# Advancing research on ecosystem service bundles for comparative assessments and synthesis

Megan Meacham, Albert Norström, Garry Peterson, Erik Andersson, Elena Bennett, Reinette Biggs, Emilie Crouzat, Anna Cord, Elin Enfors, María Felipe-Lucia, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Megan Meacham, Albert Norström, Garry Peterson, Erik Andersson, Elena Bennett, et al. Advancing research on ecosystem service bundles for comparative assessments and synthesis. Ecosystems and People, 2022, 18 (1), pp.99-111. 10.1080/26395916.2022.2032356. hal-03873628

HAL Id: hal-03873628

https://hal.science/hal-03873628

Submitted on 28 Nov 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Advancing research on ecosystem service bundles for comparative assessments and synthesis

Megan Meacham, Albert V. Norström, Garry D. Peterson, Erik Andersson, Elena M. Bennett, Reinette (Oonsie) Biggs, Emilie Crouzat, Anna F. Cord, Elin Enfors, María R. Felipe-Lucia, Joern Fischer, Maike Hamann, Jan Hanspach, Christina Hicks, Sander Jacobs, Sandra Lavorel, Bruno Locatelli, Berta Martín-López, Tobias Plieninger & Cibele Queiroz

To cite this article: Megan Meacham, Albert V. Norström, Garry D. Peterson, Erik Andersson, Elena M. Bennett, Reinette (Oonsie) Biggs, Emilie Crouzat, Anna F. Cord, Elin Enfors, María R. Felipe-Lucia, Joern Fischer, Maike Hamann, Jan Hanspach, Christina Hicks, Sander Jacobs, Sandra Lavorel, Bruno Locatelli, Berta Martín-López, Tobias Plieninger & Cibele Queiroz (2022) Advancing research on ecosystem service bundles for comparative assessments and synthesis, Ecosystems and People, 18:1, 99-111, DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2022.2032356

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2032356

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

View supplementary material

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Published online: 20 Feb 2022.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Submit your article to this journal

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

View related articles

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

CrossMark

View Crossmark data

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

RESEARCH: TEN YEARS OF THE PROGRAM ON ECOSYSTEM CHANGE
AND SOCIETY

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

# Advancing research on ecosystem service bundles for comparative assessments and synthesis

Megan Meacham ID a, Albert V. Norström ID a,b, Garry D. Peterson ID a, Erik Andersson ID a,c, Elena M. Bennett ID d, Reinette (Oonsie) Biggs a,e, Emilie Crouzat ID f,g, Anna F. Cord ID h,i, Elin Enfors ID a, María R. Felipe-Lucia ID j,k, Joern Fischer ID l, Maike Hamann ID e, Jan Hanspach ID l, Christina Hicks ID m,n, Sander Jacobs ID o,p, Sandra Lavorel ID g, Bruno Locatelli ID q,r, Berta Martín-López ID l, Tobias Plieninger ID s,t and Cibele Queiroz ID a,b

aStockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden; bGlobal Resilience Partnership, Stockholm University, Sweden; cUnit for Environmental Sciences and Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa; dDepartment of Natural Resource Sciences and McGill School of Environment, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; eCentre for Sustainability Transitions, Stellenbosch University, South Africa; fUniversity Grenoble Alpes, INRAE, LESSEM, Grenoble, France; gLaboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, CNRS, Université Grenoble Alpes, Université Savoie Mont Blanc, Institut Ecologie et Environnement, Grenoble, France; hUfz - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Permoserstr. 15, Leipzig, Germany; iChair of Computational Landscape Ecology, Institute of Geography, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany; jDepartment of Ecosystem Services. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - Ufz. Puschstrasse 5, Leipzig, Germany; kDepartment of Ecosystem Services. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (Idiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; lFaculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany; mArc Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia; nLancaster University, Lancaster, Lancashire, UK; oResearch Institute for Nature and Forest Inbo - Nature & Society Research Group; pBelgian Biodiversity Platform BBPF; qForests and Societies, Cirad, University of Montpellier, Montpellier France; rCifor, Lima, Peru; sFaculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany; tDepartment of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

## ABSTRACT

Social-ecological interactions have been shown to generate interrelated and reoccurring sets of ecosystem services, also known as ecosystem service bundles. Given the potential utility of the bundles concept, along with the recent surge in interest it is timely to reflect on the concept, its current use and potential for the future. Based on our ecosystem service bundle experience, expertise, and ecosystem service bundle analyses, we have found critical elements for advancing the utility of ecosystem service bundle concept and deepening its impact in the future. In this paper we 1) examine the different conceptualizations of the ecosystem service bundle concept; 2) show the range of benefits of using a bundles approach; 3) explore key issues for improving research on ecosystem service bundles, including indicators, scale, and drivers and relationships between ecosystem services; and 4) outline priorities for the future by facilitating comparisons of ecosystem service bundle research.

## ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 14 September 2020
Accepted 17 January 2022

## EDITED BY

Odirilwe Selomane

## KEYWORDS

Ecosystem services;
indicators; scale; drivers;
multifunctionality

## 1. Introduction

There is growing recognition that actions to ensure and enhance the supply of multiple ecosystem services are urgently needed at local, regional and global scales (Bennett et al. 2015; Rieb et al. 2017; IPBES 2019). A range of global policy fora, agencies and international bodies are looking for ways to operationalize ecosystem services and account for nature's contributions to people within regulatory frameworks and daily practices (Allison and Brown 2017). For example, the European Commission's EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 places a high priority on ensuring a sustainable supply of multiple ecosystem services (European Commission 2020). The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES; http://www.ipbes.net/about-us) has synthesized the state of knowledge about how nature contributes to people, which ecosystem services are provided, to whom, and with what implications (IPBES 2019). Countries like Sweden (Khoshkar et al. 2020), Spain (Santos-Martín et al. 2016), France (Crouzat et al. 2019), Greece (Dimopoulos et al. 2017), United Kingdom (Albon et al. 2014), and more (Schröter et al. 2016) have developed national ecosystem assessment strategies. All these initiatives show an increased recognition that reliable, accurate assessments of multiple ecosystem services and nature's contributions to people are needed.

## CONTACT

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

Megan Meacham megan.meacham@su.se

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

The majority of research assessing ecosystem services has focused on single or narrow sets of ecosystem services (Seppelt et al. 2011; Saidi and Spray 2018; Hölting et al. 2019). Assessments has also tended to focus on either ecological or social aspects (Abson et al. 2014). For example, ecological aspects have included evaluations of how different components of biodiversity help to generate various ecosystem services (Cardinale et al. 2012; Mace et al. 2012; Lavorel 2013) and spatially explicit mapping exercises of ecosystem services (Burkhard et al. 2012; Maes et al. 2012; Burkhard and Maes 2017). Social aspects have included the monetary or non-monetary valuation of ecosystem services (Pascual et al. 2010; Gómez-Baggethun and Ruiz-Pérez 2011; Arias-Arévalo et al. 2017; Christie et al. 2019; Lau et al. 2019), studies of the implications of ecosystem services for human wellbeing (Haines-Young and Potschin 2010; Polishchuk and Rauschmayer 2012; Fisher et al. 2014; Costanza et al. 2016; Kosanic and Petzold 2020) as well as how caring for nature and relational values shape the assessment of ecosystem services (Chan et al. 2016; Himes and Muraca 2018; Jax et al. 2018). However, ecosystem services emerge from the complex interactions between the social and ecological components of tightly coupled social-ecological systems (Reyers et al. 2013; Andersson et al. 2015, 2021; Folke et al. 2016). The social and ecological links are not marginal or temporary; they are intertwined, and in fact coevolving, shaping and being shaped by one another (Folke et al. 2016). People live in and relate to nature in many ways – as a source of resources, satisfaction, identity, and culture – and they manage and use their environment for a multiplicity of purposes (Chan et al. 2016). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment played a significant role in fostering and mainstreaming such a social-ecological approach to humans and nature (e.g. Carpenter et al. 2009). IPBES further emphasizes the feedback between nature, ecosystem goods and services and human wellbeing with particular work on anthropogenic assets, institutions, governance, and direct and indirect drivers (Díaz et al. 2015). Specific social or land use management systems generate interrelated sets of ecosystem services. For example, farmers create agro-ecosystems that supply a set of ecosystem services, and governments establish national parks which provide a different set of ecosystem services. When these sets of ecosystem services are found to be recurring, they can be described as ecosystem service bundles (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010; Martín-López et al. 2012; Hamann et al. 2015; Queiroz et al. 2015).

There is an important opportunity for providing policy-relevant insights given the increasing number of ecosystem service bundle assessments and the increasing awareness and investment in ecosystem

assessments. Synthesizing and learning across ecosystem service bundle assessments is necessary for furthering our understanding of social-ecological dynamics, how they are expressed in the landscape and received by people. However, there are many hurdles to comparing assessments including differences in contexts, data, ecosystem services targeted, and original assessment goals. To advance the utility of ecosystem service bundle concept and deepen its impact in the future we 1) examine the different conceptualizations of the ecosystem service bundle concept; 2) show the benefits of using a bundles approach; 3) explore key issues for improving research on ecosystem service bundles; and 4) outline priorities for the future by facilitating comparisons of ecosystem service bundle research.

## 2. Approach

This paper is an outcome of the Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS; pecs-science.org) working group on the social-ecological dynamics of ecosystem services. Three working group workshops were held between January 2015 and August 2017 in Stockholm, Sweden (see supplementary material). The aim of the workshops was to initiate comparison of different ecosystem service bundles case studies. Participants at these workshops (the authors of this paper) represented a selected group of 18 local to national case studies that had assessed ecosystem service bundles (see Table S1 in supplementary material). The case studies covered a broad range of social-ecological contexts. Each case was part of individual scientific projects with their own priorities, aims and funding. Each of the cases have produced scientific articles outlining their study area, research questions, methods and results. The published articles and quantitative data for each case were reviewed during the initial workshop. The challenges that emerged from the initial goal of comparing these cases created the foundation for the results presented in this paper.

We compared each case's definition of ecosystem service bundles. Different facets of ecosystem services were at focus within the cases. We used additional literature to explore the range of definitions of ecosystem services bundles being used. We distilled the diversity of definitions in the three conceptualizations of ecosystem service bundles presented in Section 3. Based on the experiences from our cases and outcomes published by other ecosystem service bundles analysis processes we found five specific benefits to using an ecosystem services bundles approach. We outline these in Section 4 and Figure 1. Three key issues emerged as particularly important for the analysis of ecosystem service bundles and facilitating their potential for comparison. These issues,
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

presented in Section 5, developed during our comparison attempts and were complemented by further discussions in the wider literature. The strategies for executing comparison (Section 6) are insights drawn from the discussions of indicators, scale and drivers and relationships between ecosystem services presented here and built upon previously published theoretical frameworks.

### 3. Conceptualizing ecosystem service bundles

One emerging and increasingly common approach to assess multiple ecosystem services, which is sensitive to the social-ecological context, is to study them as recurring sets of ecosystem services or ‘ecosystem service bundles’, (Foley et al. 2005; MA 2005). Ecosystem service bundles have been conceptualized in different ways, in order to capture the (1) supply of ecosystem services, (2) use of services by stakeholders, and (3) social preferences for ecosystem services. The prevailing approach is supply-based, which develops bundles from the observable recurring sets of ecosystem services supplied (or produced) across a given landscape or seascape (e.g. Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010; Qiu and Turner 2013; Hanspach et al. 2014; Queiroz et al. 2015; Yang et al. 2015). However, this more biophysical approach may not consider the people present in the landscape, and how their needs and actions relate to ecosystem services. The second approach to ecosystem service bundle assessments focuses on the sets of ecosystem services used by people in a given area (e.g. Hamann et al. 2015; Plieninger et al. 2019). This approach bridges both the ecosystem services provided in a landscape and the delivery of services to people there but may be limited to the ecosystem services that are known and reported by people. It also may not assess services that are desired but not available. The third approach to bundle assessments has therefore explicitly focused on the sets of ecosystem services preferred by different stakeholder groups (Martín-López et al. 2012; Plieninger et al. 2012; Hicks and Cinner 2014). However, preferences may be less directly linked to ecological capacity. Recent studies have attempted to assess the supply-based ecosystem service bundles and preference-based ecosystem service bundles and compare the mismatches in order to target management interventions (Baró et al. 2017; Quintas-Soriano et al. 2019).

### 4. Benefits of a bundles approach

There are many research objectives where an ecosystem service bundles approach may be appropriate. Expanding on categorizations by Saidi and Spray (2018), these objectives include: exploring ecosystem

service patterns, identifying social-ecological systems, informing landscape management, studying the outcomes of land-use decisions, understanding land-use change over time, linking policy spheres and considering the role of local institutions in management. Although a range of methods could be used to advance these goals, there are particular benefits to using an ecosystem service bundles approach as summarized in Figure 1. Five main benefits provided by using bundle analysis are 1. simplifying analysis, providing an accessible analysis strategy that retains system complexity; 2. simplifying management, focusing on the interconnected nature of ecosystem services; 3. further developing practical social-ecological theory; 4. filling in data gaps, guiding reasonable assumptions that can be made when no other information is available; and 5. acting as a bridging tool, bringing divergent groups together.

In recognition of different needs, context and logistics, the design and execution of a bundles assessment will need to vary across cases (Andersson et al. 2021). As this study shows, the bundles approach together with a clear framework for positioning studies tailored to different research questions and local needs may help build a stronger foundation for comparison and for making cross case connections.

### 5. Key issues for improving research on ecosystem service bundles

#### 5.1. Social-ecological indicators

A proliferation of ecosystem service indicators has emerged, as the concept increasingly takes center stage in the sustainability science and policy arenas (Egoh et al. 2007; Layke et al. 2012; Díaz et al. 2015). Consequently, the indicators used for assessing different ecosystem services vary greatly among studies of ecosystem service bundles, in particular if studies differ in their conceptualization of ecosystem service bundles as discussed in Section 3 (Figure 2). Indicators used will also vary across studies because of differences in focal research questions, available methods, and ease of measurement.

