ArticleScientific reports2024
Humans versus models: a comparative assessment of ecosystem services models and stakeholders' perceptions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mapping the production of Ecosystem Services (ES) is imperative for sustainable ecosystem management. Likewise, incorporating expert knowledge enhances ES research. Here, we calculate eight multi-temporal ES indicators for mainland Portugal using a spatial modelling approach. These indicators are then integrated into the novel ASEBIO index-Assessment of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity-which depicts a combined ES potential based on CORINE Land Cover, using a multi-criteria evaluation method with weights defined by stakeholders through an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Outputs from the modelling show how ES have changed in Portugal in relation to land use changes, including trade-offs between 1990 and 2018. The composed ASEBIO index is compared against the stakeholders' valuation of ES potential for the year 2018. The results reveal a significant mismatch between the ES potential perceived by stakeholders and the models, with stakeholder estimates being 32.8% higher on average. All the selected ES were overestimated by the stakeholders. Drought regulation and erosion prevention have the highest contrasts, while water purification, food production and recreation are the most closely aligned among both approaches. Providing the first national overview about the status of multiple ES over a 28 year-period, our findings highlight potential disparities between data-driven and stakeholder-based evaluations. Therefore, we suggest the need for integrative strategies that consider scientific models with expert knowledge for more effective ES assessments and land-use planning. This approach could help bridge the gap between data-driven models and human perspectives, resulting in more balanced and inclusive decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.