Advertisement

Spatial Patterns of Ecosystem Service Bundles in Germany

  • Andreas DittrichEmail author
  • Ralf Seppelt
  • Tomáš Václavík
  • Anna F. Cord
Chapter

Abstract

Which ecosystem services are addressed? Timber production, crop production, crops for bioenergy use, livestock production, water quality regulation, recreation, erosion control, pollination, nitrogen retention, flood regulation

Keywords

EU biodiversity strategy Environmental management National scale Spatial analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    European Commission. Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Brussels; 2011. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0244. Accessed 25 Oct 2017.
  2. 2.
    Albert C, Neßhöver C, Wittmer H, Hinzmann M, Görg C. Sondierungsstudie für ein Nationales Assessment von Ökosystemen und ihren Leistungen für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Deutschland. Unter Mitarbeit von K. Grunewald und O. Bastian (IÖR). Leipzig: Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung – UFZ; 2014.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albert C, Bonn A, Burkhard B, Daube S, Dietrich K, Engels B, et al. Towards a national set of ecosystem service indicators: insights from Germany. Ecol Indic. 2015;61:38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rabe S-E, Koellner T, Marzelli S, Schumacher P, Grêt-Regamey A. National ecosystem service mapping at multiple scales – the German exemplar. Ecol Indic. 2016;70:357–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:5242–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Turner KG, Odgaard MV, Bøcher PK, Dalgaard T, Svenning J-C. Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;125:89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Renard D, Rhemtulla JM, Bennett EM. Historical dynamics in ecosystem service bundles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112:13411–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Eigenbrod F, Thomas CD, Gillings S, Heinemeyer A, et al. Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities. J Appl Ecol. 2009;46:888–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Skupin A, Agarwal P. Introduction: what is a self-organizing map? In: Agarwal P, Skupin A, editors. Self-organising maps: applications in geographic information science. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2008.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grizzetti B, Bouraoui F, De Marsily G. Assessing nitrogen pressures on European surface water. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2008;22:GB4023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Verkerk PJ, Levers C, Kuemmerle T, Lindner M, Valbuena R, Verburg PH, et al. Mapping wood production in European forests. For Ecol Manag. 2015;357:228–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wurbs D, Steininger M. Wirkungen der Klimaänderungen auf die Böden. Deßau-Roslau: Umwelbundesamt; 2011.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stürck J, Poortinga A, Verburg PH. Mapping ecosystem services: the supply and demand of flood regulation services in Europe. Ecol Indic. 2014;38:198–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schulp CJE, Lautenbach S, Verburg PH. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services: demand and supply of pollination in the European Union. Ecol Indic. 2014;36:131–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marzelli S, Grêt-Regamey A, Moning C, Rabe S-E, Koellner T, Daube S. Die Erfassung von Ökosystemleistungen. Erste Schritte für eine Nutzung des Konzepts auf nationaler Ebene für Deutschland. Natur und Landschaft Zeitschrift für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege. 2014;89:66–73.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dittrich A, Seppelt R, Václavík T, Cord AF. Integrating ecosystem service bundles and socio-environmental conditions: a national scale analysis from Germany. Ecosyst Serv. 2017;28:273–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Antrop M. Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landsc Urban Plan. 2005;70:21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee H, Lautenbach S. A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecol Indic. 2016;66:340–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Dittrich
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ralf Seppelt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tomáš Václavík
    • 1
    • 3
  • Anna F. Cord
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computational Landscape EcologyHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Geoscience and GeographyMartin Luther University Halle-WittenbergHalleGermany
  3. 3.Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of SciencePalacký University OlomoucOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations