Blind spots in ecosystem services research and challenges for implementation

Abstract

Ecosystem service research is high on the policy agenda. Strategies to synthesize individual success stories and derive generalized results to provide guidance for policymakers and stakeholder is central to many science-policy initiatives, such as Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. However, generalization requires the documentation of basic information on methods and results of case studies, which might not be present throughout all case studies. We used a quantitative review based on a random sample of studies published in the ISI Web of Knowledge between 1996 and 2016 to identify blind spots in ecosystem service research that might hinder the generalization. We structured our analysis along critical questions about five facets that characterize the holistic ideal of ecosystem services research: (i) social-ecological validity of ecosystem data and models, (ii) consideration of trade-offs between ecosystem services, (iii) recognition of off-site effects, (iv) comprehensive and shrewd involv ement of stakeholders, and (v) relevance and usability of study results for the operationalization of the ecosystem service concept in practice. Results show that these facets were not addressed by the majority of case studies including more recent studies. Clusters of ecosystem services studied together were prone to different blind spots. To effectively operationalize the concept of ecosystem services, the blind spots need to be addressed by upcoming studies. A list of critical questions is provided to raise the awareness of the blind spots both for synthesis of existing knowledge and for future research agendas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Data availability

The database is available under https://figshare.com/s/16b8a3bdf43cdcd26e2f, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4930010.

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.cbd.int/

  2. 2.

    http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/2020.htm

  3. 3.

    http://www.teebweb.org/

  4. 4.

    http://www.eld-initiative.org/

  5. 5.

    http://www.ipbes.net/

  6. 6.

    https://www.wavespartnership.org/en

References

  1. Baker J, Sheate WR, Phillips P, Eales R (2013) Ecosystem services in environmental assessment—help or hindrance? Environ Impact Assess Rev 40:3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Balmford A, Fisher B, Green RE, Naidoo R, Strassburg B, Turner RK, Rodrigues ASL (2011) Bringing ecosystem services into the real world: an operational framework for assessing the economic consequences of losing wild nature. Environ Resour Econ 48:161–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9413-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Balvanera P, Daw TM, Gardner TA, Martín-lópez B, Norström AV, Speranza CI (2017) Key features for more successful place-based sustainability research on social-ecological systems : a Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society ( PECS ) perspective. Ecol Soc 22:14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08826-220114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Banse M, van Meijl H, Tabeau A, Woltjer G (2008) Impact of EU biofuel policies on world agricultural and food markets. In: 107th EAAE Seminar, Modelling of Agricultural and Rural Development Policies. Sevilla, Spain

  5. Bateman IJ, Mace GM, Fezzi C, Atkinson G, Turner K (2011) Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environ Resour Econ 48:177–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9418-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baveye PC (2017) Quantification of ecosystem services : beyond all the guesstimates, how do we get real data? Ecosyst Serv 24:47–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1394–1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bennett ND, Croke BFW, Guariso G, Guillaume JHA, Hamilton SH, Jakeman AJ, Marsili-Libelli S, Newham LTH, Norton JP, Perrin C, Pierce SA, Robson B, Seppelt R, Voinov A, Fath BD, Andreassian V (2012) Characterising performance of environmental models. Environ Model Softw 40:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Díaz S, Egoh BN, Geijzendorffer IR, Krug CB, Lavorel S, Lazos E, Lebel L, Martín-López B, Meyfroidt P, Mooney HA, Nel JL, Pascual U, Payet K, Harguindeguy NP, Peterson GD, Prieur-Richard A-H, Reyers B, Roebeling P, Seppelt R, Solan M, Tschakert P, Tscharntke T, Turner B, Verburg PH, Viglizzo EF, White PC, Woodward G (2015) Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bommarco R, Kleijn D, Potts SG (2013) Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends Ecol Evol 28:230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bondeau A, Smith PC, Zaehle S, Schaphoff S, Lucht W, Cramer W, Gerten D, Lotze-Campen H, Müller C, Reichstein M, Smith B (2007) Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob Chang Biol 13:679–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01305.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Borner J, Mendoza A, Vosti S (2007) Ecosystem services, agriculture, and rural poverty in the Eastern Brazilian Amazon: interrelationships and policy prescriptions. Ecol Econ 64:356–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Box GEP (1976) Science and statistics. J Am Stat Assoc 71:791–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bruckner M, Fischer G, Tramberend S, Giljum S (2015) Measuring telecouplings in the global land system: a review and comparative evaluation of land footprint accounting methods. Ecol Econ 114:11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Buckley C, Hynes S, Mechan S (2012) Supply of an ecosystem service—farmers’ willingness to adopt riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Environ Sci Pol 24:101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Campbell A, Doswald N (2009) The impacts of biofuel production on biodiversity: a review of the current literature. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  17. Carpenter SR, Defries R, Dietz T, Mooney HA, Polasky S, Reid WV, Scholes RJ (2006) Millenium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science (80-) 314:257–258. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131946

