Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The use of geographic information systems to map and assess ecosystem services

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, geographic information systems (GIS) have become a powerful tool for mapping and assessing the provision of ecosystem services within a landscape. GIS can help land managers and conservationists visualize spatial and temporal patterns and changes in ecosystem services and estimate the potential impact from projected changes in land use or management or climatic conditions on the provision of these services. The end-goal of ecosystem service assessment is usually to estimate marginal values of ecosystem services to inform decisions where trade-offs in ecosystem service provision will affect human well-being. Because our ability to estimate the provision of ecosystem services underlies our ability to estimate their societal values, the theoretical bases of GIS approaches and models for assessing ecosystem services need to be well understood before they are employed for decision-making purposes. This paper reviews GIS approaches and software developed for the assessment of ecosystem services and highlights their strengths and weaknesses in the context of different end uses.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alkire S (2002) Dimensions of human development. World Dev 30:181–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayanu YZ, Conrad C, Nauss T, Wegmann M, Koellner T (2012) Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services supplies and demands: a review of remote sensing applications. Environ Sci Technol 46:8529–8541

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baral H, Kasel S, Keenan R, Fox J, Stork N (2009) GIS-based classification, mapping and valuation of ecosystem services in production landscapes: a case study of the Green Triangle region of south-eastern Australia. In: Thistlethwaite R, Lamb D, Haines R (eds) Proceedings of the biennial conference of the Institute of Foresters of Australia, Caloundra, Australia, September 6–10, 2009

  • Barbier EB (2000) Valuing the environment as input: review of applications to mangrove-fishery linkages. Ecol Econ 35:47–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB (2007) Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs. Econ Policy 22:177–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB, Koch EW, Silliman BR, Hacker SD, Wolanski E, Primavera J, Granek EF, Polasky S, Aswani S, Cramer LA, Stoms DM, Kennedy CJ, Bael D, Kappel CV, Perillo GME, Reed DJ (2008) Coastal ecosystem-based management with nonlinear ecological functions and values. Science 319:321–323

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beier CM, Patterson TM, Chapin FS (2008) Ecosystem services and emergent vulnerability in managed ecosystems: a geospatial decision-support tool. Ecosystems 11:923–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brander LM, Florax RJGM, Vermaat JE (2006) The empirics of wetland valuation: a comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environ Resour Econ 33:223–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brander LM, Van Beukering P, Cesar HSJ (2007) The recreational value of coral reefs: a meta-analysis. Ecol Econ 63:209–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R (2000) Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects. Ecol Econ 32:137–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, King D (2011) Comparing spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective conservation strategies. Conserv Biol 25:172–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol 4:e379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC (ed) (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ecoinformatics Collaboratory (2011) ARIES: ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services http://www.ariesonline.org/. Cited 6 May 2012

  • Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Bode M, Richardson DM (2009) Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem services in South Africa. Biol Conserv 142:553–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A, Gillings S, Roy DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ (2010) The impact of proxy-based methods on mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J Appl Ecol 47:377–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher B, Turner K, Zylstra M, Brouwer R, de Groot R, Farber S, Ferraro P, Green R, Hadley D, Harlow J, Jefferiss P, Kirkby C, Morling P, Mowatt S, Naidoo R, Paavola J, Strassburg B, Yu D, Balmford A (2008) Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecol App 18:2050–2067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jax K (2005) Function and “functioning” in ecology: what does it mean? Oikos 111:641–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser B, Roumasset J (2002) Valuing indirect ecosystem services: the case of tropical watersheds. Environ Dev Econ 7:701–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (2011) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemkes RJ, Farley J, Koliba CJ (2010) Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision. Ecol Econ 69:2069–2074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinzig AP, Perrings C, Chapin FS III, Polasky S, Smith VK, Tilman D, Turner BL II (2011) Paying for ecosystem services—promise and peril. Science 334:603–604

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold A (1949) A Sand County almanac: and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green RE, Lehner B, Malcolm TR, Ricketts TH (2008) Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9495–9500

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Natural Capital Project (2011) InVEST: integrated valuation of ecosystem services and tradeoffs. http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html. Cited 6 May 2012

  • Nelson E, Daily GC (2010) Modeling ecosystem services in terrestrial ecosystems. F1000 Biol Rep 2:53

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7:4–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT, Jones KB, Riitters KH, Wickham JD, Schwartz PM, Goodman IA, Jackson BL, Baillargeon WS (1997) Monitoring environmental quality at the landscape scale. BioScience 47:513–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odum EP (1975) Ecology: the link between the natural and social sciences. Holt-Saunders, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagiola S, von Ritter K, Bishop J (2004) How much is an ecosystem worth? Assessing the economic value of conservation. The World Bank, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Parametrix (2011a) EcoMetrix. http://www.parametrix.com/cap/nat/_ecosystems_ecometrix.html. Cited 6 May 2012

