Spatial complexity and ecosystem services in rural landscapes

Laterra, Pedro; Orúe, María E.; Booman, Gisel C.

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.013

Cited by 136 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…pollination, flood regulation and outdoor recreation). The composition and configuration of landscapes are crucial elements to explain the overall spatial variation in ES (Laterra et al, 2012). An important consideration in the interpretation of our results is the influence of our choice of ES and indicators on the results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes

Mouchet

Paracchini

Schulp

et al. 2017

Ecological Indicators

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights-A spatially explicit assessment of eleven ecosystem services and one dis-service across the European Union (EU) -Three bundles of ecosystem services related to climate and land use intensity were identified -Ecosystem service diversity and multifunctionality are strongly variable across EU Keywords: bundles, drivers, ecosystem services, Europe, indicator, supply, trade-off AbstractWe present an assessment of the spatial pattern of ecosystem services (ES) associations across Europe based on models of 11 ES and 1 dis-service, mapped at the extent of 27 Member States of the European Union (EU27) on a 1km² grid. We isolated three clusters of cells sharing common features in multi-ES supply associated with the main land-use-land-cover types such as forests and agricultural lands.Confronting these spatial patterns with biophysical and socio-economic drivers revealed two strong gradients structuring European ES bundles, climate and land use intensity. Variations in the diversity of ES bundles provided across administrative units (NUTS 2), quantified by the Shannon diversity index, tend to be higher in forested regions (e.g. SE Romania) and in the mosaic landscapes in the central EU27(from eastern France to Austria). Lower diversity prevails in areas of homogeneous terrain and land use in north-western Europe (e.g. Western France). Our findings illustrate that ES trade-offs and bundles cannot be reduced to land use conflicts but also depend on climate and, for a specific bundle, to biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes

Mouchet

Paracchini

Schulp

et al. 2017

Ecological Indicators

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is a common issue in ES models (Nelson et al 2009), but some modelling tools do account for the effect of soil saturation on water holding capacity and consequently on flood control capacity (e.g. Laterra et al 2012;Jackson et al 2013). The most recent version of the InVEST model for fresh water provisioning now also accounts for water holding capacity (Sharp et al 2015).…”

Section: Mapping Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The link between ES capacity and landscape configuration has been studied in field experiments (Liu et al 2012;Andersson et al 2013;Mitchell et al 2014) but is rarely incorporated in studies mapping ESs. In studies mapping ES, the combined effects of landscape composition and configuration were incorporated by relating landscape metrics to ES values (Sherrouse et al 2011), ecological functioning (Frank et al 2012) and ES capacity (Laterra et al 2012). Lautenbach et al (2011) mapped three ESs using indicators sensitive to landscape configuration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of landscape configuration on mapping ecosystem service capacity: a review of evidence and a case study in Scotland

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Humans structure landscapes for the production of food, fibre and fuel, commonly resulting in declines of non-provisioning ecosystem services (ESs). Heterogeneous landscapes are capable of providing multiple ESs, and landscape configuration-spatial arrangement of land cover in the landscape-is expected to affect ES capacity. However, the majority of ES mapping studies have not accounted for landscape configuration. Objectives Our objective is to assess and quantify the relevance of configuration for mapping ES capacity. A review of empirical evidence for configuration effects on the capacity of ten ESs reveals that for four ESs configuration is relevant but typically ignored in ES quantification. For four ESs we quantify the relevance of configuration for mapping ESs using Scotland as a case study. Methods Each ES was quantified through modelling, respectively ignoring or accounting for configuration. The difference in ES capacity between the two ES models was determined at multiple spatial scales. Results Configuration affected the capacity of all four ESs mapped, particularly at the cell and watershed scale. At the scale of Scotland most local effects averaged out. Flood control and sediment retention responded strongest to configuration. ESs were affected by different aspects of configuration, thus requiring specific methods for mapping each ES. Conclusions Accounting for configuration is important for the assessment of certain ESs at the cell and watershed scale. Incorporating configuration in landscape management provides opportunities for spatial optimization of ES capacity, but the diverging response of ESs to configuration suggests that accounting for configuration involves trade-offs between ESs.

show abstract

“…In fact, a number of studies have adopted this approach to produce spatially optimized PPFs of biodiversity maintenance and provisioning services over a heterogeneous landscape , Kline and Mazzotta 2012, White et al 2012. Because ecosystem service yields can show nonlinear increases with increasing spatial scale (Koch et al 2009, Laterra et al 2012), aggregating service yields may require a mathematical rather than qualitative application of the framework. Also, scaling and aggregating across regions require knowledge or assumptions about the substitutability of services across regions.…”

Section: Challenging Situation 4: Spatial and Scale-dependent Variatimentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade-offs in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and opportunities

King¹,

Cavender‐Bares²,

Balvanera³

et al. 2015

E&S

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. In efforts to increase human well-being while maintaining the natural systems and processes upon which we depend, navigating the trade-offs that can arise between different ecosystem services is a profound challenge. We evaluated a recently developed simple analytic framework for assessing ecosystem service trade-offs, which characterizes such trade-offs in terms of their underlying biophysical constraints as well as divergences in stakeholders' values for the services in question. Through a workshop and subsequent discussions, we identified four different types of challenging situations under which the framework allows important insights to clarify the nature of stakeholder conflicts, obstacles to promoting more sustainable outcomes, and potential enabling factors to promote efficiency and sustainability of ecosystem service yields. We illustrated the framework's analytical steps by applying them to case studies representing three of the challenging situations. We explored the fourth challenging situation conceptually, using published literature for examples. We examined the potential utility and feasibility of using the framework as a participatory tool in resource management and conflict resolution. We concluded that the framework can be instrumental for promoting pluralism and insightful analysis of tradeoffs. The insights offered here may be viewed as hypotheses to be tested and refined as additional unforeseen challenges and benefits are revealed as the framework is put into practice.

show abstract

Spatial complexity and ecosystem services in rural landscapes

Cited by 136 publications

References 31 publications

Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes

Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes

Effects of landscape configuration on mapping ecosystem service capacity: a review of evidence and a case study in Scotland

Trade-offs in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and opportunities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About