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carreño L, Frank FC, Viglizzo EF (2012) Tradeoffs between economic and ecosystem services in Argentina during 50 years of land-use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 154:68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4:e379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Christie M, Fazey I, Cooper R, Hyde T, Kenter JO (2012) An evaluation of monetary and non-monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to people in countries with developing economies. Ecol Econ 83:67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Comberti C, Thornton TF, de Echeverria VW, Patterson T (2015) Ecosystem services or services to ecosystems? Valuing cultivation and reciprocal relationships between humans and ecosystems. Glob Environ Chang 34:247–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cord AF, Bartkowski B, Beckmann M, Dittrich A, Hermans-Neumann K, Kaim A, Lienhoop N, Locher-Krause K, Priess J, Schröter-Schlaack C, Schwarz N, Seppelt R, Strauch M, Václavík T, Volk M (2017a) Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies : Main concepts , methods and the road ahead. Ecosyst Serv 28:264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cord AF, Brauman KA, Chaplin-Kramer R, Huth A, Ziv G, Seppelt R (2017b) Priorities to advance monitoring of ecosystem services using earth observation. Trends Ecol Evol 32:416–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cordier M, Pérez Agúndez JA, O’Connor M, Rochette S, Hecq W (2011) Quantification of interdependencies between economic systems and ecosystem services: an input–output model applied to the Seine estuary. Ecol Econ 70:1660–1671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cowling RM, Egoh B, Knight AT, O’Farrell PJ, Reyers B, Rouget M, Roux DJ, Welz A, Wilhelm-Rechman A, Farrell PJO (2008) An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:9483–9488. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706559105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–28. https://doi.org/10.1890/080025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dale VH, Polasky S (2007) Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 64:286–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KM a, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH, Grêt-Regamey A, Lave R, Muhar S, Penker M, Ribe RG, Schauppenlehner T, Sikor T, Soloviy I, Spierenburg M, Taczanowska K, Tam J, von der Dunk A (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:8812–8819. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Delgado LE, Marín VH (2015) Ecosystem services : where on earth ? Ecosyst Serv 14:24–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Díaz S, Demissew S, Joly C, Lonsdale WM, Larigauderie A (2015) A Rosetta Stone for nature’s benefits to people. PLoS Biol 13:e1002040. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002040

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dittrich A, von Wehrden H, Abson DJ, Bartkowski B, Cord AF, Fust P, Hoyer C, Kambach S, Meyer MA, Radzeviciute R, Nieto-Romero M, Seppelt R, Beckmann M (2017) Mapping and analysing historical indicators of ecosystem services in Germany. Ecol Indic 75:101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dormann CF, Purschke O, Marquez JR, Lautenbach S, Schroder B, García Márquez JR, Schröder B (2008) Components of uncertainty in species distribution analysis: a case study of the Great Grey Shrike. Ecology 89:3371–3386. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1772.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Durham E, Baker H, Smith M, Moore E, Morgan V (2014) BiodivERsA Stakeholder Engagement Toolkit. BiodivERsA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH (1981) Extinction: the causes and consequences of the disappearance of species. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A, Gillings S, Roy DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ (2010a) The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol 47:377–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01777.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A, Gillings S, Roy DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ (2010b) Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-based mapping of ecosystem services. Biol Conserv 143:2487–2493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Eijgelaar E, Thaper C, Peeters P (2010) Antarctic cruise tourism : the paradoxes of ambassadorship , “ last chance tourism ” and greenhouse gas emissions. J Sustain Tour 18:337–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669581003653534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fischer J, Gardner TA, Bennett EM, Balvanera P, Biggs R, Carpenter S, Daw T, Folke C, Hill R, Hughes TP, Luthe T, Maass M, Meacham M, Norström AV, Peterson G, Queiroz C, Seppelt R, Spierenburg M, Tenhunen J (2015) Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social-ecological systems perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Chang 16:253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Förster J, Barkmann J, Fricke R, Hotes S, Kleyer M, Kobbe S, Kübler D, Rumbaur C, Siegmund-Schultze M, Seppelt R, Settele J, Spangenberg JH, Tekken V, Václavík T, Wittmer H (2015) Assessing ecosystem services for informing land-use decisions: a problem-oriented approach. Ecol Soc 20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07804-200331

  42. Gagic V, Tscharntke T, Dormann CF, Gruber B, Wilstermann A, Thies C (2011) Food web structure and biocontrol in a four-trophic level system across a landscape complexity gradient. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 278:2946–2953. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Gassman PW, Reyes MR, Green CH, Arnold JG (2007) The soil and water assessment tool: historical development, applications and future research directions. Trans ASABE 50:1211–1250. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.23637

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gower JC (1971) A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27:857–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Grêt-Regamey A, Celio E, Klein TM, Wissen Hayek U (2013) Understanding ecosystem services trade-offs with interactive procedural modeling for sustainable urban planning. Landsc Urban Plan 109:107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Grêt-Regamey A, Rabe S-E, Crespo R, Lautenbach S, Ryffel A, Schlup B (2014) On the importance of non-linear relationships between landscape patterns and the sustainable provision of ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol 29:201–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9957-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hamel P, Bryant BP (2017) Uncertainty assessment in ecosystem services analyses: common challenges and practical responses. Ecosyst Serv 24:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hicks CC, Graham NAJ, Cinner JE (2013) Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers , scientists , and fishers value coral reef ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 23:1444–1453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Hilborn R (2013) Environmental cost of conservation victories. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:98195. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1308962110

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hoekstra AY, Chapagain AK (2006) Water footprints of nations: water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water Resour Manag 21:35–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9039-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hossain S, Dearing JA (2016) Recent changes in ecosystem services and human well-being in the Bangladesh coastal zone. Reg Environ Chang 16:429–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0748-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hou Y, Burkhard B, Müller F (2013) Uncertainties in landscape analysis and ecosystem service assessment. J Environ Manag 127(Suppl):S117–S131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Howe C, Suich H, Vira B, Mace GM (2014) Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob Environ Chang 28:263–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hurley C (2012) gclus: Clustering Graphics. https://cran.r-project.org/package=gclus, R package, last accessed: 17.01.2018. https://cran.r-project.org/package=gclus

  55. Jacobs S, Wolfstein K, Vandenbruwaene W, Vrebos D, Beauchard O, Maris T, Meire P (2015) Detecting ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: a practice-oriented application in four industrialized estuaries. Ecosyst Serv 16:378–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Jakeman AJ, Letcher RA, Norton JP (2006) Ten iterative steps in development and evaluation of environmental models. Environ Model Softw 21:602–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Jessop J, Spyreas G, Pociask GE, Benson TJ, Ward MP, Kent AD, Matthews JW (2015) Tradeoffs among ecosystem services in restored wetlands. Biol Conserv 191:341–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kirchner JW, Hooperb RP, Kendall C, Neald C, Leavesley G (1996) Testing and validating environmental models. Sci Total Environ 183:33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(95)04971-1

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kirchner M, Schmidt J, Kindermann G, Kulmer V, Mitter H, Prettenthaler F, Rüdisser J, Schauppenlehner T, Schönhart M, Strauss F, Tappeiner U, Tasser E, Schmid E (2015) Ecosystem services and economic development in Austrian agricultural landscapes—the impact of policy and climate change scenarios on trade-offs and synergies. Ecol Econ 109:2014–2016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kissinger M, Rees WE, Timmer V (2011) Interregional sustainability: governance and policy in an ecologically interdependent world. Environ Sci Pol 14:965–976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.05.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Koch EW, Barbier EB, Silliman BR, Reed DJ, Perillo GM, Hacker SD, Granek EF, Primavera JH, Muthiga N, Polasky S, Halpern BS, Kennedy CJ, Kappel CV, Wolanski E (2009) Non-linearity in ecosystem services: temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Front Ecol Environ 7:29–37. https://doi.org/10.1890/080126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Konarska K (2002) Evaluating scale dependence of ecosystem service valuation: a comparison of NOAA-AVHRR and Landsat TM datasets. Ecol Econ 41:491–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00096-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Kragt ME, Robertson MJ (2014) Quantifying ecosystem services trade-offs from agricultural practices. Ecol Econ 102:147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Landis DA, Gardiner MM, van der Werf W, Swinton SM (2008) Increasing corn for biofuel production reduces biocontrol services in agricultural landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:20552–20557. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804951106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Laniak GF, Olchin G, Goodall J, Voinov A, Hill M, Glynn P, Whelan G, Geller G, Quinn N, Blind M, Peckham S, Reaney S, Gaber N, Kennedy R, Hughes A (2013) Integrated environmental modeling: a vision and roadmap for the future. Environ Model Softw 39:3–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Laurans Y, Rankovic A, Billé R, Pirard R, Mermet L (2013) Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: questioning a literature blindspot. J Environ Manag 119:208–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lautenbach S, Kugel C, Lausch A, Seppelt R (2011) Analysis of historic changes in regional ecosystem service provisioning using land use data. Ecol Indic 11:676–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lautenbach S, Volk M, Strauch M, Whittaker G, Seppelt R (2013) Optimization-based trade-off analysis of biodiesel crop production for managing an agricultural catchment. Environ Model Softw 48:98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Lavorel S, Grigulis K, Lamarque P, Colace M-PP, Garden D, Girel J, Pellet G, Douzet R (2011) Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services. J Ecol 99:135–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01753.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Lavorel S, Bayer A, Bondeau A, Lautenbach S, Ruiz-Frau A, Schulp N, Seppelt R, Verburg P, Teeffelen AV, Vannier C, Arneth A, Cramer W, Marba N (2017a) Pathways to bridge the biophysical realism gap in ecosystem services mapping approaches. Ecol Indic. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.015

  71. Lavorel S, Grigulis K, Leitinger G, Kohler M, Schirpke U, Tappeiner U (2017b) Historical trajectories in land use pattern and grassland ecosystem services in two European alpine landscapes. Reg Environ Chang 17:2251–2264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1207-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Lee H, Lautenbach S (2016) A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 66:340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Legendre P, Legendre L (2003) Numerical ecology. Elsevier

  74. Liu J, Hull V, Batistella M, Defries R, Dietz T, Fu F, Hertel TW, Cesar R, Lambin EF, Li S, Martinelli LA, Mcconnell WJ, Moran EF, Naylor R (2013) Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol Soc 18(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05873-180226

  75. Liu J, Yang W, Li S (2016) Framing ecosystem services in the telecoupled Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ 14:27–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/16-0188.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Locher-Krause KE, Lautenbach S, Volk M (2017) Spatio-temporal change of ecosystem services as a key to understand natural resource utilization in Southern Chile. Reg Environ Chang 17:2477–2493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1180-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. MA (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment, ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press

  78. Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hubert M, Hornik K (2017) cluster: cluster analysis basics and extensions, R package, last accessed: 16.01.2018

  79. Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, La Notte A, Zulian G, Bouraoui F, Luisa Paracchini M, Braat L, Bidoglio G (2012a) Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Serv 1:31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Maes J, Paracchini ML, Zulian G, Dunbar MB, Alkemade R (2012b) Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biol Conserv 155:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Maestre Andrés S, Calvet Mir L, van den Bergh JCJM, Ring I, Verburg PH (2012) Ineffective biodiversity policy due to five rebound effects. Ecosyst Serv 1:101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Mandle L, Tallis H, Sotomayor L, Vogl AL (2015) Who loses? Tracking ecosystem service redistribution from road development and mitigation in the Peruvian Amazon. Front Ecol Environ 13:309–315. https://doi.org/10.1890/140337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Martinez-Harms MJ, Bryan B, Balvanera P, Law E, Rhodes JR, Possingham HP, Wilson K (2015) Making decisions for managing ecosystem services. Biol Conserv 184:229–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Del Amo DG, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, González JA, Santos-Martín F, Onaindia M, López-Santiago C, Montes C (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One 7:e38970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Maskell LC, Crowe A, Dunbar MJ, Emmett B, Henrys P, Keith AM, Norton LR, Scholefield P, Clark DB, Simpson IC, Smart SM (2013) Exploring the ecological constraints to multiple ecosystem service delivery and biodiversity. J Appl Ecol 50:561–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. McCauley DJ (2006) Selling out on nature. Nature 443:27–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/443027a

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  87. McDonough K, Hutchinson S, Moore T, Hutchinson JMS (2017) Analysis of publication trends in ecosystem services research. Ecosyst Serv 25:82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Meyer D, Zeileis A, Hornik K (2016) vcd: visualizing categorical data. R package version 1.4–1.,https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vcd last accessed: 18.01.2018

  89. Meyfroidt P, Rudel TK, Lambin EF (2010) Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement of land use. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:20917–20922. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014773107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Mingorrı S (2014) The oil palm boom : socio-economic implications for Q’ eqchi’ households in the Polochic valley, Guatemala. Environ Dev Sustain 16:841–871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9530-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Miyake S, Renouf M, Peterson A, McAlpine C, Smith C (2012) Land-use and environmental pressures resulting from current and future bioenergy crop expansion: a review. J Rural Stud 28:650–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Mouchet MA, Gos P, Byczek C, Lavorel S (2014) An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services. Glob Environ Chang 28:298–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Mupepele A-C, Walsh JC, Sutherland WJ, Dormann CF (2016) An evidence assessment tool for ecosystem services and conservation studies. Ecol Appl 26:1295–1301. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Neuwirth E (2014) RColorBrewer: ColorBrewer palettes, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RColorBrewer package, last accessed: 22.01.2018

  95. Norgaard RB (2010) Ecosystem services : from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69:1219–1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin PR, O’Hara RB, LG Simpson, Wagner MHHSand H (2017) Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.4–5. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=vegan last accessed: 21.12.2017

  97. Oleson KLL, Barnes M, Brander LM, Oliver TA, Van Beek I, Za B, Van Beukering P (2015) Cultural bequest values for ecosystem service flows among indigenous fishers : a discrete choice experiment validated with mixed methods. Ecol Econ 114:104–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Orenstein DE, Groner E (2014) In the eye of the stakeholder: changes in perceptions of ecosystem services across an international border. Ecosyst Serv 8:185–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Pascual U, Palomo I, Adams W, Chan K, Daw T, Garmendia E, Gómez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Mace G, Martin-Lopez B, Phelps J (2017) Off-stage ecosystem service burdens: a blind spot for global sustainability. Environ Res Lett 12. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7392

  100. Pebesma EJ, Bivand RS (2005) Classes and methods for spatial data in R. R News 5:9–13

    Google Scholar 

  101. Polce C, Maes J, Brander L, Cescatti A, Baranzelli C, Lavalle C, Zulian G (2016) Global change impacts on ecosystem services: a spatially explicit assessment for Europe. One Ecosyst 1:e9990. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.1.e9990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Prather CM, Pelini SL, Laws A, Rivest E, Woltz M, Bloch CP, Del Toro I, Ho C-K, Kominoski J, Newbold TAS, Parsons S, Joern A (2013) Invertebrates, ecosystem services and climate change. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 88:327–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. URL https://www.R-project.org/ last accessed 21.12.2017

  104. Raffaelli D, White PCL (2013) Ecosystems and their services in a changing world. Adv Ecol Res 48:1–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-417199-2.00001-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Renard D, Rhemtulla JM, Bennett EM (2015) Historical dynamics in ecosystem service bundles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:13411–13416. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502565112

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S, Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S (2013) Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ 11:268–273. https://doi.org/10.1890/120144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Ricketts TH, Regetz J, Steffan- I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Bogdanski A, Gemmill-Herren B, Greenleaf SS, Klein AM, Mayfield MM, Morandin LA, Ochieng A, Viana BF (2008) Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecol Lett 11:499–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01157.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Rieb JT, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily GC, Armsworth PR, Böhning-Gaese K, Turner MG, Bennett EM (2017) When , where , and how nature matters for ecosystem services : challenges for the next generation of ecosystem service models. Bioscience 67:820–833. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Sabatier R, Meyer K, Wiegand K, Clough Y (2013) Non-linear effects of pesticide application on biodiversity-driven ecosystem services and disservices in a cacao agroecosystem: a modeling study. Basic Appl Ecol 14:115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2012.12.006

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Sagoff M (2011) The quantification and valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 70:497–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Sarkar D (2008) Lattice—multivariate data visualization with R. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  113. Schipanski ME, Barbercheck M, Douglas MR, Finney DM, Haider K, Kaye JP, Kemanian AR, Mortensen DA, Ryan MR, Tooker J, White C (2014) A framework for evaluating ecosystem services provided by cover crops in agroecosystems. Agric Syst 125:12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Schirpke U, De Marco C, Tappeiner U (2014) Mapping beneficiaries of ecosystem services flows from Natura 2000 sites. Ecosyst Serv 9:170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Schmidt S, Manceur AM, Seppelt R (2016) Uncertainty of monetary valued ecosystem services—value transfer functions for global mapping. PLoS One 11:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148524

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Schröter M, Kraemer R, Mantel M, Kabisch N, Hecker S, Richter A, Neumeier V, Bonn A (2017) Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: status, challenges and opportunities. Ecosyst Serv 28:80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Schröter M, Koellner T, Alkemade R, Arnhold S, Bagstad KJ, Erb KH, Frank K, Kastner T, Kissinger M, Liu J, López-Hoffman L, Maes J, Marques A, Martín-López B, Meyer C, Schulp CJE, Thober J, Wolff S, Bonn A (2018) Interregional flows of ecosystem services: concepts, typology and four cases. Ecosyst Serv 31:231–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FVFV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48:630–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Seppelt R, Lautenbach S, Volk M (2013) Identifying trade-offs between ecosystem services, land use, and biodiversity: a plea for combining scenario analysis and optimization on different spatial scales. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Sims C, Aadland D, Powell J, Finnoff DC, Crabb B (2014) Complementarity in the provision of ecosystem services reduces the cost of mitigating amplified natural disturbance events. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:16718–16723. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407381111

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Sitch S, Smith B, Prentice IC, Arneth A, Bondeau A, Cramer W, Kaplan JO, Levis S, Lucht W, Sykes MT, Thonicke K, Venevsky S (2003) Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model. Glob Chang Biol 9:161–185. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00569.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Tallis H, Mooney H, Andelman S, Balvanera P, Cramer W (2012) A global system for monitoring ecosystem service change. Bioscience 62:977–986. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Tilliger B, Rodriguez-Labajos B, Bustamante J, Settele J (2015) Disentangling values in the interrelations between cultural ecosystem services and landscape conservation—a case study of the Ifugao Rice terraces in the Philippines. Land 4:888–913. https://doi.org/10.3390/land4030888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Wanger TC, Jackson L, Motzke I, Perfecto I, Vandermeer J, Whitbread A (2012a) Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol Conserv 151:53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Rand T, Didham RK, Fahrig L, Batáry P, Bengtsson J, Clough Y, Crist TO, Dormann CF, Ewers RM, Fründ J, Holt RD, Holzschuh A, Klein AM, Kleijn D, Kremen C, Landis D, Laurance W, Lindenmayer D, Scherber C, Sodhi N, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C, van der Putten WH, Westphal C (2012b) Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes—eight hypotheses. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 87:661–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00216.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Turner RK, Morse-Jones S, Fisher B (2010) Ecosystem valuation: a sequential decision support system and quality assessment issues. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1185:79–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05280.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. van Wilgen BW, Le Maitre DC, Cowling RM (1998) Ecosystem services, efficiency, sustainability and equity: South Africa’s Working for Water programme. Trends Ecol Evol 13:378. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01434-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Verhagen W, Sturck J, Schulp C, Verburg PH (2014) Mapping ecosystem services. In: van Beukering PJH, Bouma J (eds) Ecosystem Services: From concept to practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 65–86

    Google Scholar 

  129. Vieira L, Everard M, Shore RG (2014) Ecosystem services assessment at Steart Peninsula , Somerset, UK. Ecosyst Serv 10:19–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Vihervaara P, Rönkä M, Walls M (2010) Trends in ecosystem service research: early steps and current drivers. Ambio 39:314–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0048-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Wackernagel M, Schulz NB, Deumling D, Linares AC, Jenkins M, Kapos V, Monfreda C, Loh J, Myers N, Norgaard R, Randers J (2002) Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:9266–9271. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.142033699

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Walz A, Grêt-Regamey A, Lavorel S (2016) Social valuation of ecosystem services in mountain regions. Reg Environ Chang 16:1985–1987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1028-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Warnes GR, Bolker B, Bonebakker L, Gentleman R, Liaw WHA, Lumley T, Maechler M, Magnusson A, Moeller S, Schwartz M, Venables B (2016) gplots: Various R Programming Tools for Plotting Data, https://cran.r-project.org/package=gplotslast accessed: 16.01.2018

  134. Weaver DB (2006) Sustainable tourism: theory and practice. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  135. Wei H, Fan W, Wang X, Lu N, Dong X, Zhao Y, Ya X, Zhao Y (2017) Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: a review. Ecosyst Serv 25:15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Westman WE (1977) How much are nature’s services worth? Science (80-) 197:960–964. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.197.4307.960

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Wickham H (2007) Reshaping data with the reshape package. J Stat Softw 21:1–20. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v021.i12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Wolff S, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH (2015) Mapping ecosystem services demand : a review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol Indic 55:159–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Yu Y, Feng K, Hubacek K (2013) Tele-connecting local consumption to global land use. Glob Environ Chang 23:1178–1186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Zaehle S, Bondeau A, Carter TR, Cramer W, Erhard M, Prentice IC, Reginster I, Rounsevell MD, Sitch S, Smith B, Smith PC, Sykes M (2007) Projected changes in terrestrial carbon storage in Europe under climate and land-use change, 1990–2100. Ecosystems 10:380–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-007-9028-9

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers who helped to improve the manuscript.

Funding

The work has been funded by the EU-FP7 project OPERAs under grant agreement number FP7-ENV-2012-308393.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Lautenbach.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

Temporal trends in the five critical facets of ecosystem service research (PDF 337 kb)

ESM 2

Spatial pattern of ecosystem service research facets (PDF 52010 kb)

ESM 3

References of the papers in the sample (PDF 728 kb)

ESM 4

The ecosystem service categories used in the manuscript. (PDF 635 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lautenbach, S., Mupepele, A., Dormann, C.F. et al. Blind spots in ecosystem services research and challenges for implementation. Reg Environ Change 19, 2151–2172 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1457-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Operationalization
  • Stakeholder involvement
  • Good modeling practice
  • Quantitative review
  • Off-site effects
  • Trade-offs