Mapping bundles of ecosystem services reveals distinct types of multifunctionality within a Swedish landscape

Abstract

Ecosystem services (ES) is a valuable concept to be used in the planning and management of social–ecological landscapes. However, the understanding of the determinant factors affecting the interaction between services in the form of synergies or trade-offs is still limited. We assessed the production of 16 ES across 62 municipalities in the Norrström drainage basin in Sweden. We combined GIS data with publically available information for quantifying and mapping the distribution of services. Additionally, we calculated the diversity of ES for each municipality and used correlations and k-means clustering analyses to assess the existence of ES bundles. We found five distinct types of bundles of ES spatially agglomerated in the landscape that could be explained by regional social and ecological gradients. Human-dominated landscapes were highly multifunctional in our study area and urban densely populated areas were hotspots of cultural services.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0601-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Using land use/land cover trajectories to uncover ecosystem service patterns across the Alps

“…In our study, we identified five bundles that were strongly linked to the LULC trajectories that we employed for the ES trend mapping. For terminology we relied, where possible, on previously published work to facilitate comparison between the different studies (Turner et al 2014;Queiroz et al 2015;Yang et al 2015).…”

“…Knowing whether the presence of a specific ES bundle excludes the presence of another bundle or identifying ecosystems where multiple services are likely to coexist, will be an essential advantage for landscape management and for promoting the importance of landscape functions to policy makers and society (Crouzat et al 2015). Some of the most significant studies in recent years in this context include ES pattern analysis in Denmark by Turner et al (2014), spatiotemporal analysis of ES bundles at the municipality level by Renard et al (2015) in the greater Montreal region (Canada) and the analysis of Queiroz et al (2015) on the multi-functionality of Swedish landscapes. All these studies aim to identify ES patterns based on the underlying socioecological subsystems and the specific LULC composition.…”

Physical landscape associations with mapped ecosystem values with implications for spatial value transfer: An empirical study from Norway

“…The magnitude of the correlation coefficient indicates the extent to which the pairs of services appear in the same location. Another method is to use principal component analysis (PCA) of quantified ecosystem service counts in multiple land units to identify strong correlates of the principal components, followed by cluster analysis of the results (Raudsepp-Hearne et al, 2010;Plieninger et al, 2013;Turner et al, 2014;Queiroz et al, 2015). Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) can also be (2012) identified three bundles of ecosystem services for urban populations, rural people in multifunctional landscapes, and provisioning services related to food (agriculture and fishing).…”

“…In Norway, Hausner et al, (in press) reported ecosystem service bundles related to cognitive meanings of landscapes and bundles associated with historical rights to provisioning services in land tenures. And in Sweden, Queiroz et al, (2015) found multifunctional ecosystem service bundles in human-dominated landscapes, while densely populated urban areas were hotspots for cultural services. In this study, we first analyze the Norwegian spatial data for the presence of ecosystem value bundles, and then examine whether these bundles are spatially associated with land cover.…”

A review of ecosystem service benefits from wild bees across social contexts

“…By attributing value to a biophysical structure or process, people become involved in the transformation of biophysical structures or processes to ecosystem services (Spangenberg 2014). As these services are co-produced by both humans and nature, it therefore has an intrinsically social-ecological character (Andersson et al 2007;Reyers et al 2013;Queiroz et al 2015). The ecosystem cascade framework of Haines-Young and Potschin (2010) is useful in analysing the ecosystem services wild bees mediate.…”