Elsevier

Ecosystem Services

Volume 26, Part B, August 2017, Pages 316-328
Ecosystem Services

A review of modeling approaches for ecosystem services assessment in the Asian region

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.013Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We reviewed 31 ecosystem services assessments and 290 peer-reviewed studies throughout Asia.

  • 78 peer-reviewed studies using modeling approach were identified.

  • The modeling studies were classified based on processes evaluated by the models.

  • A bias in the geographic distribution was identified in the peer-reviewed studies.

  • Gaps exist in the approaches applied in the assessment cases and peer-reviewed studies.

Abstract

The use of various modeling approaches is critical in the assessment of ecosystem services. Although numerous assessments have been conducted as scholarly studies to quantify, map, and value ecosystem services, a well-structured platform is necessary to ensure consistency of the assessment approaches with regard to theories and practices. To identify gaps between practical ecosystem services assessments and scholarly studies in the Asian region, we reviewed assessment cases in the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) catalogue and peer-reviewed literature using Web platforms. We identified 31 assessment cases and 290 such peer-reviewed studies conducted throughout Asia. Our review of recent peer-reviewed studies revealed a bias in the geographic distribution, with numerous Chinese studies and few studies in West Asia. Our comparison of the approaches applied in the assessment cases with those in the peer-reviewed studies revealed that little information on the models was reported in the assessment cases, whereas the approaches used in the peer-reviewed studies were mostly modeling and biophysical indicators. Although the modeling and scenario approaches used in the actual assessments require further clarification in the IPBES catalogue, many scientific modeling studies have been conducted throughout Asia. These scientific data, however, are not easily accessible to those outside of academic communities. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop a new catalogue to guide all the stakeholders involved in ecosystem services assessment at multiple scales.

Introduction

Modeling and mapping of multiple ecosystem services has become the focus among communities of scientists and practitioners aiming to implement the concept of ecosystem services in the real world. A multiscale assessment consisting of interlinked assessments at the local, subnational, national, regional, and global scales is crucial. Thus, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) endorsed subglobal assessments (SGA) within various socioeconomic contexts to meet the needs of decision-makers at these multiple scales and to strengthen local findings with global perspectives, data, and models (MEA, 2005). To support policy-makers, the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) encouraged the use of modeling approaches to predict ecosystem changes based on possible future scenarios (IPBES, 2016). Several modeling approaches have been developed since the MEA report, with most applied in developed countries, particularly the United States and few countries in Europe (Grêt-Regamey et al., 2016). Thus, more effort to model ecosystem services in various regions is needed, especially in the Asian region, with its wide variety of ecological and cultural contexts among subregions and the resulting specific policy requirements.

Publications on ecosystem services have increased drastically in the fields of ecology, economics, and environmental management since 2005, when the MEA synthesis report was released (Chaudhary et al., 2015). Numerous ecosystem services case studies can be found in scientific databases (e.g., Web of Science, Web of Knowledge, Science Direct, Scopus, and Google Scholar), and quantitative reviews of these studies have been conducted to address methodological issues in the assessments (Englund et al., 2017, Schägner et al., 2013, Seppelt et al., 2011, Wolff et al., 2015). Ecosystem services assessments are based on biophysical parameters and involve field measurement, monitoring, and modeling of ecosystem functions. One common approach is to use proxy variables (e.g., land cover to represent ecosystem processes) and provide maps of the values, whereas relatively few case studies used simulation models in the assessments (Seppelt et al., 2011). Use of the proxy method based on land-cover type has grown exponentially since Costanza et al. (1997) first mapped global values of ecosystem services, as it is considered to be a relatively simplified approach to quantify the spatial distribution of ecosystem services values (Schägner et al., 2013).

Models are qualitative or quantitative representations of key components of a system and the relationships between those components; a quantitative model is a set of mathematical expressions for which data and coefficients have been attributed to components of a qualitative model describing the relationships among state variables (Jackson et al., 2000). Thus, models can be used to clarify the relationships between ecosystem processes and the supply of ecosystem services as well as the consequences of human-driven changes on biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem goods and services (MEA, 2005). Various approaches and tools have been used to assess and model ecosystem services quantitatively, and the newer models used to analyze and map ecosystem services include GIS-based spatially explicit modeling tools such as Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs (InVEST), Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE), ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES), Land Utilisation and Capability Indicator (LUCI), Multiscale Integrated Model of Ecosystem Services (MIMES), and Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) (Bagstad et al., 2013; IPBES, 2016). The practical performance of these tools has been evaluated with regard to widespread application in public- and private-sector decision-making in U.S. contexts (Bagstad et al., 2013).

Ecological models, especially those based on the theoretical understanding of ecological processes, are powerful tools for evaluating ecosystem functions and predicting the impacts of human activities and climate change on ecosystems (Piroddi et al., 2015). However, there are limitations in applying some traditional ecological process-based models to ecosystem services assessment. For example, two traditional hydrological models, Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) and Variable Infiltration Capacity model (VIC), have been used to evaluate freshwater-related ecosystem services. Because these models require more inputs than ecosystem services modeling tools, they tend to be less accessible to non-experts. In addition, these traditional hydrological models were developed to assess specific provisioning and regulating services, thus they have limited use for evaluating bundles of ecosystem services (Francesconi et al., 2016, Vigerstol and Aukema, 2011).

The public generally has limited access to scientific literature databases; however, this is not the case of the online platform IPBES Catalogue of Assessments on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (hereafter "IPBES catalogue," http://catalog.ipbes.net/)". This platform was developed and is maintained via close involvement with assessment practitioners within the SGA network. In addition to providing information on the ecosystem services assessments and lessons learned, the online catalogue aims to provide direct access to assessment reports, guidelines, and other documents as a resource for practitioners (IPBES Deliverable 4(a): Catalogue of Relevant Assessments, http://www.ipbes.net/work-programme/catalogue-assessments). The United Nations Environment Programme supported building an assessment network in an effort to provide ongoing support to the multiscale assessments and SGA initiatives that have emerged throughout the world. The MEA approved 18 SGAs and an additional 18 assessments as associated cases distributed across various regions (MEA, 2005), which include 12 sites within the Asian region. Although numerous assessments have been conducted as scholarly studies to quantify, map, and value ecosystem services, a well-structured platform is necessary to ensure consistency of the assessment approaches with regard to theories and practices.

The aim of the present review is to identify gaps between practical ecosystem services assessments in the Asian region and scholarly studies in terms of methodological constraints in modeling approaches. We reviewed assessment reports in the IPBES catalogue and peer-reviewed literature accessed via Web platforms. Based on our findings, we summarize the issues raised, address those corresponding to the IPBES conceptual framework, and discuss the implications from a land management perspective.

Section snippets

Review of assessment reports in the IPBES catalogue

The IPBES catalogue currently contains 244 cases across the world, including SGA assessment cases. For each case, the IPBES catalogue notes the countries covered, geographic coverage, scope and conceptual framework of the assessment, and the types of ecosystems, ecosystem services, and knowledge system (e.g., scientific knowledge, local knowledge) involved in the assessment. All data are registered by the party responsible for the assessment and correspond to responses to the questionnaire

Review of assessment reports in the IPBES catalogue

The numbers of cases for each ecosystem type and ecosystem service assessed in the Asian subregions are illustrated in Fig. 1. Most assessed ecosystems were terrestrial—forest and woodland (21 cases), cultivated/agricultural land (18 cases), and mountain ecosystems (12 cases)—which are the dominant land-cover types and systems that might significantly affect human well-being throughout Asia. Inland water/rivers, lakes, and wetlands (11 cases) and coastal ecosystems (12 cases) were also

Modeling and scenario approach

In the assessments in the IPBES catalogue, the details of the modeling approach used were not provided in the reports, except in one case in China. Although most case reports acknowledged the necessity of modeling and providing scenarios, many assessments relied on qualitative expert-based predictions due to a lack of data and reliable analytical tools at the time. In contrast, our review of recent peer-reviewed ecosystem services research conducted in Asia identified 290 studies, of which 78

Conclusions

Although 18 of the 31 Asian assessments in the IPBES catalogue noted the use of a modeling and scenario approach, few details were given in the reports. Most of the assessment reports were published between 2005 and 2010, before the newer ecosystem services modeling tools were developed, and few included case studies in the field. Our review of the peer-reviewed literature identified 78 scientific studies that used models to assess ecosystem services in the Asian region. Although this

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (S-15 Predicting and Assessing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services (PANCES)) of the Ministry of the Environment, Japan and “Future scenarios and governance of social-ecological systems in the Asia-Pacific region through enhancing synergy between indigenous and local knowledge and scientific knowledge (ES-Scenario)” funded by the Research Institute of Science and Technology, Japan. We also thank the

References (162)

  • J. Barkmann et al.

    Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: the case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2008)
  • N.K. Bhagabati et al.

    Ecosystem services reinforce Sumatran tiger conservation in land use plans

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2014)
  • P., K.C., M. Bhandari et al.

    Assessments of ecosystem service indicators and stakeholder's willingness to pay for selected ecosystem services in the Chure region of Nepal

    Appl. Geogr.

    (2016)
  • V. Boreux et al.

    Impact of forest fragments on bee visits and fruit set in rain-fed and irrigated coffee agro-forests

    Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.

    (2013)
  • H. Brix et al.

    Large-scale management of common reed, Phragmites australis, for paper production: a case study from the Liaohe Delta

    China Ecol. Eng.

    (2014)
  • B. Burkhard et al.

    Land cover-based ecosystem service assessment of irrigated rice cropping systems in southeast Asia—An explorative study

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2015)
  • E.W. Cervelli et al.

    Spontaneous urban vegetation and habitat heterogeneity in Xi’an, China

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2013)
  • N. Chand et al.

    Production efficiency of community forest management in Nepal

    For. Policy Econ.

    (2015)
  • J. Chang et al.

    Assessment of net ecosystem services of plastic greenhouse vegetable cultivation in China

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2011)
  • S. Chaudhary et al.

    The evolution of ecosystem services: a time series and discourse-centered analysis

    Environ. Sci. Policy

    (2015)
  • H. Chen et al.

    Modeling the impacts of water and fertilizer management on the ecosystem service of rice rotated cropping systems in China

    Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.

    (2016)
  • X. Chen et al.

    Agent-based modeling of the effects of social norms on enrollment in payments for ecosystem services

    Ecol. Model.

    (2012)
  • G.S. Dai et al.

    The false promises of coal exploitation: How mining affects herdsmen well-being in the grassland ecosystems of Inner Mongolia

    Energy Policy

    (2014)
  • Z. Dai et al.

    Using assessment of net ecosystem services to promote sustainability of golf course in China

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2016)
  • H.J. De Boer et al.

    Comparing medicinal plant knowledge using similarity indices: a case of the Brou, Saek and Kry in Lao PDR

    J. Ethnopharmacol.

    (2012)
  • X. Dong et al.

    Carbon modeling and emergy evaluation of grassland management schemes in Inner Mongolia

    Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.

    (2012)
  • X. Dong et al.

    The impact of human activities on natural capital and ecosystem services of natural pastures in North Xinjiang, China

    Ecol. Modell.

    (2012)
  • X.B. Dong et al.

    Environmental and economic consequences of the overexploitation of natural capital and ecosystem services in Xilinguole League, China

    Energy Policy

    (2014)
  • S. Ebil et al.

    Changes in community structure of finfish catches in Brunei Darussalam between 2000 and 2009

    Ocean Coast. Manag

    (2013)
  • O. Englund et al.

    How to analyse ecosystem services in landscapes—A systematic review

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2017)
  • R.C. Estoque et al.

    Examining the potential impact of land use/cover changes on the ecosystem services of Baguio city, the Philippines: a scenario-based analysis

    Appl. Geogr.

    (2012)
  • M. Fan et al.

    Optimal conservation planning of multiple hydrological ecosystem services under land use and climate changes in Teshio river watershed, northernmost of Japan

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2016)
  • W. Francesconi et al.

    Using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to model Ecosystem Services: a Systematic Review

    J. Hydrol.

    (2016)
  • B. Fu et al.

    Modelling nutrient retention function of ecosystem – a case study in Baoxing County, China

    Procedia Environ. Sci.

    (2012)
  • B. Fu et al.

