The impact of proxy‐based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services

An increasing number of studies are examining the distribution and congruence of ecosystem services, often with the goal of identifying areas that will provide multiple ecosystem service 'hotspots'. However, there is a paucity of data on most ecosystem services, so proxies (e.g. estimates of a service for a particular land cover type) are frequently used to map their distribution. To date, there has been little attempt to quantify the effects of using proxies on distribution maps of ecosystem services, despite the potentially large errors associated with such data sets. 2. Here, we provide the first study examining the effects of using proxies on ecosystem service maps and the degree of spatial congruence of these maps with primary data, using England as a case study. 3. We show that land cover based proxies provide a poor fit to primary data surfaces for biodiversity, recreation and carbon storage, and that correlations between ecosystem services change depending on whether primary or proxy data are used for the analyses. 4. The poor fit of proxies to primary data was also evident when we selected hotspots of single ecosystem services, and consistency between raw and modelled surfaces was extremely low when considering the locations that were coincident hotspots for multiple services. 5. Synthesis and applications. Proxies may be suitable for identifying broad-scale trends in ecosystem services, but even relatively good proxies are likely to be unsuitable for identifying hotspots or priority areas for multiple services

[1]  Dominic Moran,et al.  Spatial economic valuation : Benefits transfer using geographical information systems , 1996 .

[2]  K. Gaston,et al.  Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities , 2009 .

[3]  Gretchen C Daily,et al.  Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services , 2006, PLoS biology.

[4]  J. Wiens Spatial Scaling in Ecology , 1989 .

[5]  D. Richardson,et al.  Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem services in South Africa , 2009 .

[6]  Carsten Rahbek,et al.  A Quantitative Analysis of Biodiversity and the Recreational Value of Potential National Parks in Denmark , 2008, Environmental management.

[7]  K. Chopra The value of non-timber forest products: An estimation for tropical deciduous forests in India , 1993, Economic Botany.

[8]  Zhongwei Guo,et al.  Ecosystem function for water retention and forest ecosystem conservation in a watershed of the Yangtze River , 2002, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[9]  R. Costanza,et al.  Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Pamela A Matson,et al.  Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Andreas Heinemeyer,et al.  Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated region , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  D. Richardson,et al.  Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management , 2008 .

[13]  Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis , 2005 .

[14]  S. Polasky,et al.  Efficiency of incentives to jointly increase carbon sequestration and species conservation on a landscape , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  T. Iwamura,et al.  Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural lands: Implications for conservation priorities , 2007 .

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

[17]  Hayri Önal,et al.  Site Accessibility And Prioritization Of Nature Reserves , 2007 .

[18]  M. Rounsevell,et al.  The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change , 2006 .

[19]  Ronald E. Lacey,et al.  Change in ecosystem service values in the San Antonio area, Texas , 2001 .

[20]  Maria Tengö,et al.  The value of small size: loss of forest patches and ecological thresholds in southern Madagascar. , 2006, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[21]  J. Lawton Community ecology in a changing world , 2000 .

[22]  R. Costanza,et al.  Global Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services , 2007 .

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

[24]  T. Ricketts,et al.  Mapping the Economic Costs and Benefits of Conservation , 2006, PLoS biology.

[25]  R. G. Davies,et al.  Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat , 2005, Nature.

[26]  R. Milne,et al.  Carbon in the Vegetation and Soils of Great Britain , 1997 .

[27]  I. C. Prentice,et al.  Carbon balance of the terrestrial biosphere in the Twentieth Century: Analyses of CO2, climate and land use effects with four process‐based ecosystem models , 2001 .

[28]  Neal M. Williams,et al.  The area requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities in California , 2004 .

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

[30]  M. Plummer,et al.  Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services , 2009 .

[31]  Peter Fredman,et al.  On the distance to recreational forests in Sweden , 2000 .

[32]  Johan Olausson,et al.  The Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland , 2007 .

[33]  P. Sutton,et al.  SPECIAL ISSUE: The Dynamics and Value of Ecosystem Services: Integrating Economic and Ecological Perspectives Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation , 2002 .

[34]  L. Hein,et al.  Spatial characterization of landscape functions , 2008 .

[35]  T. Dines,et al.  New atlas of the British and Irish flora. An atlas of the vascular plants of Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. , 2002 .

[36]  R. D. Groot,et al.  Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services , 2006 .

[37]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Why biodiversity surveys are good value , 1999, Nature.