence Infectious and parasitic diseases
diseases likelihood)
Reduced noise intensity (per area
Noise reduction Hearing loss, cardiovascular diseases
unit)
Temperature reduction (per area Heat stroke, heat exhaustion, mental
Cooling
unit) disorders
Index value, relative value, monetary
Recreation / provision of Mental and behavioural disorders,
value, number of visits (per area
aesthetic values cardiovascular diseases, obesity
unit)
Availability, associated traditional
Medicinal plants and other knowledge, threat status, volume Several conditions depending on
medicinal resources of trade market value and non- species and associated knowledge
monetary value
The second challenge is that health-related ES ecosystem structure at micro scale such as
are often buffered or enhanced by socio-eco- vegetation type, height and density; dense
nomic factors. In the case of flood protection, shrubbery is effective for lowering noise lev-
the effect of flooding on human casualties els, while clean and cool air is mainly pro-
depends strongly on flood response provided by trees. Most ES maps do not yet
grammes and man-made structures to pre- incorporate such spatial and thematic detail.
vent flooding. A third challenge is the pres- Figure 2 shows a map which was built using
ence of health-related ecosystem disservices high resolution spatial data that differentiate
which are perceived as harmful, unpleasant several vegetation types. The result is that the
or unwanted. In several cases, these originate bundle of ES provided can differ substan-
in the same ecosystem types and affect the tially for districts within the same city, even
same health outcomes as their ES counter- when they are equal in terms of the surface
parts, but increase health burden. Examples area occupied by vegetation and water. Thus,
of the latter are emissions of VOC (Volatile to be able to map ES that moderate environ-
Organic Compounds), allergens and locally mental risks to health on a city scale, detailed
increasing air pollution concentrations and data of ecosystem types are needed.
the potentially dual role of biodiversity in re-
lation to infectious diseases.
ES - health mapping design
Several other challenges of mapping
health-related ES are more ES-specific. For options
recreation, quantitative epidemiological ex-
posure-response models are needed to link Health indicators are necessary to make
to health outcomes such as a reduction in health outcomes spatially explicit and to
depression. ES supply also depends on the assess health impacts. The choice of indi-
Chapter 7 347
avoided costs of hospital visits) or the num-
ber of affected people. Each comes with its
own advantages and disadvantages. For
example, mortality as an indicator would
not include the effects of several non-lethal
diseases and conditions with severe effects
on well-being, whereas DALYs make use
of disability weight factors (reflecting the
severity of the disease) which are often dif-
ficult to estimate. Additionally, some ar-
gue that such integrative health indicators
still fail to capture the full breadth of the
00 .5 12 34
complex linkages between biodiversity and
health (including social determinants and
ES supply bundle Total UGS area cultural underpinnings) and that therefore
Recreation
56 - 70 % a more holistic approach is necessary.
42 - 56 %
Cooling Carbon storage 28 - 42 % Complexity often means making difficult

14 - 28 % methodological choices on what we need to
Noise reduction 0 - 14 % take into account (and how). Hence, we also
need to critically think about the process of
Figure 2. Supply of ES bundles, aggregated methodological decision-making: who is in-
to district level in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. volved in making those choices and whose
Background colours depict total urban green and
blue space (UGS) area. knowledge, information and viewpoints are
taken into account? In Western expert cul-
ture, expert-driven mapping is still dominant.
cators and metrics depends on the specific Mapping can also relate to processes that
research objective: if focussed on a single facilitate assessment of natural and human
ES-related health outcome, then one spe- resources contributing to health and further
cific indicator can be used. Maps could strengthening them. The next section exem-
then display avoided cases of a specific dis- plifies alternative approaches that include
ease (per area unit per year), avoided in- traditional local knowledge and participatory
fectious disease outbreaks or areas where bottom-up mapping techniques relevant to
a health threshold value is exceeded (e.g. health. The focus is on participatory assess-
drinking water quality or noise intensi- ment methods and tools that identify health-
ty threshold). However, if the objective is care delivery issues amongst local commu-
more integrative, for example, to calculate nities and how these may be alleviated with
a regions total (avoided) health burden or resources from the proximate ecosystems.
to assess an areas net health effect (positive
or negative), then an aggregate health indi-
cator or common metric would give more Participatory ES - health
useful insights. Such metrics to express the
health effect of several health-related ES in mapping
a common unit are for example mortality,
life expectancy, the disability adjusted life The significance of ecosystem specific
year (DALY), a monetary value (such as plants and other resources and related lo-

cal traditional knowledge is much more ment of various disciplinary experts. Each
profound for the health and nutritional se- practice is discussed in detail, based primar-
curity of people in marginalised regions of ily on a communitys historical experience of
the world in addition to their cultural rel- the traditional knowledge practice as well as
evance. Identifying local health priorities the secondary literature on their safety and
and supplementing them with ecosystem efficacy. These are made into comprehen-
and community-specific traditional medi- sive user manuals that are used to build the
cal knowledge and resources through pri- capacities of village health workers to pop-
mary health programmes, is critical both ularise the practices. Shortlisted plants are
to ensure conservation of biodiversity and grown in nursery networks to be supplied
health security at the local level. Important for establishing home as well as community
dimensions of participatory mapping and health gardens.
prioritisation of healthcare issues at the
level of local communities are: 1) ranking Often participatory clinical cohort studies
of health challenges in a local communi- are conducted to examine efficacy of the
ty/region; 2) discourse-based mapping of selected practices from such local pharma-
traditional knowledge-based remedies for copeia. Several such participatory mapping
prioritised health challenges; 3) catalogu- and assessment of traditional knowledge
ing medicinal biological resources and programmes have been conducted across
their availability in local communities; 4) India and selected locations in Asia and
mapping various other resources such as Africa since 2008. For example, to tackle
human-, sociocultural- and economic-pro- the onset of malarial infection, community
duced resources. mapping of traditional knowledge practic-
es has been performed in endemic regions
In India, such rapid validation methodology in India. Applying the above documenta-
is applied for determining effective commu- tion and participatory rapid assessment
nity-based traditional medical knowledge methodology, several location-specific
practices. This is a rapid assessment as it prophylactic malaria remedies were select-
involves no detailed laboratory or clinical ed for cohort clinical studies in order to
studies on the efficacy of selected practices explore their efficacy. The programme has
but depends on secondary literature reviews demonstrated that significant health im-
of revealed practices. Following an exhaus- provements are possible through commu-
tive documentation and prioritisation of nity level intervention using local resources
health conditions, data obtained on local and associated knowledge.
medicinal plant resources and associated
knowledge in relation to the selected health
conditions are matched. Subsequently, a Further information
detailed compilation of the global data on
safety and efficacy of the selected remedy
is done from various phytochemical, phar- Interactive maps of health outcomes or
macological and clinical literature. It also health proxies:
includes collecting exhaustive data from EPA, Enviroatlas Interactive Map:
codified traditional medical systems of the http://www2.epa.gov/enviroatlas/enviroat-
region. Once the dossier has been prepared, las-interactive-map
a participatory assessment is conducted in Coastal Resilience mapping portal:
the respective communities with involve- http://maps.coastalresilience.org/network/
Chapter 7 349
Further reading
Derkzen ML, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg Raneesh S, Abdul H, Hariramamurthi BA
PH (2015) Quantifying urban ecosys- and Unnikrishnan PM (2008) Docu-
tem services based on high-resolution mentation and Participatory Rapid As-
data of urban green space: an assessment sessment of ethnoveterinary practices,
for Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Jour- Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge
nal of Applied Ecology 52: 1020-1032. 7(2): 360-364. http://nopr.niscair.res.in/
doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12469. bitstream/123456789/1602/1/IJTK%20
7%282%29%20360-364.pdf.
Keune H et al. (2013) Sciencepolicy chal-
lenges for biodiversity, public health and WHO World Health Organisation (2006)
urbanization: examples from Belgium, In: Ecosystems and Human well-being:
Environmental Research Letters, special Health Synthesis A report of the Millen-
issue Biodiversity, Human Health and nium Ecosystem Assessment. WHO, Ge-
Well-Being. neva. http://www.maweb.org/documents/
document.357.aspx.pdf.
Nagendrappa PB, Naik MP, Payyappallimana
U (2013) Ethnobotanical survey of malar- WHO & CBD Secretariat (2015) Connecting
ia prophylactic remedies in Odisha, India, Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human
Journal of Ethnopharmacology 146(3): Health: a State of Knowledge Review:
768-772. World Health Organisation.
Oosterbroek B, De Kraker J, Huynen MMTE

(2016) Assessing ecosystem impacts on
health: A tool review. Ecosystem Services
doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.12.008.
Pickard BR, Daniel J, Mehaffey M, Jackson

