Open access peer-reviewed chapter
Abstract
Despite increasing awareness on the importance of rivers in maintaining human wellbeing, there has not been a comprehensive inventory of watershed-scale ecosystem services across the USA. Here, we analyze and summarize the scientific literature within the context of the supply and demand for ecosystem services across 18 major watersheds of the continental US. We reviewed 305 articles and found that 68 provided information on both the biophysical delivery (supply) and the sociocultural and economic values (demand) of ecosystem services. Maintaining populations and habitats, water filtration, and nutrient sequestration/storage were the most extensively assessed services, while educational and aesthetic values were the least frequently studied. Biophysical assessments were the most frequent valuation followed by economic approaches. The majority of the studies were conducted in the eastern US, while the region least studied was the southwest. In addition to identifying the knowledge gaps in watershed-scale ecosystem services, we highlight the need for a common framework for assessing ecosystem services that includes both the assessment of the supply and demand of ecosystem services provided by US watersheds. There is an urgent need to incorporate the role that cultural services and values can play in water resources management and planning in the USA.
1. Introduction
Preserving freshwater resources is a critical global issue [1, 2]. Water resources are vital for maintaining the welfare of humans and wildlife; however, humans have often prioritized freshwater for economic development at the expense of ecosystem health [3, 4]. There is concern in the USA about how to maintain future water supplies because of rapid growing human populations and climate change [5, 6]. Tradeoffs between securing water for human needs and ecosystem health will only become more challenging in the future with increasing human demand for freshwater coupled with impending shifts in the duration and frequency of extreme climatic events. This challenge is already being realized with increasing interstate water disputes across the nation [7]. Thus, there is an urgent need to implement new frameworks that consider the interdependent social, economic, and biophysical dynamics of water resources [8, 9].
Ecosystem services are the benefits that humans derive from ecosystems [10]. Examples of ecosystem services provided by freshwater ecosystems include (1) provisioning services obtained directly from the ecosystem such as drinking water and irrigation; (2) regulating services such as water regulation and quality, habitat, and air quality; and (3) cultural services, which are nonmaterial benefits that people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, education, recreation, and esthetic experiences [10, 11]. The ecosystem service framework is useful in natural resource management [12] because it enables focusing on human-environment interlinkages by translating ecosystem properties into human needs [4, 13]. However, watershed management in the USA has traditionally maximized the production of one ecosystem service (e.g., energy or agriculture production), resulting in declines in other services (e.g., water quantity and quality) and producing human conflicts [14]. Therefore, understanding the different tradeoffs among ecosystem services associated with different watershed management strategies is key to maintain ecosystem services and decrease conflict. Such analyses should include an assessment of both the supply and societal demand of ecosystem services [15, 16, 17].
Despite the increasing number of publications that present innovative ideas and complementary insights from various perspectives, there is growing uncertainty with respect to the appropriate methodologies for quantifying ecosystem services. A common challenge in implementing the ecosystem services framework for watershed management is to quantify the capacity of watershed to provide services (supply side) as well as characterizing the social demand for those services (demand side) [16, 18]. The supply-demand framework highlights that the status of an ecosystem service is influenced not only by the ecosystem’s properties but also by societal needs [16]. Here, we define the supply side as the capacity of a particular watershed to provide a specific bundle of ecosystem services within a given time period [15, 18] and the demand side as the sum of all ecosystem services currently consumed, used, or valued in a particular area over a given time period [3, 4].
This chapter provides a meta-analysis of the scientific knowledge related to ecosystem services across the major continental US watersheds. First, we present the data structure followed in this analysis. Several classifications and analytical frameworks have been proposed to assess ecosystem services. Based on our exploration of the scientific literature, we structure the results of this review based on the biophysical supply and social demand of ecosystem services [8, 15, 18]. Second, we describe and analyze the published articles and case studies under multiple perspectives (e.g., type of approach, geographical distribution, main focus, services valued). Then, we present the current knowledge across US watersheds related to ecosystem services by differentiating between studies focused on the quantification of their biophysical supply and social demand. Finally, we identify the major knowledge gaps, both geographically and conceptually (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Ecosystem services framework used in reviewing the biophysical supply and the societal demand of services.
