Augustijn, D.C.M.

Breure, A.M.

Koopman, K.R.

Lenders, H.J.R.

Leuven, R.S.E.W.

English

NARCIS 

Suitability of landscape classification systems for quantification of ecosystem services in BIO-SAFE

Radboud Repository

PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University
Nijmegen
 
 
 
 
The following full text is a publisher's version.
 
 
For additional information about this publication click this link.
http://hdl.handle.net/2066/151170
 
 
 
Please be advised that this information was generated on 2020-09-08 and may be subject to
change.
 Book of abstracts NCR-days 2015 
 
24 
Suitability of landscape classification systems for 
quantification of ecosystem services in BIO-SAFE 
 
K.R. Koopman*1, D.C.M. Augustijn2, A.M. Breure1,3, H.J.R. Lenders1, R.S.E.W. Leuven1 
1 Radboud University, Department of Environmental Science, Institute of Water and Wetland Research, P.O. Box 
9010, 6500 GL, Nijmegen, The Netherlands 
2
 University of Twente, Twente Water Centre, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands 
3
 National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Centre for Sustainability, Environment and 
Health, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands 
* Corresponding author; e-mail: k.koopman@science.ru.nl 
 
Introduction 
In the last century, rivers have been heavily 
regulated to maintain and improve important river 
functions such as navigation, water supply and 
biodiversity. These functions are increasingly 
threatened by climate change and population 
growth, asking for shifts in river management 
strategies. The multidisciplinary RiverCare 
programme was initiated to develop tools and 
measures for creation of more self-sustaining 
rivers and reduction of management costs 
(RiverCare, 2013; Hulscher et al., 2014). 
Management cost reduction requires tools for  
evaluation of the effectiveness of riverine 
management measures. 
RiverCare subproject E2 focusses on 
ecosystem services of river-floodplain systems. 
The goal is to develop an assessment tool for  
evaluation of effects of river management 
measures on the spatiotemporal development of 
riverine ecosystems and their services (Fig. 1.). 
Starting point for development of such a tool is 
BIO-SAFE, a model by which the effects of river 
management on biodiversity can be assessed 
(Lenders et al., 2001; De Nooij et al., 2004). 
BIO-SAFE is an excel-based model that 
predicts and valuates biodiversity of a study area. 
It links landscape ecological units (ecotopes) to 
(potential) presence of certain target species and 
can be used for calculation of actual and potential 
biodiversity values of river-floodplain systems at 
various spatial scales. The biodiversity values are 
calculated using criteria that relate to the political 
and legal conservation status of target species. 
Management induced changes in surface areas 
and types of landscape units result in changes of 
biodiversity values, allowing the evaluation of 
management measures by comparing before and 
after values (Lenders et al. 2001; De Nooij et al., 
2004). 
Incorporating ecosystem services into BIO-
SAFE requires linkage of these services to 
standardized landscape units from a landscape 
classification system. An extensive literature 
review was performed to determine the suitability 
of existing landscape classification systems 
applicable for linkage to ecosystem services of 
river systems (green block in Fig. 1.). 
The aim of this research was I) to 
review landscape classification systems that 
are used across the globe; and II) to 
determine which landscape classification 
systems are applicable to rivers and most 
suited for linking and quantifying 
spatiotemporal developments of riverine 
ecosystem services in relation to 
management measures. 
 
RiverCare subproject E2: 
Ecosystem services
Quantifying the effects of river 
management measures on the 
spatiotemporal development of riverine 
ecosystem services
Literature 
review
Selecting LCSs
Developing 
indicators for ES 
quantification 
Incorporating the ecosystem services 
tool in 
BIO-SAFE
Room for the 
River case 
studies
International 
case studies
Synthesis
Figure 1. The different steps of RiverCare subproject 
E2. The place of this review in the project is indicated 
by the green block: Selecting suitable landscape 
classification systems (LCSs). (ES = Ecosystem 
services). 
 
