Cited by 150Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesEconomic and Environmental ValuationConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management

A tiered approach for mapping ecosystem services

Open access
Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, Weibel, Bettina, Kienast, Felix, Rabe, Sven-Erik, Zulian, Grazia·2015·Ecosystem Services

Abstract

Ecosystem services (ES) mapping make the benefits of nature spatially explicit. The different methods used for ES mapping limit the comparability of outcomes and call for a more consistent but flexible approach. We present a four step tiered approach for ES mapping supporting scholars to select the adequate combination of variables: First, the user, researcher or policy maker defines the goal of the ES assessment. Second, a meta-analysis of relevant ES mapping studies is conducted to identify key variables for mapping the selected ES. Third, the identified variables are attributed to the different levels of the multitier framework according to the level at which they best answer the policy or research question. Finally, appropriate methods for mapping the ES are selected based on the reviewed studies. We illustrate the approach for recreational services at three different tiers. Main advantages of the tiered approach are that (i) it can be adapted to other ES, (ii) it supports the efforts toward a standardized ES assessment, (iii) it provides information about relevant variables to be considered in long term monitoring at different scales, (iv) it supports sustainable resource management as it ensures the inclusion of information relevant to decision makers at different levels.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.008

Cites

81 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A tiered or scaled approach of ecosystem services mapping may help overcome scaling problems between Integrated River Basin Management and Urban Water Management.

    “A tiered (scaled) approach of ES mapping [182] may help to overcome the scaling problems between Integrated River Basin Management and Urban Water Management [170].”
  • Ecosystem services are increasingly used for decision-taking in environmental management because they promote a deeper understanding of the social-ecological system and identify positive use options rather than negative pressure avoidance as drivers for ecosystem management.

    “Ecosystem services (ES) are increasingly used for decision-taking in environmental management, as they promote a deeper understanding of the social-ecological system [182] and as they identify (positive) use options rather than (negative) pressure avoidance as drivers for ecosystem management [14].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Eigenbrod, F., Anderson, B. J., Armsworth, P. R. et al. 2009. Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strate- gies in a human-dominated region Proc. R. Soc. B 276 1669 2903-2911, doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0528 1471-2954 · DOI
  2. Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, H. 2009. Participatory mapping and geographical patterns of the social landscape values of rural communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Fennia 187(1): 43-60.
  3. Kienast, F., Degenhardt, B., Weilenmann, B. et al. 2012. GIS- assisted mapping of landscape suitability for nearby recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning 105(4): 385-399.
  4. Larsen, F., Petersen, A., Strange, N. et al. 2008. A Quantitative Analysis of Biodiversity and the Recreational Value of Potential National Parks in Denmark. Environmental Management 41(5), 685-695.
  5. Liu, M., Luo, X., Li, Q. 2012. An integrated method used to value recreation land -a case study of Sweden. Energy Procedia 16 (1): 244-251.
  6. Troy, A., Wilson, M.A. 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60(2): 435-449.
  7. van Riper, C. J., Kyle, G. T., Sutton, S. G. 2012. Mapping outdoor recreationists' perceived social values for ecosystem services at Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia. Applied Geogra- phy 35 (1-2): 164-173
  8. Vollmer, D., Grêt-Regamey, A. 2013. Rivers as municipal infra- structure: Demand for environmental services in informal settlements along an Indonesian river. Global Environmental Change 23 (6): 1542-1555.
  9. Willemen, L., Verburg, P. H., Hein, L. et al. 2008: Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landscape and Urban Planning 88(1): 34-43.
  10. Witten, K., Exeter, D., Field, A. 2003. The Quality of Urban Environments: Mapping Variation in Access to Community Resources. Urban Studies 40, 161-177, doi:10.1080/ 00420980220080221 References · DOI
  11. Capistrano, D., Samper, C.K., Lee., M.J., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., 2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Multiscale Assessments, 2005. Island Press, Washington, DC p. 388.
  12. Eigenbrod, F., Armsworth, P.R., Anderson, B.J., et al., 2010c. The impact of proxy- based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 377-385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01777.x. · DOI
  13. Hill, G.W., Courtney, P.R., 2004. Demand analysis projections for recreational visits to countryside woodlands in Great Britain. Forestry 79 (2), 185-200.
  14. IPCC, 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. In: Eggle- ston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K. (Eds.), Published: IGES, Japan. Joyce, K., Sutton, S., 2009. A method for automatic generation of the recreation opportunity spectrum in New Zealand. Appl. Geogr. 29 (3), 409-418.
  15. 001i. · DOI
  16. Kliskey, A.D., 1998. Linking the wilderness perception mapping concept to the recreation opportunity spectrum. J. Environ. Manage. 22 (1), 79-88.
  17. Kliskey, A.D., 2000. Recreation terrain suitability mapping: a spatially explicit methodology for determining recreation potential for resource use assessment. Landscape Urban Plann. 52 (1), 33-43.
  18. Koppen, G., Sang, A.O., Tveit, M.S., 2014. Managing the potential for outdoor recreation: Adequate mapping and measuring of accessibility to urban recrea- tional landscapes. Urban For. Urban Green. 13 (1), 71-83.
  19. Lautenbach, S., Kugel, C., Lausch, A., 2011. Analysis of historic changes in regional ecosystem service provisioning using land use data. Ecol. Indic. 11 (2), 676-687.
  20. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G.D., Bennett, E.M., 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.
  21. Raymond, C.M., Bryan, B.A., MacDonald, D.H., et al., 2009. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 68 (5), 1301-1315.
  22. Termansen, M., McClean, C.J., Skov-Petersen, H., 2004. Recreational site choice model- ling using high-resolution spatial data. Environ. Plann. A 36 (6), 1085-1099.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grêt-Regamey, A., Weibel, B., Kienast, F., Rabe, S.-E., & Zulian, G.
Affiliations
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (CH)
  • European Commission (BE)
Venue
Ecosystem Services
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
13
Pages
16-27
ISSN
2212-0416 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1966291929
Cited by
150
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 6
FWCI
9.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecosystem Services (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DORA WSL (Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Joint Research Centre (European Commission) (submittedVersion)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
Funders
Joint Research Centre
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Keywords
ecosystem service mapping, tiered approach, recreational ecosystem services, long-term monitoring, sustainable resource management, multi-scale mapping

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