2. Methodology
2.1. Review criteria and selection
We reviewed scientific publications including journal articles and book chapters, from Web of Science (www.webofknowledge.com/) covering studies conducted at the watershed scale in the USA [19]. The systematic review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement (Figure 2) [20]. The revision included terms related to the object of valuation (e.g., ecosystem services or environmental goods), the level of assessment (e.g., watershed or basin), and the location of the case study (e.g., U.S. or United States). See Appendix.1 for more detailed information. Eligibility criteria included manuscripts published between January 2000 and March 2014. Articles were screened to determine relevant articles for this study. Overall, 305 articles were selected. Gray literature was omitted from this review. Our search was focused on articles that had framed their work explicitly in the ecosystem service concept (i.e., measuring the supply and demand of ecosystem services) across US watersheds [21].
Figure 2.
Flow diagram of the methodology and selection process of the systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA).
A total of 305 articles were screened to determine relevant articles for this study (Figure 2) [20]. In addition, articles were excluded if they used the concept of ecosystem service to justify or explain the study, but did not actually assess ecosystem services. Overall, 150 were selected after excluding duplicates. Then, only articles that carried out assessments of ecosystem services from supply and demand perspective were considered (n = 99 studies). In this second selection process, the exclusion criteria included factors related to the type of valuation methods based on the multidimensional assessment of ecosystem services [8]. After this final selection, 68 articles were kept for the quantitative review (Figure 2) [20].
2.2. Data collection and structure
We classified all studies using the supply–demand framework of ecosystem services [16, 18] and grouped them by major watersheds (hydrologic unit code, level 2; HUC-2). Data collection was organized based on the general characteristics of this chapter, and the variables and methods used to estimate both the biophysical supply and demand of ecosystem services (Figure 2). Appendix.2 shows a description of the variables collected in the review including the characteristics of the articles and study area, the type of ecosystem services valuation methods used, the classes of ecosystem services following the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES), the type of biophysical quantification, the type of value, and the type of stakeholders involved. All the information was summarized and organized to facilitate its use by researchers and practitioners wanting maps of both the supply and demand of ecosystem services across the major US watersheds. Finally, we explored the current state of knowledge on the ecosystem service valuation through a general descriptive analysis of the studies. We analyzed the temporal evolution, methods, and type of analysis used, and spatial distributions of ecosystem services and publications across the major US watersheds.
3. Results
3.1. Analysis of published articles
The number of articles assessing ecosystem services from supply and demand perspectives in the USA increased exponentially after 2010 (Figure 3A), with only six articles published before 2004. From 2001 to 2010, the average rate of publication was around two articles per year. Thereafter, the publication rate rose to 11 articles per year. Most of the selected articles (60 articles) had a biophysical or an environmental perspective followed by economic (28 articles), interdisciplinary assessments (24 articles), and sociocultural assessments (14 articles) (Figure 3B). Only a few studies actually produced maps of ecosystem services. Almost half of the studies (45 articles) used empirical data for quantifying ecosystem services (Figure 3C). Over a third of studies performed modeling data analysis, and only 16 articles conducted theoretical approaches. From all the selected articles, 38 articles were carried out at a local scale, followed by 25 articles at a regional scale, and seven at a national scale (Figure 3D). Local scale was defined when the study covered just one US state, regional scale when for two US states, and national when it covered more than two US states.
Figure 3.
(A) Number of publications 2001–2014 that quantified ecosystem services across U.S. watersheds; (B) number of publications by authors’ discipline(s); (C) number of articles by type of analysis, and (D) number of articles by spatial scale.
3.2. Ecosystem services values and frameworks employed
Results show that over 78% of all studies did not use or mention any ecosystem services framework to structure goals, 21% used the [10] framework, and only 1% used the supply and demand frameworks (Figure 4A). Overall, considering the [10] classification of ecosystem services, we found that regulating services was the class most commonly quantified or valued (82%), followed by provisioning (41%) and cultural ecosystem services (21%) (Figure 4B). However, over half of the studies (52%) included more than one ecosystem service type in the analysis.
Figure 4.
(A) Number of articles using different ecosystem services frameworks; (B) percentage of articles based on ecosystem service categories. Each article can be represented in multiple categories.
Using the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES, www.cices.eu), we found that the regulating services were the most frequently studied category; however, the number of articles including cultural services in their assessments was higher than those studying provisioning services (Figure 5). Overall, the review identified a total of 308 ecosystem services studied. Among the regulating services, filtration, sequestration, storage and accumulation by ecosystems, habitat maintenance, and chemical conditions of freshwaters were the services most studied, while disease control, pest control, and storm protection were the least studied (Figure 5). There were no studies that addressed pollination or seed dispersal. Regarding provisioning services, filtration and sequestration by biota, water for non-drinking purposes, and raw material were the most studied while groundwater for drinking purposes and physical and experimental use of plants and animals were the least studied. Genetic pools and raw medicines were not studied. Finally, in terms of cultural services, we found that recreation, existence value, and esthetic values were the most studied while educational and cultural heritage were the least studied (Figure 5).
Figure 5.
Number of articles assessing ecosystem services based on the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES).
3.3. Ecosystem services across US watersheds
The 68 studies evaluated in our dataset covered 18 of the 21 HUC-2 US watersheds (Figure 6). The assessments predominantly focused on ecosystem services delivered by watersheds located in the eastern half of the USA, with the three most studied watersheds being the South Atlantic-Gulf (HUC 03, N = 15, the Mid-Atlantic (HUC 02, N = 8), and the Upper Mississippi (HUC 07, N = 17)). By contrast, the US watersheds with no studies were located in northern and western regions, respectively, the Souris-Red-Rainy (HUC 09, N = 0) and the Upper Colorado (HUC 14, N = 5) (Figure 6). Watershed regions including the Pacific Northwest (HUC 17), the Missouri (HUC 10), the Arkansas-White-Red (HUC 11), the Texas-Gulf HUC 12), and the Lower Mississippi (HUC 08) were well represented with 10–12 articles per watershed (Figure 6).
Figure 6.
Number of articles evaluating ecosystem services across major U.S. watersheds. Only 18 of the 21 HUC-2 U.S. watersheds showed results. Legend: New England (HUC 01), Mid-Atlantic (HUC 2), South Atlantic-Gulf (HUC 3), Great Lakes (HUC 4), Ohio (HUC 5), Tennessee (HUC 6), Upper Mississippi (HUC 7), Lower Mississippi (HUC 8), Souris-Red-Rainy (HUC 9), Missouri (HUC 10), Arkansas-White-Red (HUC 11), Texas-Gulf (HUC 12), Rio Grande (HUC 13), Upper Colorado (HUC 14), Lower Colorado (HUC 15), Great Basin (HUC 16), Pacific Northwest (HUC 17), California (HUC 18).
We found differences across US watersheds in relation to the number of studies implementing the assessment of the supply and demand side of ecosystem services (Figure 7). Results show that 47 articles performed studies of the supply of ecosystem services and 19 articles implemented assessment of the social demand of ecosystem services. From the supply perspective, using either modeling techniques or proxies, a total of 137 ecosystem services were assessed: 60 regulating, 42 provisioning, and 35 cultural services. From the social demand perspective, using either sociocultural or economic valuation techniques, a total of 60 ecosystem services were assessed: 26 regulating, 16 provisioning, and 22 cultural ecosystem services.
Figure 7.
Number of studies evaluating the biophysical supply (A) and social demand (B) of ecosystem services across major U.S. watersheds. Only 18 of the 21 HUC-2 U.S. watersheds showed results. Legend: New England (HUC 01), Mid-Atlantic (HUC 2), South Atlantic-Gulf (HUC 3), Great Lakes (HUC 4), Ohio (HUC 5), Tennessee (HUC 6), Upper Mississippi (HUC 7), Lower Mississippi (HUC 8), Souris-Red-Rainy (HUC 9), Missouri (HUC 10), Arkansas-White-Red (HUC 11), Texas-Gulf (HUC 12), Rio Grande (HUC 13), Upper Colorado (HUC 14), Lower Colorado (HUC 15), Great Basin (HUC 16), Pacific Northwest (HUC 17), California (HUC 18).
The major US watersheds with the greatest number of studies implementing biophysical assessment of the ecosystem services supply were located in southeastern and midwestern regions (Figure 7A). Overall, all watershed regions included supply assessment of the three classes of services, that is, regulating, provision, and cultural, with the exception of the Ohio and Tennessee regions that only included provisioning and regulating services. The watershed regions that were most studied from the supply perspective included the Upper Mississippi (HUC 07), the Missouri (HUC 10), and the South Atlantic-Gulf (HUC 03). The Souris-Red-Rainy (HUC 09) and the Upper Colorado (HUC 14) were the regions that were least studied using the supply dimension.