  • Parametrix (2011b) StreamBank accounting pilot project. http://www.parametrix.com/docs/Streambank%20Accounting%20Pilot%20Projects.pdf. Cited 6 May 2012

  • Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Tengö M, Bennett EM, Holland T, Benessaiah K, MacDonald GK, Pfeifer L (2010a) Untangling the environmentalist’s paradox: why is human well-being increasing as ecosystem services degrade? BioScience 60:576–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010b) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:5242–5247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ricketts HT, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Michener CD (2004) Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:12579–12582

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rolf W, Lenz R, Peters D (2012) Development of a quantitative ‘bioassay’ approach for ecosystem mapping. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 8:71–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S (2011) A quantiative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48:630–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherrouse BC, Clement JM, Semmens DJ (2011) A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl Geogr 31:748–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spatial Informatics Group (2009) Natural Assets Information System. http://208.179.82.233/WEB/Resources/SIG_ESV_NAIS_20090527.pdf. Cited 6 May 2012

  • Steel EA, Hughes RM, Fullerton AH, Schmutz S, Young JA, Fukushima M, Muhar S, Poppe M, Feist BE, Trautwein C (2010) Are we meeting the challenges of landscape-scale riverine research? A review. Living Rev Landsc Res 4:1–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Swallow BM, Sang JK, Nyabenge M, Bundotich DK, Duraiappah AK, Yatich TB (2009) Tradeoffs, synergies and traps among ecosystem services in the Lake Victoria basin of East Africa. Environ Sci Policy 12:504–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallis HM, Kareiva P (2006) Shaping global environmental decisions using socio-ecological models. Trends Ecol Evol 21:562–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tallis H, Polasky S (2009) Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource management. Ann NY Acad Sci 1162:265–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Troy A, Wilson MA (2006) Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecol Econ 60:435–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Adger WN, Brouwer R (1998) Ecosystem services value, research needs, and policy relevance: a commentary. Ecol Econ 25:61–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Jaarsveld AS, Biggs R, Scholes RJ, Bohensky E, Reyers B, Lynam T, Musvoto C, Fabricius C (2005) Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem services at multiple scales: the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (SAfMA) experience. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:425–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villa F, Ceronia M, Bagstad K, Johnson G, Krivov S (2009) ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services): a new tool for ecosystem services assessment, planning, and valuation. Paper presented at 11th biodiversity and economics for conservation conference, Venice, Italy, 2009. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/bioecon/11th_2009/Villa.pdf. Cited 18 Aug 2011

  • Voigt B (2010) Modeling temporal and spatial flows of ecosystem services in Chittenden County, VT. In: A community on ecosystem services. http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/aces/Presentations/Thursday/C/AM/Yes/1100%20B%20Voigt.pdf. Cited 18 Aug 2011

  • Waage S, Stewart E, Armstrong K (2008) Measuring corporate impact on ecosystems: a comprehensive review of new tools. http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_EMI_Tools_Application.pdf. Cited 10 Aug 2011

  • Waage S, Armstrong K, Hwang L, Bagstad K (2011) New business decision-making aids in an era of complexity, scrutiny, and uncertainty: tools for identifying, assessing and valuing ecosystem services. BSR’s ecosystem services, tools and markets working group

  • Wainger L, Mazzotta M (2011) Realizing the potential of ecosystem services: a framework for relating ecological changes to economic benefits. Environ Manag 48:710–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westman WE (1977) How much are nature’s services worth? Science 197:960–964

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Willemen L, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF, Verburg PH (2009) Space for people, plants, and livestock? Quantifying interactions among multiple landscape functions in a Dutch rural region. Ecol Indic 10:62–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson MA, Carpenter SR (1999) Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the United States: 1971–1997. Ecol App 9:772–783

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson MA, Hoehn JP (2006) Valuing environmental goods and services using benefit transfer: the state-of-the-art and science. Ecol Econ 60:335–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank James Merchant and two anonymous reviewers for providing constructive comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. The Nebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit is jointly supported by a cooperative agreement between the U. S. Geological Survey, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Wildlife Management Institute. Reference to trade names does not imply endorsement by the authors or the U.S. government. KTN received support through the NSF IGERT on Resilience and Adaptive Governance of Stressed Watersheds at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (NSF #0903469).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nebraska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska, 422 Hardin Hall, 3310 Holdrege Street, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA

    Kristine T. Nemec

  2. 1-107 Rundle Dr., Canmore, AB, T1W 2L8, Canada

    Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne

Authors
  1. Kristine T. Nemec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ciara Raudsepp-Hearne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristine T. Nemec.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 175 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nemec, K.T., Raudsepp-Hearne, C. The use of geographic information systems to map and assess ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv 22, 1–15 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0406-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0406-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation