↓ Skip to main content

On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
317 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0112601
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrienne Grêt-Regamey, Bettina Weibel, Kenneth J. Bagstad, Marika Ferrari, Davide Geneletti, Hermann Klug, Uta Schirpke, Ulrike Tappeiner

Abstract

Ecosystems provide life-sustaining services upon which human civilization depends, but their degradation largely continues unabated. Spatially explicit information on ecosystem services (ES) provision is required to better guide decision making, particularly for mountain systems, which are characterized by vertical gradients and isolation with high topographic complexity, making them particularly sensitive to global change. But while spatially explicit ES quantification and valuation allows the identification of areas of abundant or limited supply of and demand for ES, the accuracy and usefulness of the information varies considerably depending on the scale and methods used. Using four case studies from mountainous regions in Europe and the U.S., we quantify information gains and losses when mapping five ES - carbon sequestration, flood regulation, agricultural production, timber harvest, and scenic beauty - at coarse and fine resolution (250 m vs. 25 m in Europe and 300 m vs. 30 m in the U.S.). We analyze the effects of scale on ES estimates and their spatial pattern and show how these effects are related to different ES, terrain structure and model properties. ES estimates differ substantially between the fine and coarse resolution analyses in all case studies and across all services. This scale effect is not equally strong for all ES. We show that spatially explicit information about non-clustered, isolated ES tends to be lost at coarse resolution and against expectation, mainly in less rugged terrain, which calls for finer resolution assessments in such contexts. The effect of terrain ruggedness is also related to model properties such as dependency on land use-land cover data. We close with recommendations for mapping ES to make the resulting maps more comparable, and suggest a four-step approach to address the issue of scale when mapping ES that can deliver information to support ES-based decision making with greater accuracy and reliability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 317 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Mozambique 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 296 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 73 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 72 23%
Student > Master 48 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 15 5%
Other 53 17%
Unknown 37 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 143 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 59 19%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 19 6%
Engineering 9 3%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Other 21 7%
Unknown 61 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,226,798
of 22,776,824 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#74,740
of 194,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,879
of 352,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#844
of 3,166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,776,824 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.