IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2022i1p52-d1014184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenges Entailed in Applying Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand Mapping Approaches: A Practice Report

Author

Listed:
  • Claudia Dworczyk

    (Institute of Physical Geography and Landscape Ecology, Leibniz Universität Hannover, 30167 Hannover, Germany)

  • Benjamin Burkhard

    (Institute of Physical Geography and Landscape Ecology, Leibniz Universität Hannover, 30167 Hannover, Germany
    Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscapes Research ZALF, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany)

Abstract

The Ecosystem Services (ES) concept has been acknowledged by scientists, policy-makers and practitioners to have the potential to support sustainable policy- and land-use decision-making. Therefore, a growing number of research activities are investigating the integration potential of the ES concept into real-world policy- and decision-making processes. These research activities are often confronted with conceptual challenges and methodological obstacles when applying different ES mapping approaches. This study is reporting those challenges encountered during a research project in Germany. In this research project, two urban regions, Rostock and Munich, were selected as case-study areas. In both urban regions, dynamic urbanisation processes occur across the urban administrative boundaries and threaten the supply of multiple ES in the periurban landscapes. The research project invited local stakeholders from the two urban regions to workshops and online meetings to discuss ES-related topics. For those events, maps visualising the spatial patterns of multiple ES were needed for communication and awareness-raising of the ES concept. We chose commonly used and relatively easy-to-apply mapping methods such as: (1) expert-based ES matrix approach, (2) simple GIS mapping with proxy indicators and data, and (3) simple ES models such as InVEST. We encountered several challenges during the mapping processes: The expert-based matrix approach provided valuable results for ES supply, but had limitations in assessing expert estimates for ES demand. Alongside other factors, evolving barriers related to the conceptual complexity of ES demand. Data unavailability/inaccessibility resulted in difficulties mapping all selected ES with proxy indicators at the targeted regional scale. So far, only a few individual ES can be modelled with InVEST models. Despite these challenges, the resulting maps were helpful for communication with local stakeholders. The discussions with stakeholders provided valuable insights into the future needs for ES research and identified existing barriers and challenges. We want to summarise and share our experiences and provide recommendations for future research on mapping ES supply and demand in urban regions.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia Dworczyk & Benjamin Burkhard, 2022. "Challenges Entailed in Applying Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand Mapping Approaches: A Practice Report," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2022:i:1:p:52-:d:1014184
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/52/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/52/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ana Carolina V. Nadalini & Ricardo de Araujo Kalid & Ednildo Andrade Torres, 2021. "Emergy as a Tool to Evaluate Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Meng Huang & Peng Cui & Xin He, 2018. "Study of the Cooling Effects of Urban Green Space in Harbin in Terms of Reducing the Heat Island Effect," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Roxanne Suzette Lorilla & Konstantinos Poirazidis & Stamatis Kalogirou & Vassilis Detsis & Aristotelis Martinis, 2018. "Assessment of the Spatial Dynamics and Interactions among Multiple Ecosystem Services to Promote Effective Policy Making across Mediterranean Island Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-28, September.
    4. Matthew R. Sloggy & Francisco J. Escobedo & José J. Sánchez, 2022. "The Role of Spatial Information in Peri-Urban Ecosystem Service Valuation and Policy Investment Preferences," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, August.
    5. Jacobs, Sander & Burkhard, Benjamin & Van Daele, Toon & Staes, Jan & Schneiders, Anik, 2015. "‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 21-30.
    6. Olander, Lydia & Polasky, Stephen & Kagan, James S. & Johnston, Robert J. & Wainger, Lisa & Saah, David & Maguire, Lynn & Boyd, James & Yoskowitz, David, 2017. "So you want your research to be relevant? Building the bridge between ecosystem services research and practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 170-182.
    7. Czúcz, Bálint & Arany, Ildikó & Potschin-Young, Marion & Bereczki, Krisztina & Kertész, Miklós & Kiss, Márton & Aszalós, Réka & Haines-Young, Roy, 2018. "Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 145-157.
    8. Perennes, Marie & Diekötter, Tim & Groß, Jens & Burkhard, Benjamin, 2021. "A hierarchical framework for mapping pollination ecosystem service potential at the local scale," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 444(C).
    9. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    10. Wolff, S. & Schulp, C.J.E. & Kastner, T & Verburg, P.H., 2017. "Quantifying Spatial Variation in Ecosystem Services Demand: A Global Mapping Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 14-29.
    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. 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).
    2. 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).
    3. Marise Barreiros Horta & Sònia Maria Carvalho-Ribeiro & Jean François Mas & Francisco Medeiros Martins & Fernando de Moura Resende & Fernando Figueiredo Goulart & Geraldo Wilson Fernandes, 2024. "Land Cover Patterns of Urban Lots and Their Contribution to Ecological Functions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-25, April.
    4. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François &, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. Indunee Welivita & Simon Willcock & Amy Lewis & Dilshaad Bundhoo & Tim Brewer & Sarah Cooper & Kenneth Lynch & Sneha Mekala & Prajna Paramita Mishra & Kongala Venkatesh & Dolores Rey Vicario & Paul Hu, 2021. "Evidence of Similarities in Ecosystem Service Flow across the Rural-Urban Spectrum," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-38, April.
    6. Czúcz, Bálint & Arany, Ildikó & Potschin-Young, Marion & Bereczki, Krisztina & Kertész, Miklós & Kiss, Márton & Aszalós, Réka & Haines-Young, Roy, 2018. "Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 145-157.
    7. Goran Krsnik & Sonia Reyes-Paecke & Keith M. Reynolds & Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo & José Ramón González Olabarria, 2023. "Assessing Relativeness in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services: Better Comparison Methods for Improved Well-Being," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    8. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    9. Gaodi Xie & Wenhui Chen & Shuyan Cao & Chunxia Lu & Yu Xiao & Changshun Zhang & Na Li & Shuo Wang, 2014. "The Outward Extension of an Ecological Footprint in City Expansion: The Case of Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Balzan, Mario V & Caruana, Julio & Zammit, Annrica, 2018. "Assessing the capacity and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small island state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 711-725.
    11. P. Hlaváčková & D. Šafařík, 2016. "Quantification of the utility value of the recreational function of forests from the aspect of valuation practice," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 345-356.
    12. Alexander V. Rusanov, 2019. "Dacha dwellers and gardeners: garden plots and second homes in Europe and Russia," Population and Economics, ARPHA Platform, vol. 3(1), pages 107-124, April.
    13. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    14. Monika Kopecká & Daniel Szatmári & Konštantín Rosina, 2017. "Analysis of Urban Green Spaces Based on Sentinel-2A: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-17, April.
    15. Veerkamp, Clara J. & Schipper, Aafke M. & Hedlund, Katarina & Lazarova, Tanya & Nordin, Amanda & Hanson, Helena I., 2021. "A review of studies assessing ecosystem services provided by urban green and blue infrastructure," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    16. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    17. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    18. Vasileios A. Tzanakakis & Andrea G. Capodaglio & Andreas N. Angelakis, 2023. "Insights into Global Water Reuse Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-30, August.
    19. Massoni, Emma Soy & Barton, David N. & Rusch, Graciela M. & Gundersen, Vegard, 2018. "Bigger, more diverse and better? Mapping structural diversity and its recreational value in urban green spaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 502-516.
    20. Somajita Paul & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "Factors Influencing Perceptions and Use of Urban Nature: Surveys of Park Visitors in Delhi," Land, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-23, April.

    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:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2022:i:1:p:52-:d:1014184. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.