Table 1.
Appraisal of how a sample of studies have accounted for the challenges of incorporating ecosystem service benefits into land use planning and decision making (see Introduction).
Figure 1.
Spatial distribution of environmental services in Cornwall and the different zones of the region.
Grey areas correspond to a minimum service value equal to zero.
Figure 2.
Zonal statistics of environmental services in Cornwall and within zones thereof.
Shown are the median value (central line), upper quartile (edges of boxes), maximum and minimum values excluding outliers (whiskers) and outliers (dots).
Table 2.
Correlations between spatial variation in environmental services in Cornwall and within zones thereof.
Figure 3.
Co-occurrence of environmental services.
In each panel is quantified the spatial overlap between a main service and its co-occurring services. The y-axis represents the percentage spatial overlap of the overall co-occurring service value available within the main service: maximum distribution area (top segments or bullet outliers of whisker histograms); the area excluding the lower quartile valued cells (top edge of coloured histogram), the area from the median to the top valued cells (black horizontal lines); the higher quartile cells valued areas (lower edge of coloured histograms), and the area available within the maximum value grid cells (lowest segments or bottom outliers of histograms). Outliers and maximum values are not visible when overlapping with quartile upper boundary.
Figure 4.
Priority maps for environmental services in Cornwall using different weighting strategies.
Blue to black (minimum value) are the least valuable areas and yellow to red the most valuable. Weight levels stated in maps titles.
Figure 5.
Sensitivity analysis for weight selection for flood mitigation.
For each weight the cumulative value of flood mitigation prioritisation performance curves (red line) and the cumulative value of all the other service performance curves (black line) are shown. A weight equal to 10 (dotted line) defines a prioritisation map appropriate to maximise the conservation of areas for flood mitigation purposes without compromising the overall value of the other services. Lower weights do not force the zonation algorithm to preserve areas with strong flood mitigation values while higher weights markedly decrease the overall cumulative value of other services.
Figure 6.
Performance curves corresponding to prioritisation simulations with different weighting schemes.
In these figures the x-axis represents the proportion of the total land area removed, starting with the areas with the lowest value for environmental services. The lines show the proportion of the total service value for each category remaining. Symbols below the 1∶1 line show that the service is associated with regions with low prioritisation under this weighting scheme, and lines above the 1∶1 line show that it is associated with regions with a high prioritisation.