The latest progress in ecosystem service flow research methods.

doi:10.13287/j.1001-9332.201801.018

Abstract

Abstract: Ecosystem service flow is the key point and difficulty of ecosystem services research, which is now at the initial stage and show a developing trend of quantity and spatialization. However, the term “ecosystem service flow” is ambiguous. In this paper, we presented two descriptions about the term, and two corresponding theories and methods: the transmission of a service from ecosystems to people and distributed ecosystem model, and the flow of benefits accruing to people as generated by stocks of ecosystem structure and grey/black box theory. Then the latest researches related to the two descriptions were listed, and their merit and demerit were summarized. Finally, we pointed out several directions for future research in ecosystem service flow. Especially, the use of newest space technology and information technology (such as big data) and comprehensive understanding of ecosystem services (such as taking urban ecosystem services flow and abiotic flow into account) should be stressed in the future research.

YAO Jing, HE Xing-yuan, CHEN Wei. The latest progress in ecosystem service flow research methods.[J]. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2018, 29(1): 335-342.

References

[1] Gomez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, et al. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 2010, 69: 1209-1218
[2] Costanza R, d’Arge R, deGroot R, et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 1997, 387: 253-260
[3] Wu JG. Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 2013, 28: 999-1023
[4] Xiao Y(肖玉), Xie G-D (谢高地), Lu C-X (鲁春霞), et al. Involvement of ecosystem service flows in human wellbeing based on the relationship between supply and demand. Acta Ecologica Sinica(生态学报), 2016, 36(10): 3096-3102 (in Chinese)
[5] Jose Martinez-Harms M, Quijas S, Merenlender AM, et al. Enhancing ecosystem services maps combining field and environmental data. Ecosystem Services, 2016, 22: 32-40
[6] Pulighe G, Fava F, Lupia F. Insights and opportunities from mapping ecosystem services of urban green spaces and potentials in planning. Ecosystem Services, 2016, 22: 1-10
[7] Burhard B, Maes J. Mapping Ecosystem Services. Sofia, Bulgaria: Pensoft Publishers, 2017
[8] Hegetschweiler KT, de Vries S, Arnberger A, et al. Linking demand and supply factors in identifying cultural ecosystem services of urban green infrastructures: A review of European studies. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2017, 21: 48-59
[9] Wolff S, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH. Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecological Indicators, 2015, 55: 159-171
[10] Serna-Chavez HM, Schulp CJE, van Bodegom PM, et al. A quantitative framework for assessing spatial flows of ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 2014, 39: 24-33
[11] Bagstad KJ, Villa F, Batker D, et al. From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: Mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments. Ecology and Society, 2014, 19: 706-708
[12] Gopal B. A conceptual framework for environmental flows assessment based on ecosystem services and their economic valuation. Ecosystem Services, 2016, 21: 53-58
[13] Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B, et al. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services, 2013, 4: 117-125
[14] Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecological Complexity, 2013, 15: 114-121
[15] Costanza R. Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation, 2008, 141: 350-352
[16] Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 2009, 68: 643-653
[17] Pulselli FM, Coscieme L, Bastianoni S. Ecosystem services as a counterpart of emergy flows to ecosystems. Ecological Modelling, 2011, 222: 2924-2928
[18] Liu H-M (刘慧敏), Fan Y-L (范玉龙), Ding S-Y (丁圣彦). Research progress of ecosystem service flow. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 2016, 27(7): 2161-2171 (in Chinese)
[19] Turner WR, Brandon K, Brooks TM, et al. Global biodiversity conservation and the alleviation of poverty. Bioscience, 2012, 62: 85-92
[20] Villa F, Bagstad KJ, Voigt B, et al. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLoS One, 2014, 9(3): e91001
[21] Christofides PD, Scattolini R, Munoz de la Pena D, et al. Distributed model predictive control: A tutorial review and future research directions. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 2013, 51: 21-41
[22] Jiang J-C (江净超), Zhu A-X (朱阿兴), Qin C-Z (秦承志), et al. Review on distributed hydrological modelling software systems. Progress in Geography (地理科学进展), 2014, 33(8): 1090-1100 (in Chinese)
[23] Jansson A, Folke C, Rockstrom J, et al. Linking freshwater flows and ecosystem services appropriated by people: The case of the Baltic Sea drainage basin. Ecosystems, 1999, 2: 351-366
[24] Willaarts BA, Volk M, Aguilera PA. Assessing the ecosystem services supplied by freshwater flows in Mediterranean agroecosystems. Agricultural Water Management, 2012, 105: 21-31
[25] Le Maitre DC, Kotzee IM, O’Farrell PJ. Impacts of land-cover change on the water flow regulation ecosystem service: Invasive alien plants, fire and their policy implications. Land Use Policy, 2014, 36: 171-181
[26] Holland RA, Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, et al. Spatial covariation between freshwater and terrestrial ecosystem services. Ecological Applications, 2011, 21: 2034-2048
[27] Locatelli B, Imbach P, Vignola R, et al. Ecosystem services and hydroelectricity in Central America: Modelling service flows with fuzzy logic and expert knowledge. Regional Environmental Change, 2011, 11: 393-404
[28] Yoo J, Simonit S, Connors JP, et al. The valuation of off-site ecosystem service flows: Deforestation, erosion and the amenity value of lakes in Prescott, Arizona. Ecological Economics, 2014, 97: 74-83
[29] Jorda-Capdevila D, Rodriguez-Labajos B, Bardina M. An integrative modelling approach for linking environmental flow management, ecosystem service provision and inter-stakeholder conflict. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2016, 79: 22-34
[30] Bagstad KJ, Reed JM, Semmens DJ, et al. Linking biophysical models and public preferences for ecosystem service assessments: A case study for the Southern Rocky Mountains. Regional Environmental Change, 2016, 16: 2005-2018
[31] Zank B, Bagstad KJ, Voigt B, et al. Modeling the effects of urban expansion on natural capital stocks and ecosystem service flows: A case study in the Puget Sound, Washington, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2016, 149: 31-42
[32] Sharps K, Masante D, Thomas A, et al. Comparing strengths and weaknesses of three ecosystem services modelling tools in a diverse UK river catchment. Science of the total environment, 2017, 584-585: 118-130
[33] Shaw E, Kumar V, Lange E, et al. Exploring the utility of Bayesian Networks for modelling cultural ecosystem services: A canoeing case study. Science of the Total Environment, 2016, 540: 71-78
[34] Tenerelli P, Demsar U, Luque S. Crowdsourcing indicators for cultural ecosystem services: A geographically weighted approach for mountain landscapes. Ecological Indicators, 2016, 64: 237-248
[35] Vejre H, Jensen FS, Thorsen BJ. Demonstrating the importance of intangible ecosystem services from pen-urban landscapes. Ecological Complexity, 2010, 7: 338-348
[36] Sander HA, Polasky S. The value of views and open space: Estimates from a hedonic pricing model for Ramsey County, Minnesota, USA. Land Use Policy, 2009, 26: 837-845
[37] Sevenant M and Antrop M. Settlement models, land use and visibility in rural landscapes: Two case studies in Greece. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2007, 80: 362-374
[38] Vigl LE, Depellegrin D, Pereira P, et al. Mapping the ecosystem service delivery chain: Capacity, flow, and demand pertaining to aesthetic experiences in mountain landscapes. Science of the Total Environment, 2017, 574: 422-436
[39] Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, et al. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 2012, 21: 17-29
[40] Kaiser G, Burkhard B, Roemer H, et al. Mapping tsunami impacts on land cover and related ecosystem ser-vice supply in Phang Nga, Thailand. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 2013, 13: 3095-3111
[41] Nedkov S, Burkhard B. Flood regulating ecosystem services: Mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecological Indicators, 2012, 21: 67-79
[42] Vrebos D, Staes J, Vandenbroucke T, et al. Mapping ecosystem service flows with land cover scoring maps for data-scarce regions. Ecosystem Services, 2015, 13: 28-40
[43] de Groot R, Brander L, van der Ploeg S, et al. Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services, 2012, 1: 50-61
[44] Leh MDK, Matlock MD, Cummings EC, et al. Quantifying and mapping multiple ecosystem services change in West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2013, 165: 6-18
[45] Baro F, Palomo I, Zulian G, et al. Mapping ecosystem service capacity, flow and demand for landscape and urban planning: A case study in the Barcelona metropolitan region. Land Use Policy, 2016, 57: 405-417
[46] Schirpke U, Scolozzi R, De Marco C, et al. Mapping beneficiaries of ecosystem services flows from Natura 2000 sites. Ecosystem Services, 2014, 9: 170-179
[47] Palomo I, Martin-Lopez B, Potschin M, et al. National parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosystem Services, 2013, 4: 104-116
[48] Frith J. Big data, technical communication, and the smart city. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 2017, 31: 168-187
[49] Kusiak A. Smart manufacturing must embrace big data. Nature, 2017, 544: 23-25
[50] Rudorfer MV. Psychopharmacology in the age of “Big Data”: The promises and limitations of electronic prescription records. CNS Drugs, 2017, 5: 1-3
[51] Visco G, Plattner SH, Fortini P, et al. A Multivariate Approach for a Comparison of Big Data Matrices. Case Study: Thermo-hygrometric Monitoring inside the Carcer Tullianum (Rome) in the Absence and in the Presence of Visitors [EB/OL]. (2016-01-01) [2017-03-03]. http://trove. nla. gov. au/work/225553123?q&versionId=247369468
[52] Stephenson PJ, Brooks TM, Butchart SHM, et al. Priori-ties for big biodiversity data. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2017, 15: 124-125
[53] Rodriguez JP, Fernandez-Gracia J, Thums M, et al. Big data analyses reveal patterns and drivers of the movements of southern elephant seals. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7(1): 112
[54] Liu Y, Teichert T, Rossi M, et al. Big data for big insights: Investigating language-specific drivers of hotel satisfaction with 412, 784 user-generated reviews. Tourism Management, 2017, 59: 554-563
[55] Ji G, Hu L, Tan KH. A study on decision-making of food supply chain based on big data. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 2017, 26: 183-198
[56] Galic Z, Meskovic E, Osmanovic D. Distributed processing of big mobility data as spatio-temporal data streams. Geoinformatica, 2017, 21: 263-291
[57] Xiao XL, Zhou CR. Application and challenges of big data in quality monitoring of highway engineering. Advances in Materials, Machinery, Electronics, 2017, 1820: 060005
[58] Cheng SY, Cai ZP, Li JZ, et al. Extracting kernel dataset from big sensory data in wireless sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2017, 29: 813-827
[59] Yao J, He XY, Li XY, et al. Monitoring responses of forest to climate variations by MODIS NDVI: A case study of Hun River upstream, northeastern China. European Journal of Forest Research, 2012, 131: 705-716
[60] Piao S. Interannual variations of monthly and seasonal normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) in China from 1982 to 1999. Journal of Geophysical Research, 2003, 108: 1-13
[61] Kienast F, Frick J, van Strien MJ, et al. The Swiss Landscape Monitoring Program: A comprehensive indicator set to measure landscape change. Ecological Model-ling, 2015, 295: 136-150
[62] Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010, 107: 5242-5247
[63] Bark RH, Robinson CJ, Flessa KW. Tracking cultural ecosystem services: Water chasing the Colorado River restoration pulse flow. Ecological Economics, 2016, 127: 165-172
[64] Davies ZG, Edmondson JL, Heinemeyer A, et al. Mapping an urban ecosystem service: Quantifying above-ground carbon storage at a city-wide scale. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2011, 48: 1125-1134
[65] United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs PD. World Urbanization Porspects: The 2014 Revision. New York: UN, 2014
[66] Pert PL, Hill R, Maclean K, et al. Mapping cultural ecosystem services with rainforest aboriginal peoples: Integrating biocultural diversity, governance and social variation. Ecosystem Services, 2015, 13: 41-56
[67] Brils J, de Boer P, Mulder J, et al. Reuse of dredged material as a way to tackle societal challenges. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2014, 14: 1638-1641
[68] van der Meulen ES, Braat LC, Brils JM. Abiotic flows should be inherent part of ecosystem services classification. Ecosystem Services, 2016, 19: 1-5