Conceptualising the demand for ecosystem services – an adapted spatial-structural approach

Abstract

People require multiple ecosystem services (ES) to meet their basic needs and improve or maintain their quality of life. In order to meet these needs, natural resources are exploited, threatening biodiversity and increasing the pressure on the Earth's ecosystems. Spatial-structural approaches are used to explain and visualise the spatial relationships and connections between areas that provide and benefit from ES. However, areas where the demand for these ES occurs are rarely considered in existing spatial approaches or equated with areas where people can use the benefits. In order to highlight the differences between these two areas, we would like to introduce the 'Service Demanding Area' (SDA) in an adapted spatial-structural approach. This approach relates SDA to already familiar ES provision and use units, namely Service Providing Areas (SPA), Service Connecting Areas (SCA) and Service Benefitting Areas (SBA) and can be used to schematically illustrate, understand and analyse the different forms of demand that can emerge. A literature review was conducted to provide an overview of the spatial mapping of ES demand. Three issues arose that should be addressed to improve the assessment of ES demand: 1) The term ES demand is not used consistently. To avoid confusion, it is important to clarify how ES demand is understood and how it differs from the other components of the ES concept (e.g. ES supply, ES potential, ES flow); 2) It is important to consider that ES demand is multi-faceted and is generated on different geographical scales, including the full range of stakeholders' perceptions, needs and desires which broadens the picture of societal demand for ES; 3) Meaningful interpretations between ES supply and demand need to be available to inform decision-makers about interventions for reducing ES trade-offs and mismatches.

Challenges Entailed in Applying Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand Mapping Approaches: A Practice Report

“…ES demand can be expressed through different perspectives and demand types [62,63]. Consequently, there are broad possibilities for understanding ES demand [64]. This complexity hindered the local stakeholders' making confident and comparable estimates [22].…”

“…These two indicators also have the advantage of being available for the same datasets, similar spatial scales, and comparable units. This allows further ES mismatch analyses, which could indicate unsustainable use or inequitable distribution of ES [64,77]. However, for value transfer, the initial detailed modelling results were strongly generalised, which reduces the information content [75].…”

“…We used this indicator for mapping demand for several ES, e.g., food or raw materials. However, ES demand is multifaceted and can cover desires/needs for specific attributes of ES or relates to risk awareness [1,64]. Using the same indicator for assessing and mapping the demand for several ES strongly reduces its inherent complexity.…”

“…We could only map ES supply and demand for some selected ES with simple GIS mapping using proxy indicators and data, or with InVEST model outcomes. Recommended and tested indicators and accessible data were, unfortunately, still missing [64]. Comparably simple ES models such as InVEST provide-if available for the selected ES and spatial scale-more site-specific results.…”

Urban flood regulating ecosystem services under climate change: how can Nature-based Solutions contribute?

“…It highlights the supply of ecosystems, rather than focusing on flood hazards only (European Parliament, 2007;Oppenheimer et al, 2014). The mismatch analysis of FRESsupply and demand has the advantage of (1) quantifying the contribution of natural ecosystems to flood regulation, and (2) identifying missing FRES-supply in hotspots with high actual demand (Dworczyk and Burkhard, 2021).…”