Systematic Review of Regulating Ecosystem Services: Methods, Applications, and Future Research Directions

Abstract

This systematic review comprehensively examines the current state of research on regulating ecosystem services (RES), which encompass vital processes such as climate regulation, water purification, pollination, and erosion control. Targeting researchers, scientists, and environmental professionals, the review synthesizes foundational concepts, methodological approaches, and key challenges identified in recent literature. It explores the complex trade-offs and synergies between different RES, analyzes the efficacy of various assessment and valuation techniques, and evaluates governance frameworks for their management. By integrating findings from diverse ecological and socio-economic contexts, this review aims to identify critical research gaps and provide a structured foundation for future studies, ultimately supporting evidence-based policy and sustainable ecosystem management.

Defining the Landscape: Core Concepts and Typologies of Regulating Ecosystem Services

Regulating ecosystem services represent a critical category of benefits that humans receive from ecosystems, derived from the moderation of natural processes [1]. Within the context of a systematic review of regulating ecosystem services research, it is essential to establish a precise conceptual framework. These services encompass the capacity of ecosystems to regulate climate, water, disease, and biological processes that underpin human well-being and sustainable development [2]. The systematic analysis of research in this domain reveals the complex interdependencies between ecological functions and human benefits, highlighting the necessity of integrating both natural and social systems in assessment methodologies [3].

The conceptual understanding of regulating services has evolved significantly since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment established the foundational categorization of ecosystem services [1]. Current systematic reviews indicate a growing research focus on quantifying and modeling the flows of these services from ecosystems to human populations [4]. This scholarly attention reflects the recognition that regulating services provide indispensable functions that would be prohibitively expensive or technologically impossible to replace through human engineering alone. Research in this field increasingly employs complex systems approaches and network theory to analyze the interconnected relationships that sustain service provision [5].

Classification and Typology of Regulating Ecosystem Services

Regulating ecosystem services encompass diverse processes that maintain environmental equilibrium and mitigate disruptive influences. Systematic classification reveals eight principal categories of regulating services documented in the literature, each with distinct mechanisms and benefits [2].

Table 1: Classification of Regulating Ecosystem Services

Service Category	Mechanism	Ecological Components	Human Benefits
Climate Regulation	Sequestration and emission of greenhouse gases; local temperature and precipitation modification [2]	Forests, oceans, wetlands	Stabilized climate conditions; reduced climate change impacts
Air Quality Maintenance	Addition and extraction of atmospheric chemicals [2]	Vegetation, microorganisms	Reduced respiratory illnesses; improved public health
Water Regulation	Influence on timing and magnitude of runoff, flooding, and aquifer recharge [2]	Wetlands, forests, soils	Reduced flood damage; maintained water supply
Erosion Control	Soil retention through root stabilization; prevention of landslides [2]	Vegetation, soil biota	Protected agricultural productivity; reduced infrastructure damage
Water Purification & Waste Treatment	Filtration and decomposition of organic wastes [2]	Riparian zones, wetlands, microbial communities	Improved water quality; reduced treatment costs
Disease Regulation	Influence on pathogen abundance and distribution [2]	Predators, competitors of pathogens	Reduced disease incidence and transmission
Biological Control	Regulation of crop and livestock pests through natural enemies [2]	Predators, parasites, pathogens	Reduced agricultural losses; decreased pesticide use
Pollination	Support of pollinator populations and effectiveness [2]	Insects, birds, bats	Enhanced crop yields; maintained plant reproduction
Storm Protection	Buffering of wave energy and wind force [2]	Coastal wetlands, mangroves, reefs	Reduced property damage; human safety

Quantitative Evaluation Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Systematic Approaches to Measurement and Assessment

The quantitative evaluation of regulating ecosystem services requires methodological frameworks capable of capturing complex ecological processes and their contribution to human well-being. Systematic reviews of ecosystem services flow (ESF) measurement reveal four predominant conceptual approaches: actual use amount as flow, spatial connection as flow, flow process as flow, and other flow definitions [4]. This methodological diversity has challenged the development of standardized assessment protocols, though consensus is emerging around the need to measure the complete ESF realization process with greater focus on human beneficiaries [4].

Experimental ecology employs a hierarchy of approaches to study regulating services, ranging from controlled laboratory experiments to semi-controlled field manipulations and whole-ecosystem studies [6]. Each approach presents distinct trade-offs between experimental control and ecological realism. Microcosm experiments have proven fundamental for understanding mechanistic relationships, while mesocosm studies bridge the gap between simplified lab conditions and complex natural systems [6]. Large-scale field manipulations, though logistically challenging, provide critical insights into ecosystem responses to anthropogenic pressures and have demonstrated particular utility in understanding watershed function, nutrient dynamics, and trophic interactions [6].

Coastal Ecosystem Evaluation Protocol

Tidal flats exemplify the challenges in quantifying regulating services, as they provide multiple services including water quality regulation, coastal protection, and biodiversity maintenance [3]. The Coastal Ecosystem Index (CEI) methodology demonstrates a structured approach for evaluating these services through a scoring system that compares artificial and natural systems [3]. This protocol involves:

• Service Selection: Identification of relevant services based on ecosystem characteristics (food provision, coastal protection, water front use, sense of place, water quality regulation, and biodiversity) [3]
• Reference Establishment: Selection of appropriate natural reference systems within similar ecological contexts
• Environmental Factor Quantification: Measurement of specific environmental variables influencing each service
• Scoring Implementation: Calculation of service scores against reference points to evaluate ecosystem condition

Table 2: Quantitative Evaluation Framework for Tidal Flat Regulating Services

Evaluated Service	Measured Parameters	Assessment Method	Application in Management
Water Quality Regulation	Removal of suspended matter; organic matter decomposition; carbon storage [3]	Biophysical measurement; comparison to reference systems	Identification of improvement needs for filtration capacity
Coastal Protection	Wave attenuation; sediment stabilization [3]	Engineering assessment; historical storm damage analysis	Coastal infrastructure planning; nature-based solution implementation
Biodiversity Maintenance	Species richness; habitat diversity; indicator species presence [3]	Ecological surveys; molecular techniques	Conservation prioritization; habitat restoration targeting

This methodological framework enables researchers to identify which environmental factors require intervention to enhance specific regulating services, thereby supporting more targeted and effective ecosystem management [3].

Research Gaps and Future Directions in Regulating Services Scholarship

Systematic reviews of regulating ecosystem services research reveal several critical knowledge gaps and methodological challenges that require scholarly attention. The application of network theory to ecosystem services analysis remains limited, with studies tending to rely on a restricted set of network metrics and models [5]. This represents a significant opportunity for theoretical and methodological advancement, particularly through the adoption of more diverse analytical approaches from complex systems science.

Future research priorities identified through systematic assessment include:

• Integration of Ecological and Social Dimensions: Developing coupled models that incorporate both ecological processes and human beneficiaries to more accurately represent ecosystem service flows [4]
• Multidimensional Experimentation: Designing studies that capture the complex interactions between multiple environmental stressors and their combined effects on regulating services [6]
• Advanced Dynamic Modeling: Creating ecological process-based dynamic models that incorporate beneficiary locations and interregional flows [4]
• Methodological Standardization: Establishing consistent terminology and measurement approaches to enable cross-study comparison and meta-analysis [4] [5]
• Technological Innovation: Leveraging novel technologies such as remote sensing, environmental DNA, and citizen science platforms to enhance monitoring capabilities [6]

The systematic review by Casali et al. (2025) further highlights geographical disparities in ecosystem services research, with significant concentrations in North America and Europe and limited representation from developing regions [5]. This spatial bias constrains our understanding of global patterns in regulating services and identifies a critical need for more geographically balanced research investment.

Visualization of Systematic Review Framework and Ecosystem Services Flow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Methodologies

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Regulating Ecosystem Services Studies

Research Tool Category	Specific Methods/Technologies	Application in Regulating Services Research
Experimental Systems	Microcosms; Mesocosms; Field Manipulations; Whole-Ecosystem Studies [6]	Controlled testing of mechanisms; scaling from simplified to natural systems
Measurement Technologies	Environmental Sensors; DNA Sequencing; Remote Sensing; Citizen Science Platforms [6]	Quantification of service provision; biodiversity monitoring; spatial analysis
Analytical Frameworks	Network Theory; Complex Systems Analysis; Bayesian Belief Networks; Spatial Modeling [5]	Understanding interconnectivity; predicting service flows; identifying leverage points
Evaluation Methodologies	Coastal Ecosystem Index (CEI); Ocean Health Index (OHI); Ecosystem Services Flow (ESF) Analysis [4] [3]	Standardized assessment; comparison across systems; tracking changes over time
Integration Tools	Socio-Ecological Models; Participatory Mapping; Multi-stressor Experiments [6] [5]	Linking ecological functions with human benefits; engaging stakeholders

This toolkit enables researchers to address the multidimensional nature of regulating ecosystem services through integrated approaches that span disciplinary boundaries. The systematic review by Casali et al. (2025) emphasizes that combining multiple network models and analytical approaches can significantly advance our understanding of the complex relationships underlying service provision and delivery [5]. Furthermore, methodological innovations that incorporate both natural capital stocks and human-derived capital in the delivery of ecosystem services flows represent a promising direction for future research [4].

The systematic classification of ecosystem services (ES) is a critical foundation for their quantification, valuation, and integration into policy and decision-making frameworks. While the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) established a seminal typology that catalyzed global recognition of ES, it represented a starting point rather than a definitive system [7]. Over the past two decades, significant conceptual and practical advancements have revealed limitations in the MEA approach, particularly its potential for double counting in economic valuations and its broad categorization of supporting services [8] [7]. These challenges have spurred the development of more precise and structured classification systems designed for specific applications, from national environmental accounting to localized management strategies. This evolution reflects a growing scientific consensus on the need to distinguish between intermediate and final ecosystem services—a refinement essential for avoiding duplication in accounting and for clarifying the direct benefits humans receive from nature [7]. This guide provides a comprehensive technical overview of the major ES classification frameworks that have emerged post-MEA, analyzing their structures, applications, and the methodological considerations for their use in research and policy, with a specific focus on implications for regulating ecosystem services (RES) research.

Major Ecosystem Service Classification Frameworks

The progression beyond the MEA has yielded several prominent classification systems, each with distinct philosophical underpinnings and practical applications. The following table offers a structured comparison of these key frameworks.

Table 1: Comparative Overview of Major Ecosystem Service Classification Frameworks

Framework Name	Primary Categorization	Key Distinctions & Innovations	Typical Application Context
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) [8] [7]	Provisioning; Regulating; Cultural; Supporting	The foundational typology; "Supporting services" are considered the basis for the other three.	Broad-scale assessments and initial conceptual understanding.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) [8]	Provisioning; Regulating; Habitat; Cultural	Replaces MEA's "Supporting" with "Habitat Services," emphasizing provisioning of habitat for species.	Economic valuation and policy analysis.
Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) [8]	Provisioning; Regulating & Maintenance; Cultural	Focuses exclusively on final ecosystem services to enable environmental accounting. Hierarchical, nested structure.	European Union policy, environmental-economic accounting, and standardized metrics.
EPA's Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS-CS) [7]	User-oriented classification (e.g., benefits for anglers, farmers)	Organizes services by distinct beneficiary groups, clarifying who directly benefits from a service.	U.S. environmental policy and management, beneficiary-focused valuation.

The CICES framework represents one of the most significant technical advances. It is a nested typology that resolves from three main sections (Provisioning, Regulating & Maintenance, Cultural) down through divisions and groups to a detailed level of classes (e.g., from "Mediation of wastes" to specific waste types) [8]. This hierarchical structure is particularly useful for data-poor systems where indicators may only be available at a higher aggregation level [8]. A key conceptual difficulty encountered in applying frameworks like CICES, especially in aquatic systems, lies in cleanly discriminating between ecosystem functions and the final services that directly benefit people [8]. This underscores the importance of the distinction between intermediate services (e.g., nutrient cycling within an ecosystem) and final services (e.g., fish caught for consumption), the latter being the appropriate target for valuation to avoid double-counting [7].

Methodological Protocols for Framework Application and Analysis

Selecting and implementing an ES classification framework requires a systematic methodology. The following diagram outlines a standard workflow for a systematic literature review, which can be adapted for primary research as well.

Diagram 1: Systematic Review Workflow (SALSA)

Experimental and Research Reagents Toolkit

Conducting research on ecosystem services, particularly regulating services, requires a suite of conceptual and analytical "reagents." The following table details key tools and methodologies.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Ecosystem Services Analysis

Reagent/Method Name	Function in Analysis	Typical Application in RES
SALSA Framework [9]	Provides a structured protocol for Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) through Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis steps.	Ensuring comprehensiveness and reducing bias in reviews of RES assessment methods and trends.
Network Theory & Analysis [5]	Models relationships and interactions between ecosystem components, service providers, and beneficiaries using graph theory.	Analyzing trophic webs for pest control, connectivity for pollination, or social-ecological dynamics affecting RES.
Spatial Mapping & Modeling (e.g., InVEST, ARIES) [5]	Quantifies and visualizes the supply, flow, and demand of ES across landscapes using biophysical and spatial data.	Mapping spatio-temporal dynamics of carbon storage, water purification, or sediment retention [9].
Color Contrast Analyzer [10] [11]	Ensures data visualizations (graphs, maps) meet WCAG accessibility standards (e.g., 4.5:1 for small text).	Creating accessible charts and diagrams for scientific publications and policy reports on RES data.

Advanced Analytical Approaches: Network Theory in ES Research

Moving beyond static classification, network theory provides a powerful analytical framework for understanding the complex interdependencies within socio-ecological systems that generate ecosystem services [5]. This approach models the system as a set of nodes (e.g., species, habitats, human actors) connected by links (e.g., trophic interactions, spatial flows, social relationships). A systematic review of ES and network theory applications revealed its use in exploring topics from landscape connectivity to service co-production, though the field currently relies on a limited set of network metrics and models, indicating ample room for methodological expansion [5]. For regulating services, network analysis can be particularly insightful. It can model the ecological production function—the full suite of ecological processes that produce benefits—by mapping how specific biophysical processes (nodes) like nutrient cycling or predator-prey relationships (links) underpin services like water purification or pest control [7]. Furthermore, analyzing ecosystem service flows (ESF), defined as the whole process of ES realization from provision to use, is key to management [4]. Different ESF measurement understandings (e.g., as spatial connection vs. actual use) lead to different methods, but integrating the beneficiary into dynamic, process-based models is a critical future direction for accurately quantifying RES delivery [4].

Implications for Regulating Ecosystem Services Research

The evolution of classification frameworks has profound implications for research on regulating ecosystem services (RES). RES, which include air quality regulation, climate regulation, water purification, and erosion control, are often public goods with no market value, leading to their frequent oversight in policy despite their critical role in ecological security and human well-being [9]. The shift toward classifications like CICES and FEGS-CS, which emphasize final services and beneficiaries, provides a more robust foundation for valuing these non-market services and avoiding the double-counting that could occur if intermediate supporting processes were included [8] [7]. This is especially crucial in fragile and high-value ecosystems like karst World Natural Heritage sites (WNHSs), where RES like water conservation and soil retention are vital for maintaining Outstanding Universal Value but are threatened by human activities and tourism [9]. Research in these areas has been limited to value assessments and lacks investigation into the deep ecological mechanisms, trade-offs, and synergies of RES [9]. Applying modern, hierarchical typologies can help structure this research, enabling scientists to better operationalize concepts like ecological production functions and to clarify the spatio-temporal dynamics and driving mechanisms of RES for improved adaptive management of protected areas [9].

Regulating Ecosystem Services (RES) are defined as the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes [12]. These services are fundamentally process-driven and represent the various ways in which ecosystems regulate the natural environment to reduce the impacts from both natural and anthropogenic activities that pose risks to human health and ecosystem quality [12]. RES protect the natural environment through key mechanisms including air quality regulation, climate regulation, natural hazard regulation (e.g., flood protection), water purification, erosion control, pollination, and pest and disease regulation [9] [12]. Unlike provisioning services, which are often tangible and marketed, RES are predominantly public goods, characterized by their lack of physical form and the indirect nature of their benefits, which has historically led to their under-valuation in policy and decision-making agendas [9] [12].

The sustainable provision of RES is crucial for maintaining ecological security, achieving human well-being, and supporting the provisioning capacity of other ecosystem services [9] [12]. The integrity of RES ensures that the life-support systems of the planet remain functional, directly influencing human health, safety, and socio-economic development. Despite their importance, global assessments indicate that many RES, such as air purification, local climate regulation, water purification, and pollination, have declined at an accelerated rate over the past 50 years, primarily due to climate change, ecological degradation, and unsustainable management practices [9]. This degradation poses a significant threat to biodiversity, species survival, and ultimately, the supply of ecological products essential for human survival.

Table 1: Key Categories of Regulating Ecosystem Services (RES)

RES Category	Key Functions	Relevance to Human Well-being
Climate Regulation	Greenhouse gas absorption, albedo control, evapotranspiration regulation [12]	Stabilizes local and global climate; reduces frequency and severity of extreme weather events [12].
Air Quality Regulation	Removal of air pollutants and particulate matter by vegetation [9]	Reduces respiratory and cardiac health issues; linked to lower premature mortality [13] [14].
Natural Hazard Regulation	Flood mitigation, storm buffering, erosion control [9] [12]	Protects human lives, infrastructure, and property; ensures human safety [12].
Disease & Pest Regulation	Control of vector-borne diseases and agricultural pests through ecosystem processes [12]	Safeguards food security and reduces prevalence of infectious diseases [12].
Water Regulation & Purification	Water flow regulation, filtration of contaminants, waste treatment [9] [12]	Provides clean water for consumption, irrigation, and sanitation; prevents water-borne diseases [9].

Systematic Review Methodology for RES Research

This section outlines the experimental and analytical protocols for conducting a systematic review of RES research, providing a replicable framework for synthesizing existing knowledge and identifying critical gaps.

Search and Appraisal Protocol (SALSA Framework)

The SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis) framework is a rigorous methodology for systematic literature reviews, ensuring accuracy, systematicity, and comprehensiveness in assessing the body of scientific work on RES [9]. The protocol is designed to achieve transparency, replicability, and to minimize subjective bias.

• Search Protocol Development: The process begins with defining the research scope and formulating precise research questions. For RES reviews, typical questions investigate the most and least studied RES types, advances and gaps in current research, and key future scientific issues to be addressed [9].
• Literature Search Execution: Comprehensive searches are conducted across major academic databases, primarily Web of Science (WOS) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), to capture a global representation of studies [9]. Supplementary databases like Scopus and Google Scholar may also be included [12]. The search strategy employs a combination of keywords such as "Ecosystem services," "Regulating/regulatory services," "value assessment," "trade-offs and synergies," "spatio-temporal variation," and "driving factors" [9]. The search period typically starts from 2005, coinciding with the influential Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) report [9].
• Appraisal and Screening: Identified records are screened using pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. This involves removing grey literature, conference abstracts, and non-peer-reviewed publications, followed by a review of titles and abstracts to select articles that empirically address or theoretically discuss at least one RES indicator [9] [12]. The final selection is based on a full-text review for relevance and methodological rigor.

Table 2: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for RES Systematic Reviews

Criterion	Inclusion	Exclusion
Publication Type	Peer-reviewed journal articles	Grey literature, book chapters, conference abstracts
Language	English, Chinese (or other languages based on review scope)	Papers in languages not covered by the research team
Access	Open-access publications or those accessible via institutional subscriptions	Publications that are not accessible
Content Focus	Studies that assess, model, or discuss at least one RES indicator	Studies focused solely on provisioning or cultural services without RES linkage
Methodology	Studies employing qualitative, quantitative, or spatial analysis of RES	Purely opinion-based articles without empirical or theoretical analysis

Synthesis and Analysis Protocol

The synthesis phase involves extracting and categorizing data from the appraised literature. A standardized data extraction form is used to collect information on:

• RES Indicators: The specific regulating services studied (e.g., climate regulation, erosion control).
• Ecosystem/Habitat: The type of ecosystem in which the study was conducted (e.g., forest, wetland, karst landscape).
• Geographic Extent: The spatial scale of the study (local, regional, global).
• Methodology: The assessment methods used (e.g., biophysical modeling, economic valuation, spatial mapping).
• Key Findings: Reported outcomes on RES values, trade-offs, synergies, and driving factors.

Analysis entails both quantitative bibliometric analysis (e.g., trends in publication counts, geographic distribution of studies) and qualitative thematic analysis to identify dominant research themes, methodological trends, and knowledge gaps. The use of network theory is particularly advanced for analyzing the complex interactions within socio-ecological systems that underpin RES [5]. This approach models relationships among components, enabling exploration of interconnectedness and structural properties that influence RES provision [5].

Quantitative Trends and Research Gaps in RES Studies

A systematic analysis of the literature reveals distinct patterns and significant disparities in RES research focus and geographic distribution. Understanding these trends is critical for directing future research efforts toward the most under-served yet critical areas.

Global Research Coverage and Deficiencies

Despite a general exponential growth in ecosystem service publications, the specific sub-field of RES suffers from inadequate attention [12]. A global review found that existing RES studies are unevenly distributed in their size, the types of RES indicators covered, the habitats/ecosystems addressed, and their geographic extent [12]. A major analysis of 6,131 records from the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD) highlighted a fundamental data problem: approximately 58% of records lacked data on ecosystem health, a foundational element for assessing RES [15]. This indicates a severe disconnect between ecosystem condition assessments and service valuation, impairing policy integration.

Geographically, research efforts are heavily concentrated in North America and Europe, while many regions in Africa, parts of Asia, and South America remain critically under-studied [12]. This is particularly concerning as these regions often contain ecosystems vital for global climate regulation and biodiversity, and their populations are highly dependent on local RES for well-being and security.

Table 3: Global Research Trends and Identified Gaps in RES

Analysis Dimension	Current Trend	Identified Research Gap
Overall Publication Volume	Exponential growth in general ES research, but low relative focus on RES [12].	RES remains a nascent field compared to provisioning and cultural services [9] [12].
Geographic Distribution	Concentrated in Europe and North America [12].	Lack of studies in many world regions, including parts of Asia, Africa, and South America [12].
Data Foundation	58% of ES valuation records lack ecosystem health data [15].	Insufficient linkage between ecosystem health metrics and service provision in databases [15].
Policy Integration	Weak connection between generated RES knowledge and national policy [12].	Inconsistent ES classification and methodological diversity hinder policy mainstreaming [12].
Ecosystem Focus	Varied coverage across ecosystems; some like karst are under-studied given their importance [9].	Need for more studies in fragile and high-value ecosystems (e.g., karst WNHSs) [9].

Methodological Diversity and Consistency Challenges

RES assessment is characterized by significant methodological diversity, which, while reflecting interdisciplinary interest, also creates challenges for comparing findings and synthesizing knowledge across studies [12]. Common methodologies include biophysical modeling (e.g., InVEST, ARIES), spatial mapping, economic valuation, and more recently, network analysis [5]. The lack of a consistent ES classification system (e.g., MEA, CICES, TEEB) across studies further complicates systematic reviews and meta-analyses [12]. Future research must prioritize the development and adoption of robust, standardized methodologies to enhance the comparability and reliability of RES assessments.

Analytical Frameworks: Linking RES to Health and Security

To effectively analyze the complex pathways through which RES influence human well-being, researchers employ structured analytical frameworks and computational models. This section details the primary logic chain and key methodologies for tracing the impact of RES on health and security outcomes.

Logic Chain Framework for RES and Human Well-being

A comprehensive logic chain framework provides a step-by-step model for understanding the causal relationships from policy decisions to changes in human well-being, mediated through RES [15]. This chain can be summarized as follows:

• Policy/Driver Origin: A development or conservation policy is established [15].
• Management Decision: A specific management decision is made, initiating a driver of change [15].
• Driver of Change: The driver itself manifests (e.g., deforestation, renewable energy implementation, conservation practice) [15].
• Change in Ecosystem Health: The driver induces a change in ecosystem health, measured by its activity, organization, resilience, and autonomy [15].
• Change in RES Provision: The alteration in ecosystem health leads to a change in the provision of specific RES (e.g., reduced air filtration, enhanced climate regulation) [15].
• Change in Human Well-being: The change in RES provision results in a quantifiable change in its value to humans, affecting health, security, and economic dimensions [15].

This framework allows researchers to systematically quantify the impact of interventions or environmental changes on final outcomes related to human health and security.

Network Theory in RES Analysis

Network theory offers a powerful tool for modeling the intricate interconnections within socio-ecological systems that deliver RES [5]. By representing systems as nodes (e.g., species, habitats, human communities) and edges (the interactions or flows between them), network analysis can identify critical leverage points, vulnerabilities, and synergies. A systematic review identified 152 papers combining complex network analysis with ecosystem service research [5]. These studies use metrics like connectivity, centrality, and modularity to understand, for instance, how habitat patches are connected to maintain pollination services or how social networks influence the governance of water resources [5]. However, the field currently relies on a limited set of network metrics and models, indicating a significant opportunity for methodological advancement [5].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagents and Models for RES Research

This section details the essential analytical tools, datasets, and computational models that form the core "research reagent solutions" for empirical and theoretical investigations into RES.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Models for RES Analysis

Tool/Model Name	Type	Primary Function in RES Research
InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs)	Software Suite	Models and maps multiple ES (including RES like carbon storage, water purification) under different scenarios to quantify their biophysical and economic value [5].
ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services)	Modeling Platform	Uses artificial intelligence to rapidly assess ES provision, dependency, and flow, aiding in spatial prioritization and mapping ES hotspots [5].
Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD)	Database	Provides a compiled database of monetary value estimates for ES from literature; used for benefit transfer and meta-analysis [15].
Social-Ecological Network (SEN) Model	Analytical Framework	Maps and analyzes the relationships between ecological components (e.g., species, habitats) and social actors to understand governance and RES flow [5].
Bayesian Belief Network (BBN)	Probabilistic Model	Represents causal relationships and uncertainties in socio-ecological systems to predict the outcomes of management decisions on RES under uncertainty [5].
System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA)	Accounting Framework	An international statistical standard for integrating economic and environmental data to track natural capital appreciation/depreciation, including ecosystem health and services [15].

Regulating Ecosystem Services (RES) represent the benefits derived from the regulatory functions of ecosystems, encompassing processes such as climate regulation, water purification, flood control, and erosion prevention [9]. These services are fundamental to human health, security, and well-being, yet they have experienced significant global decline over the past 50 years, degrading faster than other ecosystem service categories [9]. This meta-analysis, framed within a broader thesis on the systematic review of RES research, synthesizes current scientific knowledge on the status, trends, and drivers of RES provision and degradation. The analysis targets researchers, scientists, and environmental professionals, providing a technical guide to assessment methodologies, quantitative trends, and future research imperatives. The accelerating loss of these vital services underscores the urgent need for evidence-based conservation and policy strategies, which this review aims to inform [9] [16].

Global Status of Key Regulating Ecosystem Services

The provision of RES is intrinsically linked to the health and extent of natural ecosystems. Land degradation, affecting up to 25% of global land area, directly undermines the capacity of ecosystems to deliver these essential services [16]. The following table synthesizes the status and trends of major RES categories based on current global assessments.

Table 1: Global Status and Trends of Key Regulating Ecosystem Services

RES Category	Global Status & Trends	Primary Drivers of Degradation	Key Quantified Impacts
Climate Regulation	Declining carbon sequestration capacity due to land degradation [16].	Deforestation, unsustainable land management, soil organic matter loss [16].	Land degradation costs ~$300B annually; ecosystem service losses at ~$6.3T [16].
Erosion Regulation	Severe degradation in critical regions; 21% of global land shows declined ecosystem function [16].	Vegetation clearance, unsustainable agricultural practices, rocky desertification in karst regions [9].	Physical, chemical, and biological degradation processes are widespread [16].
Water Quality Regulation	Rapid decline noted in water purification capacity [9].	Pollution from agricultural runoff (fertilizers, pesticides), land artificialization [16].	Eutrophication and oxygen depletion in water bodies [16].
Regional & Local Climate Regulation	One of the most rapidly declining RES categories [9].	Urbanization, ecological fragmentation, loss of green infrastructure [17].	Reduced mitigation of urban heat island effect and air pollution [17].

Methodological Frameworks for RES Assessment

A range of quantitative and spatial methodologies has been developed to assess RES, each with distinct applications and outputs crucial for a robust meta-analysis.

Earth Observation and Spatial Analysis

Earth observation (EO) has become a primary tool for large-scale RES assessment. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) is a widely endorsed proxy for assessing land productivity dynamics, a key sub-indicator for UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 15.3 [18]. Recent advancements include the development of a 30-meter resolution global Land Productivity Dynamics (LPD) dataset (2013-2022) generated on the Google Earth Engine (GEE) platform. This product, derived from fused Landsat-8 and MODIS imagery using the Gap-filling and Savitzky–Golay filtering (GF-SG) algorithm, provides unprecedented spatial detail for monitoring land degradation and restoration [18].

Quantitative Evaluation and Indexing

For site-specific evaluations, indexing methods such as the Coastal Ecosystem Index (CEI) offer a structured approach. This method involves:

• Service Scoring: Each RES is scored against a pre-defined reference point (e.g., a natural tidal flat) to calculate a service score (S_score) [3].
• Trend Assessment: The trend of each service (T_score) is calculated based on historical data to evaluate sustainability [3].
• Composite Index Calculation: The overall CEI is computed by aggregating the weighted service and trend scores, providing a comprehensive health metric for the ecosystem [3].

Network Theory and Complex Systems Analysis

Network theory provides a powerful framework for modeling the complex interactions within socio-ecological systems that give rise to RES. It allows researchers to move beyond simplistic correlations and analyze the structural properties and connectivity that underpin service provision. Commonly used metrics include connectivity, centrality, and modularity, which help identify critical nodes and pathways for service flow [5]. This approach is particularly valuable for understanding trade-offs and synergies between multiple RES and for planning Green Infrastructure (GI) as strategically connected networks rather than isolated projects [17] [5].

Experimental and Analytical Workflows

The integration of these methodologies enables a multi-faceted analysis of RES. The following diagram illustrates a generalized workflow for conducting a systematic assessment of RES, from data acquisition to final analysis.

The Researcher's Toolkit for RES Analysis

Conducting a meta-analysis of RES requires a suite of specialized data sources, software tools, and analytical frameworks. The following table details key resources for researchers in this field.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for RES Meta-Analysis

Tool/Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function & Application in RES Analysis
Remote Sensing Data Platforms	Google Earth Engine (GEE), USGS Landsat Archive, NASA MODIS [18].	Provides cloud computing platform and satellite data archives for processing global-scale datasets (e.g., 30m LPD) and calculating vegetation indices.
Spatial Modeling Software	InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs), ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services) [5].	Enables spatially explicit modeling and mapping of RES provision, synergies, and trade-offs under different land-use scenarios.
Global Land Data Products	Global 30m LPD Dataset [18], GLC_FCS30D Land Cover Dataset [18], GLAD Land Cover Dataset [18].	Provides high-resolution, foundational data on land productivity, land cover change, and ecosystem state for time-series analysis.
Analytical & Conceptual Frameworks	FAO-WOCAT LPD Methodology [18], Ocean Health Index (OHI) [3], Network Theory [5].	Offers standardized protocols for classifying land productivity, calculating composite ecosystem indices, and modeling socio-ecological interactions.
Systematic Review Guidelines	PRISMA-P, SALSA Framework [9] [19].	Provides rigorous, reproducible methodologies for designing and conducting systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses.

Critical Gaps and Future Research Directions

Despite advancements, significant challenges and knowledge gaps persist in RES research. A primary limitation is the spatial mismatch between the scale of analysis and the scale of decision-making. While global LPD products now reach 30m resolution, many RES assessments remain too coarse for local land-use planning [18] [9]. Furthermore, there is a critical disconnect in understanding the ecological mechanisms that underpin RES. Many studies quantify the provision of services but fail to elucidate the underlying biological and physical processes, hindering the development of effective enhancement strategies [9].

Future research must prioritize several key areas:

• Understanding Trade-offs and Synergies: Research must move beyond single-service assessments to quantify the complex interactions and feedback loops between multiple RES, particularly in vulnerable ecosystems like karst World Heritage Sites [9].
• Linking RES to Human Well-being: The causal pathways and mechanisms connecting the status of RES to tangible outcomes in human health and subjective well-being require rigorous, empirical validation [9] [20].
• Developing Innovative Financing Mechanisms: Exploring the effectiveness of financial instruments like Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) and green bonds is essential to incentivize land restoration and sustainable land management practices [19] [16].
• Integrating Network-Based Approaches: The application of network theory and complex systems analysis remains underutilized and holds significant potential for advancing the predictive understanding of RES dynamics [5].

Addressing these gaps is imperative for transforming RES research into actionable knowledge that can inform policy, guide restoration efforts, and ultimately reverse the current trends of degradation.

Ecosystem services (ES) are the benefits humans receive directly or indirectly from ecosystems, which include not only provisioning services like food and raw materials but also the critical support and maintenance of the Earth's life-support system [9]. Among these, regulating ecosystem services (RES)—derived from biophysical processes including air quality regulation, climate regulation, natural disaster regulation, water regulation and purification, erosion regulation, soil formation, pollination, and pest and disease control—are particularly crucial for maintaining ecological security and human wellbeing [9].

Despite their fundamental importance, RES face significant research and implementation gaps. In the past few decades, ecosystem services have been degraded to varying degrees across most parts of the world due to global climate change, ecological degradation, and irrational management practices [9]. Notably, while provisioning services have generally increased, many other ecosystem services—particularly RES such as air purification, regional and local climate regulation, water purification, and pollination—have declined at the fastest rate over the past 50 years [9].

This whitepaper systematically examines the key knowledge gaps in RES research, with particular emphasis on underserved ecosystems and services, to provide guidance for researchers, scientists, and environmental professionals working at the intersection of ecosystem management and policy development.

Methodological Framework for Identifying Knowledge Gaps

Systematic Literature Review Approach

The analysis presented in this whitepaper employs the Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis (SALSA) framework, a reliable methodology for identifying, assessing, and synthesizing existing results from scientific and practical research [9]. This approach follows a structured four-step process to ensure comprehensive and replicable assessment of current research landscapes as detailed in Table 1.

Table 1: SALSA Framework for Systematic Literature Review

Step	Process	Application in RES Research
Protocol	Define research scope and questions	Establish transparency, replicability, and systematization
Search	Query academic databases using keywords	Web of Science and CNKI databases (2005-July 2024)
Appraisal	Assess articles against inclusion criteria	Screen for relevance, methodology, and data quality
Synthesis & Analysis	Analyze and synthesize findings	Identify patterns, gaps, and future research directions

Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria

Literature searches were conducted across two major academic databases: Web of Science (WOS) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) [9]. The search methodology employed keywords including "Ecosystem services," "Regulating/regulatory services," "Value assessment," "Trade-offs and synergies," "Spatio-temporal variation," and "Driving factors" to capture the breadth of RES research. The temporal scope was limited to 2005 through July 2024, recognizing that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report published in 2005 represented a watershed moment in highlighting the crucial role of RES in achieving human wellbeing [9].

Key Knowledge Gaps in Regulating Ecosystem Services Research

Underserved Ecosystems

Karst World Natural Heritage Sites

Karst landscapes cover approximately 22 million square kilometers globally, accounting for 10-15% of the total land area, yet research on their RES remains critically limited [9]. These ecosystems present unique challenges due to their specialized hydrogeological environments, which are closely linked to processes in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere [9]. Despite 30 karst sites being designated as World Natural Heritage sites (accounting for approximately 14% of all WNHS), research on these ecosystems has primarily focused on geomorphological and aesthetic values rather than RES [9].

The fragility of karst ecosystems and their high sensitivity to human disturbances create significant knowledge gaps in understanding how to enhance RES during ecological protection and conservation processes [9]. Current research fails to adequately address the ecological mechanisms of these services, and the trade-offs, synergies, and driving mechanisms of RES in karst environments remain poorly understood [9].

Data-Scarce Regions

Locally relevant ecosystem service valuation approaches that could guide sustainable development remain particularly challenging in data-scarce regions [21]. As identified in comparative analyses of ES valuation approaches, most methods are useful for explaining ecosystem services at a macro/system level, but application at locally relevant scales is hindered by data scarcity [21]. This represents a critical gap given that effective resource management decisions often require local-scale data.

The advent of spatially explicit policy support systems shows particular promise to make the best use of available data and simulations, though data collection remains crucial for the local scale and in data-scarce regions [21]. Leveraging citizen science-based data and knowledge co-generation may support integrated valuation while simultaneously making the valuation process more inclusive, replicable, and policy-oriented [21].

Underserved Ecosystem Services

Theoretical Foundations

A significant theoretical gap exists in the conceptualization of ecosystem services themselves. Emerging research suggests that ES require a theoretical rethinking from a social-ecological systems (SES) perspective, positioning ecosystem services as coproducts of coupled human-natural systems rather than as outputs of ecosystems alone [22]. This reconceptualization necessitates redefining ES quantity and value as interactions between ecosystem supply and human demand [22].

This theoretical gap has practical implications: by distinguishing inherent bundle characteristics from SES-level equilibria, researchers can better understand cross-system flows and relationships between different RES [22]. Future research priorities should include optimizing supply-demand balance, analyzing SES equilibria mechanisms, and modeling cross-system flow pathways [22].

Relationship to Human Wellbeing

The coupling relationship between RES and human wellbeing has not been clearly defined in current research, making it difficult to develop scientific strategies for RES enhancements [9]. While the biodiversity-ecosystem function-ecosystem services-human wellbeing nexus has become a hot topic in landscape sustainability research, the specific pathways through which RES contribute to human health and development remain inadequately explored [9].

Research is needed to better understand how ecosystem services contribute to human health and well-being, and how the production and benefits of these ecosystem services may be reduced or sustained under various decision scenarios and in response to regional conditions [23]. This requires developing methods that measure ecosystem goods and services and estimate their current production given the type and condition of ecosystems [23].

Methodological Gaps and Research Protocols

Assessment Limitations

Current RES assessment methodologies exhibit significant limitations in karst WNHSs and other sensitive ecosystems. The existing studies are limited primarily to value assessments of RES and lack research on the ecological mechanisms of these services [9]. Furthermore, standardized protocols for evaluating trade-offs and synergies among RES and their driving mechanisms remain underdeveloped.

To address these gaps, researchers should employ the following experimental protocol for comprehensive RES assessment:

• Ecosystem Service Inventory: Catalog all relevant RES using standardized classification systems (e.g., National Ecosystem Services Classification System - NESCS) [23]
• Spatiotemporal Analysis: Employ geospatial tools (e.g., EnviroAtlas, VELMA Model) to analyze distribution patterns across landscapes and temporal changes [23]
• Process-Based Modeling: Implement mechanistic models that simulate biophysical processes rather than relying solely on correlative approaches
• Stakeholder Integration: Incorporate local knowledge through structured engagement processes using tools like the Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) Scoping Tool [23]

Valuation Approaches

Multiple valuation approaches exist for ecosystem services, each with distinct strengths and weaknesses as detailed in Table 2. Selecting appropriate valuation methods requires careful consideration of study context, data availability, and policy needs.

Table 2: Ecosystem Services Valuation Approaches and Their Characteristics

Valuation Approach	Key Characteristics	Strengths	Weaknesses
Data-Driven	Relies on empirical measurements	High precision where data exists	Limited application in data-scarce regions
Simulation-Based	Uses models to estimate values	Applicable across scales	Dependent on model structure and assumptions
Habitat-Focused	Centered on specific ecosystem types	Useful for habitat management	May miss cross-system interactions
Place-Based	Context-specific valuations	High local relevance	Limited transferability
Monetary	Expresses values in currency	Easily comparable	May miss non-market values
Non-Monetary	Uses alternative metrics	Captures diverse values	Difficult to compare across services

The selection of valuation approaches must be tailored to specific contexts, particularly for local-scale applications in data-scarce regions [21]. A promising direction involves leveraging citizen science-based data and knowledge co-generation to support more integrated and policy-oriented valuation processes [21].

Visualizing Research Pathways and Relationships

Knowledge Gap Analysis Framework

The following diagram illustrates the systematic process for identifying and addressing key knowledge gaps in regulating ecosystem services research:

Systematic Approach to Identifying Knowledge Gaps in RES Research

Social-Ecological Systems Framework for RES

The following diagram illustrates the reconceptualized framework for understanding regulating ecosystem services as coproductions of social-ecological systems:

Social-Ecological Systems Framework for RES Research

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Tools and Frameworks for RES Studies

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
SALSA Framework	Methodology	Systematic literature review protocol	Research gap identification and analysis [9]
NESCS Plus	Classification	Framework for analyzing ecosystem changes on human welfare	Policy impact analysis and decision support [23]
EnviroAtlas	GIS Tool	Interactive mapping of ecosystem services	Spatial analysis of service distribution [23]
VELMA Model	Modeling	Watershed-scale analysis of hydrological processes	Analyzing water regulation services [23]
FEGS Scoping Tool	Stakeholder Analysis	Structured process for identifying ecosystem beneficiaries	Stakeholder engagement and priority setting [23]
Rapid Benefit Indicators (RBI)	Assessment	Non-monetary benefit indicators for restoration sites	Ecological restoration planning and evaluation [23]
EcoService Models Library (ESML)	Database	Repository of ecological models for quantifying ES	Model selection and application [23]
Citizen Science Platforms	Data Collection	Community-based data generation	Data collection in scarce regions [21]

Significant knowledge gaps persist in regulating ecosystem services research, particularly for underserved ecosystems like karst landscapes and World Natural Heritage Sites, and for theoretical foundations linking RES to human wellbeing. Methodological limitations further constrain our understanding, especially in data-scarce regions and for assessing complex ecological mechanisms.

Priority research directions should focus on: (1) developing integrated theoretical frameworks that conceptualize RES as coproductions of social-ecological systems; (2) advancing methodological approaches for RES assessment in underserved ecosystems; (3) elucidating the ecological mechanisms underpinning RES provision; (4) clarifying trade-offs and synergies among different RES and their driving mechanisms; and (5) strengthening the linkages between RES and human wellbeing outcomes. Addressing these gaps will require tailored combinations of specific approaches and policy support systems for local-scale applications, with emphasis on citizen science-based data and knowledge co-generation to make valuation processes more inclusive and policy-relevant [21].

From Theory to Practice: Assessment Frameworks and Quantitative Methods for RES

This technical guide provides a comprehensive framework for designing robust systematic review protocols within regulating ecosystem services (RES) research. We detail the integration of the SALSA (Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis, and Analysis) operational framework with the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) reporting standards. The structured methodology ensures transparency, reproducibility, and methodological rigor for researchers, scientists, and environmental policy professionals conducting evidence syntheses. The guide includes standardized tables for data presentation, explicit experimental protocols, and visualized workflows to support the planning and execution of high-quality systematic reviews.

A systematic review protocol is a document that presents an explicit plan for a systematic review, detailing the rationale and a priori methodological and analytical approach before the review starts [24]. Protocol development is an essential component of the systematic review process that ensures careful planning, promotes consistent conduct by the review team, and enhances accountability, research integrity, and transparency of the eventual completed review [24]. In the context of regulating ecosystem services research—which encompasses evidence synthesis on climate regulation, water purification, flood control, and other critical processes—a well-designed protocol is particularly vital for managing heterogeneous data types, diverse methodologies, and complex socio-ecological interactions.

The PRISMA-P 2015 statement provides a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for systematic review [24] [25]. When combined with the SALSA framework [26], which provides an operational structure for conducting reviews through four distinct stages (Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis, and Analysis), researchers have complementary tools for both planning and executing rigorous evidence syntheses. For RES research, where evidence may span quantitative, qualitative, and economic studies, this combined approach ensures comprehensive evidence gathering and robust synthesis methods tailored to complex environmental questions.

Foundational Concepts and Terminology

Core Definitions

• Systematic Review: "A systematic review attempts to collate all relevant evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods to minimize bias in the identification, selection, synthesis, and summary of studies" [24]. Key characteristics include: a clearly stated set of objectives with an explicit, reproducible methodology; a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that meet the eligibility criteria; an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies; and systematic presentation and synthesis of the characteristics and findings of the included studies [24].

• Meta-Analysis: "Meta-analysis is the use of statistical techniques to combine and summarize the results of multiple studies; they may or may be contained within a systematic review" [24].

• Review Protocol: "In the context of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a protocol is a document that presents an explicit plan for a systematic review. The protocol details the rationale and a priori methodological and analytical approach of the review" [24].

Review Typologies in Research Synthesis

Systematic reviews represent one of several approaches to research synthesis. The appropriate methodological approach depends on the review question, available evidence, and intended output. Table 1 summarizes key review types relevant to RES research.

Table 1: Types of Research Reviews and Associated Methodologies

Review Type	Description	Search	Appraisal	Synthesis	Analysis
Systematic Review	Systematically searches for, appraises, and synthesizes research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on conduct.	Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching.	Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion.	Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment.	What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; recommendations for future research. [27] [26]
Scoping Review	Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence.	Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. May include research in progress.	No formal quality assessment.	Typically tabular with some narrative commentary.	Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. [27]
Meta-Analysis	Technique that statistically combines results of quantitative studies to provide more precise effect estimates.	Aims for exhaustive searching. May use funnel plot to assess completeness.	Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion and/or sensitivity analyses.	Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary.	Numerical analysis of measures of effect assuming absence of heterogeneity. [27]
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis	Method for integrating or comparing findings from qualitative studies. Looks for 'themes' or 'constructs' across studies.	May employ selective or purposive sampling.	Quality assessment typically used to mediate messages not for inclusion/exclusion.	Qualitative, narrative synthesis.	Thematic analysis, may include conceptual models. [27] [28]
Integrative Review	Summarizes past empirical or theoretical literature to provide more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon.	Purposive sampling may be employed. Search is transparent and reproducible.	Limited/varying methods of critical appraisal; can be complex.	Narrative synthesis for qualitative and quantitative studies.	Data reduction, data display, data comparison, conclusion drawing, and verification. [27]

The SALSA Operational Framework

The SALSA framework provides a structured, four-stage process for conducting systematic reviews. The framework was developed by Grant & Booth (2009) and offers a systematic approach to managing the review process from start to finish [26]. For RES research, each stage requires specific methodological considerations to address the interdisciplinary nature of the field.

Search

The search stage involves identifying and retrieving all potentially relevant studies pertaining to the review question. In RES research, this requires a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary search strategy due to the fragmented nature of environmental literature across ecological, economic, and social science databases.

Protocol Specifications:

• Information Sources: Specify databases (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science, GreenFILE, EconLit), institutional websites, grey literature sources, and subject-specific repositories.
• Search Strategy: Develop and document a standardized search string using Boolean operators, incorporating key terms related to "regulating ecosystem services," specific services (e.g., "carbon sequestration," "water purification"), and relevant geographic and temporal scales.
• Search Management: Use reference management software (e.g., EndNote, Zotero) to deduplicate and organize records. Document the exact search date for each database.

AppraisaL

The appraisal stage involves assessing the quality and relevance of identified studies against predetermined eligibility criteria. This ensures only studies meeting the review's quality thresholds are included, minimizing bias in the findings.

Protocol Specifications:

• Screening Process: Implement a two-phase screening approach (title/abstract followed by full-text) with multiple independent reviewers to minimize selection bias. Document reasons for exclusion at the full-text stage.
• Eligibility Criteria: Define explicit PICO/PECO (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome) or alternative frameworks suitable for RES research. Include specific criteria for study types, languages, publication years, and methodological approaches.
• Quality Assessment: Select appropriate critical appraisal tools based on study design (e.g., Cochrane Risk of Bias for experimental studies, CASP for qualitative studies, custom tools for modeling studies). Plan for how quality assessment will inform analysis (e.g., sensitivity analysis).

Synthesis

The synthesis stage involves bringing together the findings from the included studies. For RES reviews, this may involve quantitative meta-analysis, qualitative thematic synthesis, or narrative summary, depending on the nature of the evidence.

Protocol Specifications:

• Data Extraction: Design a standardized data extraction form to capture study characteristics, context, methods, and results. Pilot the form to ensure consistency.
• Synthesis Method: Pre-specify the method for synthesizing findings. For quantitative data, describe planned meta-analysis methods, including effect measures and statistical models. For qualitative data, specify approaches such as thematic synthesis, which involves line-by-line coding, developing descriptive themes, and generating analytical themes [28]. For integrated mixed-methods reviews, describe how quantitative and qualitative findings will be related.

Analysis

The analysis stage involves interpreting the synthesized data to draw conclusions about the evidence base, identify knowledge gaps, and assess implications for policy, practice, and future research.

Protocol Specifications:

• Heterogeneity Assessment: Plan tests for statistical heterogeneity (e.g., I² statistic) for meta-analyses or describe approaches for exploring conceptual heterogeneity in qualitative syntheses.
• Certainty Assessment: Specify methods for assessing the overall certainty or confidence in the evidence (e.g., GRADE for quantitative reviews, GRADE-CERQual for qualitative reviews).
• Reporting Bias: Outline strategies to assess potential for publication and reporting bias (e.g., funnel plots, searching grey literature).

Table 2: SALSA Framework Application to RES Systematic Reviews

SALSA Stage	Core Activities	RES-Specific Considerations
Search	Database searching, grey literature searching, reference list checking	Span multiple disciplines (ecology, economics, social sciences); include environmental grey literature from governments and NGOs.
AppraisaL	Quality assessment, relevance screening, data extraction	Adapt quality tools for diverse study types (e.g., field experiments, models, case studies); consider spatial and temporal scale relevance.
Synthesis	Data summary, meta-analysis, thematic analysis, narrative summary	Manage diverse data formats; consider spatial meta-analysis; integrate quantitative and qualitative evidence on ecological and social outcomes.
Analysis	Interpretation, confidence assessment, gap identification, reporting	Address interdisciplinary coherence; assess policy relevance; identify socio-ecological system trade-offs and synergies.

PRISMA-P Reporting Standards

The PRISMA-P 2015 statement provides a 17-item checklist to ensure the complete and transparent reporting of systematic review protocols [24] [25]. Adherence to PRISMA-P facilitates peer-review of protocols, enhances the reliability of the final review, and reduces duplication of effort. Key items particularly relevant to RES protocols are highlighted below.

Administrative Information (Items 1-5)

This section covers foundational protocol details including title, registration, authors, and amendments.

• Item 1: Identification: "Systematic Review Protocol Design: SALSA and PRISMA-P Frameworks for RES."
• Item 2: Registration: Prospective protocol registration in platforms like PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews) is recommended to reduce unplanned duplication and minimize reporting bias [24] [26]. The protocol registration number should be included.
• Item 5: Amendments: Describe the process for documenting and reporting future protocol amendments.

This section establishes the rationale and context for the review.

• Item 6: Rationale: Explain the importance of the review question within the context of existing knowledge about regulating ecosystem services.
• Item 7: Objectives: State the specific research question(s) using PICO/PECO or other appropriate frameworks, clearly defining the RES population, phenomena of interest, and context.

Methods (Items 9-17)

This is the most critical section, detailing the planned methodology.

• Item 9: Eligibility Criteria: Specify study characteristics (e.g., types of ecosystems, interventions/pressures, comparators, outcomes, study designs). For RES, clearly define the spatial and temporal scales of interest.
• Item 10: Information Sources: Describe all intended information sources (databases, registries, websites, organizational sources) and the planned search date range.
• Item 11: Search Strategy: Present a draft search strategy for at least one primary database, including all planned search terms and filters, to ensure reproducibility.
• Item 13: Data Management: Outline the process for data collection, extraction, and management, including any software to be used.
• Item 15: Data Synthesis: Describe the criteria under which quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) will be attempted, the statistical methods, and how heterogeneity will be assessed. For qualitative synthesis, specify the planned methodology (e.g., thematic synthesis [28]) and any software for analysis.
• Item 16: Meta-bias(es): Outline how potential biases (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting) will be addressed.
• Item 17: Confidence in Cumulative Evidence: Specify the approach for assessing the strength of the body of evidence (e.g., GRADE).

Integrated Workflow and Visualization

The effective integration of the SALSA operational framework with PRISMA-P reporting standards creates a robust structure for protocol development. Figure 1 visualizes this integrated workflow, from initial team assembly to protocol registration and execution.

Figure 1: Integrated Systematic Review Workflow combining protocol development (PRISMA-P) and execution (SALSA).

Experimental Protocols and Synthesis Methodologies

Thematic Synthesis Protocol for Qualitative RES Evidence

When a systematic review incorporates qualitative evidence on stakeholder perceptions, governance processes, or cultural values related to RES, thematic synthesis provides a rigorous method for integration [28]. The process, adapted for RES contexts, involves three stages:

• Line-by-Line Coding: Code the text of primary study findings (e.g., results/findings sections) using a detailed, line-by-line approach. This involves translating concepts from individual studies into codes.
• Development of Descriptive Themes: Organize codes into areas that summarize the main themes from the primary studies. These themes remain close to the content of the original studies.
• Generation of Analytical Themes: Go beyond the primary studies to develop new interpretive constructs, explanations, or hypotheses about regulating ecosystem services. This stage addresses the review question directly and may generate models of socio-ecological relationships.

Meta-Analysis Protocol for Quantitative RES Data

For quantitative data on RES outcomes (e.g., effect sizes of management interventions on carbon storage or water quality), a pre-specified meta-analysis protocol is essential.

Statistical Analysis Plan:

• Effect Size Measures: Define the standardized effect size measures (e.g., Hedge's g, correlation coefficients, odds ratios) to be calculated from each primary study.
• Statistical Model: Specify the use of fixed-effect or random-effects models, justifying the choice based on assumptions about heterogeneity.
• Heterogeneity Quantification: Plan to calculate I² and Tau² statistics to quantify between-study heterogeneity.
• Moderator Analysis: Pre-define potential effect modifiers (e.g., ecosystem type, intervention intensity, study duration) to be tested via subgroup analysis or meta-regression to explain heterogeneity.
• Software: Specify statistical software and packages (e.g., R with metafor, Stata with metan).

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Resources for Conducting RES Systematic Reviews

Tool/Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application
Protocol Registration	PROSPERO [24] [26], Campbell Collaboration [26]	Publicly register review intent to avoid duplication, promote transparency, and reduce reporting bias.
Reporting Standards	PRISMA-P Checklist [24] [25], PRISMA 2020 Statement [26]	Ensure complete and transparent reporting of the protocol and final review methods and findings.
Search Resources	Multi-disciplinary Databases (Scopus, Web of Science), Subject-specific Databases (GreenFILE, AGRICOLA), Grey Literature Sources	Enable comprehensive and reproducible literature searches across relevant disciplines.
Quality Assessment Tools	Cochrane Risk of Bias [26], CASP Checklists, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Tools [27]	Critically appraise the methodological quality and potential biases of included studies.
Data Extraction & Management	Covidence, Rayyan, EPPI-Reviewer, Excel	Facilitate independent screening, quality assessment, and standardized data extraction.
Synthesis Software	R (metafor, meta), NVivo, Citavi	Perform statistical meta-analysis or support coding and thematic analysis of qualitative data.

Systematic review protocols based on the integrated SALSA and PRISMA-P frameworks provide a rigorous, transparent, and reproducible foundation for synthesizing evidence in regulating ecosystem services research. By meticulously planning the search, appraisal, synthesis, and analysis stages and documenting them according to PRISMA-P standards, researchers can produce high-quality reviews that effectively inform environmental policy, management, and future research directions. The structured tools, workflows, and resources presented in this guide offer a comprehensive toolkit for researchers undertaking this critical endeavor.

The systematic review of regulating ecosystem services (RES) research reveals a critical foundation: the necessity to quantify the benefits humans derive from ecosystem functions. RES are defined as the benefits derived from the biophysical regulatory processes of ecosystems, including air quality regulation, climate regulation, natural disaster regulation, water purification, erosion control, and pollination [9]. Unlike provisioning services, RES are predominantly public goods with no physical form, leading to their frequent oversight in policy decisions despite their fundamental role in maintaining ecological security and human wellbeing [9]. This omission creates significant risks to the life-support systems that underpin human development and health.

Within this context, valuation has emerged as an essential tool to bridge the gap between ecological understanding and decision-making. The valuation paradigm rests on two distinct epistemological foundations: economic approaches that express value in monetary units, and biophysical approaches that quantify ecological contributions using physical indicators and energy flows [29]. Economic valuation originated from utilitarian principles within economics, aiming to capture the relative scarcity of ecosystem services in terms of human preferences [29]. In contrast, biophysical valuation traces its roots to thermodynamics and ecology, seeking to objectify ecological contributions through their physical dimensions, energy requirements, or embodied energy [29]. This methodological divergence reflects deeper philosophical differences about what constitutes "value" and how it should be measured for environmental decision-making.

Recent developments have accelerated the need for both approaches. Over the past 50 years, most ecosystem services except provisioning services have significantly declined, with RES such as air purification, climate regulation, water purification, and pollination deteriorating at the most rapid rates [9]. This degradation coincides with growing recognition that preserving natural capital—the stock of natural assets that yield ecosystem services—is essential for addressing climate change, biodiversity loss, and sustainable development challenges [30]. The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) finalized by the United Nations in 2021 now provides an international framework for quantifying ecosystems and their services, creating renewed impetus for standardized valuation approaches [30].

Theoretical Foundations and Epistemological Frameworks

Economic Value Theories and Applications

Economic valuation approaches for ecosystem services have evolved through several theoretical developments, all centered on the concept of value as a function of human preferences and relative scarcity. Early economic thought, particularly from the physiocrats, recognized land and natural resources as fundamental sources of wealth [29]. Modern environmental economics extends neoclassical welfare economics to ecosystem services by attempting to quantify their contribution to human wellbeing in monetary terms, either through revealed preferences (observing actual market behavior) or stated preferences (soliciting hypothetical valuations) [29]. This anthropocentric framework positions ecosystem services as "externalities" that must be internalized within economic decision-making to correct market failures.

A central theoretical distinction in economic valuation lies between use values and non-use values. Use values encompass direct uses (e.g., water for consumption), indirect uses (e.g., climate regulation), and option values (preserving future use potential). Non-use values include existence values (satisfaction from knowing a resource exists) and bequest values (preserving for future generations) [29]. Economic methods aim to capture these diverse values, though non-use values present particular measurement challenges. The theoretical justification for monetary valuation rests on its potential to make ecological considerations commensurable with economic decisions, thereby facilitating trade-off analyses, cost-benefit assessments, and the design of market-based conservation instruments like Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) [30].

Biophysical Value Theories and Principles

Biophysical valuation approaches challenge the anthropocentric premise of economic methods, instead seeking to establish an objective, ecological basis for valuing ecosystem services. These approaches are grounded in thermodynamics and systems ecology, particularly the laws of energy conservation and entropy [29]. Early biophysical thought, including Lotka's maximum power principle and Georgescu-Roegen's bioeconomics, emphasized energy as the fundamental basis of economic production and ecological function [29]. This perspective views energy as the ultimate scarce resource, with ecosystem services representing complex energy transformations that maintain environmental conditions favorable to life.

Emergy (spelled with an 'm') synthesis represents a prominent biophysical valuation methodology that quantifies the total amount of energy directly and indirectly required to generate a product or service [29]. Unlike economic valuation, which measures value through human preferences, emergy evaluation measures value through the environmental work required to produce services. Other biophysical approaches include energy analysis, material flow accounting, and ecological footprinting, all sharing a common principle of using physical metrics rather than monetary units. These methods position ecosystem services within the broader context of natural capital stocks and biogeochemical cycles, offering a foundation for assessing sustainability through biophysical constraints rather than market mechanisms alone [29].

Comparative Analysis of Valuation Methodologies

Economic Valuation Techniques

Table 1: Economic Valuation Methods for Ecosystem Services

Method Category	Specific Methods	Measurement Approach	Primary Applications	Key Limitations
Revealed Preference Methods	Hedonic Pricing; Travel Cost	Observe market behavior related to ecosystem services	Recreation services; Property values influenced by environmental quality	Limited to marketed goods with ecosystem linkages; Difficult to isolate ecosystem contributions
Stated Preference Methods	Contingent Valuation; Choice Experiments	Elicit willingness-to-pay through surveys	Non-use values; Services not traded in markets	Hypothetical bias; Strategic responding; High implementation costs
Market Price-Based Methods	Market Analysis; Production Function	Value ecosystem inputs to goods and services	Provisioning services; Pollination services for agriculture	Misses non-market values; Requires established market linkages
Benefit Transfer Methods	Value Transfer; Function Transfer	Apply values from existing studies to new contexts	Rapid policy screening; Large-scale assessments	Context sensitivity; Potentially high error margins without adjustment

Economic valuation techniques employ various methodologies to assign monetary values to ecosystem services, enabling direct comparison with economic development alternatives. The Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD) represents a significant advancement in synthesizing economic values, containing over 9,400 value estimates from more than 1,300 studies, standardized to Int$/ha/year at 2020 price levels [31]. This database facilitates benefit transfer approaches, though significant geographic and service-specific gaps persist. Europe is particularly well-represented, while Russia, Central Asia, and North Africa have limited data. Among ecosystem services, recreation, wild fish and animals, ecosystem appreciation, air filtration, and climate regulation have abundant value estimates, while disease control, water baseflow maintenance, and rainfall pattern regulation remain poorly quantified [31].

Recent applications demonstrate the evolving sophistication of economic valuation. A 2025 synthesis highlights how economic values are increasingly used to inform natural infrastructure decisions and Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes [32]. However, significant challenges remain in addressing the public good characteristics of most regulating ecosystem services, which lack well-defined property rights and markets. Economic valuation must also contend with ethical objections to monetizing nature, the difficulty of capturing complex ecological interactions with marginal pricing, and the potential for undervaluing critical life-support services that have no substitutes [29] [30].

Biophysical Valuation Techniques

Table 2: Biophysical Valuation Methods for Ecosystem Services

Method Category	Specific Methods	Measurement Approach	Primary Applications	Key Limitations
Energy-Based Methods	Emergy Synthesis; Energy Analysis	Quantify energy flows and transformations	Watershed services; Climate regulation; Soil formation	Complex calculations; Controversy over energy quality conversions
Biophysical Modeling	InVEST; ARIES; SOLVES	Model ecosystem processes and service provision	Spatial planning; Land use decision support	Data intensive; Uncertain validation for some services
Physical Indicator Approaches	Biophysical Indicators; Remote Sensing	Measure direct physical properties	Soil retention; Water purification; Carbon sequestration	Difficulty aggregating across services; No direct welfare implications
Material Flow Analysis	Nutrient Budgeting; Water Cycling	Quantify material movements through ecosystems	Nutrient regulation; Water flow maintenance	Limited to measurable material flows; Spatial boundary challenges

Biophysical valuation techniques employ physical metrics, indicators, and models to quantify the capacity of ecosystems to provide regulating services without monetary conversion. These approaches have gained prominence with advances in remote sensing, geographic information systems (GIS), and ecological modeling [33] [30]. A 2025 implementation in northern Italy demonstrated how eight biophysical indicators could model six ecosystem services across two time periods to highlight land cover change impacts [30]. This spatially explicit approach enabled the identification of specific areas where ecosystem service provision had deteriorated or improved, providing crucial information for spatial planning decisions.

