Comparing participatory mapping and a spatial biophysical assessment of ecosystem service cold spots in agricultural landscapes

• Published in: Ecological indicators 2022-12, Vol.145, p.109700, Article 109700
• Main Authors: Schwartz, Carmen, Klebl, Fabian, Ungaro, Fabrizio, Bellingrath-Kimura, Sonoko-Dorothea, Piorr, Annette
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Agricultural landscapes; biodiversity; Biophysical assessment methods; carbon sequestration; case studies; cold; Ecosystem service assessment; Ecosystem service governance; ecosystem services; ecosystems; erosion control; Germany; governance; Internet; Participatory methods; PGIS; questionnaires; stakeholders
• ISSN: 1470-160X; 1872-7034
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109700

[Display omitted] •Observations in a biophysical and participatory ecosystem service assessment overlap.•Stakeholders can bring ecosystem service mapping into a problem–solution context.•Combining biophysical and participatory ecosystem service data can avoid trade-offs.•Hot and cold spot comparisons of ecosystem service clusters require high data density.•The decision which method to use should be made according to the use case. In this study, we assess the supply of five ecosystem services (ES, i.e. biodiversity provision, carbon sequestration, erosion control, water availability and yield) in an agricultural landscape in Northeast Germany as perceived by different stakeholders with a web-based questionnaire. We complement this participatory approach with a biophysical assessment of the same ES in the same study area using spatially explicit, indicator-based methods. A research gap exists in the combination of participatory and biophysical ES assessment methods within one study area. We derive spots of low supply of multiple ES (cold spots of ES supply) from the areas identified by the mapping and the biophysical assessment, and in collaboration with stakeholders of the region during an online workshop. Our interest is to (i) identify the advantages of comparing and combining biophysical with participatory methods to assess ES and to (ii) identify interfaces where combining both approaches can help to integrate ES assessment in landscape planning, management and design. Our goal is to establish an assessment basis that allows for a spatially explicit representation of trade-offs and synergies of ES by displaying multiple ES in one case study area, capable of integrating different resolutions. By comparing participatory and biophysical assessments, we identify ecological and social benefits of the landscape, and emphasize the social-ecological interface by limiting the scope of the biophysical assessment to the area of interest by the stakeholders. Besides, areas in which participants over- or underestimate the current ES supply are spotted by quantifying the gap between actual and perceived supply. The results reveal several similarities in the observations derived from both assessments. However, water availability is widely underestimated, whereas biodiversity and carbon sequestration are slightly overestimated. Based on our results, we conclude that in many cases, stakeholders who are familiar with the landscape because they live there or have a profes