Ten years of ecosystem services matrix: Review of a (r)evolution

With the Ecosystem Service (ES) concept's popularisation, the need for robust and practical methodologies for ES assessments has increased. The ES matrix approach, linking ecosystem types or other geospatial units with ES in easy-to-apply lookup tables, was first developed ten years ago and, since then, has been broadly used. Whereas detailed methodological guidelines can be found in literature, the ES matrix approach seems to be often used in a quick (and maybe even "quick and dirty”) way. Based on a reviewa of scientific publications, in which the ES matrix approach was used, we present the diversity of application contexts, highlight trends of uses and propose future recommendations for improved applications of the ES matrix. A total of 109 studies applying the ES matrix approach and one methodological study without concrete applications were considered for the review. Amongst the main patterns observed, the ES matrix approach allows the assessment of a higher number of ES than other ES assessment methods. ES can be jointly assessed with indicators for ecosystem condition and biodiversity in the ES matrix. Although the ES matrix allows us consider many data sources to achieve the assessment scores for the individual ES, in the reviewed studies, these were mainly used together with expert-based scoring (73%) and/or ES scores that were based on an already-published ES matrix or deduced by information found in related scientific publications (51%). We must acknowledge that 27% of the studies did not clearly explain their methodology. This points out a lack of method elucidation on how the data had been used and where the scores came from. Although some studies addressed the need to consider variabilities and uncertainties in ES assessments, only a minority of studies (15%) did so. Our review shows that, in 29% of the studies, an already-existing matrix was used as an initial matrix for the assessment (mainly the same matrix from one of the Burkhard et al. papers). In 16% of the reviewed studies, no other data were used for the matrix scores or no adaptation of the existing matrix used was made. However, the actual idea of the ES scores, included in the Burkhard et al.'s matrices published 10 years ago, was to provide some examples and give inspiration for one's own studies. Therefore, we recommend to use only scores assessed for a specific study or, if one wishes to use pre-existing scores from another study, to revise them in depth, taking into account the local context of the new assessment. We also recommend to systematically report and consider variabilities and uncertainties in each ES assessment. We emphasise the need for all scientific studies to describe clearly and extensively the whole methodology used to score or evaluate ES in order to be able to rate the quality of the scores obtained. In conclusion, the application of the ES matrix has to become more transparent and integrate more variability analyses. The increasing number of studies that use the ES matrix approach confirms its success, appropriability, flexibility and utility for decision-making, as well as its ability to increase awareness of ES

Mapping and assessing ecosystems and their services: a comparative approach to ecosystem service supply in Suriname and French Guiana

Current environmental resource management policies acknowledge the need to manage and conserve biodiversity. Sustaining good ecosystem conditions and ecosystem services (ES) is imperative at and across multiple spatial scales. The ES concept is a valuable tool to communicate the benefits that nature provides to people. In the Guiana Shield, neighbouring countries share landscapes and ecosystems, and therefore also the services they supply. This study presents the first spatial ES assessments at territorial level for Suriname and French Guiana. Expert-based ES supply matrices were used and analysed in combination with Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) data to compile ES capacity maps for the two territories. In comparison, both ES supply matrices showed a high degree of similarity–forest ecosystems scored the highest ES capacities, followed by aquatic and marine ecosystems. Agricultural and urban land cover showed weak to moderate capacities for ES supply. A statistical analysis revealed a 30% difference of the two matrix assessments. Expert scores given for ES in Suriname exceeded those in French Guiana, especially for urban LULC and planted forests. Sociodemographic factors such as age, gender and institutional environment were analysed to explain this difference. The diverging scores can also be attributed to the distribution and the degree of similarity of the different LULC types and, hence, ES capacities and different governance and institutional contexts of the assessments. Comparative evaluations are essential to understand the differences in perception of ES supply capacities and to underpin future knowledge-based bilateral conservation policies and funding decisions by governments and managers

Influence of Workload on Auditory Evoked Potentials in a Single-stimulus Paradigm