The biophysical paradigm is particularly valuable for understanding ecological production functions—the relationships between natural capital stocks, ecological processes, and final service outputs. For example, soil ecosystem services can be quantified through indicators of organic matter content, water infiltration rates, nutrient cycling, and soil stability [30]. Similarly, carbon sequestration can be directly measured through biomass inventories and soil carbon monitoring. Recent trends include the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to analyze large volumes of environmental data, identify patterns, and predict ecological impacts with greater accuracy [33]. Drones and satellite imagery provide high-resolution data for more accurate assessments, while GIS enables sophisticated spatial analysis of ecosystem service distributions [33].

Methodological Implementation and Workflows

Experimental Design for Valuation Studies

Implementing robust ecosystem service valuation requires systematic methodologies that account for ecological complexity and contextual specificity. The Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis (SALSA) framework provides a reliable methodology for identifying, assessing, and synthesizing existing valuation results [9]. This systematic approach ensures transparency, replicability, and reduced subjectivity in literature reviews, which is particularly important given the heterogeneous nature of valuation studies. For primary valuation research, experimental designs must carefully define ecological boundaries, identify relevant services, and select appropriate valuation techniques based on study objectives, data availability, and intended application.

Recent research on karst World Heritage Sites illustrates a comprehensive assessment framework, emphasizing five key research themes: RES assessment methods, trade-offs and synergies among RES, RES formation and driving mechanisms, the relationship between RES and human wellbeing, and RES enhancement strategies [9]. Such comprehensive frameworks recognize that regulating services often involve complex, non-linear relationships that vary across spatial and temporal scales. For instance, soil retention services in karst ecosystems demonstrate extreme sensitivity to vegetation cover changes, with threshold effects that can lead to rapid degradation when ecological limits are exceeded [9].

Valuation Methodology Workflow illustrates the integrated process for conducting ecosystem service valuation, showing the sequential stages from study design through to results interpretation.

Integrated and Hybrid Approaches

Recognizing the complementary strengths of biophysical and economic valuation, recent methodological advances emphasize integrated approaches. The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) provides an international framework for simultaneous biophysical and monetary quantification of ecosystem services [30]. This enables the development of comprehensive ecosystem accounts that track changes in natural capital stocks and ecosystem service flows over time. Implementation requires downscaling global principles to local contexts, conditioned by national circumstances, policies, economic dynamics, and data availability [30].

A 2025 sub-regional assessment in Italy demonstrated this integrated approach by combining eight biophysical indicators with monetary valuation across six ecosystem services [30]. The study employed spatially explicit modeling to map service provision and economic values, enabling identification of areas where conservation would yield the highest ecological and economic returns. Such integrated assessments are particularly valuable for designing Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes, where both the biophysical basis for payments and the economic incentives must be carefully calibrated [30]. The emerging consensus suggests that neither biophysical nor economic approaches alone can adequately capture the multifaceted value of regulating ecosystem services, especially in complex and vulnerable systems like karst landscapes [9].

Research Applications and Decision Support

Applications in Environmental Management and Policy

Valuation research, particularly systematic reviews of regulating ecosystem services, provides critical support for environmental management and policy decisions. Economic valuation enables cost-benefit analysis of conservation initiatives, demonstrating that the benefits of ecosystem protection significantly outweigh costs, with some studies reporting a 100:1 benefit-cost ratio for global wildlife conservation [30]. Similarly, biophysical valuation identifies ecological priorities and critical natural capital that should be protected under principles of strong sustainability, which recognizes the limited substitutability of natural capital with human-made capital [30].

Karst World Heritage Sites exemplify the application of valuation research to high-priority conservation areas. These sites provide crucial regulating services including water conservation, soil retention, and climate regulation, but face significant threats from human activities, tourism development, and climate change [9]. Valuation studies help quantify the economic and ecological importance of these services, making their contribution visible in decision-making processes. This is particularly important given the fragility of karst ecosystems, where unreasonable land use can trigger soil erosion, vegetation destruction, and ultimately rocky desertification—a process that threatens both ecological security and socioeconomic development [9].

Decision Support Tools and Spatial Planning

Decision support tools increasingly incorporate both biophysical and economic valuation to guide spatial planning and natural resource management. A 2025 decision support tool for selecting biophysical methodologies to assess urban nature-based solutions specifically addresses regulating ecosystem services, helping planners identify appropriate assessment techniques based on local contexts and data availability [34]. These tools recognize that standardized approaches are necessary to ensure comparability across studies while maintaining flexibility for context-specific adaptations.

Spatial planning represents a particularly promising application for integrated valuation approaches. By mapping the distribution of ecosystem service values—both biophysical and economic—planners can identify priority areas for conservation, restoration, and sustainable management [30]. This spatially explicit approach is essential for implementing the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the European Green Deal, and the UN Nature Restoration Regulation, which aims to restore at least 20% of EU land and sea areas by 2030 and all degraded ecosystems by 2050 [30]. The sub-regional implementation in northern Italy demonstrates how valuation results can directly inform land use decisions to reduce soil consumption and degradation, thereby safeguarding ecosystems that provide valuable regulating services [30].

Research Gaps and Future Directions

Methodological and Application Gaps

Despite significant advances, important methodological and application gaps persist in ecosystem service valuation. Geographic representation remains highly uneven, with strong emphasis on European ecosystems and limited research from Russia, Central Asia, and North Africa [31]. Similarly, certain regulating services—particularly recreation, climate regulation, and air filtration—have abundant value estimates, while others like disease control, water baseflow maintenance, and rainfall pattern regulation remain severely understudied [31]. This uneven coverage limits the global representativeness of valuation databases and their applicability across diverse biophysical and socioeconomic contexts.

In karst World Heritage Sites, current research focuses predominantly on geomorphological and aesthetic values, with limited attention to regulating ecosystem services [9]. Existing studies emphasize value assessment but lack investigation into ecological mechanisms, trade-offs, synergies, and driving factors behind RES provision [9]. This gap is particularly concerning given the ecological fragility of karst systems and their importance for regional ecological security. More broadly, the coupling relationship between regulating services and human wellbeing remains poorly defined across most ecosystems, making it difficult to develop scientifically sound strategies for service enhancement [9].

Emerging Innovations and Research Priorities

Several promising innovations are poised to advance ecosystem service valuation. Artificial intelligence is reshaping biophysical environmental assessments by enhancing data analysis, improving decision-making, and streamlining processes [33]. AI algorithms can analyze large volumes of environmental data, identify patterns, and predict ecological impacts with greater accuracy, enabling more efficient and proactive planning for projects in sensitive areas. Remote sensing technologies, including drones and satellite imagery, provide high-resolution data for more accurate biophysical assessments [33]. Similarly, blockchain technology is emerging as a tool to ensure transparency and accountability in environmental reporting and Payment for Ecosystem Services schemes [33].

Future research priorities should address critical knowledge gaps while leveraging these technological innovations. Research should focus on: (1) developing standardized protocols for valuing understudied ecosystem services in underrepresented regions; (2) elucidating the ecological mechanisms underlying regulating service provision, especially in vulnerable ecosystems like karst landscapes; (3) understanding trade-offs and synergies among multiple ecosystem services; (4) clarifying the relationship between RES and human wellbeing; and (5) enhancing the practical application of valuation research in policy and decision-making [9]. Additionally, methodological research should advance integrated valuation approaches that combine biophysical and economic perspectives within a comprehensive accounting framework, such as the SEEA EA [30].

Essential Research Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Ecosystem Service Valuation

Tool Category	Specific Tools/Platforms	Primary Function	Application Context
Data Collection Platforms	Remote Sensing; Drones; Field Sensors	Primary data acquisition on ecosystem properties	Biophysical indicator measurement; Spatial data collection
Modeling Software	InVEST; ARIES; i-Tree	Ecosystem service modeling and mapping	Spatial analysis of service provision; Scenario development
Statistical Analysis Tools	R; Python; GIS Software	Data analysis; Spatial modeling; Statistical testing	Economic valuation; Benefit transfer; Spatial interpolation
Valuation Databases	Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD)	Reference values for benefit transfer	Economic valuation; Meta-analysis; Value transfer exercises
Accounting Frameworks	SEEA Ecosystem Accounting	Integrated biophysical and monetary accounting	National and sub-national ecosystem accounting

The essential research toolkit for ecosystem service valuation has evolved significantly, with several key resources emerging as standard references. The Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD) contains over 9,400 value estimates from more than 1,300 studies, providing a comprehensive foundation for benefit transfer approaches [31]. The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) offers a standardized framework for integrating biophysical and monetary accounts, enabling comprehensive assessment of natural capital and ecosystem services [30]. Numerous modeling platforms, including InVEST, ARIES, and SOLVES, provide specialized tools for quantifying and mapping ecosystem services based on biophysical inputs [9].

Emerging tools leverage artificial intelligence and machine learning to analyze complex environmental datasets, identifying patterns and relationships that might escape conventional analysis [33]. Remote sensing technologies, particularly drones and high-resolution satellites, provide unprecedented spatial data for biophysical assessments [33]. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) remain fundamental for spatial analysis and mapping of ecosystem service distribution. Together, these tools enable researchers to implement increasingly sophisticated valuation approaches that capture the complexity of ecological systems while providing actionable information for decision-makers.

Valuation Theoretical Framework illustrates the relationship between natural processes, ecosystem services, and human values, showing how biophysical and economic valuation approaches capture different parts of this continuum.

This systematic assessment of biophysical versus economic valuation techniques for regulating ecosystem services reveals a field in dynamic evolution. Rather than competing paradigms, these approaches represent complementary perspectives on the complex relationship between natural systems and human wellbeing. Economic valuation excels at making ecosystem services visible within decision-making frameworks dominated by economic considerations, enabling cost-benefit analysis, the design of market-based instruments, and communication of ecosystem importance to financial and policy communities. Biophysical valuation provides an essential grounding in ecological reality, quantifying the physical basis of service provision, identifying critical natural capital, and establishing biophysical constraints to economic activity.

The most promising developments emerge from integrated approaches that combine biophysical and economic perspectives within comprehensive accounting and decision-support frameworks. Initiatives like the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) and tools that spatially map both biophysical and monetary values represent significant advances toward this integration. Future research should address critical gaps in geographic and service coverage while leveraging technological innovations in remote sensing, artificial intelligence, and data analytics. Particularly urgent is the need for more research on vulnerable but ecologically significant systems like karst landscapes, where regulating services play crucial roles in maintaining both ecological stability and human livelihoods. As systematic reviews of regulating ecosystem services research continue to evolve, they will play an increasingly vital role in synthesizing knowledge, identifying priorities, and guiding humanity toward more sustainable relationships with the natural systems that support all life.

Spatio-temporal analysis provides a powerful framework for understanding the complex dynamics of Renewable Energy Systems (RES). This approach examines how energy patterns evolve across both geographical space and time, revealing critical insights that traditional methods often miss. For renewable energy transition, these analyses are particularly vital as they help identify resource hotspots, supply-demand mismatches, and infrastructure optimization opportunities. The integration of spatial statistics with temporal trend analysis enables researchers and planners to move beyond static assessments toward dynamic modeling of energy system behavior, which is essential for both grid reliability and effective policy-making in the rapidly evolving energy landscape [35] [36].

The fundamental challenge in renewable energy systems lies in their inherent variability and geographical constraints. Unlike conventional power plants, renewable resources like wind and solar are intermittent by nature and often located far from demand centers. Spatio-temporal analysis addresses these challenges by quantifying patterns and relationships across locations and timeframes, providing the evidence base for strategic decision-making. Recent assessments indicate that the global energy transition is proceeding at roughly half the pace required to meet Paris-aligned targets, highlighting the urgent need for more sophisticated analytical approaches to accelerate deployment and integration [37].

Core Concepts and Spatial-Temporal Characteristics

Key Characteristics of Renewable Energy Systems

Renewable energy systems exhibit distinct spatio-temporal patterns that must be characterized for effective modeling:

• Spatial Heterogeneity: Resource distribution varies significantly across geographical areas. Solar insolation demonstrates latitudinal gradients, while wind patterns are influenced by topographic features and proximity to coastlines [36].
• Temporal Variability: Resources fluctuate across multiple time scales—diurnally, seasonally, and interannually. For instance, solar generation follows daily patterns with peak output during midday hours, while wind resources often show seasonal patterns that vary by region [36].
• Spatial Complementarity: Different renewable sources often exhibit complementary patterns across space. Geographical dispersion of wind and solar installations can help smooth overall generation profiles and reduce intermittency challenges [36].
• Path Dependence and Spatial Lock-in: Research on renewable energy innovation in China revealed distinct spatial clustering, with innovation "high in the east and south and low in the west and north," exhibiting what researchers termed "spatial locking and path-dependence" [35].

Critical Spatial Mismatches in Energy Systems

Several fundamental mismatches characterize current renewable energy systems:

• Resource-Demand Geography: The highest quality renewable resources often exist in regions distant from population centers where electricity demand is concentrated. This creates significant transmission challenges and costs [36].
• Innovation-Resource Paradox: Analysis of China's renewable energy innovation reveals a counterintuitive pattern where "provinces with abundant basic resources [do not] have stronger innovation capabilities." Instead, innovation concentrates in developed eastern and southern regions despite better physical resources existing elsewhere [35].
• Temporal Supply-Demand Imbalance: The "duck curve" phenomenon in solar-dominated grids and "anti-peak characteristics of wind power" represent temporal mismatches between generation patterns and electricity demand profiles [36].

Data Requirements and Preparation

Comprehensive spatio-temporal analysis of RES flows requires integration of multiple data types and sources, each with specific spatial and temporal resolutions.

Table 1: Core Data Requirements for RES Spatio-Temporal Analysis

Data Category	Specific Parameters	Spatial Resolution	Temporal Resolution	Example Sources
Resource Data	Solar irradiance, Wind speed, Hydro potential	Site-specific to regional	Hourly to multi-year	National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB), Wind Integration National Dataset (WIND) Toolkit [38]
Infrastructure Data	Transmission lines, Substations, Land use constraints	Vector lines, Polygon boundaries	Static with periodic updates	Land exclusion layers (protected areas, terrain), OpenStreetMap [39] [38]
Demand Data	Electricity load, Population density, Economic activity	Provincial to grid-level	Hourly, daily, seasonal	WorldPop, National statistics, Grid operators [39] [36]
Innovation Indicators	Patent grants, R&D investment	Provincial level	Annual	National patent offices, Statistical yearbooks [35]

Data Preprocessing and Integration

Effective spatio-temporal analysis requires careful data preprocessing:

• Spatial Alignment: Data from diverse sources must be transformed to a consistent coordinate system and spatial resolution. Research often employs grid-based analysis (e.g., 1km × 1km grids) to integrate multi-source geospatial data [39].
• Temporal Alignment: Time-series data must be synchronized to common timesteps (e.g., hourly intervals) to enable correlation and complementarity analysis [36].
• Exclusion Analysis: Land suitability modeling incorporates constraints including "technical barriers (e.g., water bodies, steep terrain), regulatory restrictions (e.g., protected land), or stakeholder constraints" to identify developable areas [38].

Analytical Methods and Modeling Approaches

Spatial Analysis Techniques

Table 2: Analytical Methods for RES Spatio-Temporal Analysis

Method Category	Specific Techniques	Application Examples	Key Outputs
Spatial Statistics	Spatial autocorrelation (Global/Local Moran's I), Hotspot analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*), Standard deviational ellipse	Identifying innovation clusters, Mapping RES flow boundaries [35] [39]	Hotspot/coldspot maps, Spatial correlation indices, Directional trends
Complementarity Assessment	Correlation analysis (Pearson, Kendall), Fluctuation analysis (Standard deviation, Range)	Wind-solar temporal complementarity, Regional resource diversification [36]	Complementarity indices, Smoothed output profiles
Supply-Demand Matching	Supply-demand difference calculation, Spatial interaction modeling, Network analysis	Assessing spatial mismatch between resource and demand zones [39] [36]	Mismatch indices, Flow directions and volumes
Potential Assessment	Geospatial exclusion analysis, Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) calculation, Capacity expansion modeling	reV model's technical potential assessment, Cost-supply curves [38]	Developable capacity maps, Generation potential, Cost rankings

Methodological Protocols

Protocol for Spatial Complementarity Analysis

The assessment of spatio-temporal complementarity follows a structured protocol:

• Data Preparation: Convert wind speed and solar irradiance data to power generation values using technology-specific power curves and performance models, accounting for equipment specifications and other meteorological conditions [36].
• Temporal Alignment: Process all time-series data to consistent hourly intervals across a representative period (typically one year or multiple years).
• Complementarity Calculation:
  • Apply correlation analysis using Kendall's correlation coefficient to measure the strength and direction of relationships between different renewable sources.
  • Conduct fluctuation analysis using standard deviation and range calculations to quantify output variability and smoothing effects from resource combination.
• Spatial Integration: Calculate complementarity between different geographical locations for the same resource type (wind-wind, solar-solar) to identify optimal diversification opportunities.
• Seasonal Analysis: Repeat calculations for distinct seasons to capture seasonal heterogeneity in complementarity relationships [36].

Protocol for RES Flow Mapping

The characterization of RES flows follows a systematic framework encompassing multiple attributes:

• Supply Assessment: Quantify both potential supply (based on resource availability and infrastructure) and opportunity supply (considering land use constraints and competing uses) [39].
• Demand Assessment: Measure demand using population density, economic activity indicators, or actual consumption data, with appropriate spatial disaggregation [39].
• Supply-Demand Relationship Analysis: Calculate supply-demand differences and identify spatial mismatches through hotspot analysis.
• Flow Characterization: Determine flow boundaries, direction, volume, and speed based on the spatial relationship between supply and demand zones, often using network analysis and transportation modeling approaches [39].

Visualization Standards and Conventions

Effective visualization is essential for interpreting and communicating complex spatio-temporal patterns in renewable energy systems.

Color Palette Specifications

Adherence to standardized color palettes ensures visual clarity and accessibility:

• Categorical Palettes: Use distinct hues for unrelated categories (e.g., different technology types). Ensure colors are easily distinguishable and avoid false associations through careful sequencing [40].
• Sequential Palettes: Employ light-to-dark gradients of a single color to represent ordered numeric values (e.g., resource potential intensity). Maintain a full range of values despite contrast challenges with backgrounds [40] [41].
• Diverging Palettes: Utilize two contrasting colors with a neutral midpoint to show deviation from a reference value (e.g., supply-demand mismatch) [41].

Accessibility requirements mandate a minimum 3:1 contrast ratio between foreground and background elements. Color choices should accommodate common color vision deficiencies by avoiding problematic color combinations (e.g., red-green) and supplementing with texture or pattern differentiation [40].

Diagrammatic Representations

Spatio-Temporal Analysis Workflow

RES Flow Conceptual Model

Implementation Protocols

Protocol for Hotspot Identification

Hotspot analysis follows a systematic procedure to identify statistically significant spatial clusters:

• Indicator Selection: Define appropriate metrics for analysis (e.g., renewable energy innovation index, resource potential, supply-demand mismatch) [35] [39].
• Spatial Weights Matrix: Construct a spatial weights matrix defining neighborhood relationships between geographical units based on contiguity or distance.
• Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis:
  • Calculate Global Moran's I to determine whether spatial clustering exists overall.
  • Compute Local Moran's I or Getis-Ord Gi* statistics to identify specific hotspot locations.
• Significance Testing: Apply statistical testing with appropriate multiple comparison corrections to distinguish significant clusters from random spatial patterns.
• Temporal Tracking: Repeat analysis for multiple time periods to track evolution of hotspot patterns and identify path dependence phenomena [35].

Protocol for reV Model Implementation

NREL's Renewable Energy Potential (reV) model provides a standardized framework for spatio-temporal renewable energy assessment:

• Resource Assessment: Execute the generation module, coupled with NREL's System Advisor Model, to estimate system performance based on user-defined parameters including "solar panel tilt angle, azimuth, inverter load ratio, efficiency" for solar, and "hub height, rotor diameter, power curve" for wind [38].
• Land Exclusion Analysis: Apply the spatial module to incorporate "technical and sociopolitical limitations to land access" including "water bodies, steep terrain, protected land, and other regulatory restrictions" [38].
• Technical Potential Calculation: Compute installable capacity considering resource availability and land use constraints.
• Cost Assessment: Calculate site-based Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) representing "the average revenue per unit of electricity generated needed to make up for the costs of building and operating a generating plant" [38].
• Supply Curve Development: Generate renewable energy supply curves using a "spatial optimization algorithm that sorts developable sites based on both LCOE and transmission access" [38].

