Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 29, Issue , 2018, Pages 481-498

  Harrison, Paula A ^a   Dunford, Rob ^a,b   Barton, David N ^c   Kelemen, Eszter ^d,e   Martín López, Berta ^f   Norton, Lisa ^a   Termansen, Mette ^g   Saarikoski, Heli ^h   Hendriks, Kees ⁱ   Gómez Baggethun, Erik ^j   Czúcz, Bálint ^k,l   García Llorente, Marina ^m,n   Howard, David ^a   Jacobs, Sander ^o   Karlsen, Martin ^p   Kopperoinen, Leena ^h   Madsen, Andes ^p,q   Rusch, Graciela ^c   van Eupen, Michiel ⁱ   Verweij, Peter ⁱ   Smith, Ron ^a   Tuomasjukka, Diana ^r   Zulian, Grazia ^s   more..

^a CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

^d Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG)   (Hungary)

^e Institute of Entrepreneurship and Innovation   (Hungary)

^f LEUPHANA UNIVERSITY OF LÜNEBURG   (Germany)

^g AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^h FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

ⁱ WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^j NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

^k INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY AND BOTANY   (Hungary)

^l MUSÉUM NATIONAL D'HISTOIRE NATURELLE   (France)

^m Madrid Institute for Rural   (Spain)

ⁿ UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^o RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR NATURE AND FOREST INBO   (Belgium)

^p HUGIN EXPERT A S   (Denmark)

^q AALBORG UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^r EUROPEAN FOREST INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^s JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

more..

Author keywords

Biophysical; Decision trees; Guidance; Method; Monetary; Socio cultural; Tool

Indexed keywords

EID: 85031108981     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.016     Document Type: Article

References (94)

1. Alkemade, R., van Oorschot, M., Miles, L., Nellemann, C., Bakkenes, M., ten Brink, B., GLOBIO3: a framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems 12 (2009), 374–390.
2. Bagstad, K.J., Semmens, D.J., Waage, S., Winthrop, R., A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst. Serv. 5 (2013), 27–39.
3. Barton, D., et al. (Dis) integrated valuation: narrowing the gap between ES appraisals and governance support. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 529–541.
4. Baró, F., Haase, D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Frantzeskaki, N., Mismatches between ecosystem services supply and demand in urban areas: a quantitative assessment in five European cities. Ecol. Indic. 55 (2015), 146–158.
5. Bateman, I., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D.W., Swandon, J. (2002). Economic Valuation with Stated Preferences Techniques. A Manual.
6. Bateman, I.J., Mace, G.M., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G., Turner, K., Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environ. Resource Econ. 48:2 (2011), 177–218.
7. BBOP (2009). Biodiversity Offset Cost-Benefit Handbook. Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP), Washington, D.C. Available from: www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/cbh.pdf.
8. Bestelmeyer, B.T., Moseley, K., Shaver, P.L., Sánchez, H., Briske, D.D., Fernández-Giménez, M.E., Practical guidance for developing State-and-Transition Models. Rangelands 32:6 (2010), 23–30.
9. Boardman, A.E., Greenberg, D.H., Vining, A.R., Weimer, D.L., Cost-Benefit Analysis. Concepts and Practices. 3rd ed., 2006, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
10. Brown, G., Fagerholm, N., Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst. Serv. 13 (2015), 119–133.
11. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F., Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Ind. 21 (2012), 17–29.
12. Calvet-Mir, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Reyes-García, V., Beyond food production: ecosystem services provided by home gardens. A case study in Vall Fosca, Catalan Pyrenees, Northeastern Spain. Ecol. Econ. 74 (2012), 153–160, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.12.011.
13. Campos, P., Caparrós, A. (2011). RECAMAN Project: Mediterranean Monte Ecosystems total income green accounting. Presentation to the Expert Meeting on Ecosystem Accounting, May 2011. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
14. CBD (2012). Best policy guidance for the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in standards. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Montreal, CBD Technical Series No. 73. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-73-en.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2016.
15. de Oliveira, L.E.C., Berkes, F., What value São Pedro's procession? Ecosystem services from local people's perceptions. Ecol. Econ. 107 (2014), 114–121.
16. Dick, J., et al. Users’ perspectives of ecosystem service concept: results from 27 case studies. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 552–565.
17. Dunford, R., Harrison, P.A., Dick, J., Barton, D.N., Martin-Lopez, B., Kelemen, E., Jacobs, S., Saarikoski, H., Turkelboom, F., Verheyden, W., Smith, A., Hauck, J., Antunes, P., Aszalós, R., Badea, O., Baro, F., Berry, P., Carvalho, L., Czúcz, B., Garcia Blanco, G., Howard, D., Giuca, R., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Grizetti, B., Izakovicova, Z., Kopperoinen, L., Langemeyer, J., Luque, S., Lapola, D.M., Martinez-Pastur, G., Mukhopadhyay, R., Murherjee, R., Niemelä, J., Norton, L., Ochieng, J., Odee, D., Palomo, I., Pinho, P., Priess, J., Rusch, G., Saarela, S.-R., Santos, R., Tjalling van der Wal, J., Vadineanu, A., Vári, A., Woods, H., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment: experiences from real world situations. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 499–514.
18. FAO (2013). Policy Support Guidelines for the Promotion of Sustainable Production Intensification and Ecosystem Services. Plant Production and Protection Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available from: http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/CA-Publications/ICM19.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2016.
19. Francesconi, W., Srinivasan, R., Pérez-Miñana, E., Willcock, S.P., Quintero, M., Using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to model ecosystem services: A systematic review. J. Hydrol. 535 (2016), 625–636.
20. García-Llorente, M., Castro, A., Quintas-Soriano, C., López, I., Castro, H., Montes, C., Martín-López, B., The value of time in biological conservation and supplied services. J. Arid Environ. 124 (2016), 13–21.
21. García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., López-Santiago, C.A., Aguilera, P.A., Montes, C., The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: an ecosystem service approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 19–20 (2012), 136–146.
