Ecosystem services mapping and modelling. Where is the validation?^✩

Abstract

Ecosystem services (ES) mapping and models have advanced in recent years. Improvements were made, and the assessments have transitioned from qualitative to quantitative. Although this is an important advancement, the ES mapping and modelling validation step has been overlooked, and this raises an important question in the credibility of the outcomes. This has been an important and unsolved issue in the ES research community that needs to be tackled. This highlight paper discusses the importance of validating single ES mapping and models. Conducting this using field or proximal/remote sensing raw data and not data from other models or stakeholder evaluation is important. A validation step should be mandatory in ES frameworks since it can assess the models’ veracity, contribute to identifying the model’s weaknesses/strengths and ultimately represent a scientific advance in the field. This is easier to apply to the biophysical mapping and models of regulating and provisioning ES than to cultural ES, as the latter rely more on perception and cultural contexts. Also, ES supply models are easier to validate than demand and flow models. Robust and well-grounded models are essential for ensuring the reliability of individual ES maps and models and should be integrated into decision-making processes. Although several challenges arise related to the costs of data collection, in several cases prohibitive, and the time and the expertise needed to conduct this sampling and analysis, this is likely an imperative step that needs to be considered in the future. This will be beneficial in establishing ES research and improving decision-making and wellbeing.

Keywords

Ecosystem services / Validation / Frameworks / Data / Decision-making

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Paulo Pereira: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. Miguel Inacio: Writing – review & editing. Damia Barcelo: Writing – review & editing. Wenwu Zhao: Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the project Monetary valuation of soil ecosystem services and creation of initiatives to invest in soil health: setting a framework for the inclusion of soil health in business and in the policy making process (InBestSoil) (Horizon Europe) Grant agreement ID: 101091099.

References

[1] Burkhard, B, Santos-Martin, F, Nedkov, S, Maes, J., 2018. An operational framework for integrated Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES). One Ecosyst., 3 , p. e22831. doi: 10.3897/oneeco.3.e22831.

[2] Foody, G. M., 2015. Valuing map validation: the need for rigorous land cover map accuracy assessment in economic valuations of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ., 111 , pp. 23-28. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.003.

[3] Gret-Regamey, A, Brunner, S. H., Altwegg, J, Bebi, P., 2013. Facing uncertainty in ecosystem services-based resource management. J. Environ. Manage., 127 , pp. S145-S154. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.028.

[4] Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2018. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1. Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Fabis Consulting Ltd . Available from: www.cices.eu.

[5] IPBES, 2019. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, p. 56. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3553579 pages.

[6] Jacobs, S, Burkhard, B, Van Daele, T, Staes, J, Schneiders, A., 2015. The matrix reloaded: a review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecol. Model., 295 , pp. 21-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.024.

[7] Johnson, J. A., Jones, S. K., Wood, S. L. R., Chalin-Kramer, R, Hawthorne, P. L., Mulligan, M, Pennington, D, DeClerck, F. A., 2019. Mapping Ecosystem Services to Human Wellbeing: a toolkit to support integrated landscape management for the SDGs. Ecol. Appl., 29 (8) , p. e01985. doi: 10.1002/eap.1985.

[8] Landers, D. H., Nahlik, A. M., 2013. Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

[9] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

[10] Pereira, P., 2020. Ecosystem services in a changing environment. Sci. Total Environ., 702 , Article 135008. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135008.

[11] Pereira, P, Inacio, M, Pinto, L, Bogdzevic, K, Kalinauskas, M, Zhao, W., 2024. Mapping ecosystem services in urban and peri-urban areas. A systematic review. Geogr. Sustain., 5 , pp. 491-509. doi: 10.1016/j.geosus.2024.06.002.

[12] Piikki, K, Wetterlind, J, Soderstrom, M, Stenberg, B., 2021. Perspectives on validation in digital soil mapping of continuous attributes—a review. Soil Use Manage., 37 , pp. 7-21. doi: 10.1111/sum.12694.

[13] Rhodes, C., 2015. National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

[14] Saarikoski, H, Primmer, E, Saarela, S, Antunes, P, Aszalós, R, Baró, F, Berry, P. M., Blanko, G. G., Gómez‐Baggethun, E, Carvalho, L, Dick, J, Dunford, R. W., Hanzu, M, Harrison, P. A., Izakovičová, Z, Kertész, M, Kopperoinen, L, Köhler, B, Langemeyer, J, Lapola, D. M., Liquete, C, Luque, S, Mederly, P, Niemelä, J, Palomo, I, Pastur, G. M., Peri, P. L., Preda, E, Priess, J. A., Santos, R, Schleyer, C, Turkelboom, F, Vădineanu, A, Verheyden, W, Vikström, S, Young, J. C., 2018. Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice. Ecosyst. Serv., 29 , pp. 579-598. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.019.

[15] Sagie, H, Orenstein, D. E., 2022. Benefits of stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel. Ecosyst. Serv., 53 , Article 101404. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101404.

[16] Seppelt, R, Fath, B, Burkhard, B, Fisher, J. L., Gret-Regamey, A, Lautenbach, S, Pert, P, Hotes, S, Spangenberg, J, Verburg, P. H., Van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., 2012. Verburg, A.P.E. Van Oudenhoven. Form follows function? Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies. Ecol. Indic., 21 , pp. 145-154. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.003.

[17] Stumpf, F, Schmidt, K, Goebes, P, Behrens, T, Schönbrodt-Stitt, S, Wadoux, A, Xiang, W, Scholten, T., 2017. Uncertainty-guided sampling to improve digital soil maps. Catena, 153 , pp. 30-38. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2017.01.033.

[18] TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.