Ten years of ecosystem services matrix: Review of a (r)evolution

Downloadstatistik des Dokuments (Auswertung nach COUNTER):

Campagne, C.S.; Roche, P.; Müller, F.; Burkhard, B.: Ten years of ecosystem services matrix: Review of a (r)evolution. In: One Ecosystem 5 (2020), e51103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.5.e51103

Version im Repositorium

Zum Zitieren der Version im Repositorium verwenden Sie bitte diesen DOI: https://doi.org/10.15488/9803

Zeitraum, für den die Download-Zahlen angezeigt werden:

Jahr: 
Monat: 

Summe der Downloads: 90




Kleine Vorschau
Zusammenfassung: 
With the Ecosystem Service (ES) concept's popularisation, the need for robust and practical methodologies for ES assessments has increased. The ES matrix approach, linking ecosystem types or other geospatial units with ES in easy-to-apply lookup tables, was first developed ten years ago and, since then, has been broadly used. Whereas detailed methodological guidelines can be found in literature, the ES matrix approach seems to be often used in a quick (and maybe even "quick and dirty”) way. Based on a review of scientific publications, in which the ES matrix approach was used, we present the diversity of application contexts, highlight trends of uses and propose future recommendations for improved applications of the ES matrix. A total of 109 studies applying the ES matrix approach and one methodological study without concrete applications were considered for the review. Amongst the main patterns observed, the ES matrix approach allows the assessment of a higher number of ES thanother ES assessment methods. ES can be jointly assessed with indicators for ecosystem condition and biodiversity in the ES matrix. Although the ES matrix allows us consider many data sources to achieve the assessment scores for the individual ES, in the reviewed studies, these were mainly used together with expert-based scoring (73%) and/or ES scores that were based on an already-published ES matrix or deduced by information found in related scientific publications (51%). We must acknowledge that 27% of the studies did not clearly explain their methodology. This points out a lack of method elucidation on how the data had been used and where the scores came from. Although some studies addressed the need to consider variabilities and uncertainties in ES assessments, only a minority of studies (15%) did so. Our review shows that, in 29% of the studies, an already-existing matrix was used as an initial matrix for the assessment (mainly the same matrix from one of the Burkhard et al. papers). In 16% of the reviewed studies, no other data were used for the matrix scores or no adaptation of the existing matrix usedwas made. However, the actual idea of the ES scores, included in the Burkhard et al.'s matrices published 10 years ago, was to provide some examples and give inspiration for one's own studies. Therefore, we recommend to use only scores assessed for a specific study or, if one wishes to use pre-existing scores from another study, to revise them in depth, taking into account the local context of the new assessment. We also recommend to systematically report and consider variabilities and uncertainties in each ES assessment.We emphasise the need for all scientific studies to describe clearly and extensively the whole methodology used to score or evaluate ES in order to be able to rate the quality of the scores obtained. In conclusion, the application of the ES matrix has to become more transparent and integrate more variability analyses. The increasing number of studies that use the ES matrix approach confirms its success, appropriability, flexibility and utility for decision-making, as well as its ability to increase awareness of ES.
Lizenzbestimmungen: CC BY 4.0 Unported
Publikationstyp: Article
Publikationsstatus: publishedVersion
Erstveröffentlichung: 2020
Die Publikation erscheint in Sammlung(en):Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät

Verteilung der Downloads über den gewählten Zeitraum:

Herkunft der Downloads nach Ländern:

Pos. Land Downloads
Anzahl Proz.
1 image of flag of Germany Germany 43 47,78%
2 image of flag of United States United States 18 20,00%
3 image of flag of Russian Federation Russian Federation 8 8,89%
4 image of flag of China China 4 4,44%
5 image of flag of No geo information available No geo information available 3 3,33%
6 image of flag of France France 3 3,33%
7 image of flag of Italy Italy 2 2,22%
8 image of flag of Chile Chile 2 2,22%
9 image of flag of Lithuania Lithuania 1 1,11%
10 image of flag of Korea, Republic of Korea, Republic of 1 1,11%
    andere 5 5,56%

Weitere Download-Zahlen und Ranglisten:


Hinweis

Zur Erhebung der Downloadstatistiken kommen entsprechend dem „COUNTER Code of Practice for e-Resources“ international anerkannte Regeln und Normen zur Anwendung. COUNTER ist eine internationale Non-Profit-Organisation, in der Bibliotheksverbände, Datenbankanbieter und Verlage gemeinsam an Standards zur Erhebung, Speicherung und Verarbeitung von Nutzungsdaten elektronischer Ressourcen arbeiten, welche so Objektivität und Vergleichbarkeit gewährleisten sollen. Es werden hierbei ausschließlich Zugriffe auf die entsprechenden Volltexte ausgewertet, keine Aufrufe der Website an sich.