Which ecosystems provide which services? A meta-analysis of nine selected ecosystem services assessments

IF 1.8 Q3 ECOLOGY One Ecosystem Pub Date : 2019-02-28 DOI:10.3897/ONEECO.4.E31420
Michael Bordt, M. Saner
{"title":"Which ecosystems provide which services? A meta-analysis of nine selected ecosystem services assessments","authors":"Michael Bordt, M. Saner","doi":"10.3897/ONEECO.4.E31420","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For ecosystem measurement frameworks to be accepted, operationalised and implemented by diverse international communities, clear and agreeable concepts and classifications are essential. This paper analyses and develops two foundational typology challenges within ecosystem measurement: the classification of ecosystems and the classification of their services. Our aim is to determine if there is sufficient consensus to ascertain “Which ecosystems provide which services?” for standardised ecosystem accounting.\n This paper first compares classifications used in nine selected ecosystem assessments as input studies that make value statements about multiple ecosystems providing multiple ecosystem services. Given that these nine studies do not use identical concepts, classifications and terminologies, we develop “supersets” that can accommodate the diversity of classifications used in these input studies. Each input study is then corresponded to these new supersets.\n On the basis of this analysis, substantial consensus was found that some ecosystems are more likely to provide certain services than others are. However, for several ecosystem types, there was little or no consensus on which services they provide. Linkages for which there is consensus can serve as a checklist for future ecosystem services assessments. Both the framework of the supersets and the correspondence and visual methods developed will be useful for integrating information at different scales (for example, linkages from local, ecosystem-specific and ecosystem services-specific studies). This paper also provides guidance to future ecosystem services assessments to use, test and extend the current classifications of ecosystems and ecosystem services.","PeriodicalId":36908,"journal":{"name":"One Ecosystem","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"One Ecosystem","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3897/ONEECO.4.E31420","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

For ecosystem measurement frameworks to be accepted, operationalised and implemented by diverse international communities, clear and agreeable concepts and classifications are essential. This paper analyses and develops two foundational typology challenges within ecosystem measurement: the classification of ecosystems and the classification of their services. Our aim is to determine if there is sufficient consensus to ascertain “Which ecosystems provide which services?” for standardised ecosystem accounting. This paper first compares classifications used in nine selected ecosystem assessments as input studies that make value statements about multiple ecosystems providing multiple ecosystem services. Given that these nine studies do not use identical concepts, classifications and terminologies, we develop “supersets” that can accommodate the diversity of classifications used in these input studies. Each input study is then corresponded to these new supersets. On the basis of this analysis, substantial consensus was found that some ecosystems are more likely to provide certain services than others are. However, for several ecosystem types, there was little or no consensus on which services they provide. Linkages for which there is consensus can serve as a checklist for future ecosystem services assessments. Both the framework of the supersets and the correspondence and visual methods developed will be useful for integrating information at different scales (for example, linkages from local, ecosystem-specific and ecosystem services-specific studies). This paper also provides guidance to future ecosystem services assessments to use, test and extend the current classifications of ecosystems and ecosystem services.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哪些生态系统提供哪些服务?九项选定生态系统服务评估的荟萃分析
为了让不同的国际社会接受、实施和实施生态系统测量框架,明确和令人满意的概念和分类至关重要。本文分析和发展了生态系统测量中的两个基本类型学挑战:生态系统的分类和其服务的分类。我们的目标是确定是否有足够的共识来确定标准化生态系统会计的“哪些生态系统提供哪些服务?”。本文首先比较了九项选定的生态系统评估中使用的分类,作为对提供多种生态系统服务的多个生态系统的价值陈述的投入研究。鉴于这九项研究没有使用相同的概念、分类和术语,我们开发了“超集”,可以适应这些输入研究中使用的分类的多样性。然后,每个输入研究都对应于这些新的超集。在这一分析的基础上,人们普遍认为,一些生态系统比其他生态系统更有可能提供某些服务。然而,对于几种生态系统类型,对它们提供的服务几乎没有达成共识。达成共识的联系可以作为未来生态系统服务评估的清单。超集框架以及所开发的对应和可视化方法都将有助于整合不同规模的信息(例如,地方、生态系统特定研究和生态系统服务特定研究的联系)。本文还为未来的生态系统服务评估提供了指导,以使用、测试和扩展当前的生态系统和生态系统服务分类。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
One Ecosystem
One Ecosystem Environmental Science-Nature and Landscape Conservation
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
CH4 and N2O emissions and their potential control by rice biomass biochar: The case of continuously flooded paddy fields in Indonesia - A review The influence of naturalness of the landscape structure on children’s connectedness to Nature in north-eastern Italy Historical reconstruction of the invasions of four non-native tree species at local scale: a detective work on Ailanthus altissima, Celtis occidentalis, Prunus serotina and Acer negundo As green infrastructure, linear semi-natural habitats boost regulating ecosystem services supply in agriculturally-dominated landscapes Practical framework for cultural ecosystem service in urban landscape design
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1