Ecological Indicators 73 (2017) 492–504

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Review

How to analyse ecosystem services in landscapes—A systematic

review
Oskar Englund ∗ , Göran Berndes, Christel Cederberg
Div. of Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Ecosystem services (ES) is a significant research topic with diverse modelling and mapping approaches.
Received 29 July 2016 However, the variety of approaches—along with an inconsistent terminology—cause uncertainties con-
Received in revised form 6 October 2016 cerning the choice of methods. This paper identifies and qualitatively assesses methods for mapping ES
Accepted 9 October 2016
in terrestrial landscapes, based on a systematic review of the scientific literature. It further aims to clarify
Available online 24 October 2016
the associated terminology, in particular the concept of landscape and landscape scale. In total, 347 cases
of ES mapping were identified in the reviewed papers. Regulating and maintenance services were most
Keywords:
commonly mapped (165), followed by cultural (85), and provisioning services (73). For individual ES, a
Ecosystem services
Landscape
large variation in number of mapping cases was found. This variation may either reflect the perceived
Mapping importance of the ES, or that different ES can be more or less easily mapped. Overall, Logical models and
Methods Empirical models were most commonly used, followed by Extrapolation, Simulation/Process models, Data
Spatial analysis integration, and Direct mapping. Only twelve percent of all ES mapping cases were validated with empir-
Systematic review ical data. The review revealed highly diverging views on the spatial extent of landscapes in studies of ES,
and that the term landscape is sometimes used rather arbitrarily.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
2. Material and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
2.1. Meta review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
2.2. Systematic review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
2.2.1. Assessment framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
3. Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494
3.1. Mapping of ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494
3.2. Typology and terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
3.3. The concept of landscape and landscape scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
3.3.1. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
3.3.2. Landscape services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
4. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
4.1. “Landscapes” in ES literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
4.2. Methods for mapping ecosystem services at a landscape scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
4.2.1. Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
4.3. Further reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
Appendix A. Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: oskar.englund@chalmers.se (O. Englund).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.10.009
1470-160X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 O. Englund et al. / Ecological Indicators 73 (2017) 492–504
1. Introduction
Ecosystems provide various goods (e.g. food and construction
material) and services (e.g. regulation of water flows) to society,
which contribute to our survival and well-being. Such “ecosys-
tem services” (ES) (Daily, 1997; MEA, 2005) have been evident
to humans throughout history, but not explicitly considered until
the late 1960s and 1970s (Hermann et al., 2011; Portman 2013),
when scientists began to address the societal value of nature’s
functions (King 1966; Helliwell 1969; Dee et al., 1973; Bormann
and Likens 1979). The term “ecosystem services” was introduced
in 1981 (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1981) and, following important con-
tributions by, e.g., Daily (1997) and Costanza et al. (1997), the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (MEA, 2003) brought
global attention to its importance. Today, the concept ES is recog-
nised in policy and it is a significant research topic with diverse
modelling and mapping approaches supporting studies at different
spatial and temporal scales (Burkhard et al., 2013).
Mapping—the organization of spatially explicit quantitative
information—is essential for many assessments of ES since both
supply and demand can be spatially explicit (Troy and Wilson,
2006). Mapping can allow full assessment and quantification of
ES (Crossman et al., 2013), including the spatial distance between
providing areas and benefiting areas (Fisher et al., 2009; Bastian
et al., 2012). Crossman et al. (2013) argue the need for better
understanding of where ES are supplied so that “stocks of nat-
ural capital and the flow of ES can be monitored and managed
across spatial and temporal scales”. They also point out that spa-
tially explicit understanding of conditions of, and threats to, natural
capital, will facilitate that resources are allocated to where they are
most needed. The usefulness of maps (i.e., spatial products from
mapping) to support governance and management of ecosystems
and their services is noted by Hauck et al. (2013). Many methods
and tools exist to map and quantify ES, applicable for highly dif-
fering scales. This, along with inconsistencies in the terminology,
creates uncertainties concerning the choice of methods. The incon-
sistent terminology can even cause uncertainty in what is actually
being mapped (Crossman et al., 2013).
This paper identifies and qualitatively assesses methods for
mapping ES in terrestrial landscapes, based on a systematic review
of the scientific literature. It further aims to clarify the associated
terminology, in particular the concept of landscape and landscape
scale, based on a meta-review of recent literature and outcomes of
the systematic review.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Meta review
In order to clarify the terminology used in studies of ES, in par-
ticular the concept of landscape and landscape scale, and to develop
an assessment framework for the systematic review of methods,
a meta-review of recent literature was performed. Review papers
were identified from keyword searches in the Scopus and Web of
Science databases. Additional papers were identified by examining
the bibliographies in the review papers and papers that cite these.
The outcome of this review is presented in Section 3 (Theory).
2.2. Systematic review
Papers included in two previous review publications (Crossman
et al., 2013; Andrew et al., 2015) were reviewed on methods used
for mapping ES at a landscape scale. These two review publica-
tions also cover papers previously reviewed by Egoh et al. (2012)
and Martinez-Harms and Balvanera (2012). An additional literature
493
search was carried out to identify relevant papers published after
2012. The full literature selection process is described in Table 1.
The outcome of this review is presented in Section 4 (Results and
Discussion).
The 1112 papers identified in the literature search were
screened to determine if they met two relevance criteria: (1) spa-
tially explicit results (i.e., maps) presented for at least one ES; and
(2) study stated to be made at a landscape scale, for the purpose of
landscape planning, or referring to a study area as a landscape or as
containing landscapes. A total of 170 papers fulfilled these criteria.
2.2.1. Assessment framework
2.2.1.1. General information. The 170 papers were reviewed on:
(a) their targeted scale: global, continental, international, national,
or sub-national; (b) the country/countries in which the study was
performed; and (c) the year the paper was published.
2.2.1.2. References to landscapes. The papers were then reviewed
on whether or not specific areas (the study area or any other area)
were referred to as landscapes. The size of such areas was noted to
facilitate a discussion of the spatial extent of landscapes.
2.2.1.3. Limitations in resolution and method. The papers were then
reviewed on the resolution at which the spatial results were pre-
sented. Papers using a resolution of approximately 1 km2 or coarser
were not further reviewed. In addition, papers mapping only the
monetary value of ES using value transfer, i.e. assigning monetary
values to areas without prior quantification of biophysical or other
estimates to support the monetization, were also excluded from
further review. A total of 49 papers were eliminated in this step.
2.2.1.4. Ecosystem services studied. The remaining 121 papers were
then reviewed on which ES that were mapped. A modified version
