Chatzinikolaou - Et - Al - 2018 - Review of Multicriteria Methodologies and Tools For Evaluation of Provision of Ecosystem Services

Review of Multicriteria Methodologies
and Tools for the Evaluation

of the Provision of Ecosystem Services
Parthena Chatzinikolaou, Davide Viaggi, and Meri Raggi
Abstract An ecosystem is defined as an area, place or environment where organ-

isms interact with the physical and chemical environment. Ecosystems provide a
variety of benefits to people that are divided into market and non-market ecosystem
goods or ecosystem services (ES) and classified in multiple ways. A wide range of
methodologies is available to value changes in ES. The type of valuation technique
chosen depends on the type of ES to be valued, as well as the quantity and quality of
data available. Since ES provide multiple benefits, they are valued for a range of
reasons and researchers must employ valuation methods that better match this
diversity. How to compare objects with multiple characteristics has been the focus
of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). In this paper, a literature review has
been performed that covers an overview of various methodologies that seek to
improve the knowledge base of existing tools and methodologies in ES evaluation.
The focus will be on studies that used MCDA for an ES assessment; attempting to
cover a representative sample of case studies of ES assessments through MCDA. We
also discuss advantages and disadvantages of different methodological choices in
ecosystem service evaluation. We conclude that the ES concept is currently used in a
range of studies with widely differing aims creating difficulties for policy makers as
well as researchers since it makes it difficult to assess the credibility of assessment
results. MCDA techniques can indeed help structuring the problem and supporting a
more transparent decision-making.
Keywords Ecosystem services · Literature review · Multi-criteria analysis ·

Assessment · Evaluation
P. Chatzinikolaou (*) · D. Viaggi

Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Raggi
Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 43

J. Berbel et al. (eds.), Multicriteria Analysis in Agriculture, Multiple Criteria
Decision Making, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76929-5_2
44 P. Chatzinikolaou et al.
1 Introduction and Objective
The term Ecosystem Services (ES) was originally conceived to highlight humanity’s
dependence to nature, and the fact that the multitude of plant and animal species in
the forests, oceans, lakes, wetlands and other ecosystems provides humanity with a
wide selection of goods. The concept of ES has been used in research since the 1980s
and involved the framing of beneficial ecosystem functions as services in order to
increase public interest in biodiversity conservation (de Groot 1987). The next step
during the 1990s, was the mainstreaming of ES in the literature (Costanza et al.
1997; Perrings et al. 1992). In 2001, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA)
launched the ES in the global policy agenda (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2010). The
objective was to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-
being. The series of MEA publications described the condition and trends of the
world’s ecosystems and the services they provide, and the options available to
restore, conserve or enhance their sustainable use. At present, the ES concept has
become a central issue in conservation planning and environmental impact assess-
ment (Burkhard et al. 2010).
The ability of ecosystems to yield ES is largely connected to biodiversity; many
researchers agree about the positive effect of biodiversity on ecosystem functions
(Hooper et al. 2005; Schneiders et al. 2012). Biological diversity, or biodiversity,
refers to the variety of life forms at all levels of organization. Biodiversity is
generated and maintained in natural ecosystems, where organisms encounter a
wide variety of living conditions that shape their evolution in unique ways. Bio-
diversity is usually quantified in terms of numbers of species, and this perspective has
greatly influenced conservation goals. It is important to remember, however, that the
benefits that biodiversity supplies to humanity are delivered through populations of
species residing in living communities within specific physical settings in other
words, through complex ecological systems, or ecosystems (Luck et al. 2003).
Natural ecosystems provide fundamental services which humanity needs. These
include the production and maintenance of biodiversity; purification of air and
water; decomposition of wastes and regulation of climate; services until recently
have been less appreciated. The consequences of population loss for species con-
servation are well recognized, but have been little addressed from the point of the
functioning of ecosystems and the provision of ES (Hughes et al. 1997). Because
threats are increasing, there is a critical need for identification and monitoring of ES
both locally and globally, and for the incorporation of their value into decision-
making processes. There is a need for policies that achieve a balance between
sustaining ES and pursuing the short-term goals of economic development.
Following the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005
(MEA 2005), ES have been included for the first time into the international envi-
ronmental policy agenda. This agenda included efforts to develop integrated systems
of ecosystems (Weber 2007). In current policies the ES concept is being integrated at
global and European level (EC 2009; Perrings et al. 2011). The global strategic plan
for biodiversity for the period 2011–2020 (EC 2011) of the Convention of Biological
Review of Multicriteria Methodologies and Tools for the Evaluation of. . . 45
Diversity complements previous conservation biodiversity targets with the addition

of ES. The EU has adopted an ambitious strategy to halt the loss of biodiversity and
ES in the EU by 2020 (EC 2010). There are 6 main targets, and 20 actions to help
Europe reach its goal. Target 2 focuses on maintaining and enhancing ES and
restoring degraded ecosystems by incorporating green infrastructure in spatial plan-
ning. This will contribute to the EU’s sustainable growth objectives and to mitigating
and adapting to climate change, while promoting economic, territorial and social
cohesion and safeguarding the EU’s cultural heritage. It will also ensure better
functional connectivity between ecosystems within and between Natura 2000 areas
and in the wider countryside. According to the EU Biodiversity Strategy, by 2050,
biodiversity and the ES, its natural capital, are protected, valued and appropriately
restored for their essential contribution to human wellbeing and economic prosper-
ity, and changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided.
Biodiversity and agricultural production are connected and their capacity to be
mutually supportive is increasingly recognized. On the one hand, maintaining
biodiversity makes agricultural production and related practices more sustainable.
On the other hand, it is recognized that changing agricultural land use is a major
cause of the decline of biodiversity. As a result, the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP), the largest agricultural support system worldwide has been reformed in order
to meet the Europe 2020 Strategy goals. The European Commission highlighted the
importance of using the CAP to halt the decline of biodiversity, and various efforts
have been made to merge biodiversity conservation into agricultural policy. The
reformed CAP has shifted from an agricultural production support system towards a
broader focus including the inventory of public goods and ecosystems services
provided by agriculture (EC 2009). Both CAP pillars contribute to biodiversity
conservation, pillar 1 through direct payments and pillar 2, through agri-
environmental measures. Importantly, also the EU Water, Regional and Cohesion
Policy recognize the importance of investing in natural ecosystems, in particular
urban green areas, floodplains and nature for recreation, as a source of economic
development. However, it is further necessary to develop a policy framework that
considers the most recent research on multidimensional ES and enhance the provi-
sion of ES in order to preserve social and cultural landscape values and maintain the
multifunctionality of agricultural ecosystems. Both agriculture and regional devel-
opment contribute to over 80% the annual EU budget, so the inclusion of ES in these
policies is considered an important step towards a more sustainable economy.
In the last decades, in the field of ES, there is a rise of concern for the valuation of
ecosystem functions, goods and services. Early references refer to the concept of
ecosystem functions, services and their economic value (Helliwell 1969; Odum and
Odum 1972). More recently, there is a growth in publications on the benefits of
natural ecosystems to human society (Daily 1997; de Groot 1992; Pearce 1993;
Wilson and Carpenter 1999). Boyd and Banzhaf (2007) and Fisher and Kerry Turner
(2008) focused on the quantification of ES and their value to stakeholders and
suggested various classification schemes. Turner and Daily (2008) proposed that
ecosystem service research should address the various stages in decision-making,
from problem identification to policy evaluation and capacity building. The
measurement and monitoring of ES requires also relating ecosystem functioning to

ecosystem service indicators. Different perspectives are taken to describe the rela-
tionships underlying the supply of ES, which representation has been approached
using derived land use or land cover data (Lautenbach et al. 2011),experiments
(Sandhu et al. 2008), expert opinion or modelling (Carpenter et al. 2009). Other
approaches to map ecosystem services were based on land cover (Nelson and
Kennedy 2009). Willemen et al. (2010) estimated landscape functions which were
related to a number of ecosystem functions and ecosystem services based on proxy
variables.
Since ecosystems are multifunctional, complex systems, described by a multitude
of characteristics from the point of view of multiple criteria. The multidimensional
logic of ES seems highly consistent with multicriteria approaches. According to
Chan et al. (2012), ES provide multiple benefits, valued for a range of reasons, and
researchers must employ valuation methods that better match the diversity of values
in question. How to compare objects with multiple characteristics is focus of Multi-
Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). MCDA is a general framework for supporting
complex decision-making situations with multiple and often conflicting objectives.
The considered goals are usually too complex to be properly assessed by a
single criterion or indicator. Therefore, multiple relevant criteria or indicators are
considered at the same time (Kiker et al. 2005).
The objective of this paper is to review existing methodologies and tools for the
evaluation of the provision of the ES with a focus on studies that used MCDA for an
ES evaluation. We attempt to cover a representative, though not comprehensive,
sample of case studies of ES assessments using MCDA. The literature review
performed highlights the scope of MCDA as a decision support tool for ES evalu-
ation. The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 describes the Ecosystem
Services concept and Sect. 3 presents a review of the relevant literature and a review
of different methods for evaluation, mapping and assessment of the Ecosystem
Services. In Sect. 4, the paper is presenting a review of multicriteria approaches
for Ecosystem Services evaluation and in the final sections (Sects. 5 and 6) the
discussion and conclusions are presented.
2 Ecosystem Services Concept
An ecosystem is usually defined as an area, place or environment where organisms

interact with the physical and chemical environment. The ecosystem concept
describes the interrelationships between living organisms and the non-living envi-
ronment. “An ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism
communities and the non-living environment interacting as a functional unit” (MEA
2005). There is a full range of ecosystems, from natural forests, to ecosystems
managed and modified by humans, such as agricultural land. Ecosystems provide
a variety of benefits to people that is divided into market and non-market ecosystem
goods or ecosystem services (ES) and classified in multiple ways. It is common
practice to refer to goods and services separately and to include the two concepts
under the term services. Definitions of the ES concept through various publications,
give attention to the ecological basis or the economic use, capturing environmental
concerns in ecological and socio-economic terms (Diehl et al. 2016):
• Ecosystem Services are the benefits human populations derive, directly or in-
directly, from ecosystem functions (Costanza et al. 1997).
• Ecosystem Services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems (WRI 2005).
• Ecosystem Services are components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or
used to yield human well-being (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007).
• Ecosystem Services are the aspects of ecosystems utilized (actively or passively)
to produce human well-being (Fisher et al. 2009).
• Ecosystem Services are the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to
human well-being (TEEB 2010a).
ES have been categorized in a number of different ways, including:
• functional groupings, such as regulation, carrier, habitat, production, and infor-
mation services (de Groot et al. 2002);
• organizational groupings, such as services that are associated with certain species,
that regulate some exogenous input, or that are related to the organization of
biotic entities (Norberg 1999); and,
• descriptive groupings, such as renewable resource goods, nonrenewable resource
goods, physical structure services, biotic services, biogeochemical services,
information services, and social and cultural services (Moberg and Folke 1999).
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework (MEA 2003) categorizes the
ES within four categories: provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services:
Provisioning services are the services that describe the material or energy outputs
from ecosystems:
• food and fiber including the range of food products derived from plants, animals,
and microbes; food comes principally from managed agro-ecosystems but marine
and freshwater systems or forests also provide food for human consumption;
• raw materials, fuel, wood, and other biological materials that serve as sources of
energy, also a great diversity of materials for construction and fuel including
wood, biofuels and plant oils that are directly derived from wild and cultivated
plant species;
• fresh water, because ecosystems regulate the flow and purification of water; also
vegetation and forests influence the quantity of water available; fresh water is an
example of linkages between categories, in this case, between provisioning and
regulating services;
• genetic resources, that includes the genes and genetic information used for
animal and plant breeding and biotechnology;
• biochemical, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals, since many medicines,
biocides, food additives such as biological materials derived from ecosystems
and are potential source of medicinal resources;
• ornamental resources including animal products, such as skins and shells, and
flowers used as ornaments, although the value of these resources is often also
determined culturally.
Regulating services are the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem
processes, the services that ecosystems provide by acting as regulators:
• air quality maintenance, because ecosystems contribute to extract chemicals to
the atmosphere, influencing many aspects of air quality;
• climate regulation, both locally and globally; for example, at a local scale,
changes in land cover can affect both temperature and precipitation; at global
scale, ecosystems play an important role in climate by either sequestering or
emitting greenhouse gases;
• water regulation, the timing and magnitude of flooding, and aquifer recharge can
be strongly influenced by changes in land cover, including, in particular, alter-
ations that change the water storage potential of the system, such as the conver-
sion of wetlands or the replacement of forests with croplands or croplands with
urban areas;
• erosion prevention and maintenance of soil fertility: soil erosion is a key factor in
the process of land degradation and desertification; vegetation cover provides a
vital regulating service by preventing soil erosion. Soil fertility is essential for
plant growth and agriculture and well-functioning ecosystems supply the soil
with nutrients required to support plant growth;
• water purification and waste treatment: ecosystems can be a source of impurities
in fresh water but also can help to filter out and decompose organic wastes
introduced into inland waters and coastal and marine ecosystems;
• regulation of human diseases; changes in ecosystems can directly change the
abundance of human pathogens, such as cholera, and can alter the abundance of
disease vectors, such as mosquitoes;
• biological control: ecosystem changes affect the prevalence of crop and livestock
pests and diseases; they regulate pests and diseases through the activities of
predators and parasites that all act as natural controls;
• pollination: insects and wind pollinate plants and trees, which are essential for the
development of fruits, vegetables and seeds; animal pollination is an ecosystem
service mainly provided by insects but also by some birds and bats.
Cultural services are tightly bound to human values and behavior, as well as to
human institutions and patterns of social, economic, and political organization. They
are the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual
enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences,
including:
• recreation, mental and physical health: walking and playing sports in green space
is not only a good form of physical exercise but also lets people relax; the role that
green space plays in maintaining mental and physical health is increasingly being
recognized, despite difficulties of measurement;
• spiritual and religious value: many religions attach spiritual and religious values
to ecosystems or their components like natural features or specific forests, caves
or mountains are considered sacred or have a religious meaning; nature is a
common element of all major religions and traditional knowledge;
• educational values because ecosystems and their components and processes
provide the basis for both formal and informal education in many societies;
• inspiration for culture, art and design: language, knowledge and the natural
environment have been intimately related throughout human history; biodiver-
sity, ecosystems and natural landscapes have been the source of inspiration for
much of our art, culture and increasingly for science;
• aesthetic values: many people find beauty or aesthetic value in various aspects of
ecosystems, as reflected in the support for parks or even the selection of housing
locations;
• social relations, since ecosystems influence the types of social relations that are
established in particular cultures; fishing societies, for example, differ in many
respects in their social relations from nomadic herding or agricultural societies;
• cultural heritage values: many societies place high value on the maintenance of
either historically important landscapes (cultural landscapes) or culturally signif-
icant species;
• recreation and ecotourism: ecosystems and biodiversity play an important role for
many kinds of tourism which in turn provides considerable economic benefits and
is a vital source of income; cultural and eco-tourism can also educate people
about the importance of biological diversity.
Supporting services are those that are necessary for the production of all other
ES. They differ from provisioning, regulating, and cultural services in that their
impacts on people are either indirect or occur over a very long time, whereas changes
in the other categories have relatively direct and short-term impacts on people:
• soil formation: humans do not directly use this as a service, but changes in soil
formation would indirectly affect people through the impact on other services
such as the provisioning service of food production;
• nutrient cycling: this indirect supporting service is required e.g. as the basis for
crop production and plant growth;
• biomass production: primary production provides the basis of the food for all
consumers;
• production of atmospheric oxygen through photosynthesis is often categorized as
a supporting service since oxygen forms the basis for any animal life on Earth;
any impacts on the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere would only occur
over an extremely long time;
• habitats for species: Habitats provide everything that an individual plant or animal
needs to survive: food; water; and shelter; each ecosystem provides different
habitats that can be essential for a species’ lifecycle; migratory species including
birds, fish, mammals and insects all depend upon different ecosystems during
their movements.
Some services, like erosion control, can be categorized as both a supporting and a
regulating service, depending on the time scale and immediacy of their impact on
people. For example, humans do not directly use soil formation services, although
changes in this would indirectly affect people through the impact on the provisioning
service of food production. Fresh water is another example of linkages between
categories, in this case, between provisioning and regulating services. Similarly,
climate regulation is categorized as a regulating service since ecosystem changes can
have an impact on local or global climate over time scales relevant to human
decision-making. The production of oxygen gas (through photosynthesis) is catego-
rized as a supporting service since any impacts on the concentration of oxygen in the
atmosphere would only occur over an extremely long time.
A new classification of ES is under development at international level, by the
Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES 2013).
According to CICES, there are three types of services: (1) provisioning (products
obtained from ecosystems, e.g. food, wood, water), (2) regulation and maintenance
(moderation or control of environmental conditions, e.g. flood control, water purifi-
cation), (3) cultural (non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems, e.g. recreation,
education, aesthetics). CICES highlights the importance of making a clear distinc-
tion between final ES, ecosystem goods or products and ecosystem benefit, and
recommend the following definitions:
• Final ecosystem services are the contributions that ecosystems make to human
well-being. These services are final in that they are the outputs of ecosystems
(whether natural, semi-natural or highly modified) that most directly affect the
well-being of people. A fundamental characteristic is that they retain a connection
to the underlying ecosystem functions, processes and structures that
generate them.
• Ecosystem goods and benefits are things that people create or derive from final
ecosystem services. These final outputs from ecosystems have been turned into
products or experiences that are not functionally connected to the systems from
which they were derived. Goods and benefits can be referred to collectively as
“products”.
• Human well-being is that which arises from adequate access to the basic materials
for a good life needed to sustain freedom of choice and action, health, good social
relations and security. The state of well-being is dependent on the aggregated
output of ecosystem goods and benefits, the provision of which can change the
status of well-being.
Ecosystem service capacity and service output are closely related to the notion of
stocks and flows. Layke et al. (2012) define stocks of ES as the capacity of an
ecosystem to deliver a service while the flow corresponds to the benefits people
receive. Stocks may be expressed in total size area or the total biomass whereas the
associated ecosystem service flow or output must have units per time period. The
capacity of an ecosystem to provide a flow is not necessarily measured in hectares or
tons since the capacity does not only contain a quantity aspect but also a quality
aspect. For a given quantity, an ecosystem may provide more output if it is in a
healthy state, or at least be able to provide a sustained flow of services. As a result,

the capacity of such a system to produce services will be higher. Ecosystems in a
healthy state are considered resilient systems, which are able to recover after
disturbance, and high species diversity and a balanced trophic community charac-
terize them. Benefits derived from ES are food, drinking water, clear air, fuel, fiber,
construction materials, protection against disasters and stable climate. In the case of
regulating services (e.g., climate regulation) and supporting services (e.g., nutrient
cycling), aggregate stocks are most important. The “efficiency” with which stocks
deliver specific ES will vary with ecology. Thus, a forest’s capacity to provide
climate regulation services will reflect broad patterns of species composition and
architecture, but flows of services may not be closely linked to conservation value in
terms of diversity (Carnus et al. 2006). Differences in harvesting technologies can
lead to different flows of outputs from similar stocks. In timber concessions,
chainsaws and powered haulage also change the scale and value of economic
flows from a forest. In both cases, such technologies also, of course, have impli-
cations for sustainability of revenue flows. The value of provisioning service flows
from a given stock of natural capital can therefore vary with the technology used.
Technology is also important in demand for ES. The relationship between cultural
services and stocks of biodiversity is a little more complex and can vary over time.
Thus, the income from tourism based on the reintroduction of a charismatic locally
extinct species might be expected to decline as the species becomes widespread.
Moreover, different human actors may perceive the relationship between the size of
stocks of biodiversity and the value of the flows of services that they provide
differently. These relationships between biodiversity and valued ecosystem func-
tions are an important area for further theoretical and experimental research
(Vira and Adams 2009).
3 Literature Review on ES Concept
Improved ways and methods for ES quantification, mapping and assessment are
needed to investigate the number and quality of ES produced by individual eco-
systems and to increase the ability to feed such knowledge into policy design (TEEB
2010b). While provisioning ES can often be directly quantified thanks to the
availability of primary data, for other ES the collection of such information is
often impossible (Maes et al. 2015). Thus, for most regulating, supporting, and
cultural services, researchers must rely on proxies for their quantification. As a
result, altogether, data on quantifiable ES remain limited and only a small number
of indicators are being used for those that cannot be measured directly (Feld et al.
2010). Reviews of indicators used for ES are available from the literature and
contribute to developing reliable indicators for modelling and for bridging current
data gaps (Cowling et al. 2008; Egoh et al. 2012).
Several studies have assessed changes in land use and their connection with the
provision of ES (Carreño et al. 2012; Silvert 2000). In many cases, their output
includes environmental and land use information that are connected to landscape
features, although few yield a direct assessment of changes in ES provision
(Burkhard et al. 2012; Swetnam et al. 2011). According to de Groot et al. (2010),
ES approaches and ES valuation efforts have changed the terms of discussion on
nature conservation, natural resource management, and other areas of public policy.
These efforts have strengthened both public and private sector development strate-
gies and improved environmental outcomes (de Groot 2006; de Groot et al. 2002).
In this paper, a literature review has been performed that covers an overview of
various methodologies that seek to improve the knowledge base of the contribution
of landscape management to the rural economy. This review of the literature is
concerning methods relevant to the landscape management taking into account the
policy strategies and linkages with environmental impacts and climate change.
Based on the analysis of the literature performed, the methodological tools were
classified into three main categories (Table 1):
• Identification and valuation of the ES and natural resource management;
• Sustainable land use, in terms of assessment of agricultural systems and linking
socio-economic requirements with landscape potentials;
• Structure of the landscape, and linkages with environmental impacts and
climate change.
In the first category, De Groot (2006) presented a comprehensive framework for
integrated assessment of ecological services and socio-economic benefits of natural
and semi-natural ecosystems and landscapes. The framework can be applied at
different scale levels to different ecosystems or landscape-units and consists of
three steps: (1) Function-analysis, which translates ecological complexity into a
limited number of ES; (2) Function valuation, which includes ecological, socio-
cultural and economic valuation methods; (3) Conflict analysis, to facilitate the
application of function-analysis and valuation at different scale levels. Hein et al.
(2006) established an enhanced framework for the valuation of ES, with specific
attention for stakeholders. The framework included a procedure to assess the value
of regulation services that avoids double counting of these services. Moreover, the
study analyzed the spatial scales of ES. The analysis has shown that stakeholders at
different spatial scales can have very different interests in ES, and it is highly
important to consider the scales of ES when valuation of services is applied to
support the formulation or implementation of ecosystem management plans.
Moreover, Fisher et al. (2009) offer a definition of ES that is likely to be
operational for ecosystem service research and several classification schemes: “eco-
system services are the aspects of ecosystems utilized (actively or passively) to
produce human well-being”. Defined this way, ES include ecosystem organization
or structure as well as process and/or functions if they are consumed or utilized by
humanity either directly or indirectly. There is not one classification scheme that will
be adequate for the many contexts in which ecosystem service research may be
utilized. The paper discusses several examples of how classification schemes will be
a function of both ecosystem and ecosystem service characteristics and the decision-
making context. In addition, Wallace (2007) developed a classification of ES that
Table 1 Studies that estimate ecosystem services

Method Used for/example Key references
Ecosystem Identification of ES and valuation of them de Groot (2006), de Groot
services separately et al. (2010), Hein et al.
approach (2006)
Classification schemes as functions of both Fisher and Kerry Turner
ecosystem and ecosystem service characteristics (2008), Fisher et al. (2009)
and decision-making
Classification of ES—framework for decision- Wallace (2007)
making in natural resource management
Classifying and valuing ecosystem functions, de Groot et al. (2002)
goods and services—link ecosystem functions to
the main ecological, socio-cultural and economic
valuation methods
Sustainable Potential effects, economic viability and social Onate et al. (2000)
land use acceptability of Agri-environmental Regulation—
AEI indicators
Conceptual framework for the economic valuation Pannell and Glenn (2000)
and prioritization of sustainability indicators—
based on Bayesian decision theory
Self-assessment tool based on the IDEA method Zahm et al. (2008)
to support sustainable agriculture—41 indicators
covering the three dimensions of sustainability
Indicators that cover the three components of the Gomez-Limon and
sustainability concept—evaluated the three Sanchez-Fernandez (2010)
dimensions sustainability with composite
indicators
Indicators for multifunctional land use—Linking Wiggering et al. (2006)
socio-economic requirements with landscape
potentials
Framework for sustainability assessment of Glaser and Diele (2004),
agricultural systems, encompassed the three Rasul and Thapa (2004)
dimensions of sustainability
Landscape Selection of different input–output IOA systems Halberg et al. (2005)
structure as effective tools for Agri-environmental
improvement—environmental indicators based on
good agricultural practices
Approach which measures environmental Lundin and Morrison
sustainability of urban water system, based on (2002)
LCA methodology
LCA method, for assessing the environmental Haas et al. (2000, 2001)
impact of production processes
Quantitative measure of human disturbance based Brown and Vivas (2005)
on land-use and solar energy (Energy Accounting)
consumption per use
Evaluation of ecosystem health and its measure- Patil et al. (2001)
ment at a variety of landscape scales—linkages
between socioeconomic drivers, biogeochemical
indicators
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)
Method Used for/example Key references
Stepwise downscaling procedure based on expert- Abildtrup et al. (2006)
judgement and pairwise comparison to obtain
socio-economic parameters between the evolution
of socio-economics and climate change
Source: Own elaboration
provides a framework for decisions in natural resource management. However,

further work is still required to resolve particular issues, such as the classification
of socio-cultural services. De Groot et al. (2002) presented a framework and
typology for describing, classifying and valuing ecosystem functions, goods and
services in a clear and consistent manner. In the second part of the paper, a checklist
and matrix is provided, linking these ecosystem functions to the main ecological,
socio-cultural and economic valuation methods.
As regards the second category, Onate et al. (2000) tried to evaluate the potential
effects of Agri-environmental Regulation EC 2078/92 on European agricultural
landscapes through the use of agri-environmental indicators (AEIs) on policy effects.
The main effects may be catalogued as improvement effects or protection effects
since they represent a change in participant over non-participant farmers’ decisions.
Finally, the importance of this type of policy evaluation approach is discussed in the
light of the likely future development of AEP in the European Union. Pannell and
Glenn (2000) presented a conceptual framework for the economic valuation and
prioritization of sustainability indicators. The framework was based on Bayesian
decision theory, particularly its use to calculate the value of information under
conditions of uncertainty. They tried to fill the gap of a conceptual framework as
basis for evaluation and sustainable development. Moreover, Zahm et al. (2008)
based on 41 sustainability indicators covering the three dimensions of sustainability,
tried to design a self-assessment tool not only for farmers but also for policy makers
to support sustainable agriculture. Gomez-Limon and Sanchez-Fernandez (2010)
developed a methodology for evaluating the sustainability of farms by means of
composite indicators. This methodology was based on calculating 16 sustainability
indicators that cover the three components of the sustainability concept (economic,
social and environmental). The evaluation of farm sustainability using the methods
suggested is a potentially useful tool for public decision-makers who are tasked with
designing and implementing agricultural policy. Wiggering et al. (2006) presented
an approach to merge different types of output by defining an indicator of social
utility. Social utility in this sense includes environmental and economic services as
long as society expresses a demand for them. Within this approach, the integrated
indicator concept incorporates the approaches of both sustainability and
multifunctionality in land use and management. In addition, Glaser and Diele
(2004) presented some central aspects of a sustainability assessment for a North
Brazilian mangrove crab fishery, based on a number of criteria from biology,
economics and sociology. They intended to contribute to future resource
management plans to improve the living conditions of current and future generations
while ensuring the health and productivity of the crab population and the mangrove
ecosystem they depend on. Rasul and Thapa (2004) examined the sustainability of
two production systems in terms of their environmental soundness, economic
viability and social acceptability, based on 12 indicators of sustainability.
In the last category, Halberg et al. (2005) selected 10 input–output accounting
systems (IOA) covering the topics of the farm’s use of nutrients, pesticides and
energy, from a survey of 55 systems and compared them. The approaches and
indicators used vary from systems based on good agricultural practices to accounts
based systems that use physical input–output units. Haas et al. (2000, 2001) used the
framework of a LCA in 18 grassland dairy farms covering three farming intensity
levels. In this study, the selection of appropriate impact categories and functional
units are emphasized, to fit specific agricultural and regional requirements in order to
compare the impact of farms. The objective of this study was to adapt the LCA
method, developed for assessing the environmental impact of production processes,
to agriculture on the whole farm level, efficiently and feasibly assessing all relevant
environmental impacts. In addition, Lundin and Morisson (2002) presented a pro-
cedure for the selection of indicators, which reflects the environmental sustainability
of urban water system. The chosen indicators were evaluated in case studies in a
developed and a developing region. This procedure combined empirical results with
a theoretical framework based on LCA methodology. Brown and Vivas (2005)
developed a method of quantitatively evaluating the human disturbance gradient
that is applicable to landscapes of varying scales from watersheds to forest patches or
isolated wetlands. Moreover, Patil et al. (2001) described the challenges of reporting
on changes in an ecosystem health at the different landscape scales. The focus was to
show how the integration of recent advances in quantitative techniques and tools will
facilitate the evaluation of ecosystem health and its measurement at a variety of
landscape scales. The challenge was to characterize, evaluate, and validate linkages
between socioeconomic drivers, biogeochemical indicators, multiscale landscape
metrics, and human life indicators. Finally, Abildrup et al. (2006) presented an
integrated approach to the construction of socio-economic scenarios required for
the analysis of climate change impacts on European agricultural land use. The
chosen scenarios ensured internal consistency between the evolution of socioeco-
nomics and climate change.
A range of methodologies are available to value changes in ES. The type of
valuation technique chosen depends on the type of ES to be valued, as well as the
quantity and quality of data available. Some valuation methods may be more suited
to capturing the values of particular ES than others (Galimberti et al. 2014). The
valuation methodologies reviewed are not new in themselves. The challenge is in
their appropriate application to ES. The Ecosystem Services Framework emphasizes
the need to consider the ecosystem as a whole and stresses that changes or impacts
on one part of an ecosystem have consequences for the whole system (Jopke et al.
2015). Key challenges in the valuation of ES relate to how ecosystems interrelate to
provide services and to dealing with issues of irreversibility and high levels of
uncertainty in how ecosystems function. All of this suggests that, while valuation
is an important and valuable tool for good policy-making, it should be seen as only
one of the inputs in decision making (Mace et al. 2012).
4 Multicriteria Approaches in ES Evaluation
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a set of methods that can be used to

support the process of decision making by taking into consideration multiple criteria
in a flexible manner, by means of a structured and intelligible framework. MCDA are
integrative evaluation methods in the sense that they combine information about the
performance of the alternatives with respect to the criteria (scoring) with subjective
judgements about the relative importance of the evaluation criteria in the particular
decision-making context (weighting). Due to their capacity to assess trade-offs and
accommodate value pluralism, MCDA has been proposed as a tool for an integrated
valuation of ES (Daily et al. 2009).
In order to valuing benefits provided by ecosystems and biodiversity social and
economic aspects should be considered along with environmental issues. Multi-Criteria
Decision tools allow simultaneous consideration of a wide range of economic, social
and environmental decision criteria, representing different dimensions of sustainability.
In the ecological domain, recent research by Gorshkov et al. (2000), show how the
complexity of ecosystems and the ecological web and the biosphere in general can
determine the climatic stability and resilience of the surrounding region or the global
system. Recent research by Costanza et al. (2014) contributes to the debate on the
evaluation of a multitude of ES. Regan et al. (2006) present a coherent set of
environmental criteria for evaluating biodiversity. Moffett et al. (2005) offers an
extensive overview of existing applications of multi-criteria methods to the problem
of biodiversity evaluation.
A systematic literature review has been performed, in order to assess the knowl-
edge on the use of MCDA methods in ES evaluation. The review was focused on
studies that used MCDA for an ES assessment; attempting to cover a representative
sample of study cases of ES assessments through MCDA. This section highlights
and discusses the main results from the review. A summary of the main results is
given in Table 2. As presented in the table below, there is a group of studies has
attempted to build a framework in order to assess the ES. Another group has used
different multicriteria evaluation tools and techniques, and the last group has used
different multicriteria approaches for the evaluation of landscape functions.
MCDA methods have been applied by a wide range of studies, as decision
support systems that integrate economic and noneconomic values (Newton et al.
2012), as approaches for cost-benefit analysis (Wegner and Pascual 2011) or as
methodological framework for addressing value dimensions related to ES (Mendoza
and Prabhu 2003). Based on the analysis of the literature performed, the methodo-
logical tools were classified into three main groups. The first group includes different
studies that have applied frameworks for the assessment of ES. The objective of
Comino et al. (2014) was to explore the use of a Multicriteria Spatial Decision
Table 2 Multicriteria methods for ES assessment and evaluation

Method Problem definition/scope Reference
Assessment Multicriteria Spatial Decision Support System tool Comino et al. (2014)
frameworks for the analysis of the environmental quality with
reference to nature conservation
Ecosystem function-based planning and manage- Oikonomou et al. (2011)
ment approach
Development of sustainability indicators for ana- Mendoza and Prabhu
lyzing their interactions and effects on ecosystems (2003)
Multi-scale framework, for the assessment of Paracchini et al. (2011)
European regions in terms of sustainability and ex
ante impact assessment of policy scenarios
MCA for a comparative assessment of ES for alter- Posthumus et al. (2010)
native land and water management scenarios
Framework in which MCDA tools are used for Stewart and Scott (1995)
evaluating strategic planning options based on pol-
icy scenarios
Framework for sustainability assessment of agricul- Van Cauwenberg et al.
tural systems related to the multiple functions of the (2007)
agro-ecosystem
Evaluation PROMETHEE-based methods for the evaluation of Abu-Taleb and Mareshal
techniques potential water resources/ to obtain new indicators (1995), Segura et al.
for ES/ to compare land use alternatives considering (2015), Fontana et al.
ES as criteria/ to compare municipalities based on (2013), Chatzinikolaou
ES indicators et al. (2015)
Three different evaluation techniques to compare Bodini and Giavelli
alternative plans for the socioeconomic development (1992)
ELECTRE III for the evaluation and selection of a Hokkanen and Salminen
solid waste management system (1997)
Interaction matrix to evaluate the effects of farmer Girardin et al. (2000)
production practices on the agro-ecosystem
Landscape Multicriteria assessment framework for the evalua- Koschke et al. (2012)
scales tion of land cover change scenarios and the estima-
tion of regional potentials to provide ES
Qualitative approach to assess landscape functions Kienast et al. (2009)
using four land use scenarios
Spatial multi-criteria assessment methodology to Zerger et al. (2011)
construct maps of regional conservation priorities
Qualitative tool for the quantification and spatial Burkhard et al. (2009)
modelling of multiple ES in different landscapes
Multicriteria evaluation approach to assess how Martínez-Sastre et al.
changes in cultural landscapes might affect people (2017)
Source: Own elaboration
Support System tool for the analysis of the environmental quality of the river basin
with particular reference to the issue of nature conservation and to support both the
planning and management processes. Oikonomou et al. (2011) proposed a concep-
tual framework that combines ecosystem function analysis, multi-criteria evaluation
and social research methodologies for introducing an ecosystem function-based

planning and management approach. Moreover, Mendoza and Prabhu (2003)
applied two general MCA methodologies for developing sustainability indicators
and for analyzing their interactions. This analysis allowed a more holistic assessment
of the indicators by examining how they affect each other directly and indirectly, like
individual elements of an ecosystem. Paracchini et al. (2011) proposed a further
advancement in integrated assessment procedures by setting up an operational multi-
scale and transparent framework, which comprised the assessment of European
regions in terms of sustainability, and the identification of the impact that policy
options might have on the sustainability of these regions. The framework was
designed for use in ex ante sustainability impact assessment of policy scenarios on
multifunctionality of land use and integrates economic, environmental and social
issues (Paracchini and Capitani 2011). Additionally, Posthumus et al. (2010) applied
a multi-criteria analysis that enables a comparative assessment of ES for alternative
land and water management scenarios, especially regarding the assessment of
non-monetary values. They focused on a methodology in order to measure and
value ES under different land management scenarios that reflect different priorities
for food plain areas. Stewart and Scott (1995) introduced a framework in which
MCDA tools are used for evaluating strategic planning options. This framework was
based on direct evaluation of sequences of policy scenarios. Finally, Van
Cauwenberg et al. (2007) proposed a framework for sustainability assessment of
agricultural systems, (Sustainability Assessment of Farming and the Environment).
The framework was composed of principles, criteria, indicators and reference values
in a structured way. Principles were related to the multiple functions of the agro-
ecosystem and consistent approaches were used for the identification and selection
of the indicators.
The second group of the reviewed methods has applied evaluation or ranking
techniques as tools to evaluate ES. Abu-Taleb and Mareshal (1995) have applied the
PROMETHEE V multicriteria method to evaluate potential water resources and select
from a variety of potentially feasible water resources development options, so that the
allocation of limited funds to alternative development projects and programs can
proceed in the most efficient manner. Segura et al. (2015) applied a PROMETHEE-
based method to obtain new composite indicators for provisioning, maintenance and
“direct to citizen services”. Fontana et al. (2013) have used PROMETHEE to compare
land use alternatives considering ES as criteria. Chatzinikolaou et al. (2015) applied
the PROMETHEE III method, for the comparison of the 26 municipalities of the
province of Ferrara, based on a set of ES indicators. Moreover, Bodini and Giavelli
(1992) have applied three different evaluation techniques, multicriteria weighted con-
cordance, discordance analysis and a qualitative procedure. These evaluation techniques
were used to compare four alternative plans for the socioeconomic development of
Salina Island, based on 14 criteria that reflect the socio environmental perception of the
inhabitants. Hokkanen and Salminen (1997) applied the multicriteria ELECTRE III
decision-aid in the context of choosing a solid waste management system in Finland.
Girardin et al. (2000) have adopted an interaction matrix to evaluate the effects of farmer
production practices on the agro-ecosystem. The evaluation matrix provided the raw
material both for the development of Agro-Ecological Indicators (AEI) and Indicators of
Environmental Impact (IEI) and for the use of multicriteria methods for sorting,
selecting, or classifying cropping or farming systems.
The last group of studies is focused on a regional or landscape scale, have attempted
a spatial distribution of specific ES. Availability of data for an assessment of ES
provision on a regional scale is often very limited. Up-scaling of detailed data from
lower scales does not always contribute to an improvement in the data base on a
regional scale (Egoh et al. 2008). Koschke et al. (2012) have applied a multicriteria
assessment framework for the evaluation of land cover change scenarios and for the
qualitative estimation of regional potentials to provide ES as a prerequisite to support
regional development planning. The objective was to present a conceptual framework
for how to assess the actual and potential future capacity of a region to provide
ES. Moreover, Kienast et al. (2009) have applied a framework to analyze the relation-
ships between the ecosystem properties of large portions of land, and their capacities to
provide goods and services using four land use scenarios. Burkhard et al. (2009) have
used quantitative and qualitative assessment data in combination with land cover and
land use information for the assessment of multiple ES. The proposed framework was
applied in different case studies and is proposed as a useful tool for the quantification
and spatial modelling of multiple ES in different landscapes. Zerger et al. (2011) have
focused on integrated sustainability and impact assessments in conservation planning.
More specifically, they apply a spatial multi-criteria assessment methodology to
construct maps of regional conservation priorities and assesses how these maps map
influence farm-scale actions. Finally, Martínez-Sastre et al. (2017) tried to assess,
through an empirical case study, how changes in cultural landscapes might affect
people living in and making use of the ES associated with those landscapes. They also
discuss the usefulness of combining a multicriteria evaluation approach with the ES
framework, as a methodological tool to support complex decision-making in situations
associated with land use planning where multiple and conflicting interests are
involved.
5 Discussion
Different studies have tried to classify, quantify, map and value ES in order to
integrate the concept into decision-making processes (e.g. Costanza et al. 1997; de
Groot et al. 2010). In general, frameworks include three main parts: (i) measuring the
provision of ES; (ii) determining the monetary value of ES; (iii) designing policy
tools for managing ES (Polasky 2008). This variety of methodological approaches
is, on which ES to measure, which indicators to use and in which scale. Seppelt et al.
(2011) provided a quantitative review of 153 ecosystem service studies that are using
a set of indicators. More than 75% excluded scenario analysis and more than 60% of
the studies did not involve stakeholders. Between 45% and 80% of the studies also
did not give sufficient information, concerning the results’ uncertainty and vali-
dation. However, this does not mean that these studies were not reproducible. This
variety of methodological approaches is, on the one hand, a creative scientific

process and typical of the development of new concepts, however on the other
hand, it can deliver confusing messages to the policy makers and researchers.
As assessing and mapping of ES is mainly dependent on data availability and
finding the appropriate indicators, most publications focused either on selected ES
and/or only on one landscape scale. Ecosystems have the ability to produce multiple
ES simultaneously, which is referred to as multifunctionality. Efforts that focus on
the provision of single services (e.g. production of a crop) can have a negative
impact on other services; for example, water and often pollination are needed for
agricultural crops. Enhancing important provisioning services, such as food and
timber, often leads to trade-offs between regulating and cultural services, such as
nutrient cycling, flood protection, and tourism. As an example, Van Zanten et al.
(2016) tried to measure the relative importance of landscape features across agri-
cultural landscapes in order to better understanding the cross-regional variation of
aesthetic and recreational values and how these values relate to characteristics of the
agricultural landscape. Moreover, Guo et al. (2016) proposed a modelling frame-
work which considers land-competition across different land types and sectors and
accounts for ecosystem service changes due to changes in land use transitions over
multiple time periods without exploring options based on policy scenarios. They
considered a number of quantitative and semi-quantitative indicators of ES, focusing
on provisioning (e.g. bioenergy, livestock) and biodiversity.
Scientific progress is also being made in developing socio-economic scenarios and
models of global change impacts on biodiversity and ES (Cheung et al. 2009;
Rodriguez et al. 2006; Sitch et al. 2008; Thomas et al. 2004; Xenopoulos et al.
2005). Currently a major challenge in this field of research, is improving the relevance
and value of these advances for decision makers at multiple scales (Donner et al.
2005). Scenarios are widely used in land use planning, climate change analysis and
conservation planning (Verburg et al. 2006; Xiang and Clarke 2003), and, increas-
ingly, in ecosystem service assessment (Castella et al. 2005; Duinker and Greig 2007;
Kirchner et al. 2015). The CAP has recently entered a new programming period and
the new objectives are oriented towards the sustainable management of natural
resources and climate action (Viaggi 2015). The CAP 2014–2020 has presented
policies centered on efficient provision of ES from agricultural land. However, only
a few studies have tried to assess the value of changes in ES with the implementation
of the reformed CAP measures that are addressed on ecosystems. As an example,
Lupp et al. (2015) applied an ES approach as a framework to assess the impact of
increasing energy crop production (with a focus on biogas production) on the quality
and services of those ecosystems concerned, taking into account the European and
national energy production targets and action plans about biomass and total energy
consumption by 2020. Kirchner et al. (2016) tried to assess the impacts of alternative
policy pathways on the supply of ES, considering the aggregate and spatial impacts of
the latest CAP reform. Applying different policy scenarios is a key component of
forward-looking decision making in some instances at local and national levels (e.g.,
climate change impacts on forests and protected areas, management of fisheries) but
covers only a small range of sectors and cases (Jetz et al. 2007).
6 Conclusions
The objective of this paper is to review existing methodologies and tools for the
evaluation of the provision of ES with a focus on studies that used MCDA for the
assessment and evaluation of ES. We attempt to cover a representative, though not
comprehensive, sample of case studies of ES assessments using MCDA. The rising
demand for ES measurement, modelling and evaluation is the main driver for
development of ES research. A key challenge of ecosystem management is deter-
mining how to manage multiple ecosystem services across landscapes. The review
performed highlights the scope of MCDA as a decision support tool for ES evalu-
ation, since it can structure an assessment of a complex problem like evaluating ES
and allows comparison of ecological objectives with socio-cultural and economic
ones in a structured framework.
Different studies have tried to classify, quantify, map and value ES in order to
integrate the concept into decision-making processes. These efforts have suggested
measures to better evaluate ES and to improve the knowledge base of the value of
ES, as well as proposed measures that will mainstream the importance of biodiver-
sity and the value of ES. However, there are still open questions to fully integrate the
ecosystem service concept in landscape research and decision making (Seppelt et al.
2012). Despite the increase in publications on ecosystem goods and services, a
comprehensive framework for integrated assessment and valuation of ES is still
missing (Armsworth et al. 2007; van Zanten et al. 2014). Improved ways and
methods for ES quantification and assessment are needed to investigate the number
and quality of ES produced by the individual ecosystems and to increase the ability
to feed such knowledge into policy design.
According to the review performed, one of the main findings was that there does
not exist one standard method or approach to map and assess the ES and their value.
MCDA methods can structure an assessment of a complex problem along both
cognitive and normative dimensions, both of which are essential in evaluating and
assessing ES. There exists a wide variety of MCDA approaches put in practice at
different geographical scales or ongoing efforts at to harmonize the classification of
ES and their valuation. There are a number of choices to be made between classifi-
cations, methods and approaches. These choices involve firstly defining what the
purpose of the ES valuation is; determine which ES are of highest relevance;
defining the types of value information that are required; and finally select the
relevant and appropriate valuation methods. Although MCDA techniques can help
structuring the problem and supporting a more transparent decision-making, the ES
concept is currently used in a range of studies with widely differing aims creating
difficulties for policy makers as well as researchers since it makes it difficult to assess
the credibility of assessment results.
References
Abildtrup, J., Audsley, E., Fekete-Farkas, M., Giupponi, C., Gylling, M., Rosato, P., & Rounsevell,
M. (2006). Socio-economic scenario development for the assessment of climate change impacts
on agricultural land use: A pairwise comparison approach. Environmental Science and Policy,
9, 101–115.
Abu-Taleb, M. F., & Mareschal, B. (1995). Water resources planning in the Middle East: Application
of the PROMETHEE V multicriteria method. European Journal of Operational Research, 81,
500–511.
Armsworth, P. R., Chan, K. M. A., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., Kremen, C., Ricketts, T. H., &
Sanjayan, M. A. (2007). Ecosystem-service science and the way forward for conservation.
Conservation Biology, 21, 1383–1384.
Bodini, A., & Giavelli, G. (1992). Multicriteria analysis as a tool to investigate compatibility
between conservation and development on Salina Island, Aeolian Archipelago, Italy. Environ-
mental Management, 16, 633–652.
Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental
accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63, 616–626.
Brown, M., & Vivas, M. B. (2005). Landscape Development Intensity Index. Environmental Moni-
toring and Assessment, 101, 289–309.
Burkhard, F., 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.
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., & Müller, F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply,
demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21, 17–29.
Burkhard, B., Petrosillo, I., & Costanza, R. (2010). Ecosystem services – Bridging ecology,
economy and social sciences. Ecological Complexity, 7, 257–259.
Carnus, J. M., Parrotta, J., Brockerhoff, E., Arbez, M., Jactel, H., Kremer, A., Lamb, D., OHara, K.,
& Walters, B. (2006). Planted forests and biodiversity. Journal of Forestry, 104, 65–77.
Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., Defries, R. S., Diaz, S., Dietz, T.,
Duraiappah, A. K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H. M., et al. (2009). Science for managing eco-
system services: Beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 1305–1312.
Carreño, L., Frank, F. C., & Viglizzo, E. F. (2012). Tradeoffs between economic and ecosystem services
in Argentina during 50 years of land-use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 154,
68–77.
Castella, J.-C., Trung, T. N., & Boissau, S. (2005). Participatory simulation of land-use changes in
the Northern Mountains of Vietnam: The combined use of an agent-based model, a role-playing
game, and a geographic information system. Ecology and Society, 10, 27.
Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better
address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18.
Chatzinikolaou, P., Viaggi, D., & Raggi, M. (2015). The evaluation of ecosystem services produc-
tion: An application in the Province of Ferrara. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 4(3), 235–259.
Cheung, W. W. L., Lam, V. W. Y., Sarmiento, J. L., Kearney, K., Watson, R., & Pauly, D. (2009).
Projecting global marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish and Fisheries,
10, 235–251.
CICES. (2013). The common international classification of ecosystem services. Report to the
European Environment Agency.
Comino, E., Bottero, M., Pomarico, S., & Rosso, M. (2014). Exploring the environmental value of
ecosystem services for a river basin through a spatial multicriteria analysis. Land Use Policy, 36,
381–395.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., & de Groot, R. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., &
Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental
Change, 26, 152–158.
Cowling, R. M., Egoh, B., Knight, A. T., O’Farrell, P. J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D. J., Welz,
A., & Wilhelm-Rechman, A. (2008). An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem
services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105,
9483–9488.
Daily, G. (1997). Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Daily, G. C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T. H.,
Salzman, J., & Shallenberger, R. (2009). Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to
deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 21–28.
de Groot, R. (1987). Environmental functions as a unifying concept for ecology and economics.
Environmentalist, 7, 105–109.
de Groot, R. (1992). Functions of nature: Evaluation of nature in environmental planning,
management and decision making. Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff. 315 pp.
de Groot, R. (2006). Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in
planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75,
175–186.
de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in inte-
grating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and
decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7, 260–272.
de Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. J. (2002). A typology for the classification,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics,
41, 393–408.
Diehl, K., Burkhard, B., & Jacob, K. (2016). Should the ecosystem services concept be used in
European Commission impact assessment? Ecological Indicators, 61(Part 1), 6–17.
Donner, S. D., Skirving, W. J., Little, C. M., Oppenheimer, M., & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (2005).
Global assessment of coral bleaching and required rates of adaptation under climate change.
Global Change Biology, 11, 2251–2265.
Duinker, P. N., & Greig, L. A. (2007). Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment:
Improving explorations of the future. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 206–219.
EC. (2009). Consultation on the future “EU 2020” strategy. Brussels: Commission of the
European Communities.
EC. (2010). European Commission: Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclu-
sive growth. COM(2010) 2020, Brussels.
EC. (2011). European Commission: Our life insurance, our natural capital: An EU biodiversity
strategy to 2020. COM(2011) 244, Brussels.
Egoh, B., Drakou, E.G., Dunbar, M., Maes, J., & Willemen, L. (2012). Indicators for mapping
ecosystem services: A review. Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and
Sustainability.
Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Richardson, D. M., Le Maitre, D. C., & van Jaarsveld, A. S.
(2008). Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 127, 135–140.
Feld, C., Sousa, J., da Silva, P., & Dawson, T. (2010). Indicators for biodiversity and ecosystem
services: Towards an improved framework for ecosystems assessment. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 19, 2895–2919.
Fisher, B., & Kerry Turner, R. (2008). Ecosystem services: Classification for valuation. Bio-
logical Conservation, 141, 1167–1169.
Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for
decision making. Ecological Economics, 68, 643–653.
Fontana, V., Radtke, A., Bossi Fedrigotti, V., Tappeiner, U., Tasser, E., Zerbe, S., & Buchholz,
T. (2013). Comparing land-use alternatives: Using the ecosystem services concept to define a
multi-criteria decision analysis. Ecological Economics, 93, 128–136.
Galimberti, G., Raggi, M., & Viaggi, D. (2014). Landscape perception and ecosystem service uses:
Some results from surveys and latent variable models. Deliverable 4.20 “Summary Report on
Case Study Activity”.
Girardin, P., Bockstaller, C., & Van der Werf, H. (2000). Assessment of potential impacts of
agricultural practices on the environment: The AGRO*ECO method. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 20, 227–239.
Glaser, M., & Diele, K. (2004). Asymmetric outcomes: Assessing central aspects of the biological,
economic and social sustainability of a mangrove crab fishery, Ucides cordatus (Ocypodidae),
in North Brazil. Ecological Economics, 49, 361–373.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem
services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes.
Ecological Economics, 69, 1209–1218.
Gomez-Limon, J. A., & Sanchez-Fernandez, G. (2010). Empirical evaluation of agricultural sus-
tainability using composite indicators. Ecological Economics, 69, 1062–1075.
Gorshkov, V. G., Gorshkov, V. V., & Makarieva, A. M. (2000). Biotic regulation of the environment.
London: Springer, Published in association with Praxis Publishing.
Guo, M., Richter, G. M., Holland, R. A., Eigenbrod, F., Taylor, G., & Shah, N. (2016).
Implementing land-use and ecosystem service effects into an integrated bioenergy value chain
optimisation framework. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 91, 392–406.
Haas, G., Wetterich, F., & Geier, U. (2000). Life cycle assessment framework in agriculture on the
farm level. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 5, 345–348.
Haas, G., Wetterich, F., & Köpke, U. (2001). Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland
farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Halberg, N., Verschuur, G., & Goodlass, G. (2005). Farm level environmental indicators; are they
useful? An overview of green accounting systems for European farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment, 105, 195–212.
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S., & van Ierland, E. C. (2006). Spatial scales, stakeholders
and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 209–228.
Helliwell, D. R. (1969). Valuation of wildlife resources. Regional Studies, 3, 41–49.
Hokkanen, J., & Salminen, P. (1997). Choosing a solid waste management system using multi-
criteria decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 98, 19–36.
Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S., Ewel, J. J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J. H.,
Lodge, D. M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., et al. (2005). Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem func-
tioning: A consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75, 3–35.
Hughes, J. B., Daily, G. C., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1997). Population diversity: Its extent and extinction.
Science, 278, 689–692.
Jetz, W., Wilcove, D. S., & Dobson, A. P. (2007). Projected impacts of climate and land-use change
on the global diversity of birds. PLoS Biology, 5, e157.
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.
Kienast, F., Bolliger, J., Potschin, M., de Groot, R., Verburg, P., Heller, I., Wascher, D., & Haines-
Young, R. (2009). Assessing landscape functions with broad-scale environmental data: Insights
gained from a prototype development for Europe. Environmental Management, 44, 1099–1120.
Kiker, G. A., Bridges, T. S., Varghese, A., Seager, T. P., & Linkov, I. (2005). Application of multi-
criteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment
and Management, 1, 95–108.
Kirchner, M., Schmidt, J., Kindermann, G., Kulmer, V., Mitter, H., Prettenthaler, F., Rüdisser, J.,
Schauppenlehner, T., Schönhart, M., Strauss, F., et al. (2015). Ecosystem services and eco-
nomic development in Austrian agricultural landscapes — The impact of policy and
climate change scenarios on trade-offs and synergies. Ecological Economics, 109, 161–174.
Kirchner, M., Schönhart, M., & Schmid, E. (2016). Spatial impacts of the CAP post-2013 and
climate change scenarios on agricultural intensification and environment in Austria. Eco-
logical Economics, 123, 35–56.
Koschke, L., Fürst, C., Frank, S., & Makeschin, F. (2012). A multi-criteria approach for an inte-
grated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape
planning. Ecological Indicators, 21, 54–66.
Lautenbach, S., Kugel, C., Lausch, A., & Seppelt, R. (2011). Analysis of historic changes in
regional ecosystem service provisioning using land use data. Ecological Indicators, 11,
676–687.
Layke, C., Mapendembe, A., Brown, C., Walpole, M., & Winn, J. (2012). Indicators from the
global and sub-global millennium ecosystem assessments: An analysis and next steps. Eco-
logical Indicators, 17, 77–87.
Luck, G. W., Daily, G. C., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2003). Population diversity and ecosystem services.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 331–336.
Lundin, M., & Morrison, G. M. (2002). A life cycle assessment based procedure for development of
environmental sustainability indicators for urban water systems. Urban Water, 4, 145–152.
Lupp, G., Steinhäußer, R., Bastian, O., & Syrbe, R.-U. (2015). Impacts of increasing bioenergy use
on ecosystem services on nature and society exemplified in the German district of Görlitz.
Biomass and Bioenergy, 83, 131–140.
Mace, G. M., Norris, K., & Fitter, A. H. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered
relationship. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 27, 19–26.
Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J. P., Grizzetti, B., Drakou,
E. G., Notte, A. L., Zulian, G., et al. (2015). Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and
decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services, 1, 31–39.
Martínez-Sastre, R., Ravera, F., González, J. A., López Santiago, C., Bidegain, I., & Munda,
G. (2017). Mediterranean landscapes under change: Combining social multicriteria evaluation
and the ecosystem services framework for land use planning. Land Use Policy, 67, 472–486.
Mendoza, G. A., & Prabhu, R. (2003). Qualitative multi-criteria approaches to assessing indicators
of sustainable forest resource management. Forest Ecology and Management, 174, 329–343.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being. In A
framework for assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Wetlands and
water synthesis report. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Moberg, F., & Folke, C. (1999). Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Eco-
Moffett, A., Garson, J., & Sarkar, S. (2005). MultCSync: A software package for incorporating
multiple criteria in conservation planning. Environmental Modelling and Software, 20,
1315–1322.
Nelson, J. P., & Kennedy, P. E. (2009). The use (and abuse) of meta-analysis in environmental and
natural resource economics: An assessment. Environmental and Resource Economics, 42,
345–377.
Newton, A. C., Hodder, K., Cantarello, E., Perrella, L., Birch, J. C., Robins, J., Douglas, S., Moody,
C., & Cordingley, J. (2012). Cost–benefit analysis of ecological networks assessed through
spatial analysis of ecosystem services. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 571–580.
Norberg, J. (1999). Linking Nature’s services to ecosystems: Some general ecological concepts.
Ecological Economics, 29, 183–202.
Odum, E. P., & Odum, H. T. (1972). Natural areas as necessary components of man’s total envi-
ronment (Vol. 37, pp. 178–189). In Transactions of the 37th North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference, Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC.
Oikonomou, V., Dimitrakopoulos, P., & Troumbis, A. (2011). Incorporating ecosystem function
concept in environmental planning and decision making by means of multi-criteria evaluation:
The case-study of Kalloni, Lesbos, Greece. Environmental Management, 47, 77–92.
Onate, J., Andersen, E., Peco, B., & Primdahl, J. (2000). Agri-environmental schemes and the
European agricultural landscapes: The role of indicators as valuing tools for evaluation.
Landscape Ecology, 15, 271–280.
Pannell, D. J., & Glenn, N. A. (2000). A framework for the economic evaluation and selection of
sustainability indicators in agriculture. Ecological Economics, 33, 135–149.
Paracchini, M. L., & Capitani, C. (2011). Implementation of a EU wide indicator for the rural-agrarian
landscape. In support of COM(2006)508 “Development of agri-environmental indicators for
monitoring the integration of environmental concerns into the Common Agricultural Policy”.
Paracchini, M. L., Pacini, C., Jones, M. L. M., & Pérez-Soba, M. (2011). An aggregation framework
to link indicators associated with multifunctional land use to the stakeholder evaluation of
policy options. Ecological Indicators, 11, 71–80.
Patil, G. P., Brooks, R. P., Myers, W. L., Rapport, D. J., & Taillie, C. (2001). Ecosystem health and
its measurement at landscape scale: Toward the next generation of quantitative assessments.
Ecosystem Health, 7, 307–316.
Pearce, D. W. (1993). Economic values and the natural world. London: Earthscan.
Perrings, C., Folke, C., & Maler, K.-G. (1992). The ecology and economics of biodiversity loss:
The research agenda. Ambio, 21, 201–211.
Perrings, C., Naeem, S., Ahrestani, F. S., Bunker, D. E., Burkill, P., Canziani, G., Elmqvist, T.,
Fuhrman, J. A., Jaksic, F. M., Kawabata, Z., et al. (2011). Ecosystem services, targets, and
indicators for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Polasky, S. (2008). What’s nature done for you lately: Measuring the value of ecosystem services.
Choices, 23, 42–46.
Posthumus, H., Rouquette, J. R., Morris, J., Gowing, D. J. G., & Hess, T. M. (2010). A framework
for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in
England. Ecological Economics, 69, 1510–1523.
Rasul, G., & Thapa, G. B. (2004). Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems
in Bangladesh: An assessment based on environmental, economic and social perspectives.
Agricultural Systems, 79, 327–351.
Regan, H. M., Davis, F. W., Andelman, S. J., Widyanata, A., & Freese, M. (2006). Comprehensive
criteria for biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16,
2715–2728.
Rodriguez, J. P., Beard, J., Douglas, T., Bennett, E. M., Cumming, G. S., Cork, S. J., Agard, J.,
Dobson, A. P., & Peterson, G. D. (2006). Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services.
Ecology and Society, 11, 28.
Sandhu, H. S., Wratten, S. D., Cullen, R., & Case, B. (2008). The future of farming: The value of
ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Eco-
Schneiders, A., Van Daele, T., Van Landuyt, W., & Van Reeth, W. (2012). Biodiversity and
ecosystem services: Complementary approaches for ecosystem management? Eco-
logical Indicators, 21, 123–133.
Segura, M., Maroto, C., Belton, V., & Ginestar, C. (2015). A new collaborative methodology for
assessment and management of ecosystem services. Forests, 6, 1696.
Seppelt, R., Dormann, C. F., Eppink, F. V., Lautenbach, S., & Schmidt, S. (2011). A quantitative
review of ecosystem service studies: Approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 48, 630–636.
Seppelt, R., Fath, B., Burkhard, B., Fisher, J. L., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lautenbach, S., Pert, P., Hotes,
S., Spangenberg, J., Verburg, P. H., et al. (2012). Form follows function? Proposing a blueprint
for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies. Ecological Indicators, 21,
145–154.
Silvert, W. (2000). Fuzzy indices of environmental conditions. Ecological Modelling, 130,
111–119.
Sitch, S., Huntingford, C., Gedney, N., Levy, P. E., Lomas, M., Piao, S. L., Betts, R., Ciais, P., Cox,
P., Friedlingstein, P., et al. (2008). Evaluation of the terrestrial carbon cycle, future plant
geography and climate-carbon cycle feedbacks using five Dynamic Global Vegetation Models
(DGVMs). Global Change Biology, 14, 2015–2039.
Stewart, T. J., & Scott, L. (1995). A scenario-based framework for multicriteria decision analysis in
water resources planning. Water Resources Research, 31, 2835–2843.
Swetnam, R. D., Fisher, B., Mbilinyi, B. P., Munishi, P. K. T., Willcock, S., Ricketts, T., Mwakalila,
S., Balmford, A., Burgess, N. D., Marshall, A. R., et al. (2011). Mapping socio-economic sce-
narios of land cover change: A GIS method to enable ecosystem service modelling. Journal of
Environmental Management, 92, 563–574.
TEEB. (2010a). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of
nature: A synthesis of the approach conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. London:
Earthscan.
TEEB. (2010b). A quick guide to the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for local and
regional policy makers. www.teebweb.org.
Thomas, C. D., Cameron, A., Green, R. E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L. J., Collingham, Y. C.,
Erasmus, B. F. N., de Siqueira, M. F., Grainger, A., Hannah, L., et al. (2004). Extinction risk
from climate change. Nature, 427, 145–148.
Turner, R. K., & Daily, G. C. (2008). The ecosystem services framework and natural capital con-
servation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 39, 25–35.
Van Cauwenbergh, N., Biala, K., Bielders, C., Brouckaert, V., Franchois, L., Garcia Cidad, V.,
Hermy, M., Mathijs, E., Muys, B., Reijnders, J., et al. (2007). SAFE—A hierarchical framework
for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environ-
ment, 120, 229–242.
van Zanten, B., Verburg, P., Espinosa, M., Gomez-y-Paloma, S., Galimberti, G., Kantelhardt, J.,
Kapfer, M., Lefebvre, M., Manrique, R., Piorr, A., et al. (2014). European agricultural landscapes,
common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Devel-
opment, 34, 309–325.
van Zanten, B. T., Zasada, I., Koetse, M. J., Ungaro, F., Häfner, K., & Verburg, P. H. (2016).
A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and
recreational values in agricultural landscapes. Ecosystem Services, 17, 87–98.
Verburg, P. H., Schulp, C. J. E., Witte, N., & Veldkamp, A. (2006). Downscaling of land use
change scenarios to assess the dynamics of European landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Viaggi, D. (2015). Special section: Exploring the contribution of landscape management to the
rural economy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58, 2082–2087.
Vira, B., & Adams, W. M. (2009). Ecosystem services and conservation strategy: Beware the
silver bullet. Conservation Letters, 2, 158–162.
Wallace, K. J. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: Problems and solutions. Biological Con-
servation, 139, 235–246.
Weber, J.-L. (2007). Implementation of land and ecosystem accounts at the European Environment
Agency. Ecological Economics, 61, 695–707.
Wegner, G., & Pascual, U. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for
human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique. Global Environmental Change, 21, 492–504.
Wiggering, H., Dalchow, C., Glemnitz, M., Helming, K., Müller, K., Schultz, A., Stachow, U., &
Zander, P. (2006). Indicators for multifunctional land use—Linking socio-economic require-
ments with landscape potentials. Ecological Indicators, 6, 238–249.
Willemen, L., Hein, L., van Mensvoort, M. E. F., & Verburg, P. H. (2010). Space for people, plants,
and livestock? Quantifying interactions among multiple landscape functions in a Dutch rural
region. Ecological Indicators, 10, 62–73.
Wilson, M. A., & Carpenter, S. R. (1999). Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in
the United States: 1971–1997. Ecological Applications, 9, 772–783.
WRI. (2005). Managing ecosystems to fight poverty. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
Xenopoulos, M. A., Lodge, D. M., Alcamo, J., Märker, M., Schulze, K., & Van Vuuren, D. P.
(2005). Scenarios of freshwater fish extinctions from climate change and water withdrawal.
Global Change Biology, 11, 1557–1564.
Xiang, W.-N., & Clarke, K. C. (2003). The use of scenarios in land-use planning. Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design, 30, 885–909.
Zahm, F., Viaux, P., Vilain, L., Girardin, P., & Mouchet, C. (2008). Assessing farm sustainability
with the IDEA method – from the concept of agriculture sustainability to case studies on farms.
Sustainable Development, 16, 271–281.
Zerger, A., Warren, G., Hill, P., Robertson, D., Weidemann, A., & Lawton, K. (2011). Multi-criteria
assessment for linking regional conservation planning and farm-scale actions. Environ-
mental Modelling and Software, 26, 103–110.

Chatzinikolaou - Et - Al - 2018 - Review of Multicriteria Methodologies and Tools For Evaluation of Provision of Ecosystem Services

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chatzinikolaou - Et - Al - 2018 - Review of Multicriteria Methodologies and Tools For Evaluation of Provision of Ecosystem Services

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chatzinikolaou - Et - Al - 2018 - Review of Multicriteria Methodologies and Tools For Evaluation of Provision of Ecosystem Services

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Multicriteria Methodologies

and Tools for the Evaluation

Parthena Chatzinikolaou, Davide Viaggi, and Meri Raggi

Abstract An ecosystem is deﬁned as an area, place or environment where organ-

Keywords Ecosystem services · Literature review · Multi-criteria analysis ·

P. Chatzinikolaou (*) · D. Viaggi

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 43

1 Introduction and Objective

Diversity complements previous conservation biodiversity targets with the addition

measurement and monitoring of ES requires also relating ecosystem functioning to

2 Ecosystem Services Concept

An ecosystem is usually deﬁned as an area, place or environment where organisms

healthy state, or at least be able to provide a sustained ﬂow of services. As a result,

3 Literature Review on ES Concept

Table 1 Studies that estimate ecosystem services

provides a framework for decisions in natural resource management. However,

4 Multicriteria Approaches in ES Evaluation

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a set of methods that can be used to

Table 2 Multicriteria methods for ES assessment and evaluation

and social research methodologies for introducing an ecosystem function-based

variety of methodological approaches is, on the one hand, a creative scientiﬁc

You might also like