The more biophysical or nature-based indicators measure ecosystem service potential production. They are focused on the current capacity of a particular ecosystem to supply a given ecosystem service (Burkhard et al. 2012, Crouzat et al. 2015). Indicators of nature's actual benefits to people are the ecosystem services used. These types of ecosystem service indicators capture how much of the ecosystem service is received by people and is often measured directly as the amount of a service delivered, or indirectly as the numbers of beneficiaries served (Hamann et al. 2015). Indicators that measure people's perceived value, demand, need or preference for
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Benefits of assessing ecosystem service bundles.</figcaption></figure>

Different conceptualizations of ecosystem service bundles

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Ecosystem services indicators represent different aspects of the relationship between people and their environment.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

a given ecosystem service represent links to human
wellbeing (Martín-López et al. 2012).

The types of indicators used in assessing ecosystem service bundles are not necessarily restricted to the dimensions that best represent the conceptualization of bundles being used, but instead are determined by many factors including data availability, methods used, research questions, and which specific ecosystem services are assessed. For example, regulating services (like carbon sequestration) are often assessed through nature-based indicators (e.g. via models like InVEST (Sharp et al. 2020)), even in assessments that are primarily preference-focused. Cultural services, such as recreation or aesthetic value, are often measured using indicators related to their use and value (e.g. derived from social media data (Zhang et al. 2020)). Some assessments of ecosystem service bundles have used a mix of types of indicators (e.g. Queiroz et al. 2015) and some have used indicators from a single dimension (e.g. Hicks and Cinner 2014; Hamann et al. 2015) (Table S1).

The interpretation and potential policy recom-
mendations derived from an ecosystem service bun-
dle analysis should be consistent with the types of
indicators used. For example, ecosystem service bun-
dles derived from nature-based indicators will reflect
the potential production of ecosystem services.
However, without verifying the actual ecosystem ser-
vice use and value in the system, policy decisions
could have unintentional results. On the other hand,
using explicitly ecosystem service value indicators
may draw attention to conflicting needs of resource
users, but will not properly capture the ecological and
biophysical constraints of the landscape in generating
that set of ecosystem services.

The level of commensurability between different
types of indicators can vary based on the social-
ecological context of the study. In many regions
(often traditionally managed multifunctional land-
scapes), the benefits flowing from ecosystem services
are experienced locally, and local people are more
likely to be in charge of landscape management (e.g.
Hartel et al. 2014). In such cases, it is reasonable to
assume that the landscape, to a large extent, reflects
the priorities and needs of the people living there. In
this case, the production of ecosystem services is
coupled to the use and value and assessing one type
of ecosystem service indicator can inform the others.
However, in a landscape where the people living there
have limited influence over the development and
management of the landscape, what is produced
there may not reflect what is needed or valued by
the local population. This is often the case in mono-
functional production landscapes that are optimized
for one or a few particular crops. In these landscapes,
few local people are involved in making decisions
about the ecosystem services produced and the

benefits flow to a small set of privileged actors or
are exported (Riechers et al. 2020). The resulting
ecosystem service bundles in this case will be quite
different if nature-based indicators are used versus
using preference-based indicators.

In summary, when assessing ecosystem service
bundles, it is important to reflect on what the ecosys-
tem service indicators chosen actually represent, and
how they should be interpreted for decision-making
and management purposes. Understanding the
social-ecological context of the landscape being
assessed, can help clarify the relationships between
ecosystem service supply, use and value within the
given case study. Such a social-ecological approach,
which integrates social and ecological factors in the
generation and delivery of ecosystem services, can
help develop better targets, policy objectives, and
ecosystem service indicators (Reyers et al. 2013;
Meacham et al. 2016).

5.2. Scale – extent, grain and units of analysis

Assessments of ecosystem service bundles are carried
out at different spatial extents and focus on different
types of units. The ecosystem service patterns
detected in ecosystem service bundle assessments
will ultimately be a function of spatial scale. Scale
has two important dimensions: extent and grain (or
units of analysis). Extent is the overall area encom-
passed by an investigation or the area included within
the landscape boundary. Grain is the size of the
individual units of analysis. The choice of units of
analysis and the spatial extent of a study are clearly
related to one another. The spatial extent sets the
upper limits for reasonable grain size, and similarly
with an increasing extent usually increases grain size
for reasons of feasibility. Consequently, the extent
and grain are often correlated (i.e. studies that cover
large areas tend to have larger grain sizes).

The spatial extent of studies addressing ecosystem
service bundles in social-ecological systems is often
determined by data availability. At the same time,
many studies focus on landscape and regional spatial
scales, with their spatial extent spanning hundreds to
thousands of square kilometers (Saidi and Spray
2018), because it is often at these scales that policy
is implemented. These larger extents also often repre-
sent institutional, social and physical spaces that are
tangible and meaningful for humans (Hein et al.
2006; Scholes et al. 2013). A minority of studies
have been conducted at national (Turner et al. 2014;
Dittrich et al. 2017) or multinational (Maes et al.
2012) scales capturing a diversity of landscapes and
social-ecological systems.

A broad range of different units of analysis have
been used in studies that assess ecosystem service
bundles. The majority of studies divide landscapes
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

into a large number of spatial units. These spatial units can be regularly shaped and evenly distributed, such as in a raster or grid (e.g. Turner et al. 2014). Uniform grids can in some cases be better suited for spatial analyses because of the consistency in area among the units of analysis. Spatial units can also be irregularly shaped, following biophysical features or administrative features, such as watersheds or municipalities, respectively (e.g. Queiroz et al. 2015; Odgaard et al. 2017). Municipalities and villages are often chosen because they are the smallest scales at which many decisions regarding planning and landscape management are made – decisions that directly affect ecosystem services. A combination of both biophysical and administrative features is also possible (e.g. Hanspach et al. 2014). An alternative to a spatial unit of analysis is a social unit, i.e. representing different levels of social aggregation. Social units that have been used include the individual (e.g. Martín-López et al. 2012), households (e.g. Dorresteijn et al. 2017), user groups (e.g. Milcu et al. 2013) or communities (e.g. Hicks and Cinner 2014).

Using social or spatial units can generate very different patterns of ecosystem service bundles, because they aggregate ecosystem services in distinct fashions. For example, Martín-López et al. (2012) assessed ecosystem service bundles as the suites of ecosystem services that individuals belonging to various stakeholder groups prefer. They showed that urban and rural people have preferences for different sets of services. However, these services may all be produced in the same place. Therefore, a single location may have multiple ecosystem service bundles associated with it when people's preferences are defining the ecosystem service bundles. On the other hand, when spatial units are used, each location will only have one ecosystem service bundle associated with it.

