Ecosystem services visualization and communication: A demand analysis approach for designing information and conceptualizing decision support systems

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 13, Issue , 2015, Pages 173-183

  Klein, T M ^a   Celio, E ^a   Gret Regamey A ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

3D landscape visualization; Decision support system; Demand analysis; Ecosystem services; Environmental information communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 84930178006     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.006     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Abram N.K., Meijaard E., Ancrenaz M., Runting R., Wells J.A., Gaveau D., Pellier A.-S., Mengersen K. Spatially explicit perceptions of ecosystem services and land cover change in forested regions of Borneo. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 7:116-127.
2. Appleton K., Lovett A. GIS-based visualization of rural landscapes: defining 'sufficient' realism for environmental decision-making. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 65:117-131.
3. Aurum A., Wohlin C. Requirements engineering: setting the context. Engineering and Managing Software Requirements 2005, 1-15. Springer, Berlin. A. Aurum, C. Wohlin (Eds.).
4. Bagstad K.J., Semmesn D.J., Winthrop R. Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: a case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 5:40-50.
5. Bostock M., Ogievetsky V., Heer J. D3: Data-Driven Documents. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Gr. 2011, 17(12):2301-2309.
6. Brömmelstroet M.te Performance of planning support systems. What is it, and how do we report on it?. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2013, 41:299-308.
7. Bryan B.A. Physical environmental modeling, visualization and query for supporting landscape planning decisions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 65:237-259.
8. Buckley B.C. Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2000, 22(9):895-935.
9. Cairns G., Ahmed I., Mullett J., Wright G. Scenario method and stakeholder engagement: critical reflections on a climate change scenarios case study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2013, 80:1-10.
10. Child D. The Essentials of Factor Analysis 2006, Continuum International Publishing Group, New York.
11. Chin, J.P., Diehl, V.A., Norman, K.L.,1988. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer-interface. In: Proceedings of the ACM CHID88, pp. 213-218.
12. Crossman N.D., Burkhard B., Nedkov S., Willemen L., Petz K., Palomo I., Drakou E.G., Martín-Lopez B., McPhearson T., Boyanova K., Alkemade R., Egoh B., Dunbar M.B., Maes J. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosyst.Serv. 2013, 4:4-14.
13. Dagnino A., Viarengo A. Development of a decision support system to manage contamination in marine ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 466-476:119-126.
14. Dagnino A., Bo T., Copetta A., Fenoglio S., Oliveri C., Bencivenga M., Felli A., Viarengo A. Development and application of an innovative expert decision support system to manage sediments and to assess environmental risk in freshwater ecosystems. Environ. Int. 2013, 60:171-182.
15. Davis F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13(3):319-340.
16. Diez E., Mc Intosh B.S. Organisational drivers for, constraints on and impacts of decision and information support tool use in desertification policy and management. Environ. Model. Softw. 2011, 26(3):317-327.
17. Downes M., Lange E. What you see is not always what you get: a qualitative, comparative analysis of ex ante visualizations with ex post photography of landscape and architectural projects. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, in press. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.06.002.
18. European Commission, 2013. Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services - Technical Report - 2013-067. Available online: http:\\www.es.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment (accessed 5.06.15).
19. European Commission (2011): Factsheet to EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, December 2011. Available online: (accessed 15.12.14). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/brochures/2020%20Biod%20brochure%20final%20lowres.pdf.
20. Grêt-Regamey A., Weibel B., Kienast F., Rabe S.-E., Zulian G. A tiered approach for mapping ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, in press. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.008.
21. Grêt-Regamey A., Wissen Hayek U. Multi-criteria decision analysis for planning and design of sustainable energy landscapes. Sustainable Energy Landscapes: Designing, Planning and Development 2013, 111-131. CRC/Taylor & Francis, Boco Raton. A. Van den Dobbesteen, S. Stremke (Eds.).
22. Grêt-Regamey A., Celio E., Klein T.M., Wissen Hayek U. Understanding ecosystem services trade-offs with interactive procedural modeling for sustainable urban planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109:107-116.
23. de Groot R.S., 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.
24. 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. 2013, 4:25-32.
25. Hull E., Jackson K., Dick J. Requirements Engineering 2011, Springer-Verlag London Limited, London.
26. IBM, 2013. IBM software statistics. (08.07.2014). http://www-01.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/downloads.html.
