共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
Concepts and methods for landscape multifunctionality and a unifying framework based on ecosystem services 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
Matias E. Mastrangelo Federico Weyland Sebastian H. Villarino María P. Barral Laura Nahuelhual Pedro Laterra 《Landscape Ecology》2014,29(2):345-358
The potential of landscapes to supply multiple benefits to society beyond commodities production has received increasing research and policy attention. Linking the concept of multifunctionality with the ecosystem services (ES) approach offers a promising avenue for producing scientific evidence to inform landscape planning, e.g., about the relative utility of land-sharing and land-sparing. However, the value for decision-making of ES-based multifunctionality assessments has been constrained by a significant conceptual and methodological dispersion. To contribute towards a cohesive framework for landscape multifunctionality, we analyse case studies of joint ES supply regarding ten criteria designed to ultimately answer four aspects: (i) the multifunctionality of what (e.g., landscapes), (ii) the type of multifunctionality (e.g., based on ES synergies), (iii) the procedure of multifunctionality assessments, and (iv) the purpose of multifunctionality. We constructed a typology of methodological approaches based on scores for criteria describing the evaluation method and the level of stakeholder participation in assessments of joint ES supply. Surveyed studies and underlying types of methodological approaches (spatial, socio-spatial, functional, spatio-functional) differed in most criteria. We illustrate the influence of methodological divergence on planning recommendations by comparing two studies employing contrasting approaches (spatial and functional) to assess the joint supply of wildlife habitat and agricultural production in the Argentine Chaco. We distinguish between a pattern-based and process-based multifunctionality, where the latter can only be detected through approaches considering the ecological processes (e.g., ES complementarities) supporting the supply of multiple ES (functional and spatio-functional). Finally, we propose an integrated approach for assessing a socially-relevant process-based multifunctionality. 相似文献
2.
Context
The provision of multiple ecosystem services (ES) within a landscape is commonly referred to as landscape multifunctionality. Modifying landscapes to increase multifunctionality and reduce trade-offs with concurrent services bears the potential to enhance sustainability in human-dominated landscapes. Assessing landscape multifunctionality is thus crucial for land management and planning, but lack of a clear definition and operationalization of multifunctionality impedes comparisons of different study results.Objectives
We want to address how elements of the study design affect results of multifunctionality assessments. Furthermore, we want to quantify future multifunctionality in the European Union (EU) and indicate the role of land use change and land use diversity on multifunctionality.Methods
We analyzed diverging scenarios depicting land use change in the EU between 2000 and 2040 for their effects on landscape multifunctionality. We tested different multifunctionality indicators at various spatial scales based on the modelling of 12 ES and biodiversity indicators.Results
Particularly the analysis scale determines the interpretation of landscape multifunctionality. Coldspots identified by different indicators are in higher agreement than hotspots. We could not confirm links between land use diversity and landscape multifunctionality. While, at EU scale, multifunctionality slightly increases in future scenarios, agricultural intensification and (peri-)urban growth pose large threats to multifunctional landscapes.Conclusions
The choice of indicator and analysis scale strongly determine possible interpretations of the results. Rather than focusing on the impacts of land use change on multifunctionality, it is recommended to base land use policy on the impacts of location-specific change on ES supply and demands.3.
Plieninger Tobias Torralba Mario Hartel Tibor Fagerholm Nora 《Landscape Ecology》2019,34(7):1565-1581
Context
Around 30% of European agricultural landscapes are classified as high nature value (HNV) farmlands. Current policies emphasize the multifunctionality of these landscapes, but little is known about the positive and negative associations of multiple ecosystem services within HNV farmland.
ObjectivesThis study aims to identify perceived ecosystem services synergies, trade-offs, and bundles in agricultural landscapes of HNV from a socio-cultural perspective.
MethodsWe performed a participatory mapping survey of 10 ecosystem services categories among 2301 rural residents in 13 European sites. We analyzed bivariate synergies and trade-offs between perceived ecosystem services through nonparametric correlation analyses. Spatial bundles of perceived ecosystem services were identified through hierarchical cluster analysis. Multinomial logit models were used to assess the influence of land cover on generating associations of ecosystem services.
ResultsWe find two strong and 16 moderate synergies of perceived ecosystem services (out of 46 possible ecosystem services pairs), mainly among different cultural ecosystem services. We do not reveal moderate or strong trade-offs. We identify five spatial bundles of ecosystem services, termed “Ecosystem services coldspots”, “Wild harvesting ranges”, “Nature areas”, “Recreational spaces”, and “Ecosystem services hotspots”. Of all land-cover co-variates, natural areas, urban areas, and roads have the strongest explanatory power.
