Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Changes in demand and supply of ecosystem services under scenarios of future land use in Vorarlberg, Austria

  • 47 Accesses

Abstract

Ecosystem services (ES) are highly impacted by human-induced land-use change. Progressive urbanization and agricultural land abandonment in Western Europe necessitate assessments of future land-change impacts on ES to ensure sustainable service management. The present study aims at evaluating future demand and supply of three key services (flood protection, nearby recreation and biodiversity) in the mountainous region of Vorarlberg, Austria. We mapped the ES for the referenced time step 2016 and two scenarios for 2050, assuming the continuation of current land-change trends and pressure on landscape development. Results for the referenced landscape in 2016 show the highest ES supply for intermediate levels, while ES supply was low in the lowlands and valley bottoms and in high-elevation areas. We found a high positive correlation of ES with the distribution of forested areas. In contrast, service demand was highest in low-elevation areas and decreased with increasing elevation. This indicates that densely settled and intensively used agricultural areas currently suffer from ES undersupply. The projected future development of land use showed an increase in both supply and demand of the selected ES. The overall service supply increased more than the respective demand due to some reforestation of open land. As forests were found to be important synergistic areas for overall service provision, we expect decreasing demand on related services. Locally, demand was found to exceed the supply of ES, especially in the densely populated Rhine valley- requiring further policy interventions. Such ES-related information may contribute to regional policy making and ensure the long-term provision of ESs for future generations.

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

References

  1. Albert C, Bonn A, Burkhard B, et al. (2016) Towards a national set of ecosystem service indicators: Insights from Germany. Ecological Indicators 61: 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.050

  2. Amt der Vorarlberger Landesregierung — Landespressestelle (2016) Vorarlberg Compact. About the country and its people.

  3. Amt der Vorarlberger Landesregierung — Landesstelle für Statistik (2017) Bevölkerungsstatistik Verwaltungszählung vom 30. September 2017. A. d. V. L. L. f. Statistik.

  4. Baró F, Gómez-Baggethun E, Haase D (2017) Ecosystem service bundles along the urban-rural gradient: Insights for landscape planning and management. Ecosystem Services 24: 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.021

  5. Bastian O, Haase D, Grunewald K (2012) Ecosystem properties, potentials and services — The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example. Ecosystem properties, potentials and services — The EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application example 21: 7–16.

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

  7. Björk J, Albin M, Grahn P, et al. (2008) Recreational values of the natural environment in relation to neighbourhood satisfaction, physical activity, obesity and wellbeing. Journal of epidemiology and community health 62.

  8. Bohannon RW (1997) Comfortable and maximum walking speed of adults aged 20–79 years: reference values and determinants. Age and Ageing 26: 15–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/26.1.15

  9. Bolliger J, Bättig M, Gallati J, et al. (2011) Landscape multifunctionality: a powerful concept to identify effects of environmental change. Regional Environmental Change 11: 203–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0185-6

  10. Bolliger J, Hagedorn F, Leifeld J, et al. (2008) Potential carbonpool changes under various scenarios of land-use change in a mountainous region (Switzerland). Ecosystems 11: 895–907.

  11. Brandt P, Abson DJ, DellaSala DA, et al. (2014) Multifunctionality and biodiversity: Ecosystem services in temperate rainforests of the Pacific Northwest, USA. Biological Conservation 169: 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.003

  12. Bubeck P, de Moel H, Bouwer LM, Aerts JCJH (2011) How reliable are projections of future flood damage? Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 11: 3293–3306. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-3293-2011

  13. Buchecker M, Kienast F, Degenhardt B, et al. (2013) Naherholung räumlich erfassen. Merkbl. Prax. 51. p 8.

  14. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W (2009) Landscapes’ Capacities to Provide Ecosystem Services — a Concept for Land-Cover Based Assessments. Landscape Online 15: 1–22.

  15. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators 21: 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019

  16. Burkhard B, Maes J (2017) Mapping ecosystem services. Sofia: Pensoft Publishers. https://doi.org/10.3897/ab.e12837

  17. Burkhard B, Petrosillo I, Costanza R (2010) Ecosystem services — Bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity 7: 257–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.07.001

  18. Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, et al. (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PloS Biology 4: 2138.

  19. Coppes J, Burghardt F, Hagen R, et al. (2017) Human recreation affects spatio-temporal habitat use patterns in red deer (Cervus elaphus). Plos One 12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175134

  20. Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conserv 141: 350–352. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.020

  21. Coyner B (2008) An Assessment of Habitat Fragmentation by Roads in Cimarron County, Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 88: 21–26.

  22. Czech B, Krausman PR, Devers PK (2000) Economic Associations among Causes of Species Endangerment in the United States. Associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States reflect the integration of economic sectors, supporting the theory and evidence that economic growth proceeds at the competitive exclusion of nonhuman species in the aggregate. BioScience 50: 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0593:EAACOS]2.0.CO

  23. Daily GC (2000) Management objectives for the protection of ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy 3: 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(00)00102-7

  24. Di Febbraro M, Sallustio L, Vizzarri M, et al. (2018) Expert-based and correlative models to map habitat quality: Which gives better support to conservation planning? Global Ecology and Conservation 16: 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00513

  25. Duarte-Guardia S, Peri PL, Amelung W, et al. (2019) Better estimates of soil carbon from geographical data: a revised global approach. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 24: 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-018-9815-y

  26. EEA (2010) Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe. An overview of the last decade. Luxembourg. p 144.

  27. Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, et al. (2009) Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem services in South Africa. Biological Conservation 142: 553–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.11.009

  28. FAO (2016) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015: How have the world’s forests changed? Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome, Second Edition. ISBN 978-92-5-109283-5.

  29. Feng Q, Zhao W, Fu B, et al. (2017) Ecosystem service trade-offs and their influencing factors: A case study in the Loess Plateau of China. Science of the Total Environment 607–608: 1250–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.079

  30. Frank S, Burkhard B (2017) Mapping ecosystem services on different scales. In: Burkhard B, Maes J (eds.), Mapping ecosystem services. Sofia: Pensoft Publishers. pp 231–232.

  31. Ghimire R, Ferreira S, Green GT, et al. (2017) Green Space and Adult Obesity in the United States. Ecological Economics 136: 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.002

  32. Gill JC, Malamud BD (2014) Reviewing and visualizing the interactions of natural hazards. Reviews of Geophysics 52: 680–722. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000445

  33. Gimona A, van der Horst D (2007) Mapping hotspots of multiple landscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland. Landscape Ecology 22: 1255–1264.

  34. Goldenberg R, Kalantari Z, Cvetkovic V, et al. (2017) Distinction, quantification and mapping of potential and realized supply-demand of flow-dependent ecosystem services. Science of the Total Environment 593: 599–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.130

  35. Grêt-Regamey A, Brunner SH, Kienast F (2012) Mountain Ecosystem Services: Who Cares? Mountain Research and Development 32: S23–S34. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-10-00115.S1

  36. Grêt-Regamey A, Weibel B, Bagstad KJ, et al. (2014) On the effects of scale for ecosystem services mapping. Plos One 9: e112601.

  37. Grytnes JA, Vetaas OR (2002) Species richness and altitude: A comparison between null models and interpolated plant species richness along the Himalayan altitudinal gradient, Nepal. American Naturalist 159: 294–304.

  38. Haida C, Rüdisser J, Tappeiner U (2016) Ecosystem services in mountain regions: experts’ perceptions and research intensity. Regional Environmental Change 16: 1989–2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0759-4

  39. Han HQ, Dong YX (2017) Assessing and mapping of multiple ecosystem services in Guizhou Province, China. Tropical Ecology 58: 331–346.

  40. Hanika A (2010) Kleinräumige Bevölkerungsprognose für Österreich 2010–2030 mit Ausblick bis 2050 („ÖROK-Prognosen“). Endbericht zur Bevölkerungsprognose 1: 179.

  41. Hartig T, Evans GW, Jamner LD, et al (2003) Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3

  42. Hauck J, Görg C, Varjopuro R, et al. (2013) Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: Some stakeholder perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy 25: 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.001

  43. Heink U, Hauck J, Jax K, Sukopp U (2016) Requirements for the selection of ecosystem service indicators — The case of MAES indicators. Ecological Indicators 61: 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.09.031

  44. Hortal J, Carrascal LM, Triantis KA, et al. (2013) Species richness can decrease with altitude but not with habitat diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110: E2149–E2150. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1301663110

  45. Huber N, Hergert R, Price B, et al. (2017) Renewable energy sources: conflicts and opportunities in a changing landscape. Regional Environmental Change. 17: 1241–1255.

  46. Jaeger JAG, Schwick C (2014) Improving the measurement of urban sprawl: Weighted Urban Proliferation (WUP) and its application to Switzerland. Ecological Indicators 38: 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.022

  47. Jongman B, Ward PJ, Aerts JCJH (2012) Global exposure to river and coastal flooding: Long term trends and changes. Global Environmental Change 22: 823–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.004

  48. Jopke C, Kreyling J, Maes J, Koellner T (2015) Interactions among ecosystem services across Europe: Bagplots and cumulative correlation coefficients reveal synergies, trade-offs, and regional patterns. Ecological Indicators 49: 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.037

  49. Kampmann D, Luscher A, Konold W, Herzog F (2012) Agri-environment scheme protects diversity of mountain grassland species. Land Use Policy 29: 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.010

  50. Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Müller F (2013) Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—A theoretical matrix exercise. Ecological Indicators 28: 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.006

  51. Kienast F, Bolliger J, Potschin M, et al. (2009) Assessing landscape functions with broad-scale environmental data: insights gained from a prototype development for Europe. Environmental Management 44: 1099–1120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9384-7

  52. Kienast F, Degenhardt B, Weilenmann B, et al. (2012) GIS-assisted mapping of landscape suitability for nearby recreation. Landscape and Urban Planning 105: 385–399.

  53. Kienast F, Frick J, van Strien MJ, Hunziker M (2015) The Swiss Landscape Monitoring Program — A comprehensive indicator set to measure landscape change. Ecological Modelling 295: 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.008

  54. Komossa F, Van der Zanden EH, Verburg PH (2019) Characterizing outdoor recreation user groups: a typology of peri-urban recreationists in the Kromme Rijn area, the Netherlands. Land Use Policy 80: 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.017

  55. Kuemmerle T, Levers C, Erb K, et al. (2016) Hotspots of land use change in Europe. Environmental Research Letters 11. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/6/064020

  56. Laterra P, Orúe ME, Booman GC (2012) Spatial complexity and ecosystem services in rural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 154: 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.013

  57. Layke C, Mapendembe A, Brown C, et al. (2012) Indicators from the global and sub-global Millennium Ecosystem Assessments: An analysis and next steps. (Report). Ecological Indicators 17: 77.

  58. Leikkilä J, Faehnle M, Galanakis M (2013) Promoting interculturalism by planning of urban nature. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12: 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.02.002

  59. Levers C, Butsic V, Verburg PH, et al. (2016) Drivers of changes in agricultural intensity in Europe. Land Use Policy 58: 380–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.013

  60. Levers C, Müller D, Erb K, et al. (2018) Archetypical patterns and trajectories of land systems in Europe. Reg Environ Chang 18: 715–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0907-x

  61. Lin S, Wu R, Yang F, et al. (2018) Spatial trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services within a global biodiversity hotspot. Ecological Indicators 84: 371–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.007

  62. Lin YP, Lin WC, Wang YC, et al. (2017) Systematically designating conservation areas for protecting habitat quality and multiple ecosystem services. Environmental Modelling & Software 90: 126–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.003

  63. MA (2005a) Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington: Island Press.

  64. MA (2005b) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC.: Island Press.

  65. Maes J, Paracchini ML, Zulian G, et al. (2012) Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biological Conservation 155: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.016

  66. Marcantonio M, Rocchini D, Geri F, et al. (2013) Biodiversity, roads, & landscape fragmentation: Two Mediterranean cases. Applied Geography 42: 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.05.001

  67. Matsuoka RH, Kaplan R (2008) People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of Landscape And Urban Planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning 84: 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.009

  68. Mouchet MA, Paracchini ML, Schulp CJE, et al. (2017) Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes. Ecological Indicators 73: 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.09.026

  69. Nedkov S, Burkhard B (2012) Flood regulating ecosystem services—Mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecological Indicators 21: 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.022

  70. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, et al. (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1890/080023

  71. Peña L, Casado-Arzuaga I, Onaindia M (2015) Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach. Ecosystem Services 13: 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.008

  72. Penna D, Borga M (2013) 5.15 — Natural Hazards Assessment in Mountainous Terrains of Europe: Landslides and Flash Floods. Climate Vulnerability, Oxford Academic Press. pp 229–239.

