Exploring the link between supply and demand of cultural ecosystem services – towards an integrated vulnerability assessment

References

• Adger WN. 2006. Vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang. 16:268–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agde G, Hünnekes HDA. 2013. Spielplätze und Freiräume zum Spielen: ein Handbuch für Planung und Betrieb. Beuth: Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V.
   Google Scholar
• Alberti M. 2005. The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. Int Reg Sci Rev. 28:168–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beichler SA, Davidse BJ, Deppisch S 2012. Dynamics of a social-ecological system under climate change – searching for a match with levels of governance. Paper presented at the European Urban Research Association (EURA) Conference “Urban Europe – Challenges to meet the Urban Future”; Sep 20–22; Vienna, Austria.
   Google Scholar
• Brown G, Montag JM, Lyon K. 2012. Public participation GIS: a method for identifying ecosystem services. Soc Nat Resour. 25:633–651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G, Reed P. 2012. Social landscape metrics: measures for understanding place values from public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS). Landsc Res. 37:73–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, Macdonald DH. 2010. Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: where, what, and how? Landsc Urban Plan. 97:111–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F, Windhorst W. 2010. 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
• Burkhard B, Petrosillo I, Costanza R. 2010. Ecosystem services – bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecol Complex. 7:257–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KM, Satterfield T, Goldstein J. 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ. 74:8–18.
   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. Ecosyst Serv. 4:4–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM. 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ. doi:10.1890/080023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A, Aznar O, Boyd JW, Chan KMA, Costanza R, Elmqvist T, Flint CG, Gobster PH, et al. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 109:8812–8819.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Chazal J, Quetier F, Lavorel S, Vandoorn A. 2008. Including multiple differing stakeholder values into vulnerability assessments of socio-ecological systems. Glob Environ Chang. 18:508–520.
   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
• De Groot RSS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex. 7:260–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ernstson H. 2013. The social production of ecosystem services: a framework for studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan. 109:7–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2013. Quality of life in cities – perception survey in 79 European cities. Luxembourg: European Union. doi:10.2776/79403
   Google Scholar
• [EEA] European Environment Agency. 2009. Ensuring quality of life in Europe’s cities and towns. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. doi:10.2800/11052
   Google Scholar
• Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N. 2009. Participatory mapping and geographical patterns of the social landscape values of rural communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Fennia. 187:43–60.
   Google Scholar
• Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N, Ndumbaro F, Khamis M. 2012. Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments – mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol Indic. 18:421–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gasper R, Blohm A, Ruth M. 2011. Social and economic impacts of climate change on the urban environment. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 3:150–157.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granek EF, Polasky S, Kappel CV, Reed DJ, Stoms DM, Koch EW, Kennedy CJ, Cramer LA, Hacker SD, Barbier EB, et al. 2010. Ecosystem services as a common language for coastal ecosystem-based management. Conserv Biol. 24:207–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haase D, Schwarz N, Strohbach M, Kroll F, Seppelt R. 2012. Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: an integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig- Halle Region, Germany. Ecol Soc. 17: 22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagemeier-Klose M, Beichler SA, Davidse BJ, Deppisch S. 2014. The dynamic knowledge loop: inter-and transdisciplinary cooperation and adaptation of climate change knowledge. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 5:21–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hermann A, Schleifer S, Wrbka T. 2011. The concept of ecosystem services regarding landscape research: a review. Living Rev Landsc Res. 1:1–37.
   Google Scholar
• Hinkel J. 2011. ‘Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity’: towards a clarification of the science–policy interface. Glob Environ Chang. 21:198–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt A, Watkiss P. 2011. Climate change impacts and adaptation in cities: a review of the literature. Clim Change. 13–49. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9975-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutton CW, Kienberger S, Amoako Johnson F, Allan A, Giannini V, Allen R. 2011. Vulnerability to climate change: people, place and exposure to hazard. Adv Sci Res. 7:37–45.
   Google Scholar
• [IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report of working groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kandziora M, Burkhard B, Müller F. 2013. Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators—a theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol Indic. 28:54–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koschke L, Fürst C, Frank S, Makeschin F. 2012. A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecol Indic. 21:54–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroll F, Müller F, Haase D, Fohrer N. 2012. Rural–urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy. 29:521–535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larondelle N, Haase D. 2013. Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural–urban gradient: a cross-analysis of European cities. Ecol Indic. 29:179–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez-Harms MJ, Balvanera P. 2012. Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag. 8:17–25.
   Google Scholar
• Maxim L, Spangenberg JH 2003. Bridging the gap between two analytical frameworks. Paper presented at Ninth Biennial Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics ‘Ecological Sustainability and Human Well-Being’; Dec 15–18; New Delhi; p. 1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard S, James D, Davidson A. 2011. An adaptive participatory approach for developing an ecosystem services framework for South East Queensland, Australia. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag. 7:182–189.
   Google Scholar
• [MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being : millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington (DC): Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• München. 2005. Grünplanung in München. Landeshauptstadt München: Referat für Stadtplanung und Bauordnung, Abteilung Grünplanung.
   Google Scholar
• Niemelä J, Saarela S-R, Söderman T, Kopperoinen L, Yli-Pelkonen V, Väre S, Kotze DJ. 2010. Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodivers Conserv. 19:3225–3243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palomo I, Martín-López B, Potschin M, Haines-young R, Montes C. 2012. National parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosyst Serv. 4:1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patt A, Klein RJT, de la Vega-Leinert A. 2005. Taking the uncertainty in climate-change vulnerability assessment seriously. Comptes Rendus Geosci. 337:411–424.
   Web of Science ®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
• Preston BL, Yuen EJ, Westaway RM. 2011. Putting vulnerability to climate change on the map: a review of approaches, benefits, and risks. Sustain Sci. 177–202. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0129-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radford KG, James P. 2013. Changes in the value of ecosystem services along a rural-urban gradient: a case study of Greater Manchester, UK. Landsc Urban Plan. 109:117–127.
   Web of Science ®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 Econ. 68:1301–1315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rounsevell MDA, Dawson TP, Harrison PA. 2010. A conceptual framework to assess the effects of environmental change on ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv. 19:2823–2842.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulp CJE, Lautenbach S, Verburg PH. 2014. Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services: demand and supply of pollination in the European Union. Ecol Indic. 36:131–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherrouse BC, Clement JM, Semmens DJ. 2011. A GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the social values of ecosystem services. Appl Geogr. 31:748–760.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ståhle A. 2006. Sociotope mapping – exploring public open space and its multiple use values in urban and landscape planning practice. Nord J Archit Res. 19:59–71.
   Google Scholar
• Stürck J, Poortinga A, Verburg PH. 2014. Mapping ecosystem services: the supply and demand of flood regulation services in Europe. Ecol Indic. 38:198–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Summers JK, Smith LM, Case JL, Linthurst RA. 2012. A review of the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. Ambio. 327–340. doi:10.1007/s13280-012-0256-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Syrbe R-U, Walz U. 2012. Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic. 21:80–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner BL, Kasperson RE, Matson PA, McCarthy JJ, Corell RW, Christensen L, Eckley N, Kasperson JX, Luers A, Martello ML, et al. 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 100:8074–8079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar