Mapping ecosystem services potential in Lithuania

References

• Aquafima. 2014. Aquafima project: actual and potential aquaculture locations in the Baltic Sea Region [Internet]. INTERREG IV B project Aquafima. Final Report. [cited 2015 Jun 12]. Available from: http://www.aquafima.eu/export/sites/aquafima/documents/WP5/Actual-and-potential-aquaculture-locations-in-the-BSR_final-with-maps.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ATEAM [Internet] 2004. ATEAM project - advanced terrestrial ecosystem analysis and modelling; [cited 2015 Mar 3]. Available from: https://www.pik-potsdam.de/ateam/
   Google Scholar
• Bagstad KJ, Johnson GW, Voigt B, Villa F. 2013. Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: a comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services. Ecosystem Services. 4:117–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagstad KJ, Villa F, Johnson GW, Voigt B. 2011. ARIES – artificial intelligence for ecosystem services: a guide to models and data, version1.0 [Internet]. ARIES report series n.1. Aires Consortium. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaRev/meeting2013/EG13-BG-7.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Balthazar V, Vanacker V, Molina A, Lambin EF. 2015. Impacts of forest cover change on ecosystem services in high Andean mountains. Ecol Ind. 48:63–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BaltSeaPlan [Internet]. 2012. BaltSeaPlan project; [ cited 2015 Mar 12]. Available from: http://www.baltseaplan.eu/
   Google Scholar
• Belous O, Gulbinskas S [Internet]. 2006. Klaipeda deep-sea seaport development. Case study report within the Coastman project; [cited 2016 Jan 9]. Available from: http://www.coastman.se/getfile.ashx?cid=41226ç3&refid=7
   Google Scholar
• Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. 12:1394–1404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berrang-Ford L, Garton K. 2013. Expert knowledge sourcing for public health surveillance: national tsetse mapping in Uganda. Soc Sci Med. 91:246–255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd J, Banzhaf S. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ. 63:616–626.
   Google Scholar
• Braat LC, de Groot R. 2012. The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services. 1:4–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brevik EC, Calzolari C, Miller BA, Pereira P, Kabala C, Baumgarten A, Jordán A. 2016. Soil mapping, classification, and pedologic modeling: history and future directions. Geoderma. 264:256–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer R, Brander L, Kuik O, Papyrakis E, Bateman I. 2013. A synthesis of approaches to assess and value ecosystem services in the EU in the context of TEEB [Internet]. TEEB follow-up study for Europe. Final Report. University of Amsterdam. [cited 2015 Sep 15]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/EU%20Valuation.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brown G, Fagerholm N. 2014. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosystem Services. 13:1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkhard B, Kandziora M, Hou Y, Müller F. 2014. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands – concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landsc Online. 34:1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W. 2009. Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services – a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc Online. 15:1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic. 21:17–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter SR, Bennett E, Peterson GD. 2006. Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview [Internet]. Ecol Soc. 11:29. [cited 2015 Oct 10]. Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art29/)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CICES (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services) [Internet]. 2013. Towards a common international classification of ecosystem services; [ cited 2015 Mar 11]. Available from: http://cices.eu/
   Google Scholar
• Clerici N, Paracchini ML, Maes J. 2014. Land-cover change dynamics and insights into ecosystem services in European stream riparian zones. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol. 14:107–120.
   Google Scholar
• Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farberk S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, Rv O, Paruelo J, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 387:253–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossman ND, Burkhard B, Nedkov S, Willemen L, Petz K, Palomo I, Drakou EG, Martín-Lopez B, McPhearson T, Boyanova K, et al. 2013. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. 4:4–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daw TM, Coulthard S, Cheung WWL, Brown K, Abunge C, Galafassi D, Peterson GD, McClanahan TR, Omukoto JO, Munyi L. 2015. Evaluating taboo trade-offs in ecosystems services and human well-being. PNAS. 112/22:6949–6954.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ. 41:393–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Depellegrin D, Blažauskas N. 2013. Integrating ecosystem service values into oil spill impact assessment. J Coastal Res. 289:836–846.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Depellegrin D, Blažauskas N, Egarter-Vigl L. 2012. Aesthetic Value Characterization of Landscapes in Coastal Zones. Paper presented at: Baltic International Symposium (BALTIC), IEEE/OES; 8–11 May; Klaipeda.
