A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward

Abstract

a b s t r a c tA plurality in methods, models, terminologies is used to assess, quantify, map and communicate ecosystem services (ES). The Thematic Working Groups on Mapping (TWG4) and Modeling ES (TWG5) of the Ecosystem Service Partnership (ESP), recent literature and expert workshops, have highlighted the need for developing a platform that systematically organizes, visualizes and shares ES maps and related information. This led to the development of the Ecosystem Services Partnership Visualization Tool (ESP-VT), an open-access interactive platform that hosts a catalogue of ES maps with information on indicators, models and used data. Users can upload or download ES maps and associated information. ESP-VT aims at increasing transparency in ES mapping approaches to facilitate the flow of information within the ES community from academics to policy-makers and practitioners. Populating the ESP-VT with ES maps from different geographic locations, across different spatial scales, using different models and with various purposes, leads to a diverse and heterogeneous ES map library. The scientific community has not yet agreed on standards for ES terminology, methodologies and maps. However we do believe that populating and using the ESP-VT can set a basis for developing such standards and serve towards achieving interoperability among the varying ES related tools.

Dual Value System and its assessment scheme for understanding and valuing ecosystem services

“…So, following the unit value based approach, one should value the 2011 ES using the 2011 unit values (Costanza et al, 2014), value the 2050 ES using the 2050 unit values (Kubiszewski et al, 2017), rather than value the 2011 ES using the 1997 unit values (Costanza et al, 2014), value the 2050 ES using the 2011 unit values (Kubiszewski et al, 2017). However, re-estimating all unit values is a heavy work, especially, considering the non-linearity in ecosystem services (Barbier et al, 2008; Koch et al, 2009) and the spatial heterogeneity of unit values (de Groot et al, 2012; Crossman et al, 2013; Drakou et al, 2015). In the primary data based approach, the difficulty for accurately valuing each individual ES is remained (Guo et al, 2001; Dai et al, 2016), although there are some technique innovations in recent years (Coscieme et al, 2014).…”

Practical solutions for bottlenecks in ecosystem services mapping

“…Researchers have attempted to solve communication bottlenecks through communities of practice and sharing platforms for ES such as the ESP Visualisation tool (Drakou et al 2015) (http://esp-mapping.net/Home/), the ECOPLAN Monitor (http://www. ecosysteemdiensten.be) and OPPLA (http://www.oppla.eu/).…”

Editorial: Best practices for mapping ecosystem services

“…Transparent and exchangeable ES mapping approaches are challenged by the lack of consistent ES nomenclature which serves as a basis to formulate data standards for ES maps and relevant information (Drakou et al, 2015). Brown and Fagerholm (2015) conclude in their review of PPGIS/PGIS approaches that mapping of ecosystem services would benefit from experimental design and research controls allowing for the systematic comparison of outcomes using alternative operational definitions, mapping approaches at different map scales and with different sampling designs.…”

“…This should minimize inadequate use or misinterpretation of ES maps. Drakou et al (2015) present the Ecosystem Services Partnership Visualization Tool (ESP-VT; http://esp-mapping.net/), an open-access interactive platform that provides a systematic organization, visualization and sharing of ES maps and related information. The tool aims to increase transparency in ES mapping approaches, to facilitate the flow of information within the ES community, and between researchers, policy-makers and practitioners.…”

“…Drakou et al (2015) General decision making support, peer-learning scientists NA Online sharing of maps in GIS format. Drakou et al (2015) General decision making support, peer-learning NA…”