A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services

By Neville D. Crossman, Benjamin Burkhard, S. Nedkov, L. Willemen, K. Petz, I. Palomo, E. Drakou, B. Martín‐López, Timon McPhearson, Kremena Boyanova and 4 more. 2013

738 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cfc29cb58e9efa62b5420a2865e6a0923d15e054

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

‘The Matrix Reloaded': A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services (2015, background): “Some well-known metrics have different advantages (Scotts’ pi; Fleiss’ kappa; Spearmans’ rank correlation coefficient,...) as well as serious disadvantages (Cohens’ kappa, Cronbach’s alpha; seeKrippendorff, 2004 foracompleteoverview).”
A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions (2016, background): “Since ecosystem services are spatially explicit, the emergence of tools for systematic mapping and modelling at appropriate scales is therefore very promising (Crossman et al., 2013).”
Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management (2016, background): “But the lack of clear definitions and practical methods to assess the water related ecosystem services could hamper the adoption of the approach (Kull et al., 2015; Crossman et al., 2013).”
Mapping social–ecological systems: Identifying ‘green-loop’ and ‘red-loop’ dynamics based on characteristic bundles of ecosystem service use (2015, result): “Our results therefore emphasize that ES potential or production in an area does not necessarily translate into ES use, a fact that is increasingly acknowledged in multi-indicator ES assessments (Burkhard et al., 2012; Crossman et al., 2013).”
Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world (2014, background): “, 2008), and could be due to the fact that these services are not as well defined/ understood as provisioning or regulating services (Crossman et al., 2013) and are therefore are more difficult to study and/or measure.”
A place-based approach to payments for ecosystem services (2017, background): “, 2012); uncertainties in ecosystem service stocks and services (Crossman et al., 2013); and trade-offs between ecosystem services under different land use scenarios (Goldstein et al.”
Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands-concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification (2014, background): “Commensurate with ecosystem service demand (Crossman et al. 2013) but several intermediate steps related to complex production and trade schemes may be included (Burkhard et al. 2012a).”