Studies that assessed the social demand of ecosystem services (i.e., implementing sociocultural or economic valuation) were concentrated in the eastern half of the country (Figure 7B). Overall, all watershed regions included assessment of the three classes of services, that is, regulating, provision, and cultural, with the exception of the Texas-Gulf region that only included cultural services. The most-studied major watersheds from the social demand perspective included the Upper Mississippi (HUC 07), the South-Atlantic (HUC 03), and the Mid-Atlantic (HUC 02). The remaining watersheds, with the exception of the Pacific Northwest (HUC 17), the Great Lakes (HUC 04), and the Lower Mississippi (HUC 08), had less than six studies on the social demand of ecosystem services.
4. Discussion
Water resources management and planning in the USA face the challenge of not only ensuring the needs for humans but also preserving ecosystem health, which has a direct connection to human well-being through ecosystem services [4, 6]. This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive inventory of watershed-scale ecosystem services knowledge across major US watersheds. More specifically, our analysis summarizes the scientific literature since 2000 within the context of the number of studies investigating the biophysical supply and social demand for ecosystem services. We found a temporal trend in the number of publications similar to that found from international studies following the global development trend in this research area [3, 22]. Our results emphasize the urgent need to implement interdisciplinary frameworks that take into account the interdependent social, economic, and biophysical dynamics of shared water resources and the need for using integrative approaches to capture different value domains [18, 23].
Overall, our results showed that the number of studies investigating regulating and provisioning services was higher relative to those investigating cultural services. This finding is consistent with similar studies across the globe, where research on the supply and demand of ecosystem services has focused mainly on provisioning and regulating services [24, 25]. In the Mediterranean region, for example, [21] showed that provisioning services attracted much more scientific attention, which is also consistent with most of the findings related to the assessment of ecosystem services in European landscapes [13, 23]. Furthermore, using the CICES classification, we found that from a total of 308 ecosystem services studied across all US watersheds, regulating services (e.g., filtration, sequestration, storage and accumulation by ecosystems, habitat maintenance, and chemical conditions of freshwaters) were most commonly studied, while cultural services (e.g., educational and cultural heritage) were the least studied. As recently highlighted by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), there is an urgent need for global efforts by governments, academia, and society to promote knowledge of earth’s biodiversity and ecosystems, with the aim of informing sustainable policy and management of natural resources [26, 27]. One of the key components of the IPBES approach is the notion of nature’s contributions to people, which recognizes the critical role that culture plays in defining all links between humans and ecosystems. We therefore argue that there is also a need to recognize the important role that cultural services and values can play in water resources management in the USA and the need to operationalize the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding watershed’s contribution to people [26, 28].
Different disciplines have traditionally assessed ecosystem services separately [18, 24], which has led to the conclusion that ecosystem services values are multidimensional, and thus their evaluation must be conducted from the ecological, social, and economic perspective [23, 28, 29]. Although we found a small percentage of studies that used this multidisciplinary approach in their assessments, our results showed that most of the studies conducted across US watersheds implemented a biophysical approach, which points out the gap of integrating different approaches into ecosystem service research [30, 31]. We believe that this gap is due to the absence of a shared theoretical framework, as we found that over 78% of all studies in the USA did not use a standard ecosystem services framework. In a recent article, [32] concluded that integrated valuation of ecosystem service supply and demand still faces challenges in understanding the tradeoffs among ecosystem services. With regard to ecosystem service demand, it is necessary to use systematic methods for different stakeholders (beneficiaries, impairers, and managers) because of their different knowledge types, capabilities, demographics, rights, and value systems [32, 33]. We also identified methodological limitations in current ecosystem services research conducted across major US watersheds. Most of the studies were focused on a single ecosystem service without investigating the potential implications that trade-offs between multiple ecosystem services may have in watershed management [3, 4]. Many recent investigations have showed that investigations on single ecosystem services may result in producing a knowledge gap that can only be solved by integrative and holistic approaches for the assessment of multiple ecosystem services [22, 34, 35]. Understanding the different tradeoffs among ecosystem services should include assessments of both the supply and societal demand of ecosystem services [15, 16, 17]. Thus, we need to integrate multiple indicators, data sources, and methods in order to assess the suite of ecosystem services from supply to social demand across different spatial and temporal and stakeholder scales [32, 33].
5. Conclusions
Overall, we found that the use of the supply and demand framework of ecosystem services for watershed-scale studies in the USA has been extremely limited. The majority of the watershed case studies were found in the eastern half of US, with very few in the Southwest. Studies implementing biophysical assessment of the ecosystem services supply were located in the Southeast and Midwest, while studies investigating the social demand of ecosystem services were concentrated along the east coast of the USA. In addition to identifying the gaps in our knowledge of watershed-scale ecosystem services across the USA, we call attention to the scale issue in ecosystem services research, which describes the mismatch between the scale at which ecosystem services are provided and the scale at which those services are used, valued, or managed [16]. Future studies should not only address multiple spatial and temporal scales; they should also assess different stakeholder scales, from the individual to the community to the municipality to the state, and beyond.
Understanding and quantifying tradeoffs between ecosystem services, considering their ecological, cultural, and economic value, is a key challenge for water resources management and planning in the USA [36] and beyond [37]. Our study demonstrates the knowledge gap across US watersheds in terms of integrating biophysical, sociocultural, and economic dimensions to assess the biophysical supply and social demand for services, which is key for increasing public awareness of the importance of river systems in maintaining human well-being [3, 38]. Moving forward, we would like to see more comprehensive ecosystem service studies at watershed scales using integrative (yet standard) approaches to assess tradeoffs at multiple spatiotemporal and stakeholder scales.
Acknowledgments
This research was primarily funded by the Oklahoma Biological Survey and the South-Central Climate Science Center (SC-SCC) at the University of Oklahoma (US). AJC and CQS were supported by the NSF Idaho EPSCoR Program and by the National Science Foundation under award number IIA-1301792. JPJ was supported by Texas State University’s Research Enhancement Program.
| Category | Keywords |
|---|---|
| Localization | “US” or “USA” or “Unites States” or “United states of America” |
| Level of assessment | “Watershed” or “basin “or “catchment” |
| Goal: ecosystem services | “ecosystem serv*” or “environmental servic*” or “ecological services” |
| Variables | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of authors | Ordinal | Number of authors in the paper |
| First author occupation (e.g., academia vs. government vs. private) | Qualitative | Academia versus government versus private |
| Field of expertise of the first author | ||
| Binary | 1 = If it belongs to economics; 0 = If it does not belong to econom | |
| Binary | 1 = If it belongs to | |
| Binary | 1 = If it belongs to | |
| Interdisciplinary group | Binary | 1 = If it belongs to an interdisciplinary group; 0 = If it does not belong to an interdisciplinary group |
| Social-ecological system (SES) framework | Binary | 1 = If it uses the SES framework; 0 = If it does use the SES framework |
| Year of the publication | Continuous | Year of publication |
| Journal | Qualitative | Name of the Journal |
| Field of expertise | Qualitative | Area(s) where the paper is classified |
| Approach of the study | ||
| Type of study (case-study vs. comparative study vs. meta-analysis vs. review vs. conceptual vs. commentary) | Qualitative | Description of the study: case-study versus comparative study versus meta-analysis versus review versus conceptual versus commentary |
| Binary | 1 = If it is an | |
| Binary | 1 = If it is a modeled study; 0 = If it is not a modeled study | |
| Binary | 1 = If it is an | |
| Source of data | ||
| Binary | 1 = If the study used primary data, 0 = any study using primary data | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study used secondary data, 0 = any study used secondary data | |
| Length of study period | ||
| Binary | 1 = If the study period is considered | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study period considers a | |
| Watershed | Qualitative | Name of the watershed |
| Geographical coordinate | Continuous | Description of geographical coordinates |
| Major US watershed | Qualitative | Name of the US watershed (see map) |
| Major LCC Landscape Conservation cooperative | Qualitative | Name of major LCC (see map) |
| River | Qualitative | Name of the river |
| WATERSHED OR BASIN SCALE | ||
| Binary | 1 = If the study is defined as local scale, 0 = If the study is not considered local scale. | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study is defined as regional scale, 0 = If the study is not considered regional scale. | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study is defined as | |
| State | Binary | Name of the state |
| Watershed surface occupied (entire or part of the watershed) | Qualitative | Description of the watershed (entire vs. part of) |
| Surface of the study area | Continuous | Description of surface occupied |
| MAJOR BIOMES (see map) | ||
| Binary | 1 = If the study focuses on desert and dry shrubs, 0 = If the study does not focus on desert and dry shrubs | |
| Flooded grassland | Binary | 1 = If the study focuses on flooded grassland, 0 = If the study does not focus on flooded grassland |
| Binary | 1 = If the study focuses on Mediterranean Shrubs, 0 = If the study does not focus on Mediterranean Shrubs | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study focuses on | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study focuses on Temperate coniferous forest, 0 = If the study does not focus on Temperate coniferous forest | |
| Temperate grassland | Binary | 1 = If the study focuses on Temperate grassland, 0 = If the study does not focus on Temperate grassland |
| Tropical Coniferous forest | Binary | 1 = If the study focuses on Tropical Coniferous forest, 0 = If the study does not focus on Tropical Coniferous forest |
| Level of protection | ||
| Protected | Binary | 1 = If the study area is protected, 0 = If the study is not protected |
| Federal level of protection | Binary | 1 = If there is a federal protection, 0 = If there is not a federal protection |
| Sate level of protection | Binary | 1 = If there is a state protection, 0 = If there is not a state protection |
| Local level of protection | Binary | 1 = If there is a local protection, 0 = If there is not a local protection |
| Binary | 1 = If it maps values; 0 = If it does not map values | |
| Valuation arguments | Qualitative | Arguments of the authors to perform the assessment. |
| Dimension of assessment | ||
| Binary | 1 = If the study uses a biophysical technique, 0 = If the study does not use a biophysical technique | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study uses a biophysical indicator, 0 = If the study does not make a biophysical indicator | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study uses a sociocultural technique, 0 = If the study does not uses a sociocultural technique | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study uses a sociocultural indicator, 0 = If the study does not uses a sociocultural indicator | |
| Monetary or economic technique | Binary | 1 = If the study uses a economic technique, 0 = If the study does not uses a economic technique |
| Monetary or economic indicator | Binary | 1 = If the study uses a economic indicator, 0 = If the study does not uses a economic indicator |
| Methods used | ||
| Binary | 1 = If the study uses market techniques; 0 = If the study does not use market techniques. | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study uses revealed preference techniques, 0 = any study uses revealed preference techniques. | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study uses stated preference techniques, 0 = any study using stated preference techniques. | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study uses a biophysical model to quantify the delivery, 0 = If the study does not use a biophysical model to quantify the delivery | |
| Ecosystem services (CICES ES-classes) | ||
| ES classification used (MEA, TEEB, IPBES, CICES) | Qualitative | Name of the classification used in the paper |
| Number of ES | Continuous | Number of ecosystem services valued by the study. |
| PROVISIONING | ||
| Binary | 1 = If the study values food, 0 = If the study does not value food | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Regulating | ||
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values , 0 = If the study does not value | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Cultural | ||
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| 1 = If the study values | ||
| 1 = If the study values | ||
| 1 = If the study values | ||
| 1 = If the study values | ||
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study values | |
| Several categories of services | Binary | 1 = uses several categories of ecosystem services, 0 = use a single category of services ecosystem services |
| Mapping delivery | Binary | 1 = If the study map the delivery, 0 = If the study does not map the delivery |
| Use of proxy to quantify ES | Binary | 1 = If the study uses a proxy, 0 = If the study does not use a proxy |
| Biophysical units used | Qualitative | Description of the unit used |
| Biophysical model used | Qualitative | Name of the model |
| Trade-0ffs analysis | Binary | 1 = If the study estimates Trade-offs analysis, 0 = If the study does not estimate Trade-offs analysis |
| Multiple ecosystem services | Binary | 1 = If the study estimates multiples services, 0 = If the study does not estimate multiples services |
| Use value | ||
| Binary | 1 = If the study assesses direct use value 0 = If the study does not direct use value. | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study assesses indirect use value 0 = If the study does not indirect use value. | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study assesses | |
| Non-use value | ||
| Binary | 1 = If the study assesses | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study assesses | |
| Beneficiaries involved | Binary | 1 = If the study involves beneficiaries; 0 = If the study does not involve the beneficiaries. |
| Binary | 1 = If the study involves locals; 0 = If the study does not involve locals | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study involves professionals; 0 = If the study does not involve professionals | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study involves tourist; 0 = If the study does not involve tourists | |
| Binary | 1 = If the study involves mixed stakeholders; 0 = If the study does not involve mixed stakeholders | |
| Impact on beneficiaries | Binary | 1 = If the study involves impact on beneficiaries; 0 = If the study involves no impact on beneficiaries. |
| Type of beneficiaries | Qualitative | Description the types of beneficiaries |
References
- 1.
Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM. Human domination of earth's ecosystems. Science. 1997; 277 (5325):494 - 2.
Baron JS, Poff NL, Angermeier PL, Dahm CN, Gleick PH, Hairston NG, Jackson RB Jr, Johnston CA, Richter BG, Steinman AD. Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater. Ecological Applications. 2002; 12 :1247-1260 - 3.
Castro AJ, García-Llorente M, Vaughn C, Julian JP, Atkinson CL. Willingness to pay for ecosystem services among stakeholder groups in a South-Central U.S. watershed with regional conflict. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. 2016 - 4.
Castro AJ, Vaughn CC, Julian JP, García-Llorente M. Social demand for ecosystem services and implications for watershed management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 2016; 52 :1-13 - 5.
Pederson N, Bell AR, Knight TA, Leland C, Malcomb N, Anchukaitis KJ, Tackett K, Scheff J, Brice A, Catron B, Blozan W, Riddle J. A long-term perspective on a modern drought in the American Southeast. Environmental Research Letters. 2012; 7 (1):014034 - 6.
Perrings C, Naeem S, Ahrestani FS, Bunker E, Burkill P, Canziani G, Elmqvist T, Fuhrman JA, Jaksic FM, Kawabata Z, Kinzig A, Mace GM, Mooney HM, Prieur-Richard AH, Tschirhart J, Weisser A. Ecosystem services, targets, and indicators for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2011; 9 :512-520 - 7.
Sneddon C, Harris L, Dimitrov R, Ozesmi U. Contested waters: Conflict, scale, and sustainability in aquatic socioecological systems. Society and Natural Resources. 2002; 15 :663-675 - 8.
Castro A, Garcia-Llorente M, Martin-Lopez B, Palomo I, Iniesta_Arandia I. Multidimensional approaches in ecosystem services assessment. In: Earth Observation of Ecosystem Services. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group; 2013a. pp. 441-468 - 9.
Castro AJ, Martín-López B, García-Llorente M, Aguilera PA, López E, Cabello J. Social preferences regarding the delivery of ecosystem services in a semiarid Mediterranean region. Journal of Arid Environments. 2011; 75 :1201-1208 - 10.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: The Assessment Series (Four Volumes and Summary). Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005 - 11.
Brauman KA, Daily GC, Duarte TK, Mooney HA. The nature and value of ecosystem services: An overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2007; 32 :67-98 - 12.
Daily G, Alexander S, Ehrlich P, Goulder L, Lubchenco J, Matson P, Woodwell G. Ecosystem services: Benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues in Ecology. 1997 - 13.
Harrison PA. Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: An introduction to the RUBICODE project. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2010; 19 :2767-2772 - 14.
Vermeulen S, Koziell I. Integrating Global and Local Values, A Review of Biodiversity Assessment. London: IIED; 2002 - 15.
Quintas-Soriano C, Castro AJ, Castro H, García-Llorente M. Land use impacts on ecosystem services and implications on human well-being in arid Spain. Land Use Policy. 2016; 54 :534-548 - 16.
Castro AJ, Verburg P, Martín-López B, García-Llorente M, Cabello J, Vaughn C, López E. Ecosystem service trade-offs from the supply to social demand: A landscape-scale spatial analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2014; 132 :102-110 - 17.
Castro AJ, Martín-López B, Plieninger T, López E, Alcaraz-Segura D, Vaughn CC, Cabello J. Do protected areas networks ensure the supply of ecosystem services? Spatial patterns of two nature reserve systems in semi-arid Spain. Applied Geography. 2015; 60 :1-9 - 18.
Martín-López BE, Gómez-Baggethun M, García-Llorente M, Montes C. Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators. 2014; 37 :220-228 - 19.
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GA, Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 2000; 403 :853-858 - 20.