 Book of abstracts NCR-days 2015 
 
25 
Methods 
A search for peer reviewed literature on 
landscape classification systems and their links to 
ecosystem services was performed using ISI 
Web of Knowledge (www.isiknowledge.com) and 
a set of search terms related to landscape 
classification, river systems and ecosystem 
services. All hits were screened for further 
selection. The landscape classification systems 
had to comply with our definition: ‘a landscape 
classification system describes the landscape in 
multiple classes or features that are distinctive 
from each other and spatially explicit’. Suitable 
papers were reviewed and analysed using criteria 
such as potential for linkage to ecosystem 
services, applicability to riverine landscapes and 
suitability for studying spatiotemporal 
development of landscapes and their ecosystem 
services. 
 
Results 
Out of the 546 hits, we selected 95 papers (that 
often included multiple case studies) for further 
analysis. In total, 31 (33%) papers linked 
ecosystem services to landscape units using 
either quantitative, semi-quantitative or both types 
of methods (Fig. 2). Quantitative methods 
expressed ecosystem services in biophysical or 
monetary units, while semi-quantitative methods 
gave scores indicating the potential of landscape 
units to deliver ecosystem services. The first 
paper that linked ecosystem services to various 
landscape units was published in 2002 (Konarska 
et al., 2002). It took several years before 
approaches to link ecosystem services to 
landscapes emerged in other papers. In 2005 a 
slight increase in publications linking ecosystem 
services to landscape classifications was visible, 
followed by a rapid increase after the years 2010 
/ 2011. Only 25 (26%) of the selected papers 
applied landscape classifications to rivers. 
We found several landscape classification 
systems that are suitable for incorporation in the 
new BIO-SAFE ecosystem services tool. Table 1 
provides three examples that allow classification 
on different scales: 1) CORINE covers most of 
Europe (EEA, 1995), and is applicable to rivers. 
Several times it has been linked to ecosystem 
services and it is already incorporated in BIO-
SAFE. 2) The Dutch RWES classification 
(Rijkswateren-Ecotopenstelsel) was specifically 
designed to classify Dutch river systems (Van der 
Molen et al., 2000; Willems et al., 2007) and is 
also incorporated in BIO-SAFE. So far, the 
RWES classification has not been linked to 
ecosystem services. 3) The GLC2000 has a 
global coverage and can also be applied to rivers 
(Mayaux et al., 2006). It can be incorporated into 
BIO-SAFE and has been linked to ecosystem 
services. Furthermore, the GLC2000 was used in 
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 
the United Nations (MEA, 2005). Only 
CORINE has been used to study the effects 
of landscape changes on ecosystem 
services performance (Scollozi et al., 2012), 
but the RWES and GLC2000 classifications 
are also considered suitable. 
 
Figure 2. The cumulative number of papers that linked 
ecosystem services to landscape classification 
systems (LCSs), using different methods (see legend 
in figure).  
 
Table 1. Landscape classification systems that can be 
applied to river systems, incorporated in BIO-SAFE 
and linked to ecosystem services (1 = Is the LCS 
applicable to rivers-floodplain systems?; 2 = Is the LCS 
already incorporated in BIO-SAFE?; 3 = Have 
ecosystem services been linked to LCS?; 4 = Has the 
LCS been used for studying effects of landscape 
changes on ecosystem service performance?) (+ = 
yes; - = no; (+) =  considered suitable for this category).  
Name Rivers1 BIO-
SAFE2 
ES3 Spatio-
temporal 
ES4 
CORINE + + + + 
RWES + + - (+) - (+) 
GLC2000 + - (+) + - (+) 
 
Discussion 
We reviewed landscape classification 
systems that are used worldwide for a wide 
range of purposes and different types of 
landscapes. About 26% of these landscape 
classification systems were applied to 
riverine landscapes. Most of these systems 
classify both the terrestrial and aquatic part 
of the river system. However, some only 
focussed on either the aquatic or terrestrial 
part of the river system. Only six of these 
river-applicable landscape classification 
systems were linked to ecosystem services.  
The number of papers linking 
ecosystem services to landscape 
 Book of abstracts NCR-days 2015 
 