LE, Neale A (2015) EnviroAtlas: A new
geospatial tool to foster ecosystem services
science and resource management. Ecosys-

7.7. Environmental security:
Risk analysis and ecosystem
services
Adam Prtl & David Vak
Introduction
Various environmental drivers impact ecological era). Whereas agriculture has without
systems and their capacity to provide ecosys- doubt improved the quality of life, food pro-
tem services (ES). The maintenance of this duction has resulted in negative externalities
capacity influences the quality of human life leading to the degradation of ecosystems and
and society at large. In a context of envi- provision of their services (Chapter 7.3.2).
ronmental change, environmental security
is an important part of human and societal
security. For instance, climate or land cover Integrated risk analysis
changes in ecosystems impact ecosystems
and can lead to a loss of a wide range of ES,
thus undermining the environmental secu- Often a relatively simple model is used for
rity of human society. risk assessments with a single hazard focus:
Risk = hazard x vulnerability; variations are
The Millennium Project defined environ- possible depending on context and focus.
mental security as environmental viability In disaster risk science, the original pseu-
for life support, along with components do-equation has been further reworked and
that: a) prevent or remedy environmental specified by adding the exposure dimension.
damage; b) prevent or respond to environ- Hazards are not considered as disasters when
mental conflicts and c) protect the environ- they occur on, for example, a deserted island
ment due to its inherent moral value. as people nor property are affected. Vulner-
ability can be defined as a certain sensitivi-
Socio-economic and ecological sustain- ty or condition of environment, society and
ability including a high quality of life thus ecosystems to hazards which increase their
depend on protecting ES and maintaining susceptibility to the impacts. Vulnerability
their provision, because they are responsible is determined by the potential for damage or
for the supply of natural resources - includ- disruption of ecosystems and human popu-
ing water, land, energy and minerals. lations through specific sources of risk. Both
hazard and vulnerability are required to con-
Increasing societal demands has altered the stitute a disaster. Exposure is the last part of
capacity to provide ES rapidly, even at a glob- the risk which reflects the people, property or
al scale. This is notably illustrated with food ecosystems affected by hazards.
production, for which 38 % of the land is
now reserved (which also initiated the idea We applied the disaster risk approach to as-
of the so-called Anthropocene as a new geo- sess the risk for losing ES in order to map
Chapter 7 351
the areas where the actual ES provision could Further reading
be threatened by a combination of important
hazards. Hazards are related to the ecosystem Brown I, Ridder B, Alumbaugh P, Barnett C,
and consequently, to the services provision Brooks A, Duffy L et al. (2011) Climate
by their ability to impact their functioning, change risk assessment for the biodiversity
condition and quality. Consequently, the risk and ecosystem services sector. Final Report
function was adjusted by adding the indica- to Defra - UK Climate Change Risk As-
tor of ES as for the exposure - to modify the sessment 471: 51-57.
equation for this specific case: R = H x V x
ES. Thus, the risk is a function of hazard, vul- Burkhard B, Kroll F, Mller F (2009) Land-
nerability and ES (Figure 1). scapes Capacities to Provide Ecosystem
Services a Concept for Land-Cover Based
Assessments. Landscape Online 15: 1-22.
Collins TW, Grineski SE, de Lourdes Romo

Aguilar M (2009) Vulnerability to environ-
mental hazards in the Ciudad Jurez (Mex-
Hazard Vulnerability
Risk ico)El Paso (USA) metropolis: A model
for spatial risk assessment in transnational
context. Applied Geography 29: 448-461.
Faber JH, van Wensem J (2012) Elaborations

Ecosystem on the use of the ecosystem services con-
services cept for application in ecological risk as-
sessment for soils. Science of the Total En-
vironment 415: 3-8.
Figure 1. Conceptual relation of the risk of the ES
provision. Frlichov J, Vak D, Prtl A, Loukov B,
Harmkov ZV, Lorencov E (2014) In-
Some examples of these include: erosion tegrated assessment of ecosystem services
and floods can damage agriculture ecosys- in the Czech Republic. Ecosystem Services
tems and thus the provision of services; high 8: 110-117.
nitrogen deposition hampers forest ecosys-
tems; invasive species change the structure Liu X, Zhang J, Tong Z, Bao Y (2012) GIS-
and biodiversity and pollution can cause based multi-dimensional risk assessment
the failure of aquatic ecosystems. All these of the grassland fire in northern China.
different hazards can be included within the Natural Hazards 64: 381-395.
integrated multi-hazard approach.
Xie H, Wang P, Huang H (2013) Ecological
Clearly, risk drivers and their interac- risk assessment of land use change in the
tions with ecosystems are, in reality, more Poyang Lake Eco-economic Zone, China.
complex than suggested by this relatively International Journal of Environmental
simple approach. On the other hand, the Research and Public Health 10: 328-346.
multi-hazard approach can provide a quick
overview of places which need more focus Wisner B, Blaikie P, Cannon T, Davis I
and where the combination of different haz- (2004) At Risk: Natural Hazards, Peo-
ards can lead to the decline of ES delivery. ples Vulnerability and Disasters(2nd ed.)
Routledge, New York.

Box 1. Case study: Pilot risk assessment in the Czech Republic
The risk approach was used in the Czech Republic at the national level. The study aimed to assess the
risk of losing ES based on selected environmental hazards which play important roles in delivery of
ES at the national scale within the Czech Republic. The analysis was undertaken in GIS with spatial
data representing each risk component: hazards, vulnerability and ES. The hazards included erosion,
nitrogen deposition, water pollution, floods, invasive species, urbanisation and contamination (based
on mapping of old sites with brownfields, contaminated sites, long-term pollution spills, etc.). Human
population density and ecosystem fragmentation together made up the vulnerability part. For example,
high population density is linked with the highest demand for the ES providing benefits, for example,
derived from regulating services for safety and risk reduction. The other part of vulnerability - sensitiv-
ity of ecosystems to impacts from hazards - is represented by ecosystem fragmentation. ES values were
based on monetary data (Euro per ha per year) from the pilot national services assessment. All data were
standardised, unified to a common grid to enable direct calculations and overlaid to obtain a final risk
layer (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Final distribution of risk of losing ES in the Czech Republic (projection: S-JTSK / Krovak
East North).
Generally, over one third of the area was assessed with a low risk of losing ES. On the contrary, the
highest risk values were in areas with designated formal nature conservation status (National parks and
specially protected areas) showing the most valuable places at highest risk. This finding illustrates the
importance of risk mapping to find out which areas need more and integrated focus and priority to
mitigate the risk in order to maintain the high services provision.
Chapter 7 353
for impact assessment
Davide Geneletti & Lisa Mandle
Introduction
Impact assessment (IA) processes aim to During the scoping stage, ES mapping can
identify the future consequences of pro- be undertaken to select priority ES, i.e. the
posed actions to provide information for services that are most relevant for the ac-
decision-making. Different types of IA exist, tion under analysis and the socio-ecological
focusing on different topics (e.g. Environ- context. Priority services are of two types:
mental IA, Social IA, Health IA) or actions the services upon which the action depends
from individual projects to high-level policies (e.g. tourism development requiring specif-
(e.g. Regulatory IA, Policy IA, Strategic Envi- ic cultural services to be profitable) and the
ronmental Assessment). The content of IAs is services that the action will affect, positively
constantly evolving to reflect new perspectives or negatively (e.g. tourism development af-
and emerging issues and concerns. A case in fecting storm regulation provided by coast-
point is the treatment of ecosystem services al ecosystems). Successful identification of
(ES), a cross-cutting theme which is increas- priority ES requires understanding of the
ingly included in different IA types, following spatial relationship between the area affect-
the recent progress in literature and the deed by the action, the area where the ES are
velopment of guidance material. This chapter produced and the area where they are used
briefly describes the contribution of ES map- by beneficiaries. Hence, ES maps (even in a
ping to IA and presents two illustrative appli- qualitative form) represent an essential in-
cations related to Strategic Environmental As- put for this stage.
sessment of plans and Environmental Impact
Assessment of projects, respectively. During consultation, ES maps help to focus
the debate and engage stakeholders. In addi-
tion, participatory mapping exercises can be
ES mapping across IA stages performed to better characterise key features
of the local context and understand how ES
are perceived and valued by different benefi-
Even though IA processes differ widely and ciary groups (see Chapter 5.6.2). This infor-
cannot be formatted into a standard se- mation can be used to inform the subsequent
quence of activities, most IA include the fol- development of alternatives, for example, by
lowing stages (not necessarily in this order): identifying no-go areas for specific activi-
ties, suggesting priority locations for facilities
Scoping and baseline analysis or land-use conversions, etc.
Consultation
Developing alternatives Concerning the assessment of the impact of
Assessing impacts of alternatives different alternatives, spatial analysis allows
Proposing mitigations impacts to be traced to specific beneficiaries.

It provides more explicit information that The cooling capacity of existing green urban
can be incorporated into environmental and infrastructure was estimated by applying a
social management plans, as compared to spatial model tailored to the local climate
qualitative and non-spatial approaches, by conditions, based on green areas characteris-
illuminating where and how environmen- tics, such as soil cover, tree canopy and size.
tal changes are affecting benefits to people. Then, for each urban development site, the
In this way, it also enables identification of expected cooling capacity provided by the
more efficient mitigation options by bring- surrounding green infrastructures was cal-
ing together environmental and social as- culated and classified into six classes (from
pects. In addition, by allowing tracking A+ to D). This allows the sites to be ranked
of benefits to specific people or groups of according to the thermal benefit that they
people, spatially explicit analysis provides are expected to receive, as shown in Figure
the opportunity to ensure that development 1 (right side).
and any associated mitigation actions do not
lead to the creation or extension of inequal- The results show that vacant lots which
ity in service provision. should be prioritised are, in general, the
most peripheral and can be found both in
All these aspects suggest that ES mapping the northern sector part of the city (at the
can contribute to IA by reducing the like- borders of the green wedge that penetrates
lihood of plan or project delays due to un- the built spaces) and in the southern sector
foreseen impacts, reduce reputational risk to (next to the surrounding wooded slopes).
public authorities and developers from un- However, some vacant lots within the city
intended social impacts and improve overall centre also reach the highest level of ther-
outcomes of actions and mitigation. mal benefit provided by the surrounding
green infrastructure due to the proximity to
urban parks and water bodies. This applica-
An application in Strategic tion shows how ES mapping can be used to
compare alternatives and identify priority
Environmental Assessment interventions which represent typical tasks
of Strategic Environmental Assessment of
spatial and urban plans.
This section exemplifies how spatial analysis
of ES can be used to provide information
for Strategic Environmental Assessment of An application in
urban plans. Particularly, it presents part of
a case study related to the Urban Plan of the Environmental Impact
city of Trento (Italy). Amongst other things, Assessment
the plan identifies sites for residential area
development, mainly located within the In this section, we show how spatial analysis
existing urban fabric (Figure 1, left side). of ES can contribute to Environmental Im-
These sites consist of ninety-one vacant lots, pact Assessment for a proposed infrastruc-
with a surface area ranging from 1,000 to ture project, using the Peruvian portion of
5,000m2. The purpose of the analysis is to the proposed Pucallpa-Cruziero do Sul road
use ES to support the selection of priority between Peru and Brazil as a case study. We
sites. Particularly, the analysis presented here evaluate the likely impacts of the road on sev-
focuses on the climate regulation service eral ES provided to over 100 local communi-
provided by green urban infrastructures. ties (Figure 2, centre) and determine where
Chapter 7 355
Figure 1. Sites for residential areas development (red dots) identified by the urban plan of Trento (left)
and classification of the thermal benefits received by those sites (right). The first quintile include the sites
which receive the lowest benefits. Source: Modified after Geneletti et al. 2016.
restoration has the potential to mitigate these take their drinking water from places situated
ES losses (Figure 2, right side). We focus on downstream of the road or its associated de-
carbon storage for climate regulation and forestation, will experience a loss in drinking
sediment, nitrogen and phosphorous reten- water quality regulation services. Then, to
tion for drinking water quality regulation. determine where and how restoration might
mitigate these losses, we prioritise potential
The combined direct and indirect impacts restoration sites in the surrounding area. The
of the road were estimated by using a spa- prioritisation was based on the ability of res-
tially explicit land use change model. Based toration in each location to enhance carbon
on past trends, the model estimates where storage, sediment and nutrient retention and
road construction is likely to spur conversion for these functions to benefit the same popu-
of forest to agriculture in the surrounding lations affected by the road (Figure 2, right).
landscape. We then use the InVEST carbon,
sediment retention and nutrient retention The results show that population centres
models (Chapter 4.4) to estimate how these would lose between one and four ES, de-
services would change with road develop- pending on the location of the population
ment and associated deforestation, account- centre relative to the road and the projected
ing for factors such as soil, climate and land land use change, as well as the characteristics
use/land cover characteristics. We use the of the intervening landscape. Potential res-
ES models to determine which population toration sites in the south-western portion
centres were likely to be affected and which of the watershed are expected to return the
services they would lose (Figure 2, centre). greatest ES benefits to affected populations,
Changes in carbon storage affect climate reg- although complete mitigation of ES losses is
ulation services for everyone, due to circula- not possible in this case. This example shows
tion and mixing of the Earths atmosphere. In how spatial ES analysis and mapping can be
contrast, only those population centres that used as part of an Environmental Impact

Figure 2. In Peru (left), population centres around the proposed Pucallpa-Cruzeiro do Sul road are be
expected to lose climate regulation and drinking water quality regulation services (sediment, nitrogen
and phosphorous retention services) with road development and associated land use change (centre).
Potential ES mitigation areas (right) in surrounding watersheds can be prioritised by accounting for
areas where restoration is both possible and would restore ES benefits to those impacted by road
development. Source: Based on Mandle et al. 2015.
Assessment process, linking environmental Mandle L, Tallis H, Sotomayor L, Vogl AL

change from project impacts and mitigation (2015) Who loses? Tracking ecosystem ser-
options to changes in benefits to people. vice redistribution from road development
and mitigation in the Peruvian Amazon.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Further reading 13(6): 309-315.
Mandle L, Tallis H (2016) Spatial ecosystem

Geneletti D (2015) A Conceptual Approach service analysis for environmental impact
to Promote the Integration of Ecosystem assessment of projects. In Geneletti D
Services in Strategic Environmental As- (2016) (ed) Handbook on biodiversity
sessment. Journal of Environmental As- and ecosystem services in impact assess-
sessment Policy and Management 17(4): ment. Edward Elgar (Cheltenham, UK
1550035. and Northampton, MA, USA), 15-40.
Geneletti D , Zardo L, Cortinovis C (2016) Sharp R, Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD,
Promoting nature-based solutions for cli- Wood SA, Chaplin-Kramer R, Nelson E,
mate adaptation in cities through impact Ennaanay D, Wolny S et al. (2014) In-
assessment. In Geneletti D (2016) (ed) VEST Users Guide. Stanford, CA: Natu-
Handbook on biodiversity and ecosystem ral Capital Project.
services in impact assessment. Edward El-
gar (Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, UNEP (2014) Integrating ecosystem services
MA, USA), 428-552. in strategic environmental assessment: a
guide for practitioners. A report of Proe-
Landsberg F, Treweek J, Stickler NM, Venn coserv. Geneletti D. United Nations Envi-
O (2013) Weaving ecosystem services ronment Programme, Nairobi.
into impact assessment. Washington, DC
World Resource Institute.
Chapter 7 357
7.9. The ecosystem services
partnership visualisation tool
Evangelia Drakou, Louise Willemen, Neville D.
Crossman, Benjamin Burkhard, Ignacio Palomo,
Joachim Maes & Michele Conti
Introduction
Data sharing and open access to informa- their own ES assessments (e.g. the ARIES3
tion are key elements for successful spatial and InVEST4 toolkits that are widely used)
ecosystem service (ES) assessments. The and c) the combined tools, that combine
development of the Ecosystem Services functionalities of both (a) and (b), usually
Partnership Visualisation Tool (ESP-VT) focusing on a specific ES (e.g. the Hugin
emerged from the aim of the ES community OPENESS tool5 or the BioCarbon Tracker6;
(namely the ESP Thematic Working Groups see also Chapters 3.4 and 4.4) or a specific
on Mapping and Modelling1 ES) to system- ecosystem type (see Chapter 3.5).
atically organise and publish ES maps and
associated data for ES map users, the scien- Within this plurality of tools, the ESP-VT
tific community and the general public. The was built to serve as a catalogue for ES maps.
effort started in March 2013 and the alpha Within it, ES map-makers, map users and
version was released in September of the practitioners can find, access, view and share
same year. The ESP-VT was then tested by ES maps. This chapter briefly presents the
ES map-makers and practitioners and, after ESP-VT, its functions, uses and actual and
several modifications, the beta version was potential users. It describes the contribution
released in September 2015. of the ESP-VT to the ES mapping commu-
nity, highlighting the benefits of data sharing.
ESP-VT comes as a complement to a range
of already available tools and toolkits (see
Chapter 3.4) which provide researchers The Ecosystem Services
with the possibility of conducting ES as-
sessments, generating and sharing ES maps Partnership Visualisation Tool
and data. Such tools can be classified into (ESP-VT)
three broad categories: a) the data catalogue
tools, allowing users to access catalogues of The ESP-VT is an online platform available
ES assessments and obtain an overview of through esp-mapping.net that systematical-
previous research in the field (e.g. the MESP ly organises ES maps and makes them avail-
database2); b) the mapping and modelling able for the ES community.
tools, that allow users to enter their own
data in an existing platform and conduct 3
http://aries.integratedmodelling.org/
4
http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/
5
http://openness.hugin.com/gui
1
http://www.es-partnership.org/ 6
http://www.greenergy.com/Environment/biocar
2
http://marineecosystemservices.org/ bon_tracker.html

The ESP-VT consists of: a) a database where are published online after a quality control
all maps and metadata are stored and b) a check by the system administrator.
map and data viewer which is the user in-
terface. Within the ESP-VT platform, users also
have access to a user guide that allows them
The database is structured using an adapted to understand the basic functionalities of
version of the ES mapping blueprint, devel- the platform. More detailed documentation
oped in 2013 as a first attempt to create a is also provided online. An overview of the
checklist for ES maps and models. The da- tool functionalities is given in Figure 1.
tabase systematically organises the ES maps
metadata and the contextual background of ESP-VT uses and users
the ES maps (e.g. purpose of the study, focal
biomes, ES mapped). The ES data are cur-
rently organised following the TEEB classi- The ESP-VT is currently used by ES re-
fication system (see Chapter 2.4). searchers to publish and share ES maps and
associated metadata.
Within the map and data viewer, the users
can: i) search the database for available ES ES maps resulting from initiatives and proj-
maps and data; ii) view and access maps and ects such as EU MAES7 or ESMERALDA8
associated metadata within the viewer and will be published through the platform.
iii) download the maps or data of interest. ESP-VT is also planned to store and visual-
Registered users can also upload their ES
maps and associated metadata. The latter 7
8
http://esmeralda-project.eu/
a) Upload data and metadata
b) View maps and metadata
c) Search the database
d) Access the database
Figure 1. The basic components of the ESP-VT. The central figure is the ESP-VT starting page. On the
four corners, the captions of the different interfaces show the ESP-VT web component seen by the users
when they: a) upload ES maps and metadata; b) view ES maps and metadata; c) search the database
and d) access the database.
Chapter 7 359
ise maps and data published within the new b. Increased complexity of the ESP-VT as
open access data journal One Ecosystem9. new functionalities were included. The
database of the ESP-VT is populated
ESP-VT also serves as an ES map repository with ES maps by ES map-makers. Its
that allows researchers to search for relevant contribution to information-sharing is
ES mapping efforts, methodologies and data therefore based on the willingness of re-
used. In the future, with more functional- searchers to share their outputs with the
ities added to the ESP-VT, users will be able ES community of practice.
to perform spatial queries and/or analysis
within the maps stored in the database. So far, data standards on biome types and
quantification units are used to organise the
The ESP-VT is designed to go beyond be- heterogeneous data populating the ESP-
ing a tool just for the scientific community. VT. To structure ES information, ESP-VT
It can be easily used by practitioners, urban follows the TEEB classification. The com-
planners and the general public who might munity of ES researchers and practitioners
require information on how ecosystem ben- agrees that there is no one-size-fits-all ES
efits are distributed in an area of interest. classification system and that local or re-
ESP-VT is built using the principles of open gional specificities should be taken into ac-
access and data sharing, thus allowing local count. The OpenNESS glossary10 can allow
experts (upon registration) to comment and ES researchers to translate ES to other
validate the quality and accuracy of the pub- ES classification systems (see also Chapter
lished information. 2.4).
On the other hand, establishing ES stan-

Lessons learnt and future dards, populating the ESP-VT with maps
and making these ES maps accessible to all
visions under the open data sharing principles will:
a) maximise research efficiency by avoiding
The major challenges faced during the ESP- replication of errors and duplication of ef-
VT development were: a) the heterogene- forts; b) allow for self-correction within
ity among ES mapping approaches; b) in- the ES research community; c) open the
creased complexity of the ESP-VT as new door to innovation, synthesis work and fu-
functionalities were included. ture research and d) allow for inter-opera-
bility and hence free flow of information
a. The heterogeneity among ES mapping among other ES-related tools and toolkits.
approaches is an aftermath of a plurali-
ty in ES classification systems, tools and Lastly, initiatives like ESMERALDA and
methods used to produce ES maps, units One Ecosystem should boost the interest of
and visualisation methods. This is relat- the research community towards sharing in-
ed to the different purposes for which ES formation on ES maps through the ESP-VT
maps were constructed: to answer differ- platform. As more initiatives are added, the
ent questions; for different users, like ES development and impact of ES maps will
practitioners, policy makers or the gen- improve.
eral public (see Chapter 7).
http://openness.hugin.com/example/cices
10
9
http://oneecosystem.pensoft.net/

Further reading
Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S, Wil- Pagella TF, Sinclair FL (2014) Development
lemen L, Petz K, Palomo I, Drakou EG, and use of a typology of mapping tools
Martn-Lopez B, McPhearson T, Boyano- to assess their fitness for supporting man-
va K, Alkemade R, Egoh B, Dunbar MB, agement of ecosystem service provision.
Maes J (2013) A blueprint for mapping Landscape Ecology 29: 383-399.
and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosys-
Drakou EG, Crossman ND, Willemen L,

(2015) A visualisation and data-sharing
tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons
learnt, challenges and the way forward.
Chapter 7 361
Chapter 8. Conclusions
Joachim Maes & Benjamin Burkhard
Mapping ecosystem services (ES) has de- as different consulting or executive agencies
veloped over the past years into a mature which help local, regional and national gov-
scientific field. That much is clear from this ernments with all aspects of natural resource
book and other publications, research and management. ES maps are not only power-
ongoing related activities. Many researchers ful tools to communicate messages related
involved in ES mapping projects can count to land use trade-offs, but they also simply
on much attention and sessions on mapping provide the essential data which are crucial
ES during scientific conferences invariantly to mainstream biodiversity, ecosystems and
attract many participants. ES into policy and decision-making. Of
particular relevance is the ability to map ES
There are a number of good reasons why bundles or to illustrate ES trade-offs which
mapping ES has come of age. arise between competing sectors such as, for
instance, forestry and agriculture.
Firstly, different policies and, in particular,
global biodiversity policy have embraced the It must be clear that mapping ES is not a
concept of ES in their strategic planning and demand-driven activity alone. Mapping ES
development. Following the publication of addresses critical scientific questions includ-
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in ing the impact of local or regional policy
2005, different levels of government from decisions on biodiversity and ecosystems
local to global scale have then started to use not only at the actual location but also in
the concept of ES as a bridge between nature other places. Mapping ES supply, flow and
and society. However, concepts need to be demand in a spatially explicit manner can
underpinned by evidence based on sound provide essential information to understand
data and suitable methods in order to be the consequences of such decisions. Under-
relevant and reliable in the long term. This standing ecosystem conditions, including
has, for example, been made clear in the EU spatial structures, processes and their spa-
Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 which calls ex- tio-temporal interactions on different scales,
plicitly for mapping ES at national scales. ES is essential for sustainable management of
maps are recognised as tools to help policy natural resources. Further degradation of
and decision-making, to monitor implemen- natural capital and the biodiversity base will
tation of policy and decisions and to provide have significant impacts on ES supply and
baseline information against which change human well-being for todays and, especial-
or progress to targets can be assessed. ly, for future generations.
A second important reason for understand- Mapping ES is founded in geography, land-

ing the success of ES mapping is the applica- scape ecology and further related disciplines
bility of maps for different user groups. De- and it profits from the available knowledge
mand for spatially explicit ES data is spurred base and the ever-increasing importance
by conservation managers, urban and land- of open access spatial data, GIS platforms
scape planners, regional development, busi- and multi-dimensional data visualisation in
ness sectors, marine spatial planners as well our society. The potential for mapping ES
Chapter 8 363
to bring different scientific disciplines to- plied by ecosystems, not by land cover types.
gether in one framework while also reach- The ecology of boreal forests in Sweden is,
ing out to other scientific disciplines such for instance, quite different from that of a
as economy and social sciences, is one of tropical rainforest; yet these differences can
the most appealing but also challenging fade on land cover maps. Besides land cover
aspects of the ES concept. Many problems and land use, other parameters are essential
have a spatial nature. Mapping ES offers a determinants to control the flow of ES. Soil
framework for combining spatial data and properties, water availability, local species
trans-disciplinary knowledge of different diversity and climatic variability are import-
sources. More and more quantified ecolog- ant co-variables which should be considered
ical data on species, biodiversity and eco- when mapping ecosystems and thus also ES.
system processes is combined with expert Clearly, one of the challenges for the next
knowledge through participatory mapping. generation of ecosystem (service) map-mak-
It demonstrates that mapping ES embraces ers is better mapping of different ecosystem
stakeholders of different backgrounds and and habitat types.
that expert- and citizen-based values are not
ignored. This is particularly relevant for in- Uncertainty of ES maps has other sources
clusion of ES that are difficult to map into, as well. As well illustrated by the ES cascade
for example, the planning process. model, ES flow from nature to society. Map-
ping the different components which con-
The research progress of ES mapping can be stitute ES introduces errors which may be
inferred from the wide variety of methods, propagated along the ES cascade. More sci-
tools and models which have become avail- entific rigour does no harm and may come
able. Models and tools for mapping come from natural capital accounting. Several
with different complexity levels, data needs initiatives of a consistent quantification of
and uncertainties; they are available for dif- ES are ongoing. The ultimate goal is to set
ferent spatial and temporal scales and target up a system which is comparable to the sys-
different user communities. Many of these tem of economic accounts. This would re-
are illustrated in this book. quire a rigorous and validated mapping ap-
proach resulting in the regular publication
Often, all these mapping methods, tools of geo-referenced ES data. Such data need
and models share their strong dependency to be accompanied by uncertainty measures
on land cover and land use data. These data giving information about the reliability of
sets are now readily available, frequently each used variable.
for several points in time and open access
and provide a crucial data foundation for Even if questions about uncertainty are per-
mapping ES. They are used throughout this tinent and justified, this does not curtail the
book as an underlying data source to many wide application of ES maps by different
of the published maps. sectors. This book presents a great deal of
evidence for this. ES maps are being used,
Nevertheless caution is needed when using for example, in urban planning, agricul-
land cover and land use data. Errors and un- ture, forestry and nature conservation. The
certainty with respect to land cover and land business sector also adopts this approach.
use data are often unquestioned by research- A promising avenue for application of ES
ers, mainly due to their easy access and ap- mapping is related to health issues. Where-
plicability. Furthermore, ecosystems are not as monetary valuation of ES is often con-
synonymous with land cover and ES are sup- troversial, human and public health is less

so. Maps help demonstrate how ecosystems mapping research to profit from this devel-
can reduce exposure to pollutants or envi- opment. High-resolution data of land, wa-
ronmental risks such as flood hazards and ter, biodiversity and ecosystems, obtained
thereby provide tangible benefits which can from remote sensing, offer the possibility to
be well-understood by policy makers and map ecosystems in a more accurate way and
the public. Using ecosystems and ES to ad- to assess trends over time. Validation should
dress important challenges with respect to increasingly depend on the capacity of indi-
planning, resource use and public health is vidual people to monitor the environment
now coined as nature-based solutions. They and to share their observations. More work
combine innovation with sustainability and is needed to base ES maps on existing and
are based on a thorough knowledge of eco- new sources of data and to integrate these
system processes, functions and services. It maps in consistent and regularly updated
follows that ES mapping will remain an es- account systems to support decisions at dif-
sential research activity to support a sustain- ferent levels, across different sectors and in
able future. the long term.
The ongoing data revolution, driven by en- In this sense, this book is not only a synthe-
hanced earth observation techniques and sis of the state-of-the-art of ES mapping but
by the ever-increasing availability of open, it provides a comprehensive overview and
large, digital data, will be part of this future. guidance for those mapping ES themselves
There are enormous opportunities for ES or for those using ES maps.
Chapter 8 365
Glossary
Terms in this Glossary are based on different sources (as indicated); most terms were taken from
the OpenNESS project [Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Heink U, Jax K (Eds) (2016) OpenNESS
Glossary (V3.0). Grant Agreement No 308428, available from: http://www.openness-project.eu/
glossary ] and the ESMERALDA project [Potschin M, Burkhard B (2015) Glossary for Ecosys-
tem Service mapping and assessment terminology. Deliverable D1.4 EU Horizon 2020 ESMER-
ALDA Project. Grant agreement No. 642007, http://esmeralda-project.eu/documents/1/ ].
Abiotic: Referring to the physical (non-living) between the variables of the model repre-
environment, for example, temperature, sented as nodes and a set of (conditional)
moisture and light, or natural mineral probability distributions that quantify the
substances [Modified from Lincoln et al. dependence relationship [Adapted from
(1998: 1)] Kjrulff & Madsen (2013)].
Agro-ecosystem: An ecosystem, in which usu- Beneficiary: A person or group whose well-be-
ally domesticated plants and animals and ing is changed in a positive way by (in this
other life forms are managed for the pro- case) an ecosystem service.
duction of food, fibre and other materials Benefits (derived from ES): The direct and
that support human life while often also indirect outputs from ecosystems that have
providing non-material benefits. been turned into goods or experiences that
Aquaculture: Breeding and rearing of aquat- are no longer functionally connected to the
ic organisms (fish, molluscs, crustaceans systems from which they were derived. Ben-
and aquatic plants) in ponds, enclosures, efits are things that can be valued either in
or other forms of confinement in either monetary or social terms [OpenNESS].
fresh or marine waters for direct harvest Biodiversity: The variability amongst living
of the product [Adapted from MA (2005), organisms from all sources including, inter
extended by FAO yearbook Fishery and alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic
Aquaculture Statistics (2011)]. ecosystems and the ecological complexes
Assessment: The analyses and review of infor- of which they are part; this includes diver-
mation derived from research for the pur- sity within species, between species and of
pose of helping someone in a position of ecosystems. Biodiversity is a contraction of
responsibility to evaluate possible actions biological diversity [CBD].
or think about a problem. Assessment Bioenergy: Renewable energy made available
means assembling, summarising, organis- from materials derived from biological
ing, interpreting and possibly reconciling sources.
pieces of existing knowledge and commu- Biomass: The mass of living organisms in a
nicating with an appropriate person so that population, ecosystem, or spatial unit de-
they are relevant and helpful to the intelli- rived by the fixation of energy though or-
gent but inexpert decisionmaker [Parson ganic processes [Common usage and MA
(1995), taken from MAES (2014)]. (2005)].
Bayesian [Belief ] Network (BBN): A prob- Biome: The largest unit of ecological classifica-
abilistic graphical model for reasoning tion that is convenient to recognise across
under uncertainty, consisting of an acy- the entire globe. Terrestrial biomes are typ-
clic, directed graph describing a set of ically based on dominant vegetation struc-
dependence and independence properties ture (e.g. forest, grassland). Ecosystems,
Glossary 367
within a biome, function in a broadly sim- Coordinate System: It is used to define the
ilar way, although they may have very dif- positions of the mapped phenomena in
ferent species composition. For example, space. Furthermore, it acts as a key to com-
all forests share certain properties regard- bine and integrate different datasets based
ing nutrient cycling, disturbance and bio- on their location.
mass that are different from the properties Cost-Benefit Analysis: A technique designed
of grasslands. Marine biomes are typically to determine the economic feasibility of a
based on biogeochemical properties. The project or plan by quantifying its econom-
WWF biome classification is used in the ic costs and benefits [MA (2005)].
MA [MA (2005)]. Cultural Ecosystem Service (CES): All the
Biophysical Structure: The architecture of an non-material and normally non-con-
ecosystem that results from the interaction sumptive outputs of ecosystems that affect
between the abiotic, physical environment physical and mental states of people. CES
and organisms or whole biotic communi- are primarily regarded as the physical set-
ties [Modified MA (2005)]. tings, locations or situations that give rise
Biophysical Valuation: A method that derives to changes in the physical or mental states
values from measurements of the physical of people and whose characters are funda-
costs (e.g. in terms of labour, surface re- mentally dependent on living processes;
quirements, energy and material inputs) they can involve individual species, habi-
of producing given goods or a service tats and whole ecosystems [CICES].
[TEEB]. Decision-maker: A person, group or an organi-
Capacity Building: A process of strengthen- sation that has the authority or ability to de-
ing or developing human resources, insti- cide about actions of interest [MA (2005)].
tutions, organisations or networks. Also Disservice: Negative contributions of ecosys-
referred to as capacity development or tems to human well-being; undesired neg-
capacity enhancement [UK NEA (2011)]. ative effects resulting in the degeneration
Carbon Sequestration: The process of in- of ecosystem services [after OpenNESS,
creasing the carbon content of a reservoir modified TEEB].
other than the atmosphere [MA (2005)]. Ecological Process: An interaction amongst
Cartography: The art and science of represent- organisms and/or their abiotic environ-
ing geographic data by geographical means. ment [shortened from Mace et al. (2012)].
Classification System [for ES]: An organised Ecological Status: A classification of an eco-
structure for identifying and organising ES system state amongst several, well-defined
into a coherent scheme [Common usage]. value categories. [after Maes et al. (2013)].
Choropleth Map: Used to map data collected Ecosystem: Dynamic complex of plant, an-
for areal units, such as states, census areas imal and microorganisms communities
or eco-regions. Their main purpose is to and their non-living environment interact-
provide an overview of quantitative spa- ing as a functional unit. Humans may be
tial patterns across the area of interest. To an integral part of an ecosystem, although
construct a choropleth map, the data for the expression socio-ecological system
each unit is aggregated into one value. Ac- is sometimes used to denote situations
cording to their values, the areal units are in which people play a significant role,
typically grouped into classes and a colour or where the character of the ecosystem
is assigned to each class. is heavily influenced by human action.
Conservation: The protection, improvement [Modified MA (2005)].
and sustainable use of natural resources for Eco-agri-food System: An interacting com-
present and future generations. plex of ecosystems, agricultural lands, in-

frastructure and markets playing a role in health, ecosystem integrity, or implied by
growing, processing, distributing and con- the desired state of ecosystem services de-
suming food. livered by the systems. When using ecosys-
Ecosystem Accounting: The process of or- tem functioning, the emphasis should be
ganising information about natural capital on the overall performance of the system
stocks and ecosystem service flows, so that and not so much on selected processes or
the contributions that ecosystems make to purposes.
human well-being can be understood by de- Ecosystem Integrity: This is often defined as
cision-makers and any changes tracked over an environmental condition that exhibits
time. Accounts can be organised in either little or no human influence, maintaining
physical or monetary terms [OpenNESS]. the structure, function and species compo-
Ecosystem Assessment: A social process sition present, prior to, and independent of,
through which the findings of science con- human intervention [i.e. integrity is closely
cerning the causes of ecosystem change, associated with ideas of natural conditions,
their consequences for human well-be- particularly the notion of pristine wilder-
ing and management and policy options ness [after Angermeier and Karr (1994),
are brought to bear on the needs of deci- Callicott et al. (1999), Hull et al. (2003)].
sion-makers [UK NEA (2011)]. Ecosystem Process: A dynamic ecosystem
Ecosystem Capacity: Ecosystem capacity re- characteristic that is essential for the eco-
fers to the ability of a given ecosystem (or system to operate and develop. Examples
ecosystem asset) to generate a specific (set of ecosystem processes are fluxes of nutri-
of ) ecosystem service(s) in a sustainable ents and energy (production and decom-
way for the future [Based on SEEA-EEA]. position) and characteristics determining
Ecosystem Condition: The physical, chemi- population dynamics, such as seed dis-
cal and biological condition of an ecosys- persal and migration. (See also ecosystem
tem at a particular point in time. For the structure and biophysical characteristic)
purpose of mapping ES, ecosystem condi- [OpenNESS].
tion is, however, usually used as a synonym Ecosystem Properties: Attributes which char-
for ecosystem state [EEA (2016)]. acterise an ecosystem, such as its size, bio-
Ecosystem Function: The subset of the in- diversity, stability, degree of organisation,
teractions between biophysical structures as well as its functions and processes (i.e.
and ecosystem processes that underpin the the internal exchanges of materials, energy
capacity of an ecosystem to provide ecosys- and information amongst different pools)
tem services. See ecosystem capacity and [MA (2005) and UK NEA (2011)].
ecosystem condition [OpenNESS]. Ecosystem Services (ES): These are the con-
Ecosystem Functioning: The operating of an tributions of ecosystem structure and
ecosystem. Very often, there is a normative function in combination with other
component involved, insofar as ecosystem inputs to human well-being [after Bur-
functioning not only refers to (any) func- khard et al. (2012)].
tioning/performance of the system but Ecosystem State: The physical, chemical and
also to proper functioning and thus im- biological character of an ecosystem at a
plies a normative choice on what is consid- particular point in time [OpenNESS].
ered as a properly functioning ecosystem Ecosystem Structure: A static characteristic of
(operating within certain limits) [Based on an ecosystem that is measured as a stock or
Jax (2010)]. There are many ways in which volume of material or energy, or the com-
this is assessed and conceptualised, for ex- position and distribution of biophysical
ample, as good ecological status, ecosystem elements. Examples include standing crop,
Glossary 369
leaf area, percentage ground cover, species Generalisation (map): This aims to represent
composition [OpenNESS]. the ES-information on a level of detail ap-
Environmental Accounting: See term Natu- propriate for a given scale, user group and
ral Capital Accounting. use context. It is necessary in cases where
ES Bundle (supply side): A set of associated the visual density in maps is increasing too
ES that are linked to a given ecosystem and rapidly, symbols overlap or topological
that usually appear together repeatedly in conflicts become evident due to graphical
time and/or space [OpenNESS]. scaling.
ES Bundle (demand side): A set of associated Geographic Information System (GIS): A
ecosystem services that are demanded by computer-based system for the Input,
humans from ecosystem(s) [OpenNESS]. Management, Analysis and Presentation
ES Mapping: The process of creating a car- (IMAP) of spatially referenced data.
tographic representation of (quantified) Goods: The objects from ecosystems that peo-
ecosystem service indicators in geographic ple value through experience, use or con-
space and time. sumption, whether that value is expressed
ES Model: A scientific (usually comput- in economic, social or personal terms.
er-based) for quantifying various so- Note that the use of this term here goes
cio-ecological indicators of an ecosystem well beyond a narrow definition of goods
service. simply as physical items bought and sold
ES Potential: This describes the natural con- in markets and includes objects that have
tributions to ES generation. It measures no market price (e.g. outdoor recreation).
the amount of ES that can be provided The term is synonymous with benefit (as
or used in a sustainable way in a certain proposed by the UK NEA) and not with
region. This potential should be assessed service (as proposed by the MA).
over a sufficiently long period of time. Green Infrastructure (GI): A strategically
ES Supply: The provision of a service by a par- planned network of natural and semi-nat-
ticular ecosystem, irrespective of its actual ural areas with other environmental fea-
use. It can be determined for a specified tures designed and managed to deliver a
period of time (such as a year) in the pres- wide range of ES. It incorporates green
ent, past or future. spaces (or blue if aquatic ecosystems are
ES Flow: A measure for the amount of ES that concerned) and other physical features in
are actually mobilised in a specific area and terrestrial (including coastal) and marine
time. It includes a dynamic temporal di- areas. On land, GI is present in rural and
mension and conceptually links ES supply urban settings [EC (2013)].
with demand. Habitat: The physical location or type of envi-
ES Demand: The need for specific ES by ronment in which an organism or biologi-
society, particular stakeholder groups or cal population lives or occurs. Terrestrial or
individuals. It depends on several factors aquatic areas distinguished by geographical,
such as culturally-dependent desires and abiotic and biotic features, whether entirely
needs, availability of alternatives, or means natural or semi-natural. Note the Council
to fulfil these needs. It also covers prefer- of Europe definition is more specific: the
ences for specific attributes of a service and habitat of a species, or population of a spe-
relates to risk awareness. cies, is the sum of the abiotic and biotic fac-
Forestry: The science, art and practice of man- tors of the environment, whether natural or
aging and using trees, forests and their as- modified which are essential to the life and
sociated resources. reproduction of the species within its natu-
ral geographic range [MA (2005)].

