From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Ecosystem services mapping and modeling has focused more on supply than demand, until recently. Whereas the potential provision of economic benefits from ecosystems to people is often quantified through ecological production functions, the use of and demand for ecosystem services has received less attention, as have the spatial flows of services from ecosystems to people. However, new modeling approaches that map and quantify service-specific sources (ecosystem capacity to provide a service), sinks (biophysical or anthropogenic features that deplete or alter service flows), users (user locations and level of demand), and spatial flows can provide a more complete understanding of ecosystem services. Through a case study in Puget Sound, Washington State, USA, we quantify and differentiate between the theoretical or in situ provision of services, i.e., ecosystems' capacity to supply services, and their actual provision when accounting for the location of beneficiaries and the spatial connections that mediate service flows between people and ecosystems. Our analysis includes five ecosystem services: carbon sequestration and storage, riverine flood regulation, sediment regulation for reservoirs, open space proximity, and scenic viewsheds. Each ecosystem service is characterized by different beneficiary groups and means of service flow. Using the ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) methodology we map service supply, demand, and flow, extending on simpler approaches used by past studies to map service provision and use. With the exception of the carbon sequestration service, regions that actually provided services to people, i.e., connected to beneficiaries via flow paths, amounted to 16-66% of those theoretically capable of supplying services, i.e., all ecosystems across the landscape. These results offer a more complete understanding of the spatial dynamics of ecosystem services and their effects, and may provide a sounder basis for economic valuation and policy applications than studies that consider only theoretical service provision and/or use.

Integrating Ecosystem and Urban Services in Policy-Making at the Local Scale: The SOFA Framework

“…The literature about mapping of ESs (see, e.g., [30][31][32][33]) suggested that an effective operationalization of ES flows is difficult to achieve. This is because commonly, no distinction is made between the flow of the service and the action required by the beneficiary to benefit from the service.…”

“…In the latter, pollination can be defined as an intermediate service, while the production of fresh fruit is a final service. If the focus is on landscape livability, it is important to work on final services and not on intermediate ones, as the selection of final services makes possible the quantification and spatial identification of the service users [33,39] that are located in the URs and comprise a key element to quantify livability.…”

Disentangling trade-offs and synergies around ecosystem services with the influence network framework: illustration from a consultative process over the French Alps

“…To date, much more work has addressed ecological dimensions than social dimensions (Bagstad et al 2014), yet both need more balanced treatment (Spangenberg et al 2014, Bennett et al 2015.…”

“…Furthermore, acknowledging the necessity of taking into account social components, some have integrated demand into trade-off assessments for a single ES, e.g., pollination (Schulp et al 2014), or for multiple ES (García-Nieto et al 2013, Hauck et al 2013, Palomo et al 2013. Finally, ES use of facets has been considered to characterize the (mis)matches between supply and demand (Bagstad et al 2014, Van der Biest et al 2014). However, although ES facets are part of the many criteria proposed to characterize and classify trade-offs and synergies between ES (Mouchet et al 2014, Van der Biest et al 2014), most assessments have been carried out irrespective of the distinction between ES facets.…”

“…To characterize their pivotal function, authors have itemized the different facets constitutive of individual ES with the motivation that their joint consideration could support a more integrative approach of the multiple relationships between ES and social-ecological systems (Burkhard et al 2012, Villamagna et al 2013, Bagstad et al 2014. Given current lack of consensus on terminology, reviewed by Villamagna et al (2013) and Geijzendorffer et al (2015)), the three facets will be hereafter referred to as ES potential supply, demand, and use.…”