Liquete C, Piroddi C, Drakou EG, Gurney L, Katsanevakis S, Charef A, et al. Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal ecosystem services: A systematic review. PLOS One. 2013; 8 (7):e67737 - 21.
Nieto-Romero M, Oteros-Rozas E, González JA, Martín-López B. Exploring the knowledge landscape of ecosystem services assessments in Mediterranean agroecosystems: Insights for future research. Environmental Science & Policy. 2014; 37 :121-133 - 22.
De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity. 2010; 7 :260-272 - 23.
Quintas-Soriano C, Martín-López B, Santos-Martín F, Loureiro M, Montes C, Benayas J, García-Llorente M. Ecosystem services values in Spain: A meta-analysis. Environmental Science & Policy. 2016; 55 :186-195 - 24.
Vihervaara P, Ronka M, Walls M. Trends in ecosystem service research: Early steps and current drivers. Ambio. 2010; 39 :314-324 - 25.
Wainger L, Mazzotta M. Realizing the potential of ecosystem services: A framework for relating ecological changes to economic benefits. Environmental Management. 2011; 48 :710-733 - 26.
Diaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martin-Lopez B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KM, Baste IA, Brauman KA, Polasky S, Church A, Lonsdale M, Larigauderie A, Leadley PW, van Oudenhoven APE, van der Plaat F, Schröter M, Lavorel S, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bukvareva E, Davies K, Demissew S, Erpul G, Failler P, Guerra CA, Hewitt CL, Keune H, Lindley S, Shirayama Y. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science. 2018; 359 (6373):270-272 - 27.
Lopez-Rodriguez MD, Castro AJ, Cabello J, Jorreto S, Castro H. Science-policy interface approach for dealing with water environmental problems. Environmental Science and Policy. 2015; 50 :1-14 - 28.
Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, et al. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience. 2012; 62 :744-756 - 29.
Gomez Sal A, Gonzalez Garcıa A. A comprehensive assessment of multifunctional agricultural land-use systems in Spain using a multi-dimensional evaluative model. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2007; 120 :82-91 - 30.
Mascia MB, Brosius JP, Dobson TA, Forbes BC, Horowitz L, McKean MA, Turner NJ. Conservation and the social sciences. Conservation Biology. 2003; 17 :649-650 - 31.
Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT, O’Farrell PJ, Reyers B, Rouget M, Roux DJ, Welz A, Wilhelm-Rechman A. An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. 2008; 105 :9483-9488 - 32.
Wei H, Weiguo F, Xuechao W, Nachuan L, Xiaobin D, Yanan Z, Xijia Y, Yifei Z. Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem service assessment: A review. Ecosystem Services. 2017; 25 :15-27 - 33.
Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Díaz S, Egoh BN, Geijzendorffer IR, Krug CB, Lavorel S, Lazos E, Lebel L, Martín-López B, Meyfroidt P, Mooney HA, Nel JL, Pascual U, Payet K, Harguindeguy NP, Peterson GD, Prieur-Richard A-H, Reyers B, Roebeling P, Seppelt R, Solan M, Tschakert P, Tscharntke T, Turner BL, Verburg PH, Viglizzo EF, White PCL, Woodward G. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: Three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2015; 14 :76-85 - 34.
Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters. 2009; 12 :1394-1404 - 35.
Nicholson E, Mace GM, Armsworth PR, Atkinson G, Buckle S, Clements T, Ewers RM, Fa JE, Gardner TA, Gibbons J, Grenyer R, Metcalfe R, Mourato S, Muûls M, Osborn D, Reuman DC, Watson C, Milner-Gulland EJ. Priority research areas for ecosystem services in a changing world. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2009; 46 :1139-1144 - 36.
Nelson E, Sander H, Hawthorne P, Conte M, Ennaanay D. Projecting global land-use change and its effect on ecosystem service provision and biodiversity with simple models. PLOS One. 2010; 5 (12):e14327. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014327 - 37.
Quintas-Soriano C, García-Llorente M, Castro AJ. What ecosystem service science has achieved in Spanish drylands? Evidences of need for transdisciplinary science. Journal of Arid Environments. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2018.01.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2018.01.004 - 38.
Jackson B, Timothy P, Sinclair F. Polyscape: A GIS mapping framework providing efficient and spatially explicit landscape-scale valuation of multiple ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2013; 112 :74-88