TY - JOUR
T1 - Humans versus models
T2 - a comparative assessment of ecosystem services models and stakeholders’ perceptions
AU - David, João
AU - Cabral, Pedro
AU - Campos, Felipe S.
N1 - info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/6817 - DCRRNI ID/UIDB%2F04152%2F2020/PT#
https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/04152/2020#
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/3599-PPCDT/PTDC%2FCTA-AMB%2F28438%2F2017/PT#
David, J., Cabral, P., & Campos, F. S. (2024). Humans versus models: a comparative assessment of ecosystem services models and stakeholders’ perceptions. Scientific Reports, 14, 1-13. Article 25995. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-76600-w --- The article processing charge was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)—491192747 and the Open Access Publication Fund of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. This research was supported by the FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia), under the project—UIDB/04152/2020 (https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/04152/2020)—Centro de Investigação em Gestão de Informação (MagIC)/NOVA IMS), and the European Union-NextGenerationEU. João David was financially supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology—FCT under Grant [2021.06482. BD]. Felipe S. Campos was financially supported by a Beatriu de Pinós fellowship 2022 BP 00092 (funded by the Catalan Government and the EU COFUND programme of the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions). We thank Sarah Gwillym-Margianto as a native speaker for proofreading and providing valuable feedback on the English language of this manuscript.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Mapping the production of Ecosystem Services (ES) is imperative for sustainable ecosystem management. Likewise, incorporating expert knowledge enhances ES research. Here, we calculate eight multi-temporal ES indicators for mainland Portugal using a spatial modelling approach. These indicators are then integrated into the novel ASEBIO index—Assessment of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity—which depicts a combined ES potential based on CORINE Land Cover, using a multi-criteria evaluation method with weights defined by stakeholders through an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Outputs from the modelling show how ES have changed in Portugal in relation to land use changes, including trade-offs between 1990 and 2018. The composed ASEBIO index is compared against the stakeholders’ valuation of ES potential for the year 2018. The results reveal a significant mismatch between the ES potential perceived by stakeholders and the models, with stakeholder estimates being 32.8% higher on average. All the selected ES were overestimated by the stakeholders. Drought regulation and erosion prevention have the highest contrasts, while water purification, food production and recreation are the most closely aligned among both approaches. Providing the first national overview about the status of multiple ES over a 28 year-period, our findings highlight potential disparities between data-driven and stakeholder-based evaluations. Therefore, we suggest the need for integrative strategies that consider scientific models with expert knowledge for more effective ES assessments and land-use planning. This approach could help bridge the gap between data-driven models and human perspectives, resulting in more balanced and inclusive decision-making.
AB - Mapping the production of Ecosystem Services (ES) is imperative for sustainable ecosystem management. Likewise, incorporating expert knowledge enhances ES research. Here, we calculate eight multi-temporal ES indicators for mainland Portugal using a spatial modelling approach. These indicators are then integrated into the novel ASEBIO index—Assessment of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity—which depicts a combined ES potential based on CORINE Land Cover, using a multi-criteria evaluation method with weights defined by stakeholders through an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Outputs from the modelling show how ES have changed in Portugal in relation to land use changes, including trade-offs between 1990 and 2018. The composed ASEBIO index is compared against the stakeholders’ valuation of ES potential for the year 2018. The results reveal a significant mismatch between the ES potential perceived by stakeholders and the models, with stakeholder estimates being 32.8% higher on average. All the selected ES were overestimated by the stakeholders. Drought regulation and erosion prevention have the highest contrasts, while water purification, food production and recreation are the most closely aligned among both approaches. Providing the first national overview about the status of multiple ES over a 28 year-period, our findings highlight potential disparities between data-driven and stakeholder-based evaluations. Therefore, we suggest the need for integrative strategies that consider scientific models with expert knowledge for more effective ES assessments and land-use planning. This approach could help bridge the gap between data-driven models and human perspectives, resulting in more balanced and inclusive decision-making.
KW - Land use changes
KW - Ecosystem services indicators
KW - Landscape planning
KW - Stakeholders’ perception
KW - Sustainable management
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85208131831&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:001345876000100
U2 - 10.1038/s41598-024-76600-w
DO - 10.1038/s41598-024-76600-w
M3 - Article
C2 - 39472640
SN - 2045-2322
VL - 14
SP - 1
EP - 13
JO - Scientific Reports
JF - Scientific Reports
M1 - 25995
ER -