Ecosystems provide life-sustaining services upon which human civilization depends, but their degradation largely continues unabated. Spatially explicit information on ecosystem services (ES) provision is required to better guide decision making, particularly for mountain systems, which are characterized by vertical gradients and isolation with high topographic complexity, making them particularly sensitive to global change. But while spatially explicit ES quantification and valuation allows the identification of areas of abundant or limited supply of and demand for ES, the accuracy and usefulness of the information varies considerably depending on the scale and methods used. Using four case studies from mountainous regions in Europe and the U.S., we quantify information gains and losses when mapping five ES - carbon sequestration, flood regulation, agricultural production, timber harvest, and scenic beauty - at coarse and fine resolution (250 m vs. 25 m in Europe and 300 m vs. 30 m in the U.S.). We analyze the effects of scale on ES estimates and their spatial pattern and show how these effects are related to different ES, terrain structure and model properties. ES estimates differ substantially between the fine and coarse resolution analyses in all case studies and across all services. This scale effect is not equally strong for all ES. We show that spatially explicit information about non-clustered, isolated ES tends to be lost at coarse resolution and against expectation, mainly in less rugged terrain, which calls for finer resolution assessments in such contexts. The effect of terrain ruggedness is also related to model properties such as dependency on land use-land cover data. We close with recommendations for mapping ES to make the resulting maps more comparable, and suggest a four-step approach to address the issue of scale when mapping ES that can deliver information to support ES-based decision making with greater accuracy and reliability.

Recommendations for the suitable contents of the geospatial datasets presenting the distribution of languages including the benefits of each, and our solutions (selected in the case study) concerning the Uralic languages.

Dataset for Paper "Ethical Issues in Empirical Studies using Student Subjects: Re-visiting Practices and Perceptions"# This is the dataset for the paper titled "Ethical Issues in Empirical Studies using Student Subjects: Re-visiting Practices and Perceptions". All mapping study data has the prefix MAP, while all survey data the prefix SUR. In case of questions, feel free to contact the author, Grischa Liebel, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3884-815X, current affiliation and email: Reykjavik University, Iceland, grischal@ru.is ## Systematic Mapping Study ## The mapping study data is mainly contained in the MAPmappingStudy.xlsx file. Different tabs are used for the two phases: exclusion by title and abstract (tab title_abs), and exclusion by fulltext (tab fulltextScreening). The final set of papers is obtained by filtering the fulltextScreening tab by included papers (Column V). The file MAPvenues.txt contains the included venues in the mapping study. Finally, the raw search results are provided as BIB/RIS files with the prefix MAPRAW. ## Survey ## The survey folder contains the survey pages (named surveyPageN.pdf), as well as the raw data in surveyDataAnon.xlsx. Note that free-text answers have been aggregated, anonymised, and sorted alphabetically in individual tabs. Similarly, countries that only occur once have been changed to Do Not Disclose answers, and all answers have been sorted randomly. All questions are listed by their acronym. The corresponding questions, as well as possible answers, are described in the QuestionKey tab.

1. Cultural Ecosystem Services (CES) encompass a range of social, cultural and health benefits to local communities, for example recreation, spirituality, a sense of place and local identity. However, these complex and place-specific CES are often overlooked in rapid land management decisions and assessed using broad, top–down approaches. 2. We use the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA) to examine a novel approach to rapid assessment of local CES provision using inductive, participatory methods. We combined free-listing and participatory geographic information systems (GIS) techniques to quantify and map perceptions of current CES provision of an urban green space. The results were then statistically compared with those of a proposed alternative scenario with the aim to inform future decision-making. 3. By identifying changes in the spatial hotspots of CES in our study area, we revealed a spatially-specific shift toward positive sentiment regarding several CES under the alternative state with variance across demographic and stakeholder groups. Response aggregations in areas of proposed development reveal previously unknown stakeholder preferences to local decision-makers and highlight potential trade-offs for conservation management. Free-listed responses revealed deeper insight into personal opinion and context. 4. This work serves as a useful case study on how the perceptions and opinions of local people regarding local CES could be accounted for in the future planning of an urban greenspace and how thorough analysis of CES provision is important to fully-inform local-scale conservation and planning for the mutual benefit of local communities and nature.

APISCRAPY, your premier provider of Map Data solutions. Map Data encompasses various information related to geographic locations, including Google Map Data, Location Data, Address Data, and Business Location Data. Our advanced Google Map Data Scraper sets us apart by extracting comprehensive and accurate data from Google Maps and other platforms.

What sets APISCRAPY's Map Data apart are its key benefits:

1. Accuracy: Our scraping technology ensures the highest level of accuracy, providing reliable data for informed decision-making. We employ advanced algorithms to filter out irrelevant or outdated information, ensuring that you receive only the most relevant and up-to-date data.

2. Accessibility: With our data readily available through APIs, integration into existing systems is seamless, saving time and resources. Our APIs are easy to use and well-documented, allowing for quick implementation into your workflows. Whether you're a developer building a custom application or a business analyst conducting market research, our APIs provide the flexibility and accessibility you need.

3. Customization: We understand that every business has unique needs and requirements. That's why we offer tailored solutions to meet specific business needs. Whether you need data for a one-time project or ongoing monitoring, we can customize our services to suit your needs. Our team of experts is always available to provide support and guidance, ensuring that you get the most out of our Map Data solutions.

Our Map Data solutions cater to various use cases:

1. B2B Marketing: Gain insights into customer demographics and behavior for targeted advertising and personalized messaging. Identify potential customers based on their geographic location, interests, and purchasing behavior.

2. Logistics Optimization: Utilize Location Data to optimize delivery routes and improve operational efficiency. Identify the most efficient routes based on factors such as traffic patterns, weather conditions, and delivery deadlines.

3. Real Estate Development: Identify prime locations for new ventures using Business Location Data for market analysis. Analyze factors such as population density, income levels, and competition to identify opportunities for growth and expansion.

4. Geospatial Analysis: Leverage Map Data for spatial analysis, urban planning, and environmental monitoring. Identify trends and patterns in geographic data to inform decision-making in areas such as land use planning, resource management, and disaster response.

5. Retail Expansion: Determine optimal locations for new stores or franchises using Location Data and Address Data. Analyze factors such as foot traffic, proximity to competitors, and demographic characteristics to identify locations with the highest potential for success.

6. Competitive Analysis: Analyze competitors' business locations and market presence for strategic planning. Identify areas of opportunity and potential threats to your business by analyzing competitors' geographic footprint, market share, and customer demographics.

Experience the power of APISCRAPY's Map Data solutions today and unlock new opportunities for your business. With our accurate and accessible data, you can make informed decisions, drive growth, and stay ahead of the competition.

[ Related tags: Map Data, Google Map Data, Google Map Data Scraper, B2B Marketing, Location Data, Map Data, Google Data, Location Data, Address Data, Business location data, map scraping data, Google map data extraction, Transport and Logistic Data, Mobile Location Data, Mobility Data, and IP Address Data, business listings APIs, map data, map datasets, map APIs, poi dataset, GPS, Location Intelligence, Retail Site Selection, Sentiment Analysis, Marketing Data Enrichment, Point of Interest (POI) Mapping]

The dataset contains the maps of the case study described in the paper "A performance-based planning approach integrating supply and demand of urban ecosystem services", published in Landscape and Urban Planning. The maps describe the supply and demand of urban ecosystem services in the city of Trento (Italy) and show how ecosystem service assessments can support the implementation of an innovative performance-based planning approach. The dataset includes seven maps of ecosystem service supply (air purification, food supply, habitat provision, microclimate regulation, noise mitigation, recreation, runoff mitigation), five maps of ecosystem services demand (food supply, microclimate regulation, noise mitigation, recreation, runoff mitigation), and two synthesis maps. The synthesis maps serve as operational tools to implement the performance-based planning approach proposed and tested in the paper. The "combined ES supply map" provides an overall assessment of the expected negative impacts of urban transformations on ecosystem services, while the "integrated ES demand map" identifies the priority ecosystem services to enhance in different areas of the city. Values of the indicators in the supply and demand maps and in the "combined ES supply map" range from 0 to 1. The "integrated ES demand map" is a categorical map with classes indicated by integer values from 1 to 6. For a description of the classes, please refer to the original paper. All maps are provided in Geotiff format, 20-m resolution, projected coordinate system EPSG:3044, except for the map of habitat provision. They cover the whole administrative territory of Trento.

Provided a unique mapping solution which allowed Yum! to effectively plan and manage their retail expansion plans with a sustainable growth strategy.

