IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v73y2025ics221204162500018x.html

Uncertainties in ecosystem services assessments and their implications for decision support – A semi-systematic literature review

Author

Listed:
  • Walther, Franziska
  • Barton, David N.
  • Schwaab, Jonas
  • Kato-Huerta, Jarumi
  • Immerzeel, Bart
  • Adamescu, Mihai
  • Andersen, Erling
  • Arámbula Coyote, Martha Verónica
  • Arany, Ildikó
  • Balzan, Mario
  • Bruggeman, Adriana
  • Carvalho-Santos, Claudia
  • Cazacu, Constantin
  • Geneletti, Davide
  • Giuca, Relu
  • Inácio, Miguel
  • Lagabrielle, Erwann
  • Lange, Sabine
  • Clec’h, Solen Le
  • Vanessa Lim, Zhi Yi
  • Mörtberg, Ulla
  • Nedkov, Stoyan
  • Portela, Ana Paula
  • Porucznik, Anna
  • Racoviceanu, Tudor
  • Rendón, Paula
  • Ribeiro, Daniela
  • Seguin, Joana
  • Hribar, Mateja Šmid
  • Stoycheva, Vanya
  • Vejre, Henrik
  • Zoumides, Christos
  • Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne

Abstract

Ecosystem services (ES) assessments are rarely integrated into decision-making processes, with uncertainties often cited as a major barrier. While various uncertainties, such as modelling and data uncertainties, are inherent in ES assessments, their role in uptake of ES assessment results in decision-making remains unclear. We conducted a semi-systematic literature review of scientific papers assessing ES to reveal how uncertainties in ES assessments relate to ES uptake, i.e., the potential use of ES assessment results by decision makers. We performed logistic regressions to analyse the influence of three main sources of uncertainty on ES uptake, i.e., (i) modelling uncertainties, (ii) uncertainties related to qualitative and quantitative descriptions of scenarios, and (iii) uncertainties related to the transfer of ES assessment results into decision-making. Furthermore, we investigated if stakeholder involvement plays a role in ES uptake. First, and most importantly, the results indicate that clarifying the policy context can decrease decision uncertainty and thus improve ES uptake. Referring to a specific policy, following a decisive study purpose and documenting the intended policy entry point are factors that significantly enhance ES uptake. Second, the way how ES are modelled is related to ES uptake. Our results show that using multiple models to assess ES significantly promotes ES uptake. Third, involving stakeholders in ES assessments is significantly associated with increased documented uptake. We discuss that explicitly anchoring the assessment in a policy context increases the salience and timeliness of an ES study, assessing model uncertainties can lead to more credible results, and involving stakeholders can provide more legitimacy, which together increase the potential for ES assessments and their results to be used in decision-making. This study encourages future ES assessments to integrate uncertainties in order to support informed decision-making and promote the conservation and sustainable management of ecosystems and their services.

Suggested Citation

  • Walther, Franziska & Barton, David N. & Schwaab, Jonas & Kato-Huerta, Jarumi & Immerzeel, Bart & Adamescu, Mihai & Andersen, Erling & Arámbula Coyote, Martha Verónica & Arany, Ildikó & Balzan, Mario &, 2025. "Uncertainties in ecosystem services assessments and their implications for decision support – A semi-systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:73:y:2025:i:c:s221204162500018x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101714
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221204162500018X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101714?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hooftman, Danny A.P. & Bullock, James M. & Jones, Laurence & Eigenbrod, Felix & Barredo, José I. & Forrest, Matthew & Kindermann, Georg & Thomas, Amy & Willcock, Simon, 2022. "Reducing uncertainty in ecosystem service modelling through weighted ensembles," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    2. Rachel E. Bitoun & Ewan Trégarot & Rodolphe Devillers, 2022. "Bridging theory and practice in ecosystem services mapping: a systematic review," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 103-116, March.
    3. Hamel, Perrine & Bryant, Benjamin P., 2017. "Uncertainty assessment in ecosystem services analyses: Seven challenges and practical responses," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 1-15.
    4. Bryant, Benjamin P. & Borsuk, Mark E. & Hamel, Perrine & Oleson, Kirsten L.L. & Schulp, C.J.E. & Willcock, Simon, 2018. "Transparent and feasible uncertainty assessment adds value to applied ecosystem services modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 103-109.
    5. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    6. Willcock, Simon & Martínez-López, Javier & Hooftman, Danny A.P. & Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Balbi, Stefano & Marzo, Alessia & Prato, Carlo & Sciandrello, Saverio & Signorello, Giovanni & Voigt, Brian & Vi, 2018. "Machine learning for ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 165-174.
    7. Ascough, J.C. & Maier, H.R. & Ravalico, J.K. & Strudley, M.W., 2008. "Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 383-399.
    8. Schmidt, Stefan & Seppelt, Ralf, 2018. "Information content of global ecosystem service databases and their suitability for decision advice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 22-40.
    9. Graeme S. Cumming & Andreas Buerkert & Ellen M. Hoffmann & Eva Schlecht & Stephan von Cramon-Taubadel & Teja Tscharntke, 2014. "Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7525), pages 50-57, November.
    10. Schirpke, Uta & Scolozzi, Rocco & Dean, Graeme & Haller, Andreas & Jäger, Hieronymus & Kister, Jutta & Kovács, Barbara & Sarmiento, Fausto O. & Sattler, Birgit & Schleyer, Christian, 2020. "Cultural ecosystem services in mountain regions: Conceptualising conflicts among users and limitations of use," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    11. Brunner, Sibyl Hanna & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2016. "Policy strategies to foster the resilience of mountain social-ecological systems under uncertain global change," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 129-139.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    2. Calder, Ryan S.D. & Shi, Congjie & Mason, Sara A. & Olander, Lydia P. & Borsuk, Mark E., 2019. "Forecasting ecosystem services to guide coastal wetland rehabilitation decisions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    3. Linda Lilburne & Melissa Robson-Williams & Ned Norton, 2022. "Improving Understanding and Management of Uncertainty in Science-Informed Collaborative Policy Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-23, May.
    4. Manley, Kyle & Nyelele, Charity & Egoh, Benis N., 2022. "A review of machine learning and big data applications in addressing ecosystem service research gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    5. Willemen, Louise, 2020. "It’s about time: Advancing spatial analyses of ecosystem services and their application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    6. Stefania Santoro & Pasquale Balena & Domenico Camarda, 2020. "Knowledge Models for Spatial Planning: Ecosystem Services Awareness in the New Plan of Bari (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, February.
    7. Ioan, Sara & Roseo, Francesca & Brambilla, Mattia, 2025. "Mountain ecosystem services under a changing climate: A global perspective," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    8. Fontana, Veronika & Ebner, Manuel & Schirpke, Uta & Ohndorf, Markus & Pritsch, Hanna & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Kurmayer, Rainer, 2023. "An integrative approach to evaluate ecosystem services of mountain lakes using multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    9. Kokkoris, Ioannis P. & Smets, Bruno & Hein, Lars & Mallinis, Giorgos & Buchhorn, Marcel & Balbi, Stefano & Černecký, Ján & Paganini, Marc & Dimopoulos, Panayotis, 2024. "The role of Earth observation in ecosystem accounting: A review of advances, challenges and future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    10. Schirpke, Uta & Ghermandi, Andrea & Sinclair, Michael & Van Berkel, Derek & Fox, Nathan & Vargas, Leonardo & Willemen, Louise, 2023. "Emerging technologies for assessing ecosystem services: A synthesis of opportunities and challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    11. Simon Willcock & Javier Martinez-Lopez & Norman Dandy & James M. Bullock, 2021. "High Spatial-Temporal Resolution Data across Large Scales Are Needed to Transform Our Understanding of Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-6, July.
    12. Bryant, Benjamin P. & Borsuk, Mark E. & Hamel, Perrine & Oleson, Kirsten L.L. & Schulp, C.J.E. & Willcock, Simon, 2018. "Transparent and feasible uncertainty assessment adds value to applied ecosystem services modeling," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 103-109.
    13. Weyland, Federico & Mastrangelo, Matías Enrique & Auer, Alejandra Denise & Barral, María Paula & Nahuelhual, Laura & Larrazábal, Alejandra & Parera, Aníbal Francisco & Berrouet Cadavid, Lina María & L, 2019. "Ecosystem services approach in Latin America: From theoretical promises to real applications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 280-293.
    14. Connor, Jeffery D. & Summers, David & Regan, Courtney & Abbott, Hayley & Van Der Linden, Leon & Frizenschaf, Jacqueline, 2022. "Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation of payments for water and carbon ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    15. Péter Batáry & Róbert Gallé & Dávid Korányi & Tamás Lakatos & Balázs Deák & Nikolett Gallé-Szpisjak & Melinda Kabai & Csaba Koszta & Dorota Kotowska & Riho Marja & Brigitta Palotás & Borbála Szabó & A, 2025. "Biodiversity and human well-being trade-offs and synergies in villages," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 8(8), pages 894-904, August.
    16. Ana Paula Coelho Clauberg & Renato de Mello & Flávio José Simioni & Simone Sehnem, 2021. "System for assessing the sustainability conditions of small hydro plants by fuzzy logic," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 300-317, March.
    17. Shanafelt, David W., 2025. "How much is enough? Applying the law of large numbers to the measurement of interactions between ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    18. Seidl, Rupert & Fernandes, Paulo M. & Fonseca, Teresa F. & Gillet, François & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Merganičová, Katarína & Netherer, Sigrid & Arpaci, Alexander & Bontemps, Jean-Daniel & Bugmann, Hara, 2011. "Modelling natural disturbances in forest ecosystems: a review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(4), pages 903-924.
    19. Kanapaux, William & Kiker, Gregory A., 2013. "Development and testing of an object-oriented model for adaptively managing human disturbance of least tern (Sternula antillarum) nesting habitat," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 268(C), pages 64-77.
    20. Duy X. Tran & Diane Pearson & Alan Palmer & David Gray, 2020. "Developing a Landscape Design Approach for the Sustainable Land Management of Hill Country Farms in New Zealand," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-29, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ecoser:v:73:y:2025:i:c:s221204162500018x. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.