Health (Human): A state of complete physi- tential user. This does not necessarily mean
cal, mental and social well-being and not that such values are independent of a valu-
merely the absence of disease or infirmi- er (i.e. values which exist per se); they may
ty. The health of a whole community or also require a (human) valuer (but this is a
population is reflected in measurements of matter of disagreement amongst philoso-
disease incidence and prevalence, age-spe- phers) [OpenNESS, adapted from various
cific death rates and life expectancy [UK sources].
NEA (2011)]. Land Cover (LC): The physical coverage of
Hemeroby: is the degree of the anthropogenic land, usually expressed in terms of vegeta-
influence on a land use (LU) or land cover tion cover or lack of it. Related to, but not
(LC) type. synonymous with, Land Use [UK NEA
Human Inputs: Encompass all anthropogen- (2011)].
ic contributions to ES generation such as Landscape: An area, as perceived by people,
land use and management (including sys- whose character is the result of the action
tem inputs such as energy, water, fertilis- and interaction of natural and/or human
er, pesticides, labour, technology, knowl- factors. The term landscape is thus de-
edge), human pressures on the system (e.g. fined as a zone or area as perceived by local
eutrophication, biodiversity loss) and pro- people or visitors, whose visual features
tection measures that modify ecosystems and character are the result of the action
and ES supply. of natural and/or cultural factors. Recog-
Human Well-Being: A state that is intrinsi- nition is given to the fact that landscapes
cally and not just instrumentally valuable evolve through time and are the result of
(or good) for a person or a societal group. natural and human activities. Landscape
In the MA, components (or drivers) of hu- should be considered as a whole - natural
man well-being have been classified into: and cultural components are taken togeth-
basic material for a good life, freedom and er, not separately [European Landscape
choice, health and bodily well-being, good Convention Article 1].
social relations, security, peace of mind Landscape metrics: Landscape metrics cap-
and spiritual experience, not precluding ture composition and configuration of
other classifications [Adapted from Alex- landscape structure in mathematical terms.
androva (2012) and MA (2005)]. Not only spatial but also temporal proper-
Impact: Negative or positive effect on in- ties of processes can be characterised by a
dividuals, society and/or environmental quantifying landscape pattern.
resources resulting from environmental Land Use (LU): The human use of a piece of
change [Modified after Harrington et al. land for a certain purpose such as irrigat-
(2010)]. ed agriculture or recreation. Influenced by,
Indicator: An indicator in policy is a metric of but not synonymous with, land cover [UK
a policy-relevant phenomenon used to set NEA (2011)].
environmental goals and evaluate their ful- Map: The main product of cartographic work
filment (cf. Heink & Kowarik, 2010). An and is the graphic representation of fea-
indicator in science is a quantifiable metric tures of an area of the Earth or of any other
which reflects a phenomenon of interest celestial body drawn to scale.
(the indicandum) [OpenNESS, modified Mapping: See term ES Mapping.
from Heink & Kowarik (2010)]. Model (scientific): A simplified representa-
Intrinsic Value: Intrinsic value is the value tion of a complex system or process includ-
something has independent of any inter- ing elements that are considered to be es-
ests attached to it by an observer or po- sential parts of what is represented. Models
Glossary 371
aim to make it easier to understand and/or Policy Maker: A person with the authority to
quantify by referring to existing and usual- influence or determine policies and prac-
ly commonly accepted knowledge [Open- tices at an international, national, regional
NESS, based partly on Wikipedia]. or local level [Modified UK NEA (2011)].
Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP): A Provisioning Ecosystem Services: Those
cartographic phenomenon associated with material and energy outputs from ecosys-
the use of data (i.e. statistical data or ob- tems that contribute to human well-being
served data) and their aggregation to geo- [Shortened from CICES].
graphical areas. The assignment of data to Public Good: A benefit where access to the
geographical areas and their boundaries do benefit cannot be restricted [Modified
not always make sense, in the context of from UK NEA (2011)].
both scale and aggregation. Pragmatics (graphics): Analyse the relation-
Monetary Valuation (for ES): The process ships between signs and their users.
whereby people express the importance or Projection (of a map): A mathematical rep-
preference they have for the ES or bene- resentation of the Earths spherical body
fits that ecosystems provide in monetary on a plain surface through mathematical
terms. See also Non-monetary valuation transformations from spherical (latitude,
[OpenNESS, modified from TEEB]. longitude) to Cartesian (x, y) coordinates.
Multifunctionality: The characteristic of eco- Regulating Ecosystem Services: All the ways
systems to simultaneously perform multi- in which ecosystems and living organisms
ple functions which may be able to provide can mediate or moderate the ambient en-
a particular ES bundle or bundles [Open- vironment so that human well-being is
NESS]. enhanced. It therefore covers the degra-
Multiple-use Management: Management of dation of wastes and toxic substances by
land or resources for more than one pur- exploiting living processes [Modified after
pose. CICES].
Natural Asset: A component of Natural Cap- Rivalry: The degree to which the use of one
ital [OpenNESS]. ES prevents other beneficiaries from using
Natural Capital: The elements of nature that it. Non-rival ES, in return, provide bene-
directly or indirectly produce value for peo- fits to one person and do not reduce the
ple, including ecosystems, species, freshwa- amount of benefits available for others
ter, land, minerals, air and oceans, as well as [after Schrter et al. (2014), Kemkes et al.
natural processes and functions. The term is (2010), Costanza (2008), Burkhard et al.
often used synonymously with natural as- (2012)].
set, but, in general, implies a specific com- Scale (spatial and temporal): The physical di-
ponent [Modified after MA (2005)]. mensions, in either space or time, of phe-
Natural Capital Accounting: A way of organ- nomena or observations. Regarding tem-
ising information about natural capital so poral aspects of ES supply and demand,
that the state and trends in natural assets can hot moments are equally as important as
be documented and assessed in a systematic spatially relevant hotspots [after Burkhard
way by decision-makers. [OpenNESS]. et al. (2013), Reid et al. (2006)].
Non-Monetary Valuation: The process Scale (on a map): Represents the ratio of the
whereby people express the importance distance between two points on the map to
or preference they have for the service or the corresponding distance on the ground.
benefits that ecosystems provide in terms Scenario: Plausible, but simplified descriptions
other than money. See Monetary Valua- of how the future may develop, based on
tion [OpenNESS]. a coherent and internally consistent set of

assumptions about key driving forces and of different forms of capital (i.e. through
relationships. Scenarios are not predictions trade-offs); strong sustainability posits that
of what will happen, but are projections of substitution of different forms of capital is
what might happen or could happen giv- seriously limited [UK NEA (2011)].
en certain assumptions about which there Synergies: Ecosystem service synergies arise
might be great uncertainty [OpenNESS, when multiple services are enhanced si-
modified from UK NEA (2011)]. multaneously [Raudsepp-Harne et al.
Semantics (graphics): The study of the rela- (2010)].
tionships between signs and symbols and Tiered Approach: A classification of available
what they are actually representing. methods according to level of detail and
Syntactic (graphics): Deals with the formal complexity with the aim of providing ad-
properties of languages and systems of vice on method choice. The provision and
symbols. integration of different tiers enables ES as-
Service Benefiting Area (SBA): Spatial unit sessments to use methods consistent with
to which an ecosystem service flow is de- their needs and resources.
livered to beneficiaries. SBAs spatially de- Trade-offs: Situations in which one ES in-
lineate groups of people who knowingly or creases and another one decreases. This
unknowingly benefit from the ecosystem may be due to simultaneous response to
service of interest. the same driver or due to actual interac-
Service Connecting Area (SCA): Connect- tions amongst ES [OpenNESS].
ing space between non-adjacent ecosystem Transdisciplinarity: A reflexive, integrative,
service-providing and service-benefiting method-driven scientific principle aim-
areas. The properties of the connecting ing at the solution or transition of socie-
space influence the transfer of the benefit. tal problems and concurrently of related
Service Providing Area (SPA): Spatial unit scientific problems by differentiating and
within which an ecosystem service is pro- integrating knowledge from various sci-
vided. This area can include animal and entific and societal bodies including local,
plant populations, abiotic components as place-based knowledge and practitioners
well as human actors. knowledge [Modified based on Lang et al.
Service Providing Unit (SPU): see Service (2012) and Turnhout et al. (2012)].
Providing Area. Travel Costs Analysis: Economic valuation
SocialEcological System (SES): Interwoven techniques that use observed costs to
and interdependent ecological and social travel to a destination and to derive de-
structures and their associated relation- mand functions for that destination [MA
ships [OpenNESS]. (2005)].
Species: A group of related organisms having Uncertainty: An expression for the degree
common characteristics. to which a condition or trend (e.g. of an
Stakeholder: Any group, organisation or indi- ecosystem) is unknown. Uncertainty can
vidual who can affect, or is affected by, the result from lack of information or from
ecosystems services [OpenNESS]. disagreement about what is known or even
Sustainability: A characteristic or state what can be known. It may have many
whereby the needs of the present and lo- types of sources, from quantifiable errors
cal population can be met without com- in the data to ambiguously defined termi-
promising the ability of future generations nology or uncertain projections of human
or populations in other locations to meet behaviour. Uncertainty can therefore be
their needs. Weak sustainability assumes represented by quantitative measures (e.g.
that needs can be met by the substitution a range of values calculated by various
Glossary 373
models) or by qualitative statements (e.g. Maltby E, Neuville A, Polasky S, Portela
reflecting the judgement of a team of ex- R, Ring I (2010) Integrating the ecologi-
perts) [Modified from UK NEA (2011)]. cal and economic dimensions in biodiver-
Urban (environment): Environmental con- sity and ecosystem service valuation. In:
dition linked to high population density, Kumar P (Ed.) TEEB Foundations, The
extent of land transformation, or a large Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversi-
energy flow from surrounding area [Open- ty: Ecological and Economic Foundations.
NESS, (after McIntyre 2000)]. Earthscan, London (Chapter 1).
Value: The worth, usefulness or importance of EC (European Commission) (2013) Green
something. Thus value can be measured by Infrastructure (GI) Enhancing Europes
the size of the well-being improvement de- Natural Capital. COM (2013) 249 final,
livered to humans through the provision of Brussels, 6.5.2013.
goods. In economics, value is always asso- Harrington R, Dawson TP, de Bello F, Feld
ciated with trade-offs, i.e. something only CK, Haslett JR, Kluvnkova-Oravsk
has (economic) value if we are willing to T, Kontogianni A, Lavorel S, Luck GW,
give up something to get or enjoy it [After Rounsevell MDA, Samways MJ, Skourtos
UK NEA (2011), Mace et al. (2012) and M, Settele J, Spangenberg JH, Vandewalle
De Groot, (2010)]. M, Zobel M, Harrison PA (2010) Ecosys-
tem services and biodiversity conservation:
concepts and a glossary. Biodiversity Con-
Glossary references servation 19: 2773-2790.
Heink U, Kowarik I (2010) What are indi-
cators? On the definition of indicators in
Alexandrova A (2012) Well-being as an object ecology and environmental planning. Eco-
of science. Philosophy of Science 79: 678- logical Indicators 10(3): 584-593.
689. Hull RB, Richert D, Seekamp E, Robertson
Angermeier PL, Karr JR (1994) Biological in- D,. Buhyoff GJ (2003) Understandings of
tegrity versus biological diversity as policy environmental quality: Ambiguities and
directives. BioScience 44(10): 690-697. values held by environmental profession-
Burkhard B, de Groot RS, Costanza R, Sep- als. Environmental Management 31: 1-13.
pelt R, Jrgensen SE, Potschin M (2012) Jax K (2010) Ecosystem functioning. Cam-
Solutions for Sustaining Natural Capital bridge University Press, Cambridge.
and Ecosystem Services. Ecological Indi- Kemkes RJ, Farley J, Koliba CJ (2010) Deter-
cators 21: 1-6. mining when payments are an effective pol-
Burkhard B, Crossman N, Nedkov S, Petz K, icy approach to ecosystem service provision.
Alkemade R (2013) Mapping and Model- Ecological Economics 69: 2069-2074.
ling Ecosystem Services for Science, Policy Kjrulff UB, Madsen A (2013) Bayesian
and Practice. Ecosystem Services 4: 1-3. Networks and Influence Diagrams: A
Callicott JB, Crowder LB, Mumford K (1999) Guide to Construction and Analysis. In-
Current Normative Concepts in Conser- formation Science and Statistics, Spring-
vation. Conservation Biology 13: 22-35 er. Available from: http://link.springer.
Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multi- com/book/10.1007/978-1-4614-5104-4/
ple classification systems are needed. Bio- page/1.
logical Conservation 141: 350-352. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher
De Groot RS, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thom-
J, Braat LC, Haines-Young R, Gowdy J, as CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in

sustainability science practice, princi- el and a case study for Telemark, Norway.
ples, and challenges. Sustainability Science Ecological Indicators 36: 539-551.
7: 25-43. Turnhout E, Bloomfield B, Hulme M, Wynne
Lincoln R, Boxshall G, Clark P (1998) A B (2012) Listen to the voices of experi-
dictionary of ecology, evolution and sys- ence. Nature 488: 454-455.
tematics Cambridge, Cambridge Univer- UK NEA (2011) The UK National Ecosystem
sity Press. Assessment. Technical Report. UNEP-WC-
MA [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment] MC, Cambridge. Available from: http://
(2005) Ecosystems and Human Wellbe- uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Default.aspx.
ing: Current State and Trends. Volume 1,
Island Press, Washington D.C.
Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH (2012) Biodi- Glossary internet sources
versity and ecosystem services: a multi-lay-
ered relationship. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 27(1): 19-26. CICES: http://cices.eu/
Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M et al. (2013) Map- ESMERALDA: http://esmeralda-project.eu/
ping and Assessment of Ecosystems and European Landscape Convention: http://
their Services. An analytical framework www.coe.int/de/web/landscape
for ecosystem assessments under action 5 FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department:
of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/en
Publications office of the European Union, MAES: http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes
Luxembourg. OpenNESS: http://www.openness-project.eu/
McIntyre NE, Knowles-Ynez K, Hope D SEEA-EEA: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/en-
(2000) Urban ecology as an interdisciplin- vaccounting/eea_project/default.asp
ary field: differences in the use of urban TEEB: http://www.teebweb.org/
between the social and natural sciences. Wikipedia: https://www.wikipedia.org/
Urban Ecosystems 4: 5-24.
OpenNESS [Potschin M, Haines-Young R,
Heink U, Jax K (Eds.)] (2016): OpenNess
Glossary (V3.0). Grant Agreement No
308428, available from: http://www.open-
ness-project.eu/glossary.
Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett
EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for
analysing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes.
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences. doi/10.1073/pnas.0907284107.
Reid WV, Berkes F, Wilbanks T, Capistrano D
(Eds.) (2006) Bridging scales and knowl-
edge systems: concepts and applications in
ecosystem assessment / Millennium Eco-
system Assessment. Island Press/World Re-
sources Institute, Washington, DC.
Schrter M, Barton DN, Remme RP, Hein L
(2014) Accounting for capacity and flow
of ecosystem services: A conceptual mod-
Glossary 375
Mapping ecosystem services delivers essential insights into the spatial
characteristics of various goods and services flows from nature to human
society. It has become a central topic of science, policy, business and society
all belonging on functioning ecosystems.
This textbook summarises the current state-of-the-art of ecosystem services

mapping, related theory and methods, different ecosystem service quantification
and modelling approaches, as well as practical applications. The book is produced
by various international experts in the field, in a professional but understandable
format to be used by stakeholders, students, teachers, practitioners and scientists
involved or interested in ecosystem services mapping.
Benjamin Burkhard is a professor for physical

geography at Leibniz Universitt Hannover,
Germany. He is doing research and teaching in
geography and landscape ecology and has been
involved in ecosystem services mapping since
many years.
Joachim Maes is a researcher at the European

Commissions Joint Research Centre in Ispra,
Italy. He is engaged in the scientific support of
EU biodiversity policy and develops maps of
ecosystem services at European scale.
ISBN 978-954-642-852-3
9 789546 428295

Mapping ES - Burkhard and Maes

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Mapping ES - Burkhard and Maes

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

edited by

Mapping Ecosystem Services

Edited by: Benjamin Burkhard, Joachim Maes

The content of the book is partially funded by the project En-

First published 2017

Printed in Bulgaria, March 2017

Chapter 2. Background ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.1. A short history of the ecosystem services concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.4. Categorisation systems: The classification challenge. . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Chapter 3. Background mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

3.1. Basics of cartography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.2. Mapping techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3.3. Map semantics and syntactics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

3.4. Tools for mapping ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

3.5. Mapping ecosystem types and conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

3.6. Landscape metrics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

3.7. Specific challenges of mapping ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Chapter 4. Ecosystem services quantification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4.1. Biophysical quantification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

4.2. Socio-cultural valuation approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

4.3. Economic quantification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

4.4. Computer modelling for ecosystem service assessment. . . . . . . . 124

4.5. Bayesian belief networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

4.6. Applying expert knowledge for ecosystem service quantification . . 142

5.1. What to map? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

5.4. Why to map?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

5.5.1. Mapping regulating ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

5.5.2. Mapping provisioning ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

5.6.1. A tiered approach for ecosystem services mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

5.6.2. Participatory GIS approaches for mapping ecosystem services. . . . 216

5.6.3. Citizen science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

5.6.4. Ecosystem services matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

5.7. Mapping ecosystem services on different scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

5.7.1. Regional ecosystem service mapping approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

5.7.2. National ecosystem service mapping approaches. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

5.7.4. Mapping marine and coastal ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

5.7.5. Spatial, temporal and thematic interactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

Chapter 6. Uncertainties of ecosystem services mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

6.1. Data and quantification issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

6.2. Problematic ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

8 Mapping Ecosystem Services

6.4. Map interpretation/end-user issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

7.1. Mapping ecosystem services in national and supra-national

7.2. Application of ecosystem services in spatial planning. . . . . . . . . . . 303

7.3.1. Mapping urban ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310

7.3.2. Ecosystem service maps in agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

7.3.3. Mapping forest ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

7.4. Applying ecosystem service mapping in marine areas. . . . . . . . . . . 332

7.5. Business and industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

7.6. Mapping health outcomes from ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . 344

7.7. Environmental security: Risk analysis and ecosystem services. . . . . 349

7.8. Mapping ecosystem services for impact assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

7.9. The ecosystem services partnership visualisation tool . . . . . . . . . . . 356

Chapte 8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

CAZACU, Constantin DERKZEN, Marthe

12 Mapping Ecosystem Services

FAGERHOLM, Nora GRT-REGAMEY, Adrienne

GRUNEWALD, Karsten HIEDERER, Roland

GUERRA, Carlos HOOPER, Tara

14 Mapping Ecosystem Services

KOPPEROINEN, Leena MAES, Joachim

KRUSE, MARION MANDLE, Lisa

16 Mapping Ecosystem Services