Ecosystem services are created by a variety of social-ecological processes and structures that operate across distinct spatial scales (Anderson et al. 2009; Spake et al. 2017). For example, the extent of a study will influence the diversity of ecological processes and types of ecosystems falling within the study area and a study with a small extent might describe the trade-offs within one ecosystem (Hicks and Cinner 2014) as opposed to patterns over many different ecosystems (Jopke et al. 2015). Furthermore, interactions between some ecosystem services, and thus the ecosystem service bundles generated, may be observable at some scales and not others. The relationship between food production and water quality has been shown to vary greatly across scales (Qiu et al. 2018). Some recent studies (Raudsepp-Hearne and Peterson 2016; Qiu et al. 2018) systematically investigated how ecosystem services are produced, used and managed

at different scales and how these matter for ecosystem service bundles assessments. By analyzing how the scale of analysis affects results by mapping services at three different spatial scales, Raudsepp-Hearne and Peterson (2016) demonstrated that although there is consistency in trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services across scales, changes in the scale of analysis alter the bundles of ecosystem services that are identified in a landscape.

In summary, many factors determine the scale of the ecosystem service bundle assessment, including the resolution of the data available (e.g. socioeconomic census data), the demands of decision makers, and the physical characteristics of the region. The amount of variation (heterogeneity vs homogeneity) of the social-ecological systems will strongly influence the effort needed to detect bundles. Each study of ecosystem service bundles has to balance what ecosystem services are assessed, the number of ecosystem services assessed, and the social and ecological variation present (Raudsepp-Hearne and Peterson 2016). More units are necessary to detect patterns of ecosystem services when there is limited spatial variation, for example. How sensitive the ecosystem service bundle is to the scale assessed depends on how patchily or evenly distributed the types of services included are. For example, while wild berry collection and hunting might be patchy, crop production and forest recreation are often evenly distributed across the landscape. Transparency about these constraints and decisions will help to contextualize the assessment and make it more relatable and replicable.

### 5.3. Drivers and relationships between ecosystem services

To understand how ecosystem service bundles will persist or evolve in the future, it is important to explore the factors shaping their configurations. Bennett et al. (2009) designate two factors affecting the development of ecosystem service bundles: 1) internal relationships between ecosystem services, and 2) external drivers affecting one or more ecosystem services or their relationships.

Often, maps and correlations across space are used to look for ecosystem service bundles and assume relationships between ecosystem services. However, the observation that specific services occur together does not automatically explain why they are co-occurring. Lavorel and Grigulis (2012) showed how the functional constraints of organisms determine true relationships between ecosystem services. Qui et al. (2018) found that the relationships between ecosystem services changed based on biophysical connection, scale effects, and effects from dominant drivers. Felipe-Lucia et al. (2014), Felipe-Lucia et al. (2018) distinguish between three types of interactions: interactions due to
<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

management decisions, environmental factors or intrinsic ecological factors.

Considerably more research has focused on the effect of drivers (Bennett et al. 2009; Rounsevell et al. 2010; Robards et al. 2011; Meacham et al. 2016). Drivers are external factors that affect the configuration of an ecosystem service bundle. Drivers often, but not necessarily, reflect human management or intervention. Common examples of drivers include the application of fertilizer to agricultural fields, afforestation, designating legally protected conservation areas, climate change, and population growth (MA. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; IPBES 2016). Drivers can affect one or more ecosystem services and at the same time may have an amplifying effect for some ecosystem services and a dampening effect on others. For example, a commonly identified ecosystem service bundle across different agricultural landscapes is a bundle characterized by strong negative trade-offs between provisioning agricultural services and regulating services (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010, Felipe-Lucia et al. 2022). This trade-off is primarily due to drivers such as increased fertilizer use which simultaneously affect crop yields and water quality. Some drivers of ecosystem service bundles are more commonly studied: land use change (Lambin et al. 2001; Foley et al. 2005; Metzger et al. 2006; Locatelli et al. 2017), human population growth (Eigenbrod et al. 2011), Gross Domestic Product and other large scale coarse economic variables (He et al. 2014), climate change (Schröter et al. 2005) and their interactions within scenarios (Harrison et al. 2015; Mouchet et al. 2017). Other drivers, especially those that reflect social-ecological dynamics, may be important, but are typically less studied (i.e. power dynamics and value change), but see Chan et al. (2012), Felipe-Lucia et al. (2015) and Martín-López et al. (2019) for some examples.

Exploring why ecosystem service bundles are structured a given way will help to show how the ecosystem service bundles may evolve and transform through time and across space. Most current assessments of ecosystem service bundles are a snapshot in time, only revealing the current state of ecosystem service production, use or preferences. However, a few studies have taken a historical approach, investigating how ecosystem service bundles have changed through time and how relationships between ecosystem service bundles and key drivers have changed (Renard et al. 2015; Tomscha et al. 2016; Lavorel et al. 2017; Locatelli et al. 2017; Santos-Martín et al. 2019). The historical context of a given region will help to explain how stable an ecosystem service bundle is; how consistent the relationships between the ecosystem services are and how likely an ecosystem bundle will persist into the future (Renard et al. 2015; Dittrich et al. 2017; Lavorel et al. 2017).

In summary, measuring and reporting a common set of drivers alongside the ecosystem service bundle assessment will provide context and help facilitate and strengthen comparisons. Information on social, ecological and geographic drivers are often available in even data-poor regions. For example, education levels, age, population density, income, land cover types, altitude, slope, and distance from a city may be available. Considering how ecosystem service bundles may change in the future can be explored by looking both at the past and the future. Considering the future trajectory of the region will emphasize which drivers and their effects may be dominating in the future. Information on stated planning goals, development targets and aspirational visions for the future of the region will highlight management and investment priorities (e.g. Palomo et al. 2011; Hanspach et al. 2014).

## 6. Comparisons of ecosystem service bundle research

There is an untapped potential for policy relevance by synthesizing and learning across research on ecosystem service bundle assessments. There are many relevant questions that comparisons can help answer: How do different ecosystem services interact and vary under different management and governance practices? How are benefits from ecosystem services distributed between groups of people? Are there shared types of bundles of ecosystem services found across case studies, and are these typologies of social-ecological systems? What explains the differences among these types of bundles – what are the key ecological, social, and geographic drivers to explain patterns of ecosystem services and ecosystem service bundles across cases? Do geographic, social, or ecological factors dominate? Are there shared drivers across sites? However, individual assessments not only differ in their conceptualization of ecosystem service bundles but are also carried out in different contexts, include different numbers and types of ecosystem services, and are not originally performed with the intention to compare.