    Value of ecosystem hydropower service and its impact on the payment for ecosystem services

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2014)
  • L. Gang et al.

    Biomass carbon storage and net primary production in different habitats of Hunshandake Sandland, China

    Acta Ecol. Sin.

    (2011)
  • Y. Gao et al.

    Freshwater ecosystem service footprint model: a model to evaluate regional freshwater sustainable development—A case study in Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei, China

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2014)
  • C.L. Gray et al.

    Do riparian forest fragments provide ecosystem services or disservices in surrounding oil palm plantations?

    Basic Appl. Ecol.

    (2014)
  • G.G. Gurney et al.

    Poverty and protected areas: an evaluation of a marine integrated conservation and development project in Indonesia

    Glob. Environ. Chang.

    (2014)
  • P. Hoagland et al.

    Supply-side approaches to the economic valuation of coastal and marine habitat in the Red Sea

    J. King Saud Univ. - Sci.

    (2013)
  • M. Ichihara et al.

    Quantifying the ecosystem service of non-native weed seed predation provided by invertebrates and vertebrates in upland wheat fields converted from paddy fields

    Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.

    (2011)
  • W. Immerzeel et al.

    Can payments for ecosystem services secure the water tower of Tibet?

    Agric. Syst.

    (2008)
  • T. Inoue et al.

    Detection of the different characteristics of year-to-year variation in foliage phenology among deciduous broad-leaved tree species by using daily continuous canopy surface images

    Ecol. Inform.

    (2014)
  • C. Jiang et al.

    Quantification and assessment of changes in ecosystem service in the Three-River Headwaters Region, China as a result of climate variability and land cover change

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2016)
  • Y. Kamimura et al.

    Does macroalgal vegetation cover influence post-settlement survival and recruitment potential of juvenile black rockfish Sebastes cheni?

    Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci.

    (2013)
  • C. Kamiyama et al.

    Non-market food provisioning services via homegardens and communal sharing in satoyama socio-ecological production landscapes on Japan's Noto peninsula

    Ecosyst. Serv.

    (2016)
  • H.-G. Kang et al.

    Human influence, regeneration, and conservation of the Gotjawal forests in Jeju Island, Korea

    J. Mar. Isl. Cult.

    (2013)
  • S.M. Khan et al.

    Ethno-ecological importance of plant biodiversity in mountain ecosystems with special emphasis on indicator species of a Himalayan Valley in the northern Pakistan

    Ecol. Indic.

    (2014)
  • C.H. Koh et al.

    The Korean tidal flat of the Yellow Sea: physical setting, ecosystem and management

    Ocean Coast. Manag.

    (2014)
  • V.V. Krishna et al.

    Estimating compensation payments for on-farm conservation of agricultural biodiversity in developing countries

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2013)
  • Cited by (47)

    • Obstacles and opportunities to implement the IPBES Framework in Iran

      2022, Ecosystem Services
      Citation Excerpt :

      The results showed that the effects of agriculture on water quality, abundance of pollinators and climate regulation were adverse. In Asia, Shoyama et al., (2017) identified 31 assessment cases and 290 peer-reviewed studies based on the IPBES catalog. Their results revealed an urgent need to develop a new catalog to guide all the stakeholders involved in ES assessment at several scales.

    • Identification of conservation priorities in the major basins of Central Asia: Using an integrated GIS-based ordered weighted averaging approach

      2021, Journal of Environmental Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      Despite these potential advantages, some limitations still exist in our study. First, ES assessment must build upon robust data and modeling approaches in a context of increasing environmental and socio-economic uncertainties (Shoyama et al., 2017). Due to the limited available data, this study used a simple water balance equation to calculate WY, and the habitat quality module in InVEST (Sharp et al., 2018), which ignores the collective impact of multiple threats, was used to calculate HQ.

    • Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia

      2021, Ecosystem Services
      Citation Excerpt :

      Assessment approaches have become more diverse and include greater use of ES modelling, assessments of human perception and integrated approaches since 2005. These patterns match trends of ES assessments highlighted in Asian and global reviews (Egoh et al., 2012; Shoyama et al., 2017). They signal greater uptake of ES concepts in science and policy in SEA.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text