of CICES v4.3 classification system was used (see Fig. 4, cf. Table 2).
In case several ES that fall under the same ES category were studied
separately (e.g., biomass for food and energy, respectively) using
the same or similar methods, they were counted as one ES. A total
of 347 cases of ES mapping was identified.
2.2.1.5. Mapping methods used. [•]
• The papers were then reviewed on the type of method that was
used to map each ES. A categorisation system similar to Andrew
et al. (2015) was used, as follows:
• Direct mapping refers to methods where survey and census
approaches provide complete spatial information of the distri-
bution of an ES.
• Empirical models refer to models based on point-based mea-
surements of ES. Values are then explained and consequently
estimated elsewhere using, e.g., regression analysis.
• Simulation and process models attempt to simulate or model
ecosystem processes to identify [changes in] ES values [given
changes in ecosystem properties]. Such models require no mea-
surements of ES except possibly for calibration and validation.
• Logical models map ES based on a set of indicators using decision
rules.
• Extrapolation methods parameterize ecosystem properties (often
land-cover classes) for their level of ES supply, based on aspatial
summary values.
• Data integration methods synthesize pre-existing spatial prod-
ucts to generate ES maps, often with rule-based approaches.
The first four types roughly constitute ecological production
function methods, i.e., estimating the level of ES provisioning at a
particular location given the biotic and abiotic characteristics of
that site. The latter two roughly constitute benefit transfer methods,
i.e., estimating the value of ES provisioning in one context by adapt-
494 O. Englund et al. / Ecological Indicators 73 (2017) 492–504
Table 1
Literature selection process for systematic review.
Source Number of papers
Papers from Crossman et al. (2013) 113a
Papers from Andrew et al. (2015) 144
Additional search in Scopusb 757
Additional search in Web of Sciencec 687
Removing duplicates −589
Title, abstract and full text screening −942
Included in review 170
a
Total number of references in the appended list of reviewed papers.
b
TITLE-ABS-KEY(“ecosystem service*ÖR ‘landscape service*ÖR “ecosystem function*ÖR “ecosystem process*)¨ AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Geospatial” OR ‘Geographic informa-
tion system’ OR “GIS’ OR ‘map’ OR “spatial” OR “indicator*)¨ AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(‘landscape’) AND PUBYEAR > 2012.
c
TS = (“ecosystem service*ÖR ‘landscape service*ÖR “ecosystem function*ÖR “ecosystem process*)¨ AND TS = (“Geospatial” OR ‘Geographic information system’ OR “GIS’
OR ‘map’ OR “spatial” OR “indicator*)¨ AND TS = (‘landscape’) AND PY = (2013 OR 2014 OR 2015).
ing an estimate of the value of the same ES provisioning in another
context (Andrew et al., 2015).
Two additional method types were added to the categorisation
system:
[•]
• Combination, in case different types of methods were used.
• Unknown, in case the method was not sufficiently well described
to determine the type.
In addition to noting the method type, each method was quali-
tatively summarised.
2.2.1.6. Validated results. The papers were reviewed on whether or
not they attempted to validated their results, how it in that case
was done, and with what outcome.
3. Theory
3.1. Mapping of ecosystem services
Several recent reviews have been published on methods for
mapping and quantifying ES. In 2015, a special issue in Ecosystem
Services (vol. 13) was dedicated to the subject, including reviews
on ES mapping across scales and continents (Malinga et al., 2015)
and empirical (public) participatory GIS mapping of ES (Brown
and Fagerholm, 2015). In the editorial, Willemen et al. (2015)
summarised “best practices for mapping ecosystem services”. Pre-
viously, Martinez-Harms and Balvanera (2012) reviewed 70 papers
that mapped the supply of ES based on social-ecological data. Egoh
et al. (2012) reviewed 67 papers that mapped and/or modelled ES
in order to identify spatial indicators used and their available data
sources.
Crossman et al. (2013) revisited the papers in the two preced-
ing reviews and reviewed additional papers not included in these
two reviews. They found that (following the typology used by the
authors) regulating services have been most often mapped, fol-
lowed by provisioning, cultural, and supporting/habitat services.
Climate regulation was the most commonly mapped ES, followed
by recreation and tourism, food provision, provision of water, and
regulation of water flows. These results are in line with results
by Martinez-Harms and Balvanera (2012) and Egoh et al. (2012).
Furthermore, most assessments were carried out on a regional, or
sub-national, scale, although provisioning and regulating services
were more commonly mapped at larger scales compared with sup-
porting and cultural services. Secondary data were used more often
than primary data, especially for regulating services, and the most
frequently applied indicators were land use/-cover, soils, vegeta-
tion, and indicators related to nutrients.
Andrew et al. (2015) reviewed nearly 150 studies in order to
outline socioecological drivers of ES and identify representative
datasets; categorize models used to map ES; and discuss the efficacy
and credibility of ES assessments. They suggest that there are three
Cumulative number of papers
113
257
1014
1701
1112
170
primary paradigms for mapping the provisioning of ES—ecological
production functions, ES providers, and functional traits—and that
these provide a strong scientific framework. They however express
concerns of the widespread use of non-validated proxy-based
methods.
Nemec and Raudsepp-Hearne (2013) reviewed the different
ways that GIS has been used to estimate ES and their values,
including: (1) static estimates, i.e., data-derived spatial estimates of
present or past ES distributions; (2) models that can be used to anal-
yse how changes in landscapes impact ES; and (3) approaches that
emphasize social preferences and priority-setting for ES manage-
ment. They claim that it is difficult to generalize about which tools
provide the most credible results and that the choice of tool should
depend on context. They also stress that caution should be applied
to the use and interpretation of models developed for broad use,
and that practitioners with advanced GIS skills may benefit from
creating their own models rather than using an existing platform.
Andrew et al. (2014) highlight the ways that remote sensing
can contribute to information needs in ES assessments and present
novel methods for assessing ecosystem processes and services
using remote sensing. In particular, they state that remote sens-
ing can provide spatially nuanced depictions of plant functional
traits and soil properties, and that it can monitor aspects of critical
biogeochemical processes. Finally, “urban ES”, i.e., ES in an urban
or peri-urban environment, have been reviewed by, e.g., Mao et al.
(2015).
A cause for concern, and an indication of that many methods
may be unsuitable for landscape scale studies, is that a majority
of ES assessment studies so far use proxy methods (Egoh et al.,
2012), such as benefits transfer (e.g. Costanza et al. (1997)). Such
methods are much less complex than for example direct map-
ping with survey and census approaches or empirical production
function models, and may thus be an appealing approach for ES
assessments. However, there are several disadvantages with proxy
based methods, such as the risk for generalization error, which
makes them prone to error (Eigenbrod et al., 2010a; Stephens et al.,
2015). Since landscapes are typically not mere combinations of
ecosystems, but shaped by the interactions between ecosystem
structures/processes and humans (Council of Europe, 2000), the
use of proxies at the landscape level is particularly sensitive to
local conditions. Careful calibration and validation is thus necessary
(Stephens et al., 2015), but this has typically not been done (Seppelt
et al., 2011; Martinez-Harms and Balvanera, 2012). Proxies may be
suitable for identifying broad-scale trends in ES, or for global level
and rapid assessments, but they are likely to be unsuitable for iden-
tifying hotspots or priority areas for multiple ES (Eigenbrod et al.,
2010b; Hermann et al., 2014). Additional data beyond land cover
observation are therefore often necessary for a proper assessment
of ecosystem functions or services, especially at the landscape scale
(Hermann et al., 2011; Nemec and Raudsepp-Hearne, 2013).
 O. Englund et al. / Ecological Indicators 73 (2017) 492–504 495

Table 2
Comparison of CICES v4.3, MEA, TEEB, and Costanza et al., 1997 classification systems: Provisioning and Regulating and maintenance services. The MEA Supporting Services
Photosynthesis and Primary production are not included in the table.

CICES v4.3 (EEA 2013) TEEB (2010a,b) MEA (2003) Costanza et al.
(1997)

Provisioning Nutrition Biomass Cultivated crops • Food • Food • Food production

Reared animals and their outputs
Wild plants, algae and their
outputs
Wild animals and their outputs
Plants and algae from in-situ
aquaculture
Animals from in-situ aquaculture
Water Surface water for drinking • Fresh water • Fresh water • Water supply
Ground water for drinking
Materials Biomass Fibres and other materials from • Raw materials • Fibre • Raw materials
plants, algae and animals for direct • Medicinal • Biochemicals,
use or processing resources natural
medicines, and
pharmaceuticals
• Ornamental
resources

Materials from plants, algae and

animals for agricultural use
Genetic materials from all biota • Maintenance of • Genetic resources • Genetic resources
genetic diversity
Water Surface water for non-drinking • Fresh water • Fresh water • Water supply
purposes
Ground water for non-drinking
purposes
Energy Biomass-based Plant-based resources • Raw materials • Fuel • Raw materials
energy sources
Animal-based resources
Mechanical energy Animal-based energy – – –

Regulating and Mediation of Mediation by biota Bio-remediation by • Waste-water • Water • Waste treatment
maintenance waste, toxics and micro-organisms, algae, plants, and treatment purification and • Gas regulation
other nuisances animals • Local climate waste treatment
and air quality • Air quality
regulation

Filtration/sequestration/storage/accumulation
by micro-organisms, algae, plants,
and animals
Mediation by Filtration/sequestration/storage/accumulation
ecosystems by ecosystems
Dilution by atmosphere,
freshwater and marine ecosystems
Mediation of smell/noise/visual – – –
impacts
Mediation of flows Mass flows Mass stabilization and control of • Erosion • Erosion • Erosion control
erosion rates prevention regulation and sediment
retention
Buffering and attenuation of mass –
flows
Liquid flows Hydrological cycle and water flow • Fresh water • Water regulation • Water regulation
maintenance • Water cycling

Flood protection • Moderation of • Natural hazard • Disturbance

extreme events regulation regulation
Gaseous/air flows Storm protection
Ventilation and transpiration – – –
Maintenance of Lifecycle Pollination and seed dispersal • Pollination • Pollination • Pollination
physical, chemical, maintenance,
biological habitat and gene
conditions pool protection
Maintaining nursery populations • Habitats for – • Refugia
and habitats species
Pest and disease Pest control • Biological control • Pest regulation • Biological control
control
Disease control • Disease –
regulation
Soil formation and Weathering processes • Maintenance of • Soil formation • Soil formation
composition soil fertility • Nutrient cycling • Nutrient cycling
496 O. Englund et al. / Ecological Indicators 73 (2017) 492–504
Table 2 (Continued)
CICES v4.3 (EEA 2013)
Decomposition and fixing
processes
Water conditions Chemical condition of freshwaters
Chemical condition of salt waters
Atmospheric Global climate regulation by
composition and reduction of greenhouse gas
climate regulation concentrations
Micro and regional climate
regulation
Many have argued in favour of a standardized approach to quan-
tify and map ES (TEEB, 2010a; Eppink et al., 2012; Maes et al.,
2012; Martinez-Harms and Balvanera, 2012; Seppelt et al., 2012;
Crossman et al., 2013). This has however been difficult to estab-
lish (Nemec and Raudsepp-Hearne, 2013). Crossman et al. (2013)
proposed instead a blueprint for documenting studies, to provide
a template and checklist concerning information needed for carry-
ing out a modelling and mapping study, and to provide a growing
database of completed “blueprints” to the benefit of researchers,
practitioners and policymakers.
3.2. Typology and terminology
Several ES classification systems have been proposed (Costanza
et al., 1997; Daily, 1997, 1999; De Groot et al., 2002; MEA, 2003;
de Groot 2006; Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007; Fisher and Turner, 2008;
TEEB, 2010a). Costanza (2008) states that there are many use-
ful ways to classify ecosystem goods and services, and that the
goal should not be to have a single, consistent system, but rather
a pluralism of typologies that can be useful for different pur-
poses. A drawback is that the use of multiple classification systems
makes comparisons and integration of assessments with other
data difficult (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2011). Among the more
commonly used classification systems, Costanza et al. (1997) cat-
egorized ES into 17 major groups while MEA (2003) categorized a
similar set of ES as “provisioning”, “regulating”, “supporting” and
“cultural”. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)
initiative (2010a) adopted a classification based on MEA, but con-
sidered “supporting services” to be ecological processes rather than
ES, and emphasized the importance of “habitat services” by assign-
ing it a separate category. Initially, the TEEB classification contained
22 ES (TEEB, 2010a) but was reduced to 17 ES (TEEB, 2010b). A new
classification system, the Common International Classification of
Ecosystem Services (CICES), is being developed by the European
Environment Agency (www.cices.eu). The aim of CICES is to pro-
pose a universal classification of ES that is both consistent with
accepted categorizations and allows easy translation of statisti-
cal information between different applications (Haines-Young and
Potschin, 2011). A comparison of CICES v. 4.3 (EEA 2013) with TEEB
(2010a), MEA (2003), and Costanza et al. (1997), is provided in
Table 2 and 3.
In addition to—possibly to some extent due to—inconsistent
classification, the terminology in ES research has remained incon-
sistent. For example, studies that use the MEA typology (Andrew
et al., 2015) include supporting services. The same “services” are
in other studies (Crossman et al., 2013) considered to be ecolog-
ical (or ecosystem) processes, following, e.g., the TEEB typology.
These are also sometimes referred to as intermediate ES (Boyd
2007; Crossman et al., 2013). Furthermore, some (Wallace 2007;
TEEB (2010a,b) MEA (2003) Costanza et al.
(1997)
• Habitats for – –
species
– –
• Carbon • Climate • Climate
sequestration and regulation regulation
storage • Gas regulation
• Local climate and • Air quality
air quality regulation
• Climate
regulation
Andrew et al., 2015) consider ecosystem functions to be synony-
mous with ecosystem processes, while others (Crossman et al.,
2013; Potschin et al., 2014) do not. It should be noted that,
although many use terms highly arbitrarily, inconsistency in this
case reflects an ongoing scientific discourse. It has been argued
that definitions of ES are purpose-dependent and should be judged
on their usefulness for a particular purpose (Zhang et al., 2007;
Lamarque et al., 2011). However—as noted also for classification
systems above—co-existence of different terminologies and defini-
tions could impede on-the-ground use of the concept (Lamarque
et al., 2011). Diversity is important for advancing science and
knowledge, but can create difficulties in situations where gover-
nance agreements are to be made—particularly where multiple
goals need to be considered. At present, work is in progress to estab-
lish working definitions of commonly used terms (Potschin et al.,
2014). This may, along with the advancement of the CICES classifi-
cation, help to harmonize the terminology and make studies more
consistent and comparable. Definitions of commonly used terms,
which are also used in this paper, are presented in Table 4.
3.3. The concept of landscape and landscape scale
Academic landscape research has primarily been conducted
within the fields of ecology/landscape ecology, geography, and spa-
tial planning (Conrad et al., 2011). Landscape ecology was for a
long time focused on the relationships between spatial patterns
and ecological processes (Wiens and Moss, 2005), not acknowledg-
ing people as part of the landscape, but rather a cause of landscape
change (Termorshuizen and Opdam, 2009). In the field of spatial
planning, however, a central notion was that people are a part
of the landscape, and that landscape change should benefit peo-
ple (Termorshuizen and Opdam, 2009). Research in the fields of
landscape ecology and spatial planning have therefore been based
on different views on what a landscape is, including its value to
humans. As stated by Higgins et al. (2012): “as a theoretical tool, the
concept is steeped in ambiguity and complexity, with innumerable
nuances accompanying its multiple interpretations”.
3.3.1. Definitions
Similar to the views in the field of spatial planning, the Euro-
pean Landscape Convention (ELC) defined landscape as ‘an area, as
perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and
interaction of natural and/or human factors’ (Council of Europe,
2000). As a result of the ELC, as well as the Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 2003)
and the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage
for Society (Council of Europe, 2005), landscape received a higher
status in spatial planning (Herlin, 2007) since it became formally
recognised and highlighted as central to matters of sustainability
 O. Englund et al. / Ecological Indicators 73 (2017) 492–504 497

Table 3
Comparison of CICES v4.3, MEA, TEEB, and Costanza et al., 1997 classification systems: Cultural services.

