From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments

Ecosystem services mapping and modeling has focused more on supply than demand, until recently. Whereas the potential provision of economic benefits from ecosystems to people is often quantified through ecological production functions, the use of and demand for ecosystem services has received less attention, as have the spatial flows of services from ecosystems to people. However, new modeling approaches that map and quantify service-specific sources (ecosystem capacity to provide a service), sinks (biophysical or anthropogenic features that deplete or alter service flows), users (user locations and level of demand), and spatial flows can provide a more complete understanding of ecosystem services. Through a case study in Puget Sound, Washington State, USA, we quantify and differentiate between the theoretical or in situ provision of services, i.e., ecosystems' capacity to supply services, and their actual provision when accounting for the location of beneficiaries and the spatial connections that mediate service flows between people and ecosystems. Our analysis includes five ecosystem services: carbon sequestration and storage, riverine flood regulation, sediment regulation for reservoirs, open space proximity, and scenic viewsheds. Each ecosystem service is characterized by different beneficiary groups and means of service flow. Using the ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) methodology we map service supply, demand, and flow, extending on simpler approaches used by past studies to map service provision and use. With the exception of the carbon sequestration service, regions that actually provided services to people, i.e., connected to beneficiaries via flow paths, amounted to 16-66% of those theoretically capable of supplying services, i.e., all ecosystems across the landscape. These results offer a more complete understanding of the spatial dynamics of ecosystem services and their effects, and may provide a sounder basis for economic valuation and policy applications than studies that consider only theoretical service provision and/or use.

[1]  Gary W. Johnson,et al.  A Methodology for Adaptable and Robust Ecosystem Services Assessment , 2014, PloS one.

[2]  Roy Haines-Young,et al.  National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows , 2013 .

[3]  Joachim Maes,et al.  Mapping ecosystem services' values: current practice and future prospects. , 2013 .

[4]  Gary W. Johnson,et al.  Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services , 2013 .

[5]  E. Bennett,et al.  Linking Landscape Connectivity and Ecosystem Service Provision: Current Knowledge and Research Gaps , 2013, Ecosystems.

[6]  David Batker,et al.  Valuing the aquatic benefits of British Columbia's Lower Mainland : nearshore natural capital valuation , 2012 .

[7]  U. Walz,et al.  Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: Providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics , 2012 .

[8]  F. Müller,et al.  Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets , 2012 .

[9]  Benjamin Burkhard,et al.  Flood regulating ecosystem services—Mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria , 2012 .

[10]  Ferdinando Villa,et al.  Service Path Attribution Networks (SPANs): A Network Flow Approach to Ecosystem Service Assessment , 2012, Int. J. Agric. Environ. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Patricia Balvanera,et al.  Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review , 2012 .

[12]  Mary E. Kentula,et al.  Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice , 2012 .

[13]  Darius J. Semmens,et al.  Accounting for the ecosystem services of migratory species: Quantifying migration support and spatial subsidies , 2011 .

[14]  Kari L Vigerstol,et al.  A comparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem services. , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[15]  Stephanie K. Moore,et al.  Past trends and future scenarios for environmental conditions favoring the accumulation of paralytic shellfish toxins in Puget Sound shellfish , 2011 .

[16]  G. Daily,et al.  Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services , 2011 .

[17]  M. Rummukainen,et al.  A model of the coupled dynamics of climate, vegetation and terrestrial ecosystem biogeochemistry for regional applications , 2011 .

[18]  R. Howarth,et al.  The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations , 2011 .

[19]  Ferdinando Villa,et al.  Bridging Scales and Paradigms in Natural Systems Modeling , 2010, MTSR.

[20]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  The impact of proxy‐based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services , 2010 .

[21]  J. Logan,et al.  Impacts of climate change from 2000 to 2050 on wildfire activity and carbonaceous aerosol concentrations in the western United States , 2009 .

[22]  T. Keitt.  Habitat conversion, extinction thresholds, and pollination services in agroecosystems. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[23]  Andrea Emilio Rizzoli,et al.  Modelling with knowledge: A review of emerging semantic approaches to environmental modelling , 2009, Environ. Model. Softw..

[24]  G. Daily,et al.  Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales , 2009 .

[25]  R. Costanza,et al.  Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making , 2009 .

[26]  E. Schreiner,et al.  Baseline Studies in the Elwha River Ecosystem Prior to Dam Removal: Introduction to the Special Issue , 2008 .

[27]  P. Kareiva,et al.  An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[28]  F. Stuart Chapin,et al.  Ecosystem Services and Emergent Vulnerability in Managed Ecosystems: A Geospatial Decision-Support Tool , 2008, Ecosystems.

[29]  Shawn Bowers,et al.  Advancing ecological research with ontologies. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[30]  R. Costanza.  Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed , 2008 .

[31]  S. Reaney.  The use of agent based modelling techniques in hydrology: determining the spatial and temporal origin of channel flow in semi‐arid catchments , 2008 .

[32]  G. Daily,et al.  The Nature and Value of Ecosystem Services: An Overview Highlighting Hydrologic Services , 2007 .

[33]  K. Wallace.  Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions , 2007 .

[34]  R. Epting,et al.  The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services , 2007, Environmental Health Perspectives.

[35]  Christopher L. Lant,et al.  The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services , 2007 .

[36]  M. Aizen,et al.  Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[37]  A. Troy,et al.  Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer , 2006 .

[38]  B. Marcot,et al.  Bayesian belief networks: applications in ecology and natural resource management , 2006 .

[39]  J. Boyd,et al.  What are Ecosystem Services? The Need for Standardized Environmental Accounting Units , 2006 .

[40]  J. Salzman,et al.  Creating Markets for Ecosystem Services: Notes from the Field , 2005 .

[41]  Tom J. Coulthard,et al.  Modeling long-term contamination in river systems from historical metal mining , 2003 .

[42]  Steven C. Bourassa,et al.  What's in a View? , 2003 .

[43]  R. D. Groot,et al.  A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services , 2002 .

[44]  David J. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Probabilistic Networks and Expert Systems , 1999, Information Science and Statistics.

[45]  R. O'Neill,et al.  The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital , 1997, Nature.

[46]  G. R. Foster,et al.  Predicting soil erosion by water : a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) , 1997 .

[47]  Louise Willemen,et al.  Indicators for mapping ecosystem services: a review , 2012 .

[48]  Darius J. Semmens,et al.  Ecosystem services valuation to support decisionmaking on public lands—A case study of the San Pedro River watershed, Arizona , 2012 .

[49]  J. Gaydos,et al.  Species of Concern within the Salish Sea: changes from 2002 to 2011 , 2011 .

[50]  G. Grimsditch,et al.  The Management of Natural Coastal Carbon Sinks , 2009 .

[51]  R. Birdsey,et al.  Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon with standard estimates for forest types of the United States , 2006 .

[52]  J. Haines,et al.  Coastal Habitats in Puget Sound (CHIPS) , 2006 .

[53]  Margaret Walls,et al.  THE VALUE OF OPEN SPACE: EVIDENCE FROM STUDIES OF NONMARKET BENEFITS , 2005 .

[54]  P. Mote,et al.  Uncertain Future: Climate Change and Its Effects on Puget Sound - Foundation Document , 2005 .