Cross-scale analysis of ecosystem services identified and assessed at local and European level
Cross-scale analysis of ecosystem services identified and assessed at local and European level
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.10.023
复制
发表时间：
2014-03
影响因子：
6.9
通讯作者：
J. Dick;J. Maes;Rognvald I. Smith;M. Paracchini;G. Zulian
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Dick;J. Maes;Rognvald I. Smith;M. Paracchini;G. Zulian
近年来，在不同的空间尺度上开展的大量研究提出了生态系统服务制图和综合评估的备选方案。跨尺度评估的例子有限，关于一般性评估在多大程度上能够反映当地现象，仍存在悬而未决的问题。本研究旨在探讨在不同空间尺度上进行的生态系统服务分析之间的关系，以及基于不同分辨率输入数据的方法在多大程度上可以协调一致。特别是，在英国尝试在管理单位层面进行生态系统服务整体评估所涉及的挑战和局限性，使用两套生态系统服务指标进行了调查：（i）由当地土地管理者确定，（ii）来自欧盟的空间明确的数据加上基于过程的模型。利用生态系统服务总指数（TESI）、可比生态系统服务指标的回归分析和确定站点可比性的多变量技术，比较了两种方法对环境变化网络（ECN）11个站点生态系统服务估算值的差异。比较分析显示，这两种方法加上弱相关性的不同的生态系统服务指标评估的网站强大的分组。这项研究表明，这两种方法的特点一般景观以类似的方式，但总的生态系统服务指数是严重依赖于所选择的指标。
In recent years a consistent number of studies carried out at different spatial scales have proposed options for mapping and integrated assessment of ecosystem services. Examples of cross-scale assessments are limited and open questions remain on the extent to which general assessments are able to capture local phenomena. This study aims at investigating what the relation is between ecosystem services analysis carried out at different spatial scales, and to what extent approaches based on input data at different resolution can be reconciled.In particular, the challenges and limitations involved in attempting holistic assessments of ecosystem services at the level of a management unit in the UK were investigated using two sets of ecosystem service indicators: (i) identified by local land managers and (ii) derived from EU-based spatially explicit data coupled with process-based models. The difference in the ecosystem services estimated for 11 sites of the Environmental Change Network (ECN) by the two methodologies was compared using (i) total ecosystem service index (TESI), (ii) regression analysis of comparable ecosystem service indicators, and (iii) multivariate techniques to determine site comparability. The comparative analysis revealed robust grouping of sites by both methods coupled with weak correlation between the different ecosystem service indicators assessed. This study indicated that both methods characterised the general landscapes in a similar way, but total ecosystem service index was critically dependent on indicators selected.