Dataset Information

Spatial prioritisation for conserving ecosystem services: comparing hotspots with heuristic optimisation.

ABSTRACT:

Context

The variation in spatial distribution between ecosystem services can be high. Hence, there is a need to spatially identify important sites for conservation planning. The term 'ecosystem service hotspot' has often been used for this purpose, but definitions of this term are ambiguous.

Objectives

We review and classify methods to spatially delineate hotspots. We test how spatial configuration of hotspots for a set of ecosystem services differs depending on the applied method. We compare the outcomes to a heuristic site prioritisation approach (Marxan).

Methods

The four tested hotspot methods are top richest cells, spatial clustering, intensity, and richness. In a conservation scenario we set a target of conserving 10 % of the quantity of five regulating and cultural services for the forest area of Telemark county, Norway.

Results

Spatial configuration of selected areas as retrieved by the four hotspots and Marxan differed considerably. Pairwise comparisons were at the lower end of the scale of the Kappa statistic (0.11-0.27). The outcomes also differed considerably in mean target achievement, cost-effectiveness in terms of land-area needed per unit target achievement and compactness in terms of edge-to-area ratio.

Conclusions

An ecosystem service hotspot can refer to either areas containing high values of one service or areas with multiple services. Differences in spatial configuration among hotspot methods can lead to uncertainties for decision-making. This also has consequences for analysing the spatial co-occurrence of hotspots of multiple services and of services and biodiversity.

SUBMITTER: Schroter M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4722056 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Spatial prioritisation for conserving ecosystem services: comparing hotspots with heuristic optimisation.

Schröter Matthias M Remme Roy P RP

Landscape ecology 20150902

<h4>Context</h4>The variation in spatial distribution between ecosystem services can be high. Hence, there is a need to spatially identify important sites for conservation planning. The term 'ecosystem service hotspot' has often been used for this purpose, but definitions of this term are ambiguous.<h4>Objectives</h4>We review and classify methods to spatially delineate hotspots. We test how spatial configuration of hotspots for a set of ecosystem services differs depending on the applied method ...[more]

PMID: 26843784

Similar Datasets

Project description:Although the importance of addressing ecosystem service benefits in regional land use planning and decision-making is evident, substantial practical challenges remain. In particular, methods to identify priority areas for the provision of key ecosystem services and other environmental services (benefits from the environment not directly linked to the function of ecosystems) need to be developed. Priority areas are locations which provide disproportionally high benefits from one or more service. Here we map a set of ecosystem and environmental services and delineate priority areas according to different scenarios. Each scenario is produced by a set of weightings allocated to different services and corresponds to different landscape management strategies which decision makers could undertake. Using the county of Cornwall, U.K., as a case study, we processed gridded maps of key ecosystem services and environmental services, including renewable energy production and urban development. We explored their spatial distribution patterns and their spatial covariance and spatial stationarity within the region. Finally we applied a complementarity-based priority ranking algorithm (zonation) using different weighting schemes. Our conclusions are that (i) there are two main patterns of service distribution in this region, clustered services (including agriculture, carbon stocks, urban development and plant production) and dispersed services (including cultural services, energy production and floods mitigation); (ii) more than half of the services are spatially correlated and there is high non-stationarity in the spatial covariance between services; and (iii) it is important to consider both ecosystem services and other environmental services in identifying priority areas. Different weighting schemes provoke drastic changes in the delineation of priority areas and therefore decision making processes need to carefully consider the relative values attributed to different services.

Project description:Ecosystem services such as food provisioning, climate regulation, nutrient cycling, or recreation in open landscapes underpin human wellbeing. They are highly dependent on land use, land cover and utilization pattern as well as environmental factors like climate, topography and soil. In consequence, ecosystem services supply shows a high spatial variability. However, it is less clear if the perception of the importance of ecosystem services is similarly heterogeneous in space and amongst societal actors. The aim of this large-scale study was to explore whether land cover and climate gradients as well as socio-cultural factors influence the perceptions of ecosystem services of four groups of societal actors: citizens, farmers, foresters and nature managers. Spatially explicit survey data of 3018 respondents allowed to gain insight into the distribution of perceived importance of 21 ecosystem services in the federal state of Bavaria, Germany together with the respondents' socio-cultural characterisation (e.g. gender, education and hobbies in nature). Responses were analysed through descriptive statistics, redundancy analysis, and Generalized Linear Models. Results reveal that the perceived importance of many ecosystem services was consistently high across groups, although perception differed for some ecosystem services (e.g. production of energy plants and timber as well as recreation in urban green space). Compared to other actor groups, farmers attributed slightly lower importance to all ES except provisioning services. Socio-cultural factors better explained variability in perceived importance of ecosystem services than land cover and climate gradients. This might be either explained by the fact that the environmental gradients vary not strong enough in our case study or that they do not shape the perceptions of respondents. A limitation of the study is that the sample of respondents obtained is not representative for the population, but biased towards persons interested in the topics of the survey. Still the consensus indicated by the overall positive perception of ecosystem services among respondents highlights the integrative potential of ecosystem services when included in decision-making.

Project description:Background:Population growth at all scales and rapid rates of urbanization, particularly in the global South, are placing increasing pressure on ecosystems and their ability to provide services essential for human well-being. The spatial consideration of threats to ecosystem services related to changes in land use is necessary in order to avoid undue impacts on society due to the loss or reduced supply of ecosystem services. This study assesses the potential threats of land use change from strategic and local development proposals to ecosystem services in the city of Durban. Methods:We analysed the spatial relationship between five categories of ecosystem service hotspots (carbon storage, water yield, sediment retention, nutrient retention and flood attenuation) and urban land use change related to selected strategic planning proposals, development proposals and sand-mining applications in Durban, South Africa (eThekwini Municipality) with a view to determining the consequences for progress towards a more sustainable development path in the city. We identified the potential levels of threat related to habitat destruction or transformation for the five categories of ecosystem services and a subset of 13 ecosystem service hotspots, using GIS spatial analysis tools. Results:The results show that on average, should Durban's strategic development plans be realised, approximately 42% loss of ecosystem service hotspots is expected in the two municipal town-planning regions assessed. With respect to development applications between 2009 and 2012, approximately 36% of all environmental impact assessments and 84% of sand mining applications occurred within ecosystem service hotspots within Durban. Discussion:The findings highlight the tension between short-term development pressures and longer-term sustainability goals and confirm that current planning and development proposals pose a threat to ecosystems and their ability to deliver services that support human well-being in Durban. We suggest practical solutions to include ecosystem services into local government decision-making.

Project description:Understanding the spatial distribution of urban forest ecosystem services is essential for urban planners and managers to effectively manage cities and is an essential part of sustainable urban development. Mapping the spatial distribution of urban forest ecosystem services and improving the accuracy of its assessment scale will undoubtedly provide a more accurate reference basis for later management. In this study, we used the i-Tree Eco model and kriging interpolation to quantify and map urban forest ecosystem services and their spatial distribution in Zhengzhou, a city along the lower reaches of the Yellow River in China; analyzed the mapping errors and applicable conditions; and further explored the spatial differences using geographic probes. The i-Tree Eco model estimation results showed that the total carbon storage in the urban forest of Zhengzhou city was 75.7 tons, the annual carbon sequestration was 14.66 tons, the trees and shrubs in the urban area of Zhengzhou city could effectively avoid a total of 307.86 m3 of surface runoff per year, and trees and shrubs removed 411.8 kg/year of air pollution (O3, CO, NO2, PM2.5, PM10, and SO2). The spatial distribution of all urban forest ecosystem services showed significant heterogeneity, but the spatial evaluation precision of different factors varied. GDP and population data showed a negative correlation with ecosystem services, and ecosystem services were abundant in watershed and woodland areas. This study differs from traditional assessments based on regional data due to its improved spatial evaluation accuracy, and the results, discussion, and analysis not only help Zhengzhou's own urban development, but also provide a basis for the future construction and management of other cities, the Central Plains urban agglomeration, and the surrounding larger regions. This will contribute to the enhancement of ecosystem services and thus improve the ecological conditions of the region. This will also have a positive effect on the health of urban residents.

Dataset Information

Spatial prioritisation for conserving ecosystem services: comparing hotspots with heuristic optimisation.

Context

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Spatial prioritisation for conserving ecosystem services: comparing hotspots with heuristic optimisation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets