Mapping of ecosystem services: Missing links between purposes and procedures

Nahuelhual, Laura; Laterra, Pedro; Villarino, Sebastián Horacio; Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique; Carmona, Alejandra; Jaramillo, Amerindia; Barral, María Paula; Burgos, Néstor

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03.005

Cited by 43 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous ESS mapping studies show a low integration of stakeholders in the identification, mapping, and evaluation process (Nahuelhual et al 2015). We did not opt for a prescriptive list to acquire the ESS that stakeholders actively recall.…”

Section: Identification and Prioritizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

Meyer¹,

Schulz²

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. In forestry research, the concept of ecosystem services (ESS) is less prominent than in agricultural studies. One reason might be that multifunctional forestry and the concept of forest functions, i.e., societal demand from forest, are established and legally required planning approaches in Central Europe, e.g., in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. To explore differences in concept and perspective, we conducted a participatory stakeholder workshop to identify, score, and map ESS in an urban forest in Germany. For comparison, we used existing forest function maps. Forest function mapping as planning approach is based on a regional-scale expert assessment of forest agencies. The local ESS scoring showed a clear preference for recreation, drinking water, biodiversity, mediation of climate and water, and wood provision in decreasing order. Most stakeholder groups scored recreation highest. Drinking water was also important for most stakeholders. Recreation stakeholders scored unbalanced with an apparent focus on their own demand (Gini coefficient: 0.83). Contrastingly, forestry stakeholders scored the ESS in a balanced manner (Gini coefficient: 0.47). ESS and forest function maps highly overlapped. The stakeholders identified both synergies and trade-offs between timber and biodiversity and between drinking water and biodiversity depending on the management. Recreation has mostly trade-offs, with timber, hunting, and drinking water. The stakeholders mapped only few ESS in addition to forest functions, e.g., feed production, beekeeping, and biodiversity hotspots. Although forest functions consider most forest benefits despite weak stakeholder consultation, the opportunity to prioritize forest benefits and to analyze interactions is a clear added value of the ESS approach. The paradigm of simultaneous provision of all forest functions does not reflect heterogeneous societal preferences. The stakeholders showed a rather low level of conflict and a high level of understanding for differences in their prioritization. The reason might be the long local tradition of multiple-use forestry beginning in the late 1800s. The study area is an example for an urban forest of a larger city in Europe with high pressure from local recreation. It would be interesting to test the approach for other environmental conditions and locations of an urban forest. In general, the developed approach could be used to evaluate the quality of other planning instruments for multiple-use forestry worldwide regarding their consideration of stakeholder requirements and the potential added value of the ESS approach.

show abstract

Section: Identification and Prioritizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do ecosystem services provide an added value compared to existing forest planning approaches in Central Europe?

Meyer¹,

Schulz²

2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mapping of ES using PPGIS is a relatively new field that offers a supplemental approach to expert-driven ecosystem service mapping and modeling [7]. It has been found that a mismatch can occur between the purpose of mapping and its use within decision making [44]. On the other hand, it is claimed that there is a strong demand for approaches that are able to involve local governance networks and thereby move ecosystem services research away from static mapping and evaluation approaches [45].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On one side, CES are consistently recognized as important, necessary, and vital contributors to human wellbeing [54], while, on the other side, there are few policies specifically in place to maintain CES [55,56] and thus CES have a limited incidence in decision-making. By enhancing the reliability of maps for decision-making it would be possible to overcome the common lack of consistency between procedures and assessment purposes [43,44,57]. Despite methodological challenges, cultural services mapping assessments have many promising potential uses and therefore should be pushed ahead as indispensable elements in the management and protection of landscapes [19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Citizen Perception and Park Management in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy)

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem services may be underestimated, and consequently threatened, when land-use planning and management decisions are based on inadequate information. Unfortunately, most of the studies aimed to evaluate and map cultural ecosystem services (CES) are not used for actual decision support therefore there is a gap in the literature about its use in practice. This study aimed to reduce this gap by: (i) mapping CES perceived by city park users through participatory mapping (PPGIS); (ii) mapping CES arising from park management (management perception); (iii) comparing citizens and park management perception to identify matches or mismatches; and (iv) discussing the utility of the data acquired and the methodology proposed to inform urban planning. The methodology presented in this study resulted in data directly informative for urban planning. It provided spatially explicit data about perceived cultural services of the park as well as information about the matching or mismatching patterns about cultural services provision comparing the users' view with the management dimension. This research demonstrated a way to use the potential of ES mapping to inform urban planning and explored the local management demand for CES mapping, showing this to be a valuable tool for effective integration into actual decision making.

show abstract

“…Entre los retos a los que se enfrenta el enfoque de SE se destacan: a) la comprensión profunda y holista de las contribuciones más intangibles al bienestar humano (i.e., servicios culturales [Chan et al 2012[Chan et al , 2016van Riper et al 2017]), b) la representación espacial del suministro y consumo de SE por parte de diferentes actores sociales con el fin de informar políticas de manejo y planificación del territorio (Crossman et al 2013;Laterra and Nahuelhual 2015;Martínez-Harms and Balvanera 2012;Nahuelhual et al 2015;Tallis and Polasky 2009;Viglizzo et al 2012), c) el análisis de los sistemas de gobernanza que favorecen la internalización del enfoque de SE a las políticas públicas, la gestión sustentable de los SE y la distribución justa y equitativa de sus beneficios entre diferentes actores sociales (Bennett et al 2015;Daw et al 2011;Fisher et http://doi.org/10.25260/EA.17.27.1.1.611 al. 2014), y d) las prácticas y tecnologías de manejo para promover la biodiversidad y los SE (Dale and Polasky 2007;Garibaldi et al 2017;Kremen and Miles 2012).…”

Section: Sección Especialunclassified