Mapping ecosystem services bundles in a heterogeneous mountain region

Abstract

Recent institutional and policy frameworks prescribe the incorporation of ecosystem services (ES) into land use management and planning, favouring co-production of ES assessments by stakeholders, land planners and scientists. Incorporating ES into land management and planning requires models to map and analyze ES. Also, because ES do not vary independently, many operational issues ultimately relate to the mitigation of ES trade-offs, so that multiple ES and their interactions need to be considered. Using a highly accurate LULC database for the Grenoble urban region (French Alps), we mapped twelve ES using a range of models of varied complexity. A specific, fine-grained (less than 1 ha) LULC database at regional scale (4450 km²) added great spatial precision in individual ES models, in spite of limits of the typological resolution for forests and semi-natural areas. We analysed ES bundles within three different socio-ecosystems and associated landscape types (periurban, rural and forest areas). Such type-specific bundles highlighted distinctive ES trade-offs and synergies for each landscape. Advanced approaches combining remote sensing, targeted field data collection and expert knowledge from scientists and stakeholders are expected to provide the significant progress that is now required to support the reduction of trade-offs and enhance synergies between management objectives.

Assessment of spatial variability of multiple ecosystem services in grasslands of different intensities

“…This is of fundamental importance since most of the European agricultural policies focus on the management of plots i.e., our grassland categories and not the management of landscapes or ecosystems. In line with Vannier et al (2019), we argue that understanding ES associations beyond broad land-use or land-cover classes is key in gaining information for environmental management.…”

Nature and People in the Andes, East African Mountains, European Alps, and Hindu Kush Himalaya: Current Research and Future Directions

“…We call for the use of comprehensive conceptual frameworks such as the one of IPBES (Díaz et al 2015) to improve interdisciplinary research and for the codesign of knowledge with stakeholders and actors engaged at the nexus between nature and people in mountains (eg Grêt-Regamey et al 2013Vannier et al 2019).…”

A Review of Changes in Mountain Land Use and Ecosystem Services: From Theory to Practice

“…Great attention has been drawn to developing methods and indicators as well as to mapping approaches that can help quantify ecosystem services, their trade-offs or bundles [35,43,84,89,90,[92][93][94][95][96][97]. For example, Haines-Young et al (2012) study the relationships between land use/land cover and ecosystem services and the impacts of different drivers of change through the development of different scenarios.…”