The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead: Priorities for ecosystem service studies
Open accessAbstract
1. Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems. Employing the ecosystem service concept is intended to support the development of policies and instruments that integrate social, economic and ecological perspectives. In recent years, this concept has become the paradigm of ecosystem management. 2. The prolific use of the term ‘ecosystem services’ in scientific studies has given rise to concerns about its arbitrary application. A quantitative review of recent literature shows the diversity of approaches and uncovers a lack of consistent methodology. 3. From this analysis, we have derived four facets that characterise the holistic ideal of ecosystem services research: (i) biophysical realism of ecosystem data and models; (ii) consideration of local trade-offs; (iii) recognition of off-site effects; and (iv) comprehensive but critical involvement of stakeholders within assessment studies. 4. These four facets should be taken as a methodological blueprint for further development and discussion. They should critically reveal and elucidate what may often appear to be ad-hoc approaches to ecosystem service assessments. 5. Synthesis and applications: Based on this quantitative review, we provide guidelines for further development and discussions supporting consistency in applications of the ecosystem service concept as well as the credibility of results, which in turn can make it easier to generalise from the numerous individual studies.
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
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., et al. (1997) · Nature · doi:10.1038/387253a0 · Cited by 22,585
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis
Assessment, M. E. (2005) · Island Press · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18167309 · Cited by 10,665
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 1×
“Approaching an intermediate complexity seems to be the appropriate way to offer the capability of different levels of complexity in the model (see InVeST, Nelson et al. 2009).”
BackgroundScience for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R. S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A. K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H. M., et al. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0808772106 · Cited by 2,257
Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern
Hoekstra, A. Y., & Chapagain, A. K. (2006) · Water Resources Management · doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9039-x · Cited by 1,458 · cited 1×
“Thus, ecosystem service research seems to be currently driven to seek available approaches akin to the ecological footprint (Wackernagel et al. 2002) or the water footprint (Hoekstra & Chapagain 2006).”
Background
Cited by
Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda
Frumkin, H., Bratman, G. N., Breslow, S. J., Cochran, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., Lawler, J. J., Levin, P. S., Tandon, P. S., Varanasi, U., Wolf, K. L., et al. (2017) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp1663 · Cited by 1,237
“Key reports often fail even to mention human health, much less to quantify it as an ecosystem service (Fisher et al. 2009; Posner et al. 2016; Seppelt et al. 2011)—an omission that is likely to lead to incorrect conclusions and suboptimal policies.”
BackgroundRoy, S., Byrne, J., & Pickering, C. (2012) · Urban Forestry & Urban Greening · doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.006 · Cited by 1,049
Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice
Guerry, A. D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Daily, G. C., Griffin, R., Ruckelshaus, M., Bateman, I. J., Duraiappah, A., Elmqvist, T., et al. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1503751112 · Cited by 1,017
Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union
Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J. P., Grizzetti, B., Drakou, E. G., Notte, A. L., Zulian, G., et al. (2012) · Ecosystem Services · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004 · Cited by 939
Scholte, S. S. K., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., & Verburg, P. H. (2015) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007 · Cited by 586
Metadata
- Authors
- Seppelt, R., Dormann, C. F., Eppink, F. V., Lautenbach, S., & Schmidt, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-01-26
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 630-636
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1891978210
- Cited by
- 986
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 46.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead: Priorities for ecosystem service studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x
- The paper
- Seppelt, R., Dormann, C. F., Eppink, F. V., Lautenbach, S., & Schmidt, S. (2011). A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead: Priorities for ecosystem service studies. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x
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.