27. Jelokhani-Niaraki M., Malczewski J. A group multicriteria spatial decision support system for parking site selection problem: a case study. Land Use Policy 2014, 42:492-508.
28. Iosifescu-Enescu I., Hugentobler M., Hurni L. Web cartography with open standards - a solution to cartographic challenges of environmental management. Environ. Model. Softw. 2010, 25:988-999.
29. Jankowsky P., Fraley G., Pebesma E. An exploratory approach to spatial decision support. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2014, 45:101-113.
30. Janvrin D.J., Raschke R.L., Dilla W.N. Making sense of complex data using interactive data visualization. J. Account. Educ. 2014, 32:31-48.
31. Karjalainen E., Tyrväinen L. Visualization in forest landscape preference research: a finish perspective. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 59:13-28.
32. Keller, C.P., 1997. Unit 57 - Decision-making using multiple criteria. (accessed 14.08.2014). http://ibis.geog.ubc.ca/courses/klink/gis.notes/ncgia/u57.html#SEC57.2.2.
33. Keeney R.L. Value-focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking 1992, Harvard University Press.
34. Ko Y., Park S., Seo J., Choi S. Using classification techniques for informal requirements in the requirements analysis-supporting system. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2007, 49:1128-1140.
35. Kolb, A.Y.; Kolb, D.A., 2005. The Kolb learning style inventory - version 3.1. 2005 technical specifications. In: Experience Based Learning Systems. HayGroup, 2005, Online resource: . http://learningfromexperience.com/media/2010/08/tech_spec_lsi.pdf.
36. Kolb D.A. Experimental Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development 1984, Enlewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, NJ.
37. Kraak M.-J. Computer-Assisted Cartographical Three-Dimensional Imaging Techniques 1988, 175. Delft University Press, Delft.
38. Lange E., Hehl-Lange S. Making visions visible for long-term landscape management. Futures 2010, 42:693-699.
39. Lautenbach S., Berlekamp J., Graf N., Seppelt R., Matthies M. Scenario analysis and management options for sustainable river basin management: application of the Elbe DSS. Environ. Model. Softw. 2009, 24(1):26-43.
40. Li G., Fang C. Global mapping and estimation of ecosystem services values and gross domestic product: a spatially explicit integration of national 'green GDP' accounting. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 46:293-314.
41. Lin H.X., Choong Y.-Y., Salvendy G. A proposed index of usability: a method for comparing the relative usability of different software systems. Behav. Inf. Technol. 1997, 16(4):267-278.
42. Luck G.W., Chan K., Eser U., Gómez-Baggethun E., Matzdorf B., Norton B., Potschin M. Ethical considerations in on-ground applications of the ecosystem services concept. BioScience 2012, 62(12):1020-1029.
43. Lund, A.M., 2001. Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. In: STC Usability SIG Newsletter 8(2), Online resource: . http://www.stcsig.org/usability/newsletter/0110_measuring_with_use.html.
44. Maes J., Egoh B., Willemen L., Liquete C., Vihervaara P., Schägner J.P., Grizzetti B., Drakou E., La Notte A., Zulian G., Bouraoui F., Paracchini M.L., Braat L., Bidoglio G. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1:31-39.
45. Maguire B., Potts J., Fletcher S. The role of stakeholders in the marine planning process - stakeholder analysis within the Solent, United Kingdom. Mar. Policy 2012, 36:246-257.
46. Massei G., Rocchi L., Paolotti L., Greco S., Boggia A. Decision support systems for environmental management: a case study on wastewater from agriculture. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 146:491-504.
47. Martínez-Harms M., Balvanera P. Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2012, 8(1-2):17-25. (Special Issue: Quantifying and Mapping Ecosystem Services), 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.663792〈
48. Masto R.E., Chhonkar P.K., Purakayastha T.J., Patra A.K., Singh D. Soil quality indices for evaluation of long-term land use and soil management practices in semi-arid sub-tropical India. Land Degrad. Dev. 2008, 19(5):516-529.
49. MESEU Mapping of Ecosystems and their Services in the EU and its Member States 2014, MESEU, Synthesis report 2012-2014. October 31, 2014.
50. Nelson R.A., Holzworth D.P., Hammer G.L., Hayman P.T. Infusing the use of seasonal climate forecasting into crop management practice in North East Australia using discussion support software. Agric. Syst. 2002, 74:393-414.
51. Neuenschwander N., Wissen Hayek W., Grêt-Regamey A. Integrating an urban green space typology into procedural 3D visualization for collaborative planning. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2014, 48:99-110.
52. Orenstein D.E., Groner E. In the eye of the stakeholder: changes in perceptions of ecosystem services across an international border. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 8:185-196.
53. Pettit C.J., Raymond C.M., Bryan B.A., Lewis H. Identifying strengths and weaknesses of landscape visualization for effective communication of future alternatives. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 100:231-241.
54. Pomeroy R., Douvere F. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Mar. Policy 2008, 32:816-822.
55. Power D.J. Decision support systems concept. Encyclopedia of Decision Making and Decision Support Technologies 2008, 232-235. IGI-Global, London. F. Adam, P. Humphreys (Eds.).
56. Power, D.J., 2001. Supporting decision makers: an expanded framework. In: Harriger, A. (Ed.), E-Proceedings 2001 of the Informing Science Conference, pp. 431-436.
57. Prümper, J., 1997. Der Benutzungsfragebogen ISONORM 9241/10: Ergebnisse zur Reliabilität und Validität. In: Proceedings of Software-Ergonomie D97, Berichte des German Chapter oft he ACM Volume 49, pp. 253-262.
58. Reid W.V., Mooney H.A., Capistrano D., et al. Nature: the many benefits of ecosystem services. Nature 2006, 443,749 2010 | ISBN: 1420062093 | 507.
59. Romanach S., Mc Kelvy M., Conzelmann C., Suir K. A visualization tool to support decision making in environmental and biological planning. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 62:221-229.
60. Šantrůčková M., Weber M., Lipský Z., Stroblová L. Participative landscape planning in rural areas: a case study from Novodvorsko, Žehušicko, Czech Republic. Futures 2013, 51:3-18.
61. Schägner J.P., Brander L., Maes J., Hartje V. Mapping ecosystem servicesDvalues: current practice and future prospects. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 4:33-46.
62. Simon H.A. The New Science of Management Decisions 1960, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
63. Sojda, R.S. Chen, S.H. El Sawah, S. Ha, J. Guillaume, A.J. Lautenbach, S. Mc Intosh, B.S., 2012. Identifying the decision to be supported: a review of papers from environmental modelling and software. In: Proceedings of the International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software.
64. Stock C., Bishop I., Green R. Exploring landscape changes using an envisioning system in rural community workshops. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 79:229-239.
65. Sugumaran R., De Groote J. Spatial Decision Support Systems - Principles and Practices 2011, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
66. Terry A. Thematic Cartography and Geovisualization 2014, Prentice Hall, Pearson, Upper Saddle River.
67. Tiede D., Lang S. Analytical 3D views and virtual globes - scientific results in familiar spatial context. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2010, 65:300-307.
68. Tyner A. Principles of Map Design 2010, 2010. The Guilford Press, NY.
69. Venezky R.L. Thematic maps in geopgraphy. What Children Learn in School 1972, Grume and Stratton, New York. S. Zimet (Ed.).
70. Wanderer T., Herle S. Creating a spatial multi-criteria decision support system for energy related integrated environmental impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2014, available online. 10.1016/j.eiar.2014.09.002.
71. Wissen Hayek, U. Neuenschwander, N. Grêt-Regamey, A., 2012. Facilitating well-informed trade-off decision making on land use change: Integrating rules and indicators of ecosystem service provision into procedural 3D visualization. In: Seppelt, R. Voinov, A.A., Lange, S. Bankamp, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs) 2012 International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software Managing Resources of a Limited Planet: Pathways and Visions under Uncertainty, Sixth Biennial Meeting, Leipzig, Germany, pp. 2235-2242.
72. Wissen Hayek U. Which is the appropriate 3D visualization type for participatory landscape planning workshop? A portfolio of their effectiveness. Environ. Plan. B 2011, 38:921-939.
73. Yee S.H., Carriger J.F., Bradley P., Fisher W.S., Dyson B. Developing scientific information to support decision for sustainable coral reef ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2014, in press. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.016.