Mental workload can be assessed via neurophysiological markers. Temporal features such as event related potentials (ERPs) are one of those which are very often described in the literature. However, most of the studies that evaluate their sensitivity to workload use secondary tasks. Yet potentials elicited by ignored stimuli could provide mental state monitoring systems with less intrusive probing methods. For instance, auditory probing systems could be used in adaptive driving or e-learning applications. This study evaluates how workload influences auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) elicited by a single-stimulus paradigm when probes are to be ignored. Ten participants performed a Sternberg memory task on a touchpad with three levels of difficulty plus a view-only condition. In addition, they performed two ecological tasks of their choice, one deemed easy (e.g. reading novels), and the other difficult (e.g. programming). AEPs were elicited thanks to pure tones presented during the memory task retention period, and during the whole extent of the external tasks. Performance and AEPs were recorded and analyzed. Participants’ accuracy decreased linearly with increasing workload, whereas the difference in amplitude between the P3 and its adjacent components, N2 and SW, increased. This reveals the relevance of this triphasic sequence for mental workload assessment

Engaging at the science-policy interface as an early-career researcher: experiences and perceptions in biodiversity and ecosystem services research

Effective knowledge exchange at science-policy interfaces (SPIs) can foster evidence-informed policy-making through the integration of a wide range of knowledge inputs. This is especially crucial for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES), human well-being and sustainable development. Early-career researchers (ECRs) can contribute significantly to knowledge exchange at SPIs. Recognizing that, several capacity building programs focused on sustainability have been introduced recently. However, little is known about the experiences and perceptions of ECRs in relation to SPIs. Our study focused on SPI engagement of ECRs who conduct research on biodiversity and ES, as perceived and experienced. Specifically, we addressed ‘motivations’, ‘barriers’ and ‘opportunities and ‘benefits’. A total of 145 ECRs have completed the survey. Our results showed that ECRs were generally interested to engage in SPIs and believed it to be beneficial in terms of contributing to societal change, understanding policy processes and career development. Respondents perceived lack of understanding about involvement channels, engagement opportunities, funding, training, perceived credibility of ECRs by other actors and encouragement of senior colleagues as barriers to engaging in SPIs. Those who have already participated in SPIs generally saw fewer barriers and more opportunities. A key reason for dissatisfaction with experience in SPIs was a lack of impact and uptake of science-policy outputs by policymakers–an issue that likely extends beyond ECRs and implies the need for transformations in knowledge exchange within SPIs. In conclusion, based on insights from our survey, we outline several opportunities for increased and better facilitation of ECR engagement in SPIs. © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Are expert-based ecosystem services scores related to biophysical quantitative estimates?

Among the different approaches developed to assess ecosystem services (ES), the capacity matrix is flexible and quick to implement. The matrix is a look-up table that assigns each ecosystem type a score expressing its ES capacity. Using expert elicitation enables resource efficient and integrative ES scoring that can meet general demand for ES mapping and assessment at different scales. There is an implicit consideration that data from proxies or models would provide better estimates of ES biophysical value as expert-based scores are subjective and depend on expert preferences and therefore unreliable. To test this assumption, we compared using linear and geographically weighted regression (GWR) to compare ES scores provided by an expert panel for seven ES with eight spatial quantitative biophysical indicators at landscape scale for the French Hauts-de-France Region. We obtained statistically significant linear regression r2 between 0.03 and 0.76 and GWR r2 between 0.56 and 0.81. The hot cold maps produced using expert scores and quantitative indicators were highly correlated. We conclude that using expert knowledge through the matrix approach yields results very close to those from quantitative proxies or biophysical models for the evaluation of ES at the regional level, particularly when there is a need to evaluate many ES or in a data scarce region

May the matrix be with you! Guidelines for the application of expert-based matrix approach for ecosystem services assessment and mapping

Matrices or look-up tables are increasingly popular flexible tools for ecosystem services mapping and assessment. The matrix approach links ecosystem types or land cover types to ecosystem services by providing a score for ecosystem service (ES) capacity, supply, use, demand or other concepts. Using expert elicitation enables quick and integrative ES scoring that can meet general demand for validated ES mapping and assessment at different scales. Nevertheless, guidance is needed on how to collect and integrate expert knowledge to address some of the biases and limits of the expert elicitation method. This paper aims to propose a set of guidelines to produce ES matrices based on expert knowledge. It builds on existing literature and experience acquired through the production of several ES matrices in several ES assessments carried out in France. We propose a 7-steps methodology for the expert-based matrix approach that aims to promote cogency in the method and coherency in the matrices produced. The aim here is to use collective knowledge to produce semi-quantitative estimates of ES quantities and not to analyse individual or societal preferences or importance of ES. The definition of the objectives and the preparation phase is particularly important in order to define the components of capacity to demand ES chain to be addressed. The objectives and the ES components addressed will influence the composition of the expert panel. We recommend an individual filling of an empty matrix in order to strengthen the statistical analysis of the scores' variability and the analysis of congruency between experts. Expert scoring should follow a process of discussion, information-sharing and collective appropriation of a list of ecosystem types and ES to be assessed. We suggest that the ES matrix should not only focus on ES central scores but also address the variabilities and uncertainties as part of the ES assessment. The analysis of these sources of variability allows the documentation of variations in the ES quantity but also an exploration into the lack of consensus or knowledge gaps that needs to be addressed

Les services écosystémiques au sein du Parc Naturel Régional de Brière : évaluation et vulnérabilité au changement climatique

Ce rapport s’apppui sur les travaux réalisé dans le cadre du mémoire de master de l’Université de Rennes réalisé par Tom Baudouin sous la supervision de Philip Roche (INRAe) et Grégory Jechoux(PNR de Brière) en 2021

Refining the Tiered Approach for Mapping and Assessing Ecosystem Services at the Local Scale: A Case Study in a Rural Landscape in Northern Germany

International audienceSpatially explicit assessments of ecosystem services (ES) potentials are a key component in supporting a sustainable land use management. The ES matrix method is a commonly used approach as it allows for a comparably fast, comprehensible and accessible ES assessment. As it is often based on land use/land cover data (LULC) with no spatial variability, a main critique is that the results fail to assess spatial variability at landscape levels, which limits the reliability of the outputs for spatial planning applications. By using the case study area of Bornhöved in northern Germany, we analysed three assessment methods that combine expert judgments, LULC data with different resolutions and ecosystem condition indicators, in order to find the required resolution and data for ES assessment and mapping at a local scale. To quantify map discrepancies, we used the structural similarity index (SSIM) and analysed the differences in local mean, variance and covariance between the maps. We found that using different spatial resolutions led to a relatively small difference in the outcomes, in which regulation and maintenance services are more affected than the other services categories. For most regulation, maintenance and cultural ES, our results indicate that assessments based only on LULC proxies are not suitable for a local quantitative assessment of ES, as they cannot sufficiently cover the spatial heterogeneity of ES capacities that arise from different ecosystem conditions

What evidence exists on how changes in marine ecosystem structure and functioning affect ecosystem services delivery? A systematic map protocol

Background The current biodiversity crisis calls for an urgent need to sustainably manage human uses of nature. The Ecosystem Services (ES) concept defined as « the benefits humans obtain from nature » support decisions aimed at promoting nature conservation. However, marine ecosystems, in particular, endure numerous direct pressures (e.g., habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation, pollution, climate change, and the introduction of non-indigenous species) all of which threaten ecosystem structure, functioning, and the very provision of ES. While marine ecosystems often receive less attention than terrestrial ecosystems in ES literature, it would also appear that there is a heterogeneity of knowledge within marine ecosystems and within the different ES provided. Hence, a systematic map on the existing literature will aim to highlight knowledge clusters and knowledge gaps on how changes in marine ecosystems influence the provision of marine ecosystem services. This will provide an evidence base for possible future reviews, and may help to inform eventual management and policy decision-making. Methods We will search for all evidence documenting how changes in structure and functioning of marine ecosystems affect the delivery of ES, across scientific and grey literature sources. Two bibliographic databases, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection, will be used with a supplementary search undertaken in Google scholar. Multiple organisational websites related to intergovernmental agencies, supra-national or national structures, and NGOs will also be searched. Searches will be performed with English terms only without any geographic or temporal limitations. Literature screening, against predefined inclusion criteria, will be undertaken on title, abstract, and then full texts. All qualifying literature will be subjected to coding and meta-data extraction. No formal validity appraisal will be undertaken. Indeed, the map will highlight how marine ecosystem changes impact the ES provided. Knowledge gaps will be identified in terms of which ecosystem types, biodiversity components, or ES types are most or least studied and how these categories are correlated. Finally, a database will be provided, we will narratively describe this evidence base with summary figures and tables of pertinent study characteristics