Sustainability Science

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 77–88 | Cite as

Investigating future ecosystem services through participatory scenario building and spatial ecological–economic modelling

  • Kei KabayaEmail author
  • Shizuka Hashimoto
  • Narufumi Fukuyo
  • Tomoko Uetake
  • Kazuhiko Takeuchi
Special Feature: Original Article Future Scenarios for Socio-Ecological Production Landscape and Seascape
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Feature: Future Scenarios for Socio-Ecological Production Landscape and Seascape


Scenario analysis with integrated quantitative modelling has become a common approach to investigate possible future socio-ecological systems in sustainability research. Facing several barriers on the use of scenarios, however, a participatory scenario approach has gained wider attention in place-based environmental research communities. In this paper, we investigate future ecosystem services (i.e., food production, carbon sequestration, nutrient retention, and habitat provision) in the explorative manner in the Sado island, Japan, using a participatory scenario approach and spatial ecological–economic modelling techniques. The contributions of this paper to the existing literatures are twofold: the one is collaborative use of morphological analysis and participants’ votes for more fair and transparent scenario building, and the other is a suite of spatial modelling techniques, inter alia, land-use projections using a spatial multinomial logit model, for more robust and accurate simulations. Taking such innovative approaches and constructing the ecosystem service index reflecting local perceptions, we built distinctive six scenarios and projected future ecosystem services. As consequences, we could (1) illuminate the trade-offs between land-based ecosystem services, (2) highlight the importance of adequate mosaic structures in providing bundle of ecosystem services, and (3) visualize the spatially heterogenous impacts of alternative scenarios that imply one scenario does not fit all areas. We also discussed the interpretation of a sink service from sustainability perspectives and lessons learned from the parallel approach of participatory scenario building and quantitative modelling exercises.


Ecosystem services Land use Participatory scenario Spatial econometric models Sustainability 



This research was supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund [S-15 Predicting and Assessing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services (PANCES)] of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan.

Supplementary material

11625_2018_590_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (918 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 918 kb)


  1. Bagstad KJ, Semmens DJ, Waage S, Winthrop R (2013) A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosyst Serv 5:27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman IJ, Harwood AR, Mace GM, Watson RT, Abson DJ, Andrews B, Termansen M (2013) Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341(6141):45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonsu NO, Dhubháin ÁN, O’Connor D (2017) Evaluating the use of an integrated forest land-use planning approach in addressing forest ecosystem services conflicting demands: experience within an Irish forest landscape. Futures 86:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capitani C, Mukama K, Mbilinyi B, Malugu I, Munishi P, Burgess N, Platts P, Sallu SM, Marchant R (2016) From local scenarios to national maps: a participatory framework for envisioning the future of Tanzania. Ecol Soc 21(3):4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Godet M (2000) The art of scenarios and strategic planning: tools and pitfalls. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 65(1):3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldstein JH, Caldarone G, Duarte TK, Ennaanay D, Hannahs N, Mendoza G, Polasky S, Wolny S, Daily GC (2012) Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(19):7565–7570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grêt-Regamey A, Bebi P, Bishop ID, Schmid WA (2008) Linking GIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpine region. J Environ Manage 89(3):197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haines-Young R, Paterson J, Potschin M, Wilson A, Kass G (2011) The UK NEA scenarios: development of storylines and analysis of outcomes. In: The UK national ecosystem assessment technical report. UK National Ecosystem Assessment, UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. IPBES (2016) Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  10. IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, JapanGoogle Scholar
  11. Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment (2010) Satoyama-Satoumi ecosystems and human well-being: socio-ecological production landscapes of Japan—summary for decision makers. United Nations University, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones L, Norton L, Austin Z, Browne AL, Donovan D, Emmett BA, Grabowski ZJ, Howard DC, Jones JPG, Kenter JO, Manley W, Morris C, Robinson DA, Short C, Siriwardena GM, Stevens CJ, Storkey J, Waters RD, Willis GF (2016) Stocks and flows of natural and human-derived capital in ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 52:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lawler JJ, Lewis DJ, Nelson E, Plantinga AJ, Polasky S, Withey JC, Helmers DP, Martinuzzi S, Pennington D, Radeloff VC (2014) Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(20):7492–7497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li M, Wu J, Deng X (2013) Identifying drivers of land use change in China: a spatial multinomial logit model analysis. Land Econom 89(4):632–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, Notte AL, Zulian G, Bouraoui F, Paracchini ML, Braat L, Bidoglio G (2012) Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv 1:31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Malinga R, Gordon LJ, Lindborg R, Jewitt G (2013) Using participatory scenario planning to identify ecosystem services in changing landscapes. Ecol Soc 18(4):10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mochizuki S, Liu D, Sekijima T, Lu J, Wang C, Ozaki K, Nagata H, Murakami T, Ueno Y, Yamagishi S (2015) Detecting the nesting suitability of the re-introduced Crested Ibis Nipponia Nippon for nature restoration program in Japan. J Nat Conserv 28:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron DR, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lonsdorf E, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw MR (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Daw T, Bohensky EL, Butler JRA, Hill R, Martin-Ortega J, Quinlan A, Ravera F, Ruiz-Mallen I, Thyresson M, Mistry J, Palomo I, Peterson GD, Plieninger T, Waylen KA, Beach EM, Bohnet IC, Hamann M, Hanspach J, Hubacek K, Lavorel S, Vilardy SP (2015) Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol Soc 20(4):32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Palomo I, Martín-López B, Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Montes C (2013) National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosyst Serv 4:104–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pereverza K, Pasichnyi O, Lazarevic D, Kordas O (2017) Strategic planning for sustainable heating in cities: a morphological method for scenario development and selection. Appl Energy 186:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Plieninger T, Bieling C, Ohnesorge B, Schaich H, Schleyer C, Wolff F (2013) Exploring futures of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes through participatory scenario development in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecol Soc 18(3):39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ritchey T (2011) Modeling alternative futures with general morphological analysis. World Future Rev 3(1):83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sharp R, Tallis HT, Ricketts T, Guerry AD, Wood SA, 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 CK, 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 AL, Rogers L, Bierbower W (2015) InVEST 3.3 user’s guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife FundGoogle Scholar
  25. Swetnam RD, Fisher B, Mbilinyi BP, Munishi PKT, Willcock S, Ricketts T, Mwakalila S, Balmford A, Burgess ND, Marshall AR, Lewis SL (2011) Mapping socio-economic scenarios of land cover change: a GIS method to enable ecosystem service modelling. J Environ Manage 92(3):563–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tallis H, Mooney H, Andelman S, Balvanera P, Cramer W, Karp D, Polasky S, Reyers B, Ricketts R, Running S, Thonicke K, Tietjen B, Walz A (2012) A global system for monitoring ecosystem service change. Bioscience 62:977–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Walz A, Lardelli C, Behrendt H, Grêt-Regamey A, Lundström C, Kytzia S, Bebi P (2007) Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling. Landsc Urban Plan 81(1):114–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science (IR3S)University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  2. 2.College of AgricultureIbaraki UniversityAmi-choJapan
  3. 3.Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)Hayama-choJapan

Personalised recommendations