Biodiversity and ecosystem services dashboards to inform landscape and urban planning: a systematic analysis of current practices

References

• Abd-Elfattah M, Alghamdi T, Amer E. 2014. Dashboard technology-based solution to decision making. Int J Comput Sci Eng. 4(2):59–15.
   Google Scholar
• Adem Esmail B, Cortinovis C, Suleiman L, Albert C, Geneletti D, Mörtberg U. 2022. Greening cities through urban planning: a literature review on the uptake of concepts and methods in Stockholm. Urban For Urban Green. 72:127584. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albert C, Aronson J, Fürst C, Opdam P. 2014. Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landsc Ecol. 29(8):1277–1285. doi: 10.1007/s10980-014-0085-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almenar JB, Elliot T, Rugani B, Philippe B, Gutierrez TN, Sonnemann G, Geneletti D. 2021. Nexus between nature-based solutions, ecosystem services and urban challenges. Land Use Policy. 100:104898. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104898.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartlett J, Tkacz N. 2017. Governance by dashboard: a policy paper.
   Google Scholar
• Batty M, Yang W. 2022. A digital future for planning. Spatial planning reimagined. University College London, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis.
   Google Scholar
• Beck-O’Brien M, Bringezu S. 2021. Biodiversity monitoring in long-distance food supply chains: tools, gaps and needs to meet business requirements and Sustainability goals. Sustainability. 13(15):8536. doi: 10.3390/su13158536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billger M, Thuvander L, Wästberg BS. 2017. In search of visualization challenges: the development and implementation of visualization tools for supporting dialogue in urban planning processes. Environ Plann B: Urban Anal City Sci. 44(6):1012–1035. doi: 10.1177/0265813516657341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braunschweig O, Colesanti SC, Lunsford D. 2022. CEP policy brief: a dashboard for biodiversity risk metrics. Center for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London.
   Google Scholar
• Burkhard B, Maes J. 2017. Mapping ecosystem services. Advanced books; p. e12837. doi: 10.3897/ab.e12837.
   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. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 4:4–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001.
   Google Scholar
• Díaz-Reviriego I, Turnhout E, Beck S. 2019. Participation and inclusiveness in the intergovernmental science–policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Nat Sustainability. 2(6):457–464. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0290-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobraja I, Kraak M-J. 2020. Principles of dashboard adaptability to get insights into origin-destination data. J Locat Based Serv. 14(1):28–48. doi: 10.1080/17489725.2020.1738577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drakou EG, Crossman ND, Willemen L, Burkhard B, Palomo I, Maes J, Peedell S. 2015. A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 13:134–140. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.002.
   Google Scholar
• Eckerson WW. 2010. Performance dashboards: measuring, monitoring, and managing your business. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Etxano I, Garmendia E, Pascual U, Hoyos D, Díez M-Á, Cadiñanos JA, Lozano PJ. 2015. A participatory integrated assessment approach for Natura 2000 network sites. Environ Plann C. 33(5):1207–1232. doi: 10.1177/0263774X15612318.
   Google Scholar
• Farmanbar M, Rong C. 2020. Triangulum city dashboard: an interactive data analytic platform for visualizing smart city performance. Processes. 8(2):250. doi: 10.3390/pr8020250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fegraus EH, Zaslavsky I, Whitenack T, Dempewolf J, Ahumada JA, Lin K, Andelman SJ. 2012. Interdisciplinary decision support dashboard: a new framework for a Tanzanian agricultural and ecosystem service monitoring system pilot. IEEE J-Stars. 5(6):1700–1708. doi: 10.1109/JSTARS.2012.2204864.
   Google Scholar
• Few S. 2006. Information dashboard design: the effective visual communication of data. Sebastopol (CA): O’Reilly Media, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Fürstenau D, Morelli F, Meindl K, Schulte-Althoff M, Rabe J. 2021. A social citizen dashboard for participatory urban planning in Berlin: prototype and evaluation. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Online.
   Google Scholar
• Fürst C, Luque S, Geneletti D. 2017. Nexus thinking–how ecosystem services can contribute to enhancing the cross-scale and cross-sectoral coherence between land use, spatial planning and policy-making. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 13(1):412–421. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2017.1396257.
   Google Scholar
• García-Llorente M, Iniesta-Arandia I, Willaarts BA, Harrison PA, Berry P, Del Bayo MM, Castro AJ, Montes C, Martín-López B. 2015. Biophysical and sociocultural factors underlying spatial trade-offs of ecosystem services in semiarid watersheds. Ecol Soc. 20(3). doi: 10.5751/ES-07785-200339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geneletti D, Adem Esmail B, Cortinovis C, Arany I, Balzan M, van Beukering PJH, Bicking S, Borges PAV, Borisova B, Gil A. 2020b. Ecosystem services mapping and assessment for policy-and decision-making: lessons learned from a comparative analysis of European case studies. One Ecosyst. 5:2367–8194. doi: 10.3897/oneeco.5.e53111.
   Google Scholar
• Geneletti D, Cortinovis C, Zardo L, Adem Esmail B. 2020a. Planning for ecosystem services in cities. Springer Nature. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-20024-4.
   Google Scholar
• Gottwald S, Albert C, Fagerholm N. 2022. Combining sense of place theory with the ecosystem services concept: empirical insights and reflections from a participatory mapping study. Landsc Ecol. 37(2):633–655. doi: 10.1007/s10980-021-01362-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grêt-Regamey A, Altwegg J, Sirén EA, van Strien MJ, Weibel B. 2017a. Integrating ecosystem services into spatial planning—a spatial decision support tool. Landsc Urban Plan. 165:206–219. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grêt-Regamey A, Sirén E, Brunner SH, Weibel B. 2017b. Review of decision support tools to operationalize the ecosystem services concept. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 26:306–315. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.012.
   Google Scholar
• Grêt-Regamey A, Weibel B, Kienast F, Rabe S-E, Zulian G. 2015. A tiered approach for mapping ecosystem services. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 13:16–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.008.
   Google Scholar
• Han J, Kim KH, Rhee W, Cho YH. 2021. Learning analytics dashboards for adaptive support in face-to-face collaborative argumentation. Comput Educ. 163:104041. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104041.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han X, Smyth RL, Young BE, Brooks TM, Sánchez de Lozada A, Bubb P, Butchart SHM, Larsen FW, Hamilton H, Hansen MC, et al. 2014. A biodiversity indicators dashboard: addressing challenges to monitoring progress towards the Aichi biodiversity targets using disaggregated global data. PLoS One. 9(11):e112046. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey P. 1996. The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environ Plan B. 23(2):217–234. doi: 10.1068/b230217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann T, Mehl D, Schilling J, Chen S, Tränckner J, Hinz M, Bill R. 2021. GIS-basiertes Entscheidungsunterstützungssystem für die prospektive synergistische Planung von Entwicklungsoptionen in Regiopolen am Beispiel des Stadt-Umland-Raums Rostock. gis. Sci. 69–85.
   Google Scholar
• Jing C, Du M, Li S, Liu S. 2019. Geospatial dashboards for monitoring smart city performance. Sustainability. 11(20):5648. doi: 10.3390/su11205648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kikerpill K, Siibak A. 2021. Mazephishing: the COVID-19 pandemic as credible social context for social engineering attacks. Trames: J Humanit Soc. 25(4):371–393. doi: 10.3176/tr.2021.4.01.
   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. Environ Serv. 13:173–183.
   Google Scholar
• Konno KO, Akasaka M, Koshida C, Katayama N, Osada N, Spake R, Amano T. 2020. Ignoring non‐English‐language studies may bias ecological meta‐analyses. Ecol Evol. 10(13):6373–6384. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lock O, Bednarz T, Leao SZ, Pettit C. 2020. A review and reframing of participatory urban dashboards. City Cult Soc. 20:100294. doi: 10.1016/j.ccs.2019.100294.
