• Home
  • About

GIScience News Blog

News of Heidelberg University’s GIScience Research Group.

Feed on
Posts
Comments
« Colloquium invitation: Supporting the most vulnerable people before the disaster strikes – International Disaster Risk Reduction within the German Red Cross
CFP: AGILE workshop “GeoCultGIS - GEOgraphical and CULTural aspects of Geo-data: Issues and Solutions” »

Blindspots in ecosystem service research

Jan 16th, 2019 by Sven Lautenbach

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 IPBES, ELD, WAVES and TEEB. However, to successfully transfer knowledge from ES case studies to environmental policies, it is necessary to develop a sound knowledge base with respect to effects of global change on the provisioning of ES

Together with colleagues from Free University of Amsterdam, the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, the Universities of Freiburg, Bonn and the KIT we identified blind spots in ecosystem service research that might hinder the generalization. Details can be found in a recent journal paper.

The analysis was structured along 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 involvement 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.

Among the key findings are:

  • Geographic coverage of ecosystem service studies was uneven – large parts of the global south are underrepresented which is in contrast to the large value that their ecosystems produce.
  • Coverage of the different ecosystem services wass uneven – this leads potentially to suboptimal decision making since important ecosystem services stay unevaluated.
  • Uncertainty of model results was often unquantified. Validation of model results was missing frequently.
  • Assessments concentrated on the current situation ignoring future developments.
  • Most studies did not provide specific recommendations for decision making or environmental management.
  • Off-site effects were rarely considered.
  • Mapping of ecosystem services relied in many studies on land use composition, ignoring the important aspects of land use configuration and land use intensity.
  • Aspects of the demand for ecosystem services (beneficiaries) were analyzed in a minority of studies.
  • Stakeholders were only involved in about 40% of the studies.
  • Trade-offs and interactions between ecosystem services were only analyzed in a minority of the studies analyzed.
The size of the countires reflects the number of ecosystem service studies in the analyszed sample (n=504). Countries that were not included in our sample or not displayed. It is clearly visible that the EU, the USA and China are relatively well studied while many countries in the global south are not well represented.

DIstribution of ecosystem service studies at the country level. The size of the countires reflects the number of ecosystem service studies in the analyszed sample (n=504). Countries that were not included in our sample or not displayed. It is clearly visible that the EU, the USA and China are relatively well studied while many countries in the global south are not well represented.

To effectively operationalize the concept of ecosystem services, the blind spots need to be addressed by upcoming studies. Therefore, we provided a list of critical questions to raise the awareness of the blind spots both for synthesis of existing knowledge and for future research agendas. Clusters of ecosystem services studied together were prone to different blind spots – learning across those research clusters might offer potential for improvement.

Lautenbach, S., Mupepele, A.-C., Dormann, C. F., Lee, H., Schmidt, S., Scholte, S. S.K., Seppelt, R., van Teeffelen, A. J.A., Verhagen, W., Volk, M. (2019): Blind spots in ecosystem services research and implementation, Regional Environmental Change, doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1457-9

Tags: Ecosystem services, review

Posted in Ecosystem services, Publications, Research

Comments are closed.

  • About

    GIScience News Blog
    News of Heidelberg University’s GIScience Research Group.
    There are 1,462 Posts and 0 Comments so far.

  • Meta

    • Log in
    • Entries RSS
    • Comments RSS
    • WordPress.org
  • Recent Posts

    • Updated OSM Healthcare in Senegal (2020)
    • Find the route to your nearest Covid-19 vaccination center in Germany — new App by HeiGIT based on OpenStreetMap and openrouteservice
    • ohsome street network analysis part 1
    • Keynote at McGILL GIS DAY: Analysing and Improving OpenStreetMap for Humanitarian Aid with Data Mining and GeoAI
    • Update on “Accessibility of COVID-19 vaccination centers in Germany”
  • Tags

    3D 3DGEO Big Spatial Data CAP4Access Citizen Science Colloquium crisis mapping Crowdsourcing data quality disaster DisasterMapping GeoNet.MRN GIScience heigit HOT humanitarian Humanitarian OpenStreetMap team intrinsic quality analysis landuse laser scanning Lidar Mapathon MapSwipe Missing Maps MissingMaps ohsome ohsome example Open data openrouteservice OpenStreetMap OSM OSM History Analytics OSMlanduse Quality quality analysis remote sensing routing social media spatial analysis Teaching terrestrial laser scanning Twitter VGI Wheelchair Navigation Workshop
  • Archives

    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • June 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • March 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • October 2017
    • September 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • February 2017
    • January 2017
    • December 2016
    • November 2016
    • October 2016
    • September 2016
    • August 2016
    • July 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • April 2016
    • March 2016
    • February 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • November 2015
    • October 2015
    • September 2015
    • August 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • May 2014
    • April 2014
    • March 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • November 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
  •  

    January 2019
    M T W T F S S
    « Dec   Feb »
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Recent Comments

    GIScience News Blog CC by-nc-sa Some Rights Reserved.

    Free WordPress Themes | Fresh WordPress Themes