ConclusionsOur study complements prevailing biophysical and economic analyses of ecosystem services synergies, trade-offs and bundles by a spatially explicit, socio-cultural perspective. We conclude that socio-cultural mapping of ecosystem services is useful for understanding the perceived multifunctionality of a landscape.
相似文献4.
Urban green infrastructure is critical for providing a wide range of ecosystem goods and services that benefit the urban population. Past studies have suggested that multifunctionality concerning urban infrastructure services and functions is a prerequisite for targeting effective and impactful urban green infrastructure. Moreover, urban green infrastructure with multiple functions can offer socio-economic and environmental benefits. However, there has been a knowledge gap in the planning literature to elaborate multiple ecosystem functions in urban green infrastructure. In particular, existing methods and approaches are lacking for quantifying and monitoring such ecological services and biodiversity in urban green infrastructures at different spatial scales. Therefore, this research aims to review studies focusing on the multifunctionality concept in urban green infrastructure planning. The study highlights the current status and knowledge gaps through a systematic review. Our analysis revealed that current studies on green infrastructure multifunctionality have focused on five main themes: 1) planning methods for urban green infrastructure, 2) assessment approaches of urban green infrastructure, 3) ecosystem services and their benefits, 4) sustainability and climate adaptation, and 5) urban agriculture. The study found that the five themes are somewhat connected to each other. The study has revealed a knowledge gap regarding incorporating multifunctional green infrastructure in the planning principle. The results suggest at least five critical elements to ensure multiple functions in urban infrastructure. The elements are spatial distribution, optimal distance, integrated network, accessibility, and public participation and engagement. The study further recommends research directions for future analysis on green infrastructure multifunctionality that are critical for urban planning. 相似文献
5.
Context
Landscape-scale studies of ecosystem services (ES) have increased, but few consider land-use history. Historical land use may be especially important in cultural landscapes, producing legacies that influence ecosystem structure, function, and biota that in turn affect ES supply.Objectives
Our goal was to generate a conceptual framework for understanding when land-use legacies matter for ES supply in well-studied agricultural, urban, and exurban US landscapes.Methods
We synthesized illustrative examples from published literature in which landscape legacies were demonstrated or are likely to influence ES.Results
We suggest three related conditions in which land-use legacies are important for understanding current ES supply. (1) Intrinsically slow ecological processes govern ES supply, illustrated for soil-based and hydrologic services impaired by slowly processed pollutants. (2) Time lags between land-use change and ecosystem responses delay effects on ES supply, illustrated for biodiversity-based services that may experience an ES debt. (3) Threshold relationships exist, such that changes in ES are difficult to reverse, and legacy lock-in disconnects contemporary landscapes from ES supply, illustrated by hydrologic services. Mismatches between contemporary landscape patterns and mechanisms underpinning ES supply yield unexpected patterns of ES.Conclusions
Today’s land-use decisions will generate tomorrow’s legacies, and ES will be affected if processes underpinning ES are affected by land-use legacies. Research priorities include understanding effects of urban abandonment, new contaminants, and interactions of land-use legacies and climate change. Improved understanding of historical effects will improve management of contemporary ES, and aid in decision-making as new challenges to sustaining cultural landscapes arise.6.
Controlling spatial structure of forested landscapes: a case study towards landscape management 总被引：6，自引：0，他引：6
Emin Z. Baskent 《Landscape Ecology》1999,14(1):83-97
7.
K. Birkhofer F. Arvidsson D. Ehlers V. L. Mader J. Bengtsson H. G. Smith 《Landscape Ecology》2016,31(3):567-579
Context
Hemipteran pests cause significant yield losses in European cereal fields. It has been suggested that local management interventions to promote natural enemies are most successful in simple landscapes that are dominated by large arable fields.Objectives
We study how farming category (conventional, new and old organic fields) and landscape complexity affect pests, natural enemies and biological control services in spring barley. We further analyse if yields are related to pest infestation or biological control services.Methods
The amount of pasture and the length of field borders were used to define landscape complexity around barley fields in Southern Sweden. Arthropods were sampled with an insect suction sampler and predation and parasitism services were estimated by field observations and inspections of pest individuals.Results
Pest infestation was affected by landscape complexity, with higher aphid, but lower leafhopper numbers in more complex landscapes. Aphid predation was higher under organic farming and affected by effects on predator abundance and community composition independent of landscape complexity. Auchenorrhyncha parasitism was neither significantly affected by landscape complexity nor by farming category. Higher aphid predation rates and lower aphid densities were characteristic for organically managed fields with higher barley yields.Conclusions
Our results suggest that it is possible to increase both aphid biological control services and barley yield via local management effects on predator communities independent of landscape complexity. However, the success of such management practices is highly dependent on the pest and natural enemy taxa and the nature of the trophic interaction.8.
