Accounting for spatial autocorrelation is needed to avoid misidentifying trade-offs and bundles among ecosystem services

The identification of relationships between multiple ecosystem services (ES) (i.e. trade-offs, synergies and bundles) is essential for ES management. However, the identification of ES relationships may be susceptible to spatial autocorrelation — a statistical bias due to ES observations being relate...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Shaikh Fairul Edros Ahmad Shaikh, Sin Ching See, Daniel Richards, Richard N. Belcher, Adrienne Grêt-Regamey, Marcelo Galleguillos Torres, L. Roman Carrasco
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Elsevier 2021
Materias:	Ecosystem services bundles Spatial analysis Trade-offs Synergies Nature’s contributions to people Nature’s benefits Ecology QH540-549.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/e5e12871f3eb4a7eb4f403235438fe35
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:e5e12871f3eb4a7eb4f403235438fe35
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:e5e12871f3eb4a7eb4f403235438fe352021-12-01T04:57:34ZAccounting for spatial autocorrelation is needed to avoid misidentifying trade-offs and bundles among ecosystem services1470-160X10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107992https://doaj.org/article/e5e12871f3eb4a7eb4f403235438fe352021-10-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X21006579https://doaj.org/toc/1470-160XThe identification of relationships between multiple ecosystem services (ES) (i.e. trade-offs, synergies and bundles) is essential for ES management. However, the identification of ES relationships may be susceptible to spatial autocorrelation — a statistical bias due to ES observations being related to each other across space. Spatial autocorrelation remains largely overlooked in the literature on ES relationships and its implications are not clear. Here we assess the implication of not accounting for spatial autocorrelation when determining ES relationships using four ES found in the city-state of Singapore. We quantify the ES relationships using some of the most common methods of determining relationships between ES: correlation, regression and principal component analysis. We then compare each method with the corresponding method that accounts for spatial autocorrelation. We found that accounting for spatial autocorrelation resulted in less statistically significant ES relationships, especially at finer resolutions, in correlations (33.3% less significant relationships) and regressions (50% less relationships). Depending on the spatial resolution, different ES were bundled when accounting for spatial autocorrelation when using principal component analysis. Our results suggest that not accounting for spatial autocorrelation in ES relationship studies is likely to result in the misidentification of ES trade-off, synergies and bundles. We thus recommend that future ES relationship studies consider the effects of spatial autocorrelation in their analyses.Shaikh Fairul Edros Ahmad ShaikhSin Ching SeeDaniel RichardsRichard N. BelcherAdrienne Grêt-RegameyMarcelo Galleguillos TorresL. Roman CarrascoElsevierarticleEcosystem services bundlesSpatial analysisTrade-offsSynergiesNature’s contributions to peopleNature’s benefitsEcologyQH540-549.5ENEcological Indicators, Vol 129, Iss , Pp 107992- (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Ecosystem services bundles Spatial analysis Trade-offs Synergies Nature’s contributions to people Nature’s benefits Ecology QH540-549.5
spellingShingle	Ecosystem services bundles Spatial analysis Trade-offs Synergies Nature’s contributions to people Nature’s benefits Ecology QH540-549.5 Shaikh Fairul Edros Ahmad Shaikh Sin Ching See Daniel Richards Richard N. Belcher Adrienne Grêt-Regamey Marcelo Galleguillos Torres L. Roman Carrasco Accounting for spatial autocorrelation is needed to avoid misidentifying trade-offs and bundles among ecosystem services
description	The identification of relationships between multiple ecosystem services (ES) (i.e. trade-offs, synergies and bundles) is essential for ES management. However, the identification of ES relationships may be susceptible to spatial autocorrelation — a statistical bias due to ES observations being related to each other across space. Spatial autocorrelation remains largely overlooked in the literature on ES relationships and its implications are not clear. Here we assess the implication of not accounting for spatial autocorrelation when determining ES relationships using four ES found in the city-state of Singapore. We quantify the ES relationships using some of the most common methods of determining relationships between ES: correlation, regression and principal component analysis. We then compare each method with the corresponding method that accounts for spatial autocorrelation. We found that accounting for spatial autocorrelation resulted in less statistically significant ES relationships, especially at finer resolutions, in correlations (33.3% less significant relationships) and regressions (50% less relationships). Depending on the spatial resolution, different ES were bundled when accounting for spatial autocorrelation when using principal component analysis. Our results suggest that not accounting for spatial autocorrelation in ES relationship studies is likely to result in the misidentification of ES trade-off, synergies and bundles. We thus recommend that future ES relationship studies consider the effects of spatial autocorrelation in their analyses.
format	article
author	Shaikh Fairul Edros Ahmad Shaikh Sin Ching See Daniel Richards Richard N. Belcher Adrienne Grêt-Regamey Marcelo Galleguillos Torres L. Roman Carrasco
author_facet	Shaikh Fairul Edros Ahmad Shaikh Sin Ching See Daniel Richards Richard N. Belcher Adrienne Grêt-Regamey Marcelo Galleguillos Torres L. Roman Carrasco
author_sort	Shaikh Fairul Edros Ahmad Shaikh
title	Accounting for spatial autocorrelation is needed to avoid misidentifying trade-offs and bundles among ecosystem services
title_short	Accounting for spatial autocorrelation is needed to avoid misidentifying trade-offs and bundles among ecosystem services
title_full	Accounting for spatial autocorrelation is needed to avoid misidentifying trade-offs and bundles among ecosystem services
title_fullStr	Accounting for spatial autocorrelation is needed to avoid misidentifying trade-offs and bundles among ecosystem services
title_full_unstemmed	Accounting for spatial autocorrelation is needed to avoid misidentifying trade-offs and bundles among ecosystem services
title_sort	accounting for spatial autocorrelation is needed to avoid misidentifying trade-offs and bundles among ecosystem services
publisher	Elsevier
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/e5e12871f3eb4a7eb4f403235438fe35
work_keys_str_mv	AT shaikhfairuledrosahmadshaikh accountingforspatialautocorrelationisneededtoavoidmisidentifyingtradeoffsandbundlesamongecosystemservices AT sinchingsee accountingforspatialautocorrelationisneededtoavoidmisidentifyingtradeoffsandbundlesamongecosystemservices AT danielrichards accountingforspatialautocorrelationisneededtoavoidmisidentifyingtradeoffsandbundlesamongecosystemservices AT richardnbelcher accountingforspatialautocorrelationisneededtoavoidmisidentifyingtradeoffsandbundlesamongecosystemservices AT adriennegretregamey accountingforspatialautocorrelationisneededtoavoidmisidentifyingtradeoffsandbundlesamongecosystemservices AT marcelogalleguillostorres accountingforspatialautocorrelationisneededtoavoidmisidentifyingtradeoffsandbundlesamongecosystemservices AT lromancarrasco accountingforspatialautocorrelationisneededtoavoidmisidentifyingtradeoffsandbundlesamongecosystemservices
_version_	1718405696778665984

Accounting for spatial autocorrelation is needed to avoid misidentifying trade-offs and bundles among ecosystem services

Ejemplares similares