Cargando…

A critical assessment of available ecosystem services data according to the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services framework

The last decade has seen a proliferation of studies describing the benefits people accrue from natural processes by translation of spatially explicit land use and landcover data to ecosystem service provision. Yet, critical assessment of systemic bias resulting from reliance on land use and landcove...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tashie, Arik, Ringold, Paul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7970537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33747607
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2665
_version_ 1783666440337883136
author Tashie, Arik
Ringold, Paul
author_facet Tashie, Arik
Ringold, Paul
author_sort Tashie, Arik
collection PubMed
description The last decade has seen a proliferation of studies describing the benefits people accrue from natural processes by translation of spatially explicit land use and landcover data to ecosystem service provision. Yet, critical assessment of systemic bias resulting from reliance on land use and landcover data is limited. Here, we evaluate an extensive collection of ecosystem service-related data based on land use and landcover according to a broadly applicable ecosystem service framework—Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS). In this framework, ecosystems are viewed from the perspective of a comprehensive set of beneficiaries and the biophysical features directly relevant to each. In this examination, we create a database identifying over 14,000 linkages between 255 data layers from EnviroAtlas and FEGS beneficiaries. Through these linkages, we identify major gaps in beneficiary identification and systemic biases resulting from the utilization of translations from land use and landcover data. Importantly, we find that for many beneficiaries there is an absence of data on FEGS at extensive scales in the United States. We provide a roadmap for the integration of extant ecosystem service research efforts using the FEGS classification scheme and critically appraise this scheme, highlighting inconsistent specification among beneficiary categories and environmental classes. We also explore the benefits of crosswalking different ecosystem service data and frameworks for researchers, by reducing the otherwise high buy-in cost of data exploration, and for data developers, by increasing the exposure of their work.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7970537
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79705372021-03-18 A critical assessment of available ecosystem services data according to the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services framework Tashie, Arik Ringold, Paul Ecosphere Article The last decade has seen a proliferation of studies describing the benefits people accrue from natural processes by translation of spatially explicit land use and landcover data to ecosystem service provision. Yet, critical assessment of systemic bias resulting from reliance on land use and landcover data is limited. Here, we evaluate an extensive collection of ecosystem service-related data based on land use and landcover according to a broadly applicable ecosystem service framework—Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS). In this framework, ecosystems are viewed from the perspective of a comprehensive set of beneficiaries and the biophysical features directly relevant to each. In this examination, we create a database identifying over 14,000 linkages between 255 data layers from EnviroAtlas and FEGS beneficiaries. Through these linkages, we identify major gaps in beneficiary identification and systemic biases resulting from the utilization of translations from land use and landcover data. Importantly, we find that for many beneficiaries there is an absence of data on FEGS at extensive scales in the United States. We provide a roadmap for the integration of extant ecosystem service research efforts using the FEGS classification scheme and critically appraise this scheme, highlighting inconsistent specification among beneficiary categories and environmental classes. We also explore the benefits of crosswalking different ecosystem service data and frameworks for researchers, by reducing the otherwise high buy-in cost of data exploration, and for data developers, by increasing the exposure of their work. 2019-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7970537/ /pubmed/33747607 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2665 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Article
Tashie, Arik
Ringold, Paul
A critical assessment of available ecosystem services data according to the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services framework
title A critical assessment of available ecosystem services data according to the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services framework
title_full A critical assessment of available ecosystem services data according to the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services framework
title_fullStr A critical assessment of available ecosystem services data according to the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services framework
title_full_unstemmed A critical assessment of available ecosystem services data according to the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services framework
title_short A critical assessment of available ecosystem services data according to the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services framework
title_sort critical assessment of available ecosystem services data according to the final ecosystem goods and services framework
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7970537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33747607
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2665
work_keys_str_mv AT tashiearik acriticalassessmentofavailableecosystemservicesdataaccordingtothefinalecosystemgoodsandservicesframework
AT ringoldpaul acriticalassessmentofavailableecosystemservicesdataaccordingtothefinalecosystemgoodsandservicesframework
AT tashiearik criticalassessmentofavailableecosystemservicesdataaccordingtothefinalecosystemgoodsandservicesframework
AT ringoldpaul criticalassessmentofavailableecosystemservicesdataaccordingtothefinalecosystemgoodsandservicesframework