Cultural ecosystem services in Central Balkan area

FEMA provides access to the National Flood Hazards Layer (NFHL) through web mapping services. The maps depict effective flood hazard information and supporting data. The primary flood hazard classification is indicated in the Flood Hazard Zones layer.The NFHL layers include:Flood hazard zones and labelsRiver Miles MarkersCross-sections and coastal transects and their labelsLetter of Map Revision (LOMR) boundaries and case numbersFlood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) boundaries, labels and effective datesCoastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) and Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) unitsCommunity boundaries and namesLeveesHydraulic and flood control structuresProfile and coastal transect baselinesLimit of Moderate Wave Action(LiMWA)Not all effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) have GIS data available. To view a list of available county and single-jurisdiction flood study data in GIS format and check the status of the NFHL GIS services, please visit the NFHL Status Page.Preliminary & Pending National Flood Hazard LayersThe Preliminary and Pending NFHL dataset represents the current pre-effective flood data for the country. These layers are updated as new preliminary and pending data becomes available, and data is removed from these layers as it becomes effective.For more information, please visit FEMA's website.To download map panels or GIS Data, go to: NFHL on FEMA GeoPlatform.Preliminary & Pending DataPreliminary data are for review and guidance purposes only. By viewing preliminary data and maps, the user acknowledges that the information provided is preliminary and subject to change. Preliminary data are not final and are presented in this national layer as the best information available at this time. Additionally, preliminary data cannot be used to rate flood insurance policies or enforce the Federal mandatory purchase requirement. FEMA will remove preliminary data once pending data are available.Pending data are for early awareness of upcoming changes to regulatory flood map information. Until the data becomes effective, when it will appear in FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL), the data should not be used to rate flood insurance policies or enforce the Federal mandatory purchase requirement. FEMA will remove pending data once effective data are available.To better understand Preliminary data please see the View Your Community's Preliminary Flood Hazard Data webpage.FEMA GeoPlatformFEMA's GIS flood map services are available through FEMAs GeoPlatform, an ArcGIS Online portal containing a variety of FEMA-related data.To view the NFHL on the FEMA GeoPlatform go to NFHL on FEMA GeoPlatform.To view the Preliminary and Pending national layers on the FEMA Geoplatform go to FEMA's Preliminary & Pending National Flood Hazard Layer.Technical InformationFlood hazard and supporting data are developed using specifications for horizontal control consistent with 1:12,000–scale mapping. If you plan to display maps from the NFHL with other map data for official purposes, ensure that the other information meets FEMA’s standards for map accuracy.The minimum horizontal positional accuracy for base map hydrographic and transportation features used with the NFHL is the NSSDA radial accuracy of 38 feet. United States Geological Survey (USGS) imagery and map services that meet this standard can be found by visiting the Knowledge Sharing Site (KSS) for Base Map Standards (420). Other base map standards can be found at https://riskmapportal.msc.fema.gov/kss/MapChanges/default.aspx. You will need a username and password to access this information.The NFHL data are from FEMA’s FIRM databases. New data are added continually. The NFHL also contains map changes to FIRM data made by LOMRs.The NFHL is stored in North American Datum of 1983, Geodetic Reference System 80 coordinate system, though many of the NFHL GIS web services support the Web Mercator Sphere projection commonly used in web mapping applications.Organization & DisplayThe NFHL is organized into many data layers. The layers display information at map scales appropriate for the data. A layer indicating the availability of NFHL data is displayed at map scales smaller than 1:250,000, regional overviews at map scales between 1:250,000 and 1:50,000, and detailed flood hazard maps at map scales of 1:50,000 and larger. The "Scalehint" item in the Capabilities file for the Web Map Service encodes the scale range for a layer.In addition, there are non-NFHL datasets provided in the GIS web services, such as information about the availability of flood data and maps, the national map panel scheme, and point locations for LOMA and LOMR-Fs. The LOMA are positioned less accurately than are the NFHL data.Layers in the public NFHL GIS services:Use the numbers shown below when referencing layers by number.0. NFHL Availability1. LOMRs2. LOMAs3. FIRM Panels4. Base Index5. PLSS6. Toplogical Low Confidence Areas7. River Mile Markers8. Datum Conversion Points9. Coastal Gages10. Gages11. Nodes12. High Water Marks13. Station Start Points14. Cross-Sections15. Coastal Transects16. Base Flood Elevations17. Profile Baselines18. Transect Baselines19. Limit of Moderate Wave Action20. Water Lines21. Coastal Barrier Resources System Area22. Political Jurisdictions23. Levees24. General Structures25. Primary Frontal Dunes26. Hydrologic Reaches27. Flood Hazard Boundaries28. Flood Hazard Zones29. Submittal Information30. Alluvial Fans31. Subbasins32. Water Areas

Additional file 2. The R codes of the study.

