Elsevier

Ecological Indicators

Volume 28, May 2013, Pages 54-78
Ecological Indicators

Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—A theoretical matrix exercise

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.09.006Get rights and content

Abstract

The ecosystem service concept is becoming more and more acknowledged in science and decision-making, resulting in several applications in different case studies and in environmental management, but still it is developing in terms of definitions, typologies and understanding its complexity. By examining the interrelations between ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity, biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being qualitatively, the mutual influences on each constituent of the ‘ecosystem service cascade’ are illuminated, giving an impulse for further discussions and improvements for a better understanding of the complexity of human–environmental systems. Results of the theoretical interactions are among others the assumption that provisioning services exclude or compete with each other, while the role of biodiversity was found to be supporting for regulating services and cultural services. Ecosystem services meet the criteria of being adequate human–environmental system indicators and therefore, they are an appropriate instrument for decision-making and management.

Highlights

▶ A holistic indicator set for ecological integrity, ecosystem services and human well-being is proposed. ▶ Interactions between ecosystem properties, ecological integrity, ecosystem services and human well-being are analyzed qualitatively. ▶ The role of biodiversity for ecosystem service provision is analyzed. ▶ The interrelations between ecosystem services show potentials on mutual support and competition. ▶ Challenges for further investigations are elaborated and the opportunity for the development of systems analyses is given.

Introduction

Throughout the recent debates on ecosystem services several problems, methods, concepts and solutions have been discussed intensively. In this essay two indicator-related key questions will be posed: Are ecosystem services really recommendable instruments to improve environmental management? How are these numerous services related to basic ecological variables, biodiversity and ecosystem functions, and which are the relations between the services? We want to contribute to the ongoing debate with some proposals and analyses for a better understanding of the dominating interrelations. As ecological indicators are mainly discussed as tools of environmental management, the starting point of this article is the question if and in which way ecosystem services can be used as indicators in human–environmental systems. We will begin with the suggestion of a respective indicator set, and then move to a description of the subsequent interactions which finally lead to ecosystem services. In the end we will discuss the consequences of the complex processes that ‘produce’ ecosystem services for their indicative features and potentials.

To examine the suitability of the ecosystem service approach for environmental indication in the 10 years anniversary volume of ‘Ecological Indicators’, we want to begin with a short general characterization of the term indicator. Following Wiggering and Müller (2004), indicators are variables which provide aggregated information on certain phenomena. Indicators are selected on the base of specific management purposes, with an integrating, synoptical value, which (in the optimal case) shows the difference between existing states and aspired target situations. Indicators are also comprehended as depictions of qualities, quantities, states or interactions that are not directly accessible. Heink and Kowarik (2010, p. 590) propose a general definition which distinguishes utilisations from descriptive, evaluative or prescriptive viewpoints in assessing states and trends: “An indicator in ecology and environmental planning is a component or a measure of environmentally relevant phenomena used to depict or evaluate environmental conditions or changes or to set environmental goals”. The selection of indicators must be carefully attuned to the purpose and aim of the corresponding survey, especially in management and monitoring programmes (Dale and Beyeler, 2001). To assess the state of the environment, in most cases not only a single indicator is needed but a set of indicators which has to be wisely selected (Niemeijer and de Groot, 2008, van Oudenhoven et al., 2012). Indicators also help to understand better complex realities. Therefore, indicators are communication instruments that help to reduce the complexity of human–environmental systems.

To fulfil these ambitious roles, several demands have to be formulated concerning the quality of indicators. Table 1 lists the prerequisites indicators should have to provide scientific correctness. Besides demands such as a clear relationship between indicator and indicandum (the object of indication), an optimal sensitivity (Heink and Kowarik, 2010, Dale and Beyeler, 2001) or a good fulfilment of statistical claims, one aspect is especially important for this paper: that is the necessity of clear and relevant cause–effect-relations. We will show how complicated that discerning requirement can be.

