What are the appropriate mapping units for ecosystem service assessments? A systematic review

Context: Without clear understanding of the units used for ecosystem service (ES) mapping, ES assessment accuracy and the practical application of ES knowledge will be hampered. Method: We systematically reviewed 106 studies over the past 11 years to explore the type, characteristic pattern and defi...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Jiake Shen, Chundi Chen, Yuncai Wang
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Taylor & Francis Group 2021
Materias:	ecosystem service mapping ecosystem service assessment mapping unit selection systematic review minimal unit aggregated unit Ecology QH540-549.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/1491fec5547d4223b1476b8d180d1c1a
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:1491fec5547d4223b1476b8d180d1c1a
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:1491fec5547d4223b1476b8d180d1c1a2021-12-02T16:06:38ZWhat are the appropriate mapping units for ecosystem service assessments? A systematic review2332-887810.1080/20964129.2021.1888655https://doaj.org/article/1491fec5547d4223b1476b8d180d1c1a2021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20964129.2021.1888655https://doaj.org/toc/2332-8878Context: Without clear understanding of the units used for ecosystem service (ES) mapping, ES assessment accuracy and the practical application of ES knowledge will be hampered. Method: We systematically reviewed 106 studies over the past 11 years to explore the type, characteristic pattern and deficiencies of mapping units. Result: We proposed that ES mapping units can be categorized into minimal unit for assessing ESs using corresponding indicators and methods, and aggregated unit for analysis and application based on research objectives, and classified the mapping units into five common types. Of the 12 characterizing variables of ES mapping studies, some have been shown to introduce a difference in the selection of mapping units and to exhibit characteristic patterns. We also found that the accuracy of ES assessments based on minimal units was lacking, and aggregated units were insufficient to establish a link between ES knowledge and practice. Conclusion: Herein, we propose possible solutions such as the use of fine spatial resolution grids and the introduction of additional data beyond land cover as supplements to improve the assessment accuracy. To enhance the availability of the results for practice, aggregated units connected with urban planning units should be established at a spatial level suitable for urban management.Jiake ShenChundi ChenYuncai WangTaylor & Francis Grouparticleecosystem service mappingecosystem service assessmentmapping unit selectionsystematic reviewminimal unitaggregated unitEcologyQH540-549.5ENEcosystem Health and Sustainability, Vol 7, Iss 1 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	ecosystem service mapping ecosystem service assessment mapping unit selection systematic review minimal unit aggregated unit Ecology QH540-549.5
spellingShingle	ecosystem service mapping ecosystem service assessment mapping unit selection systematic review minimal unit aggregated unit Ecology QH540-549.5 Jiake Shen Chundi Chen Yuncai Wang What are the appropriate mapping units for ecosystem service assessments? A systematic review
description	Context: Without clear understanding of the units used for ecosystem service (ES) mapping, ES assessment accuracy and the practical application of ES knowledge will be hampered. Method: We systematically reviewed 106 studies over the past 11 years to explore the type, characteristic pattern and deficiencies of mapping units. Result: We proposed that ES mapping units can be categorized into minimal unit for assessing ESs using corresponding indicators and methods, and aggregated unit for analysis and application based on research objectives, and classified the mapping units into five common types. Of the 12 characterizing variables of ES mapping studies, some have been shown to introduce a difference in the selection of mapping units and to exhibit characteristic patterns. We also found that the accuracy of ES assessments based on minimal units was lacking, and aggregated units were insufficient to establish a link between ES knowledge and practice. Conclusion: Herein, we propose possible solutions such as the use of fine spatial resolution grids and the introduction of additional data beyond land cover as supplements to improve the assessment accuracy. To enhance the availability of the results for practice, aggregated units connected with urban planning units should be established at a spatial level suitable for urban management.
format	article
author	Jiake Shen Chundi Chen Yuncai Wang
author_facet	Jiake Shen Chundi Chen Yuncai Wang
author_sort	Jiake Shen
title	What are the appropriate mapping units for ecosystem service assessments? A systematic review
title_short	What are the appropriate mapping units for ecosystem service assessments? A systematic review
title_full	What are the appropriate mapping units for ecosystem service assessments? A systematic review
title_fullStr	What are the appropriate mapping units for ecosystem service assessments? A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed	What are the appropriate mapping units for ecosystem service assessments? A systematic review
title_sort	what are the appropriate mapping units for ecosystem service assessments? a systematic review
publisher	Taylor & Francis Group
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/1491fec5547d4223b1476b8d180d1c1a
work_keys_str_mv	AT jiakeshen whataretheappropriatemappingunitsforecosystemserviceassessmentsasystematicreview AT chundichen whataretheappropriatemappingunitsforecosystemserviceassessmentsasystematicreview AT yuncaiwang whataretheappropriatemappingunitsforecosystemserviceassessmentsasystematicreview
_version_	1718384885427601408

What are the appropriate mapping units for ecosystem service assessments? A systematic review

Ejemplares similares