Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Standard

Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway. / Schröter, Matthias; Barton, David N.; Remme, Roy P. et al.
In: Ecological Indicators, Vol. 36, 2014, p. 539-551.

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{f1082e7b219f4a45a21b02ff8dd4a3bf,
title = "Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway",
abstract = "Understanding the flow of ecosystem services and the capacity of ecosystems to generate these services is an essential element for understanding the sustainability of ecosystem use as well as developing ecosystem accounts. We conduct spatially explicit analyses of nine ecosystem services in Telemark County, Southern Norway. The ecosystem services included are moose hunting, sheep grazing, timber harvest, forest carbon sequestration and storage, snow slide prevention, recreational residential amenity, recreational hiking and existence of areas without technical interference. We conceptually distinguish capacity to provide ecosystem services from the actual flow of services, and empirically assess both. This is done by means of different spatial models, developed with various available datasets and methods, including (multiple layer) look-up tables, causal relations between datasets (including satellite images), environmental regression and indicators derived from direct measurements. Capacity and flow differ both in spatial extent and in quantities. We discuss five conditions for a meaningful spatial capacity-flow-balance. These are (1) a conceptual difference between capacity and flow, (2) spatial explicitness of capacity and flow, (3) the same spatial extent of both, (4) rivalry or congestion, and (5) measurement with aligned indicators. We exemplify spatially explicit balances between capacity and flow for two services, which meet these five conditions. Research in the emerging field of mapping ES should focus on the development of compatible indicators for capacity and flow. The distinction of capacity and flow of ecosystem services provides a parsimonious estimation of over- or underuse of the respective service. Assessment of capacity and flow in a spatially explicit way can thus support monitoring sustainability of ecosystem use, which is an essential element of ecosystem accounting.",
keywords = "Ecosystem accounting, Mapping Spatial analysis, Provincial scale, Validation, Ecosystems Research",
author = "Matthias Schr{\"o}ter and Barton, {David N.} and Remme, {Roy P.} and Lars Hein",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.018",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "539--551",
journal = "Ecological Indicators",
issn = "1470-160X",
publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services

T2 - A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway

AU - Schröter, Matthias

AU - Barton, David N.

AU - Remme, Roy P.

AU - Hein, Lars

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Understanding the flow of ecosystem services and the capacity of ecosystems to generate these services is an essential element for understanding the sustainability of ecosystem use as well as developing ecosystem accounts. We conduct spatially explicit analyses of nine ecosystem services in Telemark County, Southern Norway. The ecosystem services included are moose hunting, sheep grazing, timber harvest, forest carbon sequestration and storage, snow slide prevention, recreational residential amenity, recreational hiking and existence of areas without technical interference. We conceptually distinguish capacity to provide ecosystem services from the actual flow of services, and empirically assess both. This is done by means of different spatial models, developed with various available datasets and methods, including (multiple layer) look-up tables, causal relations between datasets (including satellite images), environmental regression and indicators derived from direct measurements. Capacity and flow differ both in spatial extent and in quantities. We discuss five conditions for a meaningful spatial capacity-flow-balance. These are (1) a conceptual difference between capacity and flow, (2) spatial explicitness of capacity and flow, (3) the same spatial extent of both, (4) rivalry or congestion, and (5) measurement with aligned indicators. We exemplify spatially explicit balances between capacity and flow for two services, which meet these five conditions. Research in the emerging field of mapping ES should focus on the development of compatible indicators for capacity and flow. The distinction of capacity and flow of ecosystem services provides a parsimonious estimation of over- or underuse of the respective service. Assessment of capacity and flow in a spatially explicit way can thus support monitoring sustainability of ecosystem use, which is an essential element of ecosystem accounting.

AB - Understanding the flow of ecosystem services and the capacity of ecosystems to generate these services is an essential element for understanding the sustainability of ecosystem use as well as developing ecosystem accounts. We conduct spatially explicit analyses of nine ecosystem services in Telemark County, Southern Norway. The ecosystem services included are moose hunting, sheep grazing, timber harvest, forest carbon sequestration and storage, snow slide prevention, recreational residential amenity, recreational hiking and existence of areas without technical interference. We conceptually distinguish capacity to provide ecosystem services from the actual flow of services, and empirically assess both. This is done by means of different spatial models, developed with various available datasets and methods, including (multiple layer) look-up tables, causal relations between datasets (including satellite images), environmental regression and indicators derived from direct measurements. Capacity and flow differ both in spatial extent and in quantities. We discuss five conditions for a meaningful spatial capacity-flow-balance. These are (1) a conceptual difference between capacity and flow, (2) spatial explicitness of capacity and flow, (3) the same spatial extent of both, (4) rivalry or congestion, and (5) measurement with aligned indicators. We exemplify spatially explicit balances between capacity and flow for two services, which meet these five conditions. Research in the emerging field of mapping ES should focus on the development of compatible indicators for capacity and flow. The distinction of capacity and flow of ecosystem services provides a parsimonious estimation of over- or underuse of the respective service. Assessment of capacity and flow in a spatially explicit way can thus support monitoring sustainability of ecosystem use, which is an essential element of ecosystem accounting.

KW - Ecosystem accounting

KW - Mapping Spatial analysis

KW - Provincial scale

KW - Validation

KW - Ecosystems Research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885645804&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.018

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.018

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:84885645804

VL - 36

SP - 539

EP - 551

JO - Ecological Indicators

JF - Ecological Indicators

SN - 1470-160X

ER -