Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40082382›Full record

SynthesisAmbio2025

Boxes of rain: A systematic review on the classes and frameworks of ecosystem disservices.

Carl Cyrus Anderson, Andreas Metzemacher, Blal Adem Esmail

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Ambio, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Carl Cyrus AndersonInstitute of Environmental Planning, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Herrenhäuser Str. 2, 30419, Hannover, Germany. anderson@umwelt.uni-hannover.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5344-9800
Andreas MetzemacherInstitute of Geography, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstr. 150, 44805, Bochum, Germany.
Blal Adem EsmailInstitute of Geography, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstr. 150, 44805, Bochum, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1377-565X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the numerous benefits we derive from ecosystems as ecosystem services (ES), negative impacts on human health and well-being also occur as ecosystem disservices (ED). To study ED, researchers box them into classes and create conceptual frameworks to support their identification, assessment, and communication. It is unclear what classes and frameworks now exist for ED, their relative uptake in the literature, and their potential application across socio-ecological contexts. We conduct a systematic literature review of ED classification systems and frameworks to take stock and synthesize this growing but scattered body of research. We find strong uptake of several influential articles but persisting inconsistency of classifications and oversimplification of ED processes within frameworks. Aggregating existing classifications and frameworks, we draw on lessons learned to propose the Composite Ecosystem Disservices (CED) framework. We call for increased ED research, greater comparability and replicability allowing for transdisciplinarity, and conceptual underpinnings that recognize social-ecological interconnections.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemHumansClassificationEcosystem disservicesEcosystem servicesFrameworkPlanning and managementUrban green infrastructure

Identifiers

PMID40082382
PMCPMC12307269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.