This article was downloaded by: [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries]

On: 22 December 2014, At: 04:10

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Biodiversity Science,

Ecosystem Services & Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbsm21

Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services

a b c
Neville D. Crossman , Benjamin Burkhard & Stoyan Nedkov
a
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences , Adelaide , Australia
b
Institute for Natural Resource Conservation, University of Kiel , Germany
c
Department of Geography , Bulgarian Academy of Sciences , Sofia , Bulgaria
Published online: 03 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Neville D. Crossman , Benjamin Burkhard & Stoyan Nedkov (2012) Quantifying and mapping
ecosystem services, International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 8:1-2, 1-4, DOI:
10.1080/21513732.2012.695229

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.695229

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
Vol. 8, Nos. 1–2, June 2012, 1–4

EDITORIAL
Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services

Since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem This special issue on ‘Quantifying and mapping
Assessment’s outcomes in 2005 (Millennium Ecosystem ecosystem services’ contains a collection of papers that
Assessment 2005), there has been rapid growth in the present the state of the art in ecosystem service quantifica-
science and policy of valuing ecosystem services and tion and mapping methodologies. The collection of papers
biodiversity for natural resource management decision in this special issue covers a broad spectrum of ecosystem
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 04:10 22 December 2014

making. Most prominent at the global scale is The service quantification and mapping, from the theoretical
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010), and (Bastian et al. 2012) and review (Martinez-Harms and
at the national scale is the United Kingdom National Balvanera 2012) style, to those of a more applied nature
Ecosystem Assessment (Bateman et al. 2011). New ini- (Ericksen et al. 2012; Klug et al. 2012). Several papers
tiatives, such as the World Bank’s Global Partnership for focus on the single ecosystem service of water quality
Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services1 (Bastian et al. 2012; Klug et al. 2012; La Notte et al. 2012;
and the Global Environment Facility (GEF)-funded Project Lautenbach et al. 2012) or habitat (La Notte 2012; Rolf
for Ecosystem Services2 aim to get ecosystem ser- et al. 2012), while other papers focus on the supply of mul-
vice values into mainstream national accounting. Other tiple (or bundles of) ecosystem services (Ericksen et al.
recent global developments such as the Intergovernmental 2012; Guerry et al. 2012; Petz and van Oudenhoven 2012;
science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Schulp et al. 2012; Vihervaara et al. 2012). The major char-
Services3 and the Convention on Biological Diversity’s acteristics of the papers that appear in this special issue are
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–20204 aim to recog- summarised in Table 1.
nise, protect and enhance the values provided to society The scale, resolution, input data sources and case study
by biodiversity and ecosystem services. The biodiversity locations presented in these special issue papers are many
strategy of the European Union (EU) to 20205 demands and varied, from the local to the global and the fine-grained
improving the knowledge of ecosystem services and com- to the coarse-grained (Table 1). However, of most interest
missions its member states to map and assess the state of to readers are the major findings of the papers in this col-
ecosystems and their services in their national territories lection and how they contribute to the state of the art for
by 2014. The integration of ecosystem service values into quantifying and mapping ecosystem services. For exam-
accounting and reporting systems at EU and national levels ple, using biophysical models (La Notte et al. 2012) or
is expected be completed by 2020. detailed species (Rolf et al. 2012) or biodiversity data
All such efforts to better value ecosystem services (Vihervaara et al. 2012) to supplement land-cover/land-
demand robust quantification and mapping methods. use data-based assessments will more accurately quantify
Furthermore, the commodification of ecosystem service ecosystem services than if using land-cover/land-use data
production, such as payments for ecosystem services, alone. The selection of relevant ecosystem services and
biodiversity and wetland banking, carbon offsets and trad- respective indicators is also important and careful selec-
ing and conservation auctions, depends on robust measure- tion will arguably result in more relevant and accurate
ment of the stocks and flow of services to provide surety maps for valuation (La Notte 2012) and decision making
to participants in these markets. At a broader level of sus- (Petz and van Oudenhoven 2012). A number of papers
tainability policy, there needs to be better understanding offer some insights into cases where lack of data makes
of where and what services are provided by a given piece quantifying and mapping ecosystem services more dif-
of land, landscape, region, state, continent and globally, so ficult. For example, Lautenbach et al. (2012) suggest a
that the level of provision of services can be monitored hierarchical approach across multiple scales could be used
and managed. There also needs to be better understanding where high-resolution data are fragmented, while Ericksen
of conditions and threats to the natural capital that sup- et al. (2012) demonstrate that simple and relatively coarse
plies ecosystem services so that finite resources can be land-use data are still very useful for mapping bundles
targeted to where the enhancement of services is needed of ecosystem services to aid decision making in develop-
most. Maps are a very powerful tool to process complex ing countries that are traditionally data poor. Furthermore,
data and information from ecosystem service quantifica- Klug et al. (2012) demonstrate the potential of open source
tion on different spatial and temporal scales and thereby methods for collecting data and modelling ecosystem ser-
support resource and environmental management as well vices that are complex in space and time.
as landscape planning.

ISSN 2151-3732 print/ISSN 2151-3740 online

© 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.695229
http://www.tandfonline.com
 Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 04:10 22 December 2014

Table 1. Summary of papers contained in the quantifying and mapping ecosystem services special issue and major finding relating to mapping and modelling. 2
Number of
ecosystem
Special issue services
paper mapped Ecosystem services Scale Resolution Location Data sources Major finding
Editorial

Bastian et al. Theoretical paper Provides a checklist of spatial

(2012) and temporal components
for quantifying ecosystem
services
Martinez- Review paper Methods for mapping
Harms and ecosystem services are
Balvaners diverse; calls for
(2012) standardised methods to
model and map ecosystem
services
La Notte et al. 1 Water quality Regional Land parcels; Mediterranean Nutrient retention Biophysical models provide
(2012) sub-catchments biogeographic model; land-cover more robust methods for
region data quantifying ecosystem
services than using land
cover alone
Lautenbach 1 Water quality Continental; regional; 10 km × 10 km raster; EU-27; German Elbe Numerous statistical Model resolution and scale
et al. (2012) local sub-catchments; Catchment; Parthe models have a significant influence
hydrological units Basin; Lödderitzer on accuracy of mapping
Forst ecosystem services; a
hierarchical approach is
called for in mapping
data-poor ecosystem
services
Klug et al. 1 Water quantity Regional Administrative units Greater Alpine Region Survey data Open source data and models
(2012) can provide better spatial
and temporal data and can
improve ecosystem service
decision making
Rolf et al. 1 Habitat Local 50 m × 50 m and Swabian Alb; Species niche models High-resolution species-level
(2012) 30 m × 30 m raster Hohenlohe Region models are important to
(Germany) accurately map habitat
ecosystem services
La Notte (2012) 1 Habitat Local Habitat units; 100 m Cansiglio Forest; Numerous Careful selection of
× 100 m raster St. Erasmo Island environmental indicators used to map
(Italy) indicators ecosystem services is
needed for valuation
Gos and 3 Fodder, cultural value, Local Land-use units Central French Alps Cadastral; aerial Stakeholder perspectives are
Lavorel regulation photographs; important to consider
(2012) (pollination plus soil ecosystem when mapping ecosystem
carbon) value properties; plant services
traits
 Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 04:10 22 December 2014

.
Guerry et al. 4 Food, water quality, Local 250 m × 250 m raster Lemmens Inlet, Various Off-the-shelf mapping tool
(2012) habitat, recreation Vancouver Island (InVEST), applied for first
(Canada) time in marine context,
aids in marine planning
and conservation
Ericksen et al. 8 Carbon sequestration, Regional Land-use unit Ewaso Ng’iro Various Mapping bundles of
(2012) wildlife species, Catchment (Kenya) ecosystem services at the
timber, livestock, land-use scale is a simple
crops, freshwater, yet powerful tool for
flood regulation, land-use planning;
cultural value simplicity is important for
rather data-poor
developing countries
Petz and van 8 Food, raw materials, Regional 25 m × 25 m raster ‘Groene Woud’ Various Land-use data, supplemented
Oudenhoven air quality, carbon Landscape (The with landscape indicators,
(2012) sequestration, Netherlands) is useful for mapping both
pollination, ecosystem functions and
biological control, ecosystem services
habitat, recreation
Schulp et al. 8 Crops, wild food, Continental 0.5 m × 0.5 raster Eastern Europe Various Mapping both ecosystem
(2012) carbon functions and ecosystem
sequestration, services is important for
erosion control, understanding the
flood regulation, relationship between
pollination, air environmental change and
quality, tourism human well-being
Vihervaara 16 See Vihervaara et al. Local 25 m × 25 m raster Sompio Strict Nature Aerial photographs; Detailed biodiversity data
et al. (2012) (2012) Reserve (Finland) survey data; improve mapping of
land-cover data ecosystem services
compared to use of
land-cover data alone
International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
3
 4 Editorial

The collection of papers we offer here provides exam- Bateman IJ, Mace GM, Fezzi C, Atkinson G, Turner K.
ples of the many different ways ecosystem services can be 2011. Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments.
quantified and mapped. The literature review by Martinez- Environ Res Econ. 48(2):177–218.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. 2010. The
Harms and Balvanera (2012) concludes that the methods Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: ecological and
for mapping ecosystem services are diverse. The incon- economic foundations. London: Earthscan.
sistency in methods to quantify and map services is a Ericksen P, de Leeuw J, Said M, Silvestri S, Zaibet L. 2012.
challenge for developing robust values of ecosystem ser- Mapping ecosystem services in the Ewaso Ng’iro catchment.
vices for inclusion in national accounts and broader policy Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag. 8:122–134.
Gos P, Lavorel S. 2012. Stakeholders’ expectations on ecosystem
and natural resource management decision making. The services affect the assessment of ecosystem services hotspots
varied methods also make the commodification and trade and their congruence with biodiversity. Int J Biodivers Sci
of ecosystem service values very difficult because mar- Ecosys Serv Manag. 8:93–106.
kets require certainty and clarity around the good being Guerry AD, Ruckelshaus MH, Arkema KK, Bernhardt JR,
traded. We therefore argue that there needs to be a standard Guannel G, Kim C-K, Marsik M, Papenfus M, Toft JE,
Verutes G, et al. 2012. Modeling benefits from nature: using
process for quantifying and mapping ecosystem services ecosystem services to inform coastal and marine spatial plan-
Downloaded by [University of Colorado at Boulder Libraries] at 04:10 22 December 2014

for robust decision making, potential trade on markets and ning. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag. 8:107–121.
landscape planning. The Ecosystem Services Partnership6 Klug H, Dabiri Z, Hochwimmer B, Zalavari P. 2012. Assessing
as an international network is supporting these activities drinking water consumption by inhabitants and tourists in
and a respective working group on modelling and mapping the Alps using a WebGIS for information distribution. Int J
Biodiv Sci Ecosys Serv Manag. 8:50–70.
ecosystem services has just been established. La Notte A. 2012. Mapping and valuing habitat services: two
applications at local scale. Int J Biodiv Sci Ecosys Serv
Neville D. Crossman Manag. 8:80–92.
La Notte A, Maes J, Grizzetti B, Bouraoui F, Zulian G. 2012.
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Adelaide, Australia Spatially explicit monetary valuation of water purification
Benjamin Burkhard services in the Mediterranean bio-geographical region. Int J
Biodiv Sci Ecosys Serv Manag. 8:26–34.
Institute for Natural Resource Conservation, Lautenbach S, Maes J, Kattwinkel M, Seppelt R, Strauch M,
University of Kiel, Germany Scholz M, Schulz-Zunkel C, Volk M, Weinert J, Dormann
CF. 2012. Mapping water quality-related ecosystem services:
Stoyan Nedkov concepts and applications for nitrogen retention and pesticide
Department of Geography, Bulgarian Academy risk reduction. Int J Biodiv Sci Ecosys Serv Manag. 8:35–49.
of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria Martinez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P. 2012. Methods for mapping
ecosystem service supply: a review. Int J Biodiv Sci Ecosys
Serv Manag. 8:17–25.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and
Notes human well-being: synthesis. Washington (DC): Island Press.
1. http://go.worldbank.org/K09MJRI6G0. Petz K, van Oudenhoven APE. 2012. Modelling land manage-
2. http://www.proecoserv.org/. ment effect on ecosystem functions and services: a study
3. http://www.ipbes.net/. in the Netherlands. Int J Biodiv Sci Ecosys Serv Manag.
4. http://www.cbd.int/sp/. 8:135–155.
5. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/ Rolf W, Lenz R, Peters D. 2012. Development of a quantitative
comm2006/2020.htm. ‘bioassay’ approach for ecosystem mapping. Int J Biodiv Sci
6. http://www.es-partnership.org. Ecosys Serv Manag. 8:71–79.
Schulp CJE, Alkemade R, Klein Goldewijk K, Petz K. 2012.
Mapping ecosystem functions and services in Eastern Europe
using global-scale data sets. Int J Biodiv Sci Ecosys Serv
References Manag. 8:156–168.
Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe R-U. 2012. Space and time Vihervaara P, Kumpula T, Ruokolainen A, Tanskanen A,
aspects of ecosystem services, using the example of the EU Burkhard B. 2012. The use of detailed biotope data for link-
Water Framework Directive. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv ing biodiversity with ecosystem services in Finland. Int J
Manag. 8:5–16. Biodiv Sci Ecosys Serv Manag. 8:169–185.