The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Integrating supply, flow and demand to enhance the understanding of interactions among multiple ecosystem services
Abstract
A comprehensive understanding of the relationships among ecosystem services (ES) is important for landscape management, decision-making and policy development, but interactions among multiple ES remain under-researched. In particular, earlier studies often did not clearly distinguish between supply, flow and demand. Furthermore, the underlying mechanisms in complex socio-ecological systems remain less examined. In this study, we therefore aimed to assess interactions among eight key ES, adopting a multistep approach. For all ES, we mapped ES supply, flow and demand at the municipality level in the Alpine Space area. We applied correlation analysis and cluster analysis in order to analyse the linkages between ES and to identify bundles of ES. We used random forest analysis to explain the distribution of the ES bundles and to identify important drivers based on socio-ecological variables (e.g. land use/cover, climate, topography and population density). Our results demonstrate that trade-offs and synergies varied greatly for supply, flow and demand. We identified five ES bundles, distinguishing hotspots of ES supply and demand. Twelve socio-ecological variables correctly predicted the membership of 81% of the municipalities to the ES bundles. Our results suggest that a limited number of socio-ecological variables can explain the majority of the distribution of ES bundles in the landscape. Considering the spatial relationships between mountain regions and their surrounding lowlands, regional and transnational governance frameworks need to connect areas of multiple ES supply to areas of ES demand, and should account for the different levels and types of ES relationships.
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
Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment
Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M., & Montes, C. (2014) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003 · Cited by 569
The Bagplot: A Bivariate Boxplot
Rousseeuw, P. J., Ruts, I., & Tukey, J. W. (1999) · The American Statistician · doi:10.2307/2686061 · Cited by 568
Cited by
Shen, J., Li, S., Liu, L., Liang, Z., Wang, Y., Wang, H., & Wu, S. (2021) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125193 · Cited by 268
Cong, W., Sun, X., Guo, H., & Shan, R. (2020) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106089 · Cited by 266
Linking landscape structure and ecosystem service flow
Assis, J. C., Hohlenwerger, C., Metzger, J. P., Rhodes, J. R., Duarte, G. T., da Silva, R. A., Boesing, A. L., Prist, P. R., & Ribeiro, M. C. (2023) · Ecosystem Services · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101535 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Schirpke, U., Candiago, S., Egarter Vigl, L., Jäger, H., Labadini, A., Marsoner, T., Meisch, C., Tasser, E., & Tappeiner, U.
- Venue
- Science of The Total Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 651
- Issue
- Pt 1
- Pages
- 928-941
- ISSN
- 0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2892087628
- Cited by
- 350
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Integrating supply, flow and demand to enhance the understanding of interactions among multiple ecosystem services. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.235
- The paper
- Schirpke, U., Candiago, S., Egarter Vigl, L., Jäger, H., Labadini, A., Marsoner, T., Meisch, C., Tasser, E., & Tappeiner, U. (2019). Integrating supply, flow and demand to enhance the understanding of interactions among multiple ecosystem services. Science of The Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.235
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.