### 6.1 Types of comparisons

Using the framework developed by Kronenberg and Andersson (2019) regarding the possible combination of different valuation methods, we consider the comparability of ecosystem service bundles studies along two axes, commensurability and compatibility (Figure 3). Commensurability refers to the underlying research perspective of the study, specifically the different conceptualizations of ecosystem service bundles from Section 3. For example, two ecosystem service bundle assessments
<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Comparability of ecosystem service bundle studies Three types of comparisons are possible (direct comparisons, combination comparisons, and parallel use) based on the commensurability of conceptualization of ecosystem services bundles taken by each study and the compatibility of the indicators, scales and methods used. The figure is adapted from Kronenberg and Andersson (2019).</figcaption></figure>

that both define bundles as the sets of ecosystem services preferred by different stakeholder groups would be commensurable because they use the same definition of bundles. Compatibility is the degree to which the technical aspects of the study align. The underlying data, types of units analyzed, and scale used can range from identical to incompatible with a gradient in between. Depending on the levels of commensurability and compatibility comparisons will serve different purposes. In Figure 3 we illustrate three types of comparisons, direct comparisons, combination comparisons, and parallel use.

When the methods of the studies to be compared are fully commensurable and compatible direct comparisons are possible. The second level of compatibility is when studies are not fully commensurable or compatible. These combination comparisons are useful for providing further perspective and context. For example, a study of ecosystem service bundles in southern Spain compared spatially defined bundles to bundles defined by people's preferences to find mismatches and opportunities for interventions (Quintas-Soriano et al. 2019). Comparing studies

with the same conceptualization of ecosystem service bundles, but from different contexts or using different types of data can be useful in exploring generalizable patterns. Comparisons between studies that are incompatible and incommensurable (parallel use) play an important role in contributing to the overall understanding of social-ecological systems. This parallel use of studies is a way to triangulate research methods by situating studies in the broader ecosystem service bundles field.

## 6.2. Finding areas of compatibility

In most cases, ecosystem service bundles studies have their own priorities, research questions, methods, local contexts, and practical constraints that ensure some level of incompatibility and incommensurability with any other study. However, several strategies can help with comparisons. Describing the studies to be compared by the elements that can form or constrain compatibility will help highlight the areas of commonality. Figure 3 highlights the factors that contribute to or detract from compatibility.
<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

Synthesis and comparisons across ecosystem service bundle case-studies will be expedited if the same types of ecosystem service indicators are used. However, if the ecosystem service indicators are different, then an understanding of the relationship between the supply, use and value of the ecosystem services is needed. Differences in ecosystem service indicators used can also be compensated for when the cases have similarities in their social or ecological contexts. Similar demographics, development trends, historical legacies, land use types, and heterogeneity could anchor comparisons between ecosystem service bundle analyses that potentially have differing ecosystem service indicator types.

The types of ecosystem services assessed in the ecosystem service bundle assessment will determine how sensitive the ecosystem service bundles are to differences in scale. Ecosystem services that are evenly distributed across large spatial scales and often associated with extensive land cover categories (e.g. crop production and forest recreation) will behave more consistently across case studies that employ different spatial extents and grain. In contrast, ecosystem service bundle assessments that are predominantly composed of cultural and provisioning ecosystem services not associated with extensive land covers may not be as consistent across scales. For example, wild berries or hunting, are types of ecosystem services that will likely have unpredictable and very patchy distributions across the landscape. Ecosystem services that are dependent on people's access to the particular landscape elements, e.g. recreation, may also occur in patchy distributions that may not be detected when larger scales of observation are used. These types of services may also have limited representation in ecosystem service bundles that are strongly driven by main land cover types (Mouchet et al. 2017; Vannier et al. 2019).

Comparing across cases is one strategy for assessing true interactions between ecosystem services versus mere co-occurrence. Exploring which ecosystem services are most determinative in the bundling of ecosystem service helps explain the bundle's structure. Methods such as random forest analysis ranking, and hierarchical models have been used to rank ecosystem services in their importance in determining the ecosystem service bundle configuration (Meacham et al. 2016). Comparing ecosystem service bundle structures across cases is a way to circumvent other inconsistencies between cases and allow for an informative comparison.

Another opportunity for comparison despite differences in scale and units of analysis is to focus on the relationships between services revealed by the ecosystem service bundle analysis (i.e. the tradeoffs and synergies among services). Comparing the

patterns of relationships of the ecosystem services within the bundles would provide useful insights into what kinds of ecosystem service interactions are repeatedly observed and possibly generalizable. Qiu et al. (2021) compared the relationships between ecosystem services from four ecosystem service bundle studies and found that trade-offs between ecosystem services were consistent across the cases, but their magnitude was influenced by the land-use intensity within each case.

When common types of drivers are assessed across cases, comparisons of the influence of the drivers on the distributions of ecosystem services can bypass the issues with inconsistencies in ecosystem service indicator types and scale. Many cases report driver or co-variable data as a way to provide context. Using these variables, we can compare cases that are facing similar driver trends and study how their ecosystem service bundles are affected by this driver pressure.

## 7. Conclusion

In this paper we show that assessing ecosystem service bundles is an important research frontier and that such assessments can facilitate comparisons between case studies without blurring specificities. Assessing ecosystem services in relation to one another using the ecosystem service bundles perspective provides valuable insight into the multifunctionality of landscapes and the social-ecological co-production of ecosystem services. The ecosystem service bundles concept is evoked in a variety of ways to assess sets of ecosystem services that are at a minimum co-occurring. We outlined several strategic advantages to using an ecosystem service bundles approach. The key issues of indicators, scale, and drivers and relationships between ecosystem services are important avenues to understanding what is being studied, what is known, and what is generalizable. They each create challenges for the comparison of divergent studies, but also opportunities. Comparing cases is possible through finding points of compatibility in the indicators, scales, or social or ecological context. Comparisons can focus on the internal ecosystem service relationships and relationships with drivers. The insights learned from comparisons and syntheses are needed for managing and sustaining the diversity of ecosystem services upon which we all depend.

## Acknowledgments

This work was the collective efforts originated from three workshops from 2015-2017 on the social-ecological dynamics of ecosystem services that were financially supported by the Programme on Ecosystem Change and
<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

Society (PECS) and took place in Stockholm, Sweden (FORMAS grant #SEEN to GP and AN). M.M. received support from the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation (MMW 2017.0137). R.B. received support from the South African Research Chairs Initiative (SARChI) (grant 98766) and a Young Researchers Grant from the Vetenskapsrådet in Sweden (grant 621-2014-5137).

## Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

## ORCID

Megan Meacham ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3626-967X
Albert V. Norström ID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0706-9233

Garry D. Peterson ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0173-0112

Erik Andersson ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2716-5502

Elena M. Bennett ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3944-2925

Emilie Crouzat ID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5765-6543

Anna F. Cord ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3183-8482

Elin Enfors ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3719-792X

María R. Felipe-Lucia ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1915-8169

Joern Fischer ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3187-8978

Maike Hamann ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2906-4043

Jan Hanspach ID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6638-8699

Christina Hicks ID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7399-4603

Sander Jacobs ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4674-4817

Sandra Lavorel ID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7300-2811

Bruno Locatelli ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2983-1644

Berta Martín-López ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2622-0135

Tobias Plieninger ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1478-2587

Cibele Queiroz ID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1124-306X

## References

Abson DJ, Von Wehrden H, Baumgärtner S, Fischer J, Hanspach J, Härdtle W, Heinrichs H, Klein AM, Lang DJ, Martens P, et al. 2014. Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol Econ. 103:29-37. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.012.