22. García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Nunes, P., Castro, A., Montes, C., A choice experiment study for land use scenarios in semi-arid watersheds environments. J. Arid Environ. 87 (2012), 219–230.
23. Gasparatos, A., Scolobig, A., Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool. Ecol. Econ. 80 (2012), 1–7, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.05.005.
24. Gibbons, S., Mourato, S., Resende, G.M., The amenity value of English nature: a hedonic price approach. Environ. Resource Econ. 57:2 (2014), 175–196.
25. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D.N., Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning. Ecol. Econ. 86 (2013), 235–245.
26. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D., Berry, P., Dunford, R., Harrison, P.A., Concepts and methods in ecosystem services valuation. Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Fish, R., Turner, R.K., (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services, 2016, Routledge, London and New York, 99–111.
27. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Barton, D.N., Braat, L., Saarikoski, H., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., E., J.v.d.B., Arias, P., Berry, P., Potschin, M., Keene, H., Dunford, R., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Harrison, P.A. (2014). EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 4.1. State-of-the-art report on integrated valuation of ecosystem services. European Commission FP7.
28. Gould, R.K., Klain, S.C., Ardoin, N.M., Satterfield, T., Woodside, U., Hannahs, N., Daily, G.C., Chan, K.M., A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame. Conserv. Biol. 29:2 (2015), 575–586.
29. Grêt-regamey, A., Sirén, E., Hanna Brunner, S., Weibel, B., Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept. Ecosyst. Serv. 26 (2017), 306–315, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.012.
30. GRI (2011). Approach for reporting on ecosystem services: Incorporating ecosystem services into an organisation's performance disclosure. Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam. Available from: https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/Approach-for-reporting-on-ecosystem-services.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2016.
31. Guillem, E.E., Murray-Rust, D., Robinson, D.T., Barnes, A., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Modelling farmer decision-making to anticipate trade-offs between provisioning ecosystem services and biodiversity. Agric. Syst. 137 (2015), 12–23.
32. Gürlük, S., The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: results from a contingent valuation survey. For. Policy Econ. 9:3 (2006), 209–218.
33. Harrison, P.A., Holman, I.P., Berry, P.M., Assessing cross-sectoral climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation: an Introduction to the CLIMSAVE project. Clim. Change 128 (2015), 153–167, 10.1007/s10584-015-1324-3.
34. Harrison, P.A., Berry, P.M., Butt, N., New, M., Modelling climate change impacts on species’ distributions at the European scale: implications for conservation policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 9 (2006), 116–128.
35. Highway Agency/DfT (2013). Applying an Ecosystem Services Framework to Transport Appraisal. Final Report by Atkins and Metroeconomica to the UK Highways Agency and Department for Transport. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/193821/esa-report.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2016.
36. IPBES (2016a). Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (Deliverable 3 (d)). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. Available from: http://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/IPBES-4-INF-13_EN.pdf. Accessed 25 November 2016.
37. IPBES (2016b). Methodological assessment of scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services [S. Ferrier, K.N. Ninan, P. Leadley, R. Alkemade, L.A. Acosta, H.R. Akçakaya, L. Brotons, W.W.L. Cheung, V. Christensen, K.A. Harhash, J. Kabubo-Mariara, C. Lundquist, M. Obersteiner, H. Pereira, G. Peterson, R. Pichs-Madruga, N. Ravindranath, C. Rondinini and B.A. Wintle (eds.)], Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. Available from http://www.ipbes.net/work-programme/scenarios-and-modelling. Accessed 10 January 2017.
38. IPIECA/OGP (2011). Ecosystem services guidance: Biodiversity and ecosystem services guide and checklists. OGP Report Number 461, The global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues (IPIECA) and the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP), London. Available from: http://www.ipieca.org/publication/ecosystem-services-guidance. Accessed 2 November 2016.
39. Jacobs, S., Martin-Lopez, M., Barton, D., Dunford, R., Harrison, P.A., Kelemen, E., Saarikoski, H., Termansen, M., Garcia Llorente, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E.N., Kopperoinen, L., Luque, S., Palomo, I., Priess, J., Rusch, G.M., Tenerelli, P., Turkelboom, F., Demeyer, R., Hauck, J., Keune, H., Smith, R., The means determine the end – pursuing plural valuation in practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 515–528.
40. Jacobs, S., Spanhove, T., De Smet, L., Van Daele, T., Van Reeth, W., Van Gossum, P., Stevens, M., Schneiders, A., Panis, J., Demolder, H., Michels, H., Thoonen, M., Simoens, I., Peymen, J., The ecosystem service assessment challenge: reflections from Flanders-REA. Ecol. Ind., 61, 2015, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.023.
41. Jax, K., Furman, E., Saarikoski, H., Barton, D.N., Dick, J., Delbaere, B., Duke, G., Görg, C., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Harrison, P.A., Maes, J., Perez-Soba, M., Turkelboom, F., Saarela, S.-R., van Dijk, J., Watt, A.D., Handling a messy world: Lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 415–427.
42. Johnson, K.A., Dana, G., Jordan, N.R., Draeger, K.J., Kapuscinski, A., Smitt Olabisi, L.K., Reich, P.B., Using participatory scenarios to stimulate social learning for collaborative sustainable development. Ecol. Soc., 17(2), 2012, 9.
43. Johnston, R.J., Rolfe, J., Rosenberger, R.S., Brouwer, R., (eds.) Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values. A Guide for Researchers and Practitioners, 2015, Springer Science+Business Media, Drodrecht.
44. Kelemen, E., Nguyen, G., Gomiero, T., Kovács, E., Choisis, J.P., Choisis, N., Paoletti, M.G., Podmaniczky, L., Ryschawy, J., Sarthou, J.P., Herzog, F., Dennis, P., Balázs, K., Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity: lessons from a discourse-based deliberative valuation study. Land Policy 35 (2013), 318–328.
45. Kelly, R.A., Jakeman, A.J., Barreteau, O., Borsuk, M.E., ElSawah, S., Hamilton, S.H., Henriksen, H.J., Kuikka, S., Maier, H.R., Rizzoli, A.E., Delden, H., Voinov, A.A., Selecting among five common modelling approaches for integrated environmental assessment and management. Environ. Model. Software 47 (2013), 159–181.
46. Kenter, J., O'Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K., Reed, M., Christie, M., Brady, E., Bryce, R., Churche, A., Cooper, N., Davies, A., Evely, A., Everard, M., Fish, R., Fisher, J., Jobstvogt, N., Molloy, C., Orchard-Webb, J., Ranger, J., Ryant, M., Watsont, V., Williams, S., What are shared and social values of ecosystems?. Ecol. Econ. 111 (2015), 86–99.
47. Konrad, M., Gyldenkærne, S., Andersen, H.E., Termansen, M., Synergies and trade-offs in water quality and climate change mitigation policies. Land Econ. 93:2 (2017), 3090–3327.
48. Kopperoinen, L., Itkonen, P., Niemelä, J., Using expert knowledge in combining green infrastructure and ecosystem services in land use planning: an insight into a new place-based methodology. Landscape Ecol. 29:8 (2014), 1361–1375.
49. Langemeyer, J., Baró, F., Roebeling, P., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Contrasting values of cultural ecosystem services in urban areas: the case of park Montjuïc in Barcelona. Ecosyst. Serv. 12 (2015), 178–186.
50. Langemeyer, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Haase, D., Scheuer, S., Elmqvist, T., Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Environ. Sci. Policy 62 (2016), 45–56.
51. Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R., Mermet, L., Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot. J. Environ. Manage. 119 (2013), 208–219.
52. López-Santiago, C.A., Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Plieninger, T., González, E., González, J.A., Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecol. Soc., 19(2), 2014, 27 URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss2/art27/.
53. Luck, G.W., Harrington, R., Harrison, P.A., Kremen, C., Berry, P.M., Bugter, R., Dawson, T.P., de Bello, F., Diaz, S., Feld, C.K., Haslett, J.R., Hering, D., Kontogianni, A., Lavorel, S., Rounsevell, M., Samways, M.J., Sandin, L., Settele, J., Sykes, M.T., Van de Hove, S., Vandewalle, M., Zobel, M., Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. Bioscience 59:3 (2009), 223–235.
54. Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M., Montes, C., Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol. Ind. 37 (2014), 220–228.
55. Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., García del Amo, D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., Palacios-Agundez, I., Willaarts, B., González, J.A., Santos-Martín, F., Onaindia, M., López-Santiago, C., Montes, C., Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE, 7(6), 2012, e38970, 10.1371/journal.pone.0038970.
56. Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Lomas, P., Montes, C., Scale effects on cultural services valuation in protected Areas. J. Environ. Manage. 90 (2009), 1050–1059.
57. Martinez-Harms, M.J., Bryan, B.A., Balvanera, P., Law, E.A., Rhodes, J.R., Possingham, H.P., Wilson, K.A., Making decisions for managing ecosystem services. Biol. Conserv. 184 (2015), 229–238.
58. Maynard, S., James, D., Davidson, A., Determining the value of multiple ecosystem services in terms of community wellbeing: Who should be the valuing agent?. Ecol. Econ. 115 (2015), 22–28.
59. McCarthy, D., Morling, P. (2014). A Guidance Manual for Assessing Ecosystem Services at Natura 2000 Sites. Produced as part of the Natura People project, part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the INTERREG IV A 2 Mers Seas Zeeen Crossborder Programme 2007–2013. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: Sandy, Bedfordshire. Available from: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/natura_2000_guidance_manual_tcm9-399208.pdf. Accessed 2 November 2016.
60. Munda, G., Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158 (2004), 662–667.
61. Nayab, N. (2011). Disadvantages to Using Decision Trees. Bright Hub Project Management http://www.brighthubpm.com/project-planning/106005-disadvantages-to-using-decision-trees/. Accessed 13 December 2016.
62. Obst, C., Hein, L., Edens, B., National accounting and the valuation of ecosystem assets and their services. Environ. Resource Econ. 64 (2016), 1–23, 10.1007/s10640-015-9921-1.
63. Opdam, P., Albert, C., Fürst, C., Grêt-Regamey, A., Kleemann, J., Parker, D., La Rosa, D., Schmidt, K., Villamor, G.B., Walz, A., Ecosystem services for connecting actors – lessons from a symposium. Change Adaptation Socio-Ecol. Syst 2 (2015), 1–7.
64. Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R., Başak, E., Breslow, S.J., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Keune, H., Maris, V., Pengue, W., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S.M., Wittmer, H., Mohamed, A.A., Al-Hafedh, Y.S., Asah, S.T., Berry, P., Bilgin, A., Bullock, C., Cáceres, D., Golden, C., Gómez-Baggethun, E., González-Jiménez, D., Houdet, J., Kumar, R., May, P.H., Mead, A., O'Farrell, P., Pacheco-Balanza, D., Pandit, R., Pichis-Madruga, R., Popa, F., Preston, S., Saarikoski, H., Strassburg, B.B., Verma, M., Yagi, N. (2016). Revealing the diversity of values of nature and its benefits to people for a good quality of life: The IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability, 23. Forthcoming.
65. Pereira, E., Queiroz, C., Pereira, H.M., Vicente, L., Ecosystem services and human well-being: a participatory study in a mountain community in Portugal. Ecol. Soc., 10(2), 2005, 14.
66. Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R.H., Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical perspective. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 35 (2011), 575–594.
67. Priess, J., Hauck, J., Integrative scenario development. Ecol. Soc., 19(1), 2014, 12.
68. Pullin, A.S., Frampton, G., Jongman, R., Kohl, C., Livoreil, B., Lux, A., Pataki, G., Petrokofsky, G., Podhora, A., Saarikoski, H., Santamaria, L., Schindler, S., Sousa-Pinto, I., Vandewalle, M., Wittmer, H., Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy. Biodivers. Conserv. 25:7 (2016), 1285–1300.
69. Quinlan, J.R., Decision trees and decision-making. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. 20:2 (1990), 339–346.
70. Richards, D.R., Friess, D.A., A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: content analysis of social media photographs. Ecol. Ind. 53 (2015), 187–195.
71. Rokach, L., Maimon, O., Chapter 9 classification trees. Maimon, Oded, Rokach, Lior, (eds.) Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook, 2005, Springer, 165–192.
72. Rodela, R., Bregt, A.K., Perez-Soba, M., Verweij, P. (2017). When having a stake matters: pilot-testing spatial decision support systems with students vs. real stakeholders. Environ. Model. Software, submitted December 2016.
73. Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H., Guerry, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T., Bhagabati, N., Wood, S.A., Bernhardt, J., Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol. Econ. 115 (2015), 11–21.
74. Saarikoski, H., Mustajoki, J., Barton, D., Geneletti, D., Langemeyer, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Marttunen, M., Antunes, P., Keune, H., Santos, R., Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis: comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 22 (2016), 238–249.
75. Saarikoski, H., Primmer, E., Saarela, S.-R., Antunes, P., Aszalós, R., Baró, F., Berry, P., Garcia Blanco, G., Goméz-Baggethun, E., Carvalho, L., Dick, J., Dunford, R., Hanzu, M., Harrison, P.A., Izakovicova, Z., Kertész, M., Kopperoinen, L., Köhler, B., Langemeyer, J., Lapola, D., Liquete, C., Luque, S., Mederly, P., Niemela, J., Palomo, I., Martinez Pastur, G., Peri, P., Preda, E., Priess, J., Santos, R., Schleyer, C., Turkelboom, F., Vadineanu, A., Verheyden, W., Vikström, S., Young, J., Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 579–598.
76. Santos-Martín, F., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., Jacobs, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., Palomo, I., Barton, D.N., Hevia, V., Martín-López, B. (2017). Socio-cultural valuation approaches. In: Burkhard, B., Maes, J. (eds) Mapping Ecosystem Services. Pensoft Publishers. Forthcoming.
77. Schulp, C.J.E., Alkemade, R., Goldewijk, K.K., Petz, K., Mapping ecosystem functions and services in Eastern Europe using global-scale data sets. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci., Ecosyst. Serv. Manage. 8 (2012), 156–168.
78. Schweitzer, C., Priess, J.A., Das, S., A generic framework for land-use modelling. Environ. Model. Software 26 (2011), 1052–1055.
79. Sharp, R., Tallis, H.T., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A.D., Wood, S.A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Nelson, E., Ennaanay, D., Wolny, S., Olwero, N., Vigerstol, K., Pennington, D., Mendoza, G., Aukema, J., Foster, J., Forrest, J., Cameron, D., Arkema, K., Lonsdorf, E., Kennedy, C., Verutes, G., Kim, C.K., Guannel, G., Papenfus, M., Toft, J., Marsik, M., Bernhardt, J., Griffin, R., Glowinski, K., Chaumont, N., Perelman, A., Lacayo, M., Mandle, L., Hamel, P., Vogl, A.L., Rogers, L., Bierbower, W. (2016). InVEST +VERSION+ User's Guide, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund, The Natural Capital Project, Stanford, USA.
80. Seppelt, R., Fath, B., Burkhard, B., Fisher, J.L., Gret-Regamey, A., Lauterback, S., Pert, P., Hotes, S., Spangenberg, J.H., Verburg, P.H., Van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Form follows function? Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies. Ecol. Ind. 21 (2012), 145–154.
81. Smith, R.I., Barton, D.N., Dick, J., Haines-Young, R., Madsen, A.L., Rusch, G.M., Termansen, M., Woods, H., Carvalho, L., Constantin Giucă, R., Luque, S., Odee, D., Rusch, V., Saarikoski, H., Mihai Adamescu, C., Dunford, R., Ochieng, J., Gonzalez-Redin, J., Stange, E., Vădineanu, A., Verweij, P., Vikström, S., Operationalising ecosystem service assessment in Bayesian Belief Networks: experiences within the OpenNESS project. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 452–464.
82. TEEB (2013). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Guidance Manual for TEEB Country Studies. Version 1.0. Available from: http://www.teebweb.org/media/2013/10/TEEB_GuidanceManual_2013_1.0.pdf.
83. TEEB, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management. Available from: http://www.teebweb.org/publication/teeb-manual-for-cities-ecosystem-services-in-urban-management/, 2011.
84. UN, System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012 - Experimental Ecosystem Accounting. UN, EC, FAO, IMF, OECD and World Bank. 2014, United Nations, New York.
85. USDA, Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) - Welcome to RUSLE 1 and RUSLE 2. 2016, United States Department of Agriculture See http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=5971.
86. Vatn, A., An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal. Ecol. Econ. 31 (2009), 2207–2215.
87. Verweij, P., Janssen, S., Braat, L., van Eupen, M., Perez-Soba, M., Winograd, M., de Winter, W., Cormont, A., QUICKScan as a quick and participatory methodology for problem identification and scoping in policy processes. Environ. Sci. Policy 66 (2016), 47–61.
88. Vihervaara, P., Rönkä, M., Walls, M., Trends in ecosystem service research: early steps and current drivers. Ambio 39 (2010), 314–324.
89. Ward, F.A., Beal, D., Valuing Nature with Travel Cost Models. A Manual. New Horizons in Environmental Economics. 2000, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
90. Wijnja, H., van Uden, G., Delbaere, B. (Eds.) 2016. Ecosystem services in operation: case studies. EU FP7 OpenNESS Project. European Commission. Available at: https://issuu.com/ecnc.org/docs/openness_casestudies_brochure.
91. Wilson, M.A., Howarth, R.B., Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecol. Econ. 41:3 (2002), 431–443.
92. Zulian, G., Paracchini, M.-L., Maes, J., Liquete Garcia, M.D.C. (2013a). ESTIMAP: Ecosystem services mapping at European scale. Available from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/30410/1/lb-na-26474-en-n.pdf.
93. Zulian, G., Paracchini, M.-L., Maes, J., Liquete Garcia, M.D.C. (2013b). ESTIMAP: Ecosystem services mapping at European scale. (E. U. R.-S., T. R. Reports, Ed.). European Commision. Available from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/30410/1/lb-na-26474-en-n.pdf.
94. Zulian, G., Carvalho, L., Dick, J., Stange, E., Barton, D., Rusch, G.M., Woods, H., Czúcz, B., Aszalós, R., Barò, F., Vizcaino, P., Priess, J., Antunes, P., Fernandes, J., Santos, R., Arany, I., Hoyer, C., Patricio, G., Lapola, D., Mederly, P., Halabuk, A., Bezak, P., Kopperoinen, L., Viinikka, A., Andrews, C., Nowel, M., Ferraz, D., Practical application of spatial ecosystem service models to aid decision support. Ecosyst. Serv. 29 (2018), 465–480.