Multiple ecosystem services landscape index: A tool for multifunctional landscapes conservation

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 147, Issue , 2015, Pages 152-163

  Rodríguez Loinaz, Gloria ^a   Alday, Josu G ^a,b   Onaindia, Miren ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY UPV EHU   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Drivers of change; Ecosystem services indicators; Municipalities; Northern Spain; Socioeconomic aspects

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS;

DRIVER OF CHANGE; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE INDICATOR; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; LANDSCAPE INDEX; LANDSCAPE SCALE; MUNICIPALITY; NORTHERN SPAIN; SERVICE PROVISIONS; SOCIOECONOMIC ASPECTS; TRADE OFF;

ECOSYSTEMS;

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR; INDEX METHOD; LANDSCAPE PROTECTION; SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATOR; SYNERGISM; TRADE-OFF;

AGRICULTURE; ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; CLIMATE; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; LANDSCAPE; SOCIOECONOMICS; SPAIN; WATER FLOW; CITY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; THEORETICAL MODEL;

CITIES; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DECISION MAKING; ECOSYSTEM; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; SPAIN;

EID: 84907538720     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.09.001     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Basque Government Map of EUNIS Habitats 2010, Available from:. ftp://ftp.geo.euskadi.net/cartografia/.
2. Baveye P., Baveye J., Gowdy J. Monetary valuation of ecosystem services: it matters to get the timeline right. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 95:231-235.
3. Burkhard B., Kroll F., Nedkov S., Müller F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21:17-29.
4. Butler J., Wong G.Y., Metcalfe D.J., Honzák M., Pert P.l., Rao N., van Grieken M.E., Lawson T., Bruce C., Kroon F.J., Brodie J.E. An analysis of trade-offs between multiple ecosystem services and stakeholders linked to land use and water quality management in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 180:176-191.
5. Casado-Arzuaga I., Madariaga I., Onaindia M. Perception, demand and user contribution to ecosystem services in the Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J.Environ. Manage. 2013, 129:33-43.
6. Corbera E. Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4:612-619.
7. Costanza R., d'Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Neill R.V., Paruelo J., Raskin R.G., Sutton P., van den Belt M. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387:253-260.
8. Crawley M.J. The R Book 2007, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
9. Dale V., Polasky S. Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64:286-296.
10. de Groot R., 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. Ecol. Complex 2010, 7:260-272.
11. de Koning G.H.J., Benítez P.C., Muñoz F., Olschewski R. Modelling the impacts of payments for biodiversity conservation on regional land-use patterns. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83:255-267.
12. Duke G. Making natural capital and ecosystem services operational in Europe through biodiversity offsetting and habitat banking. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 2013:325-330. (Chapter 26).
13. Dymond J.R., Ausseil A.G.E., Ekanayake J.C., Kirschbaum M.U.F. Tradeoffs between soil, water, and carbon. A national analysis from New Zealand. J.Environ. Manage. 2012, 95:124-131.
14. Egoh B., O'Farrell P., Charef A., Gurney L.J., Koellner T., Abi J.N., Egoh M., Willemen L. An African account of ecosystem service provision: use, threats and policy options for sustainable livelihoods. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 2:71-81.
15. European Commission Overview of CAP Reform 2014-2020. Agricultural Policy Perspectives Brief 5 2013, Available from:. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/policy-perspectives/policy-briefs/05_en.pdf.
16. European Commission Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Their Services. Indicators for Ecosystem Assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 2014, 2nd Report. Available from:. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/2ndMAESWorkingPaper.pdf.
17. Eustat Basque Statistical Institute Basque Statistical Yearbook 2012, Available from:. http://www.eustat.es/document/datos/Anuario/Anuario_Estadistico_Vasco_2012/es/index.asp#/1/.
18. Foley J.A., Defries R., Asner G.P., Barford C., Bonan G., Carpenter S.R., et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 2005, 309:570-574.
19. Folke C., Carpenter S., Elmqvist T. Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 2002, 31:437-440.
20. Geneletti D. Assessing the impact of alternative land-use zoning policies on future ecosystem services. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 40:25-35.
21. Gómez-Baggethun E., Barton D.N. Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 86:235-245.
22. Gómez-Baggethun E., de Groot R., Lomas P.L., Montes C. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1209-1218.
23. González-Alday J., Martínez-Ruiz C., Bravo F. Evaluating different harvest intensities over understory plant diversity and pine seedlings, in a Pinus pinaster Ait. natural stand of Spain. Plant Ecol. 2009, 201:211-220.
24. Gutman P. Ecosystem services: foundations for a new rural-urban compact. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62:383-387.
25. Haaren C.V., Bathke M. Integrated landscape planning and remuneration of agri-environmental services. Results of a case study in the Fuhrberg region of Germany. J.Environ. Manage. 2008, 89:209-221.
26. Hauck J., Görg C., Varjopuro R., Ratamäki O., Maes J., Wittmer H., Jax K. ''Maps have an air of authority'': potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 4:25-32.
27. Hecken G.V., Bastiaensen J., Vásquez W.F. The viability of local payments for watershed services: empirical evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 74:169-176.
28. Hein L., Miller D.C., de Groot R. Payments for ecosystem services and the financing of global biodiversity conservation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5:87-93.
