MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405123991 · doi:10.1002/pan3.10762

Servicesheds connect people to the landscapes upon which they depend

2024· article· en· W4405123991 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yiyi Zhang, Hugo Thierry, Lara Cornejo-Denman, Lael Parrott, Monique Poulin, Kate Sherren, Danika van Proosdij, Brian E. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenuePeople and Nature · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityUniversité LavalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsEcosystem servicesLivelihoodBeneficiaryFishingGeographyAgricultureProvisioningPopulationEnvironmental resource managementBusinessEnvironmental planningEcosystemEcologyEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ecosystem services (ES) are benefits people receive from nature. To sustain these benefits, we need to spatially connect communities benefitting from specific ES with landscape features that generate the ES. A variety of process‐based models support ES assessments by estimating the biophysical supply of ES that comes from landscapes. However, less attention has been given to how ES flow from landscapes to beneficiary groups. A ‘serviceshed’ is defined as the spatial area that provides an ecosystem service to beneficiaries at a specific location—thus connecting people to the landscapes and seascapes upon which they depend through ES flows. In this article, we propose a general framework to empirically define serviceshed boundaries. Using publicly available data, we apply this framework to two provisioning and two regulating services (1) agricultural and fishing livelihoods and (2) pollination and coastal flood control, respectively, in Canada. We find that agricultural fields of different types and sizes contribute livelihood value to 85% of the communities in the agricultural landscape, and fishing grounds of different sizes contribute to 24% of the communities in the fishing study area. On average, communities with a lower proportion of agricultural labour are associated with larger fields, whilst larger fishing grounds were associated with communities with a greater percentage of their population in fisheries, showing how different ES can have varied relationships with beneficiary communities. For regulating services, we find 66% of pollinator‐supplying areas are within the serviceshed of farming communities. Natural habitats and agricultural land account for 72% and 28% of this serviceshed area, respectively. Our models suggest also that 26% of saltmarshes are within the serviceshed of flood‐prone communities and most coastal communities in our study area benefit from saltmarshes, especially from those without dykes. We demonstrate how serviceshed mapping, when integrating social and ecological information, can be useful in multiple decision contexts. Servicesheds can help planners and managers better design zoning restrictions, restoration activities to benefit communities, or subsidy programmes to replace the value of ES lost due to climate change or land use development. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeople and NatureSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207