26 
classification systems increased significantly after 
the publications of major international ecosystem 
services works such as: the Millennium 
Ecosystem Assessment in 2005 (MEA, 2005), the 
TEEB reports in 2010 (TEEB, 2010) and the 
CICES classification in 2011 (Haines-Young and 
Potschin, 2011) (Fig. 2). Initial linking was only 
quantitative using monetary units. The publication 
of these major works provided new approaches 
and methods that were picked up by the scientific 
community. Especially the semi-quantitative 
approach was used often in recent studies (Fig. 
2). In this approach, expert judgement was used 
to determine the landscapes’ capacity to deliver 
ecosystem services. The use of this method 
offers a relatively ‘quick and easy’ approach to 
identify the ecosystem services of a given study 
area. Furthermore, it allows for comparing the 
delivery of different ecosystem services among 
each other. However, the method also possesses 
a level of subjectivity which, on the other hand, 
might also be useful when the experts involved 
are also stakeholders in the area. It thus enables 
the incorporation of different stakeholders’ views 
in the ecosystem services assessment. The 
number of papers describing biophysical 
quantification of ecosystem services through 
indicators was very limited.  
We found several landscape classification 
systems that are suitable for the development of 
an ecosystem services tool in BIO-SAFE, e.g. the 
systems listed in Table 1. More suitable 
classification systems exist and are described 
extensively in Koopman et al. (in prep.) The main 
advantage of using CORINE and the RWES 
classification is that they are incorporated already 
in BIO-SAFE. Both systems are applicable to 
rivers. CORINE has already proven to be suitable 
for biophysical quantification of ecosystem 
services (Burkhard et al., 2009). Furthermore, 
CORINE is applicable across Europe to multiple 
scales (continental, national and regional) 
allowing the ecosystem services tool to be 
applied at an international level. However, since 
CORINE’s resolution might be rather coarse for 
application on regional scales, it is an option to 
use the RWES classification for this level of 
scale. Preliminary results indicate that it is 
feasible to link the ecological landscape units of 
the RWES classification to indicators for various 
ecological functions and the state of ecosystem 
services. Since, the RWES classification was 
designed to classify Dutch river-floodplain 
systems, direct application in other countries 
might prove difficult due to, for instance, missing 
specific landscape types (e.g. braided rivers or 
mountainous headwaters). However, it should be 
achievable to extend the RWES classification by 
incorporating additional ecotope types. The 
GLC2000 might be useful for assessment of 
ecosystem services at larger scales or in 
other biogeographical regions than Europe. 
This landscape classification system is 
suitable for ecosystem services linking and 
is also applicable to rivers. It has not been 
incorporated in BIO-SAFE yet, but 
considering its landscape classes, there are 
ample possibilities to do this. For application 
on national levels, however, the resolution 
of the GLC2000 might be too coarse 
(Schulp and Alkemade, 2011). So far, only 
CORINE has been used to determine 
effects of landscape changes on ecosystem 
services (Scollozi et al., 2012). However, it 
is expected that all three classification 
systems can take spatiotemporal 
development of ecosystem services into 
account using transition matrices.  
Although we found several landscape 
classification systems that are potentially 
suitable for the development of an 
ecosystem services tool in BIO-SAFE, 
knowledge on indicators for biophysical 
quantification is still very limited and 
scattered across the literature. Furthermore, 
we did not find any approaches or case 
studies that assessed spatiotemporal 
development of ecosystem services in 
relation to river management measures.  
 
Future work  
Future work will focus on development of 
biophysical indicators for quantification of 
ecosystem services and studying how these 
indicators may be coupled to ecosystem 
quality and develop spatiotemporally in 
relation to various types of river 
management measures (Fig. 1). 
 
Acknowledgements 
These results of our study were also 
presented on the 2nd International I.S. 
Rivers Conference in Lyon, 22-26 June, 
2015 
This research is part of the research 
programme RiverCare, supported by the 
Dutch Technology Foundation STW, which 
is part of the Netherlands Organization for 
Scientific Research (NWO), and which is 
partly funded by the Ministry of Economic 
Affairs under grant number P12-14 
(Perspective Programme). 
 
References 
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., Windhorst, W. (2009) 
Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem 
services – a concept for land-cover bases 
assessment. Landscape Online, 15: 1-22. 
De Nooij, R.J.W., Lenders, H.J.R., Leuven, R.S.E.W., 
De Blust, G., Geilen, N., Goldschmidt, B., Muller, S., 
Poudevigne, I., Nienhuis, P.H. (2004) BIO-SAFE: 
Assessing the impact of physical reconstruction on 
 Book of abstracts NCR-days 2015 
 
27 
protected and endangered species. River Research and 
Applications, 20: 299-313. 
EEA (1995) CORINE Land Cover Report, Commission of the 
European Communities. 
Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. (2011) Common International 
Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): 2011 
Update. European Environment Agency. Brussels, Belgium. 
Hulscher, S.J.M.H., Schielen, R.M.J., Augustijn, D.C.M., 
Warmink, J.J., Van der Voort, M.C., Middelkoop, H., 
Kleinhans, M.G., Leuven, R.S.E.W., Lenders, H.J.R., Smits, 
A.J.M., Fliervoet, J.M., Uijttewaal, W.S.J., Blom, A., 
Wallinga, J., Hoitink, A.J.F., Buijse, A.D., Geerling, G.W., 
Makaske, B. (2014) RiverCare: towards self-sustaining 
multifunctional rivers. In: Augustijn, D.C.M & J.J. Warmink 
(Eds.), Book of Abstracts NCR-Days 2014, Enschede, 
October 2-3. NCR-Publication 38-2014. Netherlands Centre 
for River Studies, Delft. p. 13-14. 
Koopman, K.R., Augustijn, D.C.M., Breure, A.M., Lenders, 
H.J.R., Leuven, R.S.E.W. Landscape classification systems 
for quantifying spatiotemporal development of riverine 
ecosystem services. In prep. 
Konarska, K.M., Sutton, P.C., Castellon, M. (2002) Evaluating 
scale dependence of ecosystem service valuation: a 
comparison of NOAA-AVHRR and Landsat TM datasets. 
Ecological Economics, 41: 491-507. 
Lenders, H.J.R., Leuven, R.S.E.W., Nienhuis, P.H., De Nooij, 
R.J.W., Van Rooij, S.A.M. (2001) BIO-SAFE: a method for 
the evaluation of biodiversity values on the basis of political 
and legal criteria. Landscape and Urban Planning, 55: 121-
137. 
Mayaux, P., Eva, H., Gallego, J., Strahler, A.H., Herold, M., 
Agrawal, S., Naumov, S., Eduardo De Miranda, E., Di Bella, 
C.M., Orodyne, C., Kopin, Y., Roy, P.S. (2006) Validation of 
the Global Land Cover 2000 Map. IEEE Transactions 
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 44: 1728-1739. 
MEA (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 
Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. 
Island Press. Washington DC, U.S.A. 
RiverCare (2013) RiverCare: towards self-sustaining 
multifunctional rivers. STW. Utrecht, The 
Netherlands. 
Schulp, C.J.E., Alkemade, R. (2011) Consequences of 
uncertainty in global-scale land cover maps for 
mapping ecosystem functions: An analysis of 
pollination efficiency. Remote Sensing, 3: 2057-2075. 
Scollozi, R., Morri, E., Santolini, R. (2012) Delphi-
based change assessment in ecosystem services 
values to support strategic spatial planning in Italian 
landscapes. Ecological Indicators, 21: 134-144. 
TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and 
Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature: 
A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and 
recommendations of TEEB. Progress Press. Malta.  
Van der Molen, D.T., Aarts, H.P.A., Backx, JJ.G.M., 
Geilen, E.F.M., Platteeuw, M. (2000) RWES 
aquatisch. Institute for Inland Water 
Management and Waste Water Treatment 
(RIZA), RIZA rapport 2000.0.38. Lelystad, The 
Netherlands. 
Willems, D., Bergwerff, J., Geilen, N. (2007) RWES 
Terrestrisch. Institute for Inland Water 
Management and Waste Water Treatment 
(RIZA), RIZA rapport 2007.030. Lelystad, The 
Netherlands.
  


Suitability of landscape classification systems for quantification of ecosystem services in BIO-SAFE

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NARCIS

Radboud Repository