Cryosphere ecosystem services: A systematic review of assessment methods

Cryosphere ecosystems play an important role in climate regulation, water security, and human wellbeing. However, how these contributions are assessed varies widely across studies and regions. In this systematic review (n = 62 studies, 2000–2025), we identify and compare the methodological approaches applied in cryosphere ecosystem service assessments (CryoES), distinguishing between non-economic evaluations (CryoES-NEV) and economic valuations (CryoES-EV). Results reveal a clear predominance of CryoES-NEV approaches (84%), primarily based on remote sensing and GIS analyses (27% of CryoES-NEV studies), hydrological modelling (19%), and participatory approaches (13%). CryoES-EV studies remain limited (16%) and rely mainly on benefit transfer (40% of CryoES-EV studies), willingness-to-pay surveys (30%), and travel cost methods (20%). Marked geographical biases emerge: 29% of case studies focus on the Himalayas, 24% on the Arctic, and 15% on the Andes, while sea ice and ice sheets together account for less than 10% of all analyses. From a thematic perspective, Regulation & Maintenance services dominate (51% of all assessments), particularly hydrological and climate-related contributions, whereas cultural services represent 26%, with socio-cultural valuation approaches remaining limited. The literature also shows substantial heterogeneity in indicators and assessment methods, limiting comparability across CryoES-NEV studies. Only 19% of the reviewed articles explicitly link cryosphere ecosystem services to the Sustainable Development Goals, and just 6% reference Natural Capital Accounting. This review highlights major gaps, including the limited use of economic valuation, the underrepresentation of sea ice and ice sheet systems, and the weak integration of cryosphere ecosystem services into decision-making frameworks. Overall, this review maps how cryosphere ecosystem services have been assessed and valued to date and identifies where the field needs to advance next, methodologically, geographically, and in terms of policy uptake.