Figure 1.
Study area location (left) and regional subdivision and country names as referred to in the results (right).
U.K. = United Kingdom, NL = Netherlands, LC = Luxembourg.
Table 1.
Overview of the ecosystem service datasets analysed in this study.
Table 2.
Map comparison statistics of individual ecosystem services and bundles.
Figure 2.
Agreement between maps for each ecosystem service.
The maps indicate the number of maps that have a hotspot or coldspot per NUTS2 region. Dark grey areas were not considered.
Figure 3.
Mean ecosystem service provision per NUTS2 region.
Dark grey areas were not considered.
Table 3.
Minimum and maximum coefficients of variation for NUTS2 regions between service estimates; low values indicate agreement between the different ES estimates, high values indicate large variation between reported values.
Table 4.
Correlations between area percentages of land cover classes* per NUTS2 region and mean and CV of ecosystem service provision.
Figure 4.
Agreement between the ecosystem service maps.
100% agreement indicates the area where all maps indicate a hotspot, a coldspot or no extreme values, <100% agreement indicates regions where one to three of the maps have a hotspot or coldspot and the other maps do not demonstrate extreme values. Disagreement indicates the regions where at least one map indicates a hotpot and at least one other map indicates a hotspot.
Table 5.
Agreement between ecosystem service maps and independent maps.