Research Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Analytical Tools for RES Spatio-Temporal Analysis

Tool Category	Specific Tools/Solutions	Primary Function	Implementation Considerations
Geospatial Analysis	reV Model (NREL), QGIS, ArcGIS	Resource potential assessment, Land exclusion analysis, Capacity mapping	reV model processes "tens of terabytes of time-series solar or wind data" and runs on high-performance computing or cloud platforms like AWS [38]
Statistical Analysis	R, Python (pandas, scipy), Spatial statistics libraries	Correlation analysis, Hotspot identification, Complementarity assessment	Specialized packages like SpacoR (R) and spaco (Python) optimize spatial colorization for categorical data visualization [42]
Data Visualization	Spaco/SpacoR, Carbon Charts, Custom mapping tools	Spatial interlacement visualization, Categorical color assignment, Flow mapping	Spaco method "calculates the degree of interlacement (DOI) metric between different categories" and aligns with color contrast matrices [42]
Resource Data	National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB), WIND Toolkit	Historical and predictive resource data	Available through rex (Resource Extraction Tool) with "hourly data granularity" for temporal complementarity analysis [36] [38]

Regulating Ecosystem Services (RES) are the benefits derived from the regulatory effects of biophysical processes, which include air quality regulation, climate regulation, natural disaster regulation, water regulation, water purification, erosion regulation, soil formation, pollination, and pest and disease control [9]. These services represent purely public goods with no physical form, leading policymakers and the scientific community to often focus on direct, provisioning ecosystem benefits while overlooking the immense value of RES in protection and valuation exercises [9]. This oversight creates unexpected risks to human well-being and significantly impacts the provision of other ecosystem services. In the context of karst World Natural Heritage sites (WNHSs) and other sensitive ecosystems, RES play a crucial role in maintaining regional ecological balance and security due to their strong vegetation nativity, rich biodiversity, and complete ecosystem structure [9].

The integration of RES into management planning represents a critical frontier in environmental governance, particularly given that RES such as air purification, regional and local climate regulation, water purification, and pollination have declined at the fastest rate among all ecosystem services over recent decades [9]. This degradation poses serious threats to species diversity and ecological product supply chains. Managing ecosystems to sustain ecosystem services amidst global change presents a significant challenge for scientists and policymakers, particularly because predicting how management strategies and fluctuating environmental conditions affect ecosystem services is complicated by the complex nature of the interactions and intrinsic dynamics within ecological and social systems [5]. The framework presented in this technical guide addresses these challenges through systematic workflows and decision support mechanisms designed for researcher and practitioner implementation.

Conceptual Foundations and Systematic Review Context

Theoretical Framework for RES Management

Ecosystem services are conceptualized as the dynamic interface between ecological and social systems, capturing the exchanges between nature and human society [5]. Within this framework, RES represent critical regulatory functions that maintain system stability and resilience. The biodiversity-ecosystem function-ecosystem services-human wellbeing nexus has emerged as a central focus in landscape sustainability research, providing a theoretical foundation for constructing sustainable landscape patterns [9]. This conceptual framework recognizes that ecosystem services arise from the current distribution of social and environmental resources, with global and local environmental changes constantly modifying the equilibrium of ecosystems and, consequently, their service provision capabilities.

The systematic review of RES research reveals five key thematic areas that inform management planning: (1) RES assessment methods, (2) trade-offs and synergies among RES, (3) RES formation and driving mechanisms, (4) the relationship between RES and human well-being, and (5) RES enhancement strategies [9]. Current research limitations include predominant focus on value assessments with insufficient attention to ecological mechanisms, unclear trade-offs and synergies among RES and their driving mechanisms, and poorly defined coupling relationships between RES and human well-being [9]. These gaps necessitate more sophisticated conceptual workflows and decision support systems for effective RES integration into management planning.

Current State of RES Research

Systematic review methodology using the Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis (SALSA) framework applied to RES research has identified significant trends and knowledge gaps. When analyzing publications between 2005 and July 2024 from Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, researchers found that studies on karst WNHSs primarily focus on the synergic relationship between conservation and tourism and the geomorphological and aesthetic value of karst landscapes, with a notable lack of studies specifically addressing RES [9]. The existing limited research is restricted to value assessments of RES without investigating the ecological mechanisms underlying these services.

Network theory has emerged as a promising framework for analyzing ecosystem services due to its capacity to model complex relationships among system components [5]. By modeling relationships among components, networks enable researchers to explore intrinsic interconnectedness and structural properties of socio-ecological systems. However, current applications tend to rely on a limited set of network metrics and models, indicating substantial opportunity for methodological advancement [5]. Research has focused on mapping ecosystem services under different scenarios to identify synergies and trade-offs between different services and the allocation of land or other natural resources, with spatial mapping identifying and evaluating areas of ecosystem service demand [5].

Conceptual Workflows for RES Integration

Systematic Assessment Workflow

The integration of RES into management planning requires a structured workflow that encompasses assessment, analysis, and implementation phases. Based on systematic review findings, the following conceptual workflow represents best practices for RES management:

Figure 1: Conceptual Workflow for RES Integration in Management Planning

This workflow initiates with comprehensive RES assessment through ecosystem service identification, biophysical modeling, spatio-temporal analysis, and stakeholder engagement. The integration analysis phase employs trade-off and synergy analysis, network modeling, scenario development, and decision support processing. Critical to this workflow is the integration of quantitative and qualitative data through joint display analysis, a technique that juxtaposes and compares different data types to generate new insights about variation in outcomes and intervention mechanisms [43]. The implementation phase translates analytical findings into management strategies, policy integration, monitoring frameworks, and adaptive management approaches.

Data Integration Methodologies

Effective RES integration requires sophisticated data integration techniques that combine quantitative and qualitative data sources. Integration occurs when researchers use quantitative and qualitative data or findings interdependently to address a common goal [43]. The following experimental protocols detail methodologies for data integration in RES management contexts:

Protocol 1: Joint Display Analysis for RES Assessment

• Data Collection: Conduct simultaneous collection of quantitative biophysical data (e.g., water quality measurements, vegetation indices, soil retention metrics) and qualitative data through stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and participatory mapping exercises.
• Blinded Analysis: Analyze quantitative and qualitative datasets separately while maintaining blinding between analytical teams to reduce potential for bias.
• Integration Framework Development: Create a joint display table, figure, or graph that juxtaposes quantitative and qualitative findings for specific RES metrics.
• Pattern Identification: Identify convergent and divergent findings between datasets through systematic comparison.
• Interpretation: Develop explanatory hypotheses for observed patterns that inform management strategies.

Protocol 2: Network Analysis for RES Trade-offs

• Node Identification: Define relevant ecological and social components within the management system as network nodes.
• Relationship Mapping: Characterize interactions between nodes through empirical measurement, literature synthesis, or expert elicitation.
• Network Construction: Build quantitative network models using adjacency matrices or edge lists.
• Topological Analysis: Calculate relevant network metrics (centrality, density, connectivity, modularity) to identify critical system components and relationships.
• Scenario Testing: Manipulate network models to simulate management interventions and predict system responses.

Table 1: Quantitative Data Sources for RES Assessment

Data Category	Specific Metrics	Measurement Methods	Management Relevance
Water Regulation	Water yield, seasonal flow variation, infiltration rates	Hydrological modeling, monitoring stations, remote sensing	Water security, flood/drought management
Climate Regulation	Carbon sequestration, temperature modulation, evapotranspiration	Eddy covariance towers, biometric measurements, climate stations	Climate change adaptation, urban planning
Erosion Control	Soil retention, sediment accumulation, landslide frequency	Erosion pins, sediment traps, modeling (RUSLE, InVEST)	Watershed management, infrastructure planning
Pollination	Pollinator abundance, visitation rates, fruit set	Field surveys, pollinator exclusion experiments	Agricultural productivity, biodiversity conservation
Water Purification	Nutrient retention, pollutant removal, water quality indices	Water sampling, biogeochemical assays, modeling	Water treatment costs, public health

Decision Support Systems for RES Management

Architecture of DSS for RES Integration

Decision Support Systems (DSS) refer to a class of algorithms or artificial intelligence that provide calculations to solve complex problems or improve task performance, suggesting solutions that can either be accepted or rejected by a human expert [44]. In the context of RES management, DSS balance the need to augment human performance while enabling expert operators to serve as final decision-makers, leveraging specialized human cognition for aspects that artificial intelligence cannot currently emulate while utilizing AI tools for complex calculations and comparisons at computational speeds impossible for humans [44].

DSS for RES management typically employ model-driven approaches that utilize mathematical and simulation models to evaluate potential outcomes based on specific parameters [45]. These systems help decision-makers answer questions concerning conditions under which an outcome might occur, what might happen if the value of a variable changes, or how potential interventions might affect multiple RES simultaneously. The unstructured nature of RES management problems means that DSS use is necessarily iterative, with initial answers raising further questions for consideration that require additional processing through the system [45].

Figure 2: Decision Support System Architecture for RES Integration

The DSS architecture incorporates three primary layers: an integrated data repository containing RES biophysical models, spatio-temporal databases, stakeholder input, and management action libraries; an analytical processing engine with multi-model workflow orchestration, network analysis, optimization algorithms, and trade-off quantification; and a visualization interface featuring joint display dashboards, interactive scenario explorers, and trade-off analysis matrices. This architecture supports both heuristic (fast screening) and compensatory (comprehensive analysis) decision strategies appropriate for different management contexts [44].

Implementation Protocols for DSS

Protocol 3: Model-Driven DSS Configuration for RES

• Problem Structuring: Define management objectives, constraints, and decision variables through stakeholder engagement and literature review.
• Model Selection: Identify appropriate modeling approaches (optimization, simulation, statistical) for different RES components based on data availability and system complexity.
• Integration Framework: Develop computational workflows that connect disparate models into an integrated analytical system.
• Validation: Test model predictions against historical data and expert judgment to establish credibility.
• Implementation: Deploy DSS in management context with appropriate training and documentation.

Protocol 4: Dynamic Decision Support for Adaptive Management

• Monitoring System Establishment: Implement continuous data collection for key RES indicators and management interventions.
• Threshold Identification: Define critical values for RES indicators that trigger management responses.
• Scenario Library Development: Pre-calculate management responses for anticipated system states.
• Decision Rule Formulation: Create conditional statements linking system states to management actions.
• Iterative Updating: Continuously refine DSS based on performance monitoring and emerging information.

Table 2: Decision Support System Types for RES Management

DSS Type	Primary Function	Data Requirements	RES Management Applications
Model-Driven DSS	Uses mathematical and simulation models to evaluate outcomes based on parameters	Limited data and parameters from decision makers	Distribution network planning, resource allocation, capacity expansion [45]
Data-Driven DSS	Leverages historical data to support executive decision-making	Large databases, historical records	Trend analysis, performance monitoring, predictive modeling
Knowledge-Driven DSS	Provides recommendations based on specialized problem-solving algorithms	Expert knowledge bases, rule sets	Complex problem solving, diagnostic assessments, regulatory compliance
Group Support Systems	Facilitates collaborative decision-making among teams	Stakeholder inputs, preference data	Participatory planning, conflict resolution, consensus building
Spatial DSS	Integrates geographic information with decision models	Geospatial data, remote sensing imagery	Land use planning, conservation prioritization, corridor design

Research Reagents and Analytical Tools

Essential Research Solutions for RES Assessment

The implementation of conceptual workflows and decision support systems for RES integration requires specialized research reagents and analytical tools. The following table details key solutions essential for conducting rigorous RES assessments and implementing management plans:

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for RES Assessment and Management

Research Reagent / Tool	Function in RES Assessment	Application Context	Technical Specifications
InVEST Software Suite	Integrated ecosystem service modeling and mapping	Spatial analysis of RES provision, trade-offs, and scenarios	Modular architecture with RES-specific models (carbon storage, water purification, erosion control) [5]
ARIES Modeling Platform	Artificial Intelligence for ecosystem service assessment	Rapid assessment, uncertainty quantification, customized modeling	Knowledge-based system, semantic modeling, probabilistic approaches [5]
Network Analysis Software	Modeling complex interactions in socio-ecological systems	Analyzing RES trade-offs, connectivity, and system resilience	Support for various graph types, topological metrics, and visualization capabilities [5]
Joint Display Frameworks	Integrating quantitative and qualitative data for mixed methods	Understanding context-specific RES outcomes and mechanisms	Structured templates for data juxtaposition, pattern identification, and hypothesis generation [43]
Biophysical Monitoring Equipment	Direct measurement of RES indicators	Field validation, calibration of models, performance monitoring	Sensors for water quality, soil properties, atmospheric conditions, and biodiversity metrics
Stakeholder Engagement Platforms	Capturing qualitative data on RES values and preferences	Participatory planning, conflict resolution, social validation	Structured deliberation tools, preference elicitation methods, participatory mapping

Visualization Protocols for RES Communication

Effective communication of RES assessments and management recommendations requires sophisticated visualization protocols. Graphic protocols with professionally designed figures ensure accuracy and streamline knowledge transfer among research teams and stakeholders [46]. These protocols create a centralized library for sharing images and methods securely, ensuring all team members use a common visual language. Version history maintenance enables tracking of methodological evolution and ensures reproducibility across research iterations [46].

Protocol 5: RES Visualization and Communication

• Icon Standardization: Establish a library of standardized visual elements for RES components using available graphic tools [46].
• Workflow Documentation: Create clear visual representations of analytical processes and decision pathways.
• Result Presentation: Develop tailored visualization products for different audiences (technical experts, policymakers, public stakeholders).
• Feedback Incorporation: Implement processes for gathering and integrating visual communication feedback.
• Version Control: Maintain detailed records of visualization iterations and their application contexts.

The integration of regulating ecosystem services into management planning represents a critical advancement in environmental governance with significant implications for ecological security and human well-being. This technical guide has outlined conceptual workflows and decision support systems that address current limitations in RES research, particularly the gaps in understanding ecological mechanisms, trade-offs and synergies, and coupling relationships with human well-being [9]. The structured approaches presented enable researchers and practitioners to move beyond simple RES valuation toward mechanistic understanding and effective management intervention.

Future research directions should prioritize several key areas: (1) development of more sophisticated network models that capture complex socio-ecological interactions in RES provision [5], (2) enhanced data integration techniques that effectively combine quantitative and qualitative insights throughout the management cycle [43], (3) advanced decision support visualizations that communicate complex trade-offs to diverse stakeholders [44], and (4) implementation of robust monitoring frameworks that enable adaptive management based on RES response to interventions. As these methodological advancements progress, the systematic integration of RES into management planning will become increasingly precise, effective, and essential for navigating the challenges of global environmental change while maintaining critical life-support systems.

This technical guide synthesizes contemporary case study applications of regulating ecosystem services (RES) research across three critical ecosystems: agricultural, karst, and forest systems. Regulating ecosystem services, defined as the benefits derived from the biophysical processes that control environmental conditions [9], are fundamental to ecological security and human well-being. This synthesis is framed within a broader systematic review of RES research, highlighting methodological approaches, key findings, and persistent gaps. The sustainable provision of RES is increasingly threatened by global change drivers, necessitating advanced assessment and management frameworks [9] [47]. By examining diverse ecosystem contexts, this guide aims to equip researchers and environmental professionals with standardized protocols and analytical frameworks for quantifying, valuing, and managing the regulatory functions of natural capital.

Quantitative Synthesis of Ecosystem Service Studies

Table 1: Summary of Quantitative Findings from Featured Case Studies

Ecosystem Type	Location	Key RES Assessed	Primary Assessment Method	Key Quantitative Finding	Spatial Scale/Resolution
Karst [48]	Puding County, China	Regulatory services (primary contribution to total ESV)	Ecosystem service value (ESV) model, landscape ecological risk (LER) model	ESV showed fluctuating trend (-15.11% overall); Shrubland provided highest value (24.85% of total)	County level; analysis from 1973-2020
Agricultural [47]	Loess Plateau, China	Water yield, soil conservation, carbon sequestration	InVEST model, RUSLE, CASA model	Sustainable intensification increased agricultural production by 15% with moderate ES provision	640,000 km² region; county/township levels (2020-2040 simulation)
Agroforestry [49]	Northern Italy	Carbon sequestration, air pollution removal	i-Tree software, participatory Matrix Model Methodology	Successional Agroforestry (SAFS) superior for intrinsic/cultural ES; traditional orchard highest instrumental ES	Farm scale; 30-year projection period
Mangrove Forest [50]	Global Synthesis	Carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, coastal protection	Systematic review of 423 studies; CICES classification	Only ~22% of studies investigated >1 service; regulating services most co-studied with carbon	Global; analysis of 813 identified studies

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Ecosystem Service Assessment

Research Reagent/Model	Primary Function	Application Context	Key Output Metrics
InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) [47] [50]	Spatially explicit modeling of ecosystem service provision	Water yield estimation, carbon sequestration, habitat quality assessment	Water yield (volume), carbon storage (tons), habitat quality (index)
i-Tree Software [49]	Quantification of instrumental ecosystem services from vegetation	Carbon sequestration, air pollutant removal in agroforestry systems	Carbon storage (tons), pollutant removal (kg)
RUSLE (Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation) [47]	Empirical soil erosion prediction	Soil conservation assessment in agricultural landscapes	Soil loss (tons/ha/year), soil conservation (tons/ha)
CASA (Carnegie-Ames-Stanford Approach) Model [47]	Light use efficiency model for vegetation productivity	Net primary productivity (NPP) estimation	NPP (gC/m²/year)
CICES (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services) [50]	Standardized framework for ES classification	Categorization of provisioning, regulating, and cultural services	Hierarchical service classification (sections, divisions, groups, classes)

Karst Ecosystem Case Study

Study Context and Methodological Protocol

Karst landscapes represent some of the most fragile and ecologically significant ecosystems globally, covering approximately 10-15% of the world's land area [9]. The specialized hydrogeological environments within karst landscapes are closely linked to processes in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere, providing critical regulating services including water conservation, soil retention, and climate regulation [9] [51]. A representative study from Puding County, China [48], exemplifies a comprehensive methodological approach for assessing ecosystem service value (ESV) and landscape ecological risk (LER) in karst environments.

Experimental Protocol:

• Land Use Change Analysis: Utilize multi-temporal land use data (1973-2020) to classify landscape types, with particular attention to transitions between shrubland, dry land, paddy fields, and construction land.
• ESV Quantification: Apply an established ecosystem service value model to calculate economic values for different land cover types, with emphasis on regulatory services which typically dominate in karst systems.
• Landscape Ecological Risk Assessment: Employ a landscape ecological risk model to evaluate patterns of risk based on landscape fragmentation, heterogeneity, and diversity metrics.
• Z-Score Standardization: Normalize ESV and LER results using Z-score standardization to enable comparative analysis and zoning.
• Ecological Zoning: Develop a comprehensive zoning system integrating both ESV and LER dimensions to guide differentiated management strategies.

Key Findings and Management Implications

The karst case study revealed that regulatory services constituted the dominant ESV contribution, with shrubland providing the highest value (24.85% of total ESV) despite significant landscape transformation over the study period [48]. Construction land increased most substantially due to conversion from agricultural lands, driving increases in landscape fragmentation and heterogeneity. The research established four distinct ecological zones—risk improvement, comprehensive restoration, function enhancement, and conservation/maintenance—providing a spatial framework for targeted management interventions [48]. This approach addresses the critical research gap in understanding RES formation and driving mechanisms in karst systems, which is particularly relevant for the conservation of Karst World Heritage Sites [9].

Agricultural Ecosystem Case Study

Study Context and Methodological Protocol

Agricultural landscapes represent complex socio-ecological systems where intense trade-offs between provisioning services (crop production) and regulating services commonly occur [47]. The Loess Plateau of China provides an ideal setting for examining these relationships, characterized by semi-arid climate, highly erodible loess soils, and significant conservation interventions including the "Grain for Green Program" [47].

Experimental Protocol:

• Scenario Design: Establish three distinct land management scenarios: Business-As-Usual (BAU), Ecological Restoration (maximizing regulating/supporting services), and Sustainable Intensification (balancing production and ecosystem services).
• Biophysical Modeling: Implement an integrated modeling framework combining:
  • CASA model for Net Primary Productivity (NPP)
  • RUSLE model for soil conservation
  • InVEST model for water yield and habitat quality
• Land Use Classification: Apply random forest algorithm to Landsat 8 OLI imagery (30m resolution) for land use/cover mapping, validated with field observations.
• Trade-off Analysis: Employ Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate scenarios across multiple ES indicators.
• Economic Valuation: Quantify economic values of ecosystem services where possible to facilitate comparison with agricultural production values.

Key Findings and Management Implications

The agricultural case study demonstrated significant trade-offs between provisioning services (agricultural production) and regulating/supporting services (water yield, soil conservation, carbon sequestration, biodiversity) [47]. The ecological restoration scenario maximized regulating and supporting services but reduced agricultural output by 15%, while sustainable intensification increased agricultural production by 15% while maintaining moderate ecosystem service provision [47]. These trade-offs were driven by complex interactions between land use intensity, landscape configuration, biogeochemical cycles, and hydrological processes. The findings highlight the necessity of integrated approaches that balance food production with environmental sustainability, informing management strategies aligned with UN Sustainable Development Goals [47].

Forest Ecosystem Case Study

Study Context and Methodological Protocol

Forest ecosystems provide critical regulating services including carbon sequestration, air quality regulation, and water purification. While the search results don't include a specific temperate forest case study, they provide insights into mangrove forests as a critical forest ecosystem [50] and innovative agroforestry approaches that integrate trees into agricultural landscapes [49]. The systematic review on mangrove ecosystem services [50] offers a methodological framework applicable to forest RES assessment more broadly.

Experimental Protocol:

• Systematic Literature Review: Conduct comprehensive literature search using databases (e.g., Web of Science) with predefined keyword strategies and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
• Ecosystem Service Classification: Apply CICES (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services) framework at class level to standardize service categorization across studies.
• Methodological Categorization: Classify research approaches into categories: modeling, observation, remote sensing, survey, experiment, policy analysis, secondary data, interviews.
• Multiple ES Co-occurrence Analysis: Document patterns of single versus multiple ecosystem service assessments and identify most common service combinations.
• Stakeholder Engagement Assessment: Evaluate degree and methods of stakeholder inclusion in research design and implementation.

Key Findings and Management Implications

The mangrove forest analysis revealed a significant research gap, with only approximately 22% of studies investigating more than one ecosystem service concurrently with carbon sequestration [50]. This narrow focus limits understanding of trade-offs and synergies between multiple RES. The most frequently co-studied regulating services with carbon included nutrient cycling, soil formation, and coastal protection, while provisioning (fishing, biomass) and cultural services were less represented [50]. Stakeholder engagement remained minimal, with only 5% of studies incorporating perspectives from local communities, policymakers, or other relevant groups [50]. These findings highlight the need for more integrated, socio-ecological approaches to forest RES management that consider multiple services and stakeholder perspectives simultaneously.

Cross-Ecosystem Synthesis and Research Directions

The case studies reveal several convergent themes across ecosystem types. First, trade-offs between provisioning and regulating services are ubiquitous, particularly in managed ecosystems, necessitating sophisticated decision-support tools like Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis [47]. Second, spatially explicit modeling approaches have become methodologically dominant, with InVEST representing a particularly influential platform across ecosystems [47] [50]. Third, significant gaps persist in understanding the ecological mechanisms underpinning RES and their responses to anthropogenic drivers, especially in fragile systems like karst landscapes [9].

Critical research frontiers include:

• Understanding RES Formation Mechanisms: Moving beyond correlation to establish causal pathways in RES provision, particularly in data-poor systems [9].
• Advanced Trade-off Analysis: Developing dynamic models that capture non-linear relationships and threshold effects in ES bundles [47] [5].
• Stakeholder Integration: Creating robust methodologies for incorporating local knowledge and values into RES assessment and management [49] [50].
• Network-Based Approaches: Applying network theory to model complex socio-ecological interactions in ES provision [5].
• Policy-Research Integration: Strengthening science-policy interfaces to ensure research addresses critical management needs [9] [51].

This synthesis demonstrates that while methodological sophistication in RES assessment has advanced significantly, critical gaps remain in mechanistic understanding, multi-service integration, and stakeholder engagement. Addressing these gaps will require interdisciplinary approaches that combine biophysical measurement, socio-economic valuation, and participatory governance across ecosystem types.

Navigating Complexities: Trade-offs, Synergies, and Governance Challenges

Ecosystem services (ES) are the direct and indirect benefits that ecosystems provide to humans [1] [5]. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) established a foundational classification system that categorizes these services into four primary types: provisioning services (material outputs like food, water, and timber); regulating services (benefits obtained from ecosystem processes moderation, including climate regulation, flood control, and pollination); cultural services (non-material benefits); and supporting services (fundamental processes necessary for the production of all other services) [52] [9]. Among these categories, regulating ecosystem services (RESs) are particularly crucial as they moderate natural phenomena and maintain life-support systems, yet they are frequently overlooked in policy decisions in favor of more immediately tangible provisioning services [9].

The interaction between provisioning and regulating services represents a critical frontier in sustainability science. Trade-offs occur when the enhancement of one service leads to the reduction of another, while synergies arise when multiple services are enhanced simultaneously [53] [54] [55]. Understanding these relationships is paramount for effective ecosystem management, especially amidst global challenges such as climate change, land use alteration, and biodiversity loss [9] [55]. This technical guide, framed within a systematic review of regulating ecosystem services research, provides researchers and environmental professionals with advanced methodologies and analytical frameworks for investigating these complex interactions.

Theoretical Foundations: Understanding Service Interactions

Conceptual Framework of Trade-offs and Synergies

Ecosystem service interactions are governed by complex social-ecological dynamics. Trade-offs between provisioning and regulating services emerge when management strategies prioritize extractive outputs at the expense of regulatory functions. For instance, intensive agricultural practices that maximize food production (a provisioning service) often degrade regulating services such as water purification, soil fertility maintenance, and carbon sequestration through excessive fertilizer use, pesticide application, and habitat modification [54] [55].

Conversely, synergistic relationships can be achieved through strategic management approaches that enhance multiple services simultaneously. The restoration of riparian vegetation in agricultural landscapes, for example, can simultaneously improve water regulation (through enhanced infiltration and flood mitigation), carbon sequestration (through biomass accumulation), and crop production (through microclimate regulation and soil stabilization) [55]. Whether trade-offs or synergies dominate depends largely on the specific management interventions applied and the ecological context in which they are implemented.

Mechanistic Pathways of Service Interactions

Bennett et al. (2009) proposed a seminal framework identifying four primary mechanistic pathways through which drivers affect ecosystem service relationships [55]:

• Direct Single-Service Pathway: A driver affects the supply of one ecosystem service without directly impacting another service.
• Interaction Pathway: A driver affects one ecosystem service that subsequently interacts with another service, creating a cascading effect.
• Independent Pathway: A driver directly affects two or more ecosystem services independently.
• Integrated Pathway: A driver directly affects multiple ecosystem services that also interact with each other.

Understanding these pathways is essential for predicting management outcomes. For example, a forest restoration policy that converts abandoned cropland (Pathway 1) increases carbon storage without necessarily affecting food production. In contrast, the same policy implemented on active farmland (Pathway 4) would likely create a trade-off by directly reducing crop production while increasing carbon storage [55].

Methodological Approaches: Experimental and Analytical Protocols

Systematic Review Methodology (SALSA Framework)

For researchers conducting systematic reviews of regulating ecosystem services, the Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis (SALSA) framework provides a rigorous methodology [9]. This approach ensures transparency, replicability, and comprehensiveness in literature synthesis.

Protocol Development: Define clear research questions and scope. Example questions include: "Which types and themes of RESs have been studied the most and the least?" and "What are the advances and gaps of current RESs research?" [9].

Search Strategy: Execute comprehensive literature searches across multiple academic databases (e.g., Web of Science, CNKI) using keyword combinations such as "Ecosystem services" AND "Regulating/regulatory services" AND "Trade-offs and synergies" AND "Spatio-temporal variation" AND "Driving factors" [9].

Appraisal Process: Apply predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria to screen search results. This typically involves removing gray literature, conference abstracts, non-peer-reviewed publications, and articles not explicitly focused on RES trade-offs and synergies [9].

Synthesis and Analysis: Extract and synthesize data from eligible studies using qualitative and quantitative methods to identify research trends, knowledge gaps, and emerging consensus in the field [9].

Empirical Assessment Protocols

Biophysical and Economic Valuation

A comprehensive Portuguese study on mountain ecosystems demonstrates a robust protocol for assessing service interactions across temporal scales [53]:

• Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) Analysis: Develop high-resolution (25m) vector spatial databases for multiple time points (e.g., 1990, 2006) with detailed hierarchical classification systems (70+ unique classes).
• Scenario Development: Create future projections (e.g., 2020) under multiple scenarios:
  • Forest Expansion: Natural regeneration and afforestation on seminatural and abandoned agricultural areas.
  • Agricultural Abandonment: Continuation of depopulation trends and land abandonment.
• Service Quantification: Assess ecosystem services both biophysically and economically using modeling approaches and official statistics.
• Trade-off Analysis: Conduct non-statistical comparisons of provisioning and regulating services through graphical and numerical methods in both physical and monetary units [53].

Ecosystem Service Bundle Analysis

The ecosystem service bundle approach identifies sets of services that repeatedly appear together across space or time, revealing recurring trade-offs and synergies [54]. The methodological workflow includes:

• Service Selection: Quantify multiple provisioning, regulating, and cultural services across administrative or ecological units.
• Spatial Pattern Analysis: Map geographic distributions and identify clustering of individual services using spatial statistics.
• Correlation Analysis: Calculate pairwise correlations between all services to identify significant relationships.
• Multivariate Analysis: Conduct principal component analysis (PCA) to reduce dimensionality and identify key gradients explaining service variation.
• Cluster Analysis: Group spatial units based on similar service provision profiles to identify distinct ecosystem service bundle types [54].

Table 1: Ecosystem Services Quantified in Bundle Analysis (adapted from Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010) [54]

Service Category	Specific Ecosystem Service	Unit of Measurement	Data Source
Provisioning	Crops	Percent of land in crop	Agriculture Census
	Pork	Pigs/km²	Agriculture Census
	Drinking Water	Water quality indicator (1-5)	Provincial water database
	Maple Syrup	Taps/km²	Agriculture Census
Regulating	Carbon Sequestration	kg C/km²	Remote sensing (MODIS)
	Soil Phosphorus Retention	Percent	Provincial soil database
	Soil Organic Matter	Percent	Provincial soil database
Cultural	Deer Hunting	Deer kills/km²	Hunting company data
	Tourism	Tourist attractions/km²	Tourism database
	Nature Appreciation	Rare species observations/km²	Conservation database

Network Analysis Approaches

Network theory provides powerful tools for analyzing complex interactions in socio-ecological systems [5]. The application protocol involves:

• Network Definition: Identify nodes (ecosystem service providers, beneficiaries, or spatial units) and edges (flows, interactions, or correlations).
• Topological Analysis: Calculate network metrics including connectivity, centrality, modularity, and robustness.
• Flow Modeling: Map material, energy, and information flows between ecological and social components.
• Scenario Testing: Simulate how network structure and function respond to management interventions or external drivers [5].

Case Study Applications

Reindeer Herding Systems: Climate-Provisioning Interactions

A groundbreaking 50-year longitudinal study in Sámi reindeer herding districts quantified trade-offs between provisioning services (meat production) and climate-regulating services (carbon footprint, surface albedo) [56] [57]. The experimental protocol measured:

• Herd Dynamics: Long-term fluctuations in reindeer population sizes.
• Provisioning Services: Meat production quantities and economic values.
• Climate-Regulating Services: CO₂-equivalence metrics for surface albedo changes based on radiative forcing concepts.
• Vegetation Changes: Replacement of high-albedo lichens with low-albedo woody plants.

The results demonstrated significant economic implications: districts with stable reindeer densities gained nearly double the provisioning services per unit area, while districts with large fluctuations experienced 10.5 times higher costs from reduced albedo effects [57]. This case study exemplifies how sustainable management can minimize trade-offs between local economic benefits and global climate regulation services.

Karst World Heritage Sites: Fragile Ecosystem Management

Karst landscapes cover approximately 10-15% of the global land area and provide critical regulating services including water conservation, soil retention, and climate regulation [9]. Their specialized hydrogeological properties make them particularly sensitive to human disturbances. Research in karst World Natural Heritage sites (WNHSs) reveals that:

• Tourism development often creates trade-offs by degrading regulating services while enhancing cultural and limited provisioning services.
• Unsustainable land use triggers soil erosion, vegetation destruction, and rocky desertification, severely compromising both provisioning and regulating services.
• Conservation policies that prioritize regulating services can create synergies by maintaining the ecological foundations for multiple service categories [9].

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Ecosystem Service Assessment

Research Tool	Function/Application	Example Use Cases
InVEST Software	Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs; spatially explicit modeling	Quantifying service provision, mapping trade-offs under scenarios [5]
ARIES Platform	Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services; probabilistic modeling	Mapping ES provision, demand, and flows [5]
MODIS Data	Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer; remote sensing	Measuring carbon sequestration, vegetation productivity [54]
Radiative Forcing Models	Climate impact quantification	Valuing albedo changes in climate regulation services [57]
SALSA Framework	Systematic literature review protocol	Synthesizing research on regulating ecosystem services [9]

Visualization Frameworks

Mechanistic Pathways of Ecosystem Service Interactions

The following diagram illustrates the four mechanistic pathways through which drivers influence ecosystem service relationships, based on the framework by Bennett et al. (2009) [55]:

Systematic Review Workflow for RES Trade-off Analysis

This diagram outlines the systematic review process using the SALSA framework, specifically adapted for analyzing trade-offs and synergies in regulating ecosystem services research [9]:

Discussion and Research Implications

Knowledge Gaps and Future Research Directions

Despite significant advances in ecosystem service science, critical knowledge gaps remain in understanding provisioning-regulating service interactions. Key research priorities include:

• Mechanistic Understanding: Only 19% of ecosystem service assessments explicitly identify the drivers and mechanisms behind trade-offs and synergies [55]. Future research should prioritize causal inference and process-based models to address this limitation.
• Temporal Dynamics: Most studies provide snapshots of service relationships; longitudinal analyses tracking how interactions evolve over time are urgently needed [9] [55].
• Scale Considerations: Research is needed on how service interactions manifest across spatial and temporal scales, from local to global and from short-term to long-term perspectives [5].
• Social-Ecological Integration: Enhanced methods for integrating socioeconomic drivers with biophysical processes in coupled human-natural systems would significantly advance the field [9] [5].

Policy and Management Recommendations

Effective management of ecosystem service trade-offs requires policy interventions informed by robust scientific evidence. Key recommendations include:

• Identify Critical Leverage Points: Management should focus on interventions that create synergies rather than exacerbate trade-offs, such as maintaining sustainable stocking densities in pastoral systems [57] and implementing multifunctional landscape planning [54].
• Adopt Adaptive Management: Given the dynamic nature of social-ecological systems, management strategies should be continuously evaluated and adjusted based on monitoring data [55].
• Develop Context-Specific Solutions: Policy interventions must account for local ecological, cultural, and socioeconomic contexts rather than applying one-size-fits-all approaches [9] [53].

Understanding and managing the trade-offs and synergies between provisioning and regulating ecosystem services represents a fundamental challenge in sustainability science. By applying the systematic methodologies, analytical frameworks, and visualization tools outlined in this technical guide, researchers and practitioners can advance both theoretical understanding and practical management of these critical relationships. The continued development of this research field promises more effective strategies for balancing human needs with the conservation of the life-support systems upon which all species depend.

In the systematic review of regulating ecosystem services (RES) research, methodological robustness is paramount for generating reliable evidence to inform policy and conservation strategies. A significant challenge in this field involves overcoming the dual hurdles of data scarcity and validation hurdles. These limitations can compromise the credibility of review findings and subsequent decision-making processes. This technical guide provides researchers with a structured framework and practical tools to identify, assess, and mitigate these methodological constraints, thereby enhancing the scientific rigor of systematic reviews and meta-analyses within RES research.

Core Methodological Challenges in RES Research

The research on regulating ecosystem services, especially in specific contexts like Karst World Heritage sites, faces several persistent methodological challenges that can be mapped to the broader systematic review process. The table below summarizes the principal challenges related to data and validation identified in the literature.

Table 1: Core Methodological Challenges in Regulating Ecosystem Services (RES) Systematic Reviews

Challenge Category	Specific Manifestation in RES Research	Impact on Review Quality
Data Scarcity	Lack of standardized, long-term monitoring data for RES (e.g., water purification, climate regulation) [9].	Limits the number and scope of studies available for synthesis, increasing the risk of publication bias and reducing generalizability.
Spatio-Temporal Gaps	Limited studies on the ecological mechanisms, trade-offs, and synergies of RES, particularly in fragile landscapes like karst WNHS [9].	Hinders the understanding of dynamic ecosystem processes and the development of effective, adaptive management strategies.
Model Dependency	Over-reliance on unvalidated ES mapping and models that have transitioned from qualitative to quantitative without robust validation [58].	Raises fundamental questions about the credibility and accuracy of the synthesized evidence and its conclusions.
Methodological Heterogeneity	Inconsistent application of RES assessment methods, definitions, and outcomes across primary studies [9].	Complicates the meaningful comparison and statistical pooling of results in a meta-analysis.

A critical analysis of RES literature reveals that the validation step is often overlooked [58]. This omission is a significant methodological limitation, as it prevents the assessment of model veracity and fails to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the primary studies upon which a systematic review is built. Furthermore, in the context of systematic reviews, an inadequate literature search strategy due to a poorly defined research question can exacerbate these issues, leading to a non-representative sample of available evidence [59].

Experimental Protocols for Validation and Data Synthesis

To address the challenges outlined above, implementing rigorous experimental protocols within the systematic review process is essential. The following sections provide detailed methodologies for key stages.

Protocol for Comprehensive Literature Search and Appraisal

A transparent and replicable literature search is the first defense against data scarcity biases. The SALSA (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis) framework is a recognized reliable methodology for this purpose [9].

Detailed Methodology:

• Search Protocol:

  • Database Selection: Utilize at least two major academic databases, such as Web of Science (WOS) and PubMed/MEDLINE, to ensure comprehensive coverage [9] [59]. For RES reviews, specialized databases like Scopus or CNKI for Chinese literature may also be relevant [9].
  • Search Strategy: Develop a Boolean search string using key terms and their synonyms. For example: ("regulating ecosystem service*" OR "regulatory service*") AND ("assessment" OR "valuation" OR "trade-off*" OR "spatio-temporal") [9].
  • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: Pre-define criteria based on the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) or similar framework [59]. For RES, this could be:
    • Population: Karst landscapes, urban ecosystems.
    • Intervention/Exposure: Land-use change, conservation policies.
    • Comparator: Pre-intervention state or different management regime.
    • Outcome: Quantified RES metrics (e.g., soil retention rate, carbon sequestration value, water yield).

• Appraisal Protocol:

  • Screening: Use tools like Rayyan or Covidence to manage the screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts based on the pre-defined criteria [59].
  • Quality Assessment: Employ standardized tools such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for clinical studies or domain-specific tools to evaluate the methodological rigor of each included study. This step is crucial for understanding the validation status of primary research [59].

Protocol for Quantitative Synthesis (Meta-Analysis)

When primary studies are sufficiently homogeneous, a meta-analysis can provide a powerful quantitative summary.

Detailed Methodology:

• Data Extraction: Use a standardized form to extract relevant data points: effect sizes (e.g., correlation coefficients, mean differences), measures of variance (standard deviation, confidence intervals), sample sizes, and study characteristics (modelling approach, spatial scale, year) [59].
• Statistical Analysis:
  • Software: Utilize statistical software such as R (with packages like metafor or meta) or RevMan [59].
  • Effect Size Calculation: Calculate a standardized effect size for each study (e.g., Hedges' g for continuous outcomes).
  • Model Selection: Choose a fixed-effect or random-effects model based on the assumption of a common effect size or anticipated heterogeneity, respectively. The I² statistic should be calculated to quantify heterogeneity [59].
  • Sensitivity Analysis: Perform sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the results, for instance, by excluding studies with a high risk of bias or those that rely on unvalidated models [59].

Figure 1: Workflow for a Meta-Analysis in RES Reviews

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

To operationalize the protocols above, researchers require a "toolkit" of conceptual and practical resources. The following table details essential components for conducting robust systematic reviews in the face of data scarcity and validation challenges.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for RES Systematic Reviews

Tool Category	Specific Tool/Resource	Function & Application
Systematic Review Frameworks	SALSA Framework [9]	Provides a structured, four-step process (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis) for conducting transparent and replicable literature reviews.
	PICO/PICOTTS Framework [59]	A tool to formulate a well-defined research question, crucial for guiding the search strategy and inclusion criteria.
Literature Management & Screening	Covidence, Rayyan [59]	Web-based platforms that streamline the importation, de-duplication, and blind screening of references by multiple reviewers.
Quality Assessment Tools	Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool [59]	A standardized tool to evaluate the methodological quality and potential biases in individual studies.
	Newcastle-Ottawa Scale [59]	A tool for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies, such as cohort and case-control studies, often relevant in ecological contexts.
Data Synthesis & Analysis	R Statistical Software [59]	An open-source environment for statistical computing and graphics, essential for conducting meta-analyses and generating forest and funnel plots.
	GIS (Geographic Information Systems)	Critical for synthesizing and analyzing spatial data on ES, addressing spatio-temporal gaps through mapping and spatial statistics [60].
Validation Data Sources	Field or Proximal/Remote Sensing Raw Data [58]	Empirical data used to validate the models and maps from primary studies, moving beyond reliance on unvalidated model outputs.

Visualization of Integrated Workflow

Integrating the aforementioned protocols and tools into a single, coherent workflow is critical for addressing methodological limitations. The following diagram maps the entire process, from defining the research question to the final output, highlighting stages specifically designed to mitigate data scarcity and validation hurdles.

Figure 2: Integrated Systematic Review Workflow with Mitigation Strategies

The methodological integrity of systematic reviews in regulating ecosystem services research is fundamentally dependent on how researchers confront data scarcity and validation hurdles. By adopting structured frameworks like SALSA, employing rigorous quality assessment tools, prioritizing the use of validated primary data, and transparently reporting methodologies and limitations, the scientific community can significantly enhance the reliability of synthesized evidence. This rigorous approach is imperative for building a trustworthy knowledge base that can effectively guide conservation policy, urban planning, and the sustainable management of vital ecosystem services. Future efforts must focus on standardizing validation procedures in primary research and developing shared, open-access databases to alleviate the pervasive challenge of data scarcity [9] [58] [60].

The integration of justice frameworks—distributive, procedural, and recognition—into Regulating Ecosystem Services (RES) governance is critical for advancing sustainable and equitable environmental management. This technical guide synthesizes current theoretical constructs, analytical methodologies, and practical applications of justice principles within RES governance. By examining the interplay between these justice dimensions and social-ecological systems, we provide researchers and practitioners with a comprehensive toolkit for designing, implementing, and evaluating equitable RES policies. The guide highlights how systematic attention to justice frameworks can transform RES management from a purely ecological concern to a holistic practice that addresses underlying power dynamics, historical inequities, and contemporary disparities in ecosystem service distribution.

Regulating Ecosystem Services (RES), which include air quality regulation, climate regulation, water purification, erosion control, and pollination, are fundamental to maintaining ecological security and human wellbeing [9]. The governance of these services—defined as the formal and informal arrangements through which societies make decisions about their environment—increasingly recognizes that technical and ecological solutions alone are insufficient without addressing underlying social equity concerns [61]. Research demonstrates that RES have declined at an accelerated rate compared to other ecosystem services, creating urgent management challenges particularly in vulnerable ecosystems like karst landscapes [9].

Justice frameworks provide essential analytical tools for understanding and addressing inequities in RES management. The three interconnected dimensions of justice—distributive (fair allocation of benefits and burdens), procedural (inclusive decision-making processes), and recognition (acknowledgment and respect for diverse identities and knowledge systems)—together form a comprehensive approach to equitable governance [62] [63] [64]. These dimensions are particularly relevant for RES management given the public good nature of regulating services and their critical role in supporting human security and health [9].

This guide bridges theoretical foundations with practical applications, providing researchers and policymakers with methodologies to embed justice principles throughout the RES governance cycle—from assessment and planning to implementation and evaluation.

Theoretical Foundations of Justice in Environmental Governance

Historical Development and Philosophical Underpinnings

The conceptualization of justice in environmental governance draws from a long lineage of political philosophy and ethical theory, emphasizing fair treatment and due reward across society [62]. Contemporary environmental justice scholarship has evolved from early focus on distributional equity to encompass procedural and recognition-based dimensions, creating a more robust framework for analyzing power relations in environmental decision-making [64].

The integration of these justice dimensions into ecosystem services governance represents a paradigm shift from viewing RES as purely biophysical phenomena to understanding them as co-produced by social-ecological systems [61]. This perspective acknowledges that humans both receive benefits from RES and participate in their production and maintenance through various management practices [60].

Interdimensional Relationships in Justice Frameworks

The three justice dimensions exhibit complex interdependencies rather than operating independently:

• Distributive justice concerns the equitable allocation of RES benefits and burdens across different social groups, including questions of who gains access to clean air, stable climates, and purified water, and who bears the costs of conservation [62].
• Procedural justice emphasizes fair decision-making processes, ensuring inclusive participation of all relevant stakeholders, particularly marginalized groups, in RES governance [63].
• Recognition justice involves acknowledging and respecting diverse identities, values, and knowledge systems, including Indigenous and local ecological knowledge [64].

These dimensions are mutually reinforcing; inequitable recognition often leads to exclusionary procedures, which in turn produce unjust distributions [62] [64]. Effective RES governance requires simultaneous attention to all three dimensions to avoid reinforcing existing power imbalances.

Analytical Framework: Applying Justice Principles to RES Governance

Dimension-Specific Evaluation Criteria

Table 1: Justice Dimensions and Corresponding Evaluation Criteria for RES Governance

Justice Dimension	Key Evaluation Questions	Indicators and Metrics
Distributive Justice	How are RES benefits and burdens allocated across different social groups? Are there spatial or temporal patterns in RES distribution? Do marginalized communities bear disproportionate environmental costs?	Gini coefficients for resource access Spatial analysis of RES availability vs. demographic data Cost-benefit incidence analysis across socioeconomic strata
Procedural Justice	Who participates in RES decision-making processes? How inclusive are stakeholder engagement mechanisms? Are diverse forms of knowledge valued in RES governance?	Representation indices for marginalized groups Quality of participatory processes (timing, influence, resources) Transparency in decision-making and access to information
Recognition Justice	Are diverse cultural values and knowledge systems acknowledged? Do governance structures respect different ways of knowing and valuing nature? Are historical injustices addressed in current RES management?	Documentation of traditional ecological knowledge Analysis of cultural barriers to participation Assessment of symbolic vs. substantive recognition

Integrated Assessment Methodology

A robust assessment of justice in RES governance requires mixed-method approaches that capture both quantitative distributions and qualitative experiences:

• Spatial analysis combining GIS mapping of RES provision with demographic data to identify distributional inequities [60]
• Stakeholder analysis identifying all relevant rights-holders and stakeholders in RES governance
• Process tracing evaluating how decisions are made and whose knowledge counts
• Historical analysis examining how past policies and power relations shape current RES distributions

The Social-Ecological System Framework (SESF) provides a structured approach for selecting RES drivers while considering the complex interplay between ecological and social factors [65]. When integrated with path analysis, this methodology allows researchers to quantify the influence and directionality of driving factors on ES relationships, enabling more rigorous evaluation of causal mechanisms [65].

Experimental Protocols for Justice-Centered RES Research

Protocol 1: Assessing Distributive Equity in RES Access

Objective: Quantify and map the distribution of RES benefits across different socioeconomic groups.

Methodology:

• RES Quantification: Select relevant RES indicators (e.g., air quality indices, water retention capacity, carbon sequestration) and model their spatial distribution using biophysical models such as InVEST or equivalent [65].
• Demographic Data Collection: Collect high-resolution socioeconomic data at appropriate administrative units (e.g., census tracts) including income, race/ethnicity, education levels, and housing tenure [66].
• Spatial Analysis: Overlay RES maps with demographic data using GIS techniques to identify correlation patterns between RES availability and community characteristics.
• Statistical Analysis: Conduct regression analyses to determine the relationship between RES distribution and socioeconomic variables, controlling for confounding factors.
• Equity Metrics Calculation: Compute distributional equity metrics such as the Theil index or Gini coefficient to quantify inequality in RES access.

Data Requirements: Remote sensing data, national census data, land use/cover maps, hydrological and meteorological data, household survey data where available.

Protocol 2: Evaluating Procedural Justice in RES Decision-Making

Objective: Assess the inclusivity and fairness of RES governance processes.

Methodology:

• Process Mapping: Document formal and informal decision-making processes for RES management through document review and key informant interviews.
• Stakeholder Analysis: Identify all relevant stakeholders using snowball sampling and power-interest matrices.
• Participant Observation: Observe decision-making forums to document who participates, how decisions are made, and whose knowledge is valued.
• Structured Surveys: Administer surveys to participants and non-participants to assess perceptions of process fairness, influence, and transparency.
• Deliberative Workshops: Convene specially designed deliberative forums to test alternative participatory approaches.

Analytical Framework: Apply the equity framework parameters of "how," "why," and "who" to analyze procedural elements [62].

Protocol 3: Investigating Recognition Justice in RES Valuation

Objective: Document how different knowledge systems and values are recognized in RES governance.

Methodology:

• Ethnographic Fieldwork: Conduct in-depth engagement with communities to understand cultural relationships with ecosystems.
• Historical Analysis: Examine historical policies and practices that have shaped current recognition (or misrecognition) of different groups.
• Value Elicitation: Use mixed methods (surveys, interviews, deliberative valuation) to document diverse ways of valuing RES beyond economic metrics.
• Institutional Analysis: Assess how existing governance structures facilitate or hinder the recognition of different knowledge systems.

Ethical Considerations: Ensure informed consent, community control over data, and equitable benefit-sharing from research outcomes.

Visualization: Justice Dimensions in RES Governance Framework

Justice Dimensions in RES Governance

This diagram illustrates the interconnected nature of the three justice dimensions within RES governance systems and their collective contribution to equitable outcomes.

Implementation Challenges and Strategic Solutions

Table 2: Common Implementation Challenges and Evidence-Based Solutions

Challenge Category	Specific Challenges	Evidence-Based Solutions
Methodological	Quantifying intangible RES benefits Integrating diverse knowledge systems Addressing spatial and temporal scale mismatches	Develop context-specific indicators Employ participatory mapping approaches Apply multi-scalar governance frameworks
Institutional	Path dependency and institutional inertia Fragmented governance arrangements Limited coordination mechanisms	Create bridging organizations Implement adaptive co-management Establish cross-sectoral policy integration
Political	Power asymmetries among stakeholders Historical legacies of exclusion Resistance to redistributive policies	Employ conflict transformation approaches Develop targeted capacity-building programs Create independent oversight mechanisms
Resource-Related	Limited financial and technical capacity Data scarcity and accessibility issues Time constraints for meaningful engagement	Leverage citizen science and community monitoring Develop tiered assessment approaches Secure dedicated funding for participatory processes

Table 3: Essential Methodological Tools for Justice-Centered RES Research

Tool Category	Specific Tools/Methods	Primary Application	Key References
Distributive Analysis	Gini coefficients and Lorenz curves Spatial regression analysis Benefit incidence analysis	Quantifying inequality in RES distribution Identifying environmental justice hotspots Assessing policy incidence across groups	[60] [66]
Procedural Assessment	Stakeholder power-interest analysis Participatory rural appraisal Deliberative valuation methods	Mapping stakeholder influence Documenting local knowledge Eliciting diverse values	[62] [64]
Recognition Evaluation	Institutional analysis Historical policy review Cultural valuation approaches	Understanding governance constraints Tracing historical inequities Documenting plural values	[63] [64]
Integrated Frameworks	Social-ecological systems framework (SESF) Ecosystem service cascade framework Policy success heuristic	Structuring complex system analysis Tracing ES from ecology to wellbeing Evaluating policy effectiveness and justice	[60] [65] [63]

Emerging Research Frontiers and Knowledge Gaps

Despite advances in justice-oriented RES research, significant knowledge gaps remain. Future research should prioritize:

• Intersectional Analysis: Examining how multiple social categories (race, class, gender, indigeneity) interact to shape RES access and governance [67].
• Cross-scale Dynamics: Investigating how justice considerations operate across different spatial, temporal, and administrative scales [61].
• Causal Mechanisms: Employing rigorous causal inference methods to identify how specific governance interventions affect justice outcomes [65].
• Longitudinal Studies: Tracking how justice dimensions evolve over time in response to social-ecological changes [66].
• Practice-Policy Links: Strengthening the connection between community-led initiatives and formal policy processes [64].

The ESP Thematic Working Group on Equity in Ecosystem Services Research represents one organized effort to address these gaps through collaborative knowledge production and methodology development [67].

Integrating distributive, procedural, and recognition justice into RES governance is not merely an ethical imperative but a practical necessity for achieving sustainable social-ecological outcomes. This guide provides researchers and practitioners with a comprehensive framework for applying justice principles throughout the RES governance cycle—from initial assessment through implementation and evaluation. By adopting the methodologies, tools, and approaches outlined here, RES governance can evolve toward more equitable and effective systems that simultaneously enhance ecosystem sustainability and social wellbeing.

The continued development of this field requires sustained commitment to interdisciplinary collaboration, methodological innovation, and—most critically—meaningful engagement with the communities most affected by RES governance decisions. As research advances, justice considerations must remain central to the theory and practice of managing our planet's vital regulating ecosystem services.

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) has emerged as a prominent market-based instrument to incentivize conservation by creating direct, conditional links between ecosystem service users and providers. Framed within a systematic review of regulating ecosystem services (RES) research, this technical analysis synthesizes empirical evidence from terrestrial and marine applications to outline core design principles, implementation challenges, and optimization pathways. While PES holds significant potential for reconciling conservation and social objectives, its effectiveness is highly contingent on contextual adaptation, simultaneous attention to fairness and efficiency, and avoiding panacea traps. This whitepaper provides researchers and practitioners with a structured framework for designing robust PES schemes, supported by methodological protocols and analytical tools for enhancing scheme performance in diverse socio-ecological systems.

Regulating Ecosystem Services (RES)—the benefits obtained from ecosystem processes that regulate natural conditions—form a critical component of the Earth's life-support system. These include air quality regulation, climate regulation, natural disaster regulation, water purification, erosion control, and pollination [9]. Despite their fundamental importance, RES tend to be public in nature with no direct market value, leading to their systematic undervaluation in policy decisions compared to provisioning services [9]. This valuation gap has contributed to significant RES degradation globally, with profound implications for ecological security and human wellbeing.

Payment for Ecosystem Services represents an innovative policy response to this challenge by creating voluntary, conditional transactions where service users compensate providers for sustainable land or resource management practices [20]. Positioned within a broader systematic review of RES research, this analysis examines how PES mechanisms can be optimized to enhance the provision of critical regulating services while addressing complex socio-ecological interdependencies.

The conceptual foundation of PES aligns with the emerging paradigm in heritage conservation that has shifted from "balance between conservation and development" toward "conservation for development" [9]. This transition recognizes that protecting ecological functions provides fundamental inputs to human security, health, and sustainable development.

Core Design Principles for PES Optimization

Balancing Efficiency and Fairness Objectives

A critical insight from PES implementation is that a purely prescriptive, market-efficiency focused approach often proves impractical and may generate inequitable outcomes [68]. Successful schemes require simultaneous attention to both fairness and efficiency objectives rather than treating these as competing priorities:

• Efficiency-Fairness Integration: Neither objective should be primary; an intermediate approach of "fairly efficient and efficiently fair" PES helps bridge the gap between theoretical ideals and practical implementation [68].
• Contextual Adaptation: Rigid, standardized PES frameworks frequently fail because they disregard local socio-ecological contexts, governance structures, and cultural values [69].
• Commodification Caution: Treating ecosystem services as straightforward commodities can be problematic and may create unfair situations for vulnerable stakeholders, particularly in developing contexts with weak land tenure systems [68].

Structural Components and Implementation Variables

Effective PES design requires careful configuration of multiple program components, each presenting distinct optimization choices and trade-offs:

Table 1: Key Design Variables in PES Scheme Configuration

Design Variable	Options & Considerations	Performance Implications
Payment Structure	Cash payments, in-kind benefits, collective vs. individual payments	Cash provides flexibility but may not address structural constraints; in-kind benefits can target specific needs but reduce recipient choice
Conditionality Framework	Strict monitoring with sanctions, graduated payments, collaborative compliance	High stringency ensures environmental effectiveness but increases transaction costs; may exclude marginalized participants
Contract Duration	Short-term (1-3 years), Medium-term (5-10 years), Long-term (>10 years)	Longer terms provide security for long-term investments but reduce adaptive management flexibility
Financing Mechanism	Public funding, user fees, carbon offsets, blended finance	User fees enhance sustainability perception; public funding provides stability but may create dependency
Spatial Scale	Local, regional, national, transnational	Larger scales capture broader benefits but increase institutional complexity and may dilute local participation

Contextual Adaptation and Panacea Avoidance

A consistent finding across PES research is that successful schemes avoid "panacea traps"—the assumption that standardized approaches will work across diverse contexts [69]. Instead, they demonstrate contextual intelligence through:

• Socio-ecological Specificity: Designing mechanisms that respond to local ecosystem dynamics, governance traditions, and livelihood strategies [69].
• Participatory Co-design: Engaging local communities as active partners in scheme design rather than passive recipients [69].
• Cultural Compatibility: Respecting traditional knowledge systems and existing institutional arrangements [69].

Implementation Challenges Across Ecosystems

Terrestrial Ecosystem Applications

Terrestrial PES schemes, particularly forest-based carbon and hydrological services, represent the majority of implemented programs. Research highlights several recurrent implementation challenges:

• Trade-off Management: In karst World Natural Heritage sites, strong vegetation nativity and rich biodiversity provide essential RES, but the fragility of these ecosystems makes them highly sensitive to human disturbances [9]. Unreasonable land utilization can trigger soil erosion, vegetation destruction, and rocky desertification, creating complex trade-offs between conservation and development objectives [9].
• Livelihood Integration: Schemes that restrict resource access without providing adequate alternatives can exacerbate poverty and create conservation conflicts, particularly when marked social disparities already exist [20].
• Spatial-Temporal Dynamics: The effects of management strategies and fluctuating environmental conditions on ecosystem services are challenging to predict due to complex interactions within ecological and social systems [5].

Marine and Fisheries Applications

Marine PES mechanisms remain relatively unexplored compared to terrestrial applications, with fisheries representing an emerging frontier [69]. Specific implementation considerations include:

• Small-Scale Fisheries Focus: Of 26 studies examining PES in fisheries, 25 focused on small-scale contexts, highlighting the particular relevance of incentive-based approaches for communities with high resource dependency [69].
• Bycatch Reduction: Industrial fisheries represent potential PES applications, such as schemes rewarding fishers for reducing bycatch of threatened species [69].
• Geographic Distribution: PES studies in fisheries are predominantly concentrated in Global South contexts (Brazil, Bangladesh, Colombia, Philippines, Mexico, Indonesia, Fiji, Chile, Tanzania), reflecting both conservation needs and governance challenges [69].

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of PES Applications Across Ecosystems

Parameter	Terrestrial Ecosystems	Marine Ecosystems
Dominant Services	Carbon sequestration, water regulation, biodiversity conservation	Fisheries sustainability, blue carbon, biodiversity protection
Implementation Scale	Primarily local to regional	Mostly local with some regional initiatives
Property Rights	Generally better defined	Often common-pool resources with complex access rights
Monitoring Approaches	Relatively established (remote sensing, field verification)	Technically challenging and costly
Geographic Distribution	Global North and South	Predominantly Global South contexts

Methodological Framework and Experimental Protocols

Systematic Review Protocol for PES Impact Assessment

Robust PES evaluation requires rigorous methodological approaches. The following protocol adapts systematic review methodology specifically for PES impact assessment:

Phase 1: Protocol Development

• Define explicit review questions and analytical framework
• Establish stakeholder engagement processes for relevance
• Predefine inclusion/exclusion criteria and search strategy

Phase 2: Search Strategy

• Implement comprehensive multi-database search (Web of Science, Scopus, EconLit, Medline, specialized repositories)
• Deploy structured Boolean operators with key terms: "payment for ecosystem services," "PES," "payment for environmental services" combined with context-specific terms
• Include gray literature from implementing agencies (World Bank, FAO, WHO) to counter publication bias

Phase 3: Study Screening

• Apply predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria systematically
• Utilize multiple independent reviewers with reconciliation procedures
• Document exclusion rationale for transparency and reproducibility

Phase 4: Quality Appraisal

• Employ standardized tools appropriate to study designs (ROBINS-I for quantitative studies, CASP for qualitative studies)
• Assess methodological rigor, contextual appropriateness, and reporting completeness
• Exclude studies only based on quality thresholds determined a priori

Phase 5: Data Extraction

• Utilize standardized extraction forms capturing PES design elements, context, outcomes, and methodological factors
• Extract both quantitative effects and qualitative insights on implementation processes
• Document missing data and contact authors for supplementary information

Phase 6: Synthesis and Analysis

• Conduct meta-analysis for homogeneous outcome measures where possible
• Perform thematic synthesis for qualitative evidence on mechanisms and contextual influences
• Assess certainty of evidence using GRADE framework
• Explore heterogeneity through subgroup analysis and meta-regression

Network Analysis for Socio-Ecological System Modeling

Complex system approaches, particularly network theory, provide powerful methodological tools for understanding PES implementation contexts:

Network analysis enables researchers to model relationships among ecosystem service providers, beneficiaries, intermediaries, and ecological components. This approach helps identify leverage points, potential collaboration structures, and system vulnerabilities that inform PES design decisions [5]. Current applications remain limited to a narrow set of network metrics, presenting significant opportunity for methodological innovation in PES research [5].

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for PES Analysis

Tool/Platform	Primary Function	Application Context	Technical Requirements
InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs)	Spatial modeling of ecosystem service provision and value	Scenario analysis, trade-off assessment, targeting interventions	GIS data, biophysical inputs, intermediate technical expertise
ARIES (Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services)	Probabilistic modeling of ecosystem service flows	Rapid assessment, beneficiary mapping, uncertainty analysis	Web-based access, basic to advanced modeling options
SALSA Framework (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis)	Systematic literature review methodology	Evidence synthesis, research gap identification, knowledge mapping	Methodological rigor, multiple reviewers, transparent documentation
Social-Ecological Network Analysis	Modeling relationships and flows in coupled systems	Institutional analysis, stakeholder mapping, intervention planning	Network data, specialized software (UCINET, Gephi), analytical training
ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions)	Quality assessment of quasi-experimental studies	Evidence quality grading, study limitation assessment	Methodological expertise, understanding of causal inference

Optimizing PES schemes requires moving beyond simplistic market-based prescriptions toward nuanced approaches that balance efficiency with equity, adapt to socio-ecological contexts, and address complex implementation challenges. The integration of systematic review methodologies, complex systems analysis, and robust experimental protocols provides a pathway for developing more effective, equitable, and sustainable PES interventions.

Critical research frontiers include:

• Better understanding the health and wellbeing co-benefits and potential trade-offs of PES interventions [20]
• Developing more sophisticated models for analyzing trade-offs and synergies among multiple regulating ecosystem services [9]
• Creating context-specific design principles that avoid panacea approaches while accumulating transferable knowledge [69]
• Strengthening the evidence base through rigorous impact evaluations that combine quantitative and qualitative methods [20]

As PES mechanisms continue to evolve in both terrestrial and marine contexts, their potential to contribute to integrated conservation and development goals will depend on continued methodological innovation and critical application of lessons from existing implementations across the globe.

Adaptive Management Strategies for Climate Change and Anthropogenic Pressure

Adaptive management provides a structured, iterative process for making decisions in the face of uncertainty about how ecosystems respond to human activities and climate change. For regulating ecosystem services (RESs)—the benefits derived from the regulatory effects of biophysical processes—this approach is particularly critical. RESs include air quality regulation, climate regulation, natural disaster regulation, water regulation, water purification, erosion regulation, and pollination, among others [9]. These services are purely public in nature with no physical form, leading policymakers to often overlook their immense value despite their crucial role in maintaining ecological security and human wellbeing [9].

In the past few decades, ecosystem services have been degraded to varying degrees across most regions due to global climate change, ecological degradation, and irrational management practices [9]. Research demonstrates that increasing demand for ecosystem services has caused significant decline in many services over the past 50 years, with RESs such as air purification, regional and local climate regulation, water purification, and pollination declining at the fastest rates [9]. This degradation poses serious threats to species diversity and ecological security worldwide.

This technical guide examines adaptive management strategies for preserving RESs amidst climate change and anthropogenic pressure, providing researchers and scientists with methodological frameworks, experimental protocols, and visualization tools to advance this critical field of study.

Theoretical Foundations: Regulating Ecosystem Services in a Changing World

The Critical Role of Regulating Ecosystem Services

RESs form the foundation of Earth's life-support systems, providing essential functions that maintain environmental stability and human security. These services are particularly vulnerable to climate change and human activities because they depend on complex, interconnected ecological processes that can be disrupted by relatively small environmental changes [9]. The sustainable provision of RESs is crucial for maintaining ecological security and achieving human wellbeing, including human health and development [9].

World Natural Heritage sites (WNHSs), particularly karst landscapes, provide important case studies for understanding RES dynamics. Karst landscapes cover approximately 22 million square kilometers globally (10-15% of total land area) and face particular vulnerability due to their specialized hydrogeological environments [9]. These ecosystems are highly sensitive to disturbances from human activities, where unreasonable land utilization can result in soil erosion, vegetation destruction, and ultimately rocky desertification [9].

Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystem Services

Climate change manifests through increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, creating cascading effects on RESs. Between 2022-2024, England experienced its wettest 18-month period on record, with extensive farmland flooding leading to the second worst arable harvest since modern records began [70]. Preceding this, the summer 2022 heatwaves saw temperatures exceeding 40°C for the first time in many locations, causing nearly 3,000 heat-related deaths in England and unprecedented wildfires [70].

These climate impacts directly affect RES capacity through multiple pathways:

• Warmer, wetter winters raise flood risk for properties, agriculture, and infrastructure
• Drier, hotter summers increase intensity of heatwaves and droughts
• Sea level rise increases coastal flooding and erosion risks
• Extreme weather disrupts key infrastructure systems [70]

Current estimates suggest unchecked climate change could impact UK economic output by up to 7% of GDP by 2050, creating significant challenges for sustainable long-term growth [70].

Table 1: Climate Change Impacts on Regulating Ecosystem Services

Climate Stressor	Impact on RES	Consequence
Increased temperature	Reduced pollination services	Decreased agricultural productivity
Extreme precipitation	Diminished erosion regulation	Increased soil loss and water contamination
Sea level rise	Loss of coastal regulation services	Increased flooding vulnerability
Drought conditions	Reduced water regulation	Water scarcity and ecosystem degradation

Assessment Methodologies for Ecosystem Services

Quantitative Assessment Approaches

Advanced assessment methodologies are essential for quantifying RES dynamics under changing conditions. Machine learning techniques have become increasingly instrumental in processing complex datasets and uncovering key ecological patterns [71]. The InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) model stands out for its ability to provide detailed ecological data analysis, facilitating the quantification and spatial visualization of ecosystem services [71].

Comprehensive assessment should evaluate multiple RESs simultaneously, including:

• Carbon storage (CS): Quantification of carbon sequestration capacity
• Habitat quality (HQ): Assessment of ecosystem ability to support species
• Water yield (WY): Measurement of water provision services
• Soil conservation (SC): Evaluation of erosion control functions [71]

These assessments reveal that during 2000-2020, ecosystem services on the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau exhibited significant fluctuations, driven by complex trade-offs and synergies, with land use and vegetation cover as primary influencing factors [71].

Multi-Scenario Prediction Using Machine Learning

Machine learning regression methods excel at identifying nonlinear relationships among variables, handling large and complex datasets, and uncovering intricate interactions within ecosystem services [71]. The PLUS (Patch-generating Land Use Simulation) model demonstrates particular utility in simulating complex land-use dynamics at fine spatial scales, providing significant advantages for forecasting both land-use quantities and spatial distributions over extended time series [71].

Table 2: Ecosystem Service Assessment Models and Applications

Model	Primary Function	Strengths	Limitations
InVEST	Quantifies and maps ES	Spatial visualization; multiple service assessment	Data intensive; requires calibration
PLUS	Land-use simulation	Fine spatial scale; complex dynamics	Limited socioeconomic drivers
Machine Learning	Pattern recognition	Nonlinear relationships; complex datasets	Black box interpretation challenges
ARIES	Rapid ES assessment	Artificial intelligence integration	Less established in research community

Adaptive Management Framework

Core Principles and Strategic Approaches

Adaptive management for RESs requires systematic frameworks that acknowledge ecological complexity and uncertainty. Three scenario archetypes illustrate potential pathways:

• Eagle Hunt Scenario: Characterized by uncoordinated, ad-hoc regulatory responses to escalating climate crises, forcing corporate actors into reactive positions [72]
• Raccoon Crawl Scenario: Represents continued activity on ecosystem services without critical mass for meaningful change, where conceptual complexity combines with inertia [72]
• Egret Flight Scenario: Features proactive private sector engagement with public agencies, NGOs, and academics to demonstrate proof-of-concept for ecosystem services assessment [72]

The Egret Flight scenario offers the most promising framework, where industry perceives growing support for systems-focused ecosystem services assessments and engages proactively with multiple stakeholders through NGO- or multilateral-mediated approaches [72].

Implementation Strategies for Different Ecosystems

Urban Environments

Cities represent critical intervention points for RES adaptation. Green Infrastructure (GI) can deliver multiple provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural Ecosystem Services when properly managed [17]. Strategic implementation includes:

• Green Infrastructure: Integrating parks, urban forests, and wetlands that absorb stormwater and reduce urban heat
• Nature-Based Solutions: Restoring rivers and coastlines to act as natural buffers against flooding
• Climate-Resilient Infrastructure: Updating building codes and regulations to withstand extreme weather conditions [73]

These approaches contribute to traffic planning, settlement water management, hydraulic calculations, flood protection, and construction supervision, simultaneously reducing risks while improving quality of life [73].

Karst and Vulnerable Landscapes

Karst World Heritage sites require specialized adaptive approaches due to their unique vulnerabilities. Research indicates that enhancing RESs is crucial for protecting rare World Heritage and its flora and fauna resources [9]. Priority strategies include:

• Scientific evaluation of RESs: Clarifying spatio-temporal characteristics and changing mechanisms
• Identification of influencing factors: Understanding how climate change and tourism development contribute to RES dynamics
• Analysis of trade-offs and synergies: Between different RESs for developing scientific conservation planning [9]

The biodiversity-ecosystem function-ecosystem services-human wellbeing nexus has become a critical focus for landscape sustainability research in these vulnerable regions [9].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Systematic Assessment Framework

The Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, and Analysis (SALSA) framework provides a reliable methodology for identifying, assessing, and synthesizing existing results from scientific and practical research on RESs [9]. This systematic literature review approach ensures accuracy, systematicity, and comprehensiveness in methodology, and has been frequently used in SLRs of existing research on ESs in different regions [9].

Protocol development should address five key research questions:

• Which types and themes of RESs have been studied most and least?
• What are advances and gaps in current RESs research?
• What key scientific issues of future RESs research must be addressed?
• What are challenges in current RESs research in specific ecosystems?
• What lessons learned and future directions emerge for RESs research? [9]

Integrated Machine Learning and Modeling Protocol

For regional-scale assessment of RESs, particularly in vulnerable ecosystems like the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, an integrated protocol combining machine learning with spatial modeling is recommended:

• Data Acquisition: Collect four primary categories of data - basic data, ecosystem service function assessment data, dominant factors influencing ecosystem services, and land use change driving factors [71]
• Data Standardization: Resample all datasets to consistent spatial resolution and coordinate systems to ensure consistency and accuracy [71]
• Ecosystem Service Quantification: Apply InVEST model to assess carbon storage, habitat quality, water yield, and soil conservation [71]
• Driver Analysis: Implement machine learning models (particularly gradient boosting) to identify key drivers influencing ecosystem services [71]
• Scenario Design: Develop future scenarios (natural development, planning-oriented, ecological priority) based on driver analysis [71]
• Projection: Apply PLUS model to project land use changes under each scenario [71]
• Service Evaluation: Use InVEST model to evaluate various ecosystem services based on land use projections [71]

Figure 1: Integrated Workflow for Ecosystem Service Assessment

Research Reagent Solutions: Methodological Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Ecosystem Service Assessment

Tool/Category	Specific Solution	Function/Application	Key Features
Geoprocessing Tools	ArcGIS Spatial Analyst	Spatial analysis of ecosystem services	Grid-based computation; map algebra
Statistical Software	R with spatial packages	Statistical analysis of ES drivers	Comprehensive packages; reproducibility
Machine Learning	Python Scikit-learn	Pattern recognition in ES data	Multiple algorithms; preprocessing tools
Remote Sensing	Landsat/Sentinel data	Land cover classification	Multispectral analysis; temporal resolution
ES Modeling	InVEST suite	Quantification of specific services	Modular design; relatively low data needs
Land Use Simulation	PLUS model	Projecting future land use changes	Fine spatial scale; patch generation
Field Equipment	Soil moisture sensors	Ground truthing remote sensing data	Continuous monitoring; precision measurement

Visualization and Decision Support Systems

Spatial Modeling and Trade-off Analysis

Advanced visualization techniques are essential for understanding complex relationships between multiple RESs. The relationships between different ecosystem services are characterized by trade-offs and synergies that often require balancing to optimize ecological wellbeing [71]. Research methods to explore these relationships include:

• Overlay analysis: Spatial coincidence of different service provision
• Partial correlation analysis: Statistical relationships between services
• Spearman correlation coefficients: Nonparametric measure of association [71]

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) experts are increasingly partnering with platforms like Microsoft Bing and Google Earth to offer online maps of select ecosystem services worldwide, such as areas with significant carbon sequestration, key areas of water filtration, and underground aquifers [72]. These maps are based on credible sources of coarse-grain information, supplemented by academic institutions offering fine-grained analysis that has been ground-truthed [72].

Pathway Visualization for Adaptive Management

Implementing adaptive management requires clear visualization of decision pathways and their potential consequences across different scenarios. The following diagram illustrates the strategic decision process for RES management under uncertainty:

Figure 2: Adaptive Management Cycle for RES

Adaptive management of regulating ecosystem services represents a critical frontier in addressing interconnected challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, and human wellbeing. Current research has established robust methodologies for assessing and predicting RES dynamics, particularly through integrated machine learning and spatial modeling approaches. However, significant gaps remain in understanding ecological mechanisms of RES, trade-offs and synergies between services, and coupling relationships between RES and human wellbeing [9].

Future research should prioritize:

• Multidimensional Assessment: Moving beyond single-service evaluation to comprehensive RES assessment
• Mechanistic Understanding: Elucidating ecological processes underlying RES provision
• Social-Ecological Integration: Better understanding feedbacks between RES and human systems
• Methodological Innovation: Refining machine learning and modeling approaches for complex ecosystems [9] [71]

For vulnerable ecosystems like karst WNHSs, scientific evaluation of RES and clarification of spatio-temporal characteristics and changing mechanisms are crucial for assessing ecological conservation effectiveness and implementing adaptive management strategies [9]. By advancing these research priorities, scientists can provide the evidence base needed for effective adaptive management in the face of escalating climate and anthropogenic pressures.

Conclusion

This systematic review underscores the indispensable role of regulating ecosystem services in maintaining ecological security and human wellbeing, while highlighting a persistent gap between scientific understanding and effective policy integration. Key syntheses reveal that while methodological advancements in spatio-temporal modeling and valuation are progressing, significant challenges remain in standardizing assessments, managing complex trade-offs, and ensuring equitable governance. Future research must prioritize the development of unified metrics, long-term monitoring networks, and transdisciplinary approaches that tightly couple ecological mechanisms with socio-economic drivers. For researchers and policymakers, the path forward involves embedding RES evaluation into all levels of environmental decision-making, leveraging emerging technologies for better forecasting, and creating adaptive frameworks that enhance ecosystem resilience in the face of global change, thereby securing the foundational services upon which societies depend.

References

• 1. Ecosystem Services [http://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/ecosystem-services]
• 2. Ecosystem services - Regulating services [https://www.ecoshape.org/en/knowledge-articles/ecosystem-services-2/regulating-services/]
• 3. Method for the quantitative evaluation of ecosystem ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6336092/]
• 4. Systematic review of ecosystem services flow measurement [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041622000754]
• 5. A systematic review of ecosystem services analysis and ... [https://journals.plos.org/complexsystems/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcsy.0000054]
• 6. Experimental ecology and the balance between realism ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-60470-5]
• 7. More information on Ecosystem Services and EnviroAtlas [https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas/more-information-ecosystem-services-and-enviroatlas]
• 8. Ecosystem services typologies [https://www.ecetoc.org/technical-report-125/conceptual-framework-approach/step-1-construct-habitat-x-ecosystem-service-matrix-using-published-habitat-ecosystem-service-typologies/ecosystem-services-typologies/]
• 9. Progress in regulating ecosystem services research [https://www.nature.com/articles/s40494-025-01674-2]
• 10. Color contrast - Accessibility - MDN Web Docs - Mozilla [https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/Guides/Understanding_WCAG/Perceivable/Color_contrast]
• 11. Elements must meet minimum color contrast ratio thresholds [https://dequeuniversity.com/rules/axe/4.8/color-contrast]
• 12. A global view of regulatory ecosystem : existed knowledge... services [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13717-020-00241-w]
• 13. 7 Benefits of Renewable Energy Use [https://www.ucs.org/resources/benefits-renewable-energy-use]
• 14. Renewable energy – powering a safer future [https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/raising-ambition/renewable-energy]
• 15. , Ecosystem , and the health - ecosystem of... services well being [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35621920/]
• 16. Land degradation neutrality: a pathway to achieving ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44378-025-00078-9]
• 17. A systematic review on the ecosystem services provided by ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866723001693]
• 18. A 30-meter resolution global land productivity dynamics ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-04883-3]
• 19. How financial mechanisms can incentivize provision of ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0289120]
• 20. The impacts of Payment for Ecosystem... [https://openresearch.nihr.ac.uk/articles/5-55]
• 21. A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041616304259]
• 22. Perspective A theoretical rethinking of ecosystem services ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258900422500570X]
• 23. Ecosystem Services Research | US EPA [https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/ecosystem-services-research]
• 24. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4320440/]
• 25. Protocols — PRISMA statement [https://www.prisma-statement.org/protocols]
• 26. Conducting a Systematic Review – Advanced Research Skills: Conducting Literature and Systematic Reviews [https://pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca/graduatereviews/chapter/conducting-a-systematic-review/]
• 27. Systematic Reviews: Types of Reviews Chart Page [https://libguides.uky.edu/systematicreview/reviewtypes]
• 28. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in ... [https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45]
• 29. On the notion of value. A comparative analysis between ... [https://apcz.umk.pl/EQ/article/view/52983]
• 30. Sub-Regional Biophysical and Monetary Evaluation of ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/2/216]
• 31. Economic values for ecosystem services: A global ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000123]
• 32. Economic valuation of ecosystem services and natural ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041625000580]
• 33. Biophysical Environmental Assessments Market Report [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/biophysical-environmental-assessments-market-report-20252033-gkz7c/]
• 34. A decision support tool for the selection of biophysical ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866725001761]
• 35. Evidence from a province-level analysis in China [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-01848-y]
• 36. Temporal and spatial heterogeneity analysis of wind and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196890424007118]
• 37. The energy transition in 2025: Taking stock of progress [https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/our-research/the-hard-stuff-2025-taking-stock-of-progress-on-the-physical-challenges-of-the-energy-transition]
• 38. reV: The Renewable Energy Potential Model [https://www.nrel.gov/gis/renewable-energy-potential]
• 39. Spatiotemporal assessment of recreation ecosystem ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-04416-8]
• 40. Color palettes and accessibility features for data visualization [https://medium.com/carbondesign/color-palettes-and-accessibility-features-for-data-visualization-7869f4874fca]
• 41. Your Data Visualization Color Guide: 7 Best Practices | Sigma [https://www.sigmacomputing.com/blog/7-best-practices-for-using-color-in-data-visualizations]
• 42. Protocol for enhancing visualization clarity for categorical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11103473/]
• 43. Integrating quantitative and qualitative data and findings ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6886933/]
• 44. Impacts of decision support systems on cognition and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11057645/]
• 45. Decision Support Systems | Research Starters [https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/business-and-management/decision-support-systems]
• 46. Graphic Protocols [https://www.biorender.com/features/graphic-protocols]
• 47. Trade-offs between agricultural production and ecosystem ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06650-1]
• 48. Zoning optimization of ecosystem service value and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41023122/]
• 49. Using ecosystem services estimation to design sustainable ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10457-025-01351-0]
• 50. Beyond carbon: a systematic review of multiple ecosystem ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11852-025-01148-4]
• 51. Caves and karst in global sustainability: The case for an ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772411525000709?via%3Dihub]
• 52. Ecosystem Services [https://www.nwf.org/Educational-Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Understanding-Conservation/Ecosystem-Services]
• 53. Trade-offs and Synergies Between Provisioning ... [https://bioone.org/journals/mountain-research-and-development/volume-36/issue-4/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00035.1/Trade-offs-and-Synergies-Between-Provisioning-and-Regulating-Ecosystem-Services/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00035.1.full]
• 54. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2841950/]
• 55. Assessing ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6722157/]
• 56. Synergies and trade-offs between provisioning and climate ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969724020576]
• 57. Synergies and trade-offs between provisioning and climate ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38554956/]
• 58. Ecosystem services mapping and modelling. Where is the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666683925000252]
• 59. A comprehensive guide to conduct a systematic review and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12366998/]
• 60. Analysis of integrated studies on ecosystem service ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11252-025-01831-2]
• 61. Ecosystem services governance: A cross-realm lever for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221204162500052X]
• 62. Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901112001773]
• 63. (Not) just policy success: Incorporating justice in policy ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12484360/]
• 64. Achieving climate justice: addressing disparities and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-energy-policy/articles/10.3389/fsuep.2025.1592249/full]
• 65. Exploring the driving mechanism path of ecosystem service ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-94352-z]
• 66. An evaluation of U.S. cities' efforts to further distributive ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-025-00237-5]
• 67. TWG 20 - Equity in Ecosystem Services research [https://www.es-partnership.org/community/workings-groups/thematic-working-groups/twg-20-equity-in-ecosystem-services-research/]
• 68. Lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041614001697]
• 69. Insights on Payment for Environmental Services in Fisheries [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-964X/5/2/20]
• 70. Progress in adapting to climate change: 2025 report ... [https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/progress-in-adapting-to-climate-change-2025/]
• 71. Assessment and multi-scenario prediction of ecosystem ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2025.1539547/full]
• 72. How Could Ecosystem Services Concepts Play Out by 2025? [https://corporateecoforum.com/scenarios-how-could-ecosystem-services-concepts-play-out-by-2025/]
• 73. Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Every City Needs in ... [https://siera-alliance.com/climate-change-adaptation-strategies-every-city-needs-in-2025/]