Mapping temporal variations in ecosystem services: a case study of European wood supply and demand between 2008 and 2018

Mapping the spatial dynamics of perceived social value across the landscape can help develop a restoration economy that can support ecosystem services in the region. Many different methods have been used to map perceived social value. We used the Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) GIS tool, version 3.0, which uses social survey responses and various environmental variables to map social value. In the social survey distributed by the Borderlands Restoration Network (BRN) in May 2017, the respondents were asked to consider twelve different social values and map locations on a map where they perceived those social values to be. Additionally, they were asked to weigh each social value using a total of 100 points, and could assign each social value anywhere from 0 to 100 points. A combination of the points, weighted social values, and environmental variables were used within the SolVES tool. The SolVES tool then produced raster outputs that visualize the value index range for each social value assessed using the SolVES tool. This data release consists of two raster products. The first raster (SolVES multi-band raster) product consists of twelve bands, each band representing one of the twelve social values. The twelve total bands in this stacked raster are listed below, with the descriptions provided in the survey. The second raster product is a single band raster (SolVES summed raster) that shows the summed social value index for each pixel for the twelve social value rasters. Both raster products are clipped to the Sonoita Creek Watershed and represent the visual results of the SolVES tool. 1) aesthetic - ... I enjoy the aesthetics - scenery, sights, sounds, smells, etc. - within it, 2) biological diversity - ... it is home to such biological diversity, 3) cultural - ... it is a place of cultural value allowing me to pass down the knowledge, traditions, wisdom and way of life of myself and my ancestors, 4) economic - ... it is a place of economic value where I can earn a living, 5) future generations - ... I want future generations to be able to know, see and experience the watershed, 6) historical - ... it has historic value, with important places and things of natural and human history, 7) intrinsic - ... it has intrinsic value, irrespective of any instrumental value, 8) learning - ... because we can learn a great deal within it, 9) life sustaining - ... because it has life sustaining value through protecting and renewing clean air, soil, water etc., 10) recreational - ... because it provides a place for my favorite outdoor recreation activities, 11) spiritual - ... because it has spiritual value to me in the form of sacred, religious, or spiritual or because I feel reverence and respect for nature there, and 12) therapeutic - ... because it has therapeutic value, making me feel better physically and/or mentally. This data is used in the associated publication in the Air, Soil and Water Research. Petrakis, Roy E., Norman, Laura M., Lysaght, Oliver, Sherrouse, Benson C., Semmens, Darius, Bagstad, Kenneth J., Pritzlaff, Richard. 2020. “Mapping Perceived Social Values to Support a Respondent-Defined Restoration Economy: Case Study in Southeastern Arizona, USA” Air, Soil and Water Research. doi.org/10.1177/1178622120913318. The abstract for the associated publication follows: "Investment in conservation and ecological restoration depends on various socioeconomic factors and the social license for these activities. Our study demonstrates a method for targeting management of ecosystem services based on social values, identified by respondents through a collection of social survey data. We applied the Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) geographic information systems (GIS)- based tool in the Sonoita Creek watershed, Arizona, to map social values across the watershed. The survey focused on how respondents engage with the landscape, including through their ranking of 12 social values (eg, recreational, economic, or aesthetic value) and their placement of points on a map to identify their associations with the landscape. Additional information was elicited regarding how respondents engaged with water and various land uses, as well as their familiarity with restoration terminology. Results show how respondents perceive benefits from the natural environment. Specifically, maps of social values on the landscape show high social value along streamlines. Life-sustaining services, biological diversity, and aesthetics were the respondents’ highest rated social values. Land surrounding National Forest and private lands had lower values than conservation-based and state-owned areas, which we associate with landscape features. Results can inform watershed management by allowing managers to consider social values when prioritizing restoration or conservation investments."

Supporting information : Explanation note: Description of the landscape disturbance index methodological approach according to Cardoso et al. (2013).

Optimal solutions of the PSO-SVM coupled model for each prediction region.

These maps provide the suitable area (maximum available area) for the potential implementation of the specific proposed LAMS. The suitability map includes 4 classes: not suitable (0), least suitable (1), moderately suitable (2) and most suitable (3). Maps for 13 different LAMS (from the LAMS catalogue V1-1) have been developed for the six RethinkAction case studies, when possible.

The codes and the names of the LAMS are the following:

LAMS03-EstGra: Establishment (conversion to) of permanent grassland

LAMS14-SpaPla: Spatial planning for the sustainable deployment of energy on land

LAMS15-PhoPla: Photovoltaic plants

LAMS21-AgrPla: Agrovoltaic farms

LAMS22-IncFor: Increased portion of forests included under protected areas

LAMS23-RefAff: Reforestation/afforestation

LAMS31-UrbSpr: Limiting urban sprawl

LAMS32-GreUrb: Establishment and maintenance of green urban ecosystems

LAMS44-IncCul: Increase in cultivated area

LAMS49-FloSol: Floating solar photovoltaic panels in water bodies

LAMS50-SolPan: Solar panels in rooftops/buildings

LAMS55-WatHar: Water harvesting: collect and store rain water in reservoirs

LAMS59-LanMan: Land management of solar photovoltaic systems land

The dataset presented provides average per-farm ecosystem service (ES) values for each NUTS3 region for Europe for the year 2019. The modelled ES are: carbon sequestration [t C ha-1 yr-1], food production (standard economic output) [euros yr-1], and nutrient (nitrogen) export [kg N yr-1]. The data is stored in vector files (GeoPackage). The per-farm ES values were modelled for five sub-country case studies and upscaled for each NUTS3 region where sufficient evidence supported a successful transfer and upscaling. Note that the criteria for upscaling the carbon sequestration were not met for any NUTS3 region and therefore the carbon sequestration is returned as NULL for each region.

Finding effective and practical solutions to climate change challenges in food-energy-water systems requires the integration of experts in local/regional social and biophysical systems, and these are commonly local community members. In the Magic Valley, Idaho we investigated the tensions between water used for energy and to irrigate cropland for food production, as well as, strategies for protecting water quantity and quality. Incorporating stakeholders with long-standing expertise allows the development of solutions to these challenges that are locally and regionally practical and consistent with the values of the social system into which they are incorporated. We describe a stakeholder-driven process used in a case study in the Magic Valley that incorporated local experts to develop plausible future scenarios, identify drivers of change, vet impact and hydrological modeling and map areas of change. The process described allowed stakeholders to envision alternative futures in their region, leading to development of enhanced context and place-based solutions and an anticipated time line for adoption of those solutions. The solutions developed by the stakeholders have been applied across many geographic areas. The described process can also be applied across a broad range of geographic levels. Most importantly, stakeholders should be involved in anticipating solutions and solution timing to the differing challenges posed by each scenario.

Ecosystem water scarcity solutions and secondary themes, categories and example cases in each category.

The table presents review of main ES activities in Bulgaria

How institutional stakeholders perceive the supply and demand of ecosystem services (ES) under distinct contexts determines which planning actions are deemed priority or not. Public officers play a crucial role in social-ecological management and decision-making processes, but there is a paucity of research exploring their perceptions on ES supply and demand under a changing climate. We address this gap through an exploratory study that analyses the views of public officers on the potential impacts of climate-change related drivers on multiple ES in a major administrative region from Portugal (EU NUTS 3). We combined qualitative spatial data from participatory maps and semi-quantitative answers from questionnaire-based surveys with 22 officers from public institutions contributing to territorial planning. Contrary to other similar studies, public officers shared a common view on the importance of ES. This view aligns with scientific projections on how a changing climate is expected to influence ES in the region over the next decade. In agreement with other observations in Mediterranean regions, the most perceivably valued ES concerned tangible socio-economic benefits (e.g., periurban agriculture and wine production). Surprisingly, despite the region’s potential for cultural ES, and considering the impacts that climate change may hold on them, recreation and tourism did not seem to be embedded in the officers’ views. We explore the implications of our findings for territorial planning and social-ecological adaptation, considering that the way stakeholders manage the territory in response to climate change depends on the extent to which they are aware and expect to experience climatic consequences in the future.