The practical demands on indicators are summarized in Table 2. We can find features like information on normative loadings, high political relevance or a satisfying measurability. Here we want to highlight the demand for a high public transparency. Can this really be attained in management units with complex systemic relations, such as human–environmental systems?

To approach the ecosystem service concept, the branch of human–environmental systems has to be illuminated in the next step (Kotchen and Young, 2007, Walker et al., 2006). These units, comprising ecological structures and processes as well as economic, social and cultural items, have an enormous complexity and a widespread range of regional specialities. A common structure of these complex interrelations (see Fig. 1) can be sketched on the base of the DPSIR (Drivers, Pressures, State, Impact, Response) approach (Burkhard and Müller, 2008). The basic idea is that certain social, demographic and economic developments in societies and the corresponding changes in motivations and lifestyles, overall levels of consumption and production patterns – the drivers – produce pressures. This category includes developments in release of substances (e.g. emissions), physical and biological agents, the concrete utilisation of resources and the use of land by human activities. The corresponding inputs into an ecological system change the state of the environment, which refers to the quantifiable and qualitative physical, biological and chemical conditions in a defined area. Due to these changes, there are impacts on natural and human systems which we understand as changes in the provision of ecosystem goods and services and in the socio-economic system. Finally, after these changes have been perceived, actions are carried out by society and governments to minimize the negative impacts imposed on the whole system (response).

Fig. 1 shows the linkage between environmental state descriptions (ecosystems and biodiversity) and human systems (human well-being) as a part of the DPSIR adaptive management cycle, based on the ‘ecosystem service cascade’ from Haines-Young and Potschin (2010a). In this comprehension, the state can be described by several biophysical structures and processes (single ecosystem properties) which are linked in the class of ecosystem functions. These functions, which will be aggregated as indicators of ecosystem integrity in the following, are understood as the base for ecosystem service provision. Thus, ecosystem services are “the contributions of ecosystem structure and function – in combination with other inputs – to human well-being” (Burkhard et al., 2012a, p. 2). These supports of quality of life can be valued on the basis of many different approaches (Carpenter and Turner, 2000, Ludwig, 2000, Spangenberg and Settele, 2010) with respect to human well-being, which is understood as an aggregate of multiple constituents, including basic material for a good life, freedom of choice, health, good social relations, and security by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2003).

Here, we want to concentrate on the ecologically-dominated elements of the ‘ecosystem service cascade’ and on the interactions between the different components. The related question is, whether it is really possible to describe the basic interactions in a manner that produces more than frustration due to the enormous inherent complexity. The significance of this question can be derived from the facts that (cp. Marques et al., 2009b)

  • the ecosystem service approach, as an integration of ecological, social and economic items, needs a formulation of concrete cause–effect-chains or webs between the single components in order to become accepted;

  • the necessary interdisciplinary cooperation must rely on clear information about the linkage points between the different components from Fig. 1;

  • environmental management needs to know by which relations ecosystem services are produced, in order to better plan modifications and improvements of land use;

  • developers and applicants must be aware of the enormous complexity which they are operating in, in order to assess the inherent uncertainties;

  • the search for a linkage between nature protection and ecosystem service provision must be based on a realistic valuation of the functional web which the biodiversity components are operating in.

Consequently, the objectives of this article are, to propose a short up-to-date overview of ecosystem service classifications and indicators and, to show the interrelations between ecosystem properties, biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, ecosystem services and human well-being. We believe that it is of uttermost importance to not only focus on single services or properties for decision-making and management, but to consider the relations between the individual components of human–environmental systems. For the provision of ecosystem services individual species and their characteristics are necessary as service providing units (Kontogianni et al., 2012, Kontogianni et al., 2010, Luck et al., 2009, Luck et al., 2003, Syrbe and Walz, 2012). In this context we will try to answer the following three questions:

  • How can we arrange a suitable indicator framework which enables ecosystem service assessments for landscape management?

  • Which are the most significant interactions between the different components of the ‘ecosystem service cascade’ and how can we depict them in a qualitative manner?

  • Which is the special contribution of biodiversity compared with other parameters of ecosystem functionality?

To find appropriate answers, we start with an overview of the ecological integrity indicanda and their indicators in the next chapter. We will move forward to the proposition of potential indicators for the quantification of ecosystem services in Section 3 and human well-being criteria in Section 4. Thereafter, the interrelations between ecosystem properties, ecological integrity, ecosystem services and human well-being criteria are represented in several matrices showing positive, negative or non-relevant effects (Section 5). Finally, the outcome of this analysis is discussed and some conclusions are drawn.

Section snippets

Indicating ecosystem integrity

The starting points of the ‘ecosystem service cascade’ (Fig. 1) are biophysical structures and processes as focal elements of the indicator class ‘ecosystems and biodiversity’. These ecosystem properties, which are understood as single ecological subjects, can be aggregated in the term ‘ecosystem function’. ‘Function’ is connected with many different connotations (e.g. mathematical functions, relations between ecosystem variables, ecosystem processes, etc., see Jax, 2005). The term is often

Indicating ecosystem services

The body of literature on ecosystem services is vast and the number of publications is increasing each year (Burkhard et al., 2012b, Fisher et al., 2009, Seppelt et al., 2012, Wallace, 2007;) as well as the applications of the ecosystem service concept (e.g. Natural Capital Project, Daily et al., 2009, Egoh et al., 2007). But still challenges remain in implying this concept in landscape management and planning (de Groot et al., 2010b, van Oudenhoven et al., 2012) and several questions arise

Indicating human well-being

All ecosystem goods and services sustain human well-being and human actions. However, all ecosystems have suffered from degradations in varying magnitude by humans since decades. This has in turn negative effects on humans (e.g. in form of poverty, conflicts about resources, etc.; see MA, 2003). Thus, there are several important life-supporting relations between the described ecosystem services and the criteria of quality of life.

The significance of human well-being lies in the concept and

Interrelating the indicators

As Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 show, there are many different ecosystem services and human well-being constituents, which can be quantified by several indicators and valuing approaches. Looking into the demands for indicators in Table 1, Table 2, a clear proof of relevant cause–effect relations has been announced as a central requirement for indicator sets. That is important because managers and decision makers have to know how a desired or non-desired phenomenon comes into

Consequences and discussion

Before the outcomes of this exercise are discussed from an aggregated viewpoint, it makes sense to list the main uncertainties and potential biases related to the qualitative interaction analysis in Section 5:

  • The indicators which have been checked for interrelations have been selected on the base of only one approach to understand, develop and use ecosystem functions and ecosystem services. This approach is mainly based on the experience and background of the authors. Other attempts might work

Conclusions

In this essay a comprehensive indicator set to assess ecosystem services and ecosystem integrity at the landscape scale has been proposed. Theoretical exercises have been proposed to show the dominant direct relationships between these variables. Coming back to the initial questions of this paper (see Section 1), the following hypotheses can be stated:

  • Ecosystem services are produced by several interacting processes related to the budgets of energy, matter, water and information in ecological

References (124)

  • R.S. de Groot et al.

    A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2002)
  • R.S. de Groot et al.

    Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making

    Ecol. Complex.

    (2010)
  • B. Egoh et al.

    Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: a review

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2007)
  • B. Ferrell

    The impact of pain on quality of life. A decade of research

    Nurs. Clin. North Am.

    (1995)
  • B. Fisher et al.

    Ecosystem services: classification for valuation

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2008)
  • B. Fisher et al.

    Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2009)
  • S. Frank et al.

    A contribution towards a transfer of the ecosystem service concept to landscape planning using landscape metrics

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2012)
  • G. Fry et al.

    The ecology of visual landscapes: exploring the conceptual common ground of visual and ecological landscape indicators

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2009)
  • B. Fu et al.

    Assessing the soil erosion control service of ecosystems change in the Loess Plateau of China

    Ecol. Complex.

    (2011)
  • N. Gallai et al.

    Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2009)
  • K. Gee et al.

    Cultural ecosystem services in the context of offshore wind farming: a case study from the west coast of Schleswig-Holstein

    Ecol. Complex.

    (2010)
  • R. Haines-Young et al.

    Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: mapping marginal changes and trade-offs

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2012)
  • U. Heink et al.

    What are indicators? On the definition of indicators in ecology and environmental planning

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2010)
  • R. Hajjar et al.

    The utility of crop genetic diversity in maintaining ecosystem services

    Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.

    (2008)
  • S.E. Jørgensen et al.

    Tool boxes for an integrated ecological and environmental management

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2012)
  • A. Kontogianni et al.

    Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: a potential approach to address the ‘endpoint problem’ and improve stated preference methods

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2010)
  • M.J. Kotchen et al.

    Meeting the challenges of the anthropocene: towards a science of coupled human–biophysical systems

    Global Environ. Change

    (2007)
  • J. Krishnaswamy et al.

    Quantifying and mapping biodiversity and ecosystem services: utility of a multi-season NDVI based Mahalanobis distance surrogate

    Remote Sens. Environ.

    (2009)
  • E.G. Lamb et al.

    Indices for monitoring biodiversity change: are some more effective than others?

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2009)
  • G.W. Luck et al.

    Population diversity and ecosystem services

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2003)
  • G.M. Mace et al.

    Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2012)
  • J.C. Marques et al.

    The ecological sustainability trigon – a proposed conceptual framework for creating and testing management scenarios

    Mar. Pollut. Bull.

    (2009)
  • F. Müller

    Hierarchical approaches to ecosystem theory

    Ecol. Model.

    (1992)
  • F. Müller

    Indicating ecosystem and landscape organization

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2005)
  • S. Nedkov et al.

    Flood regulating ecosystem services – mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2012)
  • D. Niemeijer et al.

    A conceptual framework for selecting environmental indicator sets

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2008)
  • L.R. Norton et al.

    Trialling a method to quantify the ‘cultural services’ of the English landscape using Countryside Survey data

    Land Use Policy

    (2012)
  • D.J. Rapport et al.

    An EcoHealth-based framework for State of Environment Reporting

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2006)
  • J.-M. Salles

    Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: why put economic values on Nature?

    C. R. Biol.

    (2011)
  • T.H.F. Allen et al.

    Hierarchy – Perspectives for Ecological Complexity

    (1982)
  • R. Alkemade et al.

    GLOBIO3: a framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss

    Ecosystems

    (2009)
  • C. Anton et al.

    Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy

    Biodivers. Conserv.

    (2010)
  • J. Barkmann et al.

    Ökologische Integrität: Risikovorsorge im Nachhaltigen Landschaftsmanagement

    GAIA

    (2001)
  • A. Bowing

    Measuring Health. A Review of Quality of Life Measurement Scales

    (2005)
  • Braat, L., ten Brink, P. (Eds.), 2008. The cost of policy inaction: the case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity...
  • T.C. Brown et al.

    Defining, valuing, and providing ecosystem goods and services

    Nat. Resour. J.

    (2007)
  • B. Burkhard

    Ecological assessment of the reindeer husbandry system in Northern Finland

    EcoSys Suppl.

    (2004)
  • B. Burkhard et al.

    Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services – a concept for land-cover based assessments

    Landscape Online

    (2009)
  • M. Busch et al.

    Conceptualizing the link between marine ecosystem services and human well-being: the case of offshore wind farming

    Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manage.

    (2012)
  • S.R. Carpenter et al.

    Opening the black boxes: ecosystem science and economic valuation

    Ecosystems

    (2000)
  • Cited by (330)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text