   Google Scholar
• Longato D, Cortinovis C, Albert C, Geneletti D. 2021. Practical applications of ecosystem services in spatial planning: lessons learned from a systematic literature review. Environ Sci Policy. 119:72–84. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, La Notte A, Zulian G. 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Iss Environ Sci Tech. 1(1):31–39. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004.
   Google Scholar
• Mannaro K, Baralla G, Garau C, Ohne Datum. ohne Datum. 2018. A goal-oriented framework for analyzing and modeling city dashboards in smart cities. Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions: Results of SSPCR 2017 2. p. 179–195.
   Google Scholar
• Marriott K, Lee B, Butler M, Cutrell E, Ellis K, Goncu C, Hearst M, McCoy K, Szafir DA. 2021. Inclusive data visualization for people with disabilities. Interactions. 28(3):47–51. doi: 10.1145/3457875.
   Google Scholar
• Martinez-Harms MJ, Bryan BA, Balvanera P, Law EA, Rhodes JR, Possingham HP, Wilson KA. 2015. Making decisions for managing ecosystem services. Biol Conserv. 184:229–238. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mascarenhas A, Ramos TB, Haase D, Santos R. 2014. Integration of ecosystem services in spatial planning: a survey on regional planners’ views. Landsc Ecol. 29(8):1287–1300. doi: 10.1007/s10980-014-0012-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matheus R, Janssen M, Maheshwari D. 2020. Data science empowering the public: data-driven dashboards for transparent and accountable decision-making in smart cities. Gov Inf Q. 37(3):101284. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2018.01.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McPhearson T, Cook EM, Berbés-Blázquez M, Cheng C, Grimm NB, Andersson E, Barbosa O, Chandler DG, Chang H, Chester MV. 2022. A social-ecological-technological systems framework for urban ecosystem services. One Earth. 5(5):505–518. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2022.04.007.
   Google Scholar
• Nadj M, Maedche A, Schieder C. 2020. The effect of interactive analytical dashboard features on situation awareness and task performance. Decis Support Syst. 135:113322. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2020.113322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Donnell E, David JS. 2000. How information systems influence user decisions: a research framework and literature review. Int J Account Inf Syst. 1(3):178–203. doi: 10.1016/S1467-0895(00)00009-9.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2019. The post-2020 biodiversity framework: targets, indicators and measurability implications at global and national level. November version.
   Google Scholar
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 10(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pappas L, Whitman L. 2011. Riding the technology wave: effective dashboard data visualization. In: Human Interface and the Management of Information. Interacting with Information: Symposium on Human Interface 2011, Held as Part of HCI International 2011, Orlando, FL, USA, July 9-14, 2011, Proceedings, Part I. Berlin: Springer; p. 249–258.
   Google Scholar
• Pauwels K, Ambler T, Clark BH, LaPointe P, Reibstein D, Skiera B, Wierenga B, Wiesel T. 2009. Dashboards as a service: why, what, how, and what research is needed? J Serv Res-Us. 12(2):175–189. doi: 10.1177/1094670509344213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne B, Ling LO, Gorod A. 2020. Towards a governance dashboard for smart cities initiatives: a system of systems approach. In: 15th International Conference of System of Systems Engineering (SoSE), Budapest, Hungary. IEEE; p. 587–592.
   Google Scholar
• Podschun SA, Albert C, Costea G, Damm C, Dehnhardt A, Fischer C, Fischer H, Foeckler F, Gelhaus M, Gerstner L. 2018. RESI-Anwendungshandbuch-Ökosystemleistungen von Flüssen und Auen erfassen und bewerten.
   Google Scholar
• Primmer E, Furman E. 2012. Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Iss Environ Sci Tech. 1(1):85–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.008.
   Google Scholar
• Pullin A, Frampton G, Jongman R, Kohl C, Livoreil B, Lux A, Pataki G, Petrokofsky G, Podhora A, Saarikoski H, et al. 2016. Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy. Biodivers Conserv. 25(7):1285–1300. doi: 10.1007/s10531-016-1131-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qiu L, Dong Y, Liu H. 2022. Integrating ecosystem services into planning practice: situation, challenges and inspirations. Land. 11(4):545. doi: 10.3390/land11040545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raadschelders JCN, Whetsell TA. 2018. Conceptualizing the landscape of decision making for complex problem solving. Int J Public Admin. 41(14):1132–1144. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2017.1347946.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahman AA, Adamu YB, Harun P. 2017. Review on dashboard application from managerial perspective. In: In 2017 International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (ICRIIS), Langkawi Island, Malaysia. IEEE; p. 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Ruckelshaus M, McKenzie E, Tallis H, Guerry A, Daily G, Kareiva P, Polasky S, Ricketts T, Bhagabati N, Wood SA, et al. 2015. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol Econ. 115:11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schägner JP, Brander L, Maes J, Hartje V. 2013. Mapping ecosystem services’ values: current practice and future prospects. Environ Serv. 4:33–46.
   Google Scholar
• Schakel AH. 2020. Multi-level governance in a ‘Europe with the regions. Br J Polit Int Relat. 22(4):767–775. doi: 10.1177/1369148120937982.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stahre Wästberg B, Billger M, Adelfio M. 2020. A user-based look at visualization tools for environmental data and suggestions for improvement—an inventory among city planners in Gothenburg. Sustainability. 12(7):2882. doi: 10.3390/su12072882.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner FR. 2012. The living landscape: an ecological approach to landscape planning. Washington (Covelo): Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suri A, Askari M, Calder J, Branas C, Rundle A. 2022. A real-time COVID-19 surveillance dashboard to support epidemic response in Connecticut: lessons from an academic-health department partnership. J Am Med Inform Assn. 29(5):958–963. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocac025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TEEB PK. 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. London and Washington: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Thiele J, von HC, Albert C. 2019. Are river landscapes outstanding in providing cultural ecosystem services? An indicator-based exploration in Germany. Ecol Indic. 101:31–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.01.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomich TP, Argumedo A, Baste I, Camac E, Filer C, Garcia K, Garbach K, Geist H, Izac AM, Lebel L, et al. 2010. Conceptual frameworks for ecosystem assessment: their development, ownership, and use. Ecosyst Hum Well-Being–A Manual Assess Pract. 5:71–114.
   Google Scholar
• [UNEP] United Nations Environment Programme. 2021. Making peace with nature: a scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies.
   Google Scholar
• Velcu-Laitinen O, Yigitbasioglu OM. 2012. The use of dashboards in performance management: evidence from sales managers. Int J Digital Account Res. 12:39–58. doi: 10.4192/1577-8517-v12_2.
   Google Scholar
• Von Haaren C, Reich M. 2006 Apr 30. The German way to greenways and habitat networks. Landsc Urban Plan. 76(1–4);7–22. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.041.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang B, Zhang Q, Cui F. 2021. Scientific research on ecosystem services and human well-being: a bibliometric analysis. Ecol Indic. 125:107449. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107449.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiedbusch MD, Kite V, Yang X, Park S, Chi M, Taub M, Azevedo R. 2021. A theoretical and evidence-based conceptual design of MetaDash: an intelligent teacher dashboard to support teachers’ decision making and students’ self-regulated learning. Front Educ. 6:570229. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.570229.
   Google Scholar
• Young GW, Kitchin R. 2020. Creating design guidelines for building city dashboards from a user’s perspectives. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 140:102429. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102429.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young GW, Kitchin R, Naji J. 2020. Building city dashboards for different types of users. J Urban Technol. 28(1–2):289–309. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2020.1759994.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young GW, Naji J, Charlton M, Brunsdon C, Kitchin R. 2017. Future cities and multimodalities: how multimodal technologies can improve smart-citizen engagement with city dashboards.
   Google Scholar
• Zapata MA, Bates LK. 2015. Equity planning revisited. J Plan Educ Res. 35(3):245–248. doi: 10.1177/0739456X15589967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar