IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v295y2015icp75-87.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of ecosystem integrity and service gradients across Europe using the LTER Europe network

Author

Listed:
  • Stoll, Stefan
  • Frenzel, Mark
  • Burkhard, Benjamin
  • Adamescu, Mihai
  • Augustaitis, Algirdas
  • Baeßler, Cornelia
  • Bonet, Francisco J.
  • Carranza, Maria Laura
  • Cazacu, Constantin
  • Cosor, Georgia L.
  • Díaz-Delgado, Ricardo
  • Grandin, Ulf
  • Haase, Peter
  • Hämäläinen, Heikki
  • Loke, Rob
  • Müller, Jörg
  • Stanisci, Angela
  • Staszewski, Tomasz
  • Müller, Felix

Abstract

Better integration of knowledge from ecological, social and economic science is necessary to advance the understanding and modelling of socio-ecological systems. To model ecosystem integrity (EI) and ecosystem services (ES) at the landscape scale, assessment matrices are commonly used. These matrices assign capacities to provide different services to different land cover types. We revised such an existing matrix and examined the regional heterogeneity in EI and ES provision in Europe and searched for spatial gradients in their provision to elucidate their suitability for large-scale EI and ES mapping in Europe. Overall, 28 sites belonging to the Long-Term Ecological Research network in Europe participated in this study, covering a longitudinal gradient from Spain to Bulgaria and a latitudinal gradient from Italy to Sweden. As a primary outcome, an improved and consolidated EI and ES matrix was achieved with 17.5% of all matrix fields updated. For the first time, this new matrix also contains measures of uncertainty for each entry. EI and ES provision assessments were more variable for natural and semi-natural than for more anthropogenically dominated land cover classes. Among the main types of EI and ES, cultural service provision was rated most heterogeneously in Europe, while abiotic provisioning services were more constant. Longitudinal and latitudinal EI and ES gradients were mostly detected in natural and semi-natural land cover types where temperature and precipitation are major drivers. In anthropogenically determined systems in which cultural services play a dominant role, temperature and precipitation gradients were less important. Our results suggest that this matrix approach to assess EI and ES provision principally works on broad spatial scales; however, local assessments for natural systems seem to be less generalizable than assessments from anthropogenically determined systems. Provisioning and regulating services are more generalizable than cultural services. Particularly in natural and semi-natural systems, spatial gradients need to be considered. We discuss uncertainties associated with this matrix-based EI and ES assessment approach and suggest that future large-scale studies should include additional land cover information and ecosystem disservices and may determine ES fluxes by differentiating between ES provision and consumption.

Suggested Citation

  • Stoll, Stefan & Frenzel, Mark & Burkhard, Benjamin & Adamescu, Mihai & Augustaitis, Algirdas & Baeßler, Cornelia & Bonet, Francisco J. & Carranza, Maria Laura & Cazacu, Constantin & Cosor, Georgia L. , 2015. "Assessment of ecosystem integrity and service gradients across Europe using the LTER Europe network," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 75-87.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:295:y:2015:i:c:p:75-87
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.06.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014003019
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.06.019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhang, Biao & Li, Wenhua & Xie, Gaodi, 2010. "Ecosystem services research in China: Progress and perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1389-1395, May.
    2. Maes, Joachim & Egoh, Benis & Willemen, Louise & Liquete, Camino & Vihervaara, Petteri & Schägner, Jan Philipp & Grizzetti, Bruna & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Notte, Alessandra La & Zulian, Grazia & Bour, 2012. "Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 31-39.
    3. Johnston, Robert J. & Segerson, Kathleen & Schultz, Eric T. & Besedin, Elena Y. & Ramachandran, Mahesh, 2011. "Indices of biotic integrity in stated preference valuation of aquatic ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1946-1956, September.
    4. Egoh, Benis & Rouget, Mathieu & Reyers, Belinda & Knight, Andrew T. & Cowling, Richard M. & van Jaarsveld, Albert S. & Welz, Adam, 2007. "Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 714-721, September.
    5. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    6. Palomo, Ignacio & Martín-López, Berta & Potschin, Marion & Haines-Young, Roy & Montes, Carlos, 2013. "National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 104-116.
    7. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    8. An, Li, 2012. "Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: Review of agent-based models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 25-36.
    9. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    10. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 40-50.
    11. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shaokang Fu & Lin Zhao & Zhi Qiao & Tong Sun & Meng Sun & Yuying Hao & Siyu Hu & Yanchang Zhang, 2021. "Development of Ecosystem Health Assessment (EHA) and Application Method: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    3. Jarmila Makovníková & Stanislav Kološta & Filip Flaška & Boris Pálka, 2023. "Potential of Regulating Ecosystem Services in Relation to Natural Capital in Model Regions of Slovakia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Yi Shang & Dongyan Wang & Shuhan Liu & Hong Li, 2022. "Spatial-Temporal Variation and Mechanisms Causing Spatial Differentiation of Ecosystem Services in Ecologically Fragile Regions Based on Value Evaluation: A Case Study of Western Jilin, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, April.
    5. Arosa, M.L. & Bastos, R. & Cabral, J.A. & Freitas, H. & Costa, S.R. & Santos, M., 2017. "Long-term sustainability of cork oak agro-forests in the Iberian Peninsula: A model-based approach aimed at supporting the best management options for the montado conservation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 343(C), pages 68-79.
    6. Peng, Jian & Wang, Xiaoyu & Liu, Yanxu & Zhao, Yan & Xu, Zihan & Zhao, Mingyue & Qiu, Sijing & Wu, Jiansheng, 2020. "Urbanization impact on the supply-demand budget of ecosystem services: Decoupling analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    7. Na Zhang & Xianghui Zhao & Tao Liu & Ming Lei & Cui Wang & Yikun Wang, 2019. "Layout Planning of Highway Transportation Environment Monitoring Network: The Case of Xinjiang, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, December.
    8. Marion Mehring & Uwe Zajonz & Diana Hummel, 2017. "Social-Ecological Dynamics of Ecosystem Services: Livelihoods and the Functional Relation between Ecosystem Service Supply and Demand—Evidence from Socotra Archipelago, Yemen and the Sahel Region, Wes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-15, June.
    9. Zahra Mokhtari & Shahindokht Barghjelveh & Romina Sayahnia & Salman Qureshi & Alessio Russo, 2022. "Dynamic and Heterogeneity of Urban Heat Island: A Theoretical Framework in the Context of Urban Ecology," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-17, July.
    10. Vaz, Ana S. & Kueffer, Christoph & Kull, Christian A. & Richardson, David M. & Vicente, Joana R. & Kühn, Ingolf & Schröter, Matthias & Hauck, Jennifer & Bonn, Aletta & Honrado, João P., 2017. "Integrating ecosystem services and disservices: insights from plant invasions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 94-107.
    11. Tasser, Erich & Schirpke, Uta & Zoderer, Brenda Maria & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2020. "Towards an integrative assessment of land-use type values from the perspective of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    12. Tao, Yu & Wang, Hongning & Ou, Weixin & Guo, Jie, 2018. "A land-cover-based approach to assessing ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics in the rapidly urbanizing Yangtze River Delta region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 250-258.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. van den Belt, Marjan & Blake, Daniella, 2014. "Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 115-132.
    2. Danley, Brian & Widmark, Camilla, 2016. "Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 132-138.
    3. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    4. Chang Zhao & Heather A Sander, 2015. "Quantifying and Mapping the Supply of and Demand for Carbon Storage and Sequestration Service from Urban Trees," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-31, August.
    5. Maria Giulia Cantiani & Clemens Geitner & Christine Haida & Federica Maino & Clara Tattoni & Daniele Vettorato & Marco Ciolli, 2016. "Balancing Economic Development and Environmental Conservation for a New Governance of Alpine Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-19, August.
    6. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    7. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    8. Aevermann Tim & Schmude Jürgen, 2015. "Quantification and monetary valuation of urban ecosystem services in Munich, Germany," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 59(3), pages 188-200, December.
    9. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    10. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    11. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    12. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    13. Dardonville, Manon & Legrand, Baptiste & Clivot, Hugues & Bernardin, Claire & Bockstaller, Christian & Therond, Olivier, 2022. "Assessment of ecosystem services and natural capital dynamics in agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    14. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey & Bettina Weibel & Kenneth J Bagstad & Marika Ferrari & Davide Geneletti & Hermann Klug & Uta Schirpke & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2014. "On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-26, December.
    15. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    16. McInnes, R.J. & Everard, M., 2017. "Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES): An example from Colombo, Sri Lanka," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 89-105.
    17. Maia de Souza, Danielle & Lopes, Gabriela Russo & Hansson, Julia & Hansen, Karin, 2018. "Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: A synthesis of knowledge and recommendations for biofuels," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 200-210.
    18. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    19. Yamaguchi, Rintaro & Shah, Payal, 2020. "Spatial discounting of ecosystem services," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    20. Xiaoli Geng & Xinsheng Wang & Haiming Yan & Qian Zhang & Gui Jin, 2014. "Land Use/Land Cover Change Induced Impacts on Water Supply Service in the Upper Reach of Heihe River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:295:y:2015:i:c:p:75-87. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.