   Google Scholar
• EEA [Internet] 2006. European environmental agenc . Corine Land Cover; [cited 2015 Mar 12]. Available from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover
   Google Scholar
• EIONET [Internet]. 2015. european topic centre on spatial information and analysis. CORINE land cover nomenclature conversion to land cover classification system; [cited 2015 Mar 12]. Available from: http://sia.eionet.europa.eu/CLC2000/classes
   Google Scholar
• ESRI. 2010. ArcGIS ver. 10.1. Redlands, CA: ESRI.
   Google Scholar
• EU – Maritime Affairs [Internet]. 2009. European environmental agency. Lithuania climate change; [cited 2015 Dec 29]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/studies/documents/lithuania_climate_change_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Gasiūnienė VE. 2007. Lithuanian mineral resources and their usage: today, future, and problems. Estonian J. of Earth Sc. 3:3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Guerry AD, Ruckelshaus MH, Arkema KK, Bernhardt JR, Guannel G, Kim C-K, Marsik M, Papenfus M, Toft JE, Verutes G, et al. 2012. Modeling benefits from nature: using ecosystem services to inform coastal and marine spatial planning. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 8:107–2.
   Google Scholar
• Gulbinas Z. 2014. Landscape management zoning in protected areas of Lithuania: new challenges in changing environment. Paper presented at: Advances in Spatial Typologies: How to move from concepts to practice? IALE-Europe Thematic Workshop 2014 4–5 July 2014, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal Symposium 3 – Case studies across scales.
   Google Scholar
• Gulbinskas S, Trimonis E, Blažauskas N, Michelevicius D. 2009. Sandy deposits study offshore Lithuania. SE Baltic Sea. Baltica. 22:1–9.
   Google Scholar
• HABEaS [Internet]. 2015. Hotspot areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services (HABEaS); [cited 2015 Mar 18]. Available from: http://www.habeas.com.pt/?q=node/45
   Google Scholar
• Hauck J, Görg C, Varjopuro R, Ratamäki O, Jax K. 2013. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives. Environ Sci Policy. 25:13–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hou Y, Zhou S, Burkhard B, Müller F. 2014. Socioeconomic influences on biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being: a quantitative application of the DPSIR model in Jiangsu, China. Sci Total Environ. 490:1012–1028.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howe C, Suich H, Vira B, Mace GM. 2014. Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob Environ Chang. 28:263–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs S, Burkhard B, Van Daele T, Staes J, Schneiders A. 2015. ‘The Matrix Reloaded’: a review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecol Model. 295:21–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser G, Burkhard B, Römer H, Sangkaew S, Graterol R, Haitook T, Sterr H, Sakuna-Schwartz D. 2013. Mapping tsunami impacts on land cover and related ecosystem service supply in Phang Nga, Thailand, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 13:3095–3111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Müller F. 2013. Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution. Ecosystem Services. 4:47–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein TM, Celio E, Grêt-Regamey A. 2015. Ecosystem services visualization and communication: a demand analysis approach for designing information and conceptualizing decision support systems. Ecosystem Services. 13:173–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar P, Wood MD. 2010. Valuation of regulating services of ecosystems: methodology and applications. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Larondelle N, Haase D, Kabisch N. 2014. Mapping the diversity of regulating ecosystem services in European cities. Glob Environ Chang. 26:119–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leal Filho WDS. 2004. Ecological agriculture and rural development in central and eastern European countries [Internet]. NATO science series, V 44: science and technology policy. IOS Press. [cited 2015 Oct 1]. Available from: http://www.iospress.nl/book/ecological-agriculture-and-rural-development-in-central-and-eastern-european-countries/
   Google Scholar
• Legendre P, Legendre L. 1998. Numerical ecology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• LIAE (Lithuanian Institute of Agrarian Economics) [Internet]. 2014. Agricultural and food sector in Lithuania 2013; [cited 2015 Dec 27] Available from: https://www.laei.lt/x_file_download.php?pid=2019
   Google Scholar
• Lithuania S 2014 [Internet]. Department of statistics if Lithuania; [cited 2015 Mar 23]. Available from: http://www.stat.gov.lt/
   Google Scholar
• Lithuanian Statistical Department [Internet]. 2014. Natural resources and environmental protection; [cited 2015 Mar 3]. Available from: https://osp.stat.gov.lt/services-portlet/pub-edition-file?id=2988
   Google Scholar
• MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington (DC): Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, La Notte A, Zulian G, et al. 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosytem Services. 1:31–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naruševičius V, Matiukas G. 2011. Introducing the concept of ecosystem services: inventory and economic valuation on local scale in Lithuania. Darnus Vystymosi Strategija Ir Praktika. 1:120–136.
   Google Scholar
• [NCC] National Commission for Prices and Energy. 2014. Tariffs for electricity from renewable energy sources; [ cited 2016 Jan 5]. Available from: http://www.regula.lt/Docs/nutarimas-66.docx ( Lithuanian).
   Google Scholar
• Nedkov S, Burkhard B. 2012. Flood regulating ecosystem services – mapping supply and demand in the etropole municipality. Bulgaria. Ecol Indic. 21:67–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann K, Herold M, Hartley A, Schmullius C. 2007. Comparative assessment of CORINE2000 and GLC2000: spatial analysis of land cover data for Europe. Int J of Appl Earth Obs Geoinf. 9:425–437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [OET] Offshore Energy Today. [Internet]. 2015. Lithuania back on offshore exploration map; [cited 2016 Jan 5]. Available from: http://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/lithuania-back-on-offshore-exploration-map/
   Google Scholar
• Palomo I, Martın-Lopez B, Zorrilla-Miras P, Garcıa Del Amo D, Montes C. 2014. Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services within and around Doñana National Park (SW Spain) in relation to land use change. Reg Environ Change. 14:237–251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira P, Cerdà A, Úbeda X, Mataix-Solera J, Arcenegui V, Zavala LM. 2015. Modelling the impacts of wildfire on ash thickness in a short-term period. Land Degrad Develop. 26:180–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira P, Ubeda X, Outeiro L, Martin D. 2009. Factor analysis applied to fire temperature effects on water quality. In: Gomez E, Alvarez KEE, editors. Forest fires: detection, suppression and prevention. New York (NY): Nova Science Publishers; p. 273–285.
   Google Scholar
• Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C. 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy. 33:118–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potts T, Burdon D, Jackson E, Atkins J, Saunders J, Hastings E, Langmead O. 2014. Do marine protected areas deliver flows of ecosystem services to support human welfare? Mar Policy. 44:139–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Povilanskas R, Urbis A. 2004. National ICZM strategy and initiatives in Lithuania [Internet]. In: Schernewski G, Löser N, editors. Managing the baltic sea. coastline reports. Vol. 2, p. 9–15. EUCC – The Coastal Union EUCC – Die Küsten Union Deutschland. [cited 2015 Jun 1]. Available from: http://www.eucc-d.de/tl_files/eucc/pdf/coastlinereports/Coastline%20Reports_002.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Power AG. 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Phil Trans R Soc. B. 365:2959–2971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• QGIS [Internet]. Documentation QGIS 1.8; 2015 [cited 2015 Mar 15]. Available from: http://docs.qgis.org/1.8/en/docs/user_manual/sextante/modeler.html
   Google Scholar
• Qiu J, Turner MG. 2013. Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. PNAS. 110:12149–12154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. PNAS. 107:5242–5247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rendenieks Z, Nikodemus O, Brūmelis G. 2015. The implications of stand composition, age and spatial patterns of forest regions with different ownership type for management optimisation in northern Latvia. Forest Ecol Manag. 335:216–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resources A [Internet] 2015. How Spatial Autocorrelation (Global Moran’s I) works; [cited 2015 Dec 12] Available from: http://resources.arcgis.com/EN/HELP/MAIN/10.1/index.html#//005p0000000t000000
   Google Scholar
• Roces-Díaz JV, Díaz-Varela ER, Álvarez-Álvarez P. 2014. Analysis of spatial scales for ecosystem services: application of the lacunarity concept at landscape level in Galicia (NW Spain). Ecol Indic. 36:495–507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Loinaz G, Alday JG, Onaindia M. 2015. Multiple ecosystem services landscape index: a tool for multifunctional landscapes conservation. J. of Env. Manage. 147:152–163.