The ecology and culture of landscape sustainability: emerging knowledge and innovation in landscape research and practice 总被引：4，自引：1，他引：3
Laura R. Musacchio 《Landscape Ecology》2009,24(8):989-992
Landscape researchers and practitioners, using the lens of sustainability science, are breaking new ground about how people’s
behaviors and actions influence the structure, function, and change of designed landscapes in an urbanizing world. The phrase—the
scientific basis of the design for landscape sustainability—is used to describe how sustainability science can contribute
to translational landscape research and practice about the systemic relationships among landscape sustainability, people’s
contact with nature, and complex place-based problems. In the first section of this article, important definitions about the
scientific basis of the design for landscape sustainability are reviewed including the six Es of landscape sustainability—environment, economic, equity, aesthetics, experience, and ethics. A conceptual framework about the six Es of landscape sustainability for designed landscapes is introduced. The interrelatedness,
opportunities, contradictions, and limitations of the conceptual framework are discussed in relation to human health/security,
ecosystem services, biodiversity, and resource management. The conceptual framework about the six Es of landscape sustainability
for designed landscapes follows the tradition in which landscape researchers and practitioners synthesize emerging trends
into conceptual frameworks for advancing basic and applied activities. 相似文献
9.
Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the United States 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
This paper summarizes a strategy for supplying ecosystem services in urban areas through a participatory planning process targeting multifunctional green infrastructure. We draw from the literature on landscape multifunctionality, which has primarily been applied to agricultural settings, and propose opportunities to develop urban green infrastructure that could contribute to the sustainable social and ecological health of the city. Thinking in terms of system resilience, strategies might focus on the potential for green infrastructure to allow for adaptation and even transformation in the face of future challenges such as climate change, food insecurity, and limited resources. Because planning for multiple functions can be difficult when many diverse stakeholders are involved, we explored decision support tools that could be applied to green infrastructure planning in the early stages, to engage the public and encourage action toward implementing a preferred solution. Several specific ecosystem services that could be relevant for evaluating current and future urban green spaces include: plant biodiversity, food production, microclimate control, soil infiltration, carbon sequestration, visual quality, recreation, and social capital. Integrating such ecosystem services into small-scale greening projects could allow for creativity and local empowerment that would inspire broader transformation of green infrastructure at the city level. Those cities committing to such an approach by supporting greening projects are likely to benefit in the long run through the value of ecosystem services for urban residents and the broader public. 相似文献
10.
Laura R. Musacchio 《Landscape Ecology》2009,24(8):993
Landscape researchers and practitioners, using the lens of sustainability science, are breaking new ground about how people’s behaviors and actions influence the structure, function, and change of designed landscapes in an urbanizing world. The phrase—the scientific basis of the design for landscape sustainability—is used to describe how sustainability science can contribute to translational landscape research and practice about the systemic relationships among landscape sustainability, people’s contact with nature, and complex place-based problems. In the first section of this article, important definitions about the scientific basis of the design for landscape sustainability are reviewed including the six Es of landscape sustainability—environment, economic, equity, aesthetics, experience, and ethics. A conceptual framework about the six Es of landscape sustainability for designed landscapes is introduced. The interrelatedness, opportunities, contradictions, and limitations of the conceptual framework are discussed in relation to human health/security, ecosystem services, biodiversity, and resource management. The conceptual framework about the six Es of landscape sustainability for designed landscapes follows the tradition in which landscape researchers and practitioners synthesize emerging trends into conceptual frameworks for advancing basic and applied activities. 相似文献
11.
12.
Informing landscape planning and design for sustaining ecosystem services from existing spatial patterns and knowledge 总被引：3，自引：3，他引：0
K. Bruce Jones Giovanni Zurlini Felix Kienast Irene Petrosillo Thomas Edwards Timothy G. Wade Bai-lian Li Nicola Zaccarelli 《Landscape Ecology》2013,28(6):1175-1192
Over the last decade we have seen an increased emphasis in environmental management and policies aimed at maintaining and restoring multiple ecosystem services at landscape scales. This emphasis has resulted from the recognition that management of specific environmental targets and ecosystem services requires an understanding of landscape processes and the spatial scales that maintain those targets and services. Moreover, we have become increasingly aware of the influence of broad-scale drivers such as climate change on landscape processes and the ecosystem services they support. Studies and assessments on the relative success of environmental policies and landscape designs in maintaining landscape processes and ecosystem services is mostly lacking. This likely reflects the relatively high cost of maintaining a commitment to implement and maintain monitoring programs that document responses of landscape processes and ecosystem services to different landscape policies and designs. However, we argue that there is considerable variation in natural and human-caused landscape pattern at local to continental scales and that this variation may facilitate analyses of how environmental targets and ecosystem services have responded to such patterns. Moreover, wall-to-wall spatial data on land cover and land use at national scales may permit characterization and mapping of different landscape pattern gradients. We discuss four broad and interrelated focus areas that should enhance our understanding of how landscape pattern influences ecosystem services: (1) characterizing and mapping landscape pattern gradients; (2) quantifying relationships between landscape patterns and environmental targets and ecosystem services, (3) evaluating landscape patterns with regards to multiple ecosystem services, and (4) applying adaptive management concepts to improve the effectiveness of specific landscape designs in sustaining ecosystem services. We discuss opportunities as well as challenges in each of these four areas. We believe that this agenda could lead to spatially explicit solutions in managing a range of environmental targets and ecosystem services. Spatially explicit options are critical in managing and protecting landscapes, especially given that communities and organizations are often limited in their capacity to make changes at landscape scales. The issues and potential solutions discussed in this paper expand upon the call by Nassauer and Opdam (Landscape Ecol 23:633–644, 2008) to include design as a fundamental element in landscape ecology research by evaluating natural and human-caused (planned or designed) landscape patterns and their influence on ecosystem services. It also expands upon the idea of “learning by doing” to include “learning from what has already been done.” 相似文献
13.
This collaborative essay grows out of a debate about the relationship between aesthetics and ecology and the possibility of
an “ecological aesthetic” that affects landscape planning, design, and management. We describe our common understandings and
unresolved questions about this relationship, including the importance of aesthetics in understanding and affecting landscape
change and the ways in which aesthetics and ecology may have either complementary or contradictory implications for a landscape.
To help understand these issues, we first outline a conceptual model of the aesthetics–ecology relationship. We posit that:
1. While human and environmental phenomena occur at widely varying scales, humans engage with environmental phenomena at a
particular scale: that of human experience of our landscape surroundings. That is the human “perceptible realm.”
2. Interactions within this realm give rise to aesthetic experiences, which can lead to changes affecting humans and the landscape,
and thus ecosystems.
3. Context affects aesthetic experience of landscapes. Context includes both effects of different landscape types (wild, agricultural,
cultural, and metropolitan landscapes) and effects of different personal–social situational activities or concerns. We argue
that some contexts elicit aesthetic experiences that have traditionally been called “scenic beauty,” while other contexts
elicit different aesthetic experiences, such as perceived care, attachment, and identity.
Last, we discuss how interventions through landscape planning, design, and management; or through enhanced knowledge might
establish desirable relationships between aesthetics and ecology, and we examine the controversial characteristics of such
ecological aesthetics. While these interventions may help sustain beneficial landscape patterns and practices, they are inherently
normative, and we consider their ethical implications. 相似文献
14.
Yunhui Liu Christoph Rothenwöhrer Christoph Scherber Péter Batáry Zoltán Elek Juliane Steckel Stefan Erasmi Teja Tscharntke Catrin Westphal 《Landscape Ecology》2014,29(3):529-540
Current biodiversity conservation policies have so far had limited success because they are mainly targeted to the scale of individual fields with little concern on different responses of organism groups at larger spatial scales. We investigated the relative impacts of multi-scale factors, including local land use intensity, landscape context and region, on functional groups of beetles (Coleoptera). In 2008, beetles were suction-sampled from 95 managed grasslands in three regions, ranging from Southern to Northern Germany. The results showed that region was the most important factor affecting the abundance of herbivores and the abundance and species composition of predators and decomposers. Herbivores were not affected by landscape context and land use intensity. The species composition of the predator communities changed with land use intensity, but only in interaction with landscape context. Interestingly, decomposer abundance was negatively related to land use intensity in low-diversity landscapes, whereas in high-diversity landscapes the relation was positive, possibly due to enhanced spillover effects in complex landscapes. We conclude that (i) management at multiple scales, from local sites to landscapes and regions, is essential for managing biodiversity, (ii) beetle predators and decomposers are more affected than herbivores, supporting the hypothesis that higher trophic levels are more sensitive to environmental change, and (iii) sustaining biological control and decomposition services in managed grassland needs a diverse landscape, while effects of local land use intensity may depend on landscape context. 相似文献
15.
Consequences of spatial heterogeneity for ecosystem services in changing forest landscapes: priorities for future research 总被引：2，自引：2，他引：0
Changes in key drivers (e.g., climate, disturbance regimes and land use) may affect the sustainability of forest landscapes and set the stage for increased tension among competing ecosystem services. We addressed two questions about a suite of supporting, regulating and provisioning ecosystem services in each of two well-studied forest landscapes in the western US: (1) How might the provision of ecosystem services change in the future given anticipated trajectories of climate, disturbance regimes, and land use? (2) What is the role of spatial heterogeneity in sustaining future ecosystem services? We determined that future changes in each region are likely to be distinct, but spatial heterogeneity (e.g., the amount and arrangement of surviving forest patches or legacy trees after disturbance) will be important in both landscapes for sustaining forest regeneration, primary production, carbon storage, natural hazard regulation, insect and pathogen regulation, timber production and wildlife habitat. The paper closes by highlighting five general priorities for future research. The science of landscape ecology has much to contribute toward understanding ecosystem services and how land management can enhance—or threaten—the sustainability of ecosystem services in changing landscapes. 相似文献
16.
Marc Antrop Jesper Brandt Isabel Loupa-Ramos Emilio Padoa-Schioppa Jonathan Porter Veerle Van Eetvelde Teresa Pinto-Correia 《Landscape Ecology》2013,28(9):1641-1647
In Europe, landscape research has a long tradition of drawing on several disciplines. ‘National schools’ of landscape research developed, which were related to the characteristic landscapes found in the different countries and to specific linguistic meanings and legal traditions when using landscape related concepts. International co-operation demands a certain harmonization of these concepts for better mutual understanding. The 2000 European Landscape Convention provided an important momentum to rethink research, policy and management of landscapes from the perspective of sustainable development and participatory planning. Landscape ecology as a transdisciplinary science with a dynamic and holistic perspective on landscape offers a great potential for an integrative approach. The specificity of the European landscape research rests on its long history and on integration based on the great diversity of the landscapes, characterised by an intimate relationship between the varied natural environment and the different cultural traditions which define the identity of countries, regions and people. Within a unified Europe, with increasing international and trans-border co-operation and increasing common environmental problems, the creation of a specific European Association for Landscape Ecology (IALE-Europe), in addition to the existing international association and its national chapters, became justified by the need for a collaborative endeavour to address the specific problems of landscapes in Europe and to stimulate co-operation between landscape ecologists in research, education and practice. 相似文献
17.
The visible landscape is believed to affect human beings in many ways, including aesthetic appreciation and health and well-being. The aim of this paper is to analyse the range of landscapes used in environmental psychology studies, and the evidence of health effects related to viewing these landscapes. A literature review of publications linking landscapes and health effects was conducted. This reported evidence of health and well-being effects related to exposure to visual landscapes. The results of the review include an overview of the types of landscape used in the studies, the evidence on health effects, the methods and measures applied and the different groups of respondents. The analysis reveals a predominance of studies using only coarse categories of landscapes. Most landscape representations have been classed as “natural” or “urban”. Few studies were found to use subcategories within these groups. Generally, the natural landscapes gave a stronger positive health effect compared to urban landscapes. Urban landscapes were found to have a less positive and in some cases negative effect on health. Three main kinds of health effects have been identified in the study; short-term recovery from stress or mental fatigue, faster physical recovery from illness and long-term overall improvement on people's health and well-being.
The study provides an overview of the relationships between health and landscapes arranged in an accessible format, identifying gaps in our knowledge requiring further research. The identification of quantifiable landscape attributes that affect health is seen as an important factor in enabling future landscape design to be of benefit to human health. 相似文献
18.
Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes 总被引：10，自引：10，他引：0
Jianguo Wu 《Landscape Ecology》2013,28(6):999-1023
The future of humanity depends on whether or not we have a vision to guide our transition toward sustainability, on scales ranging from local landscapes to the planet as a whole. Sustainability science is at the core of this vision, and landscapes and regions represent a pivotal scale domain. The main objectives of this paper are: (1) to elucidate key definitions and concepts of sustainability, including the Brundtland definition, the triple bottom line, weak and strong sustainability, resilience, human well-being, and ecosystem services; (2) to examine key definitions and concepts of landscape sustainability, including those derived from general concepts and those developed for specific landscapes; and (3) to propose a framework for developing a science of landscape sustainability. Landscape sustainability is defined as the capacity of a landscape to consistently provide long-term, landscape-specific ecosystem services essential for maintaining and improving human well-being. Fundamentally, well-being is a journey, not a destination. Landscape sustainability science is a place-based, use-inspired science of understanding and improving the dynamic relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes under uncertainties arising from internal feedbacks and external disturbances. While landscape sustainability science emphasizes place-based research on landscape and regional scales, significant between landscape interactions and hierarchical linkages to both finer and broader scales (or externalities) must not be ignored. To advance landscape sustainability science, spatially explicit methods are essential, especially experimental approaches that take advantage of designed landscapes and multi-scaled simulation models that couple the dynamics of landscape services (ecosystem services provided by multiple landscape elements in combination as emergent properties) and human well-being. 相似文献
19.
Clive A. McAlpine Leonie M. Seabrook Jonathan R. Rhodes Martine Maron Carl Smith Michiala E. Bowen Sarah A. Butler Owen Powell Justin G. Ryan Christine T. Fyfe Christine Adams-Hosking Andrew Smith Oliver Robertson Alison Howes Lorenzo Cattarino 《Landscape Ecology》2010,25(8):1155-1168
The need to avert unacceptable and irreversible environmental change is the most urgent challenge facing society. Landscape ecology has the capacity to help address these challenges by providing spatially-explicit solutions to landscape sustainability problems. However, despite a large body of research, the real impact of landscape ecology on sustainable landscape management and planning is still limited. In this paper, we first outline a typology of landscape sustainability problems which serves to guide landscape ecologists in the problem-solving process. We then outline a formal problem-solving approach, whereby landscape ecologists can better bring about disciplinary integration, a consideration of multiple landscape functions over long time scales, and a focus on decision making. This framework explicitly considers multiple ecological objectives and socio-economic constraints, the spatial allocation of scarce resources to address these objectives, and the timing of the implementation of management actions. It aims to make explicit the problem-solving objectives, management options and the system understanding required to make sustainable landscape planning decisions. We propose that by adopting a more problem-solving approach, landscape ecologists can make a significant contribution towards realising sustainable future landscapes. 相似文献
20.
The importance of land use in affecting a range of ecosystem services (ES) provided from rural landscapes is increasingly recognised, creating an imperative for tools to assist in managing impacts of land use on ES provision. Many stakeholders, at a range of scales, are involved, including policy makers and implementers, land users and people receiving the services. Here, we develop a new and comprehensive typology of ES maps by expanding the basic stock-flow-receptor concept to create a set of map categories that embraces requirements for management of ES provision. We then use this typology as a framework for assessment of approaches to mapping ES. Most approaches have considered natural capital stocks of few services, at large scales (>1,000 km2) and coarse resolution (>100 m2). Emphasis has been on areas of ES generation, with little attention to flows, limiting the extent to which reception of services, interactions amongst services, and impacts on different stakeholders are considered. Most approaches focused on a bounded watershed or administrative unit, with little attention to landscape evolution, or to the definition of system boundaries that encompass flows from source to reception for different services. Although uncertainty is inherent in both input data and the services that are mapped, this is rarely acknowledged, quantified or presented. These features of current mapping approaches constrain their usefulness for informing the management of ES provision from rural landscapes. Key areas for future development are (1) maps at scales and resolutions that connect field scale management options to local landscape impacts; (2) mapping flows, and defining landscape boundaries, that include complete pathways, from source to reception; (3) calculating and presenting information on synergies and trade-offs amongst services; and (4) incorporating stakeholder knowledge and perspectives in the generation and interpretation of maps to bound and communicate uncertainty and improve their legitimacy. 相似文献