A critical assessment of available ecosystem services data according to the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services framework

Abstract

The last decade has seen a proliferation of studies describing the benefits people accrue from natural processes by translation of spatially explicit land use and landcover data to ecosystem service provision. Yet, critical assessment of systemic bias resulting from reliance on land use and landcover data is limited. Here, we evaluate an extensive collection of ecosystem service‐related data based on land use and landcover according to a broadly applicable ecosystem service framework—Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS). In this framework, ecosystems are viewed from the perspective of a comprehensive set of beneficiaries and the biophysical features directly relevant to each. In this examination, we create a database identifying over 14,000 linkages between 255 data layers from EnviroAtlas and FEGS beneficiaries. Through these linkages, we identify major gaps in beneficiary identification and systemic biases resulting from the utilization of translations from land use and landcover data. Importantly, we find that for many beneficiaries there is an absence of data on FEGS at extensive scales in the United States. We provide a roadmap for the integration of extant ecosystem service research efforts using the FEGS classification scheme and critically appraise this scheme, highlighting inconsistent specification among beneficiary categories and environmental classes. We also explore the benefits of crosswalking different ecosystem service data and frameworks for researchers, by reducing the otherwise high buy‐in cost of data exploration, and for data developers, by increasing the exposure of their work.

Pollination Potential in Portugal: Leveraging an Ecosystem Service for Sustainable Agricultural Productivity

“…In Portugal the measured distribution of tons of crop production in the country is almost equally distributed between known dependency (34.2%), non-dependency (33.4%) and unknown dependency on pollinators [32] With more than a third (and potentially up to two thirds) of the production weight relying on pollinators, there is a large economic incentive for agro-farmers, the primary beneficiary of pollinator services [33], to incorporate pollination ecosystem services into their practices and protect these resources. Further, secondary beneficiaries-such as consumers of more nutrient dense crops or governments receiving greater tax revenues-will experience positive effects from the products of these measures as well.…”

Who Benefits from National Estuaries? Applying the FEGS Classification System to Identify Ecosystem Services and their Beneficiaries

“…This study did not take the additional step of identifying or recommending how FEGS could being measured. Indeed, biophysical measures of ecosystem services with direct relevance to beneficiaries are broadly lacking [35]. However, efforts are underway to identify and recommend FEGS metrics for different ecosystems (e.g., [36]).…”

Rapid Benefit Indicator Tools

“…There are many tools and metrics available to measure the functioning of ecological systems or their ability to produce ecosystem services, although these do not always measure the endpoints that are most appropriate for evaluating changes in human well-being. For example, there is often a bias towards, or over-reliance on, land use and land cover data (Tashier and Ringold 2019). Simply measuring an ecosystem's ability to produce goods and services does not provide evidence that those goods and services are used or enjoyed by people.…”