29. Kandziora M., Burkhard B., Müller F. Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators-a theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 28:54-78.
30. Kumar M., Kumar P. Valuation of the ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64:808-819.
31. Laterra P., Orúe M.E., Booman G.C. Spatial complexity and ecosystem services in rural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 154:56-67.
32. Layke C., Mapendembe A., Brown C., Walpole M., Winn J. Indicators from the global and sub-global Millennium Ecosystem Assessments: an analysis and next steps. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 17:77-87.
33. Maes J., Paracchini M.L., Zulian G., Dunbar M.B., Alkemade R. Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 155:1-12.
34. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis Report 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
35. Müller F., Burkhard B. The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1:26-30.
36. Nelson G.C., Bennett E., Berhe A.A., Cassman K., DeFries R., et al. Anthropogenic drivers of ecosystem change: an overview. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11:29.
37. Niemeijer D., de Groot R. Aconceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets. Ecol. Indic. 2008, 8:14-25.
38. Nieto-Romero M., Oteros-Rozas E., González J.A., Martín-López B. Exploring the knowledge landscape of ecosystem services assessments in Mediterranean agroecosystems: insights for future research. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 37:121-133.
39. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide 2008, ISBN 978-92-64-04345-9. Available from:. http://www.oecd.org/std/42495745.pdf.
40. Oksanen J., Blanchet F., Kindt R., Legendre P., O'Hara R., Simpson G., Solymos P., Stevens M., Wagner H. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R Package Version 1.17-8 2011, Available from:. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.
41. Onaindia M., Fernandez de Manuel B., Madariaga I., Rodríguez-Loinaz G. Co-benefits and trade-offs between biodiversity, carbon storage and water flow regulation. For. Ecol. Manage. 2013, 289:1-9.
42. Onaindia M., Ametzaga I., San Sebastián M., Mitxelena A., Rodríguez-Loinaz G., Peña L., Alday J.G. Can understorey native woodland plant species regenerate under exotic pine plantations using natural succession?. For. Ecol. Manage. 2013, 308:136-144.
43. Palacios-Agundez I., Fernández de Manuel B., Rodríguez-Loinaz G., Peña L., Amezaga I., Alday J.G., Casado-Arzuaga I., Madariaga I., Arana X., Onaindia O. Integrating stakeholders' demands and scientific knowledge for the inclusion of ecosystem services in landscape planning. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29:1423-1433.
44. Plieninger T., Schleyer C., Mantel M., Hostert P. Is there a forest transition outside forests? Trajectories of farm trees and effects on ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape in Eastern Germany. Land Use Pol. 2012, 29:233-243.
45. R Development Core Team R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2012, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available from:. http://www.R-project.org.
46. Roces-Díaz J.V., Díaz-Varela E.R., Álvarez-Álvarez P. Analysis of spatial scales for ecosystem services: application of the lacunarity concept at landscape level in Galicia (NW Spain). Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36:495-507.
47. Rodríguez-Loinaz G., Amezaga I., Onaindia M. Use of native species to improve carbon sequestration and contribute towards solving the environmental problems of the timberlands in Biscay, northern Spain. J.Environ. Manage. 2013, 120:18-26.
48. Schomers S., Matzdorf B. Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 6:16-30.
49. Seppelt R., Fath B., Burkhard B., Fisher J.L., Gret-Regamey A., Lautenbach S., Pert P., Hotes S., Spangenberg J., Verburg P.H., Van Oudenhoven A. Form follows function? Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21:145-154.
50. Shapiro-Garza E. Contesting the market-based nature of Mexico's national payments for ecosystem services programs: four sites of articulation and hybridization. Geoforum 2013, 46:5-15.
51. TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: a Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB 2010.
52. Ten K.K., Treweek J., Ekstrom J. The Use of Market-based Instruments for Biodiversity Protection - the Case of Habitat Banking 2010, Available from:. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/pdf/eftec.habitat%20technical%20report.pdf.
53. Udalmap Municipalities' Information System of the Basque Country 2010, Available from:. http://www.ogasun.ejgv.euskadi.net/r51-udalmap/es/contenidos/informacion/udalmap/es_udalmap/udalmap.html.
54. UNEP-WCMC Developing Ecosystem Service Indicators: Experiences and Lessons Learned from Sub Global Assessments and Other Initiatives 2011, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal, Canada, Technical Series No. 58.
55. van der Horst D. Adoption of payments for ecosystem services: an application of the Hägerstrand model. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31:668-676.
56. van Oudenhoven A., Petz K., Alkemade R., Hein L., de Groot R. Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21:110-122.
57. Vidal-Legaz B., Martínez-Fernández J., Sánchez A., Pugnaire F.I. Trade-offs between maintenance of ecosystem services and socio-economic development in rural mountainous communities in southern Spain: a dynamic simulation approach. J.Environ. Manage. 2013, 131:280-297.
58. Wallace K.J. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139:235-246.
59. Willemen L., Veldkamp A., Verburg P.H., Hein L., Leemans R. Amulti-scale modelling approach for analysing landscape service dynamics. J.Environ. Manage. 2012, 100:86-95.
60. Wu K., Ye W., Qi Z., Zhang H. Impacts of land use/land cover change and socioeconomic development on regional ecosystem services. The case of fast-growing Hangzhou metropolitan area, China. Cities 2013, 31:276-284.
61. Wunder S., Engel S., Pagiola S. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:834-852.
62. Zorrilla-Miras P., Palomo I., Gómez-Baggethun E., Martín-López B., Lomas P.L., Montes C. Effects of land-use change on wetland ecosistem services: a case study in the Doñana marshes (SW Spain). Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 122:160-174.