Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing Landscape Functions with Broad-Scale Environmental Data: Insights Gained from a Prototype Development for Europe

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examine the advantages and disadvantages of a methodological framework designed to analyze the poorly understood relationships between the ecosystem properties of large portions of land, and their capacities (stocks) to provide goods and services (flows). These capacities (stocks) are referred to as landscape functions. The core of our assessment is a set of expert- and literature-driven binary links, expressing whether specific land uses or other environmental properties have a supportive or neutral role for given landscape functions. The binary links were applied to the environmental properties of 581 administrative units of Europe with widely differing environmental conditions and this resulted in a spatially explicit landscape function assessment. To check under what circumstances the binary links are able to replace complex interrelations, we compared the landscape function maps with independently generated continent-wide assessments (maps of ecosystem services or environmental parameters/indicators). This rigorous testing revealed that for 9 out of 15 functions the straightforward binary links work satisfactorily and generate plausible geographical patterns. This conclusion holds primarily for production functions. The sensitivity of the nine landscape functions to changes in land use was assessed with four land use scenarios (IPCC SRES). It was found that most European regions maintain their capacity to provide the selected services under any of the four scenarios, although in some cases at other locations within the region. At the proposed continental scale, the selected input parameters are thus valid proxies which can be used to assess the mid-term potential of landscapes to provide goods and services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Appleton J (1996) The experience of landscape. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Bao YH, Wu WL, Wang MX (2007) Disadvantages and future research directions in valuation of ecosystem services in China International. Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 14:372–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck MB, Ravetz JR, Mulkey LA, Barnwell TO (1997) On the problem of model validation for predictive exposure assessments. Stochastic Hydrology and Hydraulics 11(3):229–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betts MG, Forbes GJ, Diamond AW (2007) Thresholds in songbird occurrence in relation to landscape structure. Conservation Biology 21(4):1046–1058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bindraban PS, Stoorvogel JJ, Jansen DM, Vlaming J, Groot JJR (2000) Land quality indicators for sustainable land management: proposed method for yield gap and soil nutrient balance. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 81(2):103–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2006) What are ecosystem services? Discussion paper. Resources for the Future RFF DP 06-02, p 26

  • Brandt J, Vejre H (2004) Multifunctional landscapes theory, values and history, vol 1. WIT Press, Southhampton, p 276

  • Bunce RGH, Metzger MJ, Jongman RHG, Brandt J, De Blust G, Elena-Rossello R, Groom GB et al (2008) A standardized procedure for surveillance and monitoring European habitats and provision of spatial data. Landscape Ecology 23:11–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch G (2006) Future European agricultural landscapes—what can we learn from existing quantitative land use scenario studies? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114:121–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Shaw R, Cameron D, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. Public Library of Science Biology 4(11):2138–2152

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, Farber S (2002) Introduction: the dynamics and value of ecosystem services: integrating economic and ecological perspectives. Ecological Economics 41:367–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • De Groot RS (2006) Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 75:175–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot RS (1992) Functions of nature: evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision-making. Wolters Noordhoff BV, Groningen, p 345

  • De Groot RS, Wilson M, Boumans R (2002) A typology for the description, classification and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41:393–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Richardson DM, Le Maitre DC, van Jaarsveld AS (2008) Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 127:135–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Environmental Agency (EEA) (1998) State of the environment report No 2. A report on the changes in the pan-European environment as a follow-up to ‘Europe’s Environment: The Dobris Assessment’ (1995) requested by the environment Ministers for the whole of Europe to prepare for the fourth ministerial conference in Aarhus, Denmark, June 1998

  • European Environmental Agency (EEA) (1999) Environmental assessment report No 2. Report on the state of the European environment, Copenhagen, p 446

  • European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2002a) Corine land cover update 2000: technical guidelines. EEA, Copenhagen

  • European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2002b) Europe’s biodiversity—biogeographical regions and seas. Internet publication EEA. http://wwweeaeuropaeu/publications/report_2002_0524_154909

  • European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2003) Mapping the impacts of recent natural disasters and technological accidents in Europe. EEA Environmental issue report 35/2003, Copenhagen, p 47

  • European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2005a) Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Europe. EEA technical report 7/2005, Copenhagen, p 79

  • European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2005b) European environmental outlook. EEA report 4/2005, Copenhagen, p 87

  • European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2006) How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment? Report 7/2006, Copenhagen, p 67

  • Farber S, Costanza R, Childers DL, Erickson J, Gross K, Grove M, Hopkinson CS, Kahn J, Pincetl S, Troy A, Warren P, Wilson M (2006) Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. Bioscience 56:121–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fohrer N, Haverkamp S, Frede HG (2005) Assessment of the effects of land use patterns on hydrologic landscape functions: development of sustainable land use concepts for low mountain range areas. Hydrological Processes 19(3):659–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Helkowski JH, Holloway T, Howard EA, Kucharik CJ, Monfreda C, Patz JA, Prentice IC, Ramankutty N, Snyder PK (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gimona A, van der Horst D (2007) Mapping hotspots in landscape functionality; a case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland. Landscape Ecology 22:1255–1264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory—strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustavsson M, Kolstrup E, Seijmonsbergen AC (2006) A new symbol-and-GIS based detailed geomorphological mapping system: renewal of a scientific discipline for understanding landscape development. Geomorphology 77(1–2):90–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haase D, Walz U, Neubert M, Rosenberg M (2007) Changes to Central European landscapes—analysing historical maps to approach current environmental issues, examples from Saxony, Central Germany. Land Use Policy 24:248–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haberl H, Erb K-H, Krausmann F, Gaube V, Bondeau A, Plutzar C, Gingrich S, Lucht W, Fischer-Kowalski M (2007) Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104:12942–12947

  • Hagen-Zanker A (2006) Map comparison methods that simultaneously address overlap and structure. Journal of Geographical Systems 8(2):165–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidvogel DB, Arango HG, Hedstrom K, Beckmann A, Malanotte-Rizzoli P, Shchepetkin AF (2000) Model evaluation experiments in the North Atlantic Basin: simulations in nonlinear terrain-following coordinates. Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans 32(3–4):239–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2009) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli D, Frid C (eds) Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis. BES ecological reviews series. CUP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah L, Midgley G, Andelman S, Araujo M, Hughes G, Martinez-Meyer E, Pearson R, Williams P (2007) Protected area needs in a changing climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(3):131–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heal E, Barbier B, Boyle KJ, Covich AP, Gloss SP, Hershner CH, Hoehn JP, Pringle CM, Polasky S, Segerson K, Schrader-Frechette K (2005) Valuing ecosystem services: toward better environmental decision-making. The National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Lerland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 57:209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helming K, Tscherning K, König B, Sieber S, Wiggering H, Kuhlman T, Wascher D, Pérez-Soba M, Smeets P, Tabbush P, Dilly O, Hüttl R, Bach H (2008) Ex ante impact assessment of land use changesin European regions—the SENSOR approach. In: Helming K, Pérez-Soba M, Tabbush P (eds) Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, Berlin, pp 77–105

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Helming K, Wiggering H (eds) (2003) Sustainable development of multifunctional landscapes. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunziker M (1995) The spontaneous reafforestation in abandoned agricultural lands: perception and aesthetic assessment by locals and tourists. Landscape and Urban Planning 31:399–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunziker M, Kienast F (1999) Impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty—a prototype of an automated rapid assessment technique. Landscape Ecology 14:161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunziker M, Felber P, Gehring K, Buchecker M, Bauer N, Kienast F (2008) Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups. Results of two empirical studies in Switzerland. Mountain Research and Development 28(2):140–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunziker M, Buchecker M, Hartig T (2007) Space and place—two aspects of the human-landscape relationship. In: Kienast F, Ghosh S, Wildi O (eds) A changing world—challenges for landscape research. Springer landscape series 8. Springer, Berlin, pp 47–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Jax K (2005) Function and “functioning” in ecology: what does it mean? Oikos 111(3):643–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva PM, Watts S, McDonald R, Boucher T (2007) Domesticated nature: shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316:1866–1869

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kianicka S, Buchecker M, Hunziker M, Müller-Böker U (2006) Locals’ and tourists’ sense of place: a case study in a Swiss Alpine village. Mountain Research and Development 26(1):55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienast F, Bolliger J, de Groot RS, Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2006) Development of a landscape functional approach applied to cluster regions. Progress report EU-SENSOR project, p 27

  • Krönert R, Steinhardt U, Volk M (2001) Landscape balance and landscape assessment. Springer, Heidelberg, p 304

  • Lee SW, Ellis CD, Kweon BS, Hong SK (2008) Relationship between landscape structure and neighborhood satisfaction in urbanized areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 85(1):60–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehner B, Döll P, Alcamo J, Heinrichs T, Kaspar F (2006) Estimating the impacts of global change flood and drought risks in Europe: a continental, integrated analysis. Climatic Change 75:273–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leibowitz SG, Loehle C, Li BL, Preston EM (2000) Modeling landscape functions and effects: a network approach. Ecological Modelling 132:77–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesta M, Mauring T, Mander Ü (2007) Estimation of landscape potential for construction of surface-flow wetlands for wastewater treatment in Estonia. Environmental Management 40:303–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu JG, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Pell AN, Deadman P, Kratz T, Lubchenco J, Ostrom E, Ouyang Z, Provencher W, Redman CL, Schneider SH, Taylor WW (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513–1516

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz CM, Gilbert AJ, Cofino WP (2001) Indicators for transboundary river management. Environmental Management 28:115–129

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maselli F, Chiesi M, Moriondo M et al (2009) Modelling the forest carbon budget of a Mediterranean region through the integration of ground and satellite data. Ecological Modelling 220(3):330–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayo DG, Spanos A (2004) Methodology in practice: statistical misspecification testing. Philosophy of Science 71(5):1007–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijl HV, van Rheenen T, Tabeau A, Eickhout B (2006) The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114:21–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger M, Schröter D, Leemans R, Cramer W (2008) A spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability assessment of ecosystem service change in Europe. Regional Environmental Change 8:91–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger MJ, Rounsevell MDA, Acosta-Michlik L, Leemans R, Schroter D (2006) The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114:69–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment, business and industry. Synthesis report. Island Press, Washington

  • Morse JM (1994) Designing funded qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 220–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Mücher CA, Bunce RGH, Jongman RHG, Klijn JA, Koomen A, Metzger MJ, Wascher DM (2003) Identification and characterisation of environments and landscapes in Europe. Alterra rapport 832, Alterra, Wageningen

  • Naidoo R, Ricketts TH (2006) Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biology 4:2153–2164

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green RE, Lehner B, Malcolm TR, Ricketts TH (2008) Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. PNAS 105(28):9495–9500

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grübler A, Jung TY et al (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. IPCC report, UNEP/WMO

  • Orians GH (1986) An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In: Penning-Rowsell EC, Lowenthal D (eds) Landscape meanings and values. Allen & Unwin, London, pp 3–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Soba M, Petit S, Jones L, Bertrand N, Briquel V, Omodei-Zorini L, Contini C, Helming K, Farrington JH, Tinacci Mossello M, Wascher D, Kienast F, de Groot RS (2008) Land use functions—a multifunctionality approach to assess the impact of land use changes on land use sustainability. In: Helming K, Pérez-Soba M, Tabbush P (eds) Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, Berlin, pp 376–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterseil J, Wrbka T, Plutzar C, Schmitzberger I, Kiss A, Szerencsits E, Reiter K, Schneider W, Suppan F, Beissmann H (2004) Evaluating the ecological sustainability of Austrian agricultural landscapes—the SINUS approach. Land Use Policy 21(3):307–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pontius RG, Thontteh O, Chen H (2008) Components of information for multiple resolution comparison between maps that share a real variable. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 15(2):111–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2006) ‘Rio +10’, sustainability science and landscape ecology. Landscape and Urban Planning 75(3–4):162–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T (2009) Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 68(5):1301–1315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees HG, Croker KM, Reynard NS, Gustard A (1997) Estimating the renewable water resource. In: Rees HG, Cole GA (eds) Estimation of renewable water resources in the European Union. Final report to Eurostat (SUP-COM95, 95/5-441931EN). Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford

  • Rienks W (ed) (2008) The future of rural Europe. An anthology based on the results of the Eururalis 20 scenarios. Wageningen University Research and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK, Houtven GV, Pattanayak SK (2002) Benefit transfer via preference calibration: “prudential algebra” for policy. Land Economics 78:132–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troy A, Wilson MA (2006) Mapping ecosystem services: practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60:435–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner BLI, Lambin EF, Reenberg A (2007) The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. PNAS 104:20666–20671

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RK, Daily GC (2008) The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation, environmental resource. Econonomics 39:25–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, Veldkamp A, Rounsevell MDA (2006) Scenario-based studies of future land use in Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, Eickhout B, van Meijl HA (2008) A multi-scale, multi-model approach for analyzing the future dynamics of European land use. Annals of Regional Science 42:57–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, van Berkel DB, van Doorn AM, van Eupen M, van den Heiligenberg HARM (in press) Trajectories of land use change in Europe: a model-based exploration of rural futures. Landscape Ecology. doi:101007/s10980-009-9347-7

  • Verburg PH, van de Steeg J, Veldkamp A, Willemen L (2009) From land cover change to land function dynamics: a major challenge to improve land characterization. Journal of Environmental Management 90(3):1327–1335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visser H, de Nijs T (2006) The Map Comparison Kit. Environmental Modelling and Software 21(3):346–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological Conservation 139:235–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westhoek HJ, van den Berg M, Bakkes JA (2006) Scenario development to explore the future of Europe’s rural areas. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 114(1):7–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willemen L, Verburg PH, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF (2008) Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landscape and Urban Planning 88(1):34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • With KA, Crist TO (1995) Critical thresholds in species’ responses to landscape structure. Ecology 76(8):2446–2459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrbka T, Erb KH, Schulz NB, Peterseil J, Hahn C, Haberl H (2004) Linking pattern and process in cultural landscapes. An empirical study based on spatially explicit indicators. Land Use Policy 21(3):289–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Jenerette GD, David JL (2003) Linking land-use change with ecosystem processes: a hierarchical patch dynamic model. In: Guhathakurta S (ed) Integrated land use and environmental models. Springer, Berlin, pp 99–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao M, Heinsch FA, Nemani RR, Running SW (2005) Improvements of the MODIS terrestrial gross and net primary production global data set. Remote Sensing of Environment 95:164–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Parts of this study were funded by SENSOR, EU 6th Framework Programme (003874 GOCE). The views expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies or project representatives. The authors thank Marc Metzger (University of Edinburgh) for providing the data of his study for the map evaluation and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903, Birmensdorf, Switzerland

    Felix Kienast, Janine Bolliger & Iris Heller

  2. Centre for Environmental Management, School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, England

    Marion Potschin & Roy Haines-Young

  3. Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Rudolf S. de Groot

  4. Land Dynamics Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Peter H. Verburg

  5. Alterra-Landscape Centre, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, Gaia Building, 6708 PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Dirk Wascher

Authors
  1. Felix Kienast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janine Bolliger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marion Potschin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rudolf S. de Groot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter H. Verburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Iris Heller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dirk Wascher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Roy Haines-Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felix Kienast.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kienast, F., Bolliger, J., Potschin, M. et al. Assessing Landscape Functions with Broad-Scale Environmental Data: Insights Gained from a Prototype Development for Europe. Environmental Management 44, 1099–1120 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9384-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9384-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation