The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution
Open accessAbstract
Spatial data on land use and land cover (LULC) are broadly available on different scales and are used widely for mapping ecosystem services as LULC and their changes impact on the provision of multiple ecosystem services. Here four spatial data sets were compared for their practicability as input data for the LULC based assessment method in the Bornhöved Lakes study area. The results for this 60 km² study area are that more detailed land use information (ATKIS and a combined ATKIS/InVeKoS/Landsat data set) is preferred to CORINE land cover data due to the possibility of including spatial details (e.g. number of LULC classes and crop information) in the assessment of provisioning ecosystem services. The CORINE data set overestimated the supply of the two analyzed provisioning services crops and fodder in comparison to the combined data set which revealed information on the specific crops, making quantification with statistical information on yields easier. Spatial input data quality has an effect on the resulting provisioning service maps and quantifications of ecosystem services in the study area due to the identification/omission of ecosystem services, their extent and change. Consequently they also influence decision-making and the development of the ecosystem services concept in the future.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., Chan, K. M., Daily, G. C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., et al. (2009) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/080023 · Cited by 2,389
Cited by
‘The Matrix Reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services
Jacobs, S., Burkhard, B., Van Daele, T., Staes, J., & Schneiders, A. (2015) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.024 · Cited by 338
Self-citationMapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services
Sara, M. D. R., Zulian, G., Joachim, M., & Thijssen, M. (2015) · Joint Research Centre (European Commission) · doi:10.2788/638737 · Cited by 294
Ochoa, V., & Urbina-Cardona, N. (2017) · Ecosystem Services · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.011 · Cited by 149
A tiered approach for mapping ecosystem services
Grêt-Regamey, A., Weibel, B., Kienast, F., Rabe, S.-E., & Zulian, G. (2015) · Ecosystem Services · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.008 · Cited by 150
“The selection of input data can also signi fi cantly affect ES estimates, as demonstrated by Konarska et al. (2002) and Kandziora et al. (2014), which calls for a careful selection of input variables and methods to address the question at stake.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., & Müller, F.
- Venue
- Ecosystem Services
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 4
- Pages
- 47-59
- ISSN
- 2212-0416 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2021512029
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.001
- The paper
- Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., & Müller, F. (2013). Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution. Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.