Albon S, Turner K, Watson R, Anger A, Baker J, Bateman I, Bentley S, Blyth N, Bowles-Newark N, Brown C, et al. 2014. UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow on: Synthesis of the Key Findings.

Allison H, Brown C. 2017. A review of recent developments in ecosystem assessment and its role in policy evolution. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 29:57-62. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2017.11.006.

Anderson BJ, Armsworth PR, Eigenbrod F, Thomas CD, Gillings S, Heinemeyer A, Roy DB, Gaston KJ. 2009. Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities. J Appl Ecol. 46(4):888-896. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01666.x.

Andersson E, Borgström S, Haase D, Langemeyer J, Mascarenhas A, McPhearson T, Wolff M, Łaszkiewicz E, Kronenberg J, Barton DN, et al. 2021. A context sensitive systems approach for understanding and enabling ecosystem service realisation in cities. Ecol Soc. 26(2):35. doi:10.5751/ES-12411-260235.

Andersson E, McPhearson T, Kremer P, Gomez-Baggethun E, Haase D, Tuvendal M, Wurster D. 2015. Scale and Context Dependence of Ecosystem Service Providing Units. Ecosyst Ser. 12:157-164. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.001.

Arias-Arévalo P, Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E. 2017. Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 22(4). doi:10.5751/ES-09812-220443.

Baró F, Gómez-Baggethun E, Haase D. 2017. Ecosystem service bundles along the urban-rural gradient: insights for landscape planning and management. Ecosyst Ser. 24:147-159. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.021.

Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Díaz S, Egoh BN, Geijzendorffer IR, Krug CB, Lavorel S, Lazos E, et al. 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. (open issue 14):76-85. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007.

Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. 12(12):1394-1404. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x.

Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic. 21:17-29. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019.

Burkhard B, and Maes J. 2017. Mapping Ecosystem Services. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia(Bulgaria); p. 374.

Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, et al. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 486(7401):59. doi:10.1038/nature11148.

Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, DeFries RS, Díaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 106(5):1305-1312. doi:10.1073/pnas.0808772106.

Chan KM, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gould R, Hannahs N, Jax K, Klain S, et al. 2016. Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 113 (6):1462-1465. doi:10.1073/pnas.1525002113.

Chan KM, Satterfield T, Goldstein J. 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ. 74:8-18. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011.

Christie M, Martín-López B, Church A, Siwicka E, Szymonczyk P, Sauterel JM. 2019. Understanding the diversity of values of “Nature’s contributions to people”: insights from the IPBES Assessment of Europe and Central Asia. Sustain Sci. 14(5):1267-1282. doi:10.1007/s11625-019-00716-6.

Costanza R, Fioramonti L, Kubiszewski I. 2016. The UN Sustainable Development Goals and the dynamics of well-being. Front Ecol Environ. 14(2):59. doi:10.1002/fee.1231.

Crouzat E, Mouchet M, Turkelboom F, Byczek C, Meersmans J, Berger F, Verkerk PJ, Lavorel S. 2015. Assessing bundles of ecosystem services from regional to landscape scale: insights from the French Alps. J Appl Ecol. 52(5):1145-1155. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12502.

Crouzat E, Zawada M, Grigulis K, Lavorel S. 2019. Design and implementation of a national ecosystem
<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

assessment-insights from the French mountain systems' experience. Ecosyst People. 15(1):288-302. doi:10.1080/26395916.2019.1674383.

Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, et al. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework — connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 14:1–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.

Dimopoulos P, Drakou E, Kokkoris I, Katsanevakis S, Kallimanis A, Tsiafouli M, Bormpoudakis D, Kormas K, Arends J. 2017. The need for the implementation of an Ecosystem Services assessment in Greece: drafting the national agenda. One Ecosyst. 2:e13714. doi:10.3897/oneeco.2.e13714.

Dittrich A, Seppelt R, Václavík T, Cord AF. 2017. Integrating ecosystem service bundles and socio-environmental conditions—A national scale analysis from Germany. Ecosyst Ser. 28:273–282. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.007.

Dorresteijn I, Schultner J, Collier NF, Hylander K, Senbeta F, Fischer J. 2017. Disaggregating ecosystem services and disservices in the cultural landscapes of southwestern Ethiopia: a study of rural perceptions. Landsc Ecol. 32(11):2151–2165. doi:10.1007/s10980-017-0552-5.

Egoh B, Rouget M, Reyers B, Knight AT, Cowling RM, van Jaarsveld AS, Welz A. 2007. Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: a review. Ecol Econ. 63(4):714–721. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.04.007.

Eigenbrod F, Bell VA, Davies HN, Heinemeyer A, Armsworth PR, and Gaston KJ. 2011. The impact of projected increases in urbanization on ecosystem services. Proc. R. Soc. Biological Sciences. 278 (1722):3201–3208.

European Commission. 2020. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions: EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back into our lives.

Felipe-Lucia MR, Comín FA, Bennett EM. 2014. Interactions among ecosystem services across land uses in a floodplain agroecosystem. Ecol Soc. 19(1):20. doi:10.5751/ES-06249-190120.

Felipe-Lucia MR, de Frutos, and Comín FA. 2022. Modelling landscape management scenarios for equitable and sustainable futures in rural areas based on ecosystem services. Ecosystems and People. 18(1):76–94.

Felipe-Lucia MR, Martín-López B, Lavorel S, Berraquero-Díaz L, Escalera-Reyes J, Comín FA. 2015. Ecosystem services flows: why stakeholders’ power relationships matter. PloS One. 10(7):e0132232. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132232.

Felipe-Lucia MR, Soliveres S, Penone C, Manning P, van der Plas F, Boch S, Prati D, Ammer C, Schall P, Gossner MM, et al. 2018. Multiple forest attributes underpin the supply of multiple ecosystem services. Nat Commun. 9(1):1–11. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07082-4.

Fisher JA, Patenaude G, Giri K, Lewis K, Meir P, Pinho P, Rounsevell MD, Williams M. 2014. Understanding the relationships between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: a conceptual framework. Ecosyst Ser. 7:34–45. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.08.002.

Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, et al. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science. 309 (5734):570–574. doi:10.1126/science.1111772.

Folke C, Biggs R, Norström AV, Reyers B, Rockström J. 2016. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol Soc. 21(3):41. doi:10.5751/ES-08748-210341.

Gómez-Baggethun E, Ruiz-Pérez M. 2011. Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog Physic Geogr. 35(5):613–628. doi:10.1177/0309133311421708.

Haines-Young R, and Potschin M. 2010. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosyst Ecol New Synth. 1:110–139.

Hamann M, Biggs R, Reyers B. 2015. Mapping social-ecological systems: identifying ‘green-loop’ and ‘red-loop’ dynamics based on characteristic bundles of ecosystem service use. Glob Environ Change. 34:218–226. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.008.

Hanspach J, Hartel T, Milcu A, Mikulcak F, Dorresteijn I, Kovács-Hostyánszki A, Báldi A. 2014. A holistic approach to studying social-ecological systems and its application to southern Transylvania. Ecol Soc. 19(4). doi:10.5751/ES-06915-190432.

Harrison PA, Dunford R, Savin C, Rounsevell MDA, Holman IP, Kebede AS, Stuch B. 2015. Cross-sectoral impacts of climate change and socio-economic change for multiple, European land- and water-based sectors. Clim Change. 128(3-4):279-294. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1239-4.

Hartel T, Fischer J, Câmpeanu C, Milcu A, Hanspach J, Fazey I. 2014. The importance of ecosystem services for rural inhabitants in a changing cultural landscape in Romania. Ecol Soc. 19(2):42. doi:10.5751/ES-06333-190242.

He Q, Bertness MD, Bruno JF, Li B, Chen G, Coverdale TC, Altieri AH, Bai J, Sun T, and Pennings SC, et al. 2014. Economic development and coastal ecosystem change in China. Sci Rep, 4(1):1-9.

Hein L, Van Koppen K, De Groot RS, Van Ierland EC. 2006. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ. 57(2):209–228. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005.

Hicks CC, Cinner JE. 2014. Social, institutional, and knowledge mechanisms mediate diverse ecosystem service benefits from coral reefs. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 111 (50):17791-17796. doi:10.1073/pnas.1413473111.

Himes A, Muraca B. 2018. Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 35:1–7. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005.

Hölting L, Jacobs S, Felipe-Lucia MR, Maes J, Norström AV, Plieninger T, Cord AF. 2019. Measuring ecosystem multifunctionality across scales. Environ Res Lett. 14(12):124083. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab5ccb.

IPBES. 2016. The methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services. In: Ferrier S, Ninan KN, Leadley P, Alkemade R, Acosta LA, Akçakaya HR, Brotons L, Cheung WWL, Christensen V, and Harhash KA, et al. editors. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES. Bonn (Germany). p. 348.

IPBES. 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Brondizio ES, Settele J, Díaz S, Ngo HT (editors). IPBES secretariat, Bonn (Germany). 1148.

Jax K, Calestani M, Chan KM, Eser U, Keune H, Muraca B, O'Brien L, Potthast T, Voget-Kleschin L, Wittmer H. 2018. Caring for nature matters: a relational approach for understanding nature's contributions to human well-
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

being. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 35:22-29. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.009.

Jopke C, Kreyling J, Maes J, Koellner T. 2015. Interactions among ecosystem services across Europe: bagplots and cumulative correlation coefficients reveal synergies, trade-offs, and regional patterns. Ecol Indic. 49:46-52. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.037.

Khoshkar S, Hammer M, Borgström S, Dinnétz P, Balfors B. 2020. Moving from vision to action- integrating ecosystem services in the Swedish local planning context. Land Use Policy. 97:104791. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104791.

Kosanic A, Petzold J. 2020. A systematic review of cultural ecosystem services and human wellbeing. Ecosyst Ser. 45:101168. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101168.

Kronenberg J, Andersson E. 2019. Integrating social values with other value dimensions: parallel use vs. combination vs. full integration. Sustain Sci. 14(5):1283-1295. doi:10.1007/s11625-019-00688-7.

Lambin EF, Turner BL, Geist HJ, Agbola SB, Angelsen A, Bruce JW, Coomes OT, Dirzo R, Fischer G, Folke C, et al. 2001. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Glob Environ Change. 11(4):261-269. doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3.

Lau JD, Hicks CC, Gurney GG, Cinner JE. 2019. What matters to whom and why? Understanding the importance of coastal ecosystem services in developing coastal communities. Ecosyst Ser. 35:219-230. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.012.

Lavorel S. 2013. Plant functional effects on ecosystem services. J Ecol. 101(1):4-8. doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12031.

Lavorel S, Grigulis K. 2012. How fundamental plant functional trait relationships scale-up to trade-offs and synergies in ecosystem services. J Ecol. 100(1):128-140. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01914.x.

Lavorel S, Grigulis K, Leitinger G, Kohler M, Kohler M, Tappeiner U. 2017. Historical trajectories in land use pattern and grassland ecosystem services in two contrasted alpine landscapes. Reg Environ Change. 17 (8):2251-2264. doi:10.1007/s10113-017-1207-4.

Layke C, Mapendembe A, Brown C, Walpole M, Winn J. 2012. Indicators from the global and sub-global Millennium Ecosystem Assessments: an analysis and next steps. Ecol Indic. 17:77-87. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.025.

Locatelli B, Lavorel S, Sloan S, Tappeiner U, Geneletti D. 2017. Characteristic trajectories of ecosystem services in mountains. Front Ecol Environ. 15(3):150-159. doi:10.1002/fee.1470.

MA. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC. (USA).

Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH. 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol. 27(1):19-26. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006.

Maes J, Egoh B, Willemen L, Liquete C, Vihervaara P, Schägner JP, Grizzetti B, Drakou EG, La Notte A, and Zulian G, et al. 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosyst Ser. 1(1):31-39. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004.

Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Del Amo DG, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, et al. 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One. 7(6): e38970. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038970.

Martín-López B, Leister I, Lorenzo Cruz P, Palomo I, Grêt-Regamey A, Harrison PA, Lavorel S, Locatelli B, Luque S, Walz A. 2019. Nature's contributions to people in mountains: a review. PloS One. 14(6):e0217847. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217847.

Meacham M, Queiroz C, Norström AV, Peterson GD. 2016. Social-ecological drivers of multiple ecosystem services: what variables explain patterns of ecosystem services across the Norrström drainage basin? Ecol Soc. 21(1). doi:10.5751/ES-08077-210114.

Metzger MJ, Rounsevell MDA, Acosta-Michlik L, Leemans R, Schröter D. 2006. The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 114(1):69-85. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.025.

Milcu A, Hanspach J, Abson D, Fischer J. 2013. Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research. Ecol Soc. 18(3). doi:10.5751/ES-05790-180344.

Mouchet M, Rega C, Lasseur R, Georges D, Paracchini M-L, Renaud J, Stürck J, Schulp CJE, Verburg PH, Verkerk PJ, et al. 2017. Ecosystem service supply by European landscapes under alternative land use and environmental policies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Ser Manage. 13 (1):342-354. doi:10.1080/21513732.2017.1381167.

Odgaard MV, Turner KG, Bøcher PK, Svenning JC, Dalgaard T. 2017. A multi-criteria, ecosystem-service value method used to assess catchment suitability for potential wetland reconstruction in Denmark. Ecol Indic. 77:151-165. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.001.

Palomo I, Martín-López B, López-Santiago C, Montes C. 2011. Participatory scenario planning for protected areas management under the ecosystem services framework: the Doñana social-ecological system in southwestern Spain. Ecol Soc. 16(1). doi:10.5751/ES-03862-160123.