   Google Scholar
• Ruijs A, Wossink A, Kortelainen M, Alkemade R, Schulp CJE. 2013. Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services in Eastern Europe. Ecosystem Services. 4:82–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ščeponavičiūtė R, Monarchova J, Semėnienė D. 2007. Nevėžis river basin case study. Report of the project “Capacity building on the assessment of environmental and resource costs as support to the implementation of the European Union Water Framework Directive in the Baltic Member States”. Project number PPA04/MC/6/5. Wageningen: Wageningen International.
   Google Scholar
• Schaich H, Plieninger T. 2013. Land ownership drives stand structure and carbon storage of deciduous temperate forests. Forest Ecol Manage. 305:146–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulp CJE, Alkemade R, Klein K, Petz K. 2012. Mapping ecosystem functions and services in Eastern Europe using global-scale data sets. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 8:156–168.
   Google Scholar
• Se L, Costello C, Bs H, Sd G, White C, Barth JA. 2013. Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning. Marine Policy. 38:80–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherrouse BC, Semmens DJ, Clement JM. 2014. An application of Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecol Indic. 36:68–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sohel MSI, Mukul SA, Burkhard B. 2015. Landscapes capacities to supply ecosystem services in Bangladesh: a mapping assessment for Lawachara National Park. Ecosystem Services. 12:128–135. StatSoft Inc. STATISTICA, Version 6.0., Tulsa, OK, 2006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statistical Yearbook of Lithuania. [Internet]. 2013; [cited 2015 Mar 23]. Available from: http://osp.stat.gov.lt/services-portlet/pub-edition-file?id=704.
   Google Scholar
• StatSoft Inc. 2006. STATISTICA, version 6.0. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Stoll S, Frenzel M, Burkhard B, Adamescu M, Augustaitis A, Baeßler C, Bonet García FJ, Cazacu C, Cosor GL, Díaz-Delgado R, et al. 2015. Assessment of spatial ecosystem integrity and service gradients across Europe using the LTER Europe network. Ecol Model. 295:75–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [TEEB] The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Malta: UNEP.
   Google Scholar
• Turner KG, Vestergaard Odgaard M, Bøcher PK, Dalgaard T, Svenning J-C. 2014. Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landsc Urban Plan. 125:89–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tutkunkardes B. 2008. Tourism and recreation in the Curonian Spit in Lithuania – Recreational – Geographic developments and perspectives in a new country. Annales Geographicae. 41:t. 2008.
   Google Scholar
• UNSTATS [Internet] 2015. United Nations Statistical Commission; [cited 2015 Mar 23]. Available from: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2012/Table03.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Vihervaara P, Kumpula T, Tanskanen A, Burkhard B. 2010. Ecosystem services–a tool for sustainable management of human–environment systems. Case study Finnish Forest Lapland. Ecol Complex. 7:410–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villa F, Bagstad KJ, Voigt B, Johnson GW, Portela R, Honzák M, Batker D, Margalida A. 2014. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PLoSONE. 9:e91001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM. 2013. Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol. Comply. 15:114–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrebos D, Staes J, Vandenbroucke T, D׳Haeyer T, Johnston R, Muhumuza M, Kasabeke C, Meire P. 2015. Mapping ecosystem service flows with land cover scoring maps for data-scarce regions. Ecosystem Services. Ecosystem Services. 13:28–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White C, Halpern BS, Kappel CV. 2012. Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 109:4696–4701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zemlys P, Fröhle P, Gulbinskas S, Davulienė L. 2007. Near-shore evolution model for Palanga area: feasibility study of beach erosion management. Geologija. 57:45–54.
   Google Scholar