  73. Plieninger T, Draux H, Fagerholm N, et al. (2016) The driving forces of landscape change in Europe: A systematic review of the evidence. Land Use Policy 57: 204–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.040

  74. Polasky S, Nelson E, Pennington D, Johnson K (2011) The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota. The Official Journal of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 48: 219–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-010-9407-0

  75. Posthumus H, Rouquette JR, Morris J, et al. (2010) A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England. Ecological Economics 69: 1510–1523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.011

  76. Price B, Kienast F, Seidl I, et al. (2015) Future landscapes of Switzerland: risk areas for urbanisation and land abandonment. Applied Geography 57: 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.12.009

  77. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 5242. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907284107

  78. Sallustio L, De Toni A, Strollo A, et al. (2017) Assessing habitat quality in relation to the spatial distribution of protected areas in Italy. Journal of Environmental Management 201: 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.031

  79. Šatalová B, Kenderessy P (2017) Assessment of water retention function as tool to improve integrated watershed management (case study of Poprad river basin, Slovakia). Science of the Total Environment 599: 1082–1089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.227

  80. Scannell L, Gifford R (2016) Place Attachment Enhances Psychological Need Satisfaction. Environment and Behavior 49: 359–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516637648

  81. Schneeberger K, Huttenlau M, Winter B, et al. (2019) A Probabilistic Framework for Risk Analysis of Widespread Flood Events. A Proof-of-Concept Study. Risk Analysis 39: 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12863.

  82. Scholte SSK, Daams M, Farjon H, et al. (2018) Mapping recreation as an ecosystem service: considering scale, interregional differences and the influence of physical attributes. Landscape and Urban Planning 175: 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.03.011

  83. Schröter M, Barton DN, Remme RP, Hein L (2014) Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. Ecological Indicators 36: 539–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.018

  84. Schröter M, Remme RP, Hein L (2012) How and where to map supply and demand of ecosystem services for policy-relevant outcomes? Ecological Indicators 23: 220–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.025

  85. Schulz T, Lauber S, Herzog F (2018) Summer Farms in Switzerland: Profitability and Public Financial Support. Mountain Research and Development 38: 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd-journal-d-16-00118.1

  86. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2006) Global Biodiversity Outlook 2. Montreal.

  87. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global biodiversity outlook 3. In Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

  88. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012) Cities and Biodiversity Outlook. Montreal. p 64.

  89. Seidl I, Herzog F (2018) Swiss alpine summer farming: current status and future development under climate change. Rangeland Journal 40: 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ18031

  90. Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, et al. (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 630–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x

  91. Shaffer JA, Roth CL, Mushet DM (2019) Modeling effects of crop production, energy development and conservation-grassland loss on avian habitat. Plos One 14: 17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198382

  92. Sharp R, Tallis HT, Ricketts T, et al. (2018) InVEST 3.6.0 User’s Guide. The Natural Capital Project, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund.

  93. Stobbelaar DJ, Pedroli B (2011) Perspectives on Landscape Identity: A Conceptual Challenge. Landscape Research 36: 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.564860

  94. Stürck J, Poortinga A, Verburg PH (2014) Mapping ecosystem services: The supply and demand of flood regulation services in Europe. Ecological Indicators 38: 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.010

  95. Sturck J, Verburg PH (2017) Multifunctionality at what scale? A landscape multifunctionality assessment for the European Union under conditions of land use change. Landscape Ecology 32: 481–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0459-6

  96. Stürck J, Verburg PH (2017) Multifunctionality at what scale? A landscape multifunctionality assessment for the European Union under conditions of land use change. Landscape Ecology 32: 481–500.

  97. Swanwick C, Hanley N, Termansen M (2007) Scoping study on agricultural landscape valuation. Appendix A. Summary review of the literature on landscape value, perception and preferences. London.

  98. Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: Providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecological Indicators 21: 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.013

  99. Szücs L, Anders U, Bürger-Arndt R (2015) Assessment and illustration of cultural ecosystem services at the local scale — A retrospective trend analysis. Ecological Indicators 50: 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.015

  100. TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. London and Washington: Earthscan.

  101. Terrado M, Sabater S, Chaplin-Kramer B, et al. (2016) Model development for the assessment of terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality in conservation planning. Science of the Total Environment 540: 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.064

  102. Tiefenbach M, Rabitsch W, Brandl K (2014) Fifth National Report of Austria. Convention on Biological Diversity. Vienna. p 92.

  103. Tieskens KF, Van Zanten BT, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH (2018) Aesthetic appreciation of the cultural landscape through social media: an analysis of revealed preference in the Dutch river landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 177: 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.002

  104. Tsunetsugu Y, Lee J, Park BJ, et al. (2013) Physiological and psychological effects of viewing urban forest landscapes assessed by multiple measurements. Landscape and Urban Planning 113: 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.014

  105. Turpie JK, Marais C, Blignaut JN (2008) The working for water programme: Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecological Economics 65: 788–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.024

  106. Tyrväinen L, Ojala A, Korpela K, et al. (2014) The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 38: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.005

  107. United Nations DoEaSA, Population Division (2015) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, (ST/ESA/SER.A/366).

  108. Ustaoglu E, Collier MJ (2018) Farmland abandonment in Europe: an overview of drivers, consequences, and assessment of the sustainability implications. Environmental Reviews 26: 396–416. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2018-0001

  109. Van Asselen S, Verburg PH (2013) Land cover change or land-use intensification: simulating land system change with a global-scale land change model. Global Change Biology 19: 3648–3667. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12331

  110. Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM (2013) Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity 15: 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.07.004

  111. Walz A, Gret-Regamey A, Lavorel S (2016) Social valuation of ecosystem services in mountain regions. Regional Environmental Change 16: 1985–1987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1028-x

  112. Walz U, Syrbe R-U, Grunewald K (2017) Where to map? In: Burkhard B, Maes J (eds.), Mapping ecosystem services Sofia: Pensoft Publishers. pp 157–163.

  113. Wei H, Fan W, Wang X, et al. (2017) Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: A review. Ecosystem Services 25: 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.017

  114. Willemen L, Burkhard B, Crossman N, et al. (2015) Editorial: Best practices for mapping ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 13: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.008

  115. Willemen L, Verburg PH, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF (2008) Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landscape and Urban Planning 88: 34–43.

  116. Williams D, Patterson M (2008) Place, Leisure, and Well-being Place. In: Eyles J, Williams A. (eds.), Sense of place, health and quality of life. Aldershot: Ashgate. pp 105–119.

  117. Wohlgemuth T, Nobis MP, Kienast F, Plattner M (2008) Modelling vascular plant diversity at the landscape scale using systematic samples. Journal of Biogeography 35: 1226–1240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.01884.x

  118. Young J, Watt A, Nowicki P, et al. (2005) Towards sustainable land use: identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodiversity & Conservation 14: 1641–1661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-0536-z

  119. Zhang D, Huang QX, He CY, Wu JG (2017) Impacts of urban expansion on ecosystem services in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration, China: A scenario analysis based on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Resources Conservation and Recycling 125: 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.003

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper is the result of the HiFlow-CMA project conducted by alpS and WSL, funded by the Austrian Climate and Energy Fund (ACRP 8th call). We thank the two reviewers for their insightful comments. We also gratefully acknowledge the “Land Vorarlberg” for contributing GIS layers including land-use data.

Author information

Correspondence to Robert Pazúr.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sauter, I., Kienast, F., Bolliger, J. et al. Changes in demand and supply of ecosystem services under scenarios of future land use in Vorarlberg, Austria. J. Mt. Sci. 16, 2793–2809 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-018-5124-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Land-use change
  • Future land-use scenarios
  • Regional assessment
  • Ecosystem services
  • Synergies
  • Conflicts