CICES v4.3 (EEA 2013) TEEB (2010a,b) MEA (2003) Costanza et al.
(1997)

Cultural Physical and Physical and Experiential use of • Recreation and • Recreation and • Recreation
intellectual experiential plants, animals and mental and ecotourism
interactions with interactions land-/seascapes in physical health
biota, ecosystems, different • Tourism
and environmental
land-/seascapes settings
[environmental
settings]
Physical use of
land-/seascapes in
different
environmental
settings
Intellectual and Scientific • Aesthetic • Knowledge • Cultural
representative appreciation and systems,
interactions inspiration for • Educational
culture, art and values
design • Cultural
diversity

Educational
Heritage, cultural • Cultural
diversity
• Social relations
• Cultural heritage
values

Entertainment
Aesthetic • Aesthetic values
Spiritual, symbolic Spiritual and/or Symbolic • Spiritual • Spiritual and
and other emblematic experience and religious values
interactions with sense of place • Sense of place
biota, ecosystems,
and
land-/seascapes
[environmental
settings]
Sacred and/or
religious
Other cultural Existence
outputs
Bequest

and the management of public spaces. This led to further discus-
sions on the meaning of ‘landscape’ − not only what a landscape is,
but also what it does − in legislation, policy, planning, and manage-
ment. Nassauer (2012) proposed two laws of landscape function, to
show how landscape can be used for synthesis science and ecolog-
ical design: (1) ‘Different environmental processes operate in and
through the same landscape, and each landscape inherently inte-
grates these processes’; and (2) ‘Landscapes are visible in everyday
experience and can be made visible in spatial representations. This
makes it possible for different people to have the same experience
of visible characteristics of a given landscape’. The latter empha-
sizes that because landscapes can be seen, different people can
point to characteristics that they notice and discuss the different
meanings those characteristics convey.
Humans are today considered to be an integral part of the
landscape, and landscapes are thus often regarded a result of
interactions between natural and human processes (Vallés-Planells
et al., 2014). The definition of landscape in the recently proposed ES
glossary by Potschin et al. (2014) places slightly less emphasis on
the interactions between natural and human processes: ‘A hetero-
geneous mosaic of land cover, habitat patches, physical conditions or
other spatially variable elements viewed at scales relevant to ecologi-
cal, cultural-historical, social or economic considerations’. According
to this definition, a landscape can be an area of (widely) varying size
(see Fig. 1) that for various reasons is relevant to consider a coher-
ent unit. Besides recognizing that a landscape can have ecological,
cultural, social, and economic importance, this indicates that land-
scapes can have varying spatial extent. For example, an ecological
perspective considers, e.g., topological features while social or cul-
tural perspectives consider, e.g., social connections, administrative
units, or tradition. It can be argued that landscapes need not be
heterogeneous but can consist of largely homogeneous,1 land cover
(Soto and Palomares, 2015), such as cropland or forest (DeVries
et al., 2015), provided that it is relevant from ecological, cultural-
historical, social or economic point of view. Therefore, it may be
more appropriate to refer to landscapes as: ‘An area viewed at a scale
determined by ecological, cultural-historical, social and/or economic
considerations’.
Landscape scale has been defined as an intermediate integra-
tion level between the field and the physiographic region (Turner,
1989; Burel and Baudry, 2003), but with an extent depending on
the spatial range of the biophysical and anthropogenic processes
driving the processes (or services) under study (Lacoste et al.,
2014). With this view, landscape scale is referred to as having
a landscape—which in general should be larger than a field and
smaller than a physiographic region—as a study area. In addition,
1
Note also that homogeneity, at a high level of abstraction, can be defined as
generalized information of internal heterogeneity (Bastian et al., 2013).
498 O. Englund et al. / Ecological Indicators 73 (2017) 492–504

Table 4
Definitions of commonly used terms, which are also used in this paper. Adapted from Potschin et al. (2014); Hermann et al. (2011); Andrew et al. (2015); Mastrangelo et al.
(2014) and Bastian et al. (2014).

Term Definition

Ecosystem structure Static ecosystem characteristics: spatial and aspatial structure, composition and distribution
of biophysical elements
Example: land use, standing crop, leaf area, % ground cover, species composition
Ecosystem processes Dynamic ecosystem characteristics: Complex interactions among biotic and abiotic elements
of ecosystems causing physical, chemical, or biological changes or reactions.
Examples: decomposition, photosynthesis, nutrient cycling and energy fluxes.
Ecosystem functions The subset of processes and structures that, if benefiting to human well-being, provide ES. Can
be defined as the capacity of ecosystems to provide ES.
Example: carbon sequestration
Ecosystem properties Refers collectively to ecosystem structure and processes.
Ecosystem services Direct and indirect contributions of ecosystem functions to human well-being.
Example: climate regulation
Intermediate ecosystem Ecosystem functions that do not directly benefit to human well-being, but that support other
service functions that do. Synonymous with ‘supporting services’
Ecosystem service providers The ecosystems, component populations, communities, functional groups, etc. as well as
abiotic components such as habitat type, that are the main contributors to specific ES.
Example: Forest tree communities are ES providers for global climate regulation.
Human well-being A state that is intrinsically or instrumentally valuable for a person or society.
Example: The MEA (2005) classifies components (or drivers) of human well-being into: basic
material for a good life, freedom and choice, health and bodily wellbeing, good social relations,
security, peace of mind, and spiritual experience.
Ecosystem service supply ES provisioned by a particular area over a given time period.
Ecosystem service demand ES demanded in a particular area over a given time period.
Ecosystem service providing Spatial units that are the source of ES. Commensurate with ecosystem service supply.
units/areas
Ecosystem service benefiting The complement to ES providing areas. ES benefiting areas may be far distant from respective
areas providing areas. Commensurate with ES demand.
Landscape An area viewed at a scale determined by ecological, cultural-historical, social and/or economic
considerations
Landscape services The contributions of landscapes and landscape elements to human well-being
Landscape multifunctionality The capacity of a landscape to simultaneously support multiple benefits to society

Fig. 1. Size of the 94 areas referred to as “landscape” in the reviewed papers. Size is specified using absolute numbers for the areas at the far left of the figure, and using
countries of an approximately equivalent size for the areas at the far right. Due to the large differences, the smallest 15 areas would not be visible in this figure without their
outline. Hence, they appear similar in size.

Bastian et al. (2013) states that “landscape units can be aggregated
at various levels of abstraction, resulting in a number of sub-
dimensions within the so-called chorological dimension: nano-,
micro-, meso- and macro-chores (choros: Greek ‘space’, “land”)”.
This means it may even be possible to build a hierarchical system
of different landscape levels. Landscapes can therefore have highly
varying character and size, and two studies that use very differ-
ent kinds of study areas may still both claim to be performed at a
landscape scale.
3.3.2. Landscape services
Termorshuizen and Opdam (2009) claimed that landscapes can-
not be synonyms for ecosystems (e.g. de Groot (2006)), but rather
as spatial human-ecological systems that deliver functions valued
 O. Englund et al. / Ecological Indicators 73 (2017) 492–504
by humans for economic, socio-cultural, and ecological reasons. For
that reason, they claimed that landscape services would be a more
appropriate term, as it would enable the consideration of both nat-
ural and cultural aspects, spatial patterns, and the involvement of
stakeholders. The necessity of this concept can be disputed since (1)
several cultural values of landscapes are already regarded as ES; (2)
spatial patterns are essential to assessing, e.g., aesthetic and recre-
ational values as well as the spatial configuration of habitats that
involve lateral flows of material or organisms (Andrew et al., 2014);
and (3) the involvement of stakeholders is already widely acknowl-
edged as important for meaningful ES assessments on a national, or
smaller, level—see, e.g., Koschke et al. (2012) and Fagerholm et al.
(2012).
Nevertheless, the concept has been used in several recent stud-
ies (Hermann et al., 2014; Ungaro et al., 2014; Vallés-Planells et al.,
2014; Hainz-Renetzeder et al., 2015), and Vallés-Planells et al.
(2014) even suggest a new classification system for landscape ser-
vices that includes “services” not previously included in the major
ES classification schemes. One advantage may be that the reference
to “landscapes” instead of “ecosystems” may attract the interest
of other scientific disciplines than those usually concerned with
ecosystems and ecology, and thus contribute to interdisciplinary
in ES assessments (Hermann et al., 2011).
Besides using landscape services as a synonym (Willemen et al.,
2012) or an alternative (Vallés-Planells et al., 2014) to ES, it may be
possible to use it as a complement. Bastian et al. (2014) examined
whether a stronger focus on landscape services would be useful
by examining case studies in Germany, and found no strong argu-
ments for replacing the concept of ES with landscape services at
the landscape scale. They did, however, find that both concepts
can be useful depending on the situation. The decisive difference is
the object they refer to: ES to ecosystems, and landscape services
to landscapes or landscape elements (which need not necessarily
be ecosystems). They distinguish between three cases to illustrate
this: (1) where the service is supplied by ecosystems and land-
scape issues play no role, the term ES should be used; (2) where
the service is supplied by ecosystems and also landscape issues are
important, both terms may be used; and (3) where the service is not
supplied by an ecosystem but by landscape elements, the term ES
would be obsolete and instead landscape services should be used.
They suggest a new definition of landscape services to illustrate
this: “Landscape services are the contributions of landscapes and
landscape elements to human well-being”.
Analogous to landscape services, the term landscape functions is
sometimes used to describe the capacity of a landscape to fulfil
human needs (de Groot, 2006) (cf. ecosystem functions), although
its original definition (Krovakova et al., 2015) “the flows of energy,
materials and species among the component ecosystem” (Forman
and Godron, 1986) is more biocentric than anthropocentric.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. “Landscapes” in ES literature
A total of 94 areas referred to as “landscape” were identified
in the systematic review (Fig. 1). Their sizes range from 24 ha (ha)
(roughly 34 football pitches) to 122 million ha (roughly the size of
South Africa). Lacoste et al. (2014) suggest that the extent of a land-
scape can be considered to range from 100 to 10,000 ha. However, of
the 94 areas referred to as landscapes in the reviewed papers, only
23 fall within that range. It is thus obvious that there are diverg-
ing views on the spatial extent of landscapes in the ES literature.
The review revealed that the term is sometimes used rather arbi-
trarily. To avoid this, it can be advisable to describe areas referred
499
45
40
35
Number of papers
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1997 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Publicaon year
Fig. 2. Chronological distribution of reviewed papers (n = 170).
to as landscapes in a way that explains why they are considered
landscapes (as in, e.g., Vihervaara et al. (2010)).
Given the diverging views on the spatial extent of a landscape,
there are also diverging views on the meaning of landscape scale.
The view that landscape scale is referred to as having a landscape
as a study area (see Section 3.3.1) is common in the ES litera-
ture, although while some attempt to map ES across the landscape,
others aggregate the ES under study to one value for the entire
landscape. A study area can also be described as containing several
“landscapes”, for which ES values are aggregated. In such cases,
some also refer to the entire study area as a landscape. Two studies
may thus focus on the same area, refer to it as a landscape, but have
widely varying views on what is meant by landscape scale.
4.2. Methods for mapping ecosystem services at a landscape scale
A total of 170 papers were identified as having mapped ES at
a landscape scale2 and 121 of these mapped ES at a relatively fine
resolution across landscapes. The remaining papers mapped ES at
a coarser resolution (approximately 1 km or higher), in monetary
terms only, or aggregated for administrative units. Almost half of
the papers were published in 2015 and 2016, while only 14% of
the papers were published before 2010 (Fig. 2). This is in line with
observations by, e.g, Andrew et al. (2015) and Martinez-Harms and
Balvanera (2012) and confirms that ES research—also at the land-
scape scale—is a relatively recent and rapidly growing area.
Most studies were carried out in Europe (87), followed by North
America (31), Asia (15), Africa and Australia (12 each), and South
America (11) (Fig. 3).3 This is similar to the geographical distribu-
tion of similar studies irrespective of scale (Crossman et al., 2013).
At a country level, most studies were carried out in the USA (26),
followed by Germany (15), Australia (12), United Kingdom (11), the
Netherlands (11), and Spain (10).
In total, 347 cases of ES mapping were identified in the reviewed
papers (Fig. 3), with an average of 2.8 ES mapped per paper (min = 1,
max = 14). All cases of ES mapping are summarised and qualita-
tively described in the supplementary online material. Regulating
and maintenance services were most commonly mapped (165),
followed by cultural (85), and provisioning services (73). An addi-
tional 24 “services”, that were either a combination (bundle) of
individual ES or not covered by the CICES classification system,
were mapped. This includes examples of “landscape services” (see
Section 3.3.2), where landscapes or specific landscape elements,
2
That is, studies stated to be made at a landscape scale, for the purpose of
landscape planning, or referring to a study area as a landscape or as containing
landscapes. See Section 2 (Material and Methods).
3
The two remaining papers were not focused on any particular country.
500 O. Englund et al. / Ecological Indicators 73 (2017) 492–504

Fig. 3. Geographical distribution of reviewed studies (n = 170). The number of studies performed in each country ranges from 1 (light grey) to 26 (black). White = zero.

Number of mapping aempts

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Biomass
Provisioning

Surface water

Groundwater

Mechanical energy

Mediaon of waste, toxics and other nuisances

Mediaon of mass flows

Regulang and maintenance

Mediaon of water flows

Mediaon of gaseous/air flows

Lifecycle maintenance

Pest and disease control

Soil formaon and composion

Water condions

Atmospheric composion and cl imate regulaon

Physical and experienal interacons with nature

Intellectual and representave interacons with nature

Cultural

Spiritual and/or emblemac interacons with nature

Existence and bequest

Other

Other or combinaon

Direct mapping Empirical model Simulaon or process model Logical model

Extrapolaon Data integraon Combinaon Unknown

Fig. 4. Number of times different (groups of) ecosystem services have been mapped at a landscape scale based on the review, divided into different method types used.

rather than ecosystems, provides benefits to human well-being
(see Section 4 in Supplementary online material). A comparison
with previous reviews (Egoh et al., 2012; Martinez-Harms and
Balvanera, 2012; Crossman et al., 2013) indicates that cultural ser-
vices are more often mapped at the landscape scale than at larger
scales.
Atmospheric composition and climate regulation, usually relating
to global climate regulation, and Biomass, were the most commonly
mapped ES (51 and 50 times, respectively), followed by Physical and
experiential interactions with nature (42 times), and Lifecycle main-
tenance (40 times). The least commonly mapped ES include Pest and
disease control (4 times), Soil formation and composition (5 times),
Existence and bequest, and Spiritual interactions with nature (both
 O. Englund et al. / Ecological Indicators 73 (2017) 492–504
Fig. 5. Number of cases where mapping results were validated (dark grey) and not validated (light grey) with empirical data, for the different ecosystem services.
Fig. 6. Number of cases where mapping results were validated (dark grey) and not
validated (light grey) with empirical data, for the different method types.
6 times), and Groundwater (7 times). No study included mapping
of Mechanical energy, Mediation of air flows, or Water conditions.4
This large variation may reflect the perceived importance of differ-
ent ES, but it may also reflect that different ES can be more or less
easily mapped. For example, the two most frequently mapped ES,
global climate regulation and biomass production, are indisputably
high priority in society and also easily mapped with adequate
accuracy using proxies and statistics. Other ES that are also high
priority, e.g., surface water and flow mediation, are much less fre-
quently mapped. This may be explained by the more complicated
methods—such as process models or simulation—required to map
such ES with adequate accuracy. Furthermore, the supply of ES is
much more commonly mapped than the demand, and few studies
4
Of course, a large number of scientific studies exist that do not refer explicitly
to ES, but have a landscape scope and address ES such as soil formation.
501
attempt to analyse or discuss spatial links between providing and
benefiting areas.
Logical models and Empirical models were most commonly used
(86 and 84 times, respectively), followed by Extrapolation (66
times), Simulation/Process models (51 times), Data integration (24
times), and Direct mapping (17 times). In ten cases, a combina-
tion of several method types were used, and in 9 cases the type
of method was not possible to determine. Proxy based methods
are thus widely used also at the landscape scale. Methods were in
many cases difficult to assess and categorize due to very brief or
otherwise insufficient method description; in nine cases we were
unsuccessful in determining which type of method had been used.
This should serve as a reminder that method descriptions in sci-
entific literature should not only facilitate understanding, but also
reproduction. Several of the reviewed papers failed to facilitate the
latter. The method class definitions by Andrew et al. (2015), that
were used to categorize methods, proved to be useful and it was
mostly straight-forward to classify methods accordingly. We agree
however with the authors that there are some ambiguities in these
class definitions, and that hybrid methods are possible. The method
class definitions by Martínez-Harms and Balvanera (2012) may be
useful as a basis for further improvement of the typology.
4.2.1. Validation
Only twelve percent of all ES mapping cases were validated with
empirical data. This is exclusive of the cases using direct mapping,
since this does not require validation. No difference was found
between recent and older articles in this regard. In absolute terms,
validation was most common for biomass, lifecycle maintenance,
and physical and experiential interactions with nature (6 times
each), followed by mediation of waste (5 times), and mediation of
mass flows (4 times). For all mapped ES at least one case included
validation (Figs. 4 and 5).
Validation was almost exclusively applied in studies based on
empirical models, simulation and process models, or logical mod-
502 O. Englund et al. / Ecological Indicators 73 (2017) 492–504
els; constituting 42%, 35%, and 19% of all validated mapping cases,
respectively (Fig. 6). Relative to the total number of mapping cases
for each method type, validation was most common in studies using
simulation and process models (29% of all such mapping cases were
validated), followed by empirical models (21%) and logical models
(11%) (Fig. 6).
The common lack of validation is noteworthy. Collection of
empirical data is time consuming and this probably explains why
validation is most commonly made in studies that map ES using
empirical models, or simulation and process models (fed with
empirical data), where empirical data must be collected anyway.
However, invalidated results can be difficult to evaluate and thus
be of limited use for both academia and society in, e.g., landscape
planning. Validation should therefore be prioritised in ES mapping
studies. The widespread use of invalidated proxy-based methods
have previously been raised as a reason for concern by, e.g., Andrew
et al. (2015).
4.3. Further reflections
In order to use ES assessment as a basis for spatial planning
and decision-making, a high level of detail and accuracy is nec-
essary at varying spatial and temporal scales. Since landscapes
commonly are heterogeneous—i.e., having patterns of different
ecosystems—the ES supply is unequally distributed across space
and should therefore be assessed in spatially explicit ways (Nelson
et al., 2009; Willemen et al., 2010, 2012).
Similar to Nemec and Raudsepp-Hearne (2013), we find it dif-
ficult to generalize about which methods that provide the most
credible results. Methods are context dependent and should be cho-
sen on the basis of competence, data availability, time frame, etc.
Carefully calibrated empirical or process based models, validated
against empirical data, can provide accurate and easily evaluated
results, but they might not be relevant for certain ES, study areas, or
research groups. The use of simple proxies in landscape level stud-
ies may generate misleading results, as has been discussed earlier
in the paper.
Regarding the use of models developed for broad use, Nemec
and Raudsepp-Hearne (2013) suggested that practitioners with
advanced GIS skills may benefit from creating their own models.
However, some models, e.g., the InVEST model, have been applied
many times, in several cases with validated and acceptably accu-
rate results (Hoyer and Chang 2014; Hamel et al., 2015; Meyer et al.,
2015). When using third-party models, it is however imperative
that they are properly evaluated on their suitability for the spe-
cific project beforehand, and that they are carefully calibrated and
validated using empirical data.
The reviewed papers used different classification systems, but
conversion of the reviewed ES into the CICES classification system
was in most cases fairly straight-forward. Most of the ES that could
not be fitted into CICES were either bundles of ES mapped together
or examples of ecosystem processes rather than ES. Further devel-
opment of CICES should consider whether to only include final ES
and thus exclude ecosystem processes and functions. For example,
it can be argued that soil formation and composition by weather-
ing, decomposition and fixing processes is not a final ES, but rather
an intermediate ES, or an ecosystem function. The final ES should
rather be associated with what benefits to humans the soils facil-
itate; e.g., cultivation of crops, or—indirectly, since soils facilitate
vegetation growth —mediation of water flows, and climate control.
Furthermore, “water conditions” was found to be redundant, as it
refers to ensuring favourable living conditions for biota, which is
similar to “lifecycle maintenance”.
Possible additions to CICES could be mediation of UV radiation,
i.e., shade, which is an ES commonly used by humans and animals
but very seldom described in the literature (no example was found
in the review). Finally, the comprehensiveness and use of more
technical terms in CICES make it less suited for communication with
stakeholders (including academics) that lack in-depth understand-
ing of ES. Given the importance of stakeholder involvement in ES
assessments, this is a clear disadvantage. It may therefore be ben-
eficial to review the wording with this in mind, or to complement
the typology with alternative, less technical, descriptions.
5. Conclusions
Most of the 347 cases of ES mapping concerned regulating and
maintenance services followed by cultural and provisioning services.
The results indicate that cultural services are more often mapped at
the landscape scale than at larger scales. The supply of ES is much
more commonly mapped than the demand. Few studies attempt to
analyse or discuss spatial links between providing and benefiting
areas.
While some ES—mediation of air/gaseous flows, mechanical
energy, and water conditions—were not mapped in any of the
reviewed studies, others—most notably atmospheric composition
and climate regulation, and biomass production—were commonly
mapped. The large variation may reflect the perceived importance
of different ES, but it may also reflect that different ES can be more
or less easily mapped.
Overall, logical models and empirical models are most com-
monly used, followed by extrapolation, simulation/process models,
data integration, and direct mapping. Proxy based methods are thus
widely used also at the landscape scale. This review can serve as an
information source concerning methods for ES mapping, hopefully
useful for the design of new studies.
Methods were in many cases difficult to assess and categorize
due to very brief or otherwise insufficient method descriptions,
which in some cases fail to facilitate reproduction.
Only twelve percent of all ES mapping cases were validated
with empirical data. Invalidated results can be difficult to evalu-
ate and thus be of limited use for both academia and society in, e.g.,
landscape planning. Validation should be prioritised in ES mapping
studies.
There are highly diverging views on the meaning of landscape
and landscape scale, and the terms are sometimes used rather arbi-
trarily. A total of 94 areas referred to as “landscape” were identified,
with sizes ranging from 24 hectares to 122 million hectares.
Given the importance of high resolution and need for more
complex methods and validation, most ES assessments with a land-
scape scope will need to limit the number of ES included in the
study. To ensure that the most relevant ES are included, it is essen-
tial to involve stakeholders in the selection process. Furthermore,
the capacity of the research group and available resources for the
project may determine which ES that can be included. ES that
cannot be studied in other ways than with simple proxies, or be
sufficiently validated, may preferably be omitted.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for
valuable comments on the manuscript. Funding from E.ON., the
Swedish Energy Agency (STEM), IEA Bioenergy, and the Swedish
Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spa-
tial Planning (FORMAS) is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,
in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.
10.009.
 O. Englund et al. / Ecological Indicators 73 (2017) 492–504
References
Andrew, M.E., Wulder, M.A., Nelson, T.A., 2014. Potential contributions of remote
sensing to ecosystem service assessments. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 38 (3), 328–353.
Andrew, M.E., Wulder, M.A., Nelson, T.A., Coops, N.C., 2015. Spatial data, analysis
approaches, and information needs for spatial ecosystem service assessments:
a review. GI Sci. Remote Sens. 52 (3), 344–373.
Bastian, O., Grunewald, K., Syrbe, R.-U., 2012. Space and time aspects of ecosystem
services, using the example of the EU Water Framework Directive International
Journal of Biodiversity Science. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage. 8 (1–2), 5–16.
Bastian, O., Lupp, G., Syrbe, R.-U., Steinhäußer, R., 2013. Ecosystem services and
energy crops −spatial differentiation of risks. Ekológia (Bratislava) 32 (1),
13–29.
Bastian, O., Grunewald, K., Syrbe, R.U., Walz, U., Wende, W., 2014. Landscape
services: the concept and its practical relevance. Landscape Ecol. 29 (9),
1463–1479.
Bormann, F.H., Likens, G.E., 1979. Catastrophic disturbance and the steady state in
Northern Hardwood Forests: a new look at the role of disturbance in the
development of forest ecosystems suggests important implications for
land-use policies. Am. Sci. 67 (6), 660–669.
Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized
environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 63 (2–3), 616–626.
Boyd, J., 2007. Nonmarket benefits of nature: what should be counted in green
GDP? Ecol. Econ. 61 (4), 716–723.
Brown, G., Fagerholm, N., 2015. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem
services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst. Serv. 13, 119–133.
Burel, F., Baudry, J., 2003. Landscape Ecology. Science Publishers.
Burkhard, B., Crossman, N., Nedkov, S., Petz, K., Alkemade, R., 2013. Mapping and
modelling ecosystem services for science policy and practice. Ecosyst. Serv. 4,
1–3.
Conrad, E., Christie, M., Fazey, I., 2011. Is research keeping up with changes in
landscape policy? A review of the literature. J. Environ. Manage. 92 (9),
2097–2108.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M.,
1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature
387, 253–260, Available from: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/benefits conference/
nature paper.pdf.
Costanza, R., 2008. Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed.
Biol. Conserv. 141 (2), 350–352.
Council of Europe, 2000. European Landscape Convention. Council of Europe,
Strasbourg.
Council of Europe, 2005. Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of
Cultural Heritage for Society. Council of Europe, Faro.
Crossman, N.D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, I., Drakou,
E.G., Martín-López, B., McPhearson, T., Boyanova, K., Alkemade, R., Egoh, B.,
Dunbar, M.B., Maes, J., 2013. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem
services. Ecosyst. Serv. 4, 4–14.
Daily, G., 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems.
Island Press, Washington DC.
Daily, G.C., 1999. Developing a scientific basis for managing Earth’s life support
systems. Ecol. Soc. 3 (2), 14.
de Groot, R., 2006. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use
conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape
Urban Plann. 75 (3–4), 175–186.
De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A., Boumans, R., 2002. A typology for the classification,
description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol.
Econ. 41 (3), 393–408.
DeVries, B., Decuyper, M., Verbesselt, J., Zeileis, A., Herold, M., Joseph, S., 2015.
Tracking disturbance-regrowth dynamics in tropical forests using structural
change detection and Landsat time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 169, 320–334.
Dee, N., Baker, J., Drobny, N., Duke, K., Whitman, I., Fahringer, D., 1973. An
environmental evaluation system for water resource planning. Water Resour.
Res. 9, 523–535.
EEA, 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) v.
4.3 (January 2013). European Environment Agency (EEA). Available from:
http://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2015/09/CICES-V4-3- -17-01-13a.xlsx.
Egoh, B., Drakou, E.G., Dunbar, M.B., Maes, J., Willemen, L., 2012. Indicators for
Mapping Ecosystem Services: a Review. Publications Office of the European
Union, Luxembourg.
Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., 1981. Extinction: the Causes and Consequences of the
Disappearance of Species. Random House, New York.
Eigenbrod, F., Armsworth, P.R., Anderson, B.J., Heinemeyer, A., Gillings, S., Roy, D.B.,
Thomas, C.D., Gaston, K.J., 2010a. The impact of proxy-based methods on
mapping the distribution of ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 47 (2), 377–385.
Eigenbrod, F., Armsworth, P.R., Anderson, B.J., Heinemeyer, A., Gillings, S., Roy, D.B.,
Thomas, C.D., Gaston, K.J., 2010b. Error propagation associated with benefits
transfer-based mapping of ecosystem services. Biol. Conserv. 143 (11),
2487–2493.
Eppink, F.V., Werntze, A., Mäs, S., Popp, A., Seppelt, R., 2012. Land Management and
Ecosystem Services. How Collaborative Research Programmes Can Support
Better Policies. Gaia: Okologische Perspektiven in Natur-, Geistes- und
Wirtschaftswissenschaften, 21 (1), 55–63.
Fagerholm, N., Kayhko, N., Ndumbaro, F., Khamis, M., 2012. Community
stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments − Mapping indicators for
landscape services. Ecol. Indic. 18, 421–433.
503
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., 2008. Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biol.
Conserv. 141 (5), 1167–1169.
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem
services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68 (3), 643–653.
Forman, R.T.T., Godron, M., 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons
Incorporated.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2011. Common International Classification of
Ecosystem Services (CICES): 2011 Update. European Environment Agency.
Hainz-Renetzeder, C., Schneidergruber, A., Kuttner, M., Wrbka, T., 2015. Assessing
the potential supply of landscape services to support ecological restoration of
degraded landscapes: a case study in the Austrian-Hungarian trans-boundary
region of Lake Neusiedl. Ecol. Modell. 295, 196–206.
Hamel, P., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Sim, S., Mueller, C., 2015. A new approach to
modeling the sediment retention service (InVEST 3.0): Case study of the Cape
Fear catchment North Carolina, USA. Sci. Total Environ. 524–525, 166–177.
Hauck, J., Görg, C., Varjopuro, R., Ratamäki, O., Maes, J., Wittmer, H., Jax, K., 2013.
‘Maps have an air of authority’: Potential benefits and challenges of ecosystem
service maps at different levels of decision making. Ecosyst. Serv. 4, 25–32.
Helliwell, D.R., 1969. Valuation of wildlife resources. Reg. Stud. 3 (1), 41–47.
Herlin, I.S., 2007. New challenges in the field of spatial planning: landscapes.
Landscape Res. 29 (4), 399–411.
Hermann, A., Schleifer, S., Wrbka, T., 2011. The concept of ecosystem services
regarding landscape research: a review. Liv. Rev. Landsc. Res. 5 (1), 1–37.
Hermann, Á., Kuttner, M., Hainz-Renetzeder, C., Konkoly-Gyuró, É., Tirászi, Á.,
Brandenburg, C., Allex, B., Ziener, K., Wrbka, T., 2014. Assessment framework
for landscape services in European cultural landscapes: an Austrian Hungarian
case study. Ecol. Indic. 37, 229–240, PART A.
Higgins, S., Mahon, M., McDonagh, J., 2012. Interdisciplinary interpretations and
applications of the concept of scale in landscape research. J. Environ. Manage.
113, 137–145.
Hoyer, R., Chang, H., 2014. Assessment of freshwater ecosystem services in the
tualatin and Yamhill basins under climate change and urbanization. Appl.
Geogr. 53, 402–416.
King, R.T., 1966. Wildlife and man. N. Y. Conserv. 20 (6), 8–11.
Koschke, L., Fuerst, C., Frank, S., Makeschin, F., 2012. A multi-criteria approach for
an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to
support landscape planning. Ecol. Indic. 21, 54–66.
Krovakova, K., Semeradova, S., Mudrochova, M., Skalos, J., 2015. Landscape
functions and their change—a review on methodological approaches. Ecol. Eng.
75, 378–383.
Lacoste, M., Minasny, B., McBratney, A., Michot, D., Viaud, V., Walter, C., 2014. High
resolution 3D mapping of soil organic carbon in a heterogeneous agricultural
landscape. Geoderma 213, 296–311.
Lamarque, P., Quetier, F., Lavorel, S., 2011. The diversity of the ecosystem services
concept and its implications for their assessment and management. Comp.
Rendus Biol. 334 (5–6), 441–449.
MEA, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment. Island Press, Washington DC.
MEA, 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment.
Island Press, Washington DC.
Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J.P., Grizzetti,
B., Drakou, E.G., Notte, A.L., Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F., Luisa Paracchini, M., Braat,
L., Bidoglio, G., 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and
decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 1 (1), 31–39.
Malinga, R., Gordon, L.J., Jewitt, G., Lindborg, R., 2015. Mapping ecosystem services
across scales and continents—a review. Ecosyst. Serv. 13, 57–63.
Mao, Q.Z., Huang, G.L., Wu, J.G., 2015. Urban ecosystem services: a review. Chin. J.
Appl. Ecol. 26 (4), 1023–1033.
Martinez-Harms, M.J., Balvanera, P., 2012. Methods for mapping ecosystem service
supply: a review. Int. J. Biodiver. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage. 8 (1–2), 17–25.
Mastrangelo, M.E., Weyland, F., Villarino, S.H., Barral, M.P., Nahuelhual, L., Laterra,
P., 2014. Concepts and methods for landscape multifunctionality and a
unifying framework based on ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 29 (2),
345–358, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9959-9.
Meyer, M.A., Chand, T., Priess, J.A., 2015. Comparing bioenergy production sites in
the southeastern US regarding ecosystem service supply and demand. PLoS
One 10 (3), e0116336.
Nassauer, J.I., 2012. Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban
ecological design. Landscape Urban Plann. 106 (3), 221–229.
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D.R., Chan,
K.M.A., Daily, G.C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts,
T.H., Shaw, M.R., 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity
conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front.
Ecol. Environ. 7 (1), 4–11.
Nemec, K.T., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., 2013. The use of geographic information
systems to map and assess ecosystem services. Biodiver. Conserv. 22 (1), 1–15.
Portman, M.E., 2013. Ecosystem services in practice: challenges to real world
implementation of ecosystem services across multiple landscapes—a critical
review. Appl. Geogr. 45, 185–192.
Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R., Heink, U., Jax, K., 2014. OpenNESS Glossary (V2.0).
[online]. Available from: http://www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-
book.
Seppelt, R., Dormann, C.F., Eppink, F.V., Lautenbach, S., Schmidt, S., 2011. A
quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings
and the road ahead. J. Appl. Ecol. 48 (3), 630–636.
504 O. Englund et al. / Ecological Indicators 73 (2017) 492–504
Seppelt, R., Fath, B., Burkhard, B., Fisher, J.L., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lautenbach, S., Pert,
P., Hotes, S., Spangenberg, J., Verburg, P.H., van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., 2012. Form
follows function?: proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments
based on reviews and case studies. Ecol. Indic. 21, 145–154.
Soto, C., Palomares, F., 2015. Coexistence of sympatric carnivores in relatively
homogeneous Mediterranean landscapes: functional importance of habitat
segregation at the fine-scale level. Oecologia.
Stephens, P.A., Pettorelli, N., Barlow, J., Whittingham, M.J., Cadotte, M.W., 2015.
Management by proxy? The use of indices in applied ecology. J. Appl. Ecol. 52
(1), 1–6.
TEEB, 2010a. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and
Economic Foundations. Earthscan, London.
TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the
Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and
recommendations of TEEB. doc.teebweb.org.
Termorshuizen, J.W., Opdam, P., 2009. Landscape services as a bridge between
landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol. 24 (8),
1037–1052.
Troy, A., Wilson, M.A., 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and
opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecol. Econ. 60 (2), 435–449.
Turner, M.G., 1989. Landscape ecology—the effect of pattern on process. Annu. Rev.
Ecol. Syst. 20 (1), 171–197.
UNESCO, 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage. unesdoc.unesco.org. Paris: The General Conference of the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural. Organization (UNESCO).
Ungaro, F., Zasada, I., Piorr, A., 2014. Mapping landscape services: spatial synergies
and trade-offs. A case study using variogram models and geostatistical
simulations in an agrarian landscape in North-East Germany. Ecol. Indic. 46,
367–378.
Vallés-Planells, M., Galiana, F., Van Eetvelde, V., 2014. A classification of landscape
services to support local landscape planning. Ecol. Soc. 19 (1) (art44).
Vihervaara, P., Kumpula, T., Tanskanen, A., Burkhard, B., 2010. Ecosystem
services–A tool for sustainable management of human–environment systems.
Case study Finnish Forest Lapland. Ecol. Complexity 7 (3), 410–420.
Wallace, K.J., 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions.
Biol. Conserv. 139 (3–4), 235–246.
Willemen, L., Hein, L., Verburg, P.H., 2010. Evaluating the impact of regional
development policies on future landscape services. Ecol. Econ. 69 (11),
2244–2254.
Willemen, L., Veldkamp, A., Verburg, P.H., Hein, L., Leemans, R., 2012. A multi-scale
modelling approach for analysing landscape service dynamics. J. Environ.
Manage. 100, 86–95.
Willemen, L., Burkhart, B., Crossman, N., Drakou, E.G., Palomo, I., 2015. Editorial:
best practices for mapping ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 13, 1–5.
Zhang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., Swinton, S.M., 2007. Ecosystem
services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 64 (2), 253–260.