Pascual U, Muradian R, Brander L, Gómez-Baggethun E, Martín-López B, Verma M, Armsworth P, Christie M, Cornelissen H, and Eppink F, et al. 2010. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. TEEB-Ecol Econ Found. 183-256.

Plieninger T, Ferranto S, Huntsinger L, Kelly M, Getz C. 2012. Appreciation, use, and management of biodiversity and ecosystem services in California's working landscapes. Environ Manage. 50(3):427-440. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-9900-z.

Plieninger T, Torralba M, Hartel T, Fagerholm N. 2019. Perceived ecosystem services synergies, trade-offs, and bundles in European high nature value farming landscapes. Landsc Ecol. 34(7):1565-1581. doi:10.1007/s10980-019-00775-1.

Polishchuk Y, Rauschmayer F. 2012. Beyond “benefits”? Looking at ecosystem services through the capability approach. Ecol Econ. 81:103-111. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.06.010.

Qiu J, Carpenter SR, Booth EG, Motew M, Zipper SC, Kucharik CJ, Loheide SP II, Turner MG. 2018. Understanding relationships among ecosystem services across spatial scales and over time. Environ Res Lett. 13 (5):054020. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabb87.

Qiu J, Queiroz C, Bennett EM, Cord AF, Crouzat E, Lavorel S, Maes J, Meacham M, Norström AV, Peterson GD, et al. 2021. Land-use intensity mediates ecosystem service tradeoffs across regional social-ecological systems. Ecosyst People. 17 (1):264-278. doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1925743.

Qiu J, Turner MG. 2013. Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed.
<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

Proc Natl Acad Sci. 110(29):12149-12154. doi:10.1073/pnas.1310539110.

Queiroz C, Meacham M, Richter K, Norström AV, Andersson E, Norberg J, Peterson G. 2015. Mapping bundles of ecosystem services reveals distinct types of multifunctionality within a Swedish landscape. Ambio. 44(1):89-101. doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0601-0.

Quintas-Soriano C, García-Llorente M, Norström A, Meacham M, Peterson G, Castro AJ. 2019. Integrating supply and demand in ecosystem service bundles characterization across Mediterranean transformed landscapes. Landsc Ecol. 34(7):1619-1633. doi:10.1007/s10980-019-00826-7.

Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson G. 2016. Scale and ecosystem services: how do observation, management, and analysis shift with scale—lessons from Québec. Ecol Soc. 21(3). doi:10.5751/ES-08605-210316.

Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 107 (11):5242-5247. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907284107.

Renard D, Rhemtulla JM, Bennett EM. 2015. Historical dynamics in ecosystem service bundles. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 112(43):13411-13416. doi:10.1073/pnas.1502565112.

Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S. 2013. Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social-ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ. 11(5):268-273. doi:10.1890/120144.

Rieb JT, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily GC, Armsworth PR, Böhning-Gaese K, Bonn A, Cumming GS, Eigenbrod F, Grimm V, Jackson BM, et al. 2017. When, where, and how nature matters for ecosystem services: challenges for the next generation of ecosystem service models. BioScience. 67(9):820-833. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix075.

Riechers M, Balázsi Á, Betz L, Jiren TS, Fischer J. 2020. The erosion of relational values resulting from landscape simplification. Landsc Ecol. 35(11):2601-2612. doi:10.1007/s10980-020-01012-w.

Robards MD, Schoon ML, Meek CL, Engle NL. 2011. The importance of social drivers in the resilient provision of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change. 21 (2):522-529. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.004.

Rounsevell MDA, Dawson TP, Harrison PA. 2010. A conceptual framework to assess the effects of environmental change on ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv. 19(10):2823-2842. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9838-5.

Saidi N, Spray C. 2018. Ecosystem services bundles: challenges and opportunities for implementation and further research. Environ Res Lett. 13(11):113001. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aae5e0.

Santos-Martín F, García Llorente M, Quintas-Soriano C, Zorrilla-Miras P, Martín-Lopez B, Loureiro M, Benayas J, Montes M. 2016. Spanish National Ecosystem Assessment: socio-economic valuation of ecosystem services in Spain. Synthesis of the key findings. Food and Environment, Madrid, Spain.

Santos-Martín F, García-Mon BG, González JA, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Montes C, Ravera F, López-Santiago CA, Carpintero Ó, Benayas J, et al. 2019. Identifying past social-ecological thresholds to

understand long-term temporal dynamics in Spain. Ecol Soc. 24(2). doi:10.5751/ES-10734-240210.

Scholes RJ, Reyers B, Biggs R, Spierenburg MJ, Duriappah A. 2013. Multi-scale and cross-scale assessments of social-ecological systems and their ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 5(1):16-25. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.004.

Schröter M, Albert C, Marques A, Tobon W, Lavorel S, Maes J, Brown C, Klotz S, Bonn A. 2016. National ecosystem assessments in Europe: a review. BioScience. 66(10):813-828. doi:10.1093/biosci/biw101.

Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice IC, Araújo MB, Arnell NW, Bondeau A, Bugmann H, Carter TR, Gracia CA, et al. 2005. Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science. 310(5752):1333-1337. doi:10.1126/science.1115233.

Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S. 2011. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol. 48(3):630-636. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x.

Sharp R, Douglass J, Wolny S, Arkema K, Bernhardt J, Bierbower W, Chaumont N, Denu D, Fisher D, and Glowinski K, et al. 2020. InVEST 3.8.5.post0+ug. gdd887c5.d20201118 User's Guide. In: The Natural Capital Project. Stanford University, University of Minnesota, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund.

Spake R, Lasseur R, Crouzat E, Bullock JM, Lavorel S, Parks KE, Schaafsma M, Bennett EM, Maes J, Mulligan M, et al. 2017. Unpacking ecosystem service bundles: towards predictive mapping of synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change. 47:37-50. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.004.

Tomscha SA, Sutherland IJ, Renard D, Gergel SE, Rhemtulla JM, Bennett EM, Daniels LD, Eddy IM, Clark EE. 2016. A guide to historical data sets for reconstructing ecosystem service change over time. BioScience. 66(9):747-762. doi:10.1093/biosci/biw086.

Turner KG, Odgaard MV, Bøcher PK, Dalgaard T, Svenning JC. 2014. Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landsc Urban Plan. 125:89-104. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.007.

Vannier C, Lasseur R, Crouzat E, Byczek C, Lafond V, Cordonnier T, Longaretti PY, Lavorel S. 2019. Mapping ecosystem services bundles in a heterogeneous mountain region. Ecosyst People. 15(1):74-88. doi:10.1080/26395916.2019.1570971.

Yang G, Ge Y, Xue H, Yang W, Shi Y, Peng C, Du Y, Fan X, Ren Y, Chang J. 2015. Using ecosystem service bundles to detect trade-offs and synergies across urban-rural complexes. Landsc Urban Plan. 136:110-121. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.12.006.

Zhang H, Huang R, Zhang Y, Buhalis D. 2020. Cultural ecosystem services evaluation using geolocated social media data: a review. Tourism Geogr. 1-23. doi:10.1080/14616688.2020.1801828.